Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-07-07July 7, 1977 (Adjourned from July 6, 1977) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 7, 1977, at i~:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Meeting was adjourned from July 6, 1977. ' Board Members Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anth~ Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. 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. at 7:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman, Not Docketed. ZMA-77-12. James Maupin. To rezone 32.34 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RPN/RS-1. Property on the northeast side of Route 684 at the intersection of Routes 684 and Route 691. County Tax Map 55, Parcel 64] White Hall District. (Advertised June 23 and June 30, 1977.) Mr. Robert Tucker said~the Planning Commission has deferred action on this item until July 12th. He a!~o noted that the Clerk to the Board has already readvertised this item for Board discussion on July 20th, and he recommended the Board take action to defer ZMA-77-12 to July 20, 1977. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to defer t~e ~ublic hearing on ZMA-77-12 to July 20, '1977. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. ~genda Item No. 2. ZMA-77-11. Caleb Stowe Associates, Ltd. To rezone 3.53 acres from R-2 to B-1. Property on northwest Corner of the intersection of RSute 29 North and Route 631 (Rio Road). County Tax Map 61, Parcels 123B, B-i, and 123C, part thereof, Charlottesvill District. (Advertised June 23 and June 30, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the following staff report with a unanimous vote for approval by the Planning Commission: Character of the Area Wcnder Bread is located to the northeast. Site plans were recently approved for Pizza Hut to the east and Mel Dixon Office Building to the west. There is an existing single-family dwelling to the west on B-1 property. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan shows this quadrant of the intersection £or commercial, warehousing, and highway uses. Staff Comment Staff recommends approva~ of this petition for the following reasons: This request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; ~taff opinion is that this is a logical "fill-in" zoning considering: (a) adjacent zoning (b) relative lack of utility as R-2 zoning (due to small acreage and adjacent zoning) (c) relatively ~light impact potential on 29 North Corridor. Mr. John Strever, representing the applicant, suggested the reason such a small portion of the parcel (approximately ~ acre) was not zoned B-1 was because of an overlay ~n the tax maps. Mr. Tucker concurred with this statement. No one_else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and motion for approval was offered by Dr. iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, and carried by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3. ZTA-77-03. Duane Ramm. To amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for Hom~ Occupation-Class B as a use by special permit in the A-1 zone. (Advertised June 23 and June 30, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the county staff report: Duane Ramm is petitioning the Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to amend the A-1 Agricultural Zone to provide for Home Occupation Class B as a use by special use permit. The Zoning Ordinance was amended in March ~975, to define both Class A and Class B Home Occupations, however, Class B was not provided for in any zone. (This was ~n conjunction with work on the proposed ordinance.) Staff opinion is that the current definition of Class B Home Occupation could be revised so as to make such use unobtrusive as a use by right in the A-1 Zone. This proposa~ is as follows: 16-44-1 HOME OCCUPATION - Class B: An occupation conducted within a dwelling or within an accessory structure on the site of the dwelling for profit provided that: July 7, 1977 (Adjourned from July 6, 1977) (a) There shall be no more than two (2) employees, other than members of the household; (b) Such o~cupation may be conducted either within the dwelling ar an accessory structure or both provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the floor area of the dwelling shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation and i~n no event, shall the total floor area of the dwelling, accessory structure, or both devoted to such occupation exceed one-thousand f±ve-hundred (1,500) square feet; (c) There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the buildings or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation other than one sign, not exceeding one square foot iL area, non-illuminated. Accessory structures shall be similar in facade to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn, or other structure normally expected in a rural or residential area and shall be speci- fically compatible in design and scale with other development in the area in which located; (d) There shall be no sales, other than items handcrafted on the premises, in connection with such home occupation; this does not exclude beauty shops or one chair barber shops; (e) No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall be met off the street and other than in a required front yard; (f) No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrica'~ interference detectable to the normal senses off the lot. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers off the premises, or cause fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. Boarding and rooming houses, tourist homes, and private educational institutions shall not be deemed home occupations. The following are proposed provisions for the A-1 zone: As use by right Section 2-1-14.1 HOME OCCUPATION - Class B. As use by special use permit Section 2-1-25(17.1) HOME OCCUPATION - Class B. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the definition as read by a vote of 4.- 3. They also recommended that the A-1 zone be amended to include Section 2-1-25(17.1) Home Occupation - Class B as a use by special permit. Mr. Ramm was present, and said he apparently was the first requesting this ~ype of use. An unidentified gentlemen, representing the applicant, said the law was already on the books, but failed to state which zones the Class B home occupation was allowed in. Mr. Marvin Rosenblum said he was against this amendment, as it seemed to be against the general concept.of good planning. No one else from the public wished to speak ~ither for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. There was considerable discussion as to the short-comings of the present zoning map, and possible ways to correct those problems in the new map and Comprehensive Plan currenvly in the works. Dr. Zachetta wished to have the words "and other than in a required front~-yard'' stricken from Subsection (e), as he felt it was redundant. Mrs. David then offered motion to adopt Section 16-44-1 with the wording rec.~mmended by the Planning staff; but striking the words suggested by Dr. Iachetta; and also adopting Section 2-i-25(iZ.1) as a use under special permit provision in A-1 zone. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded ~ote: A~ES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta (who was against a dual function in the A-1 zone). Agenda Etem No. 4. SP-77-29. Duane Ramm. A~ptication for a Home Occupation - Class on 20 acres zoned A-1. Property on Route 29 South about one and one-half miles south of Covesville. County Tax Map 117, Parcel 1, part thereof, Scottsville District. (Advertised on June 23 and June 30, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the county staff report: Character of the Area Th~s rural area is generally in large parcels ~hich are of roiling topography and heavily wooded. The site is heavily wooded and undeveloped. Staff Comment In staff opinion, the applicant's proposed oc. cupation would not be detrimental to the area, and the proposed structure is c~early compatible to the area. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: Home occupation limited to applicant's description; Approval of appropriate state and local agencies. Mr. Tucker noted the Planning Commission voted to apprqve the request by a vote of 6 - 0 - 1 but they also added a third condition, that being "Any subdivision of this property (Count~ Tax Ma~ llZ, Parcel l, part thereof) will require an amendment to this special permit July 7, 1977 (Adjourned from July 6, 1977) Mr. Ramm said his business was that of Cassette Tape rentals to large businesses. He said there would be no additional traffic created, as business was generally conducted by telephone and postal mailings. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against th±s petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the p~blic hearing closed. There being no further discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the request as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Zachetta and Roudabh~sh. None. Agenda Item No. 5. A resolut~0n of intent to repeal Section 7-1-26 of the Zoning Ordinance which provides for~!Iia~dparlors and similar forms of entertainment as a use by right in the B-1 district; to provide for this use in the B-1 district by special permit. (Advertis,ed June 23 and June 30, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the county st~ff ~eport: On May 3, 1977, the Planning Commission, at staff request, adopted a resolution of intent to repeal Section V-1-26 which provides for bi'~I~ia~d parlors and similar forms of entertainment as a uae by right ~n the B-1 General Business District. In the same motion, the Commission resolved to amend B-1 zone to provide for these uses by special use permit. There are several problems with these uses as currently provided: Section 7-1-26 is an awkward provision in that these uses are by right but only after public hearin~ by the Board of Supervisors; Staff opinion is that these uses should be by special permit rather than by right. The recommendad amendment is as follows: Section 7-1-42(7.1) PUBLZC AMUSEMENTS: Billiard parlors, pool rooms, bowling alleys, dance halls, indoor gaming arcades~ and similar uses. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously voted to repeal Section 7-1-26 and that it be provided by special permit in the B-1 zone as stated in the staff report. Mr. Tucker said this request was initiated because of public controversy over a pool hall recently applied for in the county. No~ one from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Dr. iachetta asked if a businessman would still be required to obtain a business license if this request for special permit is approved. Mr. St. John said the license would st~ll be necessary but the special permit would be required first. Dr. Iachetta asked if it would be possible to ex~tude anyone who has already filed application under this section. Mr. St. John said this would be a reasonable request. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to repeal Section 7-1-26 and adopt Section 7-1-42(7.1) as recommended by the Planning Commission, with the provision that those applicants who ha~e currently filed under the old regulation with the c~e~k~'~ o --~xcluded. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-77-13. Frank Kessler and J. W. Wright. To rezone 62+ acres from A-~ to RPN/A-1. Property on south side of Route ~43 across from "Little Clover Hill" about one and one-quarter mile north of intersection of Route 743 and Route 667. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 64, Charlottesville District. (Advertised on June 23 and June 30, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the county staff report as follows, and noted the Planning Commission recommended approval unanimousIy with the conditions recommended by the staff. Existing. Zoning of Area The surrounding area is all zoned A-1 with the exception of a 34+ acre parcel to the southeast presently owned by the University of Virginia. Character of the Ares On the west Side of the property there are Clover Hill and Ardwood subdivisions, both 2 acre and greater densities. A large lot residential area is to the north, vacant wooded land to the east,~-~and vacant open land to the south. ~omprehensive Plan Conformance The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to remain agricultural in nature. The property, however, is located near the fringe of both the Hollymead Community end the Urban Area. The residential objectives of this area are to accomodate rural and estate residences at a density of one unit per two acres. Applicant's Proposal This development proposal calls for 31 residential lots, average size around 60,000 square feet. This plan calls for 29 of the lots to be served by two roads each entering from Route 743 and having the proper entrances and July 7~l~l_/~ourned fro_~_July~l~7~ joint entrance. Comparative Impact Statistics number dwelling units units/acre number v~hicle trdps/day number students ~P?opos~l Comprehensive Plan 31 31 0.3 o.5 226 226 2O.5 2O.5 Land Use Data 31 lots on 62.0 acres average and minimum size lots - 60,000 square feet total residential acreage = 42.7+ acres - 68.8% ~otal common open space = 16.1+ acres ~ 25.97% total roadway right-of-way = 372+ acres = 5.16% ney density = 1 du/60,000 square feet or 1.38 acres/du gross density - 1 du/2 acres or 0.5 du/acre Staff Comment Under normal circumstances the proposed layout would be acceptable to the staff, however, in this instance the proposed subdivision lies within the South Rivanna River Reservoir's immediate drainage area. This fact restricts the development to road building no closer than 500 feet from the streams on the site, and no structures nor septic facilities any closer than 200 feet from these same streams. Furthermore, no construction of roads may take place on slopes exceeding 15% which are continguous to the 500 foot limit. The applicant has requested that approval be granted subject to whatever restrictions may be imposed in the future. Recommended Conditions of A~proval 1. Any subdivision plat will include enough open space to maintain the required 2-acre density; 2. Approval is subject to the ordinance for the protection of the quality of the South Rivanna River's Reservoir and to any controls which may be subsequently enacted to protect the quality of such water; 3. Written Health Department approval; 4. Highway Department approval of entrance locations and specifications; 5. Engineering Department and Highway Department approval of internal roads; 6. County Attorney's Office approval of maintenance agreement for the maintenance of common area; 7. Ail proposed common areas are to remain undisturbed with the exception of recreation areas noted on the plan. Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, first described the topography of the land and how the plan would make the land suitable for development and still protect the land and the Rivanna Reservoir. Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Roudabush were concerned about the placement of the subdivided parcels, and Mrs. David asked if all lots would be served by individual septic systems and wells. Mr. Evans explained that he designed the plan to best suit the topographl of the land, and allow for adequate open space between lots. He then stated that Mrs; David was correct in saying that each lot was served by its own well and septic system. Mr. Paul Stacy, representing Citizens for Albemarle, requested the Board to defer any decision on this application until the Betz Report on the reservoir is received, and an ordinance developed. Mr. Frank Kessler said he wished to work toegther with the Board of Supervisors in orde: to get his project approved, without damaging the reservoir in any way. Mr. Martin Rosenblum wanted the Board to consider the fact that the parcel in question has streams on it which are about 500 feet from, and flow directly into, the Rivanna Reservoi~ approximately 500 feet from the filtration plant. Ms. Ruth Wad.lington said she felt it was premature to grant this reqUest without knowinE the results of the Reservoir study. Mr. Fisher then read the following letter from the Albemarle County Taxpayers: July 7, 1977 Board of Supervisors County Of Albemarle Albemarle County Courthouse Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 RE: ZMA-77-13, Frank Kessler and J. W. Wright development, rezoning of 62 acres from A-1 to RPN-A1, property located on the south side of Route 743, 1~ miles west of the intersection of Routes 743 and 667. To the Members of the Board: Since we are unable to be represented at the meeting tonight, we request that this letter be read and included in the minutes of the' me~ting. Albemarle County Taxpayers questions whether it is appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to consider any rezonings around the reservoir in light of the uncertainty about the content of future measures which 256 However, if the Board does intend to consider such rezonings, we must reaffirm our opposition to any rezoning which would increase the density beyond what is now allowed, as we have opposed Panorama and any other such proposals in the past. We appreciate the efforts of this Board in taking steps to protect the purity of the public drinking water and supply upon whi6h so many of the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle are dependent. We hope that these efforts will continue. Sincerely, (Signed) A. Patton Janssen President Mr. Fisher said his only concern about taking action on this rezoning was the fact that it might cloud the issue of reservoir protection. He then asked Mr. St. John his opinion on that statement. Mr. St. John said he could not answer with the same certainty that a judge would, but felt that it should noH~have any effect on the County's stand on the reservoir situation. He noted that unlike other applications previously made to the Board, this one does not change the density. He noted an automatic safeguard; that being condition number two in the staff report. After considerable discussion between Board members and Mr. St. John as to how approval could effect the County's position on the reservoir, Dr. Iachetta said he could not support approval of this plan at this time because the Board does not know what kind of runoff control will be required in the future. Mr. Kessler said he could begin building on four lots immediately with subdivision = approval, and fill in the remainder of the approved subdivision later. Mr. St. John recommended a compromise, suggesting the Board place a condition on the approval such as no subdivision except for the noted four lots can be put to record under the plan, until the watershed management problem is resolved. Mrs. David then offered motion to approve the request, but to add an eig~th.conditioh~- "no subdivision approval may be granted, except for Lots 1, 12, 15, and 26 lying outside of the moratorimm area, until ordinances for the protection of the quality of the waters in the Sou~h Rivanna River Reservoir are lifted." Motion was seconded ~y Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Tucker took a copy of the presented plan and marked the location of the four lots and open space ~equired by the Board. Dr. Iachetta reiterated that he was not against the plan, but could not support approval of this application at this time because of the moratorium. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded ~ote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorr~er, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta. (Clerk's note: A verbatim copy of this discussion is on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution to declare Albemar~$ County as a drought district. Mr. Agnor presented the following resolution for the Board's consideration: RESOLUTION P.ETITIONING THAT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, BE PROVIDED WITH FEDERAL DROUGHT RELIEF FUNDS WHEREAS, the farmers and livestock owners of Albemarle County, Virginia, are currently suffering great damage and hardship as a result ~f a severe drought; BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County as follows: The Honorable Mills E. Godwin, Jr., Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby petitioned to take immediate actioa to seek available Federal drought ~elief funds for the farmers and livestack owners of Albemarle County, Virginia. Mr. Fisher said he had received telephone calls from a number of county farmers who urgently ~requested the Board to take this action. Motion was then ~fered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the resolution as presented. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Zabhetta and Roudabush. None. ~genda Item No. 8. Proposal from Betz Environmental Engineers. Mr. Agnor said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has accepted the request from the Board of Supervisors to be thel agency for the review and design of an ordinance and guideline for run-off control to replace the moratorium ordinance. They have met with the Betz group, set up a calendar and already begun work on the project. It is scheduled to be presented to the Board on August 8th. Mr. Fisher asked that any documents confirming the scheduled work program be sent to Board members. Mr. Dorrier asked if the work was on all watersheds or just the South Fork of the Rivanna. Mr. Agnor said it was for all watersheds in the County. Agenda Item No. 9. Fire Insurance - County owned buildings. Mr. ~gnor read from Mrs. June T. Moon's memorandum of June 24, 1977, stating the fire insurance for the old jail must either be renewed at replacement cost £or a premium of $500/year, or dropped completely. Mr. Fisher asked what would happen to goods being warehoused in the old jail. Mr. Agnor said that insurance would be carried on contents of the building. July 7,_ 1977 (Adjourned from July 61977)~ Mr. Fisher said he was very reluctant to allow the fire insurance to lapse. Mrs. David suggested it be dropped from the group policy and carried separately. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to authorize the County Executive to drop coverage on the old jail building from the group policy, and investigate the possibility of having it covered under a separate policy and to bring quotes back to the Board. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters from the Board members which are not on the agenda. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mrs. Vivian Gordon of the Monticello Community Action Agency Board thanking the Board for their support in granting funds requested in the new budget. Mr. Fisher noted that he has received from Mr. D. A. Holdren the final by-laws of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia. They were received on June 13, 1977. Mr. Fisher said he had a letter from Mr. LeRoy W. Graves dated June 17, 1977, stating his withdrawal of resignation from the Sign Advisory Commission, and that he would willingly complete his appointed term. Mr. Fisher read a letter from Mr. R. Bruce Hogue, requesting the Board of Supervisors to petition the Governor to declare Albemarle County a drought disaster area. Mr. Fisher then handed Mr. Henley a letter from Reuter Laboratories in Haymarket, Virginia. The letter offered to help Albemarle County with the eradication of the Japanese Beetle Larvae. Mrs. David asked if the Board wished to make any statements for the 1978 session of the State Legislature regarding contract and conditional zoning. Mr. Fisher said if she would prepare the statement, the Board will be able to discuss it at the meeting of July 20th. Mr. Agnor invited the Board members to attend the County employee's picnic to be held at Mint Springs Park on Sunday July llth. Dr. Iachetta said he would be ready with the report on Albemarle High School!~s Physical Education facilities for the meeting of July 20th. Dr. Iachetta requested that a discussion of Dance Hall Licenses be placed on the agenda for July 20th, as he had received word from a county businessman that he was having difficulties opening his business, because of changes in the law. Mr. Fisher then requested a motion to adjourn the Board into executive session for the purpose of discussing property acquisition and legal matters. At 10:12 P.M., Mrs. David offered the requested motion, which was seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 11:10 P.M., Mr. Fisher reconvened the meeting. Mr. St. John requested a resolution giving him the authority to respond to the following letter: Law OffiCes Poindexter and Poindexter 304 West Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23220 June 27, 1977 RE: Evergreen Property Dear Board Members: The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County refuses to issue the owners of Evergreen the necessary authorizations to allow them to complete the remaining preliminary steps necessary to the development of the Evergreen planned community in spite of the provisions of the District Court's Order of April 26, 1976. The owners believe, and I concur, that this refusal is unwarranted, arbitrary and discriminatory, and amounts to an unlawful confiscation of private property appraised, for purposes of levying County property taxes, at more than one-half million dollars ($500,000.00). July 7, 1977 (Adjourned from July 6, 1977~ 258 In light of this situation, the owners of the property, James N. ~Fleming and the corporate person, Flamenco, have directed me to give you notice that they are willing to sell the property to the County to be used by it for any lawful purpose it may desire, including the creation of an open-space recreation area. The owners feel that the property is worth approximately 3825,000.00, although I am sure they would be willing to negotiate price with representatives of the County. Please construe this as a "firm offer" on the part of Mr. Fleming and Flamenco to sell the property to the County or to enter into negotiations with the County as to a future sale. This offer will remain open for ten (10) days from the date of the next meeting of the Board. If we do not hear from the Board, we shall assume that the County has no: interest in our offer, and shall act accordingly. It is my understanding that the Board of Supervisors very recently, by appropriate resolution, agreed to purchase the adjoining "Greet Estate" from the Nature Conservancy and has submitted an application for matching funds for the purchase to the State Division of Parks. We do .hope that the County, through you, will demonstrate good faith ~nd express its interest in having the property lawfully made a part of the public domain if it does not intend to allow the present owners to proceed with their plans for it. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Gerald G. Poindexter Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to authorize Mr. St. John ~o reply on behalf of the Board that the offer to purchase Evergreen property at a price of $82~,000 was rejected and the Board did not feel it is appropriate to ~egotiate further on this matter at this time. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Zachetta and Roudabush. None. Meeting was adjourned at !1:11 P.M.