HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-15
FIN A L
7 : 00 P. M.
April 15, 1992
Room 7, County Office Building
1) Call to Order.
2) Pledge of Allegiance.
3) Moment of Silence.
4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
5) *Consent Agenda (on next page).
6) SP-91-39. Willie Mae Hoover. Public Hearing on a request to amend
SP-88-86 in order to permit rental of a single-wide mobile home on 5.0
ac zoned RA. Property on pvt rd on W side of R t 20 approx 2.7 mi
S of Rt 742. TM102,P1E. Scottsville Dist. (DEFER TO JUNE 17).
7) SP-91-41. Gifford & Rachel Crawford. Public Hearing on a request to
amend SP-91-15 in order to permit rental of a single-wide mobile home
on 2.0 ac zoned RA. Property on N side of Rt 776 approx 3110 mi W
of Rt 664. TM18,P8J. White Hall Dist. (DEFER TO JUNE 17)
8) SP-92-01. Paran United Methodist Church. Public Hearing on a request
to amend SP-89-104 to permit day care/nursery School in an existing
church on E side of Rt 606 approx 0.2 mi N of inters with Rt 29,
property zoned RA & EC. TM21 , P16. Rivanna Dist.
9) SP-92-02. Harold & Sarah Hensley. Public Hearing on a request for a
Home Occupation-Class B for hauling business involving 3 trucks on
property in Oak Hill Subd in SW corner of inters of Pinehurst Court
& Rt 631. Property of 0.3 ac zoned R-2 and lies in EC Dist.
TM90A, P24D , Sec A. Scottsville Dist.
10) SP-92-03. James River Baptist Church. Public Hearing on a request for
a church on 12 acs zoned RA. Property in SW corner of inters of
R ts 737/726. TM130, P35A, 35A1. Scottsville Dist.
11) SP-92-05. James & Sue Willis. Public Hearing on a request to amend
SP-90-115 to increase number of students permitted in existing day
care from 30 to 40. Property of 2.5 acs zoned RA & located on S
side of Rt 738 W of & adjacent to Murray School. TM58,P37C2.
Samuel Miller Dist.
12) SP-92-06. Blaise Gaston. Public Hearing on a request for a Home
Occupation-Class B to permit custom furniture business in a proposed
structure of 3500 sq ft on 5.9 acs zoned RA on S side of Rt 662
approx 0.5 mi W of R t 660. TM30, P15 C . White Hall Dist.
13) SP-92-07. Farmington Country Club. Public Hearing on a request to
construct a 30,980 sq ft sports club & a 4830 sq ft storage facility to
supplement existing 4350 sq ft golf maintenance/storage bldg on
approx 28 acs zoned RA. Property on E side of Old Mill Rd approx
500 ft N of inters with Lake Rd in Farmington Subd. TM60E2,P's
1(part)&2. Samuel Miller Dist.
14) SP-92-08. Robert Lee Frazier. Public Hearing on a request to operate a
public garage on 2.0 acs zoned RA located on E side of Rt 795 approx
0.4 mi N of Rt 727. TM114, P48. Scottsville Dist.
15) SP-92-10. David & Mary Spradlin. Public Hearing on a request to permit
an existing single-wide mobile home to remain on 7.514 ac zoned RA.
Property on N side of Rt 620 approx 1.6 mi S of Rt. 795, TM104,
P14F1. Scottsville Dist.
16) Public Hearing: FY92-93 Capital Improvements Program Budget.
17) Report: Sheriff's Request for a Transportation Officer.
18) Approval of FY 92-93 County Operating Budget.
19) Set Tax Rates for 1992.
20) Appropriation Request: League of Women Voters.
21) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
22) Adjourn.
CON S E N T
AGE N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board for the' Director
of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the
Month of March, 1992.
5.1a Request for amended resolutions abandoning certain sections of roads, and
accepting new sections into the State System of Secondary Highways:
a) Add the entrance road at Paul H. Cale Elementary School;
b) Add the entrance road at the new Crozet Elementary School and
abandon the entrance road at the old Crozet Elementary School;
c) Add the new entrance road at the Stony Point School and abandon the
old entrance road at the same school;
d) Add the new entrance road at the B. F. Yancey Elementary School
and abandon the old entrance road at the same school.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.2 Minutes of the Planning Commission for March 24, March 31 and April 7,
1992.
5.3 Copy of "Water Resources Development in Virginia 1991" as prepared by
the US Army Corps of Engineers (on file).
5 . 4 Monthly Bond Report from Arbor Crest Apartments for the Months of
December, 1991; January and February, 1992.
5.5 Letter dated April 6, 1992, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer,
Virginia Department of Transportation, re: Route 240 Guard rails.
5.6 Notice dated March 27, 1992, from the State Corporation Commission titled
"In the matter of assessment for taxation for the tax year 1991 for
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
5.7 1992 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the County Department
of Planning and Community Development.
.
Edward H. Ba n, Jr.
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Scottsville
David P. Bow rman
Charlottesvill
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
MEMORANDUM
T
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilirnberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC~
April 16, 1992
Board Actions of April 15, 1992
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting on April 15, 1992, the following
were taken:
Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Mr. Kevin Cox, representing the Jefferson Area Wastehaulers Association,
ered their services of a truck, some labor, and if necessary, tipping fees,
begin cleaning out some of the illegal dump sites around the County. The
d requested that the staff coordinate these efforts and bring a report back
the Board.
Agenda Item No. 5.1a. Request for amended resolutions abandoning certain
se tions of roads, and accepting new sections into the State System of Secondary
Hi hways:
a) Add the entrance road at Paul H. Cale Elementary School;
b) Add the entrance road at the new Crozet Elementary School and abandon
the entrance road at the old Crozet Elementary School;
c) Add the new entrance road at the Stony Point School and abandon the
old entrance road at the same school;
d) Add the new entrance road at the B. F. Yancey Elementary School and
abandon the old entrance road at the same school.
Me
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 16, 1992
Da
Pa
ADOPTED all requested resolutions. Originals forwarded to Hoyt Alford.
Agenda Item No.6. SP-91-39. Willie Mae Hoover. Public Hearing on a
re uest to amend SP-88-86 in order to permit rental of a single-wide mobile home
on 5.0 ac zoned RA. Property on pvt rd on W side of Rt 20 approx 2.7 mi S of Rt
74 TM102,P1E. scottsville Dist. DEFERRED to June 17. (6/0 vote)
Agenda Item No.7. SP-91-41. Gifford & Rachel Crawford. Public Hearing
a request to amend SP-91-15 in order to permit rental of a single-wide mobile
on 2.0 ac zoned RA. Property on N side of Rt 776 approx 3/10 mi W of Rt
TM18,P8J. White Hall Dist. DEFERRED to June 17. (6/0 vote)
Agenda Item No.
He ing on a request
ex.sting church on E
pe ty zoned RA & EC.
8. SP-92-01. Par an United Methodist Church.
to amend SP-89-104 to permit day care/nursery
side of Rt 606 approx 0.2 mi N of inters with
TM21,P16. Rivanna Dist.
Public
School in an
Rt 29, pro-
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.16 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. No such use shall operate without any required licenses. It shall be
the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning
Administrator a copy of any required licenses (or proof of exemption
from licensure) and all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning
Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation
within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provi.sions of this ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle
County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the
Fire Official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompli-
ance with the provisions of this ordinance; and
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be
deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local,
state or federal agency.
2. Maximum enrollment shall not exceed twenty (20) students or such lesser
number as may be approved by the Health Department.
The Board requested that a statement be included in letters of approval to
ap licants outlining what the applicant is permitted to do in the zone for which
th approval was received. If the applicant has any questions on uses allowed,
co tact the Planning Department or the Zoning Department.
(6 0 vote)
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 16, 1992
Agenda Item No.9. SP-92-02. Harold & Sarah Hensley. Public Hearing on a
uest for a Home Occupation-Class B for hauling business involving 3 trucks on
perty in Oak Hill Subd in SW corner of inters of Pinehurst Court & Rt 631.
perty of 0.3 ac zoned R-2 and lies in EC Dist. TM90A,P24D,Sec A. Scotts-
le Dist.
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. No on-site sales;
2. Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members who reside
on-site;
3. Compliance with the performance standards of Section 4.1.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
4. Repair of drainage pipe under the driveway entrance; and
5. Permit will expire two (2) years after date of issuance.
(6 0 vote)
on
of
Agenda Item
a request for
Rts 737/726.
No. 10. SP-92-03. James River Baptist Church. Public Hearing
a church on 12 acs zoned RA. Property in SW corner of inters
TM130,P35A,35A1. scottsville Dist.
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. Staff approval of sketch plan to include Health Department approval, Fire
Official approval and Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
entrance (please provide the Board office with a copy of the approved
final sketch). Locate parking behind the existing dwelling;
2. The existing dwelling shall serve not more than a 60-member congregation
and shall have a sanctuary area not to exceed 460 square feet;
3. The property may not be further divided;
4.
Approval is
structure.
permit;
for worship and related church use only as to the existing
Day care or other such uses will require an amendment to the
5. Only those areas required for the church and appurtenant improvements shall
be cleared. All other areas shall remain in a natural state;
6. Access to the church shall be from Rt. 737 only. Existing entrance on Rt.
726 shall be closed; and
7. This permit shall be advertised for review by the Board of Supervisors four
(4) years from date of approval.
(6 0 vote)
Melno To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 16, 1992
Da e:
Pa~e 4
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-92-05. James & Sue Willis. Public Hearing on a
re~uest to amend SP-90-115 to increase number of students permitted in existing
daV care. Property of 2.5 acs zoned RA & located on S side of Rt 738 W of &
ad~acent to Murray School. TM58,P37C2. Samuel Miller Dist.
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. No expansion of the existing building;
2. Access shall be established at a point as far on the west of the parcel as
will be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation;
3. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial entrance
permi t ;
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department
of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of
the owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of
the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the
Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revoca-
tion within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be
deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle
County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the
Fire Official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompli-
ance with the provisions of this ordinance; and
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be
deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local,
state or federal agency.
5. Administrative approval of site plan;
6. Building shall be constructed in general accord with elevations provided in
Attachments E and F (copy attached); and
7. Enrollment shall be limited to forty-five (45) students or such lesser
number as may be approved by the Health Department.
(6 0 vote)
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-92-06. Blaise Gaston. Public Hearing on a request
fo a Home Occupation-Class B to permit custom furniture business in a proposed
st ucture of 3500 sq ft on 5.9 acs zoned RA on S side of Rt 662 approx 0.5 mi W
of Rt 660. TM30,P15C. White Hall Dist.
Melmo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 16, 1992
Date:
Page 5
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members who reside
on-site;
2. Compliance with the performance standards of Section 4.1.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
3. New structure to house the home occupation shall be located as shown on
plat initialed WDF and dated 3/19/92 (copy attached);
4. Health Department approval;
5. Permit is issued for use by Blaise Gaston only; and
6. County Engineer approval of method of disposal of all solvents, finishes,
paints, lacquers and the like including clean-up materials/liquids and
applicators.
Mr. Bain asked the staff to look at a possible amendment to the Zoning
Or~inance that would allow unique situations of an artistic nature in the rural
ar~as.
(6110 vote)
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-92-07. Farmington Country Club. Public Hearing on
a ~equest to construct a 30,980 sq ft sports club & a 4830 sq ft storage faci-
Ii y to supplement existing 4350 sq ft golf maintenance/storage bldg on approx
28 acs zoned RA. Property on E side of Old Mill Rd approx 500 ft N of inters
wi h Lake Rd in Farmington Subd. TM60E2,P's 1(part)&2. Samuel Miller Dist.
APPROVED subject to the following condition:
1. Use of the sports facility shall be for Farmington Country Club members,
families and guests under the same bylaws of other club facilities in
Farmington.
The Board directed staff to address the following concerns expressed by the
Ry~er's during site plan review: provision of a circular drive in front of the
spprts facility or some other turnaround provided; screening to consist of six
to eight foot trees on the outside of the fence; and some kind of opaque gate or
sc eening set inside the gate at the maintenance facility.
(4 0/2 vote--Bowerman & Humphris abstained)
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-92-08. Robert Lee Frazier. Public Hearing on a
re uest to operate a public garage on 2.0 acs zoned RA located on E side of Rt
79 approx 0.4 mi N of Rt 727. TMl14,P48. Scottsville Dist.
1'01
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 16, 1992
D te:
P ge 6
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1.
The public garage use shall be limited to
farm, lawn, gardening or motor vehicles.
vehicles shall be permitted. No gasoline
vehicles shall be permitted;
the repairing and equipping of
No body work or spray-painting of
sales or sale or rental of
2. All work shall be conducted within the existing garage;
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts and junk cars. Refuse
awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers;
4. Not more than two (2) motor vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on
the property outdoors at any time and these shall be located behind the
garage;
5. Fire and Building Official approval;
6. Compliance with recommendations described in Virginia Department of Trans-
portation letter dated February 25, 1992, except for the last sentence
(copy attached);
7. Hours of operation shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday, and no operation of
the garage on Sunday; and
8. No employees.
vote)
Agenda Item No. 15. SP-92-10. David & Mary Spradlin. Public Hearing on a
uest to permit an existing single-wide mobile home to remain on 7.514 ac
ed RA. Property on N side of Rt 620 approx 1.6 mi S of Rt. 795, TM104,
Fl. Scottsville Dist.
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions shall be met within 60 days of Board of Supervi-
sors' approval of this petition or this special use permit shall be
referred to the Board of Supervisors for revocation in accordance with
Section 31.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. The mobile home shall be relocated to an area behind the rear wall
plane of the garage building in such manner that a portion of the
mobile home shall be within fifty (50) feet of the garage building
while maintaining setback and yard requirements specified for the
Rural Area zone;
b. Albemarle County Building Official approval; and
c. Virginia Department of Health approval of well and septic system;
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 16, 1992
2. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to
be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy; and
3. The mobile home shall be occupied only by the family of David and Mary
Spradlin.
vote)
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: FY92-93 Capital Improvements Program
get.
No action. Scheduled for adoption on May 6.
Agenda Item No. 17. Report: Sheriff's Request for a Transportation Offi-
Agreed to the County Executive's recommendation that the funds in the FY
93 budget for the County's share of the bailiff position be placed in the
d's contingency account and that a manpower allocation analysis be conducted
du ing the coming fiscal year by either in-house staff or the Department of
Cr"minal Justice Services to determine the optimum allocation of resources to
he p both the Police Department and the Sheriff's Department.
The Board indicated that if the manpower allocation analysis determines
Sheriff needs additional personnel, that it formally support the Sheriff's
eavors with the Compensation Board and, if necessary, appeal the decision
ough the Court system. The Board requested that staff discuss this with the
nty Attorney and bring a report back in May.
Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of FY 92-93 County Operating Budget.
APPROPRIATED an additional $3113 to MACAA's budget to come from the Board's
Co tingency Reserve to bring to their requested funding level of $40,283.
(4 2 vote)
ADOPTED the attached resolution. A copy has been sent to Melvin Breeden.
(6 0 vote)
Added discussion of the public health nurse positions with the School Board
at the joint meeting on June 3.
Agenda Item No. 19. Set Tax Rates for 1992.
ADOPTED the attached resolution. A copy has been sent to Melvin Breeden as
Ie uired by State Code.
te:
ge 8
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 16, 1992
mo To:
Agenda Item No. 20. Appropriation Request: League of Women Voters.
APPROPRIATED $240 from the Board's
the brochure on septic tank systems.
om Melvin Breeden. (6/0 vote)
Contingency Fund to cover printing costs
An appropriation form has been requested
Item No. 21. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Joyce Engineering to make joint presentation to Board and City Council at
luncheon meeting on May 8.
The Board agreed to accept David Emmitt's application for the Fiscal Impact
'ttee since he originally requested consideration to serve on such a commit-
in January, 1992.
Set aside two hours on May 6 to discuss the applications received on the
Fiscal Impact Committee.
Mr. Bowerman announced the observance of National Crime Victims' Rights
We k, April 26 through May 2.
Agreed to send flowers to Dr. Paskel from the Board.
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. 10:52 p.m.
LE : ec
At achments
cc' Richard E. Huff, II
Robert B. Brandenburger
Roxanne White
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
Bruce Woodzell
George St. John
File
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
C unty, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable
y ar 1992 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72)
o every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars
a d Thirty Cents ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
a sessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Thirty
C nts ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value
o machinery and tools; at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One
H ndred Dollars worth of assessed value on mobile homes; and at
S venty-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
a sessed value of public service assessments; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle
unty assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all
xable personal property, including machinery and tools not
sessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing
siness, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public
rvice Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads
sed upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission
d certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location
d valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five
ns as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as
bile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except
rm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as
t forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through
ction 58.1-3508.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
w iting is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the
Bard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a reguiar
meeting held on April 15, 1992. ~.. ~ r
c~~~ ~unty
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
C unty, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the
Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1992, be approved as follows:
General Government Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Development
Parks, Recreation and Culture
Community Development
County/City Revenue Sharing
Refunds
Capital Improvements
Contingency Reserve
Education - Debt Service
Education - Operations
Total
$ 3,845,643
1,272,681
6,448,216
1,692,592
4,023,923
2,541,908
1,727,374
3,426,000
56,000
1,000,000
97,414
5,195,385
59,141,120
$90,468,256
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the
Bo rd of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
me ting held on April 15 199~ . ~
Clerk, Board of C nty Supervlsors
~~. ;
..
.(sr."OI-
d::; G J i' rhCEO 2 I 0
IATTACHMENT II
/
I
,k
~
~~
0'"
--..~o
'0 . .,._<<_ .... ... %9
~
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
....,r... 110 .,..JO
\
;:
8.64 Ac.
'1/.
11'..-,'''' .1- --~-----
~-=-
lo
"
'.
~
..
o
..
~~
~j, ,l&L i, ....,.'1 frCll' ,tloc ,rO'fi.iOft' of the
.\IlM1i'fi.iOft re,u'Uion, jft c""ler 1'.1.
. .
PL.AT SHOWING
SURVEY OF 16.75 ACRES
A REDIVISION OF PARCEL.S
158, 158(1) eo 15C T.M. 30
NEAR RAYS FORD BRIDGE
AL.BEMARL.E COUNTY, VIRGINIA
tJv f Jq ':t
3/f'! or
"
'.
,
"
, ',' ....t:
:: flOIl'
WILLIAM S. ROUDABUSH, INC.
A ,...fe:ni...' C.rp.,..U."
rF~T'F'Fll I Mill SIl~YErnU
".
....t(
"
_ '\".:- ~1i
~ . '5'(0"
~
I ATTACHMENT 0 I
Page 3
February 25, 1992
Mr. Ionald S. Keeler
Spec'al Use Permits & Rezonings
7. ~P-92-08 Robert Lee Frazier, Route 795 - This section of Route 795 is currently
non- olerable. This request is to operate a public garage which would result in
some increase in traffic. The existing gravel driveway in front of the building
that would appear to serve as the garage does not have adequate sight distance. A
minitum of 350' of sight distance is required and there is only 200' of sight
dist.nce to the north, 300' of sight distance for a vehicle turning left into the
entr.nce and 325' of sight distance to the south. To obtain adequate sight distance
in be th directions would require clearing, possibly some grading and removal of
vege ation as well as sight easements. The Department also recommends that the
accelS be upgraded to commercial standards, which would include widening and hard
surf. dng.
Sincerely,
~.a-&j~
J.A. Echols
Assistant Resident Engineer
JAE/ dw
cc: R. Y. Hofrichter
I
~'Y .
, '"
~
, \
.}
:1
. .
. . .
.' ;"
'." .
. .
'. '"-..;
.~
.'
'.~;_. ~.. ~ ~.~:~l;j~~:/:.. ~.J~
i '!;=r:~"11 i__~_~~~~.'.'~.~..._.......
, I; i L.... ~~!1 ~ _._._~....
/',.. . -. ... - . . "-'-'.-- ..
" I ,
. 1 1/: i '.. ..... ..
1'/ .~!l~....:: ! .1" .0-.'0.---..... ...-
r- .- ....:;:- ..-.---.--.-
I ~ .J' I ., 4 r ; '0 ". . r -. -..... .
:iL.U"~~'_' oW
1/1 JL ,. 'J... '" . ...-.
L. ~ 1:. I,~ .\~'~
, "~ . '\\..
. :. r-~~:l--~. \~:~':i
,', : (~g21~lgVIi' '~!!~rrE~~I1' \~.:.-
- ~ " " --. ..ri. I'.. .Ii: .
..... .._.._.......__u_._L-
". . 1-----.:--::.::=--'. ~/~ :._-
~V-~ Ii:'."'- -"1
c ") /~:~_..__
~ //~ .-,' m14, ~~~~.=
. IJ/,;y..... .
.I . i- . ......-----.- j
'- . . "'--1
11:- 'H..':~~~:.~
: ,--.-~-..-..;.., Ii. ;
. . . I "_ . ....__---,
. 'I .
'.. ;, ! I .. . .. -. .. .---
.; ! f]J~:ili I j li.,:t~~.:~~~~~--~:~ . ~''''~~II
, 'l"~i
I - : _ ...... ... __. ._
. : "
I I 'I ~ . .., -..._~_._. - '''it
. ~~-~ ~ l-- .:....:----.::..J=--=..-~
. I
...
. '
.......J
'.'
eo , .......
I'
fl' ....,~... .,
,....;,.. .
~;J>~ :'
.. .-:'
. .~.. \~.
. .../
~'. .... __'~.~ ',{-' .I.... J
./
I
I
. r.
. .
".:'''.
~ ': ..' :: . . . - .................
-----\
s~
IATTACH~ENT EI', '
__0_._'- .
'.
..
~-
.\, i
::".i' .1 .1
ti;,;,;:Nf::.r; .
. .:.}~}~>.':':-' .. ..,i.:~
';'ii".'. . . ..... ".' J: ':. .
.t". .:11 .' ," ~"o 'I' .
~':~;~{~::.: ,,;'< ::>: ',:.
. '". . 'J'
.r~I"' :..
",,; 'v
~;:, ), ..' .
':\!.-... '... .,','. ~ ,.. '.. . .
'.~;t :..:. :X,:(:~~:,:\"');'~"F~.. ".: y/ .:> F
....l.;.~.'., '1' .' ',' .... . . .1'
:-t~~~ ...'~:~ ?/-~:.,;; :."~'i. :. ,', # .':' ,
~:;". " : ...~::i .*tl:~. .;-.: . .' .
.. f't..t ' "': '. ~: ::' . .
'\-:~'."."" . ,.'
\:.", \..... .; .1
"~t1~~." . r '.'
<(~" '. :'; tt ;':" ;. .'. "::.. .. .~~:;
.t. .' I'
: ..:;. 4;.... ':' .... 4 ~..'t .."
: :'~~'.::'.. '~.. '
, .,'j'
~: I .
~
iiJ.~7~
'~:r:~;." .
'.~'- ::{,
.'.
. ~ I:: '",
:,,>.,:.,:::;,
..
.,
I.
~.~';~;>;:
",. .'
"0':
. 'f.' .
I'~
...'.
:,:. .
l;,: ',r! :
J.
~ ,~'. '.f
",
i
." j
,
. I"
.' ;~.; ~.
.hl'
.!
',. .
"
,"l
.:
"
.t'.. ",:
~ .
., ,
'1.::., ;';'.'Jf.';
---.'.--. ~. .'
" "'''rl/
. ,
'.
-\
I
\ATTACHMI;NT FI1
.~':. I
.,
I ,~ ,
f:
j
I
I
I
", .....
';":~'.~ ~
~.
. -- -.. L.- ~
.' ~ .'- f'.
~'~l
. TTTTlTJT.T
. LlLLL .J I
I [-:-n.:rr:rl
. _~:L ILl..",
I=---~{
1'"
;.v
-
.r.
~
. "
"
. .
. ,'.
:'.'
, .
....
r!'
. .
I,:
,'.
,.
'.
.,
.'
/
r
I
I
,
.
.,
.'
e.
,I
ii
"
L
"
" "'_~::; .'I ::."
....
,...
'.i:
'. c.'
".
;:,'.
'0'-
.....
..:...:.
1~' .'
..... . ,',.' ,,-.i',.:.. . ..
. ;.'. : ~l.:';';i.\~'..: >>~ ;:::.... ~:'ii;~i1.~~i~\:\;;.
. '~':" ,. ,;'i' .. :n<;::r:'~'t\,. :- :':" ; :".\ ...;!,t~,,"'q\"""'J.~ "'~"~~"
:.:.. ",~' ~"'.:. :;.~"~::::~:'~:"~:"':;~:~";:;:~:F~;~':U;~~~~~;~::~"~'r7'
"
.....:,..,
,
"
. "
9,-1, (i <II j- (..\-, / )
ATEMENTS OF EXPENSES
State Compensation Board
Month of /J'Jud. /9';12/
/
County Share
State Share
Total
611/, 7k'
b/# cf'C
/f ~~~ J:,3b
--- 0 ___
---- 0 __.
I
i
j
l
t
~
:
1
ONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY:
-0-
--0--
52;?;! cf/
.
5~/?;7
.
!:
~
,
I
1
,
I
i
I
...
\
I
i
i
Not Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
whi h the State Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and
are not the total office expenses of these departments.
J'
i
,/
/
Edward H. Ba n, Jr.
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
;: J''r'"
. i' 1
d " f
limest R.~rshall, Jr.
ScoUsville
David P. Bow rman
Charlottesvil e
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
M E M 0 RAN DUM
T
Hoyt B. Alford, III, Civil Engineer
Engineering Department
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC~
April 16, 1992
F
Resolutions to abandon/accept roads into the
State System of Secondary Highways
At its meeting on April 15, 1992, the Board of Supervisors
opted the fOllowing amended resolutions to abandon certain
se tions of roads and accept new sections into the State Secondary
S Highways:
a) Add the entrance road at Paul H. Cale Elementary School;
b) Add the entrance road at the new Crozet Elementary School
and abandon the entrance road at the old Crozet Elemen-
tary School;
c) Add the new entrance road at the Stony Point School and
abandon the old entrance road at the same school; and
d) Add the new entrance road at the B. F. Yancey Elementary
School and abandon the old entrance road at the same
school.
Attached are all of the signed resolutions.
L :ec
At achrnents: Original and 3 copies of each
t
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board has constructed a
w route to be used by buses at Paul H. Cale Elementary School;
d
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia provides for
e Virginia Department of Transportation to maintain school
trance roads on which buses are operated;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
bemarle County, Virginia, that the following section, as outlined
the attached site plan, be added to the Secondary Road System
rsuant to Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point
centerline of the loop circulation road
the pavement of Route 712, thence in
direction 840 feet to station 8+40, the
circulation road.
common with the
and the edge of
a southeasterly
end of the loop
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
T ansportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 30 foot unobstructed
r"ght-of-way along the requested addition, as outlined on the
a tached site plan.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
w iting is a true, correct copy of an amended resolution adopted by
t e Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
r gular meeting held on April 15, 199~. ~~ ~
c1er~~~;i of cou~~rs
:
'.
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board has constructed a
nlew Route to be used by buses at Paul H. Cale Elementary School,
alld
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia provides for
tne Virginia Department of Transportation to maintain school
e~trance roads on which buses are operated, and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board guarantees to the
A bemar1e County Board of Supervisors a 30' right-of-way for 840
fl~et .
THEREFORE, the Albemarle County School Board does hereby
r~quest the Board of Supervisors to accept the changes stated
below:
The following section, as outlined on the attached site plan,
b~ added to the Secondary System pursuant to Section 33.1-68 of
tlle Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the centerline
o the loop circulation road and the edge of pavement of Route
71l2, thence in a southeasterly direction 840 feet to station 8+40,
tne end of the loop circulation road.
I, Charlotte C. Self, do hereby certify that the foregoing
w iting is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the
S(~hool Boftrd_ 9f Albema.rle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting
hleld on ~ ~! (1q 2-
C~C~
Clerk, School Board
) Pea ';'~'l..e:. x.... 38
~p 2.Ty G';"'JltR"E.l..EY 583.'>3
Ve; co Po,:! YN-04..
ry COR:"'F~': ELE.V. Sc:r3.+~.
J'
\
ING
(i
~' _ >le-"
E;~~ I'?
"I'
~IN i=
5'30
-~
e~,60 ,
" ~"o
'-
FI\
Eo
............-...-
.ft....
.... .............
-,
:'=:,
:JAM COl.Is,.
:;NTRAr-/CE.
-
-
AlII
,
,
.
,
,
,
'NV '$7/.0.
IIIlV S70.?
LlL"Ur 01=" WORK L.11.Je.
~ TWIICTUR( I
Outlet 'rotection
Ell-I
18. RCP
01-"
ISO RCP
01_1
t ~t
Protec:Uoo
8 Ell-I
, ". ACP
10 01.31
n I
IIvrn II
10' 565.11
'" SU..
lolO' 5".511
SO' SIUIl
" m.1lI "
.
'" SlI.JO' ,
lolO' 51,.1Q';
[~L6
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary System
abandonment of Route 9010 and construction of a new route;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
A bemarle County, Virginia, that the following section, as outlined
i green on the attached site plan be added to the Secondary Road
S stem pursuant to Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the
centerline of the loop circulation road and the edge of
pavement of Route 810, thence in a southeasterly direc-
tion 986 feet to station 9+86, the end of the loop
circulation road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following section, as indi-
c ted in red, be abandoned in accordance with Section 33.1-155 of
t e Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the edge
of pavement of Route 810 and the centerline of the
school's circulation road, thence in a northwesterly
direction approximately 789 feet to station 7+89, the end
of the loop circulation road.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 30 foot unobstructed
ri ht-of-way along the requested addition, as outlined on the
at ached site plan.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
wr'ting is a true, correct copy of an amended resolution adopted by
th Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
re ular meeting held on April 15,
C
...
\~EREAS, the Albemarle County School Board bas constructed a
route to be used by buses at Cro~et Elementary Schao~, and
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia provides for
Virgini.a Department of TJ:ansportatian to maintain school
rance roads on which buses are operated, and
WHEREAS, the A1bemar1e County School Board guarantees to the
right-of-way for 986
THEREFORE, the Albemarle County School Board does hereby
est the Board of Supervisors to make the changes stated below:
fOllowing section, as outlined on the attached site plan,
to the Secondary System pursuant to Section 33.1-68 of
of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the centerline
the loop circulation road and the edge of pavement of Route
, thence in a sOUtheasterly direction 986 feet to stati.on 9+86,
end of the loop circulation road.
In addition, the following. section .of Route 9010, as indicated
the shaded area on the drawing dated February ~3, 1941, will be
doned in accordance with Section 33.1-155 of the Code of
ginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point cammon with the edge of
ement of Route 810 and the centerline of the school's circula-
n road, thence in a westerly direction approximately 789 feet
station 7+89, the end of t-he loop ci:z:culation road.
I, Charlotte C. Self, do hereby certify that the foregoing
ing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the
01 Board of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting
on ~ Co) Iq12- .
~C~
Clerk, School Board
-
v\X-tO"Oll l~:rollolllvlS .._-.-.,- VllltllM '.uN/\JJ J"QI'<rlNW
lOO\1JS
A'd'V lN3\^t3l3 . 1310'dJ
....w&7C
; . ..~"'..
. .,,--'.....:
l~~."..,.--....
JNI ,.uoaso ,
/
,^"..
VI
"-\
::r>
rt
~
~
~
----1
r
C1
~ ~
s: .IN"'lI''lh'f''
';J .1 Jd..l.1..
~ A
r-:--
~J
9
.}
,/ (
--~~-\-
:!! 5.
00
:2:>
3:....
~o
oz
~CP
o
N""
'en
(;ic;
,z
.,.
v
C);C:
......
3:
.. .'
":' -.
I
CD
rr1
:n
-<
51"
..... .
. .
'. . ~ :~.. .
.. ... .
'.
.' ::. : . -.
'. ~..
".' :.....
.. ..0 .
fT1
l> Z ..,....""...:: .... :.
o ;j -;::::. ': '.: ':: :": .
Q l> J...::. :..
.::! 2: CD
o .
z~fT1
..... C) ~ . ::..
o ~ ..,...."". '+;:.:~": ....:'-;',.
(/) N ~ ::'\.'.
m fT1::O' .r:
(') .
o -fr
5 :; I"T1
l>G'>J.J
:O:I: .
-< . . .'
tf) . .. .
(/) C) (') -
~:I:O
-10.
",0
~r
~
N
<>
~
...
-f
o
:B
;of.' .
,..
o
III
: :.. .
. ,
...:.... :., ".
'>i' '..<.~
.......
. ,
:. "-0"
. ... ....
-----,
"-
"-
'-
'-..... ~
t..........
r"""
""z
:0:....
;"-: II~ N
02
~ '0 O.
(' Vi"" 0 tf)
--.
--- ~ fT1
J'~ (J) C):u
::tl :2: -f-f
, ""
r; ~ 0
II en
t>I .... lD W
O. 0
Z 0 0
p "" O-
r \ mO
()
G
")
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary System
d e to relocation and construction of Route 627;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
bemarle County, Virginia, that the following section, as outlined
green on the attached site plan, be added to the Secondary Road
stem pursuant to Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the
centerline of the loop circulation road and the edge of
pavement of Route 627, thence in an easterly direction
520 feet to station 5+20, the end of the loop circulation
road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following section, as indi-
c ted in red, be abandoned in accordance with Section 33.1-155 of
t e Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the edge
of pavement of Route 627 and the centerline of the
school's circulation road, thence in an easterly direc-
tion approximately 420 feet to station 4+20, the end of
the loop circulation road.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
T ansportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 30 foot unobstructed
r'ght-of-way along the requested addition, as outlined on the
a tached site plan.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
w iting is a true, correct copy of an amended resolution adopted by
t e Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
r gular meeting held on April 15, ~.~
c~rd of County Supervisors
i-''''' ,t......_' L...
-
.....
&
- .
j;;,;.L-:-:.v.....
.~
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County SChool Board has altered Route
627 used by buses at Benjamin F. Yancey Elementary School, and
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia provides for
Virginia Department of Transportation to maintain school
ranee roads on which buses are operated, and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board guarantees to the
emarle County Board of Supervisors a 30. right-of-way for 520
t.
THEREFORE, the Albemarle County SChool Board does hereby
es.t the Board of Supervisors to acc.ept the changes stated below:
The following section, as outlined on the attached site pLan,
added to the Secondary System puz:s.uant to Section 33.1-68 of the
e of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the centerline
the loop circulation road and the edge of the pavement of Rt.
, thence in an. easterly diJ:ection approximat~l.y 520 fee.t to
tion 5+20, the end of the loop circulation road.
In addition the followi11g section will be abandoned in
ordance wi.th Section 33. ~'-15S of the Code of Virgini.a~
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the edge of
ement of Route 627 and. the centerline of the school's circulation
d, thence in a easterly ~t~ection approximately 420 feet to
tion 4+20, the end of the loop circulation road.
wr
Sc
he
I, Charlotte c. Self, do hereby cert.ify that the :foregoing
ting is a true,. correct copy of a resolution adopted by the
001 Board of Albemarle CO\lnty, Virginia~ at a regular meeting
d on ~rol Iqq d. .
r~c~
Clerk, School Board
YANCEY
SCHOOL
~ ......-.
~.; .
'f
r
'~
LOCATION
"
, j
ROUTE 627
\
16' ST.
-E,DGF:
a.30M\. S. INT. ROUTE .6
Ii
t .-
"J:.
q
BENJAMIN F. YANCEY
ELeMENTARY SCHOOL
- ESMONT , VIRGINIA
LENGTH 0.08 MI..
l>
r
CD
rrJ
s:
l>
::0
r
IT)
()
o
c
Z
-I
-<
R'OUTE 627
o 30 MI INT RTF
G
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary System
to relocation and construction of Route 9008;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
emarle County Virginia that the following section, as outlined
green on the attached site plan, be added to the Secondary Road
tern pursuant to Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the
centerline of the loop circulation road and the edge of
the pavement of Route 20, thence in a southerly direction
526 feet to station 5+26, the end of the loop circulation
road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following section, as indi-
ca ed in red, be abandoned in accordance with Section 33.1-155 of
th Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the edge
of pavement of Route 20 and the centerline of the
school's circulation road, thence in a southerly direc-
tion approximately 526 feet to station 5+26, the end of
the loop circulation road.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Tr nsportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 30 foot unobstructed
ri ht-of-way along the requested addition, as outlined on the
attached site plan.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy of an amended resolution adopted by
th Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
re ular meeting held on April 15. ~ . 6.
~d 0 County Supervisors
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Schaal Board has altered Route
9008 used by buses at Stony Point Elementary School, and
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia provides for
t e Virginia Department of Transportation to maintain school
e trance roads on whiCh buses are operated, and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board guarantees to the
emarle COWlty Board of Su;pervisors a ]0 I ri.ght-of-way for 52.6
t.
THEREFORE, the ALbemarle County School. Board does hereby
re est the Board of Supervisors to accept the cbangP,5 stated
below:
The following section, as outlined on the attached site plan,.
added to the Secondary System pursuant to Section 33.1-68 of
Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the centerline
the loop cllcul.ation road. and. the edge of pavement of Route 20,
nce in a southern direction 526 feet to station 5+26, the end
the loop cirCUlation road.
In additi.on the following. section will be abandoned in
ordance. with Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia.:
Beginning at station O+OQr a point common with the edge of
emen.t af Route 20 and the centerline of the schco~ I s cUC'\Ua-
n road, thence in a southE~rly direction approximately 526 feet
station 5+26 I the end of the loop circulation road.
I, Charlotte C. Self, do he~eby certify that the fo~egoing
wr ting is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the
Sc 001 BoJtr~d ~ot Albemarle County, Virginia., at a regul.ar meeting
he d on ~(PJ /q~L .
c~~~
"ll_.,
. 0.'1;
.,/
,....., .. 2~'
"oil. _. I"
a... o. r.'
----
-
---
..... .... ......~;,.a..... ...,.. "III,,"ul. ___
/" ,.-
/'
./
/
" /
.'
~.-----...-
-~
'1
...J..... ~. -(''I, ._ 'i~
'.0"" ..01 .... It"l ;~. . . ~
"" .hl...."I...f ""~I.., '........,.... ...t' "'"..1,..., :-:.~~,;~\
. ,":-- ' ' . .. . ~:"""":~'::-;::t:~:';~:'o""~~~ .;;
.....;.,~. -............... ...._, ....":....'...4,..... ..:.~..;{
\11II"1- '..-1 .r........ '1.JlClO .1Il..!t./U.II..... h. Mot;,
~:::~~~:~=:,~~~?~~~~:t3.:~
ad <<........"..
)~ E\~T..f:>.;:,.; -g.-., I
!. ,":'.1"~r.;..... '. ~
,
,
{ . , .'
'PT"~ "
,
,
,
.
,
"
,
.
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
,
I. I
: (;0 jt '''0,
, , I
, "
I I ,','
I , ,
I . '
. , ,
,. I
\ I I
II '
,I .(
,. ,I
" .,
, .
.
,. \
....
m,
Sf'
\., :':ril
. " ./,
, i/,
~,,/., "
, . .
, I
, ,
,
(.IIl.,,,J
I
.'~o~
,
STONEY POINT
SC HOOL
.,...:' ....,... ;~-!....,I,'
""!: ' ., ;
, W.. 'i "
I.
.
\
row
00
00
Ol m'
....:....:
0::0
\JJ
UJ
. ----,
r---
I
i
b
I -.-,. '-";o.",u
. i ',-- &u,,~,od
'--. I
I -J
L_ ____
. .
"
)
]
7.
{
-J
o
{~ -f- i
~~. Y',{
~ . 2 {
~" 4l t
~~ i;'~
'Il ~ '-<j
,,~ ~
~ .~
,~ ~
~~
lO
o
8
ti
~
,"/' ~.
,'-:
.~
~
5 ~
d 0 ~ '" ,,1?
,,,rs ljW~~
'-J UJ ~ ~ 'S: ')
t- ~~ ~ ~
W z '1 ~ ~ ~I
.....J 0 t ~\ 'l :t
a.. ~~" ~
t'Y>- t~ ~
u... \JJ ):!,~ t
<( z ~ ~ III .()
~~ ~~H
WW ~~L~
CDo~~~1
.....J ~ ,~ ~ ~
<(~ ~ ~ .
z
w
. '..'
~k
" ~
., 'j'
~,
....~
'. ~ ~
. 0...,
.~~
t~
~~~
" ti~
. ,~~
. . .t!
~ ~
~'S
~~
~
. .,;'....
h-:,....
.o.~.~
t u ~~
" P.
vI 1~\1'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5861
(L[lflf[OO @[f lfOO~~~[K1Jn1T1J"~[b
l..-.~ ; /,_ l i<' ,,:~
ATTENTION I
DATE
IJ08 NO
TO
L,.>1i,,'
l'J, \- . ,-
:
GENTlEMI N:
WE ARE SENDING YOU 0 Attached 0 Under separate cover via
,..
the following items:
o Specifications
o Shop drawings
o Copy of letter
o Prints
o Change order
o Plans
o
o Samples
COPIES DATE 11I0,
1 :~j II , Li.
'. '"
I :, I i '. .-,
I '-.
\ '-' !:, ' '-
I ~t ;,0 I: " ~-i
DESCRIPTION
/ ,.
i- (' " [,1 -I~;' 'f M,'JCc",, I );, -"'~ .J · ..
, )
!~~)<:;(;\.,,_\,",-j .AI' "J,-: I r'l, '(.,', h.-c
"",I., ~/ I;/,..,~. f-'-,,, (, ).~,-y <'.1 C{
'~; f', i (,-/',',' It... L,-<,.t ' _., 1,_., ---, :. \.> (' ) ,~ I. ',./ "t.e..
THESE AR"", TRANSMITTED as checked below:
[iJ/For approval 0 Approved as submitted
o For your use
o As requested
o Approved as noted
o Returned for corrections
o Resubmit_copies for approval
o Submit_copies for distribution
o Return_corrected prints
o For review and comment 0
C,J FOR BIDS DUE
REMARK~
19
o PRINTS RETURNED AFTER lOAN TO US
COpy , 0
SIGNED:
\-li I" ~
,j 'I,
'I ' !
~".. ~/{
" ene'osur.. ar. not .. not.d: kindly notify us .t once.
.L./- /~ --0 ,
/ /' ,--
A
i'~
'!;, ..f'~.' t.;//~~6___'1)
III South Calvert Street
Suite 1540
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
410-659-7500
l>,l<~:
A ril 3, 1992
. Bob Richardson
vran Bank, N.A.
st Office Box 26904
chmond, Virginia 23261
Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
ar Mr. Richardson:
closed please find the revised Bond Program Reports and Monthly
ports Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the
nths of December 1991 and January 1992. Also enclosed is the
nd Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of February
92.
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
410-659-7500.
Sincerely,
~~JlQ~,dk L1f~11C(){ry.~Jt12--~
Sheila H. Moynihan
roject Monitor
~~'\'!;."4"'.'.If~.
Clerk or the Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
L.' 4 BONO PROGRAM Rf.PORT ,~,
~. -
Monlh December V..r 1991
Property: rbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Project .: 051-35371
location: harlottesville, VA Number o' Units 66
SubmlUtd Dy: Loretta Wyatt January 6, 1992 Effective 12/31/91
Ma~ger OaTe
Total Occupied 66
Bond Occupied
I. LOw( ~ INCOME 1,~
The lollO'Oll Ing units h.~ bc<en designated as "lowe' Income" unlls
, 1 f\rbor Crest Dr. 2' Eleanor Blair 41 61.
2 4 ~rbor Crest Dr. 22 Margaret Q. Sandford42 62.
3 5 !\rbor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 43 63.
4 6 I\rbor Crest Dr. 24 George C. Barnett, SQ' 64.
S 9 la.rbor Crest Dr. 25 Virginia Burton 4S 65.
6 12 ~rbor Crest Dr. 16 G. Robert Stone 46
ee.
7 , 15 [Arbor Crest Dr. 27 Jane Wood 41 67.
a 20 ~rbor Crest Dr. 25 Evelyn Mandeville 48 6a
9 24 Arbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49 69.
'0 78 Arbor Crest Dr'30 Ernest M. Nease 50 70.
" 84 Arbor Crest Dr. 31 Juanita Boliek ~, 71.
12. 90 Arbor Crest Dr. 32 Florence Wheeler 52 72.
94 Arbor Crest Dr. Sarah E. Fischer
,J JJ 53 73.
'4 106 Arbor Crest Dr'J4 Katherine T. Nowlen 54 74.
tS J5 ~5 75.
16 36 ~ 7e.
t 1 31 51. 77.
Its J4 ~. 78.
19 39 59 71.
~O 40 60 eo.
Tl'\e en.n ~s Itom p'ev.ous repo,t ,..lIeeted in the above "s"ng "e
Oelellona Addl1Sone
.to 86 Arbor Crest Dr'H Mary A. Hoxie 1.' 11.
2 12 2 12.
:I 13 3. 13.
4 '4 4. 14.
S 15 5 '5.
6 '6 6 1&.
7 17 1 17.
I '8 8. 18..
I 19 9 'I.
10 20 10. 20.
I
.'
,
Effective December 31, 1991
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest ApartIrents
Charlottesville, Virginia
rsuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
strictionsW), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
rIll, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
bemarle County, Virginia (the WAuthorityW), and your bank, as
ustee, the undersigned author ized representative of
chmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
rtnership, (the wPurchaserW), hereby certifies with respect to
e operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
arlottesville, Virginia (the "ProjectW), that as of the date
own below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 14 .
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 52
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 21%
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
I WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of
January 6, 1992
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
&--/'~-
By: u&L?'..-- /7 ~?<...L <-
Authorized Representative
.,
- ~Ri,*~'
BONO PROGRAM R~PORT .c
Month January v..( ~
Property: ~rbor Crest Apartments Project .: 051-35371
loc.tion: ~harlottesville, VA Numbe, of Unit. 66
Submitted ~y: Loretta Wyatt February 5, 1992 Effective 1/31/92
M'r\A~' O.Te
Total Occupied 66
LOWE' INCOME Bond Occupied
I. 14
The 101l0w ng units hl~ been designated IS ..tow.r Income'" units
1 1 P. rbor Crest Dr. 21 Eleanor Blair 41
81.
2 4 P. rbor Crest Dr. 22 Margaret Q. Sandford
42 62.
3 5 P. rbor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 43
aJ.
4 6 1 roor Crest Dr. 24 George C. Barnett, Sic'
&4.
S 9 1 rbor Crest Dr. 25 Virginia Burton 4~
05.
6 12 1 rbor Crest Dr. 76 G. Robert Stone <Ie
ee.
7 . 15 rbor Crest Dr. 21 Jane Wood 41 67.
e 20 rbor Crest Dr. 25 Evelyn Mandeville .5 e.a
9 24 rbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49
69.
10 78 rbor Crest Dr. 30 Ernest M. Nease 50
70.
" 84 rbor Crest Dr. 3t Juanita Boliek
~1 71.
12. 90 rbor Crest Dr. 32 Florence Wheeler 52
72
tJ 94 rbor Crest Dr. JJ Sarah E. Fischer 53 73.
1. 106 ~rbor Crest Dr. 34 Katherine T. Nowlen 54
74.
IS 35 55 75.
16 JG 56 10.
11 31 51. 77.
lIS 38 5&. 78.
19 39 59 78.
~'O 40 60 80.
Tne c".n ~s '(om pfev10us report I,.lIected in th. .bove "sling It.
D.I.llona AddlUona
.to '" 1.' 11.
2 12 2 12.
3 13 3. 13.
!
.. 14 4. 14.
5 15 5 15.
6 t6 6 10.
J \1 7 17.
I 18 8. 18..
I t9 9 It.
to 20 to. 20.
I
J
Effective January 31, 1992
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apa.rt::Inents
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7 (a) of the Deed Restr ictions (the "Deed
Re trictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Al emarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
trustee, the undersigned author ized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partnership, (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
t e operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
C arlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
5 own below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 14
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 52
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 21%
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
I
WITNESS WHEREOF1 the undersigned has signed this Report as of
February 5, 199z
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By:
~~kZZ;: -' 1~ . c~.
Au horized Representative
J -
- 80NO PROGRAM REPORT
Month February y 1992
..,_
Property: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts. ) P . 051-35371
ro~' .:
loc.tion: Charlottesville, VA Numt>., of Unita 66
Subm."td by: Loretta Wyatt March 5, 1992 Effective 2/29/92
M.t\a~r D.Te
Total Occupied 66
LOwtl Bond Occupied 14
.. INCOME
The 101l0w ng units hive been designated AS "Iower Income' units
I 1 J rbor Crest Dr. 21 Eleanor Blair 41 81.
2 4 1 rbor Crest Dr. 22 Margaret Q. Sandford42 62.
3 5 J rbor Crest Dr. 23 Fannie G. Tisdale 43 63.
4 6 1 roor Crest Dr. 24 George C. Barnett, Si.c' 64.
S 9 1 rbor Crest Dr. 25 Virginia Burton 45 as.
6 12 I rbor Crest Dr. 26 G. Robert Stone 46 ee.
7 . 15 I rbor Crest Dr. 27 Jane Wood 47 87.
a 20 i rbor Crest Dr. 2a Evelyn Mandeville 48 6S
9 24 f rbor Crest Dr. 29 Gertrude Breen 49 69.
10 78 1 rbor Crest Dr. 30 Ernest M. Nease 50 70.
" 84 f rbor Crest Dr. 31 Juanita Boliek 51 71.
12. 90 1 rbor Crest Dr. 31 Florence Wheeler 52 72.
'3 94 rbor Crest Dr. 3J Sarah E. Fischer 53 73.
14 106 1 rbor Crest Dr. 34 Katherine T. Nowlen 54 74.
15 35 55 75.
t6 36 ~ 70.
tl :11 51. 77.
lIS 3e 56. 78.
19 39 59 71.
~'O 40 60 80.
T ne enan! tes 'rom p'ev.ous repnfl rf'f1eeted in the Above hsllng ...
O.t.llona Addl1Sone
.t- 11 ,.- 11.
Z 12 2 12.
3 13 3. 13.
4 14 4. 14.
5 15 5 15.
6 16 6 le.
7 17 1 17.
. 1. a. "..
I 19 9 ".
10 20 10. 20.
f'. . .,
Effective February 29, 1992
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
..
: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apartments
Charlottesville, Virginia
rsuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
strictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
rll 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
bemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
ustee, the undersigned author ized representative of
chmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virg inia Limited
rtnership, (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
e operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
arlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
own below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 14 .
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 52 .
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 21%
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of
March 5, 1992
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
.Ie/! j-
By: (~~'--1..-<'ZZ-,-, 14~ 9'a.-?-L
Authorized Representative
n;,"h';!~ .,,'1," ," _ .....
< 7" -/ ~ '- :;.'..;>__
?J. iy/S{ .{.s.~)
~ .., i
j \ .'\',
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA~,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
U. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDeNT ENGINEER
RAY D. PE HTEL
COMMlSSI NER
Miss Letti
Board of S
County Off
401 Mclnti
Charlottes
Dear Miss
April 6, 1992
Route 240, Albemarle County
E. Neher, Clerk
pervisors
ce Building
e Road
ille, VA 22902
At m etings with the Board of Supervisors in February and March the issue of guardrail
needed al ng Route 240 was discussed. As a result of those discussions I have reviewed the
accident ata for a two and a half year period. The accident data does not show very many
accidents, however, the vast majority involved vehicles leaving the road. Based upon this
fact and he steep drop off existing along the section in question, I have requested guard-
rail be i stalled. My request has been approved. Please advise the Board that guardrail
will be in taIled along Route 240 from its crossing of Lickinghole Creek to approximately the
intersecti n with Route 802 as a part of this year's guardrail schedule. That schedule is
due to be dvertised in April and should start work around the middle of June.
DSR/smk
Yours truly,
-..-.... ~ ',"
~, .s .~<:.::~>>:, ;.:..\,,--:- 1 [..--'
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
cc: Bill M'lls
Angela Tucker
Jeff E hols
Charli Wright
R. H. onnock, Jr.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTU RY
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
STATE CORPORA nON COMMISSION
r
/
~-I () -?.2---
./. ""->"'''.q''~,,,,,,,,,;,-,,,,,,,,,,<t..'
1'.2, L' YI.S (.J; ~ )
'.---'-~-"- ........."""-"....",..-.,.,.~~"=-....,, :/
SCC,62
:"',;'"
.' ~'-
;C -: J t,.~,
LJ,J':' ii;,.~ .~! /~; 1(;: 59
AT RICHl1QNp
March 27; 1~92
1"
Order No. .;~;2obb<iri{)g-_r~O:OCii:~,
N THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION FOR THE TAX YEAR 1991
OF
OLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
WHEREAS, in Columbia Gas Transmission Corooration v. State
Commiss1on, No. 911456, slip Ope (Feb. 28, 1992),
Court of Virginia reversed and annulled the
ommission's Final Order entered August 6, 1991, in Commonwealth
Commission v. Columbia Gas
ransmission Co oration., Commission Case No. PST910001, and
ntered final judgment dismissing the rule to show cause, the
ommission finds that its Order No. 910000034-4001, entered
ctober 24, 1991, assessing the value of real estate and all
ther tangible personal property of said company as of the first
of January, 1991, should be vacated.
IT IS ORDERED that Order No. 910000034-4001 entered October
1991, be, and hereby is vacated;
'IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that attested copies of this order be
the President or other proper officer of Columbia Gas
Corporation, and to the Council of every city and
the Board of Supervisors of every county, and to the
of t~~ev~~e of every county and city wherein
~' d l""t_1<
belonging to such corporation is situated.
~:~ I.FR -5 p~; 12: 1'1
~~;;\-
'_ .t~ ;-' 'r."~.
. , : . CL~?f;
A True ~ J ~',," 1I1l.# ~ · --s.- ~
Teste: VV~--",.
Cln of the
State Corporation Commission
B y----'-'____~u., ___ D. C
,
.-,
.' t
.. :>" ::'-/::, /)
1992
FIRST QUARTER
BUILDING REPORT
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
.. INDEX
l. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A - B)
lI. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C - D)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart E)
~ Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F - H)
Key to Types of Housing Used in this Report
SF Single Family (Includes Modular)
SFA Single Family Attached
SFrrH Single Family Townhouse
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family Residence
MHC MobileHomes in County
-2-
During the first quarter of 1992, 176 permits were issued for
319 dwelling units. In addition, 6 permits were issued for mobile
homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500 for a
total of $15,000.
I. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling
Units by Month
YEAR 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
JAN 86 46 37 38 22 93 56 64 183
FEB 39 29 43 35 40 172 68 31 72
MAR 78 94 37 62 91 61 92 57 64
APR 60 48 78 70 71 49 82 62 0
MAY 78 121 73 73 83 89 75 44 0
JUN 66 60 92 56 83 220 85 54 0
JUL 63 57 159 80 30 67 42 58 0
AUG 47 86 32 46 49 74 87 58 0
SEP 52 35 49 45 46 72 90 55 0
OCT 41 40 52 60 52 56 48 39 0
NOV 33 45 50 49 60 301 37 42 0
DEC 82 53 35 40 46 55 42 50 0
TOTAL 725 714 737 654 673 1309 804 614 319
Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling
Units by Month
190
180
170
150
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
l2:ZJ 1990
IS:SJ 1991
~ 1992
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development
..
-3-
FIRST QUARTER 1992
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by
Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC D.U. D.U.
CHARLOTTESVILLE 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 1%
JACK JOUETT 3 0 0 0 12 0 15 5%
RIVANNA 46 2 12 0 144 2 206 65%
SAMUEL MILLER 26 0 0 0 0 0 26 8%
SCOTTSVILLE 39 0 0 0 0 2 41 13%
WHITE HALL 18 7 0 0 0 2 27 8%
TOTAL 136 9 12 0 156 6 319 100%
Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by
Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL UNITS
COMP PLAN AREA SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC URBAN RURAL
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 9 0 12 0 0 0 21
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 0 0 144 0 144
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 24 0 0 0 0 0 24
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 9
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOO~ 7 0 0 0 0 12 0 12
CROZET COMMUNITY 3 7 0 0 0 0 10
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 18 0 0 0 0 0 18
SCOTTSVILLE COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EARLYSVILLE VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NORTH GARDEN VILLAGE 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
PINEY MOUNTAIN VILLAGE 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
RIVANNA VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GROWTH AREA SUBTOTAL 66 9 12 0 156 0 243
RURAL AREA 1 11 0 0 0 0 1 12
RURAL AREA 2 19 0 0 0 0 2 21
RURAL AREA 3 22 0 0 0 0 1 23
RURAL AREA 4 18 0 0 0 0 2 20
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 70 0 0 0 0 6 76
TOTAL 136 9 12 0 156 6 319
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development
., i
-4-
FIRST Q DARTER 1992
III. C !>MPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
C jlart E. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTE IAL NEW *NEW NON - RES . NEW CUMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRI ~T RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTlTUT. & ALTER. COMM. TOTAL
No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$
CHVILLE 4 290,000 17 133,432 1 200,000 17 276,700 39 900,132
JOUETT 5 960,000 12 272,715 0 0 2 3,000 19 1,235,715
RIVANNA 73 9,243,384 51 951,408 6 2,435,494 6 5,067,000 136 17,697,286
S. MILL ~ 26 4,297,000 49 883,135 1 36,000 3 331,000 79 5,547,135
SGOTTSV LLE 41 3,056,909 29 516,766 0 0 1 14,000 71 3,587,675
WHITE rL p.LL 27 2,484,950 35 528,396 1 35,000 1 20,000 64 3,068,346
TOTA"" 176 20,332,243 193 3,285,852 9 2,706,494 30 5,711,700 408 32,036,289
* Addit ona1 value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential
Alter tion category. .
IV. CE TIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
Ch rt F. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by
Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL PERCENT
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC D.U. TOTAL D.U.
Br adus Wood/Henley 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1. 38%
Br adus Wood/Jouett 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.76%
Brl wnsville 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.07%
Crl zet 2 6 0 0 0 0 8 5.52%
Gn er 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Ho lymead 26 3 2 f) 0 0 31 21. 38%
Me iwether Lewis 5 0 0 0 0 2 7 4.83%
Mu ray 11 2 0 0 0 1 14 9.66%
Re< Hill 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 3.45%
Ca e/Burley 5 0 10 0 9 0 24 16.55%
Ca e/Walton 15 6 0 0 0 0 21 14.48%
SCI ttsville 5 0 0 0 0 1 6 4.14%
Stl ne Robinson/Burley 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.83%
St< ne Robinson/Walton 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.83%
St< ny Point 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.38%
Wo< db rook 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.69%
Yal cey 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 2.07%
TOTAL 101 17 13 (l 9 5 145 100.00%
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development
,
i
I
~ .
-5-
FIRST QUARTER 1992
IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (continued)
Chart G. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by
Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE
DISTRICT SF SF SF/TH DUP MF MHC TOTAL
CHARLOTTESVILLE 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
JACK JOUETT 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
RIVANNA 39 3 12 0 9 0 63
SAMUEL MILLER 19 2 0 0 0 3 24
SCOTTSVILLE 30 6 0 0 0 2 38
WHITE HALL 10 6 0 0 0 0 16
TOTAL 101 17 13 0 9 5 145
Chart H. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by
Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT tyPE TOTAL UNITS
COMP PLAN AREA SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC URBAN RURAL
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 5 0 11 0 9 0 25
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 13 6 0 0 0 0 19
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 3
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CROZET COMMUNITY 1 6 0 0 0 0 7
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 25 0 2 0 0 0 27
SCOTTSVILLE COMMUNITY 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
EARLYSVILLE VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PINEY MTN. VILLAGE 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
NORTH GARDEN VILLAGE 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
RIVANNA VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GROWTH AREA SUBTOTAL 50 17 13 0 9 0 89
RURAL AREA 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 9
RURAL AREA 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 9
RURAL AREA 3 19 0 0 0 0 4 23
RURAL AREA 4 14 0 0 0 0 1 15
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 51 0 0 0 0 5 56
TOTAL 101 17 13 0 9 5 145
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development
q
I
.i ~/5
~=t4:~L1f z
tl '
At;ENDA ITEM NO. If... /~ I;;... 2%3
At;ENDA ITEM NAME 4/ ~ JJutt /~
D UNTIL ~ 17, 1171:
D~TE
Form. 3
7/25/86
....
T I
D '-TE ~ Is, /11 z
A ~ENDA ITEM NO. 1 j. .1) 'J{) 3 · zZ'I
A t;ENDA ITEM NAME ~12
D .;o,L' UNTIL ~ /1) /970
Form. 3
7/25/86
. ...
,
,
I
/
. -'7. "-~~-':.Z~
--~o?~"_'-//S". 7. f _
-".-.-.-*" -.:s
.,~ t
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
March 11, 1992
i j '.,,;
Paran united Methodist Church
Rt. 8, Box 410-A
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-92-01 Paran United Methodist Church
Tax Map 21, Parcel 16
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
March 10, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1) Compliance with Section 5.16 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. No such use shall operate without any required
licenses. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning
Administrator a copy of any required licenses (or
proof of exemption from licensure) and all
renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning
Administrator of any license expiration,
suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of
such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made
by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his
discretion. Failure to promptly admit the Fire
Official for such inspection shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
,". t'
Paran United Methodist Church
Page 2
March 11, 1992
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing
stated herein shall be deemed to preclude
application of the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia state Fire
Marshall, or any other local, state or federal
agency.
2) Maximum enrollment shall not exceed 20 students or
such lesser number as may be approved by the Health
Department.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on April 15. 1992. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
l./~ i. -:' L f/; "\,.- /' ,/~.
william D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
Rev. Edward Childress
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
MARCH 10, 1992
APRIL 15, 1992
SP-92-01 PARAH UNITED METHODIST CHrrRCH
Petition: paran united Methodist Church petitions the
Board of supervisors to amend SP-89-104 to permit day
care/nursery school [10.2.2(5) and 10.2.2(7)] in an existing
church. Property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 16, is
located on the east side of Route 606 approximately 0.2
miles north of its intersection with Route 29 in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. This site is zoned RA, Rural Areas
and is in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This
site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area
1) .
Character of the Area: The site is developed with a 7,100
square foot church served by 62 parking spaces. Two
single-family residences are adjacent to the south, and the
property to the north consists of relatively dense woods and
a single family home.
ADDlicant's ProDosal: The applicant is proposing to utilize
the existing building to allow for day care. The applicant
has been operating a day care and has been cited for a
violation by the Zoning Administrator. The applicant is
seeking approval to permit a maximum of 20 children. A
description and justification for this request has been
provided by the applicant (Attachment C).
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends denial.
Planninq and Zoning Historv:
January 17, 1990 - Board of Supervisors approved SP-89-104
which permitted a church.
September 4, 1990 - The Planning Commission approved a
preliminary site plan for Paran united Methodist Church.
December 6, 1990 - The final site plan for Paran United
Methodist Church is signed administratively.
January 3, 1992 - The Zoning Administrator notified the
applicant that the operation of a day care is occurring in
violation of the Zoning Ordinance (Violation 91-67).
1
In addition, to the above, the site has had sign violations
and received variances for signs.
Comnrehensive Plan: This site is located in Rural Area 1 of
the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
A special use permit for a church was approved for this site
subject to conditions (Attachment D). A major issue in the
review of the special use permit was the adequacy of Route
606 to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the
church. The following comments were made by staff during
the review of SP-89-104:
"staff has estimated the potential traffic generation
for the church to be an average of approximately 30
vehicle trips per day with the majority of the traffic
generation occasioned by regular Sunday services.
Applying this figure to the private road requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance, this would be the
equivalent amount of traffic generated by 3-5
residential lots. The width of travelway required for
3-5 lots is 14 feet. Therefore, staff recommends a
condition requiring the widening of Route 606 to 14
feet from the church entrance to Route 763."
(The road was widened to 14 feet as part of the church
construction.) The 1991 traffic count for Route 606
indicates 48 vehicle trips per day. Based on the 5th
Edition of the ITE manual, a 20 child day care center will
generate 93 additional vehicle trips per day. This level of
traffic is equal to the traffic generated by nine (9)
residential lots. Using the same methodology as was used
during the review of SP-89-104, an 18 foot paved road
meeting VDOT mountainous terrain standards would be
necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Staff opinion is that a non-tolerable gravel road is not
adequate to accommodate the volume of daily traffic
generated by this day care. Similar levels of traffic
generated by a residential development would require a road
with a capacity greater than Route 606. Based on these
findings, staff's opinion is that this development would not
have adequate access for a day care.
Commercial activities in the Rural Areas are basically
limited to those directly related to agriculture and those
which provide support services to the rural population.
Typically, staff has avoided locating commercial activities
2
in the Rural Areas in close proximity to des:.gnated growth
areas. This site is located 1,050 feet north of the Village
of Piney Mountain. The Comprehensive Plan states in regard
to Piney Mountain:
"The 1985 estimated population of Piney Mountain was
600. Piney Mountain consists of the Cam~lot and
Briarwood residential subdivisions and the General
Electric plant. No commercial uses serve this Village,
and the closest commercial retail outlets are located
in the Community of Hollymead."
The proposed day care center will care for children of the
community and is not limited to those directly involved with
the church. Therefore, this use may serve the Piney
Mountain community. While the rural areas are not intended
to provide support services for growth areas, approval of
this request may be appropriate due to the limited services
available in Piney Mountain and service this use may provide
the northern portion of the rural areas of the County. (One
day care center for nine children is located approximately
one mile away.)
The Health Department has reviewed the applicant's request
and stated that the current system is adequate to
accommodate eleven (11) children per day (Attachment E) .
However, the system must be monitored and should the system
prove inadequate based on the flow rates the Health
Department will cause the day care center to cease
operation, reduce the number of children or increase the
drainfield area. Additional drainfield area is available.
The only reason Health Department approval is limited to
eleven (11) children is due to the existing drainfield. The
Inspections Department has stated that the existing
structure is adequate for a day care center provided that
the minimum age of the children is 2 1/2 years.
Summary
Staff has identified the following factors which are
favorable to this request:
1. No additional building or parking is required.
2. The day care center will provide support for the
community at large.
Staff has identified the following factors which are
unfavorable to this request:
1. Approval of this request will substantially increase
traffic on Route 606, which is a 14 foot wide
non-tolerable gravel road.
3
2. The existing septic system requires monitoring by the
Health Department. Additional area must be installed
to accommodate the requested size of the day care
center.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval of this request will almost triple traffic on a
non-tolerable gravel road. Staff opinion is that approval
of this request under such circumstances is inappropriate.
Staff may be able to support the request at such time as
Route 606 is improved. (At this time Route 606 is not
scheduled for any improvement). Staff recommends denial of
SP-92-01.
Should the Planning commission and Board of Supervisors
choose to approve the request, staff offers the following
conditions.
Recommended Conditions of ADDroval:
1) Compliance with section 5.16 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care
center. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning
Administrator a copy of the original license and
all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning
Administrator of any license expiration,
suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of
such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made
by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his
discretion. Failure to promptly admit the Fire
Official for such inspectior shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing
stated herein shall be deemed to preclude
application of the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia State Fire
Marshall, or any other local, state or federal
agency.
2) Enrollment shall be limited to 11 students until such
time as the septic system is enlarged. Maximum enrollment
shall not exceed 20 students.
4
A'rl'ACHMENTS:
A -Location Map
B -Tax Map
C -Applicants description al.d justification
D -Action letter for SP-89-104
E -Health Department comment
F -VDOT comment
5
o~ '~~
~\
-~
~'
f?
..
~
IATTACHMENT A
~
~
""
c
L.r :: TO ~
I
I
.
t__________________________
~
o
I.J
EARL YSVILLE AF
FOUR TlMn MAil' SCAlf
Of?
.q""
G~
I!J
..
IiliJ
...;-~~
:);;
"~
riliJ"
\.,
"-
<t'
I
"-
rS
OJ
~\
'"
'" ~
,~/~\,
" 1>",\
..
'~
~.
)
\
\
./'
,;:.
CV
~
\
Go
~.
.f
"1___.".,.. .__ _ _ _. ~ . .
"--' .
,..--. ,;
IATTACHMENT B
. "'"
( ,
. "'-,
CALE IN FEET
RIVANNA DISTRICT
SECTION 21
...
c.
.
I ATTACHMENT C \
Ju tification for Request to Arnmend SUP 89-104
paran United Methodist Church is requesting an ammendment
to our special use permit in order to allow for a pre-school
pr gram in our new building. Several years ago, when we were
in the planning stage and asking for a SUP, we did not
an icipate becoming involved in day care. We felt there were
li itations of space and resources that would prohibit our
do ng this effectively. When we used the words "day care"
am ngst ourselves and with county planners, we meant full day
se vice for a wide range of children who were cared for while
pa ents worked. When the county wanted to put the day care
re triction on our SUP we did not object.
Just before moving into our new building in October of
19 1 a young woman in the congregation felt the need for a
pr school co-op program that was affordable and in northern
Al emarle County. We planned a program that incorporated the
pa ent participation of a co-op but with a paid
te cherjdirector to provide consistency and effectiveness.
Th s is a program currently of 11 children meeting Monday,
We nesday, and Friday 9am - l2nooQ. We did not consider that
th s kind of program fell within a difinition of "day care."
We further checked on state licensing requirements and were
to d by the state that this program fell outside the limits
of any kind of licensure until new legislation takes effect
in July of 1992. We understand now that our program requires
an ammendment to our SUP and is deemed day care by county
co e.
We do not anticipate a large scale day care program while
building is its current size. Future expansion and
nging conditions may be cause for a different minstry in
future. At this time we are asking for approval of a
gram which would involve a maximum of 20 children ages two
a half through 5. We recognize appropriate health and
e approvals may be re1uired. We understand we will need
be licensed or apply for an exemption to licensure in July
this year. We regard this program as a ministry of the
rch for service to the community. This is not a rental
uation and the church does not look to make a profit.
~
I ATTACHMENT D I
COUNTY OF ALBEM~RLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5323
January 22, 1990
Rev. Edwin Childress
4576 Heather Court
Charlottesville; VA 22901
RE: SP-89-104 Edwin Childress
Tax Map 21, Parcel 16
Dear Rev. Childress:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
January 17, 1990, unanimously approved the above-noted
request to allow for the construction of a church facility
on 6.778 acres zoned p~, Rural Areas. Property, located
nine-tenths of a mile south of its intersection with Rt.
641. Please note that this approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1. Seating capacity to be de~ermined by adequate septic
system area, not to exceed a maximum fixed seating of
400 persons;
2. Sanctuary or classroom expansion, or daycare and other
non-worship ~ses; will require amendment to this
petition;
3. site plan approval to include Planning Commission
approval of landscaping;
4. Widening cf Route 506 to 14 feet from the church
entrance to Route 763j
~
I ATTACHMENT D Ilpage ~
Rev. Edwin Childress
Page 2
January 22, 1990
5. Trees over 1 1/2" ca..L~per shall not be removed without
staff approval and extensive landscaping shall be
provided in excess of the minimum required in the site
Plan Ordinance especially along Rt. 29;
6. No access to Route 29 North.
If you should have any questions or co~~ents regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Director of Plannin
Development
.V1\TC/j cw
cc: Kathy Dodson
Paran United Methodist Church
Richard Moring
Jeff Echols
IATTACHMENT E
IN COOPER TION WITH THE
STATEDEPAR MENTOFHEALTH
COMMONWEALTfI of VIRGINIA
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
p. 0. Box 7546
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
(804) 972-6219
ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE
FLUVANNA COUNTY (PALMYRA)
GREENE COUNTY ISTANARDSVILLE)
LOUISA COUNTY (LOUISA)
NELSON COUNTY (LOVINGSTON)
January 16, 1992
Edwin Childress, Pastor
Paran United Methodist Church
Route 8, Box 410 A
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Sir:
As a follow-up to our conversation of January 14, 1992, I am
writing you to reiterate the specific points which were discussed
relative to your part-time day care facility. As agreed, the
Thomas Jefferson Health Department is willing to allow your day
care program to remain active provided you install a flow meter
on the existing low pressure distribution sewage disposal system
within the next thirty days. Sewage flows are to be monitored
and records of the flow rates are to be submitted to the health
department.
There is to be a limited seating capacity of 200 seats and
maximum of 11 children per day in the day care center. Any
increase in either seating capacity or number of children
attending the day care program will require approval of this
department and may require that the additional drainfield be
installed.
A copy of this letter will be forwarded to Albemarle County
Zoning and Planning Officials. You should, perhaps contact these
departments to confirm any approval that may still be recuired
from local government agencies.
''fDH~~:~~~~~' T
OF HE.\lTH
P'ol('( Jim: \tJ(J ..mcJ )our 1m ,fon,nNII
,
IATTACHMENT E\Page 2\
If I can be of any further assis~ance, please do not
h sitate to contact me at the Thomas Jefferson Health Department
( 72-6259).
Sincerely,
&.
G. Stephen Rice
Environmental Health Specialist
c
~melia Patterson, Albemarle County Zoning Dept
VBill Fritz, Albemarle County Planning Dept.
Dr. Susan McLeod, Thomas Jefferson Health Dist.
IATTACHMENT F;
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
FEB 2 7 1992
PlANNrNG DEPT.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
RAY D. PE HTEL
COMMISSI NER
D. S. ROOSEVEJ..T
RESIDENT ENGINEER
February 25, 1992
Special Use Permits
& Rezonings
March 1992
Mr. R nald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
Count Office Building
401 M Intire Road
CharI ttesville, VA. 22901
Dear
1. S
SP-89
reque
curre
the c
widen
secti
road
some
sight
2. S
adequ
along
not a
road.
has b
park
3. S
churc
as a
does
requi
this
acros
and r
Keeler:
following are our comments:
-92-01 Paran United Methodist Church, Route 606 - This request is to amend
104 to permit a day care/nursery school with a maximum enrollment of 20. This
t would result in a traffic increase of approximately 100 VPD. Route 606 is
tly non-tolerable and a non-hard surface road. As part of the approvals for
urch the section of Route 606 from Route 763 to the church entrance was
d to a fourteen foot (14') travelway. The Department recommends that this
n of Route 606 be upgraded to current standards, which would include proper
nd shoulder widths along with hard surfacing. It would be beneficial to trim
verhanging vegetation to the north of the entrance to improve and maintain
distance in that direction along Route 606.
-92-02 Harold & Sarah Hensle , Route 1108 - The existing private entrance has
te sight distance for this request. However, the driveway (which is gravel
the road and paved on site) is not adequate for truck traffic. Also, there is
equate onsite parking for trucks without having them to back up or on from the
The inlet end of the pipe under the driveway is bent, probably from where it
en run over. With the dump trucks parked in the driveway, the cars have to
longs ide the road on the shoulder.
-92-03 James River Ba tist Church, Route 737 - This request is to operate a
in an existing house. There would be an increase in traffic for this request
emporary church operation. The private driveway for the house on Route 726
ot have adequate sight distance. A minimum of 250' of sight distance is
ed and there is only 200' of sight distance for a vehicle turning left into
roperty. The sight distance problem is caused by a bank and several trees
the road. A sight easement would be needed as well as grading of the bank
moval of several trees to obtain sight distance. The access for this request
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
11// /1,-/1//)/ C---/Ii / rt
2-1'eJ-C/;;?
\,.: ':. ": ,j
."' t~,
:-\:. .
,i [:
ATEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING
RAN UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
<
!: '. !
,I "
en we discussed with the Planning Dept. our original SUP, the
rm "day care" arose on several occasions. Planners did not
o fer and it did not occur to us to ask for a legal difinition of
t e term "day care." We had no idea then of operating a day care
c nter. It never occured to us as a committee or as a church that
a part-time preschool co-op meeting 9 hours a week could be
c nstrued as a day care center.
c
\ 0.. ," ~,_
..
rturing children and providing a place where they belong has
ways been a priority for churches in the United States. We
el we have a responsibility to the community to serve in this
y. We have been told recently by zoning that a Mothers Morning
t program will likely fall into the daycare center category and
t at a Vacation Bible School week in the summer may not be
permissable.
I we had had this information during the original process, we
uld not have agreed to the restriction on day care. We still
ve trouble with the county referring to 11 children and 3
a ults meeting part-time 9-12 on MWF as a day care center. This
eschool is offered by our church only as a service/ministry to
e community. Far from making money off it, we absorb all the
erhead costs involved.
seem to be faced with an encroaching, all-consuming definition
day care that could severely limit the ability of the church
serve children. What will happen if we offer scouting to the
,unity? Girls begin Daisy Scouting at age 5. What if we
er a summer daytime activity center for elementary and high
001 students where they can constructively spend their time?
Wi 1 zoning and the County want to approve every idea we
initiate?
did not mean to give the impression that Sunday worship was
only event we would plan for this new building. Let us be
est and state that at this time we are having a senior
izens club, a youth group on Sunday nights, an aerobics
up, choir practice, and many pot-luck suppers. In reviewing
original SUP, we find that any child care or non-worship
ivities must be approved by county government. All of the
t mentioned activities are non-worship. Do you really intend
control those activities and will we find out about them
cemeal as the Zoning Administrator issues zoning violation
ices? It is the nature of most churches to be in ministry.
ing spent $600,000 for site development and construction, we
t the congregation and the community to enjoy our efforts.
hie will now deal with some specifics of staff's recommendations
to deny.
/ A
Staff refers to a 7 year old 1985 report quoting figures for
population in Piney Mountain of 600. A simple car ride through
the area would show how much has changed since 1985. North pines
neighborhood, adjacent to the church, has doubled its size since
then and Briarwood, as you well know, is in the process of a large
expansion. The enthusiastic response of the community to our
preschool indicates that it meets a real need.
The main concern of staff centers on SR 606 as a gravel road. Our
property fronts both 606 and Highway 29. We were told county
policy urges access to such properties come from the side not on
highway 29, obviously to limit outflow onto a busy highway. We
agreed to this as a prudent choice.
The widening of SR 606 was a required condition by the county in
anticipation of a 400 seat sanctuary. Wherever possible, we
attempted to construct basic site services at the ultimate goal
of 400 seats to save time and money in the long run. The county
knew that we planned to expand eventually to this 400 seat
figure. If SR 606 was widened and deemed sufficient for a 400
seat church why is it not sufficient for a 200 seat church and 20
child part-time preschool?
The distance from hard pavement to our entrance is only
one-quarter mile. While 606 does connect with SR 641 at its
northern end, it runs parallel with Highway 29 and therefore
bears little traffic. The road services only 7 homes, 6 of which
lie north of our entrance. We understand government's
predilection for statistics. The actual number of VPD trips will
certainly be far ~ess than the 93 staff estimates.
Using staff's rationale, 9 residential lots are supposed to
produce 93 VPD, or an average of around 10 per lot. The 7
existing homes should have produced some 70 VPD in 1991. The
actual count, according to staff was 48. Our project was in
progress frpm January of '91 until October with construction
traffic on weekdays far exceeding our current usage. Once again,
the count was only 48. We believe our average VPD for the
preschool numbers 23 with an enrollment of 11. The number of VPD
will certainly be less than the 93 estimated by staff.
We feel the beneficial services offered by the church far
outweigh the concern for .25 mile of roadway. If concern still
exists, then we should work together with DOT to have the road
upgraded.
The second concern of staff centers on the size of our
drainfield. While we can't imagine our septic field is too
small, we obviously cannot and will not create an unhealthy
situation.
However, we believe it is unecessary for the county to make
s ipulations in addition to the requirements imposed by the
HaIth Department. Staff erroneously leaves the impression that
o r field will accomodate 11 children at the most. The letter
f om the Health Department states, "any increase in either
sating capacity or number of children attending the day care
p ogram will require approval of this department and MAY require
t at the additional drainfield be installed."
I itially we designed a drainfield to accomodate our ultimate goal
o a 400 seat sanctuary. The Health Dept. issued a construction
p rmit on that basis showing that the field design should
a comodate a daily usage of 1200 gal. Because of cost
c ndierations, we cut down the drainfield to accomodate a 200
s at sanctuary with anticipated usage of 600 gal. per day. The
o iginal large holding tanks were kept on to service the smaller
f'eld. Our field now is designed to accomodate 600 gal. per day.
installed a flow meter on our system February 11, 1992. It
sows no day on which the 600 gal. limit was reached. The
average per day is 71.6 gal. The highest usage was 452 gal.
w en a urinal malfunctioned in the men's room and ran for several
hours. As you can ?ee, usage would have to increase 8-fold before
we even came close to reaching capacity.
refore, the staff's second recommended condition of approval
unnecessary. We ask you to approve the 20 spaces and we
iously cannot go above the Health Department restriction
ther it be 11 or 15 or 20. We will obviously take up these
ues with the Health Dept. at a later date.
ally, we object to l(a) in Recommended conditions of approval.
the State requires licensure, we will do so. As we state in
ou justification, Virginia does not currently have a category
fo licensing a program like ours. We couldn't obtain a license
if we wanted one. When and if the State sets up such a
ca egory and process, we reserve the right to choose licensure or
to register our exemption from licensure which is the prerogative
of church-based programs.
To summarize: We feel that the services and ministries we are
of ering to the community surrounding the church are beneficial
an needed. We feel Paran United Methodist Church has met all
th concerns, suggestions, and requirements of Albemarle County
wi h regard to traffic flow, site design, conservation, and
bu Iding construction. We paid for the initial widening of SR
60 and believe it is adequate for our program. If the county
fe Is otherwise, it may do well to work with VDOT to have it
up raded. Our septic field is obviously adequate to handle a 20
ch Id preschool cooperative. We can and will continue to monitor
wa er usage to insure the system is not overloaded.
We prefer not to see our relationship with the county as
ad ersarial. We are wondering if real practicalities and common
/~/ .8
sense have a role in this process. We are also wondering to what
degree the county is willing to allow a church to be a church and
not regard it as a commercial establishment.
!'~." r\
."'..(:;.'.~)
,. I !"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
C harlotlesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
':!-;; "4
. .0:/-;t:.!..u
~~r2. ~ 'IIS..2 ~ <..
D: ~:. ;:~
March 25, 1992
Harold and Sarah Hensley
359 Stagecoach Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-92-02 Harold and Sarah Hensley
Tax Map 90A, section A, Parcel 24D
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hensley:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
March 24, 1992, by a vote of 5-1, recommended approval of
the above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. No on-site sales;
2. Not more than two employees who are not family members
who reside on-site;
3. Compliance with the performance standards of Section
4.1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance;
4. Repair of drainage pipe under the driveway entrance;
5. Permit will expire two years after date of issuance.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on April 15. 1992. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
Harold and Sarah Hensley
Page 2
March 25, 1992
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
/) / /i/ ~
.v~l/~~fJ?
william D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: ~tie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
MARCH 24, 1992
APRIL 15, 1992
SP- 92 -02 HAROLD AND SARAH HENSLEY
Petition: Harold and Sarah Hensley petition the Board of
supervisors to issue a Home occupation, Class B permit
[14.2.2(11)] to permit a hauling business involving three
trucks on 0.3 acres zoned R-2, Residential and within the
EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described
as Tax Map 90A, Section A, Parcel 24D, is located in the Oak
Hill Subdivision in the southwestern corner of the
intersection of pinehurst Court and Route 631 in the
scottsville Magisterial District. This site is located in
Urban Neighborhood 5 and is recommended for low density
residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre).
Character of the Area: This property and adjacent
properties are developed with single family dwellings.
Applicant'S Proposal: The applicant intends to operate a
hauling business from the site. Activities on-site include
parking of three (3) dump trucks and standard maintenance of
the trucks. Hours of operation vary but can run from 5:30
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Two employees, one of whom is the
applicant'S son who lives off-site, are involved.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request
for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
and recommends denial of SP-92-02. Staff opinion is that
this request more closely resembles a contractor's office
and equipment storage yard which is allowed in the HC,
Highway Commercial district by special use permit and in the
Industrial districts by-right. That is to say, the
applicant is seeking relief from home occupation regulations
to the extent that the use would no longer be appropriate to
a residential setting.
Planning and Zoning History:
March, 1969 - Plat creating parcel under review approved.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in Neighborhood 5
and is recommended for low density residential (1-4 dwelling
units per acre).
1
STAFF coMMENT:
staff has reviewed this request for compliance with section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and offers the following
comments:
o The Board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself
the right to issue all special use permits permitted
hereunder. Special use permits for uses 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 adjacent property,
staff has received a petition from sixteen individuals who
do not oppose this request (Attachment C). In addition to
one letter in support of this request (Attachment E) from an
adjacent property owner located on the opposite side of
Route 631 from the applicant. [The location of the
properties owned/occupied by those who signed the petition
are noted in Attachment B].
The hours that these trucks leave the site, sometimes as
early as 5:30 a.m., indicates a type of activity which is
not normally anticipated in a residential district. The
noise made by the morning departure of trucks may be a
detriment to adjacent property.
o that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby,
The storage and maintenance of three trucks involved in a
hauling business is not normally anticipated in a
residential district. Therefore, this use can change the
character of the district.
o and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
purpose and intent of the zoning Ordinance with emphasis on
Sections 1.4.3, 1.5 and 1.6 (Attachment D). The trucks will
be parked and maintained within view of adjacent properties.
Staff opinion is that this use is not compatible with
adjacent residential development and that adequate provision
exists to permit this use in non-residential districts.
o with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The stated intent of the R-2, Residential district is:
"This district (hereafter referred to as R-2) is
created to establish a plan implementation zone that:
2
_ Provides a potential transition density between
higher and lower density areas established through
previous development and/or zoning in community areas
and the urban area;
_ Permits a variety of housing types;
_ Provides incentives for clustering of development and
provision of locational, environmental, and
development amenities.
R-2 districts may be permitted within community and
urban area locations designated on the Comprehensive
Plan in proximity to compatible development where water
and sewerage utility services are available or to be
available within two years."
The R-2 district is a low density residential district with
a limited number of possible non-residential uses. The
non-residential uses by special use permit include, but are
not limited to, public utilities and uses such as community
center, private schools and day care. staff opinion is that
the proposed use is a use more appropriately located in a
non-residential district and therefore the proposed activity
is not in harmony with a low density residential district
with uses of limited intensity. The R-1 and R-2 residential
districts are the most restrictive residential zones in
terms of permitted uses.
o with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of
this ordinance,
This proposal is not consistent with regulations applicable
to home occupations. Regulations governing home occupations
are found in section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Attachment E). section 5.2.2.1(a) states in part "Such
occupation may be conducted either within the dwelling or an
accessory structure, or both." The proposed activity
involves the storage of maintenance of trucks outside of any
structure.
section 5.2.2.1( b) states in part "There shall be no change
in the outside appearance of the buildings or premises, or
other visible evidence of the conduct of such home
occupation other than one (1) sign." The proposed use will
be visible as there is no building or vegetation to screen
the use. section 5.2.2.1(d) states "No traffic shall be
generated by such home occupation in greater volumes than
would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood,
and any need for parking generated by the conduct of such
home occupation shall be met off the street". This use
3
involves two drivers coming to the site and three trucks
leaving and returning on a regular basis. This level of
activity and nature of activity, truck traffic, results in
traffic volumes greater than that normally expected in a
residential neighborhood. Area to park the trucks is
available on site. However, with the trucks parked in these
areas there is insufficient room to park any other vehicles
on site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that adequate
on-site parking has not been provided.
o and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
As has been stated in the earlier portions of this report,
the applicant's proposal is not consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance and therefore may be considered inconsistent with
the general welfare. The lack of adequate on-site parking
and increase in truck traffic may be considered inconsistent
with the public health and safety.
summary
staff has identified the following factors which are
unfavorable to this request:
1. Use is inconsistent with the typical uses in the R-2
district and, furthermore, similar use is permitted
by-right only in the industrial districts and by
special use permit in the HC district;
2. Use is more intensive than that anticipated in the R-2
district;
3. The use does not comply with the provisions of Section
5.2.2 with emphasis on 5.2.2.1(a), 5.2.2.1(b) and
5.2.2.1(d).
staff is unable to identify any factors in favor of this
request. Staff does note that all adjoining property owners
support the applicant's request.
The home occupation provisions are intended to permit low
intensity commercial activity to occur in residential
districts in a manner subordinate to the residential use of
the property. The regulations governing home occupations
are intended to minimize the impact of home occupations to
the point that it is not evident that the occupations are
occurring. staff opinion is that the proposed use exceeds
the scale and intensity of activities contemplated by the
home occupation provisions. Therefore, staff recommends
denial of SP-92-02. Should the Planning commission and
Board of supervisors choose to approve this request, staff
offers the following recommended conditions of approval:
4
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. No on-site sales;
2. Not more than two employees who are not family members
who reside on-site;
3. Compliance with the performance standards of section
4.1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance;
4. Repair of drainage pipe under the driveway entrance.
-----------------
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map Showing Location of Petitioners
C - Petition supporting This Request
D - Section 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance
E - Letter In Support of This Request
5
'I\!G
. .
,,~.
..~
~
\ ~
. ,;:.'"
(~&
,
'-,
(,v_v
'I-~('
~<-
0'"
,
~
.....
~
~.
\ l
I
s-,
....
;;..
..', '" ~t
> ~!
~
o
"
ALBEMARLE COUf'..JtY
.'
m.
. F -<ld
RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY
WNERS SIGNING PETITION
SUPPORTING THIS REQUEST
l- SP-92-02
Harold &
Henslel/
Sarah
r'
...
.--'
'0
.... -
.... -
----
~_...- --........ -...-....
.--
IATTACHMENT 81
o OAK HILL
SECTION
REVISED
REVISED
REVISED
SECTION 2
REVISED
REVISED
L 0 T5 ." 0 rT;LOtK A'
LOTS IDA-II BLOCK B
G OAK HILL
,
....
.......
. . .::-_~-:-...
..: .."..:
... . ..
. ..
. ..--
,1-:,-" SCOTTSYILlE . 'aSTRICT .
..:.. .'"
.0.:' ,-:..::. ~,_"
-..
-'
:..,
0..
.-".. ..-"
.~
'~. :-:_~'.
D.a360 ~ 105
0.B.391 ~4B3
D.B 396~291.
o.B.401 F'Q.ZZB
o.B.362","- 2Z
D.B,398 PQ.317
O.B. 4<)5 F'Q. 4 33
O.B. 441 PQ' 29:3
D.B 468 PQ. 85
-\--
-'
'=SEq,TI ON",~-90A' ':,. ,:.
., . .,....
,..-, -
....
.... :."-:'7.-'"
\ ATTACHMENT Cl
TO
WE T E RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS ON PINEHURST COURT, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA.
DO N T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO HAROLD HENSLEY pARKING HIS DUMP TRUCKS ON THIS
STRE T.
ADDRESS
NAME
: ...S!b . Cj . ~'.\.' .
~ "
,~/-" . (~;.
/ (:;\..'- .~ '~.c:- \..-?----'
I/L--/O- V . .
11 0'-<- r ;.k.eJl/./'-~-.-
'" \~ '7 c- --I- --" d
~ ~ ~ l. f\ '/ Q \.~~i\,'"> ~\" I
, '
J ! C"
. _ I l ,II
I \ I' I .I../'~0-CVVU'- . t I
~~
( ,
.~.
Y. , p. \
, ~tCtA~
'7 -7 c'-:- LI PJ
__ ') s ') (4 t:,.&~e (~I J4 <:".11 '"b (\C '
~
I' / / ? ~ . / // /~:/? .--4Z---
// / ('J' /_ /.-"7'1 /~?f//~~7' ( . f7u/i/"
//()r;?~~-IJ- e~a/
V
/ / tP ~ (9~-A~ ~h"P at/;
//dl
~LJltv;'t- (7;6.
,
Ir
./1
)1
l/eN; yJc:~?h//Ils=e: C~
t IO~ P/nr, huf"'1>l c:T
,.,......., .
\ \\)S ' t'\\'\Q..hl'J",'S\- C\.
'1
j (. I)
.~ r;~7 .f .-"~_k.;; fed.
.)
'I
f '
~~
. \...- " ,,- .
" \ j . .
_}\.'\'-L,,"~ \<-- v......' r .~
.5 k.:S
r- .
.;~-c '.:.i:;:';""': \.
\
\<...S
( ..,
i\i LJ-.Q'
'1-
II' .-
! L.a..~(<<::~
::'; 3 ,C-- (~
~, v-\....c:..;;:..>-ru3~.......'
,
( (f:--V l~")e../Ll~a...f- C f-
./
- -.; . ~1/\. <).
\ ATTACHMENT 0 I
. . __ ".._ ..~ oj .4
._0- ._____....
1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
.4.5
.4.6
.4.7
.4.8
.4..9
.4.10
This ord~nance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be
in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of
Albemarle County adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title
15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title
15.1, Chapter 11, Article 8.
Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, for" the purposes of promoting
the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the
public and of planning for the future development of the
community, that the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County,
together with the official zoning m~p adopted by reference
and declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed:
To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access
and safety from fire, flood and other dangers;
To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets;
}.
..~
To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and
harmonious community;
To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire
protection, disaster. evacuation, civil defense, trans-
portation, water, sewerage, flood protection, sc~ools,
parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities,
airports and other public requirements;
To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon
historic areas;
To protect against one or more of the following: over-
crowdtng of land, undue density of population in relation to
the community facilities existing or available, obstruction
of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and
transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from
fire, flood, panic or othe~ d~ngers;
To encourage economic development .activiti~s that provide
desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; and
To provide for the preservat~on of agricultural and forestal
lands.
':.
To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of
licensed airports; and (Added 11-1-89)
To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with
the applicable state water quality standards to protect
surface water and groundwater defined in section
62.1-44.85(8) of the Code of Virginia~ (Added 11-1-89)
1.5
1.6
RELATION TO ENVIRONl1ENT
\ ATTACHMENT 0 'I Page 2\
This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similar-
ly situated and environmentally similar in like ~anner with
reasonable consideration for the existing use and character
of properties, the comprehensive Plan, the suitability of
property for various uses, the trends of growth or change,
the current and future land and water requirements of the
community for various purposes as determined by population
and economic studies and other studies, the transportation
requirements of the community, and the requirements for
airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation
areas and other public services; for the conservation of
natural resources; and preservation of flood plains, the
preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the con-
servation of properties and their values and the encourage-
ment of the most appropriate use of land throughout the
county. (Amended 11-1-89)
-- ..---- ---- - ------~ ---
RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts withre~on-
able consideration of the comprehensive Plan, it is a stated
and express purpose of this zoning ordinance to create land
use regulations which shall encourage the realization and
implementation of the comprehensive Plan. To this end:
development is to be encouraged in villages, communities and
the Urban Area; where services and utilities are available
and where such development will not conflict with the.-------
agricultural/forestal or other rural.objectives; and develop-
ment is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are
to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal
. lands .and activities, water supply protection, and conser-
vation of natural, scenic and historic resources and where
only limited delivery of public services is intended.
. (Amended 11-1-89)
lATTACHMENT El
r3~:rr:' \'tJE. 0
nt.,.V\.ll:f"
M~R '2. '3 \991
PlANNMG OfP,.
370 Stagecoach Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
March 19, 1992
Planning Commission
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Harold & Sarah Hensley - 359 Stagecoach Road
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
It has come to our attention that the county is trying to
make the Hensleys move the dump ~rucks (never more than two)
that he parks on his property when not in use. Please, give
the man a break!
I have been a neighbor of the Hensleys for more than twenty
years. His trucks do not pose a nuisance. They are
essential to his livelihood. It would be burdensome to find
another place to park them.
I might add that the State of Virginia has made it difficult
for the Hensleys to sell their property and move where they
would be permitted to park the vehicles. The stated
objection that the trucks unduly increased the traffic in the
area is laughable given the state-s plan to make Stagecoach
Road a four lane highway!
Please reconsider your position and allow Mr. Hensley to park
his trucks on hia ~ ~
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
L. Trainum
-
,,"",.c,...,
n
70 Stagecoach Road
harlottesville, VA 22902
arch 19, 1992
Board of supervisors
County Office Building
~01 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
:Re: Harold & Sarah Hensley - 359 Stagecoach Road
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
It has come to our attention that the county is trying to
: make the Hensleys move the dumP trucks (never more than two)
that he parks on his property when not in use. Please, give
the man a break~
. I have been a neighbor of the HensleYs for more than twenty
years. His trucks do not pose a nuisance. They are
essential to his livelihood. It would be burdensome to find
another place to park them.
I might add that the State of Virginia has made it difficult
for the Hensleys to sell their property and move where tJley
would be permitted to park the vehicles. The stated
objection that the trucks undulY increased the traffic in the
area is laughable given the state's plan to make Stagecoach
Road a four lane highway!
please reconsider your position and allow Mr. Hensley to p~k
his trucks on hia ~ ~
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
buh~ fe, ". .,-{: :~_- '7.2-
I ,. ~~~~ '-f I:;;, .;Ui 7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296.5823
)\ \::"
-,,-,
March 12, 1992
Trustees of James River Baptist Church
Rt. 4, Box 20
Sco~tsville, VA 24590
RE: SP-92-03 James River Baptist Church
Tax Map 130, Parcels 35A and 35A1
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
March 10, 1992, by a vote of 6-1, recommended approval of
the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1) Staff approval of sketch plan to include Health
Department approval, Fire Official approval and
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
entrance. Locate parking behind the existing dwelling.
2) The existing dwelling shall serve not more than a 60
member congregation and shall have a sanctuary area not
to exceed 460 square feet;
3) Expansion or construction of sanctuary area shall be
located at least 300 feet from Route 726 and 140 feet
from Route 737. Sanctuary area shall, in no case,
exceed 1,200 square feet without an amendment to this
special use permit; Construction of new church shall
commence within six years or approval of the new
structure and use of the existing building shall
expire;
4) Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new
church, the existing building shall cease sanctuary use;
5) The property may not be further divided;
"
..
Trustees of James River Baptist Church
Page 2
March 12, 1992
6) Approval is for worship and related church use only.
Day care or other such uses will require an amendment
to the permit;
7) Only those areas required for the church and
appurtenant improvements shall be cleared. All other
areas shall remain in a natural state.
8) Care shall be taken during construction to minimize
grading related to installation of improvements;
9) Access to the church shall be from Rt. 737 only.
Existing entrance on Rt. 726 shall be closed.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on April 15. 1992. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
4-- U<. ~o-J:L ~~ \.,.:
Yolanda Hipski
Planner
YHjjcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
Rev. James C. Jetton
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
YOLANDA A. HIPSKI
MARCH 10, 1992
APRIL 15, 1992
CSP-92-03) - JAMES RIVER BAPTIST CHURCH
Petition: The James River ~iver Baptist Church petitions
the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for
a church [10.2.2.35] on 14 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 130, Parcels 35A and 35A1,
is located in the southwest quadrant of Route 726 and Route
737 intersection. This site is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District and is not located in a designated
growth area (see Attachment A).
Character of the Area: The property contains a 1,732 square
foot single story dwelling. Other than clearing for the
house and surrounding area, the site is wooded.
This property is located in the Totier Creek
is adjacent to the Scottsville Growth Area.
small drainage swale which partially bisects
There are no active streams.
watershed and
There is a
the property.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to serve a church congregation of 60
members within an existing dwelling (see Attachment B). The
sanctuary area will be confined to the "den" containing
approximately 460 square feet. There will be a study and
two to three classrooms for Sunday school. A permanent
structure containing a 1,200 square foot sanctuary with a
130 seating capacity will be built in five to seven years.
The existing dwelling will then be converted back to
residential use. No non worship activities (day care, etc.)
are proposed either now or with construction of the new
facility. Two meeting days (Sunday and Wednesday) are
anticipated. Activities include choir practice, Bible
study, and church related fun~tions. Other than the
temporary use of the existing dwelling, this request is
similar to the previously approved SP-88-96 see Attachment
D) .
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
This site is located in Rural Area IV and adjacent to the
Scottsville Community. Some transportation improvements
along Route 726 are recommended (page 186). During review
of SP-88-96, staff stated "The Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors are aware that in the past churches have not
been considered inconsistent ~ith the Rural Areas district
or the reservoir watershed, when subject to reasonable
limitations" (see Attachment E).
1
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
(SP-88-96) - James River Baptist Church - On December 28,
1988, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit
on this property for a church (see Attachment C). On
December 17, 1991, the Zoning Administrator determined this
approval had expirec (see Attachment E).
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff opinion is that certain uses such as churches, day care
and schools contribute to the well being of the community.
In this posture, staff review is confined to issues of
physical development while other considerations of
appropriateness of the use to a given location is a matter
of legislative discretion.
Staff has received two letters of objection from the same
property owners(see Attachment C).
The previous special use permit involved a new church
building to be sited at least 300 feet from Route 726 (see
Attachment D). The existing structure, located
approximately 140 feet from Route 726, was to remain in
residential use as a parsonage. Given the sanctuary size,
downward slope and locating parking behind the building,
staff does not believe church use of this structure will
detrimentally affect Route 726 or adjacent properties.
In five to seven years, the applicant will construct a new
sanctuary of the same size, location and intensity of use as
previously approved in SP-88-96. The existing structure
will convert back to a parsonage.
Virginia Department of Transportation indicated the existing
entrance requires offsite work to obtain minimum sight
distance (see Attachment F). Staff recommends closing the
existing entrance and locating a commercial entrance from
Route 737 prior to any activities.
Staff has reviewed this special use permit for compliance
with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff
opinion is that use of the existing structure as proposed
should not be detrimental to adjacent properties, the
character of the district will not change and the use should
be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff has not identified any new circumstances
since approval of SP-88-96 that would preclude use of this
property for a church or allow construction of the new
church. Staff is able to recommend approval of SP-92-03
subject to the following conditions:
2
Recommendec Conditions of Approval:
1) Staff approval of sketch plan to include Health
Department approval, Fire Official approval and
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
entranr.e. Locate parking behind the existing dwelling.
2) The existing dwelling shall serve not more than a 60
member congregation and shall have a sanctuary area not
to exceed 460 square feet;
3) Expansion or construction of sanctuary area shall be
located at least 300 feet from Route 726 and 140 feet
from Route 737. Sanctuary area shall, in no case,
exceed 1,200 square feet without an amendment to this
special use permit; Construction of new church shall
commence within six years or approval of the new
structure shall expire;
4) Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new
church, the existing building shall cease sanctuary use;
5) The property may not be further divided;
6) Approval is for worship and related church use only.
Day care or other such uses will require an amendment
to the permit;
7) Only those areas required for the church and
appurtanant improvements shall be cleared. All other
areas shall remain in a natural state.
8) Care shall be taken during construction to minimize
grading and installation of improvements.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Maps
B - Proposal
C - Letter of Objection
D - Report and Approval
E - Zoning Administrator
F - Virginia Department of Transportation Comments
3
c.....:..:.......
~~
..-!1
0"
~
.....
/
I
....
~
v
o
c.,
'?"
~
~
~
...::.
~j/ ,
~
v
<<.
~~~"~."''f.
_ ...;......--::: - ~ IvE~
~
c
1'1
G t\
A "^
u c
K
10l
~
I
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
122
...._.~~4'. - '\ 1- IATTACHMENT AI
V /' t/ Ipage21.
I '" Yy/ \ ~
..I ~ \/-' ~/
'.' /oe',,> (~/ ( ,
~- ..,) - )'< .--L.-.-i,
./ ,,---- 19 v\ /
4
'" ,
,
- I
II I
15
~..
.'/'-.
~ '.
.~ "'.-
r ~.
f / ,..
. '
.' IZ I....
1/ .
:' '[
.
136
S ALE IN FEET
1100 1100
... leU L OISTlItlCTS
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
SECTION 130
~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
February 11, 1992
Trustees of James River Baptist Church
Route 4, Box 20
scottsville, VA 24590
RE: (SP-92-03) James River Baptist Church
Dear Sirs:
This letter reiterates our phone conversation on February 3,
1992 and our meeting on December 4, 1991. In order for this
department to process your application, please answer in
writing, the following questions by February 18, 1992.
1. Other than setback and building use, how does this
application deviate from SP-88-96? Are there any
changes to the number of congregation or meetings? As
I understand from our meeting on December 4, 1991,
there was no change in this application from SP-88-96
on the size of the use. If you are proposing to
expand, please state this in writing.
2. Will there be any day care? Do you plan on any weekday
activities other than one Wednesday night bible study?
Will you have Sunday School? Mornings out for Mothers?
Regular daily activities or classes?
3. Describe as thoroughly as possibly, the schedule and
hours of service, number of worshippers per service and
any other services you propose.
4. Will the existing structure be used as a dwelling in
addition to a church? Will the structure be
reconverted back into a structure after the church has
been built?
Trustees of James River Baptist Church
February 11, 1992
Page 2
5. On December 4, 1991, I suggested you contact the Health
Department to ensure adequacy of your septic field. If
you still have not made contact, please call Gary Rice
at 972-6259. I also suggested you call Jay Schlothauer
from the Inspections Department about converting the
structure into a church. If you have not made contact,
please call him at 296-5832.
6. On December 4, 1991, I suggested you contact the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) about
locating an entrance. I understand contact with VDOT
has been made. Please verify that an acceptable
entrance has been located. Call Jeff Echols at
296-5102 if you have any questions.
7. Provide a plat of the property. This property is
currently listed as Parcels 35A and 35A1 for a total of
14 acres. Please amend the application to list both
parcels and correct acreage.
Provide any additional information which would clarify this
use.
During review of SP-88-96, one of the adjacent property
owners complained at public hearing about this request. On
December 6, 1991, the Zoning Department received a second
letter from this neighbor (see attached). After studying
this letter, can you provide any additional comments or
ideas which would alleviate concerns of this owner?
If you have any questions, please call me at 296-5823.
Thank you.
Sin;ere;y, ~~
Yolanda Hipski
Planner
YAH/mem
ATTACHMENT
February 18, 1992
Coun
Dept
401
Char
y of Albemarle
of Planning and Community Development
cintire Road
ottesville, Virginia 22901
IATTACHMENT 81
\Page 31
RE:
(SP-92-03)
James River Baptist Church
Att: Yolanda Hipski, Planner
In r ply to your questions in the letter of February 11, 1992:
1.
he number of our congregation has not grown as we had hoped
"t would. There are only 5-8 more in our congregation now tn8n
On 1988.(SP-88-96). The meetings will be the same.
2. T ere will be rio day care. There are no weekday activites other than
Wednesday eveing Prayer Service and Bible Study. We will have
S nday School on Sunday morning at 10:00; Worship Service at
1 :00 A.M. Sunday night we will have Choir Practice at 7:00 P.M.
a d fellowship at 8:00 on some Sunday evenings.
3. S nday School and Worship Service will involve about 30-60 people.
W dnesday services at 7:00 P.M. will involve about 20 people.
C oir practice will involve about 12 people and the fellowship
a out 15-20 people.
4. T e existing structure will not be used as a dwelling while we
a e using it as a church. The sturcture will be converted back
i to a dwelling after the church building has been built.
5. have talked with the Health Department and will contact the
spections Department soon.
6. e Virginia Department of Transportation has already been
c ntacted and the driveway pla~d
7. at attached.
I ho e these will answer your-questions, if there are others, please
call me.
Sincerely,
/~ /~.
/:,~~~;:?;??,~ c:-~~):--
~James C. J~on, Pastor
James River Baptist Church
Route 4, Box 20
Scottsville, Virginia 24590
. .~ ,i
." ! ~ '~"
. :~-) ~"
" :!;---- ~ ',., ~
J _---.'__
'-.,'
,j';::
o
~"4''''''~ ,
~~ru~ ~:~;~.
. :::.~~J.~:'
;~ ~:~:~; ~,~
:-:~I~;'~~;;
"'P'''''\:..'~;'-
E ~~~5T;~.
~-~ /;l;~.~:~~
rt~~G:I
.,...,..._-~
co -'}i4:mr..
~~~~~~'~;st:'i ~:~
~~ll~~~::;\
~ :~~~~%};
..,.",($1......
,~'f~
. :':,~~::.:;.;.l~./i
~~;R~~W
.; ;~~.~~:.~~:l~~L
, .~Il~
. I'B:.,..", .'s~'"."..
..~v........-.......~~.1....._
I
!
l
t
l
!
!
~:' ,-
'ry
"
,
"i
"
'~
L ~
"'
,
^
Q
~
~'-'
~~;'
, ~~~~..
"I;~
~
~ .:..~.....: d. .~ , .
~ . g .~~:{}.,~}~::
Q :.:.":. ..~..,.
~ ,:. . (; .: ;y:~~.~:;:i
.t;,l;:~\~~\!}~
't,;l~i;B\!i~'i,\j~,
t>..,...-..< . J'~n__.
~~~.
~~...
~: 0
)0., ..
d "(
X '-I
" ~
~ .~
i ~
''''",'
.....-.
.--."
~;:
11".,
:::1
i~.;.
....:1: .~_
~~(J..'..
.....,;~~.-::-:
.. ','J'.. I
.};-~t;j~{t
il'HJ;:~
TI\~J'~,Ji~''"!)~~1~*,lf:![~I;
CHESTER
,oute 4, 80x 57
~cottsville, VA 24590
5 December 1991
Mrs. Amelia Patterson
Zoning Administrator
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
IATTACHMENT C
IPage 11
DEe (3 1991
..":.....f
Dear Mrs. Patterson:
1-\~J3E~"i;\r\i.~~ C.:,)- .~~.
ZONiNG GE1'),I\;,:T;,,:!;:.\,';!
RE: James River Baptist Church
Tax Map 130, Parcel 35A;. Route 726 & Route 737
Thank you for the courtesy of your time this morning. I
would like to take this opportunity to set forth in writing
our concerns regarding the above-referenced matter.
Our primary concern is the possibility that the existing
structure, which sets back from Route 726 no more than 100
feet, would be permitted to be used as a church structure by
the James River Baptist Church (the ~Church"). This was the
concern we stressed several years ago prior to the issuance
of a special use permit granted to the Church. Accordingly,
I would like to state what we perceive to be certain facts in
the matter, as well as our interpretation of what the County
has already granted the Church.
Section 31.2.4.4 of the Code relating to Special Use
Permits states, in part: "In the event that the use.
for which such permit is issued shall not be commenced within
eighteen (18) months after the issuance of such permit, the
same shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted
thereunder shall thereupon terminate. . the term
'commenced' shall be construed to include the commencement of
construction of any structure necessary to the use of such
permit within two (2) years from the date of the issuance
thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1) year;
provided. . ." Since this Section of the Cede is specific
regarding the issuance of the permit, in our opinion the
Church has abandoned the existing permit in that absolutely
no construction or any other work has taken place since the
date of issuance, December 21, 1988. Accordingly, we believe
it is not legally possible for the original Permit to be
amended since it was abandoned pursuant to Section 31.2.4.4
of the Code.
As I stated to you this morning, the Church has a
very small following and from what we understand a
very weak financial base. It was always our feeling that the
Church ultimately had a goal of using the existing structure
as a church and not ever building one. I think this would be
possible to prove, if the County were to ask them for proof
IATTACHMENT C
, l Page 2\
of ever applying for loans to build pursuant to the original
Special Use Permitted granted. In line with this, I do not
see it to be an unreasonable request for the Church to
furnish the County with proposed f~nancing plans for
construction of a church in the future, if you are to deem
appropriate consideration of any n~w request from the Church.
Our concern relating to our property was alleviated by
the specifics set forth in the original Permit issued the
Church in that it stated the church must be set back at least
300 feet from Route 726, with entrance thereto being only
from Route 737. This was in the Planning Commission's Staff
Comments to the Board of Supervisors, pursuant, I presume, to
the Virginia Department of Transpqrtation study regarding
traffic on Route 726. One concern we have regarding this
study is that we do not believe it took into account the
heavy traffic generated on Saturday and Sunday during summer
months with people going to and from the James River
Runners; notably, this would also be the peak time for use of
this Route by the Church.
Furthermore, the Church stated to the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors that the existing
structure would serve only as the parsonage. The Minister of
the Church and his family did live in the existing structure
for about three years. However, recently they purchased ten
acres of land and obtained County approval to put a mobile
home on that property and are now residing there. This in
itself would indicate that the Church has no future plans to
use this structure as a parsonage.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that we do not
object to a church being built on the adjacent property, if
all requirements set forth in the original Special Use Permit
were followed. However, we strongly object to the current
structure being used for any purpose other than a family,
residence/parsonage.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Richard H. Shaffer
CHSSil:Fi
Route 4, 80x 57
Scottsville, VA 24590
23 Febl-uary 1992
RECEiVED
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Attn:
Yolanda Hipski, Plannp.r
B~l__aE=2~=Q~_=_~~m~a_Bi~~~_~~Qiiai_~b~[~b
Gentlemen:
This letter is written to express our views regarding
our opposition to the application by James River Baptist
Church ("Applicant") for a Special Use Permit on their
property adjacent to ours.
In the first instance, we express no opposition to the
issuance of a Special Use Permit on the property, if such
Permit carries the same terms, conditions and specifications
as the permit previously issued on the property. In fact, it
would be very difficult for us to comprehend your Department
recommending the issuance of any new permit without such
same specifications, in light of the previous studies done by
you, as well as the Department of Transportation, etc.
Hawever, we are in total opposition to a Special Use
Permit, if the issuance thereof permits use of the existing
~t~ucture on the property as a church. The previously issued
permit called for a church structure to be set back at least
100' from Route 726, together with access thereof to be from
Route 737. These specifications alleviated any concerns we
had regarding excess traffic on Route 726, which divides our
property from the Applicant. The road is extremely dangerous
due to excessive curves, and our fence has been damaged three
\I t. i mes. In fact, very recent I y a car went of f the road and
was wedged on top of a stump on the church's property. On
Saturdays and Sundays during the Summer months there is
extremely heavy traffic on Route 726, as it is the direct
route to James River Runners, Hatton Ferry and the boat ramp
used by fishermen and boaters. Sunday is, of course, also
the day that the church will be adding most traffic to the
Rout e.
We note that Applicant states they plan to use the
existing structure as a church until such time as a church is
built (perhaps 5 or 6 years, as stated in the application).
This is simply a "wild gLless~" bearing in mind that they
have already owned ths property for nearly four years for
the exprsss purpose of using it as a site for their church.
The church is a spin-off from a local church and today has a
very small following. The monies that would be necessary to
~rTACHMENT C I
build a church ar-e.;imply not within its means and the lpage 4\
issuance of a new S~ecial Use Permit~ as applied for, will
simply be an amendment to the previously issued per-mit~ the
key exception being that the current structure will be used
as a church from here to eter-nity.
Applicant states that they currently use the public
reoms at the County-owned old Scottsville School for- services
and imply that this is a hardship because they must pay rent
and set up for services~ etc. The r-ental fee for- this
facility is very nOMinal and setting up chairs for services
is cer-tainly no hardship. This should have no impact on
whether the property in question should receive a Special Use
Permit. To the contrar-y~ availability of these alter-native
facilities should strengthen the Counties' position that the
curr-ent structur-e should not be used as a chur-ch and that the
School should suffice until such time as a new chur-ch is
cons.tructed.
We note that Applicant states that the church property
is surrounded by Dansey Plumbing, Paulett Har-dwar-e and
Chester Bed and Breakfast~ implyin~ that all thr-ee are
cammer-cial pr-operties. We own Chester- Bed and Breakfast~
which is zoned RA~ and is by County law a cottage industry
operated out of a pr-ivate residence. As opposed to
commercial property, the value of r-esidential property is
more susceptible to valuation variance by changes in the
surrounding environment and, ther-efore, cannot and should not
be compared to a commercial one. It is of utmost impor-tance
to us that the value of our- pr-oper-ty not decr-ease due to
sur-r-ounding uses of pr-oper-ty. In our- opinion the issuance of
a Special Use Permit must take into consideration any
possible e~fect it may have on existing values of sur-rounding
proper-ties. We strongly believe that our pr-operty value
should not be subjected to possible lessening in value
due to additional commercial type proper-ty uses ar-ound us.
The church proper-ty is located in the Totier Creek
watershed, which would be impacted by septic facilities in
other than str-ict residential usage. This was an obvious
fact prior- to the chur-ch purchasing the property and should
have been taken into consider-ation at that time.
We oppose t~e use of the existing str-uctur-e as a church
and will pr~s2nt our position befor-e your hearing, as well as
~he BOdrd of Supervisor-so If your- Department does recommend
the issuance of a Special Use Per-mit with the existing
structure being used as a church, we will ask the Board of
Super-visor-s to seek justification from you as to why a
recommendation is made which var-ies significantly from a
previously issued permit for- this proper-ty. Especially in
light of the fact that the County pr-ofesses to do its utmost
to protect our watershed areas and development ther-eon.
We tn,st our views and opinions in this matter
deemded re:. evant to your Department's consi dera.t i on
application.
~\TTACHMENT ,
wi 11 be IPage 51
of thE'"
Respectfully submitted
a-J~A- ~wtk~
Cha.rles G. Anderson
Richard H. Shaffer
, .
AMELIA M. PATTERSON
PLANNING COMMISSION: DECEMBER 6, 1988
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DECEMBER 21, 1988
P-d8-96 JAMES RIVER BAPTIST CHURCH
etition: James River Baptist Church petitions the Board of
upervisors to issue a special use permit to locate a church
Section 10.2.2.35) on ~ 14 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. The
roperty, described as Tax Map 130, Parcel 35A, is located in the
outhwest corner of the intersection of Route 726 and Route 737,
'ust south of the Scottsville Shopping Center. Scottsville
agisterial District.
haracter of the Area: The subject property is improved with a
ne story cinderblock single-family dwelling fronting on Route
26. The site is moderately level and slopes downward from Route
26 towards Route 737. It is sparsely wooded with mixed
ardwoods and evergreens.
his property is within the Totier Creek watershed and is
djacent to the Village of scottsville. Property within the
illage to the north (on the other side of Route 737) is zoned
ighway Commercial and is developed with George A. Dansey
lumbing; property to the east (across Route 726) is zoned
illage Residential.
he applicant proposes to construct a church a minimum of 300
feet from Route 726 and 140 feet from Route 737. The proposed
sanctuary area is 1200 square feet, with a seating capacity of
130 people. The present membership is 50 people. The existing
dwelling will serve as the parsonage. No non-worship uses
(daycare, etc.) are proposed. Two meeting days per week are
anticipated.
Traffic generation based on seating 130 people is 65 trips. (1
parking space per 4 fixed seats x 2 trips). By-right development
of 5 lots would generate 50 vehicle trips per day (5 lots x 10
vehicle trips/lot/day). The applicant proposes access from Route
737 for the Church, with the parsonage to continue access to
Route 726. Both Route 726 and Route 737 are non-tolerable. This
segment of Route 726 carries 648 vehicle trips per day and is
surface-treated and posted for 25 miles per hour. This segment
of Route 737 carries 89 vehicle trips per day and is
non-hardsurfaced. The Virginia Department of Transportation
states "to obtain adequate sight distance, the better road for
access would be Route 737. Route 737 is currently a gravel road
and a person is working on obtaining right of way to improve this
section of Route 737. More traffic would be generated with this
request than would be generated under the current zoning." Staff
is of the opinion that while peak
1
ch ch traffic on certain meeting days such as Sundays, would
exceed that of by-right development, weekly church traffic would
no exceed that of by-right development. (church traffic = 65
ve icle trips x 2 days/week = 130 vehicle trips; by-right 5 lots
= 50 vehicle trips x 7 days/week = 350 vehicle trips).
No active streams exist on this property, although a drainage
sw le runs along the wooded southern boundary, perpendicular to
Ro te 726. Care should be taken during construction to minimize
gr ding and the installation of impervious cover within the'
To ier Creek watershed.
etter of objection has been received (attached) from the owner
Chester Bed and Breakfast, located across Route 726 from this
Mr. Anderson cites concerns over the impact of the church
the character of the area, the roads and the watershed.
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors is aware that in
past churches have not been considered inconsistent with the
al Areas district or the reservoir watershed, when subject to
sonable limitations. This property is directly adjacent to
growth area of Scottsville, proposed to be upgraded from a
lage to a Community in the 1988-2010 Comprehensive Plan Draft.
staff's opinion, the church will not be visually obtrusive
m Route 726 and the Chester property, based on the proposed
foot setback and the downward sloping topography.
ff has reviewed this special use permit for consistency with
tion 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that with
ropriate conditions of approval of a church in this location:
a) would not be substantial detriment to adjacent property;
b) would not be inconsistent with other uses in the area nor
with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
c) would not be contrary to the public health, safety and
welfare.
St ff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1) Sanctuary area limited to 1200 square feet. The church
shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from Route 726 and
140 feet from Route 737;
2) The property may not be further divided;
4) Only those areas required for the church and appurtenant
improvements shall be cleared. All other areas shall remain
in a natural state.
2
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
122
------(\'1+____/ ...
I \~ J~ -~-~ ,II
'M '\ _~
~ \( .-----Y J II
/""~ ~ / (/, ~
/' ') --F-,-L._.~ -+
,,........----- 19 v\ /'
4
I
/
.~-
'\'
i
136
SCALf. .. FEET
... . .. .... .... ,....
...,. leu De$ffUClS
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
SECTION 130
r
. (,
A_BEMARLE COUNTY
\. 122
f .~.
f .'.~
fj
t 1
. -~-'1-
V/ R If..
Y .. r
i A
. IK ~
i
j
~
i
-1
1
j
1
!
4
j
~
1
~
1
~
1
i
.
j
: i!
1
25 ,
t
.
.,
j
1
~
i
!
,
.
~
1
4
1
~
"
,
>
'~
"-.
"-.
sc:au:
-
SCOTTSVlt.t.E DISTRICT
SECTION 130
PAGE NUMBER 43
-
0...,1ItC..
,.....,.
'I'
Cllcs tcr
R)[jlc iJ., nox 57
Scottsvillc, Virginia 24590
1\10\/ 21 1988
r;tf;,:\jj\,:jNG Dn/IS/ONi
November 21, 1988
Mr. William Fritz, Planner
Department of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
Charlottesville, VA
ReI Hezoning File 1151'-88-96
Dear Mr. Fritz:
You will perhaps recall our brief discussion of several
weeks ago on the above-referenced matter, a Special Use
Permit for all or a portion of approximately 15 acres
being sought by James River Baptist Church. It is our
understanding that the Church seeks the Permit as a con-
tingency in their purchase of the subject property.
My partner in the ownership of tax parcel number 13000-
00-00-03500 and I evidence great concern in this matter
in that our property, (hester, shares frontage with the
whole of that part of the subject property which faces
State Route 726 south from its intersection with State
Route 737. The property owned by the Kendall Estate
lies to the west of 726 while our nearly seven acres
lie to the east, and, as is the case with the subject
property, is additionally bounded on the north by 737,
We purchased Chester three years ago, in part because
we were most favorably impressed with the basic character
of the property in the area, all that property (including
ours) to the east and south of the 726-737 intersection
being zoned Village Residential while that to the west
and south (including the subject tract) is zoned Rural
Area.
We strongly feel that any change or modification of the
RA zoning of the subject tract, including the granting
of the Special Use Permit, is completely unwarranted
in that it will change the essential character of the
immediate area. In this regard, we would note that
within an area of 1,500 feet of the intersection of
Routes 726 and 737 approximately one-fourth of such land
is zoned other than RA or Village Residential, with a
significant amount of that portion being either undevel-
oped or underdeveloped. In any event, State Route 737
forms a natural barroier both graphically on paper and
visually on-site to further encroachment which would
IV i 11 i am Fr i t z
November 21, 1988
page 2
destroy the present character of that property lying south
of Route 737. This includes the subject tract. Admittedly
i1 rezoning, per se, is not being sought, yet the Special
Use Permit ~ould dramatically alter the character of t~e
property.
Further, ingress and egress to the Subject tract suffers
mightily from very limited sight lines, whether entrance is
contemplated from Route 726 ~ 737. This is because of the
curvature of 726 which separates our property from the
subject tract, as well as the significant grade change on
726 immediately to the north of its intersection with 737,
Additionally, a barrier of trees and shrubs on the George
A. Dansey, Inc. property adjacent to 737 have been pur-
posely nurtured to shield the Village Residential/RA
character of the land south of Route 737 from the commercial
character of those parcels on oath Sides of Virginia Highway
6 which lies a block north of Route 737. (Photographic
exhibits demonstrating these points are attached hereto.)
Route 72~which divides our property from the subject trac~
is essentially a hard-surface, high-crown road of some
eighteen foot width. With extremely narrow right-of-way
with no room for a shoulder and, hence, no room for driving
error, it is ill-suited for anything other than the nominal
traffic which uses it, let alone the very significant
increase in traffic ~~ tbe vehicular turning movements
companion to the granting of a Special Use Permit and the
expanded usage of the property. Ironically, one of the
highest concentrated usages of this stretch of Route 726 is
on Sundays from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. from May to September when
the road is the principal vehicular route to and from Hatton
Ferry and James River Runners at that same location; this
~ould, or course, be the same period of concentrated usage
of the subject property for church or church-related purpOses.
While the State Department of Transportation will no dOUbt
consider and comment On the adequacy of this stretch of
Houte 726 to support the requested Usage of the Kendall
property, the Planning Department may also wish to have a
report from the County Police Department as to the accident
frequency and severity On Route 726 from Virginia Highway 6
to its intersection with Warren Street coming up from the
Village of Scottsville.
Also Worthy of study is the status of the Kendall property
relative to the Totier Reservoir watershed. Possibly the
contemplated use of the property under the Special Use
Permit would have an adverse impact on this vital resource.
l
l-li 11 iam Fri tz
November 21, 1988
page 3
We note that applicable provlSlons of the zoning regula-
tions of the County relating to Special Use Permits
(specifically Section 31.2.4.1. "Reserved to BOard of
Supervisors") provides for the granting of such Permits
in instances where it ".. .will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, (and) that the character
of the district will not be changed thereby...". We
strongly feel that the granting of the requested Permit
will, indeed, have a significanlnegative impact on the
continued use of our property, (hester. as a bed and
breakfast facility.
We trust that these enumerated concerns of ours will be
given due consideration in formulating your staff
recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors.
encl.
CCI John Horne
Amelia M. Patterson
Peter Way
Larry J. McElwain. Esquire
4:;:it~ ~~
Charles Gordon Anderson
-(
I ATTACHMENT 0 I
jPage 81
of
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
D cember 28, 1988
J mes River Baptist Church
P. O. Box 118
S ottsvil1e, VA 24590
SP-88-96 James River Baptist Church
Tax Map 130, Parcel 35A; Route 726 and Route 737
sir:
e Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
cember 21, 1988, unanimously approved the above-noted request
allow for a church on 14.0 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas.
operty, located in the southwest corner of intersection of Rt.
6 and Rt. 737 across from the Scottsville Shopping Center.
ottsville Magisterial District. Please note that this approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Sanctuary area limited to 1,200 square feet. The church
shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from Route 726 and
140 fe8~ from Route 737;
2. The property may not be further divided;
3. Only those areas required for the church and appurtenant
improvements shall be cleared. All other areas shall remain
in a natural state;
.
Jiames River Baptist Church
P~ge 2
D~cernber 28, 1988
I ATTACHMENT 0 I
Ipage 91
,
41. Approval is for worship and related church uses only. Day
care or other such uses will require amendment to this
permit;
,
5 Access to the church is to be from Rt. 737 only.
I
Iif you should have any questions or comments regarding the above
npted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
cerely,
JC:P#/I,~
T. P. Horne
ector of Planning & Community Development
I
J~PH/jcw
,
I
CC: Rev. James C. Jetton
I
I
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
December 17, 1991
Mr. James Jetton
James River Bapti$t Church
Post Office Box 118
scottsvi1le, Virginia 24590
RE: SP-88-96, James River Baptist Church
Dear Mr. Jetton,
After conferring with the County Attorney, it has become clear to
me that the relation between your special use permit and the
proposed structure is closer than I had first believed. .Although
special use permits are for uses, not structures, the church you
proposed to build was mentioned on the application for SP-88-96
and in the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors. The adjacent property owner who objected
to your application relied on this information. The first
condition of the special use permit required that the proposed
church be built at least 300 feet from Route 726 and 140 feet
from Route 737. The existing house, which was to have been a
parsonage, cannot meet this condition.
Given these circumstances, I have now determined that SP-88-96
'has expired. If you intend to use the single-family home as 2
church, you must submit a new special use permit. I also
recommend that you meet at the houses of members of your
congregation for your Wednesday night prayer meetings, rather
than at the proposed parsonage, until a new special use permit is
approved. The next deadline for submitting an application for a
special use permit is January 27, 1992. If you submit an
application before April 1, 1992, the fee will be $165.00; after
April 1, the fee will be $780.00. I strongly recommend that you
confer with William D. Fritz of the Planning Department (296-
5823) before filing an application.
.. .
~age 2
D~cember 17, 1991
I
I
I
I
I~I am sorry if my earlier decision concerning this use has caused
y u any inconvenience. Please contact me or Babette Thorpe if
y u have any further questions.
sincerely,
. '"h1 W b" d ;\~~
elia M. pat1~~----
ning Administrator
William D. Fritz
Yolanda Lipinski
Richard H. Shaffer
L .
RECEIVED
FEB 2 7 1992
PlANNING DEPT.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RAY D. PETHTE~
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
D, S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
February 25, 1992
Special Use Permits
& Rezonings
March 1992
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Chief ofl Planning
County O~fice Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlott~sville, VA. 22901
I
I
Dear Mr.1 Keeler:
I
The following are our comments:
1. SP-92-01 Paran United Methodist Church, Route 606 - This request is to amend
SP-89-1 4 to permit a day care/nursery school with a maximum enrollment of 20. This
request Iwould result in a traffic increase of approximately 100 VPD. Route 606 is
current~y non-tolerable and a non-hard surface road. As part of the approvals for
the chudch the section of Route 606 from Route 763 to the church entrance was
widened~'to a fourteen foot (14') travelway. The Department recommends that this
section of Route 606 be upgraded to current standards, which would include proper
road an shoulder widths along with hard surfacing. It would be beneficial to trim
some ov rhanging vegetation to the north of the entrance to improve and maintain
sight d'stance in that direction along Route 606.
I
2. SP- 2-02 Harold & Sarah Hensle , Route 1108 - The existing private entrance has
adequat sight distance for this request. However, the driveway (which is gravel
along t e road and paved on site) is not adequate for truck traffic. Also, there is
not ade uate onsite parking for trucks without having them to back up or on from the
road. he inlet end of the pipe under the driveway is bent, probably from where it
has bee~ run over. Yith the dump trucks parked in the driveway, the cars have to
park alongside the road on the shoulder.
I
I
3. SP- 2-03 James River Ba tist Church, Route 737 - This request is to operate a
church n an existing house. There would be an increase in traffic for this request
as a te porary church operation. The private driveway for the house on Route 726
does not have adequate sight distance. A minimum of 250' of sight distance is
require4 and there is only 200' of sight distance for a vehicle turning left into
this pr~perty. The sight distance problem is caused by a bank and several trees
across ~he road. A sight easement wo~ld be needed as well as grading of the bank
and rem~val of several trees to obtain sight distance. The access for this request
I
I
I
I
,
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
Ir. Ronald S
;pecial Use
3hould be a
recommends t
rhere is a 1
Jther commen
apply.
4.
increase
and this
entranc.e
5. SP-92-06
several yea
adequate si
commercial
wi th this r
the amaun t
6. SP-92-0
currently n
development
I upgrade the
in increase
generation
shaped and
commercial
entrance on
entrances.
obtain adeq
road would
lanes would
..
.
Page 2
February 25, 1~92
Keeler
ermits & Rezonings
ommercial entrance with adequate sight distance and the Department
at the existing access be upgraded or a new entrance be constructed.
cation on Route 737 where an adequate commercial entrance can be built.
s concerning the previous special use permit for the church still
James & Sue Villis, Route 738 - This request is to amend SP-90-115 to
number of students from 30 to 40. Route 738 is currently non-tolerable
est would result in an increase of 50 additional VPD. The recent
ovements constructed will be satisfactory for this request also.
Blaise Gaston, Route 662 - This section of Route 662 was improved
s ago and is currently tolerable. The existing private driveway has
ht distance. The Department recommends that the access be upgraded to
tandards which would include widening and hard surfacing in conjunction
quest. There would be some increase in traffic from this request, and
ill depend on whether or not customers use the site.
Farmin ton Countr Club, Route 601 - This section of Route 601 is
n-to1erable. The existing entrance on Route 601 that serves this
does not meet current commercial entrance standards. This request is to
current facilities at the Country Club and it is not proposed to result
membership. Therefore, there should be no direct increase in traffic
rom this request. However, the existing entrance on Route 601 is "I"
he Department recommends that it be reconstructed to a standard "T"
ntersection. A minimum of 300' of sight distance is required for an
Route 601 and currently this exists for only one d~rection at one of the
The other sight distance measurements are between 200' and 290'. To
ate sight distance for an entrance at this location, the bank across the
eed to be graded and a sight easement platted. Vhether or not any turn
be beneficial at this location is difficult to determine at this time.
..._..._, '\J'''II''''\'tV1'f run Inc L 1;:)1 \...~r"'IUMT
. :Z(-.:: ~:=-'7. .:>--
. : (: ,,-, N; j' -<. :<?f "..!>:.:.-:2 ~- Ii
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296.5823
March 11, 1992
rn
James H. & Sue H. Willis
P. O. Box 140
Ivy, Va 22945
RE: SP-92-05 James and Sue Willis
Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C2
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Willis:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
March 10, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. No expansion of the existing building;
2. Access shall be established at a point as far on the
west of the parcel as will be approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation;
3. virginia Department of Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance permit;
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care
center. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning
Administrator a copy of the original license and
all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning
Administrator of any license expiration,
suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of
such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
James and Sue Willis
Page 2
March 11, 1992
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made
by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his
discretion. Failure to promptly admit the Fire
Official for such inspection shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing
stated herein shall be deemed to preclude
application of the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia State Fire
Marshall, or any other local, state or federal
agency;
5. Administrative approval of site plan;
6. B~~~a~R~-sfia~~-Be-eeRs~~~eeea-~R-~eRe~a~-aeee~a-w~~fi
e~eva~~eRs-~~ev~aea-~R-AeeaefimeRes-E-aRa-F;
7. Enrollment shall be limited to efi~~~y-t3et forty-five
(45) students or such lesser number as may be approved
by the Health Department.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on April 15, 1992. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
//~7 / // /7/'-5f' .
" /...,//<. -- I ::.//
( ;{: t ~" " ~. /' ./'
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
MARCH 10, 1992
APRIL 15, 1992
SP-92-05 JAMES AND SUE WILLIS
Petition: James and Sue Willis petition the Board of
Supervisors to amend SP-90-115 to increase the number of
students permitted in an existing day care from 30 students
to 40 students [10.2.2(7)] on 2.5 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C2, is
located on the south side of Route 738 west of and adjacent
to Murray School in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
This site is not located within a designated growth area
(Rural Area 3).
Character of the Area: The property to the east is Murray
School. An industrial user is located to the south of the
site. A day care facility (Millstone of Ivy) has been built
on this site. Other properties in the area are vacant.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to amend
condition 7 of SP-90-115 (Attachment C) in order to permit
40 students. No additional building is proposed. The
applicant has submitted the following description and
justification of this request:
"When the architects designed the building for
Millstone, it contained two classrooms and a central
dining area. Since the second week of operation it has
proven far more efficient to take the food to the
children in the classrooms rather than have them come
to the dining area. Therefore, this space goes unused.
Millstone is currently filled to capacity, with a
waiting list for September of 1992 and a small waiting
list already for September of 1993."
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends approval subject to conditions.
Planning and Zoning History:
October 5, 1983 - This property was rezoned from R-1,
Residential to RA, Rural Areas as part of the comprehensive
rezoning of Ivy.
1
February 8, 1984 - The Board of Supervisors approved a
central well permit for five dwellings located on this
parcel as well as adjacent property currently known as Tax
Map 58, Parcel 37C. (These dwellings were never
constructed).
June 15, 1989 - Planning staff administratively approveJ the
subdivision plat creating the parcel currently under review.
January 16, 1991 - The Board of Supervisors approved
SP-90-115 which was a request for a 30 student day care
center.
April 18, 1991 - The final site plan for the day care center,
Millstone of Ivy, was approved. (A minor amendment was
approved on June 13, 1991).
Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive Plan discourages
development in the Rural Area except for that related to
bona fide agricultural/forestal uses. However, this
proposal is located within the former growth area of Ivy.
Support services to the residential development that has
taken place in this area may be warranted. There are
currently no other day care centers in the area. Murray
School is located just to the east of this parcel and this
use is consistent with a public school.
STAFF COMMENT: The site was developed in accord with the
conditions of SP-90-115. The Department of Social Services
has written a letter stating that the facility is adequate
for 45 children, however, due to the conditions of
SP-90-115 the center is limited to 30 children. The BOCA
code would permit 49 children. The Health Department has
limited its approval to 40 students.
The main impacts that the increased number of students will
have are: 1) increased traffic volumes, and 2) the need for
additional parking. Based on the current edition of ITE a
30 child day care center generates 140 vehicle trips per
day. A 40 child day care center will result in 186 vehicle
trips per day or an increase of 25%. This section of Route
738 had 698 vehicle trips per day according to a 1988
traffic count. The existing entrance to the site was built
in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation
requirements and provides adequate sight distance. Staff
opinion is that the increased traffic volume will not
substantially affect the area or result in a hazard.
The current day care facility has 7 parking spaces. The
increase in students will require 3 additional parking
spaces to be installed. Sufficient area exists to permit
the installation of these additional parking spaces with no
additional clearing and minimal earth disturbance.
2
During the review of SP-90-115 staff received a peti~ion of
support containing 175 signatures. Staff is unaware of any
opposition to the applicant's current request.
Summary
The applicant's proposal will not result in any addit~onal
building construction, but will require the installation of
3 parking spaces. The increased number of students will
increase traffic levels by 46 vehicle trips per day. It is
the opinion of staff that this request is consistent with
SP-90-115 and that the potential negative factors cited in
that report have been overcome. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of SP-92-05 subject to the following conditions
which are the same as those for SP-90-115 with the amendment
of condition 7 and the modification/deletions of conditions
1 and 6.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. No expansion of the existing building;
2. Access shall be established at a point as far on the
west of the parcel as will be approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation;
3. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance permit;
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care
center. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning
Administrator a copy of the original license and
all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning
Administrator of any license expiration,
suspension, or revocation within three (3) d,lYS of
such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made
by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his
discretion. Failure to promptly admit the Fire
Official for such inspection shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
3
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing
stated herein shall be deemed to preclude
application of the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia State Fire
Marshall, or any other local, state or federal
agency;
5. Administrative approval of site plan;
6. B~~ia~n~-skaii-~e-eens~~~e~ea-~n-~ene~ai-aeee~a-w~~k
eie~a~~ens-~~e~~aea-~n-A~~aeftmen~s-E-ana-F;
7. Enrollment shall be limited to ~k~~~y-f3e+ forty (40)
students.
ATl'ACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Action Letter for SP-90-115
D - Virginia Department of Transportation Comment
4
II!
11 g1
>i
( i
I f"-./
'-,
r- ~
,-"
l'
IATTACHMENT A
',I ~
\
~
w
'3
'"
"~
~.
.t
\~-
~-
_ \ \ ['ill]
\
~
BOAl
MOUNTAIN
.LBEMARLE
COUNTY
IATTACHMENT 8
""
""-
"-..._-+~
14
SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT'
SECT ION 58
I ATTACHMENT C I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
January 29, 1991
James H. & Sue H. Willis
Milstone
P. O. Box 140
Ivy, VA 22945
RE: SP-90-115 James H. & Sue H. willis
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Willis:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
January 16, 1991, approved the above-noted request for a day
care center on 2.5 acres zoned Rural Areas. Property
l~cated on the south side of Rt. 738, approximately 1/4 mile
east of intersection with Rt. 676 near Ivy. Please note
that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Day care center shall be limited to 20 feet in height,
and 2,600 square feet;
a. No such use shall operate without licensure by
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care
center. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning
Administrator a copy of the original license and
all ren~wals thereafter and to notify the Zoning
2. Access shall be established at a point as far on the
west of the parcel as will be approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation;
3. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance permit;
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
James Willis
Page 2
January 11, 1991
I ATTACHMENT C Ilpage 2/
. -~ ~ " ,
Administrator of any license expiration,
suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of
such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of his
ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made
by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his
discretion. Failure to promptly admit the Fire
Official for such inspection shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing
stated herein shall be deemed to preclude
application of the requirements of the Virg'inia
Department of Health, Virginia state Fire
Marshall, or any other local, state or federal
agency;
5. Administrative approval of site plan;
6. Building shall be constructed in general accord with
elevations provided in Attachments E and F;
7. Enrollment shall be limited to thirty (30) students.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
,)Il 6~
V. W~;:~~limbei'g
Director of P1a~n & Community Development
VWC/jcw
cc: Amelia Patterson
Richard Moring
Sandra & William Keyser, III
I ATTACHMENT D I
Page 2
February 25, 1992
Mr. Ro~ald S. Keeler
Specia Use Permits & Rezonings
should be a commercial entrance with adequate sight distance and the Department
recomm~nds that the existing access be upgraded or a new entrance be constructed.
There's a location on Route 737 where an adequate commercial entrance can be built.
Other ~omments concerning the previous special use permit for the church still
apply.
4. SP 92-05 James & Sue Yillis, Route 738 - This request is to amend SP-90-115 to
increa~e the number of students from 30 to 40. Route 738 is currently non-tolerable
and th's request would result in an increase of 50 additional VPD. The recent
entran e improvements constructed will be satisfactory for this request also.
5. SP 92-06 Blaise Gaston, Route 662 - This section of Route 662 was improved
severa years ago and is currently tolerable. The existing private driveway has
adequa e sight distance. The Department recommends that the access be upgraded to
commer~ial standards which would include widening and hard surfacing in conjunction
with tnis request. There would be some increase in traffic from this request, and
the ampunt will depend on whether or not customers use the site.
6. SP 92-07 Farmin~ton Country Club, Route 601 - This section of Route 601 is
curren ly non-tolerable. The existing entrance on Route 601 that serves this
development does not meet current commercial entrance standards. This request is to
upgrad~ the current facilities at the Country Club and it is not proposed to result
in inc~eased membership. Therefore, there should be no direct increase in traffic
genera ion from this request. However, the existing entrance on Route 601 is "Y"
shaped and the Department recommends that it be reconstructed to a standard "T"
commer~ial intersection. A minimum of 300' of sight distance is required for an
entran~e on Route 601 and currently this exists for only one direction at one of the
entran~es. The other sight distance measurements are between 200' and 290'. To
obtain adequate sight distance for an entrance at this location, the bank across the
road wpuld need to be graded and a sight easement platted. Yhether or not any turn
lanes ~ould be beneficial at this location is difficult to determine at this time.
,
'--.,.
/'
, ,
, .
',' ,.
.I"~:r
.J
:1
,.
-.
'. ~-...#
,.
.'
\
" -- . -- J-- !:-. 1
-.....- ...... -.
.
.'
I
I
I
MO-' , d-. ....
j, I! '1 --. ;
:\."L.,;=~,=' r ......._-;
>-'/. -.' .,~. 1/ Ii'" . .. .' '~---r
..1 ;. i ,.. _ ~
! nr~~t II i :f~:::~~~-~=::I
: -~-'- It_, .... -L-~"'"'' "J!
I ; '. '. ...._
1.1/'" ,_.._
-~l==';"_'____::"-j_'__
I
,
!
. ,
.. ..&.-L..........___
, ,
. ........
~:'
11: ',;!:;;~ ....
.,~ ....
~~I.t;.~... I
~...... \~. .
. c..,.
':'''''.
: ,
," .'
" , '., ~::(.;, ~.--, --..: '''~::''::::';
',:... .0. ~;j, _.........
. . .~ .............
0' ..0.0.., _
. .. ~... . .
---\
--........-
. ......
'B~
IATTACH~ENT EI
..
.... -~...
~_.
~..._... 10-..
:...
..: ..... .._..~,.J.s.",,",.. ..
.L.......,
.. ------:r---
'.o,J:
....,.,
I.
,:;. : :~ 0..
. , ~
.,
'i{;;f:::':; '~". .
i~r~fi{,
'~:(-~~;." .
).:.{,
'<'.. .)
"
./ . I t.
.f'
.'.
~ "
. ;,' '".'
~.;I~?.t::.:-:::.
j
f"
I .
I
,
;
," i
,
::~.;
. ", -:: ;\~.'''' If;
',' .
"
r'~
;0\=
;.
.n I.
.' .!
.f'
., .
"
.,-:
:: -' ~:; . . . :.
" ':.i.-
'f~~~:.'; ;~:}',:'!:Cf';:; .
::~:!t;'~{ :~;"
;,'-~~.';~.~~~ ..:'
\.0.":" :'
~I~.~ ~ '!(
.:i.~;~~.', ; .'
;.:~:, !.:.
::7~f.~.-',; ,1,....: '0
,~!.". .1/1....'. ~'~. i'
tJt;'.;.': > :;.)~.:: ;" . ..,~
~'~j';"" :.\ ..'''' 1'" . .,.....
.~ft;~,:.;~ ': ,;~:.:.~ ~:J~!/...../. .~. .~:
. I J.. Il:r. . ~'.,A.... ~ " ','
;:~.q::: '. ::.'.?::;i;1,.:":;:~' ".
..... " .1.. t ..-.
.~tJL~~',,':rJ~'V'
.t~~,,," .:t-. '.
'~}i'; :":J' .
1....
. .
I
..,j'
I
.;,':..
"'1,1.
":'r.. .~.
,
.....
.,'j
:. I,
.'
.,
\';\/:"': "
., .
i:
"
t'.
,,:
I ,', . '_:.,::; " . .
:':
:'.: .
..,.....~
. ~..'
. ,
'.., .
: 'o': ~ j"
'" .
': : :, t.~...,
I"~. .
.,; ~. .
'.
I'
"\
"
IA TT ACi-t M ENT FI':;
1=---~1
~
I .
~B
L .. .'
'.
'.' '.' :
,. .
" -
.. . ~ ., .'
. I ~
I ..
".
'.
r:" .,
. ,
"
."
','
...-
., ~.:'
. .'
. .~~.
'I.
,'.
fl
;1 I.
;: It
L '1-
I
,.-
. ':
I'
'.
,'u'.
.'
;:
.....
"
1~'.
':: ::.:.:;f~~.\:,-,.. /~:~~;:.:>.:;: ',;f~;~~~i.~~i~<~v;;'
" ."'. < ,", .....i'..~i'i;',., ',..11'. ...,. '. ,':!,f.~'l-1/('.\":";'d ~ .":, :1."
I '{ ~ I .~ "~'~'....:. ~';"~ "' ..,.":>...:.. '~\"i'~",;;f'O.).":.e..:".:.o:~':'
....~... ....\\t.~~.~:..:..: ". .."""....tl~.,..r.:',........ ;,: .".~1r...~ a.":.... "" ...
......"0.... - ...-- ....... - .... '" ...r.....-....... -~---:........I: "'lre;";F;!:"1.~I~'
. ....... ...
> ".LN I ~=, I -=,U_ KUU, , ('IUUfH IJC
P,2
.'.
\
Tltor:t)as <Z'rawfo:rd llooliey
1216 West HaV0I) Bouleval"d
~ooky Mouqi, Nortlt ~arolJI)a 27803
, RECEIVED
MAR 9 1992
PlANNING DEPT.
. -: J.,?:;~;.3'~:' "
Mr. William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
RE: SP-92-05 James & Sue Willis
Dear Mr. fritz.
As we discussed On the telephone today, I shall be unable
to attend either meeting concerning the matter noted
above. Nevertheless I would like to register my oPPosition
to the proposal to amend SF-90-ll5. If approved. the
propOsal would increase traffic On Route 738 which I
believe would be hazardous to the residents and school
children using this narrow road.
Thank you for presenting my letter to the Planning C~mmi88ion
and the Board of Supervisors.
II
.,
Q;2no
';/ - ~ 0- ,- :7 .;L...
_:!c2'CJV/~=-, .2}19
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 2965823
April 2, 1992
Paul Blaise Gaston
Rt. 1, Box 221
Earlysville, VA 22936
RE: SP-92-06 Blaise Gaston
Tax Map 30, Parcel 15C
Dear Mr. Gaston:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
March 31, 1992, by a vote of 3-3, failed to make a
recommendation on the above-noted request. This request is
now forwarded on to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on April 15. 1992. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,.
/7~~ /}. .---.~.~
/ / .. './ // ,-: ;~..//
/~ / / ;',r'---,f'./ ~
t" v "{". ~-
william D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jci
cc: vtettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
Addendum to SP-92-06 Blaise Gaston
The Planning Commission at its meeting of March 31, 1992
forwarded SP-92-06 with no recommendation. During the
review of the request the Planning Commission stated several
concerns. Conditions to address those concerns are
highlighted below. The effect of this use on the
environment, particularly on the reservoir, was a major
concern of the Commission. In an effort to address those
concerns, staff has added conditions requiring Health
Department approval and methods of disposal for waste. The
Commission was also concerned that this use, once approved,
would remain and potentially change to a more intensive use
should the applicant ever leave the site. To address that
concern, staff has recommended that approval be limited to
the current applicant only.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. Not more than two employees who are not family members
who reside on-site;
2. Compliance with the performance standards of Section
4.1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. New structure to house the home occupation shall be
located as shown on plat initialed WDF and
dated3/19/92;
4. Construction of a commercial entrance to the standards
stated in the February 25, 1992 Virginia Department of
Transportation comments;
* 5. Health Department approval;
* 6. Permit is issued for use by Blaise Gaston only;
* 7. County Engineer approval of method of disposal of all
solvents, finishes, paints, lacquer and the like
including clean-up materials/liquids and applicators.
7
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
MARCH 31, 1992
APRIL 15, 1992
SP-92-06 BLAISE GASTON
Petition: Blaise Gaston petitions the Board of Supervisors
to permit a Home Occupation, Class B to for a custom
furniture business [10.2.2(31)] on 5.9 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property ,described as Tax Map 30, Parcel 15C, is
located on the south side of Route 662 approximately 0.5
miles west of Route 660 in the White Hall Magisterial
District. This site is not located in a designated growth
area (Rural Area 1).
Character of the Area: One house is on this property and
one house will be visible from the home occupation. This
site is not visible from the public road. This property is
wooded and borders the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to
construct a new three-story structure of approximately 3,500
square feet. The first floor, which would be built into the
hillside, will consist of 750 square feet for storage of
household items. The additional 750 square feet would be
used for storage of lumber and mechanical equipment involved
in the making of furniture. The entire second floor, 1,500
square feet, will be used for the shop. The third floor,
consisting of approximately 400 square feet, will be used as
a painting studio. This will be a hobby use and not a home
occupation. A description of this use is provided as
Attachment C. The applicant is requesting permission to
have a maximum of two employees. The shop will be used to
make custom furniture. The majority of sales will be
off-site (i.e. mail order). However, a limited number of
customers may come to the site.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends denial of SP-92-06.
Planning and Zoning History: There is no history available
for this site. Staff notes that this applicant did obtain a
special use permit for the same type of activity on June 15,
1977 on Tax Map 16, Parcel 15 (part). That permit was
SP-77-28.
1
Comprehensive Plan: This site is in the Rural Areas of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Rural Areas are particularly
intended to preserve and promote agriculture and forestry.
This use has no direct relationship to agriculture and
forestry activity.
Other purposes of the Rural Areas are water supply
protection, limited service delivery and conservation of
natural, scenic and historic resources.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section
31.2.4.1 and offers the following comments:
o 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 adjacent property,
Staff has received a petition in support of this request
signed by nine (9) individuals (Attachment D). (The
location of these property owners is shown in Attachment B.)
One individual who signed the petition in support of this
request has since sent a letter which states opposition to
this request (Attachment E). This use will be visible from
one adjacent dwelling. The performance standards of Section
4.14 will reduce the mechanical impacts this use has on
adjacent property. The main impact to adjacent propertjT
will be increased traffic due to employees and
delivery/shipments. Staff has no method of determining
total traffic volumes as this operation is for custom
furniture. Staff opinion is that this use, while not of
substantial detriment to adjacent properties, may be of some
potential detriment due to visibility and traffic.
o that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby,
Furniture manufacturing as a use is more appropriate to an
industrial district than to the Rural Areas. Staff has
identified six (6) approved home occupation requests which
involve woodworking and where the square footage of the area
to be used is known [SP-84-63 William Smith, SP-86-15
Michael Fulton, SP-89-51 Frederick Williamson, SP-9D-96
Allen Cutright, SP-90-l1D George Gay and SP-91-45 Roger
Thomas]. These home occupations range in size from 150
square feet to 1200 square feet with an average size of 738
square feet. This request would be substantially larger
2
than similar requests approved in the past. If approved,
this use may change the character of the Rural Areas
district due to the size of the use. In addition, if this
request is approved it may be difficult to disapprove other
requests of similar size which could also change the
character of the Rural Areas.
Due to the size and characteristics of the proposed
building, the new structure has limited potential to be
converted to a single family dwelling. (This parcel does
have one additional development right). The property has
limited agricultural purposes which the structure could
support. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the
structure would continue to be used for commercial activity,
if the applicant should ever leave this parcel or
discontinue this use.
o and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
purpose and intent of this ordinance as stated in Section
1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with particular emphasis on Section 1.5 and
1.6 (Attachment F). As earlier stated, this area and
adjacent areas are recommended as Rural Areas in the
Comprehensive Plan and this site is located adjacent to the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. In general, development in
the Rural Areas that is not related to agricultural or
forestal activity or does not provide necessary services to
the Rural Areas is to be discouraged. Based on the above
comments it is staff's opinion that this use is inconsistent
with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 10.1 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the intent of
the Rural Areas. A part of the stated intent of the Rural
Areas is to encourage development not related to
agricultural/forestal use to locate within designated growth
areas of the Comprehensive Plan. This use is not related to
agricultural/forestry and, therefore, is not consistent with
the intent of the Rural Areas. Section 10.1 further
states:
"It is intended that permitted development be
restricted to land which is of marginal utility for
agricultural/forestal purposes, provided that such
development be carried out in a manner which is
compatible with other purposes of this district.
roadside strip development is to be discouraged through
the various design requirements contained herein."
Due to the size of this parcel it has limited utility for
agricultural/forestal purposes. Other factors regarding the
intent of the ordinance outweigh this positive factor.
o with the uses permitted by right in the district,
3
The uses permitted in the Rural Areas include limited
residential uses, uses by-right which are supportive of
agricultural/forestry (temporary sawmill, farm, winery) as
well as special uses supportive of a rural population
(country store, public garage). The applicant's use is not
supportive of agriculture/forestry and is not supportive of
a rural population. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that
this use is not in harmony with the uses permitted in the
Rural Areas district.
o with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of
this ordinance,
Section 5.2.2 governs the operation of home occupations
(Attachment G). This use exceeds by 750 square feet the
maximum area permitted for a home occupation. The Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors may authorize an
increased square footage in accordance with Section 5.1.
The use of employees in the conduct of the home occupation,
as well as customer and delivery traffic, will result in a
higher volume of traffic than normally anticipated from a
residential property. Staff has noted previously in this
report that no traffic figures are available. This use is
not consistent with Section 5.2.2 as written.
o and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
This section of Route 662 is listed as tolerable and carries
76 vehicle trips per day according to a 1991 traffic count.
The Department of Transportation has recommended
improvements to the entrance (Attachment H). Should this
permit be approved, staff supports these recommendations due
to increased traffic volume and the potential use of the
entrance by delivery vans/trucks.
This property is located adjacent to the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir. The location of the proposed structure is noted
in Attachment H. This location is approximately 320 feet
from the reservoir. The applicant uses only water based
materials in the building of the furniture. Therefore,
potential water pollution caused by petroleum based products
is eliminated. If approved, staff recommends compliance
with the performance standards of Section 4.14 which
includes the submittal of a certified engineers report.
This report will include methods for spill containment, if
necessary, as well as ensuring sound limits are not
exceeded. Grading and construction activities for this use
will be subject to the Runoff Control Ordinance.
4
With improvements to the entrance, the submittal of a
certified engineer's report and compliance with the Runoff
Control Ordinance, it is the opinion of staff that this
request would not be contrary to the public health, safety
and general welfare.
Additional Comment:
Staff notes that home occupations as permitted in the Rural
Area were originally intended to be for supplemental
occupation, as opposed to the primary occupation of the
individual living on-site. Staff has reviewed planning
literature regarding home occupations and notes that
Albemarle County is among the most liberal in defining home
occupations by permitting virtually any use under home
occupations. The regulations governing home occupations
tend to also be among the most liberal regarding: square
footage; number of employees and the use of accessory
structures. Recent request for home occupations have
involved the use of new structures to house the occupation
as opposed to the adaptive use of existing structures. (The
most recent request was SP-91-68 James Johnson, located in
Oak Hill, which involved the construction of a 1,980 square
foot structure. The Planning Commission recommended denial
of that request. The applicant withdrew the request prior
to Board of Supervisors review.)
Summary
Staff has identified the following factors which are
unfavorable to this request:
1. The size of the home occupation exceeds the limits
specified in Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. This use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
3. This use is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance;
4. This use is inconsistent with other uses permitted in
the Rural Areas;
5. Approval of this request would permit additional
activity adjacent to the reservoir.
Staff has identified the following factor which is favorable
to this request:
1. Due to the limited number of adjacent dwellings, this
use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent
property.
5
Staff notes that requests for activities similar to that
proposed by the applicant have averaged 738 square feet.
This request proposes a new structure of approximately 3,500
square feet of which 2,250 square feet will be used for the
conduct of the home occupation. Staff notes that if
approved, it may be difficult to deny other requests that do
not comply with the provisions of Section 5.2.2. Staff
opinion is that the unfavorable factors outweigh the
favorable factors and that this request is inconsistent with
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance therefore, staff
recommends denial of SP-92-06. Should the Planning
Commission choose to approve this request, staff offers the
following recommended conditions of approval:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Not more than two employees who are not family members
who reside on-site;
2. Compliance with the performance standards of Section
4.1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. New structure to house the home occupation shall be
located as shown on plat initialled WDF and dated
3/19/92;
4. Construction of a commercial entrance to the standards
stated in the February 25, 1992 Virginia Department of
Transportation comments.
ATI'ACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Description of Request
D - Petition in Support of Request
E - Letter in opposition to Request
F - Section 1.5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance
G - Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
H - VDOT Comment
I - Plat showing location of new structure
6
f1
~
.v
IATTACHMENT A
~
r
f"--r./
~
~
/"... ~--
J :nu
~
> ~~
f6241'~
=-w Q
629
c
FLAT MTN
o
(j
.,.
~
I
I
-. I _ ~_
i
'<>
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
.
.
I
I
I
--c--- t
I
f<.'-
,<,,'l-'"
C-,,_M1"
fT
----...
l'"
~
ATTACHMENT 8
1:;:.,
I~~'
I ~
4 ./'
'.~ (
1
.~
\
PROPERTY OWNERS SIGNING
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF
REQUEST
LOCATION OF REQUEST
:3
45
27C
(jj~ {.
21
. .
~
I ATTACHMENT Cl
.,
MARCH 1 1992
BLAISE GASTON
ROUTE 1 BOX 221
EARLYSVILLE, VIRGINIA
22936
973-1289 EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS
293-7357 DAYS
I HAVE INCLOSED FOR YOUR INFORMATION A PETITION SIGNED BY ALL
OF MY ADJACENT LAND OWNERS AND SEVERAL OTHERS ON ROUTE 662.
I HAVE TALKED AT LENGTH WITH ALL OF THEM ABOUT MY PLANS FOR A
SHOP TO BUILD FURNITURE AND THEY ALL SUPPORT MY REQUEST. I
ALSO ENCLOSE SEVERAL DRAWINGS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING WITH
USES FOR EACH LEVEL INDICATED. THE SHOP IT SELF WILL BE ON THE
SECOND FLOOR AND WOULD BE 1500 SF. THE FIRST FLOOR WOULD
CONTAIN,750SF OF STORAGE SPACE FOR LUMBER AND MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT AND 750SF FOR THE STORAGE OF OUR PERSONAL EFFECTS
SUCH AS TRACTOR , LAWN MOWERS, AND GARDEN TOOLS . WE HAVE
NO ATTIC IN OUR HOUSE AND NEED SPACE TO STORE ALL THE SORTS
OF THINGS THAT GO IN AN ATTIC. THE THIRD FLOOR WILL BE A
PAINTING STUDIO FOR MY WIFE. THE BUILDING WILL BE BUILT INTO
THE SIDE OF A HILL AND CAN BE SEEN ONLY BY ONE NEIGHBOR IN THE
WINTER AND NONE IN THE SUMMER. IT WILL BE VERY SIMILAR TO OUR
HOUSE IN DESIGN ,SIZE, AND EXTERIOR DETAILING.
I WOULD LIKE TO TA~~ TO ANYONE WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS
AND I COULD MEET w~rH YOU AT THE SITE AT ANY TIME. PLEASE CALL
ME WITH ANY QUES~+ONS.
SINCERELY,
~ /l..p, ~
BLAISE -GASTcm
I ATTACHMENT cllpage 21-
.. .,
- I ATTACHMENT CUpage t
~
" , !
.....
:
I
" -vJ -..:
i....
c:::. I
- . I
, I
}.J
::J
~
I I
" I
-
'e::::.
ic::::.
j)
I
,
I
i VJ
I
I a
!~ .....
I~
;") I
!:;r
I i
M ; I
! ...3'-
:\0 i
~ I i
i I I
~ I
I
~ I
i~ - t-- I
I~ I
- I
Ci I I
, - i
I :l::) ! I
, "" I
'- - I I
!'-/') - i
<:; 1
Ie ~ I
~ I
''''^' ~
- ) -;..
,
11 I .....1 I
I ...
I
~
s:>
s::.
~ ~
S> .,
~ a
Q
'-l\
n
~
- s
-+-
~'
It
~
CJ~
c::::. <:)
'"'" ()
'. ..,.,
.J-
..,
~
}...J
"-
cJ::)
c c
" C>
, 1J
.3-
""
~
, '
I ATTACHMENT C IIPage 41-
_..' .,
..
"
"
vol
N
"-
'-
--
~<
C----->
/ 1r!' ~<"--~ P-e..~
(804) 295c6736
2lll MICHIE DRIVE #77
CHARLOITESVILLE, VIRGI~IA 22901-2872
lbemarle County Board of Supervisors
lbemarle County Office Building
4 1 McIntire Road
harlottesville, VA 22901
ear Mem bers of the Board,
I am writing to indicate my full support for Blaise Gaston's application.
y wife and I own an adjoining property, parcel 15E. My professional
t aining is as an architect and landscape architect. I have known Blaise
:fi r approximately seven years and have worked with him extensively
i the past in the design and siting of his current house. Through this
process, I have come to highly respect Blaise's sensitivity to the
e vironment. We spent a great deal of time revising the design of the
h use and shifting the siting to yield the least amount of environmental
i pact. I have full confidence that Blaise will carry this concern and
s nsitivity into the siting, construction and administration of his
p oposed woodworking shop.
oncerning the visual impact of this structure from our property, the
s te he has chosen is buffered by a mature evergreen stand of hemlock
a d cedar and therefore is screened from our view.
April 15, 1992
/J:
"~7' .,A,'
~rl. "
~0~
April 13, 1992
ECE~' !~_.....
R -:~"....,-..: ':\
......... '<I ',.........
APR 14 1992
PlANNING DEPT.
r. Bill Fritz
epartment of Planning and Urban Development
01 McIntire Road
harlottesville, Virginia 22902
ear Mr. Fritz:
As residents of Earlysville, Albemarle County, Virginia it has come to our attention
t at Mr. Blaise Gaston is requesting approval from Albemarle County authorities to
onstruct a woodworking studio adjacent to his home, also in Earlysville.
Please be advised that we would support his ability to do so, based on our knowledge
f his work as being artistic, one-of-a-kind pieces of art verses production oriented, mass-
roduced items for sale to the general public.
As patrons of this fine local artist for the past fourteen years, we also know him to
e environmentally conscious, and feel certain that any efforts Mr. Gaston makes toward
is pursuit of excellence will be an asset to the community rather than a detriment.
. .
I ATTACHMENT D 1
..
FEBRUARY 25, 1 992
WE, THE UNDERS I GNED NE I GHBORS OF BLA I SE GASTON HA VE TALKED
WITH HIM ABOUT HI? REQUEST FOR A SPEC I AL USE PERM IT TO BU I LD
A SHOP TO MAKE CUSTOM FURNITURE ON HIS PROPERTY AND WE
T HIS REQUEST,
-,
'I ()1AYt1J-P '3~ p~ ~
--' t'~ (;r~~R." ~- C /' t4-J' ?, -~; . r, e
-J /J ~. ~
Uean w. Crar'1' ';.J
j ~ aJ:L 7V~ ~-~,; 10 ~/!
~~ G----{(v/~./V Go~i)
7lud-~
'I u7~ ~,!,~~
v ;lt~., l&-~C~ -- 'i1 ~--~' /1-!/
/;1J' Ct - ~;VK- -:"' Ii ";~
.,
..
W, G. Schenk III, M.D,
1800 Tinkers Cove Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
(804) 973-7809
I ATTACHMENT E I
..
pr ... A ....lfl ~"'~
Rt: CI)-~ 1 ':, i ;'., ';.,."
~ t.:-......., ,."If'
MAR 1 8 1992
fI~NI\llNG O:;:PT.
March 16, 1992
Cc unty of Albemarle
PI ~nning and Community Development
Cc unty Office Building
401 Mcintire Road
Ct arlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Application for Special Use Permit
SP-92-06 Blaise Gaston
At ention: Mr. William Fritz
DE ar Sir:
The Gastons are applying for a special use permit to construct a woodworking shop for the
m nufacture of custom furniture adjacent to their residence, They have circulated a petition among their
ne ghbors to the effect that they have discussed the project with us. We are the owners of the property
dir~ctly across the Rivanna River (City of Charlottesville reservoir) from the Gaston property, We did not
fel I that a simple signature adequately expressed our feelings regarding the project and therefore ask that
this letter be included with the deliberations.
Blaise Gaston's reputation as a quality craftsman and artist is well known. I would expect anything
thi t he built to be well-designed and well-constructed, Their own home blends well with the existing
enwironment and has protected most of the surrounding foliage and mature trees, However, we have
several concerns which go beyond this which we would like the Planning Commission to consider in its
de iberations:
1, Personal impact. We don't really have any vested interest in actively encouraging
commercial activity in this area. We are just nearing completion of the construction of our
home on this exceptionally attractive totally rural property, The Gaston home across the
river from us is indeed the only evidence of human habitation visible to us most of the
year. We obtained this property specifically for the pastoral beauty, privacy, and solitude
which it affords. Since we are just now in the final planning stages of moving to this new
home, naturally we are somewhat lukewarm about promoting a commercial venture in this
area, an area which is completely dominated by unspoiled forest, natural beauty of the
river and hills, and a few large well-kept farms,
2, Appearance, The description of the proposed structure doesn't sound much like a
"residential" building. The quite large cinderblock structure sounds a bit like a warehouse.
Certainly a modest number of mature trees would have to be removed for the construction
of this building and adjacent parking area. Even if the new proposed structure is "behind"
the Gastons' home from our perspective, it can't be completely hidden from view: Our
property wraps almost 1800 around G large curve in the river. The area "behind" the
Gastons' home remains visible from one side or the other of our property, Additionally, it
is more likely that the other buildings currently along Route 662 but invisible to us because
of the mature forested area would be revealed by the clearing necessary for this project.
We are concerned that the appearance of this nonresidential manufacturing establishment
would not be harmonious with the existing appearance of this unique part of Albemarle
County.
...
--~'"'--"-.... .....,., - ....- --. ~-
I ATTACHMENT E 11 Page 2' -
.,
C untyof Albemarle
M rch 16, 1992
-2
3. Noise, Most powered woodworking equipment makes a fair amount of noise, as does
the associated dust-trapping vacuum equipment. Low-level sounds such as normal
conversation carry remarkably well across the valley to our side of the river; I doubt that
it would be possible to guarantee that there would be no audible sounds from the shop,
Any consistent presence of artificial sounds generated by machinery would impact upon
the quality of life in this unique setting. Again, since our property extends so far around
either side of the Gaston home, I do not believe that the proposed structure could be sited
so that it could be completely shielded from us. Establishing a commercial venture here
would also undoubtedly increase traffic in and out of the drive, in addition to associated
outdoor activity such as loading and unloading of trucks,
4, Lona-ranee environmental olannina, All new projects and developments within the
county have to be consistent with a Rural Preservation Plan. Indeed, our own property
has upon it permanent restrictions and covenants which effectively prevent any future
development of the land. Except for "agriculture, not for profit," we really can't do much
with our 40 acres except enjoy its idyllic beauty and rural solitude, which is fine because
that's exactly what we want. Our property was specifically designated as a "rural
preservation tract" when the area on this side of the river was subdivided, to act as a
buffer between other residential construction and the undeveloped area along the Rivanna
River. Is it entirely consistent with the County's "Rural Preservation Plan" to construct
adjacent to the river a three-story 3500 sq ft non-residential manufacturing establishment?
Present and future residents on the opposite side of the river certainly benefit from the
restrictions placed on our land use, We feel that we have a right to expect similar
protection,
5, Environmental imoact. Woodworking and furniture manufacturing generally involve the
use of a number of potentially toxic substances, and this proposed project is of course
immediately adjacent to the water supply for the City of Charlottesville, Can we be sure
that solvents, petro chemicals, hydrocarbons, and other potential pollutants won't find their
way into the water table?
We respectfully request that these concerns be contemplated during the application process for
thi exception to the County's zoning regulations, the regulations which protect the quality and nature of
our environment for the benefit of all residents of Albemarle County, We believe the Commission would
co clude, as we do, that the proposal is not in the County's best interest, It is certainly not in our own
persona! interest. Our opportunity to reside in this idyllic pastoral setting is the realization of a life-long
dr am, one which we felt would be perpetuated by the County's thoughtful ongoing efforts to protect this
unique environment.
sincere~3 /AJ~ ~
W. G, Schenk III, t\~.D,
c- .
( /,' ! I ',' ,"
_.__'''''' .... lo,," ..
Christine Schenk
1.5
RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT
..
IATTACHMEN,T,FI
, '
..
This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similar-
ly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with
reasonable consideration for the existing use and character
of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of
property for various uses, the tr~nds of growth or change,
the current and future land and water requirements of the
community for various purposes as determined bypopulat~on
and economic studies and other studies, the transportat~on
requirements of the community, and the requirements for.
airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, re~reat~on
areas and other public services; for the conservat~on of
natural resources; and preservation of flood plains, the
preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the con-
servation of properties and their values and the encourage-
ment of the most appropriate use of land throughout the
county. (Amended 11-1-89)
.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reason-
able consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated
and express purpose of this zoning ordinance to create land
use regulations which shall encourage the realization and
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end:
development is to be encouraged in Villages, Communities and
the Urban Area; where services and utilities are available
and-where such development will not conflict with the-- -----
agricultural/forestal or other rural 'objectives; and develop-
ment is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are '
to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal
lands and activities, water supply protection, and conser-
vation of natural, scenic and historic resources and where
only limited delivery of public services is intended.
(Amended 11-1-89)
5.2.2
5.2.2
c: ? ~, -,
_ . _ . c: .
L ) ':;
. '_ . _I
REGULATIONS GOVERNING EOME OCCUPATIONS ATTACHMENT G
The following regulations shall apply to an~me ...
occupation:
a. Such occupation may be conducted either within the
dwelling or an accessory structure, or both, prcvided
that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the
floor area of the dwelling shall be used ~n the
conduct of the home occupation and in no event shall
the total floor area of the dwelling, accessory
structure, or both, devoted to such occupation,
exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet;
provided that the use of accessory structures shall
be permitted only in connection with home occupation,
Class B.
b. There shall be no change in the outside appearance
of the buildings or premises, or other visible
evidence of the conduct of such home occupation
other than one (1) sign. Accessory structures shall
be similar in facade to a single-family dwelling,
private garage, shed, barn or other structure
normally expected in a rural or residential area
and shall be specifically compatible in design and
scale with other development in the area in which
located. Any accessory structure which does not
conform to the setback and yard regulations for
main structures in the district in which it is
located shall not be used for any home occupation.
c. There shall be no sales on the premises, other than
items handcrafted on the premises, in connection with
such home occupation; this does not exclude beauty
shops or one-chair barber shops.
d.
No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation
in greater volumes than would normally be expected
in a residential neighborhood, and any need for
parking generated by the conduct of such home
occupation shall be met off the street.
All home occupations shall comply with performance
standards set forth in section 4.14.
e.
Tourist lodging, nursing homes, nursery schools,
day care centers and private schools shall not be
deemed home occupations.
Prior to issuance of clearance for any home occupation,
the zoning administrator shall require the applicant to
sign an affidavit stating his clear understandillg of and
intent to abide by the foregoing regulations.
f.
CERTAIN PERMITS REQUIRED
No home occupation, Class B, shall be established until
a permit shall have been issued therefor. The provisions
of section 5.6.1 of this ordinance shall apply hereto,
mutatis mutandis.
...
IATTACHMENT HI
..
Page 2
February 25, 1992
Mr. Ron ld S. Keeler
Special Use Permits & Rezonings
should >e a commercial entrance with adequate sight distance and the Department
recomme~ds that the existing access be upgraded or a new entrance be constructed.
There i a location on Route 737 where an adequate commercial entrance can be built.
Other cpmments concerning the previous special use permit for the church still
apply.
4. SP-~2-05 James & Sue Willis. Route 738 - This request is to amend SP-90-115 to
increas~ the number of students from 30 to 40. Route 738 is currently non-tolerable
and thi~ request would result in an increase of 50 additional VPD. The recent
entranc~ improvements constructed will be satisfactory for this request also.
5. SP-~2-06 Blaise Gaston, Route 662 - This section of Route 662 was improved
several years ago and is currently tolerable~ The existing private driveway has
adequat~ sight distance. The Department recommends that the access be upgraded to
commerc~al standards which would include widening and hard surfacing in conjunction
with th~s request. There would be some increase in traffic from this request, and
the amount will depend on whether or not customers use the site.
6. SP-92-07 Farmin~ton Country Club, Route 601 - This section of Route 601 is
currently non-tolerable. The existing entrance on Route 601 that serves this
development does not meet current commercial entrance standards. This request is to
upgrade the current facilities at the Country Club and it is not proposed to result
in incr~ased membership. Therefore, there should be no direct increase in traffic
generation from this request. However, the existing entrance on Route 601 is "Y"
shaped ~nd the Department recommends that it be reconstructed to a standard "T"
commercial intersection. A minimum of 300' of sight distance is required for an
entrance on Route 601 and currently this exists for only one direction at one of the
entrances. The other sight distance measurements are between 200' and 290'. To
obtain adequate sight distance for an entrance at this location, the bank across the
road would need to be graded and a sight easement platted. Whether or not any turn
lanes ~ould be beneficial at this location is difficult to determine at this time.
....
.' I
I
....... ."'..... ,J"::; G j i. r^GEQ 2 I 0
IATTACHMENT II
. .
.~
N". . "\/1/ "" ,1'06"W
r _..zo,'o - -. . i7
'-."_Oll',...rc s..-c v~, '1.000Y
, ~
I;:
-
~'\~
~.q, "..."" ...oa .... :rJ
~
'...1
:~
....
~W't
.I
/
!
-,..-~
~.-.'.
5.87 AC'
.
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
......cr.. .,0 ,..,so
\
. ... -
z
8,64 Ac,
""
\
-'- \
", _-~-'-- 1
"..,CI.
~,-
10
...
.,
..
~
~his plll is esClllpl ~r(lll'l tile provisions of th~
~1l'di'lisiOfl retlll.tiOfllo in ,..uter 11-2.
'"
~t~
\~
I'
I
\
PLAT SHOWING
SURVeY OF 16,75 ACReS
A ReD/V/SION OF PARCeLS
/58. /58(1) Q 15C T,M,30
NeAR RAYS FORD 8RIDGe
ALBeMARLe COUNTY, VIRGINIA
"A
,...tJ .
l' ..:,.~~ 0':,
o,..~.c.;; 1" i..
'" G~':'",' ...,
"
"
tJCf!
3/1'1 q?
"
- >- "E
floll
WILLIAM S, ROUDABUSH, INC,
.4 '",'couioao' e...p.,..tioll
r r-r.TIF/r,O I MIO 5IIr.VErnRS
,
~~".,~,~ 'it
".
oot"
.-#
Blaise Gaston
Rt. 1 Box 221
Earlysville, Va. 22936
April 7,1992
Bill Fritz
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
RE: SP-92-06 Blaise Gaston
Dear Mr. Fritz:
I am writing this letter to update you on developments that have
occurred since the planning commission meeting on March 31.
I had a long talk with Sandy Schenk on April third. He said that after
listening to the planning members talk about the sound and visual
concerns that he had, he was satisfied that they had been adequately
addressed and they would no longer be an issue. He said he would not
speak in opposition at the Board meeting on April 1 5.
I have located a company named M and M Chemical Co. Route 3, box
285-b Attalla, Alabama 35954, that hauls and destroys hazardous
substances. They have sent me information about their company
which I am including a copy of with this letter. Basically the way
the process would wo~k is that I would have a barrel over which all
clean up of finishing materials would be done, There would also be a
barrel in which all rags with finishing residue would be stored.
When the barrels are full they would be hauled to Alabama and
disposed of. I would receive a certificate from the company after
disposal. I estimate that I would produce between 2 and 5 gallons of
finishing material a year to be disposed of. By using this method of
disposal all possible contamination of the environment is
eliminated.
I also have talked to the manufacturer of the finishes that I will be
using and they have sent me information on their finishes.
Hydrocote is described as non-toxic, virtually odor free,
environmentally safe, complying with present and future air quality
standards in every state. It is not acceptable to dispose of it in a
septic system which is why I have gotten the information on
disposal from M and M Chemical Co.
As you know I have spoken to Gary Rice of the Health Department and
he has said that he would treat the new building as an extra
bedroom and would require one or two more lines to be added to the
septic field. I would have no problem with doing this but Gary is too
busy to come check out the site until late April so we cannot get a
definite yes from him until after April 15. I understand form you
that you will write an additional requirement to the recommended
conditions of approval which would require health department
approval. I am in full support of this condition.
The issue of size is the one which I have trouble with. A custom
furniture making shop is different than many other businesses in
that the end products are not very large but the boards that they are
made with start out in most instances 16 feet long, and as a result
most machines needs at least 1 6 feet on each side of them to feed
the boards through. In order to work safely there need to be fairly
large spaces between each machine. I have spent many hours moving
cardboard models of machinery around a scale floor plan of the shop
trying to make it smaller. To make it smaller would seriously
compromise safety and effiCiency. I have made the lower level to
house the dust collection system and the air compressor. These
machines are normally placed outside of a shop but I have moved
them inside to prevent the noise from travelling. I hope that a way
can be found to allow me to have the shop at the size I have
requested.
If you have any questions or suggestions please call me at 293-7357
days or 973-1289 evenings
~inc rely,
.~
ise Gaston
8 April 1992
proposed structure to house the home occupation is consistent with
permitted in the Rural Areas and will not impact neighboring uses
ersely. It will be similar in size to the applicant's residence but will
ear smaller because it is built into the hillside. The new structure will
e the place of a second house which the applicant has the right to build on
acreage. It will not be visible from the road. The petition is supported
adjoining property owners, including the one property owner who who will
e a view of the proposed structure. Another property owner supports the
lication but has expressed a concern about the visibility of the structure
m his house across the reservoir. From that location the proposed building
wi 1 be located behind the applicant's residence. The applicant has a strong
in entive to make the new structure attractive because it will be seen from
hi own kitchen window. Noise will be contained within the proposed bUilding.
Members of the Albemarle Countx Board of Supervisors
Virginia Wayne Harbaugh, AICP ~~~
SP-92-06 Blaise Gaston
someone who has helped neighboring counties prepare and implement zoning
inances, I am aware of the important role played by Boards of Supervisors
considering special use permits in rural areas. There are several po"ints
in favor of Blaise Gaston's petition which may already have occured to you but
wh'ch I would like to emphasize in support of his petition.
ST, I note that the applicant is an artist-craftsman designing and produc-
custom furniture. The appropriate environment for a small, custom furni-
e workshop which he is proposing is one of seclusion, privacy and location
venient to his residence. Unlike the normal furniture manufacturing estab-
hment, such craft uses are not appropriate in an industrial district. Nor
s the more suburban atmosphere of a designated growth zone provide a sup-
tive environment for artists who flourish in a more rural setting.
SE OND, the application has several particular characteristics that enhance
compatibility with the Rural Areas zone in which it is proposed. Although
floor area of the proposed home occupation exceeds by 750 sq. ft. the
imum specified in the ordinance, the proposed structure is designed to fit
o the terrain and the "excess" sq. ft. area of occupational use will be
rage area built into the hillside. Furthermore, part of this storage area
1 be used to store and season green wood, purchased locally. This utiliza-
n of forest products is consistent with the intent of the ordinance.
Wi h a maximum of two employees, traffic generated by the new use would be
cl se to what would be generated by a family in a second house on the
a plicant's acreage which is allowed by right. VDOT has found no problems
wi h sightlines at the entrance to the property and has recently paved the
d, including the area entering the applicant's property.
RTH, any special environmental concerns can be easily addressed through
co ditions of approval. The applicant has investigated arrangements to col-
le t and dispose off site, any waste that should require such special treat-
me t. Again, since he and his family will be living there, they have the
st ongest of incentives to protect the environment.
TH, the part of the storage area and the 1500 sq. ft. of first floor work
ce proposed to be used for the applicant's home occupation could be used by
uture occupant of the residence for less intensive uses such as a garage
family cars and space for family hobbies. Thus, approval of Mr. Gaston's
lication for a home occupation permit does not mean that future use of the
perty is limited to such use.
F.onert ~la,nDerveer
Rt 6 E-ox li)4
Charlottesville, 'la.,
22Cl01
April f.. 1 qq2
Bill Fritz
Dept. I:)f Planning
40 1 ~,...Ic:Intire Road
Charlottesville, Va,
22ClOl
RE S:P-92-06 Blaise Gaston
Dea,r I.....Ir. Fritz:
I V.Ta,s recI1J,e~;ted tN IvIr. Gaston t..:) oNain sounei level re:::v:line's and
~ I v
identifv l)(:ltential noise interference in tlE' neiQ'11borhc.(:.d of t1le
i r u
P['-"Pl("-'~(i :=;1-1"',n I -=<rr1 ";. ll'('~t-1'-'~(i r-l-('.1-~c".'l"("l-1';'l ~1-'cil'l-1~~t- "-'1l1-.-~t-1tlT1
! ~.1 ~!":, '-' '- '. ~" 1-' , '.J. '-' "~'~ ,:, '-' ~ 1.1 '-' '.' ,_..:, '_' v, ','.Lo '_' '_' ... _, 1 ',' _")
I)racticinQ' in tlle ~;t3.te of ViE!'1nia" 1.....Iv disciT)1ines include mechanical
1..1' ,_" '_I I l-
and electrical enQ"ineerinQ', I have nreli,:)us1v been resnonsible f()r
c. '_' I-" I- 1:'
audio equipment development vlitl1 tl1e firm of Auclic,-Ovenaire-
f~ - - - t" t' - - -- - 'IT 't- f.'l' ~ -1' tt - - nill '
,_,;:1.! pen )::>t ot tIle! l 0 "J 1.:1.1 () _' e::: ','.Ll e,
Sound measurement.s v....ere taken inside and outside t.he building
k.(:ated (:on Harris Street (>(:(:ul)ied bv Gaston and '.l.lV;3.tt. This V>las done
1-, ,
ti~. '.1'-' t ,-, t-!....11'1-1~ 1-1("1' ,-,~ 1'::'.>;1 ~l"" ";. :=;.-'.'~"'-'1' ,-,t~(l ,,',11' tl'l +t'l'" ("p.~t-';1 t1" "~'rl '-)1-
..... I... t:' ..t:'.1 '." ,,,",;,,," 0;;;;,;- I ',," .=, O.-_'~ .... .... '=.l" "..... ".. t t.. W ~'..I' .... \....." "_" '_0
v.,oodv.,orl:.in~' equi[.)ment in tlle building', !vIeasurernents v.{ere tal{.en
. J II
- -
adjacent to larger equipment and v,lith a l1iglier noise level tilan that
nl-"-"pr C-~(i t '-'I l-'I~ 1 'ltill' 7~lj l't-l t, -11- I~ ,-, c-t,.-, t-1C' c'hl~ n 1-.1"'1" .:." 1'-' T1 ~l:=; ." f q ~ ,'11-" ,.\ T~I- ~
1.' ..... J....I..... J..o ..... ~~..L ....... 1'1. __To.._. ....) ...." __" ')1" 0 '~o)....t::" t::' ~ ... __..) .. 1 .. _. 1'1 v ...
i 1 l' t t tl 1 ' T' t t' j tl 1 "II' ,
+..-..-...) o. ..... . .- .-(.'A - '.i .A .-..-.... ... .TT A W .w.~ r. 1-..... w w. { ,_(._ _..
i t:;'~~',~[l '::;"" ,:.1.\_)d.,_--_,11 ~ )'.' L .LIkt'-," ll!ld ',', ,_,111,::;"" _' ,Al,-:.l', t:;' _ 1e )U1 "1n,,, .:1,11]..1
~ v
~ pr [' -;o;rn- t ~l~T tT T' t- tv 1- - 't 1-1-' t-. ti' - "11'11'r 1-- - t' t - 1-- - - -11t-' t-- -.- t -1- .- ,-.
d )1) 1.).1:...1..L, a J:;: / ,,'i','~ 1,.,.. e~ J () H le !::.'(l L, I) Hi;;? l,,::t Ile::.t::; _ i;;? Heu_, () )0
db '/-la::; recorded, A comparative observation v.l'a.s made v-litll normal
vc.ke sound levels and a birds sonQ' in an adl'acent tree and the sound
1_1 .
level V.lEtS elevated to 62 db, This confirm:; or dinar v con'lersation
,
TNOlJ.1d (ontribut.e t.o a higher noise level at tilis location than tile
machinery in operation.
P;=tq~ Tv.l(}
-0. .
The building v-lall on the Harris Street site is 12" b10(:k v>litll no
attenuating finisll, Tlle ~..\la.11 ())nstruction of 1'.,'-Ir, (lftstons is proposed t.o
lie 12" cement. 1)1c,ck vlitll ;3, 2" styrofo;3.!n type Dryvit fini:311 v.lllicll ~Nill
consi(lerably redll(e sc,u.!1(l t.ransmi:~;::;ion, Tllis 'i.,7()uld insure ;::1. q.uieting
tlB.t TNOu.1d re!Kler tlle macllinerv itEtudH)1e at. 200 feet.
,
I a1::;0 live adiacent t.o the reserv()ir as (loes Iv1r. Ga::t(;.tl an(1 ::;ee no
- -1TTfO>!--fO> fO>!-!-fO>-t -1- tl1e !-fO>- -t-TT-l'l' (t- tl-lfO> -1'1-1--"11- -il'l' -, -1-TT1'l-'l'l-- -l-t I
eH, .,'~, :::iv v vC, 01 ,~'::;~ .,'r) ,) 'v ::;_, Oc. l\, Ie. ~ 1-.- () 1!l~ 1 '.
expect Ivlr, Gast.ons ad.ivity to have a very complirnentary irnpact. in
tl-;::. -nl--t--1H-l'tTT -1- '1 ~tl--1- -.1n l1t--' , tll-t tll1'- 11- - t- - -f.rt-~TT--1
,1,_, .:,: ,_.' Il Il _ul ,'.,' (.1, 1.... :;:> _' () 1l:! .,' _ l:! t:' " d _'.' ::' _,!;;t? i)t? d ) t) '...'.,' t?( ,
r v r 1_' ~
Robert H, 'lanDefveef,. P>E>
~/O-7-2...
'9:-2, () all S ~, .2.?()
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLq'." i '
,,' '..' .)
Dept. of Planning & Community Develorme/1!-.
401 McIntire Road i,
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-459p i
t h-::
(804) 296-5823 i.
I; i
,
, I
t~
:) Cr
March 25, 1992
Peter L. Sheeran, AlA
246 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-92-07 Farmington Country Club
Tax Map 60E2, Parcell (part) and 2
Dear MR. Sheeran:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
March 24, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted request to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
condition:
1. Use of the sports facility shall be for Farmington
County Club members only.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on April 15. 1992. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding' the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~~ /J,~
. ' / c: /
./}.., :: /. "~~ I 9
william D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: ~tie
Amelia
E. Neher
Patterson
Farmington Country Club
Jo Higgins
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
MARCH 24, 1992
APRIL 15, 1992
SP-92-07 FARMINGTON COUNTRY CWB AND
SDP-92-005 FARMINGTON INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN
Petition: Proposal to construct a 30,980 square foot
sports club facility on a 28 acre parcel. Property,
described as Tax Map 60E2, Parcell (part) and 2, is located
in Farmington on the east side of Old Mill Road
approximately 500 feet north of its intersection with Lake
Road. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
Character of the Area: The site is currently developed with
golf maintenance/storage facilities totaling approximately
8,850 square feet. The site is surrounded by a golf course
to the north and west, a pond to the east, and a wooded
slope is to the south. No dwellings are located in close
proximity to the site.
ADDlicant's ProDosal: The applicant is proposing to
construct a 30,980 foot sports club facility. The indoor
sports facility will contain three tennis courts, three
squash courts, an aerobic exercise room, weight room, locker
facilities, viewing area and administrative offices.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
staff has reviewed SP-92-07 for compliance with Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval
subject to conditions. Staff has reviewed the p~eliminary
site plan for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and
recommends approval.
Planninq and Zoninq Historv: None Available
ComDrehensive Plan: This site is located in Rural Area 3 of
the Comprehensive Plan. The plan does not encourage this
type of use in the Rural Area. However, it is a
pre-existing use and will not likely cause accelerated
development of the Rural Area as the membership using the
facility will not be increased.
1
STAFF COMMENT:
staff has combined the reviews for the special use permit
and the site plan for this project. However, staff comment
will separately address the criteria for granting a special
use permit and the site plan's compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. staff will address each provision of Section
31.2.4.1.
. 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 adjacent property,
The adjacent property is used as a golf course. The current
golf maintenance facility does not constitute a detriment to
adjacent property and it is the opinion of staff that the
expansion of uses on site to include indoor recreation will
not result in a detriment to adjacent property.
. that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby
The current maintenance/storage use will continue.
Farmington already has recreational facilities and the golf
course is located adjacent to the proposed facility. This
use will not increase membership but is designed to better
serve the needs of the existing members (Farmington Country
Club's Membership is fixed by its by-laws). Therefore, it
is staff's opinion that this facility will not change the
character of the area as it exists.
. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this ordinance,
The stated intent of the Rural Areas does not encourage this
type of use. Therefore, this use may be considered
inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. However,
staff does note that this use has historically been used for
a use not consistent with the intent of the Rural Areas.
. with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This property and adjacent property is zoned RA. While a
sports facility with maintenance/storage is not consistent
with the stated intent of the RA district this use will not
conflict with uses permitted by right in the RA district.
This opinion is based on the current land use of this and
adjacent property which is non-agricultural, non-forestal.
It is unlikely that the current golf course use would be
abandoned.
2
. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of
this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Section 5.1.16 governs swimming, golf, tennis clubs.
However, those regulations are intended to address negative
impacts of open air facilities. The proposed use is an
indoor facility and, therefore, it is the opinion of staff
that this request is in compliance with Section 5.1.16.
Issues of public health, safety, and general welfare will be
addressed adequately by the site plan. As part of the
safety improvements to the site the private access road will
be widened to better accommodate the traffic to and from the
site. It is the opinion of the staff that the other roads
in Farmington will be adequate to serve this use as no
increase in total traffic volumes within Farmington is
anticipated. The Department of Transportation has
recommended improvements to Farmington's Route 601 entrance
(Attachment C). As stated, staff opinion is that this
request will not increase traffic volumes. In addition, the
property that would require grading in order to improve
sight distance is not under the control of the applicant.
Staff does not support VDOT recommendations as this use is
intended to serve the existing club members only and will
not result in significant increased traffic volumes.
other issues of health, safety and welfare pertinent to this
proposal are addressed under the preliminary site plan
comments below.
Summary of SP-92-07
The proposed activity represents an intensification of land
use. The area and surrounding areas are currently used for
golf maintenance/storage as well as a golf course. This
request for an indoor sports facility does not represent a
new use in Farmington nor is the new construction intended
to increase membership. Issues of utilities and critical
slopes are adequately addressed below. It is the opinion of
staff that this use will not change the character of the
area due to existing uses in the area.
Preliminary Site Plan Comments
In the review of the site plan, staff has identified the
following issues which must be addressed:
1. provision of public utilities to the site;
2. Modification of Section 4.2.3.2 to allow activity on
critical slopes.
3
provision of Public utilities to the site
This site is within the Albemarle County Service Authority
Jurisdictional Area for water only. The applicant proposes
connection to public sewer for the new construction. There
is an existing sanitary sewer line adjacent to the location
of the new construction. other club facilities in
Farmington are served by public sewer. The Albemarle County
Service Authority has stated that the downstream sewer lines
have adequate capacity to accommodate this use. Staff
opinion is that due to the available capacity in the sewer
line and that no extension of line is needed that connection
to public sewer is appropriate as it represents increased
utilization as opposed to a new connection.
Modification to Permit Activitv on Critical Slopes
Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states:
"No structure nor earth disturbing activity to
establish such structure or improvement shall be
located on slopes or twenty-five (25) percent or
greater except as otherwise permitted under Section
4.3.1."
The applicant has submitted a detailed justification to
permit activity on critical slopes (Attachment D). This
justification notes that a large portion of the area of
critical slopes is man-made and consists of uncontrolled
fill which is susceptible to erosion. The Engineering
Department has reviewed the applicant's justification and
recommends approval (Attachment E). Planning staff also
supports the request.
This use does involve grading in the Reservoir Watershed. A
pond used for irrigation is located adjacent and downstream
from this site. The Engineering Department has stated in
Attachment E that this pond will provide for effective
runoff control. (The Erosion Control Plan will specify any
additional requirements that must be met).
Staff recommends the Commission waive Section 4.2.3.2 as the
strict application of the requirements of Section 4.2 would
not forward the purposes of this ordinance or otherwise
serve the public interest. Staff opinion is that
alternatives proposed by the developer would satisfy the
purposes of Section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree
(Section 4.2.5a).
4
Recommendations for SP-92-07 and Farminaton Preliminary site
Plan
This request is to better serve the existing members of
Farmington Country Club. As such this use does not
represent the introduction of a commercial activity into the
Rural Areas nor does it represent significant
intensification of an existing use. The applicant has
prepared a site plan which is consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance and submitted detailed modification request which
are supported by staff. Based on the above comments staff
recommends approval of both the special use permit and
preliminary site plan subject to conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SP-92-07:
1. Use of the sports facility shall be for Farmington
Country Club members only.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FARMINGTON INDOOR
SPORTS FACILITY PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative
approvals for the following conditions have been
obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed
until the following conditions are met,:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff
control permit;
e. staff approval of final landscape plan;
f. staff approval of plat combining parcels 1 and 2.
g. Staff approval of maintenance agreement for the
existing pond.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until
the following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
5
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B Tax Map
C VDOT Comments
D Applicants Waiver ReqUest
E Department of Engineering Comments
F site Plan
6
..-
c.
IATTACHMENT AI
...
,..,\ '5.
\ ;'
, )
...
FOX MOUNTAIN
, Mounl1..r" _.,:y\~~':':_:::,'f
r=~~
.t
~
/
....
~
r'~
~-,
~ . . ~
~
~,
, '0..',1
r--.
~
~ C1
.....-:...~:.....::.-
----....
"
.,
L
~-
;TRICT
'.
,.
',..Fe f.
I'.'
--I','
:'
;;~ .J~
''''-'''
SECTION
,
\
~
.'
,
.'
"
i'
,
:'i
~
60E(I)
~ SP-92-07
r--...... .':", "- Farminqton
(--.;\ Country Club
, ~':"2,:~:-::'~:,,~,~'~ l/
01)" .,:;;
.!I'R'
~.;..J~.I
.;---@,:r
;;' r./
;/! .1
,-?rFi"
~~-
r..
~,.
v.~'
;;;1,:/1-'
.r':1'
fl
::.
~.
.:
t @
.r
'\
''L
';,
,.
J ,:I(:,~c" ~ .
i2 ~_
:~~i-' /' /~.
/ r
/" /
/ j Il
/
\
~.
~
",-
~. @ .-
,~.
, i ~
,:'"
t.
" f;
.~
@) 1(;.: :1
",', .;;
.'::1 ~~?
I~ ,.",
'i~~,,: -
~~..
~ '"1~?
\"-"\-
'\c G> ->,,\
~. t.;.:
.~}. -;))
"~~~j~,. ~;;
. ....~ :. {':
ICAU IN PD:1
- -
--
IATTACHMENT BI
.
.
.. .......~,.. ", ..........'...~~.'r.....
..
I I
;@
. ,I . I
I
I
T I
,. I I
!
/0 I
! ~'-
~ :!ff:;"";':'s'~';' .~~~
",/,:~;:,-".,:'l'
<r...ti-'
\~~..
-
~
SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT
FARMINGTON INSERT
I ATTACHMENT C I
Page 2
February 25, 1992
Mr. Ron Id S. Keeler
Special Use Permits & Rezonings
should be a commercial entrance with adequa'e sight distance and the Department
recomme~ds that the existing access be upgraded or a new entrance be constructed.
There i a location on Route 737 where an adequate commercial entrance can be built.
Other cpmments concerning the previous special use permit for the church still
apply.
4. SP-~2-05 James & Sue ~illis, Route 738 - This request is to amend SP-90-115 to
increas~ the number of students from 30 to 40. Route 738 is currently non-tolerable
and thi~ request would result in an increase of 50 additional VPD. The recent
entranc~ improvements constructed will be satisfactory for this request also.
5. SP-~2-06 Blaise Gaston, Route 662 - This section of Route 662 was improved
several years ago and is currently tolerable. The existing private driveway has
adequat~ sight distance. The Department recommends that the access be upgraded to
commerc al standards which would include widening and hard surfacihg in conjunction
with th s request. There would be some increase in traffic from this request, and
the amo~nt will depend on whether or not customers use the site.
6. SP-~2-07 Farmington Country Club, Route 601 - This section of Route 601 is
current y non-tolerable. The existing entrance on Route 601 that serves this
develop~ent does not meet current commercial entrance standards. This request is to
upgrade the current facilities at the Country Club and it is not proposed to result
in incr~ased membership. Therefore, there should be no direct increase in traffic
generat~on from this request. However, the existing entrance on Route 601 is "Y"
shaped I:md the Department recommends that it be reconstructed to a standard "T"
commerc~al intersection. A minimum of 300' of sight distance is required for an
entranc~ on Route 601 and currently this exists for only one direction at one of the
entranc~s. The other sight distance measurements are between 200' and 290'. To
obtain ~dequate sight distance for an entrance at this location, the bank across the
road wo~ld need to be graded and a sight easement platted. ~hether or not any turn
lanes wpuld be beneficial at this location is difficult to determine at this time.
I ATTACHMENT D I
Pe er L. Sheeran, AlA
A.r hitet:.<ture · Planning
RECEIVED
FEB 2 4 1992
PLANNING DEFT,
illiam D. Fritz, Senior Planner
Cou ty of Albemarle
Dep rtment of Planning & Community Development
401 cIntire Road
Cha lottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
armington Indoor Sports Facility
SDP-92-O(5)
aiver Request
ion 4.2/ Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
e are requesting a modification of the requirements in accordance with Section 4.2.5 of the Albemarle
Cou ty Zoning Ordinance to allow building construction on a site which contains portions of "critical
slo ," A major portion of the critical slope to be disturbed is due to manmade fill which has accumulated
over many years at this site which is adjacent to the golf maintenance facility. The man made critical slopes
are 1 cated in the proposed building area. The parking facilities associated with the building are not located
on" 'tical slopes,"
e feel that construction will not result in a loss of an esthetic resource, since the slopes in question are
man made "uncontrolled" fill and which have been created from fill dumped in this location as a means of
di sal. Bands of critical slope to the east of the building will remain undisturbed, The intent of Section
4.2 the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is that by limiting construction on 25% slopes, the potential
for eleterious effects of such construction may be avoided, We are requesting a waiver of Section 4,2.3.2,
sinc the strict application of Section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this Ordinance or therein serve
the ublic interest,
ith respect to the specific contents in the Ordinance as they relate to this project, my comments are as
s:
creased potential for soil erosion and Sedimentation,
The major portion of the site in the building area consists of uncontrolled fill earth which by its
very nature is susceptible to erosion. The building process will.~move this material and with proper
application and compaction of the material, a more stabilized condition will result. Slopes of up to 2:1
(50%) are standard in many types of construction. (2:1) slopes ar~ accepted as a maximum for erosion
control measures requiring embankments as found in the Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Handbook (1980), as well as in cut and fill slopes for Virginia Department of Transportation roadways,
The control of soil erosion and sedimentation is a primary concern for any development and the rec-
ommended measures need to be carefully installed and closely monitored for integrity, Pursuant to
County policies, erosion and sedimentation controls will be maint3.ined and bonded until stabilization
has been assured as determined by the Albemarle County Deparrnent of Engineering,
nmlu=m'O'mmrmnn:mnnmunnmnmnnnnmmrmmwmn:>>>
246 t High Street _ Charlottesville _ Vi~inia _ 22901 _ 804/979-1830 _ FAX 804/979,5681
I ATTACHMENT 0 II Page 21
Mr. lVilliam D. Fritz, Senior Planner
Cou ty of Albemarle
page 2
2,} !Vater Pollution,
From a design standpoint, this site is ideal for the proposed building design, since there exists a
man made pond adjacent to the building site. This pond is approximately an acre in area and has a
depth exceeding 20 feet, The pond is used for storage of water which is used : n the irrigation system
on the golf course. The natural runoff from the surrounding drainage area {which includes the pro-
posed building site}, is often inadequate to maintain a normal water level. Therefore, water is pumped
up from Ivy Creek to the pond {in accordance with Water Control Board regulations} to the pond,
Thus the control of the relative water level of the pond is flexible. As noted in the Virginia Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Handbook (1980), stonn water detention ponds are an effective means of con-
trolling water pollution, The increased potential for water pollution associated with steep slopes will
not be affected by the construction on the 25% slopes on this site,
I
I
I
I
3->FC Insposal Problems
As public water and sewer will be utilized, this concern is not applicable to this site,
4.} ~pid and large scale movement of soil and rock.
As mentioned above, much of the soils to be disturbed during construction are existing uncon-
trolled fill, The extent and location of the new grading will result in a 3:1 to 2:1 fill slope which should
not pose a problem with regard to large scale movement of soil and rock. The existing uncontrolled
fill slope bands greater than 25% by their very existence are more susceptible to large scale erosion, By
removing this fill and compacting a "controlled" fill there should be no problem with respect to large
scale soil and rock movement.
5,} gxcessive stonn water runoff.
There will be no additional quantities of runoff from the site into the adjacent detention pond,
While the area of impervious area will increase, sound engineering practices fo." handling runoff and
flowage can channel the runoff into the pond without causing erosion of soils, The existing detention
pond is more than adequate for containing the stonn water down stream from this site and the sur-
rounding drainage area, In fact, Fannington has to presently pump water up from Ivy creek { in accor-
dance with Water Control Board regulations} into the pond. Thus, there exists an overcapacity in the
pond, which can be regulated by the amount of additional water pumped.
nnrn...:"nnn:...n~~nr~nll'HK'W"ln~.~.Q':'~;'l':-:-r~;
2461~t High Street _ Charlottesville _ Virginia _ 22901 _ 804/979-1830 _ FAX 804/979-6681
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
~ounty of Albemarle
page 3
I ATTACHMENT D IIPage 31
6.) Loss of an esthetic resource,
, There is no esthetic resource in this case.
f;ection 4.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance provides for public protection from the adverse
~ffects of construction on 25% or greater slopes, Construction consistent with sound building design
I
jrnd engineering practices on this site will not exacerbate nor create the deleterious effects possible by
~onstruction on steeply sloping lands,
Waiver requests on critical control slopes have been supported previously in accordance with Section
4.2.5.11 which allows the Commission to grant a waiver provided that "such modification is consistent with
I
soun~ engineering and design practice and that the public intent and the intent of this section would be
servE/d to at least an equivalent degree by such a modification." The majority of 25% slopes being disturbed
cons~sts of uncontrolled fill dumped on the site over many years, Removal and or reconstitution of this ma-
teria~ is certainly a public benefit.
Ii trust I have addressed the concerns as outlined in the Ordinance, If you have any questions, or if I
may ~larify any of the issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.
I '
,
I
I
cc: F~lnnington Country Oub
I
. '5C"a'u~:'_:rn~:'~o;
246 t High Street . Charlotte8viUe . Vi~ia . 22901 . 804/979-1830 . FAX 804/979,5681
COUNTY OF AL=
.
I ATTACHMENT EI
.
.
PLANNING DEPT.
MEMORANDUM
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
Wayne A. Smith, Sr., Civil Engineer II >Id'
March 2, 1992
Farmington Indoor Sports Facility Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP-92-105)
following comments are not addressed:
1) Denote type of each manhole and number or letter each.
2) The entrance must be dimensioned and radii shown.
3) A 125 ft. minimum sight distance for the new entrnace is
required.
4) Sanitary sewer (same as note 1) - one manhole not shown and
none numbered or lettered.
In reference to the Waiver Request - Section 4.2 of Albemarle
Co nty Zoning Ordinance, Critical Slopes:
1) Increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation; the
applicant addressed this condition very well.
2) Water pollution; as addressed, the existing pond does have
to be filled, at times, by pumping from Ivy Creek in
accordance with the State Water Control Board regulations
which demonstrates that the drainage will be an effective
water pollution control.
3) Septic disposal - public water and sewer is to be used at
this site.
4) Rapid and large scale movement of soil and rock; most of the
soil to be removed. Approximately 70% is uncontrolled fill.
The applicant proposes removing the above and compacting a
controlled fill. There is no "large scale" movement soil
and rock.
5) Excessive stormwater runoff: The proposed design routes the
stormwater to the existing pond which will "improve" runoff.
6) Loss of esthetic resources: esthetic resource is not
effected at this proposed site.
o
ch 2, 1992
e Two
I ATTACHMENT E II Page 21
applicant has demonstrated both in design and the waiver
uest that sound engineering practices and public interest
cern have been addressed exceptionally well. After analyzing
t rational of this waiver request, this department supports
t is application.
any questions, please contact me.
I; it; Hi i F I,: j; I'!l!
II · ~ I ,II II I'.
! I!! I 'I II I! HI ~
f f Ii I Ii 11 :ll~ !
it 1,1 'I'! h II ~llli ~
- · i I' 1111 ,'2
II I I JlI : i II ~I i
, i 1/1 11Ii ,i "!Ii
II I' ,\" I ,i
I il'l Ii.
I I " I I I ;
! i !j :11 I !J
f ~ Ii I I i Ii
iI ! I I II
I; I i ~I'n m~ ~ ~~m
I ~)'l · s~.
g , ~i ~ ; <.
~ < I-i ~ ~ I
l!n!I!~limPI1! iHhqlilHHIV,fl
IU! I Ml - if f !/H!!Hff
"'1 ! I 1IIIIif' f
P ,1(\ I
Ii f ! iWJ
Il j'''.'''.' ! !F.i;~i IJi!'
II I : i II
[f1
tlJ r
t::J'
,
SH[:[ T TITLE
.'TIt. .....",,". <;()OH"'-"l ..,..,
~_.~.:...-~~-
l.lATl .........._('.&A,'.....L
R~:~~i~;{.;~;~~~7
INDOOR SPO~TS FACIL1T~
F-ARMI~~oTON COUNTRY CLUB
ALUEMARL~ COUNTY. VIRGINIA
PellT I Sheeran ALA
Aldlilt.tlure.&. Plann1ng.
22B bdllJ\:h Slreet
Otarldl~,'.'11e.v1rglnJa ")
I
[
I
,
I
I
I
I
1
~
!
!
I
~'
I,
I
t
r
I
I
,
r
!
~
~
~
:l>
-i
~
o
I
:::::
m
-.
L.
-i
..:t1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
March 25, 1992
Peter L. Sheeran, AlA
246 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SDP-92-005 Farmington Indoor Sports Facility
Preliminary site Plan
Tax Map 60E2, Parcell (part) and 2
Dear Mr. Sheeran:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
March 24, 1992, unanimously approved the above-noted
preliminary site plan. Please note that this approval is
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative
approvals for the following conditions have been
obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed
until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff
control permit;
e. Staff approval of final landscape plan;
f. Staff approval of plat combining parcels 1 and 2.
g. Staff approval of maintenance agreement for the
existing pond.
Peter Sheeran
Page 2
March 25, 1992
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until
the following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
In order to be eligible for administrative approval by the
agent, a final site development plan shall be submitted on a
submittal deadline with the appropriate fee within six (6)
months of Planning Commission approval of the preliminary
plan. In any case, the final site development plan shall be
submitted within one (1) year of the Planning Commission's
approval of the preliminary plan or the approval shall
expire.
During the above time period, the applicant shall work to
satisfy the conditions of preliminary site development plan
approval. The applicant shall have the appropriate agency
notify this Department in writing that the applicable
conditions have been met.
To obtain tentative approvals for the final site development
plan from the agencies represented on the Site Review
Committee, the applicant shall submit the appropriate plans
and materials to each agency, individually, for their
review. Once the plans have been tentatively approved by
each agency, the applicant shall have each agency notify the
Planning Department in writing, that tentative approval has
been secured.
Once tentative approvals are secured, the final plan shall
be submitted to this Department, as stated above. The final
plan mylar can be signed at the scheduled Site Review
Meeting if after staff review, the final plan meets all
ordinances and conditions of approval.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
/;/' /-'.. C:--
'/'/::t. "~--"'-'- ./ / ./'" --,-
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: ~ttie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Farmington Country Club
Jo Higgins
h:. .-.~ ..: '-" ....,.......: .; ".
I
Dept.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
of Planning & Community DeveloplT)~Dt ,
401 McIntire Road I,'.'
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
"\ ~ f..
March 12, 1992
Robert Lee Frazier
Rt. 1,Box 407
scottsvi1le, VA 24590
RE: SP-92-08 Robert Lee Frazier
Tax Map 114, Parcel 48
Dear Mr. Frazier:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
March 10, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing
and equipping or vehicles. No bodywork or
spray-painting of vehicles shall be permitted. No
gasoline sales or sale or rental or vehicles shall be
permitted;
2. All work shall be conducted within the existing garage;
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts and
junk cars. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in
appropriate containers;
4. Not more than two (2) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall
be parked on the property outdoors at any time and
these shall be located behind the garage;
5. Fire and Building Official approval;
Robert Lee Frazier
Page 2
March 11, 1992
6. Compliance with recommendations described in Virginia
Department of Transportation letter dated February 25,
1992, except for the last sentence;
7. Hours of operation shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00
p.m. on Saturday and no operation of the garage on
Sunday;
8. No employees.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on April 15. 1992.. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
, /
/ V~,(c";'/ .Lr'
william D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
STA2F PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
MARCH 10, 1992
APRIL 15, 1992
SP-92-08 ROBERT LEE FRAZIER
Petition: Robert Lee Frazier petitions the Board of
Supervisors to issue a special use permit to operate a
public garage [10.2.2(37)] on 2.0 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 114, Parcel 48, is
located on the east side of Route 795 approximately 0.4 mile
north of Route 727 in the scottsvil1e Magisterial District.
This site is not located within a designated growth area
(Rural Area 4).
Character of the Area: This site is currently developed
with a house and a two (2) bay garage. One house is visible
on adjacent property. All other properties are wooded. An
entrance on the south side of the property (the garage is on
the north side) is shared with a parcel located behind the
parcel under review (Attachment C) .
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to utilize
the existing garage as a public garage and to perform
general motor vehicle repairs. The applicant will have no
employees and he lives on-site. It is anticipated that a
majority of the repairs will be performed off-site.
However, the applicant wants the flexibility to bring
vehicles to the site to be repaired or have people bring
their vehicles to be repaired. A maximum of two (2)
vehicles will be waiting repair at any time. Hours of
operation will be 8-5 Monday through Friday and 8-1 on
Saturday.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordipance and recommends approval subject to conditions.
Planninq and Zoninq Historv:
January 19, 1973 - The plat creating this parcel was
approved.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is located in an area
designated as Rural Areas.
STAFF COMMENT:
In the past, staff has recommended that public garage uses
are generally more appropriate to designated growth areas of
the Comprehensive Plan than to random location in the rural
areas. In past reports for public garages, staff has stated
1
that commercial use of the property be evaluated in terms of
appropriateness to the Rural Areas. That is to say, a
determination should be made as to whether or not this
garage would provide service to the area otherwise not
conveniently available. This property is situated about
eleven miles south of the Urban Area of the Comprehensive
Plan and five miles north of scottsville. Staff is unaware
of any nearby garages located in the Rural Areas and the
nearest garages to this site are located in scottsvi1le.
other than this distance analysis, planning staff has no
method of determining if this area is adequately served.
Staff offers the following guidance to aid the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors in determining if this
area is adequately served.
1. The closest garage identified by staff is in
scottsvi1le which is approximately five miles to the
South.
2. Route 795 has 106 vehicle trips per day based on 1988
information.
Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with the
criteria for issuance of a special use permit (Section
31.2.4.1) and offers the following comments:
a. The qarage would not be of substantial detriment to
ad;acent property - In an attempt to make such uses
unobtrusive in rural locations, staff has in the past
recommended conditions that limit operations to
mechanical repair and service. Spray-painting, body
work, gasoline sales and sale/rental of vehicles should
be prohibited. Hours of operation should be limited.
The applicant does not propose any uses typically
restricted. The hours of operation are normal business
hours during the work week and limited on Saturday.
Any activity on-site should have no effect on adjacent
properties as they are vacant or sufficiently setback
from the garage.
b. the character of the district would not be changed by
the presence of the qarage
No new construction would be required to accommodate
the use. The use is to be restricted to two vehicles
awaiting repair at any time. The applicant intends to
perform a majority of the work off-site. Staff is
unable to determine the number of vehicle trips this
use will generate. However, the lack of employees will
effectively limit the number of vehicles that can be
2
repaired daily. These factors will limit the impact
the use has and, therefore, the character of the
district will not be changed.
c. The garaqe would be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the Zoninq Ordinance and with the uses
permitted by riqht in the district - A purpose of the
Zoning Ordinance is "to facilitate the creation of a
convenient, attractive, and harmonious community"
(Section 1.4.3). The Commission and Board should
consider whether the proposed conditions of approval
adequately accomplish this purpose.
staff can comment that this garage would provide
service to an area that has no identified garages
within five miles.
d. The garage would be consistent with the public health,
safety, and welfare
The property is currently served by two entrances and a
loop driveway. The southern entrance is shared. The
northern entrance is close to the garage and will
require improvements to achieve minimum sight distance.
The applicant stores all waste fluids and has already
been in contact with individuals and companies that
dispose of waste fluid. Staff opinion is that the
public health, safety and welfare will not be
negatively impacted by the garage.
Summary
Staff has identified the following factors which are
favorable to this request:
1. No construction will occur.
2. No employees are proposed which reduces the potential
volume of work done on site.
3. The applicant has stated his intent to perform a
majority of work off-site which will reduce the
potential volume of work done on-site.
4. No development exists in the area that would be
adversely affected by this use.
Staff has identified the following factor which is
unfavorable to this request:
1. Due to the location of the existing building, this use
will be visible from the state road.
3
staff op1n1on is that this use will have minimal impact due
to the following:
1. No employees.
2. Stated intent of the applicant to perform a majority of
the work off-site.
3. Vehicles awaiting repair is limited to two (2).
4. The applicant performs only light, general repairs.
The applicant is aware of proper methods of disposal for
waste materials and has already contacted individuals to
arrange for disposal of these materials. Based on the
limited on-site impact this use will have and the
applicant's provision for waste disposal, staff recommends
approval subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing
and equipping or vehicles. No bodywork or
spray-painting of vehicles shall be permitted. No
gasoline sales or sale or rental or vehicles shall be
permitted;
2. All work shall be conducted within the existing garage;
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts and
junk cars. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in
appropriate containers;
4. Not more than two (2) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall
be parked on the property outdoors at any tim~ and
these shall be located behind the garage;
5. Fire and Building Official approval;
6. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
commercial entrance;
7. Hours of operation shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00
p.m. on Saturday and no operation of the garage on
Sunday.
ATTACHMENTS:
A -Location Map
B -Tax Map
C -Plat of property
D -V DOT comment
4
~'"
[Q! !'"
., " f74TI
^~
~\'<-'/ '
0\'/ .
So;/ 'l> "
.'~ -~
,
.
IATTACHMENT A
\
~
<;l,
'J.I'
/0/
~j
~\~C'
.M . if
/' .-<....#
''I'
~(0
.t
,/
;/
@
~~:..
-?'
?
,,/'
..
,Y
,'"
,
~/
<f>/y'/
Y'
,
....
.J>"
'<
~
~~
",q;
<f"
.,.
~
~
~
.,:)
"
<<
ALBEMARLF
IATTACHMENT 8:
113
115
SEE
u3.11
..'1'11
.. II
.11
)
-f
( ,/
Vr-
/
I
1
10
SCALE IN "EET
. ,
SCOTTSVI LLE DISTRICT
SECTION 114
:~!... i ; '( F'u' 'I: j: rlG CG:tlrA IS:; 10 ~
!Jut-He
---~ CHI\;i1!J~/Il
/-/4-73
DATE
-c
I ATTACHMENT C I
CEiHI FI CATIO~l
OHNEfl'S APPROVAL:
TIll:;; IS A COR::!ECT A:tD ACCU~~TE
PL/.T.
THI:; Ol',/ISIO:I OF LAtlO IS WITII THE FREE CO~ISENT OF THE
__ ~____l 0'. !:h.tS-.<:
- - <Joe:-
UtlOERS ICoNED ~,{NERS. PRCT-RIETC~ MID/C.'l TRUSTEES.
~,~-4-, ~.t-'-
I \ ~ \
. \ \~
t \ ....
".i!'" ~
,aV!'"
~.! ,_. ~t.. ~","
;r'..;;z.
..I
Iq~ (\
Cf) Cl'\ ~ \.J
~~
~CQ ~
,-a 4..l
~
Q:
~
t~i,..
.., " ~_C.'"
~... .."",. .,a
, ..}>.....
~ 'fP
'\- lel
.:e. "t-
oe.l ~
~
l
:~
';if
V /C/.,C// r y Sk'E7~
\~ ~1
ti f.
'v <<-v
tI.
Q'
~
Ie)
\$.
Ie)
~
.
r-...
II)
II)
\
\
\
\
\
I
f"\ "~
,""l \J ~ : ~
() <\ ~~;~
I:) ~ J"",>;-
r-... ~ Q <:l'Il)"'l
It) g C\J ~ ~
c( I 5",09 J.
~ 205,5,' I~~ .~
~ _ .v.;.a'Z7 23 -, 01
. - - R-r.s., \ -- ,--,,>-.9 ~
~S S-r~~ - - ~'f6-;-R/v./ -I ".s- ~
No"~: A C..."ss ~,.""t- ~,t:' ? ..:: <;?"" '.
pq,rce{ 'D" p""'-6~rr "'::"'>..s "-
L/,l.le 13 .i?S' FR"""" <1'"
~ at'" R7-'O, 7~S- ......
< 9S
, \V' p/i
.". e8
\- 6,1
Q'
,= ~""'" 7' .s.,..,-o......... __A./ G
..PARCEL COO COA/TA/AJ/A./G 2,38Ac. <j! PARCEL '0"
COA/TA/A//A/G 2.0 Ac. LOCATED O.A.../ .sOUTH S/DE
Or-STATE ROUTE 7.95 ABOVT O,4HI. /t./E. o"c
BLE.A../HE/M A>>.o B.E/A./G TNE RE~A/"(/L:JER OF
LAA./.o PARCEL 48 SHEET //4-
SCA"-e: /":.200' A/.b(!h"]<n'/e Countfy,.l V"~/:n/Q.. JQ~, /973
FRMH<
c:....., T~.:i :l)
1\, GREG G
~:"IU ~U~'.'el"~a
:'_~.. C) ~~~
I !
I
I ATTACHMENT D I
Page 3
February 25, 1992
Mr. Rpnald S. Keeler
Speci~l Use Permits & Rezonings
I
I
I
I
I
7. SP-92-08 Robert Lee Frazier, Route 795 - This section of Route 795 is currently
non-tolerable. This request is to operate a public garage which would result in
some increase in traffic. The existing gravel driveway in front of the building
that ould appear to serve as the garage does not have adequate sight distance. A
mlnl m of 350' of sight distance is required and there is only 200' of sight
distapce to the north, 300' of sight distance for a vehicle turning left into the
entrance and 325' of sight distance to the south. To obtain adequate sight distance
in bolth directions would require clearing, possibly some grading and removal of
vege~ation as well as sight easements. The Department also recommends that the
access be upgraded to commercial standards, which would include widening and hard
surf cing.
Sincerely,
~a- c:J~
J.A. Echols
Assistant Resident Engineer
JAE/~dw
I
I
I
cc: IR. T,J. Hofrichter
I
I
I
I
Ie. Semi: ",1-/0 - 9.4
1 :'.,' ;':-. 9.;J. tJfl s'~ q;;-
~" ~",il, '\~_" __.__~~.,._ ___~.,......,...--.,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ,
Dep!. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
April 8, 1992
David L. & Mary J. Spradlin
Rt. 1, Box 532W
scot~svi11e, VA 24590
RE: SP-92-10 David & Mary Spradlin
Tax Map 104, Parcel 14F1
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Spradlin:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
April 7, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following conditions shall be met within sixty (60)
days of Board of Supervisors approval of this petition
or this special use permit shall be referred to the
Board of Supervisors for revocation in accordance with
section 31.2.4.4 of the zoning ordinance:
a. The mobile home shall be relocated to an area
behind the rear wall plane of the garage building
in such manner that a portion of the mobile home
shall be within fifty (50) feet of the garage
building while maintaining setback and yard
requirements specified for the Rural Area zone;
b. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
c. Virginia Department of Health approval of well and
septic system;
2. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base
of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30)
days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
David L. & Mary J. Spradlin
Page 2
April 8, 1992
3. The mobile home shall be occupied only by the family of
David and Mary Spradlin.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on April 15. 1992. Any new or
additional information regarding your application must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~Uv---
Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
RSK/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
or this special use permit shall be referred to the
Board of Supervisors for revocation in accordance with
Section 31.2.4.4 of the zoning ordinance:
a. The mobile home shall be relocated to an area
behind the rear wall plane of the garage building
in such manner that a portion of the mobile home
shall be within fifty (50) feet of the garage
building while maintaining setback and yard
requirements specified for the Rural Area zone;
b. Albemarle county Building Official approval;
c. Virginia Department of Health approval of well and
septic system;
2. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base
of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30)
days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
3. The mobile home shall be occupied only by the family of
David and Mary Spradlin.
2
... -
I'
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RONALD S. KEELER
APRIL 7, 1992
APRIL 15, 1992
SP-92-10 DAVID & MARY SPRADLIN:
Petition: David and Mary Spradlin petition the Board of
Supervisors to issue a special use permit to allow an
existing single-wide MOBILE HOME [10.2.2.10} to remain on
7.514 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as
Tax Map 104, Parcel 14F1, is located on the north side of
Rt. 620 approximately 1.6 miles south of Rt. 795 in the
scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located
in a designated growth area (RA4).
Backqround: Attachment A is a report from the Zoning
Department. Normally, a petition is not processed if an
unrelated zoning violation exists on a property. In this
case, other possible continued violation remains before the
court and, therefore, the County Attorney recommends normal
processing of this petition.
Character of the Area: This property is developed with a
single-family dwelling, accessory building, a former
automobile repair garage (special use permit revoked), and a
single-wide mobile home (subject to this special use
permit). Zoning Department records show seven (7) other
mobile homes within a one-mile radius of this site
(Attachment B).
staff Comment: The current location of the mobile home does
not comply with yard requirements of the Rural Area zone.
The applicant has stated that the mobile home would be
relocated to an area behind the garage building and would be
connected to the well and septic system installed for the
garage (the well and septic system should be evaluated for
adequacy by the Virginia Department of Health and upgraded,
if appropriate). In this location, the mobile home would be
visible from another mobile home.
The applicant has stated that the mobile home would be
occupied by his brother. Two letters have been received in
regard to this petition (Attachment C). Should the
Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff
recommends the following conditions:
1. The following conditions shall be met within sixty (60)
days of Board of Supervisors approval of this petition
1
c .
IATTACHM:::NT Allpage 11
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
to:
ItROM:
~ATE:
filE:
,
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning
David R. Hensley, Zoning Inspector~~~~
March 31, 1992
SP-92-10; David and Mary Jean Spradlin, Single-Wide Mobile
Home on Property Known as Tax Map 104, Parcel 14F1
'On September 9, 1991, I received a complaint on the above
referenced property. The complaint referenced three (3) mobile
:homes, two uninhabitable and the third being used as a dwelling
: set up within a few feet of ~ fifty (50) foot right-of-way. I
'researched real estate records and zoning files and determined
: that no special permit, replacement permit, or building permit has
. ever been issued for a mobile home on this property.
:On September 10, 1991, Tom Eaton and I visited the site and
: confirmed the complainant's allegations. There were indeed three
: mobile homes on the property. The mobile home set up as a
I dwelling appeared to be approximately 3 feet from a fifty (50)
, foot right-of-way, and the other two were uninhabitable.
On October 7, 1991, which visiting the site on another matter, I
spoke with Mr. Spradlin about the mobile homes. He said the one
'being occupied had been there "about three years", and the other
: two were used for storage. He also felt he had obtained proper
: approvals for the occupied mobile home.
'On November 13, 1991, Official Determination of violation letter,
V-91-59/DH was mailed. sections cited were 5.6 and 31.2.4, mobile
homes without a special permit; 31.2.1 and 31.2.2, mobile homes
without a building permit; and 31.2.3, occupying without a
certificate of occupancy.
On December 2, 1991, Mr. and Mrs. Spradlin came to the Zoning
Department to find out what they needed to do to keep the "rental"
mobile home. I explained the procedure for a special use permit,
and told them the mobile home needed to be moved to meet yard
. requirements, or they would need to apply for a variance. They
: have agreed to remove the uninhabitable mobile homes. A
: compliance schedule is under discussion.
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ATTACHMENT AI\Page 21
Memo to Ron Keeler
March 31, 1992
Page 2
.On February 21, 1992, Mr. Spradlin applied for a special use
permit for a single-wide mobile home. He believed the mobile home
would meet the yard requirements where it was, and I disagreed. We
agreed to meet on site at a later date to see if we could
: determine where the property line was in relation to the mobile
,home.
:On March 2, 1992, Tom Eaton and I met Mr. Spradlin on site. He was
: unable to show us a corner iron to confirm the location of a
:property line. He agreed to either have a surveyor locate the
irons, or relocate the mobile home to meet the yard requirements.
He did not chose to seek a variance.
DH/st
,cc: Reading File
IATTACHMENT 81 ,
'\
\
'-........
~Location of mobile homes
within a one mile radius
of the subject property
/
./
~I
I ATTACHMENT C IIPage 11
~. - ':: :: ~ '
" . ..' -~.J1 '~T'~:)
.~.j/
~,:, t992
M~1
Albemarle County Zoning Department
491 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
"..\,:-~..,;"" '~-:'.(;'L~~'1~T{
2'Cr>~,~t.~:{;: ;::; ;:~?{.,~:r~;'trcE~rr
Attn: A. M. Patterson
RE: SP-92-10 David L. & Mary Spradlin
Tax Map 104, Parcel 14F1
D~ar Ms. Patterson:
As an adjoining property owner, I wish to submit a complaint
c~ncerning the above referenced mobile home location. The mobile
h~me is located too close to my prop~rty line.
Sincerely,
Edgar E. Melton
R~. 1, Box 533B
seottsville, VA 24590
~'T e:.
'-0 "c ~ :t: -t ~ A;,,' · ~ \\.) ~ e. ,'\:):.
~ '\ S L e... ~e.." ',~ '\ \\..)
c-
\~7e.,e."::'~
I ATTACHMENT C Ilpage 21
o.s;;- A- ~O\...;) I. ~
,,"-C- \-\', ~ 11,1\'\ \ e... ~=" b A V', ~ L,,~ 4-IU.l ::r~" "" ~ \" (' "T u<l, \; "" .
~ 'I ~ '-' 6 6 """ ~ f't N d:t. Pr .. "'-- A-~ ,.,;, ""'S-t ~ i :s
b e.C.A cPSe. C>~ "" ~ S Q..c, \:) due-\- '" '? L Pc ~~.\ i . \-\, A tV J.,
I
~\s. S ,?'\'Aud \ \\'0 ~ AUe., 'o-ee.o \->c-\-e.<l \-So-\- -\-6
I
~ D \ I <:t> '-'-" ~ e. \ A l.0 S U "- \-, "'-S I .. \ \ e'1; ..,. \ ~""-\ ~ \ ; >-:>~)
"" \'0 d Cl" e." """" " i-.Oq ,,~ " \ \ e. '" l \
· <:I ~ A- 6A \J ~€.- \1 A-,.j;
~ .e-\~ J;::'or~ I '-D e... !\;' ~\ '*'.4+ N r '" \-:><l \-.I. r '" .' , .
'-D \ \ l \.:Ie,-\- f\;'~;Id.",,- 10. ~ L -s. ..;) t' r A, \.J:i I, \U
' , '\ ~ 4- ~ n. ~_ l\. ,
-..i:... A I '---"'-J '''-I ~e.. r \....) '\ \\ '"
f\; --', '\" \ \ ~.. ~ ~" N. I-\;; . "-' ~
~^'~'t\ v
\0'0)
~~,~.~
-=r: '\'~~y~/ ~/Co~~ ~~1/
/C/ / ,,/
e:~,,\d. j. 00 ( ,.
c:i, \, \l \ -'\ A
~ !?" ~ 1'?'" ; l ;~ r:=' r-<i
~ r~ ~::/' ~~~1J;,~ \.~: :;'
\U~:.1 19S~
. ~ ,.'. I ;. ,-rv
10 I ~~l-~,:~-:.."" .'.": L. ,. ~~....h...U'& i l
~\..~t_~\NI'"\t\_.._ "'$ rr
"t..;~\c l;k". .':l"" Oi:PARW~ .
LV)',l~
,.-
'''Te:::.
W '" c ~ =r= + ~ f\. i ~ t\..) Q... '€- ~'-J:'
'. .
'\r,. ; 5 L "- -\\ e.,,', '" ',,,,, {' <:-~ e.. <:'=e, 0 ~ ~ ~OL>" ~
""'-C'I--I.l\- II,,," \er ~C>('" b",v'\~ L e~ -+~d. ::Je.",,,,, S'?">'h'ct\;"".
I
N 'I 'n '-' 6 b '" \0 A f\ N d.::t. f\- ""'- A-~ "'... """,,* ~ \ :s
b e.c..,oJ LlSe. M \--, ~ S <LM" ~\.lc.-\- ., '? L A--\-~ \ '\' \-\ (' A,;t0.t
I
I
I
I
~\Sl ~~"ALld \ \\'\) \-I AVe.. bee.o ~c>-\-e.<l l0a-\- -\-0
I
I
~o\~o~ ~ \1\- .s \ '\
i e. L0 L) l!.-" "'-S, \ \ e,\ '^<- \ ~ '" '-\ \;, \; ~~)
'" "" 1- a,\, "-P. Ac-\ 1 40q A ~ " \ \ e.<< "'-l \
: <:! ~ -SA, v~~ \1 A-,.j;
~ ""-f<2.. .\='''' ('" e. I \..0 ~ -\;' "-<<-\ ~A+ N, '" "'<1. I, ,
' l\ 1'-\'S. S\=,rAull'
IJ..::> \ : ~6-\- A-&',ct.e. ~ '\ %<=.. L 'lU
: 'I A.- '-'.:) ~ "" Q.. ,
.-A- +\ \A ~ \ ~r- ~ ' -\ .1' . ... .<::?...t;':":~. )'. \\:)~
", '~", \, .. ,
I ~"-'\. . ,
I '_.. ._ ... .
~ \/ b'();':,. :J U .'~ :,: '.
^' ~ \\ '{ D\:)
)
~~. ~~
"I ,~\-O~, ~ ~D '\>\'jt.
"oy~ ( (0(L~
~~ \" J. ~ \ I ( . "
, -J. \lD~\\l\1A,
1:~ ! ,)~ ,)
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
, ,
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
REC~IVE'
MAR 11 t992
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
~~tNG DEPARTMENT
;".,'j .....+..~
_..__~, .......-....c-
.;-
~::.
/-
il I
~
. -
flr:t I
D ~TE Is. / 1q z
I
A t;ENDA ITEM NO. q/.t1ql/~ 2r~
A t;ENDA ITEM NAME CJP ;J~c ~
D ~ UNTIL '~ It) /1 "/ Z- J
( /h a/;llz;n~ )
,/
Form. 3
7/25/86
, '.
I
,(.
"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
PROPOSED FY 92-93
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
Regional Jail Expansion and Renovation
County Office Building Annex/PBX Replacement
Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Dept.lClinic Wing
Juvenile and Domestic Court Repair & Painting
County Computer Upgrade
ADMINISTRATION/COURTS TOTAL
EDUCATION
Flashing School Zone Signs
Greer Elementary Walls
Underground Storage Tanks Replacement
New Middle School Facility
Broadus Wood Expansion
Stony Point - Phase II
Energy Maintenance Management Systems
Wood brook Elementary HV AC
Fire Alarm Replacement
Stone Robinson- Water Line Installation
Burley Middle School Phase II
Jouett Middle School- HVAC
Henley Middle School Masonary Repair & HVAC Replace
Burley Middle School Roof Replacement
EDUCATION TOTAL
FIRE, RESCUE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Dept Satelite Receiver Addition
Air Utility Truck Replacement
Volunteer Firefighters Advance Allocation Fund
FIRE/RESCUE/PUBLIC SAFETY
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
Revenue Sharing Road Projects
Barracks Road Sidewalk
Ivy Road Corridor Study
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
LIBRARIES
Northside Branch Additional BookslMaterials
PARKS AND RECREATION
Albemarle High School Tennis Court Lighting
Urban Area Elementary School Recreation Improvements
Scottsville Community Center Maintenance/Replacement
Whitewood Road Park Improvements
PARKS AND RECREATION TOTAL
UTILmESlSTORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
County Master Drainage Plan
Lynchburg Road Storm Sewer Improvements
Windham/Jarman Gap Road Channel Improvements
Keene Landfill Closure
UTILmESlSTORMWATER TOTAL
TOTAL FY 92-93 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
PROPOSED REVENUES FY 92-93
General Fund Appropriation
Fire/Rescue Repayments
CIP Fund Balance
Borrowed Funds (Virgina Public School Authority Bonds)
Interest Earned
Miscellaneous Revenues
TOTAL FY 92-93 PROPOSED REVENUES
373,100
295,000
47,500
18,078
84.000
817,678
28,000
58,000
87,300
447,000 -
460,000 -
25,000
82,000
250,000
110,000
50,000
75,000
24,000
64,000
25.000
1,785,300
+
1-#t 1~~~'
'l~~
_ ~I-i rub
56,900
30,000
250.000
336.900 '..).. r,v<. ~,
t J~ ~ "....k
500,000 - 'Dc1')\. , ~r~
11,000
15,000
526,000
54.600
75,000
40,000
8,000
20.000
143,000
90,000
9,500
28,526
500.000
628,026
$4,291,504
1.388,315 -
23,000
738,775 ~A
_ NwJ r-''''' ~
1,710.300
274,114
157.000
$4,291.504
\ ,
tf:/I)_'7' .2.-
'.' 9;.'{ e,"31 (;. -3_9.1
.'
;.i' !!
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
( d. i'
; \
~ ~ "
""'.-' '..,..
MEMORANDUM HJ:. i~) \i
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
of Supervisors
County Executive~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Albemarle County Board
April 9, 1992
RE: Sheriff's Department FY 93 Personnel Requests
the proposed FY 93 budget, funds are available to provide a
rt-time transport officer ($12,000) using existing vehicles to
rform evening and weekend transports to mental facilities and
her prisoner transports currently performed by the Police
partment after 9: 00 p. m. on weekdays and during the entire
ekend period. Police Department personnel indicate that they
lieve this part-time position can sufficiently handle this load.
I
F!ndS are also proposed in next year's budget for 50% of a
B iliff's position in Juvenile Court which could be hired in
J nuary, 1993. This money ($14,000 operating and capital) was
c ntingent upon the City funding their share. At City Council's
f na1 worksession on their FY 93 budget, they declined to fund
t eir share of this position. Presently, the City funds 50% of the
e tire salary, fringes, and operating costs excluding capital for
t e locally funded position and 50% of the fringe benefits and
o her operating costs of a state funded position. This was done by
a reement of the City and County Sheriff to permit the County
S eriff to be responsible for all manpower and scheduling in
Juvenile Court.
I
I
I. . .
I~ dlScusslons that staff has had wlth Judge Shannon, she has
i~dicated that the City will be responsible for transporting city
jlveniles if Sheriff Hawkins chooses to no longer perform this
s rvice. The meeting mentioned by Sheriff Hawkins with Judge
S annon on April 24 has nothing to do with City funding of
a ditional personnel since City Council has not included any
a ditional money for the request but rather is being held at the
S~eriff's request to discuss this issue with all parties involved.
I
I
A~though Sheriff Hawkins has requested that a full time position
w}th a car be authorized in order to free up another deputy, his
m.npower requirements are unclear at this time to justify the
.
Aibemarle County Board of
A ril 9, 1992
R: Sheriff's Department
P ge 2
Supervisors
FY 93 Personnel Requests
r quest. Staff recommends that the funds in the FY 93 budget for
t e County's share of the bailiff be placed in the Board's budget
c ntingency and that a manpower allocation analysis be conducted
d ring the coming fiscal year by either in-house staff or the
D partment of Criminal Justice Services to determine the optimum
a location of resources to help both the Police Department and the
S eriff's Department. The allocation of funds for the bailiff
c uld then be shifted from the contingency fund at the Board's
d scretion following the presentation and review of the analysis.
I
I
I
Rtr,Jr/dbm
9~.075
......-
. .
Edward H. Sa; . Jr
Samuel Mille
David P. Sowe man
Charlottesvill
, l
.. '!
; P
iW
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
While Hall
Melvin Breeden, Director Of~e
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC
E: April 16, 1992
JECT: Board Actions of April 15, 1992
At the Board of Supervisors meeting on April 15, 1992, the
Board appropriated an additional $3113 from its Contingency
Reserve to MACAA to bring MACAA's budget to its requested funding
le el of $40,283.
The Board adopted the attached resolution to approve the
rations budget for the County for FY 92-93.
The Board also adopted the attached resolution setting the
rates for 1992.
L :ec
achments (2)
cc: Roxanne White
Richard E. Huff, II
I
'.
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
C unty, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable
y ar 1992 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72)
o every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars
a d Thirty Cents ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Thirty
C nts ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value
of machinery and tools; at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One
H ndred Dollars worth of assessed value on mobile homes; and at
S venty-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of public service assessments; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle
C unty assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all
t xable personal property, including machinery and tools not
assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing
b siness, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public
Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads
b sed upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission
a d certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location
a d valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five
tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as
mo ile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except
farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as
set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through
Section 58.1-3508.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
wr"ting is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the
Bo rd of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a reguiar
me ting held on April 15, 1992.
c~~u~ty
1
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
Cqunty, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the
F~scal Year beginning July 1, 1992, be approved as follows:
General Government Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Development
Parks, Recreation and Culture
Community Development
County/City Revenue Sharing
Refunds
Capital Improvements
Contingency Reserve
Education - Debt Service
Education - Operations
Total
$ 3,845,643
1,272,681
6,448,216
1,692,592
4,023,923
2,541,908
1,727,374
3,426,000
56,000
1,000,000
97,414
5,195,385
59,141,120
$90,468,256
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
meeting held on April 15 199~ . ~
Clerk, Board of C nty Superv1sors