Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-06-02NJune 2, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 27) Mr. Roudabush suggested continuing the sentence at the end of the ordinance to say "and, further, provided that the final approval shall be conditioned upon the establishment of a unified water system designed to serve the property of the applicant and Ednam Forest." Mr. Perkins sa~d if this wording is added to the ordinance, they will not be able to obtain financing to proceed, because the whole rezoning will be conditioned on the joint water system. Mr. Roudabush then suggested: "and, further, provided that final approval shall be based upon the establishment of a unified water system designed to serve property of the applicant and Ednam Forest." Mr. Perkins again protested. Dr. Iachetta suggested that the Board base its final approval on the water system being approved by the Board. Mr. Perkins said they could proceed with that condition. Mr. Fisher said it appears the ordinance should be left as originally presented with the following added at the end: "With the proposed sewage treatment facility to be operated and maintained by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority pursuant to its "Statement of Policy" received by the Board of Supervisors on June 2, 1976, and with the height of the two-multiple- family dwellings not to exceed 45 feet, and further provided that the water system shall be subject to final approval by this Board." Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt An Ordinance to Amend the Albemarle County Zonin~Ma~a~o Provide for Residential Planned Ne~h~or~o-od Designation, with changes agreed to by the Board (and just stated by Mr. Fisher) incorporated therein. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Mr~ Fisher. Mr. Dorrier. At 5:57 P.M., the meeting that began at 3:00 P.M. was adjourned. Chairman June 2, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 2, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David, and Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Officers present: COunty Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Attorney, George R. St. John and County Planner, Robert Tucker. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman. Agenda Item No. 1. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Section 7-5 of the Albemarle County Code concerning certain procedures of the Albemarle County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 26, 1976.) The public hearing was opened. No one rose to speak. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote to adopt the ordinance as advertised. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier. (The ordinance as adopted is set out below.) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 7-5 OF THE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING CERTAIN PROCEDURES OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that there are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Code of the County of Albemarle Sections 7-5(d), 7-5(e) and 7-5(f) as follows: (d) In the event that the plans and specifications so submitted shall be approved, the zoning administrator shall require, prior to the issuance of an erosion control permit, a performance bond with surety or other security of a type satisfactory to the zoning administrator in an amount determined by the zoning administrator to be sufficient for completion of the control~ specified in the plans and specifications should the person receiving the permit not complete the controls as required. (e) When a plan submitted for approval pursuant to this chapter is found to be inadequate, the zoning administrator, in accordance with recommendations of the advisory committee, shall specify such modifications, terms and conditions as will permit approval of the plan and shall communicate these requirements to the applicant. The applicant may then resubmit a revised plan showing such corrections as may be necessary to comply with the standards of the handbook. 250 June 2, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) (f) The zoning administrator may~require the submission of amended plans and specifications in any case in which inspection reveals that the controls set forth in the plan are inadequate tm accomplish the erosion and sediment control objectives of this chapter; or where the permit holder finds that because of changed circumstances as for other reasons the approved plan cannot'be effectively carried out. Agenda Item No. 2. Discussed later. Agenda Item No. 3. Review: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Land Use Plan. Present was Ms. Wayne Harbaugh. Ms. Harbaugh said the State mandated that planning within the Planning District be coordinated. The Federal Government also mandated a similar function in relation to a number of Federal programs. Most representatives on the Planning District Commission feel the Commission should strengthen and reinforce local govern- ment, therefore the Planning District staff felt the most reasonable approach to a regional plan was to take all the local plans and policies and put them together. This created a problem because all of the local plans are not consistent. Also the local plans are intended to serve as a zoning guide and do not address all of the problems a regional plan addresses. Eventually the regional land use plan will be used as a guide by the Planning District Commiss~ when reviewing requests for Federal funds for capital improvements. Therefore, the regional plans need to address areas where growth will and will not occur. The~Planning District Commission in making environmental impact assessments uses various things such as historical areas, scenic rivers, Virginia byways~ preservation of agriculture, water quality management, When the Planning District staff looked at Albemarle County's comprehensive plan, they found that the cluster developments were designed to take care of a population twice the size of the State's projections. This was also true of the water quality management plan. A regional plan can solve this inconsistency by reducing the size of the clusters, the overall densities or by downgrading some of the clusters to villages. Since there are no plans for providing either water or sewer to the Keswick cluster, it should be downgraded to a village; likewise, the Ivy cluster. The Planning District staff dropped the population projections to correspond more closely with the recent State projection of 87,000 for the year 2000, although in its highway planning the County, has projected a population of 95,000. Although the'Planninl District staff will support this figure, it does not resolve the problem of too much intensive development for a population of that size. The regional plan, therefore, shows clusters only for North Rivanna, Crozet and Scottsville. These clusters will provide centers where empioyme~ commercial, public services and residential development, including medium and higher density, can be provided in an area easily served with water, sewer and transportation. Three large historic areas have been included for Albemarle because they contain collections of historic sites, agricultural use and scenic beauty; these are Scottsville, Keswic~ismont and Stony Point. Concerning the clusters, the Planning District needs to know if each cluster will have the intensity and size of development which will require water and sewer and a large Federal investment in roads. The Albemarle County plan does not address the scenic river aspect of the Rivanna River. The Planning District staff feels there are a lot of conflicting uses of the Rivanna and recommends the scenic river approach. Ail local jurisdications are now in differe~ stages of planning and this regional plan is not meant to be static. The Planning District Commission is not asking the local governments to adopt the regional plan under the terms of the Virginia Area Development Act which puts certain restrictions on local government. The Planning District Commission assumes the good faith of local officials and feels that once the plan is approved, the local officials will act in conformity with the plan and when it is not in their interest to do so, will amend the plan through the processes available. Mr. Robert Tucker, County Planner, said the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed and approved the plan by a 5/3 vote on March 23, 1976, by taking the following action: "To adopt as a Thomas J~fferson Planning District Commission guide with no legal effect but with some usefulness for informational purposes; ~hese purposes to be as follows: (a) Approval by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission as a guide for its actions only. (b) Submission to local governments for approval as Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission guide only, with a disclaimer as to legal effect on local government. (c) Acceptance by Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission as a guide depending on extent to which local governments have responded." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission did recommend some minor textu~a~l~ changes and rea~ the following into the record: "May 7, 1976 To: Wayne Harbaugh From: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Subject: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Regional Plan At its meeting of April 27, 1976, the Albemarle County Planning Commission addressed the textua~i content of the proposed Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Land Use Plan and makes the following recommendations: e The year 2000 population is projected by the Highway Department and County Planning staff to be 95,000 persons. The Planning Commission recommends replacement of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission figure of 85,200 with the above projection. Keswick and Ivy have been omitted as community clusters in the proposed Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission plan. The Planning Commission recommends inclusion of Keswick and Ivy as community clusters as indicated in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. on to. t~ .t June 2, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) 251 2.300 General Land Use Goal: Objective 2. recommends this read as follows: The Planning Commission The role of Charlottesville~-Albemarle urban area as the regional center should be continued; however, economic growth should be encouraged in other growth centers in every County in the Planning District· 2.512 Medium Density Residential Use. recommends this read as follows: The Planning Commission Medium density residential uses will be accommodated in the above tWo clusters and in the following clusters: Albemarle County.: Crozet, North Rivanna, Scottsville, Keswick, Ivy. Mr. Tucker said suggestion No. 4 was added because the regional plan carries townhouses and low rise apartment structures. The Planning Commission felt medium density would cover those uses and felt that by setting these out, it might encourage this type of development in areas where there are not adequate facilities. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission was recommending that the Keswick and Ivy clusters be put back in the regional plan. Mr. Tucker said since the Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed later this year, they felt it might be premature to accept this change. Ms. Harbaugh said this is inconsistent since the County had asked that Keswick be eliminated from the water quality management plan. Mr. Roudabush said the regional plan shows a residential cluster in the farthest corner of Albemarle County right at the Greene County line. This residential cluster is not recognized in the Albemarle County plan or in the County Zoning ordinance. He asked if this was the only instance of a border conflict. Ms. Harbaugh said this is a developed area in Greene County and the Planning District staff felt it might spill over into Albemarle. Since it is low density, they did not feel there will be an impact. Mr. Roudabush said Albemarle County has no provisions for serving that area with water, but Greene County has a water line almost to the boundary line. He asked what potential conflicts there would be if Albemarle recognized that cluster. Ms. Harbaugh said Albemarle County has not made any differentiation between zoning in village clusters and zoning outside of village clusters. It is expected that the fringes of all village clusters will be very low density. Mr. Roudabush said this is an unusual situation where at some point the County may have to recognize an influence from outside of the County's jurisdiction. Ms. Harbaugh said a similar situation occurs in Keswick where the Fluvanna County plan speaks of the suburbs in Keswick and the Scottsville cluster actually extends into Fluvanna County. Dr. Iachetta said he could not see anything to take issue with at this time other than the cluster conQept which will be addressed in reviewing the County's Comprehensive Plan. This attempt to plan on a regional basis is probably overly ambitious at this point since all counties in the district are currently trying to develop their own internal comprehensive plans. Ms. Harbaugh said there is a Federal commitment of funds for sewage facilities for the North Rivanna and Crozet clusters. The Planning District Commission has committed itself to supporting water facilities for those clusters. Dr. Iachetta said there is no question that growth will occur in the band around the City, but the rate of that growth will depend on when the AWT (advanced wastewater treatment) plant is completed. Ms. Sally Thomas said this regional plan takes Albemarle County seriously. the decisions which the Board has already made. It shows At this point, Mrs. David offered motion to endorse the recommendations of the Albemarle County Planning Commission and to approve the Regional Land Use Plan as a guide. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Roudabush asked what the Planning Commission did with respect to the Keswick and Ivy clusters. Mr. Tucker said they have recommended that these be put back into the plan to be more in conformity with the County's existing comprehensive~ plan. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission wants to be consistent with the presently adopted comprehensive plan. Dr. Iachetta said with an area as large as Albemarle County, it~does not seem reason~ able to attempt to plan beyond its immediate boundaries. At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYRES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier. Ms. Harbaugh suggested that the recommended changes be submitted to the Planning District Commission and then an amended plan be resubmitted to the Board. Mr. St. John said the Board must either approve or disapprove the plan as submitted. Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. St. John reword ihe moIion. ~Mr. St. John said he was not sure what the Board intended. Mr. Fisher said the Board wants to amend the plan in accordance with the Planning Commission' recommendations. Mr. St. John said the Board can only approve the plan as submitted or reject it with certain suggestions. Ms. Harbaugh Said it would be helpful if the Board would indicate their willingness to approve the plan if the suggested changes are made. Mr. St. John said he would like to warn the Board that Virginia Code Section 15.1-456 says that when a comprehensive plan, or any completed part thereof, shall become effective in any governmental subdivision, such governmental subdivision shall not proceed with the construction of any public improvement or public institution, .... Unless it is in accord with the plan. Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission has recommended that this be used as a guide only. Mr. St. John said he did not think the Board can do that. Dr. Iachetta said he thought the Board meant not to commit itself. Mr. St. John said the motion could be made 252 June 2, 1976 (Regular -Night Meeting) to the Planning District Commission the changes recommended by the Albemarle County Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the' following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 2. Review: Application for 'FHA funding, Hollymead Townhouses. Mr. Fisher said this matter was on the agenda because this application had come before the Planning District Commission and the County members of that Commission did not know what to recommend on this application. ~ Mr. Stuart Carwile was present representing Dr. Charles W. Hurt. Mr. Carwile said this is a proposed project at Holiymead for 57 two-story, two-bedroom townhouse apartments to be financed by FHA. Occupancy will be limited to those citizens having a family income of less than $12,900 a year. This is an attempt to get a housing mix at Hollymead by providing rental housing. Mr. Fisher noted t-hat the initial market rents shown are $250.00 per month, while the basic rent is shown at $150.00 a month. Mr. Carwile said this is basically the difference between what the project would rent for if financed conventionally and what it will rent for if financed under FHA. The rental structure will be negotiated with FHA but before that can be done an A-95 review must be held. Dr. Iachetta said there is no question that this p.rice range in rental units is needed in the County, other than that he saw no reason for the Board to be involved. Ms. Wayne Harbaugh said the Planning District Commission does not want to subsidize housing units that the locality does not favor. That is the reason the Board is asked to comment on this application. Dr. Iachetta said since the Board has already approved the PUD plan for Hollymead, the County has essentially committed itself. Mr. Fisher noted that when the Board approved the PUD plan for Hollymead, they had encouraged Dr. Hurt to include moderate and low income housing. Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt~ the following resolution: WHEREAS localities depend on revenue sharing dollars to supplement local funds with minimal red tape and Federal restrictions; and WHEREAS local governments in many states prepare their budgets on a fiscal year basis which begins July 1 and all localities must make long- t. erm budget commitments to efficiently meet citizen needs; and WHEREAS responsive local government allows ample time for citizen participation in budget planning and preparation to assure that these locally determined needs are met thus making it vital to know about revenue sharing funds well in advance of the budget adoption date which is normally in April; and WHEREAS monies from revenue sharing have funded needed local programs and projects since~1972 thereby preventing an increase of approximately .... forty cents in the local property tax rate for Albemarle County; and WHEREAS with a population of approximately 45,000 persons, Albemarle County has received since 1972 $2,201,186 in revenue sharing funds which have been used to provide additional local government services in solid waste disposal, recreation, fire protection, law enforcement, libraries and court facilities. FURTHER, if the current revenue sharing program expires on December 31, 1976, as proposed, the loss of these funds will force Albemarle County to curtail plans for: ! - an access road to an existing sanitary landfill; 2 - an additional fire station in the urban area; 3 - renovating facilities purchased for a Juvenile court; 4 - a low-income housing program; 5 - a new regional library facility; 6 - a driver education range. AND, Albemarle County will also be forced to: 1 - abandon plans to solve the present space problems within the County government office building; OR 2 - abandon plans for a county-wide trash collection system; OR 3 - abandoh plans to acquire an office building for the Mental Health Center; OR 4 - raise property taxes to provide for these needed projects. NOW, THEREFORE BE iT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby respectfully requests and urges that the General Revenue Sharing Program be reenacted by Congress to allow Albemarle County, as well as other localities, sufficient time to make the best possible plans for the use of these funds. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded immediately to the Honorable Harry F. Byrd, Jr., the Honorable William L. Scott and the Honorable J. Kenneth Robinson. The foregoing motion carried, by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. June 2, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) June 9, ~976 (Regular - Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a communication from C&P Telephone Company showing their request to the State Corporation Comm_ission for an increase in tariffs in restructuring intra-state toll charges. Dr. Iachetta asked the status of roads in Woodbrook Subdivision, Section 10. Mr. St. John said he did not know, but that the building permit moratorium is still in effect. Agenda Item No. 4. At 8:53 P.M. motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. The motion carried by the vote which follows: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudbuah. None. Mr. Dorrier. The Board reconvened at 9:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned. Chairman ~U'ne 9, 1976 (Regular - Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 9, 1976, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Officers present: St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Agenda Item No. 2.'-Highway Matters. Mr. Robert W. Warner, Resident Highway Engineer, announced that he had been transferred to another locality with that transfer being effective June 1, 1976. Mr. Warner said he has enjoyed the time he spent in Albemarle and appreciate3d the Board's cooperation and spirit in .working to resolve some of the highway problems in Albemarle. Mr. Fisher noted the Board's appreciation of Mr. Warner's work within a very limited highway budget. Mr. Agnor presented the following letters from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: "May 27, 1976 As requested in resolution of your Board on February 19, 1976, the following sections of road are hereby discontinued as a part of the Secondary System of Albemarle County. This was confirmed by the Highway Commission at its meeting on May 20, 1976. DISCONTINUANCE LENGTH Sections 3 and 4 of old location Route 745 at left of Station 1009+10 and at right of Station 1011+00, Project 6029-002-11t,C-501. 0.07 Mi." June 3, 1976 As requested in resolution by your Board on January 15, 1976, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective July 1, 1976. ADDITIONS LENGTH Old Forge Road - From: Route 656 West 1,714.74' to cul-de-sac. 0.32 Mi. Sturbridge Road - From: Old Forge Road to cul-de-sac. 0.15 M±. Cannon Place - From: Sturbridge Road to cul-de-sac. 0.08 Mi. Whetstone Place - From: Sturbridge Road to cul-de-sac. 0.06 Mi." Mr. Agnor asked the status of negotiations on Route 637 South. are incomplete. Mr. Fisher said they