Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-11-01N029 October 25, 1978 (Night Adjourned from October 18, 1978) November 1, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 5. At 10:10 P.M., at the request of the Chairman, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 11:00 P.M. Claims against the County for the month of October, 1978 which ha~ been examined, allowed and certified by the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds were presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Mental Health Fund Crozet Elderly Housing Escrow Fund Debt Service Fund Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned. $ 666.86 491,492.33 1,292,997.16 80,658.95 30,027.67 65,229.03 209.10 21,539.52 107,010.00 125,996.69 20,326.40 67,185.00 $2,303,338.71 November 1, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 1, 1978, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, with a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2. Kenneth Pleasants: Request for Final Approval of Central Well. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Pleasants applied for central well approval in September. The well will serve three dwelling units in the Greenwood area. He noted that the well was tested by the Engineering Department and found to produce 12 gallons per minute. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the well for use by three dwelling units. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-78-59. Cecil S. McCumbee, III. To locate a mobile home on 6.794 acres zoned A-1. Property located on the southwest quadrant of intersection of Routes 800 and 6 approximately 1/4 mile southeast of intersection of Routes 6 and 630. County Tax Map 126, Parcel 32A. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 26, 1978.) Mr. Tucker reported this request was withdrawn before the Planning Commission iast night without prejudice. No action was required by the Board of Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 4. Amend Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance by the addition of Sections l4-S through 14-5-5 as they relate to conditional or "prof,fered" zoning. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 18 and October 25, 1978.) Mr. Tucker reported this amendment has not been acted on by the Planning Commission, and requested that the Board defer this until their meeting of December 6, 1978. Motion to that effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dottier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. An Ordinance to amend and re-enact Chapter 2, Article IX of the Albemarle County code entitled "Industrial Development Authority" to include as one of those items which may be considered for funding by the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority, medical facilities and facilities for the residence or care of the aged. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 18 and October 25, 1978.) 030 November 1, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Dr. W. F. Tompkins spoke in favor of the change, saying that homes for the elderly are very much needed, and that it would be a good investment for the Authority. No one else from~the public wished to speak either for or against this amendment, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Dr. Iachetta said this was a worthwhile change, as it did not give rights to any type of polluting industry. He then offered motion for approval. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. St. John said he felt it was necessarY to correct the wording of the motion to state that the Board of Supervisors wished to adopt the ordinance as amended. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance. Mr. Dottier again gave ~ecoRd. Roll was called and ~he!m~tion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. (The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) ASN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 2-49, 2-50 and 2-51, CHAPTER ~, ARTICLE IX, OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Sections2-49, 2-50 and 2-51 be amended and reenacted to mead as follows: Section 2-49. powers and duties generally. The public and corporate powers of the Industrial Development Authority of the county, are solely and exclusively limited to the power to finance industrial pollution control facilities for indUstries presently located in the county; the power to finance industrial plant expansion for industries presently located in the county,.requiring minimum local public utilities and providing new jobs, the substantial majority of which shall be filled by prior residents and domiciles of the county; the power to finance new industrial facilities in the county which new industrial facilities shall be exclusively limited to light manufacturing and research oriented industries, requiring minimum local public utilities and providing new jobs, the substantial majority of which shall be filled by prior residents and domiciles of the county; and the ppwer to finance medical facilities and facilities for the residence or care of the aged in the county. Section 2-50. Board of supervisors to approve financing. No financing of any industrial pollution control facility or industrial plant expansion or new industrial facility or medical facility or facility for the residence or care of the aged by the industrial development authority of the c~unty shall take place without the prior approval of the board of supervisors. Section 2-51. Financed construction to be located within county; board of supervisors to approve location. Any industrial pollution control facility or industrial plant expansion or new industrial facility or medical facility or facility for the residence or care of the aged financed by the industrial development authority of the county, must occur within the legal boundaries of the county; and the county board of supervisors must approve the proposed location of any industrial pollution control facility or industrial ~ant expansion or new industrial facility or medical facility or facility for the residence or care of the aged prior to any financing by the industrial development authority of the county. Agenda Item No. 6. Amend Section 18-22 of the County Code and Section 17-5-13 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish performance standards for off-site and on-site drainage facilities. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 18 and October 25, 1978.) Mr. TuckEr said these amendments were deferred by the Planning Commission and recommend- ed the Board defer this until December 6, 1978. Motion for deferral was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorriem, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iaehetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. ?. To rezone 88.08 acres (Tax Map 4lA, Parcel 72) at Lake Albemarle owned by the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries lying within the watershed area of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir and property owned by the County of Albemarle at the Totier Creek Park lying within the Totier Creek Impoundment watershed from their present classifications to the CVN-Conservation District classification under the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 18 and October 25, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the staff report: Resolution of Intent - Rezone to CVN properties owned by the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries at Lake Albemarle; rezone to CVN properties owned by the County of Albemarle at Totier Creek reservoir. This resolution, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 8, 1978, involves the following properties: 031 November 1, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) County of Albemarle Tax Map 136, Parcels 19A,20A, 27B,27C,27D,2?E,27F,27G,29, 30A,31A 212.58 acres TOTAL 300.61 acres Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the "purposes of conservation are related to environmental elements involving water quality, hydrology, air quality and minerals." The plan goes further to outline those catergories where conservation practices should be applied. They include hillsides, flood hazard areas, woodlands and im- poundment watersheds. Staff Comments Staff opinion is that these properties s~bstantial!y conform to the criteria set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and recommend their inclusion in the CVN District. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously with one abstention. Mr. Fisher declared the public h~aring opened. No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion to amend the Zoning Map by changing certain properties to CVN as set out above was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-78-13. James F. Walker and Blue Ridge Farm. Rezone 560 acres from A-1 to RPN/A-1. Located on south side of Route 692 approximately one mile southeast of the intersection of Routes 250 West and 693. (Deferred from September 20, 1978.) Mr. Roudabush indicated he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on this agenda item as his firm participated in drafting plans which would be presented to the Board tonight Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report as follows: ZMA 78-13 James Walker (Blue Ridge Farm) Requested Zoning: RPN/A-1 Acreage.: 645.46 acres Existing Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map 70, Parcels 34, 35, 35A, and 37 is located on the southside of Route 692 at its intersection with Route 691. White Hall and Samuel Miller Magisterial Districts. Character of the Area This property is both open and wooded and has historically been a cattle farm. The property is rolling in topography with some steep slopes. Tributaries of Stockton Mill Creek run through the site. Generally other properties in the area are large parcels though some smaller parcels exist. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for agricultural conservation at a density of one dwelling unit/5 acres or less. The rural portion of the County is recommended for an increase of 1594 dwelling units by 1995; Blue Ridge RPN would represent about 10% of that increase. Additionally, Blue Ridge RPN would have a greater population than most of the vil'lages recommended in the plan. In reference to developments of this scale, the Comprehensive Plan states: Conventional Developments - Conventional developments, generally involving construction of new roads, are recommended at a scale between 20-75 units, with larger projects recommended to be Planned Unit Developments. Developments of this type are to be dis- couraged in areas of the County where desired average densities are lower than one dwelling per acre. In addition to traditional design improvement standards, develop- ments of this size should incorporate the following two features: Mini-neighborhood iden~tity, including recognizable boundaries and focal point for resident gatherings/activities. Logical connection features with adjoining parcels 6f land. Planned Unit Developments - The ,scale at which application of the Planned Unit Develop- ment (PUD) concept is recommended begins at the 75-100 dwelling unit range, where a viable homeowners' organization can maintain meaningful open space, recreation areas, and pedestrian linkages. Although P.U.D's are recommended primarily as neighborhoods or mini-neighborhoods within designated communities and the urban area, other locations may be considered by the County where the possibility of establishing a "new village" or the nucleus of a future communmty exists and where the development of such P.U.D. 's would not preclude achievement of the County's ob]ectmves for the urban area, commu- nities, and villages. The suggested maximum scale standard for planned unit developments is between $,000 and 7,000. Applicant' s Proposal The applicant proposes 190 units on clustered lots (one lot is about 90 acres; other 032 NoVember 1, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) use with dwellings located predominantly in wooded areas. About five acres would be "common facilities" area. Landscape buffering (6 foot - 8 foot white pines, 25 feet on center) is proposed along existing public roads. Water would be supplied by one or more central wells and sewerage would be by individual septic systems. Land Use Summary A-1 190 650 acres 250 acres 5 acres 41 acres 0.29 du/acre 0.5 du/acre 50,000 square feet 98,000 square feet 56,000 square feet Zoning Total number of lots Total area Estimated total residential area (excluding lot 147) Common facilities area Estimated total road area, ~ncluding right-of-way Proposed residential density Maximum residential density permitted Smallest lot area Largest lot area (excluding lot 147) Average lot area (excluding lot 147) Staff Comment The following is the staff's opinion as to the unfavorable and favorable aspects of this petition: Unfavorable Scale of Development: Probably the most objectionable aspect of the request is the proposed scale of development. Staff opinion is the request is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan's recommended seal· of development for this area and that Blue Ridge Farm RPN could interfere with the Village objective for Bates- ville. Larger than most proposed villages% commercial support uses would be appropriate to the development. Additionally, located among relatively large farms, the proposal is counter to existing development in the area. Should this application be approved, it may be appropriate to consider amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to include Blue Ridge Farm RPN as a Village. Public Roads: Adequacy of public roads is generally an area of concern with a development of this scale. In approving Christian Retreats RPN to the east, the County restricted the use of Route 637 to farm use only due to the con- dition of that road. A similar restriction in this case would be unenforceable since no specific organization would be responsible. Fully developed, Blue Ridge Farm RPN would generate an additional 1370 vtpd to existing public roads. Traffic on Route 692 would increase about 15% eastward to Batesville and 103% westward to Route 250 West. Traffic on Route 691 from Route 692 to Route 250 West would increase about 268%. With~ the exception of Route 692 to Batesville, increased traffic from this development would change Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Categories on existing public roads: CATEGORY BY VTPD Rt. From To Current Post-development % Increase 637 Pt. 2 Pt. 3 I II 647 637 Pt. 3 Pt. 4/5 I II 911 637 Pt. 7 Pt. 6 I IV 1341 691 Pt. 4/5 Pt. 6 II III 191 691 Pt. 6 Pt. 8 II IV 453 691 692 Rt. 250W II IV 268 692 691 Batesville III III 15 692 691 Rt. 250W III IV 103 Water Consumption: For 190 dwellings, whether central or individual wells are employed, daily domestic water'consumption would approach 76,000 gallons (accepted design standard of 400 gal/unit/day). Under County requirements, the central well system for Blue Ridge Farm RPN would have a capability of produc- ing 136,800 gallons/day. Additionally, for fire protection, a storage capacity - probably an elevated ~ank of 120,000 gallons - will be required. Since little is ~nown in the field of groundwater resources, evaluation of specific cases is difficult. This property ms located in the Lovingston Gneiss formation and "wells drilled into the Lovingston Gneiss are often dry wells or average only a few gallons per minute" (Source: Geology of Albemarle County, Division of Mineral Resources, 1962). Lots 180-190: This section of the RPN is physically separated from the common open space system and in staff opinion is not cohesive with the plan. Access to the open space would be by existing sta~e road rather than internal open space linkage. Open space linkage corridors should be provided throughout the development to connect major open spaces. Steep Slopes: Several proposed lots (13, 14, 35, 38, 52, 53, 55, 56, 70, 71, 144, 145, 162) are predominated by slopes of 25+% compounded in some cases by the 200 foot septic system setback. Favorable RPN vs. Existing Zoning: Under this application, one dwelling per 3.4 acres is being requested. Under existing zoning, the applicant could develop the entire tract in two-acre parcels. The request is for 190 lots, whereas existing zoning could yield as many as 280 lots. If the RPN is approved, the applicant is bound to the approved plan. Amendment of the plan requires the same process as ori~inal application. Planned vs. Piecemeal Development: Under the RPN designation, the impact of this development can be evaluated in full and appropriate improvements can be required 033 November t, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) property could be developed with few required improvements· Staff opinion is that the planned development approach in this respect better serves the public interest. RPN Requirements: Open space in this proposal is twice that reduired as minimum under an RPN application. Though a development of this seal·, in staff opinion, requires eommereia! support uses, no commercial uses are re- quested (this development could support 3800 square feet of retail area). The RPN designation does not require protective screening, however, the applicant proposes lands·ape buffering from existing public roads where existing vegetation is not adequate (staff had recommended a scenic highway setback from Route 692 in Site Plan Review, however, staff opinion is that adequate screening would satisfy the intent of that recommendation). Comprehensive Plan Developmen~ Standards: In respect to the standards for rural development recommended in the plan, the staff's opinion is that this proposal favorably reflects those recommendations. Residential development through clustering is substantially restricted to wooded areas while open pastureland is maintained for agricultural use. Lots generally enter on internal roads. Landscaping is employed for buffering from existing roads. Staff Recommendation While a primary concern of planning is the achievement of ideal goals, Practical decision-making often involves the better choice. Simply stated, staff opinion is that the Blue Ridge Farm RPN is the better choice over the potential develop- ment under existing zoning. The aspects listed above as "unfavorable" would occum whether this property is developed under an RPN or under the existing A-1 zone. In fact, staff opinion is that development under existing zoning would have more unfavorable aspects while those favorable aspects of the RPN approach cited above would be lacking. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Approval is for a maximum of 172 dwellings (reflects exclusion of lots in steep slopes and lots inappropriate for clustering), 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; No grading shall occur within any area of the site until final site plan and/or subdivision plat approval has been obtained; No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as necessary for road construction as approved by the County Engineer; 0nly those areas where a structure, utilities, road, or other feature approved in a final plan are to be located shall be disturbed; (compliance with Appendix A of the Albemarle County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance); all other land shall remain in its natural state; County Attorney approval of homeowners' association agreements prior to final approvals. Ail lots (lot 147 optional) shall be served by a central water system approved in accordance with the regulations of the Virginia Department of Health, the Code of Albemarle County, and all other applicable law; A fire protection system with a capacity of 1,000 gallons p~r minute at 20 psi for two hours shall be required. Fire hydrants are to be located not more than 800 feet apart along roads. This condition does not preclude additional requirements by the Fire Official in the final approval process; Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field locations on each lot; Building setback of %5>feet from right-of-way along existing public roads; Delete lots 180-190; Provide internal open space linkage among areas of common open space; Combine with buildable lots or delete lots 12, 14, 38, 52, 53, 71, and 162. Any relocated lots shall be confined to existing wooded areas; Internal roads shall be constructed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards; Approval ms given for the following uses only: (a) Agricultural uses; (b) Detached, semi-detached and attached dwetiing units; (c) Churches; (d) Food stores intended to serve the residents of Blue Ridge Farm RPN; (e) Public utilities: poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters, and related or similar facilities; water, sewer, and gas distribution lines; (f) Home Occupation, Class A; (g) Community center; (h) Parks and recreation facilities; and (i) Accessory uses and buildings. Ail proposed roads within the Blue Ridge Farm RPN shall be built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications and accepted into the State Secondary Road System; The following road improvements shall be accomplished under Virginia Depart- ment of Highways and Transportation standards and specifications: (a) Route 691 from Pt. 4/5 to Pt. 8A/8B; (b) Route 687 from Pt. 2 to Pt. 4/5; (c) Route 637 from Pt. 7 to Pt. 6; (d) Intersection of Routes 691 and 692; (e) Improve frontage of Route 691 from Pt. 8A/SB westward to the end of Blue Ridge Farm RPN. Phasing of the road improvements outlined in condition no. 18 shall be as follows: (a) The intersection of Routes 691 and 692 shall be improved prior to the platting of any lots; (b) When the secondary road eat·gory changes due to the additional traffic from this develop~mant, then such road shall be improved to the necessary cate~orv as required bv the Virginia Deoartment of Hi~hwavs and O34 November. 1, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) The following are staff's comments on questions received during and after the initial Planning Commission public hearing on Blue Ridge Farm RPN. 1) Does the "run-off control" ordinance apply? If so, how does it affect the plan?. In review of the preliminary plan with the Engineering Department, high-range estimates of impervious ~_c~verage were applied to the proposal as submitted by the applicant, resulting in a total impervious coverage of less than 5% of the site. Therefore, no run-off control plan would be required. The 100 foot septic system setback would apply to all lots within the development. 2) Under existing zoning, what actual density could be achieved in light of topography, run-off ordinance, etc., and what new roads would be necessitated and costs thereof? For purposes of comparison, the staff reduces the total acreage by 15% as a rule-of-thumb consideration of topography, access, lot slope, etc. This would provide an effective developable acreage of 548 acres or 274 dwellings (If private roads were employed, a greater number of dwell- ings would result). Therefore, compared to the applicant's proposal, development under existing zoning could be 45% greater. Ail impacts (traffic, water consumption, school enrollment) would increase proportionally. Specifically in respect to existing public roads, staff has calculated the following impacts in reference to resulting V~ginia Department of Highways and Transportation categories: CATEGORY BY VTPD REQUESTED EXISTING RTE FROM TO CURRENT RPN/A-1 ZONING 637 Pt. 2 Pt. 3 I (36vtpd) II (269vtpd) II (374vtpd) ~37 Pt. 3 Pt.4/5 I (36) II (364) III (512) 637 Pt. 7 Pt. 6 I (56) IV ~807) IV (1145) ~91 Pt.4/5 Pt. 6 II (282) III (821) IV (1064) 691 Pt. 6 Pt. 8 II (285) IV (1575) IV (2156) 691 692 Rt. 250W II (336) IV (1236) IV (1641) 692 691 Batesville III (469) III (539) III (571) 692 691 Rt. 250W III (390) IV (790) IV (970) TOTAL INCREASE *Denotes category change. 1370 VTPD 2000 VTPD VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS $ TRANSPORTATION ROAD CLASSIFICATION (Without Curb g Gutter) CATEGORY VTPD M~ R%W I Under 250 40 feet 20 feet II 2~0 - 400 50 feet 20 feet III 40fi - 750 60 feet 22 feet IV 750 - 8000 60 feet 22 feet PAVEMENT WIDTH~ The difference in costs of road improvements would not be appreciable since the major difference would be in terms of quantities of materials. Again, should the property develop in piecemeal fashion, the likelihood of the de- veloper(s) making road improvements would be diminished. 3) In what ways does the proposal comply with the Comprehensive Plan and in what fashion is it contrary to the Comprehensive PIan? ~ It is the staff's opinion that, compared to existing zoning, the Blue Ridge Farm RPN proposal more favorably reflects the recommendations of the Compre- hensive Plan. Staff discussed the proposal in respect to the Comprehensive Plan in the original staff report. In reference to Comprehensive Plan recom3nendations for "Agricultural acres", Blue Ridge Farm RPN generally COMPLIES with the following statements: ~Previously or subsequently cleared a~eas for agricultural purposes should remain perpetually available for agricultural functions. · New residential development should be located in the wooded sections of both agricultural areas. · The open space created by the mandatory cluster should be devoid of develop- ment rights to keep it open for agricultural purposes. · The agricultural owner should be allowed to transfer development rights from his open land to his wooded land to increase the yield of the wooded area. Panhandle lots'should be allowed in wooded areas in conjunction with develop- ment rights to transfer. · Screening of residenc~ in open areas from the road by berms or vegetation should be required. · Common use wells and septic disposal systems should be allowed to accomplish clustering desired. To date, staff has reviewed petitions for compliance with general densities re- commended in the Comprehensive Plan. For agrmcultural areas, the plan states: Wooded agricultural areas should carry a gross plan density of one du/two acres with the minimum lot size being determined only by heaIth, safety, and environ- mental requirements. Open agricultural areas should carry a gross plan density of one du/~en acres for cropland - one du/five acres for pasture-orchard land with a~mandatory cluster provision of not more than one du/60,000 square feet. Applying these standards to Blue Ridge Farm (about 190 acres wooded, 460 acres open pasture) yields 187 dwellings. Therefore, the petition complies with density recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. 035 November 1, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) The only aspect of Blue Ridge RPN which in staff opinion is contrary to the Compre- hensive Plan is the proposed scale of development. As stated previously, Blue Ridge Farm would represent about 10% of the recommended rural area population increase by 1995.~ Additionally, staff opinion is that the development may interfere with the village objective for Batesville. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on 0~tober 10, 1978, recommended by a vote of 5-4, approval of this petition with the staff's conditions. Following a few brief questions by Board members, Mr. W. B. Coburn, Jr. Assistant Resident Engineer of the Department of Highways and Transportation discussed his letter dated September 6, 1978 written to Mr. Ronald Keeler of the Planning Department. "September 6, 1978 County of Albemarle 414 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Blue Ridge Farm Routes 691,692, S 637 Albemarle County Attention: Mr. Ron Keeler A review of the property as proposed indicates an additional 1370 VPD will be generated from this site. Primary access is provided the site by Route 691 and 692. Both routes are narrow 14-16 foot surface treated roads with poor horizontal and vert~ical alignments. Both roads are either at their design capacity or exceed~ it. The following table compares the existing traffic with estimated traffic for various sections of roads involved. The 1978 count is the actual count taken; it is listed unofficial since final tabulation has not been made: VDHST VDHST (unofficial) Estimated Route From To 1976 1978 Additional ~ Pt ~-' Pt 3 38 ~ 233 637 Pt 3 Pt 4/5 38 36 328 691 Pt 4/5 Pt 6 222 282 539 637 Pt 7 Pt 6 52 56 751 691 Pt 6 Pt 8 251 285 1290 692 Pt 1 Batesville 467 469 70 692 Pt 1 Pt 1 467 469 130 692 Pt 8 Rt.250 279 390 400 691 Pt 8 Rt.250 478 336 900 Route 637 is a 14 foot gravel road; if not improved this additional traffme would create problems on the road which would be difficult to maintain. If this development occurs as planned and the routes involved are not improved as a condition of development, it may be necessary to revise the six (6) year plan of improvements. The Department recommends as an absolute minimum the improvement of both sections of RQute 637 and Route 691 from 637 south to Route 692. If you have any further questions, please advise. Very truly yours, (signed) W. B. Coburn Asst. Resident Engineer" Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Mr. Jim Wooten representing the applicant. He first noted a typographical error in the report drawn up by the Planning Staff, which he felt was significant that being in condition number 16E; he said it should be improved frontage of Route 692. Mr. Fisher said he and the Board did accept this correction. Mr. Wooten then presented the credentials of Mr. James Walker, who spoke next. Mr. James Walker first noted his full name was JameS E. Walker and not James F. Walker as noted in correspondence received from county departments, and that the property is located on State RoUte 691 instead of 693 as shown on tonight's agenda and in the adver- tisements published in the daily newspaper. He said he and Mr. Daniel Ford were co-request- ing this rezoning as they had no?~luck in their attempts to develop this acreage for dairy farming. He noted that a geologist was hired to locate wells on the property and water supPlY was found to be more than adequate to support the proposed development of this land. Finally he requested the Board only to consider this request on its merits. Next to speak was Ms. Vera Ha!winsky, who hung a colored map for Board consideration of the property. She described how the layout of lots was decided upon, and how each use of land in the proposed community was decided upon. She said special attention was paid,to retaining all visual views from property sites and of the property from roadways. She said lots on steep slopes were criticized by the Planning Stagf, but she noted that .the drawings submitted were for the purpose of the preliminary rezoning only,~and that lot adjustments could be made at a future time. Mr. RandY Wade referred to the Comprehensive.Plan, s~ating that this plan is the best possible for the area in which it is located. Mr. Wooten asked for deletion of Condition ten in conjunction with condition o~e. He asked that condition twelve be handled at the site plan review stage rather than the rezon- ing. He also requested condition seven regarding fire protection also bevhandled at the site plan review stage. Regarding condition sixteen, he said it is difficult to get cost estimates on roads since they do not have definite requirements from the highway department November 1, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) at this time. He requested more leeway from the Board regarding roads and the necessary bonding. Mr. Wooten finally stated his objection to the Highway Department's request that the developer make substantial improvements to Route 692. He said the development would not double the traffic count as predicted. He said it ~as not their responsibility to improve roads not substantially affected by his development. At 9:30 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a short recess. Meeting reconvened at 9:41 P.M. First to speak in opposition was Mr. Paul Peatross, attorney, representing a large group of the public who live zn the area of the proposed development. He presented the Board with a petition signed by 278 residents of the Greenwood, Batesville, Afton area, and an additional 150 signatures from people outside that area, including Charlottesville. He then hung a new map of the area, and introduced Mr. John Finley. Mr. Finley, a neighboring property owner,said he would be bordered by this development on three sides. He then presented figures that more than 100 land oQners would be directly affected, with land area totalling 4,554 acres and valued at well over six million dollars. He said in comparison, Blue Ridge Farm is only one owner, $60 acres and 1.5 million dollars. Mr. Tom Ferre!l presented a 1974 aerial photograph supplied by the S.C.S. Agriculture and Stabilization office. He illustrated to the Board the areas of wooded, pasture and cleared lands in the development area. He said also that a 25-foot buffer sumrounding the development from the major roads was not adequate, and would allow the development to be seen by all passing motorists. Mr. Peatross said he disagreed with Mr. Wade about this development complying with the Comprehensive Plan. He said as shown by Mr. Ferrell, most of the lots are not being placed in the wooded areas, but in the open space. He said the development was Goo intense for the community as described in the Comprehensive Plan~ Also, that new residential develop- ment should occur near urban areas and county villages such as Batesviile, not random acreage scattered throughout the county and outside of reahh of public utilities. Finally he said once the agriculture conservation status of this land is lost, it can never~be reclaimed, which is also opposed to the character of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Henry Marzetti a neighboring land owner, said the distance between Route 691 and Route 250 is about two miles in length, and contains approximately 14 blind corners and hills. He described the terrible road conditions on Route 691 toward Blue Ridge Farm, and said these problems should be solved before they are added to with additional development. Mr. Herbert Stuart presented traffic and road problems along Route 692 and 537 as they approach Batesville. He said the roads at present are extremely hazardous, and cannot support the traffic they presently handle, let along any additional. He said the Planning Commission supported his request for denial, and hoped the Board of Supervisors would also deny this request. Mr. Thomas Gathwright who lives on Route 635 spoke about possible water problems. He said a great percentage of wells drilled in this area test at a certain capacity, and as soon as six months later, test at as much as 20% less, proving the wells are unstable and lowering the ground water supply. He said the major problem that Blue Ridge Farm will have is that ground water flows away from the land, and there are no underground streams to replenish wells as the water is used. Mr. Peatross said this water problem must be discussed now. It is not only for drinking water, but also water for fire protection, and it cannot wait until after this RPN is approved. Mr. John P&llock spoke regarding the potential air pollution which this sUbdivision wouldjgenerate due to increased vehicle trips per day. Ms. Margaret Melcher speaking for the League of Women Voters said the proposed sub- division would cause an increased traffic hazard in the area, as well as deplete the~ground water supply for present and future residents. ~ Colonel Frankhurst, representing the Greenwood Rutitan Club, read a statement saying membership was opposed to this development as it woUld take-away from the country atmosphere which Greenwood presently has. It would also createfother problems such as traffic, police protection, fire protection, etc. which the community cannot afford to upgrade at this time.. Mr. Moore said his firm drilled three wells on the property and each prodUced an average of 34 gallons per minute. He said a professional geologist ~as hired to further view the site, and it was his opinion that the area looks like a potentially good water producing area. No guarantees were given as to amounts of water or the longevity of wells drilled. Mr. Wooten summarized the position of his'client, stressing that if the development as presented tonight is not approved in some way, that it could necessit'ate developing the land in two acre lots as presently allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. He said Mr. Ford does not want to do this to the land, but that it is impossible financially to retain it as farm land. Mr. Peatross said it was his opinion that this plan did not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan or the regulations of the RPN .zoning. He said there is a definite water problem, and the traffic problem potential has been noted by the Highway Department. He finalized by requesting denial of the request. At 11:05 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. He commented that the land is scenic but that the access roads are very poor. The possible use of this land for development over farm land is a steadily growing problem all over the country, and one which he has been working on in com~ittee for the Virginia Association of Counties. He felt to approve this request would be a mistake, as there is inadequate water supply and poor roads. To improve the road system with Highway Funds would divert funds from other areas of the county. Finally, it would use up the total allotment of new residential development as spoken to in the Comprehensive Plan for several years in the future, and place it all in one location, which at this time, he was not ready to do. November 1978 (Regular Night Meeting November ~', 1978 (Ad3ourned ~rom Novem~)er 1, 1978) 037 Dr. Iachetta said he could not support the plan. Being an engineer he noted the plan presented was an automobile oriented plan, which made all residents of the area dependent upon use of their own transportation into Charlottesville. There was no way they could stay local and within walking distance of the necessary conveniences required during daily life. He said this, along with many things mentioned by Mr. Fisher, made it impossible for him to support the plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he was mostly concerned about the road problem. He felt the points brought up by Mr. Peatross regarding the Comprehensive Plan were also well taken, but he would not support the plan mainly because, the roads simply cannot handle any additional traffic at this time. Mr. Dorrier said he also visited the property as did Messrs. FiSher, Iachetta and, Lindstrom, and although he was impressed with the property and the plan itself, he could not support approval. He noted his main reason was that he felt it was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, along with potential traffic and water problems. Mr. Henley said he had no problem with the design of the plan itself, but that it was being developed in the wrong place in the County. He would not support approval. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to deny ZMA-78-13 as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: NDne. ABSTAINING: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 9. At 11:28 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn this meeting to 9:45 A.M. on November 2, 1978, in front of the Albemarle County Courthouse. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Roudabush. ...... ~C~a%rman November 2, 1978 (A'djourned from November 1, 1978) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 2, 1978, beginning at 10:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from November 1, 1978. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers present: St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. The purpose of this meeting was to welcome visitors from Prato and Poggio a Caiano, Italy. The Board received the visitors in the Courtyard at 9'45 A.M., made a brief visit to the Albemarle County Courthouse and then convened in the Board Room at 10:02 A.M. Mr. Fisher introduced the visitors: Mayor Landini of Prato; Mayor Pezzati of Poggio a Caiano; Senor Manoffi, Vice-Mayor of Prato; Mr. Vestri, Tourism Bureau of Prato; Mr. Tempest of the Bank of Prato; Mr. Buti of the City of Prato; Mr. Naducci from the City of Prato; and Mr. Robert Gordon, Consul General'of Florence, ItaIy. He then introduced those Board members present and gave a brief description of Albemarle and its environs. Short speechs concerning their employment with the County were made by Mr. Agnor, Robert Tucker, George St_. John and Karen Morris. Mr. Fisher said it has been suggested by Mayor Landini and other~ that ~ Charlottesville,/ Albemarle and Prato/Poggio a Caiano establish an exchange program for high school students. Maybe this can begin next year. Mr. Fisher said when he was in Prato in 19%7 he was given a leather folder containing a pact of friendship which he and Mayor Landini had signed on May 3, 1977. He requested that the Board adopt a resolution confirming this pact of friendship. He then read the following: Heartened by the secular ties that have characterized the relations between the American and Italian Peoples, the friendship and the profitable labour exchanges, in recognising the common feelings of Freedom, Democracy and Equality inspiring them, in remembrance of the occasions when a common effort was expressed for the conquest of Peace and development of Human relations, in particular the positive contribution of the American People for overthrowing of the nazifaseist oppressor, the County of Albemarle, and the City of Prato seal by this pact of Twinship their auspices for a perennial integrity of these relations. Motion to adopt this pact of friendship between Prato and the County of Albemarle was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. At 10:55 A.M., when the meeting was adjourned, Mr. Fisher presented his gavel to Mayor Landini.