Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-12-13i2-13-72 34'8 A regular meeting of the Board of County Supervisors was held on December 13, 1972, at 7:'~0 P,M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Present were: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile~ Gerald E. Fisher~ J. T. Henley~ Jr., William C. Thacker~ Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F.- Woody Jr. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order and called for public hea~ings on the following matters which were advertised in the Daily P~ogress on November 22 and November 29, 1972: (1) SP-212. Charles Moon. Action of this petition was deferred fromNovemb'er 22, 1972, because the petitioner was not present at that' m~eting. Mr. Humphrey gave the staff report again and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the petition with a 30-foot set back from the right of way as established by record and Health Department approval of a septic-tank. Mrs. Moon was present in ~support of the petition. Mr. Humphrey stated that the landowner, Mrs.~Moon's father, had Joined in signing of the petition and that there is no house on the property. Motion to approve as per recommendations of the 'Planning Commission was offered by Mr. Wood~ second~ byM~. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vot~e: AYES: Messrs. Carwile,-Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler avnd Wood. NAYS.. None. (2) ZMP-2~O. The Citizens Corporation has requested the Board of Supervisors' to rezone 2.01 acres from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property is situated in.the southwest quadrant of Route 659 (Ai~rport Road) and 29 North. Property has frontage on Route 6~9. Property is described as County Tax Map ~2, Parcel $1 (part ~thereof). Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey gave the following staf'f report. This property is situated in the northwest, quadrant of the intersection of Route 6~9 and Route 29 north with frontage on Route 659. The property abuts B-1 zoning to the east, and north (across Route 6~9),. A-1 zoning to the. south and west. A garage and office e~isting'across Route 655, rental property existing to the west some ~00 feet. Vacant land to the south and a motel and furniture .store to. the east across Route 29 north. The comphehensive plan indicates the area in which the subject par~'el is located to be conducive to commercial activity as a combination of office and neighborhood commercial. The existing c~mmercially zoned land owned ~y the applicant has a dept~ of 1~9~ feet fronting on Route 29. In the opinienof the staff~ this land which is already zoned B-1~ is insufficient for a viable commercial area. We find this request in keeping with the adopted plan and recommend.approval in the belief that the added depth will improve the land for commercial development and make a more compact type of development. The right-of-way at this property'on Route 6~9 is 50 feet. Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission recommended, unanimously, approval of the request. No one was present to re~resent the petitioner. 12-13,72 349 No one from the public spoke foror against'the petition. It was the concensus of the Board that since a representative of.the petitioner was not present to answer~questions that no action should be taken on this petition at this time. MOtion to defer until DeCember 22 in order to allow Mr. Humphrey to-contact the petitioner was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded-vote: AYES: Messrs~ Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Hood. NATS: None; (3)-'~~2. George Cason~has petitioned the Board of Supervisors~:to rezone 1.02 acres from R-3 Residential to B-1BUsiness~ Property is situated on Route 631 in the southwest quadrant of the interchange ef I-6~ and Route 631. Property~is described as County Tax Map 76, Parcel ~Z and 51+B. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. HumDhrey~stated that the land use plan as adopted and presented by the consultant .i~dic~te'~ this property to be in an area designated for medium density. (2.~.~welling units .per acre). The consultant did not recognize the existing zoning (R-3). During the course oF ithe public hearings the consultant, on commenting on why this quadrant was not shown for future commercial use, as did to the north~ said that there were numerous small 'parcels existing which were individually owned which would preclude, in his ~judgment, consolidation for a compact communityrcommercial center. The general area in which this land lie. s meets the criteri~ for locating community centers, motels, and etc'./arespelled out in the written objectives. He further stated that if the land could be consolidated into one package then it could' be considered appropriate for a planned Crenter. U~til that could be accomplished, the existing acres of land require reasonable protection from encroachment. The staff agrees, with the statements of 'the~consultant regarding the qualifications of the site. The Planning Commission ~nd Boar~ of Supervisors also agreed on OCtober 16 and October 2~, 1~72 and granJtedrezoning of 1.02 20.8 acres, to B-I~. Thism~acres was emitted by ~error from-the original zoning~request in October. The Planning ~Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approva~the request.- Mr. Cason was not present.. Ne one from the public spoke for or against the petition. Mr. 'Fisher offered motiOn.to defer action on this petition'mun~il December 21 or such time as'the petitioner could be present. Motion wa~ seconded by M~ Henley and carried by. the 2ollowing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher~ Henley,. Thacker,~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None ...... ZMP-25~... Long Construction Company to rezone 2.227 acresf, rOm.B~l Business to M-2 Manufacturing. Property is situated on Rio Road across from its intersection with Greenbrier' Driver. Property is described as County-Tax Map 61, Parcel~t~6D. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that the property abuts R-1 zoning (Northfields) to th~ west, Southern Railroad to the nora,.and east, B-1 zoning to the south. A dwelling "curio anti~ue" facility abuts the property to the west and south, a small neighborhood shopping center to the south and a dwelling and church abut to the north. The present operation on the subject ~roperty is non-conforming ~n that it start'ed prior to zoning and a building permit was validated for certain segments of this activity. The comprehensive plan recognizes the existing zoning and indimtes a need for neighborhood 350 commercial center for the land which is the subject of this petition. The M-1 zone is the first zoning which permits "contractors office and equipment stora~ yards"~ such as is the nature of Mr. Long's operationr and such is the nature of the non-conformity of the present operation in the existing B-1 zone. The welding aspects of the new use requires the M-2 zone. The staff has consulted with the County Attorney and have been advised that this expansion requires property zoning. The staff could not equate the zone request for this area with the intent of the M-2 and recommended denial. The Planning Commission, after lengthy discussionr also voted to deny the request. Mr. Humphrey stated that several people had spoken in opposition at the Plaguing Commission hearing. Mr. Long was present in support of the petition and stated that he had bought the land five years ago to be used as a construction operation and with the intention of building a warehouse since he owns 520 feet along the Southern Railroad right' of way. When zoning went into effect the land was zoned B-1 instead of M-2~ which was the use to which the land was being put at that time~ mainly~ a contractors equipment shed and a manufacturers shop for ornamental metals. The present problem arose when it was decided to enclose construction materials and a light manufacturing operation which are now outdoors on the lot. Mr. Long stated that when he applied for a building permit he was told he could not build under the present zoning. He stated that this sounds like a drastic zoning changer particularly when the land is bounded on one side by residential zoning. At the Planning Commission hearing neighboring landowners visualized smokestacks~ noise and congestionrwhen in actuality he is trying to improve the operation by enclosing what is now going on outdoors and can continue to go on under the non- conforming use. He stated that persons speaking at the Planning Commission hearing feared damage to Rio Road as one of the main approaches to the City. Mr. Long stated that this is not a heavy manufacturing operation. The lot is located ~00 feet from Rio Road and the proposed building will be some 500 feet from Rio Road. Mr. Long felt there was an implication at the Planning Commission hearing that M-1 might receive a favorable recommendation~ however~ this would not permit the building of a warehouse and for this reason he had left the request for M-2. Mr. Long then showed to the Board~ pictures, of the exist'ing buildingr the manufacturing operation which is now taking place outdoors and the antique yard which is on adjoining property. The Chairman then opened the meeting for comments by the public: Mr. Lewis A. Roepcke spoke in opposition stating that he has R-lzoning immediately adjacent to the shed which Mr. Long had shown a picture of. He moved into this beautiful section of the County knowing that there was this non-conforming user however, the use of the land was originally for a warehouse in which prefabricated materials could be stored and then sold. Mr. Roepcke stated that he felt Mr. Long was in violation of M-1 zoning by constructing ~ 2-~13 - 72 351___ heavy steel structures' and that this operation had been taking place for months before it became a point of issue. He also stated that at a meeting held to see if Mr. Long could build a shed~ Mr. Long had stated that it would be for~'storage and at the Planning Commission meeting it had sudden%~'~'' become a welding shop. He also stated that there had been more objections voiced to this petition than indicated by Mr. Humphrey's report. An unidentifSed man spoke in opposition stating that Rio Road is one of the few that retains much of its natural beauty and it is to the interest of the surrounding community to preserve and improve its environment.. He stated that to rezone this property to allow industry would be a deterioration. Mr. T. D. Rivers~ a resident of Greenbrier~ sooke in opposition stating that he did not want to see the land downgraded and asked, that the Board disallow the petition. An unidentified woman spoke in opposition stating that this land along the railroad could easily become another Harris Street and this would be tragic for small home owners and asked that the Board deny this request. Mr. John Stalford of Denice Lane ~asked members of the audience tostand Showing their opposition to spot zoning. Approximately 2~ people stood. He asked that the Board consider what kind of an operation could be put in an M-2 zone and asked that the Board listen to the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. A1 0linde lives in this same area and did not want to see another project go in that effects property values and asked that the Board give as much consideration as possible and vote down this request. He also stated that if there were a zoning violation taking place now~ it should be investigated. Mr. John Lowe~ Attorney representing Mr. Lewis Roepcke~ spoke. He stated that Mr. Roepcke's property'in Northfields i~ the most adversly affected by this rezoning request. At the present time there is heavy steel fabricating taking place outdoors with intermittent high shrill cutting saws being used as late as nine o~clock at night. He stated that this land is being put to heavy commercial industrial use and is not just a small machine shop. Mr. Lowe asserted that if this land is rezoned the use could be expanded and this business does not serve the community in which it is setting. Another factor not mentioned is that heavT~steel trucks are delivering on Rio Road and there are already a lot of traffic problems because of the high residential traffic in this area and this is not the kind of road where there should be that kind of heavy trucking. Mr. Lowe brought out the fact that in his application~ Mr. Long mentioned that he has only twenty feet of frontage for this piece of property~ however~ the adjoining property belongs to. Mr. Long and could be joined to this into a common usage for the whole tract and there would be adequate frontage to use in a commercial way. He stated that this use i~ now very annoying, however, if expanded it would make Mr. Roepcke's property virtually uninhabitable and asked that this request be turned down. 352 Mrs. Joan Graves~ Citizens for Albemarle~ stated that they support the Planning Staff and Planning Commission recommendations and asked that the request be denied. Mrs. H. E. Booth, adjoining property owner of "~unk" or "antique yard" stated that ~e has lived on this property for 2¢ years. She stated that the present use of Mr. Long's property is very annoying, however, if his rezoning request i~ approved, his business will be there forever. Her property, which is now a non-conforming use, will revert when her death occurs. Mr. H. Eo Booth stated 'that before his land became a "junk :i~ard" he raised 1/2 million pounds of' honey. He stated that he was satisfied with residential zoning and did not know why he was put in a B-1 zone. Mr. Bill Keyser~ Associated Steel Products, stated that the Most of-.what had been said was true. They do weld and fabricate steel products'.. He felt this his organization did provide a service to constructors at a reasonable price. Mr. Keyser stated that welding is not as bad as the word implies and that welding occurs in any maintenance shop. Mr. Wheeler asked how long Associated Steel Products had been operating at this location (on Mr. Long's land)~ to which Mr. Keyser replied~ since February, 1972. Mr. John Wood stated that he lives on the corner of Rio Road and Greenbrier Drive and said that if this rezoning is approved the use of this land might be detrimental to the neighborhood in future years. He asked the Board to follow the advice of the Planning Commission and deny this pehition. The Chairman then called on the Board for comments: Mr.'Fisher asked if the welding operation which is taking place outdoors has not changed the use or'character of the use for that property so that it is different from the original non-conforming use. Mr. Humphrey stated that the original permit did not speak of welding and based on the validated permit there may be a violation. This would'need to be investigated further. Mr. Carwile asked when the~'permit was issued. Mr. Humphrey replied that it was issued prior to the effective date of the zoning ordinance coming into being. Mr. Carwile then asked if the property was used by Mr. Long prior to zoning. Mr. H~mphrey replied, yes. Mr. Carwile stated that he could see the problem of ~ezoning to M-2 for future use and asked the Board to consider amending the zoning ordinance to allow for the a granting of special use permits for expansion of/non-conforming use without changing existing zoning classification. He stated that this would then give a vehicle by which the B~could impose some reasonable conditions on the property. Mr. Wheeler stated that he would be willing to explore this as the proper route to take and could not support M-2 zoning for this property. Mr. Henley offered motion to deny the request. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: 1 2-13-?2 353 AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fishery Henley~ Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Carwile then offered motion to refer to the Planning CommiSsion for their consideration a request to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow for the expansion of non-conforming uses without changing the existing zoning through the avenue of the special use permit. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker. Mr. Wheeler asked if it would be agreeable to the Board to request the zoning administrator to investigate this non-conforming use. Mr. Wood asked if the motion was made specifically to ~pply to this case. Mr. Carwile replied that this would be a matter o~ general application if enacted. Mr. Thacker stated that this would be an amendment to the zoning o~dinance and not apply specifically to this situation. Mr. Wood stated that he ~hought if there were a non-conforming use that is the objectiona~,/idea over the years had been that as the ownership changed, this non-conforming use was eliminated. He felt this might perpetuate or carry it on. Mr. Carwile stated that in the past all special use permits were issued to an individual and did not transfer with the property. Mr. Wheeler stated that this is just for investigation by the Planning Commission and at this point called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES.: Messrs. CarwiIe, Fisher, Henley~ Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (~) /I. J. Breeden to rezone one acre from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property is situated in the Southwood Mobile Home Park on Hickory Street. Property is described as County Tax Map 90A~ Parcel 1. Scottsville Magisterial District. (Mr. Carwile did not participate nor taken any action on the following matter). Mr. Humphrey stated that the parcel is surrounded by R-3 Residential zoning. The present use within the large residential zone area is "Oak Hill Subdivision" and "Southwood Mobile Home Park". The comprehensive plan indicates this parcel to be in an area conducive to medium density. The building which is in existence was originally used for the sales office and community building for the Southwood Mobile Park and Mobile Home Sales. The R-3 zone permits professional offices and retail stores on grou~ud floors of main structures with special permits conditioned upon it being larger than ~000 sq. ft. The applicant was notified of this provision~ however he decided in favor of the rezoning approach. The staff is of the opinion that in larger modular home parks that limited convenience business facilities be provided for. The Planning Commission recommended denial since they felt the special use permit approach was better then the rezoning. No one was present to represent the petitioner. No one from the public spoke for or against the petition. Mr. Wood did not feel it was necessary to have the petitioner present in order to take action. He stated that two people who live in this area had expressed concern and would like to see the petition denied. Mr. Wheeler felt a convenience store at this location would be suitable~ however~ he felt the condition of the roads in this area should be considered. 354 It being the general consensus of the Board that the petitioner or his representative should be present at this hearingy Mr. Henley offered motion to defer action on this petition until December 21 or until such time as the petitioner could !-~ be present. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fishery Henleyy Thackery Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. (6) SP-223. Peter Sargent has petitione~ the Board of Supervisors to locate a two-family (duplex) dwelling on land containing 57 acres and situated on Route 250 east approximately 0.6 of a mile west of Route 616. Property is described as County Tax Mag 9~, Parcel 8Ay Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that the property is situated on the south side of Route 250 east about one and one-half miles west of Boyd Tavern. The property is a largey partially wooded tract of rolling ~rrain. There is one home on the propertyy occupied by the owner. No other homes are visible~ although there is scattered development of homes along 250 in this area. The owner wishes to remodel an existing stable into a duplex. The structure is not visible from Route 250. Access is a private drive which also serves the ownerCs home. The Planning Staff and the Planning Oommission recommended approval subject to Health Department approval of a septic tank system. Mr. H~mphrey stated that he had received a petition from adjoining property owners indicating that they were not in opposition. Mr. Sargent's attorney was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke. Mr. Carwile offered motion to grant the request conditioned upon health department approval of a septic tank system. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrso Carwiley Fishery Henley~ Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (7) SP-226. Floyd R. Haney to locate a permanent mobile home on 3 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 808 south of 250 east. Property is described as County Tax Map 9~, Parcel 8B (part thereof) and Parcel t2A (part thereof). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that the.property is situated on the east side of Route 808 off of Route 250 East. The property access is a dirt road~ state maintained almost to the property line. There are two mobile homes and several single family dwellings along this road. One of these mobile homes is on the adjoining property to the north. To the east and west the land is woodedy to the south it ~ open fieldy all undeveloped. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to Health Department approval of a septic tank system~ a 30 foot set back and the permit to be for a 5-year period. Mr. Haney was present. No one from the public spoke° Mr. Wood offered motion to approve the petition subject to Health Department approval of a septic tank system~ a 50-foot set backyZ'and the permit to be for a maximum of five years or until such time as a residence is completed on the property. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: 12-13-72 355 AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (Note: The following two petitions were discussed as one item, Mr. Carwile abstaining from any participation.) (8)ZMP-2~9. Ski Land~ Inc. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 5.0 acres from R-3 Residential to A-1 Agricultural. Property is ~ituated north of Route 250 east in the area of'~Pantops". Property is described as County Tax Map 78, Parcel ~SA (part thereof). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that /~he property is situated approximately 800 feet north of Route 2~0 east in the vicinity of "Spectrum East". R-3 zoning abuts the property to the north and east; B-I and R-3 zoning to the west and B-1 zoning to the south. Topography is extreme in the immediate area. The a~a is at the foot of "Southwest Mountains". A VE?CO transmission line is located to the immediate north. The land is located in a drainage area which ultimately traverses Route 20 on its way to the Rivanna River. The subject parcel lies in an area which appears ~ be in the fringe of the general Charlottesville urban area and an area suggested for conservation (Southwest Mountains). The removal of R-3 zoning from the foot slopes of Southwest Mountains is in keeping with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The staff ¢ould~not find fault with the removal of such density~and recommended approval of the petition. (9) SP-222.~,i-..~ki Land, Inc. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a skiing course on land located north of Route 2~0 east in the "Pantops" ~.Area." Property is described as County Tax Map 78, Parcel ~A (part ~hereof). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that the a~plicant proposed to develop a ski slope with the dimensions of 50 by 600 feet with a ski lodge° The surface will be artificial with material known as "poly snow". A parking area to accommodate a maxim~ of ~00 people in conjunction with the activity will be constructed. Plans are to provide for night skiing. There will be no amplified sound. The access road will by necessity~ have a length of approximately 1,000 feet. The applicants proposed to construct an acceleration lan~~ at the entrance. A deceleration lane already exists in conjunction with '~Spectrum East". The site would be at the head of a drainage ~wale with discharges in the Rivanna River just north ~ Route 2~0o Said streams border property of Dorrier on Route 20. A VEPCO transmission line is located-just north of the site. It appears that extensive grading would have to ~e do~e ~n the area designated for parking which has a grade of from 20 to 25%. Mr.Humphrey also stated that the use of a ski slope fits the uses permitted u. nder the proposed zoning ordinance relative to the conservation zone and the use relates to the parks and open space objectives of the Comprehensive Plan (Item 10) "Commercial Recreational Facilities of an Open Character'~. One dwelling would appear to have a direct view of the site and that being the home on Pantops at the east of the hill on Route 2~0, just west of Spectrum East. Mr. Humphrey stated that w~ile the staff was of the opinion that this is compatible with surrounding land u~e and certainly with existing zoning, they were concerned with the construction of the facility and added that the Staff recommended approval?be conditioned upon the following: 1. Approval b~ both the Commission and the Board of a detailed construction site plan prepared by a qualified engineer showing existing and proposed contour~ all information relative to location of building and the ski slope~ methods o£ prevention of erosion and sedimentation and cost of material and other items which are normally found in a plan for site plan approval. 2. Thab~there be a minimum of destruction of the existing tree cover and existing topography. 3. That the final site plan be reviewed by the site plan coordinating committee. Mr. Humphrey also stated that the type of lighting ~hOu!dTbe es~abli~h'¢~ '~t this time~' Mg~Humph~ey'then stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of ZMP-2~9 and also recommended approval of SP-222 with the following conditions: (1) an escrow fund be established in the amount of $2~000 and that the applicant be allowed to apply for a release from the escrow at the end of two years and (2) a detailed site plan. Mr. ~::::~, President of Ski Land made a~lengthy presentation giving an up-dated report on how the developer plans to control run-off from the ski slope. They had assumed a 3-inch rainfall in one hour and that the entire 2.8 acres were paved in concrete and analyzed the ~un-off. He also stated that they expected no pellet loss either from water run-off or wind loss. He stated that the pellets are non-biodegradable~ tasteless, odorless, inert and have no adverse properties which could hurt the environment. Mr. Curtis Thompkins~ a resident of Albemarle County, sells the carpet which persons having is used for the ski slope. He handed out four letters from/existing ski slopes. Mrs. Susan Sherwood~ a resident of Key West, stated that when she first read about this facility, the absorbency of the surface was stated to be 10% and is now up to 65% and asked why this 'change. Mr. John Lowe, a member of the Board of Directors of Ski Land, stated that this would be a model home for other slopes to be sold throughout the country and they had used maximum effort to provide 0% impact on the environment. Mrs. Dorrier who lives at the bottom of the hill stated that she is concerned about run-off onto her property. She showed, to the Board, pictures of her property after recenting flooding. Mr. Fisher asked the capacity of the water lines on the slope and inquired about the fire properties of the sur~c'e and pellets. Mr. Thompkins stated that Monsanto had shown that Astroturf is completely non-flammable, but he had no definite answer concerning the pellets. Mr. Fisher stated that he felt the developer had done a great deal of work in trying to solve the problem of run-off. He also stated that the testimonials handed out by Mr. Thompkins were all from companies owning slopes and he personally would like to have information from planners in the areas where these slopes developed and asked that the staff investigate to see what kind of problems were they have encountered. He stated that this is a new and novel type of operation and could have a s~rious effect if this Board does not have all the information needed. Mr. Wood felt that all questions had been answered and that this could be an asset to the community as far as the recreational value is concerned. Mr. Wood offered motion to approve ZMP-2~9. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fishery Henley~ Thacker~ ¥~eeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. Mr. Fisher offered motion to defer~action on SP-222 until ~lrther information could be given ~by the Planning Staff. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Fisher wh¥~action on this petition should be deferred. He stated that this petition had been !b~fore the Planning Commission twice and he felt every possible avenue had been explored at this meeting. Mr. Fisher explained that all the information as to run-off and pellet loss and other hazards that might occur had come from the petitioner and the Planning Staff had no first hand information. He felt the Board should take advantage of other communities experiences on something as new and novel as this operation. Mr. Wood stated that he had spent about three hou~ on the mountain looking at the site and thought this would delay action unduly and unnecessarily~ He felt the developer had answered every question. Mr. Thacker stated that the Planning S~aff had advised that the slope was stripped before the permit had been applied for and he did not feel ~his is in good faith as far as the intent of the ordinance and he would prefer to know more before voting on the petition. Mr. Wheeler asked if it would be agreeable to instruct Mr. Humphrey to get,lin touch with the various offices concerned~ by telephone. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Fisher if he would include in his motion that action on this petition not be held up longer than Thursday~ December 21. Mr. Fisher stated that he would~ if the Planning Staff could get the information asked for by that time and he also asked th~Mr. J. H. Bailey give a report on the way water run-off is proposed to be handled. Vote was taken at this point. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher~ Henley~ Thacker~ %fneeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. Mr. Fisher commented that it had come to his attention that the site of this proposed ski slope had been bulldozed to a length of approximately ~00 feet down the mountain and a width of about 2~ feet~ which falls in a loophole in the soil erosion ordinance. He stated that this seems to go on prior to any approvals anywhere in the County and stated that in the future~ cases which come before this Board where he knows this has happened prior to any approvals~ this will automatically prejudice the case by his vote and he will probably vote against it. A gentlemen asked the object of the threat. Mr. Fisher replied that it was not a threat~ but a statement. He stated that if t2-13-72 the land is bulldozed prior to any approvals for re~oning~ a special permit~ or in the event that it falls under the soil erosion ordinance~ his statement would cover that these and he made the statement so/the County could be represented first. Mr. Lowe returned to state that he could not be present on the 21st and stated that the Planning Co~missionhad recommended a $2~000 escrow fund be set up to cover reforestation in the event of economic failure. He asked that the Board consider making this requirement a $2,000 performance bond, with security posted satisfactory to the County Etborney and not tie up $2~000 cash. (10) SP-227. R. 0. and Victoria H. Burton. Applicant has reques~Jthe Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to permit the location of a central septic system at Deerwood Subdivision. The drain fields for this system will.be located on property described as Map 32C~ Parcel B~ south of Deerwood Subdivision~ with the pump and related sludge storage facility being located on property described as Map 32C, Lot 8~ Block ~ Section 2. This septic system when completed will serve 10 residences. This property is located off of Route 649~ behind and adjacent to Lupine Lane. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that there was no written staff report on this petition. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request provided that creatian of an easement be eonsumated satisfactory to the Health Department and Planning Department for location of drain fields~ and a joint maintenance agreement between the two bodies to be reviewed by the County Planner and sent to the County Attorney. Mr. Pickford stated that an attorney had drawn the agreement as suggested by the Planning Commission and if the property owners were willing to join in, it would require that the County also join since it requires an easement to cross a road in which the County owns ownership. Mrs. Burton was present. No one from the public spoke. Mr. Homer Che~acci from the Albemarle-Charlottesville Health Department was present to give a verbal report on this petition. He stated that each of the houses has its own septic tank~ but there is only one drain field. He did not realize that a permit was required for this installation and had proceeded with same. He stated that the He&lth Department feels this will take care of these ten homes until there is a public system available. Mrs. Burton stated that the three existing houses having trouble with their drain fields do not belong to her. Mr. Thacker asked if under this agreement the house owners would maintain the septic tanks and Mrs. Burton and the house owners would maintain the drainfield. Mrs. Burtmn stated no, the users or owners of the houses occupied would maintain and operate the system. She stated that. Mr. Chevacci had a soil specialist from Richmond check to see why the three houses were having ~rouble. He looked at the land in Deerwood and designated these three and seven other lots that he felt would not be suitable for septic systems. All other lots seem to be satisfactory for septic systems. 12-13-'2'2 359 F' Mr. Wood offered motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile, After another discussion, Mr. Carwile offered a substitute motion, that action on this petition be carried over until such time as the County Attorney can give a report on the proposed agreement. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Lowe returned to ask a question concerning SP-222 for Ski Land. He stated that the site plan is on the Planning Commission agenda for Monday, December '~8, 197~ and asked that the Board give its approval for the Planning Commission to go ahead with review of the site plan. Mr. Pickford stated that no site plan is required in A-l, however if this iS to be part of the condi~i~na placed on the special permit, it can be reviewed by the Planning Commission on Monday. (11) The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors upon adoption of a resolution of intent proposes the following amendments to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to be considered at a public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, December 13, 1972, at 7:30 p.m. in the County Circuit Court, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia., and to be known as Article 9A. Flood Plainm~ General, District GP. Mr. Humphrey gave a review stating that there have been six or seven drafts of the proposed ordinance and this final draft is the general consensus of the Commission. He stated that there were numerous problems involved, the biggest was trying to make this ordinance comply with requirements of the Federal government which relates to the insurance program. He did not know if this was fully done by $irtue of one item which deals with non-conforming structures in a flood plain. The guidelines require ~0% being the cut-off as to when you can reconstruct or rebuild. The Planning Commission was split as to whether this should be ~0% or 7~% as now ~hows in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. He stated that this ordinance has been reviewed in great detail and is a good ordinance. He then referred to a map and stated that the staff had given some general examples of how the flood plain~ if adopted, would be applied to the tax map, and said that this ordinance would only provide for the mechanism within the zoning ordance for the flood plain. Later, this would have to come back to the Board and Planning Commission to establish the actual lines and Sh~n only on the basis of studies made by the Corp. of Engineers. Mr. Wood asked if the Board would be able to go out in the County and see the actual lines shown on the map. Mr. Humphrey replie~ that there is no way to relate these li~es at the p~esent time. Mrs. Susan SherWood, League of Women Voters~ stated that they feel this is basically a good ordi-nance and urged the adoption of same. Mr. Joe Fry asked the Board to give consideration of incorporation into the ordinance the Federal guide lines ~o~'qualify for insurance. He stated that it would be highty unfortunate if the ordinance passed and did not allow for flood insurance. 360 Mr. Carwile asked if there wereany reason why ~0% could not be in this section of the ordinance a~nd leave at 7~% throughou~ the rest of the ordinance. Mr. Pickford~replied no. Mrs. Frances Martin stated that it seemed to be a pecul~r circumstance that since Congress had adopted the flood insurance act in order to entice the ~hould adoption of such an ordinance that this change '~.~u'be made in order to qualify for flood insurance. Mr. Carwile asked if the Board deferred the a~option of this ordinance for the present time, if this would delay work on the drawing of the lines for the flood plain. Mr. Humphrey stated no. Mr. Thacker asked who established the lines and based on what studies. Mr. Humphrey replied that 'this would be based on the Corp. of Engineers studies or any other study accomplished by proper~ engineering ~ethods and the lines would be established by the Board of Supervisors after public hearings. Mr. Wheeler stated that it might be two or three years before the lines are~awnand he was not willing to wait to pass this flood plain ordinance. Mr. Batchelor asked if this ordinance passed tonight, if people could buy flood insurance tomorrow. Mr. Philpot of t'he Army Corp. of Engineers was present to state that it was his impression that if the ordinance passed it would qualify the County for flood insurance and could starting selling insurance immediately on an emergency basis. This would run out approximately January 1, 197~ and by that time the County would hopefully have identified enough of the floodway lines to make the County eligible for a more permanent insurance on a regular basis. He stated that the Corp. of Engineers has made studies on the Rivanna River~ Moore's Creek~ M~adow Creek, the North Fork of the Rivanna, the South Fork of the Rivanna, Mechum's River and studies are now under way on Mechumk Creek and the James River at Scottsville. He thought these studies would be completed~within 12 months and suggested that the Board pass this ordinance, become eligible for insurance and then make application for flood waste studies monies. He felt that all floodway lines ~ould be identified within two years~ but stated that first the Board must adopt an ordinance. Mr. Wood asked how he would ~now~ if he were a citizen, that he qualified for flood insurance. Mr. Philpot stated that the Corp. had sufficient information on certain areas of Albemarle County to establish some lines. Mr. Wood stated that he is for the flood plain ordinance~ and did not want anyone to think he is against it, however~ he felt the Board was going about adopting this ordinance in the wrong way. He felt the citizens who are effected by this ordinance should be notified to let them know how they are effected and that'they qualify for flood insurance. 12-13-72 36& Mr. Wheeler stated that the Board needed to establish the flood plain zone and then proceed with drawing of the lines for the floodway zone. Mr.Thacker stated that he agreed with Mr. Woody however~ this is the quickest way to become qualified for ~ood insurance. Mr. Carwile stated that he was not sure this would qualify the County for flood insurance without the map. He stated that the flood insurance is~based on a restriction that you can't build back in the flood zone and until the mapping is completed there would be no way to place a restriction on certain land. Mr. Henley asked how long it would take to complete the mapping. Mr. Humphrey replied that the Planning Office has started this~ however~ the larger problem would be notifying all persons effected by this mapping~ or this ordinance. Mr. Henley stated that he could see no reason to proceed with the mapping~ unless this ordinance were adopted. Mr. Fisher stated that the Board is already familiar with certain problems which they are going to have to protect the citizens against in the future and he felt the Board would have to ~ke some action on this matter~ however~ he was adverse to delaying action iffar~h¢? study was needed. Mr. Wheeler stated that he did not object to delaying until January~ but did not want to see this matter tabled indefinitely. Mr. Wood reiterated that he felt this were being adopted wrongly if the Board ~d not have the maps to go with the ordinance. Mrs. Martin stated that she appreciated Mr. Wood's concern~ however, she felt there may be some people who will be inadvertently hurt by delayimTgpassage of this ordinance. Mr. Philpot stated that his point was that monies will be made availab]e to help identify the floodway districts by FIA~ but only after adoption of a flood plain ordinance Which is needed to be eligible for insurance monies. Mr. Wood stated to Mrs. Martin that he was not trying to delay passage of the ordinance but would like to expedite its passage~ however~ he felt the ordinance should be meaningful to the citizens and he did not feel that this ordinance~ adopted without the maps that should accompany it~ gives any protection to the citizens. Mr. Carwile offered motion to adopt the ordinance with changes to ~0% on non- conforming uses. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley~ Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: Mr. Wood. (The full text of the ordinance~as adopted~ is set out below.) 362 t2-t3-72 ARTICI~ 9A: FLOOD.PLAIN, G~AL, DIStrICT GP STATE'~NT OF INTENT This district is established for the purpose of providing safety from flood prevention of property damage an~ loss and.all other related dangers; and of pro- moting the health and general, welfare.by regulating and restricting areas in the flood plain of all rivers, streams, and water bodies which are subject to overflowing their banks. The provisions of this article shall .apply in any district within the County ~f Albemarle, a portion, of which, is. located within., a flood, plain area, the boundaries of which are indicated on the official Zoning. Nap, which is an integral part of this regulation, and. are shawn .as. overlapping other zoning districts. The flood plain, as may be established, shall be divided into two areas (1) the flood fringe and (2) the floodway. New structures for human habitation in any floodway are prohibited. 9A-1 USES PERNIT~ IN FLOOD FRINGE 0nly .~hose uses specifically provided for in the .A-I~ BS-.I~ B-1 ~ B-2~ l~- B.-1, BT~,. ~_.~.. ~. ~-1 .and '~-2 zones as they may be established~ are p~mitted within the flood plain .district~ sub~.ect however~ to the requirements con- rained within this article. Uses .are permitted within the General Flood P,lain in the flood fringe provide, d, certain r..eQuirements are met. Any structure.~ permitted shall be firml, y anchored to prevent it from floating away and .thus damaging other structures and ~threatenin6 to restrict bridge openings and other restricted sectionsO~ the stream. 9A-1-1 Agricultural uses: limited to general farming, pasture, grazing, livestock rai, sing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticultnre, vi~culture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming, top soil removal, and wild crop harvesting. 9A-1-2 Becreation Uses (Public or Private) an~ A. ccessory StruQtures not .des~.~ned human habit~ti0n, such as parks, swimming areas, golf courses, driving ranges, picnic grounds, wildlife and nature preserves, game Earms, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves, target ranges, trap and skeet ranges, hunting, fishing, and hiking areas, athletic fields and horseshow grounds. Any struc, ture..per.- mitred shall be firmly anchor, ed to prevent .it. from floatinE away and thus damaging other structures and threateni..n..g tq restrict bridge openings and other restricted sections of the stream. 9A-1-] Navigational and drainage aids. 9A-1-4 Flood warning aids and devices. 9A-1-6 9A-1-8 9A-1 '9 '~ater monitoring devices. Fences. Bank Erosion Structures.. Sand, gravel and, ..topsoil remov, a.l.. Aircraft landing strip without structures. 12-t 3-72 9A-2 9A-2-t 9A-3 9A-3-~ 9A-3-2 9A-3-3 9A-3-4 9A-3-6 9A-3-7 9A-4 9A-~- 1 9A-4-2 9A-~-3 9A-5 9A-5-1 363 USES PERMITTED IN FLOOD F°~INGE ~ITH LANDFILL PERMIT APPROVAL Except as otherwise specifically provided_ by these and other regulations of this ordinance, any permitted.use listed below may be located within the General Flood Plain Zone as. shown~ on the. o~ficial zoning map in the area designated as being: the flood Cringe area; provided proper methods are used to raise the gro. und..level o accomplzsh the requirements of Article 9A-5, but subject to any limitations or restrictions of uses as designated thereto in this ordinance. Uses, structures, activities, streets, railroads, and dams as designated and regulated, and approved by the County in the A-l, R8-!, t{-1, R-2, R-3, B-1, R-TM, ~-1 and ~,2 zoning districts; provided that a land_fill permit has been approved and issued in accord with 9A-5 and that the provi~Bions of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and other related ordinances of the County of Albemarle have been satisfied. THE FOLLOWING USES ARE PERMITTED WITHIN ANY DESIGNATED FLOODWAY AREA WITHIN THE GENERAL FLOOD PLAIN DESIGNATION Agricultural uses: limited to general farming, pasture, grazing, livestock raising, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, vit~ulture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting, excluding any structures of any kind. Parks, swimming areas, golf courses, driving ranges, picnic grounds, wildlife and natUm~e preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves, target ranges, trap and skeet ranges, hunting, fishing, hiking areas, atheltic fields and horseshow grounds, but excluding any structures of any kind related thereto. Navigational and drainage aids. Flood warning aids and devices. Mater monitorLug devices. Fence s. Bank eros. ion. structures. THE FOLLOWING USES AILE PEB~TTTED WITHIN .THE F~.OOD~.Ay ~.~I~TH A SPECIAL U .S~.. PER~.T IN KEEPING ~.~ITH ART. IOLE 11-1 3 AND_SITE PLAN APPROV .A~.. Dams and lev. ies for water supply and flood control. Mater relat6~l uses such as docks, piers, wharves, bridges, ferries_, culverts, and river crossings of transmission lines of all types. Sand, gravel, and toy soil .r. em0val. LANDFILL PERMIT I{EGULATIONS 'Vnen the filling of land in the fringe area of a General Flood Plain is de- sired, a land~ill permit approval by the County Engineer is required. !._ No permit shall be issued or approved by the County Engineer until the site plan for such fill of land shall have been submitted to the County Engineer indi- cating that the following requ!rements have been met: The finished grade shall provide for a finished ground floor, basement or 9A-~-2 9A-5-3 9A-5-5 9A-5-6 ~9A-5-7 9A-6 cellar for a structure to be at least one foot higher than the:-_Outer elevation contour of the General Floc& Plain District and any fill shall be effectively protected against erosion by vegetation cover, riprap, slope or bulkheaded to prevent erosion. Any use permitted shall be in compliance and harmony 'with the appropriate zone which it overlaps.. Any permitte&~ structures or the filling of land shall mbe ~esigned, constructed, and placed on the lot or parcel so as to offer a minimum.obstruction to and effect upon the flow of water, No fill may under any circumstances be placed in the floodway. Any structure, equipment or material.permitted shall be firmly anchored to prevent it From floating away and thus damaging other structures and threaten- ing to restrict bridge openings and other restricted sections of the stre~ Any fill placed in the flood plain shall be of a material that will not pollute surface water or ground water. Where in the opinion of the County Engineer topographic data, engineering, and other studies are needed to determine the effects of flooding on a proposed structure or fill and/or effect of the structure or fill on the flow of water, the County Engineer may require the applicant to submit such data or other studies prepared by competent engineers and other technical people other than what may be available at the time of submittal. The granting of approval of any structure or use shall not constitute a repre- sentation, guarantee, or warranty of any kind or nature by the County of Albemarle or the County Engineer or by any officer or employee thereof, or~ the practicality of safety of any structure or use proposed and shall create no liability upon or cause action against such public body, officer, or employee for any damage that may result pursuant-thereto. INTERPRETATION OF FLOOD PLAIN~ FLOOD FRINGE~ AND .F~00DWAY For the purpose of establishing general flood plain zones, and for detailed ~ delineation of same, the reports of the U. S. Corp of Engineers establishing the Intermediate Regional (t00 years) level or data From other qualified engineers or the sdls analyses accomplished by the Soil Conservation District do not distinguish between floodway and flood fringe, the administrator shall request that technical evidence be submitted From the person or body desiring to develop within the flood plain or request the U. S. Corp of Engineers for information relative to the area to be developed with reference to flood fringe and floodway limits. The floodway shall be determined by engineering methods by qualified persons. For the purpose o£ this zone, the general Flood Plain Zone shall be within the outer limits of the Intermediate Regional Flood, establishedI on a contour by qualified engineering methods and placed upon the official Zoning Naps. 12-13-72 363 9A-7 9A-8 9A-9 The fringe area ~thin a flood plain is that area between the outer limits of the flood plain and the floodway. The floodway shall be the area needed to transmit and discharge the flood water or flood flows of any river or stream. Earth fill may be placed in the flood fringe area for construction purposes or structures may. be elevated by other construction methods, pro- vided appropriate permits are obtained as indicated in this ordinance. WARNING AND DISCLAI~ OF LIABILITY The degree of flood protection required by this. zone within this ordinance is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on engineering s~nd scientific methods of stucly~ Larger floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased lry man made or natural causes, such as bridge openings restricted by fill or debris. This zone and ordinance do not imply that areas outside the Flood Plain District or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damage. This zone and ordinance shall not create liability on the part of Albemarle County or any officer, agency or employee thereof for any flood damage that results from reliance on this ordinance or any aSministrative decision lawfully made thereunder. The designation of a flood plain zone and any amendmen~ttthereto shall be accomplished in the prescribed method under Article 14 of this ordinance. BfEST0ttATION .0R~BEP .LAC~ OF NON-CONFOBNING U~ES Irrespective of the provisions of Article 10-7-1 and 10-7-2 of this ordinance, for the purpose of this Article the following shall apply to the "Flood Plain, General, District GP". 9A-9-1 If a non-conforming activity or structure is destroyed or damaged in any manner, to the extent that the cost of restoration to its condition before the occurrence shall exceed fifty per cent (~0%) of the cost of reconstruction of the entire activity or structure, it shall be restored only if such use complies with the requirements of this ordinance and the General Flood Plain Di stri c t. 9A-9-2 Where a conforming structure devoted to a non-conforming activity of a non- conforming structure is damaged less than fifty per cent (~0%) of the cost of reconstructing the entire structure, either may be repaired or restored, provided any such repair or restoration is started within twelve (12) months and completed within thirty (30) months from the date of partial destruction. 9A-9-3 Irrespective of Article 10-7-4, for the purpose of this article, if a non- conforming structure be a single family dwelling as herein define&, it ,~shall not be restored or replaced regardless of the percentage of destruction but shall adhere to the provisions of Article 9A-9-1 and 9A-9-2. ....I~.FINITI.0NS TO ACC0~PANY THE ANEND~ENT TO INCLUDE A FLOOD PLAIN ZONE DESGRIBED AS: 366 '~2-t3-72 ARTIC~JE 9A F~00D PLAIN, GENERAL, DISTRICT GP. 1. ffJ~L: A natural or artificial watercourse Of perceptible exten~t, with a definite bed and banks to confine and conduct continuously or periodically flowing water. Channel flow thus is that water which is flowing with_in the limits of the defined channel. 2. EROSION: The wearing away of soil or land by the action of water or wind. 31 FLOOD: A temporary rise in stream flow or stage that results in water over- topping its banks and inundating areas adjacent to the channel. FLOOD ~RINGE: That portion of the flood plain outside the floodway. 5- FLOOD PLAIN. The land adjacent to a body of water which has been or may be hereafter covered by flood water including but not limited to the regulatory flood. 6. FLOOD~WAY: The channel of a stream and those portions of the flood plain adjoining the channel that are required to carry and discharge the flood water or flood flows of any river or stream including but not limited to flood flows ~v_ _.~- ri:~¢r cr ~+ .... ~'~ ~'~+ ~+. tim~+~ +~ *:^^~ ~: ..... associated with the regulatory flood ( 100 Year-Intermediate eg~onal.. Flood) 7. FLOOD PROFILE: A graph or a longitudinal profile showing the relationship of the water-surface elevation of a flood event to location along a stream or riverl 8. FLOOD-PROOFING: A combination of structural provisions, changes, or adjust- ments to properties and structures subject to flooding primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages to properties, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and contents of building in a flood-hazard area.. 9. 0BS~UCTION: Any dam, wall, wharf, embankmen~ levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, chsm~nel rectification, bridge, conduit, culvert, building, w~re, fence, rock, grave, refuse, fill, structure or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory flood-hazard area which may impede., retard, or ch~uge the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris ~carried by such water, or that is placed where the flow of water might carry the same down stream to the damage of li~ or property. On motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Nr. Carwile, the Clerk was directed to advertise public hearing on proposed License Tax Code of Albemarle County, Virginia, for 10:00 A.~. on February 1~, 197~. ~otion carried by the following recorded vote: 2YES: ~essrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. Chai'rman ' '