Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-06-26N6-26-74 (Night Meeting) 367 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 26, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. ABSENT: Mr. Stuart F. Carwile. Officers Present: County Executive and County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order and called for public hearings on zoning matters as advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1974. (i) Amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to amend and repeal Articles 15A-9-1 and 15A-9-2, to preclude further erection of billboards, general advertising and location signs and the removel of existing such signs within five (5) years of any adoption of this ordinance. Proposed Amendment 'A) 15a-9-! Non-Conforming Signs and Discontinuance is to read as follows: a) Any business sign existing prior to the adoption of this ordinance/ amendment, and not conforming to the terms of this ordinance, is hereby declared a non-conforming sign and may not be altered, or replaced unless said sign conforms to the requirements of this ordinance. Upon the cessation or termination of a particular use on a parcel of real property, the owner thereof shall within sixty (60) days of cessation or termina- tion remove all non-conforming signs. If the owner shall fail to comply with this requirement, then written notice shall be given by the Adminis- trator to the owner advising of the violation. If such signs are then not removed within ten (10) days, the Administrator shall cause such removal and charge the cost to the owner of the premises. b) Any billboard, location or general advertising sign in existence at the time of the effective date of this ordinance which becomes non-conforming shall be removed or made conforming within five (5) years of the adoption of this amendment, but no later than August 31, 1979. B) 15A-9-2 Removal of Signs is to read as follows: "Whenever a sign becomes structurally unsafe or endangers the safety of a structure or premises or the public, the Zoning Administrator shall order such sign to be made safe or comply with this ordinance. The Ad- ministrator or his designee shall remove or cause to be removed at the owner's or tenants expense any sign erected or maintained in conflict with these regulations if the owner or lessee of either the site or the sign fails to correct the violation within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice of violation from the ~dministrator or his designee. moval of a sign by the Administrator or his designee shall not affect any proceedings instituted prior to removal of such sign." C) To accomplish the purpose of the above amendments Articles 15a-1-4; 15A-6-7; 15A~7-7; 15A-8-7 are to be deleted as permitted signs. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, gave the staffs report, and stated that the Planning Commission recommends approval in their entirety, of the amendments presented the Board. The Chairman then called on the public for comments. The first to speak was Edward R. Jackson of Jackson Advertising. He said he could appreciate what the Board is doing and feels they are right. However, he hoped that all could arrive at some favorable solution. He handed to the Board a written resume' of his business which is over 100 years old. He said he took over this business a year and a half ago and paid his inheritance tax out of money he had helped his father raise. Now the Board is taking this away without any just compensation. He also wants to keep Albemarle County beautiful and is willing to work with anyone to solve this. He asked those who were presenv in favor of advertising to stand. The Clerk counted approximately 70. Mr. Paul Stott representing the Virginia Outdoor Advertising Association and 6-2~-74 .... 368 Mr. Jackson's attorney was next to speak. He said they have no objection to the section making signs structurally safer or sound. He said there is a state law which says that nonconforming uses have a vested right and cannot be taken awa~ if two conditions are met. This is found in Virginia Code Section 15.1-492 which stated the County can enact a zoning law but they cannot effect vested rights as long as the use continues and is properly maintained and such~se is not discontinued for two years. This ques- tion about signs has come up before when other counties have had similar proposed ordinances. Some counties do have this in their ordinance. However, he did not know that they have ever forced a sign company to take down a sign. Mr. Stott said that on two differenc occasions the Attorney General has been asked for_an opinion on this matter. In 1971, he was asked to form an opinion on the Virginia Beach ordinance. He found it to be in conflict with Virginia Section 15.1-492. He also had the same opinion about an ordinance for the City of Roanoke. Loundoun County enacted an ordin- ance which 'had a ten (10) year amortizatimn clause; the ten (t0) years ending in 1969. In January of 1970, they filed an action to have a billboard removed. The Virginia Outdoor Advertising Association defended this case on the basis of State law. Based on a memorandum which they had furnished and the Attorney General's opinion regarding 15.1-492, Judge Raymond Snead stated this provision in the ordinance was invalid and unenforceable. This court decision was not appealed by Loundoun County. Mr. Stott said there were two other facts which should be considered. The Virginia Code at one time carried cities/towns in one section and counties in another. The section relative to cities and towns had a provision that cities could adopt provisions for elimination of nonconforming uses. The county section never had this provision. Then the General Assembly put all zoning laws under one section and took away that authority from the cities. Evidently, they did not feel this section was enforceable. He said there has been legislation before the General Assembly the last four sessions to provide this amortization of signs and it has never passed. Based on this he does not feel this can be enforced and would be invalid. He requested the Board of Supervisors not to pass this amendment. Mr. Stott also commented on the proposal to delete all location signs. He said this would hurt businessmen and the people traveling through the county because businessmen would not be able to move business to their businesses with just a four-square-foot sign. It would also hurt businessmen from the standpoint of poten- tially starting new business because it is sometimes difficult to obtain a loan without a good advertising program. Mr. Stott said the motoring public would also be hurt. Travelers are most likely looking for food, gas, lodging, and services. A simple sign that says gas will not tell the motoring public if a gas station also renders mechanical services or if it is open twenty-four hours a day. The Federal Highway Beautification Commission has been studying this sign proposal for the Federal government and Congress. They employed independent consultants to do a study. They found, while interviewing 4,414 Americans 18 years or over, that billboards are not unpopular with the public. 67.4% felt that billboards do perform a service for the motoring public; 75.5% mentioned 6-26-74 (Night Meeting) 369 signs for rest rooms, 73% for automotive services on the road, 66% for automotive services off the road, 52% for restaurants, and 57% for overnight lodgings. These are the businesses the motoring public are looking for and the businesses that would be hurt if the county eliminated all existing, nonconforming signs. It would also hurt the local sign people, possibly putting some of them out of business. Mr. Stott said while some signs may be objectionable, they do serve a purpose or they would not Be kept. He asked the Board not to ad~pt the ordinance as it is written; especially the part that is invalid. Next to speak was Mr. Mike Gleason of the Bicentennial Commission. He said Mr. Stott had some very interesting points. The Bicentennial will fe~l an impact from tourists. There is one other point which had not been mentioned and that is the impact of the history of this area. This area is faced with billboards but they also are faced with areas where billboards are clustered not kept up properly. Next Tuesday, Albemarle County will play host to people from Howell, Wisconsin, who are coming here on an exchange program. They will stay a week and be here through July 4th, 1974. The Environmental Impact Study Commission made a study for the Bicentennial Commission, gathering information as to the center that will be built in Charlottesville. Although this study was made after the energy crisis was at its peak, they estimate that Albemarle- Charlottesville will host 600,000 people a year. If that number of people are to visit here during the bicentennial, he is concerned that they will see some of the signs which are presently on the highways. One of the major goals of the Bicentennial is tourism. Another of the goals is the history of the area. Mr. Gleason said whether or not the Board makes a decision to take down billboards, ~ feels the people who are interested in touri~sm and the people who are interested in history can get together and come up with a program which will be of total benefit to the community. Pamela Van Thielen said ah~ lives on Route 250 West. She objects to coming out of her driveway and facing twelve billboards in various stages of dilapidation. She asked if the County is really proud of 29 North and ~ tourists want to travel hundreds of miles to see "Strip City". Mrs. Marjorie Jordan, a resident of Route 682, was present to speak on behalf of the Board of the Ivy Citizens Association. She said they are pleased the Board had asked to have this sign ordinance amendment prepared for their consideration. They feel the proposed ordinance will do two things. One, provide important protection for the beauty of Albemarle County for the present and future generations, visitors and business investors. Two, the small size permitted under the amendment would unobtrusively and effectively inform visitors of services they need and provide bus- inesses with an effective means of advertising their whereabouts4 especially when large signs are removed. Visitors entering the county would see that the citizens care about the preservation of the county's attractions instead of being struck by. the number of signs. For these reasons, the Ivy Citizens Association urges the Board of 37O Supervisors to approve the proposed amendments. Mr. Wendell Jackson said he was present to represent the Greenwood Citizens Council. They are thoroughly in favor of the proposed amendment to the zoHing ordinance and re- commend the Board's approval of same. Mr. Mark Thornton of West Leigh said generally the arguments on the side of adver~ tising come from those who stres the value of billboards in their business. He felt this argument is overstressed. He said signs do serve a useful purpose but there are good and bad signs just as there is good and bad advertising. He feels the chief loss will be sustained by the sign makers who have sold advertisers a bill of goods. It does not seem logical to give a long period of grace for something that should never be permitted in the first place. Mrs. Betty Scott, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle League of Women Voters, spoke next. She said the League of Women Voters supports the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The beauty of the area is a great attraction to citizens as well as tourists passing through. The League of Women Voters feels that the ugly cluttered bill- boards ha~ean effect on this beauty, but they also feel it is obvious that the tourists can find their way wherever they want to go by small neat signs or the use of tourist literature. They feel the amendment is fair and desirable and urge approval of same. Mr. Bob Albee, owner of Safari Campgrounds, spoke next. He said he agreed with many points mentioned about damaged and deteriorating signs being a blot on the scenery of the County and felt this should be taken care of by someone through penalties. However, he does feel that there is a need for directional and location signs for the traveling public. A sign of four square fee~, without any arrow or mileage or indica- tion at all, is something that would not do anyone any good. He feels strongly that a camper has a big need for this type of information. Mrs. Martha Se!don was present to speak for Citizens of Albemarle. She said they had found along 250 West very strong sentiment against signs in Albemarle County. They recognize that the tourist business is very important to the County and the State. The Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation has done a survey and found that scenic highways are rated the second most important item to tourist. Citizens for Albemarle recognize that there are legitimate reasons for small signs. Therefore, they recommend one amendment to the ordinance. They feel that the four-square foot sign could include a direction or number of miles and with that amendment they ask the Board to pass this proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. A gentlemen from West Leigh said he was happy that he had moved to this area until so many signs went up. He then felt like he was back on Broadway. He said the community would be better off if they would stop, look, and listen, as to the number of signs that have gone up during the last few years. He did not feel it is in the best interest of the community to have any more signs along Route 250. (Night Meeting) 371 r-- Mr. John Michael Crafaik, 2806 Horthfields Road, spoke next. He said he has done his homework and he feels he represents a fair section of the community. No one can deny sign abuse and the inequity of sign uses even as they exist under the present sign ordinance. There is cause and justification for helpful legislation. He is not pro or con toward any group and agrees that action is decidely needed but he does not agree to overkill. He participated in the first discussion of this ordinance at the Planning Commission haaring and has attended several meetings over the last ~o months and talked to lots of people. He feels that the amendments, as written, is more harmful than corrective, untested and unknown. Therefore, he submitted the following amendment to the existing sign ordinance: The following is a proposed amendment to the existing SIGN ORDINANCE which is intended to replace the proposed sign ordinance now under consid- eration: No sign shall be erected in any zoning district without a special use permit. Before issuing a special use permit, the Board shall first find that: 1) it does serve a useful purpose in assiting or directing the motorist to a location not unreasonably distant from the sign. 2) it does conform to the general use of the area as it now exists, or as it may reasonably be expected to exist in the near future. He said the Board can protect the community from sign abuse with reasonable, not puni- tive legislation, and implement the proposed amendments with a reasonable and responsive agency like a sign review board to police, protect, and enforce present ordinances and study the problems that lead to sign abuse for collective measures; but not over- kill. This committee should be impowered to make decisions, suggestions and respond to the wants and benefits of the entire community not just the special interest. This sign review board should be composed of citizens from all walks of life. Sign abuse can be controlled by the amendment presented tonight. It would not infringe on a persons right to work. Mr. Craifax said this could be the first community in the nation to show that we care for all segments of our community. Mr. Clifford Casey said he lives on Route 250 West and he is opposed to signs and approves of the amendment. He said his neighbor, Mr. Fred Bainbridge, also approves of the amendment. Mr. LeRoy Graves said,~n essence, billboards are already prohibited. Only 100 square feet location signs are allowed and you cannot find a location for these signs. The t00 square foot location sign was worked out as a compromise over two and a half years ago. He asked that th~se signs be allowed at least until 1977 a~ until after the big promotion for 1976. He feels they do perform a service in the city and the area. Mr. Graves said Mr. Sbott had presented evidence and opinions as to the illegality of amortizing existing billboards. The State statute prohibits amortization. To go ahead now would only delay r~al action until someone is injured. Then, in five years pe~le would have to go to c)urt to fight this amendment. This will not be paid for by all, but will be paid for by just a few and it is unjust. If there is legal doubt about this question, the Boa?d should appoint a committee to study the matter or write to the Attorney General for ~n opinion. Safety is not a factor in billboards. This has been established by the ~ational Safety Council. Attrition will get the larger 372 billboards because they will be too expensive to put back. Mr. Graves asked that in the face of the evidence presented tonight that the Board make a just decision. Mrs. Monica Fox from Greenwood said not.enough emphasis has been put on the fact that several citizens had circulated a petition. The predominent number of property owners along 250 West have signed this petition requesting the removal of billboards. (Note: No petition was presented to the Board). At this time, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed and asked the County Attorney for his legal opinion on this matter. Mr. St. John said specifically in reference to the amortization clause there is another aspect of the Loundoun case which was not included in the Judge's opinion. That is the fact that Judge Raymond Snead in Loundoun County Circuit Court overturned an ordinance just like this one the Board is considering. He said in 1971 and 1972, that under the Virginia Enabling Statute, no one could enact an ordinance like this. In addition to the materials, the Judge cited as a basis for his opinion, there is also the fact that the General Assembly immediately before that case was tried had killed a bill which would have specifically authorized amortization of nonconforming uses. Since the General Assembly killed the bill, that was an indication that they did not think this authority existed in the Code. The Virginia Supreme Court has never spoken to the amortization of non- conforming uses. Mr. St. John said after a lot of research he found that most states allow amortization, not only of billboards, but almost any nonconforming uses. The only difference is that on a nonconforming junkyard or slaughterhouse, a longer time must be given for amortization because there is more invested. But, that only controls the length of time for amortization. Billboards are most often placed~under this amortization procedure. Mr. St. John said he could not find that the Supreme Court of any state has ever overturned the amortization clause for billboards if sufficient time is allowed for any investment to be recovered. same type of enabling statutes that Virginia has. Code that says no vested right shall be impaired. This is uniformly done under the There is a statute in the Virginia There have been cases that held that if the owner is allowed to recover his investment, his vested right has not been im- paired. Judge Snead did not apply that rationale, nor did he mention it in his decision. He mentioned only the Virginia Statute. There is no way to know What the Virginia Supreme Court would say about this at this time. Mr. St. John said he is a- ware of Attorney General Miller's opinion on this and he disagrees with that opinion. Mr. St. John said he feels there is a 50-50 chance that if the Board enacts this ordinance the Virginia Supreme Court will uphold it. If the Board feels they would vote for this ordinance except for the fact that it might be overturned in the Courts, the ordinance should not be defeated for that reason alone. Aesthetics is a con- sideration, but highway safety is as much involved in the ordinance as pure aesthetics If the Board is going to vote for this ordinance, and if that is part of the reason for voting for the ordinance, it should be put into the record at this time. (Night Meeting) 373 Mr. Wheeler said if the Board would like to have time to consider what has been presented tonight~ he would support deferring vote on this ordinance. Mr. Thacker said in an area that is as keyed to tourists as this area is, this is a rather drastic step. He felt everyone present this evening is concerned about the number of billboards, the condition of some of the billboards and he felt all these factors should be weighed. He preferred to defer action to study the evidence as presented and to arrive at a compromise that would limit the number of billboards and the size of billboards. He is not convinced that a four square foot sign is not more of a safety hazard than a billboard. Mr. Thacker offered motion to defer action on this and appoint a committee to study same. The committee to be composed of board members, staff members and some members of the public. Mr. Wood gave second to the motion. He suggested that rather than deferring it to a specific date, it could be referred to the committee which had been suggested. They should draft an amendment that would be more acceptable than this. He said two and a helf years ago this Board reached what seemed to be a just compromise between those who wanted no billbaards and signs and business, industry, tourism, etc., now , to completely destroy all signs and billboards is more drastic action than he would like to take. Mr. Wheeler said he was not sure about the committee, but felt the Board should defer action to a date not beyond July 2~. If no conclusion has been reached at that time it can be carried forward. Mr. Thacker amended his motion to defer this until July 24. The amended motion was accepted by Mr. Wood. Mr. Fisher said he felt the motion is in order. He has been hoping that the Board can find some fair and equitable means of reducing the number of large billboards in the County. He hoped this could have been accomplished before the Bicentennial, but this does not seem possible now. He said he would support the motion. Vote was taken at this time and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood. NAYS: None It was the concensus of the Board that this committee be appointed by the Chairman. (2) ZMP-302. Jessie and Genevieve Shifflett have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.5 acres from A-! Agricultural to R-t Residen- tial. Property is situated on the north side of Route 674 about 2 miles north of White Hall. Property is further described as County Tax Map 26, Parcel 46A. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey gave the s~aff's report: "The area is rural in nature with several modest single-family dwellings located in the immediate vicinity. Lot sizes in the area range from 42 acres to 0.63 acres. The Comprehensive ~tan suggests that this area be placed in conservation because of its proximity to the mountains. There are presently two dwelling units located on the parcel in question. The applicatn wishes to divide the parcel and sell one of the dwelling units. The staff is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan that this is an appropriate area for conservation. To allow this would be spot zoning, and could probably set a precedent for the area. The staff, therefore, recommends denial." Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission also recommended denial in keeping 374 with the staff's report. He also noted that the Planning Staff had investigated other possibilities to accomplish this division, but zoning is the only way to do this. Mr. Shifflett was present in support of the petition. He said both of these dwellings were built before Zoning went into effect in the County. He has two wells and two separate septic tanks. He wants to rezone for two separate lots in the event he has to sell one lot or one home. There is 17,500 square feet in the lot. (No one from the public spoke for or against tha petition) Mr. Henley said he did not like to vote for a change in the zoning map, but he has talked to Mr. Humphrey and this is the only way it can be done. The houses were built before the County had zoning. He hoped the Board would not set a precedent for zoning of other lands around this parcel and would like to make it clear that this is the reason he is making the motion that the Board approve ZMP-302. Mr. Fisher gave second to the motion stating that Mr. Shifflett has a claim to the existing houses since they were built before zoning. There is no way to correct the problem that exists now. Mr. Wheeler said he usually is a stickler for carrying out county ordinances. However, he feels that many times it is necessary to take the steps necessary for the well being of the citizens. Vote was taken at this time and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None Absent: Mr. Wood (3) ZMP-303 George D. Yates, Jr. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 2.25 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the west side of Route 616, just north of its inter- section with Route 250 East. Property is further described as County Tax Map 94, Parcel 34A. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated "The area is rural in character. The immediate area contains five single-family dwellings on the east side of Route 616 and two single-family dwellings and one mobile home mn the west side of Route 616. The Comprehensive Plan indicates this area to be a part of the Keswick Community Cluster. The Plan further in- dicates that this area be used for residential low density. Lot sizes in the immediate area of this parcel range from one acre to id acres with the majority of these parcels being two acres. There are only two parcels in the immediate area of less than two acres. South of 250 East, in the Boyd's Tavern area, there are 238.17 acres zoned RS-i; of this acreage, approximately 230 remain undevel- oped. Due to the proximity of approximately 230 acres, which has set a precedent and since the Board has established policy for one acre development i.n the cluster areas, the staff recommended approval." Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission has recommended approval in keeping with the staff's report. Mr. Fisher asked what sort of utilities are available. Mr. Humphrey said no public utilities are involved. There would be individual septic tanks and wells. Mr. Fisher asked if this property was subdivided if the 60,000 square foot minimum applied at this point. Mr. Humphrey said not until the new Subdivision Ordinance is adopted. The Health Department, at this time, is following the Board's policy that nothing should be located on less than 20,000 square foot lots. (Night Meeting) 375 Mr. Yates was present in support of the petition. for or against. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to approve ZMP-303. seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the ~ollowing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler, Wood. No one from the public spoke The motion was NAYS: None SP-352. H. H. Tiffany and M. Price Distributing Company have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate craft and gift shops on part of 31.88 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is s~m~ted on the north side of Routh 250 West, and the south side of Interstate 64 near the Yancey's Mill interchange. Property is further described as County Tax Map 55, Parcel 19 part thereof, White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey gave the staff's report stating that the property in question "The area is rural in nature. Two markets are located across 250 from this property. "Tuck Away", a home of historical significance, is located immed- iately to the east of the property. The applicant has recently opened a 4,000 square-foot general store on the property in question. The plan indicates "The Cedars" and "The Long House" to be primary historic sites and the property in ~.-, question is to remain in the agricultural category with large lot development. The applicant proposes one 45' by 30' structure, four 20' by 30' structures and separate rest room facilities. These structures are proposed to house various gift and craft shops. Additional parking is to be provided and sidewalks will link the sho~s. The staff stated that any approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors should be conditioned upon the following: ~1) review of the Site Plan after construction of buildings to determine if any drainage pro- blems have occurred and need to be corrected. 2) County Building Official ap- proval. 3) SP~eps to be used exclusively for gift and craft activities. 4) Re- moval of as few trees as possible. 5) Individual approval of each use located in the proposed structures, by the Zoning Administrator for compliance of per- mitted uses. However~ the owners of the subject property several years ago applied for the zoning o{ this land to the B-1 category. The request for the rezoning was denied by t~e Board of Supervisors as not being compatible or in keeping with the immediate area. It would appear that through the special permit provision, the property 9wners are attempting to make commercial use of the entire tract over a period of time. Therefore, it is the staff's opinion that the same conditions {or denying the original commercial rezoning would apply in the con- sideration of this special permit. The special permit uses within the agri- cultural zone were not intended to be used to concentrate intensive commercial activity; rather they were designed for uses in providing needed services in the outlying rural areas," ~H~ended by stating that the Planning Commission recommends denial of this petition. ~f Mr. Dan ~e of Ivy asked what conditions were attached to the first special permit and what was supposed ~o be sold in that store. He asked if that permit was %eing adhered to. Mr. Tiffany was present in support of the petition. He said he was presenv to ask for additional gift and craft shops located on 31 acres in the southwest quadrant of Interstate 64 and U.S. 250] on this property. In additiot, ti[ie entrance to theirr PrZaPert~f ret permit for Pat ici Ann's Country Store was heard by the Board of Supervisors, He said Patricia Ann's Country Store has been built there is one country store immediately across from and one about 300 feet west of the entrance. When the the Plummers who live on Tuckaway, were present in opposition. When the Tuckaway pro- perry was sold, the Plummers immediately adjacent to this ation of this petition by the for a country store, a restau~ said he understands the test with the surrounding area. W is now evident that the area ~ought a five acre tract of that property which is located itc. Since the staff report, and the original consider- Planning Commission, the Plummets have filed a site plan ~ant, a lodging facility and craft shops. Mrr Tiffany 'or a special permit is whether or not it is compatible ~ether or not the Plummers had this in mind previously _s suitable being used for gift, craft and antique shops 376 such as are proposed under this ~ecial permit. The owners of Long House, Kenneth and &nn Wood, also feel that this is a proper use for this area regardless of their house being of historical significance. Mr. Tiffany said he feels that tourists coming to this area to view this historical home do want something to do and quality places to shop. He said he hoped that Patricia Ann's Country Store is of high caliber and a benefit to the county. It is their purpose to produce several more shops of this type to be known as the Mountain Craft Shops. These will service the local people as well as tourists who come to this area. Mr. Wendell Jackson said he represented the Greenwood Citizens Council composed of about sixty families in the Greenwood area. They recommend denial of this petition for the following reasons. The additional commercial development will change the character and establish a pattern of development in the area. This is contrary to the established policy of the county in granting special permits. Mr. Tiffany told the PIanning Commission that he proposes to put up 12 shops but has a definite tenant for only one; Kenneth Wood. The Greenwood Citizens Council does not believe a special permit was intended to cover commercial development for pure speculation. Also, pro- liferation of business is inconsistent with the county master plan which contemplates the use of the land on 250 West along the Crozet interchange as primarily agricultural and residential. He requested the Board to accept ~ Planning Commission's recom- mendation for denial. Janice Carter, a resident of 250 West, spoke next. She said a special permit is not to change the character or established pattern of the area. Mr. Tiffany has already done so with his craft shop. This use does adversely affect all the neighboring pro- perty. It is now and would be further a blight on the landscape. With this gross commercialization, people driving through the county will not get a gopd impression of the county or what it does with its land. Mrs. Carter said the property values of the residents in the area will not be enhanced by th±s use. She also questioned the fact that Mr. Tiffany would h~ve only craft shops because his country store is more of a furniture store. There are also gas pumps there. She felt the county has been deceived by what is there already. She did not feel there is any need for any more craft shops from Mechums River to Afton Mountain. The whole idea seems superfluous to her. Mrs. Frances Martin was next to speak. She saidme does not live on 250 nor does she own any land in that area. However, as a resident of the county she does feel threatened by this type of application which she feels does not fit the existing zoning ordinance. If this permit is granted for 250 West, how can the Zoning Ordinance protect the citizens if provisions in the Zoning Ordinance are twisted and distorted as this particular permit application requests the Board to do. Mrs. Martha Seldon was next to speak. She asked how far a country store could deviate from the d~nition in the Zoning Ordinance and still be considered a country store. She feels Patricia Ann's Country Store is 75% furniture store and the rest general 6-26-74 (Night Meeting) 377 merchandise. Mr. Wheeler said the Board was not discussing that use tonight. Mrs. Seldon asked how. the citizens could ask the County to take action on this matter. Mr. Wheeler said that was a matter which should go before the Zoning Administrator. Mrs. Setdon said 1-64, last year, won the second prize for landscaping in the entire nation among 1,056 applicants. Patricia Ann's Country Store is very visible from 1-64. It is completely eroded and has no landscaping grading, screening, or seeding of any sort. She did not feel that this portion of 1-64 will be considered at this time for an award of any sort. If this further encroached upon by more craft and ~ift shops, this will be a tremendous loss to the county. For that reason and the fact that it is already incompatible to the neighborhood, she urged that this permit be denied. Mrs. Dorothy Spiedet also spoke in opposition. She said the proposed zoning ordinance recognizes that craft and gift shops are a commercial enterprise and allows them only in the proposed commercial limited or commercial general categories. She urged the Board to support the Pla~ing Commission and deny this special permit. Mr. Tiffany said his neighbors on the other side, the Youngs and the Gentrys, do not object to his use of the property. Mrs. Susan Snodgrass said she is a resident of the Ivy area. She is interested in the people who go to Skyline Drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway as campers and hikers. These people will be using 1-64 as an access and exit from that beautiful section of land that is trying to be preserved in its natural aspect. If people are going to the mountains for the scenic beauty, they are not particularly looking for this type of facility. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to accept the recommendation of the P. lanning Commission and deny the request for SP-352. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. AYES: Messrs. NAYS: None (5) SP-356. Ronnie G. Baber has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to locate a mobile home on part of 20 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 729, about 1~ miles south of Nix. Property is further described as County Tax Map 105, Parcel 3 part hereof, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said this area is rural pasture land with three single family dwellings in the immediate area. The area to the west of Route 729 is wooded. He stated that the Planning Commission did recommend approval with the following con- ditions: SP-356 - Ronnie G. Baber - approved with the following conditions:. 1) County Building Official approval 2) A minimum setback of 100 feet from Route 729 and 30 feet from the adjacent access road. 3) Screening, if necessary, depending upon the location of the mobile ho~me. 4) Skirting around the mobile home from ground level to the base of the mobile home. 5) Permit is issued for a period of five years. 6) This permit is issued to the applicant only and is not transferrable. Mr. Baber was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to approve SP-356 as recommended by 6-2g'-74 378 the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None (6) SP-358. John S. Napier has petitioned~dhe Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 2.2 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side Of Route 795, about one (1) mile south of its intersection with Route 620 at State Hill. Property is further described as County Tax Map 103, Parcel 37, Scottsvilie Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated: "The area is completely rural in nature. The property is wooded with hardwood and pine. It has access by an existing 15 foot dirt road and is located approxi- mately 1,000 feet from Route 795. East of Route 795 property is also wooded. The property in question is not visible from Route 795 and there is no develop- ment in the immediate vicinity." He ended by stating that the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: SP-358. John S. Napier - Approved with the following conditions: 1) County Building Official approval. 2) A minimum setback from the access road of 60 feet. 3) Skirting around the mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home. 4) The permit is issued for a period of five years. 5) This permit is issued to the.applicant only and is not transferrable. Humphrey also stated that the Planning Commission had received one letter in oppo- sition from landowners who reside out of the county and who could not be present. He offered for the record letter of Gabriella Kelley and Ethel Jones. Mr. Napier was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion w~ offered by Mr. Wood to approve $P-358 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (7) SP-359. Carlo Colombini has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a central well on 103.3 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 649, Proffit Road, near its intersection with Route 20 North. Property is further described as County Tax Map 47, Parcel 15, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that this is a petition to locate a central well to serve five single family rental units. "The area is completely rural in nature with rolling terrain.:~-of pasture and cropland. The only structure visible on the site is the home of the applicant. The rental units are screened adequately from Route 649 with deciduous trees. At the present time, the staff has received no information concerning the pro- posed well" Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval in keeping with the staff's report with the following conditions: SP-359. Carlo Colombini. Approved with the following conditions: 1) Health Department approval of the well system and water. 2) Well capacity of one (1) gallon per minute, per unit. 3) County Engineering Department review and approval of well completion reports ~ and the location and size of water lines. Mr. Colomobini was present in support of the petition. He said there are two dwellings on the property at this time and. three dwellings under construction. The well was done approximately five years ago and it now serves a cottage and a house. 6-26-74 (Night Meeting) 379 When the well was dug, 15 gallons per minute was pumped but cannot find a record of that. In the recent weeks, he has tried to comply with all regulations. The water has been tested by the Health Department and that result given to the Planning Com- mission. Yesterday, he submitted information to the County Engineering department as to the number of gallons and proposed water lines. Mr. Fisher asked if there had been a pump down test in the last few months. Mr. Colombini said no. He spoke to Mr. Bailey County Engineer and Mr. Williams. They said that whenever the lines are extended from the well, the plumber will test to see how many gallons per minute there are. Mr. Fisher asked if he wants to connect water to units which will be almost completed before he knows he can comply with these conditions. Mr. Colombini said he knows he has 15 gallons per minute~and the requirement is five. If there are not five gallons per minute he will have to dig another well. Mr. Fisher said the Board had set a policy of trying to get the best technical information they can before they approve a well system. He was hesitant to vote for approval until he was sure the conditions can be met. Mr. Henley asked how many dwelling units like this Mr. Colombini is allowed to build. Mr. Humphrey said at the present time, with 100 acres, about 50 rental units, subject to any action the Board takes tonight on this petition for a central well. Mr. Henley asked if the Board has any control. Mr. Humphrey said only if the Board adopts something tonight. These are single family rental units. He has the alter- native of either going to an individual well for each unit or a central well system. Mr. Fisher said he has no objection to the proposal but does not feel the Board should approve a well system until they know if the water is there. He asked if the Planning Department had certificate of occupancy control. Mr. Humphrey said the Building Department does. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any way to make sure the water is there before the units are occupied. Mr. Humphrey said Mr. Colombini will be required to submit evidence that the test had been made and substantiate it at one gallow per unit, per minute. Mr. Henley said he will not be able to rent the units if he does not have any water. Mr. Fisher said he might have water but it might not be adequate. Mr. Wheeler said the Board can approve this permit subject to all the conditions being complied with. Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve $P-359 with the conditions submitted by the Planning Commission and with the addition of condition number four (4) that the well is to be demonstrated to have a capability before any occupancy of the dwellings. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: (8) Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None SP-357. I.J. Breeden, Inc., has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to locate a mobile home park and accessory uses on 170.4 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated between Route 20 South and Route 631, Old Lynchburg Road, adjacent Southwood Mobile Home Estates. Property is further described as County Tax Map 90, Parcels 16 part thereof, and 5A part thereof, Scottsviile Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey pre~$dt~a~ staff's report: "property is located betweem State Routes 20 South and 631 South to the southeast of Southwood Mobile Home Estates and to the west of Biscuit Run. The property in question is rural in character and forested primarily with deciduous treas. To the north of the property, approximately 0.75 of a mile, Oakhi~l Subdivision zoned R-3. ~mpact of 500 Unit Mobile Home Park on the Area 3.2 persons/unit x 500 units = 1600 1.5 vehicles/unit x 500 Units = 750 7.0 vehicles trips/day/unit x 500 units = 3500 0.9 children/unit x 500 units = 490 Potential student population: 0.54 elementary/unit x 500 units = 270 students 0.22 intermediate/unit x 500 units = 110 students 0.22 secondary/unit x 500 units = 110 students TOTAL 9~ students This would require, eventually, approximately nine additional classrooms at elementary level and eight additional classrooms for both intermediate and ~ secondary levels combined. This adjustment could be made either by redistricting schools to fill those under capacity or by constructing additional classroom facilities. In addition to this request for an expansion of Southwood Mobile Home Estates, the applicant is requesting accessory or convenience-type uses to serve the residents of the mobile home park. These uses proposed consist of a convenience store, rental office, and laundromat. The staff recommended any approval be conditioned on the following: 1) Central water and sewer system, to be submitted under a separate special use permit; 2) Final site plan approval (to including recreation areas). 3) County Building official approval; 4) Skirting around all mobile homes from ground level to the base of the mobile home; 5) No connection to Hickory Street be allowed; 6) Accessory uses be limited to a convenience store rental office and laundromat. 7) Grading plan approval; 8) No construction of the proposed lake without prior approval by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District in conjunction with the Soil Conservation Service He stated that the Planning Commission does recommend denial of this petition. In arriving at this decision, Mr. Clifton McCiure stated that he feels the mobile home park is one of the best in the area. However, several years ago Mr. Breeden asked for approval of the entire PUD and he would like to see plans for the remainder of the pro- perty instead of acting on this piecemeal. He did not think it is good planning to put 1,000 mobile homes on any piece of property ~±tho~ pIann~g'£o~ th~sentire area. Dr. Sams said he was not sure of the size of the ideal mobile home park, but agreed with Mr. McClure's statement that this would be too large. Also the exit onto Route 20 is dangerous. Mrs. Craddock agreed with Mr. McClure. She felt that additional schools and roads caused by this request would be an additional burden on the taxpayers and any approval of this request would destroy the character of the area and not be com- patible. Mr. Rinehart said he was not particularly against a mobile home park in this area. The Planning Commission had stated that mobile home parks in this area should be located close to industrial and commercial area, however, this request is premature since it might set an unwanted precedent for the area. Mr. Carr said he felt the public should be aware that the Planning Commission is looking for locations for mobile home parks subdivisions. However, 500 additional units would make this park too large. The Planning Commission did recommend denial of the petition by unanimous vote of those voting. Mr. J. Harry Michael was present to represent Mr. I. J. Breeden. He asked that Mr. Aubrey Huffman explain the design of the plan. Mr. Huffman said this entire area is shielded by a field. None of this ~ visible from Route 20. A road is to be con- q 6-26-74 (Night Meeting) 381 structed through the project intersecting Routes 631 and 20. No mobile home driveway would enter from the main road. They will all have private roads from the clusters. There is a 100 acre lake proposed. Also the area is to be served by an iter~m treat- ment plant large enough to accomodate the flow. The present water system, which is adequate, will be enlarged. Eventually, both will be connected to public utilities. Mr. Michael said he realized that a request such as this is generally not by opposition. He pointed out only one small portion of the proposed area joins other lands. The rest of this land is embraced within the boundaries of lands owned by I.J. Breeden, Inc. He said that'-they have an adverse ruling from the Planning Com- mission and they acknowledge this. But, he was not sure that some of the points to be considered might not be more properly considered before this Board than before the Planning Commission. People connected with real estate and building realize that housing for moderate income people and upper modera~ income people is economically not feasible and has not been for at least the last year. He directed the Board's attention to a report of the Virginia Housing Study Commission. This Commission spent two years accumulating information relating to housing. It is corro- borated in precise detail by another publication, the VPI Staff RePOrt on Mobile Homes. He said whether we like it or do not like it, mobile homes are a major source of resi- dential shelter and they will be a greater source as time goes along. This cannot be avaSded. Builders have tried condominiums and townhouses and every other device to Widen the market, but costs are up. They have not been able to prevent a situation in which 50% of residential shelters built today in the United States are mobile homes. That percentage will increase, as it has increased rapidly in the last three years. Virginia and Albemarle County is not immune now or in the future. These are background facts which are more properly brought to this Board than anywhere else because they are facts with which this Board and their successors will have to contend for years to come. Housing for moderate and upper moderate income groups must be provided. The low income groups today are effectively priced out of the mobile home market when a double-wide begins at $11,000 and runs to $27,000 to $29,000. Those are not low in- come residential shelters. Southwood, is effectively inside a 1700 acre tract. The present sites are well laid out. They have a sewerage disposal system which will accommodate the oyresenv area, when it is fully developed, plus the proposed area for an indefinite period of 2time. They know this must be subject to approval by the Albemarle County Service Authority, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the State Water Control Board; maybe, even by the Environmental Protection Agency. He said the developer is prepared to meet these requirements. Ultimately, they hope thins area will connect to Moore's Creek collector line. Also, connect to public water when that is available. In the meantime, they have an excellent private utility providing water for the present location. Provided in the present location are, underground utilities and recessed trash receptacles. They have preserved the natural landscaping. The creation of a lake is part of this request. The site has access to all of Charlottesville through the use of Interstate 64, and the 29 bypass, which will be four lanes in the near future. Access is one factor which has generated a strong interest in the present mobile home park. Presently there are 370 to 375 spaces provided. They have not constructed 500 spaces, but have mo~ed at a reasonable speed in providing sites under the present permit. Mr. Michael said there is a general complaint that this will generate additional traffic and need for schools. There is no question that this will happen, but not the day after the permit is issued. It is a long-range process and is a process to which the schools growth and traffic pattern can be accom- modated. Charlottesville and Albemarle cannot stop growth. As people come to the area, particularly in the moderate income group, there will be a continued increase in mobile home sites. The economic argument is that this is depressant on other property values in the area. Mr. Michael said there are already over 300 mobile homes located in that one area and he can not see that the economic impact will be great. The Planning Commission has said this permit should be denied. He said there are con- siderations which deserve the Board's careful attention. This is the proper area for the request since all mobile home facilities are provided such as an approved sewer system, water system, road system, recreational areas, landscaping, etc. Mr. Michael, the purposes of the County and of the people of the County are better served by pro- viding a proper area for a mobile home park with all the appropriate facilities than to continue with individual applications. He asks that the Board take a look at the present mobile home park before making a decision to see if this is the way Albemarle County should be handling mobile homes. He said if the Board does that, they may find that the Planning Commission did not give proper consideration to some of the facts. Mr. Puryear was present to represent landowners in opposition. An unidentified lady presented a petition to the Board containing 405 signatures of residents of Albemarle County expressing opposition to allowing a mobile home park and accessary uses to be located on property described as County Tax Map 90, Parcel 16 & SA, part thereof. Mr. Puryear said he represents in excess of 80% of the Zandowners who live in the area of the proposed trailer camp. He asked the Board to take into consideration the large investment of these p~op!e and the damage that woutd be done by the proposed petition for this trailer park. More than the financial aspect, is the sentimental value and the deep appreciation these people have for the scenic beauty and the deep historical value of the area. He asked Mr. Rosser Payne to put into perspective the proposed petition in respect to the County's master plan. Mr. Payne said since the master plan was adopted, four years ago, the Board has been striving toward orderly development. This tract is not in conformance with any of the objectives of the plan. The County has been working for three years on a new zoning ordinance. This ordinance speaks to mobile home park zones. This is one of the biggest problems with the current ordinance and one of the reasons why the new ordinance is proposed. The new ordinance makes it clear that mobile home parks should be located J 6-26-74 (Night Meeting) 383 where there are public facilities available or at least committed for a reasomabte time in the future. Mr. Payne said the County needs a Site Plan Ordinance to control the design and standards of a development of any kind where lots are not subdivided for sale. Without a site plan ordinance there is no enforcement procedure that will insure that developers will comply with conditions. There are presently over t00 vacant spaces on the present permit. He feels it is the intent of the developer to slip in under the wire before the new Zoning Ordinance is adopted. This will only com- pound land use problems. Population and traffic capacities are significant. The total average vehicular trips per day would require a number of roads to be build. The Albemarle County School Board has noted that a new elementary school would be needed. Mr. Payne brought to the Board's attention that the Planning Commission is now studying mobile homes and he feels they have a right to bring their recommenda- tions to t'~ Board before approval of such a request. He noted that the staff has attached 14 conditions to the permit. While this is permissible, he questioned how these conditions can be enforced without standards. He said this would simply come to a disagreement between the developer and the Planning Department. Somebody else would have to decide what standard was meant by each condition. The cost-benefit analysis prepared by the staff shows that the cost of this request would exceed its revenues by $44,300 a year. Mr. Payne suggested that the Board nov approve any mobile home park until the proposed zoning ordinance is adopted and the County is through the transition period. He said such approval would be an error in planning. Mr. Puryear said there are already over 100 vaca~tt spots in the present mobile home park. He canvassed other available trailer courts in the locality and found that 12 trailer parks have vacancies. This points out that there is not as much need for this trailer park as had been stated. He said Dr. Charles Beagle was present to show slides of the area. These will emphasize the fact that there is a trailer park already in existence. Mr. Puryear said at least three fourths of the Planning Com- mission viewed the site and took all of this into consideration. Mr. Beagle then showed about 25 slides of homes in the gemeral area of this peti- tion. Mr. Puryear said they had showed these slides to give the Board an idea of the character of the area. Th'ey do not oppose trailers in general, but enough is enough for one area. He said the petitioner has failed to comply with the Soil Erosion Ordinance. He then introduced Mr. John Smart, Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District. Mr. Smart said he had viewed the site after a heavy rain. There was water and silt coming out of one of the roads of the park. He feels there are a lot of things which could be corrected in the present park before applying for an addition to the park. Mr. Smart said the Farm Bureau legislative committee is drafting a resolution to the Board that a cost of $500 be assessed against the owner of a mobile home for the cost that mobile home will bring to the County. They feel that 500 to 600 children in this addition will be extremely costly to the County. 384 Mr. Puryear said there is a sociologist from the University of Virginia ~ho lives in this area. She has read a number of articles which relate to the sociological aspect of any development such as this and she would like to explain what she has read. Dr. Marian Ross said based partly on her research and partly on that of Marian Gordon, she is concerned about the basic wholesomeness of such an area. This would be high density housing for rural immigrants who are not used to high density housing. In spite of the fact that it has been stated that the area will be landscaped, they will see mostly the trunks of trees. They will see their neighbors. The housing units are not large. This produces mental stress which leads to quarreling between families and neighbors and within the family itself. The whole situation is unhealthy. If this is a planned community, it would have been better planned in terms of recrea- tional facilities to help eleviate stress. The plans show no such facilities. The area will be inhabited by young married people, with small children. There are no park area, no plans to develop wading pools, and no life guards. The lake would be an enormous hazard for children. She asked the Board to deny this request on the density of such a small area. Mr. Puryear said there are a number of agricultural lands in the area. It is only reasonable to believe that all of these lands cannov be used for development. The population still has to eat. He then introduces Mr. Charlie Yost, a farmer. Mr. Yost said he is a farmer and has lived in this area for 50 years. He said this watershed drains approximately 5,000 acres in this area. Mr. Breeden has drilled a well in the lowest area of this watershed. Fifty years ago there were five springs on the mountain. Four years ago there were four. Now, there is only one. By the installation of the original mobile park, Mr. Breeden has drained the water table 200 feet. If another 500 mobile home units are added, and with the 100 homes that surround the perimeter of this land, he would be pumping about 200,000 gallons a day from this water table. Mr. Puryear then introduced a Mr. Paul Jensen to speak about the hazard of traffic on Route 20. Mr. Jensen said his driveway would be adjacent to the exit from this new section of the mobile home parks. There have been a number of accidents on Route 20. He said the main reason for the accidents is the same thing that creates the beauty of this road; the curves and narrowness. Mr. Puryear summarized his presentation. With respect to the large lake, he is frightened by the fact that a number~of small children will be living in the area and there is no provision for a lifeguard at the lake. In reference to the statement that they will connect to public utilities, he asked when, where and at whose expense. It has not been shown that a package sewage treatment plant will be approved. He said there is no real plan, consequently, the County's planning staff recommended 14 con- ditions be attached to any approval of this permit. There is no way to enforce these 6-26-74 (Night Meeting) provisions. Mr. Puryear said this request is unfair to the 400 people in opposition. Any increase in trailer spaces should be through a planned process. He has facts and statistics showing that 60% of the pegple moving into this coum~tywill be manual workers, not moderate income people. The other 40% will most likely be retired people or unemployed people. He has spoke with Mr. Roy Agnor, City Director of Public Works, and Mr. Agnor said there is no assurance that there will be any capacity for this development to hook to the Moore's Creek Sewage Treatment Plant even when the improvements to the plant are completed. Mr. Puryear sa~d the cost ~ fire protection, police protection and other expenses should be added to the Planning Departments statistics. There was a landmark decision in Oregon which established 11 criteria for mobile home projects and this project falls short of all of those criteria. Mr. Rosser Payne has said this is not in conformity that with the master plan and he feels this would be illegal spot zoning. He encourages the Board to deny this re- quest. It is not in the best interest of the public's health, safety and welfare, it only means a lot of money for the developer. Mr. Wheeler said the Board members have received, over the last three or four weeks, staff reports, letter and telephone calls from citizens asking that this re- quest be denied. He asked that the public keep their comments brief. Mr. Winter from the University of Virginia said he deals with graduate students who are very poor. He feels mobile homes offer at least a halfway decent way of living for these studentry. He has looked at the site and the mobile homes c~nnot be seen from Route 20. This Ss one of the nicest trailerparks in the area. He would rather see mobile homes in one place that is screened from the road than to have one mobile home here and there. Betty Scott from the League of Women Voters presented the following statement: June 26, 1974 TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors RE: Breeden request for a Mobile Home Park on Rt. 20 South The League of Women Voters is concerned about the housing problems in the Charlottesville-AlbemarLe area, and we hope that continued efforts will increase the availability of low and moderate cost housing. In developing housing it is important to avoid large tracts of housing similar in type and price. Thus, we oppose the approval of a Mobile Home Park consisting of 500 unit spaces. The proposed park is requested as an expansion of the existing Southwood Mobile Home Park which has a capacity of 500 spaces and has 367 spaces occupied. The possibility of 1,000 mobile homes in an area would provide a major impact on this section of the community. It would create many problems in provid~ing roads, schools, and other needed services for the residents. We would like to commend the site plan for the proposed park. It includes plans for underground waste containers, recreational areas, trees, shrubs, and open spaces, we would hope that the County could require adherence to this type of site plandand require these and other desired amenities in all mobile home parks. In summary, the impact of 1,000 mobile home units in one area could create serious density, school and traffic problems, especially when there is no public water and sewer service available for such a development. (signed: Betty C. Scott, President) Dan ~ Citizens for Albemarle, presented the following statement: TO: RE: June 26, 1974 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors In regard to Special Permit 357 The environmental impact of a 500 unit mobile home park being placed adjacent to a 350 mobile home park (with plans for 500 units) is of serious con- cern to Citizens for Albemarle. Small mobile home parks including the amenities 388 needed for the residents would provide a better quality of life and be more desirable in maintaining quality residential areas in the county. The proposed site plan for this mobile home park includes many attractive features which we hope can be included in all mobile home parks. In conclusion, we oppose the approval of a 500 unit mobile home park adjacent to a 350 unit mobile home park, and further, we suggest that a 500 unit mobile home park is too large to provide desirable living conditions for the residents. This population demsity requires roads, schools, and other public facilities wh$ch are not available in the proposed area or in other rura~ areas of the county. The environmental and social impact of this size and type development would be detrimental to this area and for Albemarle County. (signed: Roy Patterson, Presidenv, Citizens for Albemarle) A Mrs. Hill said she lives in Oak Hill Subdivision on the road that presently enters Southwood Mobile Home Court. She said the lots may be wooded now, but in the fall there are no leaves on those trees and you can see the cars and the mobile homes. She said during last year the school buses on this road increased from one to four because of Southwood Mobile Home Court. Mrs. Lorraine Shifflett said she lives on Oak Hill Drive. Three years ago, after the mobile home park was installed, they installed a central air conditioner to try to sleep. She said from 4:30 p~m. to ll:00 p.m. it is impossible for anyone to sleep. There are many holes in the road. She is on their water system and there is not adequate water at all times. Senator Michael said they had not come for a popularity decision. He hoped the issue would be decided on the basis of what had been laid before the Board. He did not think the Board can necessarily stop all matters until the new ordinances are adopted, if the Board does not make adequate provisions for mobile homes somewhere in the County, they have made their jobs ten times harder. He said Mr. Puryear had indicated that the Moore's Creek line is overloaded. They have tried to make it clear that it is their intent to apply to hook onto that line, but to set up an approved treatment plant and when the Moore's Creek line is built, phase that out, if at all possible. They will accept any appropriate conditions, and he asked that the Board weigh all facts carefully. Mr. Humphrey concluded the staff's report by listing the following added condi- tions: 9) Street lights provided with approval by Co-Engineer_and Vepco. 10) Ail electrical utilities placed underground. 11) Roads built to state standards. 12) Garbage collection system (underground cans) 13) Curb and gutter 14) sidewalks. He said the staff is concerned about the existing road through the park and out to Route 631 through Oak Hill Subdivision. The roads in Oak Hill are not capable of handling traffic for 1,000 plus units. This would be about 7,000 vehicle trips per day. Ail of the roads in Oak Hill Subdivision are not in the State System. The density of this application does not comply with the master plan. There is presently proposed an evaluation of this area in the master plan for an expansion of the urban area to the south. Water and sewage facilities are of great concern to the staff. In looking at the site, the staff feels that this is a reasonable site, but it has many drawbacks. (Night Meeting) 387 Mr. Fisher asked if the staff made any recommendations about recreational areas. Mr. Hmmphrey said recreational areas are indiaated on the site plan. The staff has indicated they are to submit plans for recreational and athletic facilities. This is all tied to a final detailed site plan being approved. Senator Michael noted that there were some small recreational areas presented to the Planning Commission and made a part of their records. Mr. Thacker said he views this proposal with mixed emotions. He realized there is a housing problem in the County, however, he is concerned about this particular area for a number of reasons. The density of 1,000 mobile home units in relation to such a small area. the lack of public utilities and the roads. He said the Board does have a responsibility to provide this type of facility. They also have the responsibility of providing this in an area of the county that can be served to the best interest of the County. In light of what has been presented this evening and staff reports made previously, he did not feel this is a proper area for such a facility, and offered motion to deny SP-357. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher said in visiting this site, seeing what presently exists, driving over the roads, and listening to the testimony presented tonight, he feels that 1,000 dwelling units of any~nature would create a considerable impact on all of the sur- rounding area. The fact that the 1,000 families living in this area and developing without finite timing under the control of this government would be an adverse im- pact on the County. With less than three-fourths of the already approved lots devel- oped, there is space for expansion and space to take care of the needs of this type of facility for some months and perhaps some years. In that sense, this application is premature. The Comprehensive Plan contemplates this area as conservation, with low rather than high density development. This application is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wheeler said everyone knows he is concerned about low income housing. He realizes that the County must provide locations for mobile homes, but they need to be reasonable in size and in a suitable place. He is also very concerned about water and he feels public water and sewer for a project of this~ size is a necessity. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: (9) Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood None $P-373. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate an Advanced Was~ewater Treatment plant on 49.52 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of interstate 64 and the south side of Moores Creek, near its confluence with the Rivanna River. Property is further described as County Tax Map',~:77, Parcel 38 (part thereof). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey began the staff's report, but was interrupted by Mr. Robert Masselman who objected to the hearing of this petition. He said the application had been made without the knowledge and consent of the landowner. No notice was given to the land- owner. The landowner did not participate in the request. He said this raises serious 388 g-25-7~ procedural .objections. They do not feel they necessarily want to oppose this for pur- poses of delaying the County's efforts to obtain sewerage, but are concerned with any system that allows the Board to grant special use permits or rezone property without giving notice to the owner. Mr. St. John said Mr. Harry Marshall had asked him about this some time ago. He had stated that since this was the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's application, he had not researched the question andad not know the answer. As far as the County is concerned, he would not raise any objection to this procedure. He understands condemnation procedures have been instituted. Mr. Marshall said this condemnation has been instituted for the purpose of locating an~ advanced waste water treatment plant on the property. Based on that, the appli- cation was made by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. It is their opinion that this given them sufficient interest to request a special use permit. Mr. Musselman said pending the condemnation proceeding, a suit for a declaratory judgement has been filed to get a ruling from the court that no condemnation under the present circumstances is permissible. This evening, Mr. Marshall conceded that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority did not comply with statutory requirements. Mr. Musselman said it is to be the County's interest to do whatever will facilitate the proper expansion of sewer facilities. The owners of the property do not wish to appear to obstruct the County in that. On~:the other hand, because of pending action, it is obvious that action on this Nequest cannot be taken immediately. If a system is such that the County can rezone or otherwise change the use provisions with respect to a piece of property without giving the owner notice, they are concerned. This is the reason he asked for the procedural aspects to be clari~ed. Mr. St. John asked if the landowner was given formal notice of this proceeding. Mr. Marshall said no notice was given by the Rivanna Authority. After a short dis- cussion, Mr. St. John offered the following resolution for the consideration of the Board. June 27, 1974 John L. Humphrey, County Planner Lettie E. Neher, Clerk At the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 26, 1974, the following resolution was adopted in reference to SP-373 filed for the Rivanna Water and hewer Authority: BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors intends to take up SP-373 under Section 14-1-2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and that this matter be placed again on the agenda of the County Planning Com- mission for recommendation, and that formal notice be forwarded to all inter- ested parties, including the owner of the~bject property, at both the Planning Commission hearing and the hearing before this Board. Motion to adopt the foregoing resolution was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None 6-26-74 (Night Meeting) 389 Amendments to the Zoning .Ordinance as follows: (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Notice is hereby given that by resolution of intent the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors proposes to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by the addition under Article XI of Section 11-14 entitled "Special Mobile Home Permit," which shall provide for administrative approval of mobile homes in certain cases. In all other cases, mobile home applications shall be processed under the general special use provisions. Mobile Home Permits may be authorized, administratively, for an individual mobile home by the Agent for the Board of Supervisors. This can only be accom- plished upon finding by the staff of the Albemarle County Planning and Zoning Department that the mobile home will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Notice is hereby given that by resolution of intent the Albemarle County Planning Commission proposes to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend Article 5-1 to include: an additional use to be known as Article 5-1-15 (6) Condominium Housing Projects subject ~ approved site plan. Amend Article 6-1 to include an additional use to be known as Article 6-1-21 (10) Condominium Housing Projects subject to Site Plan approval. Amend Article 16 Definitions - to include the following: Condominium: ownership of single units in a multiple unit structure or complex having common elements. Ownership includes fee simple title to a residence or place of business and undivided ownership in common elements i~n?dae structure and including the land and its appurienances and as further defined and regulated under Chapter 4.2, Title 55 of the Virginia State Code as amended. Notice is hereby given that by resolution of intent of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, the Albemarle County Board of S~pervisors proposes to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend Article 2, Agriculture Zone; Article 3, RS-I-Zone; Article 4, R-1 Zone and Article 5; R-2 zone. Zones to provide for single family rental units, two (~) or less by right and single family rental units, 3 or more with special permit and site plan approval, provided density is maintained as provided for in Article 2-2; 3-2; 4-2; 5-2 Area RequirementS. No one from the public spoke for or against these amendments. The Chairman declared thepublic hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to defer action until July 10, 1974. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. David Morris, President of the Park Committee, was present to request that the Board allow the Parks Committee to submit an application to the Commission on Outdoor Recreation for funding of acquisition and limited development of 230 acres of land adjacent to Chris Greene Lake. Motion to approve this request was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thcaker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Expenditures: Claims against the County in the amount of $2,193,486.01 were presented, examined and allowed and certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged to the following funds: General Fund General Operating Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund Textbook Rental Fund School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund General Operating-Capital Outlay Fund Town of Scottsville: Local Sales Tax Commonwealth of Virginia; Current Credit Account $ 229,039.08 364,807.39 1,377,422.10 38,666.80 387.49 157,418.70 23,281.98 202.42 2,260.05 $2~193,486.0t 6-26-74 39O Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M. CHAIRMAN