Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-08-02N ~, ~9_~ (~fternoon..Mee~ing-Adjourned from guly 12, 1978) u us~~19'[~ [Night Meeting) 359 Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution: Poison Prevention Week. The following resolution was presented for the Board's Consideration: "WHEREAS poisoning is the fourth most frequent cause of accidental death in this country and accounts for a majority of pediatric medical emergencies; and, that more than 90% of the 5 million poisoning cases a year are children and; WHEREAS a well run full-time poison control center can significantly reduce death and injury in the population served, but that in the past, the ~State of Virginia and more particularly, the central Virginia area has had no such full time facility and; WHEREAS the University of Virginia Medical Center has now established a computerized and efficient 24 hour Poison Control Center to provide every resident in Virginia immediate access to competent, comprehensive poison information; and, to reduce the time to appropriate treatment for all patients with poisoning through development of information links with Emergency rooms and other essential facilities; and, to reduce by at least 40% the hospital admissions and deaths in the pediatric age group. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the Poison Control Center of the University of Virginia Medical Center is endorsed and supported and, that the Board joins in designating the Week of August 1-7 as Poison Prevention Week for Central Virginia to the end that all residents of this area be made aware of this service not heretofore available and be encouraged to utilize the services of the Poison Control Center when necessary, so that injury and death from all poisonings may be reduced and avoided." Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the above resolution. the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Dr. Iachetta seconded AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: ./None. ~ ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 6. Executive Session: Legal Matters. Upon request from the County Attorney, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush at 3:25 P.M. to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 7:30 P.M., the Board reconvened and immediately adjourned. CHATRMAN A~gust 2, 1978 (Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 2, 1978, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-78-36. Stuart and Ellen Johnson. Locate a mobile home on 0.82 acres zoned A-1. Located on northwest side of Route 808, approximately 600 feet from the intersection of Routes 808 and 250 East. County Tax Map 94, Parcel 49B. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 20, 1978.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, read the following staff report into the record: "This mobile home is currently parked on the site. Two single-family dwellings are immediately adjacent to the site with several other single- family dwellings and new construction to the south in Running Deer Subdivision. The site is heavily wooded, however, due to the silver color of the mobile home it will be visible. Given a lot of less than an acre, served by individual well and septic system, it is likely more prudent to locate a mobile home rather than a conventional dwelling should the septic system become unusable due to the size of the lot, because it is nonconforming, the mobile home could be moved. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following condition: lcd: :~$,~m~,lman¢~,~m~,~Sac~m.o~l~-~4~ Of the Zoning Ordinance." 360 ~.Mr. Tucker said the Planning Co, sion on August 1, 1978, by a vote of 6-1, recommended approval subject to the above condition. He also noted letter received from Mr. Robert H. Blodinger, attorney for William, Edith, Ronald and Myrtle Kirby stating their opposition to approval of SP-78~6. The public hearing was oPened. Mr. Stuart Johnson,, applicant, was present and did not object to the conditions placed by the Planning Com~aission. He noted that only three or four homes were adjacent to this property and the only opposition has been received from Mr. Kirby. Mr. Johnson presently lives in the trailer. Speaking next was Mr. Robert Btodinger, attorney for the Kirby's. Running Deer Subdivisi¢ was developed by Mr. William Kirby and the type of houses b~ilt in the subdivision has been c°ntrol~ed by him through deed restrictions. Mr. Blodinge~ presented pictures of the trailer. which he said resembled a camper. Mr. Johnson is employed in Washington, D.C., and until he retires, he has stated that relatives of his first wife will live in the trailer. Since Mr. Johnson's first wife is still co-owner of the property, Mr. Blodinger asked if it were legal to approve this request without her consent. He noted that the "camper" was moved onto the lot without a special permit. M~. Blodinger said the issue is good planning and he requested denial. Mr. Johnson said he is now retired and his first wife if she desires can stay on the lot at any time. She knows about the trailer.and does not object. Mr. St. John suggested the Board act on the~merits of the application and if same is approved~make approval contingent on obtaining written confirmation that the first wife is aware of the application. Mr. William Kirby said he has tried to make the community a nice one and has invested a lot of money in Running Deer Subdivision. He would not oppose a house but if this is approved it will be more like a motel. '~ With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush was familiar with the property. He does not object to mobile homes on two-acre lots because they can be screened and have adequate setback but this lot is only 0.82 acre which is computed to the center of the road. If the road is ever improved, twenty- five feet will probably have to be taken off the lot, thereby decreasing the acreage. Based on the size of the lot, Mr. Roudabush could not support the request. Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Dorrier agreed with Mr. Roudabush. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to deny SP-78-36 because of the size of the lot. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. Henley said if a house were built on the~land, there ,would not be as much setback as with the mobile home. Mr. Lindstrom felt if a house~could be built on the lot, a mobile home could also be on there. Mr. Roudabush said if the lot were zoned consistent with the size which would be R-I, a mobile home could not be put there'. Mr. Fisher said it is a non- conforming lot. Mr. Johnson said the property was purchased in 1950 before the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance and he did have more than a thirty-five foot setback. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 3. .ZMA-78-09. Christian Retreats, Inc. Rezone 236.54 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RPN/A-1. Located on the north side of Route 637, approximately 1/4 mile east of the intersection of Routes 637 and 692. County Tax Maps 70 and 71, Parcels 22A and 39. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on JUly 19 and 26, 1978 .,,) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "The surrounding area is bounded by properties which presently support largely agricultural land uses. There are few residences in the surrounding properties. Route 637 is a dirt and gravel surfaced road, and Route 692 is a hard surfaced roadway. Ail adjacent properties are zoned A-1 Agricultural. The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to maintain generally low density agricultural conservation land uses. The applicant proposes a Residential Planned Neighborhood which will have a total of 42 dwelling units and an overall gross density of 0.18 dwelling .units per .acre (5.63 acres/dwelling unit). The units are broken down as ·follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) 25 single-family dwelling Units on 25 lots average size 3.15~ acres; Three single-family rental dwelling units (existing buildings); One multi-family building with six apartment dwelling units (existing barn to be converted); One multi-family building with eight apartment dwelling units (one family unit' and seven boarding type rooms; existing house to be converted). The applicant is also proposing a community center to be located in the central part of the development. The center could hold as many as 400 people and would provide 150 parking spaces. The applicant's plan also calls'for all internal streets to be built to private road standards of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance. ~gust 2, 1978 (Night Meeting) The access to all the residential units will be by way of Route 692. Only one entrance will remain off Route 637, and it will be restricted to farm uses only.and is proposed to have a gate locked when not in use. Comparative Impact Statistics: (236.5~ acres) Present Applicant's Proposal Zoning Maximum density Maximum dwelling units possibl~ -Vehicle Trips/day School Enrollment: Elementary Middle Secondar~ Total A-1 RPN/A-1 0.5 du/acre 0.18 du/acre 118 du's 42 du's 826 vpd 294 vpd 34.692 9.996 19.234 5.475 22.982 6.432 76.908 students 21.903 students The development of this proposal will entail the installation of a central water system for the two apartment buildings. In addition, the Fire Prevention Office is requiring that the developer install a small pond to serve as a source of water for fire protection for the proposed community center. The developer will also be required to acquire commercial entrance approval of the three entrances along Route 692. Some minor grading and clearing may be necessary to get the necessary sight distance at these entrances. The applicant has made an effort to locate the majority of his proposed single-family dwelling units in the wooded areas of the property. Please note that the 200-foot septic setback has been observed in the siting of the lots. The applicant is proposing that some of the present uses, specifically the farming operation, be continued as part of the approval. The staff feels that the farming operation is a proper use of the land in this area. A tot lot is being provided in a central area and pedestrian paths are provided for 'access within the development. ~The staff recommends approval of the applicant's proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire Official approval of fire prevention facilities for the two apartment buildings and the community center, including the possible installation of a water retention basin and adequate access to it; Virginia Department of Health approval, including two septic sites for lots 4, 16, and 23, and approval of the septic facilities for the apartment buildings; Approval of central water facilities for the apartment buildings as required by the Code of Albemarle; A grading permit will be required prior to final subdivision or site plan approvals; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrances along Route 692 prior to final approvals; County Engineering Department approval of private roads specifications (note that the roadways between the main entrance and the community center shall be built to the highest private road standards); County Attorney's office approval of Homeowner's Association documents including provisions for the upkeep of common areas, the maintenance of the private roads, and necessary access easements; Staff approval of tot lot equipment prior to final site plan approval of the apartment buildings or the community center; The single-family dwelling units shall be located within the circled areas noted on the approved plan; 10. The entrance gate on Route 637 shall be locked closed other than at times when it is in use for farming purposes; 11. Those areas to be disturbed shall be limited to: construction of roads, area for housing sites, required improvements, community center and farming activity." _.Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on June 27, 1978, recommended approval with the above conditions and the addition of the following: "12. Construction traffic shall enter off Route 692 only." Mr. Fisher said condition number 10 contained too many negatives and suggested striking the words "other than". He asked about the central septic system proposal. Mr. Tucker said a central septic system is necessitated for the rental units but not any of the other units and central water is needed for the two apartment buildings only. Mr. Tucker said if there is more than one water system, it will have to be approved by the County Engineer. Mr. Lindstrom asked if anything mandated the phasing of the project. Mr. Tucker said due to the n~t~ ~ tb~ d~v~]o~m~t ~basin~ was not war~anted. The common ooen soaee for the farm 362 pipe stemmed to the cul-de~s~ac. Mr. Tucker said they are regular lots which front on the cul- de-sac. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Manzano, the applicant, was present. According to state regulations, he understood one could have six units on one central well. He felt the most inexpensive way to service the lots was by the following: One central well to service lots in the northwest corner; one central well to service the block dairy barn which will be converted to an apartment building;~two central wells to service ten lots; and two central wells to service the'parcel on the eastern boundary at the corner of Routes 637 and 692. Mr. Manzano then presented a document on Christian Retreats for information. Basically, Christian Retreats is a church fellowship with approximately three hundred members. The community center which will have a game area and dining area will also be used as a church. The reason for calling it a community center is because it is referred to as such in the RPN category. The main house will have one family and several single people and is not a rental unit. However, there will be a charge to cover the cost of the food and other living expenses The barn will be converted into four efficiencies and two, two-bedroom apartments. Mr. Manzano did not feel the retention basin in condition #1~is necessary because of a three to four acre lake next to the property. He said the fire official feels the lake will be adequate to refill fire trucks. Therefore, he did not feel a separate water basin was necessary. There is vehicular access to the pond. It will be used for swimming and the road will be improved so it can be used during dry and wet weather. Mr. Manzano said the purpose of selling the property at $2,000 per acre is to expand the ministry at Oakleigh. He noted that deposits ~r some lots have already been made by the people in the fellowship. Mr. Fisher asked if the property will be in common ownership. Mr. Manzano said yes. There followed a discussion on the taxable status of the property. Mr. Manzano was opposed to condition #9 since it restricted the location of dwelling units to the circled areas on the plan he filed. The purpose of the circled areas was to reserve the wooded lots and keep the houses from being seen on Route 692. This condition will not allow an owner to relocate his house even ten feet. The public hearing was then opened. Speaking first was Mr. Randy Layman. He said Route 637 would need widening since it is only 12 feet wide and felt this development would create a lot of problems with too many vehicles. Speaking next was Mr. Stan Tatum, who worked with Mr. Manzano on developing the Plan. The desire of the applicant has been to maintain the integrity of the property to serve the community, and not the public at large by maintaining the character of the agricultural endeavor and preserving the existing woodlands. Christian Retreats will have the first right of refusal on any lot which is sold and if someone moves away from the community, the lot will be bought back and maintained by Christian Retreats. Many more lots could be located on this property but the applicant does not propose such. He noted that work has been started by members of the congregation and substantial improvements have been made. Mr. Bill Randolph, resident of Greenwood, spoke next. He felt two things needed to be clarified. One, the surrounding property is agricultural now but a request is coming to the Board for one hundred and ninety-two homes and he felt the character of the neighborhood would be destroyed. The second thing he could not understand was how two hundred plus homes in the area could retain the low density agricultural features as called for in the master plan. He felt this request would disrupt the community and felt it should be deferred until the other project, known as Blue Ridge Farm, has been presented. Mr. FloYd Artrip, a prospective buyer of a lot at Wavertree, spoke next. He felt this request would improve the community and have a poSitive influence. With no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher felt the community center should be called a church since that is the intent of its use. He said the circled areas in condition 9 are general in nature so perhaps the condition should state that, Discussion then followed on the setback lines for single- family lots. Dr. Iachetta felt site plan review was the time to take care of locating the buildings. Mr. Roudabush then suggested Changing condition #9 to read "Setback lines for single family lots to be designated on subdivision plat." Mr. Dorrier felt the community center should be referred to as such since it has been stated it will be a multi-purpose center. If the community center is designated a church there may be problems with tax exemption. Mr. Fisher disagreed. He felt the church and the property on which it is located is one thing and the rest of the property another. Mr. Fisher said Route 692 is a state maintained road and is hard surfaced. Mr. Fisher said the proposal reduces the zoning density and this request has to be decided on its merits and not depend on other requests which may come forth in the future. In conclusion, he supported the rezoning. Dr. Iachetta said the reduction of density is a move in the right direction and supported the rezoning. Mr. Lindstrom agreed and felt the County was better served by this use than any other use as a matter of right in that zone. He then offered motion to approve ZMA-78-09 w the recommendations of the Planning CommissiOn but changing all references of community center to "church" in the following conditions: "1. Fire Official approval of fire prevention facilities for the two apartment buildings and the church, including the possible installation of a water retention basin and adequate access to it." "6. County Engineering Department approval of private roads specifications (note that the roadways between the main entrance and the church shall be built to the highest private road standards)." "8. Staff approval of to't lot equipment prior to final site plan approval of the apartment buildings or the church." and "11. Those areas to be disturbed shall be limited to: construction of roads, area for. housing sites, required'improvements, church and farming activity." and changing condition' #9 to read: "Setback lines for single family lots'to be designated on subdivision plab].,,] and deleting the words "other than".in condition 10. Dr. Iachetta seconded the mot~$n and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: MeSsrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. th August 2, 1978 (Night Meeting) 363 The Board recessed at 9:10 P.M. and reconvened at 9:18 P.M. Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-78-10. Harley C. Easter and Ashby R. K~nnon. To rezone 120,000 square feet from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property located at end of Westover Drive in Westover Hills. County Tax Map 41, Parcel 66 (part thereof), White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and 26, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the following staff report into the record: "Character of the Area--The average lot area in Westover Hills is 1.36 acres. Without.central water or sewer, the minimum lot area under this request would be 1.38 acres. c,,o,mp~.e,h,ensive Plan--The Comprehensive Plan does not recognize the existing. RS-1 zoning and development in Westover Hills. This area is recommended for Agricultural Conservation. Staff Comment--Approval of this petition and subsequent subdivision (2 lots) would permit extension of Westover Drive and construction of a permanent cul-de-sac to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards. The current unfinished status of this road has caused concern in this area. In consideration of the road and existing zoning adjacent to the property, the staff recommends approval of this petition." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on July 25, 1978 unanimously recommended approval. Several letters in opposition to the rezoning have been received and concern about Westover Drive. He then read a letter from Mr. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator, who had investigated the problems expressed by the residents of Westover Hills. Mr. Fisher said letters in opposition have been received from Mr. Richard L. Welsh and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Spence, property owners in the subdivision. Their reasons for opposition were depreciation of property values, high density, sewage disposal, potential water shortage and the failure of the applicants as developers to maintain the existing roads. Mr. Fisher also noted letter dated March 2, 1978 from Mr. Tucker to Mr. Agnor suggesting that a moratoriul on building permits be established as a method to get the cul-de-sac into the state system. Mr. Tucker said he had asked for the moratorium on building permits as a method to resolve the problems with the last two lots on Westover Drive. After review by the Board, an opportunJ was given to the applicant to extend the road and have it taken into the system. Mr. Lindstro~ asked if the turnaround shown on the composite map of the Tax Map was permanent. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher could not understand why the rezoning was necessary since prior approvals had been conditioned on the road being built and taken into the state secondary system. Mr. Fisher felt the road could be extended and any number of lots created without any~rezoning and the road brought into the system. Mr. Henley said it is in the state system to the property line but there is no place to turnaround. Even though the developer had agreed to put in a temporary turnaround, he did not feel that was proper. The developer has now agreed to a permanent cul-de-sac which would be a benefit to all. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Harley Easter, the applicant, was present. He intended to create three lots. However, the large lot shown is not a lot but part of the undeveloped area that is reserved for future development. Mr. Easter said the rezoning is to conform to what has been done with the rest of the subdivision. Mr. Robert Spence, resident of Westover Hills, was present. He felt the developers have.done little or nothing to enhance the subdivision. To support this statement, Mr. Spence related the bad experiences encountered by the residents particularly with soil eros,ion and gravel dumped in the road which required action by the Sheriff's Department to have same removed. Mr. Spence said this zoning request does not meet Comprehensive Plan requirements and the lots are smaller in square footage than what is required. Due to the lack of good faith by the developer, Mr. Spence felt a moratorium should be placed on building permits for Sections 1 and 2 and a bond be posted with action on rezoning deferred until these problems are solved. Speaking next in opposition to the rezoning was Mrs. Francis Wade, a resident of Lot 34 on Westover Drive. She did not feel further development would help the cul-de-sac unless it is taken in by the Highway Department. She then discussed problems encountered with her driveway~ during the winter and the soil erosion resulting from same. Mrs. Aline Wojtovicz, resident of Westover Drive, spoke next in opposition. She requested a moratorium be placed on building permits and a bond be posted to have the roads accepted into the State Secondary System. With no one further to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel this rezoning would guarantee anything about the ~xisting road conditions. He noted it was contradictory of the Comprehensive Plan and he could not support the request. Mr. Henley felt the residents were more concerned about their roads than about the comprehensive plan. He felt the developer was assuring, by this rezoning, that the roads would be taken into-the system. He_then asked if the lots could be built on before the roads are taken in. Mr. Tucker/~a~bdivision plat would have to be submitted. At that time a bond would have to be posted for building the roads to state standards. Mr. Dorrier supported Mr. Henley and felt this was a permanent solution to the lingering problem. Mr. Roudabush felt the developer was doing as promised a few months earlier. He did not feel it was inconsistent with the development which has occurred in the subdivision. Mr. Fisher felt there were suf£icient lots already subdivided without the rezoning, but would support the request hoping the road problems will be resolved. Mr. Roudabush said there could never be more than four lots with the 9.2 acres and the present zoning allows that. Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve ZMA-78-10. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: 364 ~u~ust 2, 1978 ¢ ~' ~~~e_~ limentioned by the residents. to the Board Mr. Henley asked that Mr. Agnor work with the staff on solving the existing problems Mr. Fisher requested that the subdivision plat be brought back Agenda Item No. 5. ZTA-78-07. James W. Gercke. Amend the B-1 zone of the County Zoning Ordinance to provide for contractor's office and equipment storage yard as a use by special use permit. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and 26, 1978.) Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Current Provisions: Contractor's office and equipment storage yard is currently provided in the M-1 Light Industrial and M-2 General Industrial Districts as a use by right. Compatibility to Other Uses: The M-1 zone, less intensive than the B-1 zone, is intended to be compatible to residential areas. Staff opinion is that generally a use which is deemed compatible to residential use would not detract from commercial uses. From the aspect of compatibility, since this use is by right in the M-1 zone, staff has no objection to inclusion in the B-1 zone by special use permit, which would provide added controls. C.0~pliance with Statement of Intent of B-1 Zone: The B-1 zone is intended for "the conduct of general business to which the public requires direct and frequent access" and excludes uses characterized by "constant heavy trucking." Staff opinion is that the contractor's use would be less intensive in terms of passenger vehicles and comparable in terms of truck traffic to existing uses in ~the B-1 zone. Nature of the Use: Contractor's Office and equipment storage yard is generally regarded in a category with wholesaling/warehousing/supply yard types of uses. In .some cases, such uses are in a zone distinct from general business and industrial zones. Albemarle County has no such designation and these uses are accommodated in the business and industrial zones. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the following amendment which would provide for this use in the B-1 zone by special use permit: .Section 7-1-42(14) Contractor's office an equipment storage yard." The Planning Commission on July 11, 1978 by a vote of 5-3 recommended that the amendment be approved with the addition of "material" between "equipment and "storage". The public hearing was opened. Speaking was Mr. Sandy Lambert, representing Mr. James W. Gercke, the applicant. He said the concern of the Planning Commission was the impact such use~could have on adjacent property owners. However, he felt this amendment is needed by contractors and can be done in an acceptable way to the community. The materials will be of a limited nature, primarily those left over from a job. The applicant intends to acquire hay for sediment and soil erosion control. He said the original request did not include materials. This was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting. With no one else to speak for or against the matter, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dorrier asked if the~addition of materials was the basic opposition by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said the concern was the type of equipment and materials. Dr. Iachetta said he was more concerned about the general category of equipment and did not feel it was an acceptable use in residential or business districts. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to accept the Planning COmmission's recommendation to amend and reenact the Zoning Ordinance by the addition of Section 7-1-42(14) as a use by special permit in the B-1 zone reading: "Contractor's office and equipment and material storage yard." Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAY-S: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ~Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-78-35. Caleb N. Stowe and Raymond V. Long. For a contractor's office and equipment storage shed on 1.62 acres zoned B-1. Located in Berkmar Center on the east side of Berkmar Drive. County Tax Map 61U, Parcel 2-7 and 8. Charlottesville Magisterial District~ (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and 26, 1978.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:~ "This site is undeveloped as are other properties in the immediate area. Ministor warehouses and Charlottesville Hardware are to the north. Other commerical/industrial uses are located along Berkmar near Route 29 North. Staff opinion is that this use is compatible to other warehouse/wholesale/ building supply uses in the area. Staff recOmMends approval subject to: Site plan approval to include Commission approval of landscaping/screening; Ail equipment shall be stored in an enclosed building; Approval of appropriate state and local agencies." ~! Mr~. Tucker said the Planning Commission by a vote of 6-2 on July 11, 1978, recommended approval with the addition of the following conditions: Outside storage shall exclude debris and inoperative equipment; ~i Security fencing shall be provided to the satisfaction of the staff.' The public hearing was opened. Speaking first was Mr. Sandy Lambert, representing the applicant. He said that the applicant agrees to the conditions recommended by the Planning August 2,1978 (Night Meeting) 365 Mr. J. H. Bailey, County Engineer, was present. He asked if the Runoff Control Ordinance was considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said no, that will be addressed at site plan review. With no one further to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve SP-78-35 subject to the Planning Commission conditions. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom suggested the insertion of "and drainage" at the end of the first condition in order to take care of the problem raised by Mr. Bailey. The amendment ~as accepted and roll was called on the foregoing motion and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution of intent from the Board of Supervisors to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to require central well systems in those subdivisions which are exempted under the'present ordinance requirements. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and 26, t978.) Mr. Tucker then read the following staff report: "On May 10, 1978, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to amend the subdivision ordinance to require central well systems in those subdivisions exempted under current ordinance requirements. Subsequently, the Planning Staff consulted the County Engineer. The staff agrees with the County Engineer that there is no apparent necessity for such requirement and therefore recommends that the subdivision ordinance not be amended. However, should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to amend the ordinance, staff would recommend that central well systems only be required within the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Under such amendment, public water could be extended in the event of well failure. The Planning Commission may require public water where extension of such service is "reasonably available." Staff assumes that central well systems would be required in such cases where the Planning Commission determines public water is not reasonably available. Therefore, extension of public water to such a failed well system would be "unreasonable" and costs would be borne either by those served by such well, by the County, or by all users of the public system. At any rate, such cost would likely not be borne by the developer, who likely would have economically benefited from the operation of the central well system. Section 18-23(d) In addition to the foregoing and to the provisions of Section 18-25(a) of this Chapter, the Commission may require that any subdivision within a jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority be served by one or more central wells in any case in which the Commission finds that, due to unusual topographic and/or geologic conditions, the same shall be reasonably necessary to provide a reliable supply of potable water to the inhabitants of such subdivision." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission on July 11, 1978, unanimously concurred with the recommendation of the staff and County Engineer that the ordinance not be amended at this time. Mr. Tucker then presented the following memorandum from Mr. Bailey dated June 23, 1978: "Reference is made to the direction of the Board of Supervisors relative to a staff study of the usefulness of central well systems in subdivisions of fewer than 25 lots and/or lots greater than two acres. The Engineering Department has explored some of the advantages and disadvantages of a central well system compared to an individual well system. We have reviewed Dr. Wilbur A. Nelson's bulletin, "Geology and Mineral Resources of Albemarle County," which contains a chapter on ground water and wells within the county. A resume of some of the pertinent facts of this chapter are appended to this memo. The Engineering Department is of the opinion that there is no practical way to determine the effect a well located on one site will have on the production of another well which is located a hundred feet or more from it. The same is true for the measurement of the effect a well would have on a nearby spring. Nor do we see any reason to think that more water will be taken from a number of wells, to serve a given number of dwellings than would be from a single well. Several considerations suggest themselves as to the relative advantages of the central and individual well systems. These are by nature opinions. A few of these are as follows: 1. The central well gives the individual more protection from the dire consequences of a well failure because of the weight of the number of people involved. A number of people would be better able to negotiate with the water company which serves them or to solicit aid from the county than an individual would. Moreover, the individual water user would be free from the maintenance and operation of the water system. He would also get the economic benefit which may be derived from a relatively large scale operation. A third consideration, the central well system has the advantage of supervision of the system by the Health Department and county agencies. He will at least have the knowledge obtained from a pump test as to the capacity of the well he is buying into, when he elects to purchase a lot in such a subdivision. Much has been talked on the advantage of fire protection that attend a central well system. Such benefits may Drove illusory. In ratine an ar~ oH ~t~ 366 August 2, 1978 (Nigh~ Meeting) " wherein the presence of an adequate water system represents 39% of the total need and a fire station, of equal importance with the availability of water, must be located within four miles, in order to be considered. A subdivision which depends on individual wells also has some advantages. Several years ago, when Flordon and West Leigh were served by central wells and water had to be hauled in order to keep up with domestic demand, the Service Authority experienced difficulties on numerous cases from the careless or improvident use by a few individuals, who would thereby exhaust the available supply for everyone. The individual well owner has no one but his own household to control in order to avoid waste and conserve water. He does not have the protection of the County's well testing to determine well capacity. He can obtain (and pay for) the testing on his own well. Prudence would require that a purchaser of a lot require that a productive well be determined to be on it, just as he should determine that a lot have soil suitable for his septic system. He may also have the Health Department test the water to determine its safe use. The County Engineer does not see a necessity for the revision of the County Ordinance to make it mandatory for a subdivision of less than 25 lots of two acres or greater area to have a central system." RESUME OF "GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY" "Dr. Wilbur A. Nelson, Corcoran Professor Emeritus of Geology, prepared a bulletin entitled "Geology and Mineral Resources of Albemarle County" (Bulletin #77, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, 1962). According to the publisher's note, it is written in a non-technical manner for the people of Virginia and Albemarle County. Despite that--or because of it--the substance of this bulletin is useful to the layman in understanding the groundwater situation in the County and the use of wells for domestic water supply. One brief section is devoted to the subject of groundwater. The gist of some o~-hiaiobser~ati~ns is as follows: Albemarle County rocks are essentially impervious, therefore groundwater is associated with joints and fractures. Water basin factures are usually within 100 feet of the ground surface and seldom will yield be improved by drilling to a depth greater than 300 feet. Notable exceptions to the three- hundred foot limitation occur where certain rock formations have been enfolded. Both topographic and geologic features are important to the location of a well. A geologic map is useful in assessing the chance of finding a well of a desired capacity. Some areas are noted for their high i~percentage of dry holes or unpalatable water; most areas will provide wells of a few gallons per minute; a few areas have wells averaging from 25 to 30 and several other areas, 75 to 100 gallon per minute. The best producing well at the time of Dr. Nelson's writing (1962) was .located in Key West Subdivision. It was drilled in the Swift Run formation, eastern belt. By way of illustrating the sensitivity of well-site selection, the first well drilled in Key West was drilled 409 feet deep and produced 1.50 gpm. A second well was drilled, located 200 yards north and 50 yards east of the first. At 263 feet this well produced 137 gpm. Since 1962, a well drilled on Biscuit Run at Forest Lodge showed a capacity of 170 gpm after 72 hours of contin~mus~p,~pi~g. This well and the Key West well are located in the Swift Run East formation. Other wells which have been subjected to 48-hour or greater tests since the publication of Bulletin #77 are as follows: SUBDIVISION Langford Peacock Hill Peacock Hill Peacock Hill West Wood LOCATION 0.2 mi. west of 1-64 Ivy interchange on #708, 1+ mi. north of 1-64 -- ,, ,, on #677, 1 mi. north on Hwy. 250 Meriwether Hill on #678 0.5 mi. north of Ivy Meriwether Hill " Ivy Farms End of St. Rt. #658 YIELD FORMATION 37 gpm/48 hrs 38 gpm/52 hrs 28 gpm/72 hrs 7 gpm/? hrs 21 gpm/48 hrs 33 gpm/48 hrs 18 gpm/48 hrs 17 gpm/48 hrs Lynchburg (345' deep) Lynchburg (305' deep) Lynchburg (450' deep) ,, ,, Lynchburg (410' deep) ,, ,, Dr. Nelson observes that the Virginia Blue Ridge Complex with enfolded Swift Run has produced wells from 20 to 100 gpm in and around Crzoet and that other enfolded area of the Swift Run formation may perform in a like manner. Other good potential areas may be found in the Rockfish conglomerate northwest of Charlottesville on Barracks Road. If the groundwater information contained in Dr. Nelson's bulletin is supplemented by our knowledge of certain specific wells, some conclusions of a general nature, may be drawn, relative to the use of wells as a Water supply for subdivision development. First of all, it is evident that the best wells in the County are located in the geologic formations which the bulletin cites as having the best groundwater potential. However, it is noted that a number of relatively good wells have been drilled in what are classed as formations with poor groundwater prospects. These good wells seemed to be surrounded by wells of small caoacity. This suggests that local conditions in isolated places may be A~gust 2, 1978 (Night Meeting) 3'67 Secondly, even the best wells of the County are capable of serving a subdivision of a limited number of dwellings. For instance, three such wells as the 170 gpm giant on Biscuit Run would be required to serve the planned community which is proposed for that valley. There are numerous instances where a moderately producing well is sufficient to serve the intended subdivision. This condition makes possible the location of small subdivisions, pretty much anywhere in the County. A third observation is: there is no practical way to determine how the use of one well will effect the production of another--other than by pump testing. Apparently, most of the County's wells have very limited acquifer which indicates that the influence of a single well is over a small locale. Any attempt to ascertain what effect the use of a well located on one property will have on adjoining properties would probably result in speculative findings and be expensive to conduct. The services of geologist are indicated, together with pump tests and probably test wells. There is nothing in Mr. Nelson's bulletin or in the County staff's experience that is useful in determining this. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey was present and said the gist of the matter is that he did not feel his department was capable of handling or making any such judgments without an exhaustive study. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Preston Stallings, President of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, was present in opposition. He concurred in Mr. Bailey's study and noted that a central well cannot control a group of people. With no one else further to speak for or against the matter, the public hearing was closed. Mr. St. John read paragraph 2 of Section 18-23(b), of the County Subdivision Ordinance. He said that is the only provision in the ordinance which requires a central well system. Mr. Fisher said his concern was that the ordinance does not require anything for lots over two acres. He does not feel well drill tests are reliable. Mr. Henley could not support the ordinance. Mr. Fisher then requested deferral to August 9, 1978 for further discussion. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Henley, 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. Resolution of Intent: Amend Sections 17-6-4 and 17-6-6 to establish zoning inspection fees and to require notification by the developer to the Zoning Administrato for phased site inspections. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and 26, 1978.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not acted on this amendment. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer this public hearing to September 20, 1978. The foregoing motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Resolution of Intent: 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 July 19 and 26, 1978.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not acted on this amendment. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer this public hearing to September 20, 1978. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-78-39. Foxfield Steeple Chase and Mariann S. DeTeJeda. Amend the conditions of approval of SP-76-67 (a special use permit for a steeple chase). The 178.592 acres of A-1 property is located on the southwest side of Route 676, approximately 500 feet from the intersection of Routes 676 and 601. County Tax Map 43, Parcels 21 and 2lA. Samuel Miller Magisterial District· (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and 26, 1978.) ~ Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Foxfield is requesting amendment of SP-76-67 to permit a second major event per year. Staff has no objection to this request. Of concern under the 'original application was the accomodation of large crowds to be drawn by such events. The staff has consulted with the County Sheriff, Health Department, and Zoning Administrator on this matter for their recommendations. The Sheriff's Department fee~ the last event was handled well. The Health Department also feels the previous event was satisfactory. Staff recommends approval subject to: Site Plan approval; Approval of appropriate state and local agencies; Major steePlechase event to be held not .more than twice a calendar year; Ninety days prior to steeplechase event, applicant shall notify the Albemarle County Sheriff so that appropriate traffic measures may be arranged; Ninety days prior to steeplechase event, applicant shall notify C~.~]otte~vi~e-Albemarle Health Department for a~roval of tem~orarv 368 August 2, 1978 (Night Meeting) No billboards, grandstands, or lighting.on the track; Signing to follow the scenic highway designation regulations for the A-1 zone." Mr. Tucker said a letter dated May 23, 1978,.~as submitted by the Zoning Administrator noting all recommendations have been approved by state and local agencies. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with the above conditions plus the following: "Ail signs of a temporary nature shall be removed within 48 hours after the event." The public hearing was opened. Mr. Fred Colmer, representing the applicant, was present. The events will be held on two individual days, one in the spring and one in the fall. Ha said the applicant agrees to the conditions of the Planning Commission. With no one else to speak on the matter, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he Was concerned about the traffic problems but would support the request. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-78-39 subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the~following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-78-38. C. Harry Anglin. Pursuant to Section 2-1-25(27) of the Zoning Ordinance, for cable television receiving antennas and equipment on 15 acres zoned A-1. Located on a dirt road approximately 2 miles off Route 684 (Mint Springs Road). Tax Map 39, Parcel 12. White Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 19 and 26, 1978.) Mr..Tucker presented the following staff report: ~"This mountainous area is sparsely developed. The building and antennae may be.visible in winter months but are currentiy effectively screened by existing trees and vegetation though some timbering has occurred. This request is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan recommendation of avoiding hilltop/mountaintop development. However, this installation will be small and unfortunately such communication facilities require high elevation locations. The applicant proposes a cable television network for the Crozet area. The applicant has regraded and extended an old road to the site without a grading permit. (The Zoning Administrator is currently reviewing this matter to determine if a permit is required.) Though this road appears to be in excess of 25% in areas, it seems to be well stabilized (this property is in the Rivanna Reservoir watershed where grades of 25+% are generally prohibited). The equipment building has been constructed and poles to support the antennae have been erected. In addition, according to the applicant, much distribution wiring has been done and service has been promised to some 400 customers. Should the Planning COmmission and Board of SuperVisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: Grading permi't, if required; Commercial entrance if required by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; No further removal of vegetative cover or trees; Equipment building and antennae to be finished in a color compatible to the woodland setting (creosote, dark brown, forest green, camoflauge treatment); Conditions 1, 2, and 4 are to be met prior tO commencement of service." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on August 1, 1978, unanimously recommended approval changing condition #4 by deleting the words "and antennae" and adding the following condition: "6. Approval by appropriate state and local agencies." Mr. Henley said the building was built and poles erected for supporting the antennae because the applicant did not realize a permit was needed, Mr. Fisher asked if the antennaes were~ a~lready mounted on the poles or just the poles themselves. Mr. Tucker said just the poles. The public hearing was opened. Mr. C. Harry Anglin, the applicant, was present. said the antennae is painted by the manufacturer so condition #4 is a problem. With no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. He Mr. Henley had received many calls in favor and none in opposition. He then offered motion to approve SP-78-38 subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Roudabus~ seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom requested amendment to the conditions by adding a seventh condition to read: "Height of structures limited to 30 feet." The amendment was accepted by Mr. Henley and Mr. Roudabush. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: MesSrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstr0m and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. St. John requested the minutes of this meeting have a cross index to Clearview Cable TV, Incorporated since Mr. C. Harry Anglin is just the agent. Agenda Item No. 12.~ of Lane Building. Authorization for execution of agreement for architectural services Mr. Agnor requested deferral to August 9, 1978 in order to clarify matters in reference August 2, 1978 (Night Meeting) 869 Agenda Item No. 13. Report~of the County Executive for the month of June, 1978, was presented as information. Claims against the County for the month of June, 1978, which had been examined, allowed, and certified by the Director of Finance were presented: Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsviile-t% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Mental Health Fund Crozet Elderly Housing Escrow Fund $ 29,431:61 382,966.90 2,293,288.14 45,658.19 29,577.55 550.91 51,864.50 121.28 918,321.93 141,846.94 9,.715.50 $3,903,343.45 Claims against the County for the month of July, 1978, which had been examined, allowed, and certified by the Director of Finance were presented: Commonwealth of Virginia--Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville-l% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund General Operating Capital Outlay Fund McIntire Trust Fund Mental Health Fund Crozet Elderly Housing Escrow Fund Debt Service Fund $ 1,366.67 631,456.32 460,732.45 63,549.97 53,349.39 .00 62,107.40 198.75 13,456.23 18i,012.00 .00 86,865.50 2,141.32 372~985.40 $1,929,221.40 Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission has requested reimbursement for mileage when visiting individual sites. They have never been reimbursed for any mileage. Mr. Agnor said the use of their private vehicles was for their own education but he would not like to discourage these visits. Therefore, he recommended approval and noted little money was involved. He also noted that their compensation has not been changed for a number of years and should be reviewed in next year's budget. Mr. Fisher Understood but with the bookkeeping involved, he questioned if it was better to increase the amount per meeting. The current amount is $100.00 a month. Mr. Agnor said all the members do not take time to visit the sites. Mr. Lindstrom said a policy has been adopted to take turns. Based on that, Mr. Henley supported the request of Mr. Agnor. Mr. Dorrier felt the reimbursement would be an incentive and supported the request. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to reimburse Planning Commission members, at the County rate of $.15 per mile, for visiting sites. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 14. At 11:30 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn to August 7, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and RoudahmBh. None.