HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-20
FIN A L
7:00 P.M.
April 20, 1994
Room 7, County Office Building
1
2
3
4
5
6
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Consent Agenda (on next sheet) .
ZMA-93-20. Albert DeRose (deferred from April 14, 1994). (Applicant
requests deferral until May 4, 1994.)
SP-94-03. Estate of J. E. Simpson. Public Hearing on a request for 5
additional development rights (Section 10.5.2) to permit a total of
10 lots on a 23.75 ac parcel zoned RA. Property on S sd of Rt 627
opposite Yancey Elementary School. TM28,P85. Scottsville Dist.
Discussion: 1781 Productions, Inc. (SP-93-07).
Approval of Minutes: March 25(A), June 17 and October 7, 1992;
March 17(A) and December 1, 1993; and March 2 and March 16(A), 1994.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adjourn.
7
8
9
1~)
1 )
CON S E N T
AGE N D A
EbR APPROVAL:
5.1 Authorize Chairman to execute service agreement for Stony Point Volunteer
Fire Company, Inc.
5.2 Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Common-
wealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the month
of March, 1994.
5.2a Resolution to accept Mockernut Lane in Hickory Ridge Subdivision into the
State Secondary System of Highways.
FbR INFORMATION:
5.3 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for April 5, 1994.
5.4 Letter dated April 6, 1994, from Andre'S. Basmajian, Director, Public
Housing Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, to David
P. Bowerman, re: Section 8 Reservation, Project No. VA36-E036-001,
Family Unification (Foster Child Care), notification of approval of
application.
5.5 Letter dated April 15, 1994, from Hal H. Bibee, President, North Star
Cable Television Company of Tennessee, Inc., re: Sale of North Star
Cable Television Company of Tennessee, Inc., of its Cable Television
Facilities in Fluvanna County to Multi-Channel TV Cable Company, an
affiliate of Adelphia Communications Corporation.
5 6 Letter dated April 15, 1994, from Michael J. Bednar, Associate Dean,
University of Virginia, School of Architecture, to Walter F. Perkins,
Chairman, re: Community Outreach Partnership Center at the University of
Virginia (copy of proposal on file in Clerk's office).
.' ..
David P. So rman
Charlottes ille
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
MEMORANDUM
Charles S. Martin
R ivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jou t
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Mar hall, Jr.
Scottsvill
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
T~'
I
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning &
Community Development
Ella W. Carey, Clerk (!:vJ 0
April 21, 1994
p!CT:
Board Actions of April 20, 1994
Following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on April 20, 1994:
Agenda Item No.1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Vice-
C air, Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Authorize Chairman to execute service agreement for Stony Point
lunteer Fire Company, Inc. Approved.
Agenda Item No. 5.2. Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Common-
walth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the month of March, 1994. Approved.
Agenda Item No. 5.2a. Resolution to accept Mockernut Lane in Hickory Ridge Subdivision
to the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached resolution.
Agenda Item No.6. ZMA-93-20. Albert DeRose (deferred from April 14, 1994). (Applicant
r uests deferral until May 4, 1994.) At the applicant's request, ZMA-93-20 was DEFERRED until May
4, 1994. (Note: This is a day meeting which begins at 9:00 a.m.)
*
Printed on recycled paper
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: April 21, 1994
P ge 2
Agenda Item No.7. SP-94-03. Estate of J. E. Simpson. Public Hearing on a request for 5 addi-
tipnal development rights (Section 10.5.2) to permit a total of 10 lots on a 23.75 ac parcel zoned RA.
P operty on S sd of Rt 627 opposite Yancey Elementary School. TM28,P85. Scottsville Dist.
AIPPROVED subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and a third
c( ndition:
1. Staff approval of subdivision plat;
2. Development shall be in accord with the statements of the applicant as contained in
Attachment C and the information packet entitled "Greater Charlottesville Habitat for
Humanity Esmont Property Special Use Permit" (both copies on file). Revisions to the
sketch of development contained in the applicant's information necessary to meet
requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances are not included in this
condition;
3. The road serving these ten lots must be built to state standards for acceptance into the
state system.
Agenda Item No.8. Discussion: 1781 Productions, Inc. (SP-93-07).
The Board took no additional action on 1781 Productions. There was a consensus of Board that
tl e Planning staff work more closely with applicants, in the future, on proposed improvement areas and
a proximate distances of lines to be established.
Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Martin announced that he would not be present on May 4, 1994.
Mr. Marshall announced that he would not be present on May 4, 1994.
Mrs. Thomas announced that she would not present on May 18, 1994.
Mrs. Thomas announced that on April 30, 1994, there will be a breakfast meeting between
IT embers of the planning district and representatives of the private sector to discuss economic develop-
IT ent.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to add a University of Virginia
n presentative to the Housing Committee. All voted aye.
]\I emo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
1: ate: April 21, 1994
P~ge 3
Mrs. Thomas mentioned letters received from Allen Dunbar and Kevin Cox concerning the fee
c arged Mr. Dunbar for his special use permit (SP-94-01) that was heard by the Board on May 11. The
c nsensus of the Board was to not reduce the fee charged the Dunbars.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the attached
r solution supporting JAUNT's request for Federal Highway Administration funds. All voted aye.
Agenda Item No. 11. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
E~C:mms
Attachments
c : Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
Bruce W oodzell
Larry Davis
File
The Board of County supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
i , in regular meeting on the 20th day of April, 1994, adopted
t e following resolution:
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the street in~Hickory Ridge Subdivision (SUB-12.19)
scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-S(A) dated April 20,
94, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
corded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
unty, virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements
of the virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
ounty Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
ation to add the road in Hickory Ridge Subdivision as described
n the attached Additions Form SR-S(A) dated April 20, 1994 to
he secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229,
ode of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re-
uirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear
nd unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
asements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
ecorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
orwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
ransportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Thomas.
Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman.
Yeas: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris
and Mr. Marshall.
Nays: None.
Absent: Mr. Perkins.
A Copy Teste:
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Board of Supervisors
WHEREAS, the United States is faced with a constantly worsening situation in which our
highways and road systems are no longer able to accommodate the growing number of vehicles
that depend on them, and,
WHEREAS, Local, regional and national studies have shown that traditional mass-transit and
ridesharing programs, aimed at providing transportation alternatives to reduce the number of
single-occupant vehicles on our highways, are failing to attract the interest and participation of
motorists, and,
WHEREAS, The overall costs related to single-occupant vehicle transportation and the operation
of large transit systems is fast becoming a major budgetary concern of local, regional and national
governments, and
WHEREAS, Environmental issues related to transportation have become a major concern
throughout the United States, and in the greater Albemarle area, and,
WHEREAS, The County of Albemarle is faced with even greater challenges because of the
extremely rural nature of the area, and the lack of any form of transportation other than the
single-occupant vehicle outside of its area, and,
WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has identified the need to reduce
the number of single-occupant-vehicles on the road as the primary strategy to reduce traffic
congestion, and,
WHEREAS, The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) has made moneys available to
conduct an operational test project to see if computer and communications technology can be
tilized to create new transportation alternatives and enhance and coordinate those already in
existence, and,
HEREAS, JAUNT, Inc., through its regional ridesharing division has developed a proposal
alled "ODYSSEY" to conduct such an operational test project that has been targeted for funding
y the Federal Highway Administration.
REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle
lly supports conducting the operational test known heretofore as "ODYSSEY," and supports
AUNT, Inc, in applying for and accepting the available Federal Highway Administration funds.
/
WW/dbm
4.018
,
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for the purpose of identification
4 I^
t !lis -----:J 0 \.) day of .)/lit:"-./y' , 1994, by and between the
CDUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County") and the STONY POINT
VDLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. ("Stony Point")i
WIT N E SSE T H:
Background:
(A)
The County previously has entered into a
s~rvice agreement with stony Point, dated May 1, 1989, providing
f)r the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from
tile County's annual grant to Stony Point, as set forth in said
a~reement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit Ai and
(B) As a result of said agreement,
the outstanding
il1debtedness now totals One Hundred Thirty-Four Thousand Dollars
(S134,000.00)i and
(C) Stony Point now desires to receive from the County an
aaditional One Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($160,000.00) to be
used for a new pumperi and
(D) Stony Point also desires to enter into an agreement
c1bnsolidating its annual withholdings of payment by the CountYi
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by
Sony Point of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and
p otect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during
tl e term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Stony Point One
Hlndred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($160,000.00), which payment shall
bE made from the fire fund, $35,000.00 to be paid after execution
o this agreement and $125,000.00 to be paid upon request after
Jl 1 Y 1, 1994.
The sum of Twenty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars
I
n26,900.00) shall be withheld from the County's annual grant to
Sony Point for fiscal year 1994/95, thereafter, the sum of Thirty-
T~ree Thousand Three Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents
(&33,387.50) shall be withheld from the County's annual grant to
Sony Point for a period of eight (8) years beginning with fiscal
y~ar 1995-96 and ending in fiscal year 2002-03.
Thus, at the end
o the ninth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a
t>tal of Two Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Dollars ($294,000.00)
w II have been withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance
o ~ all prior advancements as a result of the prior service
a(~reements with stony Point dated October 10, 1986 and May 1, 1989.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, stony Point
i I; no longer in the business of providing f ire-f ighting services or
tile pumper is no longer used for f ire-f ighting purposes, Stony
Pcpint covenants that it will convey its interest in the pumper to
tl e County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its
a~j;signs will use the pumper for fire-fighting purposes. All
ccbvenants set forth in prior agreements not in conflict with this
acreement remain in full force and effect.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARL}7 VIRGINIA
By U)~:;-f/~
Walter F. Perkins, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
(Seal)
i~~~Y POINh ~~ FIRE
B~ 'J.l pr~~t'- l'.P
COMPANY,
(Seal)
I
,
Exhibit A
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 1st day of May, 1989, by
a d between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the .County.), and
t e STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. (.Stony Point.),
W 1 T N E SSE T Hr
BACKGROUND - (A) The County previous] y ha~ ent ered ~ nto a
s rvice agreement with Stony Point, dated October 10, 1986,
oviding for the withholding of certain sums each year by the
unty from the County's annual grant to Stony Point, as set
rth in said agreement, 'a copy of which is attached hereto as
and
(B) As a result of said agreement, the outstanding
debtedness now totals Fifty-six Thousand Four Hundred Dollars
56.400.00), and
(C) Stony Point now desires to receive from the County an
a ditional Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) to be used
pumper, and
(D) Stony Point also desires to enter into an agreement
c nsolidating its annual withholding of payments by the County,
NOW, THEREFORE,' for and in consideration of the operation by
of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires
property and human life from loss or damage by fire
ring the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Stony
int Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), which payment
be made from the fire f.Jnd, $100,000.00 to be paid in
ptember, 1989 and $100,000.00 to be paid in January, 1990.
~
The sum of Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars
($14,800.00) shall be withheld from the County's annual grant to
ny Point for the 1989-90 fiscal year. Thereafter, the sum of
nty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($26,900.00) shall be
hheld each year from the County's annual grant to Stony Point
a period of eight (8) years, beginning JUly, 1990, with a
Twenty-Six Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($26,400.00)
in the ninth year (July 1, 1998). Thus, at the end of the
th year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total
of Two Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand Four Hundred Dollars
($256,400.00) will have been withheld. This withholding
co solidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of
th prior service agreement with Stony Point dated October, 1986.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, Stony
Po nt is no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting
se vices or the pumper is no longer used for fire-fighting
pu oses, Stony Point covenants that it will convey its interest
in the pumper to the County at no cost to the County so long as
th County or its assigns will use the pumper for fire-fighting
pu oses. All covenants set forth in the prior agreement dated
Oc ober 1986 shall remain in full force and effect through
Oc
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
(Seal)
By
of
'"
STONY POlNT VOLUNTEER
(Sea))
By
S~~TE OF VIRGINIA
COt1l~TY OF ALBEMARLE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
~~ day of ...::rtJ..t'\~ , 1989, by "Pr-\(''('" I. u..)~ll:ti
Chairman, Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgi ia.
,
My commission expires:
--J '-"-""-L ~ / q q 0
(
/f~"''>2'''''. a. dM /
Notary Publ ic
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
.~1-tD day of J\AY"'\~ , 1989, by "R.o~o.~A ~. Sr"'\~
President of Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.
My commission expires:
~LJ-.V'\<- ~ , q If C>
I
9'~~~' a-l;;~
.... Notary Publ ic
v
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APR
.-
, In(:::'', '1Cf"\ i;;
Point
AGENDA DATE:
April 20, 1994
-- ...-"'.,~,..,-
ITEM NUMBER:
t1'f. 6<{:'2.0 ( S.I )
INFORMATION:
ACTION:
sign the
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Pumphrey
BACKGRO
Several years ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the ten
voluntee fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at two
million ollars, provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed fire-fighting
and resc e equipment and buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted from their
annual unty appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund are monitored and
approved by the Jefferson country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA).
DISCUSSI
The cur amount available for loan in the revolving fund is $266,440.63. Stony Point
Voluntee Fire Company has requested, through JCFRA, an advance of $160,000 to purchase a new
pumper ruck. This advance will consist of installments of $35,000 immediately after
executio of this agreement and the balance of $125,000 upon request after July 1, 1994. The
request or funds from the Advance Allocation Fund is split at the request of SPFC in order
to make rogress payments on the vehicle as it is being constructed. The current repayment
amount 0 $26,900 will be made for FY 94/95 since the bulk of this advance will not be made
until July 1, 1994. Repayment of the loan will be over an eight year period beginning FY
95/96.
JCFRA
approved this request.
RECO
Staff
authorizing the Chairman to execute the service agreement.
SPFC.EXE
94.049
.
,_I .' r
. II I'') '/(1
~"'1ff'. ."'L" .,~.~~.....~,~ <<,
_ ,__1.~' o_v. :J.,~' (~-~ 2 )
State Compensation Board
Month of
marcl? ' /991
,
ST A TEMENT OF EXPENSES
:~~i~~ :~:: :~~ ;:::;: ::~: ;:;: ;::! ;:;:;:::;:::::::::::::::::::::::;! ;:;:;::::!::;!;:;:; ::::::::::::::::!:!;::i ;::i:: ;:; i:!;!;:;:; i: :;: ;:;:;:;:;: ;:;=
:;:;::::;:::;:::;:::::::::::::;:;:;:::::::::;:;:;:;:::::;:;:::::;:;:;:;:::;:::;:;:::::;:;:;:;:::;:::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::;:::;:::::.:.;.
... ......................................................--...,.... .......
...................11.1.....
... ..................................................................-..
..........................................................
". ........ ..." ................
lefk, Circuit Court
- 0 -
:< {y ? I ~7
C:<~3, Y7
No e: Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
wh ch the state Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and
ar not the total office expenses of these departments.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S, Martin
R Ivanna
Waller F, Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R, M rshall, Jr.
Scotts .lIe
Sally H, Thomas
Samuel Miller
M E M 0 R A.N DUM
Peter Parsons, Civil Engineer II
Department of Engineering
Ella W. Carey, Clerk 2WL
April 21, 1994
Resolution to accept Mockernut Lane in Hickory Ridge
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways
At its meeting on April 20, 1994, the Board of Supervisors
dopted the attached resolution to accept Mockernut Lane in
ickory Ridge Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
ighways.
Attached are the original and three copies of the
esolution.
WC:mms
ttachments
*
Printed on recycled paper
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
a, in regular meeting on the 20th day of April, 1994, adopted
he following resolution:
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the street in Hickory Ridge Subdivision (SUB-12.19)
escribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated April 20,
994, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
ecorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
ounty, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
f Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the
equirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements
f the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
ounty Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
ation to add the road in Hickory Ridge Subdivision as described
n the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated April 20, 1994 to
he secondary system of state highways, pursuant to S33.1-229,
ode of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re-
uirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear
nd unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
asements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
ecorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
ransportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Thomas.
Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman.
Yeas: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris
and Mr. Marshall.
Nays: None.
Absent: Mr. Perkins.
A Copy Teste:
1
II
~
Qj
r-l
10<
Cll
~
.0
:d
CIS
." i
c: ~
0
Co)
GI
en i
CI
.J: E
- S
'"
.s
~
~
(/)
0
Ii
~
~
1l
I
a:
S
'"
"' Qj
bO
Q. "tl
~
en .~
li ~
< j t-
It)
I 0
a: e ,.ld
en CJ
.~
~ -;: =
a: "6 c
0 ..
Ii 0
u.. 'ii
.>< :;;
en lI: 'C
Z ~ .0
::J
0 ,g rJ)
i= i -
0
C E Gl
r. E
C u
II 1\1
< < z
C
::J
o
o
-6 I
Q ~
i
...J . ~ ::;
Ii c ..;t
i . C
~ 0
'6 i
'0
< 0
tI.l 0 ..
~ ~ tI.l CD
Cll ~ ~
r-lO ~
p..~ ~ ~
~ ....
t:l tI.l .. ~
Qj QjN
~ bOC7'I
CllM
tI.l p..~
Cll
I Qj ..,.ld .
15 N 0
Z QjQ() 0
'" bOM,O
~ Cll~
t:l "tl
i 'f"l,.ldQj
Cll 0 Qj .
'i 10< O"tl C7'I
u
'" "tl,O 0
~ "tl N
"tl"tlt:l
Qj Qj Cll 0
tI.l Qj ~
'f"l"tl ...
I> N i'
Qj t:l i' 0
~'f"lM N
~ g
0 -6 0
Ii: '0 Ln
~
0
i'
I
0
\0
.~ ii ii ii ii ii ii Qj
Cl Cl Cl Cl CD Cl CD
I'i II II II II II II <<l
~ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
..;t oj
CD
. .,
0 c
Ln 'il
N -0
0 '0
tA ~ C
<<l
\0 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !i
\0 iC
wi
i: ~ j 1 j j 1l j 1l :;
~ en u
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
....
Ii ~ CJ '"
~ t:l CllQ() i
'6 Qj tI.lQ() i
'0 ~ I .....
< QjO .,
1 ~ "tl M ~
I .....
b r-l ~ :l
en j:l.j
::s~, .,
~ CJ .. ii tj ii CD CD CD ..
OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ lI:
0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c
.~ 0 'i 'i 'i 'i 'i al 'i c
'0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 'U <<l
"tl "tl !l !l !l !l !l !l !l 0
~ a lI: lI: lI: lI: lI: ~ ~ '"
~ a: ~ a: ~ a: ~ a: ~ a: ~ a: ~ a: >
'OJ
0 OJ 0 OJ 0 OJ 0 OJ 0 OJ 0 OJ 0 ii ~
It ii: It Ii: ii: It ii: It ii: It ii: at ii: u
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... )(
..
<<l
~
Qj 0
~ 1:
'I:
1 0
b ~ t
III e 'U
II i
.. , al
~ Qj
,.ld ..
z CJ C
<<l
~ c;
:J
Cl
ii 0 - N '" ... III '" .....
a: z (5
z
~
>-
>-
CD
Xl
CD
>
0
.0
II
al
B
'6
,!;
i
.... E
z :J
W g
~ 'U
J: ..
0 :6
<
.... 0
....
< ~
u.
0 0-
Il
Z '"
0 II
i= 'i
<
0 ""
u: i
i= u
a: ,!!
w
0 i
E
r.
u
II
<<l
'"
~
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
Mockernut Lane, showing a 50 foot right-of-way, from the edge of
pavement of state Route 665, 0.41 mi to the end of the cul-de-sac as
shown on plat recorded on 11/30/88 in Deed Book 1025 on pages 60 to 70
in the office of the Clerk to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County.
Revised drainage easement plats in deed book 1382, pages 370 to 372, and
deed book 1392, pages 207 to 209.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APR
MEMORANDUM
~\;.~::~D C! j'::S L,)~" J
"*,~~~,<,.,,.,.,..,.,."-,.J
TO: Ella Carey, Board of Supervisors Clerk
FROM: Peter Parsons, Civil Engineer II (j{;f)
DATE: April 18, 1994
RE: Hickory Ridge Subdivision (SUB-12.29)
kernut Lane, which serves the above referenced subdivision, is
stantially complete and ready for a VDOT acceptance
pection. Attached is the completed SR-5(A) form for a
olution, which I request be taken to the Board for adoption at
r next opportunity. Once the resolution has been adopted,
e and sign the SR-5(A) and please provide me with the original
four copies.
nks for your assistance. Please call me if you have any
stions.
/
achment
Reading File
~
Edward H. Bin, Jr
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntlre Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
h)rrest R, Marshall, Jr
Scottsville
David P r:~o\.V 'rm,Hl
Chdr!OllI.:'Slil] e
Ch,Hlcs S MeHtlr:
Rlvdr1nd
Charlotte Y umphris
Jack Jouett
V.jaller F. Perkins
White Hall
February 18, 1993
M . James W. Gercke
H'ckory Ridge Ltd.
P Box 84
F ee Union, VA 22940
D ar Mr. Gercke:
Your request to have Mockernut Lane in Hickory Ridge Section
I I taken into the State Secondary System of Highways was received
d has now been referred to the County Engineer. When she has
rtified that all work has been completed in accordance with
proved plans, this request will be placed before the Board of
pervisors for adoption of the necessary resolution.
Sincerely,
EWC:rruns
// -\ ;/(
,..' ! ,\( ~ -
1/ {, i" ;\:.. /eIL"
:' f' ~'<--t.(. \, 1..., ...... \.
E(lla w. Carey, C~k, CMC
, j
I '
0..../
cc: Jo Higgins, County Engineer
*
Printed on recycled paper
..
"
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
40 I McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Sir:
tIickory Qid8e
February II, 1993
Hickory Ridge, Ltd, has completed the road in Hickory Ridge (Section3), Earlysville, Virginia
known as Mockernut Lane and would like to have it accepted into the State system. Thank you very much
for your attention to this matter.
cc: Peter Parsons, Civil Engineer
Robert Musselman
:r~~,
James W. Gercke
\~~
\
liickory Qid8e Ltd.
PO 80)( M
fREE UNION. VIRGINIA I2MO
Po~t Office oox 7213 GhQrlolte~villc. Vif()inia. 22906 804-97~,-7923
..I r ~-
,~"'''~NITO~ 0"
Ji ~
'" "
~ "
~ ~
"Go-9 ~l
~"'Jw OE'lt.
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Richmond Field Office, Region III
P.O, BOX 90331
3600 W. Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23230-0331
,'" C...J
.1/,';), "1
9<-1.0,4 ?of~' v)
APR - 6 1994
~.'."'.'.'
~
. David P. Bowerman
Board of Supervisors
bemarle County
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Bowerman:
Section 8 Reservation, Project No. VA36-E036-001
Family Unification (Foster Child Care)
Congratulations I Your application for Section 8 Existing
rtificates under the Department's 1993 Notice of Fund
A ailability for the Family Unification Program, published July
6, 1993, has been approved for Annual Contributions Contract
thority in the amount of $257,571, and 5-year budget authority
of $1,287,855. The ACC is being prepared and will be forwarded
u der separate cover. For.ms HUD-52672 and 52673 must be
s mitted with the ACC when it is signed and returned to HUD for
e ecution. Although the specified funds have been reserved, no
P Contracts with owners may be executed requiring use of these
nds until such time as an ACC has been executed by this Office.
The Contract will cover the following number of units and
size distribution:
2 BR: 19
3 BR: 16
TOTAL: 35 UNITS
Your ACC will be executed when the following for.ms have been
a proved by this office:
1. Equal Opportunity Housing Plan and Equal Opportunity
Certification;
2. A statement referencing the latest revision date of
your Administrative Plan;
3. Schedule of Allowances for Utilities and Other
Services, For.m HUD 52667, with a justification of the
amounts proposed, if not approved by HUD within the
last 12 months.
oJ ,
A.
2
Upon request, this Office will be glad to provide any
aBsistance you may need in the preparation of documents. If you
hive questions, please contact your Housing Specialist at (804)
278-4559.
ve.. <"l"~:in"erelY... ~~~' _
// / i-5.
Andre'S. Basmajian '
Director !
Public Housing Divi ion
[J;s+ 'h 1.~)OC4-A.. 1f'2c?</
'7<1. 0'1 ~ cJ ( 5:', r )
NORTH STAR CABLE TELEVISION C~~lULL~3~1'
~ iiI ~ i!
1994 :!. 9 i994 .
, <
'''-~___J
~-\RD OF SUPERVISO'-' ,
ard of Supervisors
bemarle County
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, VA 22901
....-.......~,.,:.
Sale by North Star Cable Television Company of Tennessee, Inc.
of its Cable Television Facilities in Fluvanna County to
Multi-Channel TV Cable Company, an affiliate of Adelphia
Communications Corporation.
dies and Gentlemen:
required under section 76.502(d) of the FCC Rules and
and in connection with the pending cable system sale,
hereby certify that North Star Cable Television Company of
Inc. has owned the referenced cable system for longer
(3) years and is therefore in compliance with Federal
" nti-trafficking" restrictions.
anticipate closing the sale on or about May 31, 1994. If there
concerning this matter, please do not hesitate
call.
Sincerely yours,
y~~
i tle: /j.e~/{'/~~f-
P.O, Box 51906 · Knoxville, TN 37950-1906 · 615-691-7400
, ( b,~f- f?J /2,(,'G,-~d 4,20. 9y.
..
.. 9 '-I. 0 t.{ ~ "{5-, (. )
U N I V E R S I T y 0 F V I R G I N I A
S C H 0 0 L 0 F A R C H I T E C T U R E
15 April 1994
- ~
Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Chairman
County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Perkins:
Thank you for your recent letter of support concerning our grant
proposal to establish a Community Outreach Partnership Center at the
School of Architecture at the University of Virginia. The proposal was
delivered to the Department of Housing and Urban Development in
Washington last week. The results will be known in June, 1994. I will
inform you about the feedback I receive at that time.
Attached is a copy of the proposal printed without appendices or
population statistics and faculty resumes. It outlines the tasks and
activities of COPC at UV A and includes the budget and response to
HUD's rating factors.
Sincerely,
Mi0f:6:1J ~ ~
Associate Dean
ARCHITECTURE' lANDSCAPE ARCHITITTI}i(1 . ARCHil H: rURAl HISTORY' LJRMN AND ENVIR()NMENTAI PIANNIN(;
C AMP H F I: H A II. . Li N I V E R SIT Y 0 r v I R (; I N 1;\ . C H A R ll) 1'1 E S V 11.1. r . v I R (; I N 1;\ 2 2 ~ O.J . 804 92 4 37 I \
I
DJ TE ~~ :2() 175JY
I
,
A( ENDA ITEM NO. 9t/ ()3u7.
(~_ ((0 )'2- i
~/.J c? ~ 0
A( ENDA ITEM NAME . ',- /' ,:) -- 0-.;"
D 1"6- UNTIL /fl CLd-' t.! I /~/y
Form. 3
7/25/86
, '.
Vl:;~rit')~!~:'",i. . II I ( C ,I
"-' - ",' _-, :::"1'1
Agt;ndJ 1;0 ____?_~:_:fj-;.~':,"'/y
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
Ai)'"
/:,.....1\
M rch 30, 1994
G eater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity
P. O. Box 7305
C arlottesville, VA 22906
SP-94-03 J. E. Simpson Estate
e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 29, 1994, by
a vote of 4-3, recommmended approval of the above-noted request to the
A bemarle County Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is
s bject to the following conditions:
1. Staff approval of subdivision plats;
2. Development shall be in accord with the statements of the applicant as
contained in Attachment C and the information packet entitled "Greater
Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity Esmont Property Special Use
Permit." Revisions to 'the sketch of development contained in the
applicant's information necessary to meet requirements of the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances are not included in this condition.
ease be advised that the A1beemar1e County Board of Supervisors will review
is petition and rceive public comment at their meeting on April 20, 1994.
y new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
s heduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Since~;~_
illiam D. Fritz
cc:
uElla Carey
Bruce Wardell
Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley
Estate of J. E. Simpson
1
.
.
e
r
TAFF PERSON:
LANNING COMMISSION:
OARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
MARCH 29, 1994
APRIL 20, 1994
APR
P-94-03 J.E. SIMPSON ESTATE
etition' Request for five additional development rights [Section 10.5.2] to
ermit a total of 10 lots on a 23.75 acre parcei zoned RA, Rural Areas.
roperty, described as Tax Map 128, Parcel 85 is located on the south side of
t. 627 opposite Yancey School in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This
ite is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4).
haracter of the Area: The site is wooded with an intermittent stream
ividing the property roughly in half. The intermittent stream runs roughly
arallel to Route 627. The Yancey Elementary School is on the opposite side
f Route 627. Scattered residences are located in the area. The more
eveloped portion of Esmont (including country stores and post office) lie to
he north.
1icant's Pro osa1' The applicant is requesting to create 10 lots (5 more
han permitted by-right) in order to construct houses for Habitat for
umanity. The applicant has submitted a description of this request
Attachment C) and other support information in a packet titled "Greater
harlottesville Habitat for Humanity Esmont Property Special Use Permit".
UMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance
ith the provisions of Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the
eneral provisions for review of special use permits in Section 31.2.4.1 and
ecommends approval.
and Zonin
1976 - Three lots were divided off leaving the residue acreage now
nder review. (Development rights were not in existence in 1976 and,
herefore, that action does not affect current development potential.)
om rehensive Plan: The Housing Coordinator has provided comments intended to
ddress the housing strategies of the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment D).
ther Comprehensive Plan related comments follow.
COMMENT:
taff reviews all requests for additional lots in the Rural Area under Section
0.5.2 of the ordinance. Since adoption of the ordinance in 1980, 17 requests
eard by the Board of Supervisors have been for additional lots. Seven (7)
et"itions have been approved for a total of thirteen (13) additional lots
Attachment E). Board approval has typically been based on a finding that the
pplication adequately meets the criteria of Section 10.5.2.1, such as
ocation next to a growth area or existing development, or has some unique
ircumstance.
I
.
e Zoning Ordinance specifies criteria in Section 10.5.2.1 which is to be
sed during review of a special use permit for additional lots. The following
s a analysis based on those criteria:
his section onl
The size. shaoe. tooograohy and existing vegetation of the orooerty in
relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as
evaluated by the United States Deoartment of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service or the Virginia Deoartment of Forestry.
The existing vegetation consists of predominately evergreens on the half
of the property nearest Route 627 and mixed hardwoods on the remainder.
The topography of a good portion of the site appears to be difficult for
agricultural activities. The acreage of the site, 23.75 acres, is
effectively cut in half by an intermittent stream and associated stream
valley. Some small portions of the site are in slopes of 25% or
greater.
The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal
oroduction as the same shall be shown on the most recent oublished maps
of the United States Deoartment of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
or other source deemed or eauivalent reliability by the Soil
Conservation Service.
.
A complete description of the soils is included in the applicant's
prepared packet. Most soils on the site are well or moderately well
suited to agricultural use. However, areas of soils not suited to
agriculture are also found on-site which reduce the areas available for
use.
The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the oroperty
since 1950. to the extent that is reasonably available.
No history is available. Due to the pattern of reforestation it appears
that part of the site was cleared for agricultural use at some time.
If located in an agricultural or forestal area. the orobable effect of
the prooosed development on the character of the area. For the purposes
of this section. a oroperty shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or
forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1)
mile of the border of such oroperty has been in commercial agricultural
or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the aoolication for
soecial use oermit. In making this determination. mountain ridges.
major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the
cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
e
Sixty-six percent (66%) of the land within one mile of this site is
under land use taxation which indicates commercial agricultural or
forestal activity. Some land within a mile is also included in an
Agricultural/Forestal District. The property proposed for subdivision
2
.
does enjoy land use taxation and was not included in the calculation of
the percentage of land within a mile used for agriculture or forestry.
Based on the percentage of land in use value taxation, this site is
within an agricultural or forestal area.
~.
The relationshio of the orooerty in regard to develooed rural areas.
For the puroose of this section. a prooerty shall be deemed to be
located in a develooed rural area if fifty (50) oercent or more of the
land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such oroperty was in parcels
of record of five (5) acres or less on the adootion date of this
ordinance. In makin~ this determination. mountain ridges. ma;or streams
and other ohysical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an
area shall be considered.
Eighteen percent (18%) of the land within a mile of this site in
Albemarle County was in lots of five acres of less on the adoption date
of the ordinance. Therefore, this is not a developed Rural Area.
~. The relationship of the orooosed develooment to existing and oroposed
oooulation centers. services and emolovment centers. A orooerty within
areas described below shall be deemed in oroximity to the area or use
described:
~ Within one mile' roadway distance of the urban area boundary as
described in the comorehensive plan:
~ Within on-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as
described in the comorehensive olan:
.
h
Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in
the comprehensive plan.
The property is located approximately 14 miles from the Urban Area, 5.5
miles from the Town of Scottsville, and 10.4 miles from North Garden.
Staff notes that while Esmont is not currently listed as a Village, it
has been designated as such in previous Comprehensive Plans and
displays many of the characteristics of a Village. (This property was
included as part of the Village of Esmont in the Comprehensive Plans of
1970-2000 and 1977-1995.)
O. The orobable effect of the orooosed develooment on caoital imorovements
orogrammin~ in regard to increased orovision of services.
Staff typically prepares a fiscal impact analysis for requests resulting
in increased units. However, as this request results in a maximum
increase of 5 units, staff has not prepared an analysis. Staff notes
that the fiscal impact analysis are cursory only. This request may
result in 50 vehicle trips per day more than could be generated
by-right. Approximately three more elementary school students (Yancey),
one more middle school student (Walton) and one more high school student
(Albemarle High School) can be expected. The applicant has stated that
most of the families who would be residents of the development currently
live in Albemarle.
e
3
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the
opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
a. Occasion the need for road improvement;
b. Cause a tolerable road to become a non-tolerable road;
c. Increase traffic on an existing non-tolerable road.
This development will result in approximately 50 more vehicle trips per
day than could be generated by-right. This portion of Route 627 is
listed as tolerable and will not become non-tolerable because of this
development. No improvements, other than those performed by the
applicant to obtain an entrance, will be required due to approval of
this development.
Staff will also address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue
all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for
uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment
to ad;acent property
Staff opinion is that single family residential units would not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property. Adjacent property is
occupied by residential, forestal ~nd school uses.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
This item was addressed during review of Section 10.5.2.1.
and that such use will he in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request for compl1ance with the purpose and
intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4 and 1.5 and with
particular reference to Section 1.4.11 which states "to promote
affordable housing".
Section 1.6 addresses the purpose and intent of the Ordinance in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Coordinator has
provided comments designed to address the various statements of the
Comprehensive Plan regarding the provision of affordable housing
(Attachment D). Staff opinion is that this request supports the goal,
objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan as to the provision
of affordable housing. Staff notes that the densities proposed are not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Rural Area designation of this
site. This request is not in conflict with resources identified in the
Comprehensive Plan (Open Space Plan).
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This request will not affect permitted uses.
4
.
.
e
with additional regulations Drovided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations.
and with the Dublic health. safety and general welfare.
With approval of this request, staff will review the subdivision plat(s)
to ensure all ordinance regulations are met.
UMHARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
taff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this
equest:
The size, shape and topography reduces the viability of the site for
agricultural/forestal use.
There is no evidence of recent agricultural/forestal activity on this
property.
While not a designated Village, this site is near Esmont which has
Village characteristics [lot sizes, services (school/stores)]. This
site was in the previously designated Esmont Village of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed development should have minimal impact on capital
improvements programming.
The request is not in conflict with resources identified in the
Comprehensive Plan (Open Space Plan).
The proposal supports the goal, objectives and strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan as to the provision of affordable housing.
taff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this
equest:
The site is in a agricultural/forestal area and is not within a
develope9 rural area.
The site is not within close proximity to a designated growth area.
The density proposed is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Rural
Area designation.
taff can identify one request where the prov1s1on of low/moderate cost
ousing was considered as a factor in the request (SP-90-ll Kenneth Carrol)
hich was approved. That request was for 3 more development rights to allow
ivision of land which had been previously developed. That request resulted
n no more lots than could have been created by-right as a condition limits
he number of lots of 21 acres or greater which may be created. While the
eview of SP-90-ll did include discussions about low/moderate cost housing,
5
.
.
-
he main discussion centered on the existence of the units. Therefore, staff
cpinion is that no precedent has been set for review of permits intended to
rovide low/moderate cost housing.
taff opinion is that approval of the additional lots would have minimal
ffect on the integrity of the four purposes of the Rural Areas as described
y the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states on page 203:
"All decisions concerning Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of
the four major elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The four major
elements are: 1) preservation'of agricultural and forestal activities;
2) water supply protection; 3) limited service delivery to the Rural
Area; and 4) conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources."
this request meets some, but not all, criteria of Section 10.5.2.1 of the
~rdinance. (It should be noted that historically applications have not
atisfied all criteria of Section 10.5.2.1.) Current zoning does provide
easonable use of the land. In addition, under Section 31.2.4.1, this
broposal does support the affordable housing goal, objectives and strategies
bf the Comprehensive Plan.
~ile review of this application has provided mixed findings, staff is able to
upport this request based on an analysis of Section 10.5.2.1 and 31.2.4.1 and
aue to the existing character of the area. Staff recommends approval of this
equest subject to the following condition:
lECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
Staff approval of subdivision plats;
Development shall be in accord with the statements of the applicant as
contained in Attachment C and the information packet entitled "Greater
Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity Esmont Property Special Use
Permit," Revisions to the sketch of development contained in the
applicant's information necessary to meet requirements of the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances are not included in this condition.
TTACHMENTS:
- Location Map
~ - Tax Map
- Applicant's Information
~ - Housing Coordinator Comment
~ - History of Special Use Permits for Additional Lots
~ - Memo from Ronald S. Keeler
6
_,~,~~:"~-I~RI."_"'J""'i~:-"~' -.~~-''''''~''~'~''''L~''.__''''''',,,,--,,
...-
..(...-
f:'91 DiSt(jr'':\..~-
. MI4tw..!J~
!~<;88 /0 ""J 68
'J~'" ,i' r,~'(VJ I
~~ 637
.' ~.;-~
y, "~~
6 ~.
:;".' /] "'
:ffi~ '
'-\
"';''i.,p
@]!
I
,
,
,
I Ct>Qrlollnvllle
I Reselvolr
.
.
I ATTACHMENT A I
~"''>:;''~~''~''
~~'"
oj>'"
,eo'-
~O" ,/
,)"
I
71
/ .t
"'~
",?;
~q"
,.
--i
~
...'"
~
~
'r
~
.,)
"
<<.
,
v-
e
L.-
)
- -=.--;
c
(
N
G
tI
A
tJI
If
(7
ALBEMABLE
COUNTY
I ATTACHMENT BI
'-.
.
/
20 '\-.
'.
/.:
~ 4...
/ ,,-.
, 23 ~
- ----- .
24 . J __
.-1 1
.2 6 i _______ _ __
--..J, .
S[[ .
1)4 . ;) .
.
":-. ~
27 ,._~'-'
SP-94-03
J. E. Simpson Estate
, {.
\
/
134
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 128
.27
e
SCALE IN FEET
.
.
e
\ ATTACHMENT C\
D CRIPTION OF REQUEST
ter Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity requests a Special Use Permit to allow the 24.5 acres
sho n on the attached plat to be divided into 10 lots for the construction of 10 single family low cost
hou es. Each lot would exceed the minimum 2 acre lot size required by the County and would be
serv by individual septic and well. The residences to be built would be owner occupied by families
that participate in the construction of the houses. The development of the property and construction
of t e houses would be carried out according to the national standards of Habitat for Humanity and
wo d be built by a combination of volunteer labor and professional supervision. Details of the program
are nc1uded in the attached brochure and project description.
Ha itat for Humanity seeks to build houses in partnership with families that would under normal
circ mstances not be able to afford owning their own home. The houses are built and sold to the
part er families at cost with a zero interest mortgage to be paid back over 20 years. Habitat provides
bot construction and counselling support for families as they obtain and learn to manage the
res onsibilities of home ownership. Habitat for Humanity has built thousands of homes for families
thr ughout the country and has recently built the first house loacally in Charlottesville. In partnership
wit volunteers, donors, and professionals Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity is seeking to
me t a portion of the need for affordable housing in the Charlotesvillel Albemarle County area. The
gr test need we have found in three years of preparation and research is the availability of affordable
Ian in areas suitable for residential construction. In developing land for the construction of Habitat
hou es it is our intention to allocate the maximum percentage of our resources to the actual construction
of t e houses themselves. This means that in order to make the houses more affordable, the acquisition
and development costs of land and infrastructure must be kept to minimum. In searching for available
Ian we looked for locations that would benefit from the addition of good simple owner occupied
ho sing. In providing low cost owner occupied housing the amount of land that each house owns
can ot be excessive. It must both relate to the size of the house to be built and the neighbor hood
wit in which it will be constructed. It is with this in mind that we considered the property in Esmont.
In considering the division ,of this property into 10 lots rather than the 'by right', 5 lots that are
per itted, there are a number of factors that support this strategy.
1. The 2 + acre lots that would result would correspond to the majority of residential lots
within the neighboring area, The three lots that had previously been subdivided out of
the original property are of this size, The proposed development fits into the character
of the area.
2. The vast majority of Habitat families include children of school age and the proximity
of this property to the school would be only logical for the children. Families tend to
become involved where their children are involved and this would enhance their
integration into the affairs of the community.
3.
By providing 10 lots, the development costs that must be carried by each house would
be reduced increasing the affordability of the houses themselves. This would provide
tangible evidence of the goals established by the County last year, to encourgage the
I ATTACHMENT cllpage 2\
development of low and moderate cost housing within the next . decade.
.
4.
Habitat for Humanity does not depend upon public money or funding for the provision
of low cost housing. Nationally, Habitat for Humanity is among the fifty largest
homebuilders in the nation, providing affordable housing for thousands of families each
year. The assistance that city and county governments throughout the country provide
in partnership with Humanity comes in the form of administrative and planning support.
This project provides and ideal opportunity to assist with the provision of low cost
housing without the burden of financing or managing the project itself. Each home
. owner will contribute to the tax base of the County itself at the properties are developed
and the houses built.
5. The planning of the development and the design of the houses is being done by members
of the local planning and architectural community. The houses that are built will be
specifically designed to reinforce the best aspects of the local neighborhood and will the
finest example of this type of cooperation between the partner families, the professionals,
and the volunteers.
In s mmary, the development of this property for ten houses seems to fit perfectly within the context
of t e neighborhood, the goals of the County for affordable housing, and the resources of Greater
Hab tat for Humanity. Most importantly, it will provide housing for 10 families, (two of which have
bee selected already and are waiting for their houses) that would not be able to own their own homes
wit ut this development.
.
Add'tional information will be attached for the remainder of the Application.
e
.
.
e
I ATTACHMENT 0 I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
William D. Fritz, Senior Planner !J. /
Lynne Carruth, Housing coordinat~~
March 8, 1994
SP-94-03 J.E. Simpson Estate
have reviewed the various information available regarding this
equest for a special use permit which would allow an additional
ive lots to be created for affordable housing development. I
ave also contacted the principals of Habitat for Humanity and
btained additional information on the organization as well as
his current proposal.
s you may know, Habitat for Humanity is a nationally recognized,
on-profit housing provider which accomplishes its work through
ocal affilliates such as the Greater Charlottesville Habitat for
umanity (Habitat). The subdivision under consideration would
rovide new single-family residences for 10 families with incomes
etween $14,000 and $28,000 per year. All of the families must
ave a stable work history and must agree to assist in the
onstruction of their residence as well as others. Additionally,
II of the families must currently be living in sub-standard or
ver-crowded housing.
f the special use permit is granted, the cost of the residences
o the families is estimated to be $40,000. Habitat sells the
ouses for cost and does not charge interest. The family does
ake regular mortage payments and pay property taxes, however.
believe that this application is emblematic of the difficulty
ow-and moderate-income families encounter in obtaining
ffordable housing in Albemarle County. Land is expensive as a
esult of various factors, including the growth management
rdinances which seek to preserve certain existing land use
atterns. Increasingly, such families are seeking housing in
djoining areas and commuting to jobs in Albemarle County and the
ity of Charlottesville. Traveling long distances between home
1
.
.
e
'ATTACHMENT 0 11 Page 2\
r. william D. Fritz, Senior Planner
arch 7, 1994
age 2
nd employment creates financial burdens on the families as well
s placing additional strain on the transportation system.
ou indicated that the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the criteria
o be used in the review of this type of request and that the
riteria do not permit evaluation of the benefit to low-and
oderate income persons. I would like to point out that the
omprehensive Plan, the County's adopted land use policy
ocument, does, very explicitly, address housing for such
amilies as a desired land use activity.
sets forth a goal of promoting a variey of safe,
anitary and affordable housing types for County residents of all
ncome groups. This goal is supported by several objectives and
trategies for creating housing for low- and moderate-income
amilies, including:
1. Assess housing needs and issues and identify mechanisms
to address market deficiencies.
2. Support projects that provide units for the
disadvantaged
3.
Work with organizations in pursuing innovative means of
providing housing for lower-income persons and the
homeless, including purchase or development of housing
for sale or rent cooperative housing, accessory
apartments and emergency housing.
4. Support programs which aid in the effort of the County
to rehabilitate the existing housing and provide
low/moderate income housing opportunities in a variety
of areas.
he project proposed by Habitat for Humanity is consistent with
hese adopted goals, objectives and strategies. All of the
amilies meet HUD's definition of low- and moderate-income
amilies, an income group which has difficulty affording decent
ousing at market rates; this proposal clearly will provide
nits to financially disadvantaged persons; Habitat's program is
n innovative one, combining homeownership opportunities for
amilies as well as creating a sense of community and cooperation
mong all the new homeowners.
lthough not articulated ih the Comprehensive Plan, two
dditional significant benefits would be gained through approval
2
I ATTACHMENT D II Page 31
r. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
arch 7, 1994
. age 3
f this request: families would be removed from current
ubstandard living conditions and persons employed in Albemarle
ounty could afford to live in the County. The majority of the
amilies currently selected for this project are employed in
lbemarle County.
would be happy to discuss this with you and answer any
uestions that you may have.
LLC
.
e
3
.
-
~
Q)
C')
co
0-
W
....
Z
w
I:
J:
U
~
~
...~
0-
~
enu
-c
en
@S~
~~
en lID
~~
_L
"lJ)
--: ~:
....-
L"O
; ii
8 "O~
_ L
... ~
~ IIDal
~~
enL
: j
" "
... tl5i
>!
"
... :;"i
I z;
A'...
...
2 al"!
-on
~ 5ic:i
o 0'"
~
...
o
L
V
'"
!!'j
en
>
Ill:
W
a..
::l
en
~ al al
t; 5i 5i
coo
...
o
o
Ill:
~
lID
w
%:
~
>-
lID
o
Ill:
C
w
%:
en
~
o
-'
-'
c
~
ell
lilal
z;
:0 ~~
. "
N 04'"
lU
" ,,:a
N N
.- >-
~ ; ;l
-'"
~ L
a.. " ""
lJ) 01'"
Ill: lU lUlU
U ~ L..;S
en " ...
w > >c
o C c-
'"
v
..
~
o Ill:
o W
C lID
!i
!!'j :zen " "
La.. t- N .-
-'0
~ C-'
en ~
w 0'"
5 ~o
W
Ill:
...
o
>-
Ill:
I
'"
~
o
-'
-'
...c
o~ ~ 0.
Ill:-
W~
llll-
:IE: 0
~~
-'
w
u w
~~ ':? ~
~Q. I I
" eo
xo 04 on
c:z
~c
~
:Ii:
l!i~
w-'
Jt
zc
~
- -
- ...
- ..
:c L
~ ~
- 0
a u
-8 ...
- !
o -
u ....
N .0
o ...
. .
... ...
'It eo eo
I I
a.. a.. a..
en en en
...
o
CI
L
"
...
"2
CI
...
...
CI
...
en
~
...
.. .
v-
.- CI
...>
._0
...L
!I 8:
_lU
.~al
~1
ld~
"5~
:a",
...
al'-
~~
LU
~~
"E'E
~~
lID a..
al al
> >
o 0
L L
8: 8:
c c
'"
v
..
...
"...
."
.0:3
...>-
N'"
._~
...
...
...0
o
-~
".-
lJ)'"
ClC
L'"
......
>)(
cw
...
N
,.,
U
0.
04
~
...
L
L
o
:IE:
..
.!
o
z;
...
-
z;
U
i
-
II
:c
,.,
.
N
eo
I
a..
en
...
o
c
lJ)
.-
...
-8
~
~
i
...
2
L .
,,>- "0
......
5i= "0
va....
.~ L !l
... " 2"":
!I ~ LN
v:a ...on
ell CI'
'-"0 z;o
"tJ ~ ~-
"5 ~ ~~
';i ......
- u~
l5 en
0'- al...
Li '-0
~... .8.~
v L
"0" "0"
Lo....... L....
~f ~.;:
lID 0. Clll v
al
5i
o
ell
lilal
z;
0.'"
,.,L
. "
eo...
lU
...:a
N
'- >-
;l
-'"
L
"...
01'"
lUlU
L:a
...
>c
c.-
o
... ...
",5i "2~.,;
~ ~= CI f ~
.--z; ~ ".-
"'... ~...
->CI IS
>u..,- ..,
=ti "O'.;;.g z; 'e
"0 L...._
'" " 0,--
5~0C1):aQ.J
._:J....U')CI)L..
> co.J: QJ-'"
"'z; OIV'- >
L )(._ V 0 ...
Q.Q.JL...CQCI)CI)
on
...
,.,
on
N
"
i'\i
.
o
,.,
...
"
N
.
o
o
...
'"
L
L
o
:IE:
..
.!
o
z;
...
z;
U
...
L
L
o
:IE:
..
.!
o
z;
...
z;
U
i
....
II
:c
i
....
CI
:c
o
...
.
Qt
.
a..
en
o
N
.
Qt
I
a..
en
'"
lU
:a
...
......
....-
~ell
...
...z;
2'"
...
"OlU
.-z;
"0'"
~"2
!l. .
2"":al
LNZ;
.",
...'" L
CI ....
z;0'"
...... CI
:a
~~>-
:;'z-~
-v
v...
en...
al... ~
.-0....
.8~1
L"
"O"'z;
L......
.,-
OLC
ClllV-
al
c
...
o
"'al '"
~...~
-"''''
>- > :1,-
- II CI....
~LZ;
~;:"'l
...z; c:
......0
CJL.(/)-
:a 11'- CU
...>>
C lU'- ...
-:a"O"O
N
on
~.
o
1'''
~
)(
-
o
c:
'>
Ii
:IE:
~
I
1:3
.
A-
en
al
'"
"'ell
-...
IIlL
:~
il
"0
"OlU
LZ;
CI
0....
Clll .
N
~~
"'0
....
ai~
....- .
O"'al
>~"
"en L
- lJ)
...... lU
0'"
A'..=ti
"OL'"
IIlIllL
-......
c'-Z;
Ill.....
OVO
al
5i
o
eo
."
"'L
V
.....
N
-0
"'04
N
...
Oz;
-...
~:a9!
lU",iS
L.. &to_
"'L'"
>v...
ClUL
N
....
eo
eo
on
I
,.,
O.
>-
...
C
L
o
z;
~
ii
"
:c
..
>-
L
L
II
:c
0.
,.,
~
.
a..
en
"':
N
'"
o
...
~
...
~ ...
en 8
...
o "0
. :g
L ...
.~ ~
L'"
al
III 0
z; ...
... ...
... ...~ "0
.... ca.-
:: "5t; al
III ...
.... ....cn OE
I... Ill...
...0
z;
L ...
.-
... L
ov
-
! ?:~
-...
"0 L "0
L. 0.... L.
! il !
al
~ al
8: 5i
c 0
...
v
..
,.,
.0
o
.... eo
... ...
N N
... 'jjj
... ...
o 0
... ...
0> 0>
lU lU
L ...
... ...
> >
c c
N eo
... N
,., 0
,., ""
~ ~
~
Ill: L
L
. II
en lD
i i
... -.
N
" ~
. .
on on
~ ~
a.. a..
en en
~
...
!l
v
...
al
5i
o
,.., >-...
.o-~al.,;
~,-......
II ~> (I).J:
N"''':I'''
0_ L. &- Co_
., II CL..c L.
... )(
....a:I u....
o:a. c
- al"'i
1Il=z; l5
'" "'.-
ca L. CI)-
L. . cu-- u
urn....>>
> u cu.- Q)
c . :a "0 "0
""
N
...
N
:c
eo
...
..:.
c
.~
..
:IE:
...
~
II
-.
..
ii
L
L
.
:3
""
on
~
.
a..
en
Z;
...
:a
...
C
III
...
...
t:
g~
-a..
ell"
Ill>
:a.-
...
...c
..."
If
L~
~
:;"2
.-.
v
"
alg
.-!
.8=ti
L
"00
L
~~
llll'"
al
c
"
o
-c al
CI).- en
"'~ >-. ~.
0>-0 C O9!
"i';:~- .tiS
z;
........ . >- en
~ 5i 5i'~~"2 ~
a.fIJ- 5"..c Q.J
- 0 CD c.cn fI) L.
~"'Z :s-g i; ; ~
....>....0...,...,
~-8.B~ I il::!
04
,.,
....
.......
0....
...0.
...
~~
.N
0.
"'"2
II
...
~
-.
.!
...
...
"
z
"
.0
~
.
a..
en
"2
lU...
o
...
"'CI
lU'-
...L
enlll
... .
.-...
~t;~
.-....)00.
"'lU'"
...z;....
:I......
.~all
~i~
.!~!
....L
z;c"i
...oz;
:a......
... .
al'-N
~~~
LUO
8: ...
.!~
"0 E'-
:a.t;
0-...
Cllla..en
al
>
o
8:
c
.",
.v
IIlCl
L
c...
c....
.8~
L'_
::l'"
0...
...0
-
...
c:...
...'"
VlU
lU'"
.~...
"0>
cc
>-
...-
lU'-
"51
...
A'~~
L
t~-8
0'--
...-lII
...-
;~;
.~~~
CI ...
...
v'"
)lllllll
o...:a
lJ)~~
~...=
.-....-
.....- QI
u~~
al8..-
>0'
o...~
L '_
0.......
o.c-
· 1131 .
"O'~ llljL
L_
~8J1
lllllU...
al
>
o
L
8:
c
C al
c.- z;
.-e... '"
- cu.- '-
-....ecCIJ
~ ~ 8.-'1
...
N ...~>-
al~ 2.;;; ~
.., ".- ~
.~ ~:g.~ ~
eo )llll
~c'='~~
a.. 0.0 '" :a
,.,
04
...
....
... ,
0.
Clll...
...
on...
. on
"
on "2
CI
..
~~~
'.00.
III "eo
~
Z;
V
L
o
...
en
~
ii
I
...
en
Z;
...
.;
~
~
Clll
.
'0
....
,.,
o
...
.
a..
en
!3
..:.
eo
.
A-
en
"0
lU
Z;C
II
CIl
......
Z;...
0>...
.;:~
~~
~
-0
>L
-88:
CI
...
lU'"
Z;CI
...z;
...
~"2 .;
~ij
"O"'~
II...L
'- ~ 0.
.8~al
....
"0 C
il~
al
c
...
o
~~ ~
~
N ...
~ Ill~
,--- U
"'" III '" III
"- > u CI
>lII.......
'-"0 lU"ON
"0 a..1I
'" al ~(j.
~t;cn~-;
0- :J..... u CIJ.....
>CD~ uca
ClI.J::D)U)L.CIJ
k: ~.~ ~ &~
N
eo
-r
,.,
0.
>-
~
lU
%:
.
L
"2
.
en
..
...
j
Ill:
"
on
ii
I
a..
en
.
e
N
Q)
C')
~
W
....
Z
w
1:
J:
U
~
~
N
11'I
.
o
...
~
...
UL..III
tlO
0... <lI
III
"'<lI
0'" >-
0'"
tD---
~!1
->
L..O'"
U li~
'i 0'0
~~.-
.- '0
.~'i ~
~)Z._
<lIt<ll
....-
...1:>
ii~ .
L.. ""''''
'i!f!
><lIj<ll
.,.- -
.-> >
!1i :0
~ >->-
".--
L.. __
!~ii
ID~~-'-
...~
0-
.....
0U
-c
o
&fiil
~a
00D
o
15
en
>
""
LU
Q.
~
i
~ l;
L..
l:J 8:
c c
...
o
o
""
c
~
<lI
i i tl
~~ ~~
---tl
fn"..L.....
- > U UN
3' .~~;...... .
o '0 Q.III0L..
..... i:' tl
Q.. ~... .....:.:~
0: 0- !~:;; ~.~
~ ~~~8.m
UJ L )(.-N L.
C CL" L.r- tD 0
LU
::c
.....
>-
al
o
""
C
LU
::c
en
.....
o
-'
-' ""
C LU
~ lZl
~
..... 3'11>
..... N
o -'0
~ ~-'
0'"
15 .....0
...
.....
II>
LU
5
LU
"" 0
.....
... 0
o -'
>- -'
"" ...c
~ O~
~ ~;:
II> lZl-
:EO
i~
-'
LU
U ...
Q.GI: ...
cc ....
:EQ. I
.0
N
...
~i
.....C
<lI .
Ill'"
:.~
... i'-
P"'~
u~11
> ~ L..'O e(;
~'_~L.. II!
'O.~._~ a.~"':
Cl>tl OI:GI
N'_~ I: -:: III E
='0....2 ): iil >-
.;:;~~ ~.~u
~._._> ...
.c i L..:o i:S ~
U't- e >- .~'t- Z"
i;ti ~t~
~ GI-'" ... 0
';j~ ~_ ~'i: I:
'>"i~ l! ';:;u~
'-.c 0 U -
'0 Ill'
~~'~l ~.;; ~
'> ii.~ '> ii~
f"'~:S f~~
Q.. &:.,-.- Q.. 0..,
I:
III
i
>
o
L..
8:
c
i
C
tl
o
~i
~..;
'-11I
..._L..
11I...0
-5 5.i~
.- CJ)otJ en
i:: 8.~ a
a:l~"''''';j
,., U ~-
I" _ >
Ci! L.. :0
Q.i-'>-
Cl)otJU~-
....>.-.-
i'E~'~ i
L.. ~...
8.(;c III
.--
<lItl
->
.~~
'Oi
!/l..., .
15......
.- ::J+"
>11I..::
41..:: CD
L )(0_
Q.IIL..
N
N
N
Il\
0-
a:l
a:l
I
r--
~
.lIl ~
L..
III L.. ...
..... - i !
:z U
~~ iii -S
Q .,
W-'
~Q. i ~ i cI. ...
:z~ I ~
- ...
., c ., N
. 0
~ ,., .....
... ... 0
11'I ... 0 -'
. N . LU i
'It S! ~ 0
0- >
. Q. I
Q. Q. Q. LU ~
.ell 0 0 II> ""
.
.
e
I ATTACHMENT F I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
FROM:
Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning
DATE:
March 22, 1994
RE:
SP-94-03 J. E. Simpson Estate
There has been substantial discussion on this application as it relates to
affordable housing. I do not believe the Comprehensive Plan is locational as
to recommendations for affordable housing (This should be addressed in the
upcoming review). Therefore, I recommend that past and current actions be
considered.
AHIP, which has done extensive work in the County, has directed its efforts
primarily to rehabilitation of existing units, most of which have been located
in the Rural Areas. However, AHIP has also constructed two new units of
housing in the Rural Areas.
Another case involving new
Hill Subdivision in 1981.
rural subdivision near Ash
construction in which AHIP participated was
This was a self-help program involving a 14
Lawn (i.e. - remote from a growth area).
B.ishop
lot
Currently, the County has made Community Development Block Grant application'
for funding of AHIP rehabilitation efforts in the Esmont-Porters target area.
This site is located within that geographical target area.
In closing, there have also been recent requests for additional lots for
family members (The Comprehensive Plan does state that "development right lots
are also intended for family divisions." p. 205). Should the Commission and
Board determine that housing affordability and/or family divisions be given
consideration as positive factors in staff reports, the ordinance criteria
should be amended accordingly to ensure consistent review.
RSK/jcw
COMMUNITY MEETING ON PROP<JHE:D DEVELOPMENT OF :1:0' HOMES
IN ESMONT BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
****. .*********.****************.***~***.*****************************
DA E: Tuesday- March 22J ~994
TI E: 7:30pm
LaC A TIN: B. F. Ya Tl c ey E 1 <:~m e n t a f' y S c h 0 0 ).
1 ) Edw rd R:. B'r 0 0 I( s Rt. 1 80 x 205,- 8 Esm,o ot. , l,'.IA. 22937
~~ ) Tra i S. Br'ooks Rt. 1 Bo x 205-B ESnlont, VA 22937
3) M(~cl Tate Rt. 1(} 8-0 x 128 Char 10 t.tesvi lIe, VA
4) Jul a Thomas Rt. 1 Box 280 Esmollt" VA 22937
5) Cllr stine Thomas Rt. 1 8'0 x 280 Esmont,_ 'i.'A 22.937
6) Shi 1 Thomas Rt. 1 Box 280-A Esmo nt, VA 22937
7) D'(lIi ht J'o hnso n Rt .,:[ Bo x 3'(}9 Keene, VA, 22937
8) -Ru tl Ward Rt. 1 Box 197 Esmotlt, VA 229~~7
9) Nan W. Luck Rt. 1 80 x 199 Esmont, VA 22937
10) Ma Bolden ESnlont, VA 229~~7
11> An iE.' J. Anderson Esmont, V-A 22937
12) ,Ru h 81'0 o-k s EsmoTlt, VA 22937
13) Fa nllie Louden Esmont, VA 22937
14) .J\! dy Bro !JIll P.O. Bo x 1 ESnloTlt, VA 229~r?
15) L.o lit.a Curry Esmont, VA 22937
l(n
2'())
16,}
17)
nard Curry
Re.'becca .10 rdan
18) D~ othy Harris
T'ge Harris
m,} 5 Sc 0 t t, J:r.
22-)'
21) 1h.odore Gardner
2:3)
24)
oy Thomas, Jr..
gclret T . White
mr~n Wh i te
23) M. Janet. Scott Coleman
26) 'en ,J. Co leman
27) n ie W. Agee
28) ,Jo hn Pa ig,e
29) My a Paige
3~) Be jamin F. ~aig~
31) Lo raine B. Pa~ge
:3"2) eh rles H. Jordan
:33) Ru h Jordan
34) E1' estine Martin
35) Fr' neis Ford
36 ) .Ja ice M. B r. 0 wn
37) Re( inald Scott
38~ Re'. Lloyd Feggans
39) Me ton Gardner
4()) An elina Gard~e1'
41) Wa. tine Eubanks
42) Clarence Coles
43) Versell Coles
44) B(~tty .Jordan
45) Jacqueline Jackson
E sma n t J VA,
ESnlon1:J VA
Esmont, VA
Esmont, VA
Esmo nt, VA
ESnlontJ VA
Rt.! 8'0 x 273
Esmo nt, VI~
ESnlontJ VA
Esmont,. VA
ESnlont, VA
EsmontJ VA
Esmo nt J V'A
Esmont, VA
E SOlO nt J VA
Esmont, VA
ESOWTlt, VA
Esmo nt,. VA,
EsmontJ VA
Esmont.,. ""A
EsmoutJ VA
Esmant, VA
EsmontJ VA
E sma nt J IjA.
EsmoTlt, VA
Esm.o nt., VA
E sow Tl t, VA
Esmont., VA
Esmont, VA
Esma nt, VA,
E sow Tl t, V A
22937
22937
22937
22937
229:37
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
22937
229::~7
22937
22937
22937
22937
46) Susan He~schel
47) Dieter Henschel
48) F r n 1< W. B'o 1 i n g, Jr.
49)
50)
51)
Esmont., VA
Esmont, VA
Esmont, VA
Charlottesville, VA
Esmont, VA
EsmoTlt, VA
l':inda Mills
ton GaT' d n er
22937
229~17
22937
22937
2-2937
22937
:;;-'7 79 "fe. ~Mr d/7?tU;~
Uliw JJ y?v~... ~ t?/ /a:/24~ c.21/c!:o/_ ~
f d~J~7~tt~/~jy~
o ~r Ao/J<.€. ~-/;-ud;:J ~ ~Izif
h;2? U&fftI ~ 10 07J7)
~ j) ~~ov~7 ~
7d ~ /~7"4 ~ ~Jd:..
. tl-1.L -10/ /J1~ /02)7 6-;-- /02,)74.;2.- ('..ue. hz."'-J'2<' cd/oeLJ)
.JjL ~~ A~~'
fL/~??~~
/;2Y .' io ;' ~o/ ~
. ~ /,;2-r'.' 1f Z) - .37} 5~Cl
, /;2-f.' 1?6 ~ 3~ 9'~ 6
/;2-F : 'Ie; r -- ~D/ <;?5a
/.2Z: 13/1 ~ /Jo ~~-
/;2? : ?~/l - ..J 6/ ~tT tJ
/..'k?" 19.1!~ c2S; Gt){)
/ ;;2 f'.' 7 J1 / ~ ;2-fftJ
/:z gill: 1 -----,;2~ ~o t!J
:/d-! /!;L" /3 ~3-tJo
/;2!/I : /1 - ~ 72J(5
, / 7f /l;L" /5A- - S-c: 5?J ()
/e? %'//2: cJ-3/1 c?3/ /~o
/,;2% //:Z-: ~a /~/ocJ
/;2-Y If .. c:25/1 ~ -L/~ 02) lJ
'/~?/1 :;;21 - ~c7 7CJZ)
ALBEMABLE COUNTY
.
.
-r-
134
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
SECTION 128
'. .
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
I2BA(I)
~ '\ It \
L:i--~
-... . ...
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
PORTERS PRECINCT INSERT
SECTION 128A(2)
S'I.~},. ';"''':,1'-'':'';'\' '"
.
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
[Jmlt'd/ll,'\ Till' [1/"I'I'l/lIll'IiI j, li"TI//"'liI;.' 1;11>":<'>,
STATEMENT REGARDING SP-94-03 J, E. SIMPSON ESTATE
March 29, 1994
e issuance of the special permit applied for will essentially double the value of
his parcel for residential development purposes by doubling the density permitted.
t appears from the staff report that one of the primary reasons for taking this step is
o provide for affordable housing in the County,
e Piedmont Environmental Council has actively supported the provision of
ffordable housing in the past and supports this application, IF approval contains a
rovision which insures that the value created by the issuance of this special permit
'11 be devoted, both now and in the future, to affordable housing. Not only would
uch a provision insure that the value created by the permit be committed to
ffordable housing, it would serve to distinguish the issuance of this permit from
ther requests for additional density which may be made in the Rural Areas in the
uture.
e condition which we recommend is the following:
"Approval of the subdivision plat shan be conditioned upon applicant
causing the recordation of a deed of trust with the deed to each lot
providing for the payment of an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of
that lot's appraised value together with interest thereon, in the event
of the transfer of the property (including rental) by the original grantee
from Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity or its designee,
within five years of acquisition of title, The form of the deed of trust
shall be subject to approval by the County Attorney, and shall be based
upon the deed of trust used at Crozet Crossing to secure the public
subsidy in that project, as appropriate, The amount due under the deed
of trust shall be reduced in equal amounts each year that the property is
held by the original grantee after five years, so that no amount shall
remain due under said trust if the original grantee holds the property
for ten years, The appraisal shall be based upon the approved
preliminary subdivision plat, and shall be perfonlled by an M,A.I
certified or equivalent appraiser with expelience in Albemarle County.
Any payment made under any sllch dC'ed of trust shall be mack to the
Creater Lharlottesville Habitat for Humanity ior use by that
organil'ation tn provide affordahle !lousing in Albemarle Count v "
Usa K Class, Field Officer
! ~,,:,"'\.
.
c=J! ::-c
-----)
, -,---.~-=-~-:~-- :
: -, \
~-""';'.',--'----'~-~~-
3-29-94
IIAl
- ,_".1
" ,,;..'
V '.~
March 29, 1994
-.. - ----
_. ._.__., 1"--
- . .~.-,.....'~"'- --'~~
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 29,
1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other
officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr.
Larry Davis, County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
March 15, 1994 were approved as amended.
-----------------------------------------
SP-94-03 Estate of J.E, Simpson - Request for five additional development rights [Section
10.5.2] to permit a total of 10 lots on a 23.75 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 128, Parcel 85 is located on the south side of Rt. 627 opposite Yancey
School in the Scottsville Magisterial District, This site is not located within a designated
growth area (Rural Area 4).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "While review of this application
has provided mixed findings, staff is able to support this request based on an analysis of
Section 10.5.2,1 and 41.2.4.1 and due to the existing character of the area. Staff recommends
approval of this request subject to (conditions)."
Referring to criteria No.5 in the staff report, Mr. Blue expressed the feeling that "developed
rural areas" is an oxymoron because if an area is developed, it is not a rural area. He felt this
reaffirmed his feeling that the rural areas should be reviewed and some of the areas that are
developed should be "pulled out" so that criteria 5 would not have to be used.
Given the areas of significant slopes and soil limitations in some areas, Ms. Imhoff wondered
if 10 lots was really realistic. Mr. Fritz stated the areas of 25% slopes are minimal and it
does appear that 10 lots are feasible. In terms of soil limitations, he stated that some do have
limitations for septic purposes, but the predominant soils on the site are suitable for
drainfields. (Mr. Blue noted that the sites would have to receive Health Department
approval.)
Ms. Huckle asked if a soil scientist would have to identify building sites. Mr. Fritz explained
that a soil scientist does not identify the building sites.. Rather, the Health Department will
rely on a soils report from a soils scientist in its identification of primary and reserve
drainfield areas on all lots. It is then the surveyor's, and planning staffs, responsibility to
verify that there is an adequate 30,000 square foot building site outside 25% slope areas.
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
'-,
/;it~(L{ i""+'-d
7:. 'd-'
7 Zi '7"-
-7
(: c..--
.
Protecting File Eon'IrOl!ment Is El1cryhody's Blhil!c<;s
Statement to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Regarding SP 94 -0 3 J .E. Simpson Estate
April 20, 1994
e issuance of the special permit applied for will essentially double the value of this
cel for residential development purposes by doubling the density permitted. It appears
f om the staff report that one of the primary reasons for taking this step is to provide for
fordable housing in the County.
T e Piedmont Environmental Council has actively supported provision of affordable
h using in the past and supports this application, IF approval contains a provision which
i sures that the value created by the issuance of this special permit will be devoted both
n wand in the future to affordable housing. One method that both assures long-term
fordability in housing stock and secures the public subsidy is the recordation of a second
d ed of trust. Not only would such a provision insure that the value created by the permit
b committed to affordable housing, it would serve to distinguish the issuance of this
p rmit from other requests for additional density which may be made in the Rural Areas
L sa K.Glass, Field Officer
45 Horner Street, Box 46U, Warrenton, Virginia 22186/703-J47-2,'1,:l4,Fax34Y-9003
1010 Harris Street, Suite 1, Charlottesville. Virginia 22Y01/804-977-2033
. ..
l?u'I"--l 'f.:lf~
r~2,!L51__;;~.~joj- k-7loUL~<i7=------ _=___~_n
- -RdL-f-----~~-..---Laiwc~-f !3~~--n .
-------.-..- ._-_._.._-----_._---~---~-------------------_._.-
r~------.---------------...------~--...--..-----.----..-.--.-------...------. ---..-..-------.-.. .....
(f) /:]. hNJU- -~ctzd~-lhkjlXL/~-~_
b..2-7-_6a_'oif~____11~_()tLo____________.________________________. _
~..---.-.._--------~.__~_____u__~__._____.__.__.____.__~______~_.______..____.___~____.__..
Lb~l~;~-9-~~~-:i~;; ,~.
, 7fL'Xd_d.4d~ -reM -u,. . 'AA.11:ht._ +. ...
.---.- --.----.---------------.- .-----.. --.------.-------7.- .....-.--. .--..----.-.---.-....-- --.-.---..-----.------. -- .------
:g!J (tiAef A~-~-f=!/)y~~
~ "--------------------_____ ___.30,/;h?_________________ ___ ____________
/23 .-l~2?.--_________________.3..~--QJ) ___________________._
--- je2X _2'1..6 -------------~_~--z~
-------- /c2}? 29~ ______________________-f'GJ/_ rq~___________.. _ __________
---------- -~- '1___2_ 91l.._..___________________~_5/..~ 6___________ _ _ ._.___________
---- 1-:2_'1 __2913__________________ c2_S/b80
-------- ~J'Z"i______________________.__ . _..__~ ~._ c-2o 0
------ Ld..f..fLZ ll-.----------____________c2-7f_615_2}___________ . _________. _ _
t;2_"- //2_____/3_ _____.._____________ _. ________~-3" 0..________...___..____
-62..JAZ -. /1i..------------.. -__ ------7t5-c;{) 0_____
-------- _/:1:_7 If L_____/5?t ___________ ___ _____5-=0sod__._.
J..J-_l~2-_______.:2 51t_ _ ------- .... -.. ___ -------~f;- ~o..o..__...
/:2_71..2____.._ Z 3_ _.... ___ / .2~)7D 0
I..~llr 2-____ ;L C;-ff9'O;6zM
/02 ? A- d-;21 Y;2 7' tJ()
,.
.
..
iJ, s 4 h ~L\(U-L' <f / I rJ I '" 'i
'"
Edward R. Brooks
Rt. 1 Box 205-B
Esmont, VA 22937
Apri 1 9, 1994
:MI.-. Forrest Marshall
B~ard Of Supervisors
A bemarle county Office Building
4b1 McIntire Road
Cparlottesville, VA 22902
Dl?ar Mr. Marshall:
T!1is correspondence is in reference to the Habitat For HumarLity
Special Use Permit application (SP 94-03) that will be heard before
tpe Board Of Supervisors on Wednesday April 20th. I started this
l~tter the night I returned home from the Planning Commission
m~eting, but decided to wait awhile before finishing it because
mv emotions where dictating my words at that point.
A~ you know, the Planning Commission's final vote resulted in a
4 3 majority for recommendation to the Board Of Supervisors for
abproval. The public comments were intense, informative and.
r~vealing. It was also a night for high drama as the vote was
t ed 3-3 and the final vote was cast in favor. Our group which
ip basically opposed to the development was somewhat encouraged
b the closeness of the vote. It is unfortunate that the
Cbmmissioner who cast the last vote did not ask any questions or
~ ke any comments the entire evening- it is very puzzling? We
a so are now aware of the large number of "housing advocateE," in
t e area and their willingness to support low-income housing
i itiatives at any cost and without much forethought.
Tlere are so many primary concerns and secondary issues concerning
t is project and I don't want be lengthy, but I will try to quickly
s1mmarize the main points of our call for delay:
1) Esmont is not a "Designated Growth Area." I realize that some
have found sentences in the Comprehensive Plan that allow for
low-income housing in Rural Areas, but essentially we are a
small, closely knit community that doesn't want to grow by
development- natural, single-lot building is happening now
and I think that is the preferred mode of growth.
2) Although Habitat is a very unique organization in that they are
able to build true low-cost housing." . granting a Speci~l Use
Permit for 5 extra development rights sets a "general" precedent.
r
.
.
There are individuals "outside" and "inside" our community who
are waiting for this decision- so that they can set their own
plans in motion. We don't want to come running over t~ere to
the County every year or so. . debating proposed low-income
de'/elopments.
3) We have made it clear that the residents of Esmont shDuld have
been notified prior to the application for the "Special Use"
Permit and that is the main reason we are requesting denial of
this request.. .so that we can sit down on an equitable basis
and discuss the DETAILS of this proposed project. People are
demanding equal representation in the project.. .How we get to
equal representation is going to bring up a whole new set of
questions and a cause for potential controversy. We are being
asked to negotiate in good faith... meanwhile Habitat will have
possession of the land. What IF Habitat doesn't agree with
some of our concerns- we could very well decide that we would
be better off without the development... . but we can't do that
once the Special Permit is granted.
4) One of the cogent points brought up during the Planning
Commission debate is that neither the County, State, nor Federal
Governments would have any jurisdiction over Habitat once
the Special Permit is granted. We can make 'suggestions, but
that's all. THE SPECIAL PERMIT is our only control- Scl we
have to get a lot of DETAILS settled before we grant approval.
This is a new arena for all of us.... .and I hope we are not
being perceived as difficult, but we have to go very siow and use
good business sense. The "housing advocates" are rushing,
Habitat is rushing, some of the Planning Commissioners were
rushing, and some of our Esmont residents are rushing. WHY?
This a volunteer organization! The present members may not be
there in a few years, the Commissioners and Supervisors will
probably change.,. .but the houses will be there forever and most
of the residents of Esmont will still be here as we have heen
for generations.
We are looking forward to the Supervisors meeting on April 20th.
I really feel that "most" of the people have pure motives in this
situation and want to do the right t~ing. Mistakes have already
been :made and we want to minimize any future errors. Amazingly,
nc one has gotten bent out of shape over this.. .and that's good!
My request is that we "deny" or "defer" this request until we can
sift down in a non-hurried fashion and talk indepth about this
project with Habitat.
Sincerely,
&l~
~
,J .( I,.
APR
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Attorney
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-45%
LARRY W, AVIS
COUNTY ATT RNEY
PHONE (804) 972-4067
FAX (804) 972-4068
April 19, 1994
A FACSIMILE
F ederick W, Payne, Esquire
P yne & Hodous
4 2 East Jefferson Street
C arlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: 1781 Productions. Ltd./ Outdoor Theater
Your File Number: 595-93
As discussed at our meeting on April 18, 1994, attached please find additional questions
r lating to the dimensions of the sketch plan which the Board of Supervisors would like you to
a dress at the April 20, 1994, Board meeting,
If you have questions regarding this, please contact me,
Sincerely,
21/L
~~ Davis
County Attorney
L :rcs
E closure
c : Robert W, Tucker, Jr,
Ella W, Carey
-. , l
'- .
"OUTDOOR THEATER"
(Acreage difference of the sketch plan v. site plan)
j mendment
) Please describe the methodologies used in determining the boundaries and dimensions in the
sketch plan.
: ) Please describe the methodology for determining the boundaries of the new parcel, subdivided
out for the theater.
, ) Which pipes shown on the sketch plan were established by prior survey, and which were set
for the purpose of measuring boundaries of the sketch plan?
-/-ohe purpose of these questions is to establish the basis for the difference in property size and
loundaries between the sketch and site plan. By using several scales to cross-reference, it
:: ppears that the acreage of the project as shown by the sketch plan is from about 103 to 133
:: cres, depending on the method of calculation. This is a variation from 3% to 33% from 100
:: cres.
COUNTY OF ALBEM,~RlE
mln f?-...-....,=.. .
,.. . t "....J t....' _~ r r ~ r',' ~-. ---='.
,f ~ f~~:".I_-""'~' .' 1._::: t
~ Ii . ;
, I: :i[ APR 19 1994:. .!
11'1'\1. ", oil
, ~ . I~,-",,--_._.~ ' _ . ~/ ~ ~ i
Ii c. I 'l..' 1 '.--' '..'...O=~f I U. ,
I.;f L' L:~ \.....'." ~ I..' I.! n.
c...._''''~, ~ ............1.1. G9 ~ l .
AffOONl:Y ;S OFFICE
Payne & Hodous
Attorneys at Law
412 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Frederick . Payne
Robert P. Hodous
Telephone: 804-977-4507
Facsimile: 804-977-6574
Donna R. DeLoria
April l8, 1994
I appreciated you and Bob Tucker taking time out to meet with
m this morning. I think it allowed us an opportunity to clear the
a'r regarding several issues.
rry W. Davis, Esquire
unty Attorney for Albemarle County
bemarle County Office Building
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
API(
Hand
<.:~ ~:)
595-93--l78l Productions, Ltd.
Larry:
Enclosed please find the written answers to the questions you
nt us last week. I have prepared these in conjunction with Mr.
d Mrs. McRaven, and all three of us will plan to be at the
eting on Wednesday evening. It is my understanding that, in
d ference to my commitment, the matter will not be taken up until
7:30 p.m. at the earliest, and I will plan to attend at that time.
I understood from Mr. Tucker that there may be other
estions. As we discussed this morning, we agreed to provide
di tional information on the understanding that the questions
uld be posed in writing, in advance. We will be happy to try to
swer other questions, assuming we have them sufficiently in
vance to allow a reasonable opportunity to prepare answers.
If anything further remains to be done, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
~~
Frederick W. Payne
E closure
f (wi att't): Mr. and Mrs. Charles McRaven
COUNTY OF ALBEMP-P,t-:-cE
r-:i n n ,., r:", . ..:)
m1b;\ ,<c , "'(."J,;.,). ' 1.'\
\.G\ APR 18199... 4: ",! \ '\
I 1\ H~' U
Ifu '"2rSll CI~@
ATTORN~ '( ~3 OFFICE
1781 PRODUCTIONS, LTD.
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
April 20, 1994
The following answers are submitted in response to the
estions posed on behalf of the board of supervisors under cover
April ll, 1994. As the McRavens understand the situation, the
ard of supervisors will use these answers, in part, to decide
ether or not they will appeal the decision of the board of zoning
peals of March 29, 1994. Everyone appears to understand that the
ard has no authority to require the McRavens to provide the
swers to these questions. But the McRavens are willing to make
e more attempt to accommodate the concerns of the board by
oviding additional information.
The McRavens must note that the issue before the board of
ning appeals was whether the site plan as submitted conforms to
e conditions of the special use permit. Many of the questions
sed now have nothing to do with the special use permit--to the
tent that they are properly the subject of the County's review,
ey are questions for site plan review and are therefore
emature. It is to be hoped, however, that, in raising these
q estions at this stage, later stages of the process can be
s'mplified. Moreover, many of the decisions leading up to the
d sign of specific features on the site plan were made in the
e ercise of sophisticated professional engineering judgment, which
n ither the board nor any other lay body is competent to review.
In consideration of these questions, the reader is referred,
addition, to the written materials and oral testimony submitted
the board of zoning appeals on behalf of the McRavens. The
cumentation was voluminous, including detailed drawings and
unts of trees, etc., and the discussion went on for some three
urs. Much of the information elicited by these questions has
eviously been addressed.
Finally, the board should be aware that, as a direct result of
t e delay imposed by the erroneous actions of the County staff
s nce September, the McRavens have incurred over $l2,000 in
e gineering fees. (To put this in perspective, this represents an
a ount equal to some 40% over and above the entire amount budgeted
f r engineering for the entire project.) Attorney's fees are in a
s'milar amount. Indirect costs (lost time from work, lost
o portunity costs and revenue, etc.) are not as easily quantifiable
a this time, but they certainly run into the hundreds of thousands
o dollars.
A. SEPTIC FIELDS
l. Location and confiouration of septic fields: The septic fields
are located in the areas determined by the health department
to contain the soils most suitable for septic field usage.
1
The use of the best soils was required by the health
department. (It should be noted that condition #2 of the
special use permit requires that the health department approve
the septic system before the site plan is even submitted, let
alone approved.)
The configuration was determined by (a) the topography, (b)
the location of the best soils, (c) the area of drainfield
required by the health department and (d) the design which
would involve the least disturbance of existing trees and soil
areas. The total area of drainfields was established by the
health department at a total approximately 50% greater than
that which the McRavens believe would be adequate. Each of
the drainfields is designed like a residential facility--not
a commercial one. This design allows a number of small fields
to be disbursed over the entire area of the best soils,
thereby permitting the fields to be located so as to avoid
trees and to take advantage of areas of maximum percolation
susceptibility. Both the McRavens and the health department
agree that such a design is greatly to be preferred over a
single large field more typical of commercial application.
2. Alternative septic field sites: As noted above, the
proposed septic fields are shown in the locations dictated by
the health department. This cannot be changed without a basic
change in position by the health department. Whether or not
it would be physically possible to move the drainfields1
cannot be determined without detailed engineering. However,
it is possible to say with confidence that, if the drainfields
were moved to the west, since the soils are not as good for
septic disposal, the fields themselves would necessarily be
larger and/or more numerous, thereby necessitating the removal
of a greater number of trees and the disturbance of more
earth. Because such sites would necessarily be downhill, they
would have an inevitable tendency to impact the wet-weather
stream which drains this portion of the property.
3. Areas of soil testino: The original soils testing map is
attached to the McRavens' submittal to the board of zoning
appeals, showing testing on essentially the whole property.
Because the original testing showed the area in question to be
most sui table, the health department required additional,
si te-specific testing. This close-grid testing was performed,
in mid-1993, under the supervision of Gary Rice of the health
department. The new tests served to confirm, and to refine,
the findings of the original tests.
lThe question is ambiguous, but the McRavens interpret the
pJ1rase "further from the property line (in line with the theater)"
to ask whether the fields could be moved to the west.
2
4 Construction method: These drainfields will be constructed
using the lightest possible equipment (probably a trencher and
a backhoe), under the immediate supervision of Mr. McRaven.
Mr. McRaven has over 40 years' experience in the installation
of septic drainfields, most of them on sites covered in
second-growth hardwood forest, similar to this site. As Mr.
McRaven told the board of zoning appeals, over that period of
time he has installed hundreds of systems, most of them on
wooded terrain, and he has consistently succeeded in
preserving existing woods. In fact, over that time, he has
never lost an existing tree as a result of septic field
installation.
5. Removal of trees other than those located directly above the
septic lines; width of tree removal area for lines: In all
cases, the drain lines can be oriented so that no trees need
be removed at all. The lines are approximately three feet in
width (l8" on each side of a centerline). It is noteworthy
that certain portions of the best soils area were covered in
pine trees which have died from beetle infestation since the
ini tial engineering of the fields. This will make the task of
preserving trees even simpler.
6. Replantinq: Areas disturbed will be replanted with fast-
growing grasses to prevent soil erosion. Thereafter, the area
will be allowed to grow up in natural vegetation. After the
first growing season, it will be impossible to tell that the
area has ever been disturbed.
~~ PUMP STATIONS
The pumps are items which have nothing whatever to do with the
theatrical use of the property. On the contrary, they are
f~cilities which are of a type and size commonly used for
residences in the RA district. Certainly, the presence or the
lpcation of such pumps have nothing whatever to do with whether the
site plan is in "general accord" with the sketch submitted by the
MbRavens. Nevertheless, in the interest of accommodation, the
MbRavens answer the questions as follows:
1. Size and appearance: The precise design of the pump
stations has not yet been established. However, it is settled
that they will be below grade and therefore will be invisible.
The pumps which will be used are similar to well pumps and
must be submerged to perform their function. Similar pumps
are installed at Michie Tavern, where they can be viewed by
the public. Because they are underground, they are invisible.
In size they are approximately seven and one-half horsepower.
2. Reason for location: Pumps, by their nature, are devices
to defeat gravity. For this reason, it is essential that they
be located in particular locations with respect to terrain,
3
i.e., at the bottom of hills. The site plan shows the pumps
in such locations. The particular locations have been chosen
in the exercise of sound engineering, based on the
professional judgment of the designer. TO move them would be
not only arbitrary, but also would depart from sound
engineering principles and would therefore violate the terms
of Section 32.1 of the zoning ordinance.
3 Noise qeneration: The pumps in question operate on demand,
when the system is in use. Therefore, it can be anticipated
that they will operate when the system to which they are
attached is in operation, i.e., during the hours of operation
of the theater. (Obviously, therefore, it is in the McRavens'
interest to keep all noise to a minimum so as not to distract
from the play.) The "noise" generated by such pumps is
negligible and would be literally inaudible to a person
standing directly atop the pump station.
Q~ WATER TANK
The water tank is an item which has nothing whatever to do
w~th the theatrical use of the property. On the contrary, it is a
facility which is of a type and size commonly used for residences
i~ the RA district. Certainly, the presence or the location of
s~ch a tank has nothing whatever to do with whether the site plan
i~ in "general accord" with the sketch submitted by the McRavens.
N~vertheless, in the interest of accommodation, the McRavens answer
the questions as follows:
1 Location: The water tank will be located in the woods,
approximately 75 feet (i.e., three times the RA district's
required side yard for above-qround structures) from the
nearest property line. This property is owned by Messrs
Burruss and Kincannon who are on record as supporting the plan
as submitted. It is to be located underground and will
therefore be invisible from all points on or off the site.
2 ~ Reason for location: The tank in question is necessary to
provide reasonable water pressure, which is provided by
gravity. Because of this, it is critical that the tank be
located at the highest possible elevation. Moving the tank
anywhere else would reduce water pressures unacceptably unless
booster pumps were installed, which is neither efficient nor
practical. Moreover, a gravity tank will permit water
availability in times of power failure, an important
consideration in a rural site.
3 Disturbance of wooded area: The tank can, and will, be
installed without the disturbance of any significant trees.
4 Need for pump: A pump is necessary to bring the water from the
well to the tank. This pump will be located inside the well,
4
approximately l/2 mile from the pressure tank, and l50 feet
underground. Like any other in-well pump, it will be
noiseless at the surface of the ground. As noted above, the
tank will generate water pressure by gravity alone.
.QF- PARKING
1 Location of main parkinq area: The main parking area is
located, as was always planned and described by the McRavens,
beyond the third ridge on the property. It was designated for
this location so that it would be invisible from Route 250 and
from all adj acent residences. The site plan shows the parking
in precisely this location, and, as designed, it will be
entirely invisible from all adj acent dwellings and public
roads. The parking areas are planned to be integrated into
the existing wooded area with minimal tree removal. By Mr.
Gloeckner's estimate, the proposed design will reduce tree
removal by over 30% as compared to the staff's interpretation
of the sketch. Any substantial change in this design would
sacrifice the benefit of topography in shielding adjacent
properties from the parking areas and would be generally
discordant with the sketch, thereby violating the terms of the
special use permit.
2. Employee and handicapped parking: Parking for the handicapped
is required to be located within a narrow range of distance
and topography from the attraction, in this case, the theater.
The handicapped parking area is located in the only area which
satisfies the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the Uniform Statewide Building Code without massive
grading. Al though possible, it is poor design, if not
downright hazardous, to intermix bus traffic and parking with
parking for ordinary automobiles. Therefore, it is not
desirable to locate employee parking and bus parking in the
same location. On the other hand, since an area must be
disturbed for handicapped parking anyway, a small additional
area will be sufficient for employee parking. Moreover, since
employees must not infrequently have immediate access to their
vehicles, putting the employee parking near the theater
eliminates the need for a separate, dedicated service road.
It should be noted that the handicapped parking area is almost
1/4 mile from the nearest adjacent residence and is shielded
from it by existing trees and the crest of a ridge.
~~ ELECTRIC LINE
The electric line is a use expressly permitted by right in the
R~ zone (zoning ordinance Section 10.2.1.6.) and has absolutely
nbthing to do with the conditions of the special use permit.
Tnerefore, it is improper even to discuss this line in the context
o~ the decision of the board of zoning appeals. Its design,
lbcation and character are entirely within the control of
5
Abpalachian Power. The McRavens will do everything reasonably
w~thin their control to encourage Appalachian Power to design the
l~ne, with respect to location as well as physical design, so as to
m~nimize its impact on the theater property, as well as on adjacent
properties and public roads. However, since the design and
installation of this line are not wi thin their control, they
c~nnot, and will not, commit to any particular design.
The location of the line shown on the site plan, along the easterly
p~operty line, will require very little clearing, most of the area
in question has already been cleared by the former owner of the
p"'operty, under the supervision of the Virginia Department of
Fprestry, to contain a dangerous infestation of southern pine
beetle.
f:i!- INTERNAL ROAD
Alianment of entrance road: The McRavens do not understand
the board's use of the word "encroaches". The road enters the
woods, as does the road shown on the sketch, because it is
necessary to do so to provide access to the theater.
The road alignment shown on the plan was adopted with three
conscious objectives: (1) To make the entrance road as nearly
as possible invisible to dwellings on adjacent properties, in
particular the Dorsey property to the west; (2) to minimize
tree removal; and (3) to minimize grading and other earth
disturbance. As designed, the road intersects Route 250 at
the point, and with the alignment, required by VDOT. It then
follows the topography of the open area, generally parallel
to, but lower than, the crest of the ridges on the property.
The point at which the road enters the wooded area was
specifically chosen with respect to the topography and the
point where there were no significant trees in the alignment
necessary to provide access to the theater. To make any
significant change in this design would undoubtedly cause
additional tree removal and land disturbance and increased
paving.
Therefore, in summary, the proposed location of the road is
dictated by sound engineering principles and the minimization
of disturbance of the existing environment of the site.
To propose that the road be "relocated as shown on the sketch"
is to manifest a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the
sketch. It is not possible to "relocate" the road "as shown
on the sketch" because no one can say, with any degree of
certainty where "as shown on the sketch" is--the sketch has no
scale, distorts the depiction of the property and manifestly
was never intended as anything other than a general guide to
development. It might be possible to locate the road entirely
in the open area of the site, but this could only be done at
6
, .
. .
the expense of greatly increased grading and sacrificing the
buffering effect of the existing topography, to the detriment
of views of adjacent properties. While it is difficult to be
sure in light of the imprecision inherent in the sketch, the
McRavens' designer has estimated that to build the road as the
staff has apparently interpreted it would require the removal
of 84% more significant trees and substantially more earth
disturbing activity.
G. SUMMARY
The site plan as submitted represents the best effort of a
distinguished engineer to produce a site plan which has the
minimum effect on the natural environment. As Mr. Gloeckner
stated at the board of zoning appeals meeting, an engineer
such as himself thinks not only in three dimensions but in
four or even five "dimensions". One of these additional
"dimensions" is topography, while another is vegetation. In
other words, a design engineer must consider, not only
elevation, length and width, but also the effect of grades and
vegetation. Thus, it makes no sense to say that a particular
feature should be located at the "center" of the property,
without taking due account of both topography and vegetation
as well as the length, breadth and elevation. With this
qualification in mind, the answer, to the question is that the
features shown on the site plan are already in the "center" of
the property.
In summary, then, it is the professional judgment of the
design engineer--who is charged by the laws of the
Commonwealth with the protection of the public, not merely the
gratification of his client's desires--that each of the
features of the site plan is shown in the location where it
has always been planned and where it will have the least
impact on the environment while still producing the desired
effect. Any substantial change to the features of the plan
would damage the integrity of the plan and adversely affect
the environment of the site.
Respectfully submitted,
l78l PRODUCTIONS, LTD.
ederick W. payn
2 East Jefferson Street
arlottesville, Virginia 22902
04)977-4507
7
,'-
..,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Attorney
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
LARRY W , AVIS
COUNTY ATT RNEY
'PHoN'E"(B04) 972-4067
FAX (804) 972-4068
April 11,1994
V A FACSIMILE
F ederick W. Payne, Esquire
P yne & Hodous
4 2 East Jefferson Street
C arlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: 1781 Productions. Ltd.! Outdoor Theater
Your File Number: 595-93
Attached please find a list of questions which the Board of Supervisors desires to be
a dressed at the April 20, 1994 meeting to which you and your clients have been invited to
p esent information regarding the site plan for the outdoor theater. It is the intent of the Board to
Ii -t its questions to the attached list and any related follow-up questions.
Thank you for your cooperation.
With best regards, I am
Sincerely,
~~
County Attorney
:rcs
closure
c : Robert W, Tucker, Jr.
Ella W, Carey
~ ..
. I
...
781 Productions, Inc./Outdoor Theater
uestions from the Board of Supervisors
SEPTIC FIELDS
What dictates this location and configuration?
Are there alternate designs which could bring the fields
further from the property line (in line with the theater)?
What areas were soil tested, and why were they chosen?
What is the method that will be used for their construction?
Will any trees other than those located directly above the
septic lines be removed? What is the width of thE~ tree
removal area for the septic lines?
How will the area be replanted where trees are removed which
are lost due to construction and which would not otherwise
interfere with the drainfields?
PUMP STATIONS
Describe them In terms of Slze, appearance.
What dictates the location?
adjacent to the theater?
Could they be relocated to be
What level and what times would nOlse be generated?
WATER TANK
Where will it be located, with respect to the woods and the
property line?
Ivhat dictates the location? Could it be located adjacent to
the vJ e 11 lot?
How much wooded area will be disturbed for the construction?
will it require a pump? If yes, when and how much noise will
it generate?
.
/~
~
781 Productions, Inc.jOutdoor Theater
uestions from Board of Supervisors
age 2
PARKING
MAIN AREA
Why is it proposed beyond the tree line into the wooded area?
LOWER LOT FOR EMPLOYEES AND HANDICAP
Why is the employee parking with the handicap parking not in
the open area with the bus parking, as shown on the sketch
plan?
ELECTRIC LINE
Describe the width and location of the easement.
What will be the restricted
respect to the property line)
location
with
area (width and
fo'r plantings?
What dictates this location? Could it be relocated along the
road, for example?
INTERNAL ROAD
Why is it in an alignment such that it encroaches into the
i-lOoded area?
What dictates this location?
on the sketch along the open
Could it be relocated as shown
area?
SUMMARY- SEPTIC FIELDS, PUMP STATION, WATER TANK,
INTERNAL ROAD
Are there specific enqineerinq constraints which would
prohibit relocation of any or all of these features to areas
more central to the site?
A&'2::;\j~ ~"'';7r -'tQ
. _ .4[~ s, z"'i
9/3, (} 'U-Y..::3:.Y5
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Attorney
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-45%
LARRY W, AVIS
COUNTY ATT RNEY
PHONE (804) 972-4067
FAX (804) 972-4068
April 8, 1994
V A FACSIMILE
F derick W. Payne, Esquire
P yne & Hodous
4 2 East Jefferson Street
C arlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: 1781 Productions. Ltd.
Your File Number: 595-93
Pursuant to our earlier discussions, please let this advise that the Board of Supervisors has
e tended an invitation to you and your clients to present information to the Board regarding the
si e plan for the proposed outdoor theater. The matter will be on the Board's agenda for April 20,
1 94, To accommodate you the matter can be placed at the end of the regular agenda, The
a enda for that date is not very long, After the agenda is finalized we can let you know the
a proximate time at which you will need to be present.
A specific list of questions which the Board wishes for you to address is being prepared
a d will be forwarded to you as soon as possible,
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please give me a call,
With best regards, I am,
L :rcs
c : Robert W, Tucker, Jr.
Ella W. Carey
Sincerely,
-2-~~
~avis
, ,i "A
.4
."
Payne & Hodous
Attorneys at Law
412 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Frederick . Payne
Robert P. Hodous
Telephone: 804-977-4507
Facsimile: 804-977-6574
April 6, 1994
Donna R. DeLoria
rry W. Davis, Esquire
unty Attorney
bemarle County Office Building
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, Virginia 2290l-4596
By hand
595-93--l78l Productions, Ltd.
Larry:
This will respond to the question which you posed in our
lephone conversation of this afternoon. I have conveyed to the
Ravens the invitation of the board of supervisors to explain
eir position with respect to their appeal which was approved by
t e board of zoning appeals on March 29, 1994. The McRavens are
w'lling to provide the board with additional information, as more
p rticularly set forth. Before responding to your question,
h wever, I think a word of background is appropriate:
After almost two years of intensive (and expensive)
eparation and discussion, culminating in the approval of the
ecial use permi t, the McRavens submi tted a detailed,
ofessionally-prepared site plan, at the expense of many thousands
dollars, in September of 1993. Approximately a month later, the
aff informed them that it would not review the plan for reasons
ich appeared then (and appear now) to have been erroneous. The
ning administrator thereafter concurred in this action by the
anning staff.
The staff offered three alternatives:
(l) Amend the site plan to conform to what the staff said was
rrect;
( 2 ) Apply to the board of supervisors for an amendment to the
ecial use permit, in effect, for the board of supervisors to
prove the site plan;
(3) Appeal the decision of the zoning administrator to the
ard of zoning appeals.
The McRavens considered all of these alternatives.
The first made no sense, since both the McRavens and their
u iquely qualified professional designer sincerely believed that
t e site plan already complied with the condition. In addition,
.('
Davis, Esquire
Page 2
April 6, 1994
think about so doing would have required a complete
eengineering of the septic system--which had already been designed
s the health department had required. Finally, to do so was
rankly impossible: The planning staff and the zoning
dministrator told us that the site plan was not acceptable, but
not tell us how it should be changed so that it would
The second made no sense to us. Our designer believes that
he site plan does conform to the sketch--how, then, could the
ermi t conditions be changed to conform to something which was
lready the case? In addition, it has always appeared to us that
he board of supervisors did not wish to be involved in the site
lan design at the special permit stage: If it did so, this \otould
e virtually unprecedented. Moreover, the board had (in condition
umber 8) already authorized the staff to review the site plan,
ai ving even review by the planning commission. The staff knew
hat it had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the board
informally, but, apparently, it declined to do so.
This left us with the third alternative which the staff
suggested we could do. Having no other, we accepted this
suggestion by the staff and appealed the zoning administrator's
ecision. The board of zoning appeals--a neutral and detached body
the specific responsibility of deciding such cases--agreed
our position was correct.
We appreciate the concern of the board of supervisors for the
integrity of the process, but we think it is important for the
oard to recognize that these actions by the staff have put the
cRavens in an almost impossible position. The staff's position
as caused the McRavens to spend, as direct expenses, a number of
thousands of dollars in expert designer fees, some $3500 in
ttorney's fees and hundreds of hours of their own time, not to
ention the fact that the delay has cost them at least one season
f performances and literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in
1 st revenue. They have produced detailed explanations, in writing
a d in the course of a three-hour public hearing, supplemented with
drawings and other exhibits. They have satisfied everything which
as ever been lawfully asked of them.
Accordingly, the McRavens must respectfully decline to rehash
all of the information which has gone before. This is not because
ey merely do wish to, or even because they think it is terribly
fair. They simply cannot pay to have myself and at least one
sign expert present the same information which was presented
fore to the board of zoning appeals.
On the other hand, the McRavens are sensitive to the needs of
e board to be fully informed. Therefore, in an effort to
commodate the board, the McRavens will be happy to provide
swers to specific questions. In the interest of ensuring that
Larry W. Davis, Esquire
Page 3
April 6, 1994
all such questions be answered fully, completely and efficiently,
tlhese questions need to be provided to us, in advance and in
\liriting.
Wi th respect to the date, the McRavens feel that it is
i~portant for me to be available to represent them before the
bpard. I have a family commitment on April 20 and would therefore
p~efer another date, although I cannot vouch to the board that I am
a~solutely unavailable on that date.
I hope this responds to your inquiry. I look forward to
r~ceiving the quest10ns to which the board wishes answers.
Sincerely yours,
~~
Frederick W. Payne
fb: Mr. and Mrs. Charles McRaven
..
Payne & Hodous
Attorneys at Law
412 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Fred . k W. Payne
Robert P. Hodous
Telephone: 804-977-4507
Facsimile: 804-977-6574
Donna R. DeLoria
March 23, 1994
Mr. George W. Bailey
Chandler, Franklin & O'Bryan
2564 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 2290l
Mr. Richard P. Cogan
Sugar Hollow Road
White Hall, Virginia
Max C. Kennedy, Esquire
810 Emerson Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 2290l
Mr. W. L. Rennolds
l025 Blackburn Bluff
Charlottesville, Virginia 2290l
Mr. Carl M. Van Fossen
c/o Hanckel-Ci tzens Insurance
Agency .
3rd and East Jefferson-Streets
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
BY HAND
File 595-93--l78l Productions, Ltd--AP 94-0l
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please a memorandum in support of the applicants'
posi tion in the above-captioned appeal to the Board of Zoning
Appeals. I apologize in advance for its length, but the importance
to the applicants of your decision in this matter is so great that
I did not feel that it would be appropriate to make it less
comprehensive.
Sincerely yours,
.~~
Frederick W. Payne
Enclosure
cc (w / enc.):
Mr. and Mrs. Charles McRaven
Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner
Mr. W. S. Roudabush
Ms. Amelia G. McCulley
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
-..;~
RECEIVED
MAR 24 1994
ALBEMARlE COUNlY
ZONING DEPARTMENT
..
for it. It was clear to everyone--including the County's staff,
the planning commission and the board of supervisors--that the
sketch was nothing more than the most general guide to development
and that all of the necessary precise design would be done if--and
only if--the board of supervisors approved the special permit.
The McRavens' dream, and the intent with which they undertook
the project, was to provide a facility for family entertainment to
residents as well as visitors, in celebration of the County's
history. It has always been central to their plans that the
theater site retain the secluded, wooded, rural character of the
Albemarle of Jack Jouett's time, as free as possible from intrusion
of the works of the 20th Century, while at the same time providing
for the safety and convenience of its patrons, its neighbors and
the general public.
It was with this intent in mind that the McRavens engaged Kurt
Gloeckner, a prominent surveyor and engineer, and charged him to
turn their vision into reality. Gloeckner's commission was to take
the general concept and to design a facility for the real world,
satisfying both the intent of the McRavens and the board of
supervisors, as well as the technical requirements of the zoning
ordinance (including the conditions of the special use permit), the
building code, the regulations of the health department, the
standards of the department of transportation and sound
professional judgments regarding engineering and design. The
evidence will show that Gloeckner's plan surpasses all of these
stringent criteria, and satisfies every design standard, subject
only to minor modifications.
Nevertheless, the staff continues its mechanistic insistence
on assimilating a layman's uki tchen-table" sketch to a
professional's design, and the McRavens must rely on this Board to
restore to the process common sense and fairness, to allow them to
turn their dream into reality.
Historical Backqround
The history of this proj ect goes back several years. When the
McRavens first conceived the idea, it was apparent that several
steps were necessary to its realization. Because of its historical
subject, it was obviously inappropriate that the theater be located
amid the noise and traffic of a modern commercial area. Instead,
it was important that a site be chosen in the rural area of .the
County 'which preserved the character of the Albemarle of
Revolutionary times, and this meant a site in the RA district. But
the RA district regulations then in effect did not provide for such
a facility as a permitted use. For this reason, the McRavens
applied to amend the ordinance to add a new use to those permitted
in the district.
The planning staff opposed the application. However, after a
2
..
protracted debate, in June of 1992, the board of supervisors
disagreed with the staff's recommendation and approved the concept
by adding to the list of permitted uses a new section 10.2.2.44.
"Theatre, outdoor drama."2
With the amended ordinance in hand, the McRavens carried on
their search for a proper site, one which would provide the proper
ambience for the theater, in the area in which the historical
events portrayed had actually occurred, while at the same time
preserving the character of the area in which it would be located.
Over 100 sites were considered, but only a handful satisfied the
McRavens' strict criteria. The first site they chose was near
Milton, and the McRavens applied for a special use permit for that
site.
Once again, the staff opposed the application. In a vain
attempt to satisfy the staff's opposition, the McRavens--with the
specific instructions, knowledge, encouragement and approval of the
staff--spent tens of thousands of dollars on detailed engineering
and design studies on such technical subjects as surface water
runoff, parking and ~oad construction, wastewater disposal and
topography. Nevertheless, the staff could not be satisfied and
maintained its opposition. As a result, the planning commission
recommended rejection of the permit for the site in the fall of
1992.
Wishing to ,avoid further uproar, the McRavens elected not to
pursue this application and, i~stead, set out to find an
alternative site which would avoid the criticisms which the staff
had leveled at the Milton site. In an effort to satisfy these
concerns, the McRavens arranged a meeting with the county
executive, the director of the planning staff and two members of
the board of supervisors in December, 1992. At that time, the
staff suggested that, this time, the McRavens should provide with
their application for a special use permit at the Boyd Tavern site
drawings showing the proposed development. Having already wasted
many thousands of dollars in design work, the McRavens responded
that, at such an early stage of the project, it would be neither
realistic nor practical to provide such drawings. The County's
representatives assured the McRavens that such detailed plans would
not be necessary, that the only thing that would be needed would be
a "rough sketch" showing "bubbles" to indicate particular design
features.
Based on these discussions, and on discussions with the staff
on site, Mr. McRaven produced a sketch of the proposed development
at the Boyd Tavern site of approximately 100 acres (as opposed to
2The importance of this decision is suggested by the fact that
this was the first new use allowed in the RA district in almost
five years.
3
63 acres at Milton), taking into account such items as the staff's
recommendation that the property contain sufficient land to provide
for buffering from adjacent properties and a 1989 preliminary soil
study, with an eye to using the existing topography and vegetation
so as to minimize grading, clearing and other disturbance of the
natural characteristics of the site. The McRavens spent many hours
of their own time, as well as that of their consultants, planning
the location of the various features of the development, all of
which were shown to the staff on the ground at the site. In early
1993, a new special permit application was submitted for the Boyd
Tavern site, accompanied by the rough sketch.
This time, the staff did not oppose the application, although
they continued to remind the planning commission and the board of
supervisors that they had opposed locating this use in the RA
district. After many hours of consultation and discussion,
including tours of the site with the staff, the neighboring
landowners, members of the planning commission and five of the six
members of the board of supervisors, the board approved the special
use permit, subject to a large number of conditions relating to
traffic, noise, sewage disposal, water, parking, screening and the
like. -
There only remained for the McRavens to satisfy the staff that
their development complied with the zoning ordinance and other
technical requirements through the approval of a detailed site
plan. It is noteworthy that the board of supervisors, in its
approval of the special use permit, had authorized the staff to
review the site plan without submitting it to the planning
commission.
The McRavens assigned the task of designing the project to
Kurt Gloeckner, who is licensed by the Commonwealth as both an
engineer and a surveyor. The choice of a designer was not made
lightly. The McRavens, themselves deeply involved in the
restoration of historic buildings, took great pains to choose a
design professional wi th extensi ve experience in historic
preservation. As is apparent from his resume (Attachment 1), in
~is more than 30 years of engineering, Mr. Gloeckner has
successfully completed designs for hundreds of projects, including
~ number for the County itself and, more importantly, for such
~istoric properties as Montpelier, Ash Lawn, Michie Tavern, Spring
~ill, the University of Virginia and--the greatest of all historic
~ites in the County--Mr. Jefferson's Monticello.
Again, many hundreds of hours--and tens of thousands of
~ollars--were spent in preparing a plan which would satisfy, not
~erely the minimum criteria of the zoning ordinance, but the strict
~emands of historic and environmental sensitivity. In the fall of
993, Mr. Gloeckner submitted his plan for review by the County's
~taff.
4
Notwithstanding these extraordinary measures, the staff has
once again chosen to substitute its own judgment for that of a
uniquely qualified professional design engineer, thereby ignoring
both good planning and the clear mandate of the board of
supervisors itself. In October of 1993, the staff informed the
McRavens that it would not review the plan, but instead would
neither approve nor reject it as the law requires.
The Nature of the Sketch
As noted above, the sketch which was submitted with the
special use permit application was never intended as anything but
a general guide for the development. This sketch is attached as
Attachment C to the staff report.3 At the time it was submitted,
the boundaries of the parcel of land had not even been determined,
and no precise design had been attempted. The sketch was done by
Mr. McRaven, a layman in surveying and design. It is not to scale,
and therefore it cannot be used to locate, with any degree of
precision, any of its features. The staff knew, and approved,
these limitations in advance.
Nevertheless, the McRavens knew the p"roperty well and had
given careful thought to where the most important features should
be located with respect to the land itself. In particular, the
si te contains a natural bowl which is perfectly suited to the
construction of an outdoor theater with minimal grading.
Importantly, the topography of this location shields it from all
adjacent properties both as to sight and sound. This site was
shown, on the ground, to several members of the staff--notably
including the zoning administrator--and literally dozens of others,
including the supervisors. Sound tests (including the firing of a
flintlock rifle) were performed at this location, in the presence
of the planning staff, the zoning administrator, a technician from
the County police and representative neighboring landowners.
The McRavens located the theater site on the ground and
themselves measured the distance from center stage to the
approximate proposed property line to be about 600 feet. It is
this measurement--and not some imagined "buffer" --which is shown on
the sketch.
Similarly, it was obvious that parking would be needed for
3The original sketch was not colored or otherwise refined.
The staff has apparently chosen to color parts of the sketch on its
own to present to the Board. The McRavens were not consulted as to
these alterations and object to them on the ground that they do not
accurately reflect the document which was submitted by the McRavens
and considered by Mr. Gloeckner and the board of supervisors. On
the contrary, these modifications are intended to bolster the
staff's position and to mislead the Board.
5
theater-goers, arriving both by private automobile and by bus, as
well as access for service vehicles and such specialized visitors
as handicapped persons. All of these facilities are subject to
detailed design regulations imposed by the County, the Commonwealth
and--in the case of handicapped access--by federal law. None of
them could be precisely located without detailed professional
engineering design. The staff was aware that none of these
locations could be--or were intended to be--depicted on the sketch
with precision. In fact, Mr. Cilimberg himself told the board of
supervisors that, at the time the special use permit application
was approved, the staff did not even know how many parking spaces
would be required and that "parking is dealt with at the site plan
level" . ·
What was known was that there were ridges on the property and
that, if the parking were located on the south side of these
ridges, the topography of the property would make the parking areas
invisible from Route 250 and adjacent residences. This is where
the McRavens intend--and depicted--the parking to be located.
Thirdly, everyone understood that it would be necessary to
build a road to carry visitors from Route 250 to the theater and
parking areas. A rough track used qy hunters and loggers exists on
the property, but it was understood by all concerned that this
track would be neither useful nor appropriate for a finished road.
Nevertheless, its general location--across the unwooded portion of
the property--was desirable as long as its actual construction were
done so as to' minimize tree cutting, grading, visibility from
neighboring properties and to be consistent with requirements of
the Department of Transportation.
Fourthly, it was clearly necessary to provide sanitary
facili ties for the site, including a system for disposal of
wastewater. At the time the sketch was drawn, no one--including
the staff--knew where the necessary septic drainfields should be
located or even how large an area would be required by the health
department. What was known was that a preliminary soils study had
been done by a previous owner in 1989 (see Attachment 2), and this
study suggested that the best site for septic drainfields would be
in the wooded area between the theater and Route 250. The board of
supervisors was aware that the system could not be designed without
the input of the health department and required that the site plan
could not even be submitted until the health department had
approved the septic (and water) systems. See condition 2. of the
special use permit.
Other features--including the dressing rooms,
storage
.Cilimberg's comments are shown on page 1l of the minutes of
the meeting of the board of supervisors of May 12, 1993, attached
to the staff report as Attachment J.
6
buildings, walkways, gatehouse, water storage facilities, etc.,
were known by the staff to be intended, but could not be shown on
such a general sketch.
In short, the sketch was conceptual. Everyone understood the
limited character of the sketch, and no one ever intended that the
sketch be used to implement actual construction. On the contrary,
this was the function of the site plan.
The Site Plan
As noted above, Gloeckner's firm was chosen to implement the
esign. The McRavens could not--and did not--presume to dictate to
loeckner how to design the project in detail. Their instructions
o him were to design the project, in general accord with the
ketch and in compliance with the conditions of the special use
ermit, making use of the property's existing terrain and
egetation in order to minimize the disturbance of the natural
onditions and the impact of the development on neighboring roads
nd houses.
Gloeckner's first task was to survey the boundaries of the
roperty to be acquired. The resulting survey _ of the property
hich the McRavens have purchased (attached to the application)
onsists of almost exactly 100 acres and comes out of two parent
arcels. While the sketch, because of its lack of scale, is
omewhat distorted in shape, the boundaries are recognizable.
Based on this survey, and other extensive engineering work
osting many thousands of dollars, Gloeckner prepared the site
lan, which was submitted, together with a single-sheet generalized
ersion, to the staff. A copy of the generalized version of this
lan--with minor changes made by the staff without the knowledge or
uthorization of Gloeckner or the McRavens--is attached to the
taff report as Attachment D.
Like everyone else involved, Gloeckner knew the proposed
heater location and depicted it on the site plan. Significantly,
enter stage on the site plan is almost exactly 600 feet from the
ow-surveyed property line.5 Gloeckner's precise measurements of
his distance vary less than 1% from the rough measure taken
arlier by the McRavens. Other than minor adjustments needed to
ccommodate actual terrain, etc., the theater itself is exactly
ere the McRavens have always said it would be.
Unlike the McRavens, Gloeckner was able to determine the
n mber of parking spaces required, the size of the spaces, the
d'mensions of traffic aisles, maximum separation of parking spaces
5Center stage is approximately 1300 feet from the nearest
sidence, located to the east.
7
from buildings, detailed topography, handicapped parking
requirements, etc. Gloeckner was aware that the McRavens intended
to locate the parking behind the ridge on the property so as to
hide it from the neighbors and from Route 250, and that is where
the proposed parking lot is located.
The bus parking on the site plan is designed to accommodate
the large dimensions (including turning radii) of these vehicles.
Parking for handicapped and employees is located in accordance
with-the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Uniform Statewide
Building Code--both of which preempt County regulation--as well as
with the zoning ordinance.
Each and everyone of the parking facilities is designed to
take advantage of the existing terrain and to minimize the cutting
of existing trees. Gloeckner has determined which trees will need
to be cut, and, as he will tell the Board, this number is
insignificant. (Gloeckner design will require removal of 36
significant trees; staff interpretation would remove approximately
47 such trees.)
Wi th respect to the access road, -this_ design is constrained by
several factors. First, access to the site is required by
condition 9. of the special use permit to be only from Route 250,
and the department of transportation's design criteria dictate the
location, width and character of the entrance onto Route 250.
Second, good engineering practice dictates the maximum grades and
curves for such a road. In particular, it is important to minimize
vertical grades, but horizontal curves are desirable, because these
tend to encourage visitors to drive slowly. Thirdly, in the
interest of minimizing grading, and its concommitant tendency to
soil erosion, it is desirable to make the road follow the existing
terrain of the site. Fourthly, by following the existing contours
and keeping the road below the hill-crests, the access road can be
made virtually invisible from neighboring houses.
The staff has complained that the Gloeckner road enters the
"woods" at a different point from that shown on the sketch. The
biggest fallacy in this argument is that neither the staff nor
anyone else can pinpoint where the sketch actually locates the
road, since the sketch is not to scale. But, beyond this, what is
important is that both drawings show that the road must enter the
woods at some point, because both of them show the road actually
connecting with the theater site. Unlike the staff's essentially
"straight-line" interpretatiion of the sketch, the Gloeckner design
is made taking into account the actual terrain and the actual--not
generalized--location of trees on the site. Gloeckner has
indi vidually counted the trees which would be affected by the
different approaches, and, as he will tell the Board, his design is
greatly superior in preserving the existing trees. (Gloeckner
approach will require removal of 37 significant trees; staff
8
interpretation would remove approximately 68 significant trees.)
It is readily apparent from comparing the Gloeckner plan to
the sketch that the road is similar in concept to the road shown on
the sketch and only varies to the extent necessary to accommodate
good design.
The final major criticism leveled by the staff at the
Gloeckner plan is that the septic system is not located in the
proper place. During the McRavens' discussions with the staff, it
has been repeatedly pointed out that the septic drain fields shown
on the site plan--which have been actually approved by the health
department--are in the general location designated on the sketch
and that, because there is no scale on the sketch, no one can tell
exactly where the "proposed drainfield area" on the sketch was
intended to be. The staff was, understandably, never able to
respond to this argument, because there is no rational response to
it. Since the appeal was filed, the staff appears to have
discovered that the sketch shows a "buffer" of 600 feet which was
required by the sketch. The problem with this discovery is that it
bears 1).0 relation to the truth. The" 600'" noted on the sketch
was, as noted above, always intended to show the distance from the
theater (at center stage) to the proposed property line, and even.
a casual look at the sketch confirms this intent. Nowhere on the
sketch--or in the written conditions of approval or anywhere else
in the record--is there any mention of such a buffer.
By contrast, the septic drainfields are shown on the Gloeckner
plan in the same area covered by the 1989 soil study. At the time
the sketch was drawn, the health department had not determined how
much area would be required for the drainfields. After the special
use permit was approved and detailed information concerning
proposed water usage, topography, soil characteristics, etc., were
provided to the health department, that agency required that
approximately half again as much area be devoted to drainfields as
the McRavens had believed to be necessary. Nevertheless, by using
the best available soils and by careful use of topography,
selective clearing and minimal soil disturbance, the actual
disturbed area will be dramatically less than what the McRavens, as
well as the health department and the staff, anticipated. It may
be possible to move the drainfields to the west as the staff seems
to wish, but this can only be determined after long delay and at
extravagant expense (measured in tens of thousands of dollars) for
additional engineering. But, more importantly, since it is known
that the soils to the west are not as good for septic disposal,
such a change would necessarily require the clearing of a much
greater number of trees and substantially increased soil
disturbance. (See below.)
The staff (at page 4 of the staff report) declaims that
"modern grading and septic field practices" will tend to reduce the
tree cover on the site. Even if this were true it would be
9
irrelevant, since condition 1. of the special use permit expressly
allows clearing of "those wooded areas necessary to accommodate
development." But, unfortunately for the staff's argument, "modern
grading and septic field practices" tend to encourage, rather than
inhibit, protection of existing trees. Using modern techniques it
is not only possible, but desirable, to clear only the immediate
area to be used for the drainfields themselves, not the areas
surrounding them. Modern drainf ields are installed, not with
bulldozers and similar heavy equipment, but with relatively light
and precise machinery such as a trencher and a backhoe. Because
this type of machinery is smaller, lighter and less intrusive, its
use is not only less destructive but cheaper for the owner to use
and is therefore at least doubly desirable.
Since the filing of this appeal, Gloeckner has refined the
generalized depiction of the site plan to show the proposed
drainfields. See Attachment 3. As the Board can see from this
refined drawing, the areas needed to be disturbed for drainfields
are individually small, can easily be scattered among--rather than
in place of--existing trees, and in no way contribute to reducing
the effective tree buffer of properties to the east. In fact, by
dispersing the fields as Gloeckner has shown, it would be
impossible to tell that the fields even existed for an ob8erv~r
standing on property abutting on the east.6
Gloeckner has gone back and surveyed,individua1ly, the trees
which would remain after completion of the development as proposed,
and this survey is shown on Attachment 4. As Gloeckner will
explain, the number of trees which will need to be removed is truly
minimal. (Gloeckner design will require removal of l6 significant
trees; staff interpretation would destroy between 50 and 60,
depending on exact design.) As the Board can see from the drawing,
once the drainfields are installed, it will be difficult to tell,
even from the air, let along from the ground, that they even exist.
Thus, the staff's position as
supported by neither the drawings
underlying purpose.
to the septic
themselves nor
fields is
by their
The other features shown on the site plan (the minor
buildings, the well, etc.) are perfectly compatible with the
concepts behind the sketch, with the discussions with the staff,
the planning commission and the board of supervisors and really
require no further comment.
6Because the area containing the drainfields is below the
level of the ridge separating the McRaven property from the
adjacent property to the east it is di~ficult to see how such a
~ypothetical observer could see it anyway.
10
Conclusion
The unmistakable conclusion of an unbiased analysis is that
the Gloeckner site plan is not only in general accord with the
sketch, it is in fact in remarkably precise accord with it. The
difference between the two is that the former is done with
professional precision, with greater detail, with greatly refined
factual and legal background and with careful sensi ti vi ty to
environmental concerns. Because the two drawings are, on their
face, so similar, it is difficult to see how a reasonable and
objective person could take the position that the one is not "in
general accord" with the other. While the McRavens are reluctant
to attribute improper motives to the staff, it cannot go unnoticed
that staff has opposed this project, unsuccessfully, at virtually
every stage of review. By contrast, a disinterested
environmentalist is on record by stating that the project deserves
"high marks for environmental sensitivity". See Attachment 5.
The landowners immediately to the east--the ones whom the
staff purports to intend to protect--have examined the issue in
detail, and, as shown on Attachment 6, believe that the Gloeckner
plan is consistent in all material respects with t-he sketch and
provides_ them with all appropriate environmental protection.
Phil Grimm, who served as chairman of the planning commission
at the time the special use permit application was reviewed by the
commission, has expressed his view that the site plan is "in
general accord" with the sketch. See Attachment 7. Since the-
sketch was part of the material considered by the commission, the
McRavens submit that Mr. Grimm's opinion is entitled to great
weight.
Gloeckner will tell you that, in his professional opinion, the
two drawings are identical in concept and essentially similar in
detail. By putting his name on the site plan, he has backed this
opinion with his more than 30 years of learning and experience.
The McRavens have done everything they could to ensure that
they have complied, in all respects, wi th the County's
requirements. To assure themselves that they have done so, they
have, with Gloeckner's emphatic approval, engaged the services of
yet another distinguished design professional to give a second
opinion as to whether the site plan is in general accord with the
sketch. This gentleman, who has no professional association with
Gloeckner and no stake in the approval of the plan, will give you
his unqualified opinion that the site plan is, not only in general
accord with the sketch, but, in his 40 years of experience, almost
uniquely similar to it.
The McRavens' dream has been endorsed by the highest
legislative authority of the County after more than two years of
debate. Their plan has been subjected to scrutiny more detailed
II
and exacting than virtually any other in recent years. Yet, after
all this, the County's staff stands in the way of approval of a
plan which is lawful and proper, on a basis which defies rational
analysis.
Because of the delay in reviewing the site plan since last
October, the McRavens have completely lost the 1994 season and
stand on the brink of not being able to open to the public for
1995. This delay has cost the McRavens many thousands of dollars
in interest expenses and lost revenue.
The zoning administrator's decision is manifestly wrong,
contrary to both the law and the facts and therefore must be
reversed.
For the foregoing reasons, the appellants respectfully urge
that the decision of the zoning administrator be reversed and that
the Board determine that the site plan submitted on their behalf is
in all material respects in compliance with the conditions of SP-
93-07.
Respectfully submitted,
178l PRODUCTIONS, LTD.
CHARLES AND LINDA MCRAVEN
PAYNE & HODOUS ,
~~~
Frederick W. Payne
412 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(804)977-4507
l2
List of Attachments
Attachment 1
Professional resume of Kurt M. Gloeckner, P. E. ,
C.L.S.
Attachment 2
1989 preliminary soils study
Attachment 3
Generalized site plan refined to show actual
drainfield sites
Attachment 4 Generalized site plan showing actual trees to
remain after construction of road, parking,
building, drainfields, etc. (circles indicate
approximate tree canopies--significant trees
actually field-surveyed in critical locations
(~, drainfield locations)--because of printing
limi tations, tree locations under words (~,
"WATER SUPPLY LINE") do not appear'on drawing)
Attachment 5 Letter of May 12, 1993, from David A. Tice of North
American Resource Management, Inc.
Attachment 6 _Letter of March 3, 1994, from abutting landowners
Attachment 7 Letter of February 26, 1994, from Phil T. Grimm,
former chairman of Albemarle County planning
commission
, 13
,---
KURT M. GLOECKNER
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science/Civil Engineering/1959
Virginia Military Institute
Master of Civil Engineering/1965
University of Virginia
National Science Foundation Grant/Structural Dynamics/1963
University of Colorado
Advanced Work in Material Science/196B
University of Virginia
PROFESSIONAL LICENSES
Virginia - Professional Engineer
Virginia - Professional Land Surveyor
West Virginia - Professional Engineer
Maine - Professional Engineer
Maine - Professional Land Surveyor
PLANNING & ZONING EXPERIENCE
Albemarle County Planning Commission - Served 7 Years
2 Comprehensive Plans
2 Subdivision Ordinances
Capital Improvement Projects
Reviewed:
Site Plans
Subdivisions
Rezonings
Special Permits
MILITARY
U. S. Army
2nd and 1 st Lieutenant Airborne Combat Engineer
ATTACHMENT 1
KURT M. GLOECKNER
continued
SOCIAL & PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
American Society of Civil Engineers
National Society of Professional Engineers
Virginia Association of Surveyors
American Congress of Surveying & Mapping
32nd Degree Mason - Widow's Son's Lodge No. 60
B.P.D.E. Lodge 389
EMPLOYMENT & BUSINESS EXPERIENCE
1952 - 1953 (Summer) Virginia Highway Department
Surveyor - Rodman
1953 - 1954 (Summer) Virginia Highway Department
Surveyor - Chain~an
1954 E. I. Dupont
Leadburner - Helper'
1955 - 1959 Virginia Military Institute
1959 - 1960 Virginia Military Institute
Instructor
1960 - 1961 U. S. Army
Airborne Combat Engineer
1961 - 1962 Virginia Military Institute
Instructor
1962 - 1965 Virginia Department of Highways
Highway Research Council Bridge Section - Engineer
1965 - 1968 Virginia Military Institute
Assistant Professor
1968 - 1970 W. S. Roudabush and Assoc.
Surveyor - Engineer
1970 - 1971 Roudabush and Gloeckner
President - P.E. & P.L.S.
KURT M. GLOECKNER
continued
1971 - 1976 Kurt M. Gloeckner
President - P.E. & P.L.S.
1976 - 1978 Gloeckner & Uncoln, Inc.
President - P.E. & P. L. S.
1978 - 1987 Gloeckner, Uncoln & Osborne, Inc.
President - P.E. & P. L. S.
1987 - 1994 Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc.
President - P.E. & P.L.S. '
1994 - Pres Gloeckner, Smith & Coleman, Inc.
President - P.E. & P.L.S.
PLANNING, DESIGN, ENGINEERING OF PROJECTS AND COMPONENTS OF
PROJECTS SIMILAR TO "1781 PRODUCTIONS" SITE PLAN
Highway Entrances
Wintergreen Mountain Village
Piedmont Virginia Community College
Stoney Creek
Monticello
Montpelier
Foxfield Steeple Chase
University of Virginia Parking Lot Entrances
Michie Tavern
Access Drives
Monticello
Montpelier
Piedmont Virginia Community College
Wintergreen - All Subdivisions
Wintergreen - All Condominiums
Blue Springs Farm
Spring Hill
Walnut Creek Park - Albemarle County
Stadium Road Dormitories at University of Virginia
KURT M. GLOECKNER
continued
Parking lots
Monticello
Piedmont Virginia Community College
Foxfield Steeple Chase
JAG School - University of Virginia
Walnut Creek Park - Albemarle County
Scottsville Elementary
Scottsville Elementary - Vehicle Maintenance Facility
Mass Septic Fields
Scottsville Elementary School
Red Hill Elementary School
Walnut Creek Park - Albemarle County
Public Water (Wells)
Walnut Creek Park - Albemarle County
Montpelier Visitors Center
Montessori School
Key West Subdivision
Earlysville Forest Subdivision
Theater Seating
Scott Stadium Additions - Layout
"1781" Milton Site with Architect
Environmentally Sensitive Projects
The Greenbelt Trail - Rivanna River
Walnut Creek Park
Appalachian Trail - Relocate 5 Miles
Monticello - Restore Mountain
A. Mountain
B. Roundabouts
C. Garden
D. Pavilion
. E. Orchards
F. Vineyards
Michie Tavern Craft Shops
Ash Lawn
Montpe!ier
.. .'
..,.~
'U.SURI"ACa .XP'LORATION.. !FOUNDATIONS. .A"TH DAMS. lOlL ANALYSlIlI,
BLAST DAMAOa. GaOLOGICAL . LAND usa 'T,UOIU . R.,.ORT.
"tt ROSe HILL OR "iE, SUITE!
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 221101
18~1 2S13-771C
E. O.
Mr. Hunter Craig
I
Craig Builders
338 Rio Road
Charlottesville,
I
Res
Virginia
22901
Preliminary Soils Study
Parcel 1 and Tract A
State Routes 759, 676 and 616
Albemarle County
Dear Hunter:
As requested we have completed a preliminary soils
investigation at the referenced site. The purpose of the
investigation was to get a general overview of the
suitability of the soils for the disposal of sewage by means
of septic tank/drainfi~ld systems. The investigation has
consisted of orilling forty-three (43) widely-spac~d hand
auger test holes to determine soil profiles. The results of
these soil profiles holes are shown in Table 1. The
approximate location of the test holes is shown on the
enclosed topographic map.
To aid you in your planning, we have divided the soils
into 3 groups; suitable, unsuitable and marginal. Soils that
are considered suitable for drainfields have good depth (36
to 60 inches ) 'and estimated percolation rates that meet the
current Health Department requirements. Soils that are
considered unsuitable for drainfields are either mottled or
have shallow soil cover over bedrock. Marginal soils have
intermediate soil cover (30 to 42 inches) and are usually are
the weathered phyllites. The percolation rates in these
weathered phyllites are quite variable and the only way to
determine if they are suit~ble for drainfields is to run
percolation tests.
We found ~!i~J soils at hOle,~,~ _?-.!._..";r:~~~ ~
~3Jl 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, Ei1 . if1t an~ --
I
I We found unsuitable soils at holes 2, 3, 4, 9, 16, 22, 23,
26~ 31, 33, 36 and 39.
I We found marginal soils at holes 5, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18,
19, 29, 21, 24, 25, 38 and 40.
I
I While there are areas of the property where small lots
I
I
. ,I
ATTACHMENT 2
'.
2
may be feasible, in general, the property appears to be better
sui ed for the development of larger lots (10 to 20 acres).
Eve with large lots there may be areas where it appears it will
be ard to find drainfield sites.
We would like to emphasize that our investigation has been
of preliminary nature. If you decide to develop property a more
det lled study, on a lot by lot basIs, will be necessary.
_We hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions,
ple se let us knoW.
Very truly yours,
E.O. Gooch & Associates
)r~
Steve Gooch
SPG/cg
En 1s.
a
o
o
~
U
.
....
W
(f)Z
0::: a:::
O<{
ICO
o
C>
Z
~
0:::1-
<{ 0 .........
0......J "
z
o
F
()
w
en
0:::
~
C ~
~~~
o:::mo
::><0:::
m()~
C>
Z
~
0:::
\;~
CO
o
\
o
CO
W
N
<{
C>
...........
Wo.. ~
~<(C>
O()Z
....JO-
o..Z~
::::E<(O:::
WIri:
-----
ATTACHMENT
3
u
ES~
..~ g
r:z::I 3 N
Z g.. E-< N
p:: ~ rz:l <
O rz:l ....
~z
~ E-< ....
rn I Cf.l ~
o~a!>
0.... .
~ ~:x=~
~~~!>
....... l'1.l rz:l Cf.l
r:z::Il rz:l
z~~~
~~l'-g
t)~ ~
r:z::I t:J :x=
o:Z: u
~~
t,;
I""""
I
-
::::::--- ROUTr 250
~ ::::::---
- --T-- '-! _____-----== .. =----
,-- ~- ~
'J Ie /
\ ~ ",
~ Q~
~~ \
<0
'-':I:
(
'J~
(~~~~
(~ ~\
(~i '~~\
fr" ~ w ~ \ ,
I,~ < zf:,~\
ji~~~'~
fA --.::~ ~ ri~~\,;) d \
~ z ~~, III H>,~'''. ;;i~~"
'" '" ~ '" "li'. "" ... . .. -I ~~
o <: ~- r.\"'''f ' 1. ~ ~)'0" 'i). ,
J: lD ""r,<;, "U J . . ~ 'J:".,. '"
c:J ,~:G:)0G~ "~-'"7'" ...
'-' ~ l~~~~~~;X: '~~('l~
z , ~ -~"''iS "- :(ffl,; "i7'. ~
'" :_,~ ",.. ~. .M.,,", , ~ . '. '"
~ 6 ,,_o2lf;~Ill. '. ~ r IT. .-
o....-J ~...... ' '~dr.~'7'..~ ,',. :.:.; i>
::: @l/iA;' ~,~ .,(oJ",. w'
~~--~~~ D-~ ~~~~~P~':~::J
~~h)F~:~-~~~ _.~ .
1- f\J -'" W'.v,/ j( ,"'. ::T. CD
~'" ....... '17/ j';, - -u"",-, ~ Sl:-':I..=. _
<(')V~' ~;Y/V'J\ ~JLL.!~O)Or.~ ~~1
h;;; ~ ~ "',; ,~\i~1iJO: ~.....I"l " ",~ ":',.~
A,..p, >- ,(,.,"1 /7;" ~ ,. ~ .....u.. ~~--'. ~ J f)~
J};;"30~oe.-'L:. - u p~~' 0
~.. . ~ !::;.I~'(f'\\>> ,,"" ~"" Go'''(~ ~' 0,
~.... '. . :0., D- " . " 0:
"'\.:' '. ,. , "'<.i w <: '-' ^ c,. ~ w '"
' a::~O~, '~O >- u zChi ": f- z
~ ~~~ LLf::..\.: A ' -.::) (>);i;. 0 is ~ ~ 0;../ < <
~ ~' Q N~" ~ -' Z '" ~"'.n i< >-
~, 0 <(/) ~<l" ''>c~~~<<~
>:w:i :0:) '-' CO '" ...# )' 0 J: D- {"J~___
..0 ~c'lt:,'j!.,OCQ [11'.. '1(_ ',"'.' ___
r&IC:l:-'V''Y;I. -
=----
-- -
I
I
~
f-
o
~'0J
3
............
---
\~lA ~.1.1...
~dG I /"'t>
~V" -i
...
~ 0
.0 ~ ~~
~. :t: ~ ~ .
l-" ::II ~
"i Iii: ~
~ a \(",<,;
+o~ cl""
'(/to :J
...........
u
.
...
z
o
F=
o
lX
m
z
a~~
-alO
0::<0::
i6oIA:
z
o
0...1-
~<
~I-
o...(/)
ATTACHMENT 4
-
.
~I
..... -
o
(J)
.. N
~ e-.N
Z g" tz:I <
~~~2S
o j E-<~
~ rIl p:;
rn I ::r: 5>
08l~ _
~5~
c::d ~ Eo-- >
^" ~ ~ rIl
toIoo4 l'1) tz:I tz:I
~ IO~
~-8
&3l"-~
t)~ <
r' -, t:l ::r:
~z t)
S~
t,;
I
---'
~
II.,.......- ~
ORTH AMERICAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC.
MAIN OmCE.:
P.O. BOX ""
~ VA:l3ll6
lIlM) :zD.I7J3
(104) ~3344
NCJmlERN VANI~:
SIGNET BANK Bun.DING
SIJIIE 210. 3141oW'U: A~
VIENNA, VA 22110
(1Q3) 2I1.93Xl
FAX: (104) Pn-9961
12 May 1993
Mr. David Bowerman
Chainnan, Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Mr. Chainnan:
I have reviewed the site of the proposed outdoor drama theater. In my professional
opinion, the site plan earns high marks for environmental sensitivity. In fact, the proposed use
would create remarkably less environmental impact than would occur from permitted uses of
the site.
I want to point out that I have not been employed by any of the applicants or their
agents and have no financial interest in the project. I am, as you may know, a long-time
member of the conservation community and resident of Albemarle County.
As one who is heavily involved in wildlife conservation, I want to point out, for
example, that the project offers several major benefits for wildlife: (1) little or no activity
during the primary nesting and breeding season, (2) no increase in the number of cats or dogs
commonly associated with residential uses (which prey upon large numbers of faunal
populations), (3) a net increase in tree and shrub cover beyond that which would be expected
to occur from residential development, and (4) an increase in important hydric and possible,
wetland habitats, as a function of storm water management.
I have reviewed the site for possible rare or sensitive species and can confidently state
that there are no known or likely occurrences of such species.
The County, through its zoning ordinance and other laws and policies, grants properties
certain uses that are allowed "by right". The true measure of the environmental impact of the
Board's decisions, then, lies in evaluating the change in impact that would occur as a result of
the decision - in this case, the change in impact from allowing the applicant's use compared to
that already permitted by the Board.
ATTACHMENT 5
. I
I
I
/
I
Mr. David Bowerman
12 May 1993
Page 2
I have further considered the likely impact of the project on a list of all vertebrate
animal species in Albemarle County. It is my professional opinion that no species will be
negatively impacted beyond that which would occur "by right" on this property and, in fact,
most species will experience significantly better habitat conditions under this proposal.
Further, the site does not impact upon prime forest soils. The proPosed amphitheater,
stage and related facilities are planned for an area of the property where the existing trees have
declined, as evidenced by mortality and limb dieback. Because of this, few healthy trees - few
trees that would otherwise be expected to live much longer - will have to be removed. It is my
understanding that the plans call for tree planting that will far more than compensate for the few
trees that must be removed. Again, already permitted uses of the property offer no such plan
for maintenance of tree cover or the healthy specimen trees of the site.
The public has stated, through the Board of Supervisors, that an outdoor drama theater
is an appropriate use in a rural area. One could readily make the case, in fact, that - given its
need for quietness and relative darkness - a rural environment is necessary for such a theater.
We must separate legitimate envir~mmental concerns from those that are simply "Not-
In-My-Back')'ard" issues. If that is done in this case, it is clear that the proposed use represents
a significant environmental improvement over uses already allowed on the site "by right".
Sincerely,
-n ~~cZ' A ' T c-c~
David A. Tice
President
DA T/djp
.
January 20, 1994
The Board of Zoning Appeals - Department of Zoning
Albemarle COWlty Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Chairman:
RE: 1781 Outdoor Theater Site Plan
I have examined the site plan prepared by Gloeckner & Osborne, engineers for 1781 Productions
Ltd.. As the owner of the adjacent property to the northeast, east and south, I have no objections
to the location of the proposed septic fields, electric line, or the location of any other element of
the plan. All elements -- in fact, the entire 100 acres - are downhill from my property and far
enough away so their septic fields can have no im~a9t on my property.
I have also looked at the rough sketch which was submitted for the Special Use Permit. In my
opinion, the more det."liled site plan drawing is ceItlinly in keeping with the sketch; with plans
which have been explained to me over the last year; and with plans described on walks over the
property itself.
It is my understanding that the engineers and the Health Department located the elements of the
plan for minimal environmental impact and for as little disturbance of the land and neighbors as
possible. I believe these plans protect my property and the plans I have for it in the same way the
sketch does but to an even greater degree.
As the property owner with the most potential and direct impact -- if any -- I support this design.
Sincerely,
7h~1l1
# ~'lL"L"
..
,-, 1? ~
~J. // 7' /9'~
////:.,~-j v / , I
date si~ed I
William H. Bunuss
313 Colony Trail
Lanexa, Virginia 23089
Current Owner -- Owner of Land (T.M.P. 94-25 & 94-21)
r~L LJ~7~J~~~-~~
Charles D. Kincannon
c/o Heritage Land Co.
105 South Pantops Drive
Charlottesville,- Virginia 22901
Contract Purchaser
~J J. /,f,flLf
date si6ted f
ATTACHMENT 6
----~..
.
<
February 26. 1994
Mr. David Bowerman
Albemarle County Board
of Supevisors
401 Berwick Court
Charlottesville. VA 22901
Dear David:
I am extremely disappointed over the refusal of the Planning
Department and the Zoning Administrator to review the McRaven"s
outdoor theater site plan. _
.."
St.:\ff's opinion
Gloeckner and Osborne
scale sketcll Cl131.1es
pernJi t request.
is t.hat. the plan developed by the firm of
Inc. is not in compliance with the not-to-
McRaven submitted with his special use
-
As a former planning commissioner who is familiar with the
site. I voted for~app~oval of the request. apd having seen the
G loo:>ckner .:llld Osborne plan super- impose,:! I)ver the sl\:etch. it. is
my opinioll that t.he plan is in general conform,3nce wi th th-=:
sket.ch. The entrance ro,:ld. the c1rain field. t.he parking lot,' .3.nd
t.ho: t.hea t.e r s i t.e are all in t.he g~~ne r:;l.l v ic:, ini t.y 0 f t.he or ig in.31
Pl'C)pos.3.1. A t3m.:lll portion of the timbered are.3 will be removed
for the p,3rl\ing .::Ire.:\. However, plantin!?, of other trees will
offset. tllis loss. In fact, enough open sp,,=,ce is availabl-= to
recult. in a net gain in tree-covered areas.
I t. i :3 imp 0 r t. ant t. (l n 0 t~ t b ;;,\, t the t 11 e ,"\ t, e r (I nth e p 1 ani s 5 (l (J -
GOO feet. from t.he e.:'\st pr'operl..y linF' and 300-900 feet. from t.he
::,:(,Ilth !1l',)pel'l.y line. On the :::ketch the r":'spect.ive dist.ances are
600 fee~ and 900 feet.. Considering t.he dist.ance to the
tleighbr::1!'inl! }wJno:>:3 east. of t.he property. the loss of no more t.h::tn
100 feet. in sep.3,ration is inconseql)enti.:,l. in my opinion.
Because I invest.ed significant t.ime over two reviews of this
req1)e~:t. and was t.he only commissioner to vot.e for .3pproval both
times I f~lt. compelled to write this let.t.er of support.. I see no
f::ound re,:\sO!1 the review should not. move forward.
se~~Ro=.~,... r--l'"
Lab-
Phil T. Grimm
C 'L~~~~
ATTACHMENT 7
"
..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 9724060
TOO (804) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
Members, Board of Zoning Appeals
Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator {'(,"l~#
ATE: February 28, 1994
E: Appeal 94-01 Outdoor Theater
.
here are a few procedural items to note:
I) It is staff s understanding that the appellants wish to have their appeal heard by the full
Board at the earliest possible date. We do not expect to have all Board members present
on March 8th. It is the Board's discretion as to whether to hear the appeal on that date.
Based on citizen inquiry to our office, staff expects attendance by the public on March
8th.
hould the Board decide to defer it to a later date, it is important that the record reflect the
ppellants' consent. This is to show compliance with the State Code requirement for timely
eVlew.
) To the best of our knowledge, this is the first appeal of this type heard by this Board.
This is an interpretation of a condition of approval on a special permit, placed by the
Board of Supervisors. Mr. St. John, County Attorney, has advised staff that this is the
proper procedure, as opposed to taking the matter before the Board of Supervisors. (He
cites BZA of James City County v. University Square Associates, a recent Virginia
Supreme Court case.)
n the event it is determined that the determination of the Zoning Administrator is correct,
- the appellants may proceed to the Board of Supervisors with a request to amend the special
ermit to reflect this proposed layout.
,.
.
STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: March 8, 1994
STAFF REPORT - APPEAL 94-01
APPELLANT: 1781 Productions, Ltd., Charles R. and Linda M. McRaven
The applicants appeal the Zoning Administrator's determination under Section 34.3 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
DETERMINA TION:
The site plan submitted for the outdoor theater does not comply with the special permit
(SP-93-07; 1781 Productions). Specifically, the layout proposed for the development is not
in general accord with the sketch and language of condition #1.
APPEAL:
Contrary to the assertion of the Zoning Administrator, the site plan is in all respects in
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, including the conditions of the special use permit.
Specifically the site plan is in general accord with the sketch referred to in the special permit
condition. (See attachment C for Special Permit sketch and attachment 0 for site plan)
Property:
The property, described as Tax Map 94, part of parcels 21 and 25, is located on the south
side of U.S. Route 250 and Route 794 approximately 0.5 mile west of Black Cat Road
(Route 616) near Boyd Tavern. It has been subdivided from those parcels into a tract of
100.261 acres. (Attachments A and F)
History of the Use:
The Zoning Ordinance was amended to include "outdoor theater" as a use by special permit
with ZTA 92-01. This use was previously proposed on another site, near Milton.
Special Permit 93-07 1781 Productions, was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May
12, 1993. The approval is subject to 10 conditions. (A~tachment B)
ow
AP-94-01 1781 PRODUCTIONS
PAGE 2
DESCRIPTION OF USE:
This is a proposed outdoor theater depicting area historical events, to be operated during the
warm months of the year. The theater will accommodate approximately 2,000 people.
ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS:
Section 31.2.4.1 includes: "Special use permits ... may be issued upon a finding by the
board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in
the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the
public health, safety and general welfare."
APPELLANT'S JUSTIFICATION:
The full submittal of justification is found in attachment E. It identifies four points whereby
the Zoning Administrator arbitrarily and capriciously ignores:
(1) the actual similarity of the two depictions;
(2) the history of the sketch and the bases therefore;
(3) the schematic, not-to-scale character of the sketch; and
(4) the functional similarity (and qualitative superiority) of the site plan with reference
to all of the design criteria set forth in the ordinance and in the special use permit
conditions.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S JUSTIFICATION:
It is important to provide the framework for a determination of this type. One of the
functions of the Zoning Administrator is to review development for compliance with
conditions of the zoning. In this case, the zoning compliance in question relates to the
conditions of approval for a special permit. The Board of Supervisors has approved the land
use, subject to conditions.
..
AP-94-011781 PRODUCTIONS
PAGE 3
At issue is condition #1, which states:
Development shall be in general accord with the sketch and tax map/parcel dated May
7, 1993 and initialled VWC. Tbe area of development shall be 100 acres +/- and
consistent with the natural boundaries and boundary distances described on the
sketch. Only those wooded areas necessary to accommodate development shall be
cleared. All other wooded areas shall be maintained in their natural state.
The sketch is attached. Among the relevant depictions on this sketch are the drawing and
writing of the word "wooded" between the eastern property line and the closest
improvement, the theater. Written on the sketch with arrows is "600'."
It is not within the Zoning Administrator's authority to determine which design is superior.
The latitude for interpretation is limited more than the appellants would have the Board of
Zoning Appeals understand. The site plan submitted unequivocally fails to comply with the
specific langu~ge of condition #1, in conjunction with the sketch to which it refers. Because
the degree of departure is significant, the Zoning Administrator can not apply administrative
discretion to the Board's legislative act of approving the special permit. A deviation of this
degree requires an amended approval by the legislative body which granted the zoning, the
Board of Supervisors.
Staff concurs with the appellant that a sketch plan is a more generalized drawing, and is not
by any means anything like a construction drawing. However, the language of the condition
requires that the development be in eeneral accord with the sketch plan. The buffer as
proposed, will be diminished to about 1/7 that represented in public hearings and approved
by the Board of Supervisors.
A special permit is a use which is not appropriate (as a matter of right) in all locations. It
requires additional discretion as a result of certain factors impacting the public, such as
traffic, noise, lighting and the like. If positiye findings are 'made such that it is approved,
conditions can be attached to mitigate the impact.
The following is staff s interpretation of legislative intent.
In the case of the outdoor theater, it appears that the primary concerns were traffic, noise,
lighting and other new "intrusions" into this rural area. Condition #1, the condition in
question, was attached to clarify the area, general improvements with layout, and wooded
buffer to be maintained for this use. The relevant point here is that these wooded buffers
were proposed by the applicant to minimize disturbance from noise, lighting and the like.
They are mentioned in the approval, and were verbally represented by the applicant at the
public hearings, in response to concerns.
..
AP-94-011781 PRODUCTIONS
PAGE 4
The primary area in which the proposed site development plan deviates from the sketch plan
is in the maintenance of an undisturbed wooded buffer: the site plan shows approximately 80
feet to the property line and the sketch plan shows 600 feet. In addition, more total area is
disturbed. This deviation is not minimal and exceeds that which this zoning administration
has approved.
The applicant has stated that adequate buffering can occur within the remaining area and with
replanting such that the intent is met; however, that is a point to be made with the request
for amending the special permit. It may be difficult to save trees due to the change in their
canopy, and modern grading and septic field practices.
Other areas in which the plan departs from that approved by the Board of Supervisors
include:
1) The access road does not run along the edge of the woods; it runs into the woods;
2) The parking areas are largely in the woods. The SP sketch showed them in existing
fields.
3) The employee parking is shown on the site plan near the theater and in the sketch plan
in a field.
(See also Planning staff letter of October 18, 1993 to Gloeckner and Osborne,
attachment G.)
4) The theater on the site plan is about 400 feet from the eastern property line, and it
shows to be 600 feet on the special permit sketch plan.
There is good cause for staff to not substitute discretion for the Board's consideration in the
event of substantial change. In this case, for example, the Board of Supervisors and the
public heard of and saw plans which showed different locations for improvements and
decreased woods to remain. (See the minutes of the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors in attachments H, I, and J.)
..
LIST OF A 'IT ACHMENTS
Attachment A: Tax Map 94 Subject Property
Attachment B: Special Permit 93-07 Approval Letter
Attachment C: Special Permit Sketch for Condition #1
Attachment D: Proposed Site Plan
Attachment E: Applicant's Justification
Attachment F: Subdivision Plat
Attachment G: Planning Letter of October 18, 1993
Attachment H: Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 1993
Attachment I: Board of Supervisors Minutes of April 14, 1993
Attachment J: Board of Supervisors Minutes of May 12, 1993
Attachment K: Zoning Administrator's Determination Letter of December 23, 1993
Attachment L: Zoning Administrator's Later Determination Letter of January 18, 1994
ALBEMARLE COUN--v
ATTACHMENT A
93
.7
\....
..\
\
\..
/
SCALt IN 'U T
10&
RIVANNA
SCOTTSVllLE
SECTION 94
~1}q~
, I I ,'/
....
ATTACHMENT B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. or Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296-5823
RECEIVED
NAY 18 1993
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ZONING DEPARTMENT
May 17, 1993
1781 Productions
ATTN: Charles or Linda McRaven
P. O. Box G
Free Union, VA 22940
RE: SP-93-07 1781 Productions
Tax Map 94, Parcels 21 and 25 CRt. 616)
Dear Mr. & Mrs. McRaven:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on May
12, 1993, approved the above-noted request. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the sketch and
tax map parcel dated May 7, 1993 and initialled VWC. The
area of development shall be 100 acres ~ and consistent with
the natural boundaries and boundary distances described on
the sketch. Only those wooded areas necess~ry to
accommodate development shall be cleared. All other wooded
areas shall be maintained in their natural state;
2. site plan shall not be processed until Health Department
approval for potable water service and sewage disposal
system has been obtain~d. Approval shall be of the water
system design and the septic system design, including
suitable soil evaluation and percolation test;
3. Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining Rural Areas
and away from adjacent streets. Lighting spillover onto
public roads and properties zoned rural areas shall not
exceed one-half (~) foot candle. Prior to final plan
approval a lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) which shall include
methods for directing light downward;
~
/
/'
/~rles or Linda McRaven
/agp. 2
'May 17, 1993
4. Public performances shall not begin after 9:00 p.m. Public
performances shall not extend after 10:30 p.m. except due to
circumstances beyond the applicant's control such as, but
not limited to, rain, lightning or power failure. Under no
circumstances shall performances extend beyond midnight.
Public performances shall occur only from May 1 to September
30, with only weekend performances allowed prior to Memorial
Day and after Labor Day. Weekend performances shall only
occur on two (2) of the three (3) weekend nights. From
Memorial Day to Labor Day, performances shall occur not more
than six (6) nights per week;
5. This permit is for an outdoor, local historical drama
theater and those accessory uses customarily incidental to,
subordinate to and directly supportive of an outdoor, local
historical drama theater. Approval of this request shall
not be deemed to include uses such as craft shows, dog
shows, music festivals, rock concerts and film exhibitions
unrelated to the outdoor, local historical drama theater;
6. Methods for controlling on-site circulation shall include
manpower assistance or such other methods as may be approved
by the Planning Department;
7. provisions of Section 4.14.1 are applicable. Verification
to include submission of a certified engineer's report for
the acoustics of the sound system and amplification in
accord with Section 4.14.8 which shall be required at the
time of site plan submittal;
8. Staff approval of site plan;
9. Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall include left
and right turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site;
10. The applicant shall post with the Zoning Administrator a
bond for its pro rata share of the cost of construction of a
left turn lane and taper (200 feet + 200 feet) within the
existing right-of-way of u.s. Route 250 onto state Route 616
(northbound). Such pro rata share shall be the fraction of
the estimated cost of construction of such lane of which the
numerator is equal to one-half the projected traffic to be
generated by the proposed use (expressed in vehicle trips
per day) and the denominator is the total traffic using the
relevant section of u.s. Route 250 (expressed in vehicle
trips per day) according to the most recent VDOT traffic
count. The bond shall be conditioned that the principal
-thereof shall be available to be used to pay the applicant's
pro rata share of the cost of construction of the said turn
/'
/
,aarles ~r Linda McRaven
Pag~ 3-
May 17, 1993
lane if, at any time within three (3) years from the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed use,
the County and/or VDOT shall have appropriated money
sufficient to pay the balance of the construction cost
therefor. In the event that the County and/or VDOT shall
not have appropriated the balance of such construction cost
within three (3) years from the date of issuance of the
certificate of occupancy, the bond saall be released to the
applicant. The amount, terms, security and form of the bond
shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the zoning
Administrator.
Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance
from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning Department will
issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this
letter. For further information, please call Babette Thorpe at
296-5975.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-
noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
..
a .,
v. ~mberg
Director of Planni
Community Development
VWC/jcw
cc: Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
-
ATTACHMENT C
J>"R.fey
p""Prr
<" ~ t
~
~ ~ 41 tv'(
~ /qfJp (
<....
<=- \v
"'-
7-
~
~
~
~
Co .
~~~
\ l.
II
"-
rl
-",
"- ;-~
~
.'."" I c:.. I\... ~-1
_~ :~ ',.""'1''''~ ~~......,-,: -0"
" ,.d:l-LL ""Ar~'t ~
"")1 ,': ~ ~'N." 1
--1~..~ \ rlicG "-
.;.. _ ,.. . ~ .............. L
.', ..,.,,'r... .. ~,
. ~ '.. :. . ~~. . i"" I ,:'.'".. . .
,_ "".' I;. ,j:~'! .
~ "
~1'J:-' ~~ ,.
...._ -v... "'Z. (
.p;J"r.~ ~
~~
- ':.4
~d i1 /'
,/;/7. ..,.."I4#t..
"IIf'
/
~~
o ""'--
~ <:I~ ~
~
~
,,~e
/
fA} (Ylf)-p
PftCE;J....S ~ \ ,.
(pl>('"TloNs)
'-,
lS 11/q~
"VWC-
'--. '-"
PIP€
0
0
';t
II
~ W
...J
<t
u
U)
w
(J')Z
0::0::
-0 <(
IOJ
CJ
'-'
Z
~
0::1-
<(0'-
0... -.J ""'"
'-'
Z
~
0::
'v~
OJ
--
~
,
ATTACHMENT D
z
o
F
o
w
(J')
0::
W
o I-
W Z
-w
a:::....J~
0:: OJ 0
::J<O::
OJOlL.
o
\
o
OJ
W
N
<
'-'
--,
-
- ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENTS TO APPEAL OF DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
(1) Application is attached.
(2) Explanation of applicants' position is as follows:
The applicants hereby appeal the decision of the zoning
administrator that the site plan submitted by the applicants
pursuant to Section 32 of the zoning ordinance is not in general
accord with the sketch which is attached to the special use permit
(SP 93-07) as required by condition #1 of the said permit.
Contrary to the assertion of the zoning administrator, the
said site plan is in all respects in compliance with the zoning
ordinance, including, but not limited to, the conditions of the
said special use permit, as well as the provisions of Section 32 of
the ordinance. Specifically, the site plan is in general accord
with the sketch referred to in the said condition. The decision of
the zoning administrator arbitrarily and capriciously ignores (1)
. the actual similarity of the two depictions; (2) the history of the
sketch and the bases therefor; (3) the schematic, not-to-scale
character of the sketch; and (4) the functional similarlity (and
qualitative superiority) of the site plan with reference to all of
the design criteria set forth in the ordinance and in the special
use permit conditions.
The decision of the zoning administrator which is the subject
of this appeal is set forth in a certain letter bearing date of
December 23, 1993, and in a certain additional letter, confirming
the said decision, dated January 18, 1994.
Applicants reserve the right to adduce evidence, including
expert opinion, documentary submission and demonstrative evidence,
before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
(3) Latest deed for the property or properties involved, together
with recorded plat (DB 1373, p. 409) are attached. 1781
Productions, Ltd., was the contract purchaser of the subj ect
property; assigned its contractual rights to Outdoor Theater Land
Partnership; and has an option to purchase the said property.
(4) The formal site plan, together with numerous other documents,
are currently on file in the offices of the County of Albemarle.
Applicants reserve the right to submit additional documents,
including drawings and other depictions of the property.
(5) Conditions of the approval of SP 93-07 have been misconstrued
by the zoning administrator. Applicants reserve the right to
submit legal authority.
(6) Check for filing fee is attached, together with a statement of
authorization for agent.
!~
~ ~~~
" era. d~~
~ <~ ~ ~ g
~ \ Q;~~
.~ \
~+
~~8 ~ ~
i!~ ~~~
~ ~g~ ~~~
- I I I -It)b
. Ic}i ~~8
8R~ ~;j
11r:: "';"';u
z
z
t;
:;)
J=
c
~~
N
I~
~~
0;8
2.
",::t:
NN_
--,....to",!l.-ca
~::~~~CS-o..
. . . . . .a:a:a:
.A. A. A. A. A. A.
~N:!!l=SOa!~
N~GCSI:)~___
'..r "..rcd . " " "
CZl"tCZl"t .CZlCZlCZlCZl
000000000
~
~
...~.
ATTACHMENT F
. .......
Q;~P';
~~i .
o~ .
~~I~
~~ff~
d
~ ~~OZ
I-
.
enf30
~~~
...: en!2
IX! !.- 0
~ ~e ~z
a:e
~w
~~ ~I ~
~~ Si ~R
~ I ~ 15: ~I
~~+~ ih~
~i=!~ la ~~
1&.11< <
I.~
IY ~ d~
i~3 ~~
..
~~~8
~~~"C
- 0 Ca;2
~~~~
Q; r:l. ~ ~
~
~
\
\ Jl
Jl ~"
. 0-.
0-. .,..
~ 't"
't"
'.
h
:- 8Q'
~;e.
--
-
Q'
::>
c
-~i
No:::
J.-
~~~
~~~
...:.
"If;i
CD
en
('of
I/)
. - ~ .f.. -.:..~'.. ..
J..J-.... ,~..._ to....,.l.
rl
.,
~
I:
~~S~~
06 ~~
ffi:a "I
f-. fOe
:sta ~~
Poi s~
~ i
..
c
-,
- ATTACHMENT G
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. or Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
ctober 18, 1993
loeckner and Osborne, Inc.
TTN: Kurt Gloeckner
10 East High Street
harlottesville, VA 22901
SDP-93-63 1781 Productions Preliminary Site Plan
Mr. Gloeckner,
his letter is a follow-up to my October 8, 1993 letter to you.
ttached please find a preliminary plan checklist which
ighlights those items which the submitted site plan does not
ddress or addresses inadequately. I have also attached comments
rom the Zoning and Engineering Departments stating their
oncerns about the site plan. The above comments are intended to
ddress the reasons for rejection of the plan specified by
ection 32.4.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
taff also notes that this application is not consistent with the
onditions of SP-93-07. Staff notes the following discrepancies:
The improvements around the theater, and the theater itself
are less than 600 feet from the property line.
2. Septic field sites 1 and 2 are in an area shown as wooded.
3. The access road does not run along the edge of the woods; it
goes into the woods.
The parking areas are located largely in the woods. The
sketch approved with SP-93-07 showed them in existing
fields.
The site plan indicates employee parking near the theater
while the sketch plan shows the parking in a different
location. (It is difficult to provide detailed comments on
drop-off, footpath/access lane and employee parking as the
detailed site plan for this area was omitted.)
"
F urt Gloeckner
(ctober 18, 1993
I age 2
E . No water storage tank was envisioned near the property line
during review of SP-93-0? In addition, the gazebo,
gatehouse, gift shop, and manager's office must be reviewed
for compliance with SP-93-0?
~hese items were initially pointed out in my September 28, 1993
etter to you. All of the items mentioned must be addressed. I
end other agencies have expressed a willingness to meet with you
o discuss these issues. Staff has identified the following
cDptions to remedy inconsistencies between the site plan and SP-
C3-0?:
Revise the plan to comply with SP-93-0?
: . Go before the Board of Supervisors to allow comment by the
Board as to the consistency of the site plan to the
conditions of SP-93-0?
File for an amendment to the conditions of SP-93-0?
(option #2 would not involve public notification, unless requested
lDY the Board of Supervisors. Should you choose to proceed with
he layout as in (modified to be in compliance with Section
2.5), staff will recommend denial of the site plan based on
nconsistency with SP-93-0?
i~S stated previously, I would like the opportunity to discuss any
cpt these issues. In addition, should you arrange meetings with
pther agencies, I will make myself available to attend those
neetings.
~incerely,
1kL.t2~
~illiam D. Fritz
~enior Planner
~DF fmem
~c: Linda McRaven
----
--
or
A .CHMENT H
3-23-93
1
,--
MARCH 23, 1993
The Albemarle county Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, March 23, 1993 in the Auditorium of the
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter
Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom
Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs
Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr.
Jim Bowling, Deputy county Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the
March 9, 1993 meeting were approved as submitted.
SP-93-07 1781 Productions - Request for a special permit for
an approximately 2,000 seat outdoor theater [10.2.2(44)] on
approximately 100 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and Ee,
Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax Map 94,
Parcels 21 and 25, is located on the south side of Route 250
approximately 0.5 mile west of Black Cat Road (Route 616) in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located
within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Johnson asked about the source of the figures for the
anticipated water usage--5 to 10 gallons/seat/day. Mr.
Fritz explained the figures were provided by the Health
Department. Mr. Johnson noted there was a "100% difference"
in the range, which could be significant in trying to obtain
necessary water. Mr. Keeler suggested that the higher
figure be accepted because this will be an evening,
after--dinner type use. Mr. Johnson questioned the size of
the figures.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about traffic figures,
Mr. Fritz explained the "best available data from ITE" had
been used.
The applicant, Mr. Charles McRaven, addressed the
Commission. He attempted to address "misconceptions" which
he felt the public had about the project and also described
how concerns expressed at the previous hearing (with a
different site) have been addressed with this site. His
comments included the following:
--An outdoor theater is proposed which will be used for
an'outdoor historical drama only; the theater will not be
leased or rented to any other type of performance.
Performances will take place outdoors and during the summer
",", ......, "':'
01
3-23-93
2
months ONLY. The zoning Ordinance definition is very
specific in this regard.
--The subject matter of the performance will be local
historical events ONLY.
--Neither a restaurant nor a hotel will be built.
--There will be no large building with an indoor
theater.
--A 2000-seat theater is planned. Typically, 1,500
seats can expect to be filled each night.
= --The site is "deeply buried" (about 1/2 mile back) in
the middle of 600 wooded acres and the topography and
, Jf:ation should well mask the sound.
--Access will be directly off Rt. 250, straight into
the property.
,. --All the parking area will be totally hidden from any
lQiuse.
--All holes drilled in preliminary perk tests tested
"good."
--Lighting will all be aimed down into the deep hollow.
--Three structures will be built.
--This theater will be 1/24 the size of Scott Stadium.
--The entire seating area is 78 feet deep.
, --The theater will not create new traffic, but rather
wilt "divert" traffic that is already on the road.
--If the venture fails, the special permit will be
vacated and the land will return to agricultural
designation.
-Research done by an independent consultant (The
Institute of Outdoor Drama) of the 92 outdoor theaters in
the United States, shows that "in no case has the placement
of an outdoor theater decreased property values and in no
case has it increased taxes."
--Police departments were contacted in towns where
outdoor dramas exist and none had experienced any problems
with the theater crowds.
--A special permit is requested for the entire 100
acres (purchased by the applicant) and not just for the 6
acre theater site because "we were led to believe that that
is the procedure--but we would be happy to do it the other
way."
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Bowling if the property would "revert
to rural areas" if the theater should cease to exist, Mr..
Bowling responded: "It's a special use permit application
and the property is going to be zoned RA whether you grant
or do not grant the special use permit. But a special use
permit request is a change in zoning. As a general rule of
law, a special use permit runs with the land. If ,
substantial sums of money are spe~t on this project, he may
find it very difficult to restrict the special use permit to
a p~rsonal use rather than a use which runs with the land."
Mr. McRaven pointed out that the special permit request is
only for an outdoor drama and, therefore, that is the only
use which could be made of the land. It was also noted that
.-7'\ fl" !
3-23-93
3
.,.--
conditions which are attached to a special permit also are
attached to the land. Ms. Andersen noted that requests for
amendments to conditions can be made at any time. Mr.
McRaven noted that the very definition of an outdoor
theater, as written in the ordinance, was very limiting. He
quoted: "An establishment, whether operated for profit or
not, providing live performance re-creations of events of
historic significance to, and having actually occurred
within the locality or immediately adjacent localities." He
asked: "If the Zoning Text Amendment, which allows the
special use permit, is that specific, can we really ever
perceive anything else being done on the property? We have
no intention of doing anything else."
,r-
Mr. McRaven continued his comments:
--Figures from the Institute of Outdoor Drama estimate
a first-year impact on the local economy of twelve million
dollars. At 3/4 capacity, the impact is estimated at twenty
million/year.
--It is estimated that 40% of persons living within a
200-mile radius will come to see the drama.
--He expressed "major concern" about the Highway
Department or the County requiring the applicant to install
a left turn lane at the junction of Black Cat Road with Rt.
250 which is more than a quarter of a mile from the subject
property. (Mr. McRaven was referring to suggested condition
No. 10.)
--He expressed concern about the wording of condition
No. 7 related to sound. He stated: "We know that we will
not generate any more sound than the applause of our
audience." Though he expressed "no particular problem" with
a limitation to "live, unamplified music," as stated in the
condition, he explained that there could possibly be an
instance where the musicians will "not show" for some reason
and recorded music would have to be used. He asked the
Commission to address this issue in greater detail.
--The applicant will employ persons who will be
responsible for traffic direction.
--In response to Ms. Huckle's question about a possible
traffic light, Mr. McRaven stated: "If the Highway
Department decides that our theater creates the need for a
light, we'll pay for a light."
--In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding his
qualifications as a writer, producer, and director, Mr.
McRaven described his background and experience in this
regard.
--The play is scheduled to run from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30
p.m. (barring interference from summer storms) and it "is
anticipated that the parking lot will empty in approximately
20 minutes after the end of the play. (Mr. Jenkins stated
he would feel more comfortable if the anticipated operating
hours were more clearly defined in condition NO.4.)
.'-
~ ,r. n i:-'"
3-23-93
4
/-
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed
support for the request:
--Dr. Nick Evans (geologist): He was knowledgable of
the bedrock in the area and stated: "There are sound
geological reasons for believing that there is plenty of
water to be had there." He could not predict how drilling
of additional wells would impact existing groundwater
supplies but stated that the applicant is prepared to
undertake a geological study to verify the impact of
extracting groundwater on the surrounding wells.
--Ms. Yates Nobels (who served as the applicants' real
estate agent during their search for property): She
described in some detail the "earnest" search which the
applicant had performed.
--Mr. James Scales (a Lexington resident): He
described research he had performed in the neighborhood
adjacent to Lime Kiln Theater in Lexington. His research
had revealed that the theater had "not had a significant
adverse impact" on the lives of the adjacent property
owners, that property values had not declined, and noise has
not been a problem. Extra traffic has proven to be
inconvenient, but not dangerous.
--Mr. Meek Barton (a local tour guide).
--Ms. Dorothy Lambert (an Albemarle resident for 10
years and. former State Travel Director for the State of
Mississippi): She asked that the Commission consider this
as an industry--one which will not require county
expenditures in terms of new schools, etc., and one which
will offer increased employment opportunities for unskilled
labor.
--Ms. Amanda McRaven
--Ms. Bobbie Cochran (Director of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and visitors' Bureau):
She felt thie outdoor drama could add an extra boost to the
local tourist industry.
--Mr. Robert Bollinger (a Key West resident): He
stressed that this is the "lightest of light industry--clean
dollars."
The Chairman invited additional public comment.
.-
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed
opposition to the proposal: Ms. Becky Critzer (she-made
reference to a petition of opposition which she had in her
possession which contained the signatures of many of her
neighbors); Mr. and Mrs. Bill Johnson; Mr. Bill Dorsey; Mr.
Richard Lawrence; Mr. Carlos A. Savido; Mr. Aaron Zackroff;
Ivan Jacobs; Dan Leak; Hobert Addington; Michael Harris; and
Mr. Vernon Jones. (Approximatel~ 50-60 persons were present
at the meeting and expressed their opposition either
individually or by standing when called upon to do so later
in the meeting.)
Their reasons for opposition were as follows:
1/
3-23-93
5
--Negative impact on living environment and quality of
life;
--Interjection of a commercial venture into a rural
area which will invite "more and more commercial uses;"
--Granting this permit is contrary to the Comprehensive
Plan's promise to protect the rural areas from this type of
commercial enterprise;
--Devaluation of nearby historical properties (e.g.
Limestone Farm);
--Light pollution;
--Increased traffic which increases accident and injury
potential;
--Lack of a detailed site plan;
--Skepticism that 680 vehicles can be emptied from a
parking lot in a 20 minute period.
--Reported accidents (1992 records) show there were 33
accidents on the 250 corridor between 164 and the county
line; 5 accidents on the Rt. 616 corridor from 164 to the
County Line--one actually at "that" intersection. [These
figures were presented by Mr. Savido. speaking as a member
of the East Rivanna Fire Department, he was personnally
aware of 3 vehicle accidents near the Rt. 616-Rt 250
intersection in 1992. The Pegasus medical evacuation
helicopter was used to transport victims from these three
accidents.]
--Skepticism that traffic will not take a short cut to
reach 164;
--Residents on Rt. 250 (between the site and 164)
should have received notification of the project.
--Many volunteer firefighters live on the opposite side
of this property. Response time will thus be increased when
emergencies occur during times the parking lot for the
theater is being filled or emptied. There is no pull-off
area along the road.
--What type of emergency provisions will be provided by
the applicant on the site?
--What will happen to the property if the venture
fails?
--Skepticism that the tourist market in this area will
support this venture.
--Skepticism that the venture will succeed here when a
similar one failed in Williamsburg.
--Fear that a restaurant will eventually be added to
the project; .
--Skepticism that there already exists enough overnight
accommodations on this side of town to meet the needs of
this type of venture.
---
Mr. Charles Kincannon, co-owner and seller of the property
in question, addressed the Commission. He felt the
limitations placed on the request would offer adequate
protection and address the concerns of the property owners.
He explained that the property is presently being timbered
because of a large infestation of pinebark beetles on the
3-23-93
6
back portion of the property. In response to Ms. Huckle's
question, he explained the property being purchased by the
applicants is primarily a "clear field, and oaks and
chestnut oaks."
At the end of the public comment Ms. McRaven addressed the
Commission and explained some of the background of the
proposal. She also attempted to reassure the public that
many of their fears were unfounded. She stressed that the
applicants had listened to the concerns expressed at the
previous public hearing and had attempted to meet all those
concerns when chosing an alternative site.
Mr. McRaven again addressed the Commission. He explained
that all "available" sites (total 104) had been considered
by the applicant. He also expressed the opinion that many
of the persons objecting to the project do not actually live
in close proximity to the property. He also took exception
to the insinuation (by a member of the public) that he was
interested only in "lining his pockets." He noted that
though he only needed 7 acres for the project, he was
purchasing 100 acres "to protect you (the pUblic)."
,l~'
A member of the public noted that the Chamber of Commerce
had adopted a resolution supporting the concept of an
outdoor theater but at the same time had expressed the
feeling that homeowners in rural areas should not be
disturbed. He also asked if consideration had been given to
the purchase of County-owned property for this project.
(Mr. McRaven explained that this possibility had been
explored. )
The Chairman closed the public hearing at approximately
10:10 p.m.
Ms. Andersen asked why condition No. 5 [Approval of this
request shall not be deemed to include uses such as craft
shows, dog shows, music festivals and film exhibitions
unrelated to the drama prOduction.] was necessary, "given
the definition of outdoor theater." Mr. Fritz explained the
language had been developed with the Zoning Administrator
and was an attempt "to clarify the use and ensure that it'
does not become something it was not intended to bei~ and
also to facilitate the Zoning Administrator's enforcement
capabilities.
,-
Mr. Blue expressed the feeling that No. 5 would do the
opposite of what staff intended because though some
possibilities have been enumerated, it is obvious that all
possibilities have not been enumerated, which could lead to
the. perception that those things which have not been listed
could be allowed. He felt that leaving it strictly to the
definition of outdoor theater (i.e. for an outdoor
historical drama) was sufficient.
3-23-93
7
---
Ms. Huckle wondered if the Zoning Administrator's caution
might be based on past experience with the Foxfield
property.
Mr. Johnson suggested that No. 5 be changed to read: "This
approval is for an outdoor drama theater only." He felt the
strict definition would exclude everything else. Mr. Keeler
suggested the addition of the words "There shall be no
accessory or subordinate uses." Mr. Bowling agreed the
suggested rewording was acceptable. [NOTE: This issue was
discussed again later in the meeting and ultimately the
condition was changed as described.]
Ms. Huckle noted differences in the sketch plan from that
which had been submitted with the Milton site. She asked if
only those buildings shown on the current sketch plan would
be allowed. Mr. Keeler noted that condition No. 1 requires
that development be in "general accord" with the sketch plan
dated March 4, 1993. He explained that if more buildings
were proposed later, it would have to be determined if the
plan was still in "general accord" with the sketch plan.
Ms. Huckle wondered if "general accord" was a loose
definition.
Conditions 9 and 10 were discussed at some length by the
commission. [9. Access shall be only from Route 250 and
shall include left and right turn lanes on Route 250 to
serve the site. -- 10. Construction of a 200 x 200 foot left
turn and taper lane on Rt. 250 to serve traffic travelling
north on Black Cat Road (Route 616).] Mr. Johnson noted
that VDOT's letter had stated that a left turn lane
eastbound on Route 250 "may alleviate somewhat" a sight
distance problem at the intersection of Route 616 and Route
250. He interpreted: "It certainly isn't a recommendation
or anything else. I don't see that we can or should require
an applicant to correct something that he has minimal effect
on, is already in existence and is really a problem of the
State Department of Transportation." He was in favor of
deleting No. 10.
.-
In relation to condition No. 9 he stated: "I would like the
minutes to show, relative to the access, that this is
inclusive and nothing else inferred." He referred ~o a
comment which had been made about the possibility of a
traffic light at this intersection. He stated: "We can't
go ahead and have an open-ended requirement against an
applicant of that nature. The Department of Transportation
had not mentioned it and has not required it. I think,' at
least the minutes should show that it is, at least, the
opinion of the Commission that that condition No. 9 "is
inclusive." '
Ms. Huckle noted that developers have been required to pay
for traffic lights in the past. She noted that the
..".,nr{
3-23-93
8
applicant has agreed to provide such a light. Mr. Johnson
responded: "I'll not accept that statement of Mr.
McRaven's. I'd like for him to think it over some more."
He added that he felt this had been required of applicants
where it has been recommended by VDOT. He could not recall
the Commission ever having generated that requirement. Mr.
Grimm added that none of the information presented to the
Commission had made mention of a light on Rt. 250. He felt
the Commission should stick to the information provided by
staff.
Mr. Fritz added that staff's conversations with VDOT had not
included any discussion of a traffic signal. However, he
noted that there had been a great deal of discussion about a
turn lane on Rt. 250 to serve traffic travelling north on
Black Cat Road. He stated that VODT is "recommending" that
turn lane, and are "requiring" the turn lane on Rt. 250 to
serve the entrance to the site. He further explained that
VDOT could NOT "require" the turn lane to serve Black Cat
Road because that is an off-site requirement; however, they
have indicated to staff that they would require this
improvement if they had the power to do so. He explained
the reason for the turn lane to serve Black Cat Road is to
provide a safer intersection for the traffic "surge" which
this use will cause.
.~
Mr. Nitchmann questioned Mr. Fritz's interpretation of
VDOT's position given the VDOT statement that the situation
"may be alleviated somewhat." He felt if VDOT had wanted
the left turn lane they would have stated clearly that they
felt it was a safety issue. .
In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Fritz stated there
had been no discussions with VDOT about manpowered traffic
control on Rt. 250.
[NOTE: It was ultimately decided later in the meeting,
after repetition of the same discussion set forth above,
that condition No. 9 would remain as proposed and condition
No. 10 would be deleted.]
--
Referring to condition No. 6 [ Methods for controlling
on-site circulation shall include manpower assistance or
such other methods as may be approved by the Planning
Department.], Mr. Blue wondered if it should be amended to
include off-site circulation as well. Mr. Fritz noted that
if the condition were to be changed as suggested by Mr.
Blue, it should be amended further to provide for app~oval
by the Police Department rather.than the Planning .
Department. [NOTE: Though this possible change was
disc~ssed briefly later, it was ultimately decided that
condition No. 6 would remain as originally worded with no
changes.]
/')
3-23-93
9
,-
Mr. Johnson "took exception, technically and from a
government standpoint" to condition No. 7 [Music shall be
live and unamplified.]. He felt the Commission "had no
authority or perrogative to tell an applicant how his music
shall be oriented. Regarding the intent of the condition to
limit noise and sound, he felt the condition would be
ineffective given the fact that there is no limitation on
the amplification of voice. Mr. Johnson suggested that
Section 4.14.1 of the Zoning Ordinance be referenced to deal
with the issue of noise in lieu of the suggested condition
No.7. Staff commented that section 4.14.1 deals with the
technical aspects of noise measurement and may require
equipment which the County does not presently have ready
access to. Mr. Johnson suggested that the condition be
changed to read: "provisions of paragraph 4.14.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance are applicable." Regarding the issue of
enforcement, Mr. Johnson noted: "We have it in our
Ordinance: if we can't enforce it, maybe we ought to take it
out of the Ordinance, but it is an enforceable, defined
provision which has been staffed and reviewed, legally and
otherwise, and also from the zoning Administrator's office."
He felt this would clarify the situation and "eliminate any
overview of how the applicant operates within the noise
limitations which I hope would allay any fears of the
neighbors." (Mr. Johnson quoted from section 4.14. and
Section 4.14.1 of the Ordinance.) Ms. Andersen wondered if
this could be challenged since it refers to industrial
zones. Mr. Bowling explained that this is a special permit
and the Commission has the authority to regulate noise from
the activity that is to take place. Mr. Bowling could not
comment on the technical feasability of applying the
regulation.
Ms. Andersen asked if Mr. Johnson realized that there was
the possibility that the regulation would be so restrictive
the use could not take place. Mr. Johnson acknowledged that
"anything is possible." He suggested that the applicant
might want to do some preliminary testing. He concluded
that the ordinance was written to protect residential areas.
(Mr. Bowling interjected that the ordinance is written to
apply "at the property line" and this is a lOO-acre site
which adjoins an RA zone.)
[NOTE: It was ultimately decided that condition No. 7 would
be amended as suggested by Mr. Johnson.]
Mr. Blue felt the discussion about the concept of the
proposal should take place before further discussion apout
amending conditions. He noted that though he had had
reservations about the approval of the zoning text amendment
which added this use to the rural areas (by special permit),
the amendment had been approved by the Board. He expressed
sympathy with the public concerns, but pointed out that the
special use permit was created to allow this as a lawful use
/'?
3-23-93
10
in that area. It is now the Commission's role to ensure
that the conditions which govern the permit will minimize
the impact on the adjoining property owners. He felt the
applicant, in this case, has attempted to minimize the
impact. He felt this was a much different situation than
with the previous Milton site where there may have been
fewer persons effected, but those persons were effected
quite severely. He did not think this proposal would have a
"severe" effect on anyone. He concluded he was in sympathy
with the applicant.
Ms. Andersen reminded the applicant that though a great deal
of sensitivity has been shown in development of the project,
"special conditions do run with the land and if at a point
the land must be sold, (future owners) can request to have
conditions changed or removed so these things are not set in
stone."
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about staff's statement that
"approval of this request may encourage additional special
use permit applications in the area." She agreed this would
be the case. She was fearful that the theater was a way of
providing others with a way to "get their foot in the door."
Mr. Frit~ clarified that staff's implication had referred to
other uses which are permitted by special permit in the
rural areas, e.g. craft and antique shops. He pointed out
that any such proposals would require commission review and
Board approval. Mr. Grimm added that though those uses were
possibilities he doubted their probability given the
County's strong feelings about uses allowed in the rural
areas.
Mr. Johnson again noted that this is an allowed use, by
special permit, under special conditions, i.e.
'- "non-interference with adajacent localities." He indicated
, he felt the main concerns of traffic and noise could be
adequately addressed by the conditions.
Regarding the issue of water requirements, Mr. Johnson
suggested that the Commission take the position that the
"water required will be that determined by the Health
Department without any inference that it might be 5~.10 or
whatnot as far as gallons." He did not feel the Health
Department should feel restricted or guided by any statement
made in the staff report. Mr. Blue felt condition No. 2
would take care of this concern. He did not feel it needed
to be a part of a motion.
--
Mr. Nitchmann stated he could support the proposal with the
deletion of condition No. 10. Mr. Grimm was reluctant to
delete No. 10 because he felt it was staff's decision to
include the condition based on discussions with VDOT. Mr.
Nitchmann felt Condition No. 10 could be re-instated by the
- /J ~
3-23-93
11
,-
Board if VDOT will make a specific statement (in writing)
that it is considered a safety hazard. He did not think the
condition should be included because he interpreted VDOT's
position differently than did staff.
Mr. Blue wondered if condition No. 6 could be amended so as
to address Mr. Nitchmann's concerns. He suggested some
alternative language--IIMethods for controlling on-site and
off-site traffic at the intersection of 250 and 616 shall
include manpower assistance or such other methods as may be
deemed necessary by the Police Department.". Mr. Nitchmann
was agreeable to this suggestion. Mr. Keeler stated that
staff would get further comment from both VDOT and the
Police Department before the Board hearing. It was
ultimately decided that the wording for No. 6 would remain
as originally suggested with no amendment at this time.
There was further discussion about condition No. 7 and how
staff had arrived at the suggested wording. Mr. Grimm felt
it should remain as presented by staff. Mr. Johnson felt it
should be amended as he had suggested previously. He noted
that the zoning Administrator had indicated to him that she
felt his suggested wording would be the best way to address
the issue. Mr. Johnson wondered if the applicant had felt
compelled to agree to staff's wording in order to get a
favorable recommendation from staff. Mr. Fritz explained
that the wording had been arrived at after many discussions
with the applicant amd had been agreed to and understood by
the applicant. Mr. Blue stated he was in favor of "leaving
it in" and Mr. Nitchmann noted he "could live with that."
[NOTE: Later in the meeting, the condition was amended as
suggested by Mr. Johnson.]
Attempting to clarify the Commission's position on condition
No. 10, Mr. Keeler asked if the Commission would favor
including the condition "if the Highway Department clearly
recommends that that improvement was occasioned by this
development?" Mr. Blue responded affirmatively "if the
condition was going to become unsafe without the turn lanes
as required in 10 because of the traffic from this
applicant's prOduction." He concluded: "From a safety
standpoint, I don't see how we could vote against it."
There were no objections to Mr. Blue's comments. Mr.
Johnson noted, however: "I think we should we operate on
the information on hand and not leave it open to future
comments."
Mr. Grimm felt condition No. 10 should remain and should be
presented to the Board along with any further information
that staff might receive from VDOT. '
Mr. Blue did not think the item should be passed on to the
Board without a recommendation from the Commission on the
- .A
3-23-93
12
issue of the turn lane. He concluded that he felt No. 10
should remain with instructions that staff get further
information from VDOT. [NOTE: Condition No. 10 was
ultimately deleted.]
Mr. Grimm stated he could support the proposal because he
felt it was an appropriate use for the land and he felt the
applicant had performed the required study to locate a piece
of property which meets the requirements of the zoning text
amendment. He felt there would be minimum impact to the
surrounding area and he felt the project would provide
much-needed employment opportunities for the area.
Ms. Andersen reminded the Commission that she had been
opposed to the zoning text amendment (based on staff's
recommendation). She felt this type use is not related to
bona fide agricultural/forestal uses and would be more
appropriate in a growth area. She supported the concept but
did not feel the land use designation, by special permit,
was appropriate. She felt the citizens of Boyd Tavern were
equally as important as those of the Milton area. She
concluded she would abstain from any action to approve the
request.
Ms. Huckle reminded the Commission that she, too, had not
supported the original zoning text amendment. She felt the
scale of an outdoor theater is inconsistent with the rural
area and she felt approval would be unfair to those persons
who have invested their lives and financial resources in
their property. She concluded she would not support the
request.
Mr. Johnson stated he could support the proposal with the
conditions suggested, with the exception of Nos. 7 and 10.
However, he stated he would not support the request at this
time if those two conditions were included. In response to
Mr. Blue's inquiry, he stated he would enthusiastically
support the request if those two conditions were amended as
he had previously suggested.
Mr. Jenkins agreed that the applicant had submitted a
responsible, well-researched proposal, but based on the
ci tizen obj ection he stated he could not support the"
request. He noted, however, that he agreed with Mr. Grimm's
assessment of the benefits of the project.
In response to Mr. Blue's request, Mr. Johnson enumerated
the changes he would require in the conditions in order to
support a motion for approval, i.e. rewording of No. 7 and
deletion of No. 10. He also felt No. 5 would be more
definitive if it simply referenced the definition of outdoor
drama.
/:7-. J
3-23-93
13
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that
SP-93-07 for 1781 Productions be recommended to the Board of
supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Development shall be in general accord with sketch dated
March 4, 1993 and initialled WDF.
2. site plan shall not be processed until Health Department
approval for potable water service and sewage disposal
system has been obtained.
3. Lights used to ill~minate parking areas shall be
arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining
Rural Areas and away from adjacent streets. Lighting
spillover onto pUblic roads and properties zoned rural areas
shall not exceed one-half (1/2) foot candle. Prior to final
plan approval a lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Department and Architectural Review Board
(ARB) which shall include methods for directing light
downward.
4. Productions shall not be scheduled to extend after
midnight. (Productions after midnight shall be permitted
due to delays beyond the applicant's control such as, but
not limited to, rain or lighting).
5. This permit is for an outdoor drama theater only. There
shall be no accessory or subordinate uses.
6. Methods for controlling on-site circulation shall
include manpower assistance or such other methods as may be
approved by the Planning Department.
7. provisions of Paragraph 4.14.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
are applicable.
8. Staff approval of site plan.
9. Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall include
left and right turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site.
The motion passed (4:2:1) with Commissioners Grimm, ~lue,
Johnson and Nitchmann voting in favor, Commissioners Jenkins
and Huckle voting against, and Commissioner Andersen
abstaining.
CONSENT AGENDA - Administrative Approval for 456 Reviews -
Discussion was deferred to a later date.'
MISCELLANEOUS
'? ' ,.--
3-23-93
14
Ms. Huckle volunteered to serve on the MPO Bypass Committee.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
11:35 p.m.
DB
~
-:J/l0
II
'-
,
-
ATTACHMENT I
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman, Mrs. Humphrls.
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Staff approval of site plan to include landscape plan;
2. Restroom facilities shall be connected to public utilities;
3. All equipment, maintenance gear, and the like, to be stored within
the building. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted;
and
4, Structure shall be similar in design to the existing Centel
substation located in Forest Lakes, and shall be located approxi-
mately as shown on sketch initialled WDF dated 3/2/93 (copy
attached) ,
(The Chairman called a recess at 9:05 p,m, The meeting reconvened at
9:19 p.m.)
Agenda Item No, 11. SP-93-07. 1781 productions (applicant); William
Burrus,~. (owner). PUD.L1C Hear10g on a request to establlsh an outdoor
theater of approx 2000 seats on 100 ac zoned RA, Property on S sd of Rt 250 E
approx 0.5 mi W of Black Cat Rd (Rt 616), TM94,P21 (part) & P25(part) ,
Rivanna Dist, (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 30 and Apr~l 6,
1993, )
Mr, Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The proposed
theater site is wooded and utilizes existing slopes for the seating area, An
intermittent stream is located near the proposed stage location. The proposed
parking area is currently pasture. The adjacent property to the west is pas.
ture with one dwelling. Residential subdivisions are located approximately
0.5 miles to the southeast and one mile to the northeast of the proposed
theater site. Other dwellings are located closer than these subdivisions.
The nearest dwelling to the theater site is located approximately 1200 feet
(0.23 miles) to the southeast. The proposed theater site is not visible from
adjacent property or the public road. The parking area will be visible from
adjacent property to the west and from Route 250,
The applicant proposes to operate an outdoor theater depicting area
historical events during the warm months of the year. The theater will
accommodate approximately 2000 people, Approximately 350 parking spaces
(including parking for buses and recreational vehicles) are proposed,
Mr, Cilimberg next identified the factors that are f.~vorable and unfa.
vorable to the request, Staff opinion is that the positive factors overcome
the potential negative impacts of this use and, therefore, staff is able to
support SP-93-07 subject to the following conditions:
"1. Development shall be in general accord with sketch dated
March 4, 1993 and initialled ~~F;
2, Site plan shall not be processed until Health Department
approval for potable water serVlce and sewage dlsposal
system has been obtained;
3. Lights used to illuminate parklng areas shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from ad]oinlng rural areas
and away from adjacent streets, Lighting spillover onto
public roads and properties zoned rural areas shall not
exceed one-half (1/2) foot candle, Prior to final plan
approval, a lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Department and Architectural Revie~ Board (ARB)
which shall lnclude methods for directing llght downward;
4. Productions shall not be scheduled to extend af~er mldnlght,
(productlons after midnight, shall be permltted due to del~ys
beyond the applicant'S control such as, but not limlted to,
rain or llghting);
5, Approval of this request shall not be deemed to include uses
such as craft shows, dog shows, music festivals and film
exhibitions unrelated to the drama production;
-
6.
Methods for controlling on-site circulation shall include
manpower asslstance or such other methods as may be approved
by the Plannlng Department;
7, Music shall be live and unamplified;
8, Staff approval of site plan;
9,
Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall include left
and right turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site; and
:,
I:
/;
Ii
II
ow
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
10, Construction of a 200 by 200 foot left turn and taper lane o~
Route 250 to serve traffic travelling north on Black Cat Road
(Route 616) ,"
Mr, Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 23,
1993, by a vote of 4/2/1 recommended approval of SP-92-07 subject to
conditions 1 through 4, 8 and 9 as recommended by staff, the deletion of
conditions #10, and conditions #5 and #7 amended as follows:
"5. This permit is for an outdoor drama theater only, There
shall be no accessory or subordinate uses;
7, Provisions of Section 4.14.1 are applicable, Verification
to include submission of a certified engineer's report for
the acoustics of the sound system and amplification in
accord with Section 4,14.8 which shall be required at the
time of site plan submittal;"
Mr, Cilimberg said staff has reviewed all the conditions for purposes of
clarity and enforceability and, therefore, recommends revisions to the condi-
tions in that regard, The revisions does not change the intent of the condi.
tion. Staff also reviewed issues discussed by the Planning Commission that
were not included in the conditions. If the Board decides to include cond~.
tions addressing those issues, recommended language ~s included. Below are
staff's comments on the conditions contained in the Planning Commission's
March 23, 1993 action:
"1. Development shall be in general accord with sketch dated
March 4, 1993 and initialled WDF;
No rev~sions are proposed,
2. Site plan shall not be processed until Health Department
approval for potable water service and sewage disposal
system has been obtained;
Staff has contacted the Health Department in order to
clarify what constitutes approval, Based on those discus-
sions, staff recommends that the condition be amended to add
the following: 'Approval shall be of the water system deSign
and the septic system design, including suitable soil evalua-
tion and percolation test.'
Ii
I
I'
I
i!
II
I!
II
I
II
3.
Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining rural areas and
away from adjacent streets. Lighting spillover onto public
roads and properties zoned rural areas shall not exceed one-
half (1/2) foot candle. Prior to final plan approval a
lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department and Architectural Review Board (ARB) which shall
include methods for directing light downward;
Lighting for this use is most appropriately addressed by the
Architectural Review Board, Staff recommends that reference
to Planning Department approval be deleted.
4. Productions shall not be scheduled to extend after midnight.
(Productions after midnight shall be permitted due to delays
beyond the applicant's control such as, but not limited to,
rain or lightning);
In the public hearing, the appl~cant stated that productions
are normally scheduled to end at 10:30 p,m. The Planning
Commission discussed operation time ~mpacts, but did not
~nclude changes in their recommendations. Should the ~oa~d
of Supervisors wish to reduce such impacts, staff would
recommend the follow~ng language as condition 4: 'Produc-
tions shall not be scheduled to take place after 10:30 p.m.
Productions shall only be permitted after 10:30 p.m. due to
delays beyond the applicant's control such as, but not
limited to, rain or lightning. In no case shall production
extend after midnight.'
Ii
II
II
Ii
5,
This permit is for an outdoor drama theater only. There
shall be no accessory or subordinate uses;
-
No revislons are proposed.
6, Methods for controlling on-site circulation shall include
manpower assistance or such other methods as may approved by
the Planning Department;
No rev~s~ons are proposed.
7.
I,
q
I
!,
I
Ii
II
'I
Provisions of paragraph 4.14.1 are applicable;
Staff recommends changing 'paragraph' to 'Section' and the
.
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
addition of the following language: 'Verification to include
submission of a certified engineer's report for the acoustics
of the sound system and amplification in accord with Section
4.14.8 which shall be required at the time of site plan
submittal.' This will enable the sizing of sound equipme~t
to ensure compliance with Section 4,14,1. A study will set
the sound levels at the speaker locations, enabling the
testing of sound levels at the sound source as opposed to the
property line where sound not produced by the theater could
interfere with the measurements,
8. Staff approval of site plan:
No revisions are proposed,
9. Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall include left
and right turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site.
NO revisions are proposed,
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission also discussed the condit~on origi-
nally recommended by staff regarding a turn lane on Route 250 for left turns
onto Route 616, The Commission did not recommend this condition based on
VDoT's initial comments, but agreed that if it was justified as a safety need
by VDoT, such a condition would be appropriate, Staff contacted VDoT regard-
ing their initial comments about the need the left turn and VDoT indicated
that the need for the turn lane was occasioned by the theater. The provis~or.
of a left turn and taper lane would limit the increased accident potentlal at
the intersection, Staff concurs with VDoT's comments, Should the Board W1Sr.
to include a condition requiring the turn lane based on these VDoT comments,
staff offers the following:
"10. Construction of a 200 by 200 foot left turn and taper lane
on Route 250 to serve traffic turning left and travelling
north on Route 616."
Mr. Cilimberg said, in addition, should the Board wish to ~nclude
conditions addressing impact of times of operation and a left turn lane on
Route 250, staff offers the following:
Replace condition 4 with the following: 'Productions shall
not be scheduled to take place after 10:30 p.m. Productions
shall only be permitted after 10:30 p.m. due to delays
beyond the applicant's control such as, but not limited to,
rain or lightning. In no case shall production extend after
midnight.'
Add condition 10: 'Construction of a 200 by 200 foot left
turn and taper lane on Route 250 to serve traffic turning
left and travelling north on Route 616.'
Mr. Martin asked how much cutting of trees would take place, Mr.
Cilimberg did not know. but he thought most of the cutting was off s~te,
Mr, Bowerman asked the applicant for comments,
Mr. Charles McRaven, one of the applicants, who lS also a writer.
hlstorlan and small contractor, said th~s proJect will be a successful
venture, This project has been thoroughly researched for three years. Mr.
McRaven said an exhaustive feasibility study that required seven months was
done. There are 92 of these type dramas around the country, There are 50
more ~n the plannlng stage in the United States, There no other drama theater
of th~s magnitude in Virginia, There are some theaters in North Carol~na,
Ohio and West Virgin~a,
Mr. McRaven said they tried to establish this theater through an
existing organization, such as Piedmont Virginia Community College or Ash
Lawn, but it did not work out, They tried to find a location zoned commercial
but that also did not work out because of sound requirements and the fact that
a rural location was needed, Last year when the zoning text amendment was
approved, this Board knew that the amendment was for this purpose. The
appl~cants looked at a site in Milton last Fall but withdrew the application
before it reached the Board because of all the concerns ralsed, They looked
at more than 100 s~tes ~n an attempt to find the best site,
-
Mr, McRaven sa~d last year the Board decided this was a compatible use
for rural land, The approved zon~ng text amendment allows them to pursue a
su~table site in the rural areas given certain c~rcumstances. The ~ssue is
now whether this is the right site, The applicants think this lS the right
s~te. The Institute of Outdoor Drama Study Team thinks th~s ~s the best s~te
The Plannlng staff thlnks this 1S the rlght site. The Planning Commlssion
thlnks th1S lS the r~ght slte This lS the most approvable site 'they have
, been able to flnd 1n the County Very few places 1n the County would meet
VDoT's requ~rements for access which was a problem w1th many of the other
sltes. This slte located d~rectly off Route 250 is accessible. This site is
also in the m~ddle of 500 heavily wooded, uninhablted acres. The appl~cants
are purchaslng 100 acres to insure adequate buffer~ng, After nearly two years
of research and consultation with 40.other managers of outdoor dramas and
\
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
extensive feasibility studies, he knows what kind of slte lS need, anc __ '0
up to this Board to decide if he can proceed on this site,
.{
Mr, McRaven said they listened to the concerns expressed during the
public hearing last year on the zoning text amendment and have taken those
concerns into consideration. He then addressed the following concerns that
have been raised: noise, lighting, utilities, land value and taxes, what
happens if the operation fails, traffic and qualifications of the appllCants
to operate the theater, They will comply with all County requirements relat.
ing to noise. The site is in a deep wooded hollow, one-quarter of a mile fro~
the nearest house, Lighting will be focused downward on the site, Contrary
to the staff report, they have measured the parking area and know that lt does
not have to be visible and can be situated below the last ridge, The parking
area will not be visible to adjacent dwellings, The lighting for the parklng
area will be shielded and low level, Utilities have been predrilled. There
is plenty of water and good septic sites, In no instances could they flnd 1r.
their research that land values were decreased or taxes increased due to an
outdoor drama, The success rate of outdoor dramas is 80 percent. The 20
percent that fail generally fail within the first five years and fail because
they do not follow the guidelines of the Institute, When these guidelines are
followed, there is virtually no failure. The guidelines consist of a lot of
good, common sense things, The Institute insists that they have all the money
to purchase the land, build the theater and run through the entire first year
without touching income. Traffic is a major item; 11,000 cars per day use
Route 250 and Route 660. Mr. McRaven pointed out on a conceptual plan the
site, proposed location, roads, etc. The roads into the property will be
paved, They will not use Route 616 at all for access, They will contribute
approximately two percent for improvements to the intersection, Mr, McRaven
said he will proffer that if after the theater is in operation and VDoT deter-
mines that the theater has significantly contributed to the traffic, he will
pay a proportionate share of the improvements necessary for the intersection.
They intend to bring in expert help to manage the theater. There is a lot of
talent in the County; anything they need can be found here,
Mr, McRaven said he is extremely concerned about the recommended cond1'
tions, All ten conditions could cripple this project's chances for success.
He has no problem with the first three conditions, Staff originally stated
that if the production was delayed, they would be able to continue past
midnight, Now in no case can the production run past midnight. He thinks
that condition needs clarification, In condition #5 the original recommen-
dation allowed "unrelated" uses, Somehow "unrelated" got d::"opped from the
language. If they are going to have people there for three hours, they would
like to sell them soft drinks. They will not allow alcohol on the premlses.
He has no problem with condition #6. Regarding condition #7, he is still
somewhat confused about the sound requirements, He was provided a ccpy of the
industrial sound regulations which has so many lnterpretatlons that ne cannot
follow them. If there is a problem with sound when the theater is in opera.
tion, he will take whatever steps are necessary to correct the problem. He
also would proffer that if there lS a problem, he would dlrE~ct sound barrier
fences in that location, It lS difficult to monitor and enforce sound, so he
would like the conditlon clarifled, He has no problem wlth conditlons #8 and
#9. If a left turn lane lS a requirement, he thinks the appllcants should be
responsible for a percentage of the cost based on the number of cars, not the
total cost,
Mr, McRaven said should the Board approve this request, he asks that it
closely consider the conditions. He hopes that the Board not make the use too
restrictive, This theater will bring in approxlmately $20 million a year to
the area. He is quite sure that enough work and publicity has occurred w1th
this project that ~f the Board does not approve the request, an adjolnlng
county would welcome it, They have been approached by five other count1es.
In summary, he said the Board needs to think about how much 1nfluence 11: wlll
allow an adJacent property owner to have on another persons' property. He
then introduced Dr. Rlchard Talman who could provide the Board with lnforma-
tion on the prOJections.
Dr. Talman said he recently Jointed the management team of 1781 Produc.
tions. He has personally known the McRavens for 20 years, He inltlally bega~
working with the McRavens on developing plans for this buslness because of h1S
own experience in business planning, grant projects and entrepreneurial enter.
prises, There are two points he will address; the first is financial viabi.
lity and capitalization, and secondly, the McRavens commitment to this
proJect. All the figures he has seen, which are conservative projectlons,
indicate a successful venture, The direct economic impact to the County in
the first year lS around $12 million, These are "clean" tot:rist dollars
requiring no additional County services or monies. Projected income will pass
the break-even point, exceeding operation expenses 1n the first year. By the
thlrd year investors will begln to recelve dividends on investments, Approxi.
mately 80 to 100 seasonal and full.time jobs will be created by this business.
The salaries and wages in the first year will be approxlmately $500,000.
Secondly, the McRavens are hard workers and are deeply committed to this
project, Charles McRaven lS a nationally known expert on historic preserva.
tlon and restorat10n, He has a background in theater. He is also a widely
published and noted author, a conservationalist and preservationalist. The
McRavens bring to this venture a track record of breathe and, depth of experi-
ence that is unsurpassed. He is confident this venture is well planned. In
its 120 page feasibility study for this project, the Institute of Outdoor
Drama at the Univers1ty of North Carolina stated: "The prospect for success
,.
'I
Ii
d
Ii
II
I'
i!
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
of the Jefferson Country Drama is high, Its merit and potential fo~ a~:~s:~~
cultural and economic prosperity are stronger than usual and it ~s the o~~~:~~
of the study team and the Institute of Outdoor Drama that the project sho~:6
be aggressively pursued,"
The Chairman asked for public comments,
Ms, Kristi wood, a resident of the Boyd Tavern area, said last wee~ ~e~
mother took her to a neighborhood meet~ng ~n order to hear more de:a:ls a~6
make an informed dec~sion about the proposed amphitheater, Sitting :hroug~
this meeting she learned that not all adults can conduct themselves ~n the
same manner of which she was raised, It became apparent to her that most c:
the adults had not collected all the facts, She has attended several ~utdoor
plays, The sound level is not much of a concern, After the meeting, she
contacted Mrs. McRaven to clarify a couple of questions she had, F~rs:, she
was curious about how much, if any, amplification would be used, Mrs, McRave~
informed her that no amplification would be used unless the band could not
perform live, but the band would not perform during the entire play. The band
would play portions of songs to emphasis a situation and would only be play~n9
for a short period of time, but because of the Americans with Disabilities Ac:
there will have to be arrangements made for the hearing impaired, She also
asked if there would be any cannons shot off, Mrs, McRaven assured he~ that
no cannon would be fired and they had not even been mentioned, She asked M~s
McRaven about the lighting, Mrs, McRaven informed her that the type of
lighting being used would be pointing towards the ground which means the
lighting will not radiate towards the evening sky, Ms, Wood said some of the
concerns are legitimate, for example, the increase in traffic, She does not
understand some of the other concerns, such as an increase in accidents and
littering, She thinks the people traveling on this road will be more cautious
if they have not traveled on it before.
:i
Ii
I
:1
II
II
II
II
II
I,
:1
I'
II
II
,I
II
I
I
I
Ii
II
I'
i
I
I
i
II
II
II
I!
Ii
I
Mr. Richard Travis, a professional actor from Richmond, Virginia, and
Assistant Professor of Theater at Old Dominion University, applauded this
endeavor by 1781 Productions, A project of this magnitude will create
professional opportunities for aspiring actors, seasoned actors, technicians
and support staff for years to come. The majority of the successes of these
people will come from the Charlottesville/Albemarle community, He, however,
is concerned about a little bit of misnomer about outdoor drama, Unfortuna-
tely there seems to be some social stigma attached to an outdoor drama, a lack
of intelligence, a lack of artistic endeavorment and achievement. As a
theater practitioner, any theater endeavor that is successful has a tremendous
amount of creativity, intelligence and scope behind it. Outdoor regional
theaters, because of their programming, description of purpose, execution and
who they cater too, which is the vast amount of tourism, are profitable. In
addition, this is a story of Albemarle County and its history. In other areas
where he has worked with these theaters, he has been amazed at the community
support, The business community has thrived from the operation, In the
future this community will embrace this theater,
Ms, Amanda McRaven, daughter of the McRavens and student at Western
Albemarle High School, said she has been in 13 theatrical productions ~n the
past four years, and held numerous jobs including director, costumer. set
des~gn, actor and stage manager. She has visited and talked with managers of
ten outdoor dramas in the past two years and she knows what it takes to run
one. What makes these theaters successful are the people, This proposed
theater will generate 106 new jobs; jobs that are badly needed, On Sunday,
November 15, 1982, the follow~ng was quoted in The Dail v Proqress: "The
Charlottesville area has lost about 3000 Jobs since the beg~nning of the
recession an amount equ~valent to the combined total employment of the City
and County School System..,." The article went on to say that the Charlottes.
ville area has lost jobs at a greater rate than the state as a whole s~nce
1990. There ~s so much this theater has to offer Albemarle County and ~ts
people, She knows that some of the Board members believe in this theater.
She asked the Board members to follow their hearts and not their pol~tlcal
aspirations and do what is right,
Ms. Bobbi Cochran, Director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Conventlon
and Visitors Bureau, said ~n November she attended a national tour assoc~at~on
marketplace and worked with 36 tour operators; 34 of those tour operators were
excited about the outdoor drama theater and wanted immediate information,
Tour operators love to come to Charlottesville. One of the first questions ~s
always "What's new?". Tour operators would like to spend more time in the
area but need something different for their clients to enjoy, A great portion
of the potential audience for this drama theater already comes here and
additional activities are needed to keep them in the area longer, In 1992
approximately 86,000 people came here on escorted or motor coach tours; over
500,000 toured Monticello; 179,000 came through the visitor's center; many of
which looked for even~ng activities, In ,a study done by the Virginia Division
of Tourism, more than 89 percent of visitOrS to th~s area are repeat visitors.
The maJority of the v~sitors will be here during the time the production will
be in operation. Sixty-seven percent of the visitors are interested in the
history of the area, According to a study done by the Better Homes and Garden
Magazine 80 percent of all travelers are families, An histor~c .drama per.
formed in the outdoors would certainly appeal to this market, According to
the latest figures provided by the State, total travel expenditures generated
in Charlottesville/Albemarle in 1990 was $159.65 million; the combined tax
base was ~ncreased by $2,989,464, The tourism industry is a highly compet~-
tive ~ndustry, both in-state and out-state, This area needs quality enter.
I[
I
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
tainment to attract attention from other areas and highlight this area as the
historical and cultural center of Central Virginia, In short, this theater :5
a way to provide quality entertainment that encourages a visitor to spend more
nights in the area and help boost the economy.
Mr, Anthony Graziano, of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Restaurant Asso-
ciation and representing the hospitality industry in the area and they are
excited about this proposal. The Association wants this t~eater, think that
it is needed in the community and asks that the Board approve it,
Mr, Keuri Patel, owner/operator of the Quality Inn in Shadwell, said
there is a need for something in the Charlottesville area to attract tour:sm
and tourism dollars. About 65 percent of their guests do not feel there :s
enough to de in this area, Statistically Charlottesville is a day t:me stop
area, He asked the Board to approve the request.
Mr. Barry Marshall, an Associate Professor of Medicine at the Un:vers:ty
of Virg:nia, said he has been Mr, McRaven's doctor for the last seven years.
If anybody can make a success of this venture, it is Mr. McRaven. He thinks
Mr, McRaven is a great asset to the community.
Mr, William Orr, a resident of Keswick, said one of the major object:ens
is lighting, There are probably 1000 lights at the Keswick Club that is
directly across the road from where he lives. When the Club was be:ng
remodeled, he did not feel he had any right to say anything about what they
were doing as long as it was within their rights, It seems to h:m that a
property owner has the right to do certain things that should not be subJect
to the opinion of far away neighbors. There has to be a difference between
opinion and impact. ~e thinks one of the key issues is how much :mpact th:s
theater will have on the surrounding residents. He has walked the property
and only two houses can been seen down the road and none in the wooded areas.
Last March he received a call from the McRavens one Saturday afternoon and
they wanted to know if they could walk over a 63-acre parcel of land that he
had at Milton that was not for sale, A little later they told him about the:r
idea to develop an outdoor theater in the County, He thought that was a great
idea, This County is rich in history. He was amazed and ashamed at the
hostile reaction that developed from the people in Milton, He thinks a lot of
the people never listened to what the McRavens wanted to do, did not give them
a chance to make a presentation and had a lot of unfounded fears. The
McRavens were always upfront with him and told him what they wanted to do, He
thinks the McRavens are a dedicated and committed couple, and they have a
dream, He hopes the Board will agree to let them develop the theater on this
site,
II
II
'I
I:
~
Mr, Lee McCauley, a resident of the Jack Jouett District, spoke in favor
of the petition. He feels the economic and cultural impact on the County far
outweigh any negative aspects some people have associated with this project,
The job opportunities for youth in the summer time are positive, He urged the
Board to vote in favor of the project.
Ms, Becky Critzer said she lives on the hill fairly close to the
proposed project, The residents are worried about traffic on Route 250 and
the adjacent side roads. Additional traffic will be a nuisance. The
residents are worried about noise, lighting and the precedent of grant:ng this
special permit in a nongrowth area, The res:dents question the future use of
this facility and what rules will govern it, if it does go "belly Up", As a
lifetime resident of this area she is particularly alarmed about the :mpact
this project will have on her own personal living environment and that of her
ne:ghbors, Her family has lived and farmed this sect:on of the County since
the 1920's, even before there was a Route 250 or Route 616. She can hear dogs
runn:ng from her house, she can hear people shoot:ng and mach:nery runn:ng.
The residents will hear noise, Over the years she has observed encroach:ng
development change the character of this area from completely rural to a
mixture of semi-rural and urban. Overall the qual:ty of life has rema:ned
quiet and peaceful. The people who live in this area seek the same country
atmosphere that she values, This theater project will change the feel and
texture of their quiet and historical surroundings by literally plopping down
a commercial venture in the middle of a rural area. If approved, this use
will pave the way for more special uses until the residents are inundated by
development. This is development the Comprehensive Plan promised to protect
them from since this area is not in a growth area, This use is setting a
dangerous example; growth begets growth, and it will continue. She then asked
the persons present who support her request to deny th:s special perm:t to
raise the:r hands (approximately 60 people) ,
II
i:
ii
I:
Ii
1
!I
II
:i
II
I!
Ii
I:
I:
"
"
Mr, M:chael Harr:s, a res:dent of Woods Edge Subd:vis:on also located :n
the Boyd Tavern area, said these people are residents and h"meowners, They
bought there homes with the specific purpose in mind of escap:ng growth and
the urban light. If they wanted to live closer to Charlottesville and if they
wanted to have commercial ventures closer to them, they wou:d have moved in
that direction, Th:s issue has gotten the neighbors to com.! together more
than any other issue, The community opposes this applicat:on, He then asked
the people who live in the area who feel they will be affected by this to
raise their hands (approximately 60 people) ,
Ii
I
I'
Ii
il
I
"
Mr, Carlos A, Sav:do, said he is one of the residents who will be
directly affected by this special permit, He lives on the corner of Route 616
and Route 250, He is one of the people who will be affected the most by the
:1
):
II
I '
II
I
1/
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
,
traffic situation, He is also concerned about what his neighbors will be
seeing and hearing. In 1992, on Route 250, between Interstate-64 and the
County line, there were 33 motor vehicle accidents, On Route 616, between -
64 and the County line, there were five motor vehicle accidents, At the
intersection of Route 616 and Route 250, there was only one accident last
year. The Pegasus medical evacuation helicopter was used to transport vict~ms
from three of these accidents, There have been a total of 11 motor veh~cle
accidents at the intersection of Route 616 and Route 250 since 1989, He
thinks this is a very dangerous intersection. These numbers came from the
Albemarle County Police Department, These numbers only reflect acc~dents
responded to by the Police Department with personal injury and/or damage to
personal property of over $1000, He understands that no traffic impact study
was done by VDoT at that location which he feels should have been done before
bringing this request to the Board. He is skeptic that traffic will not take
a short cut to reach 1-64, especially if there is a long line, If this
performance is later than 11:00 o'clock any and all veh~cles that travel by
his house will be passing by his bedroom. It makes a difference when there
are 340 vehicles going by someone's house, at 11:00 p,m" every n~ght for s~x
nights a week, At night the intersection is even more dangerous. He
personally feels there may be a problem with emergency serv~ce veh~cles
responding to and from any fire calls and/or rescue calls. The road is two-
laned and much of it does not have the ability to allow people to p~:l off tc
the s~de, In clos~ng, the increase ~n traffic has the potent~al of ~ncreasec
acc~dents, personal inJury, property damage and pollut~on.
Mr, Nick Evans, a resident of the R~vanna D~strict, said he heart:l~
endorses th~s proJect.
Mr, Richard Florence, a real estate appraiser and consultant. sa~d he ~s
appalled by the magnitude of this project, This is a large project; ~t w~l:
be nationally known and that scares him because it will ruin the Boyd Tavern
neighborhood. The project will affect the value of real estate in that area.
His field of expertise is land use, The farm adjacent to t~is property was
formerly owned by President James Monroe. Boyd Tavern was a stage stop on the
river road to Richmond. One of the oldest County houses is just across Route
250 from the entrance to this property, This is a rural community with few
'inharmonious uses and this is a real inharmonious use that 1~ill be put upon
the residents. Placement of a commercial enterprise of this scope and nature
will alter .the character of this neighborhood, and its acceptability and
desirability for single family users. This project will have an impact on
neighborhood property values, A project of this magnitude will affect a
buyers' decision to purchase in the neighborhood, The properties closest to
this project will lose the most in value, All properties in the neighborhood
will be affected to some extent,
Ms, Sandy Mattera, a small business owner in Charlottesville. said she
would welcome this sort of project. Tourists are needed in the area and she
is pleased with anything that will get the tourists to stay longer, She is a
native of western North Carolina and is familiar with outdoor theater. She
has known people who have lived near them and she has known people who have
participated in them. Her experience is that theaters are always an advantage
to the community, and they become something that people are proud of and
pleased to have,
Ms, Lalah Simcoe, a resident of the Rivanna District, south of Stonv
Point, sa~d she supports the project, She has several year's experience as a
small bed and breakfast owner in the County. In her experience she has found
that people are vitally interested in the history of the community and are
fasc~nated with what they can learn about the City and County, (Mr. Bowerman
left the meeting at 10:38 p.m,) She feels that the presence of a cultural
activity would be an attraction to single families seeking teo live in the
area.
Mr, R~cky Burruss, a resident of Route 759 for 17 years, sa~d he opposes
this plan. He moved to the County because he wanted peace and qu~et He has
hunted allover these woods. He knows that there will be traffic and no~se
problems, He asked the Board to make the right decision and vote the way the
people ~n the area want.
,
"
"
,i
Ii
'I
'I
I;
II
II
Ii
I[
Ii
i:
"
II
Ii
ij
Mr. W~lson McIver, a res~dent of Ivy, sa~d he has known Charles McRaven
for about 12 years. Mr. McRaven first mentioned th~s proJect to him several
months ago and talked to him about it. He told Mr. McRaven he thought the
proJect was a good ldea Although th~s proJect does not interest hlm
speclflcally, he does thlnk lt has a great deal of merlt, he share ~he
concerns voiced by the people tonight about what w~ll happer if th~s theater
~s located in their nelghborhood, At the same time Mr. McRaven was looking at
the Milton s~te, he was looking at a home on M~lton Road to purchase and he
had to cons~der whether this theater would. make a difference in purchasing
that home. His dec~sion was that the theater did not have an ~mpact on his
decis~on to purchase that home. Mr, McRaven is conscientious, he ~s a good
ne~ghbor and he w~ll work with the people any way he can. (Mr, Bowerman
returned to the meet~ng at 8:41 p,m,) If this Board says "no" to this
proJect, ~t ~s say~ng "no" to open space and "no" to a man who is a good
neighbor.
Mr. Bill St~msom, a resident of the general neighborhood, said he is
interested in tranquility. MOSL people will find tranquility in their homes,
(Mr. Bain left the meeting at 8:43 p,m.1 Large volumes of noise, thousands of
I
i
j
I
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
hours of automobile and diesel engines running for a period of seven e\'e~lr.ss
for three months and lights will destroy that tranquility. He asked Boare
members to consider whether they would want something like this in thelr bac~
yards,
Ms. Beth Evans said she lives in the Rivanna District, but not in thlS
neighborhood. She would like to have something like this in her back yard.
She would support an outdoor theater over a development of SO houses on less
than two acre lots in her back yard. Her perception from attending the to~T.
meeting and this hearing tonight is that the negative impacts have been
greatly magnified. This business will only operate three months out of the
year. The land will be quiet and open to wildlife for the bulk of the year.
She believes that there really is a silent majority of support for this
venture, The Board has already agreed to this concept by adopting the zonlng
text amendment last year,
,
I
/
Mr, Dan Leake, a resident of the Boyd Tavern area, spoke about the water
and sewer use on the property, (Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 8:45
p,m,) In a conversation with the Health Department, he was told they require
a minimum of five gallons of water use per person for averaging the amount of
land needed for a septic drain field, The Health Department will use the
maximum seating capacity of the theater to determine the S~lare footage, thus
2000 people times five gallons is 10,000 gallons. The Health Department wl11
only allow 1200 gallons per acre of land which calculates to 8,3 acres needed
if the soil perk tests determine the soil to have a good absorption rate.
These numbers do not include consideration of concession stands which would
increase the square footage required by the Health Department, If the perk
tests required by the Health Department show some areas to be not as good as
the core the Department may increase the gallons required per person to ten.
This would double the number of acres needed for the drain field, The amount
of land needed for the drain field does not include the lines from the
bathrooms, septic tanks and pumping station, The sketch of the site plan
submitted to the Planning Commission by the applicant shows the area for the
drain field and the seating area, Those areas are on Opposlte sides of the
ravine where the stage is proposed, The bathrooms will be ln the area close
to the seats and the covered area which is on the hill behind the seats. He
knows the waste will have to gravity fed to the tanks and then pumped up to
the drain fields. An estimate of this work is approximately $80,000. Another
issue is water supply, In a conversation with a well drilling company, he was
told that the Health Department would probably require a couple of wells Wlt::
a yield of five to ten gallons per minute, This could possi.bly be done with
one well or several, but the water would have to be pumped i.nto the storage
tank or tanks for use during peak demands, This will also t.ake qUlte a blt of
land to install the system, An estimate of this work and equipment needed
would be approximately $15,000 to $25,000, He is a general contractor in
residential building and he knows the area needed by heavy equipment to
install such water and sewer systems, The fewer trees cut down for these
systems, the greater the cost of installing them, Trying to save the trees
makes slow travel for backhoe and bulldozers, These are just two parts of
this project that will greatly impact the Boyd Tavern area, Ten to 20 acres
of this hardwood forest will be turned into commercial land use for an outdoor
theater, This property will never again be used for anything other than
activities for large numbers of people for who knows what tl~e of
entertalnment. Anyone who thinks this proJect is a simple and nondlsturblng
theater in the woods is greatly mistaken. He asked the Board to vote "no" for
the project,
Mr, Bill Dorsey presented a picture of the site taken from hlS patlo.
He opposes the request because his property and house adjoins this area, He
feels this project will cause many problems for him and his family. He does
not want to hear the horns blowing and see the lights shining into his house.
He is concerned about the noise, lights and garbage,
Mr. Alvin Jacobs presented some pictures of the pines belng harvested
and a picture taken from the top of hlS house. He lives closest to the
project. The McRavens have made many claims about thelr pre'ject. He has yet
to hear them claim to be magicians, Only a magician can do what they are
promising to do. They claim to bring 2000 people to Boyd Tavern, have them
seated in an open all' theater and reenact scenes from the Revolutlonary War,
complete wlth guns, horses and music, They are gOlng to do this wlthout the
neighbors and families living next door hearlng a thlng. He asked the Board
to imagine what this noise will be like in the middle of the night when
everything is quiet. Then when the production is allover, lmagine the roar
of diesel engines and ten to 15 buses moving out and rolling down Route 250
between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight. At the June 10th meetlng, Mr. McRaven
said he wanted a slte close to town where trafflc would go by as few homes as
posslble There are 62 houses along Route 250, between Shadwell and Boyd
Tavern These famllles will b~greatly affected at thlS late hour. Thls 1S
Nhat tr.ey wll1 hear comlng Into thelr bedrooms SlX nlghts a week, every week.
ali. summer long. Sound wl.ll travel right out of ~hat "bowl" l.nto their homes
The forest protectlng the resldents IS belng destroyed by the plne beetles.
Sound tests conducted by him and his neighbors ,nd,cate that they wl11 hear
vehIcles from the parklng lot very clearly, Some of the resldents l,ve as
close as 1200 feet from the proposed site. Nothing stands in the way to
protect them from the noise, cars, lights, etc" except this Board's votes.
He and his neighbors have built their dreams in Boyd Tavern, If this
commercial venture is approved, their dreams will become nightmares, He asked
the Board to deny this request,
II
i)
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Ms. Juanita Milby, a resident of Route 623, said she would like := nave
an outdoor theater in the community, but not in this locatIon, Why wo"ld ::0'"
Board want to go from the City, within one mile of Fluvanna County, in a
nongrowth area, and approve a major project such as this? This project ~s :e:o
miles from the City limits, She is concerned about how this use is described
If this is going to be just an outdoor drama or even an outdoor histor~c
drama, it frightens her that the University of Virginia's fraternit~es co,,:d
have many uses simply by reading a passage from Thomas Jefferson and call~r.s
it an historical meeting, There are a lot of unknowns, The McRavens have p~:
a lot into this proposal and she would like for the County to have a
successful outdoor drama theater in the area, but success does bring other
businesses, and she just does not feel this is the right place, She asked :~e
Board to vote against this request,
Mr. Hugh Lanahan, whose driveway is approximately 400 feet from the
proposed entrance, said he feels he will be impacted from this project. He
thinks the noise, fumes and traffic from the vehicles will greatly impact h~s
lifestyle. He asked the Board to vote "no",
Mr, Aaron Zackroff, a resident of Route 623 in Boyd Tavern, said he ~s a
social worker, jazz disc jockey, music promoter, and a past member on the
Board of Lives Arts. He has some familiarity with productions. He is
concerned that if this request is approved, it will compromise the rural.
historical and environmental integrity of Boyd Tavern, and thereby erode the
residents' quality of life in terms of increased traffic, noise, litter,
degradation of groundwater, lose of trees and the rural landscape, ruination
of the night sky and stars due to the reflected lights, Webster's Dictionar\'
defines rural as: "Living in country areas; engaged in agricultural pursu~:s;
characterized by simplicity; lacking sophistication; uncomplicating ,..
opposed to urban," This theater is not a bona fide rural use, but rather ar.
example of urbanization and commercialism in an area not suited for that
purpose, This trend is threatening the residents personal freedom, He l~\"es
in the Woods Edge Subdivision, Currently h~s well water smells like chlorIne
This is a request to support a 2000 seat theater for profit., developing v~rg:r.
land for an untested production for dreams of drawing 1500 patrons, six n~gh:s
a week, He questions the economic viability of this proJect, He also
questions whether this is the best use of the land, In his view this proJect
is a good idea, but it would better serve Charlottesville/J.lbemarle in an
existing park or public lands where crowds are already drawn, He asked the
Board to deny the, request,
Mr. Bill Johnson said he is a 20 year res~dent of the Keswick/Boyd
Tavern area, He is not opposed to the concept of an outdoor theater. He
supports a theater in the right area, He does not feel the RA d~str~ct, and
specifically this site, is the right place for this use, The residents wan:
to retain their privilege of living in a rural area, The people who l~ve :n
this area are not living here for the commercial venture or opportun~ty; they
are living here to get away from the city. He does not think this project ~s
realistic or feasible, including financing and marketing. He questioned where
the applicant got his $20 mill~on income generated figure, There is no
official site plan, Most people have not seen the feasibility study. There
has been no environmental impact study done, There has been no research
production, According to the numbers on the industry that he has seen, the
attendance at such productions are decreas~ng. This project will have a
substantial detriment to the adjacent neighbors and the character of the
district will be changed, and the use will not be in harmony with the
district, He questions what happens if this proJect goes "belly up". He IS
concerned about the real hidden agenda behind this special permit if ~t does
not succeed, For those reasons the Board should deny the request,
ii
Ii
,[
i:
Ii
I:
Ii
II
II
I'
II
I'
II
II
I
I
I
I
Ii
I:
I
Ii
II
ii
II
Mr. Robert Randolph Bollinger, a resident of the Rivanna District. sald
he supports this request and asked the Board to give it full considerat~on.
He is a homeowner, amateur historian, a stone mason and student of polit~cs.
He supports the vision supported in the Comprehensive Plan, Well-cons~dered
and appropriate development is an asset to a commun~ty. This project will nc:
turn Boyd Tavern into the next "Tysons Corner". He believes that Albemarle ~s
worth protecting, but zero growth is problematic. No growth means no rise ~n
revenues, but continual rise in taxes, The McRavens propose a tale of a piece
of this County's history in a colorful and entertaining manner. The McRavens
has had the audacity to have a good idea. He thinks it is a injustice to
portray the McRavens as spoilers of the County, This is a good idea.
-
Mr, George Gilliam, an attorney representing a large group of the
Keswick/Shadwell property owners, said if the Board should approve th~s
request, the residents woulrl like to be given an opportun~ty to participate
with staff and the applicant in the further focusing and refining of the
cond~tions. Staff has come in with some tighten~ng up of the conditions
recommended by the Commission, and again, while the residents are opposed to
the ~ssuance of the perm~t, they th~nk th~ staff's recommendations are a giant
step forward, but there are still a few obvious loopholes, He also asked that
~f the Board ~s ~ncl~ned to approve the request, that it defer action on'th~s
request fer a couple of weeks to g~ve the parties an opportunity to work on
the condit~ons.
Mr, Gilliam said the residents feel the use on the land will in many
respects set the tone for the whole area, It has been represented to the
Board that only the drama will be held, and there will be n,:> subsidiary,
related or ancillary uses, However, the residents were provided l~terature
!i
ji
II
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
indicating that the theater would have related uses; the appl~cants wo~:c ::~e
to put on workshops for potential participants and the public, In,:::r.s :~e
public in for workshops is different from putting on nightly historical d~a~as
and is "a way for the camel to get his nose in under the tent", He asked w~a:
type of concessions will be sold, whether it will be tee shirts, figur~nes, =:
something else. This is a thick hardwood oak forest, yet p~ctures have been
taken of clear-cutting in large sect~ons o! the proJect. Nobody knows ~ow
much of the exist:ng buffer will be destroyed as a result of bee:le
infestation. He thinks the type of buffer~ng should be handled at Boa~d :e\'e_
and not during site plan review, He thinks it is perfectly reasonable !o~ :~e
Board to require that the equivalent of the buffer that was formerly :here be
restored either through planting cedar trees or something that will grow ::9~:
and provide good protection for sound and light, Finally concern has been
raised about the possibility of the applicants coming back before the Board
asking for a change in the permit to amend the conditions, He would suggest
that the applicants, who have been cooperative, be asked to put restr~ct~ve
covenants on the land that limit the use of the land to by-right uses and
those limitations that the Board impose on the permit. There has also beer.
some discussion as to whether the conditions should apply to the entire 10C
acre parcel or whether only on the active site, He thinks the only way to
provide a small measure of protection is to impose the conditions on the
entire 100 acre tract, The neighbors oppose this request, but should the
Board approve it, he asked that consideration be given to these addit~onal
limitations,
Mr, Chuck Buchanan, a real estate broker and resident of Charlottesv~l:e
for 25 years, said he is one of the contract sellers of the 100 acres. The
tract being sold is part of a SOD-acre parcel, There was a substantial beet:e
infestation on the property and the timber was contracted to be cut. The vast
majority of the property contracted to be sold to the McRavens will still
offer a substantial buffer. On the remainder of the property, the contracto~
is cutting timber with beetle infestation and leaving the other hardwood
trees, He has many of the same concerns that have been expressed, If for any
reason he thought this project was not going to be a good neighbor, he would
be against it. He think the McRavens will do everything possible to make th:s
a successful project,
Mrs, Linda McRaven said this is a project that she, her husband and he~
friends have worked on for two years, They know that they have done the
proper work, This is a site issue, They have done the work and paid the
money to find out if this is an economically viable propos1tion, If she
thought this would not succeed financially she would not h,~ve mortgaged her
house or spent two years working on it. They believe in t'1is project and know
that it will work, Even though they spent a lot of money on the Milton
property, they decided that it was the wrong site. They listened to the
Planning staff and Commission and are proud to come to this meeting with a
positive report to the Board, She has done her research and can prove
everything she says, There are supporters of this project who live ~n the
Boyd Tavern and Route 250 area. This project will expand the tax base of :he
County, They will be paying real estate and sales taxes. The hotels and
restaurants will benefit, During preproduction their payroll w~ll be 1n
excess of $200,000. Their first year of payroll will be over $500,000; second
and succeeding years will be in the neighborhood of $500,000, That ~s more
than min~mum wage and is a lot of money com~ng into the area Th~s is not
meant for locals. They want the locals to come to the productions, but they
are appeal~ng to the tour 1St business Wh1Ch w11l compr1se of 90 percent of
their audience. There has been a lot of dlScusslon on how dangerous the RO~LC
616 1ntersection is, If the Route 616/250 junction 1S a problem, :t 1S not
because of their measly 320 cars per night; that 1S a problem because of
traff1c at Lake Mont1cello. There are 11,000 cars that use this Junct10n
today. This theater will have a minor impact on that intersect~on. It would
be fa~rer to assess Lake Monticello dr~vers for those problems. They have
done their research and have many supporters. They have worked with:n the
rules and regulations, They are here representing themselves, They have done
their job and ask that the Board cons1der this request pos;,tively.
I'
I,
Ii
II
I:
Ii
'I
II
Ii
II
ii
I
Ii
"
Ii
Ii
I'
,
,
A person who did not identify himself said he 1S concerned about how
long it will take for all that tree growth that has been cut to come back,
The trees would have acted as a buffer, except ~t is no longer there,
At this time, the Chairman closed the public hearing
Mr. Bowerman said if this appl1cation goes forward he would like to
leave condition #5 as recommended which would omit the word "related",
Mr. Martin said in all the meetings he has attended, this group of
people has conducted themselves :n the most well-behaved manner than any other
group on opposing sides. In the seven years he has been on either the School
Board or the Board of Supervisors, this has been one of the most difficult
decisions to make, He walked into this meet~ng w~th no inclination on how he
would vote on this request and that is still how he feels, He would like to
hear some comments from the applicant about Mr. Gill~am's recommendations.
Mr, Bowerman asked the appl:cant his thoughts about ~Ir, Gilliam's
recommendation for some sort of buffering to replace what is being lost. Mr.
McRaven said he has no problem replacing any buffer that is lost inside his
property line.
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Martin asked about applying the permit to the entire 100 acres as
opposed to the six acres. Mr, Me Raven said if for some reason the proposed
use fails, they would like to be about to recoup their loses through some kl~j
of development on the property,
Mr, Bowerman asked if a special permit would take away development
rights for that property, Mr. St, John responded, "no" which is why the area
for the special permit is delineated because the permit becomes the use.
the permit applies to the entire 100 acres then that becomes the use. Mr.
McRaven said he has no problem with restricting uses on the property, but __
could be difficult because he does not know what could happen in the future,
He wants to cooperate but do not want to "cut his own throat" if this venture
does not succeed. The difference between success and failure sometlmes lS the
ability to have related activities, i.e" a gift shop, concession stand,
backstage tours. He is concerned that the Board allow use that relate
directly to the theater,
Mr, Martin asked Mr, McRaven if he would be opposed to the Board
deferrlng this request to allow him time to meet with Mr, 3illiam to address
some of the concerns. Mr, McRaven said he has no problem with that but he 1S
working on a tight time schedule,
Mr, Mar"tin asked how other Board members feel about deferr1ng the
request.
Mr, Marshall said he would like to take action tonignt if possible.
This lS one of the most difficult decisions he has had to make since belng on
the Board, He is friends with most of these people who have spoke in
opposition to this application, He does not want to go home and worry about
this,
Mr, Martin said he would like to defer the request until the next
regular night meeting to give the applicant a chance to meet with Mr, Gillia~
to address the concerns and reach a consensus on the issues,
Mr, McRaven said if the Board wants to vote on this .tonight he will
abide by that decision, He wants to cooperate and he thinks the dialogue
might be valuable. He also feels strongly that everybody has been given
plenty notice on what this is all about and what will happen. The applicants
have done everything they could to disseminate the information,
Mr, Martin said this is a tough decision, He wants to support the
request but this will impact some of the residents, He wants to make sure he
has done everything he can to protect his constituents,
Mrs, Humphris said Mr, Martin is putting the Board in the same positior.
that it was put in on the previous issue where instead of making a decision he
is saying defer the request, If the majority of the Board decides to not go
along with the compromise solution, Mr. Martin would again feel that the Board
should have approved the request or denied it at this meeting, This lS
putting the Board in an awkward position, Mr, Martin sald that is not correct
because in the other situation the Board brought up new information that was
not discussed at the first meeting,
Mr, Martin said, given the discussion that has taken place, at this tlme
he would vote in support of the appllcation.
Mr. Perkins said he supports the project. He thlnks the benefits
outwelgh the negative aspects, He thinks this is probably the best locat10r.
in the County for this use.
Mr. Bowerman said he lS 1ncl1ned to support the appllcation, He does
not thlnk any changes 1n the condltions wlll satisfy the people who are
concerned about the proJect. He thlnks amendments to the condit10ns mlght
allevlate some of the Board members concerns. He does not support lncludlng
the word "related" ln condition 115, He has no problem with a backstage tour
of the theater, He thinks there lS enough flexibility that the Zonlng
Administrator could determine if an activity related to the theater 1S a
permitted use.
Mr. Bain asked how Mr, Bowerman can say that when the condition states
there shall be no accessory or subordinate uses, He asked why put the burden
on the Zoning Adminlstrator,
Mr. McRaven said there. are numerous models of histor:cc outdoor theaters
around the country that have related act1v1tles such as a 91ft shops and con-
cession stands, but no other uses,
Mr. Bowerman said he does not have a,problem wlth a gift shop or a
conceSS10n stand, but he would have a problem with a 20,000 square foot gift
shop.
il
II
'I
II
"
'I
I.
Ii
II
Mr. Bain sald if the Board is going to allow the related uses, they need
to be set out,
Mrs, Humphris said she would like to see an historical drama in the
County but she is looking at ~eality, She then referred to some of the state-
ments in the staff report. "This use will result in additional noise and
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
light, not particularly associated with by-right development, However, :he
location of the theater is such that adjacent property should not be adverse:,.
affected." She takes exception to that statement, She does not see ho~ :he
statement could be made that adjacent properties should be not adversely
affected. The staff report continues, "Staff opinion is that due to distance
to adjacent development and the topographic features of the site, sound from
the theater should have a minimal impact on adjacent properties," When she
was at home this morning, as she was in the kitchen, her husband asked her ~:
she had left a radio on somewhere in the house, Her response was, "no" and
she asked "why". He told her to listen and she heard, while she was in the
house with all the doors and windows shut, the Albemarle High School Band
rehearsing at the high school. Her husband, the engineer, went to the map and
measured the distance. As the crow flies, they are one and one-quarter miles
from Albemarle High School through thick cedar forests, over hills and through
a huge subdivision. She is accustomed to hearing that sound during the sprlng
and summer months when they are outdoors or when the windows are opened, but
she was amazed that it happened this morning, In addition "Staff opinion is
that due to topography and physical separation from adjacent properties, the
proposed use will not result in a substantial detriment to adjacent property.
None of the people who have called her have indicated they want this theater
next door to them. She recognizes the economic benefits t.::> this community 1::
allowing this theater, but people's right to enjoy the pea::e and qulet 0:
their property are at stake, She does not think this is a good location nor
does she see how deferring the request could take care of the problems that
would be created by the noise, lights or other concerns, "he is not willlng
to sellout the people who have found their dreams, These people were here
first, For that reason this site is not acceptable to her,
Mr. Marshall said he is "pro business". Albemarle County needs :hese
jobs, He said the information provided by the applicant ~nd~cates that 106
jobs would be created and $500,000 equates to $4710 per person or S15CO per
month, He asked if that is what the average person will earn, Mr, McRaven
said the jobs in management are year-round, Most of the Jobs are seasonal,
for about four months, and the people will work an average of three hours per
day, Those 106 jobs are the total number of what the theater will employ.
Most of the jobs will be actors, technical people, parking lot attendents and
people working with the theater,
Mr, Bain said he came to this meeting tonight basica:ly leaning agains:
the application because he is concerned about the rural areas. Board members
heard his comments when the zoning text amendment came before it last year,
He knows that the applicant has done everything he could, He believes what
the applicant has said about what they are trying to do, The rural areas are
important to him and he believes those people close to this theater will be
affected, One of his major concerns is sound and how it would be addressed
because it will be heard by the people who live the closest: to the slte, He
does not know what kind of sound barriers can be erected, He does not think
trees will take care of the problem, He is not a sound person in more ways
than one. He thinks the applicants have done their work. He thinks lf there
is a place in the rural areas, this is probably it, but he still has the same
problems and he does not know if they can be addressed,
Mr, McRaven said his is willing to adhere to anything regarding sound
that can be worked out, Mr, Bowerman said the Board knows that any conditlons
will be hard to enforce,
Mr, Marshall said he lives on top of a mountain, seven-tenths of a mile
from the highway and sometimes he can hear cars going up and down the road.
He lives two miles from Lake Reynovia but he use to be able to hear activitles
going on there, He is concerned because he does not think there is anything
that can be done where the people will not hear the activities, He wants thlS
business in the County, but he cannot be a businessman witr.out emotions. He
could not support this application tonight, He needs to know more about the
sound.
Mr, Mart~n sald it looks as if this request should be deferred untll the
next meet~ng. He knows that a lot of the people are angry and upset over h~s
decision, This was a tough decision for him, He knows that the use will
impact some of the people which is why he would like to do everything he
possibly can to limit that impact, He does not think this use will have as
much of an impact on the rest of the neighborhood, The Board is supposed to
set the tax rate tonight, The night after he met with citizens at Mr, Leake's
house, the Board had a regular meeting and got blasted by people who
complained about their taxes and tax rate. In his oplnlon, this theater is
one of those activ~ties that will bring revenue into the County. ThlS use lS
clean and does not requlre schools or other services. He did want to support
this use when he flrst heard about ~t and after meeting wlth the citlzens he
was unsure. He only made up filS m~nd ton~ght.
Mr. Marshall sald he would support the request if the nOlse can be
controlled. Mr, Bowerman suggested adding a condit~on the control the nOlse
and have staff come back with how the cond~tlon would be enforced, and whether
lt ~s acceptable to the applicant and Board, Mrs. Humphris said sound cannot
be controlled. Mr, Bowerman said people are going to be aware that there is
an act~vity in this area, He is aware of activity on Route 2~ and a shopping
center that is one-half mile from his house, He is also aware that when he
was on that site, he heard semi-trucks and cars constantly on 1-64, There are
some noises that are more objectionable than others, He thinks loud noises
April 14, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
coming off the site like cannons and amplified sounds are totally unaccep:-
able.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr, Me Raven if he will fire off m~skets, Mr, McRa\'e~
said they would use flash travelers, not muskets,
Mr, Bowerman then said condition #5 needs to be stated in such a ,,;ay :0
allow the types of uses the Board indicated are acceptable such as accessory
gift shop, concession stands and workshops,
Mr, Martin suggested language be written and brought back to the Boare
for review, Because of the lateness of the hour, he does not think any of :he
Board members are at their best in terms of arriving at aCI:eptable conditions
Mr. Bowerman asked which term "accessory uses" or "related uses" J.S more
restrictive. The conditions could set out the uses that the applicant
indicated as the only other uses allowed, Mrs, Humphris asked if this would
then allow associated workshops to occur at hours other than evening hours,
Mr, Bowerman said he did not know when the workshops would occur. Mr.
Bowerman then asked the applicant how many people would attend the workshop.
Mr, McRaven said he had no idea, They are not looking to attract people other
than the normal theater crowd, Mrs, Humphris said that could open a car. c~
worms,
Mr. Bowerman asked what time the production would begJ.n. Mr, McRaven
responded the show would begin at 8:30 p.m, Mr, Bowerman suggested that
nothing would occur on the site prior to 6:00 p.m. Mr. McRaven said at thlS
time he has no problem with that condition. Mr, McRaven said the purpose of
the workshop is to train employees,
Mr, Martin then suggested including in the condition "assocJ.ated gift
shop, concessions and rehearsals",
Mrs. Humphris said the Board is departing now J.nto a whole new realm.
The zoning text amendment was solely for the presentation of an hJ.storJ.cal
drama, All of a sudden the Board is discussing workshops to train people,
These are classes and was not the intent of the zoning text: amendment that
Board members voted for.
Mr. Bowerman again said he thinks this request should be deferred to ge:
acceptable conditJ.ons worked about between the staff and the applicants,
Mrs, Humphris said she would like to specifically know whether workshops
and classes come under the heading of presentation of an hi.storical drama,
Mr, Cilimberg said he does not think a week will be enough time to get
all the information the Board wants. Staff needs to meet with the applJ.cants.
Mr, Gilliam, the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney, In addJ.tJ.on,
staff has attempted to clarify the conditions four times,
Mr, Bowerman then suggested this item be deferred unt.il May 12,
Mr, Bain said he thinks the main concern is sound, Mr. Bowerman saJ.d he
cannot speak for other Board members, but he thinks the special permit should
cover the entire 100 acres, He also suggests there be no amplificatJ.on of
sound,
Motion was then offered by Mr, Martin, seconded by MI', Perkins to defer
SP-93-07 until May 12, 1993 to allow staff time to work with the applJ.cant and
residents to address concerns raised regarding sound, hours of operation and
to define historic drama, Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No, 12, Approval of the 1992-93 County OperatJ.ng Budget.
Mr. Tucker said the Board has been provided copies of two resolutJ.ons
which cover the operatJ.ng budget and the tax levy. The Board needs to adopt
the budget and set the tax levy for taxable year 1993,
Motion was offered by Mr. MartJ.n, seconded by Mrs, Humphris, to adopt
the following resolution for the operations budget for the County for the
Fiscal Year begJ.nning July 1, 1993.
Mr. BaJ.n saJ.d a message needs to go .to the School DJ.vJ.sJ.on that the
ltems approved J.n the School budget are the J.tems thlS Board wants the money
to go towards. He knows thJ.s Board does not have line iterr veto but the J.:ems
discussed by the Board J.S what he is votJ.ng for. He J.S specJ.fJ.cally concerneo
that the additJ.ona: fundJ.ng for schools gOJ.ng towards the J.nstructJ.onal
lnJ.tJ.ates outlJ.ned J.n Option A. He wJ.ll support the motJ.on.
Mr, Marshall said he cannot support the motJ.on, He wants the tax rate
lowered and that cannot be done with this budget,
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
II
:1
-
!: May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
ATTACHMENT J
I
II
:i
II
_II
'I
I,
I,
ii
!I
:1
!I
:1
Item 5.5. Letter dated April 27, 1993, from The Honorable Thomas J.
Bliley, Jr., Member of Congress, re: Environmental Protection Agency's
implementation of financial assurance regulations, received for information,
Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated April 29, 1993, from Mr. John Grady,
Deputy Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Michael Merriam, re: Board of
Zoning Appeal's Action - VA-93-12; Tax Map 77, Parcel 15B, received for
information.
Item 5.7, Copy of memorandum dated May 4, 1993, from Mr. Bruce
Woodzell, County Assessor, addressed to Mr. MelVin Breede~, Director of
Finance, re: Board of Equalization Appeals, received for information.
Item 5.8, Letter dated April 29, 1993. from Mr. Roy 1. Lloyd, Jr" City
Clerk, City of Radford, Virginia, reo resolution urging support for Amtrak
rail service to their area, received for informat:on.
Item 5,9, Albemarle County Planning Commission 1992 ~~nual Report,
received for information,
:1
I
I
I
I
I
i
Agenda Item No, 6. ZMA-93-05. Robert & Victoria Burton, Public
Hearing to rezone 18.5 ac from RA to R-4, Property S of and Adjacent to
Deerwood Subd is in the designated growth area of Hollymead and is recommended
for Industrial service in the Comprehensive Plan, TM32C,P2,Sec3. Rivanna
Dist (defer until June 16, 1993). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April
27 and May 4, 1993.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded Mrs. Humphris, to defer
ZMA-93-05 until June 16, 1993, Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
Messrs. Martin. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall,
None,
I
I
!
II
II
I,
;1
"
"
NAYS:
Agenda Item No, 7, SP-93-07,
1781 ?roductlons (deferred from April 14,
1993)
Mr, Cilimberg summarized the following memorandum dat,ed May 10, 1993:
"The Board of Supervisors deferred SP- 93 - 07 on April 14, 1993 to
allow staff time to work with the applicant and residents to
address concerns raised regarding sound, hours of operation and to
define the use, Subsequent to that meeting, Mr. George Gilliam,
representing some of the opposing property owners in the area,
submitted recommended changes in certain conditions and new
conditions to address concerns of property o~ners (Attachment A-.
on file), As these recommendations track the Planning Comm:ssion
and staff's recom."Ilended conditlons, r wlll use l~r. Gilliam's
letter as the pOlnt of reference, Staff comment on each conditlon
change or addition (per Mr, Gilliam's letter) is as follows:
1.
Development shall be in general accord with. and the n~r.ber
of buildings sha"l be limited to three as those shown on.
the sketch da ted March 4, 1993 and In; tialled w7)F, The
amphltheater shall accor.modate not more than 2000 people,
Paved parking for a min;m~"Il of 800 cars shall be provided
on slte
,
,
,he appllCant has submltted a new sketch better defln"ng the area
0: development (Attachment B--on :"le), Llmltatlons as to number
c: bUlldings and maXlmum capaclty cf the amphitheater are at the
Clscretlon of the Board, and of course, can be amended by future
Board actler.. The 20nlng Admlnlstrator wlll have to make a deter.
mination of parklng requlrements at slte plan review. Parklng
area surface must meet the requlrements of Sectlon 4,12 of the
20nlng Ordinance and should be determined at tlme of site plan
review by the Department of Engineerlng, Staff would recommend
changlng thls conditlon to read:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the sketch and
tax map parcel dated May 7, 1993 and initialled VWC. The
area of development aha11 be 100 acrea + and consiatent with
the natural boundariea and boundary diatances deacribed on
the sketch. Only those wooded area. necessary to .
accommodate development shall be cleared. All other wooded
areaa shall be maintained in their natural state.
4, Productions shall not be schedul ed to take place before 7: 00
p.m. nor after 10:30 p.m. Production shall only be per-
mitted after 10:30 p.m. due to delays beyond the applicant's
control such as, but not limited to, rain or lighting. In
;1
1
11
~ !
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
no case shall production extend after 11:00 p,m, No produt.
tions shall take place prior to June nor subsequent to
September 10th in each year.
A concern of neighbors is arrival and departure time for the
public, Opponents apparently do not want the facility opened to
the public before 7:00 p.m, due to existing traffic in the area
during the late afternoon and early evening and concern that those
arriving early may stray onto neighbor's property, It has been
suggested that a condition requiring advertisement of the prOduc-
tion's time start or a 'gates open' time be included. The Zoning
Administrator indicates that would have to be self-regulating. A
limitation on the latest time at which the public performance can
begin and the time at which it must end seems to be more reason-
able, Opposing neighbors also believe there should be a limita-
tion to months of operation based on the applicant'S intended
limitations, Staff sees no identifiable public purpose to such a
restriction, The weather in and of itself will be self-limit~ng.
Staff recommends:
4. Public performances shall not begin after 9:00 p.m. Public
performances shall not extend after 10:30 p.m. except due to
circumstances beyond the applicant's control such as, but
not limited to, rain, lightning or power failure.
5. This permit is for an outdoor local historical drama theater
only. There shall be no accessory 'or subordinate uses or
'related' uses except the following: not more than two
permanent, stand-up type concession stands shall be per-
mitted to sell soft drinks, and light snacks requiring no
on-site preparation or heating and to sell historical and
educational materials (such as books about the subject
matter of the historical drama performed at the theater).
No apparel (including t-shirts, hats, etc ) or other
souvenirs shall be sold on the premises,
The concern here is to define the uses that are appropriate to the
proposed operation. Staff had originally recommended certain uses
to be excluded, whereas the Planning Commission recom~ended only
allowing an outdoor drama theater without accessory or subordinate
uses, It is difficult to expand from that and provide an all
inclusive list of accessory/subordinate uses, Therefore, staff
recommends the following:
5. This permit is for an outdoor drama theater and those
accessory uses customarily incidental to, subordinate to and
directly supportive of an outdoor drama theater. Approval
of this request shall not be deemed to include use such as
craft shows, dog shows, music festivals, rock concerts and
film exhibitions unrelated to the outdoor drama theater.
7, Provisions of Section 4.14,1 are applicable, Verification
to include submission of a certified engineer'S report for
the acoustics of the sound system and amplification, if any,
or the generation of noise without sound or amplification
systems, if applicable, in accord with Section 4.14.8 which
shall be required at the time of site plan submittal; sound
barriers shall be constructed to the southeast of the
theater to buffer residences on Boyd Tavern Lane. Sound
barriers shall be constructed to the west side of the
theater to buffer parcel 21K on TM 94. The engineer shall
certify that sound reaching Boyd Tavern Lane or parcel 21K,
TM 94, shall be no greater during and following performances
at the theater than now present amb~ent noise levels at
those locations, A bond in the amount of $100.000 shall be
required, with approved surety thereon, to ensure that the
noise levels during performances shall not exceed the
approved levels,
The applicant has conducted sound tests which ~nclude natural
speech, amplified speech and music, gunshots and app12use and will
make a report ava~lable to the Board (Attachment C-Su'nmary of
Test--on file) They believe the test ~ndicates that the no~se
restr~ct~ons of Sect~on 4.14 of the Zon~ng Ordinance 2re not
v~olated and the applicant is agreeable to the pr~or recommended
cond~t~on. Staff has not had an opportun~ty to rev~e~ the
f~ndings of the noise report. The Zon~ng Department nas raised
concerns regarding the visual ~mpact of sound barr~ers and the
utility of holding a bond and how the bond would be used should
there be a v~olation. Staff recommends the condition as presented
previously: .
7. Provisions of Section 4.14.1 are applicable. Verification
to include submission of a certified engineer's report for
the acoustics of the sound system and amplification in
accord with Section 4.14.8 which shall be required at time
of site plan approval.
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
ii
-II
I,
"
8, Site plan to be reviewed by Planning CommiSS~Ol1,
Staff has recommended staff approval of the site plan, Regard-
less, neighboring property owners can appeal the site plan to the
Planning Commission. Practically speaking, it appea~s the.rev~ew
would end up being the same either way the cond~t~on ~s wr~tten,
9, Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall include left
and right turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site, A 200
x 200 left turn and taper lane at Route 616 shall be
required; the grade shall be lowered and the banks shall be
cut back, as recommended by VDoT letter of April 1, 1993,
"
,I
;1
:1
II
II
:1
11
.1
11
II
II
Staff had offered a condition for the turn lane from Route 250
onto Route 616 based on VDOT and County Police comments (Attach-
ments D and E--on file), However, placing responsibility for
regrading of U. S, Rt. 250 and cutting back the banks with the
applicant is impractical and disproportionate to the proposal's
impact on the roadway. There is debate as to whether the neces-
sity of the turn lane is directly attributable to the proposed
theater's traffic generation or whether it is an existing condi-
tion for which the theater would have only marginal additional
impact. To address this issue, staff can suggest th,~ follow~ng as
a separate condition:
10. A 200 x 200 left turn and taper lane from Route 250 onto
Route 616 shall be bonded for three operational seasons of
the theater. At the end of the honding period. the Board of
Supervisors shall determine if theater traffic has signifi-
cantly affected safety at the intersection. In addition to
such other testimony and opinion as the Board may require.
reports shall he sought from VDOT, County police and emer-
gency services agencies. In the event severe safety
problems occur prior to the end of the bonding period. the
Board may call the bond after appropriate notice
to the applicant.
10, All conditions shall be drafted as deed res:r~=tions and
shall be for the benefit of the public, enforceable by any
member of the public, and shall run with the l~nd,
Mr, George St, John, County Attorney has responded t<::) this in
detail (Attachment F--on file). A condition such as this is not
recommended in any form,
11, The activity for which the permit is issued shall have
commenced (which shall be construed to require closing of
the real estate purchase and the obtaining of construct~on
permits for the improvements) w~thin 18 months of the date
of approval of the SUP request: construction of the improve-
ments shall have been completed within one year thereafter,
The Zoning Ordinance requires commencement within 24 months of
approval, Usually, changes in this time frame for c~mmencement
are based on spec~al circumstances, such as environmental concerns
or remedies to violations. Staff has no further rec~mmendatlon,
12, The applicant shall file an application for amending the
Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County to conform the Rural
Areas provisions of the Plan to the contemplated uses,
Discussion of the consistency of this general use with the Compre-
hensive Plan took place with the Zoning Text Amendment. At that
time, staff questioned whether the use 'outdoor theater' was con-
sistent, It was the Board's decision that the use w~s acceptable
within the Rural Area, Therefore, staff sees this issue as
already having been addressed, Certainly, this issue can be
revisited during the upcoming review of the Comprehensive Plan,
but staff does not believe such a conditlon as recom~ended here lS
appropriate."
Mr. Cilimberg said at the time this report was done, staff did not have
the results of the sound study. The Board has now received a copy of the
study. In addlt~on the Engineering Department has responded to the sound test
report, whlch he d~stributed to the Board, The Engineering Department's bas~c
comment lS that all of the test results fell below the maximum allowable sound
level readings prescribed in Section 4,14,1 of the Zoning )rdinance There-
fore, it is the determ~nation of the Engineering Department that the proposed
land use lS In compllance with County performance standards.
Refe~rlng to the staff's recommended condltlon #10, the County Attorne,'
had expressed some reservations about the condltion and the concern that
poss~bly allocat~ng the entlre responslbility for that turn lane with the
theater and ltS operatlon may not be approprlate, The County Attorney
indicated that a better approach would be on a pro rata share basis. Mr,
Cilimberg said any pro rata share approach is going to require an obligation
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
of either the County or VDoT to provide for the rest of the funding that ~2~_~
be necessary to build that turn lane based on prescribed ti'nes,
At this time, Mr, Bowerman asked for comments from representatives 0:
the applicant and the residents,
Mr, Fred Payne, representing the applicant, said the staff's recommended
conditions are acceptable to the applicant. He discussed with the County
Attorney the proposed condition #10, and they have agreed on an amended.
condition. He handed to the Board members a recommended change to condltior.
#10, The condition basically states that the applicant will post a bondw1th.
the Zoning Administrator for its pro rata share of the cost of constructlon o.
a left turn lane, If the County or VDoT appropriates the money to bUlld the
turn lane at anytime within three years, this money can be used to pay the
applicant'S pro rata share of the cost of the construction. As far as he l~
aware, this is the only issue of contentlon, The appllcants are present ana
can answer any further questions,
Mr, Payne said the applicants feel staff has done an excellent
working with the parties and arriving at the recommended conditions,
will be a positive, and certainly not detrimental, use to the County
area, Mr, Payne said a representative of the sound engineer is also
to answer any questions.
job of
This
in this
present
Mr. George Gilliam complimented staff for working many hours in an
effort to resolve issues between the applicants and the neighbors, although
the issues were not resolved to everyone's satisfaction, The neighbors do not
think that the conditions suggested by staff go far enough. Issues that they
felt would be easy to come to some agreement were: hours of operation, length
of the season and physical site development characteristics, One of the most
troubling issues to the neighbors is sound,
I
:i
:i
I.
ii
Ii
Ii
I ~
I
Mr, Gilliam said as soon as he was provided a copy of the sound reports.
he talked to an engineer from County staff and Mr, Fritz from the Planning
staff trying to understand what the sound report had to say, He thinks there
are a lot of things in the report that is cloudy; both the methodology of the
report and the way it would be construed under the County's ordinance, The
County's entire sound ordinance addresses sounds generated in an industr1al
area, Even though the ordinance can be incorporated into this speclal use
permit, the Board needs to be aware of how it would have to be construed, He
then asked the Board to instruct staff to construe the ordinance in this
fashion, There are three columns in the ordinance. The first shows "octave
band, cycles/second, Basically the lower the sound on the scale, the louder
it can be without being offenslve, The second column is "at residential
district boundaries", The ordinance contemplates that the sound would be
generated in an 1ndustrial zone by an industrial use and would float over to a
residential area, The third column states "at other lot lines within
district" which clearly means within the industrial district. That column
addresses how loud that noise can be at another industrial lot line, He
thinks the Board really needs to focus on "at residential district
boundaries", The ordinance further states that if the noise is going to be
generated after 7:00 p,m" five decibels should be subtracted from the nOlse
level shown in the schedule,
The engineer who reviewed the report for the Board did not know where o~
the octave scale the noise would come out. He, Mr, Fritz and the engineer.
therefore, took the mid point of the scale and at residentlal boundaries 42
decibels are allowed and since the productlon will be at ni3ht, five decibels
should be subtracted which leaves 37 decibels, None of the noises generated
during the sound test were lower than 37 decibels. Unless the applicant puts
in a lot of buffering and makes a lot of changes in the way sound is handled
at that site, under the County's ordinance the sound test would not pass. The
residents hope the Board does not approve this request, but if it do~s, they
hope that the Board does not accept that sound test as definitive, They hope
that the Board require the sound test to be redone during the site plan
approval process.
In addition to that, the residents feel that there were some glar1ng
deficiencies in the way the sound test was conducted, The sound test was
conducted between 3:00 p,m, and 6:00 p,m" in the afternoon, on a work day
when there w~re logging operations occurring between this property and the
Jacob's property, He went out to the area late that afternoon for a meeting
with some of the residents and the noise was loud, The tests were conducted
by measuring the ambient noise, the noise in the air apart from that generated
by the actor generated, which. indicated a readings of 42 or so, The actor
then stands up and recites his lines, and various other things were done. All
of that was done when there was substantial ambient noise which is not the
normal conditions. The ambient background noise durlng that time was
distorted. The neighbors are not worried about some logging operatlon going
on; they are concerned about what it will be like at 8:00 p,m, or 9:00 p.m.
some summer night once this theater really 1S operational, This test does'not
address that nor does it answer that question. Finally the test was conducted
in a field; there was no stage in place. Stage creates a surface off of whlch
nOlse will reverberate and go off in strange directions. A set or backdrop in
the back of actors will cause echoes and cause the sound to travel, but none
of that was taken lnto conslderatlon. The blggest noise ge:~erator In thls
entire operatlon is not an actor speaking hls lines, nor 1S It music, but the
sound of 500 to 600 cars 1n a parklng lot start1ng up at 10:30 p.m. or later
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
at night, That issue was not addressed in this report. He hopes that If t~e
Board does feel it has to approve this permit, that it will call for further
sound testing based on the site plan and realistic conditions,
Finally it has been suggested that this is a jobs issue that unless the
Board vote for this permit, it 1S against jobs. That is nonsense. The Board
1S not be1ng asked to vote to create jobs, This is a land use issue, There
are alternat1ve places where th1S worthy proJect can take place, The test :r.
this case 1S whether or not the Board can f1nd that this permit would not be
of substantial detriment to adjacent property, the character of the distr1ct
would not be changed and the use would be in harmony with the purpose and
, intent of the Ordinance, He daresay that it would be difficult that this use
would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, etc, He asked
that the Board reject the request, but if it is approved the Board reject the
sound test and hold the applicant to the letter of the Ordinance, and that the
other conditions be tightened to protect the neighbors,
Ms, Cindy Burton, a resident of Running Deer, located less than a mile
from the proposed site, Originally she found the McRaven's dramatic proposal
exciting, but because of contradictory information given to her she dec1ded to
objectively research the impact of the project herself. As she has written to
the Board members, the figures projected by the McRavens do not compute, She
also would remind the Board of the traffic impact study she submitted prov1ng
that traffic will greatly impact all of those who live and travel along Route
250 East. This cannot be ignored. This County's history is her history, Her
mother's family settled here in 1738. She has a great deal of respect for
this County's history which is one of its greatest resources, A stated objec-
tive of the County is to conserve the County's historical resources, Has
everyone forgotten how this will permanently change the character of historic
Boyd Tavern House and Lime Stone Farm which was once owned by President James
Monroe? The exploitation of the County's history for this private eaterprise
would destroy the unique historical character of Albemarle County, She asked
if the Board really wants to set a precedent here and open the door for
another Route 60 leading into WilliamSburg. She asked if a huge pottery is
next on the agenda. A true historian would not want to harm the character of
this historic area for his own personal gain, It is the residents responsib1-
lity to preserve these historic and rural areas as a legacy for their descen-
dants,
Ms, Burton sa1d growth must occur, but it should be l~ designated growth
areas only, She personally does not believe this risky commercial venture
will succeed, but regardless it must not be allowed in a rural, des1gnated,
nongrowth area. This venture belongs in a designated growth area wh1ch can
provide water, sewage, transportation and other public services. There are
existing sites which should be considered and the County could derive the same
economic benefits, This commercial industry would irreversible harm the
environment and quality of life in historic Boyd Tavern, Shadwell and Keswick,
There is no effective way to control the traff1C, pollution, degradat10n of
ground water, noise, lights and property devaluation or even reverse the rural
land back to agricultural/forestal use, This will change forever the charac.
ter of th1S area and possibly the whole County, She 1S holding petitions
tonight signed by about 250 taxpaying adult neighbors, These neighbors
deserve to have their dreams come true too, The 1nvestments 1n the1r proper.
ties have already been made, She asked the Board to deny this speclal use
permit,
Mr. Fred Payne again addressed the Board, He said Section 4,14 of the
Zoning Ordinance is intended to apply to industr1al districts, He thinks 1t
is significant that the staff is recommending it here where this is not an
industrial use, but also, this is not an industrial use, It 1S extraordinary
to apply the Ordinance to this use. The applicants think sound is an appro-
priate concern, As to the proficiency of the test, he agrees w1th Mr, Gill1am
in that neither of them are sound engineers, It is not his nor Mr, Gill1am's
job to determine the technicalities of sound, The Ordinance out11nes a proce.
dure for doing that, The applicants are willing to provide whatever 1nforma-
tion the Engineering Department wants, If the Department determines this
study is insufficient, the applicants will be glad to supplement it. When the
sound tests were done, the engineer magnified every possible sound that was
made well beyond anything that is intended, For example, m~sic was amplified
in such a way that to get the maximum affect, which is not ,,'hat will be done
during the show, The stage will be set up in such a way as to direct sound
away from the neighbors back towards Route 250, The highway is already there
and is meant to be used, Route 250 is a primary highway, This is a business
and will generate jobs, This is a celebration of the heritage of th1S County,
As to whether there are other places to put this use, the Board has heard of
the exhaustive studies that have gone into this, It is difficult for him to
conceive of a better place to put this use that would be more consistent with
the history or the infrastructure, If this use has to go somewhere, he 1S
confident somebody else will welcome it, but this is the right place, He will
be happy to answer any questions by Board members.
Mr. Bowerman then closed the publ1C hear1ng.
Mrs, Humphr1s asked how many speakers were used in the ~ound test. Mr.
Payne replied one speaker was used, Mrs, Humphris asked how high above the
ground was the speaker placed, Mr, Payne replied the speaker was placed on
the ground, Mrs. Humphr1s asked what is the direction of the prevailing wind.
Mr, Payne rep11ed, "westerly",
May ~2, ~993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page B)
Mrs, Humphris said the report states: "The recorded resulcs fro,,". r.-:::
tests were, however, averages of the 150 or more sequential samples cake~ a:
each site." She asked how many samples per second were caken by :he .
equipment. Mr. Payne said samples were taken over the course of severa~ .
hours, but did not he know how many samples per second were taken, Ms, Ame_~a
McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said she did not know either,
Mrs. Humphris said it was her understanding that the request started ~~:
with the term "local historical drama theater" and that seems to have bee:-.
changed to "outdoor drama theater", leavJ.ng out. "historica:," . She :houg:::
"historical" was the key to this whole applicatJ.on, the fact tha: ~: '^'as ge~::::
to be a production of local hJ.story only, Mr. Bowerman suggested that:er :~~
sake of discussion, that terminology be included J.n the revised ccndJ.tJ.on =5
Mr, Payne said the applicants have no objection to that,
Mrs, Humphris said in condition #5 she is concern€d about the "accesscry
uses", She is concerned about who will define "those accessory uses custo.
marily incidental to, subordinate to and directly supportive of an outdoor. . ,.
She asked what is "customarily", Mr. Cilimberg said staff could not come up
with anything that was more inclusive than that language, Mr, St. John saJ.d
the alternative to that wording is to try to list at this t.ime every accessory
use that would be permitted there and there would be no other accessory uses.
Every operation of this magnitude has to have some accessoI'Y uses, for
example, bathrooms are an accessory use,
Mrs, Humphris asked if there is any reason the accessory or su~ordJ.nate
uses or related uses could not be limited to restrooms and the concessJ.on
stand, Mr, St. John said this language is the classic definition of an
accessory use, The Zoning Administrator decides what is and what is not a~
accessory use, The only alternative to using this language is to attemp: to
list all of the accessory uses that would be permitted, It is unusual that
the Board would try to do that, He cannot think of any other special perm~ts
where the Board has attempted to list in advance of the use coming into beJ.ng
all of the accessory uses, It is likely that the Board would eliminate
something that would be acceptable and customary as an accessory use. This J.S
a subjective term, A good example the Board would face in trying to do this
is whether it will sit here and try to decide every item that can be sold in a
concession stand, This was the staff's thinking in selecting this language
instead of .trying to make a list of everything that could be sold out there,
II
Ii
II
Ii
II
II
Ii
Ii
"
I'
Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board would know whether drama classes,
workshops, seminars, etc" which might take place during the daytime durJ.ng
the week might not be judged to be "customarily incidental to.," of this
theater, She does not know where that would fall into this defJ.nition. Mr.
Cilimberg said that would be the Zoning AdminJ.strators determination. If the
Board did not want that to occur, then it would include that as uses not
permitted in the approval, Mr, St. John said if the Board decide that the
production is all that can take place, then it must decide how to deal WJ.th
rehearsals, tryouts, etc" since those are accessory uses, He does not thJ.nk
the Board can foresee what is necessary, Mrs, Humphris said tryouts, audio
tions and rehearsals are obviously part of any production, She does not th~nk
that is arguable, Additions such as workshops and seminars which bring
traffic in at other times than the regularly established hours for :he
production are something entirely different. She thinks this is somethJ.ng the
Board has to deal with because 1t was mentioned previously.
Mr. MartJ.n asked what J.S the problem wJ.th the length of the season.
Language was in the previous conditions, but now has been eliminated. Mr
Payne said language was not in the conditJ.ons on the length of the season.
The length of the season was suggested by Mr. Gilliam. To his mJ.nd the staff
nor Planning Commission has ever discussed the length of the season. Mr.
Martin said that was one of those issues that the residents felt strongly
about and the McRavens did not feel as strongly about, He asked why a
compromise could not be made, Mr, Payne said the difficultv is that he does
not know that they can say that the first show should start' on May 30 or May
15, The applicancs do not know the exact day the product10n wJ.ll start
because it depends on weather conditions. It could change slightly from year
to year. Mr, Martin asked if there was a problem with the condition that the
production shall not start before a certain date or later than a cer:aJ.n date
to have a tJ.me frame. Mr. Payne said he is sure there are some dates that
could be included as long it J.S understood that there are things that wJ.ll
have to go on from tJ.me to time such as maJ.ntenance, deliveries, etc.
Mr. Gilliam saJ.d the suggested timeframe of MemorJ.al Day through Labor
Day came from a memorandum, dated January 20, 1993, from Mr. McRaven to the
PlannJ.ng Department. Mr. Payne said that is what the McRavens anticipate
doing, The problem is that a lot of uses such as this have an introductory
perJ.od where productions occur Friday and Saturday only for a couple of weeks.
The difficulty he has in making the condition so restrictive is that it allows
for no flexibility. If such a condition was added, it would have to be
understood that any kJ.nd of restriction like that would be cln performances
only, not on auditions, set construction or maintenance, etc. It is obvious
to him the neighbors are attemptJ.ng to kill this with restrictions. Mr,
MartJ.n saJ.d he J.S not attempting to kill this, but this J.S cne of the
reasonable requests that could be accommodated. Mr, Payne said he does not
think there is a problem in restricting performances in some fashion, but not
all the other necessary uses.
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr, Bowerman said there is no condition that ties this special perm~: ~_
the land or the applicant and that would be the only way he could cons~der
supporting this request. He wants a provision that if the McRavens are
unsuccessful in this endeavor, the permit expires, This request is a un~que
presentation made by the Me Ravens on this site,
1
-II
II
Mr, St, John said this is the first time he has heard that as a
suggested condition, He does not think such a condition would be enforceab~e.
Mr, St. John said suppose the operation is successful and someth~ng fata:
happens to the Me Ravens and they have heirs, If this is a successful business
and production, under such a condition, it would terminate and would have to
sit there empty or be torn down. He does not think it would be enforceable.
He thinks that if the Board issues this permit with such a condition, the
McRavens could immediately have the condition declared unenforceable, but :hey
would retain the special permit, The basic rule of law is that the spec~a:
permit runs with the land, Mr, St. John said he feels that if there ~s any
outside financing or investing needed in this endeavor, and these ~nvestors
see that this venture can exist only if the McRavens stay alive, there would
not be any investors, and the court system would take that ~nto cons~deratior.
in looking at such a condition,
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr, St. John he suggests the Board~o about t~e~ng
this special permit to the McRavens given the Board's concern about ~ts poter..
tial for failure or success, the belief that a large part of the success of
this operation is based on the presentations that the McRavens have made, and
their background, expertise and research. Mr, Bain said Mr, St, John is not
saying the permit cannot be tied to the land; it cannot be ltmited to the
individuals, Mr, Cilimberg said there have been some special perm~ts that hac
a condition making it renewable after a certain period of time, but the Boare
has to keep in mind that an investment was made, Mr, St, John said he does
not know that he could come up with a way to do this, The Zoning Adm~n~stra-
tor just suggested something to him that is worth considering, She suggested
that there be a review period in four to five years to review the performance
of this use and see if the conditions are being met and see :Lf there is any
way in which the use has become a nuisance. Mr, Bain said the problem with
that is it would kill the investors before the use starts, Ms, MCCUlley said
the review could find, for example, that the hours of operat~on are not
working well and needs to be changed, If the applicants are not complying
with the conditions that would be the time to have the review,
At this time, at the suggestion of the Chairman, Mr, Ci.limberg discussed
the final conditions recommended by staff:
1,
Development shall be in general accord with the sketch and
tax map parcel dated May 7, 1993, and initialled VWC, The
area of development shall be 100 acresz and consistent with
the natural boundaries and boundary distances described on
the sketch, Only those wooded areas necessary tc, accommo-
date development shall be cleared. All other wooded areas
shall be maintained in their natural state;
Ii
"
Ii
'1
11
Ii
Ii
ii
!:
I'
iI
II
2,
Site plan shall not be processed until Health Department
approval for potable water service and sewage d~sposal
system has been obtained, Approval shall be of the water
system des~gn and the septic system design, including
suitable soil evaluation and percolation test;
3.
Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect l~ght away from adjoin~ng rural areas
and away from adJacent streets, Lighting spillover onto
public ~oads and propert~es zoned rural areas shall not
exceed one-half 11/2) foot candle. Prior to f~nal plan ap'
proval, a light~ng plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Archltectural Rev~ew Board (ARB) whlch shal~ tnclude
methods for directlng light downward;
4. Public performances shall not begin after 9:00 p,m. Public
performances shall not extend after 10:30 p.m, except due to
circumstances beyond the applicant'S control such as, but
not limited to, ra~n, lightning or power failure.
Mr, Cilimberg said if the Board wants to add dates for the performance
season thls is where they would go, After some discuss~on. Mr. Payne sa~d the
appl~cant has,no problem wlth performances occurring from May 1 to September
30. Mr. Martln suggested performances occur six nights per week from Memor~al
Day to Labor Day, wlth only weekend performances allowed prlor to Memorial Day
and after Labor Day.
Mrs, Humphris expressed concerns about how late performances can go on.
She felt that there should be some limit even if clrcumstances occur beyond
the appllcant's control, Mr, Bowerman felt the time recommended was reason.
able,
Mr, Cillmberg then read the recommended additional wording to be
included in condition #4: "Public performances shall OCcur only from May 1 to
September 30, with only weekend performances allowed prior to Memorial Day and
after Labor Day," At this time, 'Mr. Cilimberg suggested that it may be
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
necessary to define "weekend" and determine whether Friday :lS included as par:
of weekend performances,
II Mr. Marshall said he was concerned about performances occurring six days
II a week and now weekends are being included. He felt that six days should
II include the weekends, Mrs, Humphris suggested the wording state six nights,
I, Monday through Saturday. Mr. Bain suggested that it be two weekend nights.
-iI
Mr, Tucker referred back to Mrs. Humphris concern and said an earl~er
condition suggested language could be added that "Under no circumstances sha::
performances extend beyond midnight". Mrs. Humphris felt that was a fair
condition. Board members agreed to include that language in the fourth
condition,
The Board then continued with discussion of cond~tion #5:
5, This permit is for an outdoor local historical drama theater
and those accessory uses customarily ~ncidental to, subordi-
nate to and directly supportive of an outdoor local hist~r~-
cal drama theater, Approval of this request shall no: be
deemed to include uses such as craft shows, dog shows, mus~c
festivals, rock concerts and film exhibitions unrelated to
the outdoor local historical drama theater,
I
II
II
Ii
!I
II
il
.,
"
I,
Mrs. Humphrls said her problem wlth this condition is the potentla: f~
confusion, mlsinterpretation, etc, Nobody has told her whether workshops an
semlnars during the week are accessory uses that are customarily lnclden:a:
this operation. She feels the language is too broad. She does not under-
stand why anything other than the productlon of the drama, the res:rooms and
the concession stands should be allowed, Mr. Martin said he is concerned
about sitting here trying to determine at this time what is needed, Mr, Ba~r.
said he does not necessarily disagree with Mr, Martin, but, for example, If
the language stated "no apparel" that is clear,
Mr, Bowerman said it seems to him that the language is as speclfic as ~:
can get according to the County Attorney which is customary in this type of
request to limit it to the primary use on, Certainly the language relies on
the Zoning Administrator to exercise judgement and research. At this time
there was no consensus on changing the language in condition #5.
The Board then reviewed the following condition #6 whi:h was not
recommended for change:
6, Methods for controlling on-site circulation shall include
manpower assistance or such other methods as may be approved
by the Planning Department.
The Board next discussed condition #7:
;j
"
Ii
I:
"
I'
II
"
Ii
!I
7, Provisions of Section 4,14.1 are applicable. Verification
to include submission of a certified engineer'S report for
the acoustics of the sound system and amplificat~on in
accord with Section 4,14,8 which shall be requin,d at the
time of site plan submittal,
Mrs, Humphris asked why industrial sounds standards are being used and
not resldential sound standards. Mr. Cilimberg said the application, by the
Zoning Ordinance, is going to be for sound at residential property. The Board
may want to add language to the effect that measurement will based on sounds
at a residential property line, Mr, Martin felt that was common sense.
There were no concerns expressed with conditions #8 and #9:
8. Staff approval of site plan.
9, Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall ~nclude left
and r~ght turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site,
Mr. Cilimberg sald the followlng language for cond~t~on #10 was sub-
~itted by Mr. Payne based on h~s discuss~ons with Mr. St, John:
10 The appl~cant shall post wlth the Zoning Admln~strator a
bond for lts pro rata share of the cost of constructlon of a
left turn lane and taper (200 feet. 200 feet) with~n the
ex~stlng right-of-way of U. S. Route 250 onto State Route
616 (northbound) Such pro rata share shall be t~e fractlon
of the est~mated cost of construction of such lane of which
the numerator ~s equal to one-half the projected :raffic to
be generated by the proposed u~e (expressed in vehicle trips
per day) and the denomlnator lS the total traffic using the
relevant sectlon of U, S, Route 250 (expressed in vehicle
trlps per day) according to the most recent VDoT traffic
count. The bond shall be conditioned that the prlncipal
thereof shall be available to be used to pay the appllcant's
pro rata share of the cost of construction of the sald turn
lane if, at any time within three (3) years from the issu-
ance of a certif~cate of occupancy for the proposed use, the
County and/or VDoT shall have appropriated money sufficient
i May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
:1
-Ii
"
11
Mr. Martin said it makes sense that the bond be proportionate te the ~se
II generated. He thinks the applicant's bond should be for his pre rata share c:
I! the traffic.
to pay the balance of the construction cost therefor,
the event that the County and/or VDoT shall net have
appropriated the balance of such construction cost w~th~~
three (3) years from the date of issuance of the cert~f~cate
of occupancy, the bond shall be released to the applicant,
The amount, terms, security and form of the bond shall be
subject to the reasonable approval of the Zoning Admin~s-
trator,
In
i! Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. St, John if the language provided
:1' b h h
I was acceptable. Mr, St, John replied, "yes", ut t ere as to
,I mechanism to figure out the amount of the bond.
iI
i[
"
I'
:1
by Mr, Payne
be some
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff did not recommend any other further
conditions,
Mr, Cilimberg then suggested the following amended language for
condition 114:
4, Public performances shall not begin after 9:00 p,m, Publ~c
performances shall not extend after 10:30 p,m, except due to
circumstances beyond the applicant's control such as, but
not limited to, rain, lightning or power failure, Under no
circumstances shall performances extend beyond midnight,
Public performances shall occur only from May 1 to September
30, with only weekend performances allowed prior to Memor~al
Day and after Labor Day, Weekend performances shall only
occur on two (2) of the three (3) weekend nights. From
Memorial Day to Labor Day, performances shall occur not more
than six (6) nights per week,
Mr. Bail". asked if any structures constructed other than that set out on
the sketch in condition III would be an amendment to the permit, Mr. Cil~mbers
responded, "yes",
Mr, Marshall asked if this request is approved with the sound provi-
sions, if those provisions are not limiting the use of the adjacent acreage
because this noise cannot be extended over into the residential area wh~ch
limits the future development of the adjacent property, Mr. Cilimberg
responded that he did not think so, This language is stating that the
established property lines are going to be the lines where the measurements
will take place. Mr, Marshall asked how could a residential development be
built with that noise level. Mr. Cilimberg said at the onset the sound tests
must meet the requirements for a residential area on the 100 acres.
Mrs, Humphris asked when is the issue of parking discussed, Mr,
Cilimberg responded that parking is dealt with at the site plan level, Mrs.
Humphris asked what happens if staff determine that parking cannot be
accommodated in the designated area, The applicant is expecting three persons
per vehicle, Mr, Cilimberg said if parking went significantly beyond the
boundary, he thinks it would require an amendment to the special permit, The
Zoning Administrator would have to make the determinat~on. Mrs, Humphr~s
asked if there is a way to deal with this situation in advance. It is
important that the parking area not be sitting out there in a "horse field",
Mr, Cilimberg said without a site plan it would be difficult, The staff
cannot know how muoh beyond the boundary line the parking ~ould extend until
the site plan is done, The Zoning Administrator also does not know at this
time what actual parking requirements will be imposed, There is opportun~ty
to vary parking based on particular circumstances that relate to the use,
Mr, Martin said this property lies in his district, He thinks the
majority of the people already know how he feels about the proposal. Mr,
Martin then offered motion to approve SP-93-07 subject to the ten cond~t~ons
discussed and amended by the Board tonight, Mr, Perk~ns seconded the motion,
Mr, Bain said everyone has spent a lot of t~me conte~plating this
proposal, He is basing h~s decision on the rural areas, He thinks the
project is potentially an excellent proJect, but it should not be ~n the rural
areas, and clearly not in this location, He opposed the c~ncept of allowing
th~s use as a spec~al perm~t in the rural areas. although there may be a
location where this use could fit in the rural areas, He th~nks this proJect
can work in this community, He can remember when the Board d~scussed the
special perm~t for Blandemar Farms, That request was den~'ed on a three to
three 'fote, That request was also close to a maJor artery and that request
had 11ttle traff~c and 11ttle 1mpact This ~s a much more ~ntenslve use He
th1nks that rural areas have to mean someth~ng and th1S 1S a substantlal
commerc1al venture 1n the rural areas, Th1S 1ssue ~s not about Jobs, He
knows that the applicant has spent many years research~ng this venture and he
~s try~ng to ref~ne the proposal in terms of what w~ll and what w~ll not work
If ~t means that the applicant goes to Fluvanna or Greene counties, then so be
it, He does not want to chase people out of the County, blJt the issue 1S what
this proJect really means to the community, The people who live in the rural
areas live there for specific reasons; they give up the amenities that are ~n
the urban areas, The people move out to the rural areas because they expect
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
cer~a~n ~hings, He jus~ not think this ~s ~he right place and he ~s nc: s~~e
that the rural areas is ~he right place. He cannot support: the motion.
Mrs, Humphr~s congratulated Mr, and Mrs. McRaven for their persistence
and creativity in what they are attempting to bring to the County, There ~s
no question in her mind that in the right location this is a potential boom :c
Albemarle County, However, the way she look at this has to do with the people
in that neighborhood in that rural area, The reason for the rural areas
designation in the Comprehensive Plan ~s to prevent commercial ventures ~n :he
rural areas, When the Comprehensive Plan was constructed, that was the w~::
of the people. People came in huge numbers to many, many public meet~ngs and
they said they believed that the historical, natural and beautiful resources
of the County are worth preserving and protecting, and they agreed that was
the way they wanted the elected officials to preserve those areas, She
believes that as worthy an endeavor as ~h~s is, it is a conmercial ven:ure and
it would change the nature of that area forever, She.unders~ands ~he frus:ra'
tion and outrage of the people who fought this proposal, ::n her years on :he
Board she has not had as much communication by telephone or writ~en material
on any issue as she has on this one. Her vote is for the people and she
cannot support the motion.
Mr, Martin said he thinks this is a worthwhile venture for the County.
He also has received a lot of telephone calls and attended various meetings
with the citizens, When this request first came to his attention, he was
shocked that staff was in support of it. He does not think this will be the
monster that a lot of people think it will be. The sound report is available.
There has to be another sound report done during. site plan review, He thinks
that traffic is an issue but staff reports indicate that the traffic is not
going to be the issue that some people think that it will be,
:1
I.
:i
II
Ii
I:
!I
Mr, Bowerman said both Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain spoke to the approprl-
ateness of this use in the rural areas and that is also what he will address.
About a year ago there was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment before the Board
where it changed the Plan to allow this use in the rural areas, Although not
unanimously, the change was adopted, At that time, it was his opinlon tha: a
historic drama of this nature in the rural areas was consistent with the Plan
and could only be successful if it was in a setting that contemplated where
the historic drama took place. Otherwise, the Board would not have enter-
~ained Changing the Plan to put this use in the rural areas, but would have
put it in a commercial area, He thinks the change in the Plan was appropriate
and he voted to do so, Once there is a specific location, the permit has tc
be reviewed, He does not know any place that this drama can be located whe::-e
it would not affect some group of people, He saw the map of the areas that
the McRavens looked at, Some of the locational c~iterla that was necessary
was access to a primary highway or a good secondary road, There are few .
locations in the County where there is this particular circumstance. He
th~nks that this type of activity demands that it be in the rural area for the
success of the endeavor, and he thinks it is supportive of the h~storic
references in the Plan because it promotes the County, If he felt that th~s
application in this location was a significant detriment, t.hen he could not
support it, He does not feel that with the conditions, approval of this
application represents a significant detriment to the adjacent property
owners, The operation will not be invisible. Th~s is a hard decision but he
will support the application,
vote:
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman and Marshall.
Mr, Bain and Mrs, Humphris,
(The conditions of approval are set out in full belo,,':)
1, Development shall be in general accord with the sketch and
tax map parcel dated May 7, 1993, and initialled VWC
(attached), The area of development shall be 100 acres+ and
consistent with the natural boundaries and boundary dis-=-
tances described on the sketch, Only those wooded areas
necessary to accommodate development shall be cleared, All
other wooded areas shall be maintained in their natural
state;
2. Site plan shall not be processed until Health Department
approval for potable water service and sewage disposal
system has been obtained. Approval shall be of the water
system design and the septic system design, including
suitable soil evaluation and percolation test;
3. L~ghts used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged 0::-
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining rural areas
and away from adjacent streets, Lighting spillover onto
publ1c roads and properties zoned rural areas shall not
exceed one-half. (1/21 foot candle. Prior to final plan ap-
proval, a l~ght1ng plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Arch~tectural Review Board (ARB) which shall include
methods for directing light downward;
May 12, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
4,
public performances shall not begin after 9:00 p.m, Pub:~c
performances shall not extend after 10:30 p.m. except due :0
circumstances beyond the applicant's control s'Jch as, but
not limited to, rain, lightning or power failure, Under no
circumstances shall performances extend beyond midnight,
Public performances shall occur only from May 1 to September
30, with only weekend performances allowed prior to Memorial
Day and after Labor Day. Weekend performances shall only
occur on two (2) of the three (3) weekend nights, From
Memorial Day to Labor Day, performances shall occur not more
than six (6) nights per week;
This permit is for an outdoor, local historical drama
theater and those accessory uses customarily incidental to,
subordinate to and directly supportive of an outdoor, local
historical drama theater, Approval of this request shall
not be deemed to include uses such as craft shows, dog
shows, music festivals, rock concerts and film exhibitions
unrelated to the outdoor, local historical drama theater;
-I
i:
ii
i1
if
Ii
II
!I
11
il
5.
6,
Methods for controlling on-site circulation shall include
manpower assistance or such other methods as may be approved
by the Planning Department;
7, provisions of Section 4.14.1 are applicable. Verification
to include submission of a certified engineer's report for
the acoustics of the sound system and amplification in
accord with Section 4,14.8 which shall be required at the
time of site plan submittal;
8, Staff approval of site plan;
9, Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall include left
and right turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site;
10, The applicant shall post with the Zoning Administrator a
bond for its pro rata share of the cost of construction of a
left turn lane and taper (200 feet + 200 feet) within the
existing right-of-way of U,S, Route 250 onto State Route 616
(northbound), Such pro rata share shall be the fraction of
the estimated cost of construction of such lane of which the
numerator 1S equal to one-half the projected traffic to be
generated by the proposed use (expressed in vehicle trips
per day) and the denominator is the total traffic using the
relevant section of U,S. Route 250 (expressed in vehicle
trips per day) according to the most recent VDoT traffic
count, The bond shall be conditioned that the principal
thereof shall be available to be used to pay the applicant's
pro rata share of the cost of construction of the said turn'
lane if, at any time within three (3) years from the issu-
ance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed use, the
County and/or VDoT shall have appropriated money sufficient
to pay the balance of the construction cost therefor, In
the event that the County and/or VDoT shall not have
appropriated the balance of such construct10n cost within
three (3) years from the date of issuance of the certificate
of occupancy, the bond shall be released to the appl1cant,
The amount, terms, security and form of the bond shall be
subject to the reasonable approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
Agenda Item NO.8, ZTA-93-02. Radio Towers, Publ1c Hearing on a
resolut1on of intent adopted by the Board of Supervisors to delete the wording
"exclud1ng multi-legged tower structures" from the follow1ng zon1ng ordinance
sections: 10,2,1,6; 12,2.1.6; 13.2,1,6; 14,2,1.6; 15.2.1,8; 16,2,1.11;
17,2,1,11; 18,2,1,11; 19.3,1.6; 20,3,1,6; 25.2,1.2; 25A,2,l,2; 22,2.1b,17;
23,2,1,7; 24.2,1,35; 27,2,1,11; 28,2,1,20; and 30.3,5,1.1,5. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 1993,)
Mr, Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board, The Board
adopted a Resolution of Intent to require all towers, whether multi-legged or
monopole by special use permit, rather than by-right, Currently monopole
towers are permitted by-right in certain circumstances. This amendment would
remove the reference to multi-legged tower structures only being by special
use permit under the by-right sections of various sections of the Zoning
Ordinance. -
The public hear1ng was opened, There being no publ1c comments, the
public hearing was closed.
. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr, Martin, to adopt an
ord1nance to amend and reenact certain sections of the Albemarle County Zon1ng
Ord1nance by deleting the word "multi-legged" from those sections, Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
-
ATTACHMENT K
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972.4060
TOD (804) 972-4012
December 23, 1993
Kurt Gloeckner
Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc.
710 East High street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: SDP 93-63 1781 Productions Preliminary site Plan - Official
Determination of Noncompliance with Special Permit #93-07,
Dear Mr. Gloeckner,
I am writing in response to your letter to Bill Fritz dated
November 9th, as the staff responsible for providing an official
determination. It is my opinion that the site plan as submitted
does not comply with condition #1 of the special permit approval.
An outline of the areas of departure will proceed. This
determination is not meant to imply that your changes were not
warranted. Should your clients be aggrieved by this deciSion, your
remedies appear to be as follows:
1. Appeal in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of this
determination, for review by the Board of zoning Appeals;
2, Seek approval from the Board of Supervisors for the new site
plan under condition #1 of the special permit. It is my
understanding that this would follow the amendment procedure.
;ict i fica tion of this rev is ion .....ou ld be given per State code.
3. Redesign the site plan to comply substantially ,....ith the
special permit sketch plan. I understand that this may not be
technically feasible, because changes were necessitated by
technical requirements.
This first condition of special permit approval involves three
components: a) design layout of major features according to a
sketch plan; b) utilizing the location and general boundaries for
the activity as per the sketch plan; and c) maintenance of wooded
areas. These components are obviously interrelated.
-,
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner
December 23, 1993
Page 2
The areas of noncompliance with the sketch plan include the
following:
A. The proposed septic drainfields are significantly more
extensive than shown pn the sketch plan. They extend well beyond
the plan location into areas shown for wooded area, such that they
are located approximately 80 feet from the property line and not
over 600 feet as shown.
B. The parking areas are also SUbstantially more extensive than
shown on the sketch plan. They extend substantially into the
wooded buffer area.
C. The road alignment is quite different, resulting in more
disturbance of the woods.
To reiterate, it is not my function to weigh which development
design is best. Instead, I review development to insure that it
follows what the County approves. Anyone aggrieved by this
determination may appeal in writing within thirty days of the date
of this letter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to contact me. I look forward to hearing which way you decide to
go.
Sincerely,
Q^~G~~~~U.,(1h:<~p.
Zoning Administra~~C'
cc: Charles or Linda McRaven
P.O. Box G
Free Union, VA 22940
Bill Fritz
George st. John
Rick Huff
-
.
- ATTACHMENT L
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901.4596
(804) 296.5875
January 18, 1994
1781 Productions
Attn: Charles or Linda McRaven
P. O. Box G
Free Union, Virginia 22940
Kurt Gloeckner
Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc.
710 East High street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Fred Payne
Payne & Hodous
412 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: SDP 93-63 1781 Productions Preliminary site Plan
Dear Madam and Sirs,
I have reviewed the "sketch plan" recently prepared by Gloeckner
& Osborne. This plan is based on that which was approved by the
Board of Supervisors with the special permit, and shows the
actual property boundary and the superimposed site plan. My
opinion remains that this proposal does not comply with condition
number 1 of Special Permit 93-07 1781 Productions.
The principal area of discord is with respect to the distance of
the septic drainfield to the property line. The sketch plan
presented to the Board, although not specifically dimensioned,
shows the closest field further than the theater, which is to be
600 feet away. The currently submitted plan shows that closest
drainfield to be about 100 feet away. It is therefore my
conclusion that the plan is not in general accord with the
sketch. In addition, it differs from that represented in public
hearings in terms of the specific language of that condition:
"The area of development shall be ,... consistent with the natural
boundaries and boundary distances described on the sketch. Only
those wooded areas necessary to accommodate development shall be
cleared. All other wooded areas shall be maintained in their
natural state."
II
1781 Productions
January 18, 1994
Page 2
This determination is not a technical finding that the proposed
plan is of any greater or lesser adverse impact. That
justification and review may occur in the public forum, and are
not appropriate for my determination of compliance. It is my
understanding that an argument could be made that there is in
fact, more effective screening for neighboring properties with
the. current plan.
Wayne Cilimberg and I concur that this is a minor special permit
amendment and requires review by the Board of Supervisors after
proper notice. As you know, I am not an attorney and you have
extremely competent counsel. I understand there is a case on
point here. The recent Virginia Supreme Court case of BZA of
James City County v. University Souare Associates stands for the
proposition that the interpretation for a condition of approval
for a special permit is for the Zoning Administrator to make. As
I understand that case alone, your choices are to appeal my
decision,. amend the plan or amend the special permit.
I am sympathetic to the difficulties this project has
encountered. Once you have chosen the next step or if you have
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
... ", ; /'1 _..., "r;
I : I' If) /; 1-' . /..1 ,
, '0",\' 'f' ,,~. . 1 L, '1"1; ,i'I/.
'~ I I t.. \,.J-~L- .\i . -:-.. {.~i:~, /
Amelia G.'McCul ey, A.~.P.
Zoning Administrator
AGMjst
cc: Bill Fritz
Special Permit #93-7
"o,.j'
,~~, .
y./g,9t
_,._~_______.....,.,~ .r'
C) 'I, () tt.2c-. :.l ~ ()
,
"
David p, Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Board of Supervisors
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~~
FROM:
DATE:
April 15, 1994
SUBJECT:
Reading List for April 20, 1994
~ll 2S (A), 19q?
Mr M;:n"snoll~__~__~-"
June 17, 1992 - pages 1 - 19
~SlgOO 19 (#8)
(#8) - Mr. Perkins
~nd Mr. BowermQn
~tgbcr 7, 199? - pages 22 (#12)
~rr--J:ft1'-lj-, 19 ~ 3
35---+#~}"----Mr-;-Mt:H;-E-.ifl
M.r. :B O'.1P rman
December 1, 1993 - Mr. Martin
March 2, 1994 - pages 1 - 16 (#13a) - Mr. Perkins
~arr.n 16(A). 1994
Mr M::lrQn::lll
EWC:mms
*
Printed on recycled paper
_I
Kevin Cox
Rt. 2 Box 226-E
GordonsvilIe, VA 22942
April 18, 1994
alter Perkins
Ibemarle County Board of Supervisors
Ibemarle County Office Building
01 McIntire Road
harlottesvilIe, VA 22901
ear Mr. Perkins:
On Thursday April 14, 1994 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
a proved a Special Use permit for AlIen and Edna Dunbar granting them an
a ditional division right. The Dunbars had previously received an additional
d vision right in October of 1992 for the same piece of property and the same
r ason. That is, to create a lot to give to one of their children.
In a memo prepared for the second request, Planning Staff noted that
t ey were using the same staff report that they had prepared for the first one.
T e public hearing for the second request was very brief, easily less than 10
inutes. It is my understanding that the fee charged the Dunbars, $995.00, is
i tended to cover the entire cost of processing and hearing the permit. Since
t e staff only prepared the report once and the hearing was much shorter the
se ond time than it had been the first time, I feel that the Dunbars are paying
m ch more than the actual costs. Therefore I would like to ask you and the
ot er supervisors to consider refunding some of the second permit fee. The
D nbars are hard working people and should not be required to pay more
th n their fair share.
Cordially:
C,L./. ("
(Ce...A~ '-Or-
Kevin Cox
(
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Board of Supervisors
HEREAS, the United States is faced with a constantly worsening situation in which our
. ghways and road systems are no longer able to accommodate the growing number of vehicles
hat depend on them, and,
HEREAS, Local, regional and national studies have shown that traditional mass-transit and
'desharing programs, aimed at providing transportation alternatives to reduce the number of
ingle-occupant vehicles on our highways, are failing to attract the interest and participation of
otorists, and,
HEREAS, The overall costs related to single-occupant vehicle transportation and the operation
f large transit systems is fast becoming a major budgetary concern of local, regional and national
ovemments, and
HEREAS, Environmental issues related to transportation have become a major concern
hroughout the United States, and in the greater Albemarle area, and,
HEREAS, The County of Albemarle is faced with even greater challenges because of the
xtremely rural nature of the area, and the lack of any form of transportation other than the
ingle-occupant vehicle outside of its area, and,
HEREAS, The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has identified the need to reduce
he number of single-occupant-vehicles on the road as the primary strategy to reduce traffic
ongestion, and,
HEREAS, The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) has made moneys available to
onduct an operational test project to see if computer and communications technology can be
tilized to create new transportation alternatives and enhance and coordinate those already in
xistence, and,
HEREAS, JAUNT, Inc., through its regional ridesharing division has developed a proposal
alled "ODYSSEY" to conduct such an operational test project that has been targeted for funding
y the Federal Highway Administration.
HERE FORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle
lly supports conducting the operational test known heretofore as "ODYSSEY," and supports
AUNT, Inc. in applying for and accepting the available Federal Highway Administration funds.
WW/dbm
4.018
J UNT INC,
r:
TEL:804-296-4269
Rpr 20,94 14:03 No.OOl P,Ol
eh nrlottesville-Alben1arle
Metropolitan planning Organization
~.', ~ ~ _ ... .~":".:' ":9l ..~..,
Ki1L~L,~
.
Aprtl18t 1994
-,
Ms. Belt)' Ncwcl~ President
JAUNT Board of DirecLors
104 Keystone: Place
CharlotteMlle, VA 22902
Dear Ms, Newell:
At its April 14 meeting. the MPO Polley Board di.4Kll~!ied the natus of the proposed IVHS
"Odyssey" grant developed by JAUNT staff this winter. The project was presented to the
MPO Technical Committee and the Commuter Opportunities Group in March and met with
great interest and support for exploring the concepts proposed.
The Policy Board has asked me to convey to you our concem over the JAUNT Boardts
decision to withdraw the proposal upon the eve of its approval.
It is our understanding that the Board elected this withdrawal primarily because questions
shaUL Lhe Vfujc;ct's p0S8ible effects on area tranSit seIVices and local budgets were not
8atW'a~ri11 addrcHcd. While these qU~Ijt.iuW5: ~"Crt2lin11 must be thoroughly answered
before fUly implementation begins, it seemed to the Poliqr Boud tllat ii .wi&ht pulflible to
address them during the initial planning phase of the grant. If they were still not answered,
the implementation funds could be returned.
We are hnpeful the Roard will reconsider its position. given the possibilities the project
miaht have for meeting the traffic reduction goals of the MPO. We are not askiDa 'the
Board to move forward with this project if they feel it is inadvisable at this point Should
the Board change its positio~ however. the MPO is willing to supply a re!lolutioft of support
for the proposal.
Regardless of the Boardts decision over this project tl1e MPO has included in its FY9S work
program funds to explore the concepts brought forth by the proposal through the Public
Private Sector Transportation Alternatives (PPSTA) mmmiuee. We look forward to
working with you and the other transit providers in developiq ideas.
SInccrclYt
eI~
Charlotte Humphris
Chainnan
413 F. ~f Mnrket Str~ot. Suito 102
Chnt"lottcs...illc. VA 2Z901
(804) 972.1720