HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-03-18 (2)
T
FIN A L
7:00 P.M.
March 18, 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 back of sheet).
6) SP-91-57. First Gold Leaf Land Trust/United Land Company. P1I"hlie
Heariftg-oft-a-re~~est-for-o~~oor-a~~}ay-&-sterage-of-a~tes-oft-i6-ae
zoftea - H € -afta - E€ ':' - - Pro~erty-oft - E-sitie-of- R t-29 -a~~rox-e,:,2 -mi- S -of
:mters -of- R t-29f €arrserook - Br,:, -!fM46, Pi H, i i iA&HiB ':' - €n.arlottesviHe
B~h - - f!f~ -~ro~erty- H:es-:m -a- grOWHi -area,:, t - - f Beferrea -from- Be-
eemeer-i8,-i99ht (Defer to May 20, 1992)
7) Benton Downer: Request concerning septic system problem on property
at the corner of Routes 250 and 240 where The Galerie Restaurant
was located (Deferred from January 15 and February 19, 1992).
8) SP-91-55. Charles & Shelvie Morris. Public Hearing on a request for a
single-wide mobile home on 17.0 acs zoned RA. Property on NE side
of Rt 608 approx 1.4 mi NW inters of Rts 645/608. TM36,P41&41B.
Rivanna Dist.
9) ZMA -91-10. Holly Memorial Gardens, Inc. Public Hearing on a request to
rezone 6.75 acs from R-1 to C-1. Property on E side of Rt 29
approx 2/10 mi S of Timberwood Blvd. TM32,P42G. Site is in EC
District. Site shown in the Comprehensive Plan in the community of
Hollymead for Community Service. Rivanna Dist.
10) ZMA-91-13. Woodbriar Associates. Public Hearing on a request to update
& amend conditions of existing PRD to allow use of pvt rds & to
revise Application Plan to show areas for future townhouse develop-
ment in Briarwood. Property on W side of Rt 29N approx 1 mi N of
North Fork Rivanna River is zoned PRD. Property located in Piney
Mountain Village is recommended for medium density residential (5-10
du/ac). TM32G, P1&TM32G,PA,Sec3. Rivanna Dist.
11) SP-92-04. Robert & Doris Oliphant. Public Hearing on a request for a
single-wide mobile home on 5.0 acs zoned RA located on E side of Rt
640 approx 3/4 mi N of Rt 20. TM48,P77A. Rivanna Dist.
12) PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 7,
Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Code of Albemarle, to
comply with changes in the Code of Virginia, Title 10, Chapter 5,
Article 4, Section 10.1-560-571 and to conform to the recently adopt-
ed fee schedule.
13) Discussion: Fiscal Policy Committee.
14) Approval of Minutes: June 12, September 4, September 11 and Octo-
ber 16, 1991.
15) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
16) Adjourn to March 23, 1992, at 1:00 P.M.
r
CON S E N T
AGE N D A
FOR INFORMATION:
5.1 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 11 and March 3, 1992.
5.2 Memorandum dated March 9, 1992, from Leonard Walker, concerning the
next Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day.
5.3 Letter dated March 9, 1992, from Secretary John F. Milliken re:
Millington Bridge project.
5.4 Supts. Memo No.5 dated March 11, 1992, from Joseph A. Spagnolo, Jr.,
Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Vincent C. Cibbarelli, Deputy
Superintendent for Administrative Services, State Department of Educa-
tion, entitled "Aid to Localities Appropriation, 1991-92 Report on General
Assembly Actions Affecting 1991-92 Budgets (HB/SB 31)."
5.5 Supts. Memo No.6 dated March 11, 1992, from Joseph A. Spagnolo, Jr.,
Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Vincent C. Cibbarelli, Deputy
Superintendent for .Administrative Services, State Department of Educa-
tion, entitled "Aid to Localities Appropriation, 1992-94 Biennium."
5.6 Letter dated February 27, 1992, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner,
Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that certain sections of
Route 606 were abandoned and new sections added to the State Secondary
System effective February 21, 1992.
5.7 Memorandum dated March 10, 1992, from V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development entitled "Comprehensive Plan Amend-
ment Proposal, Towers Land Trust."
5.8 Letter dated March 11, 1992, from Secretary John G. Milliken re: up-
coming preallocation hearings of the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
5.9 ZMA -89-23. River Heights Associates - Status of Proffers.
FOR APPROVAL:
5.10 Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board from the Finance
Department, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the
Month of February, 1992.
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
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.
ScOllsville
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charles S Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouell
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
March 24, 1992
Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta
Route 18, Box 19
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Dr. Iachetta:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on March 18, 1992,
you were recommended for reappointment to the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for another two
year term beginning May 1, 1992. Since this appointment is made
jointly with the City, it is subject to confirmation by the City.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to
continue serving the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
@4~~
David P. Bowerman
Chairman
DPB/ec
cc: Alvin Edwards
James L. Camblos, III
Edward H. Barn, Jr.
Samuel Miller
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. Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charles S Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
March 24, 1992
Mr. John K. Plantz
Route 3, Box 37GB
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Plantz:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on March 18, 1992,
you were appointed to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, with said
term to expire on March 31, 1993.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity
to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve
the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
uJ;(~,,-
David P. Bowerman
Chairman
DPB/ec
cc: Gordon Walker
James L. Camblos, III
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Samuel Miller
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. Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte y, Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Deve~opment
FROM:
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
i ~ f.l,,-<I
f'
DATE: March 19, 1992
SUBJECT: Board Actions of March 18, 1992
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting on March 18 (night), 1992, the follow-
ing actions were taken:
Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC.
Mr. Randy Layman spoke on behalf of the waste haulers and expressed concern
about the proposed 40 percent increase in tipping fees at the landfill. He
asked that the Board consider paying for the increase using funds from general
revenue. The Board requested that Mr. Layman be notified of the presentation to
be made by George Williams at the April 1 meeting. It was also suggested that
an explanation be provided of the line item costs in the Joyce Engineering
report.
Agenda Item No.6. SP-91-57. First Gold Leaf Land Trust/United Land
Company. DEFERRED to July 15, 1992. (6/0 vote)
Agenda Item No.7. Benton Downer: Request concerning septic system pro-
blem on property at the corner of Routes 250 and 240 where The Galerie Restau-
rant was located (Deferred from January 15 and February 19, 1992). DEFERRED to
June 17, 1992. (6/0 vote)
Agenda Item No.8. SP-91-55. Charles & Shelvie Morris. Public Hearing on
a request for a single-wide mobile home on 17.0 acs zoned RA. Property on NE
side of Rt 608 approx 1.4 mi NW inters of Rts 645/608. TM36,P41&41B. Rivanna
Dist. APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
Memo To:
Date:
Page 2
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
March 19, 1992
1.
Albemarle County Building Official approval;
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.
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and
approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of
Health, if applicable under current regulations;
4.
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screen-
ing to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good
condition and replaced if it should die; and
5.
The mobile home shall be occupied only by Charles and Shelvie
Morris or their family.
(5/1 vote)
Agenda Item No.9. ZMA-91-10. Holly Memorial Gardens, Inc. Public Hear-
ing on a request to rezone 6.75 acs from R-1 to C-1. Property on E side of Rt
29 approx 2/10 mi S of Timberwood Blvd. TM32,P42G. Site is in EC District.
Site shown in the Comprehensive Plan in the community of Hollymead for Community
Service. Rivanna Dist. APPROVED as proffered in letter dated January 27, 1992,
addressed to Hr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, Albemarle County Planning Depart-
ment, from lfr. J. Thomas Gale, L.S., Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc., and as
amended at the Board meeting on March 18, 1992, to include the word "landscaped"
and verbally agreed to by the applicant, and set out below:
1. A fifty foot (50') landscaped buffer zone along the residential
portion of Forest Lakes adjoining TMP 32-42G.
2. A restriction of 430 vehicle trips per day per acre for any
allowed use of the property with the C-1 Zoning classification.
(6/0 vote)
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-91-13. Woodbriar Associates. Public Hearing on a
request to update & amend conditions of existing PRD to allow use of pvt rds &
to revise Application Plan to show areas for future townhouse development in
Briarwood. Property on W side of Rt 29N approx 1 mi N of North Fork Rivanna
River is zoned PRD. Property located in Piney Mountain Village is recommended
for medium density residential (5-10 du/ac). TM32G, P1&TM32G,PA,Sec3. Rivanna
Dist. APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
March 19, 1992
Date:
Page 3
1.
Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings subject to condi-
tions contained herein. Locations and acreages of various land
uses shall comply with the approved plan. In the final site
plan and subdivision process open space shall be dedicated in
proportion to the number of lots approved. Primary recreation
areas to be owned and maintained through a homeowners associa-
tion approved by the County Attorney. Off-street parking and
access shall be limited to the recreational area shown on the
Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan revised
February 7, 1992, and the means to limit such access shall be
part of the site plan review;
2. No grading permit or building permit shall be issued in any
area until final site plan and subdivision approval for that
area has been obtained;
3. Albemarle County Service Authority verification of adequate
sewer capacity owned by Woodbriar Associates and allocated to
serve the Briarwood development before approval of each phase;
4. All road plan and entrance plan approval shall be obtained
prior to any final site plan or subdivision approval. All
roads shall be designed and constructed to Virginia Department
of Transportation specifications and dedicated for acceptance
into the State Secondary Road System except the private roads
shown on the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing
Plan with a (PR) label;
5. No grading or construction on slopes of 25 percent or greater
except as is necessary for road construction as approved by the
County Engineer. Any lot which is unbuildable due to slope
shall be combined with a buildable lot and/or added to common
open space subject to Planning Commission approval;
6. Fire Official approval of fire protection system including, but
not limited to: fire flow rates, hydrant locations, and
emergency access provisions. Such system shall be provided
prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy in the area
to be served;
7. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plans for water
lines, sewer lines, pumping station and manholes and appurta-
nances which are to be constructed at the expense of the
developer;
8. Staff approval of recreational facilities to include: one tot
lot with phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase 1B; the dedication
of open space with the approval of Phases 4 and 5 for the
passive recreation area which shall include construction of
walking/jogging trails; and, the primary recreation area south
Date:
Page 4
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
March 19, 1992
Memo To:
of Camelot shall be built or bonded for its construction prior
to final plat approval for Phase 6. This recreation area shall
be built prior to completion of Phase 6 and shall consist of a
baseball/multi-purpose field, two basketball courts, playground
equipment and picnic facilities. All recreation facilities
shall be installed by the developer;
9. Sidewalks shall be provided along the southerly side of Austin
Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and along the
westerly side of the entire length of Briarwood Drive;
10. County Attorney approval of amended Homeowners' Association
agreements prior to final approval of Phase 1B or 3C to include
provision for maintenance of the private roads, such mainte-
nance shall be the responsibility of the homeowners in Phases
1B and 3C, respectively;
11. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, pedestrian ways,
recreation areas, roads and other improvements are to be
located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its
natural state;
12. No more than two phases shall be under simultaneous develop-
ment, the development shall proceed in the following order:
Phase 3A, 3B, 3C, the completion of Phase 7, lA, 1B, 4, 5, 6
and 8.
13. Lots along Camelot Drive and st. Ives Road are to be developed
with single-family detached dwellings and shall have a minimum
lot width of 65 feet. All other lots shall be developed with
single-family attached units including townhouses in Phases 1B
and 3C;
14. Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for its entire length
from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final plat approval
for Phase 1A. Briarwood Drive shall be completed to its
intersection with Route 29 prior to approval of Phase lB. The
eastern portion of Briarwood Drive through the commercial area
shall be designed to Category VI standards with a four-lane
cross-section;
15. The mix of dwelling unit types shall be as shown on the Briar-
wood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan;
16. Site plan approvals for Phases 4 and beyond shall be contingent
upon evidence that dwelling units in the earlier phases have
substantially met the County's goals and the developers'
assurances that moderate income housing has been provided;
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
March 19, 1992
Date:
Page 5
17. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Section
32.7.9.8 along the front of townhouse units which constitute
double frontage lots; and
18. Administrative approval of future site plans and plats to be in
accordance with the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and
Phasing Plan provided no waivers or modifications of ordinance
regulations are required.
(6/0 vote)
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-92-04. Robert & Doris Oliphant. Public Hearing on
a request for a single-wide mobile home on 5.0 acs zoned RA located on E side of
Rt 640 approx 3/4 mi N of Rt 20. TM48,P77A. Rivanna Dist. APPROVED subject to
the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile
home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by
the local office of the Virginia Department of Health if
applicable under current regulations;
5.
Landscaping and/or screening
of the Zoning Administrator.
maintained in good condition
to be provided to the satisfaction
Required screening shall be
and replaced if it should die;
6. Mobile home is to be located as shown on plat initialed WDF and
dated February 24, 1992; and
7. The mobile home shall be occupied only by Robert and Doris
Oliphant or their family.
(5/1 vote)
Agenda Item No. 12. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 7, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Code of Albemarle, to
comply with changes in the Code of Virginia, Title 10, Chapter 5, Article 4,
Section 10.1-560-571 and to conform to the recently adopted fee schedule.
ADOPTED the attached ordinance as amended. (6/0 vote)
.
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
v. Wayne Cilimberg
March 19, 1992
Date:
Page 6
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Fiscal Policy Committee. APPROVED the
attached general outline and advertisement for the Fiscal Policy Committee.
(6/0 vote)
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
APPOINTED Mr. John K. Plantz to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging to fill
out the unexpired term of Mr. A. J. Baglioni, Jr.
REAPPOINTED Mr. F. Anthony Iachetta as the joint appointee to the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority, with said term to expire on May I, 1994.
REAPPOINTED Mr. F. Anthony Iachetta as the joint appointee to the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority, with said term to expire on May 1, 1994.
The Board asked for a report back in a couple of weeks on the formation of
a committee to deal with the collection of solid waste and other related issues.
. The Board accepted offers from Delegate Way and Senator Robb to accompany
County representatives to Culpeper for the Preallocation Hearing on March 31 to
discuss various primary road needs in Albemarle County.
The Board expressed
tion of common interests
the traffic problem.
support in an idea by Senator Robb's to form a coali-
relative to Route 29 to attempt a unified approach to
Agenda Item No. 16.
Adjourned to March 23, 1992, at 1:00 P.M.
LEN:ec
Attachments
cc: Robert B. Brandenburger
Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
George st. John
Amelia Patterson
Bruce Woodzell
Jo Higgins
File
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS COMMITTEE
Recommended Work outline:
Goal: To develop a fiscal impact analysis methodology that;
. incorporates all planning and growth factors
relevant to Albemarle County's current and future
growth management;
. can be validated, creditable and flexible;
. is effective in supporting review of policy issues;
. is usable and maintainable by staff;
. is fully supported and integrated with the
comprehensive plan review process; and
. is completed no later than March, 1993.
Specific Responsibilities for the Committee are:
(1) Coordinate information collection and issues
identification before model development--receive public
input.
(2) Review base input to model--demographic, value of real
estate, capital facility costs, etc.--with consultant.
(3) Receive and review final model product.
(4) Identify various land use/economic scenarios for model
application--although optional, this is a desirable
effort for the committee to undertake because it
validates the model and bridges the initial issues
identification with the model's application and provides
a foundation of tested scenarios for use by the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors in making
policy/strategy decisions.
TIMELINE:
March/Aoril. 1992:
I. Committee selection and Formulation of Tasks
- Develop the issues and charge for the Committee
- Advertise and select Committee
May/June. 1992:
II. Orientation, Information Gathering, Issue Identification
- Review current policies and practices
- Familiarize the committee with other policies and
methodologies in use in other localities
- Define the preliminary issues
- Identify consultant service requirements
- Participation at public meetings in identifying issues and
concerns
- Presentations to the committee by groups or individuals as
appropriate
June. 1992:
III. Develop an Economic Baseline
- Staff, with assistance from outside resources as necessary,
will develop an economic baseline or profile of the County
to serve as a foundation for further model development and
analysis
July/December. 1992:
IV. Develop Fiscal Impact Methodology
- As assisted by a consultant and staff, develop a methodology
to be used in committee analysis of development policy
alternatives and,
- Develop a methodology that is inclusive of, and interactive
with, all supporting growth management tools to include the
Comprehensive Plan, Community Facilities Plan, Open Space
Plan, utilities Master Plan and other plans as appropriate.
- Develop a methodology to be adopted for continued use by
County staff
January/February. 1993:
V. Model Validation and Scenario Testing
- Using the methodology, examine alternative land use and
economic forecasts for fiscal impact
March. 1993:
VI. Develop recommendations and complete the study
- Report to the Board of Supervisors
r------I"""""----
W
>
~ I
w :z
i ~ '11 g
u w .!: ~
~
Q.
,~
i
i
j
u
i
'i-
I
i
1
;:
l
jiB
~----
VI
VI
>-
-'
c(
:z
c(
~i
! iJ
D -- lD
,~ ~ !
Iol. .!: _
t-
U
c(
ll.
::IE:
-'
c(
u
VI
-----
u..
~
o
't:
-
Q
6~ -
'i I
6 -
~i
'E II
6 ..
.~ ..
~l
---
---
---
-----r---------
<Jl
.s::.
~
~~- ~- ~
... :l
VI ll.
I"l
<Jl
.s::.
...
C
2
11- ~
.. ...
j.. ~- ~
... 0
VI U
I"l
....
C) C)
C) C)
C) 0
C) C)
~ I"l
tit
-----~-------
<Jl
.s::.
i
....
....
ClI
...
VI
i- a:
.. ...
)j
-0
I"l
-----
-
....
....
ClI ,...
... ....
en ""
<Jl
.s::.
...
C
a
~ ... ,...
II lii t;
.. ...
.. - u
] ~ ~
N
<Jl
.s::.
i
i
'E '..
Jj
N
~
Iol.
i
'tj
'f
l.
..
'..
to-
loool
C) C) C)
C) C) C)
U"\... "," 0"
~~;ii
c... c... c...
gj gj gj
>- >- >-
~ LE~~J
C)
C)
C)
--------
C)
C)
C)
Ln
tit
VI
--------
....
II
:is
j ~
c...
GI
...
....
ClI
C
m
~
o
...
"i
"5
"i
.s::.
U
<Jl
C
ClI
-
ll.
GI
>
.~
~
.s::.
GI
l
u
GI
.s::.
...
....
o
~
';
GI
c...
...
~
C
GI
.s::.
...
....
o
GI
<Jl
ClI
-6.
:!:
c...
ClI
GI
GI
.s::.
...
.s::.
...
3:
C
GI
...
-
-
';
~g:
... ~
<Jl
i
... t
3l !!l
GI C
.s::. ClI
.... ..,
.
NOTICE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
CITIZENS
~he Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, is
accepting applications from citizens to serve on the Fiscal Impact
Committee which will be composed of five citizen members appointed
by the Board to serve for a term of one year. These citizens will
serve with four County officials to develop a fiscal impact
analysis methodology/model which would support the County's
comprehensive planning process in answering questions on the impact
of economic development and growth management. The committee would
address concerns of the public, costs, existing policies and
procedures, factors critical to assessment of economic development,
and other related criteria in developing a model to be integrated
into the County's comprehensive planning process. Membership is
open to any County resident who will bring an objective perspective
to the task.
Only residents of Albemarle County may apply. Applications will
be received until 5:00 p.m. on April 10, 1992. Application forms
or further information may be obtained from the Clerk's Office,
Board of County Supervisors, Fourth Floor, County Office Building,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Va., telephone, 296-5843.
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC
/2 C~ ;n: p' -3/117".;L 15 ~>;.
TO:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
FROM:
RANDY LAYMAN,
CITIZEN AND WASTE HAULER
DATE:
MARCH 18, 1992
MY NAME IS RANDY LAYMAN AND I AM HERE AS A CITIZEN AND BUSINESS
PERSON OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY.
AM A WASTE HAULER IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A FEW COMMENTS ON THE BEHALF OF ALL THE WASTE HAULERS AND ALL THE
CUSTOMERS WE SERVE.
SOME OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ARE IN THE DOCUMENTS
THAT HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY THE STAFF OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY OR THE STAFF
OF RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY CRSWA). IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THESE
DOCUMENTS AND THE STAFF CAN NOT PROVIDE THEM TO YOU, WE WILL BE HAPPY
TO HAVE COPIES MADE AND DROP THEM OFF AT THE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
FOR YOU.
IF YOU NEED THESE COPIES, FEEL FREE TO CALL ME AT 456-6642.
I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT HOW WE GOT FROM $19.25 PER TON TIPPING
FEE TO $32.00 PER TON AND NOW THE PROPOSED 40% INCREASE THAT WOULD
MAKE IT $45.00 PER TON. ALSO, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THERE WILL BE
ANOTHER $20.00 PER TON INCREASE WITHIN THE FISCAL YEAR OF 1993.
DURING THESE TIMES OF RECESSION, THERE IS A LIMIT TO HOW MUCH THE
HOMEOWNER CAN AFFORD TO PAY OR IS WILLING TO PAY FOR TRASH DISPOSAL.
THERE HAS BEEN A BIG INCREASE OF ILLEGAL DUMPING THROUGH OUT THE
COUNTY, WHICH EFFECTS EACH ONE OF US IN THE PLACES WHERE WE LIVE.
WE ARE ASKING YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER PUTTING THE LANDFILL
OPERATIONS BACK INTO YOUR BUDGET.
-
Distributed to Board: 1. ( 13 I q ~
Agenda Item No. _ 9.?: ,0? (~.~~ l )
ii1....,~\~f. & AlBtAt...,,(..
0' co
;;; c
g ~
. .
~ rSt
"'t-", "",c
. ~EUSf. .
RIVANNA
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
P.O, BOX 979
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-0979
(804) 977-2976
, '"
Ft r'i !'
TO:
FROM:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
B. LEONARD WALUK. SOLID WAS"E DIREC'JUR~'
DATE:
MARCH 9, 1992
1S 0 1\ i~ {) t.! t"
<.;' 1..J f. t ;: ~/ J v ,.1 1\:;
SUBJECT: HOOSEHOLD HAZARDOOS WASTE COLLECTION DAY
The Spring Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day will be
held Saturday, May 30, 1992 at the University Hall parking lot (the
same one where the recycling center is located). I have cleared the
availability of the lot for that time with Al Whalley, Director of
Parking and Transportation at UVA and with Laidlaw Environmental
Services, Inc.
We will be working up notices for all the appropriate
organizations and media as soon as possible as well as determining
the hours of operation. Last Fall, it was 8:00 until 2:00, but I
expect we can end it an hour earlier.
COUNTt OF Al.GF-IV:'~RlE
'{'';..i ..~ ~T~
., 'Cd}? ;:1., ~
. ,. /tiJ
},;I
''i(" .~ ':""' ". '~;;41 ~"
'/',., ';~';i/. ;,.ii,
EXECUl iVE OfFfCfi
John G, Milliken
Secretary of Transportation
COt.! !\JTY or p, :.3E~} !,HLt
rrl"! !"""" ,--". ...;:\ n f~.::J 1[;\
I (' :"'''''''''',;.' I I
~ I: ~,.l' -.~~\ ; ill
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGIN~~; i\~\'~ !', ::; F\\n );; 11
!) .......,.. ' \',~Slrl~::ll1:0
Office of the Governor nn,: ;.,,) nor _c.:..u~l~.. .
Richmond 23219 ..\_' ,,\L \..H l'l?J9~~~
.".; ~l.'"',
Distributed to Bo:ud: /' ('f' "? ':,.
.-
;\,>.~;nd(.\ ,If,:,< 1( l", '" (;, .)
..' ~~'..:'~~~~_,', i "
March 9, 1992
The Honorable David P. Bowerman
Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Chairman Bowerman:
Thank you for your letter on the issue of the Millington
Bridge. I have asked the staff at the Department of
Transportation to review the letter and give me recommendations
on next steps.
I will be in further touch af~er I have reviewed those
recommendations. !
i
i Sin~erelY~/
( l II.'
\...~)f. If/lt..- 'i (IV'?' _
,---.. {, .;.jr ,..).f._
" ohn G. 111ken .
JGM/cmg
cc: Mr. Ray D. Pethtel
Ms. Constance R. Kincheloe
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P. O. BOX 6-Q
RICHMOND, VA 23216-2060
Distributed to Board: 3, 1:3, c) Z-
b<1~
Agenda Item No, _ Q2, of If{j~ t.f )
1'(': Ii', ,-,-v (' _
'"../ t. ". J ! ,\ t- ~. I E f f\1l\ R U:
linl.rc.:"i:f':i:!'L~-..Gf\,nl}~)':; in' -",1
u.{ 'i
rl \ \,'" M i\i~1 1:!. 1992 II i
I tJ D~"q:'::~:;"'T,~n"TTnc /1'1
. l:.::-, Ln. 1...., -_.1 L10
BOARD OF SUPERVI.;;;np~
. 'o..J\.." \v
Supts. Memo. No. 5
March 11, 1992
REGULATORY
TO: Division Superintendents
FROM: Joseph A. Spagnolo, Jr., Superintendent of
Public Instruction
Vincent C. Cibbarelli, Deputy Superintendent
for Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Aid to Localities Appropriation, 1991-92
Report on General Assembly Actions Affecting
1991-92 Budgets (HBjSB 31)
Supts. Memo. No.3 (Informational), dated January 8,
1992, provided details of proposed changes to the 1991-92 budget
due to revisions in the fiscal year sales tax estimate and revised
projections of March 31, 1992 Average Daily Membership (ADM).
The General Assembly accepted the proposals made by the
Governor regarding the 1991-92 budget for public education. The
final bill will contain the following revisions to the original
1990-92 Appropriations Act:
1. The one-cent sales tax returned to localities based on
SChool-age population was decreased from $477,100,000 to
$448,200,000, representing a decrease of $28,900,000 or
approximately 6%. When used in the basic aid formula,
this revised sales tax estimate increases Basic Aid by
approximately $16.6 million.
2. Estimates of unadjusted and adjusted ADM for 1991-92 have
been revised based on actual September 30, 1991
membership. These revised estimates represent an
increase in ADM of more than 7,400 students. This
increase required $17.8 million in additional state
funding. Due to the current economic conditions in the
Commonwealth, the required funds will be transferred from
the remaining balance in the Literary Fund which were
generated by revenues exceeding original proj ections.
This additional transfer will enable the state to fund
its share of the ADM increase without further reductions.
Projected entitlements based on these reV1S1ons are included
on the Attachment to Supts. Memo. No.6 (Regulatory), dated March
11, 1992. These entitlements are estimates, and cannot be
finalized until the actual March 31, 1992 ADM is known. While we
have confidence in our projections of total ADM for the state,
experience has shown that the projections for individual localities
are subject to change. When localities believe that they have more
accurate projections of their March 31 ADM, they are encouraged to
substitute their estimates for those provided by the state.
Questions may be directed to Mrs. Kathryn S. Kitchen at (804)
225-2025 or Mrs. June Eanes at (804) 225-2060.
JAS,Jr./VCC/kk
Attachments
cc: Chairperson of Governing Body or Mayor
AUTHORITY: section 22.1-93, Code of Virqinia and the 1990-92
Appropriations Act, as revised by the General
Assembly on March 7, 1992.
Dis:ri\,,1C:J t'! !'>:~:rd: _Z-!J3",:,,12.._
',,'" .'j, 3?t{i~L~_~- )
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P. O. BOX 6-Q
RICHMOND, VA 23216-2060
Supts. Memo. No. 6
March 11, 1992
REGULATORY
TO: Division Superintendents
FROM: Joseph A. Spagnolo, Jr., Superintendent of
Public Instruction
Vincent C. Cibbare1li, Deputy Superintendent
for Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Aid to Localities Appropriations, 1992-94 Biennium
As required by section 22.1-93 of the Code of Virqinia,
we are hereby submitting "estimates to be used for budgetary
purposes relative to the Basic School Aid Formula" for school years
1992-93 and 1993-94. Aid to locality estimates are based on the
1992-94 budget adopted on March 7, 1992 by the General Assembly,
which is subject to final approval by the Governor.
Attached to this memorandum are the following:
A. Information regarding selected aid to locality
accounts which were affected by final actions of
the General Assembly (Attachment A).
B. Information regarding the allocation methods used
by the Department in estimating entitlements for
non-SOQ accounts (Attachment B).
C. Language excerpts from the 1992-94 Appropriations
Act which (1) requires a textbook study, (2)
requires a study of the health insurance costs of
localities and requires data collection in future
Annual School Reports, (3) encourages localities
to provide teacher salary increases, (4) removes
the $100 cap on the fee allowable for behind-the-
wheel instruction, (5) provides for an interest
rate subsidy program through the Literary Fund, and
(6) requires the Board of Education and Supreme
Court to review revenues generated by fines, fees
and forfeitures (Attachment C).
D. An individualized printout which projects payments
to each locality from state funds (Attachment D).
The dollar estimates provided on the attachments, where
applicable, are based on the Department of Education's projection
of March 31 average daily membership (ADM) for each locality.
While we have confidence in our projection of total ADM for the
state, experience has shown that the projections for individual
localities are subject to change. When localities believe that
they have more accurate projections of their March 31 ADM (adjusted
or unadjusted), they are encouraged to substitute their estimates
for those provided in this document.
The following general
projections also should be noted:
1) In addition to ADM estimates, these projections are
based on current estimates of program participation
rates, fiscal year sales tax, and other input
variables to the respective formulae. These
projections are thus subject to a degree of change
as these variables change.
remarks
concerning
these
2) These estimates include only state funds (General
Fund, Literary Fund contributions to Teacher
Retirement and Social Security, and Driver
Education contribution to Basic Aid). Federal
funds have been excluded from the LEA by LEA
analyses, as data are not available to develop such
estimates at this time.
3) The estimates provided for the Vocational Education
categorical accounts include each locality's share
of any allocations for a regional vocational
technical center. Each locality's share has been
determined based upon the percentages of
participation provided to the Department. Please
be aware that there will no longer be a separate
Vocational Education SOQ payment on behalf of
Regional Vocational Technical centers.
Again, please recognize that these projections are
estimates. There is no guarantee that the allocations will be
received exactly as projected.
Questions may be directed to Mrs. Kathryn s. Kitchen,
Division Chief of Administrative Support Services at (804) 225-2025
or to Mrs. June F. Eanes, Associate Budget Director at (804) 225-
2060.
JAS,Jr./VCC/kk
Attachments
cc: Chairperson of Governing Body or Mayor
AUTHORITY: Section 22.1-93, Code of Virqinia and the 1992-94
Appropriations Act, as approved by the General
Assembly on March 7, 1992.
Attachment A
Page 1
Information Reqardinq Selected Aid to Localitv Accounts
*** The per pupil amount for Basic Aid which was adopted by the
House of Delegates was included in the final budget. Factors
contributing to this revision were noted on Page 1 of
Attachment B to Supts. Memo. No. 41 (Informational), dated
February 18, 1992.
*** The estimate of the one-cent sales and use tax returned to
localities based on the school age census has been revised due
to (1) enhanced compliance efforts, (2) passage of HB 64
requiring sales tax for locksmiths, and (3) repeal of the
deferral of sales tax for non-prescription drugs. The revised
statewide totals of $472,671,558 in 1992-93 and $500,579,432
in 1993-94 are reflected on the individualized printout
contained in Attachment D, along with the corresponding
decrease in Basic School Aid.
*** An additional $23.0 million in 1992-93 and $23.4 million in
1993-94 is included to support programs for students who are
educationally at-risk. Allocations are based upon the
methodology outlined in Supts. Memo. No. 41, with percentages
ranging from 2% to 11. 4%. These funds shall be matched by the
local government based on the composite index as part of the
required local effort.
*** An additional $936,187 has been included in each year to
provide increased support for students who speak English as a
Second Language. The entitlements to individual school
divisions will be based upon enrollments of ESL students
provided to the Department in the fall of 1991.
*** Approximately $6.3 million in 1992-93 and $1.7 million in
1993-94 is included for an enrollment loss provision.
Localities will receive an additional payment equal to the
state share per pupil of Basic Aid for a percentage of the
enrollment loss (as set forth below) when compared to the
prior year:
Composite Index
Percentage
.0000 - .1999
.2000 - .3499
.3500 - .4999
.5000 - .8000
80%
60%
40%
20%
Attachment A
Page 2
*** Additional funding of $8.7 million in 1992-93 and $a.9 million
in 1993-94 was included as a Maintenance Supplement. These
funds support the state share of approximately $15 per pupil,
subject to the composite index, in each year for ongoing
maintenance needs or debt service payments. These funds shall
be matched by the local government as part of the required
local effort.
*** An additional $1,138,525 was included in the first year to
support the state share of a teacher aide for certain EMR
classes in junior high and high schools. The General Assembly
viewed this as an interim measure while the Board of Education
reviews its accreditation standards for these classes.
*** An additional $750,000 in new funds were included in 1993-94
for the development of a "Taylor Plan" type of program
(Guaranteed Assistance Program) in Virginia. The Governor's
Bill as introduced had provided for this program by using the
funds previously dedicated to the Dropout Prevention Program.
This funding will allow for pilot projects in public schools
to prepare students to take advantage of the Guaranteed
Assistance Program contained in the Higher Education portion
of the budget.
*** An additional $109,458 was included in each year for the
Dropout Prevention Program, bringing total funding to
$10,470,997 in each year. Grants for the 1992-94 biennium
will be based on $177 per pupil.
*** Additional funding in the amount of $146,349 was included in
each year to provide funding for the newly created Central
Shenandoah Valley Governor's School, as well as $97,356 in
each year to provide funding on a 5/6 student basis for the
Pulaski and New Horizons Governor's Schools. In addition,
funding was reduced by $123,471 in each year due to a 200
student funding 1 imi t imposed for the Richmond City Governor's
School.
*** Additional funding in the amount of $1,071,525 was included in
1992-93 to fund regional educational outreach programs.
*** An additional $600,000 was included in 1992-93 in support of
the Common Core of Learning currently under development by the
Department of Education, and to assist in the development of
appropriate assessment measures as part of the World Class
Education Initiative.
Attachment A
Page 3
*** The Virginia Teaching Scholarship Loan Program was provided
funding in the amount of $150,000 each year. One-third of
these scholarships shall be used to attract teachers to those
rural regions of the state which demonstrate a lack of ability
to hire and retain qualified teachers.
*** The budget includes $150,000 in each year to support the
Southwest Virginia Education Consortium and $75,000 in each
year in support of the Blue Ridge Regional Education/Training
Council.
*** An additional $300,000 was included in the first year to
support pilot projects to test available options for serving
disabled juveniles incarcerated in local jails.
*** An additional $300,000 was included in the first year to
support planning for pilot "School/Community Health Centers."
The Department of Education and the Department of Medical
Assistance Services will work jointly with medicaid eligible
school divisions to develop centers for services such as
heal th screening and help with medically fragile students.
Grants will be based on proposals submitted by school
divisions.
*** Funding in support of Principal Assessment Centers was reduced
by 50% in 1992-93 and eliminated in 1993-94. In addition,
funding for the Model Elementary School was eliminated in both
years of the biennium, as well as the elimination of second
year funding for the Community Canneries.
*** As a result of a revision in theLi terary Fund revenue
estimates for the 1992-94 biennium, an additional $1,653,842
in 1992-93 and $4,632,447 in 1993-94 will be transferred from
the Literary Fund for Teacher Retirement. In addition,
language was included (reference Attachment C) authorizing an
interest rate subsidy program during the 1992-94 biennium.
The Literary Fund will make approximately $10 million per year
as direct Literary Fund loans, with an additional $6.75
million in each year made available to subsidize approximately
$20 million of loans through the Virginia Public School
Authority.
*** Senate Bill 248, which required local school divisions to pay
the actual local per pupil cost of educating its students in
the prior year for each student attending one of the Deaf and
Blind Schools, was carried over to the 1993 Session in the
House Appropriations Committee. Passage of this bill in its
current form during the 1993 Session would require localities
to assume this financial responsibility beginning July 1,
1993.
Attachment B
Page 1
Information Regardinq Allocation Methods for Non-SaQ Accounts
Much of the funding contained in the "categorical" accounts is
based upon prior year data, i.e. expenditures made by local school
divisions in the preceeding fiscal year. Therefore, any
projections made by the Department of Education for an upcoming
year are subject to wide variation based upon program participation
rates and other local variables. In order to provide as much
information as possible, we have attempted to estimate payments as
follows:
Vocational Education Cateqorical
Current year entitlements were provided to you via Supts. Memo. No.
15 (Informational), dated January 29, 1992. Projected entitlements
for 1992-93 and 1993-94 were based upon a 2.5% increase over the
1991-92 year. These projections include the locality's share of
any allocations for a regional vocational technical center. Please
remember, however, that any major changes in local programs from
1990-91 to 1991-92 could cause major variations in these
proj ections. Enti tlements in 1992-94 will be based upon a
percentage of local expenditures for (1) extended contracts, (2)
principals and assistant principals of both regional vocational
technical centers and vocational centers operated by a single
locality, (3) vocational adult instructor salaries to include full-
time, part-time and supplements. In addition, each locality will
receive an equipment entitlement based upon the number of students
participating in vocational courses, with a minimum of $1,000.
Special Education Cateqorical
Homebound - The 1991-92 entitlement is based on actual expenditures
for homebound instruction during the 1990-91 school year. Proposed
allocations for 1992-93 and 1993-94 are increased by the percentage
increase in the statewide appropriation. However, any maj or
changes in the level of homebound instruction provided from one
year to the next can affect the proposed allocations.
Hospitals, Clinics, Detention Homes - For those localities which,
under contract with the Department, provide educational programs in
the state-operated programs, allocations represent an estimate of
the contractual services. The Department will provide additional
information to those localities within the next several weeks.
Attachment B
Page 2
Private and Regional Tuition - The 1991-92 entitlement represents
the first payment made during this fiscal year (reimbursement for
second semester of the 1990-91 school year) plus an estimate of the
first semester payment of the 1991-92 school year which will be
made during the next 6 weeks. Proposed allocations for 1992-93 and
1993-94 have been increased based on the percentage increase in the
statewide appropriation. Localities can better estimate state
reimbursement for these two accounts by calculating on a child by
child basis the tuition rate charged times the state share of the
appropriate composite index. Private tuition is reimbursed using
the SOQ index, while regional tuition is reimbursed using the
composite index computed at a state nominal share of 60%.
Interagency Assistance Fund (Pool) The 1991-92 revised
entitlement was calculated based on the state reimbursement
provided to each locality during the 1990-91 year. Proposed
allocations for 1992-93 and 1993-94 have been based on the
percentage increase in the statewide appropriation . Localities can
better estimate state reimbursement for this account by calculating
on a child by child basis the tuition rate charged. This is a 100%
reimbursable account by the state.
Inservice - The 1991-92 revised entitlement reflects the actual
grant awards made during the 1991-92 year. There is no proposed
allocation for the 1992-93 and 1993-94 year as the Department is
currently developing regional programs to provide inservice
education to teachers of the disabled. Addi tional information
about these programs will be forthcoming.
Adult Education
The 1991-92 entitlements are based on actual awards made to date.
This amount has been level funded into the 1992-93 and 1993-94
fiscal years as the statewide appropriation is the same. However,
any major changes in adult programs could alter this allocation in
the 1992-93 and 1993-94 years.
Foster Care
The 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 proposed allocations are based on
the payments made to school divisions during the 1990-91 fiscal
year. Changes in the number of foster care children being educated
in the publ ic schools can cause a maj or difference in these
proposed allocations. Localities can better estimate this account
by multiplying the daily cost of operation times the number of days
education was provided to children in foster care. The statewide
appropriation is level funded over the next biennium.
Attachment B
Page 3
School Food Payments
The 1991-92 entitlement represents the actual award transmitted to
you via Supts. Memo. No. 159 (Informational), dated October 23,
1991. This funding represents a state match to the federal funds
received by the State. Payments are made based on a flat rate for
each lunch served meeting the National School Lunch requirements.
The proposed allocations for 1992-93 and 1993-94 are level funded
from the current year. Any major changes in the number of
qualifying lunches served will have an effect on this allocation.
Dropouts
Information regarding the dropout prevention program is contained
in Attachment A to this memorandum. A printout reflecting the
computation of the grant amounts was provided in Supts. Memo. No.
41 (Informational), dated February 18, 1992.
Other
Selected localities will have entitlements/allocations listed in
this section based on individual programs being offered and funded
by the State. Any questions regarding these programs should be
directed to the Budget Office.
Attachment C
Page 1
LANGUAGE AMENDMENTS
Item 133: "The Department of Education shall survey each local
school division to determine the actual costs of textbooks, whether
through the operating fund or a separate textbook account, for the
1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93 school years. The survey shall
request sufficient information to determine any and all fees
collected for the use of textbooks or any funds collected as
instructional or material fees. The Department shall report the
results of this survey to the Chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee no later than November 1, 1992."
Item 135: " (a) The Department of Education shall survey each local
school division to determine the amounts paid by the school
division for employee health insurance during FY 1991-92. The
survey shall request sufficient information to determine the actual
health insurance benefit paid by each school division on behalf of
their employees. (b) Further, effective July 1, 1992, the
Department of Education shall implement the appropriate actions and
policies to include local school divisions expenditures for health
insurance in the Annual School Reports filed by the local school
divisions. (c) Local school divisions shall make the necessary
changes in their records keeping in order to comply with the
provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) above.
Item 135: "The intent of the General Assembly is that the average
classroom teacher salary be improved throughout the state and that
the average classroom teacher salary continue to be the measure for
comparison of Virginia with other states at the national level.
Each governing body, school board, and division superintendent is
encouraged to appropriate increased funds to provide for teacher
salary improvements which will continue to move toward the
Commonwealth's national average teacher salary goal which is
currently $34,336 annually."
Item 135: "Local school boards may charge a per-pupil fee for
behind-the-wheel driver education provided, however, that the fee
charged plus the per pupil basic aid reimbursement for driver
education shall not exceed the actual average per pupil cost. Such
fees shall not be cause for a pro-rata reduction in Basic Aid
payments to school divisions."
Attachment C
Page 2
Item 146: "The Board of Education and the Virginia Public School
Authority (VPSA) shall provide a program of interest rate subsidies
for school construction and renovation from the Literary Fund. The
program shall be used to provide funds, through Literary Fund Loans
and subsidies, and through VPSA bond sales, to fund approximately
$60,000,000 in projects on the Literary Fund waiting list and other
critical projects which may be prioritized by the Board of
Education. Interest rate subsidies will provide school divisions
with the present value difference in debt service between a
Literary Fund loan and a borrowing through the VPSA. To qualify
for an interest rate subsidy, the school division's project must be
eligible for a Literary Fund loan and shall be subject to the same
restrictions. The VPSA shall work with the Board of Education in
selecting those projects to be funded through the interest rate
subsidy/bond financing program, so as to ensure the maximum
leverage of Literary Fund monies and a minimum impact on the VPSA
bond pool. The first bond sale shall occur no later than September
30, 1992."
Item 146: "The Board of Education and the Supreme Court shall
review the revenues generated by the imposition of fines, fees and
forfeitures, and shall provide a report to the Chairmen of the
Senate Finance and House Appropriations Committees on those
revenues for fiscal year 1991. Included in the report shall be a
listing, by locality, of the revenues provided by local ordinances
which supersede state statutes. This report shall be made by
December 1, 1992."
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
~I
enl
1 I
"1
en
cn
....
<Xl <Xl ...:t" ..:t'('lJ <XlcnUlCO'lJ....'lJ~ .......("11"1
-.... eoJ('UM sr'1S(\.I~~"1 SI~en
'-1''1 M ''1 I"- ':1" ('lJ ........ <Xlll1:oJ
'nll1~ (lj ",i-"'M"
........ sss
........ COl"-
r-1 SS ~~ru ~cnUlCOUl""Ul~ I"- ''1r-1
en ........ rueoJM CO''1s('U~~r-1 s~cn
I COCO M'-11"- CO (oj ........ OJ U1 (IJ
(oj ~s U'I()~ ('; ":r.-J
cr> sss (oj
en ........ COl"-
....
lil'lJ MS('U SS$lcn~""UlI() r---f'l')""')
(oj ~-4' ('I')~- C-u-.t':-u(\J...,.....M s~cn
cn SGl lI1(oJCO <Xl ('U ('U.... CO lIj ('IJ
1 ~s I()~~ cJ'
.... sss f'o')......r.')
cn ........ COl"-
cn
....
.,.
en
I- ...J
>< ... a:
w enU. en Z
<::> I-.;JZ I- C W
C 7- ZZO 7- C W ....
W ..... OW'" a: c wc cr: I-
I-Q OCQ~ ... 'J.I...J '- cr:cr: U
enw w U ... ...J a: ...J 0: en 1-1- 0
OI- l- UWO ... ca:c.....zenen X
...,en .... a:l!J1- a. UUJ-WQt-0-04ZZ I-
QO U"J Z 0 ... (...Jl-uJ I .......- en
::1:"" 0 Cl...(!J ~ U1U...u.J..~t.n1 I ." J1
ZQ a. Clcr:UJ a:o:C"'UJcr:en...J ,.., cr:en...J
"" oa: r- enu.cr: cr: Cll:>en(!Jcr::>en(!J .~ :>U"J(!J
C ::I UJ 0
a: U a. Z
>
...J
':Il
ffi
en
J1
0:
...J
a:
cr:
.JJ
Z
UJ
r.!)
en
>C
CllZ
o
Qu.
UJ
I-UJ
0.1-
Cl;J:
Cl-
:ten
I-
UJ
'.!)
'''l
:::J
Cll
~
en
I
('U
en
en
en
4"OZ
cnwo
I en...
1-1::1-
en a. a:
cnou
....cr:o
0....J
...J
a:
I
I
I
I
t
enl
1-1CZ I
cr>WOI
1001-41
(IJ::J_ I
en a. a: I
cnOUI
......0:::01
0....J1
...JI
a:1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
enl
1-1
ZI
('lJQuJ
(I"11.JJ~
IJ1W
..........J
cn:>1-
cnUJ'"
...cr:1-
ffi
'.1.1
...J
cr:
a:
7-
UJ
Cll
...J
a:
('U
Gl
S
(oj
en
:n
....
,
cn
7-
Cl
...
en
...
:>
...
Q
,
M
('JSSSM~'lJcr>""~SI()I"-
111 S _aJ4"Gi......-r.1511JJ
...... 4" W....4"'C\Jt..Dlt1IJ.)"-(lJ
'5l ~ saj.r';:,jS(,,;aj~
IJ.) 'Sf (T"l4".:t~).JC:O;J'(IJi"D4"
..... ("0 tiI......('JJ f"."- ......
'-1
....
UlSI()S'5lMenen'5lll1<Xl~S
CO ro') a)f-t)_St---.:oOJ..:t'O"
1">') ...... ('lJlJ1lf)~"Jtf];J)l()aJU)
~IJ I'- ..:..: ("J -i"1J; G (ljrJ u5'
I"- en '1"~I-1e\Jen''1(\JS''1
4" ..... fSl-(IJ r-...r-... n
('.J
....
('UI"- (oJ'lJ....cn :oJcnl()....COCOM
S~S~UlMI()S....I"-COl"-I"-
'lJI"-I()M(\J....~('UMI"-~MS
___..;~uir:G,.:.;~..:...:r:rj,;
Ul CO I"- ':\J CO ''1 en OJcr> I() "1 M '-1
r--M- cn-- (IJ.:Q CIJ
ei":
....1
..:
.cr:
:ti :.J
:ci(!J :8
:fil~ . .cin :;.:
. . I I Cl .oen .1-
:5GHilfilEltpE: :~
...... I UlO:::J .:::J .
.-...J...JC I UJenl-uUJ . .
cua:a:wc ZUJu..><(/)
_:::Jzz -.JJ-.J...JoJ,jUJ-CI.:t:
a:QOO...J a:a:::: ...JI-O
w_.....a:C......II-..LLJ-J 0
ucr:_I-...wcccr:a:o.enCll
;.....! c:ra:ut-lJ.JL.1J--~L1J~
:.nC3UU..J.IU.:::Z,....uo..J><
;J: ::IOO:l....'uUJUJoxa:u.J
Cll en:>:> enl!J ,,,cr:Cl:U"J(!Jen...
.;
senll1~s len ... u, S co cn4' S(oJ~<Xl S '5lSSSSSS IS
(IJ Lf1 co len l"- s 4" (u l"'J (-')-(.') (IJ Icn
t..Q_f'l" I~ Ul a:l f.iI('lJ4" Ul CO U, I"- IN
",j.;r;r; I saj~ ",j,.:aj (,; I
tl"- (oj r-1 I';
Ul~I"- I (Ij 4' .... I"'---nuJ ...... 51 (.') ") IUl
1-7' .... '- .)J II"-
I 1
I .... loj
I OJ I (1..1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
I I
sr.lJuJ-1JJ I ("') .... (IJSCT'lCT'lflSlG(IJ~Q'JS SSSSSSS I aJ
CO!J1(IJCO I (tJ I"- <Xl coen~ r'1-r"1 (.J 1 51
('j-COCIJ I 1$1 Ul I"- U"1('lJ (IJ Ul CO U, I"- "1
~ ~ ~ -I (,j .; cnr..1' ",j,.:aj (.j ui
'-)~U'uJ I I"- l,"IJ
'lJ~I"- ICO ~ .... u, CO u, ....SM r<1 M
1r<1 ....'lJ (\.I Ul
I
IS ...
I OJ 0J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.;
SSSSS
'lJ
'lJ
",j
en S
CO 1'1
I"- 'lJ
~ :;
''1
co S I"'"I[) lJ.')-(IJ 4"tCI4"
4" r"j''''lNM('O.,-Ml..O
~ 1()'lJ('UI"-UlCOI()S
aj ~",jsr.r",j":ajui'
~l'\Jl() ....SNGl
--.a ~'\J-
SSSSSSS
0J S
I"- ('U
(iJ ui
r<1
(IJ
'lJ
cn
r;r;
~
1'lJ
I ~
ICO
I....
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
.;
I"-
....
:ui
.:>
.cr:
ui :1J:l
en .UJ
o .0::
...J
.UJ
I- .U
~ :ii
3ffi :ffi
.J..... .....
Ocr: .2; .
% ...J-cr:
Zl-tn.:J:~
UJa:UJliO:UJ
.r_ .Z
.0 .......
1-. . :J :l5! :ui~
.ZO .> .en...JQI-
a: .ZOO .cr:zenoa:,
U. .0"'0. . .a:UJa:ocr:UJ
t- ._1-- .t-t-a::....J:I:c.!:Ia:::
oa: .1-- .,zZQUU a:
UJU : :::i~i:i . :uiQ :~~;::!ueng~
...Jccenl- ZUJ.cr:o .l!JUJI"'en ~
~W5aw~~~:3~oo:~~UB6~@ ~
O...JO~~2a:>. 1-. Z~Z~ a:
.....a:Cll...a:Ocr:cr: .cr:...J:::J-UJ...Ja:I-cr: 0 I-
l-"'UJo.:>-wUJ~Woocr:I-W-UUJOOcr: 0
a:u:::oo"'l!Jl-en...Jl-oo.UJa:CCUJ:>~UII-
UUJOOCl:UJZZ:::JenIOI~OZ...JOO~1
O~I:I:~cr:-~Qowa::~OO,~WW~El
:>en a:u.. 00 QO
.J
a:
I-
o
I-
Cl
o
J1
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
. (.:?~.~,T,~.PF ALBEMARLE
\ : ;:::Jr If,....,,' { '<'J f-,::i ..., .
I !; '--." J,..:.....L.c_ i.1Ull(?~
. :..:.;l' !( ',r) -", '. I
i i . ','" (j fCC') II
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGIN~.4;l!.!j1l;~~1 J
80f\110 OF ('U'''l.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '-). t-'t:..RVISOfiS.'
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
~;s,'ih!1fed fo aoar&: :2 111 '~l.~
,I"."')'" 'I.. II /:') 02' f(' -, )
, .~;::; t -'" ilt.: m 1.0. -1.f..:.....71 0 5. <.J.t.
February 27, 1992
Secondary System
Addition and Abandonment
Albemarle County
Project 0743-002-235, C501
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:
As requested in your resolution dated January 15, 1992, the following
addition to and abandonment from the Secondary System of Albemarle County are
hereby approved, effective February 21, 1992.
ADDITION
Route 606 - Section two of new location Route 606 from Station
11+75 to Station 10+00 (Route 743), Project 0743-002-235, C501
LENGTH
0.03 Mi
ABANDONMENT
Route 606 - Section one of old location Route 606 from Station
11+75 to Station 47+50 (Route 743) ,Project 0743-002-235, C501
0.05 Mi
~n7!J:'Y!J~
Ray D. Pethtel
Commissioner
~, C ; 20U~'~
I)~~
E/l j,G/LU-rJ .'J
/J /cu]n;l)j
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
i '<i z...
QOO.N'f'tl Of.AkBf;,M^H~
fflz--'(j~1k ( S i )
j,;::; ~";'j r .;, ji<' f ~i ;,;;{
· ;.. .,_r... ",,_~_._.l"...',,~, . ....'.
J t':-,/.'~ ~li4.~,' .~
t "\ MAR 1 0 lqcp i. ~
f: \" ~'" ,( t1 ~
f:, L ~-I ~~U.~'.'-_''''1'''''''''_~---'';_' ~:.,:,,:o;
" i~ J~:,}~~ ~::..>_.{::~" ,.,~~..,::: <;t;"'r4~~
EXFr.1 lTlVF nFFICE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296..5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
anr)oJ 0
FROM:
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
Community Development
DATE:
March 10, 1992
RE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal, Towers Land
Trust
The Towers Land Trust has requested that their proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-89-01 Hollymead) be
rescheduled for review by the Board of Supervisors.
During the update of the Comprehensive Plan a number of
requests were proposed to expand the boundaries of the
Community of Hollymead. The Board decided to adopt the
Comprehensive Plan in July, 1989 without changing the
boundaries of the Community, but directed staff to evaluate
expansion of Hollymead when the applicants could provide
conceptual plans for development.
In September 1989, the Towers Land Trust request was among
five requests submitted for amending the Hollymead Growth
Area boundaries. A brief description of all the citizen
requests are listed below:
o Towers Land Trust - Request to add approximately 257
acres to the community. This property is located east
of Route 29, north of the existing community boundary
to the North Fork of the Rivanna River, and west of
Route 785. Proposed land uses are low to medium
residential (175 acres with a gross density of 7.5
dwelling units/acre), regional service (41 acres),
office service (29 acres) and neighborhood service (13
acres) .
o University Real Estate Foundation - Request to include
within the community boundary approximately 285 acres
located west of Rt. 29, North of the existing community
boundary to the North Fork of the Rivanna River, and
west to Route 606. The request is for industrial
service land use designation in order to permit the
development of a research office park.
o The Kessler Group - Request to add approximately 100
acres to the community for low density residential use.
The property is located north of Route 643, west of the
Norfolk-Southern Railway and east of the existing
Hollymead Community.
o Donald Brown - Request to add approximately 24 acres of
land between the existing eastern boundary and west of
Proffit Road to the community to be designated for low
density residential use.
o Terry Spaid - Request for low density residential land
use in the area between the existing eastern boundary
and Proffit Road. The total area is 11 acres.
The staff undertook a comprehensive evaluation of the need
for expansion of Hollymead and potential areas for that
expansion, including the areas noted above. Staff
identified a number of issues and planning efforts which
needed to be resolved or undertaken before an adequate
review of growth area expansion could take place. These
included:
1. Development of a Community Facilities Plan;
2. Development of a County Open Space Plan;
3. Development of a fiscal impact model and analysis of
the County to determine impact of growth on the County;
4. Resolution of the Route 29 Bypass location;
5. Resolution of the Meadow Creek Parkway location.
Based on the staff's findings, the Towers Land Trust,
University Real Estate Foundation and the Kessler Group
deferred consideration of their requests until the above
issues could be addressed. The Commission and Board agreed
with staff's findings, and decided not to approve an
amendment to the Plan for the remaining requests.
Since that time it has been our Department's position that
requests for expansion or significant changes in land use
designations in Hollymead not be considered until the
above-noted work could be completed. Remaining is the
adoption of the Open Space Plan by the Board of Supervisors,
development of the fiscal impact model/analysis and
resolution of the Meadow Creek Parkway location. Once this
is completed, a comprehensive evaluation of the Hollymead
Growth Area would again be undertaken. The Annual Report of
the Comprehensive Plan. endorsed by the Board in December,
1991, recommended that "upon completion of a fiscal impact
analysis, the [planning] staff should evaluate Growth Area
expansion to accommodate land use needs. Various locations
for Growth Area expansion should be considered, but particular
emphasis should be given to re-evaluating the Hollymead
Community/Piney Mountain Village area for expansion
potential. It is anticipated that this analysis could begin
in FY92-93" (p. 6).
The Towers Land Trust current request for a hearing on their
amendment proposal is based on recent Board actions to
entertain amendments to Hollymead (CPA-90-03 Wendell Wood -
deferred at request of applicant) and Piney Mountain
(CPA-92-01 Wendell Wood - approved by the Board of
Supervisors).
Staff opinion is that while the Towers' request is an
individual one, a comprehensive evaluation of the general
Hollymead area should be undertaken as previously
recommended. This is the normal course of action in our
Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Therefore, unless
notified otherwise by the Board of Supervisors, staff will
begin its re-evaluation of the expansion to the Hollymead
Community including all previous citizen requests.
I request that the Board be advised of this at the earliest
possible date. I will notify you of the review schedule
as soon as it is determined.
I have attached previous correspondence between the applicant
and staff as background information. If you have any
questions, please contact me.
VWC/DBB/jcw
ATTACHMENTS
cc: Bob Brandenburger
Don Wagner
David Westby
Frank Kessler
Donald Brown
Terry Spaid
GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY
POST OFFICE Box 15152e
CHARL.OTTESVIL.L.E. VIRGINIA 229015-01526
GENERAL OFFICE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
TELECOPIER
(804) 296-414'
(804) 296-4109
(804) 293-5197
~ 1:'."/:':;
November 26, 199~f.~l'
HAND DELIVERED i~~l
':"Oll C.~~
;'~~.
1;~ F'
. . ' 13 ':$
,.:, '.. '.',
..'...~.t 'I. ..,.
""'"J,:;';.:I",
') ',ill'
26 19&1. ";;i~#
, '
\j ()\f
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning and Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
"'M "~>";,,, ':'~'!:""', ..,.'~ ,t_
.. ,/,:"".,,,,.,,., j\'I""'u"N
. .,~.~..,,,,, ,>..1",:,,/
Re: CPA-89-03 and ZMA-89-11
Towers Land Trust
Dear Wayne:
In February 1990, we formally requested a deferral of the above
listed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. This
was done in recognition of Staff's concern about the need for infor-
mation which would come from various County studies that were then
in progress and a decision on the U. S. 29 by-pass question. At the
time of our original deferral request, we stated that we would con-
sider further deferrals, and, as a result of subsequent discussions
with Staff, we have several times agreed to leave the requests on
hold pending completion of ongoing Staff work.
We have for some time been aware of Staff's position that pending
proposals for significant changes near the Hollymead community
should be considered simultaneously, along with any other recom-
mendations Staff might have for the area. That continues to seem to
us to be the most appropriate approach. We are now concerned, how-
ever, that apparently because of a possible impact on providing
sanitary sewer service to the airport the Board of Supervisors has.
expressed an interest in reviewing one of the pending proposals in
advance of Staff's comprehensive recommendations for the area. As
you are aware, the Flat Creek area of the Towers Land Trust property
is also important for sewer, for both the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of Route 29 with Airport/Proffit Roads which we want t~
bring into the growth area and for some of the land already in the
growth area on the west side of Route 29.
Given this situation, we request that our proposals be put on
schedule for review by the Planning Commission as soon as possible
and that Board of Supervisors consideration for our requests be
simultaneous with any other major Comprehensive Plan Amendments
and/or Zoning Map Amendments for the Hollymead area.
u!; y/s,
1/ ?--V~ ---..
J. Wagnfr - )
OEVEL.OPMENT . CONSTRUCTION . FINANCE . MANAGEMENT
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Depl. of PliHwing & Community Development
(HlI McIntire Road
C horlottcsville. Virginiil 22901-45%
(804) 2965823
January 30, 1992
Don Wagner
Great Eastern Management Company
P. O. Box 5526
Charlottesville, VA 22905-0526
Dear Mr. Wagner:
This is in response to your letter of November 26, 1991 in
which you requested the Towers Land Trust Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) proposal be rescheduled for review by the
Board of Supervisors.
The Trust had requested deferral of their CPA in January,
1990 until such time as staff could complete various studies
and resolve issues concerning the fiscal impact of Growth
Area expansion and development, community facility and open
space needs, and the location of the Route 29 Bypass and
Meadow Creek Parkway alignments.
It has been our Department's position that requests for
expansions or significant changes in land use designations
in Hollymead not be considered until the above-noted studies
could be completed. Once the staff work is completed a
comprehensive evaluation of the Hollymead Growth Area would
be undertaken. The Annual Report of the Comprehensive Plan,
endorsed by the Board in December, 1991, recommended that
"upon completion of a fiscal impact analysis, the [planning]
staff should evaluate Growth Area expansion to accommodate
land use needs. various locations for Growth Area expansion
should be considered, but particular emphasis should be
given to re-evaluating the Hollymead Community/Piney
Mountain Village area for expansion potential. It is
anticipated that this analysis could begin in FY92-93
(Annual Report of the Comprehensive Plan; November, 1991,
page 6).
It is my understanding that while you are in general
agreement with the approach outlined above, your reason for
requesting Board review of the CPA now is based on the
Board's decision to consider a Comprehensive Plan
Don Wagner
Page 2
January 30, 1992
Amendment request in Hollymead (CPA-90-03 Hollymead, Wendell
Wood) to change the land use designation from industrial
service to regional service and high density residential.
This request included the offer to construct sewer lines
through the site to the airport. It is your contention that
the Board has deviated from the above-noted policy to
consider a proposal which includes utility improvements to
off-site areas. Your request is similar in nature in terms
of the land use being requested and the possibility of
providing utility services to parts of the Hollymead Growth
Area not adequately served at this time.
The staff recommendation to the Planning commission and to
the Board of Supervisors was not to consider CPA-90-03
because it would be inconsistent with the County's position
on evaluating amendment requests in Hollymead. However, due
to the applicant's offer to extend sewer service through his
site to the airport, the Board instructed staff to further
study the amendment proposal. After further evaluation,
staff is recommending denial of CPA-90-03. The Planning
commission has unanimously recommended denial of this
request. The request has now been indefinitely deferred by
the applicant. The offer to extend sewer to the airport is
no longer a relevant issue for CPA-90-03 as a separate
agreement has been reached between the Airport Authority,
Albemarle County Service Authority and Mr. Wood.
Regarding your request, I advised you and your legal counsel
in several phone conversations in December and early January
that it would be beneficial for all involved to: (1) wait
until the Board advised staff as to how to proceed with the
evaluation of siting the unnamed industry, and (2) determine
if and when CPA-90-03 would be rescheduled for Board review.
The applicant has no specific time frame for requesting the
rescheduling of this amendment.
In the interim, the Board has passed a resolution of intent
to consider another amendment to designate an industrial
service area to accommodate the unnamed industry near Piney
Mountain. This amendment proposal is to site a specific
industry with particular site demands and time constraints.
It is different from both your request and CPA-90-03 in that
it is not totally speculative in nature. Therefore, the
Board determined that deviation from the above referenced
policy on considering amendments in the HOllymead/Piney
Mountain area was appropriate.
Don Wagner
Page 3
January 30, 1992
Considering what has transpired since December, the
Department would still recommend that your request not be
rescheduled at this time. A comprehensive evaluation of all
requests is still the best approach for all parties. The
Board has endorsed a time frame for this evaluation with
their review of the Annual Report of the comprehensive Plan.
Should you still wish to reschedule your request for Board
review, staff will notify the Board of your request and will
recommend that the Board's consideration of this request
coincide with the review of CPA-90-03. This will involve
review by the Planning commission for recommendation to the
Board.
Please notify me of your decision on this matter. I
apologize for the delay in providing you with a written
response to your request. If you have any further
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
sincerely,
b.~~
qtN
David B. Benish
Chief of Community Development
~~
DBB/jcw
cc: Bob Brandenburger
Frederick W. Payne
GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY
POST OFFICE SOX 151526
CHARL.OTTESVIL.L.E. VIRGINIA 229015-01526
GENERAL OFFICE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
TELECOPIER
(804) 296-4141
(804) 296-4109
(804) 293-5197
February 10, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
RECE\'JED
FEe \ \) '992
, I\~"\~\"'~G DEFT.
p"",,"i\'i I"
David B. Benish
Chief of Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Re: CPA-89-03 and ZMA-89-11
Towers Land Trust
Dear David:
I have spoken with the principals of Towers Land Trust and they
have reaffirmed their request to proceed with CPA-89-03. For the
record, I would like to give the background and main reasons for
this decision.
During the process leading to the last compete revision of the
Comprehensive Plan, we proposed that the area covered by CPA-89-
03 (i.e., the NE quadrant of the intersection of U.s. 29 and
Proffit Road) be brought into the Growth Area, and we still think
that should have been done. We were advised that both the staff
and Planning Commission felt our proposal had merit, but that it
was premature, and it was not recommended to the Board.
Obviously the Board also felt that our proposal had merit,
because in connection with adopting the Comprehensive Plan, it
directed staff to advise us that rather than being bound by the
normal schedule we would have a year during which we could
formally submit our proposed amendment and associated rezoning
request.
We did so. Subsequently, in recognition of Staff's concern about
the need for information which would come from various County
studies that were then in progress and a decision on the U. S. 29
by-pass question, we requested a deferral. At the time of the
original deferral, it was anticipated that the studies would be
completed in about a year, but that has not happened and we have
several times agreed to leave the requests on hold pending
completion of the studies. These studies have now been completed
with the exception of the Open Space Plan which is currently
under review, and the Fiscal Impact Analysis which is now
scheduled to begin in FY92-93.
CEVEL.OPMENT . CONSTRUCTION . FINANCE . MANAGEMENT
David B. Benish
Page 2
February 10, 1992
The amount of time our request has been on hold plus the Board's
recent decision to consider a Comprehensive Plan revision near
Piney Mountain are the factors which together have led to this
reaffirmation or our decision to proceed in advance of the
completion of the Fiscal Impact Analysis.
The impetus for the Board's decision to consider the Piney
Mountain area revision is interest shown by "Industry X" in
locating a major facility in Albemarle County, and the
understanding that Industry X is considering the Piney Mountain
area as a possible site.
Whether or not Industry X selects Albemarle County and a site in
this corridor, the UREF Industrial Park plans together with the
less dense than anticipated development of the Forest Lakes area
and the NE quadrant's importance in providing sewer service to
the area dictate the need for it to be added to the Hollymead
Community now. If Industry X (or some other business) does
decide to locate in the area, it will just accelerate the need
for additional residential and commercial support facilities.
Based on our recent discussions, I understand this is a point
which will be emphasized in your report on the Piney Mountain
proposal.
As mentioned in your letter of January 30, 1992, I had advised
you that the Board's decision to review CPA-90-03 led to our
request on November 26, 1991 to proceed with CPA-89-03. That was
actually only part of our reason. Although we have not chosen to
be in the public eye, the state Economic Development Office has
visited our property as well as the Piney Mountain property on
the behalf of Industry X, but in November the interest of
Industry X in the 29 North area had not become public knowledge
and I was not able to mention it to you. This was the reason for
the wording of our request, i.e. that "our proposals be put on
schedule for review by the Planning Commission as soon as
possible and that Board of Supervisors consideration for our
requests be simultaneous with any other (emphasis added) major
Comprehensive plan Amendments and/or Zoning Map Amendments for
the Hollymead area."
Unfortunately, this has not been done but we ask that you take
whatever actions are necessary to insure that our Comprehensive
Plan Amendment request is put on the same schedule as the Piney
Mountain proposal.
David B. Benish
Page 3
February 10, 1992
We feel that we have waited patiently for several years, but
circumstances now require that we actively pursue approval of
CPA-89-03. We are willing to continue to defer ZMA-89-11 for the
present.
Very truly yours,
Donald J. Wagner
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Robert B. Brandenburger
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Frederick W. Payne, Esq.
JOHN G. MILLIKEN
CHAIRMAN
COUt~TY OF lU.8EMAHLE
Ul'j r;'~l (;-:;"'), r;::~ n \1 t 7";:~:) ~
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGIN~:;I!~:.~~I~~cj)l~
COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD ~J L\ \_.,,:~: 1...'.::;.) ~~:l U tf' ~ ·
1401 EAST BROAD STREET BOARD Of StJPER\1IS0liS
RICHMOND. 23219
/J /-' C,)
Distributed to, Board: '7 12'" ~-'-,.)
,___'1 qZ,051h'(.),~
At:eocb \:',,:n "J.
March 11, 1992
County Boards of Supervisors
Dear Board Members:
I wrote you on February 11 regarding the upcoming preallocation
hearings of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. With the
completion of the General Assembly session on March 7, there are
several additional items I want to bring to your attention.
Under current state law, all funding, state and federal, is
allocated by state statutory formulae. Those formulae are being
reviewed in a two-year study whose final report will be submitted to
the 1993 General Assembly. Pending completion of that study, the
General Assembly approved a change in state law affecting two of the
funding categories established under the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), passed by the U. S. Congress in
Novembe r .
1. Funds for the National Highway System (NHS), which is
viewed as an expansion of and the successor to the
federal Interstate System, will be treated under state
law as funding for the Interstate System has been
treated in the past.
2. Funds under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ) will be allocated outside of
the state formulae to eligible projects in the three
Clean Air non-attainment areas of the Commonwealth. In
determining projects in the three areas, the Board will
be guided by the federal formula and make every effort
to assure a fair distribution of monies over a
multi-year period. Matching funds will be provided from
the system utilizing the federal dollars.
The General Assembly also approved the establishment of the
Transportation Efficiency Improvement Fund (TEIF) to encourage traffic
demand management efforts in the Clean Air non-attainment areas.
Projects to be supported are intended to involve innovative approaches
to reducing traffic congestion and single occupant vehicle use. Up to
$1 million annually from CMAQ or other qualifying federal monies will
be set aside for this purpose.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
County Boards of Supervisors
Page 2
March 11, 1992
The preallocation hearings this year are particularly important
because we face so many changes in both federal and state law. Your
help is greatly appreciated.
I look forward to seeing you at your local hearing.
Sincerely,
'" .
/~~ J r~~
John G. Milliken
cy: Commonwealth Transportation
Board Members
County Administrators
~,j<'12-
Oi!itributed io Bo~rd: ....t:~... )
"_"91."020:{~"{1
r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
P --
Office of County Executive M\f-i 1 ~ 1992
C harlotte~~~le~e~~~~i:~~~O 1-4596 t};Tqrr.E'~O\
(804) 296-5841 BOARD OF SUPERV1SO~S
AGENDA ITEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Date:
March 18, 1992 - CONSENT AGENDA - FOR INFORMATION
Aqenda Item #:
tfOI otJ/C!, /11
Title: ZMA-89-23 River Heights Associates - Status of Proffers
Issue: Greenway system along the Ri vanna River and open space
dedication.
Backqround: The attached staff memorandum responds to the question
posed during your March 4, 1991 meeting. In amplification of this
memorandum, the County Attorney has advised that the proffer could
be exercised even though the County does not have a greenway system
plan at this time. If exercised now, the County could initially
accept the 100 foot deep strip and subsequently acquire additional
area if the final greenway system plan would require additional
area. The greenway system concept plan will be scheduled for
Planning Commission review within the next two months.
Recommendation: Provided for information.
Staff Contact(s): Messrs. Tucker, Brandenburger, Cilimberg.
/dbm
92.037
Attachment
cOUNTY OF ALBEMAHU.
,
1 g
..' ~l
L"",,",,',' } f) I(92) ;'\, i;l
tl ';i. ,'. ." ~ i
; ;~, ..-...., ,.....~:11 I jjj
.' Iii .,i !1;~ iW
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
i"
~ '
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 2965823
MEMORANDUM
JTO:
Bob Brandenburger, Assistant
County Executive/}
of Planning and~~
FROM:
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Community Development
DATE:
March 10, 1992
RE:
ZMA-89-23 River Heights Associates - status of
Proffers
Question has been raised by the Board of Supervisors as to
how the County could accept a proffer from Wendell Wood for
open space along the Rivanna River. In ZMA-89-23, the Board
accepted five (5) proffers relevant to a Rivanna River
greenway (see attached proffers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12).
These proffers are specific as to when they are to be
exercised. Staff would not recommend the County demand land
donation or easements until such time as it has completed a
greenway plan and is ready to begin the greenway's
development. This is the approach the County is taking as
regards a similar proffer accepted in ZMA-90-19 Glenmore.
(Development of a greenway plan is shown in the approved
1992-93 CIP for funding in FY1993-94. No construction
funding is shown in the ClP.) No public purpose can be
identified in accepting this land until greenway plans are
finalized unless the County believes such donation/easement
is necessary to assure preservation of the land. Under that
scenario, I believe, the County Attorney's office should
comment as to whether the proffers can legally be exercised
considering their reference to "a 100 foot deep strip or
that area necessary to provide for a pathway, whichever is
greater" and "proffered land shall be used by the County of
Albemarle as part of its greenway system." Please let me
know if you need additional information.
VWC/jcw
cc: George st. John
To: Mr. Cilimberg
.;e: December 20, 1990
rage 2
Item 5.3b. Request to accept Woodbrook Drive Extended in the Rio Hills
Shopping Center into the State Secondary System of Highways.
ADOPTED the attached resolution. Copy forwarded to the Engineering
Department.
Agenda Item No.6. Approval of 1991-92/1995-96 Capital Improvements
Program.
ADOPTED the 1991-92 through 1995-96 Capital Improvements Program, moving
the Bookmobile project from 1992-93 to 1991-92.
Agenda Item No.7. ZMA-90-11 and SP-90-68. Caleb Stowe (applicant);
Ednam House Limited Partnership (owner).
DEFERRED to February 6, 1991, at the applicant's request.
'\./Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-89-23. River Heights Associates. Public
hearing on a request to rezone 9.0 acres from R-15 Residential & 5.55 acres
from Commercial Office to Highway Commercial (proffered). Property west &
adjacent to Sheraton Hotel north of Hilton Heights Dr. Tax Map 45, Parcels
69D & 69D2. Charlottesville District.
DETERMINED that the River Heights application is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and therefore, no amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is
required.
APPROVED ZMA-89-23 subject to the proffers in the December 4 letter
signed by W. Thomas Muncaster, Jr., proffers A through G submitted in a
letter dated December 19, 1990, with C and G amended as shown below, and with
the Sunset Clause proffer verbally made by the applicant at the December 19
meeting. All proffers are set out as follows:
1. The plan prepared by Freeland-Clinkscales & Associates, Inc., dated
3/29/90 is proffered as a conceptual site plan. The applicant
recognizes that revisions will be necessary in order to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Those items which will require revision include, but are not
limited to: slope of entrance, slope of parking areas, landscaping
areas and the re-design of the parking layout to provide ninety
degree parking instead of angled parking.
2., The following transportation improvements will be completed as part
of the Wal-Mart site plan, but are also proffered with this re-
zoning in the event that this site develops prior to Wal-Mart:
"
To:
Mr. Cilimberg
December 20, 1990
....
"ce:
Page 3
-dual left turn lanes eastbound from Hilton Drive to Route 29
northbound.
-traffic light at the intersection of Route 29 and Hilton Drive.
-dual left turn lanes northbound on Route 29 into Hilton Drive.
-construct Hilton Drive extended and Berkmar Drive to VDoT stan-
dards between points A and B as proffered on ZMA-85-35, May 23,
1986.
-traffic light at the Wal-Mart entrance on Hilton Drive.
3. A traffic light to be installed by the developer at the inter-
section of Berkmar Drive and Woodbrook Drive when deemed necessary
by VDoT is proffered.
4. In response to concerns regarding visual quality, it is proffered
to use a quality split faced block exterior instead of sheet metal,
to plant junipers or other suitable materials on the fill slopes
adjacent to roads and to make the design subject to the entrance
corridor district and the architectural review board.
5. In recognition of environmental concerns the following is prof-
fered:
a. Discharge stormwater to a rip-rap channel, flat and wide
enough to prevent any scouring or erosion as approved by the
Engineering Department.
b. Vacuum sweep the parking area twice per week to mitigate
pollutants in the runoff. This proffer also will apply to the
Wal-Mart site.
6. Upon demand of Albemarle County, River Heights Associates hereby
agrees to deed a 100 foot deep strip or that area necessary to
provide for a pathway, whichever is greater, along its entire
reservoir frontage on Tax Map 45, Parcel 69. River Heights Associ-
ates further agrees to provide public access to the deeded area of
Tax Map 45, Parcel 69.
7. Upon demand of Albemarle County, Z & S Development Corporation
hereby agrees to deed a 100 foot deep strip or that area necessary
to provide for a pathway, whichever is greater, along its entire
reservoir frontage on Tax Map 45, Parcel 30.
8. Upon demand of Albemarle County, River Heights Associates would
also provide an easement sufficient for a pathway along its Rivanna
River frontage on Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D.
9. As allowable under the provisions of the Albemarle County Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances, all development rights and density of
the greenway areas shall inure to the residue parcels.
10. All of the above referenced proffered land shall be used by the
County of Albemarle as part of its greenway system.
.f
/ To:
....
,Ice:
tage 4
Mr. Cilimberg
December 20, 1990
11.
United Land Corporation and River Heights Associates agree to
deliver all import fill dirt necessary to build Berkmar Drive
Extended from Rio Road to its connection behind Rio Hills Shopping
Center. If Virginia Department of Transportation should make
changes which require additional fill, this will also be provided.
In the event the Berkmar Drive site is not ready for construction
during the building phase for Sam's Wholesale Club, the County may
provide a storage area to stockpile the fill material. This
proffer would expire if the County does not provide a stockpile
area within the time frame of the Sam's construction.
12.
Upon issuance of a building permit on Tax Map 45, Parcels 69D and
69D2, Wendell W. Wood agrees to contribute $25,000 for the
construction of the jogging/walking trails on Tax Map 45, parcels
30, 69 and 68D or for construction of like projects in the county
Capital Improvement Program.
13.
If there is not substantial performance of the above proffers
within 10 years of the date of approval of this application, the
applicant waives the vested zoning rights under Code Section
15.1-491.2 and 15.1-491.2:1, given by approval of this application.
vlAgenda Item No. 12. SP-90-96. Allen Cutright. Public hearing on a
request for a Home Occupation Class B to operate a custom shutter repair &
building shop in an accessory structure on 4 acres zoned Rural Areas.
Property on west side of Rt 708 approx 6/10 mi west of Rt 29. Tax Map 88,
Parcel 6B. Samuel Miller District.
APPROVED subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion, changing No. 2 as follows:
1. Compliance with Section 4.14;
2. Upgrading or relocation of the existing entrance so that 250 feet
of sight distance is obtained; or, retain existing entrance for
residential purposes only and use existing entrance on adjacent
property, Tax Map 88, Parcel 6A, with 250 feet of sight distance
for home occupation uses only;
3. No on-site sales;
4. No employees.
~Agenda Item No. 13. SP-90-98. Charlottesville Cellular Partnership.
Public hearing on a request to construct a tower & equipment bldg for cellu-
lar telephone transmission/reception on part of a 30.519 acres parcel zoned
Rural Areas. Property on southeast side of Rt 600 approx 2 mi southeast of
Rt 641 near Rt 29. Tax Map 33, Parcel 12. Rivanna District.
DENIED the request.
J
?':?/ tf"?/J{';, /d j
STATEMENTS OF EXPENSES
To: State Compensation Board
For: Month of re b/'tI~ J / Cj '9/
DEPARTMENT :
County Share
State Share
Total
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE:
i ~~-; Z.O
,
L/~6//f
t' 3t?.?. 39
/
SHERIFF:
COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY:
5/J:r57
~J!b/
/'
REGIONAL JAIL:
7~/3/
7#3/
Note: Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
which the State Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and
are not the total office expenses of these departments.
DATE -11l {LAl-h I y I I 7 9 ~
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7/, I el, (f, / 7 ~
AGENDA ITEM NAME S p- c; J -.~ f Gd / d k <<-!-
DEFERRED UNTIL ~ /5; I /1 'J ;L
Form.3
7/25/86
DATE
f\Jl~dt\ (~I 11 1 ~
AGENDA ITEM NO.
4<2,61 f ';'. Ij)
~,~ IJouJ~v
jk~ (', I'Y'i-::>
AGENDA ITEM NAME
DEFERRED UNTIL
Form. 3
7/25/86
. "
U1stribllted to Board: 11 (? I .l~
A?Andi Item No, q 2.0"1/ L 17'7
March 11, 1992
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Oept. of Planning & Community oevelopme,F,T','J"',,,I! ,n::::J:(3?..lJ?".C::JlfLnfr:J, r~",
401 Mclntire Road I U,!/" ''\ I
C harloltesville, Virginia 22901-4596 I r d; ~,i ''\:'( 1 1 N02 d i
(804) 296.5823 I j \\ \" .; - / I L .
l .I ; \ !l ~~~...;; ,,' \"r."";.,y~_._.~ t"'r./ r
. . '"..... t.__ '.~:l U \JL~.:! l
('\,~"~) l~-;r ~.UF)EE)\;'lSOqS
Charles and She1vie Morris
Rt. 3, Box 126
Gordonsville, VA 22942
RE: SP-91-55 Charles and She1vie Morris
Tax Map 36, Parcels 41 and 41B
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Morris:
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. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
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. provision of potable water supply and sewerage
facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator and approval by the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under
current regulations;
4. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or
screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction
of the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall
be maintained in good condition and replaced if it
should die;
Charles & Shelvie Morris
Page 2
March 11, 1992
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on March 18. 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,
~~~
Yolanda Hipski
Planner
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
YOLANDA HIPSKI
MARCH 10, 1992
MARCH 18, 1992
SP-91-55 CHARLES AND SHELVIE MORRIS
Petition: Charles and Shelvie Morris petition the Board of
Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a single wide
mobile home on a total of 17.00 acres, zoned RA, Rural Area.
Property, described as Tax Map 36, Parcels 41 and 41B is
located on the north side of Route 608 approximately 1.4
miles from its intersection with Route 645 and near the
Orange County line. Access is from Route 664 through Route
33 in Orange County (See Attachment A). This site is
located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is not
located in a designated growth area.
Character of the Area:
sheds, a house and the
heavily wooded. There
home site.
Except for the cleared area for two
mobile home site, this property is
is one house visible from the mobile
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to locate
a single wide mobile home on 13.99 acres (See Attachment B).
Planning and Zoning History:
(VA-91-55) Charles and Shelvie Morris - On November 19,
1991, the Planning Commission recommended indefinite
deferral of SP-91-55 so that the Board of Zoning Appeals may
review the location of the mobile home. On January 14,
1992, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance to
permit the mobile home location as proposed in this
application (See Attachment E) .
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff has received one letter of objection (See Attachment
C). There are no mobile homes within one mile in Albemarle
County; there are at least two mobile homes within one mile
in Orange County (See Attachment D).
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
choose to approve this request, staff recommends the
following conditions of approval:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
1
2. Skirting around mobile home from grouud level to base
of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30)
days of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
3. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage
facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator and approval by the loca: office of the
Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under
current regulations;
4. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or
screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction
of the zoning Administrator. Required screening shall
be maintained in good condition and replaced if it
should die;
5. The mobile home shall be occupied only by Charles and
Shelvie Morris or their family.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Plat
C - Letter of Objection
D - Location of Objecting Property Owner
E - Variance Approval Letter
2
u
IATTACHME ~ AI
Ipage il
,C
o
'\
.;)
o
"
38'(
---
~,--
..
SP-91-055
CHARLES & SHELVIE
MORRIS
\
ALBEMARLI: COUNTY
IATTACHMENT AI
~age ~
37
,i
\
. _A
\.-r
. i 9
i
'0
i
~. ...
.'
SP-91-055
" CHARLES & SHELVIE MORRIS
'U
.SCALE IN FEET
100 '100 1100 _~OO
RIVANNA DISTRICT
SECTION 36
BOUNDA~Y SURVEY
PORTION DONALD R, OElER PROPERTY
RIVANNA DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COU HY, VIRGINIA
______________4__..__._ -__
IATTACHMENT Bl
MILTON TER lY ESTES
CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR
, ORANGE, \ IRGINIA
SCALE: j": 200'
SI1EET I OF I
DATE' APRIL 1,1971
I
I
I
N
I.
\
I'\~(?-\...'{
O'l'l Or;<. r~t. r- C?- t.
""C, C, 'fO
t;,
'IS
';D
,~
1, \~,~
Q)Oo \ ..l\G'l
1:0, '1 ~ Z:.
J:o '. \~ "~ r-lo
- '''' ~'-0'
~ \,~ ~~
/C?- \~'v ro, a>
.:o,\~ GZ ~ oor>.O
, \0 t. "
V;h,' \~ '\ " t.~r>.t-lC
'" '.~ ,"- t.t-ll
" ,<,ytJ.~/ -,~,~lj -".>' ;:ENO STA!E .~AINTAI~ENCE
~ f\: \~ (t,. .;';1. . .!'-- N 50QC3..S E 23.55
'0'0 ,',' " . ,,':;00{', ~N07.55"a"E 3149'
~f?J (.i.. ,t-.. \,.'~ ..__"'~~"'---N71046'57"E2668'
,,~ ~~", ~ /-\\\, "~',/ ' -- -tl5ro36'3?"E 3085
'0'" ~\'?-~ ~>.:~\':i}\~ '(,/->' "~~ ..
______ oc..c-./ ....... 0-'" -.~:()\\'"'f".t1- // \ -co.
, ~ \ ';>0\ - '>~~'<1<,^-/ -~ \ ''-''0
'62'01- /' a~ ,/"/~ (\ ' ~0 ~O
"0/ \.V ,\) ''..''0'" O~ ~,
I I "0, 0 "6'0 O~ "':'"
t )J, \ "\ ,~,10 {'
,t.::.. . S- \ ..r'~......~...... ,-
0" ':':' _P", ,<' 6'6>
~ (~"'t", .)C{:;,
";: <"
--1 "- ~OO",
---";'..L "'10
,"-
''po
\'
\~
'f1'
oS'
'<90
.).) ~ '
O,SO-.r',
," It-
HER8ER-:-
HOFFMAN
"\'\ C~/
,," ' ,
~~ "
~ A,
,'I' 6'
..-, '.J c
.;,00(/"0, , //,
, ,)> ( 0 ..)
~C>J ' ,,'1, .9 "
,~ro,'.\/ 'I.S' 'i\O 1"-
,/ {J':~ ,570>0 ~r,
f;' ~ '^ ~,'O/
.oOA), 900 O.J'~. (~\.A'
'''" ". It- 0
C '} r'C, b N 1-1 w \ ~'~ 0 0.),_ /6'~s v"'o
\ ') /19.1\ C ~ €:_ {' -'~/ ..' "\,
\ c:rr- 0, \
RESIDUE 0, R, OBER
(LOT I)
DB 480 PG 609
o
-n
~
SOlO ~
'.:.
.9,
DR DYKES
(LOT 2)
C8406 PG 535
....,.~,~_, ""..;,.......,.JI......~~.4.' ... ." ,'4-
. -.... .- - ~'\
Y~~J~~
)'YLc.Q.w ,1""lY \,:G-,
MILTON TERR ESTES
VA, C. L S, NO, 995
i
i
,,- ------'
-----~--_.._._.__.__. -----'
PameWebber In,nroorated
200 Park Aver
Suite 1121
New York, NY 10166
212370-8710
800257-2517
Fax 212370-8768
Telex 422484
" ..-'
C (i- :::1\- 5")
-' I .
Charles F. Smithers, Jr.
Senior Vice Preszdent Investments
jATTACHMENT cl
PaineWebber
September 24, 1991
Amelia M. Patterson
Zoning Adminstrator
County of Albemarle
4012 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, NC 22901-4596
.-
'. '
Dear Ms. Patterson,
Please be advised that in response to your letter of
September 20, 1991 regarding the request to locate a
mobile home according to Special Permit SP-91-55 by
Charles and Shelvie Morris, I am in strict opposition to
this request.
I, hereby, object to the request to place a mobile home
on the Morris' property for the sole reason that such a
structure will detract from the value of the property in
question, as well as adjacent properties, including my
own.
Please advise further of any other actions which must be
taken to prevent the grant of this special mobile home
permit.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
,""_,J.
J ~,.
Charles F. Smithers, Jr.
Albemarle County - Lots 17 and 18
96 Cross Ridge Road - New Canaan, CT 06840
\
/
[] ~ III /'
::::::::::::
>- ti In UI
II ~W ~~ J ....
~ :z
'LJ ..
t2 ~m f~ ..
:E
:1:
y\ D. Q ~ Y! iii. ()
~
83 ~~ fi~ ~
/
/
IATTACHMENT EI
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
January 16, 1992
Charles and Shelvie Morris
Rt 3, Box 126
Gordonsville, VA 22942
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-91-55i Tax Map 36, Parcels 41 and 41B
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Morris,
This letter is to inform you that on January 14, 1992, during the
meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board
(4:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-91-55, subject to
the following conditions:
1) Should the property be subdivided, or a dwelling placed on
the building site to the rear of the property, the mobile
home shall be removed from the property, or an amendment
sought to this variance.
This variance approval allows relief from sections 4.2.2.1(a) and
10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance building site area
and Rural Areas bulk and area regulations.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
/3a1Jdk ~
Babette Thorpe
Zoning Assistant
BTjsp
RECEI' fr:n
_.. 'tjt.,:...~'
cc:
Yolanda Hipski
. ! 6 N 1 7 1992
PLANNING DEPT.
" --;:1/2,~21-:
~ -',.",.1 ..... ~..;;;i._"_';=-~" _ _
t. .
t\iienda Hem Ki.:Z'Z f(}~(}.; '82.
" " ~ tiC
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
,
,_.... ..
February 12, 1992
Holly Memorial Gardens, Inc
Rt. 8, Box 188
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE:' ZMA-91-10 Holly Memorial Gardens, Inc
Tax Map 32, Parcel 42G
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
February 11, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to acceptance of
applicant's proffers as outlined in letter dated January 27,
1992, addressed to Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner and signed
by J. Thomas Gale, L.S. (copy attached).
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on March 18. 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/ ,") /./,.--;:./
" / r /___
,r' ,;,'" /, ;>"
$L'c:a.----- t,:;:f~--
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Tom Gale'
Jo Higgins
United Land Corp
Page 3
March 6, 1992
10. County Attorney approval of amended Homeowners'
Association agreements prior to final approval of Phase
1B or 3C to include provision for maintenance of the
private roads, such maintenance shall be the
responsibility of the homeowners in Phases 1B and 3C,
respectively;
11. Only those areas where a structure, utilities,
pedestrian ways, recreation areas, roads, and other
improvements are to be located shall be disturbed; all
other land shall remain in its natural state;
12. No more than two phases shall be under simultaneous
development the development shall proceed in the
following order: Phase 3A, 3B, 3C, the completion of
Phase 7, lA, 1B, 4, 5, 6 and 8.
13. Lots along Camelot Drive and st. Ives Road are to be
developed with single-family detached dwellings and
shall have a minimum lot width of 65 feet. All other
lots shall be developed with single-family attached
units including townhouses in Phases 1B and 3C;
14. Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for its entire
length from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final
plat approval for Phase 1A. Briarwood Drive shall be
completed to its intersection with Route 29 prior to
approval of Phase lB. The eastern portion of Briarwood
Drive through the commercial area shall be designed to
Category VI standards with a four-lane cross-section;
15. The mix of dwelling unit types shall be as shown on the
Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan;
16. site plan approvals for phases four and beyond shall be
contingent upon evidence that dwelling units in the
earlier phases have substantially met the County's
goals and the developers' assurances that moderate
income housing has been provided;
17. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with
Section 32.7.9.8 along the front of townhouse units
which constitute double frontage lots;
18. Administrative approval of future site plans and plats
to be in accordance with the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended
Application and Phasing Plan provided no waivers or
modifications of ordinance regulations are required.
~..
..
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOC., INC.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
914 MONTICELLO ROAD
CHARLOITESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902
IATTACHMENT cl"
..,
LAND SURVEYORS
ENGINEERS
LAND PLANNERS
J. THOMAS GALE. LS.
MARILYNN R. GAl..E. L.S.
WILUAM S. ROUDABUSH. LS,
DAVID L. COLLINS. LS,
DIANA P. DALE. P.E.
January 27/ 1992
<", ,- T"'t ,..,,, n-O
"-;;"/ ,~-,.,1!-
. :..r....'...~)..~
Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Planning Dept.
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
,I ~ ~ ? 8 1992
PLANNING DEPT.
RE: ZMA-91-10
Dear Bill:
On behalf of Holly Memorial Gardens, Inc. / I have been authorized
to request that the Highway Commercial (HC) zoning classification
originally sought be changed to'Commercial (C-1). Also, I have
been authorized to proffer the following:
1. A fifty foot (50') buffer zone along the residential portion of
Forest Lakes adjoining TMP 32-42G.
2. A restriction of 430 vehicle trips per day per acre for any
allowed use of the property with the C-1 Zoning classification.
Sincerely, If ~
j. :J~ /~
J. Thomas Gale, L.S.
JTG/jmc
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
FEBRUARY 11, 1992
MARCH 18, 1992
ZMA-91-10 HOLLY MEMORIAL GARDENS. INC.
Petition: Holly Memorial Gardens petitions the Board of
Supervisors to rezone 6.75 acres from R-1, Residential to
C-1, Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel
42G, is located on the east side of Route 29 approximately
2/10 mile south of Timberwood Boulevard. This site is
within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District and is in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is in the
Community of Ho11ymead and is recommended for Community
Service.
Character of the Area:
This site surrounds on three sides parcel 42H which is zoned
HC (Proffered). Parcel 42H nearly divides the parcel under
review into two separate parcels. Parcel 42H is undeveloped
and wooded. The southern portion of the property under
review is wooded with deciduous trees. Cedar trees are
located on the rear of the site adjacent to property
currently zoned R-15 and R-1. The northern portion of the
site is being cleared and graded in conjunction with the
development of townhouses in Forest Lakes.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to C-1,
Commercial. The applicant has submitted proffers intended
to reduce the negative aspects of the rezoning. The
applicant's proffers are included as Attachment C.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends
approval subject to the acceptance of the applicant's
proffers.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
August 6, 1979 - Parcel under review created.
The adjacent parcel was also created by the 1979 subdivision
and was rezoned from R-l to HC on February 15, 1989.
1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan makes specific recommendations for
the development of Hol1ymead, including:
o No commercial uses are to be established on either side
of Rt. 29 up to the entrance of the existing Hollymead
subdivision. It is the intent of the Plan that the
1arqe reqiona1 service use area south of the Rivanna
River not extend north of the river on the east or west
side of Rt. 29 (emphasis added) (p. 183).
The Land Use Plan recommends Community Service uses for this
part of Hollymead. The Plan specifically recommends the
following:
o "Establish a community service area south of Rt. 649 on
the east side of Rt. 29 to provide general retail needs
in the Community and the northern part of the County
(p. 183)."
Based on the recommendations of the Plan as noted above, a
commercial zoning designation is considered appropriate for
this area. However, a C-l zoning is more consistent with
the intent of the Plan than HC, Highway Commercial which
includes some uses more appropriate to a Regional Service
Land Use designation. [The app1iqant's original request was
to rezone this site to HC. The applicant and staff
discussed the rezoning request and the applicant amended the
request to rezone the site to C-l instead of HC.]
STAFF COMMENT:
This parcel surrounds on three sides Parcel 42H which was
created at the same time as the parcel currently under
review. Parcel 42H was rezoned to HC [Proffered] on
February 15, 1989. That rezoning including a proffer
limiting traffic generation to 430 vehicle trips per acre
per day. The rezoning for the Forest Lakes Shopping Center
also contained a proffer limiting traffic generation to
approximately 430 vehicle trip per acre per day. This
application also contains a proffer limiting traffic, which
will provide for continuity in the area. In this case, the
total trip generation from the site will be 2,902 vehicle
trips per day. This proffer will effectively prohibit the
construction of uses which are high traffic volume uses.
2
The Virginia Department of Transportation has provided
comments for this rezoning request Attachment D. Please
note that at the time that the V.D.O.T. comments were made
the applicant was requesting HC zoning on the property. The
request has since been amended to request C-1 zoning. The
Department of Transportation recommends that shared
entrances be used if possible. Staff has discussed this
with the applicant. The adjacent properties are not under
the control of the applicant. Therefore, no proffer
limiting the entrance locations has been made. Staff does
note that at the time of site plan review for any of the
parcels in the area the County may require that joint access
be provided for. [Reference Section 32.7.2.5]
The applicant has also proffered to maintain a 50 foot
undisturbed buffer adjacent to the residentially zoned
properties in Forest Lakes. This will preserve many of the
existing cedars on the property which will provide
substantial screening of any development which may occur on
this site. Staff has typically attempted to obtain a
general plan of development for rezonings. The applicant
currently has no anticipated use for this site and therefore
such a plan is not feasible. This site does lie within the
EC district. Therefore, it is the opinion of staff that
sufficient provisions exist to ensure that any activity on
this site will be consistent with both the EC district and
the Zoning Ordinance.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant
has submitted proffers which will prohibit excessive traffic
generation from the site. The applicant has also proffered
to provide an increased buffer adjacent to the residentially
zoned property in Forest Lakes. Staff supports the
Department of Transportation request to provide unified
entrances on this section of Route 29. However, the
applicant is unable to provide this proffer. Again staff
points out that at the time of development of this site or
adjacent sites staff may require the provision of access
easements which may reduce the total number of possible
entrances to Route 29.
Based on the above comments it is the opinion of staff that
this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance and that the positive factors outweigh
the negative factors. Therefore, staff recommends approval
of ZMA 91-10 Holly Memorial Gardens, Inc. subject to the
acceptance of the applicant's proffers.
3
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Applicant's Proffers
D - Virginia Department of Transportation Comments
4
)-------------- -----
/ v~1f~~T~--------I-90:iT~
"'_ \~_~ r=:'"t RT~."","~
..
IATTACHMENT AI
~
-..........
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I' l. T
RT.661
I
I
,
'- ------------- - ------;- -----------
l'
I:
c
lJ
EARL YSVILLE AREA
FOUIll TIMES M.' SC....l.E
0-9
"'l1'
G~
r;ardens~ Inc.
c
"oJ
>-'----
ALBEMARLE
,
COUNTY
IATTACHMENT BI
.
31
\~
""~
"
10
\
\
'"
\
.oc
100
10E
.OG
'OH
10I
10K
IDe
SCALE IN FEET
0"'....... A. n.1~.,.~I"',.
,.. ~^~I "'...
-....
LJI"
~.
IAITACHMENT cl"
LAND SURVEYORS
ENGINEERS
LAND PLANNERS
..
ROUDABUSd, GALE & ASSOC., INC.
A PROF'ESSIONAL CORPORATION
914 MONTICELLO ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902
..
J. THOMAS GALE. L.S.
MARILYNN R, GAl..E. LS.
WILUAM S, ROUDABUSH, LS,
DAVID L, COLLINS. L.S,
DIANA p, DALE. P,E.
January 27, 1992
<'-,'" .....,.- '''IED
"iT"? A-'-,
. ...,....., .J-.;. _
Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Planning Dept.
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
.IAN ? 8 1992
PLANNING DEPT.
RE: ZMA-91-10
Dear Bill:
On behalf of Holly Memorial Gardens, Inc., I have been authorized
to request that the Highway Commercial (HC) zoning classification
originally sought be changed to' Commercial (C-1). Also, I have
been authorized to proffer the following:
1. A fifty foot (50') buffer zone along the residential portion of
Forest Lakes adjoining TMP 32-42G.
2. A restriction of 430 vehicle trips per day per acre for any
allowed use of the property with the C-1 Zoning classification.
Sincerely, ~ ~
J. ;/C/YIL- /~
J. Thomas Gale, L.S.
JTG/jmc
$~~~'~'
l; '(I\~J ~if, I~"',\~')
r trl[~ '~
~~ Iltl~l =~'
;~~~'J:;',(!)
\;~ftt~$},i#
I ATTACHMENT D I
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
p, O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVillE. 22902
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
January 16. 1992
Special Use Permits
& Rezonings'
February 1992
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
HECEJVED
.I 1\ ~I 1 6 1992
PLANNING DEPT.
Dear Mr. Keeler:
The following are our comments:
t:""ZMA...91-.::rOHolI Memorial, Gardens, Inc., Route-29 N. - The Comprehensive Plan
sows th'e"p"t'oper!y' ~ri this area to be Communi ty Service. The HC zoning allows for
enterprises that are usually the most traffic intensive. This request would
certainly result in an increase in traffic from the current R-l zoning. The
Department recommends that the access to this property be combined with another
parcel, such as 42H or connect with Forest Lakes if at all possible. This would
reduce the number of entrances along this section of Route 29. Should there be
direct access from this property to Route 29 and it serves a high traffic generator,
the Department does not support this request. Under the R-l zoning this 6.75 acres
would generate approximately 60 VPD. With HC zoning, the traffic generation would
be probably at least several hundred VPD per acre, with a total traffic generation
of possibly at least two to three thousand VPD. Due to the vertical alignment of
Route 29 and the roadside terrain, it may be difficult to obtain an entrance
location with adequate sight distance and necessary commercial entrance standards
such as right turn and taper lane.
2. ZMA-91-12 Beechtree Associates Limited Partnership, Route 1455 - This request is
to rezone the existing developed 1.12 acres from CO (proffered) to C-l (proffered).
This request is supposedly solely to allow for a greater flexibility for uses
permitted under the zoning and not for an intensive increase in the development of
the property. Should this be the case, the total traffic generation from this
property should remain fairly constant and not cause additional impact to the road
system.
" '.' '..3.UJ? r,'"
, i 1'0\('0 -',",'" e' . ('7 ( ;', t
.....(.~. v~~l... ._~
,k"'nd~ ti"n' ~;:l 92.o3/f.('i'"
t ~~.... '\..';1 ,....., . I\~. --___......nu
COUNTY OF A lBiEM1ARlE
r-:,i I"r7,'J trJ r;:J' nr
,1 -' 'h."_"'~_e.-., ,...1......1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 A5%
(804) 2965823
, 'I
ijY~ r,','il 6,,~,.~2
! ~ 192Jt!;"tT
BOARD OF SUPERVISO~S
March 6, 1992
United Land Corporation
P. o. Box 5548
Charlottesville, VA 22905
RE: ZMA-9l-l3 Woodbriar Associates
Tax Map 32G, Parcell and Tax Map 32G, Section 3,
Parcels A and 83
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
March 3, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following
agreements:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings subject to
conditions contained herein. Locations and acreages of
various land uses shall comply with the approved plan.
In the final site plan and subdivision process, open
space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of
lots approved. Primary recreation areas to be owned
and maintained through a homeowners association
approved by the County Attorney. Off-street parking
and access shall be limited to the recreational area
shown on the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and
Phasing Plan revised February 7, 1992 and the means
to limit such access shall be part of the site plan
review;
2. No grading permit or building permit shall be issued in
any area until final site plan and subdivision approval
for that area has been obtained;
3. Albemarle County Service Authority verification of
adequate sewer capacity owned by Woodbriar Associates
and allocated to serve the Briarwood development before
approval of each phase;
..
United Land Corp
Page 2
March 6, 1992
4. All road plan and entrance plan approval shall be
obtained prior to any final site plan or subdivision
approval. All roads shall be designed and constructed
to Virginia Department of Transportation specifications
and dedicated for acceptance into the state Secondary
Road System except the private roads shown on the
Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan
with a (PR) label;
5. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater
except as is necessary for road construction as
approved by the County Engineer. Any lot which is
unbuildable due to slope shall be combined with a
buildable lot and/or added to common open space subject
to Planning Commission approval;
6. Fire Official approval of fire protection system
including but not limited to: fire flow rates, hydrant
locations, and emergency access provisions. Such
system shall be provided prior to issuance of any
certificate of occupancy in the area to be served;
7. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plans
for water lines, sewer lines, pumping station, and
manholes and appurtanances which are to be constructed
at the expense of the developer;
8. Staff approval of recreational facilities to include:
one tot lot with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase
1B; the dedication of open space with the approval of
Phases 4 and 5 for the passive recreation area which
shall include construction of walking/jogging trails;
and, the primary recreation area south of Camelot shall
be built or bonded for its construction prior to final
plat approval for Phase 6. This recreation area shall
be built prior to completion of Phase 6 and shall
consist of a baseball/multi-purpose field, two
basketball courts, playground equipment, and picnic
facilities. All recreation facilities shall be
installed by the developer;
9. Sidewalks shall be provided along the southerly side of
Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and
along the westerly side of the entire length of
Briarwood Drive;
, I
United Land Corp
Page 4
March 6, 1992
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on March 18. 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,
~(~
Richard E. Tarbell
Senior Planner
RETjj cy
cc: ~ettie E. Neher
Tom Muncaster
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RICHARD E. TARBELL
MARCH 3, 1992
MARCH 18, 1992
ZMA-91-13 WOODBRIAR ASSOCIATES
Petition: Woodbriar Associates petitions the Board of
Supervisors to update and amend the conditions of the
existing PRD zoning to allow the use of private roads and
revise the application plan to show areas of future
townhouse development in Briarwood. Property, described as
Tax Map 32G, Parcell and Tax Map 32G, Section 3, Parcels A
and 83 is located on the west side of Rt. 29N approximately
one mile north of the North Fork Rivanna River. Zoned PRD,
Planned Residential Development in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This property is located in the Village of Piney
Mountain and is recommended for medium density residential
(4.01-10 dwelling units per acre).
Character of the Area: To date 188 lots in Briarwood have
been approved and recorded. These lots are marked with an
"X" on the application plan included herein as Attachment H.
The completion of Austin Drive and its connection to the
relocated Rt. 606 is currently under construction. The
commercially zoned (C-l) property between Rt. 29 and the
Briarwood development is a portion of Tax Map 32G, Parcell,
but it is not included as a part of the Planned Residential
Development zoning. Briarwood is bounded by the GE Fanuc
facility to the north and the Camelot subdivision and North
Fork Rivanna River to the south.
APPLICANT' S PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to amend the conditions of
approval of ZMA-79-32 which are included as Attachment C.
The primary purpose of the amendment is to allow for the
utilization of private roads to serve two proposed sections
of townhouses. The applicant has agreed to the conditions
of approval as recommended by staff and listed on pages 4-6.
These conditions and the application plan have been revised
.to reflect the current development status of the Briarwood
PRD. This amendment does not increase the level of
development over the 661 units originally approved with
ZMA-79-32.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan and ZMA-79-32 and
recommends approval of ZMA-91-13.
1
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
The history of this development is extensive. A summary of
the applications previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission is included as Attachment E. The rezoning of
this property to PRD was approved by the Board of
Supervisors on January 23, 1980 to allow 661 dwelling units
on 173.4 acres. The original conditions of approval of this
rezoning (ZMA-79-32) are included as Attachment C. To date
188 lots have been approved and recorded and site plans for
24 additional units (Phases 3A and 3B) are currently under
review.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff has reviewed this amendment to the Briarwood PRD as an
opportunity to revise the application plan and the
conditions of approval in accordance with current ordinance
regulations. Although the plan has not significantly
changed in concept from the existing application plans of
ZMA-79-32, the applicant has made substantial revisions to
update the plan in accordance with the current status of
this development in terms of road construction, water and
sewer construction, recreation area provisions, and the
residential units built to date. The proposed application
plan is included as Attachment H.
The main purpose of this application is to amend condition
#4 of ZMA-79-32 to allow the utilization of private roads to
serve future townhouse development only. Condition #4 of
ZMA-79-32 stated: "...All roads shall be designed and
constructed to Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation specifications and dedicated for acceptance
into the State Secondary Road System;". As stated in the
applicant's justification for private roads, "Private roads
are necessary to service townhouse units due to Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) driveway specifications
for townhouse and condominium units. Specifically, VDOT
requires a minimum driveway separation of 50'. A 50'
driveway separation is impossible to obtain with 20' wide
townhouse units." (See Attachment F.) The Engineering
Department has stated they concur with the applicant's
justification.
Originally, private roads were not anticipated in Briarwood
as the proposed mix of single-family detached and duplex
units could adequately be served by public roads. Staff
supports the inclusion of townhouses in this PRD as it was
stated in the ZMA-79-32 report that the staff endorses a
greater mix of dwelling types in residential areas. In
turn, staff supports the private road request to serve the
2
two townhouse sections. Staff op1n1on is the areas proposed
for townhouse development are well-suited in terms of
topography and the private roads will allow a more efficient
use of the land by allowing parking and driveways directly
off the access roads which serve the units.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the use of
private roads in accordance with Section 18-36(b)(4) of the
Subdivision Ordinance which allows for private roads when
"Such subdivision is not located within a rural area of the
comprehensive plan and such subdivision shall be into lots
and/or units to be occupied exclusively by residential
structures other than single-family detached dwellings
including appurtanant recreational uses and open space;".
The approval of the private roads is for the townhouse
sections (Phase 1B and 3C) only--all other roads in
Briarwood shall be public roads.
The only other issue which must be addressed is the double
frontage lots proposed in the townhouse sections. Section
18-34 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: "Blocks shall be
wide enough to allow two (2) tiers of lots of minimum depth
fronting on all streets unless prevented by topographical
conditions or size of the property in which case the Board
of supervisors, or its agent, may approve a single tier of
lots of minimum depth. Double frontage or reversed frontage
lots shall not be permitted except where essential to
provide separation of residential development from streets
or to overcome disadvantage of topography."
The applicant has requested a waiver of this provision
stating: "The topography of the land coupled with the size
of the property and the recommended entrance location led to
the proposed design. We request a waiver of double frontage
lots for the lots on the northeast side of Blue Jay Way
Extended which will front on Blue Jay Way (Phase 3C) and the
lots in Phase 1B which front on Briarwood Drive. The
so-called "second frontage" is not really frontage at all,
but serves to access garages in the rear of the units.
Entrance to the front of the units on Blue Jay Way will be
on one level and entrance through the garages in the rear
will be at a lower level. We propose to provide landscaping
as necessary to the front of the units to minimize any
.perception of double frontage lots." (See Attachment G.)
Staff supports the applicant's request in consideration of
the justification and the provision of landscaping to insure
adequate privacy for the units from the street.
Staff opinion is the proposed amendment to the PRD is
consistent with the previous rezoning approval for this
3
development, ZMA-79-32, as well as the current Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends
approval subject to the following conditions of approval:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings subject ~o
conditions contained herein. Locations and acreages of
various land uses shall comply with the approved plan.
In the final site plan and subdivision process, open
space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of
lots approved. Primary recreation areas to be owned
and maintained through a homeowners association
approved by the County Attorney. Off-street parking
and access shall be limited to the recreational area
shown on the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and
Phasing Plan revised February 7, 1992 and the means
to limit such access shall be part of the site plan
review;
2. No grading permit or building permit shall be issued in
any area until final site plan and subdivision approval
for that area has been obtained;
3. Albemarle County Service Authority verification of
adequate sewer capacity owned by Woodbriar Associates
and allocated to serve the Briarwood development before
approval of each phase;
4. All road plan and entrance plan approval shall be
obtained prior to any final site plan or subdivision
approval. All roads shall be designed and constructed
to Virginia Department of Transportation specifications
and dedicated for acceptance into the State Secondary
Road System except the private roads shown on the
Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan
with a (PR) label;
5. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater
except as is necessary for road construction as
approved by the County Engineer. Any lot which is
unbuildable due to slope shall be combined with a
buildable lot and/or added to common open space subject
to Planning Commission approval;
6. Fire Official approval of fire protection system
including but not limited to: fire flow rates, hydrant
locations, and emergency access provisions. Such
system shall be provided prior to issuance of any
certificate of occupancy in the area to be served;
4
7. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plans
for water lines, sewer lines, pumping station, and
manholes and appurtanances which are to be constructed
at the expense of the developer;
8. Staff approval of recreational facilities to include:
one tot lot with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase
1B; the dedication of open space with the approval of
Phases 4 and 5 for the passive recreation area which
shall include construction of walking/jogging trails;
and, the primary recreation area south of Camelot shall
be built or bonded for its construction prior to final
plat approval for Phase 6. This recreation area shall
be built prior to completion of Phase 6 and shall
consist of a baseball/multi-purpose field, two
basketball courts, playground equipment, and picnic
facilities. All recreation facilities shall be
installed by the developer;
9. Sidewalks shall be provided along the southerly side of
Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and
along the westerly side of the entire length of
Briarwood Drive;
10. County Attorney approval of amended Homeowners'
Association agreements prior to final approval of Phase
1B or 3C to include provision for maintenance of the
private roads;
11. Only those areas where a structure, utilities,
pedestrian ways, recreation areas, roads, and other
improvements are to be located shall be disturbed; all
other land shall remain in its natural state;
12. No more than two phases shall be under simultaneous
development the development shall proceed in the
following order: Phase 3A, 3B, 3C, the completion of
Phase 7, lA, 1B, 4, 5, 6 and 8.
13. Lots along Camelot Drive and St. Ives Road ure to be
developed with single-family detached dwellings and
shall have a minimum lot width of 65 feet. All other
lots shall be developed with single-family attached
units including townhouses in Phases 1B and 3C;
14. Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for its entire
length from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final
plat approval for Phase 1A. Briarwood Drive shall be
completed to its intersection with Route 29 prior to
approval of Phase lB. The eastern portion of Briarwood
Drive through the commercial area shall be designed to
Category VI standards with a four-lane cross-section;
5
15. The mix of dwelling unit types shall be as shown on the
Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan;
16. Site plan approvals for phases four and beyond shall be
contingent upon evidence that dwelling units in the
earlier phases have substantially met the County's
goals and the developers' assurances that moderate
income housing has been provided;
17. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with
Section 32.7.9.8 along the front of townhouse units
which constitute double frontage lots;
18. Administrative approval of future site plans and plats
to be in accordance with the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended
Application and Phasing Plan provided no waivers or
modifications of ordinance regulations are required.
(NOTE:
Amended
7, 1992
plans.)
These amended conditions and the Briarwood PRD
Application and Phasing Plan dated revised February
replace the original conditions and application
ATTACHMENTS:
A-Tax Map
B-Location Map
C-Original Conditions of ZMA-79-32
D-Recommended Conditions of ZMA-91-13 with Original
Conditions Referenced
E-Briarwood History
F-private Road Request
G-Double Frontage Lot Waiver Request
H-Application Plan
6
'1
SECTION 32E
CAMELOT
SEC. I
SEC. 2
SEC. 3
IATTACHM~NT Al,
-ZMA-91-13 WOODBRIAR ASSOCIATES
.
SECTION 32G
BRIARWOOD
PHASE I (Fulur. Dev,lopm,nt)
~ PHASE 2 DB. 714 ,P9.0.45
~ P~ASE 3 g:: 1m ~t. m i DllJi4....
o PHASE 4 (Fulure 0""0"""") ,
o PHASE 5 (Futur. D,.,IOPmentl
o PHASE 6 (Futur. Development)
(i)PHASE 7 DB. 775 P'j; 586 a
~:' :~~lp, ~,i35
0, B. 4:10 P9. 127 -129
D. B. 545 P9. 68
0,8.653 P9. 79
- .
. --
te.... u ,IIT
100 400
.0.
100
RIVANNA
DISTRICT
SECTION
32 f. 32G
,lATTACHMENT 8\
c
Fv.T MTN.
o
(J
t.
~(~ \,
) .01.
~- ~o",,,
~~) 0..
ul
(~
\
:,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
I
~.,
I
~.
$'
....\..
.(,,~
RoBERT W. TUCKER. .JR.
Dau:CTOR 01" PLANN'NG
Department of Planning
e04/20a-!S823
4t.. EAST MARKET STREET
CHARLOTTESVIL.L..E. VIRGINIA 2200t
RONAL.O S. KEELER
"".'.TAHT O'R&CTOR 01" ,,~H'HG
OOUGLAS W. ECKEL.
.DolIOR ~NHEft
January 29, 1980
NANCY MASON CAPERTON
"LAMHER
IDETTE CHARUE KIM!!iEY
~NEI'
Mr. Wendell W. Wood
S-V Associates
Post Office Box 5548
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Board of Supervisors Action
ZMA-79-32 (BriarwOOd RPN)
Dear Mr _ Weod:
This is to inform you that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at its
meeting on January 23, 1900 approved ZMA-79-32 with the following sixteen conditions:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings subject to conditions contained
herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses shali comply with
the approved plan. In the final site plan and subdivision process, open
space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved.
Primary recreation areas to be owned and maintained through a homeowners
assoc~ation approved by the County Attorney. Off street parking and access
shall be limited to the recreational area designated on "Plan An and the
means to limit such access shall be part of the site plan review;
2. No grading permit or building permit shall be issued in any area until
final site plan ~ld subdivision approval for that area has been obtained;
3. Special use permit approval of sewer capacity adequate to serve the entire
development shall be obtained prior to any final site plan or subdivision
approval;
4. All road plan and entrance plan approvals shall be obtained prior to any
final site plan or subdivision approval. All roads shall be designed and
contructed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications
and dedicated for acceptance into the State Secondary Road System_ In review
of road plans, the County Engineer, guided by Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportati.on's letter of September 6, 1979, and such further consultation
with Virginia Depurtment of Highways and Transportation as he deems desirable,
shall discourag~ alignment and design which would result in excessive grading.
Virginia Dcp~rtment of Highways and Transportation approval of access to
Rout~ 29 North and Route G06. In review. of such entrance plans, Virginia
~p<lrtJnent of lIighwiJYs and Transpor,tation is requested to be mindful of its
letter of September 6, 1979;
. . I^TTACHMENT CllPage 2\
Board of Sup arvisors Act.1.on ~ ,
ZMA-79-32
Page 2
s. No grading or construction on slopes of 25\ or greater except as is necessary
for road construction as approved by the County Engineer. Any lot which is
unbuildable due to slope shall be combined with a buildable lot and/or added
to common open space subject to Planning Commission approval;
6. Fire Of~icial approval of fire protection system including but not limited to:
fire flow rates, hydrant locations, and emergency access provisions. Such
system shall be pr9videdprior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy
in the area to be served;
7. Albemarle 'County Service Authority approval of plans for water lines, sewer-
lines, pumping station, and manholes and appurtenances which are to be constructed
at the expense of the developer;
8. Staff approval of recreational facilities;
9.
sidewalks shall be provided along roads serving 60 lots or more and major
collector streets to Route 29;
..
"
.w. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Association agreements prior to final
approvals;
ll. Only those areas where a structure , utilities, pedestrian ways, recreation areas,
roads, and other improvements are to be located shall be disturbed; all other
land ~hall remain in its natural state;
"
u. No more than two phases shall be under simultaneous development "Plan B" phasing;
13. Lots along Camelot Drive and St. Ives Road are to be developed with single-
family detached dwellings and shall have a minimum lot width of 65 feet. All
other lots shall be developed with single-family attached units unless other-
wise specified in condition #15;
14. No final site plan or subdivision plat shall be approved as to any lot or
dwelling unit served by ~ither road X or road Y prior to dedication to public
use and construction or bonding for acceptance into the Virginia State Secondary
Highway System of roads X and Y;
15. Letter from United Land Corporation of America dated January 23, 1980, signed
Wendell W. Wood, written to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors;
16. Site plan approvals for phases four and beyond shall be contingent upon evidence
that dwelling units in the earlier phases have substantially met the County's
goals and the developers' assurances that moderate income housing has been
provided.
Sincerely,
n///'~: 2Zwk~
~hing .~
Planning Department
jct
IATTACHMENT CIIPa~e 31
U\A-73-32 BRIAP.\.J(\"'~
.....c......':.11~.....,4 ", J".a...lI_.. ~""."".'... -. '.
. ..-..'
, , 4 (' ,
.t!~.~_e:'" !2J!l!~~P LAND... COJ{fORAI!.2~ ~E-B.~~~
P.o. BOX 5548 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VlnGL~IA 22903
TELEPHONE (703) 295-7102,
Condition ,f15 pc,'<<'d of Supervisors
tl.~..t1 nQ of Janua..r..I:-2~~ --
January 23. 1980
Mr. Gerald Fisher
Chairman
, Board of Superivsors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Chairman and Board:
In efforts to answer the concerns of the Board, 'we are willing
to make the following modifications to the BriarwoodSubdivision
plan and the surrounding land. '
We are willing to construct a mix of dwelling units in Briaxvlood.
l~is would consist of building 20% of the homes as single family
detached.' This should eliminate the concern for "sameness".
Depending on the market conditibns of the future I the ~mount' of
single family 'detached homes may increase.
We would also be willing to reduce the commercial zoning along'
U. S. 29 North by 20% and this would be reserved for residential
development.
. . ,These concessions were made in the spirit of coopex~tion and to
Du~ld a development that would be advantageous for Albemarle County.
Very truly yo~~ ~
~?h:,-?"~ '
Wendell W. '\flood'
r' I ATTACHMENT 0 IIPage 11
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZMA-91-13 WITH
ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZMA-79-32 REFERENCED:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings subject to
conditions 'contained herein. Locations and acreages of
various land uses shall comply with the approved plan.
In the final site plan and subdivision process, open
space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of
lots approved. Primary recreation areas to be owned
and maintained through a homeowners association
approved by the County Attorney. Off-street parking
and access shall be limited to the recreational area
aes~~fta~ed-eft-uP%aft-Au shown on the Briarwood P.R.D.
Amended Aoo1ication and Phasinq Plan revised Februarv
7. 1992 and the means to limit such access shall be
part of the site plan review;
2. No grading permit or building permit shall be issued in
any area until final site plan and subdivision approval
for that area has been obtained;
3. S~ee~a%-~se-~erm~~-a~~~eva%-ef-sewe~-ea~ae~~y-aae~a~e
~e-serve-~fte-eft~~~e-deve%e~meft~-sfta%%-be-eb~a~fted-~~~e~
~e-afty-f~fta%-s~~e-~%aft-e~-s~ba~v~s~eft-a~~~eva%~
Albemarle County Service Authority verification of
adequate sewer caoacity owned by Woodbriar Associates
and allocated to serve the Briarwood deve100ment before
aooroval of each ohase:
4. All road plan and entrance plan approval shall be
obtained prior to any final site plan or subdivision
approval. All roads shall be designed and constructed
to Virginia Department of H~~ftways-aftd Transportation
specifications and dedicated for acceptance into the
State Secondary Road System exceot the orivate roads
shown on the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Aoolication and
Phasinq Plan with a CPR) label: %ft-~ev~ew-ef-~ead
~%aftS7-~fte-ee~ft~y-Eft~~ftee~7-~~~ded-by-V~~~~ft~a
Be~a~~meft~-ef-H~~ftways-afta-~~aft5~e~~a~~eft~s-%e~~e~-ef
Se~~embe~-67-%9~97-aftd-5~eft-f~~~fte~-eeft5~%~a~~eft-w~~ft
V~~~~ft~a-Be~a~~meft~-ef-H~~ftways-afta-~~aft5~e~~a~~eft-as
fte-deem5-de5~~ab%e7-5fta%%-d~5,ee~~a~e-a%~~ftmeft~-aftd
de5~~ft-Wft~eft-we~%d-~e5~%~-~ft-eXee55~ve-~~ad~ft~T
V~~~~ft~a-Be~a~~meft~-ef-H~~ftWaY5-aftd-~~aft5~e~~a~~eft
a~~~eva%-ef-aeees5-~e-Re~~e-z9-Ne~~ft-afta-Re~~e-6e6T--%ft
~ev~ew-ef-5~eft-eft~~aftee-~%aft57-V~~~~ft~a-Be~a~~meft~-ef
H~~ftways-aftd-~~aft5~e~~a~~eft-~5-~e~es~ed-~e-be-m~ftdf~%
ef-~~5-%e~~e~-ef-Se~~embe~-67-%9~9~
5. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater
except as is necessary for road construction as
approved by the County Engineer. Any lot which is
unbuildable due to slope shall be combined with a
buildable lot and/or added to common open space subject
to Planning Commission approval;
I ATTACHMENT 0 II Page 21
6. Fire Official approval of fire protection system
including but not limited to: fire flow rates, hydrant
locations, and emergency access provisions. Such
system shall be provided prior to issuance of any
certificate of occupancy in the area to be served;
7. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plans
for water lines, sewer lines, pumping station, and
manholes and appurtenances which are to be constructed
at the expense of the developer;
8. Staff approval of recreational facilities to include:
one tot lot with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase
18; the dedication of ooen soace with the approval of
Phases 4 and 5 for the oassive recreation area which
shall include construction of erev~s~e"-fer
walkinq/ioqqinq trails; and. the primary recreation
area south of Camelot shall be built or bonded for its
construction orior to final plat approval for Phase 6.
This recreation area shall be built prior to como1etion
of Phase 6 and shall consist of a
baseball/multi-ouroose field. two basketball courts.
playqround equioment. and oicnic facilities. All
recreation facilities shall be installed bY the
develooer;
9. S~aewa%ks-sha%%-be-~rev~aea-a%e"~-reads-serv~"~-6e-%e~s
er-mere-a"d-ma;er-ee%%ee~er-s~ree~s-~e-Re~~e-%9~
Sidewalks shall be orovided along the southerlY side of
Austin Drive from Route 29 North to 8riarwood Drive and
alonq the westerly side of the entire lenqth of
8riarwood Drive;
10. County Attorney approval of amended Homeowners'
Association agreements prior to final approval of Phase
18 or 3C to include orovision for maintenance of the
orivate roads;
11. Only those areas where a structure, utilities,
pedestrian ways, recreation areas, roads, and other
improvements are to be located shall be disturbed; all
other land shall remain in its natural state;
12. No more than two phases shall be under simultaneous
development uP%a"-Bu-~has~"~~ the develooment shall
oroceed in the followinq order: Phase 3A. 38. 3C. the
comoletion of Phase 7. 1A. lB. 4. 5. 6 and 8.
13. Lots along Camelot Drive and st. Ives Road are to be
developed with single-family detached dwellings an
shall have a minimum lot width of 65 feet. All other
lots shall be developed with single-family attached
units ~"%ess-e~herw~se-s~ee~f~ed-~"-ee"a~~~e"-+~5
including townhouses in Phases 18 and 3C:
I ATTACHMENT D IIPage 31
14. No-~~fta%-s~~e-~%aft-o~-s~hd~v~s~oft-p%a~-sha%%-he
a~~~oved-as-~o-afty-%o~-o~-dwe%%~ft~-~ft~~-se~ved-hy
e~~he~-~ead-*-e~-~ead-~-~~io~-~o-ded~ea~~oft-~e-~~h%~e
~se-aftd-eofts~~~e~~oft-e~-hoftd~ft~-~o~-aeeep~aftee-~ft~o-~he
Vi~~~ft~a-S~a~e-Seeoftda~y-H~~hwaY-Sys~em-o~-~oads-*-aftd
~~ Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for its
entire lenqth from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to
any final plat approval for Phase 1A. Briarwood Driv~
shall be completed to its intersection with Route 29
prior to approval of Phase lB. The eastern portion of
Briarwood Drive throuqh the commercial area shall be
desiqned to Cateqorv VI standards with a four-lane
cross-section;
15. be~~e~-~~em-aft~~ed-baftd-eo~~e~a~~eft-e~-Ame~~ea-da~ed
aaft~a~y-~37-%9aa7-S~~fted-Weftde%%-W~-Weed7-W~~~~eft-~o
~he-A%hema~%e-ee~ft~y-Bea~d-e~-S~~e~v~so~s~ The mix of
dwel1inq unit types shall be as shown on the Briarwood
P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasinq Plan;
16. Site plan approvals for phases four and beyond shall be
contingent upon evidence that dwelling units in the
earlier phases have substantially met the County's
goals and the developers' assurances that moderate
income housing has been provided;
17. Landscapinq shall be provided in accordance with
Section 32.7.9.8 alonq the front of townhouse units
which constitute double frontaqe lots.
18. Administrative approval of future site plans and plats
to be in accordance with the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended
Application and Phasinq Plan provided no waivers or
modifications of ordinance regulations are reauired.
'ATTACHMENT E Ilpage 11
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
ZMA-79-32 - The Board of Supervisors approved the Briarwood
RPN rezoning on January 23, 1980 for a total of 661 dwelling
units on 173.4 acres. The original conditions of approval
are included as Attachment C.
SP-80-29 - A special use permit request filed by the
Albemarle County Service Authority on behalf of Wendell Wood
in accordance with the Briarwood RPN conditions of approval
which required special use permit approval of sewer capacity
adequate to serve the entire development. On June 18, 1980
the Board of supervisors approved this request to expand the
Camelot Sewage Treatment Plan to a capacity not to exceed
365,000 gallons per day which was adequate to accommodate
the short-term demand. The permit was not pursued and
subsequently expired.
SUB-80-082 - The Planning Commission approved a final plat
on June 24, 1980 for 96 lots in Phase II. The plat was
signed on January 10, 1983.
SUB-80-116 - The Planning Commission voted unanimously on
July 15, 1980 to indefinitely defer the review of the Phase
I plat for 64 lots. The plat was never resubmitted for
Commission review.
ZMA-81-05 - Petition to rezone 3.81 acres from C-1,
Commercial to RA, Rural Areas was approved by the Board of
supervisors on March 18, 1981. This application was for the
area of Briarwood between the North Fork Rivanna River and
Camelot Drive and it was rezoned in accordance with the
applicant's agreement with the approval of ZMA-79-32 to
reduce the commercial acreage he owned on the west side of
Route 29.
Review for Como1iance with the Comprehensive Plan-Subsequent
to the approval of SP-80-29 a new Zoning Ordinance was
adopted which does not require special use permit approval
but does require a section 15.1-456 review for the expansion
of a utility. On December 12, 1982 the Planning commission
found the request to expand the Camelot Sewage Treatment
Plan consistent with the Comprehensive Plan subject to
compliance with the conditions of SP-80-29.
SUB-83-038 - The Planning Commission approved a final plat
on April 5, 1983 for portions of Phase III and VII
consisting of 26 lots. The plat was signed September 2,
1983.
I ATTACHMENT E II Page 21
SP-84-24 - A special use permit request to allow fill in the
floodplain for the construction of Camelot Sewage Treatment
Plan expansion was approved by the Board of Supervisors on
May 16, 1984.
ZMA-84-11 - The Board of Supervisors on Augnst 14, 1984
approved a request to amend condition #9 of ZMA-79-32 to
state, "9. Sidewalks shall be provided along the southerly
side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive
and along the westerly side of the entire length of
Briarwood Drive."
SUB-88-101 - The Planning Commission on August 23, 1988
approved a final plat for 80 lots in Phases III and IV
including the 26 reviewed in SUB-83-186. On July 6, 1989
the Commission found the proposed SUb-phasing proposal
appropriate in accordance with section 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The proposal allowed the deferral of the bonding
requirement for the entire length of Briarwood Drive. A
final plat for 28 of the 80 lots was signed on August 31,
1989.
SUB-90-023 - The Planning Commission on March 27, 1990
approved a preliminary plat for the remainder of Phases III
and VII consisting of 26 lots. The final plat was signed on
December 21, 1990. Two additional lots at the intersection
of Austin Drive and the relocated Route 606 will be approved
administratively once the road construction is complete.
ZMA-90-08 - Rezoning petition to allow the deferral of
Briarwood Drive construction or bonding requirement until
Phase I of the development is pursued was approved by the
Board of Supervisors on August 1, 1990.
SUB-91-076 - On March 5, 1991 the Planning Commission
granted staff administrative approval of Lots 37-48 in Phase
VII (Finch Court). The plat was signed on May 1, 1991.
SDP-91-075 - Site plans for the areas of lot~ reviewed with
SUB-88-101 were submitted in August, 1992 and are currently
under review. The preliminary plan for 12 units on Oriole
Court was approved administratively on January 3, 1992. The
preliminary plan for a portion of Bluejay Way and 12
additional units was approved administratively on January
27, 1992. These areas are shown as Phases 3A and 3B on the
revised application plan.
~TTACHMENT F\ ~~
I-'~---'-'-'--=::::::===:::::::,::::~:::::=.:::::--=--=:~-\
'I I' U"n""'I' . -...... ."- '."" <..- -;- c.",., -.- II'
ll.-'\. i1.._ -t.;;:'i. _.:Jo ij...... 't:_ a
, 1
i 'I ,;::::- ."" 0<:',", ~ ." -. <;;> II
! I....,.., n 9 ~ II e c." 11 :H. II ~I ..;;<:
I I r,'-'- _ _'- ' ,
II" .., 'iT~r"""', ;'=1I~ II
.~... __ :"I j--J' ,,_... ..r '--0.
I I .c.~'h P P 1 "j ,-' <3..t; i ,'-, n s II
~_'__"_..".,,__, L~~=::~r~::::::~:=i::,,~=~:::::==~;'''-'::=~
I "'>"'>8 R' R d ~
. ,j ,j . 1 Q . 0 a r"-"----'--"l I
! C f" -=> r l' ,"" t "'" "" - <I l' 1 1 "" 'I ,', 'f'f q " 1 ,!
I . '0. 'J' (..,=~ '=." \ M ..........!J 1"""""----. i I
i 80~-q78-~8~q"
'---_____..__....______..___..!_.__-::..._..__._.!.-_.l..-=:-,_.__.__''____.::==::~.::::.._._J
February 4, 1'3'32
RECEIVED
FEB It 1992
PlANNING DEPT.
Mr. ~:id1 Tarbell, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Planning Department
401 Mdntire Poad
Charlottesville, VA 22901
F~e: ZMA-'31-13 - Briarwood P.P.D.
Dear Mr. Tarbell:
This letter is a justification of ou-r -request as you requested
in your letter dated January 24, 1'3'32 and listed as item 3 under
Applic ation.
The develope-r is requesting a modification of the clr"iginal
condition #4 of ZMA-7'3-32 which required all rClads in the
subdivision t,:, be public roads. The develope-I'" wants to build
townhouses in this development and these require private roads.
The inclusion of townhouses into the unit mh; does not conflict
with the intent of the original conditions of appr-c1val.
Specifically, original ceondition #15 references a letter that
stated that duplexes would not comprise meore than 801. of the 651
lots allowed in this subdivision. This leaves 201., Clr 132 lots
tCI be developed as other than duplex units. Additieonally,
original condition #15 states that approval of phases four and
beyond be contingent upon the demonstration that moderate income
housing has been provided in the eal""lie.... phases. We believe the
l""atio of townhouse to single family detached units ('35 townhouses
to 38 s.f.d) will allow us to meet the intent of ol""iginal
condition #15, whereas developing the remaining 201. of the lc.ts
wheolly as single family detached units will not provide the same
amount of moderate income housing.
Private roads are necessary to service townhouse units due to
Virginia Department of Transportatieon (VDOT) d....iveway
specifications fol"" townhc.use and ceond':lminiL'.m units. Specifically,
VDOT requires a minimum driveway separation of 50'. These
townhc'Lises are typical in, that they are 20' wide. A 50' driveway
separatic.n is impossible to obtain l""it~1 20' wide townhouse units.
Thel""efore, we are proposing private roa9s to se-rvice the
townhouse units and ar"e requesting a modification of original '
condition #4 to allow private roads in this subdivisic.n.
IATTACHMEN-l] \,Page 21
The private ..-oads I,...ill be maintained by fees levied on each
townhouse owner. We have estimated the fees required to
resu.rface the asphalt and for snow removal:
Maintenance: 550 s.f.(avg. pavement per unit) X $4.00 s.y. I '3
s.f pel'" s.y / 10 ye"'1rs (avg. life of pavement:> / 12 months
= $2.00 per month
Sn.:,w F.:F,-'fnoval: $50.00 per lot per year / 12 months
= $4.00 per month.
Total= $6.00 per month Estimated fee= $:10.00 per month,
including contingencie<:;;.
$10.00 pe..- month/ $120.00 per year would be a marginal increase in
the cost of the housing and is minor when compared to the
difference between the monthly mortgage payments of a townhouse
and a single family detached unit.
Please let me know if you need any more information.
Sincerely,
Q~/ tU~
David ~,jalsh
IATTACHMENT GI
['.rM=':::=====-"::=====::~:':::::::::~=:~::~-'l
'; Munc:aster i!
I Ii'
I' E - - ! I
,I nglneerlng ,5<.i'l
! I I
jiComputer ii
, I , ,
I' A l - i. I;
Li:~:~-=~-~::-::=~_~,~.._,~.,_~~_~~~=~:~=::~,,,,i
I '
r-'---'-.---------.---.'--.'-~-....--".,..L.",__.____,____'___.'.."._._'..'.'.'._.'___.'_'.___----,
i 338 Rio Road . ~.-.-'-"-l I
! Ch i' r 10 t t e s viII e, V A 22901 ! --,,---,,- i !
i 804-978-7879 !....'_.__m__._' !
------.-.-------------.--.-.-..--...-....--.-.-..---.-.-..<....--.--.---...----""-'
Febi~ua.....y 131 l"Y:r;~
;. -:.:::.;t~~:-:1'l!=D
I ...i.~ 1..'.... .... .' .*lit
Mr. F~ichard Tarbell, Senior Planner
Department of Planning & Community Development
Albemarle COLlnty
401 l'klntire F.:oad
Charlottesville, Virginia 22'301
(~~ 4 ~ 1992
""; J.:!'f il~':G I'EPT
._ .', .1\:.." u .
Pl'?; Br-ial-wood
Dear M'('. Tarbell:
This lettel'" is in respc1nse to yOU)- l-equest that we ask fo''''' ;:.
waiver of double fl'"ontage lots for the lots on the northeast side
of Blue Jay Way extended in section 3C and the futul'"e lots in
section 1B which front on Briarwood Dl'"i'le.
Section 18-34 of the Subdivision Or-dinance states that:
Blocks shall be ',.,Iide enough to allow two (2) tiers c.f
lots of minimum depth fronting 6n all streets unless
p'revented by topographical cClnditions or size of the
pl'"opel'"ty in which case the Board of Supervisors, or its
agent, may approve a single til?l" of lots of minimum
depth. Double fr-ontage or reversed frontage lots shall
not be permitted except whel"e essential to provide
separation of r-esidential development from streets or to
overcome disadvantage of topography.
The topography of the land coupled with the SIze of the property
and the recommended entrance location led to the proposed design.
We request a waiver of double fr-ontage lots for lots on the
nOrtheast side of Blue Jay Way e:t;tended which will f'(ont on Blue
Jay Way and the lots in se,:tion lB l...Jhich will front on Brial'"wood
Dr'ive. The so-called "second fl'"clnti:\ge" is not really frontage at
all, but serves to access gi:;xages in the r-ear of the uni ts~
Entran.:e t,:. the f'rclnt clf the units on BILle Jay Way ',.,Ii11 be c.n one
level and entrance thl'"ough the garages in the rear will be at a
lower level. We propose to provide landscaping as necessary to
the front of the units to minimize any perc':2ption of double
fr,:.ntage lc.ts.
Plea~e let me know if you need any addjtiona.l infcn-mation.
Since'rely,
.
w'
w. Thomas Muncaster-. ,Jr.. P.E.
,
:r::
I-
z <"..I ~
W Ci en
:;: U.i en
...., - 0
:c e:::" N e1
U UJ ..- !
~ 0
W CD
~ a: LLJ
I.L.
\
\
\
~
-
. ~
i~ & ....
J::
III
~~!f b
!2
f.~ ~rl .
.
-
':"'" T~ ..
....
. ..J
'~!-,; . H.H . ~
2 u
: ,/ III
!2
,
CIl
,
~
:l;
N
Z~
~,
..J1f'I
0..'
"
. ~N
O_1f'I
. VI :l;
0::: :i l-
n.: a.. ,.;
COlD
I"""'\. Z I~"
..... 0'
Oi="
~N
Oulf'l-
-:l;CIl
::~I-'
a.. .!!! _..
0::: ~ ,~.~
o - 0 '.'
<( .... .~ - ~.~
o~" .
- N .
a:::5r<l~;
OJ:l;:l; ~"
~I-O=
Um
0_
l.fl
l.fl-
<I ~
0:: 0
<In.
0::0
~N
o
0::;;
:;.--
!'
vi
::i
..
"
Distribufed to Soard: B-1?' ~ ~.
Agenda Ham N.J. ti2. OJ(f. all
March 11, 1992
COUNTY OF ALBEMAm..Q:.UNTY or ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community De~~.,r.(~,j.tf1e~"ls,3".D.\1,"'.n.. G:-:J)~. ~
401 McIntire Road \ \ / \
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901- ~~~ t..\.\::~ 111992 1\
(804) 296.5823 Ii \ \ h"'~''''''''''''''''''''l-''\'i\"(
U t. \ L 1_. l'ti \,;::l L J L;,::l.
BO'.~"F~-D -o'r SUPEBV\SO~S
Robert and Doris Oliphant
P. O~ Box 8202
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE: SP-92-04 Robert and Doris Oliphant
Tax Map 48, Parcel 77A (part)
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Oliphant:
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. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base
of mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days
of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
4. provision of potable water supply and sewerage
facilities to the satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator and approval by the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under
current regulations.
5. Landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the
satisfaction of the zoning Administrator. Required
screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die;
Robert & Doris Oliphant
Page 2
March 11, 1992
6. Mobile home is to be located as shown on plat initialed
WDF and dated February 24, 1992.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on March 18. 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,
..
(' / / ,(",:2/'----
_ / /~t
I> v .....-
william D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
< (J
.' ~,
, I
Alt:U~ / ~
co
'0
r'. ,
c
,
j
E~ I~' "'"
:~;; ~~ {fOot.; ~~,\! t.\" "1 ;:r
~' ~ ibJ !~~,!, V~~ :~ ~;r
E "
:;t.../1
t:
FE[j r~-;
- ..' 1992
"L[",r-t ^ ,
lOI~I~~/~~~: CQUf\l'1,Y
" "'if''AATMENT
~
February 8, 1992
E3\j
County of Albermarle
Department of Zoning
and
Director of Planning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Dear Administrators:
I have just received zoning administrator Amelia M.
Patterson's letter of January 28, 1992 regarding the request
for a Special Use Permit SP-92-04 to place a mobile home on
the adjoining property.
I oppose the request for Special Use Permit SP-92-04. The
plat map prepared for Robert and Doris Oliphant and approved
for recordation 12/30/91 is not correct.
The surveyor's representation for parcel E and the residue
called parcel 77A is incorrect regarding the boundary line
(point A-to point B) with my property, parcel 99 of tax map
no. 34. I am enclosing a copy of the section of county plat
map no. 34 which clearly illustrates the proper boundary
between the parcels in question.
Please hold in abeyance the issuance of any permits to
Robert and Doris Oliphant for placement of a mobile home
until their surveyor prepares a correct plat map and sends
me a copy so that my surveyor can check it for accuracy.
With this letter, I am also asking the county director of
planning to recind the approval and recordation of the "Plat
showing survey of Parcel E and the residue of parcel 77A of
tax ma~ 48..." prepared for Robert & Doris Oliphant and
prepared by Roger W. Ray & Associates of Charlottesville,
VA. It appears to me that a substantial part of my property
is now incorrectly shown in parcel E and the 77A residue.
Until a plat showing the true boundary recorded, please do
not authorize the issuance of any permits for sewerage
facilities in parcels E or 77A---since the location of the
septic field is not shown anywhere on the plat and the plat
boundary A-B is off.
Please see that the correction to the plat is made by the
Oliphant surveyor---AND RECORDED---well before you schedule
a public hearing before the Albermarle County Planning
Commission and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Page 2
regarding the special use permit.
I note that there appears to be another trailer on the
property. Did the county go through a special-use permit
procedure when that trailer was put in place? Although we
are adjacent property owners, none of my family were
notified of a request for a special use permit. Please send
me a copy of the special use permit for that trailer.
Please also send me the sections of the county zoning code
regarding special exceptions for mobile homes, for side-yard
and driveway set-backs in this zone, and section 18-56 of
the Albemarle County subdivision ordinance.
Sincerely,
"""',
,
/1
/.." /' //
/' .r 'r.tf./
/~-;>>t.J -1/' /1---/ I' ~ ""/
L/"------...-- v --- ........-_~-- i... /
Patricia N. Holland
5322 Sharpsburg Pike
Sharpsburg, MD 21782
(30l)432-7707
COpy TO:
Albemarle County Director of Planning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Robert & Doris Oliphant
c/o Roger W. Ray & Assoc., Inc.
1717 Allied St.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Roger W. Ray & Assoc., Inc.
1717 Allied St.
CHarlottesville, VA 22901
~
\
---_.~..-\ ~
\7 \'-
\" '~/
// ' . j"
::/ ~~ <l I. /~
"l_.___~' ""'t////~\" ~;' ~R
~_._'_.._-~~~ >(''';:-;-::''S:.::.o..~~~'"---' ~ ,>.. \..~ I: II
~ d~ ...", -"-~"\.V" rJ . ,
~ l;JT . en , '"'--.~___ ' lJJ ~
GC><~~r ~ . en 7rr~' : LL-
~, ~\.// " " \.: / 8;/'\.0 ;'/". .~~, ~
i'-- "'" / .f/ \ . OJ // . "i W
'. 3/')1 ~ X / t/--..;' '~l j ~, '
__. '1/ j ;; I. ',.,r ~>-.. !, if) \.Dr
I ~" /I _ . . ";1 ~,.~ ' f
" . ,:; /~............. . ~ / / \ __ IJ t{) ~J l1
", _~ .' '\ ." \"' / ;' ,'; n I i
.. <. .,........, ...... ", . ....) , . ........ i ~ / \'--'!;
tD,.~ l..D'~ -"........ '.\ 'J) / '(j' \/ ii', / "!j'
~ CD:"_ ~ 0) l~ CfJ '-- _ I (J) /'. ij v 'i t,
"/: .~\ " ;()) ^,~.:.o .' '\/' . _--/1\ \'\ \. ti
, " ,,,' /'''\ / I
."~,, ,It 'if" ~ ~. 0 XZ" '-\__ - - ,\ . '\ o~.....
. ; .' ',' C1 "IT> ~ f I
_ " ' . \ . ': \,1) '" _ ~:. v J I / ';; L.
," '., .......... ....) . _ _I / ~ {I
, .- c' i j\ J \ \ ~/' ;? "'\ l U::
".. CD I ~ / ro 7"\..1/ \ :::" I ~P
>1-./
,.
M!:.~ ,c~~',:"~."~~~.
)
, "-;:-r,--<:"~---,
~. "',,-;!j 7~,:::1
. ,/
~
/
.,,1
,
""
I
,
/
\
\
,
/
'. .
'-1'
t-
\" "
~'UCk ..'f>>
",-" "
\J '''>.1
" l":f)
~ If
"
, ....
" -'=~ .
~ ~,
0
~ ~Jo~
n .
~ ~
~ (( ~ ,
~ '<<.~
~ ~ r. ~
- b...L-~1
Z)...-. ,.., ~~" <
\i~ \' /"J
.' " 1'1
'.d,y
o
"'1l"
r~
t
e
............... 1
GI
al I<
..a ....
...,
I: I:
., H
U '" U
.,x
'"
Ill"'....
ClJI:O
::lClJ..
0'''
.,"'...,
1<1<.,
"
al 0. al
.....,GI
.co.....
..., ....
0-....
..., I:
::l.... GI
Ol:.c
.co...,
tON
:r
al Gl GI
I<.c....
...."'>
al
ClJ.... 0
'00'"
>.1<1:.,
.,ClJO....
....a al I:
..I<....
::lellGlo-
o " 0.1<
>. ....
.,1:>
I: ....
001
.... I: 0- ClJ
"'....1:..... 1 "
"'~~""""' I: 0
..U/:.... 0""
E-< I< ., 0 > ~t
NZ 0'" U III
C\< ....1: ell
C\:C I: 0 >'''' ~"";'l
...."" ....U..a..., ..
H 0 ." I: 0
-..:l I< >. I< ... "".... I
coO ClJ.cOI< . [ /: N III
N .c to >. ''0 ~ C\ ClJ
.. ""'O"".c ~'J< 1 I<
>.0 I<.,,..U ell . "" ::l
1<1... ::lI:<O I< 010- 0. Ul III
"N ........"" ClJ .... I: ,Ill 0
::lC\eIl "'1'0 U ......... - ...
1:1 0- >.'" OJ) " I: ClJ I: 'Il. U
.,""., 1:..aC\0 .... ,"0 ~ U I:
l'")cn"" <0...1>: Ul <N U r.:
LrJ ~
..J '"
a: "l'
< '" -
~~3~:e
-l"'CO:.J~
< '! t t.:e
u.. "''=;;N
o ~% .~
~icd-
~c'i. j
o .2
u u
>.
..
I.<
Gl al
.c ..
.0 . '"
IQC..::I..
III
.. . "'Ill
I::C'"
I: ..... Gl
< ~ti ~
,"0111..::1
001....
. "" I< .
Z . ll.3:
. IQ I<
I< "'.. 0 I.< 01
l'")...... '0 0 I:
U'" I< >. I:
...-t ... ., .c C.....
.I<GI........,...
<..::l.....0>0
" 0-'" I.< ...
l'I1ll.~:cglC>
.:c. .
''0 '0..'0
>.1: .1<1:1:1.<
""'''0'''00
g::= ~'I:: ~~'I::
III0.,0:J"'0
>l:Cll.:O:IQ3::O:
...
0\
0\
....
CD
'"
>.
I<
'"
:J
e
'"
l'")
.
"
'0
"
:c
'0
I:
"
'"
...
Ul
'"
'"
al
C
.. .....
III to-
Q) -.-10
::l I< ..
0''' ClJ '"
eIll: ..
1<., III ell
.c ......
ell 0. 01 ::l
.c:.... >.., 0
.........:cl>:
01<
... ...,... 0
Ollo.eo..
... 0 I: '"
'tll.<"'''al
al 0 0. > '0 ClJ
-f0 -t.....c-IJ
... I: I>: ., ::l
....'tl0 0
.. I: ...co:
O"al~"
I: ".....,'0
..000l1:
0- ",.c .,
I:al "al
......aall<.cO
alO...."'.....
..a 1>:'" 0.
..a-I:ClJ
al"'O 0"
1<0Ji< :J
.,... "''00
..,..0Ill!:
"'0 ..
"'...........,I!
alO:'alUO
I:IIUOI<
:....al"'.........
00\.....,
I o-ll. II al
>. "" I: .... ....
~V1-t........c
'" 11<0 >.II!
al" .....
0..... '" '" ~
~eGl~8.=.
o.Gl..:CO
ll.., I< ClJ
.. OXo.1:
I: <<I 0., 0
eIlll....E-<eIl
0::> .c>.
., 0 III E-<.... I:
~...... III 01 0
'0'" ......
"....'tl."..
O~Gl"""O
.. Gl 1Il..a 0.... ell
to c.. "'" .....c..... )( &G
1/)01"'1<0'"
; '" i ~ ~ ~tl
00001"'0.1:
>4.f-'001lO""'"
al Gl
.c .c
.. '0 ..al
.cellal '"
0-.. >.c.c.,
1:"'0"'''
"':'1< .....c
:. 0.11I:' U
o .0.'" ....
.c .. '" '" >..c
III e U....:r
"'... 0 0.
>.U........Ii.
"'.... 0..::1
1<.... 00<
alO'... >
0.0. III 00
Olllell'O"ll!:
I< 1:01 ll.
O'Gl....I<..ll.
.c:........III<
Gl'" ::l
.c: >. 0'.... I&.
.. >.'" 11I....0
..a I< "'Gl
... III :'Ul
O'tl Q, Gl :0:
III O..a III 0
.c:., '" III'"
o 0 0...... E-<
.. 0. ..... 'H
alOOl....cC
..I( '" c:' tI:o:
II 0..... .. 0
1:'" QI U
1.<11....1:..1(
0.,0.,,,,,,
~O .
.....,'tl......'"
.,..,......c .
....00...""
o..c 0 0.
..IIIel:
., .. 0 0
~ m QJ .....
'tl... eIl.c 1:'"
I:..a O..:r 0
.... 0 I: 0 ell
.....OI-.cUl
.., >. III
CUaJUlr"'4 ..,
1Il.c.... Gl In 0 .
.,..'tl>., '0
ell .... In ClJ
.............,"'..
0.0".,.1:0
11I1<001....
'01:....c.0
ell 0'" III ell I:
IIl"'X"'all<eIl
0....01:......
.... g "'...... :J 0
o o....a.,...
I: 0.'0 0 Gl'"
11I....".,.1<"
ell
ell I<
..a 0
.... III 01
o ..... ell >.... I:
Olll......a...c ....
......... I: '" I:
"".c:rlll::l 0
.... 0I01:.cN
... :JI:O.....
....c 0.... .c:... >.
"''''>''''''",:r..
1:.... III....... I:
:J:r .Gl"':r>.:J
'O.c., ... 0
... Gl ell .. '0 ell 0
.....> o ell Gl>
.."........a>...Gl
eU.,...............,...
::l....O..a<GlIII'"
I: eIl:J 0 I< /0
III ::l '" o.'tl Gl '" "
> Il I: I< .. Gl
.,.110., .....a
.c 0'" '" III 1:.....
U 1:.......<
:J ....1:0 a
OOl:eIl...."''tlal
>........1( III I: III.c
""10'" ..
... ........ 06-J.....t fa "
~:;: it., ='it~~
GlO\O.QOI!O
:J....O OO",.C
0' ... 0 0."
Gl ..,....0- 0.'"
"'0\ ....1:0010
........ :r... I: ....
.. H I: Gl
.... >. .. I:......a..
.c'" IO/OH al
.IJ '" . CUI""'4 ,..... w
ClJeeg.ll. '::1Il
1Il..a 0 ell >. III :r I:
OClJ....I<..l. 0
0.1&. I: 0......
0. l:eIl:JIIl......
o -eIl.cO..../:....
>.....u > l.'tl
0/0" I<GlI:
..,'tl...... ell ell 0.0
In l. 01.... 0. 0
.c: GI :r .c I< :J Gl
"I: "/OUl.c'O
....'tI1: II ..,eIlGl
:rGl....'tIGI.... ..ao
3: GI ..a 0 ..... I:
g .~~:<'tl'8~~
>. ....... "'.... Ill'"
..........,"'QI'tl
.... ..... o.c 0 ell I< I<
H 0. 0 I: .. III 0. 0.0
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
MARCH 10, 1992
MARCH 18, 1992
SP-92-04 ROBERT AND DORIS OLIPHANT
Petition: Robert and Doris Oliphant petition the Board of
Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a single-wide
mobile home [10.2.2(10)] on 5.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 48, Parcel 77A (part), is
located on the east side of Route 640 approximately 3/4 mile
north of Route 20 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This
site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural
Area 2).
Character of the Area: No dwellings are currently on the
site. The driveway for the proposed mobile home has been
installed. The location for the proposed mobile home has
been cleared and the septic system has been installed. No
dwellings are visible from the location of the proposed
mobile home and the mobile home will not be visible from the
public road. Staff has identified eight (8) mobile homes
within one-mile of this property including one on property
adjacent to this site (Attachment C).
Planning and Zoning History: The plat creating this parcel
was approved on December 30, 1991.
Comprehensive Plan: This parcel is located in Rural Area 2
of the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT: The mobile home is to be located as shown on
Attachment D. The mobile home is to be used by the
applicant. One letter regarding this request has been
received (Attachment E). This letter states a general
objection and states concerns about the boundary between Tax
Map 34, Parcel 99 and Tax Map 48, Parcel 77A. It is the
opinion of the staff that any boundary dispute does not
affect the applicant's petition.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
choose to approve this request, staff recommends the
following conditions of approval:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
1
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base
of mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days
of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage
facilities to the satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator and approval by the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under
current regulations.
5. Landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Required
screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die;
6. Mobile home shall be occupied only by Robert and Doris
Oliphant or their family;
7. Mobile home is to be located as shown on plat initialed
WDF and dated February 24, 1992.
----------------
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Map Showing Mobile Homes Within One Mile
D - Plat Showing Mobile Home Location
E - Letter of Objection
2
,"", .
.~~ ~
w, a:
6 ~..
<1- V
I"- (/) 10 0 00
I"- W 10 10 Q2
~ OCT I I
CO -tOlO
....,";NtOOO
"4=N-:
. "0)
cr. ::E m cq cq ci
w ~\{)OO
W~ Lri
: <:: -
t0o:::.~
10.-
~
V
.
V
to
(J)
T
"\ ". 'l '-~ "" \.
".".'.. , . ''''.~
(,\i,Hi\ U 0.1 .,....;,
.. -->'.-;/ \..,~
(f" "",,\
......) \~
';(1
a
....
z
w
1:
J:
U
~
~
r
.'{
X .-1
. C'')
:::-- ('f)
-rl
IX: .
111 0
02
o
0:::
0,
:~J
r.)lf
C'- ,.')
'I.. ,I
~" ,'~
~" . ,:,'
) ~,,,.,)
t"Vh'OJ c,~~
~~",~!JI'!~
--
\
___I
I
- ~ t
~g~'
LLZ
.- W
ZZLL
-0
~g;?;
o
Z
c!
...IN
..JvtO
cnOCD.q-
cn::t. , ,
, .0 to
VZc:n1O
to<tl..P.
"-- .en
~(,)CD .
.- .0
.-cr.O
\-
c:(
ll.
to
q
V
10
en
o
Oc:(
ZO
~ // s.. iJ.J
U/' '"'-
01/0::
',C)
-1\1
1Ic>
w.
: 0
NIO
10.
olO
lOO
'-V
CD
to
Z
w 0
~~ 1-,
I- Wo
~LL aJW>-
. i ~ ?i ~ E ~ '~\ '
!!! g; ~ ~ -t 15 \)-{
Z~~I-cnl-
Oowzzl-cn ~
W I-W W
ffi~~~~aJ ~
:r:1-Q:~W~ . ~
o :r: I- ..J !;t I- ~."
WI-OWl-
,m;;Z>cno
a:::>-tW I- \..-
(.) o...J .-...;:
cnWcn...J...J1- 't--J
w~a:::-t-t~ \
r- . 0 i= . a::
'i t;j Z >- a::
,'.. ":ii:W~O
:58~~oU
W~Q:ll...JQ
:r: ll.w-t:;z
I-~ ~(.)
~~~g~~
Z-t:<<:I.!.OI-
QI-OO~W
\l)Zol-l-~
>~Wwcn L&.i
OZ~(.)-tl-~ .
woQz -t~
~~ffiffi~~i
~~~~~~r
w en
a(,)ZI-~
WZOZI
CJ)<{_.....I-
o ~ I- -~
a.oe:!~Z
~0::~>0 .
-OO::OWI
W 0 UU
O::C>lL.U ::>
<t~~W~(/)
Z >0::
3:00::- (/)
ONOI-<t<t
UW
~>-lL.il:a.~
COI-ZI-a.W
Z3:.(/)<{I
O::>OWo::l-
WOIO::-W
~U(/)I-~(/)
::::;WWOI-a:
...Jo::Zo~
~~<{WZ-
O;:tCO::<{O
j::WZ<tal-
<tCO~>-ZO
..J~WW<tW
::>~I-I..JO
~W<tl-WZ
o::IO 'I~
I-(/)>-I-Z
WO--I -
(/) IZI
::>1-1-01-1-
-0
01-1-(1) 3: Z
ZZ(,)W
<t<tW(/)C>(/)
-I::>lLO~-
(/)lLQ..ZI-
Wa::Wa::Ze:!
II- ::> Z ::> ::> ...l
a._Q..0::Q..
( )
j..:~
<t
o
n::
()
u
w
0::
0::
o
it.
o
W
>
o
0::
0...
0...
<t
<f'C>~
f~~~' .
I ~-
'<t
~...J--->
a..
~t:i..
o
-j~
. (,)
~~
.~e'201/
./9'2917
U
:I:.-
I-z
>-3w
cr.~::E
o~w
.-(,)(/)
(/)0:<1
J...O)O)
o
W
00
-w
2:0
as;
n:o
wn:
Iw
I-I
n:1-
::>0::
lL.::>
Wl.L.
mwu>
I-col-
0>-0
z<t...J
>-~~
<t !'2
~~w
wow
-a::
...J(/)I
W~h-
U
n:wo
<tI.....
CLI-~
<icri
~.
I-
Z
o
Q..
.~..~~.~~==_.
~
o
:=
a
~
o
:::s
~
rzl
UJ
o
~
o
~
~
Zl-
Oct
(/)-1
da..
~
.0
...l<.D
W <.D
r-- <( -
....-1r--
,- d It)
IU(O
CD!!2,
v8:o
~...,v
o (0
I- Z .
.:tm
>ci
:E
en
~
Q
<{
:E
X J-
<t Z
J- ~
LLO>-
O~Z <{
LL<{u>O Z
Ol'-WJ- (!)
>-I'-J-cn 0::
W-l=>l1..J->
>WOOU
0:: U 0:: 0::"
=>O::WJ-J->-
cn<{J-cncnJ-
(!)a..<t~a5
ZU.J-I<[O
3:ocnJ-ZU
~WZ~ZW
cn=>Oz<[-I
a >0::
J-(j)~Wa:<!
<[WJ---' ~
-IO::<{~ W
CLWUlO ~C)
IO-: <!o
J---1J- N
od:::> II
'W 1;'~ _.
-I <{
~ i ", ll.;
0::
<{
a..
I-
Z
W
~
W
(/)
<t
W
(/)
(/)
w ~
U
U
<t I-
Z
o 0
f() a..
?;
w
Z
C>
Z
o
...l
<t
'~N-owF--
f'-:r--_lO~
r--O'i . 'V
1Or--r--0.q-
N 2!:2N
~?:~~3:
:rioo~~
roF--~to;:""
t00~1t),.,
. . .0>.
o !.D j."j V" :'-
f'-lONoov
zzzzz
f
I..,
Q
I-
Z
o
a..
V.
t""
~
~
I~~
,00
r~
a
0::
o
LL.
0::1-
o<t
NZ...l
<t . 0...
r--al
f'-w-
IZf'-
co Z ~
v<!m
o <D
~""
. r--
I- . <D
com
a.
a::m
<!o
-10
...l
~
W
.1-
o<!
a:: I-
o(/)
lJ..w
0::
ow
ZlL.
.:::i
-' ~
eno
wO::
-,0
a::l.L.
<to::
IO
UZ
..,~
....=<!
(/)z
w~
~...l
<tQ
..,>
~
ob
. CD
o.
"'""'"
· N
f'--
f()
Z
~(/) w :r. lL.
::>w ...J I- ...J W ~o w
:Ea.. co>-w Z I'
-0 <tcoo ~>-<tz~z w 1-0
:E...l Z 0 wl-:r.O-O ww z
~(/) Oou Z 1-- ~ZLL::>
<!~ (/)W U::>(/)lL.<t1- -00
<! 0:: . ZO...JOaU I-...J LL
w-O <!U w w>-I-z
w~ 0::5U a woO::(/)
U 0 mo::ZO
> www O::wn:QU(/) o<tw-
<!<! oo::...l 8-1<!o::wI zo~1-
:r.w - 0:: uO::a..wO::I- ::>ZZ<(
I 0:: >(/)<t <( 0... 0::>c>1-
(,)<( O<(~ <t~I l.L.:r. l.L.0:::i~
<tLL O::ww ZWU,<tOI- . wCO<t:E
WO o...-Ial -CO::>a::w-w
-1u-1 z...J(/)OI-~U 0:: ...J::>
w:' Z
WI- ...l:r.e:! o<t ,LL<tW~ ~m<to
::>w -ww (/)wwoauz - O::::E
Ow ~>:r. .W
U}LL >IUwwZo (/)I-Zo
Ww o I- -I-zo:::r.<tn: >-zwz
a:: a <! a
n:n: <tOLL LLZn:I-n:O ~0C><t
01-0 >-o-w
w<(~ 0::0 -I aLL~Oz o::o...>-w
:r. ::> . ::EtOo::eno~o ::>oCOu
1-0'10 w~~ <tIOO~O::<t~ (/)zcz
(/)N 1->-1 a::<tww
"'oz <tmco LLd,Za::LL > w. IlL
> - -Ol-a::~o
WO<( Q:(/)z <!Z(/) <t m ~<t:~c>
-10I Q..(/)Q (/)o>wwt::> 0::: -Iz
W 61- (/)Wl- -i=oco>-w(/) Ol-ml-
U/'0(/) ~uml-~uw lLZ<t(/)
(/) 0:: (J) _uu -1--
IUW IW::>O-XI oO(/)X
w <!lJ..w I-<t(/) I-(/)(/)Z~WI- ZQ..ww
I- Q..O...l
0 N
Z - f() "'"
It)
>-
I-
a::
w
0...
o
0::
Q..
lJ..
o
a::
w
Z
~
o
01
I
I ( )
C\l
I
r--
o
co
00
I' I
f":'.
<f
CJ
I-
Z
<(
I
ll.
:::i
o
~
0::0::
00
LLO
..,
l-
n:
w
!II
o
0::
u<!
z-
-z
:-(3
uo::
0-
en>
(/)
<tui
..,-1
-'
>--
<t~
a::w
.1-
3:1-
o
O::...J
WO::
C,!)<t
OI
cru
<l
C
(f)
~ \,
\:;'"" -
-~
J '-5
d:,
-
~
,
NononlVtUe
c
I
I
,
'- --
''/ '\:..-. .
~
~."l!Ifson Stew. ..
-;:v
@6Jj
. ijru /~-
";.,....~!...
-----------------------------.
()
I.J
,..
IATTACHMENT A:
',",
\'!
o~
"'1-
G~
;?-
~?'
>:J~
~o
\ '\
) I
o
"
3]
~~
"--
J--~ '
_' >-* " fA ~ \--,...
// ~ 'x. / :?-.. u r)(,/--j ~\
IATTACHMENT B\ '
22
!
i
1\
/:
II
V
;~.; ''d'J ~ /, '/'-.,Ii'o.. 'I,:
I ATTACHMENT C I
/
r~
/
/
.-.......
\
"'-
"~ "-
..' ""-
~. ,~
'. /
.~ ,~.-
.....~ .,
~~~
,~
~
----~
i- @ proposed mobile home
objecting landowner
-
;{'
- (
../
/
\
)
I
..
I ATTACHMENT E/
February 8, 1992
RECEIVED
FEB 1 2 1992
PLANNING m::PT.
County of Albermarle
Department of Zoning
and
Director of Planning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Dear Administrators:
I have just receivp.d zoning administrator Amelia M.
Patterson's letter of January 28, 1992 regarding the request
for a Special Use Permit SP-92-04 to place a mobile home on
the adjoining property.
I oppose the request for Special Use Permit SP-92-04. The
plat map prepared for Robert and Doris Oliphant and approved
fer recordation 12/30/91 is not correct.
The surveyor's representation for parcel E and the residue
called parcel 77A is incorrect regarding the boundary line
. '. (pG.int A-t.o E>0int B) wi"th my. prol!lerty., parce 1 99'.of tax, map
no. 34. I am enclosing a copy of the section of county plat
map no. 34 which clearly illustrates the proper boundary
between the parcels in question.
Please hold in abeyance the issuance of any permits .to
Robert and Doris Oliphant for placement of a mobile home
until their surveyor prepares a correct plat map and sends
22 a copy so that my surveyor can check it for accuracy.
y.'_'_~J. ~rl~S letter, I arT; alsf:) asking the coun~y director of
planning to recind the approval and recordation of the "Plat
showing survey of Parcel E 3nd ~he ~2sid~e of parcel 77A of
tax map 48..." prepared fo~ Robert & Doris Oliphant and
prepared by Roger W. Ray & Associates of Charlottesville,
VA. It appears to me that a substantial part of my property
is now incorrectly shown in parcel E and the 77A residue.
:~~il a plat showing the true boundary recorded, please do
~=~ authorize the issuance of any permits for sewerage
facilities in parcels E or 77A---since the location of the
~2~sic ~~elj l5 not s~ow~ 3~ywhere on the plat and the plat
ocundary A-B is off.
Please Gee that the correction to the plat is made by the
Ciiphant surveyor---AND RECORDED---well before you schedule
a ?~blic hearing before the Alber~arle County Planning
:o~missian and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
I ATTACHMENT E II Page 21
Page 2
regarding the special use permit.
I note that there appears to be another trailer on the
property. Did the county go through a special-use permit
procedure when that trailer was put in place? Although we
are adjacent property owners, none of my family were
notified of a request for a special use permit. Please send
me a copy of the special use permit for that trailer.
Please also send me the sections of the county zoning code
regarding special exceptions for mobile homes, for side-yard
and driveway set-backs in this zone, and section 18-56 of
the Albemarle County subdivision ordinance.
Sincerely,
~.A.~'
Patricia N. Holland
5322 Sharpsburg Pike
Sharpsburg, MD 21782
(301)432-7707
COpy TO:
Albemarle County Director of Planning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Robert & Doris Oliphant
c/o Roger W. Ray & Assoc., Inc.
1717 Allied St.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Roger W. Ray & Assoc., Inc.
1717 Allied St.
CHarlottesville, VA 22901
r
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 7, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
Article I. In General.
Sec. 7-1. Purpose of chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to conserve the land, water,
air and other natural resources of the county, to promote the
public health and welfare of the people in the county by esta-
blishing requirements for the control of erosion and sedimentation,
to establish procedures whereby these requirements shall be admini-
stered and enforced, and to implement and as pursuant to the Code
of Virginia, title 10, chapter 5, article 4, section 10.1-560-571.
(6-18-75, Sec. 2; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-2. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by
this section:
Agent. The engineer, surveyor, contractor or other person
authorized by the landowner to act in his behalf.
Applicant. The landowner or his agent who submits plans and
specifications to the county for issuance of an erosion control
permit.
Conservation standard or standards. The regulations, guide-
lines, techniques and methods for the control of erosion and
sedimentation as shown in the handbook (see definition of "hand-
book" which follows) or Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Regulations.
Director of engineering. The director of engineering of the
county or his designated agent.
Erosion impact area. An area of land not associated with
current land disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil
erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring
properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply
to any lot or parcel of land of one (1) acre or less used for
residential purposes or to shorelines where the erosion results
from wave action or other coastal processes.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. A document which describes
the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems in connection
with land disturbing activity or an erosion impact area and explains
and illustrates the measures which are to be taken to control those
problems. The plan has a written portion known as a narrative and
an illustrative portion known as a map or site plan.
,
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 2.
Erosion control permit. A permit issued by the county pursu-
ant to this chapter.
Handbook. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook,
as the same shall be amended from time to time.
Land disturbing activity. Any activity so defined by the Code
of Virginia in Title 10, chapter 5, article 4, section 10.1-560, as
the same may be amended from time to time.
Permit holder. The landowner or other person authorized to
act as agent for the landowner.
Subdivision. As defined in chapter 18 of this Code.
(6-18-75, Sec. 4; 7-9-80; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-3. Approval required for certain activities and conditions.
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this
section, it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any land
disturbing activity ~ntil he has submitted to the director of
engineering an erosion and sediment control plan for such land
disturbing activity and until that plan has been reviewed and
approved and an erosion control permit issued to the person by the
director of engineering. It shall also be unlawful for any person
willfully to fail to conform to plans and specifications so
approved in performing such activities.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person who owns land in the
county hereby defined as an erosion impact area willfully to suffer
or permit any portion of his land to remain in such condition that
soil erosion and sedimentation causes reasonably avoidable damage
or harm to adjacent or downstream property, roads, streams, lakes
or ponds. The director of engineering, on his own initiative or
upon complaint of any citizen, shall notify the owner of any such
land that such condition exists, and may require such owner to
submit an erosion and sediment control plan to control such erosion
and sedimentation. If such owner fails or refuses to submit such
plan to the director of engineering within the time specified in
such notice, or if he fails or refuses to provide the controls
required by the plan approved by the director of engineering within
the specified time period after notice of such approval, he shall
be deemed to have violated the provisions of this section and shall
be subject to the provisions of section 7-8 for such violation;
provided, that the director of engineering may, for good cause
shown, extend the period of such compliance for a reasonable time.
In addition to all other remedies, the director of engineering may,
upon proper finding, proceed in accordance with section 7-6(c).
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 3.
(c) Any person owning, occupying or operating private agri-
cultural, horticultural or forest lands shall not be deemed to be
in violation of this chapter for land disturbing activities from
the tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural
or forest crops, livestock feed operations or products or engineer-
ing operations under section 10.1-560(7,9) of the Code of Virginia;
provided, that such person shall comply with the provisions of this
chapter when grading, excavating or filling. Clearing of agricul-
tural areas of greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet when
such areas are not tilled and planted with agricultural, horticul-
tural or forest crops within sixty (60) days shall be deemed to be
land disturbing activity. The disturbance of land areas greater
than ten thousand (10,000) square feet for the construction of farm
structures, including but not limited to agricultural structures or
roads not associated with tilling, planting and harvesting, is not
exempt from the requirements of this chapter. In no case shall the
construction of any roads, other than those used exclusively for
access to tilling, planting and harvesting fields, be exempted from
the requirements of this chapter.
(d) Any person whose land disturbing activities involve lands
which extend into the jurisdiction of another local erosion and
sediment control program and who chooses to have a conservation
plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board
shall notify the director of engineering of such plan approval by
the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board.
(e) Whenever a land disturbing activity is proposed to be
conducted by a contractor performing construction work pursuant to
a construction contract, the preparation, submission and approval
of the required erosion and sediment control plan shall ,be the
responsibility of the owner of the land.
(f) No permit shall be issued by any administrative officer
of the county for the construction of any building or other develop-
ment requiring a permit, nor shall any subdivision plat be approved
relating to land subject to this chapter unless and until the
requirements of this chapter have been complied with. (6-18-75,
Sec. 5; 2-11-76; 4-21-76; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-4. Submission of plans and specifications.
(a) Any person who applies for approval of an erosion and
sediment control plan and issuance of an erosion control permit
pursuant to section 7-3 hereof shall submit with his application
to the director of engineering an erosion and sediment control plan
with specifications for temporary and permanent controls of soil
erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the director of engi-
neering shall deem reasonably adequate, considering the nature and
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 4.
extent of the proposed land disturbing activity. A certification
is required stating that all requirements of the plan will be
followed. Unless otherwise specified by the director of engineer-
ing, four (4) copies of all plans and specifications shall be
required.
(b) All plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this
chapter shall be in accordance with provisions of the handbook;
provided that the director of engineering may require such addi-
tional information as may be necessary for a complete review of the
project. The foregoing notwithstanding, in the case of any
approved subdivision which is subject to the provisions of this
chapter, the director of engineering may allow, in lieu of an
erosion and sediment control plan for the construction of build-
ings on individual lots in such subdivision, the provision of a
contract satisfactory to him and to the county attorney, executed
on behalf of the owners of individual lots; provided, that an
approved plan exists for the development of such subdivision,
including all land disturbing activities in connection with the
development of such subdivision other than construction of build-
ings on individual lots. Such contract shall ensure that the
construction to be performed on such lot shall be so performed as
to provide protection from soil erosion and sedimentation to a
degree satisfactory to the director of engineering and shall be
executed prior to the issuance of a building permit for such
construction.
(c) All plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this
chapter relating to land within any public drinking water supply
watershed, in addition to all other provisions of law, shall be in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.1, Article II, of this
Code, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
(d) Upon the submission of any plan submitted pursuant to
section 7-3 of this article, the applicant shall pay to the county
a fee of forty dollars ($40.00) to cover the cost to the county to
review and to act upon soil erosion plans for residential or
agricultural sites; and one hundred dollars ($100.00) to review and
act upon such plans for all other sites. For each erosion control
inspection necessitated by this plan, a fee of thirty dollars
($30.00) shall be paid by the applicant. The maximum fee charge-
able under this section, inclusive of inspections, shall not exceed
one thousand dollars ($1000.00).
(6-18-75, Sec. 6; 10-22-75; 4-21-76; 11-10-76; 3-2-77;
4-17-85; 2-11-87; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92)
Sec. 7-5. Review of plans and specifications.
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 5.
(a) After submission, all plans and specifications required
by this chapter shall be reviewed by the director of engineering in
order to ascertain whether all items required by the handbook are
shown thereon where applicable. Regular meetings will be held to
review and discuss submitted plans with the applicant.
(b) The director of engineering shall proceed to review the
plans and specifications to ascertain whether they are in compli-
ance with the conservation standards of the handbook and thereafter
approve or disapprove the application as submitted, or notify the
applicant of any changes necessary for approval. Comments con-
cerning any required changes to the plan will be furnished to the
applicant within seven (7) calendar days of the regular scheduled
meetings; provided that, in any event, the director of engineering
shall approve or disapprove, in writing, the plans and specifica-
tions within thirty (30) calendar days after application is made.
The foregoing notwithstanding, except as specifically pro-
vided herein, the director of engineering shall not approve, and no
erosion control permit shall be issued for any activity which is
necessitated by, or which is to be done in connection with any use,
change in use, development, subdivision of land or other action for
which a subdivision plat or site development plan is required by
law, unless and until such subdivision plat or site development
plan shall have been approved as provided by law. For purposes of
this section only, such subdivision plat or site development plan
shall be deemed approved if it shall be approved conditioned upon
the issuance of such erosion control permits as may be required
pursuant to this chapter.
Erosion control permits may be issued for the following
activities in accordance with law prior to the approval of a site
development plan or subdivision plat under the conditions set forth
hereinafter:
(1) The correction of any existing erosion or other
condition conducive to excessive sedimentation which is occasioned
by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of God or
other cause beyond the control of the owner; provided, that the
activity proposed shall be strictly limited to the correction of
such condition;
(2) Clearing and grubbing of stumps and other activity
directly related to selective cutting of trees, as permitted by
law;
(3) Installation of underground public utility mains,
interceptors, transmission lines and trunk lines for which plans
and specifications have been previously approved by the operating
utility and approved by the county in accordance with Code of
Virginia, section 15.1-456, if necessary;
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 6.
(4) Filling of earth with spoils obtained from grading,
excavation or other lawful earth disturbing activity;
(5) Clearing, grading, filling and similar related
activity for temporary storage of earth, equipment and materials,
and construction of temporary access roads; provided, that in each
case, the area disturbed shall be returned to substantially its
previous condition, with no significant change in surface contours,
within thirty (30) days of the completion of such installation or
temporary use or within thirteen (13) months of the commencement of
any land disturbing activity on the site which is related thereto,
whichever period shall be shorter; and
(6) Borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with
sections 10.2.1.18 and 5.1.28 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(c) In the event that the plans and specifications so sub-
mitted shall be approved, the director of engineering shall re-
quire, prior to the issuance of an erosion control permit, a
performance bond with surety or other security of a type satis-
factory to the director of engineering in an amount determined by
the director of engineering to be sufficient for completion of the
controls specified in the plans and specifications, including,
without limitation, maintenance during the execution thereof,
should the person receiving the permit not complete the controls as
required. If the director of engineering takes such conservation
action upon such failure by the permittee, the director of engi-
neering may collect from the permittee for the difference should
the amount of the reasonable cost of such action exceed the amount
of the security held. Within sixty (60) days of the achievement of
adequate stabilization of the land disturbing activity, such bond,
cash escrow, letter of credit or other legal arrangement, or the
unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the
applicant or terminated.
(d) The director of engineering may change an approved plan
and require the submission of amended plans and specifications in
the following cases:
(1) Where inspection has revealed that the plan is
inadequate to satisfy applicable regulations; or
(2) Where the person responsible for carrying out the
approved plan finds that because of changed circumstances or for
other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out,
and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the require-
ments of this article, are agreed to by the plan approving autho-
rity and the person responsible for carrying out the plan.
(6-18-75, Sec. 7; 2-11-76; 4-21-76; 6-2-76; 7-9-80; 7-8-81;
2-11-87)
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 7.
Sec. 7-6. Inspections.
(a) The director of engineering and his respective desig-
nated agents shall provide for periodic inspections of land distur-
bing activity and shall have the right to enter upon property at
all reasonable times for the purpose of making investigation and
inspection relating to compliance with the provisions of this
chapter. The owner, occupier or operator shall be given notice of
the inspection and the opportunity to accompany the inspector.
(b) If it is determined under subsection (a) of this section
that the permit holder or his agent has failed to comply with the
plan, the director of engineering or his designated agent shall
immediately serve upon the permit holder, in writing, a notice to
comply, stating a reasonable time for such compliance. Such notice
shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address
specified by the permit holder in the permit application, or by
hand delivery to the site of the permitted activities and presented
to the agent or employee of the permittee supervising such activi-
ties, as per s~ction 10.1-566 of the Code of Virginia, instructing
that corrective measures be taken immediately when immediate action
is necessary to prevent erosion or sedimentation problems. Such
notice shall set forth specifically the measures needed to come
into compliance with such plan. If the permit holder fails to
comply within the time specified, he may be subject to revocation
of the permit and shall, in addition, be deemed to be in violation
of this chapter.
(c) In the event that the permit holder shall fail to comply
with a notice as provided in subsection (b) of this section, upon
finding that such action is reasonably necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare, the director of engineering may
cause the necessary measures to be taken and shall proceed to
recover the expenses of such action as provided in section 7-8.
(d) Upon receipt of a complaint from the designated enforce-
ment officer of a substantial violation of either section 10.1-563
or 10.1-566 of the Code of Virginia, the director of engineering
may issue an order requiring that all or part of the land disturb-
ing activities permitted on the site be stopped until the specified
corrective measures have been taken. Where the alleged noncompli-
ance is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion
of lands or sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of
the Commonwealth, such an order may be issued without regard to
whether the permittee has been issued a notice to comply as speci-
fied in subsection (b) of this section. Otherwise, such an order
may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with
such a notice to comply. The order shall be served in the same
"
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 8.
manner as a notice to comply and shall remain in effect for a
period of seven (7) days from the date of service pending applica-
tion by the enforcing authority or permit holder for appropriate
relief to a court of competent jurisdiction. Upon completion of
corrective action, the order shall immediately be lifted. Nothing
in this section shall prevent the director of engineering from
taking any other action specified in section 7-8. (6-18-75, Sec.
8; 2-11-76; 4-21-76; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-7. Review by board of supervisors.
Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the director of
engineering in disapproving plans and specifications submitted
pursuant to this chapter, or in the interpretation of the regu-
lations of this chapter, shall have the right to apply for and
receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors. In
reviewing the director of engineering's action, the board shall
consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person,
the director of engineering and such other persons as shall be
deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the
matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the director of
engineering's action and the board's decision shall be final,
subject only to review by the circuit court of the county by appeal
taken pursuant to section 10.1-568 of the Code of Virginia. For
the purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be
limited to the applicant, owners of adjacent and downstream pro-
perty and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof.
(6-18-75, Sec. 9; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-8. Penalties and legal remedies.
(a) Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof shall be
subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1000.00) or
to imprisonment not exceeding thirty (30) days, for each violation
or to both such fine and imprisonment.
(b) In addition to any criminal penalties provided under this
chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter may
be liable to the county in a civil action for damages.
(c) Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in
this section, any person violating or failing, neglecting or
refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy obtained
pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of the
court, to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars
($2000.00) for each violation.
(d) With the consent of any person who has violated or
failed, neglected or refused to obey any regulation or order of the
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 9.
director of engineering, the plan approving or permit issuing
authority may provide, in an order issued by the plan approving
authority or permit issuing authority against such person, for the
payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to
exceed the limitation specified in subsection (c) of this section.
Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil
penalty which could be imposed under subsection (c). (6-18-75,
Sec. 10; 2-11-87)
(e) In addition to any other remedy, the director of engi-
neering may institute any appropriate proceeding, either at law or
in equity, to prevent violation or attempted violation of this
chapter, to restrain, correct or abate such violation, or to
prevent any act which would constitute such violation; provided,
that in order for the director of engineering to obtain injunctive
relief to prevent or restrain violations hereof, it shall not be
necessary to show that there does not exist an adequate remedy at
law.
Sec. 7-9. Authority of director of engineering to establish
administrative procedures.
The director of engineering shall have the power to establish
reasonable administrative procedures for the administration of this
chapter. (4-21-76; 2-11-87)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after April 1, 1992.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted
by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on March 18, 1992~~
Clerk~~f Coun Supervisors
'.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 7, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
Article I. In General.
Sec. 7-1. Purpose of chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to conserve the land, water,
air and other natural resources of the county, to promote the
public health and welfare of the people in the county by esta-
blishing requirements for the control of erosion and sedimentation,
to establish procedures whereby these requirements shall be admini-
stered and enforced, and to implement and as pursuant to the Code
of Virginia, title 10, chapter 5, article 4, section 10.1-560-571.
(6-18-75, Sec. 2; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-2. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by
this section:
Agent. The engineer, surveyor, contractor or other person
authorized by the landowner to act in his behalf.
Applicant. The landowner or his agent who submits plans and
specifications to the county for issuance of an erosion control
permit.
Conservation standard or standards. The regulations, guide-
lines, techniques and methods for the control of erosion and
sedimentation as shown in the handbook (see definition of "hand-
book" which follows) or Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Regulations.
Director of engineering. The director of engineering of the
county or his designated agent.
Erosion impact area. An area of land not associated with
current land disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil
erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring
properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply
to any lot or parcel of land of one (1) acre or less used for
residential purposes or to shorelines where the erosion results
from wave action or other coastal processes.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. A document which describes
the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems in connection
with land disturbing activity or an erosion impact area and explains
and illustrates the measures which are to be taken to control those
problems. The plan has a written portion known as a narrative and
an illustrative portion known as a map or site plan.
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 2.
Erosion control permit. A permit issued by the county pursu-
ant to this chapter.
Handbook. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook,
as the same shall be amended from time to time.
Land disturbing activity. Any activity so defined by the Code
of Virginia in Title 10, chapter 5, article 4, section 10.1-560, as
the same may be amended from time to time.
Permit holder. The landowner or other person authorized to
act as agent for the landowner.
Subdivision. As defined in chapter 18 of this Code.
(6-18-75, Sec. 4; 7-9-80; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-3. Approval required for certain activities and conditions.
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this
section, it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any land
disturbing activity until he has submitted to the director of
engineering an erosion and sediment control plan for such land
disturbing activity and until that plan has been reviewed and
approved and an erosion control permit issued to the person by the
director of engineering. It shall also be unlawful for any person
willfully to fail to conform to plans and specifications so
approved in performing such activities.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person who owns land in the
county hereby defined as an erosion impact area willfully to suffer
or permit any portion of his land to remain in such condition that
soil erosion and sedimentation causes reasonably avoidable damage
or harm to adjacent or downstream property, roads, streams, lakes
or ponds. The director of engineering, on his own initiative or
upon complaint of any citizen, shall notify the owner of any such
land that such condition exists, and may require such owner to
submit an erosion and sediment control plan to control such erosion
and sedimentation. If such owner fails or refuses to submit such
plan to the director of engineering within the time specified in
such notice, or if he fails or refuses to provide the controls
required by the plan approved by the director of engineering within
the specified time period after notice of such approval, he shall
be deemed to have violated the provisions of this section and shall
be subject to the provisions of section 7-8 for such violation;
provided, that the director of engineering may, for good cause
shown, extend the period of such compliance for a reasonable time.
In addition to all other remedies, the director of engineering may,
upon proper finding, proceed in accordance with section 7-6(c).
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 3.
(c) Any person owning, occupying or operating private agri-
cultural, horticultural or forest lands shall not be deemed to be
in violation of this chapter for land disturbing activities from
the tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural
or forest crops, livestock feed operations or products or engineer-
ing operations under section 10.1-560(7,9) of the Code of Virginia;
provided, that such person shall comply with the provisions of this
chapter when grading, excavating or filling. Clearing of agricul-
tural areas of greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet when
such areas are not tilled and planted with agricultural, horticul-
tural or forest crops within sixty (60) days shall be deemed to be
land disturbing activity. The disturbance of land areas greater
than ten thousand (10,000) square feet for the construction of farm
structures, including but not limited to agricultural structures or
roads not associated with tilling, planting and harvesting, is not
exempt from the requirements of this chapter. In no case shall the
construction of any roads, other than those used exclusively for
access to tilling, planting and harvesting fields, be exempted from
the requirements of this chapter.
(d) Any person whose land disturbing activities involve lands
which extend into the jurisdiction of another local erosion and
sediment control program and who chooses to have a conservation
plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board
shall notify the director of engineering of such plan approval by
the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board.
(e) Whenever a land disturbing activity is proposed to be
conducted by a contractor performing construction work pursuant to
a construction contract, the preparation, submission and approval
of the required erosion and sediment control plan shall be the
responsibility of the owner of the land.
(f) No permit shall be issued by any administrative officer
of the county for the construction of any building or other develop-
ment requiring a permit, nor shall any subdivision plat be approved
relating to land subject to this chapter unless and until the
requirements of this chapter have been complied with. (6-18-75,
Sec. 5; 2-11-76; 4-21-76; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-4. Submission of plans and specifications.
(a) Any person who applies for approval of an erosion and
sediment control plan and issuance of an erosion control permit
pursuant to section 7-3 hereof shall submit with his application
to the director of engineering an erosion and sediment control plan
with specifications for temporary and permanent controls of soil
erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the director of engi-
neering shall deem reasonably adequate, considering the nature and
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 4.
extent of the proposed land disturbing activity. A certification
is required stating that all requirements of the plan will be
followed. Unless otherwise specified by the director of engineer-
ing, four (4) copies of all plans and specifications shall be
required.
(b) All plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this
chapter shall be in accordance with provisions of the handbook;
provided that the director of engineering may require such addi-
tional information as may be necessary for a complete review of the
project. The foregoing notwithstanding, in the case of any
approved subdivision which is subject to the provisions of this
chapter, the director of engineering may allow, in lieu of an
erosion and sediment control plan for the construction of build-
ings on individual lots in such subdivision, the provision of a
contract satisfactory to him and to the county attorney, executed
on behalf of the owners of individual lots; provided, that an
approved plan exists for the development of such subdivision,
including all land disturbing activities in connection with the
development of such subdivision other than construction of build-
ings on individual lots. Such contract shall ensure that the
construction to be performed on such lot shall be so performed as
to provide protection from soil erosion and sedimentation to a
degree satisfactory to the director of engineering and shall be
executed prior to the issuance of a building permit for such
construction.
(c) All plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this
chapter relating to land within any public drinking water supply
watershed, in addition to all other provisions of law, shall be in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.1, Article II, of this
Code, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
(d) Upon the submission of any plan submitted pursuant to
section 7-3 of this article, the applicant shall pay to the county
a fee of forty dollars ($40.00) to cover the cost to the county to
review and to act upon soil erosion plans for residential or
agricultural sites; and one hundred dollars ($100.00) to review and
act upon such plans for all other sites. For each erosion control
inspection necessitated by this plan, a fee of thirty dollars
($30.00) shall be paid by the applicant. The maximum fee charge-
able under this section, inclusive of inspections, shall not exceed
one thousand dollars ($1000.00).
(6-18-75, Sec. 6; 10-22-75; 4-21-76; 11-10-76; 3-2-77;
4-17-85; 2-11-87; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92)
Sec. 7-5. Review of plans and specifications.
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 5.
(a) After submission, all plans and specifications required
by this chapter shall be reviewed by the director of engineering in
order to ascertain whether all items required by the handbook are
shown thereon where applicable. Regular meetings will be held to
review and discuss submitted plans with the applicant.
(b) The director of engineering shall proceed to review the
plans and specifications to ascertain whether they are in compli-
ance with the conservation standards of the handbook and thereafter
approve or disapprove the application as submitted, or notify the
applicant of any changes necessary for approval. Comments con-
cerning any required changes to the plan will be furnished to the
applicant within seven (7) calendar days of the regular scheduled
meetings; provided that, in any event, the director of engineering
shall approve or disapprove, in writing, the plans and specifica-
tions within thirty (30) calendar days after application is made.
The foregoing notwithstanding, except as specifically pro-
vided herein, the director of engineering shall not approve, and no
erosion control permit shall be issued for any activity which is
necessitated by, or which is to be done in connection with any use,
change in use, development, subdivision of land or other action for
which a subdivision plat or site development plan is required by
law, unless and until such subdivision plat or site development
plan shall have been approved as provided by law. For purposes of
this section only, such subdivision plat or site development plan
shall be deemed approved if it shall be approved conditioned upon
the issuance of such erosion control permits as may be required
pursuant to this chapter.
Erosion control permits may be issued for the following
activities in accordance with law prior to the approval of a site
development plan or subdivision plat under the conditions set forth
hereinafter:
(1) The correction of any existing erosion or other
condition conducive to excessive sedimentation which is occasioned
by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of God or
other cause beyond the control of the owner; provided, that the
activity proposed shall be strictly limited to the correction of
such condition;
(2) Clearing and grubbing of stumps and other activity
directly related to selective cutting of trees, as permitted by
law;
(3) Installation of underground public utility mains,
interceptors, transmission lines and trunk lines for which plans
and specifications have been previously approved by the operating
utility and approved by the county in accordance with Code of
virginia, section 15.1-456, if necessary;
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 6.
(4) Filling of earth with spoils obtained from grading,
excavation or other lawful earth disturbing activity;
(5) Clearing, grading, filling and similar related
activity for temporary storage of earth, equipment and materials,
and construction of temporary access roads; provided, that in each
case, the area disturbed shall be returned to substantially its
previous condition, with no significant change in surface contours,
within thirty (30) days of the completion of such installation or
temporary use or within thirteen (13) months of the commencement of
any land disturbing activity on the site which is related thereto,
whichever period shall be shorter; and
(6) Borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with
sections 10.2.1.18 and 5.1.28 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(c) In the event that the plans and specifications so sub-
mitted shall be approved, the director of engineering shall re-
quire, prior to the issuance of an erosion control permit, a
performance bond with surety or other security of a type satis-
factory to the director of engineering in an amount determined by
the director of engineering to be sufficient for completion of the
controls specified in the plans and specifications, including,
without limitation, maintenance during the execution thereof,
should the person receiving the permit not complete the controls as
required. If the director of engineering takes such conservation
action upon such failure by the permittee, the director of engi-
neering may collect from the permittee for the difference should
the amount of the reasonable cost of such action exceed the amount
of the security held. Within sixty (60) days of the achievement of
adequate stabilization of the land disturbing activity, such bond,
cash escrow, letter of credit or other legal arrangement, or the
unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the
applicant or terminated.
(d) The director of engineering may change an approved plan
and require the submission of amended plans and specifications in
the following cases:
(1) Where inspection has revealed that the plan is
inadequate to satisfy applicable regulations; or
(2) Where the person responsible for carrying out the
approved plan finds that because of changed circumstances or for
other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out,
and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the require-
ments of this article, are agreed to by the plan approving autho-
rity and the person responsible for carrying out the plan.
(6-18-75, Sec. 7; 2-11-76; 4-21-76; 6-2-76; 7-9-80; 7-8-81;
2-11-87)
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 7.
Sec. 7-6. Inspections.
(a) The director of engineering and his respective desig-
nated agents shall provide for periodic inspections of land distur-
bing activity and shall have the right to enter upon property at
all reasonable times for the purpose of making investigation and
inspection relating to compliance with the provisions of this
chapter. The owner, occupier or operator shall be given notice of
the inspection and the opportunity to accompany the inspector.
(b) If it is determined under subsection (a) of this section
that the permit holder or his agent has failed to comply with the
plan, the director of engineering or his designated agent shall
immediately serve upon the permit holder, in writing, a notice to
comply, stating a reasonable time for such compliance. Such notice
shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address
specified by the permit holder in the permit application, or by
hand delivery to the site of the permitted activities and presented
to the agent or employee of the permittee supervising such activi-
ties, as per section 10.1-566 of the Code of Virginia, instructing
that corrective measures be taken immediately when immediate action
is necessary to prevent erosion or sedimentation problems. Such
notice shall set forth specifically the measures needed to come
into compliance with such plan. If the permit holder fails to
comply within the time specified, he may be subject to revocation
of the permit and shall, in addition, be deemed to be in violation
of this chapter.
(c) In the event that the permit holder shall fail to comply
with a notice as provided in subsection (b) of this section, upon
finding that such action is reasonably necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare, the director of engineering may
cause the necessary measures to be taken and shall proceed to
recover the expenses of such action as provided in section 7-8.
(d) Upon receipt of a complaint from the designated enforce-
ment officer of a substantial violation of either section 10.1-563
or 10.1-566 of the Code of Virginia, the director of engineering
may issue an order requiring that all or part of the land disturb-
ing activities permitted on the site be stopped until the specified
corrective measures have been taken. Where the alleged noncompli-
ance is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion
of lands or sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of
the Commonwealth, such an order may be issued without regard to
whether the permittee has been issued a notice to comply as speci-
fied in subsection (b) of this section. Otherwise, such an order
may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with
such a notice to comply. The order shall be served in the same
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 8.
manner as a notice to comply and shall remain in effect for a
period of seven (7) days from the date of service pending applica-
tion by the enforcing authority or permit holder for appropriate
relief to a court of competent jurisdiction. Upon completion of
corrective action, the order shall immediately be lifted. Nothing
in this section shall prevent the director of engineering from
taking any other action specified in section 7-8. (6-18-75, Sec.
8; 2-11-76; 4-21-76; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-7. Review by board of supervisors.
Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the director of
engineering in disapproving plans and specifications submitted
pursuant to this chapter, or in the interpretation of the regu-
lations of this chapter, shall have the right to apply for and
receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors. In
reviewing the director of engineering's action, the board shall
consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person,
the director of engineering and such other persons as shall be
deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the
matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the director of
engineering's action and the board's decision shall be final,
subject only to review by the circuit court of the county by appeal
taken pursuant to section 10.1-568 of the Code of Virginia. For
the purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be
limited to the applicant, owners of adjacent and downstream pro-
perty and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof.
(6-18-75, Sec. 9; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-8. Penalties and legal remedies.
(a) Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof shall be
subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1000.00) or
to imprisonment not exceeding thirty (30) days, for each violation
or to both such fine and imprisonment.
(b) In addition to any criminal penalties provided under this
chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter may
be liable to the county in a civil action for damages.
(c) Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in
this section, any person violating or failing, neglecting or
refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy obtained
pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of the
court, to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars
($2000.00) for each violation.
(d) With the consent of any person who has violated or
failed, neglected or refused to obey any regulation or order of the
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 9.
director of engineering, the plan approving or permit issuing
authority may provide, in an order issued by the plan approving
authority or permit issuing authority against such person, for the
payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to
exceed the limitation specified in subsection (c) of this section.
Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil
penalty which could be imposed under subsection (c). (6-18-75,
Sec. 10; 2-11-87)
(e) In addition to any other remedy, the director of engi-
neering may institute any appropriate proceeding, either at law or
in equity, to prevent violation or attempted violation of this
chapter, to restrain, correct or abate such violation, or to
prevent any act which would constitute such violation; provided,
that in order for the director of engineering to obtain injunctive
relief to prevent or restrain violations hereof, it shall not be
necessary to show that there does not exist an adequate remedy at
law.
Sec. 7-9. Authority of director of engineering to establish
administrative procedures.
The director of engineering shall have the power to establish
reasonable administrative procedures for the administration of this
chapter. (4-21-76; 2-11-87)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after April 1, 1992.
* * * * *
I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted
by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on March 18, 1992~~
Clerk~~f Coun Supervisors
"~1v\3r::RS
O,<:;.,...,mUrl:;D TO DO;\RD ml:' -
1....,."._
9N -1:JL'UJ '
-
CC"!"
'. !
" ..
",_,:. ,~f r"l-
^ .
~ ,.... T
"[JLf
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5841 h";,;',J lit
AGENDA ITEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I,
~ e')
!)
,.-,- "
o U j':: Eli' l/; :,"' :_~~.."
'IV:Ji?~'
Agenda Item #: QZ. (f,,(tI~. '1/
Title: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance Amendment
Issue: To amend the Albemarle County Erosion Control Ordinance to
comply with changes in the State Code and conform to the recently
adopted fee schedule.
Background: State Code governing Erosion and Sediment Control was
amended requiring housekeeping changes to the County ordinance.
The recently adopted fee schedules have also been incorporated in
this revision.
Discussion: The attached revision has been reviewed by the
applicable State agency and County Attorney for conformance to
State Code. Italicized changes are noted in Attachment A.
Recommendation: Request the Planning Commission provide comment on
the proposed amendments prior to the Board's public hearing. The
staff recommends that a resolution of intent be adopted to amend
County Code Chapter 7 Erosion and Sedimentation Control with public
hearing set for March l8, 1992 and an effective date of April l,
1992. This date coincides with the effective date of the
previously adopted fee changes.
Staff Contact(s): Messrs. Tucker and Brandenburger.
/dbm
92.028
Attachment
"K<,<---.l,fccZ.. ~cs 3'1~'<"')L
..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Attorney
416 Park Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Telephone 296-7138
JAMES M, BOWLING, IV
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
March 18, 1992
GEORGE R. ST,JOHN
COUNTY ATTORNEY
David P. Bowerman
413 Berwick Court
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
420 Park Street
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
Walter F. Perkins
Route 3, Box 79
Crozet, Virginia 22932
Charlotte Humphris
109 Falcon Drive
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
Charles Martin
200 Pineridge Lane
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Route 6, Box 305A
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
Jo Higgins
County Engineer
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
Re: Planning Commission Suggestions on Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Ordinance
Ladies and Gentlemen:
On March 10, 1992, the Planning Commission suggested four
changes to the proposed ordinance, and asked that this office
comment on these changes under the State enabling legislation.
1. The first suggestion is a change in the definition of
"Erosion Impact Area". This definition as now written is
straight out of the enabling legislation and while counties are
authorized to enact regulations more restrictive than the
enabling statute, ~e have no authority to change definitions
which are expressly set out in'the statute. Therefore," I
recommend against this change.
2. This suggestion to eliminate the words lion a
construction projectll is well taken, and I recommend substitution
of the phrase "problems in connection with land disturbing
activity or an erosion impact area". ~
..
March 18, 1992
Page 2
3. If you insert the phrase "regardless of size or area"
you are in effect changing the definition of "erosion impact
area II as suggested in number 1 above, and I recommend against
this. ~
~ ~
4. There is no A-uthority in the enabling 1 pgislation Eor
time limit on lanting cover crops, on agricultural land
w lC has been plowed or e State Code exempts
agricultural and horticultural practices entirely, from the
operation of the chapter. The sixty-day allowance for planting
of cover crops was put in our ordinance, on the theory that if
land is plowed or tilled, and then nothing is planted on it for a
period of more than sixty days, we would no longer deem it
lIagricultural or horticulturalll in the first place. This is a
shaky position to begin with, and ~ recommend we keep the sixty
day time limit insteAn of ~ni~g ~o thlrty days. And even with
me sixty day time limit, you are going to~have to use some
discretion in enforcement. For example, in a case where you have
a hard winter and snow might stay on the ground for a couple of
months preventing the planting of winter wheat on time; we could
not in my opinion prosecute the owner for violation on the ground
that the land is no longer in agricultural use. However, with
some judgment in enforcement, I believe this time limit should
remain in the ordinance, at sixty days.
Sincerely yours '~J ~_
~/Oj/
George R. St. Jolin
County Attorney
GRStJ/tlh
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert Branden~~rger, Assistant County Executive
Jo Higgins, D~ctor of Engineering
18 March 1992
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance
Based upon my evaluation in conjunction with the County
Attorney, the following response is provided to the Planning
Commission suggestions. The numbers correspond to the 11 March
1992 memo from V. Wayne Cilimberg (copy attached).
1. According to the County Attorney and it is my opinion, this
sentence cannot be removed due to a provision in the
enabling state law.
2. Recommend that the wording "on a construction project" be
removed and that "connected with a land disturbing activity
or erosion impact area" be substituted.
3. Recommend leaving the proposed sentence in tact. Restoring
these words does not change the interpretation of this
section.
4. Restoring the sixty (60) day allowance based upon the
concerns of the Planning commission is acceptable.
JH/
Attachment
,.1'
.1
'"'-'
I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Bob Brandenburger, Assistant
County Executive
of Planning andtlv0~
FROM:
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
community Development
DATE:
March 11, 1992
RE:
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance -
Review by the Planning commission
The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its work session
on Tuesday, March 10, 1992 reviewed proposed changes in the
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. Their comments
were as follows:
1. Under section 7-2. Definitions. Erosion Impact Area.
The Commission suggested striking the second sentence
altogether to make such an area more encompassing.
They noted this would be consistent with current
practice exercised by the Erosion Control Officer. The
Commission suggested that such a change should be
revi~wed by the County Attorney to assure it is allowed
under the State enabling legislation.
2. Under section 7-2. Definitions. Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan. The Commission suggested that the
wording "on a construction project" be removed in the
first sentence. This would allow for more generalized
application of such a plan. Again, the County Attorney
should review such a change for its appropriateness
under the State code.
3. Under section 7-3. Approval Reauired for certain
Activities and Conditions. Under Section (b), the
Commission suggested the language proposed to be taken
out--IIregardless of size or area"--be restored. This
would be consistent with the proposed;cnange in the
. . . .. .'/ _I
def1n1t10n for erOS10n 1mpact area. .
- ,..
Bob Brandenburger
Page 2
:toIarch 11, 1992
4. Under section 7-3. Approval Required for certain
Activities and Conditions. Under section (c) in the
second sentence, the Commission proposed restoring the
sixty (60) day allowance for cleared agricultural areas
to remain untilled or unplanted. The proposal had
called for a reduction to thirty (30) days. The
Commission felt that some legitimate agricultural
pur.poses may be adversely affected by this reduction in
time.
Should you have any questions regarding these changes,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
VWC/jcw
cc: Jo Higgins
Bobby Shaw
G~orge st. John
j"~
,>,1'
,.
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCE
Article 1. In General
Sec. 7-1. Purpose of chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to conserve the land, water,
air and other natural resources of the county, afld ro promote
the public health and welfare of the people in the county by
establishing requirements for the control of erosion and sedimen-
tation, and by ro establish~ procedures whereby these require-
ments shall be administered and enforced., and ro implemenr and
as pursuant ro rhe Code of Virginia, Tirle ~O, Chaprer 5, Arricle
4, Secrion ~O.~-560-57I.
Sec. 7-2. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by
this section:
Aqent. The engineer, surveyor, contractor, or other person
authorized by the landowner to act in his behalf.
Applicant. The landowner or his agent who submits plans and
specifications to the county for issuance of an erosion control
permit.
Conservation standard or standards. The criteria regula-
rions, guidelines, techniques and methods for the control of
erosion and sedimentation as shown in the handbook (see defini-
tion of handbook which follows) or Virginia Erosion and Sedimenr
Conrrol Regularions.
Director of enqineerinq. The director of engineering of the
county or his designated agent.
Erosion impacr area. Means an area of land nor associared
wirh currenr land disrurbing acrivity bur subject ro persisrent
soil erosion resulring in rhe delivery of sedimenr onro neigh-
boring properries or inro srare waters. This definition shall
not apply ro any lor or parcel of land of one acre or less used
for residential purposes or to shorelines where the erosion
results from wave action or other coastal processes.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. A document which
describes the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems on
a construction project and explains and illustrates the measures
which are to be taken to control those problems. The plan has a
written portion known as a narrative and an illustrative portion
known as a map or site plan.
-1-
~
Erosion control permit. A permit issued by the county
pursuant to this chapter.
Handbook. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Hand-
book as the same shall be amended from time to time.
Land disturbinq activity. Any activity so defined by the
Code of Virginia in Title ~ ~O, chapter ~ 5, article ~ 4,
section 21 89.3(a) ~O.~-560, as the same may be amended from time
to time.
Permit holder. The landowner or other person authorized to
act as agent for the landowner.
Subdivision. As defined in chapter 18 of the Code of
Albemarle.
Sec. 7-3. Approval required for certain activities and
conditions.
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), it shall
be unlawful for any person to engage in any land disturbing
activity until he has submitted to the director of engineering an
erosion and sediment control plan for such land disturbing
activity and until that plan has been reviewed and approved and
an erosion control permit issued to the person by the director of
engineering. It shall also be unlawful for any person willfully
to fail to conform to plans and specifications so approved in
performing such activities.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person who owns land in
the county hereby defined as an erosion impact area willfully to
suffer or permit any portion regardleoo of oize or area, of his
land to remain in such condition that soil erosion and sedimen-
tation causes reasonably avoidable damage or harm to adjacent or
downstream property, roads, streams, lakes or ponds. The
director of engineering, on his own initiative or upon complaint
of any citizen, shall notify the owner of any such land that such
condition exists, and ohall may require such owner to submit an
erosion and sediment control plan to control such erosion and
sedimentation. If such owner fails or refuses to submit such
plan to the director of engineering within the time specified in
such notice, or if he fails or refuses to provide the controls
required by the plan approved by the director of engineering
within the specified time period after notice of such approval,
he shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this
section and shall be subject to the provisions of section 7-8 for
such violation; provided, that the director of engineering may,
for good cause shown, extend the period of such compliance for a
-2-
reasonable time. In addition to all other remedies, the director
of engineering may, upon proper finding, proceed in accordance
with section 7-6(c).
(c) Any person owning, occupying, or operating private
agricultural, horticultural or forest lands shall not be deemed
to be in violation of this chapter for land disturbing activities
from the tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horti-
cultural or forest crops, livestock feed operations, or products
or engineering operations under section 21 2(c) ~O.~-560(7,9) of
the Code of Virginia; provided, that such person shall comply
with the provisions of this chapter when grading, excavating, or
filling. Clearing of agricultural areas of greater than ten
thousand square feet when such areas are not tilled and planted
with agricultural, horticultural or forest crops within oixty
thirty days shall be deemed to be land disturbing activity. The
disturbance of land areas greater than ten thousand square feet
for the construction of farm structures, including but not
limited to fccd lots agricultural structures or roads not
associated with tilling, planting and harvesting, are not exempt
from the requirements of this chapter. In no case shall the
construction of any roads, other than those used exclusively for
access to tilling, planting and harvesting fields, be exempted
from the requirements of this chapter.
(d) Any person whose land disturbing activities involve
lands which extend into the jurisdiction of another local erosion
and sediment control program and who chooses to have 'a conserva-
tion plan approved by the Virginia soil and Water Conservation
CommioDion Board shall notify the director of engineering of such
plan.ap~roval by the Virginia soil and Water Conservation
Comm1DD10n Board.
(e) Whenever a land disturbing activity is proposed to be
conducted by a contractor performing construction work pursuant
to a construction contract, the preparation, submission and
approval of the required erosion and sediment control plan shall
be the responsibility of. the owner of the land.
(f) No permit shall be issued by any administrative officer
of the county for the construction of any building or other
development requiring a permit, nor shall any subdivision plat be
approved relating to land subject to this chapter unless and
until the requirements of this chapter have been complied with.
Sec. 7-4. Submission of plans and specifications.
(a) Any person who applies for approval of an erosion and
sediment control plan and issuance of an erosion control permit
-3-
pursuant to section 7-3 Eereof shall submit with his application
to the director of engineerlng an erosion and sediment control
plan with specifications for temporary and permanent controls of
soil erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the director of
engineering shall deem reasonably adequate, considering the
nature and extent of the proposed land disturbing activity. A
certification is required stating that all requirements of the
plan will be followed. Unless otherwise specified by the
director of engineering, four copies of all plans and specifica-
tions shall be required.
(b) All plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this
chapter shall be in accordance with provisions of the handbook;
provided that the director of engineering may require such addi-
tional information as may be necessary for a complete review of
the project. The foregoing notwithstanding, in the case of any
approved subdivision which is subject to the provisions of this
ordinance, the director of engineering may allow, in lieu of an
erosion and sediment control plan for the construction of build-
ings on individual lots in such subdivision, the provision of a
contract satisfactory to him and to the county attorney, executed
on behalf of the owners of individual lots; provided that an
approved plan exists for the development of such subdivision,
including all land disturbing activities in connection with the
development of such subdivision other than construction of
,buildings on individual lots. Such contract shall ensure that
the construction to be performed on such lot shall be so per-
formed as to provide protection from soil erosion and sedimenta-
tion to a degree satisfactory to the director of engineering and
shall be executed prior to the issuance of a building permit for
such construction.
(c) All plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this
chapter relating to land within any public drinking water supply
watershed, in addition to all other provisions of law, shall be
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.1, Article II, of
the Code of Albemarle, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
(d) Upon the submission of any plan submitted pursuant to
section 7-3 of this article, the applicant shall pay to the
county a fee of ocvcnty fivc forty dollars ($40.00) to cover the
cost to the county to review and to act upon ouch plan. soil
erosion plans for residential or agricultural sites; and one
hundred dollars ($~OO.OO) to review and act upon such plans for
all other sites. For each erosion control inspection necessitat-
ed by this plan, a fee of twcnty fivc thirty dollars ($30.00)
shall be paid by the applicant. The maximum fee chargeable under
this section, inclusive of inspections, shall not exceed thrcc
hundrcd dollaro one thousand dollars ($~,OOO.OO).
-4-
Sec. 7-5. Review of plans and specifications.
(a) After submission, all plans and specifications required
by this chapter shall be reviewed by the director of engineering
in order to ascertain whether all items required by the handbook
are shown thereon where applicable. Regular meetings will be
held to review and discuss submitted plans with the applicant.
(b) The director of engineering shall proceed to review the
plans and specifications to ascertain whether they are in com-
pliance with the conservation standards of the handbook and
thereafter approve or disapprove the application as submitted, or
notify the applicant of any changes necessary for approval.
Comments concerning any required changes to the plan will be
furnished to the applicant within seven calendar days of the
regular scheduled meetings; provided that, in any event, the
director of engineering shall approve or disapprove, in writing,
the plans and specifications within thirty calendar days after
application is made.
The foregoing notwithstanding, except as specifically pro-
vided herein, the director of engineering shall not approve, and
no erosion control permit shall be issued for any activity which
is necessitated by, or which is to be done in connection with,
any use, change in use, development, subdivision of land or other
action for which a subdivision plat or site development plan is
required by law, unless and until such subdivision plat or site
development plan shall have been approved as provided by law.
For purposes of this section only, such subdivision plat or site
development plan shall be deemed approved if it shall be approved
conditioned upon the issuance of such erosion control permits as
may be required pursuant to this chapter.
Erosion control permits may' be issued for the following
activities in accordance with law prior to the approval of a site
development plan or subdivision plat under the conditions set
forth hereinafter: .
(1) The cor~ection of any existing erosion or other
condition conducive to excessive sedimentation which is occa-
sioned by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of
God or other cause beyond the control of the owner; provided,
that the activity proposed shall be strictly limited to the
correction of such condition;
(2) Clearing and grubbing of stumps and other activity
directly related to selective cutting of trees as permitted by
law;
-5-
(3) Installation of underground public utility mains,
interceptors, transmission lines and trunk lines for which plans
and specifications have been previously approved by the operating
utility and approved by the county in accordance with Code of
Virginia, section 15.12-456, if necessary;
(4) Filling of earth with spoils obtained from grad-
ing, excavation or other lawful earth disturbing activity;
(5) Clearing, grading, filling and similar related
activity for temporary storage of earth, equipment and materials,
and construction of temporary access roads; provided, that in
each case, the area disturbed shall be returned to substantially
its previous condition with no significant change in surface
contours within thirty days of the ~ompletion of such installa-
tion or temporary use or within thirteen months of the commence-
ment of any land disturbing activity on the site which is related
thereto, whichever period shall be shorter; and
(6) Borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with
sections 10.2.1.18 and 5.1.28 of the Zoning Ordinance.
tat (c) In the event that the plans and specifications so
submitted shall be approved, the director of engineering shall
require, prior to the issuance of an erosion control permit, a
performance bond with surety or other security of a type satis-
factory to the director of engineering in an amount determined by
the director of engineering to be sufficient for completion of
the controls specified in the plans and specifications, includ-
ing, without limitation, maintenance during the execution there-
of, should the person receiving the permit not complete the
controls as required. If the director of engineering takes such
conservation action upon such failure by the permittee, the
director of engineering may collect from the permittee for the
difference should the amount of the reasonable cost of such
action exceed the amount of the securi ty held. wi thin sixty days
of the achievement of adequate stabilization of the land dis-
turbing activity, such bond, cash escrow, letter of credit or
other legal arrangement, or the unexpended or unobligated portion
thereof, shall be refunded to the applicant or terminated.
tet (d) The director of engineering may rcquirc thc
aubmiaaion of amcndcd plano and apccificationo in any caoc in
\Jhich inapcction rcvcalo that thc controlo oct forth in thc plan
arc inadcquatc to accompliah thc croaion and acdimcnt control
oojcctiTT'ca of thia chaptcr, or \.'hcrc thc pcrmit holdcr findo that
bccauac of chang cd circumotancco, or for othcr rcaoono, thc
approved plan cannot be effcctively carried out. change an
-6-
approved plan and require the submission of amended plans and
specifications in the following cases:
(~) Where inspection has revealed that the plan is
inadequate to satisfy applicable regulations; or
(2) Where the person responsible for carrying out the
approved plan finds that because of changed circumstances or for
other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried
out, and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with' the
requirements of this article, are agreed to by the plan approving
authority and the person responsible for carrying out the plan.
Sec. 7-6. Inspections.
(a) The director of engineering and his respective desig-
nated agents shall provide for periodic inspections of land
disturbing activity and shall have the right to enter upon
property at all reasonable times for the purpose of making
investigation and inspection relating to compliance with the
provisions of this chapter. The owner, occupier or operator
shall be given notice of the inspection and the opportunity to
accompany the inspector.
(b) If it is determined under subsection (a) of this
section that the permit holder or his agent has failed to comply
with the plan, the director of engineering or his designated
agent shall immediately serve upon the permit holder, in writing,
a notice to comply, and stating a reasonable time for such
compliance. Such notice shall be served by registered or
certified mail to the address specified by the permit holder in
the permit application, or by hand delivery to the site of the
permitted activities and presented to the agent or employee of
the permittee supervising such activities, as per section 21 89.8
~O.~-566 of the Code of Virginia, instructing that corrective
measures be taken immediately when immediate action is necessary
to prevent erosion or sedimentation problems. Such notice shall
set forth specifically the measures needed to come into compli-
ance with such plan. If the permit holder fails to comply within
the time specified, he may be subject to revocation of the permit
and shall, in addition, be deemed to be in violation of this
chapter.
(c) In the event that the permit holder shall fail to
comply with a notice as provided in subsection (b) of this
section, upon finding that such action is reasonably necessary to
protect the public health, safety and welfare, the director of
engineering may cause the necessary measures to be taken and
-7-
shall proceed to recover the expenses of such action as provided
in section 7-8.
(d) Upon receipt of a complaint from the designated
enforcement officer of a substantial violation of either section
21 89.6 ~O.~7563 or 21 89.8 ~O.~;566 of the Code of Virginia, the
director of engineering may issue an order requiring that all or
part of the land disturbing activities permitted on the site be
stopped until the specified corrective measures have been taken.
Where the alleged non-compliance is causing or is in imminent
danger of causing harmful erosion of lands or sediment deposition
in waters within the watersheds of the Commonwealth, such an
order may be issued without regard to whether the permittee has
been issued a notice to comply as specified in subsection (b) of
this section. otherwise, such an order may be issued only after
the permittee has failed to comply with such a notice to comply.
The order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to
comply and shall remain in effect for a period of seven days from
the date of service pending application by the enforcing author-
ity or permit holder for appropriate relief to a court of compe-
tent jurisdiction. Upon completion of corrective action, the
order shall immediately be lifted. Nothing in this section shall
prevent the director of engineering from taking any other action
specified in section 7-8.
Sec. 7-7. Review bv board of supervisors.
Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the director of
engineering in disapproving plans and specifications submitted
pursuant to this chapter, or in the interpretation of the regu-
lations of this chapter, shall have the right to apply for and
receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors. In
reviewing the director of engineering's action, the board shall
consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person,
the director of engineering, and such other persons as shall be
deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the
matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the director of
engineering's action and the board's decision shall be final,
subject only to review by the circuit court of the county by
appeal taken pursuant to section 21 89.10 ~O.~-568'of the Code of
Virginia. For the purposes of this section, the term "person
aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, owners of adjacent
and downstream property and any interested governmental agency or
officer thereof.
Sec. 7-8. Penalties and leqal remedies.
(a) Any person violating any provision of this chapter
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof
-8-
..
shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or
to imprisonment not exceeding thirty days for each violation or~o
both such fine and imprisonment.
(b) In addition to any criminal penalties provided under
this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this
chapter may be liable to the county' in a civil action for
damages.
(c) without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in
this section, any person violating or failing, neglecting or
refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy
obtained pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the
discretion of the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000
for each violation.
(d) With the consent of any person who has violated or
failed, neglected or refused to obey any regulation or order of
the Director, the plan approving or permit issuing authority may
provide, in an order issued by the plan approving authority or
permit issuing authority against such person, for the payment of
civil I charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the
limi~specified in subsection (c) of this section. Such civil
charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which
could be imposed under subsection (c).
fbt (e) In addition to any other remedy, the director of
engineering may institute any appropriate proceeding, either at
law or in equity, to prevent violation or attempted violation of
this chapter, to restrain, correct or abate such violation, or to
prevent any act which would constitute such violation; provided,
that in order for the director of engineering to obtain injunc-
tive relief to prevent or restrain violations hereof, it shall
not be necessary to show that there does not exist an adequate
remedy at law.
Sec. 7-9. Authoritv of director of enqineerinq to establish
administrative procedures.
The director of engineering shall have the power to estab-
lish reasonable administrative procedures for the administration
of this chapter.
01/01/92 Revised
-9-
-
,\
'\), -::.t -5 f ~ ,..., :J..
CfJLj !~'J'r'--( OF J\LE3E[\i;/\~-'\ LE
MAR 1 S 1992
k" i. ~. ,~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
O:LC'JrlVt. C1T:C':
COUNTY OF /\LBEMA.RLE
f""i' [';::::J rr-.::;) r;::i nrl rl":::"J ,."
. ' .! I. ,;0..........., ..........,.. """ "... ...".'1......1.,....,' ~" "'1
I!,' '\ '
:.' ,1 .1 ,..~ ~,~ )! j
.n (\ \ ~l. J:ti'\ .u. 0. ~G92
11 \ "
! l)-,.,._,..,
1 \ " l L.i,.....,...' .., ""('-'- U
u I...:::r \ -, i i i.., :' J' tl_
- ,_.,~ w L.::!
BOI-\RD OF SUPERVISO~S
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Bob Brandenburger, Assistant
County Executive//.
of Planning andcJLJJ~
FROM:
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Community Development
DATE:
March 11, 1992
RE:
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance -
Review by the Planning Commission
The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its work session
on Tuesday, March 10, 1992 reviewed proposed changes in the
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. Their comments
were as follows:
1. Under Section 7-2. Definitions. Erosion Impact Area.
The Commission suggested striking the second sentence
altogether to make such an area more encompassing.
They noted this would be consistent with current
practice exercised by the Erosion Control Officer. The
Commission suggested that such a change should be
reviewed by the County Attorney to assure it is allowed
under the State enabling legislation.
2. Under Section 7-2. Definitions. Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan. The Commission suggested that the
wording "on a construction project" be removed in the
first sentence. This would allow for more generalized
application of such a plan. Again, the County Attorney
should review such a change for its appropriateness
under the State code.
3. Under Section 7-3. Approval Reauired for certain
Activities and Conditions. Under Section (b), the
Commission suggested the language proposed to be taken
out--"regardless of size or area"--be restored. This
would be consistent with the proposed change in the
definition for erosion impact area.
~
6
Bob Brandenburger
Page 2
March 11, 1992
4. Under section 7-3. Approval Required for Certain
Activities and Conditions. Under Section (c) in the
second sentence, the Commission proposed restoring the
sixty (60) day allowance for cleared agricultural areas
to remain untilled or unplanted. The proposal had
called for a reduction to thirty (30) days. The
Commission felt that some legitimate agricultural
pur-poses may be adversely affected by this reduction in
time.
Should you have any questions regarding these changes,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
VWC/jcw
cc: Jo Higgins
Bobby Shaw
George st. John
Distributed to BQard: .5' I /3.,'::.1-
'/.), . c.,,)<1S": li~
Agenda Item No, . --.,
,
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 7, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
Article I. In General.
Sec. 7-1. Purpose of chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to conserve the land, water,
air and other natural resources of the county, afta to promote the
public health and welfare of the people in the county by esta-
blishing requirements for the control of erosion and sedimentation,
afta-ey to establishift~ procedures whereby these requirements shall
be administered and enforced~, and to implement and as pursuant to
the Code of Virginia, title 10, chapter 5, article 4, section
10.1-560-571. (6-18-75, Sec. 2; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-2. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by
this section:
Agent. The engineer, surveyor, contractor or other person
authorized by the landowner to act in his behalf.
Applicant. The landowner or his agent who submits plans and
specifications to the county for issuance of an erosion control
permit.
Conservation standard or standards. The e~i~e~ia regulations,
guidelines, techniques and methods for the control of erosion and
sedimentation as shown in the handbook (see definition of "hand-
book" which follows) or Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Regulations.
Director of engineering. The director of engineering of the
county or his designated agent.
Erosion impact area. An area of land not associated with
current land disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil
erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring
properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply
to any lot or parcel of land of one (1) acre or less used for
residential purposes or to shorelines where the erosion results
from wave action or other coastal processes.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. A document which describes
the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems on a construc-
tion project and explains and illustrates the measures which are to
be taken to control those problems. The plan has a written portion
known as a narrative and an illustrative portion known as a map or
site plan.
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 2.
Erosion control permit. A permit issued by the county pursu-
ant to this chapter.
Handbook. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook,
as the same shall be amended from time to time.
Land disturbing activity. Any activity so defined by the Code
of Virginia in Title ~i 10, chapter i 2, article G.i ~, section
~i-89.3fat 10.1-560, as the same may be amended from time to time.
Permit holder. The landowner or other person authorized to
act as agent for the landowner.
Subdivision. As defined in chapter 18 of this Code.
(6-18-75, Sec. 4; 7-9-80; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-3. Approval required for certain activities and conditions.
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this
section, it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any land
disturbing activity until he has submitted to the director of
engineering an erosion and sediment control plan for such land
disturbing activity and until that plan has been reviewed and
approved and an erosion control permit issued to the person by the
director of engineering. It shall also be unlawful for any person
willfully to fail to conform to plans and specifications so
approved in performing such activities.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person who owns land in the
county hereby defined as an erosion impact area willfully to suffer
or permit any portion,-~e~a~dieBB-e~-B~~e-e~-a~ea, of his land to
remain in such condition that soil erosion and sedimentation causes
reasonably avoidable damage or harm to adjacent or downstream
property, roads, streams, lakes or ponds. The director of engi-
neering, on his own initiative or upon complaint of any citizen,
shall notify the owner of any such land that such condition exists,
and Bftaii may require such owner to submit an erosion and sediment
control plan to control such erosion and sedimentation. If such
owner fails or refuses to submit such plan to the director of
engineering within the time specified in such notice, or if he
fails or refuses to provide the controls required by the plan
approved by the director of engineering within the specified time
period after notice of such approval, he shall be deemed to have
violated the provisions of this section and shall be subject to the
provisions of section 7-8 for such violation; provided, that the
director of engineering may, for good cause shown, extend the
period of such compliance for a reasonable time. In addition to
all other remedies, the director of engineering may, upon proper
finding, proceed in accordance with section 7-6(c).
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 3.
(c) Any person owning, occupying or operating private agri-
cultural, horticultural or forest lands shall not be deemed to be
in violation of this chapter for land disturbing activities from
the tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural
or forest crops, livestock feed operations or products or engineer-
ing operations under section ~~-~tet 10.1-560(7,9) of the Code of
Virginia; provided, that such person shall comply with the provi-
sions of this chapter when grading, excavating or filling. Clear-
ing of agricultural areas of greater than ten thousand (10,000)
square feet when such areas are not tilled and planted with agri-
cultural, horticultural or forest crops within s~x~y t68t thirty
(30) days shall be deemed to be land disturbing activity. The
disturbance of land areas greater than ten thousand (10,000) square
feet for the construction of farm structures, including but not
limited to,-~eea-ie~s agricultural structures or roads not associ-
ated with tilling, planting and harvesting, is not exempt from the
requirements of this chapter. In no case shall the construction of
any roads, other than those used exclusively for access to tilling,
planting and harvesting fields, be exempted from the requirements
of this chapter.
(d) Any person whose land disturbing activities involve lands
which extend into the jurisdiction of another local erosion and
sediment control program and who chooses to have a conservation
plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation eemm~s-
s~e~ Board shall notify the director of engineering of such plan
approval by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation eemm~ss~e~
Board.
(e) Whenever a land disturbing activity is proposed to be
conducted by a contractor performing construction work pursuant to
a construction contract, the preparation, submission and approval
of the required erosion and sediment control plan shall be the
responsibility of the owner of the land.
(f) No permit shall be issued by any administrative officer
of the county for the construction of any building or other develop-
ment requiring a permit, nor shall any subdivision plat be approved
relating to land subject to this chapter unless and until the
requirements of this chapter have been complied with. (6-18-75,
Sec. 5; 2-11-76; 4-21-76; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-4. Submission of plans and specifications.
(a) Any person who applies for approval of an erosion and
sediment control plan and issuance of an erosion control permit
pursuant to section 7-3 hereof shall submit with his application
to the director of engineering an erosion and sediment control plan
with specifications for temporary and permanent controls of soil
erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the director of engi-
neering shall deem reasonably adequate, considering the nature and
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 4.
extent of the proposed land disturbing activity. A certification
is required stating that all requirements of the plan will be
followed. Unless otherwise specified by the director of engineer-
ing, four (4) copies of all plans and specifications shall be
required.
(b) All plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this
chapter shall be in accordance with provisions of the handbook;
provided that the director of engineering may require such addi-
tional information as may be necessary for a complete review of the
project. The foregoing notwithstanding, in the case of any
approved subdivision which is subject to the provisions of this
chapter, the director of engineering may allow, in lieu of an
erosion and sediment control plan for the construction of build-
ings on individual lots in such subdivision, the provision of a
contract satisfactory to him and to the county attorney, executed
on behalf of the owners of individual lots; provided, that an
approved plan exists for the development of such subdivision,
including all land disturbing activities in connection with the
development of such subdivision other than construction of build-
ings on individual lots. Such contract shall ensure that the
construction to be performed on such lot shall be so performed as
to provide protection from soil erosion and sedimentation to a
degree satisfactory to the director of engineering and shall be
executed prior to the issuance of a building permit for such
construction.
(c) All plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this
chapter relating to land within any public drinking water supply
watershed, in addition to all other provisions of law, shall be in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.1, Article II, of this
Code, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
(d) Upon the submission of any plan submitted pursuant to
section 7-3 of this article, the applicant shall pay to the county
a fee of se~eft~y-~~~e t$~5~eet forty dollars ($40.00) to cover the
cost to the county to review and to act upon s~eft-~~aft~ soil
erosion plans for residential or agricultural sites; and-one
hundred dollars ($100.00) to review and act upon such plans for all
other sites. For each erosion control inspection necessitated by
this plan, a fee of ~weft~y-~~~e t$~5~eet thirty dollars ($30.00)
shall be paid by the applicant. The maximum fee chargeable under
this section, inclusive of inspections, shall not exceed ~ft~ee
ft~fta~ea-ae~ia~s-t$3ee~eet one thousand dollars ($1000.00).
(6-18-75, Sec. 6; 10-22-75; 4-21-76; 11-10-76; 3-2-77;
4-17-85; 2-11-87; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92)
Sec. 7-5. Review of plans and specifications.
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 5.
(a) After submission, all plans and specifications required
by this chapter shall be reviewed by the director of engineering in
order to ascertain whether all items required by the handbook are
shown thereon where applicable. Regular meetings will be held to
review and discuss submitted plans with the applicant.
(b) The director of engineering shall proceed to review the
plans and specifications to ascertain whether they are in compli-
ance with the conservation standards of the handbook and thereafter
approve or disapprove the application as submitted, or notify the
applicant of any changes necessary for approval. Comments con-
cerning any required changes to the plan will be furnished to the
applicant within seven (7) calendar days of the regular scheduled
meetings; provided that, in any event, the director of engineering
shall approve or disapprove, in writing, the plans and specifica-
tions within thirty (30) calendar days after application is made.
The foregoing notwithstanding, except as specifically pro-
vided herein, the director of engineering shall not approve, and no
erosion control permit shall be issued for any activity which is
necessitated by, or which is to be done in connection with any use,
change in use, development, subdivision of land or other action for
which a subdivision plat or site development plan is required by
law, unless and until such subdivision plat or site development
plan shall have been approved as provided by law. For purposes of
this section only, such subdivision plat or site development plan
shall be deemed approved if it shall be approved conditioned upon
the issuance of such erosion control permits as may be required
pursuant to this chapter.
Erosion control PEermits may be issued for the following
activities in accordance with law prior to the approval of a site
development plan or subdivision plat under the conditions set forth
hereinafter:
(1) The correction of any existing erosion or other
condition conducive to excessive sedimentation which is occasioned
by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of God or
other cause beyond the control of the owner; provided, that the
activity proposed shall be strictly limited to the correction of
such condition;
(2) Clearing and grubbing of stumps and other activity
directly related to selective cutting of trees, as permitted by
law;
(3) Installation of underground public utility mains,
interceptors, transmission lines and trunk lines for which plans
and specifications have been previously approved by the operating
utility and approved by the county in accordance with Code of
Virginia, section 15.1-456, if necessary;
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 6.
(4) Filling of earth with spoils obtained from grading,
excavation or other lawful earth disturbing activity;
(5) Clearing, grading, filling and similar related
activity for temporary storage of earth, equipment and materials,
and construction of temporary access roads; provided, that in each
case, the area disturbed shall be returned to substantially its
previous condition, with no significant change in surface contours,
within thirty (30) days of the completion of such installation or
temporary use or within thirteen (13) months of the commencement of
any land disturbing activity on the site which is related thereto,
whichever period shall be shorter; and
(6) Borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with
sections 10.2.1.18 and 5.1.28 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(c) In the event that the plans and specifications so sub-
mitted shall be approved, the director of engineering shall re-
quire, prior to the issuance of an erosion control permit, a
performance bond with surety or other security of a type satis-
factory to the director of engineering in an amount determined by
the director of engineering to be sufficient for completion of the
controls specified in the plans and specifications, including,
without limitation, maintenance during the execution thereof,
should the person receiving the permit not complete the controls as
required. If the director of engineering takes such conservation
action upon such failure by the permittee, the director of engi-
neering may collect from the permittee for the difference should
the amount of the reasonable cost of such action exceed the amount
of the security held. Within sixty (60) days of the achievement of
adequate stabilization of the land disturbing activity, such bond,
cash escrow, letter of credit or other legal arrangement, or the
unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the
applicant or terminated.
(d) The director of engineering may ~e~~~~e-~he-~~bm~~~~eft-e~
ameftaea-~!aft~-afta-~~ee~~~ea~~eft~-~ft-afty-ea~e-~ft-wh~eh-~ft~~ee~~eft
~evea!~-~ha~-~he-eeft~~e!~-~e~-~e~~h-~ft-~he-~!aft-a~e-~ftaae~~a~e-~e
aeeem~!~~h-~he-e~e~~eft-afta-~ea~meft~-eeft~~e!-eb;ee~~ve~-e~-~h~~
eha~~e~,-e~-whe~e-~he-~e~m~~-he!ae~-~~fta~-~ha~,-beea~~e-e~-ehaft~ea
e~~e~~~aftee~-e~-~e~-e~he~-~ea~eft~,-~he-a~~~evea-~!aft-eaftfte~-be
e~~ee~~ve!y-ea~~~ea-e~~~ change an approved plan and require the
submission of amended plans and specifications in the following
cases:
(1) Where inspection has revealed that the plan is
inadequate to satisfy applicable regulations; or
(2) Where the person responsible for carrying out the
approved plan finds that because of changed circumstances or for
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 7.
other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out,
and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the require-
ments of this article, are agreed to by the plan approving autho-
rity and the person responsible for carrying out the plan.
(6-18-75, Sec. 7; 2-11-76; 4-21-76; 6-2-76; 7-9-80; 7-8-81;
2-11-87)
Sec. 7-6. Inspections.
(a) The director of engineering and his respective desig-
nated agents shall provide for periodic inspections of land disturb-
ing activity and shall have the right to enter upon property at all
reasonable times for the purpose of making investigation and
inspection relating to compliance with the provisions of this
chapter. The owner, occupier or operator shall be given notice of
the inspection and the opportunity to accompany the inspector.
(b) If it is determined under subsection (a) of this section
that the permit holder or his agent has failed to comply with the
plan, the director of engineering or his designated agent shall
immediately serve upon the permit holder, in writing, a notice to
comply, stating a reasonable time for such compliance. Such notice
shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address
specified by the permit holder in the permit application, or by
hand delivery to the site of the permitted activities and presented
to the agent or employee of the permittee supervising such activi-
ties, as per section ~i-89.8 10.1-566 of the Code of Virginia,
instructing that corrective measures be taken immediately when
immediate action is necessary to prevent erosion or sedimentation
problems. Such notice shall set forth specifically the measures
needed to come into compliance with such plan. If the permit
holder fails to comply within the time specified, he may be subject
to revocation of the permit and shall, in addition, be deemed to be
in violation of this chapter.
(c) In the event that the permit holder shall fail to comply
with a notice as provided in subsection (b) of this section, upon
finding that such action is reasonably necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare, the director of engineering may
cause the necessary measures to be taken and shall proceed to
recover the expenses of such action as provided in section 7-8.
(d) Upon receipt of a complaint from the designated enforce-
ment officer of a substantial violation of either section ~i-89.6
10.1-563 or ~i-89.8 10.1-566 of the Code of Virginia, the director
of engineering may issue an order requiring that all or part of the
land disturbing activities permitted on the site be stopped until
the specified corrective measures have been taken. Where the
alleged noncompliance is causing or is in imminent danger of
causing harmful erosion of lands or sediment deposition in waters
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 8.
within the watersheds of the Commonwealth, such an order may be
issued without regard to whether the permittee has been issued a
notice to comply as specified in subsection (b) of this section.
Otherwise, such an order may be issued only after the permittee has
failed to comply with such a notice to comply. The order shall be
served in the same manner as a notice to comply and shall remain in
effect for a period of seven (7) days from the date of service
pending application by the enforcing authority or permit holder for
appropriate relief to a court of competent jurisdiction. Upon
completion of corrective action, the order shall immediately be
lifted. Nothing in this section shall prevent the director of
engineering from taking any other action specified in section 7-8.
(6-18-75, Sec. 8; 2-11-76; 4-21-76; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-7. Review by board of supervisors.
Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the director of
engineering in disapproving plans and specifications submitted
pursuant to this chapter, or in the interpretation of the regu-
lations of this chapter, shall have the right to apply for and
receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors. In
reviewing the director of engineering's action, the board shall
consider evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person,
the director of engineering and such other persons as shall be
deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the
matter. The board may affirm, reverse or modify the director of
engineering's action and the board's decision shall be final,
subject only to review by the circuit court of the county by appeal
taken pursuant to section ~~-89.~e 10.1-568 of the Code of Virgin-
ia. For the purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved"
shall be limited to the applicant, owners of adjacent and down-
stream property and any interested governmental agency or officer
thereof. (6-18-75, Sec. 9; 2-11-87)
Sec. 7-8. Penalties and legal remedies.
(a) Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof shall be
subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1000) or to
imprisonment not exceeding thirty (30) days, for each violation or
to both such fine and imprisonment.
tht--!~-aaa~~~e~-~e-a~y-e~her-remeaY7-~he-a~ree~er-e~-e~~~~eer-
~~~-may-~~s~~~~~e-a~y-a~~re~r~a~e-~reeeea~~~7-e~~her-a~-iaw-er-~~
e~~~~Y7-~e-~reve~~-v~eia~~e~-er-a~~em~~ea-v~eia~~e~-e~-~h~s-eha~-
~er7-~e-res~ra~~7-eerree~-er-aha~e-s~eh-v~eia~~e~-er-~e-~reve~~-a~y
ae~-wh~eh-we~ia-ee~s~~~~~e-s~eh-v~eia~~e~;-~rev~aea7-~ha~-~~-eraer
~er-~he-a~ree~er-e~-e~~~~eer~~~-~e-eh~a~~-~~;~~e~~ve-rei~e~-~e
~reve~~-er-res~ra~~-v~eia~~e~s-heree~7-~~-shaii-~e~-he-~eeessary-~e
shew-~ha~-~here-aees-~e~-ex~s~-a~-aae~~a~e-remeay-a~-iaw.
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 7.
Page 9.
(b) In addition to any criminal penalties provided under this
chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter may
be liable to the county in a civil action for damages.
(c) Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in
this section, any person violating or failing, neglecting or
refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy obtained
pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of the
court, to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars
($2000.00) for each violation.
(d) With the consent of any person who has violated or
failed, neglected or refused to obey any regulation or order of the
director of engineering, the plan approving or permit issuing
authority may provide, in an order issued by the plan approving
authority or permit issuing authority against such person, for the
payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to
exceed the limitation specified in subsection (c) of this section.
Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil
penalty which could be imposed under subsection (c). (6-18-75,
Sec. 10; 2-11-87)
fBt ~ In addition to any other remedy, the director of
engineering may institute any appropriate proceeding, either at law
or in equity, to prevent violation or attempted violation of this
chapter, to restrain, correct or abate such violation, or to
prevent any act which would constitute such violation; provided,
that in order for the director of engineering to obtain injunctive
relief to prevent or restrain violations hereof, it shall not be
necessary to show that there does not exist an adequate remedy at
law.
Sec. 7-9. Authority of director of engineering to establish
administrative procedures.
The director of engineering shall have the power to establish
reasonable administrative procedures for the administration of this
chapter. (4-21-76; 2-11-87)
* * * * *
Distributed to Board= _Z'2.J' ~7~
Agenda Item ~Jo.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 Mcintire Road
C harlottesviJIe, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5841
AGENDA ITEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
v~ALBEMAi
UliP;; 271992 I1l1
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Date: March 4, 1992
Aqenda Item #:
q Z / 030<JL.i./ 2. )
Title: scottsville Tour
Issue: Staff has received a letter (attached) from A. Raymon
Thacker, Mayor, Town of scottsville, inviting the Board to a short
tour of scottsville to visualize the area being requested in the
proposed boundary line adjustment.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that a date to tour scottsville
be considered following the Annexation Committee meeting on March
5, 1992 which is expected to produce a report for the Board's
consideration at the March l8, 1992 meeting. Following the
presentation of that report, arrangements can be made with the Town
of scottsville if the Board is so inclined.
Staff ContactCs): Messrs. Huff and Tucker.
92.022
Attachment
A, RA YMON THACKER
Mayor
DUDLEY M, PALMER
TT~asureT
JESSE B, GROVE, JR.
Town Attorney
,....y OF 1\' Dr", r,. '-)I "
COU~'l1 . i.,Lut:ii';r,; ,,_L.
mllwn llf ~tllttsttillt
~tottsuille, ~irginm 24590
FEB 25 loa? i
,'\~ J
:1 -: ,~'~~(' '<;'::~~fL.
" :,,\0t ,. 'I' ,,".~'"
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
JeDJtUrLltff 22J /992
COUNCIL
THOMAS E, BRUCE, JR.
RAY W, CALDWELL
RICHARD D. MAXWELL. III
HUNTER C, WOODY
JACQUELINE B, GROVE
LUCINDA B, WHEELER
('!J/L. 7? OD vd f)/.] uckVt
AL.Dem.a.IIle (ountff cxeCI.d..i..ve
!to / ('!Jc!J.n:tUte 7? o ad.
(hadolieAv.J.L.eJ V.iA~i..a 2290/
lJeaIt BOD:
]0 tollow up OWL teLephone c.onv~on ot /1.evvwl JaffA afJO the
]own. ot Sc.o:ti:A.v.J.L.e would Li..h.e :to .i.nvile i:.h.e Bocvui ot Su..pVtV.Ll1.o/1A.
cmd 0 i:.h.Vt 0 tti..cia.lll. a.Il. theiA fjUVliA. on a v.i.Ail :to 5 c.o i:i:.A.v .J.L.e.
f)/ e have aJUU1JI.f}ed to/L a BLlA :to c.ome to i:.h.e (ounty Ott.i..c.e Bu...ilcLing
:to gaJ:.h.Vt up the [JAOUPJ DAing i:.h.em. :to 5 c.o:ti:A.v.J.L.e whVte we w.J.L.
take i:.h.em. on a Mwld.. tOWLJ and i:.h.en. /1.Vtve L.unch DetO/Le /LdlUU7..i.ng
:to (kudolieAv.J.L.e.
So /tvt a.Il. we (LIte c.onc.Vl.I1.ed i:.h.e da;te on :I:.hi.A :tA.i.p c.aJ7.. De tL.exaDL.e.
f)/ hen. .9 d.iAc.UAA.ed i:.h.e ma.ll.Vt will JO.lUl..ed ('!JCJ.IVlhaLL he /1.u..f}geded th.a.t..
il De on a f)/ ed.n.VJ.Ci.aff DecaJ.U1.e mod mem.DVUl. ot the BO(Lltd /1.et f)/ ed.n.VJ.Ci.aff
CJAi..de /-0/1. (ountff woN<..
.9 would /1i.nc.VteLff app/Lec.i..ate fIOWL heLp .i.n tAJfin.[f to aIVU1J7.f)€. :I:.hi.A v.i.Ail
will the Bor:JA.d.
('!Jod S.i.nc.VteLffJ
~
A. 7? afllWn ] h.cu::AeIt
mourn of ~tottsttill~
~tnttsuillt, ~irginia 24590
A. RAYMON THACKER
Mayor
DUDLEY M, PALMER
Treasurer
JESSE B, GROVE. JR.
Town Attorney
] h.e yuV1i:. LUJ;t we would We w .w.vde i.A aA. f.oilow/.!.:
Ail memDVIA ot the Bocvui ot SupVtvi.AO/l/l
7? . W. ] u.ckVt, C ou.n.i.ff e llrec.J.Lli.ve
ftlJt. II utt, A/JA.i..Ai:.cu?t exec.J.J.live
yeoJtfjR- 7?S t. JOM, C oun.tff AtioJU?eff
J. W. BJtent,S Vtv.i..ce Aui:Jz.oJUi:..ff
V. Wayne C Ui.mDVt9J if l.ann.w.ff iJ.i..JtedoJt
aJ?d aJ?ff othVt C oun.i[f Ott.i..cia1 OJt emploffee thai:. ffOU would l.i.A.e to
D MAff alonfjo
COUNCIL
THOMAS E, BRUCE, JR.
RAY W, CALDWELL
RICHARD D, MAXWELL. III
HUNTER C, WOODY
JACQUELINE B, GROVE
LUCINDA B, WHEELER
~
/,1',9 L.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5841
AGENDA ITEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Date:
March l8, 1992
Aaenda Item #:
'l;l. o3( f, /lS
Title: Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee
Issue: At your March 4, 1992 meeting, you requested staff provide
a revised committee work program dealing only with fiscal impact
and also requested a draft text of the advertisement for committee
members.
Backaround: The fiscal impact modeling process is politically
neutral. A basic model has, in fact, been developed for a Virginia
locality by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA).
Albemarle County was used as a case study in the development of
that particular model now being used by Loudoun County.
Nevertheless, while the process is apolitical, the analysis is many
times perceived as having a political outcome. For that reason, it
is desirable that the committee be objective and unbiased to the
tasks at hand. It is hoped the committee can bridge the gap among
those in the community who differ on current fiscal impact
analysis. Most importantly, the committee needs to coordinate the
front end of the process to assure various themes and issues--land
use, economic, other--are identified, preferably with public input.
This effort is necessary to obtain community acceptance of the
process and its results. Ideally, a consultant should sit in on
this part of the process, but not direct it. Then, the consultant
knows what points to address in providing a narrative overview of
the model's results. Such issues should be carried further in an
analysis of scenarios to validate the model.
Discussion: The following work program reflects the focus on
fiscal impact. Included as attachments are the draft advertisement
and a chart depicting a revised timeline for the committee work on
fiscal impact and its relationship to the Board's policy review.
Agenda Item Executive Summary
March 18, 1992
Title: Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee
Page 2
Recommended Work Outline:
Goal: To develop a fiscal impact analysis methodology that;
. incorporates all planning and growth factors
relevant to Albemarle County's current and future
growth management;
. can be validated, creditable and flexible;
. is effective in supporting review of policy issues;
. is usable and maintainable by staff;
. is fully supported and integrated with the
comprehensive plan review process; and
. is completed no later than March, 1993.
Specific Responsibilities for the Committee are:
(l) Coordinate information collection and issues
identification before model development--receive public
input.
(2) Review base input to model--demographic, value of real
estate, capital facility costs, etc.--with consultant.
(3) Receive and review final model product.
(4) Identify various land use/economic scenarios for model
application--although optional, this is a desirable
effort for the committee to undertake because it
validates the model and bridges the initial issues
identification with the model's application and provides
a foundation of tested scenarios for use by the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors in making
policy/strategy decisions.
TIMELINE:
March/Aoril. 1992:
I. Committee selection and Formulation of Tasks
- Develop the issues and charge for the Committee
- Advertise and select Committee
Agenda Item Executive Summary
March l8, 1992
Title: Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee
Page 3
Mav/June. 1992:
II. Orientation, Information Gathering, Issue Identification
- Review current policies and practices
- Familiarize the committee with other policies and
methodologies in use in other localities
- Define the preliminary issues
- Identify consultant service requirements
Participation at public meetings in identifying issues and
concerns
- Presentations to the committee by groups or individuals as
appropriate
June. 1992:
III. Develop an Economic Baseline
- Staff, with assistance from outside resources as necessary,
will develop an economic baseline or profile of the County
to serve as a foundation for further model development and
analysis
Julv/December. 1992:
IV. Develop Fiscal Impact Methodology
- As assisted by a consultant and staff, develop a methodology
to be used in committee analysis of development policy
alternatives and,
- Develop a methodology that is inclusive of, and interactive
with, all supporting growth management tools to include the
Comprehensive Plan, Community Facilities Plan, Open Space
Plan, utilities Master Plan and other plans as appropriate.
- Develop a methodology to be adopted for continued use by
County staff
Agenda Item Executive Summary
March 18, 1992
Title: Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee
Page 4
Januarv/February. 1993:
V. Model Validation and Scenario Testing
- Using the methodology, examine alternative land use and
economic forecasts for fiscal impact
March. 1993:
VI. Develop recommendations and complete the study
- Report to the Board of Supervisors
staff Contact(s): Messrs. Tucker and Brandenburger.
dbmj
92.039
Attachment
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS COMMITTEE
Recommended Work Outline:
Goal: To develop a fiscal impact analysis methodology that;
. incorporates all planning and growth factors
relevant to Albemarle County's current and future
growth management;
. can be validated, creditable and flexible;
. is effective in supporting review of policy issues;
. is usable and maintainable by staff;
. is fully supported and integrated with the
comprehensive plan review process; and
. is completed no later than March, 1993.
Specific Responsibilities for the Committee are:
(1) Coordinate information collection and issues
identification before model development--receive public
input.
(2) Review base input to model--demographic, value of real
estate, capital facility costs, etc.--with consultant.
(3) Receive and review final model product.
(4) Identify various land use/economic scenarios for model
application--although optional, this is a desirable
effort for the committee to undertake because it
validates the model and bridges the initial issues
identification with the model's application and provides
a foundation of tested scenarios for use by the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors in making
policy/strategy decisions.
TIMELINE:
March/April. 1992:
I. Committee selection and Formulation of Tasks
- Develop the issues and charge for the Committee
- Advertise and select Committee
Mav/June. 1992:
II. Orientation, Information Gathering, Issue Identification
- Review current policies and practices
- Familiarize the committee with other policies and
methodologies in use in other localities
- Define the preliminary issues
- Identify consultant service requirements
Participation at public meetings in identifying issues and
concerns
- Presentations to the committee by groups or individuals as
appropriate
June. 1992:
III. Develop an Economic Baseline
- Staff, with assistance from outside resources as necessary,
will develop an economic baseline or profile of the County
to serve as a foundation for further model development and
analysis
July/December. 1992:
IV. Develop Fiscal Impact Methodology
- As assisted by a consultant and staff, develop a methodology
to be used in committee analysis of development policy
alternatives and,
- Develop a methodology that is inclusive of, and interactive
with, all supporting growth management tools to include the
Comprehensive Plan, Community Facilities Plan, Open Space
Plan, utilities Master Plan and other plans as appropriate.
- Develop a methodology to be adopted for continued use by
County staff
Januarv/Februarv. 1993:
V. Model Validation and Scenario Testing
- Using the methodology, examine alternative land use and
economic forecasts for fiscal impact
March. 1993:
VI. Develop recommendations and complete the study
- Report to the Board of Supervisors
~----~-----
w
>
~ I
w :z
i ~ 'I i g
u w ~ f.
~
ll.
J
i
I
j
'I
~
'i
j
i
j
~
~
'Z .! !
~ &. III
jilj
1------
II)
II)
>-
-J
cc
:z
cc
I-
U
cc
ll.
::IE:
j l
ii s
! i~
g - II
'.. ~ !
II. ~ _
-J
cc
u
II)
....
-----
.
.
o
l:
-
ICl
.~. j
Ii -
~ l
-----
'S II
S ...
'! j
-----
---
---
-----
Ul
~
~
~~.~~
.... ::J
II) 0..
",
Ul
~
....
C
~
II. ~
... ....
... ..... :;
'~.. 'lii ~
.... 0
II) U
",
Ul
~
~
....
....
III
....
II)
i. 8l
... ....
Jj
..0
",
.
....
....
III ,..
.... ('.
II) ...,
Ul
~
....
c
e
. .... ,..
II fii ~
... ....
...
]
N
::J
~ :a
o ::J
U 0..
Ul
~
~
i
'S ...
)j
N
~
II.
i
'u
'Z
&.
l.
M
'..
I-
--------
('.
o 0
8 8
0" o.
~ ",
tit
--------
roool
000
000
tn" 11\" 0"
~ ~ ~
o
o
o
L. L. L.
m m m
>. >. >.
Lt:"E"EJ
~N'"
---
~
o
o
o
o
lI\
tit
VI
('.
1--------
u
-
~
j ~
L.
Q/
....
....
III
C
01
~
o
....
i
~
::J
i
~
o
Ul
C
III
0..
Q/
>
~
Q/
~
Q/
l
U
Q/
~
....
....
o
ill
.:;
Q/
L.
....
~
C
Q/
~
....
....
o
Q/
Ul
III
-a.
~
L.
m
Q/
~
....
~
....
3
C
.~
Q/
....
~
~
3
~~
.... ~
Ul
~
.... >.
L.
51 ~
Q/ C
~ III
I- ...,
..
Draft Advertisement for Fiscal Imoact Committee
Five citizens members appointed by the County to serve for a term
of one year. These citizens will serve with four County officials
to develop a fiscal impact analysis methodology/model which would
support the County's comprehensive planning process in answering
questions on the impact of economic development and growth
management. The committee would address concerns of the public,
costs, existing policies and procedures, factors critical to
assessment of economic development, and other related criteria in
developing a model to be integrated into the county's comprehensive
planning process. Membership is open to any County resident who
possesses an unbiased view of the impact of growth and who will
bring an objective perspective to the task.
Only residents of Albemarle County may apply. Applications will be
received until 5:00 p.m. on April lO, 1992. Application forms or
further information may be obtained from the Clerk's Office, Board
of County Supervisors, Fourth Floor, County Office Building, 40l
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA. Telephone: 296-584l.
/dbm
92.038