HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-09 FINAL
7:00 P.M.
SEPTEMBER 9. 1998
MEETING ROOM 241, SECOND FLOOR
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
9.
10.
I1.
12.
13.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance
Moment of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Consent Agenda ton next sheeO.
SP-98-18. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign #62). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to locate 5
soccer fields, an approx 2000 sq ft storage bldg &216 parking spaces on approx 72 ac.
Znd PA. [This activity requires an SP in accord with § 10.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ord.]
YM46. Ps22&22C. Located on S sd of Polo Grounds Rd irt 643~ approx 1.1 mls E of
Rt 29. This site is not located within a d?signated growth area., Rivanna Dist.
SP-98-22. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign #62L PUBLIC HEARING on a request to locate 5
soccer fields, an approx 2000 sq ft storage bldg & 216 parking spaces on approx 72
acs. Znd P,~ [This activity requires an SP in accord with § 30.3.5.2.2 (3~ of the
Zoning Ordinance due to activity in the floodplain of the Rivanna River.] TM46,
Ps22&22C. Same ~desctiption as SP-98-18 above.
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for sewer service to TM46. Ps22&22C for proposed soccer
field complex tHurt Investment and South Fork Land Trnstj.
Appeal: SDP-98-55. South Fork Soccer Field Prelim Site Plan. Proposal to locate 5 soccer
fields, an approx 2000 sq ft storage bldg & 216 parking spaces on approx 72 acs. Znd
RA ]?M46. Ps22&22C. Same description as SP-98-18 above.
SP-98-38. Irdm Rogers (Sign #50). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct professional
offices on 0.794 acs. Loc on E sd of Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743~ S of its inter w/Rio Road E
~Rt63D. ZndR-10. TM6I.P13A. RioDist. ~This site is located in a designated
growth area. ~
SP-98-33. International Cold Storage (Sign #13). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to bring
existing assembly of modtflar bldg units use into conformance w/zoning & to allow bldg
& storage area expansion. 8.4 acs loc 0.1 mis ~,V of Rt 29 on.Heards Mountain Rd.
Znd LI. TM109,P33. Scottsville Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth
area.~
ZMA-98-02. Airport Road Office Complex (Signs #84&85). ~: _' I : ~:
PdvarwLa DiaZ. (DEFER TO OCTOBER 14. 1998.)
PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 3, Agrictfltttral and
Forestal Districts. of The Code of The County of Albemarle. Virginia:
a) §3-210, Carter's Bridge Agriculttrral 'Forestal District. so continue the District
of approx 12,007.893 acs for 10 years. Loc near Carter's Bridge, Blenheim.
Woo&ridge & Keene. Znd PA. Scottsville Dist.
14.
15.
16.
§3-221, Lanark Agticultural,]Forestal District, to continue the District of
approx 5,633.522 acs for 10 years. Loc near Carter Mountain, Overton &
along Rt 627. Znd RA. Scottsville Dist.
c) §3-224. Panorama Agricultural~Forestal District, to continue the District of
approx 1,107.422 acs for 10 years. Loc to the W of Rt 29N along the Rivanna
River &Rt 661. Znd RA. lack }ouett &Rio Dists
d) §3-213. Free Union Agricultural Forestal District, to continue the District of
approx 2389.82 acs for 10 years. Loc near Free Union, Gibson Mountain &
along Rts 671.601 & 687. Znd PA. White Hall Dist~
Approval of Minutes: March 13(Al. 1995: September 4 and December 4, 1996;
February 19. 1997; and June 10. 1998.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adjourn.
CONSEN.T AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Set public hearing for October 7. 1998. to consider lease of Old Crozet School to Crossroads
Waldorf School.
5.2 Appropriation: Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant, $70,208 (Form #98022).
5.3 Appropriation: Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant, $60,657
IForm #98023l.
5.4 Appropriation: Crime Prevention Coordinator Grant 99-B9783, $40,043 (Form #98024).
FOR INFORMATION:
5.5 Copy of Planning Coramission minutes for August 11.1998.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of September 9, 1998
September 10, 1998
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
10.
11.
AGENDA ITEM
Call to Order.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda
from the PUBLIC.
Set public hearing for October 7, 1998, to
consider lease of Old Crozet School to
Crossroads Waldorf School. APPROVED.
Approp: Victim Witness Assistunce Program
Grant, $70,208 (Form #98022). APPROVED.
Approp: Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) Grant, $60,657 (Form
//98023). APPROVED.
Approp: Crime Prevention Coordinator Grant
99-B9783, $40,043 (Form #98024).
APPROVED.
SP-95-18. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign
#62). APPROVED with conditions.
SP-98-22. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign
#62). APPROVED with conditions.
Request to amend service area boundaries for
sewer service to TM46, Ps22&22C for
proposed soccer field complex. DENIED.
Appeal: SDP-98-55. South Fork Soccer Field
Prelim Site Plan. APPROVED with
conditions.
SP-98-38. Kim Rogers (Sign #50).
APPROVED with conditions.
SP-98-33. International Cold Storage (Sign
#13). APPROVED with conditions.
ASSIGNMENT
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by
Mr. Mart'm.
Clerk: Advertise for October 7, 1998, at 10:t5 p.m.
Clerk:
Clerk:
Forward signed form to Melvin Breeden and
appropriate persons.
__ Forward signed form to Melvin Breeden and
appropriate persons.
Clerk: Forward signed form to Melvin Breeden and
appropriate persons.
Clerk: Set out in action letter to Planning amd copy
appropriate persons.
Clerk: Set out in action letter to Planning and copy
appropriate persons.
Staff: Look into what improvements can be made to
the underpass on Route 643.
Clerk: Set ont in action letter to Planning and copy
appropriate persons.
Clerk:
Clerk:
Set out in action letter to Planning and copy
appropriate persons.
Set out in action letter to Planning and copy
appropriate persons.
(Page #2)
AGENDA ITEM
12.
ZMA-98-02. Airport Road Office Complex
(Signs #84&85). DEFERRED until October
until October 14, 1998.
13.
PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to
amend and reenact Chapter 3, Agricul-
tural and Forestal Districts, of The Code
of The County of A/bemarle, Virginia.
ADOPTED the attached ordinance.
15.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda
from the Board.
Ms. Thomas mentioned the memo from
Bruce Crow regarding the fire at the Ivy
Landfill. She asked how well Landfill
management had informed various
emergencyresponders about the process
to be followed because although water
was taken from the pond at the landfill,
some trucks went to a nearby
subdivision. She wants to mal<e sure
there is a good emergency response plan
and this is shared with the fire
departments. In addition; she was
impressed with the operators of the
heavy equipment, and asked that staff
voice its appredationto those operators.
ASSIGNMENT
Clerk: Include in action letter to Planning and
forwardto County Attorney for Code update.
/CWC
Attachments
Distribution list:
County Executive and staff
Board of Supervisors
Kevin Castner
Wayne Cilimberg
Larry Davis
Bill Mawyer
Amelia McCulley
Bruce Woodzell
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cler~
September 10, 1998
Board Actions of September 9, 1998
At its meeting on September 9, 1998, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions:
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-98-18. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign #62). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to locate 5 soccer fields, an approx 2000 sq ft storage bldg & 216 parking spaces on approx 72 ac.
Znd RA. [This activity requires an SP in accord with § 10.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ord.] TM46, Ps22&22C.
Located on S sd of Polo Grounds Rd (Rt 643) approx 1.1 mis E of Rt 29. (This site is not located within
a designated growth area.) Rivanna Dist.
APPROVED SP-98-18 subject to the foflowing fourteen conditions:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
9~
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
No exterior lighting shall be installed;
No loudspeakers or public address system shall be permitted;
No portion of any field shall be located closer than seventy-file (75) feet to any lot line;
Compliance with the provisions of Section 5.1.16;
Entrance to the site shall be gated to prevent use of the site after hours and during flood events;
The final site plan shall reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway lintits, and the
applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the
correspondence demonstrating approval by FEMA;
Water quality measures shall be provided to ackieve water quality at least equivalent to pre-
development conditions, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Manager;
Route 643, P3Io Grotmds Road shall be upgraded with a minimum of 1.5 inches of SM-2A from
Route 29 to the entrance of the soccer fields. This work shall be completed prior to the applicant
making use of both SP-98-18/SP-98-22 [Soccer Fields] and SP-90-35 [Church]. The applicant
may malce use of one of the special use permits without the need to upgrade Route 643, Polo
Grounds Roads;
The owner shall reserve a one htmdred (100) foot wide strip of land the length of the property
abutting the northern side of the Rivanna River for the Rivanna Greenway. The width of the
reserved area shall be measured from the edge of the Rivanna River at its normal flow level. When
the Cotmty decides to establish a public area or park, including canoe access, within the reserved
area, upon the request of the Cotmty, the owner shall dedicate the reserved area to the Cotmty and
such property necessary for ingress and egress to the reserved area;
Phase I archeological survey shall be completed, followed by appropriate mitigation measures, as
directed by Planning staff, prior to issuance of a grading permit;
The special pern~it shall be void upon notice by the Board of Supervisors that a road design plan
which conflicts with this use has been approved by VDOT encompassing this property;
The use of the building shall be limited to restrooms, equipment storage and concession counter;
The concession counter shall be open only dttring use of the soccer fields; and
A tot lot shall be provided.
Memo To: V. Wa)me Cilimberg
Date: September 10, 1998
Page 2
The Board directed staff to look into what improvements can be made to the tmderpass on Route
643.
The Board suggested SOCA work out an agreement to assist the Profit Road Association in
taking care of the road jointly.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-22. South Fork Soccer Field (Sign #62). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to locate 5 soccer fields, an approx 2000 sq ft storage bldg & 216 parking spaces on approx 72 acs.
Znd RA. [This activity requires an SP in accord with § 30.3.5.2.2(3) of the Zoning Ordinance due to
activityin the floodplain of the Rivanna River.] TM46, Ps22&22C. Same descriptionas SP-98-18 above.
APPROVED SP-98-22 subject to the same fourteen conditions listed for SP-98-18.
Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the service area botmdaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to TM46, Ps22&22C for proposed soccer field
complex (Hurt Investment and South Fork Land Trust).
DENIED.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: SDP-98-55. South Fork Soccer Field Prelim Site Plan. Proposal to
locate 5 soccer fields, an approx 2000 sq ft storage bldg & 216 parking spaces on approx 72 acs. Znd IL&.
TM46, Ps22&22C. Same description as SP-98-18 above.
APPROVED SDP-98-55 subject to the following four conditions:
Engineering Department approval to indude:
a. Approval of an Erosion Control Plan; and
b. ApprOVal of stormwater management BMP plans. This will include receipt of a completed
facilities maintenance agreement.
Health Deparanent approval;
Building Code and Zoning Services approval to include:
a. Provision of one van-accessible battier-free parking space with its adjacent access aisle and
accessible route to the building entrance, at the storage and restrooms building.
Planning DeparUnent approval to include:
a. Landscape plan; and
b. Notation to insure compliance with conditions of SP-98-18 and SP-98-22; and
c. A total lot dttring final site plan.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-98-38. Klm Rogers (Sign #50). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to
construct professional ofices on 0.794 acs. Loc on E sd of Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743) S of its inter w/Rio Road
E (Ri 631). Znd R-10. TM61,P13A~ Rio Dist. (This site is located in a designated growth area.)
APPROVED SP-98-38 subject to the following four conditions:
A buffer striP, a minimum fifteen (15) feet in width shall be maintained along both abutting
property, line~, with landscaping and screening to be approved with the site plan in accordance
with Section }2.7.9. The buffer strip abutting Garden Court shal/be undisturbed, with existing
trees within the buffer preserved and incorporated into the landscape plan. A six (6) foot high
opaque fence shall be placed between the parking lot and the Tovmwood units;
Menho To: V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: September 10, 1998
Page 3
All exterior lighting shall be full cutoff lummaires if the lamps emit 3,000 or more lumens;
The building shall be no more than two (2) stories in height; and
The building shall be in general accord with the residential structure depicted on the attached
"Exhibit A", submitted by Jim Morris at the Boa[d of Supervisors meeting on September 9, 1998.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-98-33. International Cold Storage (Sign # 13). PUBLIC HEARING on
a request to bring ~xisting assembly of modular bldg units use into conformance w/zoning &. to allow bldg
& storage area expansion. 8.4 acs loc 0.1 mis W of Rt 29 on Heards Mountain Rd. Znd LI. TMI09,P33.
Scottsville Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.)
APPROVED SP-98-33 subject to the following slx conditions:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Compliance with Section 32.7.9, Screening, of the Zoning Ordinance, to indude extension of
proposed screening fence across new storage area adjacent to Route. 633;
Engineering Department approval of engineers report as required by Section 4.14, Performance
Standards, of the Zoning Ordinance;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance upgrade to minimum commercial
entrance standards;
Btulding expansion and outdoor storage area expansion limited to those areas depicted on site plan
prepared by Roudabush, Gale &.Associates, revised July 8; t998;
Only shipping/storage activities to be conducted outdoors; and
All outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-98-02. Airport Road Office Complex (Signs #84&.85).
DEFERRED ZMA-98-02 until October 14, 1998.
Agenda Item No. 13. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to an~end and reenact Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of The Code of The County of Albemarle, Virginia:
Item No. 13a. §3-210, Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District, to continue the District of
approx 12,007.893 acs for 10 years. Loc near Carter's Bridge, Blenheim, Woodridge & Keene. Znd RA.
Scottsville Dist.
Item No. 13b. §3-221, Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District, to continue fire District of approx
5,633.522 acs for 10 years. Loc near Carter Mountain, Overton & along Rt 627. Znd RA. Scottsville Dist.
Item No. 13c. §3-224, PanoramaAgriculturaYForestal District, to continue the District of approx
1,107.422 acs for 10 years. Loc to the W of Rt 29N along the Rivarma River &. Rt 661. Znd RA. Jack
Jouett St Rio Dists.
Item No. 13d. §3-213, Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District, to continue the District of
aPprox 2,389.82 acs for 10 years. Loc near Free Union, Gibson Mountain &. along Rts 671,601 St 687.
Znd RA. White Hall Dist.
ADOPTED the attached ordinance.
MenSo To: V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: September 10, 1998
Page 4
The Board discussed the need to do something to encourage more people to put their land in
agricultural/forestal districts.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
/ewc
Attachments
cc: Larry Davis
Amelia McCultey
Bill Mawyer
Brace Woodzell
Sharon Taylor
Dan Mahon
File
ORDINANCE NO. 983(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND KEORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3, Agricultural
and Forestal Dislricts, Article II, DisU'icts of Statewide Significance, is hereby amended and reordained by
amending section 3-210, Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal Dlsuict; section 3-213, Free Union Agricultural
and Forastal District; section 3-221, Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District and section 3-224, Panorama
Agricultural and Forestal District. as follows:
Sec. 3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District.
The' district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 101, parcels 55A, 60; tax map 102, parcels 17A, 17B, 17B1, 17D, 18, 19, 19A, 19C,
20B; tax map 112, parcels 3, 15. 16, 16C, 16D, t6E, t6F, 17. 18H, 20 ~part), 21, 33A, and 37D; tax map 113,
parcels I, lA, 6A, 11, I lA; tax map 114, parcels 25A, 30, 51, 55, 56, 69, 70; mx map 115, parcel t0; tax map 122,
parcels 4, 4A, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 12N, 33, 33A, 36; tax map 124. parcel 1 I. This district, created on April 20, I988
for not more than ten years and last reviewed on September 9. t 998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(j); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98)
Sec. 3-213 Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 7, parcels 6, 7, gA, 9, 9A, 9B, 9B 1, 9C; tax map 16, parcels 4B, 4C, 13A, 13D, 15A,
15A3, 15C, 1SE, 15G, 16B, 17, 26, 30B, 36, 37, 38, 39, 52B1, 52B2, 54; tax map 17, parcels 8, 8B, 8C, t7C, 18H,
20A2, 22; tax map 29, parcel IH (part). This district, created on September 21, 1988 for not more than 10 years and
last reviewed on September 9, I998. shall be next reviewed prior to September 21, 2008.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(m); Ord. 98-A(i), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98)
Sec. 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 90B, parcel A-11; tax map 91, parcels 21, 2 IA, 2 tB, 31; tax map 92, parcels 64, 64A; tax map
102. parcels 33, 35B, 37, 40, 40A, 40B; tax map 103, parcels 1, IA, IB, lC, ID, IE, 1F, 1G, IH, 1J, IK, IL, 1M,
2A, 3, 5, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 43. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more than 10 years and last
reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-40c); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98)
Sec. 3.224 Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 44, parcels 9A, 9C, 12, 12Q, 12X, 12Y, 12Z; tax map 45A, section 1, parcel 27. This district,
created on April 20, I988 for not mom than 10 years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall next be
reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
(6-I4-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(1); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 5 to 0, as recorded below, at a
regular meeting held on SepTember 9, 1998. ~
Aye
Mr. Bowerman X
Ms. Humphris X
Mr. Martin ' X
Mr. Perkins X
Ms. Thomas X
Nay
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mdvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cler~j,~/
September 10, 1998
Board Actions of September 9, 1998
At its meeting on September 9. 1998. the Board of Supervisors took the following actions:
Item No. 5.1. S~t public hearing for October 7, 1998, to consider lease of Old Crozet School
to Crossroads Waldorf School.
Public heating set for October 7. 1998, 10:15 a.m.
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant. $70.208 tForm
#98022 ).
APPROVED. Attached is the signed form.
Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS ~ Grant. $60,657
tForm #98023).
APPROVED. Attached is the signed form.
Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Crime Prevention Coordinator Grant 99-B9783. $40,043 Fom~
#98024).
APPROVED. Attached is the signed form.
/ewe
Attactunems
pc: Richard E. Huff. II
Roxam4e W. White
Robert'Walters
John Miller
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 98~99 NUMBER 98023
TYPE Of APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICE SERVICES GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1523 31010 310000 PROFESSIONLA SERVICES $2,000.00
1523 31010 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 38,157.00
1523 31010 800710 ADP SOFTWARE 20,500.00
TOTAL $60.657.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1523 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT REVENUE $60 657.00
TOTAL $60.657.00
TRANSFERS
REQUEST~N~ COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL ,/'EAR: 98/99 NUMBER 98022
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
VICTIM WITNESS GRANT FOR FY 98/99.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1225 31012 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR
1225 31012 210000 FICA
1225 31012 22100OVRS
1225 31012 231000 HEALTH INS
1225 31012 232000 DENTAL INS
1225 3'i012 550000 TRAVEL
1225 31012 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES
$~47 552.00
3.638.00
5,521.00
2.000.00
75.00
4.977.00
6.445.00
TOTAL $70,208.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1225 24000 240500 STATE GRANT REVENUE $7(;.208.00
TOTAL $70.208.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTIN(~ COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 [',lUMBER 98024
TYPE Of APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVERTiSEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
CRIME PREYEN'rION GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1525 31011 110000 WAGES $28,123.00
1525 31011 210000 FICA 2.151.00
1525 31011 221000 VRS 3.266.00
1525 31011 231000 HEALTH tNS 2.000.00
1525 31011 232000 DENTALINS 75.00
1525 31011 550600 TRAVEL 1.388.00
1525 31011 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,040.00
TOTAL $40,043.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1525 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT REVENUE $30.032.00
2 1525 51000 512004 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER 10,011.00
TOTAL $40,043.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTIN~ COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
URE
DATE
Fo !
71,';
) U~IL
m. 3
5/86
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Crossroads-Waldorf School Lease
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to set public hearing to consider a lease of Old
Crozet School to Cressroads-Waldorf School
STAFF CONTACT,S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff
AGENDA DATE:
September 9, 1998
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
/
BACKGROUND: /
For the past six years, the County has leased the Old Crozet School to Crossroads-Waldorf School, most recently
at an annual rent of $28,254. Crossroads-Waldorf is interested in executing a new lease to begin July 15, 1999
upon the expiration of our current agreement. A new lease being proposed is for a period of four years with the
tenant having the option to renew the lease for two additional terms of one year each. The proposal stipulates that
the tenant must exercise the option to renew the lease for the two additional terms by notifying the County on or
before July I 2001. The County retains the right to terminate the lease by providing twelve months' written notice.
DISCUSSION:
The proposal stipulates that the annual rent paid by the tenant each year shall increased by the CPI index plus an
additional $3,000 for each year of the agreement. The tenant is responsible for maintenance and repairs to the
properly that cost less than $2,000 up to a maximum of $5,000 annually with the County being responsible for any
repair costing more than $2,000. Additionally, the County agrees to undertake several projects which are scheduled
in the County's ClP plan to include repairing or replacing the roof as necessary, repoint failing brick, paint the
exterior of the building as necessary and replace windows as needed. The tenant further agrees to maintain an
aggressive maintenance program acceptable to the County to assure that the premises are maintained in a good
and safe order.
State Statute requires that a public hearing be conducted prior to entering into a lease agreement of this nature.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board's Property Committee has reviewed the elements of this lease and recommend it to the Board for its
consideration Staff recommends that a public hearing be conducted on Wednesday, October 7, 1998 to consider
executing the lease.
98.185
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Victim W'~tness Assistance Program Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 98022 in the amount of
$70,208.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Miller, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
September 9, 1998
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes
/
BACKGROUND:
This is the first renewal of the Victim Witness Grant. This grant funds personnel to provide quality service to victims
particularly in the area of property crime, it also assists with implementation of the Crime Vic§m Rig hts Act.
DISCUSSION:
The state grant totals $70,208.00. There is no local match.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 98022 in the amount of $70,208.00.
98.186
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Community Odented Policing Services
(COPS) Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Apprepriation 98023 in the amount of
$60,657.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Miller, Breeden, Walters;
Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
September 9, 1998
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
?
BACKGROUND:
The COPS MORE 96 grant was approved for the period June 1, 1997 through May 31, 1999. This appropriation requests
expenditure approval for the balance of the grant period through May 31, 1999. The grant was originally approved to provide
a digital mug shot'imaging system and five computer workstations for officers. The mug shot imaging system will allow
photographs to be captured and stored electronically. The officer worksta§ons will Upgrade older equipment so officers will have
full access to the records management system.
DISCUSSION:
The remaining federal grant is $60,657.00. The local match was transferred in 1997/98. There is no local match remaining
to be transferred
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 98023 in the amount of $60,657.00.
3?-C3-98s04:1 RCV3
98.187
COUN-F Of ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Crime Prevention Coordinator Grant 99-B9783
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 98024 in the amount of
$40,043.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs.Tucker, Breeden,Walters,Miller,Ms.White
AGENDA DATE:
September 9, 1998
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACH M ENTS: Yes
/
BACKGROUND:
The Police Department has received a renewed grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services to fund a
full time Crime Prevention Coorcrln~or. This is the second year of the grant. A civilian employee will till this position. The
employee will coordinate and manage crime prevention initiatives within the department, as well as coordinate activities with
the community and neighborhood team.
DISCUSSION:
A $30,032.00 Department of Criminal Justice Sen/ice's grant and $10,011.00 local match will fund the Crime Prevention
Coordinator position. The local match is funded from current operations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 98024 in the amount of $40,043.00.
98.188
CHARLES WILLIAM HURT
CFIARL~LLE, VIRGINIA ~2906
August 18th, [998
William D. Fritz
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Planning and Communi .ty Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22902-4596
Re: South Fork Soccer Fields: SDP-98-055
Dear Bill:
This letter is to request that the Board of Supervisors review and approve the sire
plan for the South Fork Soccer Fields application. We feel that the plan meets the county's
requirements and t would appreciate it if the board reconsiders the Planning Commission's
action.
We feel that this is a wonderful opportunity to create recreational grounds and
improve fields conditions that will serve thousands of children in the future. If you have any
questions or comments please feet free to call me at 981-5777
Respectfully,
Katurah Roell
SP 98-18 and SP 98-22 SOUTH FORK SOCCER FIELD
The following are revisions to the Planning Commission's recommended conditions
intended to further clarify intent. Please also note a condition #11 is offered should the
Board want to preserve the potential alignment of the Meadow Creek Parkway:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10.
11.
No exterior lighting shall be installed.
No loudspeakers or public address system shall be permitted.
No portion of any field shall be located closer than 75 feet to any lot line.
Compliance with the provisions of Section 5.1.16.
Entrance to the site shall be gated to prevent use of the site after hours and during flood events.
The final site plan ~h .... shall reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the applicant
must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the correspondence
demonstrating approval by FEMA.
Water quality measures shall be provided to achieve water quality at least equivalent to pre-developmant
conditions, subject to the approval of the Water ResoUrces Manager.
Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd. shall be upgraded with a minimum of 1.5 inches of SM-2A fzom Route 29 to
the entrance of the soccer fields. This work shall be completed prior to the applicant making use of both SP
98-19/SP 98-22 [Soccer Fields] and SP 90-35 [Church]. The applicant may make use of one ofthe special
use permits without the need to upgrade Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd.
The owner shall reserve a one hundred (100) foot wide strip of land the length of the property abutting
the northern side of the Rivanna River for the Rh'anna Greenway. The width of the reserved area shall
be measured from the edge of the Rivanna River at its normal flow leveL When the County decides to
establish a public area or park, including canoe access, within the reserved area, upon the request of the
County the owner shall dedicate the reserved area to the County and such property necessary for ingress
and egress to the reserved area.
Phase 1 archeotogical survey shall be completed, followed by appropriate mitigation measures, as directed
by Planning staff, prior to issuance ora grading permit.
The speclal permit shall be void upon notice by the County that a road design plan which conflicts with
this use has been approved by VDOT encompassing this property.
Ella Carey
From: Homme; Charlie [Charlie. Hommel@lexis-nexis.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 3:07 PM
To: 'chairman@albemarle.o rg'
Subject: Need for Soccer Fields
Dear Boardmembers,
Re: SOCA's Request for Soccer Fields au Polo Grounds
First. thank you for the time, effort, and skill that you give to our community.
Second. this is to request that you support and approve SOCA's (Soccer Organization of
Charlottesville and Albemarle) plan for additional soccer fields at the Polo Grounds Road location.
I was recently very surprised and extremely disappointed to hear on the local news that County
planning officials had not endorsed SOCA's proposal for constructing soccer fields at the Polo
Grounds location.
The youth of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle are in extreme need for this additional
playing space. In the Fall and Spnng, over 3.000 boys and girls participate in this growing sport.
Please take time to consider the total benefits and cost effective return that a large segment of
the community will directly receive from these additional fields.
It is a sound plan and I ask that you please give it careful consideration.
Thank you.
Charlie Hommel
3209 S. Chesterfield Ct.
Charlottesville VA 22911
973-7230 (H)
972-7613 Io)
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
SP-98-18 - SOUTH FORK SOCCER FIELD OR
SP-98-22 - SOUTH FORK SOCCER FIELD OR
REQUEST TO AMEND THE SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES
FOR THE PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD COMPLEX
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
The followhag guidelines will be used for this public hearing:
EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 IvlINUTES.
iNDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER
SPEAKER.
INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK.
PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK WHO WILL
CIRCULATE COPIES TO BOARD MEMBERS
NAME (Please print clearly)
:12
13
PHONE NUMBER (Optional)
114
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
SP-98-18 - SOUTH FORK SOCCER FIELD OR
SP-98-22 - SOUTH FORK SOCCER FIELD OR
REQUEST TO AMEND THE SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES
FOR THE PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD COMPLEX
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
The following guidelines will be used for this public hearing:
EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MINUTES.
INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER
SPEAKER.
INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK.
PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK WHO WILL
CIRCULATE COPIES TO BOARD MEMBERS
/1'6 ?~/,~
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
August 14, 1998
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept, of Plannip~ & Community Development
40t Mclntire Road
Charlottesville Virginia 22902-4696
(80~1 296-5823
William Mueller
SOCA 370 Greenbrier Dr
Charlottesville, VA 22901
SP-98-18 South Fork Soccer Field
SP-98-22 South Fork Soccer Field
SDP-98-055 South Fork Soccer Field
Dear Mr. Mueller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 11, 1998, made the
following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
SP-98-18 South Fork Soccer Field- Recommended approval, by a vote of 3:2, subject to
the folloWing conditions:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
No exterior lighting shall be installed
No loudspeakers or public address system shall be permitted.
No portion of any field shall be located closer than 75 feet to any lot line.
Compliance with the provisions of Section 5.1.16.
Entrance to the site shall be gated to prevent use of the site after hours and during flood events.
Thc final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the applicant
must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the correspondence
demonstrating approval by FEIMA.
Water quality measures shall be provided to achieve water quality at least equivalent to pre-
development conditions, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Manager.
Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd. shall be upgraded with a m/nimum of 1.5 inches of SM-2A from Route
29 to the entrance of the soccer fields. This work shall be completed prior to the applicant making
use of both SP 98-19/SP 98-22 [Soccer Fields] andSP 90-35 [Church]. The appFmant may make
usc of one of thc special use permits without the need to upgrade Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd.
100 feet for the Rivanna Greenway shall be reserved for dedication upon request of the County, and
shall include provision for canoe access.
Page 2
August 14, 1998
10.
Phase 1 areheological survey, follo~ved by appropriate mitigation measures, as directed by Planning
stafl~ prior to issuance of a grading permit.
SP-98-22 South Fork Soccer Field - Recommended denial to the Board of Supervisors.
SDP-98-055 South Fork Soccer Field Preliminary Site Plan - The Planning
Commission denied, by a vote 0£3:2, the preliminary site plan.
Critical Slopes Waiver Request - - The Planning Commission, by a vote of 3:2, approved
the request to allow activity on critical slopes.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review SP-98-18 and SP-
98-22 at their meeting on September 9, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your
application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to
your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc: Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Amelia McCulley
2
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
William D. Fritz, AICP
August 4, 1998
August 12, 1998
South Fork Soccer Field Special Use Permit and Preliminary Site Plan
SP 98-18, SP 98-22 and SDP 98-055
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to construct 5 soccer fields and a 2,000 square foot building and 216 parking
spaces. The soccer fields and portions of the parking areas are located within the floodplain of the
Rivanna River. These improvements would be in addition to a previously approved 800 seat church.
Although this church has not been constructed the Zoning Administrator has determined that the special
use permit is still valid.
Petition:
SP 98-18 South Fork Soccer Field- Proposal to locate 5 Soccer Fields, an approximately 2,000 square
foot storage building and 216 parking spaces on approximately 72 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. [This
activity requires a special use permit for athletic fields in accord with Section 10.2.2.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance.] The property, described as Tax Map, 46, Parcels 22 and 22C, is located on the south side of
Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd. approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This site is not located within a designated development area.
SP 98-22 South Fork Soccer Field - Proposal to locate 5 Soccer Fields, an approximately 2,000 square
foot storage building and 216 parking spaces on approximately 72 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. [This
activity requires a special use permit for activity in the Floodway Fringe of the Rivanna River in accord
with Section 30.3.5.2.2(3) of the Zoning Ordinance.]
SDP 98-055 South Fork Soccer Field Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 5 Soccer Fields. an
approximately 2,000 square foot storage building and 216 parking spaces on approximately 72 acres
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Two special use permits, SP 98-t8 and 98-22, have been submitted to permit
the activity in a Rural Area.
Character of the Area:
The area between Polo Grounds Rd. is predominately floodplain which is in a mixture of pasture and
woodland. Approximately 9 dwellings are located along Polo Grounds road including one dwelling
located across the road from the proposed soccer fields.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 and other provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends denial.
Planning and Zoning History:
This proposal includes land which was previously reviewed for two churches. SP 90-35 for Covenant
Church was approved on June 6, 1990. That special use permit was for an 800 seat church: The Zoning
Administrator has determined that SP 90-35 has not expired. Another special use permit, SP 90-107 for
Unity Church, was denied on January 29, 1991. That request was for a 300 seat church.
Comprehensive Plan:
This area ts located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
recommendations for the Hollymead Development Area states "The area between the southern boundary
of the Development Area and the South Fork of the Rivanna River is to remain in an open state as a
buffer between the Urban. Area and the Community of Hollymead. This boundary is critical as it
preserves the distinct identity of the Community from the Urban Area and prevents continuous
development from the City of Charlottesville to the North Fork of the Rivanna River." The
Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. shows this area as floodplain and an important stream valley.
Critical slopes are also shown in the Open Space Plan on this site. [The applicant has submitted a waiver
request for activity on critical slopes.]
The Community Facilities Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan has identified the need to
"provide recreational opportunities in those geographic areas not effectively served, especially in or near
Growth Areas". This site is located between two designated Development Areas with high recreational
demands. The Parks and Recreations Director has commented that the need for additional play fields has
been established and that this proposal would help reduce overuse of existing County facilities.
The proposed Meadowcreek Parkway corridor lies within this general area. Based on the level of
information currently available the alignment does not affect this proposed development. However, the
final alignment of the road has not been determined to date. Unlike the church previously approved on
this site which was to be located along the high (ridge) area above the floodplain, most all of the
proposed development will be located in or near the floodplain. It is less likely that the ultimate road
alignment will be placed in this location, tfthe property is needed for road development and if federal
funds are to be used for road construction, recreational areas would need to be avoided. It should be
noted that ultimate development of the soccer fields and church may significantly limit the options for
the road alignment in this area. The proposed Rivarma Greenway is also located on this property. Staff
has requested that the applicant make provision for the Greeaway. At this time it is not known if the
applicant is willing to grant area for the Greenway. The layout of the proposed soccer field does not
impact the location of the Greenway and staff will insure that sufficient area is reserved for the
Greenway during the review of the final site plan. However, staff believes that if the intent of this
proposal is to address community recreational facility needs, the Greenway recommendation for this area
should also be incorporated into the planning of this community facility. Therefore, staff will
recommend that the applicant reserve for dedication, (upon demand of the County), 100 feet for the
Rivanna Greenway. The provision of the Greenway is important to address the intent of the plan to keep
this an open space buffer area.
STAFF COMMENT:
This report will address the following issues:
1. Special Use Permit for an athletic facility
2. Special Use Permit for activity in the floodplain
3. Preliminary Site Plan including activity on critical slopes
Special Use Permit for an athletic facility
Section 10.2,2(4) of the Zoning Ordinance allows for the establishment of "Swim, golf, tennis or
similar athletic facilities" by special use permit. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a £mding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adiacent property,
In order to reduce impacts caused by this development staff has included conditions which prohibit
outdoor lighting and the use of loudspeakers.
Property to the east of this site is currently used as a nursery. The location of soccer fields adjacent to
the nursery will have no detrimental impact. Property to the west is owned by the applicant and has a
single dwelling. The dwelling is located at a higher elevation than the proposed soccer fields. Staff
opinion is that the elevation difference sufficiently separates the two portions of the property and the
soccer fields create no detrimental impact. The property to the south is not impacted by this
development due to the physical separation created by the Rivanna River and its floodplain. ]?he
property to the north is a mixture of woods and houses. The increase in traffic will be the primary
impact on the residences. Staff has attempted to calculate the traffic volumes which would be generated
by this proposed use.
In calculating the vehicle trip generation for this site staff consulted the ITE manual. This manual
provides trip generation numbers for a wide variety of land uses. The land use which most closely
resembles the proposed soccer fields is county park. Trip generation is based on vehicle trips per acre.
At this time it is unknown how many acres will be included in the soccer fields. [The soccer fields are
proposed for a portion of two parcels.] Therefore, in order to calculate trip generation staff assumed the
entire acreage of the two parcels will be used. This results in a higher trip generation number than is
likely, but allows staff to have a basis for review. The most recem (1992) traffic counts on Polo Grounds
Road were 915 vehicle trips per day. Based on this methodology staff calculated the following trip
generation rates for the soccer fields:
Weekday - 187 vehicle trips per day (The applicant estimates 94 vehicle trips per day)
Saturday - 995 vehicle trips per day (The applicant estimates 464 vehicle trips per day for weekend use)
Sunday - 339 vehicle trips per day
As previously stated a church has also been approved for this parcel. Based on the ITE manual the
proposed church could generate the following trip generation rates:
Weekday- 285 vehicle trips per day
Saturday - 304 vehicle trips per day
Sunday - 1,146 vehicle trips per day
Should this special use permit be approved, both the soccer fields and the church could be developed on
this property. The combination of the two uses could create a significant increase in weekend traffic
volumes on Polo Grounds Road. The daily traffic count, during soccer season, would also be increased
by 472 vehicle trips day.
Based on an evaluation of the trip generation rates of the two uses staff opimon is that the two uses
generate similar traffic volumes. Both of the uses generate traffic in peaks, around games/practices and
services/events. Staff opinion is that the combination of the soccer field traffic and the church traffic
would change the character of the area and would create a substantial detriment to properties on Polo
Grounds Rd.
The Virginia Department of Transp6rtation has provided comments addressing this application. [These
comments assume the soccer field use only.] [Attachment E] Improvements at the entrance, sight
distance and atum lane, will be required by VDOT. Improvements to Route 643 have been
recommended by VDOT. These improvements include upgrading the surface of Route 643 from Route
29 to the entrance to the site. Staff recommends a condition reqniring these proposed improvements due
to the volume of traffic which would be generated should both the church and soccer field use be
permitted on this property.
Staff can f'md no significant changes in the character of the area since the approval of the special use
permit for the church. Staff assumes that the Board's prior action to approve the church was appropriate
and that the impacts caused by the church were determined to be acceptable. Therefore, should the
church use be replaced with the soccer fields staff is of the opinion that the soccer fields' traffic impact is
acceptable as it is similar in nature to the prior approved church's traffic.
If the proposed use were for the soccer fields only, staffwould not recommend a condition requiring
Route 643 to be upgraded. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed soccer fields Serve a public service.
As such, improvements to Route 643 would be an appropriate action of the County. Staffnotes that
during the review of SP 90-35 for the church VDOT did not request or recommend any improvements m
the surface of Route 643.
Based on the above comments staffopinion is that the combination of soccer fields and church use will
be a substantial detriment to adjacent property. However, if the site were limited to the soccer fields
staff opinion is that this request would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
This proposal involves the construction of a small, 2,000 square foot, support building and a large
parking area. The soccer fields will remain open and will require only minimal grading and striping.
Therefore, the major impacts of this proposal will be generated by the building and the parking areas. As
stated previously this area is intended to be preserved as a buffer between the Urban Areas around the
city and the Hollymead development area. None of this area is visible from Route 29. The soccer fields
will help to maintain the appearance of this area as an open buffer. The parking areas and building will
be somewhat visible fxom Polo Grounds Rd. These features may change the character of the area, as
they are not features typical of a Rural Area.
The proposed improvements will have limited visibility from Polo Grounds Rd. and, therefore, staff is of
the opinion that the impact of the parking area and building is acceptable and will not change the
character of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with
particular focus on Section 1,4.4 which states "To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire
protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools,
parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements." The Director
of the County's Parks and Recreation Department has provided comments on this request.
[Attachment C] Available field space within the County is limited and any efforts which increase the
mount of available field space increases the public's access to existing County facilities. As this
proposal will increase recreational opportunities within the County, staff opinion is that this request is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district.
This proposal will not affect permitted uses on any adjacent property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.16 of the ordinance contains additional regulations for this type of use. Staffhas included
conditions which will make this use consistent with the provisions of Section 5.1.16.
and with the public health~ safety and general welfare.
Staff has not identified any component of this proposal which is inconsistent with the public health,
safety and general welfare, other than potential traffic generation should both this use and the church use
be developed. [Staffnotes that the applicant has filed for a jurisdictional boundary request which would
permit this site to cormecr m public sewer which crosses the property.] The applicant has proposed the
use of subsurface drainfields in the event that the jurisdictional boundary request is not approved. The
dralnfields would be located above the floodway.
Summary of Special Use Permit for an athletic facility
Staff opinion is that this request provides additional field space which is needed and is consistent with
the ordinance and goals of the County. Development of the soccer fields will have limited visual impact
on adjacent property or Polo Grounds road and is generally consistent with the provisions of Section
31.2,4.1 of the ordinance. The use of this site for play fields will remove rural land from potential
agricultural production. Of particular concern, the traffic generation of the soccer fields when combined
with the previously approved church creates a substantial increase to traffic on Polo Grounds Road and a
detriment to properties in the area. Also, the combination of the church and soccer fields would limit
options for the routing of Meadow Creek Parkway. Therefore, staffis unable m recommend approval of
the Special Use Permit for an athletic facility unless there is concurrent annulment of the special use
permit for the church.
Special Use Permit for activity in the floodplain
The installation of the soccer fields will require grading within the floodplain of the Rivanna River. The
activity proposed is intended to crown the fields for drainage, install drainage systems and provide for
smooth play surfaces. It has been determined that a special use permit will be required for this activity.
Section 30,3.6 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses the activity proposed. The EngineeringDeparrmem
has reviewed the request for activity in the floodplain and stated "The Special Use Permit for fill in the
floodplain is supported by the Engineering Department. The fill and grading in the floodplain will not
cause a significant change in the floodplain or the floodway in this area. The following condition is
recommended for approval of the special use permit.
Ilae final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the applicant
musl provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the correspondence
demonstrating approval by FEMA."
Staff has previously referenced the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area which includes a
statement that the area "is to remain in an open state as a buffer between the Urban Area and the
Community of Hollymead". Staff opinion is that allowance of activity in the floodplain does not violate
the intent of the buffer recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning staff is able to support the request for activity within the floodplain should the athletic facility
special use permit be approved and has included conditions which are intended to address water quality
and protect against after-hour use of the parking area. IThis recommendation assumes Board approval
of SP 98-18.]
Preliminary Site Plan including activity on critical slopes
The site plan for this facility has been reviewed by the site review committee. The site plan has been
determined to be approvable with standard conditions of approval and the approval by the Planning
Commission of a modification of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow activity on critical slopes.
The topography of the site consists ora large area of floodplain near the river and a plateau adjacent to
Route 643. An area of critical slopes rises from the floodplain to the plateau. The proposed building is
located at the base of this area of critical slopes outside of the floodplain. In order to accommodate the
building an area of the critical slopes is proposed to be ~aded.
The applicant has submitted a request and justification for activity on critical slopes. [Attachment FI
The Engineering Department has reviewed this information and recommends approval. [Attachment DI
These slopes are not clearly visible from Polo Grounds Road and therefore, disturbance of these slopes
will have limited aesthetic impact. If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed soccer fields are
not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations that this area serve as a buffer between
the Urban Area and the Community of Hollymead staff is able to support the request for activity on
critical slopes.
SUMMARY:
Staff has noted previously that it can only support SP 98-18 with concurrent annulment of the prior
church special use permit. Provided such a condition is imposed staff can support the two special use
permits for the soccer fields.
The combination of church and soccer field traffic in the opinion of staff changes the character of the
district and creates a substantial detriment and for that reason staff is unable to recommend approval of
SP 98-18 as requested.
RECOIVIMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of SP 98-18 only with annulment of the prior special use permit for the
church. Should the Board approve SP 98-18 as requested by the applicant, staffrecommends approval of
SP 98-22 subject to the following conditions which cover both SP 98-18 and SP 98-22.
Recommended Conditions of Approval for SP 98-18 and SP 98-22:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
No exterior lighting shall be installed.
No loudspeakers or public address system shall be permitted.
No portion of any field shall be located closer than 75 feet to any lot line.
Compliance with the provisions of Section 5.1.16.
Entrance to the site shall be gated to prevent use of the site after hours and during flood events.
The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the
applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the
correspondence demonstrating approval by FEMA.
Water quality measures shall be provided to achieve water quality at least equivalent to pre-
development conditions, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Manager.
Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd. shall be upgraded with a minimum of 1.5 inches of SM-2A from
Route 29 to the entrance of the soccer fields. This work shall be completed prior to the applicant
making use of both SP 98-19/SP 98-22 [Soccer Fields] and SP 90-35 [Church]. The applicant
may make use of one of the special use permits without the need to upgrade Route 643, Polo
Grounds Rd.
Staff can recommend approval of SP 98-18 and SP 98-22 with the addition of the following condition:
i. Approval of SP 90-35 shall be null and void.
Recommended Conditions of Approval for SDP 98-055.
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the f'mal site plan for sigl~ature until tentative
approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until
the following conditions are met:
Engineering Department approval to include:
a. Approval of an Erosion control plan;
b. Approval of stormwater management BMP plans. This will include receipt of a
completed facilities maintenance agreement.
Health Department approval;
Building Code and Zoning Services approval to include:
a. Provision of one van-accessible barrier-free parking space with its adjacent access aisle
and accessible route to the building entrance, at the Storage and Rest Rooms Building.
Planning Department approval to include:
a. Landscape plan;
b. Notation to insure compliance with conditions of SP 98-18 and SP 98-22.
7
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Parks and Recreation Department Comments
D - Engineering Department Comments
E - VDOT Comments
F - Applicant's information
G - Map of Meadowcreek alignment.
H - Zoning Administrator's Official Determination regarding SP 90-35
I - Letter from the public
,\
c
0
U
ATTACHMENT A
SP 98-18
FORK sOCCER RELO
45
ALBEMARLE
$2
24
COUNTY
ATTACHMENT B
34A
35A
SOP 98 --(~5
SOUTH FORK SOCCER FIELD
OHARLOTTESVI LLF
AND RIVANNA DISTRIGTS
SECTION 46
ATTACHMENT C
RECEIVED
6 !998
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Parks and Recreation Deparrmen~
County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-41596
Telephone f804~ 296-5844
Planning Dept,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation f/~
May 26, 1998
Polo Grounds Road Soccer Field
Thank you for the oppommity to comment on the proposal to develop 5 soccer fields on Polo
Grounds Road.
Keeping up with the gro~viug demand for more and better field space is probably the biggest
dilemma facing our department in the furore. Currently we need more fields for all sports just to
keep up with the demands for games and practices. In order to provide quality playing surfaces we
need to get to a point where we have enough fields to handle the various league demands, while still
being able to hold fields out of play for restoration. The only way we are going to get close to this
is through private efforts like this one.
Soccer is by hr the single largest field user with 3400 participants, which is almost half of
the total participants in field sports. The high participation, the nature of the game, and the near year
round schedule, makes soccer play the leading contributor to the less than satisfactory condition on
most existing fields and the lack of field space overall The one step that would have the most
immediate impact on improving the field space situation for all sports would be the development of
a large soccer complex (10-12 fields) or several smaller complexes (4-5 fields). This would have
a stYmoffeffect of opening up field space County wide for other sports and reduce the overuse that
is occurring County wide. As is occurring in other communities, this complex should be developed.
supervised, and maintained predominately by SOCA (Soccer OrganiZation of Charlottesville
ATTACHMENT C
PAGE 2
Albemarle), with only as much assistance as necessary from the City and County. The location of
a complex like this in the 29 North area wotdd be ideal.
][ hope we can find a way ro provide the support to allow projects like this ro succeed. I do
not believe that the City and County alone are going to be able to keep up with the growing demand
for field space. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to assist you with this~
ATTACHMENT D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department ofEngineenng & Pablic Works
MEMOI~NDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer ~
22 May 1998
South Fork Soccer Field, preliminary site plan, waiver for development on
critical slopes, and special use permit for fill in the floodplain.
The revised preliminary plan, special use permit application, and waiver request received on 7 May 1998
and 13 May 1998 have been reviewed. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the
preliminary plan as revised with notes indicating that stream buffer areas and stormwater management
will be worked out with the final plans.
In addition to the grading noted on the plan, it is our intent to encourage stormwater management
through properly placed grassed swales which are flat and wide and designed to allow infiltration.
The Engineering department supports the waiver to allow development of the parking areas into areas of
critical slopes. The critical slope disturbance is at the base of the existing wooded slope and is a minor
disturbance as shown on the site plan. None of the items listed in the Zoning Ordinance, section 4.2, will
be of concern with this small disturbance. There is very little danger of I) large soil or rock movement,
2) excessive runoff, 3) excessive siltation, 4) or septic effluent.
The Special Use Permit for fill in the floodplain is supported by the Engineering Depamnent. The fill
and grading in the floodplain will not cause a significant change in the floodplain or floodway in this
area. The following condition is recommended for approval of the special use permit.
The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the
applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of
correspondence demonstrating approval by FEMA.
The final site plan will be subject ro Engineering Department rewew of all relevant f'mal site plan
requirements and the following conditions:
a. t 32. 7.4.3] Engineering, Department approval of an erosion conrr 1 plan.
b. [Water Protection Orca] Engineering Department approval of st0rmwater management BMP
plans. This will include receipt ora completed facilities mmntenance agreement.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
GEB/
Copy: SDP-98-055
File: MEMO.WPD
F¥.-21'98 THUI 14:49
VDOT
TEh:804 979
ATTACH~NT E
May 15, 1998
Public Hearin~ Submittals
SP-98-17 ~lue Ri~a HpBlin~Arts, Route 240
This proposed facility is on r~rrow private roads, however these roads have
major impac= to traffic network in this area.
~P-98-18.~uth Fork Soccer Field, Route 643
In our letter from J. H. Kesterson, dated April 29, 1996 to Mr. Jack Kelaey,
we were r~quiring a 30 foot m/nimum commercial entrance with 100 foot by 10o
foot right turn and taper lane for the Site Plan SDP-SS-0SS.
There will be 450 festof sight distance required at the entrance which may
require some trimming of vegetation,
When Route 643 was £~roved from Route 29 ~o 1.~ miles east of Route 29, t~he
road was improved to basically accommodate a traffic count, at that time, of
200 ADT. The traffic count now is right at 1000 ADT and we have found that
roa~s with an ADT that are 100~-V~D or over req~lre a stronger surface ~o
accommodate such impacts. Based upon h/s sizable increase in traffic and the
added impact of the Soccer traffic, Rou~e 643 should have an overlay of 1.~
3-riches of SM-CA as a minimum, applie~ from Route 25 ~o the proposed entrance
site.
Attached. see letter from J. R. Res:arson dated April 1, 1998, no Mr, Jack
Kelsey, in response to aDP-58-044.
CHARLES WILLIAM HURT
C~'~AI~LOTTF~VILLE, V][~GI~-~ 2~906
ATTACHMENT F
May 5, 1998
William D. Fritz
Dept, ofPlarming & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22902-4596
RE: Proposed South Fork Soccer Fields - Critical Slopes
Dear Bill:
hope the following information will be helpful regarding your commems on this property.
In reference to Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the iment of the proposed
development is to preserve the qualities of the existing fields by disturbing as minimal an
amount of earth as possible, to create a semi- level playing surface and an acceptable
drainage pattern. The majority of this parcel and the proposed recreation area is m the
flood plain along the South Fork of the Rivanna River. The designated land of critical
slopes is a small area that is affected in order to create a more manageable grade around
the rear of the building. There is no building located on critical slopes and we will not be
disturbing any area of critical slopes near the stream or river banks. This proper~y is not in
the watershed. This proposed development is intended to conserve and maintain the
natural and scenic resources along the Rivanna River. The area of critical slopes that is to
be graded is more than 1000' from the river and will nor create an erosion condition that
would affect the water quality. Any grading taking place in that area ss intended only to
provide for better drainage around the improvements. Any area of critical slope that is
disturbed is not in the flood plain. The remaining flood plain wraps around the edges of
the tract. We have made every effort To confine the improvements to the area of the
property that would have the least amount of impact. The critical slope area is not
considered for use as a septic riel& parking lot or building site. It is our hope thal the
County and ACSA will permit the sewage effluent go to the sewer that crosses the
property. We feel that our intended use of the property will not create a danger to the
public health, safety and/or welfare We will coordinate our improvements with the water
quality resource office.
ATTACH3~IENT F
PAGE 2
If'you have any questions regarding these issues or about the proposed subdivision, please
feel free ro contact me ar 979-8181 or 981-5777.
Katurah S. Roell
cc: Charles W. Hurt
ATTACHMENT F
PAGE 3
SOCCER ORGANIZATION CHARLOTTF. SVILLE-J~xLBEMARLE
370 Greenbrier Drive. Suite B · Charlottesville,Virginia 22901
Phone 804-975-5025 Far 804-975-2619
June 26, 1998
William D. Fritz
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RECEIVED
JUN 2 9 1998
Planning Dept.
RE: SP 98-18 South Fork Soccer Field.
Dear Mr. Fritz:
I have been asked by Mr. Katurah Roell to address the questions raised in your letter of June 11,
referencing this project. Below please find my responses. Responses are numbered using the
same numbers as the original questions.
Total area of disturbance is estimated to be approximatelyl 5.5 acres.
We are unaware of any archeological survey performed on the site. At this time there is
no plan for such a survey.
We are unaware of any converted wetlands which would be impacted by this project.
The building was sized to include the following uses: toilets, soccer equipment storage,
field maintenance equipment storage (must be large enough for a 24' long soccer goal),
concession bootl~ office space.
Parking spaces were determined from the empirical formula below. This formula has.
evolved out of, and is supported by our historical observation.
Full Sized Fields
~lelOs X 2 teams x ~ ~ players/team x. ¢-, wars,.'loiay eh x ,~ gaxfie Ok eri&p -- · o0 C_2~-S.
Under 10 Sized Field
1 field x 2 teams x 10 players/team x .75 cars/player x 2 game overlap = 30 cars.
Referees
Max 6 cars for four fields.
Total=216 spaces.
Consideration will be given to making appropriate arrangemems for canoe access to the
river.
We are aware that the proposed Rivarma Greenway crosses the property, and that proffers
have been requested in similar instances.
ATTACHMENT F
PAGE 4
Additionally, Mr. Roell has asked that I provide you with an estimate of traffic generated by the
proposed project. Estimates have been provided for maximum anticipated weekend and
weekday use. Traffic generation estimates are based upon the empirical information provided in
Item 5, above. Please note the car/game coum below includes a referee estimate.
Weekend Use
4 full fields x 4 games/day x 24 cars/game = 384 round trips
1 U10 field x 5 games/day x 16 cars/game = 80 round trips
Total Estimated Weekend Use = 464 round trips
Start time: 9:00 am
Estimated completion time: 3:30 pm.
Weekday Use
4 full fields x 2 teams/field x 10 cars/team x 1 practice/evening = 80 round trips
1 U10 field x 2 teams/field x 7 cars/team x 1 practice/evening = 14 round trips
Total Estimated Weekday Use = 94 round trips
Estimated use is between 4:30 and 7:00 pm.
Please note that a lower multiplier of.67 is used to calculate cars/player for practices than that
used for games. It has been our experience that there is greater car-pooling and ride sharing for
practices, thereby reducing the number of cars used to transport players to these events.
Please also note that the primary use of the facility will be seasonal, with the anticipated
maximum activity outlined above being over an approximately twelve-week period in both fall
and spring. There are no anticipated significant winter activities. There are anticipated limited
summer activities.
If you require any further information please feel free to contact me.
Respectfully, yours
Executive Director
Cc: Katurah Roell
ATTACHMENT H
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Richard E. Tarbell,
Amelia M. Patterson,
July 17, 1992
OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
Covenant Church of God
SP-90-35 STILL VALID
Senior Planner
Zoning Admlnistrator~4~
After reviewing the applicant's letter dated March 17, 1992, I
have determined that SP-90-35.has not expired, due to the
applicant's good faith expenditures of time and money in
successfully pursuing the Board of Supervisors' approval to
include this property in the jurisdictional area of th~ Albemarle
County Service Authority. Therefore, this special use permit is
still valid and will not expire.
CC:
Tom Muncaster, Muncaster Engineering
Harold L. Bare
L. WILLIAM$ON COMPANY,
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
July 8, 1998
INC.
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
DeparEmenE of Planning & Community Dev.
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
~°' South Fork qn~-~ Fields
Dear Mr. Fritz:
It is my understanding that Dr. C. W. Hurt has applied for a
special use permit Lo allow the construction of a number of soccer
fields on properly shown Dn Tax Map 46 as Parcels 22 and 22C. This
properly is on the north siie of the South Pork of the Rivanna
River, directly across the river from the property to be developed
as Still Meadows. My property, located in Carrsbrook and shown on
Tax Map 45B(2 as Section 1, Parcel 1. abuts the western properly
line of the Still Meadows property.
Our residence, owned ]Dintly by my husband, Stirling
Williamson and myself, is located au 313 E. Monacan Drive in
Carrsbrook on Lot 13, Block B, Section C Tax Map Parcel 045B1-03-
0B-01300 , and it abuts my properly mentioned above. From our home
we have a clear view of the proposed soccer field properly
My husband and I do nou oppose the construction of the South
Fork Soccer Fields. However, we would sLrongly oppose any lights
ur amplified sound (i.e. PA sysuem} that micht accompany such a
faciliuy, as they would pose a real nums~nce uo our home, as well
as ~o the homes of outer res!deLLS Df Carrsbrcok.
W~ are wriLing this letter co express our senLiments
regarding the proposed soccer fields because we plan ~o be out of
town on Augusu 4th, when the South Fork Soccer Fields proposal is
scheduled nc come before the Planning Commission. If you have any
questions of us, do hOE hesitate ~o call our home 973-5221 or
office 295-6137
RECE. IVEi)
JUL 11 0
Planning Dept
IEIla Carey
From: Golaen, Wendy 4-1166 [WLG4V@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 3:28 PM
To: 'SMTP:chairman@albemarle.org'
Dear Mr. Marshall.
I am writing to express my support of the South Forks Soccer Fields ~roposal. I have been
involved in a number of sports committees that have tried to improve the availability of playing
fields in this area. It has always been surprising to me how negative the Board of Supervisors
have been when considering these proposals, even though the majority will agree that new fields
are needed.
I realize that these issues are always complicated and that many factors have to be taken into
consideration. However, as I expressed to my representative, wish that you would start from a
more positive position. It just makes sense when someone is offering to supply the community
with a needed product that would save the taxpayers money and fulfill the need. that you would
do everything possible to find a plan that would work. Instead. it appears from public comments
that the Board has already decided that this will not work.
I am requesting as a parent AND a taxpayer that the Board od Supervisors make every effort to
take advantage of this generous proposal and to find ways to compromise and work around the
problems. Please don't/et this opportunity be lost.
Sincerely yours,
Wendy Golden Schneider
Jack Jouett District
IEIla Carey
From: Porter[ield, Joseph K. [ikp01@mhs.sperry-marine.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09. 1998 10:38 AM
To: chairman@albemarle.org
Subject: Good for the children
To:
chairmanC, albemarle.or,q
We wish to express our strong support for the development of five soccer fields adjacent to Polo
Grounds Road.
As you may be aware, there is a severe shortage of soccer fields in our community. The
development of these five fields by a pdvate organiztion SOCA with minimal disruption to the
local neighborhood would help to alleviate this problem.
PLEASE help our children and vote on September 9 to permit development of these fields.
Thank you for your consideration.
Joseph K. & Joan R. Porterfield
Tel: (804) 973-7193
e-mail: ikp01~mhs.sperry-marine.com
Private residence:
2075 Fray Road, Advance Mills,
Albemarle County
From:
Sent:
To:
Ella Carey
Gary K. Owens [gko@virginia.edu]
Wednesday, September 09, 1998 8:05 AM
chairman@albemarle.org; chumphri@albemade.org; bowerman@albemade.org;
cmartin@albemarle.org; sthomas@albemarle.org; fmarohal@albemarle.org;
wperkins2@albemarie.org
Subject: Support of South Forks Soccer Complex
Dear Albemarle County Supervisors,
As a citizen of Albemarle County, a soccer player, and parent of three children who play soccer, I
am writing to strongly encourage you to support the proposal for a special use permit for the
South Forks Soccer Complex. In the interest of time I will not reinterate all of the excellent
arguments made by Bill Mueller and SOCA in support of this pro~ect. However, in short this is a
fantastic opportunity to meet a major public need for a very large number of residents of
Albemarle County (over 3500 families and an estimated 7.000-8000 individuals!), at no cost to the
county. The project will be completely funded by Dr. Hurt and SOCA, the potential impact on the
local area will be minimal, and will involve a very small number of local residents on Polo
Grounds Road Iestimated 8-10). The urgent need for additional recreational fields is
unquestioned, and this is an ideal location to develop soccer fields. Althougti I am sure Dr. Hurt
hopes to gain some tax benefits from his gift. we should be extremely grateful that he is willing to
use his own ~rivate resoumes to help meet an urgent public need. How can we possibly not
support someone giving us fields so our children can pursue a very healthy recreational activity?
Simply put, this is a groat opportunity, and to not support this proposal would in my mind be very
poor judgement and clearly not in the best interests of the majority of residents of this county.
I respectfully stongly encourage you to vote in favor of the South Forks Soccer Complex. If you
have some concerns, find a way to work them out. Please do not let this great opportunity fail.
Sincerly yours.
Gary K. Owens
Earlysville Resident and Soccer Player/Parent Gary K. Owens. Ph.D.
Professor
Associate Dean for Graduate and Medical Scientist Programs
University of Virginia School of Medicine
Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics
Room 2-29 Jordan Hall
1300 Jefferson Park Avenue
Charlottesville, Virginia 22908
IEILa Carey
From: Joe Spear [jhs3e@serverl .mail.virginia.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 4:42 PM
To: chairman@albemarle.org
Subject: New Soccer fields
Dear Chairman.
I am writing to express my support for the proposed construction of new soccer fields in the
County As I'm sure you are aware by now. soccer is currently the most popular and fastest
growing sport among young people in our country. I am actually among the first "mass"
generation of youngsters who grew up playing the sport in the shadows of the now defunct North
American Soccer League (NASL). I now have two children who will be brought up knowing,
playing, and hopefully loving the sport as well. Growing up in the mid-late 1970s and early 1980s
in the U.S. I was all too aware of the lack of adequate soccer facilities. I look forward to a time in
the U.S. when youth interested in the sport can worr~ more about impr:)ving themselves than
where their next practice, game. or season might be played. Adequate support for our young
people in this sport starts here. with the efforts of local citizens ano government. Please add
Albemarle County to the list of places that provide enthusiastic support to the growing sport of
soccer.
Thank you.
Joe Spear
5617 Rockery Place
Crozet VA 22932
(804) 823-7512
Department of Sociology
University of Virginia
ih s3e~'~virginia, ed u
IEIla Carey
From: SIXTHSON ~aol.con'
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 4:52 PM
To: chairman@albemarle.org
Subject: Soccer fields
I am writing to express my unconditional support for the proposed soccer fields off the Polo
Grounds mad. The SOCA organization is an unequeHed recreational asset to the youth of our
community that deserves to have a home cannot think of a better place for this home. It is
convenient and an excellent use of an otherwise unusable piece of property. Besides it is a
totally private transaction that will cost the county nothing. Having been a coach in this
organization for six years, and having seen the quality of the facilities in other communities
around Virgima. we should feel ashamed that we still have no "home" for this most popular sport
in theworld. Please pass this as proposed and feel good that you have made a positive
contribution To the community. Thank You.
Andrew B. Murray
750 Miller's Cottage Lane
Earlysville, VA 22936
804-978-3840
m: Freckmann, Chad S. [csf01@mhs.sperry-marine.com]
nt: Wednesday, September 09. 1998 11:18 AM
: chairman@albemarle.org
bject: South forks Project
Dear AIbermarle County Supervisors,
Please support the private initiative to construct soccer fields at South
Forks (Polo Grounds Rd.) With over 3000 participants ( 2500 kids and 600
adults) in SOCA (Soccer Association of Charlottesville/Albermarle)
programs, existing playing fields (public school fields) are overused and
many in poor condition. Soccer programs provide a great opportunity for the community to be
outdoors, at minimum cost and interest continues to grow. Since no public funds will be used and
the land a flood plain, this is an excellant win, win opportunity for Albermade county.
Thank you for considering your positive vote at Sept. 9's Board of Sucervisors meeting.
Best regards.
Chad Freckmann
Marketing Manager/Asia*Pacific
Litton/Sperry Marine Inc.
tel: (804) 974-2574
fax: (804) 974-2259
E-mail: csf01~mhs.sperry-madne.com
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gary K. Owens [gko@virginia.edu]
Thursday, September 10 1998 8:52 AM
chairman@albemarle.org; chumphd@albemarle.org; bowerman@albemade.org;
cmartin@albemarle.org; sthomas@albemarle.org; fmarshai@albemarle, org;
wperkins2@albemade.org
Thank you
Dear Albemarle County Supervisors,
SOCA greatly appreciates your support for the South Forks Park Soccer Complex last night. This
is definitely a very positive step forward in beginning to address our community's recreational
needs. I thought the discussion ane comments (on both sides) were very thoughtful and
balanced spent some time with the neighbors after the meeting, and we will do everything we
can :o make this work well for all parties involved. SOCA certainly places safety as its top priority
and will work with the neighbors to address any potential traffic safety issues. Indeed as correctly
pointed out by many individuals last mght, there are some pre-existing concerns that need to be
addressed irrespective of the soccer fields. I would encourage the Board of Supervisors to begin
to address the problem of the underpass as soon as possible. I know that VDOT nas a
contingency fund to address safety problems like this and as a short term solution I think they
should install a traffic light while longer term and undoubtedly more costly solutions are explored.
Again I thank you on behalf of SOCA. and our children, for your support last night.
Sincerely yours.
Gary K. Owens
Earlysville Resident
and Chair of SOCA's Field Development/Fundraising Committee
Gary K. Owens. Ph.D.
Professor
Associate Dean for Graduate and Medical Scientist Programs
University of Virginia School of Medicine
Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics
Room 2-29 Jordan Hall
1300 Jefferson Park Avenue
Charlottesville, Virginia 22908
Ella Carey
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Strain, Barbara 2-3857 [BAS3A~hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu]
Thursday, September 10, 1998 9:33 AM
bowerman@albemarle.org; chairman@albemarle.erg; chumphri@albemarle.org;
cmartin@albemarle.org; fmarshal@albemarle.org; sthomas@albemade.org;
wperkins2@albemade.erg
Thank you
Dear Supervisors;
On behalf of SeCA and the soccer ptaying youth and adults of Albemarle county I want to thank
you for your overwhelming approval of the South Forks soccer project. The overall discussion,
taking in all facets of the issue, was most rewarding and productive. We have been and will
continue to be good neighbors for the community at large and to the Proffit Road residents in
particular.
Thank you and best regards,
Barbara Strain, President
SeCA
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
wkmsoca@cstone.net
Wednesday, September 09, 1998 4:00 Pry1
ehumpri@albemarle.org; bowerman@albemarle.org; cmartin@albemarle.org;
sthomes@albemade.org; fmarshaII@albemade.org; wperkins2@albemarle.org;
chairman@albemarle.org
South Forks Soccer Fields
Date: Wed. 02 Sep 1998 11:57:50
ITo: chairman~albemarle.org
From: ' ' Bill <wkmsoca~,cstone.net>
Subject: South Forks Soccer Fields
Cc: Humphris. Charlotte. Bowerman. David Thomas. Sally
Dear Mr. Chaiman ane Board of Supervisors.
As the Executive Director of the Soccer Organization of
Charlottesville-Albemarle (SOCA) am seeking your support for the South Forks Soccer Field
project located on Polo Grounds Road.
SOCA has over 3100 soccer players seeking the opportunity to play and enjoy
healthy, constructive activity. Each weekend we have approximately 224 teams ~laying about
120 games in the area. We are involved in a tremendous, positive undertaking. Over the years
SOCA has done tremendous good both for ~ur individual partyicipants and for the larger
community. In order for that to continue, we must have the playing fields to operate our
programs.
Currently, both the quality and quantity of playing fields available to us.
and all sporting groups, is deficient. There is a desperate need for playing fields. While these
live fields will not completely solve the field shortage issue, it will be a significant step in the right
direction. SOCA has taken the initiative to solve this very public problem through a private effort.
We are willing to undertake the project at no cost to the county.
We feel there is no better location for a project of this type than that
proposed. It is close to a major traffic artery, impacts a minimal number 3f local residents, and
maintains green space in the flood plane. The flood plane is an ideal location for recreational
activity.
Finarly, as a county resident and ~arent. I hope that foresight is shown
now so that the quality of community life in Albemarle county is not diminished, but rather is
enhanced. I believe the South Forks Project will do just that I hope you will support the project
at the hearing on September 9.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bill Mueller
SOCA Executive Director
775 Windrift Drive
Earlysville. VA
973-0998 (h)
975-1520 (w)
Ella .Carey
From: jhalliday [halliday@avenue.org]
~Sent: Wednesday, September 09. 1998 11:06 AM
chairman@a[bemarle.org
I :;ject:
soccer fields
As a resident of Albemarle County and the parent of two daughters (ages 12 & 9) who enjoy
soccer I am hoping that the supervisors will support SOCA's proposal to develop playing fields at
Polo Grounds Road. The fields would serve thousands of soccer players now and thousands
more in the future with minimal impact to the environment and budgets. Thank you for
considering this reasonable proposal.
John Halliday
1224 Bixham Lane, C'Vi]Je 22901
September 9,1998
Albermarle Co. Board of Supervisors:
Re: South Forks Soccer Field Project
Please support the privale.initiative to constoact soccer fields at South Forks (Polo Grounds Rd,) With
over 3000 participants ( 2500 kids and 600 adults) in SOCA (Soccer kssociation d
Charlotlesville/Albermarle) programs, existing playing fields (public s&ol fields) are overused and
many in poor condition. The quat/ty of the existing fields are deteriorafmg,
Approval
Soccer programs provide a great opportunity for the community to be outdoors, at minimum cost and
interest confmues to grow, Since no public funds will be used and the land a flood plain, this is an
excellant win, win opportunity for Albemarle count?,
Thank you for considering your positive m at Sept, 9's Board of Supervisors meeting,
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
dbwilson@cstone.net
Saturday, September 05. 1998 2:48 PM
chairman@albemade.org
Need for South Forks Soccer Fields
Dear Member. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
I am writing as a past president and long standing Board member of the Soccer Organization of
Charloftesville-Albemade ISOCA). I am not a county resident but have been before you on a
number of occasions as SOCA's representative urging your support for the construction of
additional playing fields. You have always listened carefully and taken thoughtful action. As you
have all been on the Board of Supervisors for a number of years ~now that most of you are
aware that there is a shortage of available space for all the field sports programs of our
community, but I don't know if you realize how desparate this need has become.
In 1996 SOCA provided the local parks departments with its current and projected registration
figures. At that time we had a fall registration of approximately 3300 and an annual registration of
about 3950 individual players most of whom participated in more than one of our programs. At
that lime we had a need for nine new fields just to meet existing needs and projected a total need
of 19 fields over the next 5-10 years.
Last year the number of individuals registered in at least one of our seasonal programs increased
to 4118 (up 4.2% from two years ago), and not a single new field had been added. Needless to
say we are experiencing significant problems finding playing space for the 224 teams playing
approximately 120 games each weekend this fall. Practice space ~s an even bigger problem. For
the last few years we have had to deny practice space to our aduIt teams and this year we are
limiting our recreational youth teams to one hour practice a week. Normally the majority of these
teams would have practiced twice a week for an hour and a half each.
Not only are fields scarce, but the condition of those that are available is generally poor. With
soccer, football, lacrosse, and field hockey all sharing the same fields along with the after school
programs and teams associated with the schools themselves and in some cases with baseball
and T-ball, there is simply no time to rest the fields and do the necessary maintenance to keep
them in good shape.
As the largest private sports organization in the area, SOCA has for years been trying To identify
sites and resources that could be used to build some of its own fields to relieve the pressure on
the publically provided fields. The South Forks project on Polo Grounds Road is the first such
site to be identified. These fields would be built entirely at the expense of Dr. Hurt who owns the
property and SOCA. No county money would be required! The fields themselves would be
located in the flood plain only 1.1 miles off of Route 29. This is a perfect use for the land and
follows the example of countless communities across the country who are using their flood plains
to meet their residents need for recreational playing fields while ensuring that their waterways
remain surrounded by green space. River Run Park in Roanoke and Ben Lomand Park in
Manassas are just two examples that I have visited personally.
n addition the close proximity to Route 29 ensures that traffic to the fields will have a minimal
~mpact on residents. By our count there are only 7 homes along this stretch of road. Althougn the
~mpact of our usage on traffic was clearly the primary concern of the planning commission, even
using admittedly exaggerated figures, the planning staff saw no need to enhance the current road
way if just our project was built on the property. If both our project and the previously approvec~
church were to be built. Dr.
Hurt has indicated his willingness to improve the road as necessary.
Given afl these facts, I ask you to approve our project and let us buiid these fields. In so doing we
will be able to relieve some of the pressure on county fields in use By ourselves and all the other
community serwce organizations like ourselves. At the same time we will demonstrate that an
organization like ours can be a good neighbor in the community.
In considering this project please consider the demonstrated need that it would address and then
ask yourselves: "If not here. then where?" Where could we possibly find a better location with
less negative impact to build these greatly needed fields?
Thanks for considering our proposal,
David Wilsor ISOCA Registrar)
IEIla Carey
From: Nikki A. Levin [nal8n@avery.med.virginia.edul
Sent: Friday, September 04, 1998 5:58 PM
To: chairman@albemarle.org
Subject: Soccer fields
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a resident of Albemarle County and a player in the SOCA league. I am writing in support of
the proposed new soccer fields on Polo Grounds Rd. AS you know. the SOCA teams have had
trouble finding adequate fields on which to play, and creating 5 new fields at this site would help
alleviate the shortage.
Thank-you very much for your help with this project
Nikki Levin. MD. PhD
IEIla Carey
From: Christopher Michael Boner [cmb4q@server2.mail.virginia.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 04. 1998 2:29 PM
To: chairman@albemarle.org
Subject: soccer fields
Dear Supervisors,
I am writing to express my support for the development of new soccer fields on Polo Grounds
Road. Given the overwhelming demand for soccer fields in Albemarle County, I believe that such
a project would benefit more people than any other use of the lot. In fact, the demand for soccer
fields may be even greater than the numbers show because of the many interested players who
decide not to play competitive soccer because they feel that the poor field conditions do not justify
the cost to play. Please show your support for the soccer community, which comprises a larger
percentage of the entire community than perhaps anywhere else in the country, by granting your
approval for this project.
Sincerely,
Chris Boner
Soccer Fanatic and Albemarle County resident
IEIla Carey
From: Eric Joseph Van Gieson [ejv8e@watt.seas.virginia.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 1998 11:18 AM
To: chairman@albemarle.org
Subject: FIELDS
Dear Sirs.
We desperately need these fields to support the growing soccer community here in
Charlottesville. While they won't fix our field shortage, they will certainly help us
SOCA is a wonderful organization that g~ves many young athletes the chance to develop in a
supportive environment, it also allows many adults a chance to play compettitive soccer and it is
a great recreational activity. Many people would benefit from these fields and I hope that you will
allow SOCA the use of the area off of Polo Grounds Road.
THANK YOU.
Eric J. Van Gieson
Dept. of Biomedical Engineering
University of Virginia
Home: (804)984-2449
Lab: (804)924-0457
IEIla Carey
From: Jesse J. Kwiek [jjk3b@serverl.mail.virginia.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 1998 9:57 AM
To: chairman(~albemarle.org
Subject: polo grounds deve[opment
To whom it may concern.
I am a participant in the premier soccer league overseen and organized by SOCA. and I am
writing you today to express our need for more soccer fields in the Charlottesville area. I believe.
for the reasons listed below, that the development of soccer fields is in the best interest of the
community and that the Polo grounds read site should be allowed [o crea[e soccer fields.
believe it is in the best interest of the community for the following reasons:
1. This is a joint venture between a local land owner and
SOCA to develop
playing fields. This is a private initiative to serve a public need.
2. SOCA currently enrolls about 3100 players on 224 teams, playing 110-120 games each
weekend. This is an enormous undertaking by a volunteer, public>service organization.
seeking to serve the members of our community.
Currently the quantity and quality of existing playing fields restricts our ability to provide
programming for the intersted participants.
3. The church, which was approved to be built on aportion of the site has been built elsewhere.
There are currently no plans to build any church on the property. Should a ct~urch be built.
the land-owner has agreed to improve the stretch of Polo Grounds Road from Route 29 to the
property entrance
4. The project en[rance is 1.1 miles from Route 29. on Polo Grounds Road.
The impact to the local community is minimal. A vast majority of the>traffic coming to the site
will come via Rt. 29. and not use the east end of Polo Grounds Road.
5. There are no lights or sound system proposed. SOCA has agreed to regularly police the
roadway to keep it free from trash. SOCA has agreed to perform a preliminary amheological
survey.
6. SOCA is a long standing member of the community, serving the public>interest and providing
healthy, constructive, activity for participants of all ages and ability. SOCA is a Good
Neighbor.
7. The project is endorsed by the Albemarle County Park and Rec DepL the local youth football
and lacross organizations. They recognize the need for additional playing fields. Additional
fields for SOCA is also good for all local sporting organizations,
8. Recreational facilities are an ideal use of flood plane land. What is>curently green space will
remain green space.
9. This is a private initiative to solve a community problem. There is no cost to the county,
There is no better suited site.
10. SOCA is seeking approval from the Board of Supervisors so that we are better able to serve
the community and to assist in solving a public problem.
Sincerely,
Jesse Kwiek
IEIla Carey .
From: HommeL, Charlie [Charlie. Homme @lexis-nexis.com]
Sent; Thursday, August 27, 1998 3:07 PM
To: 'chairman@albemade.org'
Subject: Need for Soccer Fields
Dear Boardmembers.
Re: SQCA's Request for Soccer Fields at Polo Grounds
First thank you for the time. effort and skill that you give to our community.
Second. this is to request that you support and approve SOCA's (Soccer Organization of
Charlottesville and Albemarle) plan for additional soccer fields at the Polo Grounds Road location.
I was recently very surprised and extremely disappointed to hear on the local news that County
planning officials had not endorsed SOCA's proposal for constructing soccer fields at the Polo
Grounds location.
The youth of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle are in extreme need for this additional
playing space. In the Fall and Spring, over 3.000 boys and girls participate in this growing spor[.
Please take time to consider the total benefits and cost effective return that a large segment of
the community will directly receive from these additional fields.
It is a sound alan and I ask that you please give it careful consideration.
Thank you.
Charlie Hommel
3209 S. Chesterfield Ct.
Charlottesville VA 22911
973-7230 (H)
972-7613 (o)
Ella Carey
From: Kathleen Diane Granrose [kdg7e@unix.mail.virginia.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 11:03 PM
I To: chairman@albemade.org
Subject: Proposed South Fork Soccer Field Project
Dear Commissioners and Supervisors
I am writing in support of the proposed South Fork Soccer Field Project. This is a combined effort
between the Soccer Organization of Charlottesville-Albemarle. which is a volunteer community
service organization, and a local land-owner. This project is a private initiative being used to
solve a community orob~em. There are not enough soccer fields for the 2500 youth and 600
adult soccer players in the organization, which include my two sons, while i am a volunteer
coach.
SOCA is a long-standing member of the community, and would take great pride in this aroa.
policing it for trash, and keeping it nice. We wou~e consider it a home, and would take gooo care
of it and be good neighbors to those around us.
No lights or sound system will be nstalled, and most of the traffic will be coming only on the 1.1
mile stretch to the site from Route 29, passing by only 7 residences. The great need of the
community for these fields compared to the relatively small impact on oti~ers should allow for
overwhelming support of this initiative.
This project would not cost the taxpayers and the government anything, yet wou~o provide
something of groat value to the community. It is endorsed by the Albemarle County Parks and
Recreation Staff. as well as other local sporting groups.
The church which was approved to be built on a portion of this site has been built elsewhere, an(i
there are no current plans to build a church on this site. Should a church be built, the landowner
has agreed to improve the road surface from the area to me intersection with Route 29
I hope we can count on your support of this project which is an excellent way to serve our
community and its great need for additional soccer fieles.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Granrose
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
wkmsoca@cstone.net
Wednesday, September 02, 1998 12:24 PM
chairman@albemarle.org
chumph ris@maiLco.albemar]e.va.us: dbowerman@mail.co.albemarle.va.us:
sthomas@mail.co.albemarle,va.us
South Forks Soccer Fields
Dear Mr. Chaiman.
As the Executive Director of the Soccer Organization of
Charlottesville-Albemarle (SOCA) I am seeking your support for the South Forks Soccer Field
project located on Polo Grounds Road.
SOCA has over 3100 soccer players seeking the opportunity to play and enjoy healthy,
constructive activity. Each weekend we have approximately 224 teams playing about 120 games
in the area. We are nvolved in a tremendous, positive undertaking. Over the years SOCA has
done tremendous good both for our individual partyicipants and for the larger community. ~
order for that to continue, we must have the playing fields to operate our programs.
Currently, both the quality and quantity of playing fields available to us, and all spoKing groups. ~s
deficient. There is a desperate need for ~laying fields. While these five fields will no[ completely
solve the field shortage issue, it will be a significant step in the right direction. SOCA has taken
the initiative to solve this very public problem through a private effort. We are willing to undertake
the project at no cost to the county.
We feel there is no better location for a project of this type than that proposed. It is close to a
major traffic artery, impacts a mimmal number of local residents and maintains green space in
the flood plane. The flood plane is an ideal location for recreational activity.
Finally, as a county resident and parent. I hope that foresight is shown now so that the quality of
community life in Albemarle county is not diminished, but rather is enhanced. I believe tt~e South
Forks Project will do just that. I hope you will support the project at the hearing on September 9.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bill Mueller
SOCA Executive Director
775 Windrift Drive
Earlysville, VA
973-0998 (h)
975-1520 (w)
For Distribution to all Supervisors prior to September 9th
Meeting
Issue: Soccer Fields Near Old Polo Grounds on Rt 29 North
Dear County Supervisor:
I am at a complete loss for words and simply dumfounded that the olanning commision refused to
approve a plan to build badly needed soccer fields in an ideal location at no cost to the county.
Badly Needed? Yes!!! I have been a Soccer coach for 4 years and have never had the
opportunity for my kids to practice on a whole field We have always had to share the field with
one and sometimes two other teams, playing our practice games sideways across the field with
"cones" for goals. Recreational teams cannot practice more than 1 hour per week because of
lack of field space. Don't let anyone tell you that Albemarle kids do not need more Soccer space.
That is dead wrong.
Ideal Location? You bet!!! This field is right in the middle of where it is needed the most_the 29
north corridor. It is only 1.1 miles off of route 29. It is a flood plain with few other uses. It is
already fiat and has great topsoil for growing turf. It will imoact a minimal number of county
residents. The vast majority of traffic will come from route 29 and pass by only 7 houses. There
will be no lights and no sound system. This place is great, and there are none better.
No Cost to the County? This is the best part y'et!!! The landowner has graciously agreed to build
the soccer fields at only a nominal cost to the SOCA organization and at no cost to the county.
There are no ulterior motives here- no hidden agendas -just a goodhearted desire to provide a
great place for our kids to play.
Concerns? Traffic: Yes there will be cars coming to the fields in the afternoons and on
weekends, and they will pass by a few houses on the polo grounds road. It would be ridiculous to
deny this project because a few people are so selfish that they do not want additional traffic going
down the underused public road in front of their house, and are willing to deny ballfields tc our
kids because of t and to deny other landowners a reasonable use of their property. A Church
too? The planners mentioned plans for a church on part of the site as one objection. The
proposed church was built years ago on Rio road. and there are no current plans for a church on
the site
The SOCA organization is a great asset to our county and should not be thwarted with
unreasonable roadblocks. There are 2,500 youth and 600 adult soccer players in the SOCA
program. We have one of the highest youth participation rates in the country. The county Parks
and Recreation Staff support this project.
Are your convinced yet? I hope so. I will be there on September 9th with as many of my soccer
players as I can get, as long as the item is not too late on the agenda.
Kind Regards,
John Maine
455 Mallard Lake Drive
Eadysville, VA 22936
John Mainel Vic~-President
Resource Information Systems
(804)978-2927 phone
(804)978-1184 fax
Ella Carey
From: johnson@gibbs.ms.virginia.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 2:43 PM
To: chairman@albemarle.org
Subject: Soccer Fields
I wish to express my strong support for the development of five soccer fields adjacent to Polo
Grounds Road.
As you may be aware, there is a severe shortage of soccer fields (as well as other athletic
complexes) in our community. The development of these five fields by a private organiztion
SOCA with minimal disruption to the local neighborhood would he ~ to alleviate this problem.
PLEASE help our children and vote on September 9 to permit development of these fields.
Thank you for your consideration.
William C. Johnson
Professor
Materials Science and Engineering
Thornton Hall
University of Virgima
Charlottesville, Virginia. 22903-2442 USA
Tel: I804) 982-~,884
Fax: I804) 982-5799
e-maih iohnson~,qibbs.ms.virginia.ed u
Private residence:
2220 Fray Road
Albemarle County
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gary K. Owens [gko@virginia.edu]
Thursday, September 03, 1998 1:31 PM
chairman@albemarle.org; chumphri@albemade.org; bowerman@albemarle.org;
cmartin@albemarle.org; sthomas@albemarle.org; fmarshai@albemarie.org;
wperkins2@albemarle.org
Support of South Forks Soccer Complex
Dear Albemarle County Supervisors.
As a citizen of Albemarle County, a soccer player, and parent of three childran who play soccer. I
am writing to strongly encourage you to support the proposal for a special use permit for the
South Forks Soccer Complex. In the interest of time I will not reinterate all of the excellent
arguments made by Bill Mueller and SOCA in support of this project. However in short this is a
Pantastic opportunity to meet a major public need for a very large number of residents of
Albemarle County (over 3500 families and an estimated 7 000-8000 individuals[), at no cost to the
county. The project will be completely funded by Dr. Hurt and SOCA. the potential impact on the
local area will be minimaL, and will involve a very small number of local residents on Polo
Grounds Road (estimated 8-10). The urgent need for additional recreational fields is
unquestioned and this is an ideal location to develop soccer fields. Although I am sure Dr. Hurt
hopes to gain some tax benefits from his gift, we should be extremely grateful that he is willing to
use his own private resources to help meet an urgent public need. How can we possibly not
support someone gMng us fields so our children can pursue a very healthy recreational activity?
Simply put, this is a groa[ opportunity, and to not support this proposal would in my mind be very
poor judgement and clearly not in the best interests of the majority of residents of this county.
I respectfully stongly encourage you to vote in favor of the South Forks Soccer Complex. If you
have some concerns, find a way to work them out. Please do not let this groat opportunity fail.
Sincedy yours
Gary K. Owens
Earlysville Resident and Soccer PlayedParent Gary K. Owens. Ph.D.
Professor
Associate Dean for Graduate and Medical Scientist Programs
University of Virginia School of Medicine
Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics
Room 2-29 Jordan Hall
1300 Jefferson Park Avenue
Chadottesvills. Virginia 22908
Dear Chairman
have not Ioceted Mr. Perkins email address and would ask that this be forwarded to him
BEFORE the meeting. I write to ask that you and he support and endorse the 5 field soccer
proposal for he Polo Grounds as supported by SOCA.
My family is very active in SOCA. Both my girls are active in the travel prgram and have played
in SOCA for 8 years. We are quite aware of the fact that 3100 children and adults in the County
are active in the sport as well. The County does not have adequate facilities to accommodate the
sport and this is a wonderful opportunity to be part of a public private partnership that benefits all
county residents. The County can shine if its supports the proposal since the cost to the tax payer
s quite small and the gains are quite large. Moreover, if one imagines the revenue stream that
can result from hosting a tournament in the area and the dollars spent in the local community the
2na order effects are quite impressive.
These benefits are in addition to the immediate gains of having our children play on dedicated
fields that surpass the quality of the fields presently used. Given the quality of the present fields.
we lag the entire central VA region in field availability and quality. We must do better I could go
on but it will suffice to say, we hope you chose to support this project. I would appreciate hearing
from both of you and knowing your position
thank you,
Robert Spekman and family
4924 Free Union Rd
Free Union 22940
973-9549
RES48@AOL.com. home email
SpekmanR(~,vir.qinia.edu <mailto:SpekmanRt'~,vir.qinia.edu> office
Board Members,
There are few no brainers that come along that have more positive impact on a community than
the proposed soccer fields on Polo Grounds Road. My '16 year old (and about 20 other C' ville
kids) has been playing for a club team in Richmond for the last two years, in part, due to the lack
of committment by this county to solving its atheletic field space shortage problem (thats 3
practices per week and a home game in Richmond). We have played o:n fields literally all over
this state, and it is sad to say that the worst playing fields we find statewide are better than ours.
This is not due to lack of attention by your termendous maintainance staff, it is totally due to the
fact that we put adult and youth soccer, lacross and football on the same space and ruin it for all.
ITS CALLED A SHORTAGE OF FIELDS!!! It is tirr~ for all of you to brush aside the opposition of
a few NIMBY opponents, and allow this privatly funded project to benefit the whole county.
Ask anyone in Parks and Rec: solve soccer% problems for field space and you
solve field space problems for all. Thanks. Steve Murray
Ella Carey
From: Eades. Ken [EadesK@darden.gbus.virginia.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 1998 9:03 AM
ITo: 'Humphri. Charlotte (Board Supervisors Jouett District)'
Cc: 'chairman@albemarle.org'
Subject: South Fork Soccer Fields
Please recogmze my enthusiastic support for the proposed soccer fields that will be considered
by the board Sept 9. I find it difficult to think of better investments in our community than those
serving our youth. Soccer. more than any other sport, reaches both boys and girls of alt ages.
Having been a soccer parent for many years, the lack of quality fields in C'ville is the most
frequent negative experience of the sport. Darden Towe cannot and should not service all the
recreational needs of the county. Considering the size of C'ville and the county, our "investment"
n sports fields is truly an embarrassment relative to other Va. communities.
There can be no serious objection to allowing an individual to donate land to the community. I
would hope that such generosity would be encouraged. Certainly any argument that the soccer
fields will create a nuisance because of increased [raffic is unfounded. North 29 has and always
will have substantial traffic. The more ~mportant question to ask is how much PEAK LOAD traffic
does such a development add. Most of the traffic will be on the weekends and even if all the fields
are 100% in use the number of vehicles involved will hardly be noticeable.
This kind of choices by the community test our values. Charlottesville should look for
opportunities to show its support for families by facilitating participation in athletics. I hope you
agree and will vote to make the soccer fields a reality.
Thanks...
Professor Kenneth M. Eades
E:)arden Graduate School of Business Administration
University of Virginia
100 Darden Boulevard
Charlottesville. VA 22903
(804) 924-4825 (804) 924-0714 Fax
Ella Carey
From: Strain, Barbara 2-3857 [BAS3A@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edul
Sent: Friday, September 04. 1998 9:25 AM
To: bowerman@albemarle.org; chairman@albemarle.org; chumphd@albemade.org;
cmartin@albemarle,org; fmarehal@albemarle,org; sthomas@albemade.org;
wperkins2@albemarie, org
Subject: Special Use Permit Approval 9/9/98
Honorable Supervisors:
My name is Barbara Strain. county resident and President of the Soccer Organization of
Charlottesville (SOCA). During my three-year tenure as president I have spoken before the
board many times concerning the need for additional athletic fields. On Wednesday, September
9 an initiative for a private, small soccer field complex will be brought before you seeking approval
for special use permit The project is a dual effort between Dr. Charles Hurt and SOCA. Dr. Hur~
has come Io SOCA and offered to develop 20 acres of a 72 acre site into 5 soccer fields, n
return SOCA would assist in the cost of some of the physical developments and maintain the
fields once they are built.
Some key points to keep ~n mind as you consider your vote are:
· This is a joint venture between a local land owner and SOCA to develop playing fields. This
is a private initiative to serve a public need.
· SOCA currently enrolls about 3100 players on 224 teams, playing 110-120 games each
weekend. This is an enormous undertaking by a volunteer, public service organization.
seeking to serve the members of our community. Currently the quantity and quality of
existing playing fields restricts our ability to provide programming for the interested
participants.
A church, which was approved to be built on a portion of the site has been built elsewhere.
There are currently no plans to build any chumh on the property. Should a church be built.
the land-owner has agreed to improve the stretch of Polo Grounds Road from Route 29 to the
property entrance.
· The project entrance is 1.1 miles from Route 29 on Polo Grounds Road. The impact to the
local community is minimal A vast majority of the traffic coming to the site will come via Rt.
29. and not use the east end of Polo Grounds Road.
· There are no lights or sound system proposed. SOCA has agreed to regularly police the
roadway to keep it free from trash. SOCA has agreed to perform a preliminary archeolo,c cai
survey.
· SOCA is a long standing member of the community, serving the public interest and providing
a healthy, constructive, activity for participants of all ages and ability. SOCA is a Good
Neighbor.
· The project is endorsed by the Albemarle County Park and Rec Dept., the local youth football
and lacross organizations. They recognize the need for additional playing fields. Additional
fields for SOCA is also good for all local field sport organizations.
· Recreational facilities are an ideal use of flood plane land. What is curently green space will
remain green space.
· This is a private initiative to solve a community problem. There is no cost to the county. This
is an excellent suited site.
· SOCA is seeking approval from the Board of Supervisors so that we are better able to serve
the community and to assist in solving a public problem
As the representative of a non-orcfit community service organization of over 4,000 families in the
Albemar[e area I ask that you to thoroughly review the initiative before you and vote for approval.
Thank you for your consideration.
Barbara Strain, President
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL SUPERVISORS: Charlotte Humphris, David Bowerman.
Charles Martin, Sally Thomas. Forrest Marshall. Jr., Walter Perkins. Samuel
The Lesser Family will be unable to attend Wednesday night's board of supervisors meeting due
to back-to-school conflicts. However, we have two sons who have been in the SOCA program
since we moved to Albemarle County nearly five years ago. In addition I have played with and
coached them for all of that time as well.
WE NEED MORE PRACTICE AND GAME FIELDS! It becomes more oainfully obvious each
year that soccer play facilities are inadequate. As far as we can tell, this field proposal is is a win-
win-win oroposition for: the SOCA community and all of the kids and their families that it serves.
the county because of it's extremely Iow cost, the environment because of very Iow (negative)
mpact on our natural and physical resources etc.
Unless there are absolutely overriding concerns of which I am not aware PLEASE VOTE YES
TO APPROVE THESE FIELDS]
Respectfully,
Jan Lesser & Family
IEIla Carey
From: David Carpenter [dhcarpenter@sprintmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 12:18 PM
To; chairman @albemarle.org
Subject: Soccer Fields
To All Albemarle County Board of Supervisor Members:
As a member of the Board of Supervisors, I should think you would jump
at the opp[~ortunity to provide quality recreational facilities for
residents of Albemarle County especially as the fields in this case.
are provided at no cost to the County. This donation of field space, on
the Polo Grounds Road is endorsed by the Albemarle County Parks and
Recreation Department - as they recognize the benifit of involving our
youth in quality structured activity as well as the hardship of
providing adequate field space for all the various sports that require a
field. The use of this "flood plain" area will keel:) it a "green" space.
and seems to make graa[ common sense use. of otherwise 'limited use'
land. SOCA, in conjuction with the land owner, are providing the County
with a golden opportunity to have a "win-win" situation and for some
reason, beyond my comprehension there is resistance to this most
sensical solution of a variety of problems. Regarding traffic concerns
for the new fields, I exoect that the newly redone Route 29 will be able
to handle the extra traffic which will be considerably less than that
generated by a UVa football or basketball game. Traffic will remain on
Rte. 29 as the fields are only 1.1 miles removed from Route 29. The
church that has been proposed to be built on the land a¢oacent, has
already been built elsewhere. There are no plans to use this soace for
chumh building~ The fields involve no lights no sound system and as
far as a trash worry, take note of the trash generated at Darden Towe
Park. It is NOT on the soccer fields, but rather more so on the baseball
fields. SOCA has agreed to police the roadway and the grounds regularly
to prevent any buildup of trash in these areas anyway. This proposal
seems to be a sensible way to address the needs of 3100 individuals who
play soccer in Albemarle every week. Space is needed for over 110 games
each weekend and this space would help toward relieving the pressures
currently exerted on the overused and sometimes dangerous fields we
currently use. I have coached in the SOCA league for the past 5 years
and have personally experienced the growth of this locally popular
sport. I know the need for field space is the most limiting concern to
the recreational happiness of our children, I persona~y have three
children playing soccer in both the fall and spring sessions and would
like you to personally support this new field proposal ~t means a great
deal to all residents of the county. Please support this effort, It's a
great idea, at an appropriate time and for only very good reasons, To
not suoport it only demonstrates that politics surpasses the needs of
county residents. Thank you for considering this. I look forward to
seeing your support at the next Supervisors meeting.
David Carpenter
Albemarle County Resident
Ella Carey
From: Bill Cassidy [cassidyb@mail.amvestcorp.comi
Sent: Tuesday, September 08. 1998 11:30 AM
To: Chairman@albemarle.org
Subject: Polo Grounds Rd. soccer field project
I am writing to urge your support in favor of the soccer field project on Polo Grounds Rd. As a
long time participant in the SOCA programs. I am acutely aware of the urgent need for additional
fields. This project, to be jointly undertaken by SOCA and a local land-owner, would meet a
serious community need at no tax-payer expense, I would greatly appreciate your support for this
worthwhile project.
Sincerely,
Bill Cassidy
3575 Morgantown Rd.
22903
Ella Carey ..
From: Kevin Madigan [madigank@cfw.com]
I Sent: Monday, September 07, 1998 8:39 PM
To: chairman@albemarle.org
Cc: wkmsoca@cstone, net
Subject: South Forks Soccer Field Project
To Whom It May Concern:
It has been brought to our attention that this Tuesday, September 9. 1998 you will be considering
a proposal by SQCA and a private individual to develop a five field soccer complex along Polo
Roaa. We are writing to express our STRONG support for this proposal. It is being developed at
no cost to the county or its residents and serves a long unfulfilled need (we are sure many others
will provide you with data on number of players versus quantity of playing fields). Given this and
the fact that the proposed complex will have little if any negative impact on the surrounding area.
people, or businesses, we cannot think of a single reason why it should not be allowed to
proceed,
We have lived in Maryland. California. South Carolina. The Netherlands. and now Virginia NON
of these communities had a fraction of the money Albemarle County has, yet ALL of them have
MORE NUMEROUS and BETTER facilities for their kids. We current live in the western part of
the county and, save for a couple of resevoirs and what is provided by the public school system:
there is not a single youth facility of any kind in our area. No parks. No community centers. No
tennis courts. No swimming pools. No athletic fields. The South Forks proposal would be a
small private, zero cost step towards correcting what ought to be viewed as an embarrassing
situation. We would hope you can find it in yourselves the wherewithal to allow it to happen.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Kevin, Faye. Brendan, and Patrick Madigan
2734 Owensfield Court
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(804)296-6697
Dear Sirs
SOCA is an organization that has continually grown and is ~n need of new soccer fields so that
there is enough room to satisfy all of the people interested in soccer in our community. I am
involved in SOCA as a Referee and a player. I am writing this prior to the meeting that will be
held September 9 seeking approval to develop five soccer fields on property located on Polo
Grounds Road. SOCA has helped in many ways to bring our community together and therefore it
should be supported in its efforts to continue to grow by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors. SOCA is in desperate need for new fields because of the numbers associated with
the organization. Please help our community by promoting the development of these five soccer
fields,
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this proposal
Beth Thomas
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Intemet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail
from Juno at http://A, ww.iuno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Ella Carey
From: DashKelly@aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 07 1998 9:21 AM
To: chairman@aibemade.org
Subject: Soccer fields
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I support the proposal to build soccer fields on property located on Polo Grounds Road. I hope
you will approve this private initiative which will benefit many of the families in Albemarle County
and at the same time retain open green space in our beautiful county.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Kelly
2260 Ridgeway Lane
Charlottesville. VA 22911
295-3650
Ella Carey
From: Robert G. Kelly [rgk6y@serverl.mail.virginia.edu]
Sent: Monday, September 07, 1998 8:27 AM
To: chairman@albemarle.org
Subject: Soccer field proposal
Dear Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors:
I would like to wholeheartedly support the development of additional soccer fields as outlined by
SOCA. Although my son has only recently learned to walk. I expect that he will want to be
involved in sports as he grows older (which I expect to happen sooner than I think). I think SOCA
and the landowner should be commended for putting forth a plan that will benefit so many people.
Thank you for your consideration.
Rob Kelly
2260 Ridgeway Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(8041 295-3650
HPaul@aol.com
unday, September 06, 1998 8:42 PM
To: chairman@albemarle.org
Subject: SOCA - Polo Grounds Project
Dear Supervisors
I am writing to add my support to the application by SOCA to develop soccer fields for the local
community.
Over 2.500 youth and 600 adults play soccer under SOCA's auspices, making it possibly the
most popular youth participation sport in the area. This puts huge pressure on the existing fields
both in terms of time and in terms of wear and tear. The result is poor quality fields that make it
mpossible to teach the finer skills of soccer, for which smooth turf is a prerequisite. Moreover.
overuse has caused existing fields to become dangerously rutted, making injuries to ankles and
knees more likely.
The Polo Grounds Project will provide desperately needed fields for the area's youth and will also
relieve pressure on existing County fields, allowing them to be improved.
I urge you to approve this vitally needed project at your meeting this week.
Sincerely
Paul Reeder
1742 Jumpers Run
Charlottesville, VA 22911
From:
Subject:
rpn [rpn@avery.med.virginia.edu]
Sunday, September 06. 1998 12:28 PM
chairman@albemarle.org
Soccer
My namme is Paige Nealy and I am writing this message to voice my support for the proposed
Polo Grounds Soccer Complex. I must confess that I am more then surpdzed that this issue is
not already setteled as the need for recreation grounds is so very evident to my family and I WhO
live in Holleymead. I've become a soccer coach recently and a bit more involved as my children
participa[e. I don't believe many people understand the need for such fields and I won't bore you
with the figures who use them as I'm sure others will make you aware of them far more ably than
I (although I think that the figures will actually be more than the reported 3100 players, most of
whom are children).
BUT, what I'm hoping for is that more soccer fields can be created by private/public
orgahizations, for I think it is a most marvelous sport. At least then a coach might not have to
scrounge to find vacant lots to practice ir which is what a coach did one year for my boy
Christopher,
We have the space in the county and a nonprofit organization to promote a youth/adult sport and
manage. What's the downside on this? If there is one I'd like you to share it mere publicly,
Sincerely,
Paige Nealy & Family
IEIla Carey
From: Jan C. Lesser ricLesser@compuserve.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09. 1998 3:25 PM
To: Ella Carey
Subject: RE: Proposed South Fork Soccer Field Project
Thank you for your prompt reply.
I forgot to give my address/phone number, in case it is desired/needed.
We actually aren't sure which district we're in.
Jan C. & D. Gail Lesser
1317 Blackburn Way
Charlottesville. VA 22901-0610
(804) 975-6509
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
!NDA TITLE:
Hurt Investment and South Fork Land Trust Jurisdictional
Boundary Request
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:.
Request to allow a proposed soccer field complex to
connect to public sewer
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish, Fritz
AGENDA DATE:
September 9.1998
ACTION: Yes
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
The applicant is requesting that public sewer service be permitted for Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C. This site is located on
the south side of Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd, approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29. The property is bordered on the north
by Route 643 and on the south by the South Fork PJvanna River. The purpose of the request is to provide sewer service for to
a proposed soccer field complex.
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors approved water and sewer service for Parcel 22 on February 12, 1992. That approval was limited
to service to only the church building (800 seat) approved under SP 90-35 for Covenant Church of God. Staff has attached the
or~Jinal staff report, action letter and Board minutes.
DISCUSSION:
This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that for the
Hollymead Community "The area between the southern boundary of the Development Area and the South Fork of the Rivanna
River is to remain in an open state as a buffer between the Urban Area and the Community of Hollymead. This boundary is
critical as it preserves the distinct identity of the Community from the Urban Area and prevents continuous development from
the City of Charlottesviite to the North Fork of the Rivanna". The Comprehensive Plan recommendations for providing public
water and sewer outside of the Development Areas are contained on Page 125. The recommendation states "Only allow
changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas in cases where the properly is: (1) adjacent to existing
lines: and (2) public health and/or safety is in danger". A sewer line does cross the property. However, there is no current health
or safety concern on the site. The request for public sewer for this site is made in order to alleviate the need to construct
drainfields. It should be noted that, due to the topography of the site, the drainfieids would need to be located at an elevation
above the proposed building. This location for the drainfieids will require pumping. Pumping of effluent is not a desirable design
as it involves the use of pumps, which can fail. A gravity system is the preferred method for disposal of effluent. Therefore. while
this proposal is not consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for providing service to the Rural Area in
that there is no existing health or safety issue, approval of this request may be preferable from a public health perspective for
the ultimate development of the site as a soccer complex.
This request is for sewer service only to the proposed soccer fields. The Board has already determined that an 800 seat church
connected to public water and sewer is appropriate on this property (Parcel 22). Staff opinion is that if the proposed soccer field
use is approved and the church is not developed (the Board is reviewing two special use permits concurrently), it will create less
sewer/septic use than the previously approved church.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 11, 1998, recommended denial of the two Special Use Permits req Jired
[or the approval of the soccer complex.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff opinion is that should the Board choose to approve the soccer complex proposal, the Board will need to weigh the request's
immediate inconsistency with the jurisdictional area policy against the possible future health and safety issues associated with
a pdvate septic system that requires pumping. Staff doss not recommend amendment to the jurisdictional area for sewer service
if the special use permits are denied.
Should the Board approve this judsdiclional area request, staff recommends that the jurisdictional area be amended to provide
sewer service only to the soccer complex as approved under SP 98-18 and SP 98-22.
98.184
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: V. wayne cilimberg, Director of Planning ~nd///~
Community Development
DATE:
December 4, i991
Request for Inclusion in Service Authorit~
Jurisdictional Area Covenant Church of ~od
On February 13, 1991, the Board heard a request from the Covenant~hurch
of God to include Tax Map 46~ Parcel 22 in the Jurisdictional Area of
the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service.
Attached is the February 8, 1991 staff report for that reques~
(Attachment A). The Board denied the request for a public he~ring at
that meeting.
The Covenant Church has resubmitted the same request with supporting
Justification (See Attachment B). In summary, Mr. Muncaster's reasoning
on behalf of the church i~ that the parcel to be served is part of a
very limited area that could be developed between Hollymead and the
Urban Area due to the restrictions of floodplain and topography. He
also argues that the reason this parcel is not included in the growth
area is because it is part of an area with very limited development
potential. Therefore, Mr. Muncaster feels that providing public water
and sewer to this parcel would not undermine the intent of the
Gomprehensive Plan in this case.
Staff recommendation remains ~s presente~ in its February 8 staff
report. While development potential may be limited in this area, it was
purpos~lly not included in the growth area due to the decision to
retain the area between Route 643 and the South Fork Rtvanna as a
buffer. Consistently, staff has recommended that any area not in the
growth area not be included in the jurisdictional area, particularly
because public utility capacities should be reserved to support
development of designated growth areas.
VWC/mem
cc: Tom Muncaster
Bill Brent
IATTACHMENT AI
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Comraunity Developmea~
401 Mclafire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804} 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM:~ V. Wayne ciiimberg, Direc~6r of Planning
Community Development
DATE: February 8, 1991
RE:
Request To Amend ACSA Service Areas To Provide
Public Water and Sewer To The Covenant Church of
God (Tax Map 46, Parcel 22)
In June,.1990, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-90-35
Covenant Church of God to allow construction of an 800 seat
church on this property. At this time, the Board is being
requested to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
service areas to allow public water and sewer service to
thls site without restriction (request attached).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN}
As was noted in the special use permit report, this site is
in the Rural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding provision of public utilities, the Comprehensive
Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strategies
as to where and under what circumstances public utilities
should be made available (p. 146):
Q.BJECTIVE: Provide publicwater and sewer services to
the Urban Area and Communities.
~TRATEGIES:
Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth
Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas.
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Page 2
February 8, 1991
Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside
of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases
where the property is: (t) adjacent to existing
linesL, and (2) public health or safety is
endangered.
This request is inconsistent with both the objective and
applicable strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. Thereare
no identified quality or quantity problems with water on
this property that staff is aware of. Further, the
that such utilities are no~to be
C~prehensive_Plan warn~ " ' '
extended to the Rural Areas as these services can increase
development~pre~sures" (p. 146).
In the special use permit report, staff suggested that~this
project was of an urban scale and orientation and would be
more appropriately located in a designated growth area%
Currently, the Board is being requested to provide urban /
-utilities to the site. It should be noted that the applicant
has stated that "approval of this petition would also -
preserve acreage for much more practical uses than
drainfield" as well as their position that "the
governmental disposition towards this parcel is
commercial." Should the Board provide this site with public
utilities it could enhance argument for further development
in the future.
RECOMMENDATION
This request is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan
objective and applicable strategies for provision of public
water and sewer service. Public utiii~y capacities should
be reserved to support development of designated g~owth
areas. Allowance for water and/or sewer services to this
property would be inconsistent with past actions by.the
Board to rimit utility service outside the designated growth
areas. Staff recommends that public 'water and sewer service
not be made available to this property.
Should the Board choose to approve the applicant's r~quest,
service should be limited to the 10.3 acres to occupied by
the church and further limited to only the church building
as approved under SP-90-35 Covenant Church of God.
vwc/jcw
ATTACHMENT
o
------,Covenant Church of God
January ll, 1991
Mr. F.-R. Bowie, Chairman
Al~emarle County 'Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 P[.A~4,,,,~u~'~"~ DiVl~10N
Dear Mr. Bowie:
Please accept this petition as a formal request to include
TM 46 Parcel 22 in the ~urisdictional area for public
water and sewer.
As you are aware this property has been approved for con-
struction ofa church~complex. Included
of the property were easements to the public sewer which
runs adjacent along'the eastern boundary of the above
cited parcel. Less than 300 feet of natural fall is
between our boundary and the sewer line.
Our petition incorporates historical studies of the county
growth plan, even back to the 70's, which anticipated
growth parallel with sewer and water lines. The sewer.
line is already installed. Forest Lakes' plan anticipates
southerly development approaching Route 643. In addition,
Meadow Creek Parkway, which is part of the Comprehensive
Plan, will certainly dictate growth.
Approval of this petition would also preserve acreage for
much more practical uses than drainfield. It is
noteworthy that the Tax Assessor's office has designated
8+ acres as being taxable--non-agricultural, which
indicates that the governmental disposition towards this
parcel is commercial.
The petitioner understands that installation of lines and
hookups are the cost.of the peti~ione~. We have already
talked with Paul Shoopof the Albemarle Service Authority
regarding the logistics, and a letter from Mr. Shoop is
attached. Our expectation would be to act expeditiously
consequent to approval.
SENIOR PASTOR
H~r~l L. B~re, ~'~
PASTOR
Youth an~ Music
Jem/Steele
Education and Exleflsion
Obviously, we are most anxious for a favOrable
vote. What we have petitioned seemsto us quite
logical.
Your consideration and cooperation will be
deeply appreciated;
Enclosures (2): Plat
...... Letter_~from PauLShoop ............
cc: Paul Sho~p
~ Wayne Cil~mherg ~
LBEMAIRIE OUNTY SERVICE AUTIqORITY
Box 1009 401 McllXTIRE RD. CHAI'd.O'I-I'ESVILLE, VA. 22902 (804) 296-5810
J
January 9, 199I
Pastor Harold L. Bare, Sr.
1025 E. Rio Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Sanitary Sewer Service for TM 46 Parcel
Dear Pastor Bare:
I have reviewed the availability of public water and sewer to
your part of parcel 22 above. Unfortunately, this property is not
currently within our jurisdictional-area..- You must petition' the
Board of Supervisors to have this included.
There is a sanitary sewer line onsite with adequate capacity
to provide service to this property. Connection to this line will
require authorization fromthe Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority. If
you are successful in your petition to the Board, we will support
this connection and intervene to have it approved by Rivanna./
Water service is somewhat distant, the nearest available line
is at Rt. 29 approximately 6600 if offsite.
I hope you are successful in petitioning the Board. The
proximity of other properties included in our jurisdictional area
should support your request. If I can be of further assistance,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
Paul A.
Director of Engineering
PAS:dmg
ALBEMARLE COUNh f
CHARLOTTESVILLE
SECTION
SERVICE AUTHORITY
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY
WATER ONLY
WATER AND SEWER
WATER ONLY TO EXISTING STRUCTURES
These are existing structures as of the
adopted date, either 10-1-82 or 8-10-83
Please see "List of Existing Structures
OR Development Rights" for. specific
structures and. dates.
LIMITED SERVICE
Please see "List. of Existing. Structures OR
Development Rights" for specific limitation .
338 Rlo Road -- -.
·
Chsrlottesvllle, VA 22901 ....... ,
.......................... ........... '
PLANNING DIVISION
..... IATTACHMENT SI
December 2~ lqq7
Mr. V. Wayne cilimberg, Dlrecto[
Plat~ning & Community Development
Albemarle Count y
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Covenant Church of God
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
~ am wrU:ing in ~eg_~rd co the Cove~a~It Church of God (Tax Map<46
- Parcel 22D)'s request to be included in the Albemarle County
Se}.vi(ze AuthorJty's jurisdic:tional area. As you stated in your.
February 8, 199] staff report, the Comprehensive Plan is "inte~-
tio~al]y specific in objective and strategies as to where and
under what circumstances public utilities should be made
available:
~OBJECTI~;E: Prov[de public water 'and sewer services to the Urban
Area and communities.
STRATEGIES: Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas
in delineating jurisdictional areas."
The-Comprehensive Plan's reasoning behind that strategy is that
"such utilities are not to be extended to the rural areas as
~,hese services can increase development pressures." The develop-
men~ potential does not exist ]n this case. Th~ flood hazard
overlay maps clearly show that there is no developable land
between the Hollymead Growth Ar~a and the Rivanna River until
4,000' down Route 643 from Route 29. Everything else is ]n the
floodplain. As a matter of fact, a detailed flood study was done
~n this area and virtually everything is in the floodway, whfcb
as you know, proh]bit_~ all fill under any circumstance·
The total area bounded by Route 643~ t}',e South Fork Rlvanna
River, Route 29 and Powell Creek is approximately 200 acres. Of
that total, 120 acres is floodway. There are just over 30 acres
Which are not part ~f the church property, not in the floodplain
and beyond setback requiremc, nts. A significant portion of the 30
acres would be unbuildable due to critical slopes and the align-
lneot proposed for the Meadowcree~: Parkway.
V. Wayne Cil]mber,]
December 2, 1991
Page 2
The chef. ch p~operty fronts ,~n ~ road which is the southern bound-
ary of the Huilymead Gl;owth Ar.e.~ .-n~d the back of original tract
abuts the boundary for the N{.~ghborhood 2 Growth Area. Why then
is this property not part of a growth area? The answer ks found
in the Comprehensive Plan whJc}~ cCtat~s:
The area between the southern boundary of Route 643 and
the South Fork of the Rivanna River to remain in an open
state as s buffer between the urban area and the Community of
Ho]J.ymead. This boundary is critical as it preserves the
distinct identity of the community from the urban area and
prevents continuous development. E~om the City of
Charlottesville up Route 29 North Ilo the North Fork of the
Rivanna. Thi:{ area is incl~ded h', the R]vanna Rfver Greenway
Corridor and provides an oppnrl'unity for passive recreational
Again, please look at the flood hazard overlay. You will find
that 'the 100-year floodplain and floodway accomplish the stated
obJect~ves of. the Comprehensive Plan, providing a buffer and
opportunity for a greenway corridor.
Staff said that they were aware of t?,e limited opportunity for ~
growth in this area and that was one reason why this property was
not included in the Ho]lyme~d G~,wth Ar~a. Yet~ the Comp Plan
says "utilities are not to be extended to the rural areas as
these service~ can increase development pressures".
This puts the church in a position where it can't be included in
a growth area and have utilities because there's no5 enough area
to develop, but at the same time, it can't have utilities if it
isn't in a growth area because too much may develop. How can it
be both ways? If there isn't enough developable land tu be
included in a growth area, there can't be an increase in
development pressure, and therefore, utilities should be allowed.
This request is consistent with the reasoning which supports the
strategies and objective of the C~mprehensive Plan for provision
of public water and sewer service. Finally, according to the
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, the sewer which the church would
be connecting to (Powell Creek Interceptnr) was originally de--
signed to include the church property and has plenty of capacity.
Thank you for your consideratior, of th~s request. Please let me
know if you need any additional information.
At tachment s
Sincerely,
~.'1. Tho~.~8 M/lncastor, Jr.,
Bethel
273
Prof,1 t
Map 22:
COMMUNITY OF HOLLYMEAD
//
//
#
#
#
II
0
238 "...
/ I
./
Jt
J "= &,O0~
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
M.B. 40, Pg. 120
intersection with the origin of Barn Branch; then southwest with Barn
Branch to its conflfience with the Rivanna River; then meandering we$~
with the Rivanna River to its intersection with the eastern city
limits of Charlottesville; then northeast with the city limits to its
intersection with State Route 631 and the Southern Railroad
right-of-way, the point of beBlnnlng~
Agenda Item No. 8, Public Hearing on a request to amend the service area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include TM46,P22D,
Covenant Church of God, for water and sewer service. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on January 28 and February 4, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the tax map relating to the Covenant Church of
God identifies the parcel of land in question as Parcel 22. He pointed out
that the original special use permitwas for parcel 22, but that was befor~
this particular ten acres was subdivided from the original tract to create th~
site for which the particular use is being proposed. Mr. Cilimberg went on to
say that this request to smend the Albemarle Gounty Service Authority service
areas to provide public water and sewer to The Covenant Church of God was
originally made a year ago, but the applicant chose a= that time not to Bo to
public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant subsequently returned
with information supporting his feeling that it is appropriate to provide
water and sewer~er~ice to thisparticular location for_the_prpRosed church.
The applicant then chose to go to public hearing in December for this request.
~r. Cilimberg pointed out the Albemarle County Service Authority's
existing service areas on a map to show the relationship of this particular
parcel to surrounding service areas~ Adjacent to the north and across the
South Pork Rivanna River. there are full water and sewer service areas. These
areas coincide with the growth area boundaries for Hollymead and for the urban
area.' This request is for an area shown in the Comprehensive Plan outside of
th~se growth areas identified as open space between the two growth areas.
This particular site was approved for a church by special use permit, and ~t
that time, it was thought that a well and septic system would be used.
Further research into the site and further identification of the applicant's
need for the development si~e itself has since identified the need for consid-
ering public water and sewer to avoid a large area of septic fields and
disturbance on the site.
Mr. Cilimberg reminded Board members that they were provided a report in
December su~mmarizing the staff's position on the request. Also provided in
that r~port as Attachment A was a report of February 8, 1991, and an Attach-
ment B which is the justification as presented on behalf of The Covenant
Church of God by Mr. Tom Muncaster. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Mr. Muncaster's
r~asoning is that the parcel to be served is part of a very limited area that
could be developed between Hollymead and the urban area. Mr. Cilimberg
pointed out that due to the general restriction of flood plain and topography,
there is little area identified outside of the growth area that could be
developed. Mr. Cilimberg com~nented that Mr. Muncaster argues that the reason
this parcel is not included in the growth area is because it is part of an
area of limited development potential, so Mr. Muncaster feels that providing
public water and sewer to this parcel would not undermine the general intent
of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff recognizes that
fact. but the area was purposely not included in the growth area due ~o the
decision to retain the area between Route 643 and the ~outh Fork Rivanna River
as a general buffer between the ~wo growth areas. Mr. Cilimberg noted that
staff has consistently recommended that any area that is not currently in the
growth area~-should not be included in public utility service areas. A strong
attempt is made to make sure that these boundaries coincide. The staff feels
that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development in
designated growth areas, and for that reason, even with approvals outside of
growth areas for nonresidential development or special use permit types of
uses, the staff has not reco~mended water and sewer service. He reiterated
that t~e staff feels that the capacity is most important to those areas
designated for growth.
Mr. Bain asked if staff has determined that the area within the buffer
between the =wo communities is buildable. Mr. Citimberg responded that the
basic area Mr. Muncaster identified is shown in the report. The staff can
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
M.B. 40, Pg. 123'
Mr. Bare pointed out that the choice for the church lies between instal-
lation of a septic field which will take the prime lamd, or connecting to a
public sewer line. He feels that going through the Comprehensive Elan proce-
dure would cause an inordinate delay for the church. M~. Bare said he does
- not sit in the supervisors' chairs, and he does not know as much as they knew
about government, but he reminded the Board that it made a decision that this
meeting would be held, and he feels it has the right to go ahead and co~mend
the progress of this work. He pointed out that this is America, and Americans
do things by the demo=ratic process and they do not have to feel tied to
always repeat what has been done in the past. He feels this is an extraordi-
nary situation because the property is not attached to ~ny other area. The
property is a piece of isolated land, so it is not as though the Board would
'be setting a precedent. He does not know of any other place in the County
where there is a church surrounded by a flood plain which is attached to a
growth community with public services nearby.
Mr. Bare said this is a unique situation, and he does not think there is
any need for the Board to feel as though ordinances would be violated. He
'asked how there could be a violation when the Board has the right to vote for
water and sewer ~ervice. This is a momentous time for the church members, and
he does not feel that he is asking for anything exceptional. -He thinks that
this is a reasonable request, and he mentioned that many of the people's names
on the petition have never attended his church. These people heard the case
he presented, and they thought it]~adesense~an~that strong churches are
needed ~n the community. He added that he had submitted these remarks to Mr.
Cilimzberg in, a private discussion. Mr. Bare said he is also a sociologist,
and is trying to finish his doctorate at the University of Virginia. H~ said
it takes approximately 80 people to support a pastor a~d 125 people to have a
healthy, social network in a local church. He noted that sociologists are
saying across the country that healthy churches area healthy part of the
corm~unity, and Churches need to be able to grow. He said that this is an
important factor. He feels the Board members have before theme clear-cut
case, and the prayers and petitions are that the Board will grant its approv-
al. He respectfully thanked the Board for its consideration.
No one else wished to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Hun~hris commented that SP-90o35 was the request that allowed the
Covenant Church to be built in this area. She stated that the staff indicated
in its report that.this church was of an urban s~ale and implied that it
should more appropriately be built in an urban area. She said that it was
known from the very beginning that if the church was built in a rural area, it
could possibly present a problem. In spite of that fact and the Comprehensive
Plan g6als and zoning implications, the church group made aconscious decision
co go ahead with the request for ~ssuance of the special use permit, and it
was eventuRily approved~ Even though the developmeng potential may be limited
in this area, the County has made a very conscious and careful decision to
maintain that area on the map as a buffer betweem two growth areas, recogniz-
ing its value as a green space. She thinks that such a change requires a
proposal for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and if there are problems.with
that procedure, it is not the fault of this ~oard. She remindsd the group
that this Board did not make the original proposal. She noted that the church
representatives decided that the septic system would not do and that public
sewer was desired. She thinks the manner in which this Board should handle
this situation would be not to grant an exception to the Comprehensive Plan
and there would not be the possibility of setting a precedent.
Mrs.-Humphris noted that no matte~ how often it is b~lieved that ~o
simila~ circumstances will arise in the future, it co~id be discovsred at a
later date that a precedent had been established. She referred to the peti-
tion and said that good planning is not done based on popularity contests.
Good planning is based on good sound planning and policies; it is not a
numbers game. She believes that this request is not consistent with the
objectives and strategies of the Uompreh~nsive Plan% and she pointed out that
the staff had given a lot of time and attention to the request and still feels
that it is not in the best inter,st of the entire County. She really believes
that it fs possible that anytims an exception is granted to the Comprehensive
Plan, it will cause problem~ for the County at a later time. She is opposed
to this request and believes that this decision has to be based on existing
policies.
February [2, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
M.B. 40, Pg. 124
Mr. Bowerman said that Mr. Bain had raised a good point. Mr. Bowerman
asked if the Board could take action on this request and change the Comprehen-
sive Plan later to coincide with these actions. He went on to say that when
the Board voted to go ~o public hearing, comments were made recognizing that
200 acres were designated as green space. He said the ~reen belt can still be
maintained because there is plenty of land area along the river, but basically
this piece of property was a convenient boundary between the Hollymead growth
area and the urban growth area. Re stated that the situation was considered
closely. H~ had argued that a person could legitimately look at this area not
as separate from the urban area, but almost as part of it, since it is in such
close proximity to it. He pointed out that the majority of the land there is
not buildable. It was for that reason that he made the motion to hold a
public hearing. He does not think this will create any bad precedent because
he thinks it is a unique piece of property, even though there is some more
acreage there which this Board may have to deal with in the future. He
believes tha~ this is a reasonable use in a reasonable location. He thinks it
is impossible to get any closer to the urban area and not be in it because the
property falls between the two growth areas, and it is located on a State
highway. It is for all of these.reasons that he will support the application
for change in the service areas. He will consider, when the Comprehensive
Plan is reviewed, studying this area and legitimately changing some of the
lines,
Mr. Bain remarked that h~ would rather change the lines . He would
unquestionably support the request if the Board supportschan~ing the growth'
area boundaries. He recalls that when the Comprehensive Plan was being
develbped, and the whole Rollymead area was considered, areas east of
Hollymead were examined as possible growth areas because there was pressure
from those residents. He added that the people north of Route 6A3 were
requesting the same thing. He thinks that the staff and Board decided that
the whole area north of the river should not be in the growth area. Re said
that the green space was considered, but a lot of time was not spent on
considering whether or not the property south of Route 643 could be used fox
development apart from the flood plain. He asked Mr Cilimberg if he was
correct.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that topography maps idehtified flood plain areas
and steep slopes during the overall consideration of growth areas and the
immediate areas around growth areas. He thinks that this decision to stay
with the buffer between Route 643 and the River was because there were two
identifiable physical boundaries which provided a reasonable separation in
this high area. Re went on [o say that if the area is not developed, and
~reen space is desired in a high area that is very visible, then this area
would he serving that purpose. He does not think that the staff consciously
considered examining the south side of Route 643 to establish a reasonable
addition to the growth area. The staff knew that there was an area there that
might be available for development, but it was not identified because the
staff and Board seemed satisfied with continuing the separation.
Mr. Bain stated that the area in question is a very small area and he
thinks it could be included as part of the growth area. He will support a
resolution indicating that the Board wil~ consider adding that area as part of
the growth area. He is not sure, however, that this is a unique situation.
He has being trying to recall other areas tha~ are adjacent to streams and
close to the urban area, where there is a similar situation. He said that he
keeps in mind what the Comprehensive Plan indicates as far as extending
utilities, and for that reason, he has difficulty supporting the request apart
from a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Mr. Marshall comented that he also will support a resolution for an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan can be
changed. He pointed out that this Board is not considering a request from a
retail establishment, a night club or a bar. He added that this is a request
from a church group, and he wants to see as many people in c~urch as possible.
He asked if there was any reason why the church group should be denied its
request. He said that he will support the church group and its efforts.
Mr. Martin wondered if there was a way that a compromise could be ~orked
out whereby the supervisors could approve the intent of this public hearing,
and at the same time pursue a possible Comprehensive Plan change.
February 12,1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
M.B. 40, Pg. 125
Mr. Bain replied that the Board can do that, but he cannot support the
motion as it was stated. He understands that the church group has a lot of
money involved in this projecg, but he reminded the church representatives
that he voted against the motion in the be~ inning because it represents
putting an urban use in a rural area.
Mr.' Marshall asked if Mr. Bain could support the motion if the church
were allowed to connect to the utilities and the Board made a resolution to
follow this action. Mr. Bain responded, "no." He said that he would support
the resolution, but the matter should be brought hack to this Board in 60
days. The property, is a limited area of 30 or 40 acres of land, and if the
staff fee'ls that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is a way to handle the
situation, then he could probably support a motion at that time. Me believes
that supporting the request before a Comprehensive Plan amendment is consid-
ered would net allow the matter to progress in the proper order.
Mr. Bowerman stated to Mr. Bare that he believes there is Board support
for considering a Comprehensive Plan change first and delaying action on this
request for 60 days. Mr. Bowerman said he does not know if the motion will be
approved or disapproved if it is voted em now. He asked Mr. Bare his feelings
about waiting for 60 days to look at a Comprehensive Plan change. Mr. Bare
replied that he realizes that to wait would create a greater probability of a '
favorable vote. He said, again, that the 60 day wait would almost assuredly
not a.llow the church to be built this year because the winter months would be
here before any construction could be started, He also understands this '
Board's political position. He knows the Board has a legal right to vote
tonight, and it is as legal as waiting six years and going through 50 Compre-
hensive Plan changes. He added that this is due procedure, and he stated that
this is the church group's position.
Mr. Perkins commented ghat he can support this request because the
important thing for this church group is the time element. Ne thinks this
piece of property is unique. If the Board only adheres to the Comprehensiv~
Plan there would not be any need for the Supervisors to meet as often as they
do. He thinks the Comprehensive Plan was made to be changed, and he thinks
that this is one of those times when it can be changed. He would not be
opposed to the r~quest b~cau~e the timing is very important to these people.
He will support a change in the service area boundaries.
Mr. Bain said the issue befor~ the Board is land use, and that is what
the Board should base its decision on, He said that Mr. Bare and his congre-
gation have the right as landowners to come before this Board and ask for a
change. He added, though, that this Board makes decisions that are related to
land uge and the Comprehensive Plan, etc. This Board has already approved the
request for the church ~o be built on that property, but now this Board is
having to make another decision tonight, Mr. Perkins replied that a lot of
requests have been before this Board, and some have been approved and some
have be~n denied. He said that there will always be reqBesgs from people, and
some of the requeshs will continue to be approved, unless there is a change in
the Board members.
Mr. Marshall stated that he feels each case has its own merits.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that the Board has turned down a lot of requests
along Hydraulic Road, north of Albemarle High School, because the property was
in the drainage area of the Reservoir. He thinks that this is important. He
said that this is not the case with the piece of property in question, and he
thinks that this situation is unique.
Mr. Marshall agreed with Mr. Perkins' previous statement that if the
supervisors were only going go adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, then they
have no reason to be at these meetings.. '
Mrs. Humphris remarked that the whol~ point is that if the supervisors
don't want to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, then the Comprehensive Plan
should'be chanBed, but exceptions should not be made to the Plan.
Mr. Marshall said that he does not agree. He stated that a whole text-
book would not be changed just because it was necessary to change one area in
M.B. 4O, Pg. 126
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
it. He said that the Comprehensive Plar~ is good, but it is not the Holy
Bible.
Mr. Martin stated that he would support a motion for Mr. Barr's request
because a special use permit was given to the church, and he feels that once
that special use permit was given, any legitimate argument of using that space
as a buffer disappeared.
Mr. Bain explained that any agricultural land outside of the flood plaim
can be developed, so this property could have been developed with houses. He
said that in a rural area. there are still development rights.
Mr. Martin remarked that he thought the special use p~rmit was given with
the idea that a church would be built there. Be reiterated that once the
special use permit was issued, then it was already determined that some of the
buffer space'~would be lost. This.decision was made when the speoiat use
permit was issued. He understands what Mr. Bain is saying about the order in
whioh these matters should be handled, and he thinks that the Comprehensive
Plan is a guide and should be treated as a guide. He also believes that the
Board should always try to stay within the Plan except when there are excep-
tions. To him. this is one of the exceptions that the Board should approve,
but he realizes that perhaps the next request will not be approved.
~r, Bowerman commented that he has not supported any exceptions since he
has been on th~s Board or when he was a member of the Planning Commission
where there was a question of extending the service areas into a watershed of
any of the water supply reservoirs, including the Totier Creek watershed. He
voted against changing the service lines for exactly the same reason. He
pointed out that this property is not in a watershed area. He asked if there
is a motion.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to approve inclusion of
Parcel 22'on Tax Map A6 in the service area boundaries of the Albemarle Co~ty
Service Authority for both water and sewer service, for the 10.3 acres to 5e
occupied by the church, and further limited to only the church building as
approved under SP-90-35 for Covenant Church of God.
Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Mr. St. John pointed out that this request is for water and sewer ser-
vice. He asked, if this request is approved, how will the water be routed to
the church. He pointed out that the sewer service is not on the church
property, but it is near to the property~ He stated that someone on the staff
should'supply this information.
Mr. Bowerman' asked if there is service area coverage between the water
and sewer lines and this parcel. Mr. St. John answered that there has to be a
service area where the lines are. He said that there are houses adjacent to
this church along Route 643. Be added that if the water line is brough5 along
the road to reach this church, it will be in the street adjacent to these
houses. He said that this raises the question of whether or not these people
might make the same request.
Mr. Marshall noted that his motion stipulates that the water and sewer
service will only.be to the church.
Mr. Martin asked if this would be a matter that will be brought back to
this Board. Mr. St. John replied that the matter would be brought back to the
Board if someone else made such a request.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bill Brent if he uould comment on the proximity of
water and sewer service to this specific site, Mr. St. 'John asked Mr. Brent
to explain how the new lines will be routed if new lines are necessary to get
the utilities to the site.
Mr. Brent responded that the applicant has not made a specific design as
to how to extend the water line to the particular site. He added that the
path of least resistance and the obvious route ~ould have the water routed
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page II)
M.B. 40, Pg~27
down Route 643 from Route 29 because the closest water line is located at
Route 29. He went on go say that he is not sure if the sewer llne crosses the
property in question, but if it doesn't, it is very close to it.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the sewer line is on a portion of the residue
parcel. He pointed out on the map the portion of the property the sewer line
crosses.
Mr. St. John asked if the sewer line crosses a portion of the property
now ewned by the church. Mr. Cilimberg answered that as far as he knows the
church' owns the property where the sewer line is routed. Mr. St. John ex-
plained that easements would have to be gotten if other people's property is
involved.
Mr. Brent stated that there are easement rights. Mr. St. John stated
that this answers his question. He went on to Say that it would probably be
impractical to connect to sewer service without also connecting to the water
Service.
Mr. Brent next explained that if the church was not connected to the
County's water system, it would be impossible to know how much sewer service
was being used. He said that, in such a case, the church representatives
would be required to put a meter on the well.
Roll was c~lle~ arid the motion carr~e~ by the following recorded vote.:
AYES: ~ Messrs. Bowerman, Marshall, Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-91-12. Beechtree Associates Limited Partnership.
Public Hearing on a request ~o rezone 1.12 acs from CO (proffered) to C-I
(proffered). Property in SE quadrant of Whitewood/Hydraulic Rds inters is
located in Neighborhood I. Property shown in the Comprehensive Plan for
Neighborhood Service. TM61,P25. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on January 28 and February 4, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"CF~RACTE~ OF THE AREA: THis site is currently developed with ~
cormmercial building consisting of muitiple rental spaces. Adjacent
properties are also. developed co~ercially. This site has access
directly to Whitewood Road and is connected to Hydraulic Road through
the adjacent cormmercial development. Albemarle High School is located
on Hydraulic Road opposite this site.
APPLIC~kNT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposxng to amend the exist-
ing zoning of the property in order to broaden the range of permitted
uses. The applicant,has proffered to delete uses which are inconsis-
tent with the Neighborhood Service des$gnation of this site or which
maybe inappropriate in this location due to'proximity to the high
school and/or access. The applicant's proffers are included as
Attachment C (set out in full below).
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
March 13. 1963 - Subdivision creating parcel under review was ap-
proved.
January 28, 1976 - The Board of Supervisors rezoned the one parcel
from R-2, Residential, to B-l, Business, subject to the entrance =o
the site-being limited to Whitewood Road.
March 24, 1981 - The Planning Co~%mission approved the site plan for
this property,
July 20, 1983 - The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-g3-08 (Prof-
fered). This action rezoned the property from G-l, Commercial, to CO,
Co~mmercial Office.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Hurt Investment and South Fork Land Trust Jurisdictional
Boundary Request
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:.
Request te allow a proposed soccer field complex to
connect to public sewer
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Benish, Fritz
AGENDA DATE:
July 1, 1998
ACTION: Yes
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
.A'I-FACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
./
The applicant is requesting that public sewer service be permitted for Tax Map 46, Pamels 22 and 22C. This site is located on
the south side of Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd, appro:dmatety 1.1 miles east of Route 29. The property is bordered on the north
by Route 643 and on the south by the Rivanna River. The purpose of the request is to allow the construction of a soccer field
complex.
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors approved water and sewer service for Parcel 22 on February 12, 1992. That approval was limited
to service to only the church building approved under SP 90-35 for Covenant Church of God. Staff has attached the original
staff report, action letter and Board minutes.
DISCUSSION:
This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends for the Hollymead
Community ~The area between the southern boundary of the DevelopmentArea and the South Fork.0f the Rivanna River is to
remain in an open state as a buffer between the Urban Area and [heComrnunity of Hollymead. This boundary is critical as it
preserves the distinct identity of the Community from the Urban Area and prevents continuous development from the City of
Charlottesville to the North Fork of the Rivanna". The Comprehensive plan recommendations for Public Water and Sewer
outside of Development Areas is contained on Page 125. The recommendation states "Only allow changes in jurisdictional
areas outside of designated Development Areas in cases where the proper~ is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public
health and/or safety is in danger". The sewer line does cross the property. The request for public sewer for this site is made
in order to alleviate the need to construct drainfields. Due to the topography of the site the drainfields would need to be located
at an elevation above the proposed building. This location for the drainfields will require pumping. Pumping of effluent is not
a desirable design as it involves the use of a pump which can fail. Gravity is the preferred method for disposal of effluent.
Therefore approval of this request may be considered to be as promoting the public health.
This request is for sewer service only to the proposed soccer fields. The Board has already determined that an 800 seat church
connected to public water and sewer is appropriate for this site, In staff opinion the proposed soccer fields have less of an impact
than the previously approved church. The soccer field will cause no greater impact to the sewer line than would have been
caused bythe church. In fact usage of the sewer line by the soccer fields is anticipated to be less than would occur with the
church. Under the assumption that the prior decision te grant public water and sewer service to this site was correct this request
for sewer only service is supportable. Approval of this request does notin staff opinion create any unwanted precedent.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing for this jurisdictional boundary amendment request. Should the
Board proceed to public hearing for the jurisdictional boundary amendment and approve the proposed special use permit for
the soccer facility staff is able to support this request for sewer service with two conditions.
1. The approval of SP 90-35 is revoked and the prior approval of water and sewer service for Parcel 22 is revoked.
2. Sewer service only is authorized and only for the soccer fields proposed by SP 98-18 and SP 98-22.
98.118
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept of Planning &: Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charloltesville, V~rglma 229C 1~45%
804/ 296-5823
February 14, 1992
Covenant Church of God
ATTN: Harold L. Bare
1025 East Rio Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-90-35 Covenant Church of God
Dear Mr. Bare:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
February 12, 1992, approved inclusion of Parcel 22 on Tax
Map 46 in the service area boundaries of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for both water and sewer service,
for the 10.3 acres to be occupied by the church, and further
limited service to only the church building as approved
under SP-90-35 for Covenant Church of God.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
V. Wayn~ Cilimberg / /'
Director of Plannit&
Community Development
VWC/jcw
Bill Brent
Amelia Patterson
Jo Higgins
Paula Eubaok
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
V. Wayne cilimberg, Director of Planning Community Development
December 4, 1991
Request for Inclusion in Service Authority
Jurisdictional Area - Covenant Church of God
On February 13, 1991, the Board heard a request from the Covenant Church
of God to include Tax Map 46, Parcel 22 in the Jurisdictional'3~rea of
the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service.
Attached is the February 8, 1991 staff report for that reques~
(Attachment A). The Board denied the request for a public heA~ing at
that meeting.
The Covenant Church has resubmitted the same request with supporting
justification (See Attachment B). In summary, Mr. Muncaster's reasoning
on behalf of the church i~ that the parcel to be served is part of a
very limited area that could be developed between Hollymead and the
Urban Area due to the restrictions of floodplain and topography. He
also argues that the reason this parcel is not included in the growth
area is because it is part of an area with very limited development
potential. Therefore, Mr. Muncaster feels that providing public water
and sewer to this parcel would not undermine the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan in this case.
Staff recommendation remains ks presented in its February 8 staff
report. While development potential may be limited in this area, it was
purpos~f-~lly not included in the growth area due to the decision to
retain the area between Route 643 and the South Fork Rivanna as a
buffer. Consistently, staff has recommended that any area not in the
growth area not be included in the jurisdictional area, particularly
because public utility capacities should be reserved to support
development of designated growth areas.
VWC/mem
cc: Tom Muncaster
Bill Brent
IATTAI HMENT
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept of Planning & Community Development
401 M¢Intire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
1804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and I~j~/
community Development ~
f
February 8, 1991
Rgquest To Amend ACSA Service Areas To Provide
Public Water and Sewer To The Covenant Church of
God (Tax Map 46, Parcel 22)
In June,.1990, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-90-35
Covenant Church of God to allow construction of an 800 seat
church on this property. At this time, the Board is being
requested to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
service areas to allow public water and sewer service to
this site without restriction (request attached).
COMPREHENSIVE PLANt
As was noted in the special use permit report, this site is
in the Rural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding provision of public utilities, the Comprehensive
Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strateqles
as to where and under what circumstances public utilities
should be made available (p. 146):
OBJECTIVE: Provide public water and sewer services to
the Urban Area and Communities.
STRATEGIES:
Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth
Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas.
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Page 2
February 8, 1991
Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside
of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases
where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing
lines; and (2) public health or safety is
endangered.
This request is inconsistent with both the objective and
applicable strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. There are
no identified quality or quantity~problems with water on
this property that staff is aware of. Further, the
Comprehensive Plan warns that "such utilities are not to be
extended to the Rural Areas as these services can increase
development pressures" (p. 146).
In the special use permit report, staff suggested tha~this
project was of an urban scale and orientation and would be
more appropriately located in a designated growth area~
Currently, the Board is being requested to provide urban
utilities to the site. It should be noted that the applicant
has stated that "approval of this petition would also
preserve acreage for much more practical uses than
drainfield" as well as their position that "the
governmental disposition towards this parcel is
commercial." Should the Board provide this site with public
utilities it could enhance argument for further development
in the future.
RECOMMENDATION
This request is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan
objective and applicable strategies for provision of public
water and sewer service. Public utility capacities should
be reserved to support development of designated growth
areas. Allowance for water and/or sewer services to this
property would be inconsistent with past actions by the
Board to l'imit utility service outside the designated growth
areas. Staff recommends that public water and sewer service
not be made available to this property.
Should the Board cheose to approve the applicant's request,
service should be limited to the 10.3 acres to occupied by
the church and further limited to only the church building
as approved under SP-90-35 Covenant Church of God.
VWC/jcw
ATTACHMENT
----Covenant Church of God
January 11, 1991
Mr. F. R. Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
Supervisors
22901
PL.A DiVISIOH
Dear Mr. Bowie:
Please accept this petition as a formal request to include
TM 46 Parcel 22 in the jurisdictional area for public
water and sewer.
As you are aware this property has been approved for con-
struction of a church complex. Included in our purchase
of the property were easements to the public sewer which
runs adjacent along'the eastern boundary of the above
cited parcel. Less than 300 feet of natural fall is
between our boundary and the sewer line.
Our petition incorporates historical studies of the county
growth plan, even back to the 70's, which anticipated
growth parallel with sewer and water lines. The sewer.
line is already installed. Forest Lakes' plan anticipates
southerly development approaching Route 643. In addition,
Meadow Creek Parkway, which is part of the Comprehensive
Plan, will certainly dictate growth.
Approval of this petition would also preserve acreage for
much more practical uses than drainfield. It is
noteworthy that the Tax Assessor's office has designated
8+ acres as being taxable--non-agricultural, which
indicates that the governmental disposition towards this
parcel is commercial.
The petitioner understands that installation of lines and
hookups are the cost of the petitioner. We have already
talked with Paul Shoop of the Albemarle Service Authority
regarding the logistics, and a letter from Mr. Shoop is
attached. Our expectation would be to act expeditiously
consequent to approval.
1025 East Rio Road
Charlottesville,
Virginia 22901
(~04)
SENIOR PASTOR
Harold L. Bm'e, Sr.
PASTOR
Youth ar,zl Music
Jerry Steele
PASTOR
Education and Extensiofl
V~or Morris
Obviously, we are most anxious for a favorable
vote. What we have petitioned seems to us quite
logical.
Your consideration and cooperation will be
deeply appreciated.
' Gratefullv~
~f61d L. Bare,
Enclosures (2): Plat
Letter from Paul Shoop
cc: Paul Shoop
~. Wayne Cilimberg
LBFMA LE k QUNTY SF ViQ AUTHORITY
BOX 1009 40] MclNTIRE RD. CHARLOI-I'ESVILLE. VA 22902 (804) 296-5810
January 9, 199I
Pastor Harold L. Bare, Sr.
1025 E. Rio Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Sanitary Sewer Service for TM 46 Parcel 22
Dear Pastor Bare:
I have reviewed the availability ofpublic water and sewer to
your part of parcel 22 above. Unfortunately, this property is not
currently within our jurisdictional area. You must petition' the
Board of Supervisors to have this included.
There is a sanitary sewer line onsite with adequate capacity
to provide service to this property. Connection to this line will
require authorization from the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority. If
you are successful in your petition to the Board, we will support
this connection and intervene to have it approved by Rivanna.
Water service is somewhat distant, the nearest available line
is at Rt. 29 approximately 6600 if offsite.
I hope you are successful in petitioning the Board. The
proximity of other properties included in our jurisdictional area
should support your request. If I can be of further assistance,
please let me know.
PAS:dmg
Sincerely,
Paul A. Shoop, P.~.
Director of Engineering.
ALBEMARLE
o
..', :~.. ! \
:: '~
.l
CHARLOTTESVILLE
SEOTION 4~
SERVICE AUTHORITY
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY
WATER ONLY
WATER AND SEWER
WATER ONLY TO EXISTING STRUCTURES
These are existing structures as of the
adopted date, either 10-1-82 or 8-10-83
Please see "List of Existing Structures
OR Development Rights" for. sPecific
structures and. dates.
LIMITED SERVICE
Please see"List of Exis'~ing Structures OR
Development Rights" for specific limitations.
DEC
PLANNING DIVISION
338 Rio Road , ................... ~
C ' V
harlottesville, A 2290~ ........
.................................. ..............
{ATTACHMENT B{
DecembeK 2. lqqi
Mr. V. Wayne cilil'dber%l, Dir~cto~
Planning & Coramunity Deve].¢pment
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Covenant Church of God
¼
Dear Mr. Cilhnberg:
I am writJ, ng in regard to the Covenant Church of God (Tax Map J[-46
Parcel 22D)'s request to be included in the Albemarle County..
Service Authority's jurisdictional area. As you stated in your
February 8, 199] staff report, the Comprehensive Plan is "inte~%-
tionally specific in objective and strategies as to where and
under what circumstances public utilities should be made
available:
OBJECTIVE: Provide public water-arid sewer services to the Urban
Area arrd communit.ies.
STRATEGIES. Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas
in delineating jurisdictional areas."
The-Comprehensive Plan's reasoning behind that strategy is that
"suc~'~ utilities are not to be extended to the rural areas as
these services can increase development pressures." The develop-
ment potential does not exist in this case. The flood hazard
overlay maps clearly show that there is rio developable land
between the Hollymead Growth Area and the Rivanna River until
4,000' down Route 643 from Route 29. Everything else is h~ the
floodplain. As a matter of fact, a detailed flood study was done
in this area and virtually everything is in the floodway, which
as you know, prohibits all fill tinder any circumstance.
The total ar~a bounded by Route 643, the South For. k givanna
River, Route 29 and Powelt Creek is approximately 200 acres. Of
that total, 120 acres is floodwa3L There are just over 30 acres
which are not part of the church propers, y, not in the floodplain
arrd beyond setback requi~em~-.nts. A significant portion of th,~ 30
acres would be unbuildabie due to critical slopes and the aligu-
menE proposed for the Meadowcreel< Parkway.
V. Wayne Cilb~d~erg
December: 2, i[9':)1
The church property £roncs on ,, road which ~s the southern bound-
ary of the Hoilymead Growth Ar~.~ .-md the back of original tract
abuts the boundary for the Neighborhond 2 Growth Area. Why then
is this property not parr of a growth area? The answer is found
in the Comprehensive Plan which s:tat, es:
The area benween the southern boundary of Route 643 and
the South Fork of the Rivanna River uo remain in an open
state ~s a bu£fer b~tween th~ urban area and the Community of
Hollymead. This boundary ]s critical as ~t preserves the
distinct identity of the community from the urban area and
p~events c. ont]nuous develo[men~ ~zom the City of
Charlottesville up Route 29 Nott] ~:o the North Fork of the
Rivanna. Thi~; area ~s included in the R]vanna River Greenway
Corridor and provides an opportunity for passive recreational
Again, please look a~ the flood hazard overlay. You will find
that the 10U-year floodplain and floodway accomplish the stated
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, i-,roviding a buffer and
opportunity for a ~reenway corridor. ~
Staff said that they w~re aware of the limited opportunity for
growth In this area and that was one reason why this proper~y was
not included b the Hollymead Gr~,wth Area. Yet, the Comp Plan
says "utilities are not to be extended to the rural areas as
these services can increase development pressures".
This puls the church in a position where it can't be included in
a growth area and have utilities because there's not enough area
to develop, but a~.the same time, it can't have utilities if it
isn't in a growth area because too much '.nay develop. How can it
be both ways? If there isn't enough developable land to be
included in a growth area, there can't be an ~ncrease in
development pressure, and therefore, utilities should be allowed.
This request is consistent with the reasoning which supports the
strategies and objective of the Comprehensive Plan for provision
of public water and sewer service. Finally, according Eo the
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, the sewer which the church would
be connecting to (Powell Creek Interceptor) was originally de--
signed to include the church propersy and has plenty of capacity.
Thank you for you~ considerat~o~ of th~s request. Please let me
know if you need ~ny additional information.
Attachments
Sincerely,
W. Thomas MuncasE~z, Jr., P.E.
ILL ~ /~A.S T
Park
:6(
'26
thfield~
Map 22:
COMMUNITY OF HOLLYMEAD
273
fo
,-\
~5
22
/',Dx]
,98B
~ 97A'-.J
98
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
M.B~ 40, Pg. 120
intersection with the origin of Barn Branch; then southwest with Barn
Branch to its eonfl6ence with the Rivanna River; then meandering west
with the Rivanna River to its intersection with the eastern city
limits of Charlottesville; then northeas£ with the city limits to its
intersection with State Route 631 and the Southern Railroad
right-of-way, the point of beginning.
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include TM46,P22D,
Progress on 3anuary 28 and February 4, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the ~ax map relating no the Covenant Church of
God identifies the parcel of land in question as Parcel 22. He pointed out
that the original special use permit was for parcel 22, but that was before
this particular ten acres was subdivided from the original tract co create the
site for which the particular use is being proposed. Mr. Cilimberg went on to
say that this request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service
areas to provide public water and sewer to The Covenant Church of God was
originally made a year ago, but the applicant chose at that time not to go to
public hearing. Mr~ Cilimberg stated that the applicant subsequently returned
with information supporting his feetin~ that it ~s appropriate to provide
water and sewer service to this particular location for the proposed church.
The applicant then chose co go to public hearing in Omeember for this request.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the Albemarle County Service Authority's
existing servzce areas on a map co show the relationship of this particular
parcel to surrounding service areas. Adjacen~ to the north and across the
South Fork Rivanna Riverthere are full water and sewer service ar~as. These
ar~as coincide with the growth area boundaries for Hollymead and for the urban
area. This reques~ is for an area shown in the Comprehensive Plan outside of
those growth areas identified as open space between the two growth areas.
This particular site was approved for a church by special use permit, and at
that time, it was thought that a well and septic system would be used.
Further research into the site and further identification of the applicant's
need for the development sit% itself has since identified the need for consid-
ering public waner and sewer ~o avoid a large area of septic fields and
disturbance on the site.
Mr. Cilimberg reminded Board members that they were provided a repor~ ~n
December summarizing the staff's position on the eequesg. Also provided in
that report as Attachment A was a report of February 8, 1991, and ~n Attach-
ment B which is the justification as presented on behalf of The Covenant
Church of God by Mr. Tom Muncaster. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Mr. Muncaster's
reasoning is that the parcel ~o be served is par= of a very limited area that
could be develoued between Hollymead and the urban area. Mr. Cilimberg
pointed out that due to the general restriction of flood plain and ~opography,
there is littie area identified outside of the growth area that could be
developed. Mr. Cilimberg co~ented that Mr. Muncaster argues that the reason
this parcel fs not included in the growth area is because it is part of an
area of limited development potential, so Mr. Muncaster feels that providing
~ublic wa~er and sewer co this parcel would not undermine the general intent
of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff eecognizes that
fact, but the area was purposely not included in the growth area due [o the
decision to retain the area between Route 643 and the South Fork Rivanna River
as a Beneral buffer between the two growth areas. Mr~ Cilimberg noted that
staff has consistently recommended that any area that is not currently in the
growth area.should not be included in public utility service areas. A strong
attempt is made to make sure that these boundaries coincide. The staff feels
that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development in
designated growth areas~ and for that reason, even with approvals out~ide of
growth areas for nonresidential dmvelopment or special use permit types of
that thD staff feels that the capacity is most important to those areas
designated for growth.
Mr. Bain asked if staff has determined that the area within the buffer
between the two communities is buildable Mr. Cilimberg responded that the
basic area Mr, Muncaster identified is shown in the report. The staff can
M.B. 40, Pg. 121
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
confirm, based on Mr. Muncaster's information, that it is a reasonable assump-
tion that the area he has identified will be the limit of any developable
area. He directed the Board's attention to Attachment B, and described
several maps at the back of the package. He said there is an area that
encompasses the site for the church, outlined in yellow on the map. The staff
would agree that this is the area where, if development is expected in this
area, this is where it wouId happen. The area b~yond is very unlikely for
anything besides the normal flood plain type uses. The staff told Mr.
Muncaster and Mr. Bare that if they wanted to pursue the service areas
quest, the staff would recommend looking at an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan first so the'areas could be recognized as being in the growth area~
Mr. Bain stated that he has a hard time supporting something that is
outside of growth areas, because of th~ Comprehensive Plan and the procedures
that meed to be followed. He added, though, that if this is m limited area
that can be used for something, then he thinks the Board should consider
putting that limited area in the Comprehensive Plan as ~ growth area. He went
on to say that it could be attached to the Hollymead growth area, and then
there would not be a problem. He said that the growth arem and the water and
sewer service areas can be treated as they have been treated in the past. Ms
then asked where the wa~er and sewer lines now cross the buffer areas*.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that the sewer line travels up the South Fork
Rivanna River and follows Powell Creek up into Hollymead. He does no[ know
how close the water lines are, but Mr. Bill Brent or Mr. Muncaster would point
them ou~. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there ~s water service in Hollymead and in
the urban area. He them called the Board's attention to the fact that the
reason the Route 643 boundary was used on the north and the Rivanna River
boundary was used on the South is because it was considered that the whole
area provided a green space between the two growth areas. He noted that if
this request ~s approved, it would be in recognition of the fact that this
area is not that valuable as a green space between the [we growth areas. He
stated that the easiest thing for the staff would be to consider this request
along with the other expansions of growth ~reas to be considered next year.
Mr. Martin said since the church ~eceived a special use permit to build a
church in that area it really im not a green area now. He does not think the
wa~er and sewer service will affect whether or net it becomes a green area.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that if the special u~e permit is exercised, the area
will mo~ serve as a ~rm~n space,
Mr. Marshall remarked that the staff zs recommending that water and sewer
service be denied to this property, and he doesn't agree. He asked why the
staff is not recommending wager And sewer service for the church. He inquired
if the only reason is because the property is out of the growth area. Mr.
Cilimberg answereM that the property is ou% of the growth area and approval
would be inconsistent with the County's planning approach. He reiterated that
the capacity of the water and sewer system needs to be reserved for develop-
men~ of designated growth areas. Each mncremental addition outside of the
growth areas, which uses public utilities, takes some of the capacity away.
Mr. Marshall then inquired if this proper~y is going to be incorporated
into the growth area.
Mr. Bain stated that he had raised this as a possibility. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that if the Board thinks that it is important 5o have this proper~y
incorporated into a growth area. then the Comprehensive Plan could be amended.
Mr. Bain mentioned that if this property is really in ~ limited area,
from a policy perspective, the Board probably should agree to ~ncorporate this
property into the plan as a growth area. Mr. Marshall remarked that he agrees
with~Mr. Bain.
Mr. Bain said the Board had received information last year which con-
tained quo~es from the Comprehensive Plan indicating that the service areas
should be followed wherever possible unless public health or safety are
involved.
M.B. 40, Pg. 122
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
There were no othe= questions for Mr. Cilimberg from Board members. Mr.
Bowerman then opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Muncaster ii he would
iike to speak.
Mr. Tom Muncaster, Muncaster Engineering and Computer Applications,
pointed out that the project fronts on Route 643, and everything north of
Route 643 is part of the Hollymead growth area. The area to the south of the
property fronts on the South Fork of the Rivanna River, and everything south
of that is parc of the Neighborhood Two growth area. He stated that
percent of the land west of the bend in the river, Between the site and Route
29, is part of the flood plain and is, therefore, not developable, there will
not be the opportunity to increase development pressures if this site is
included in the service area.
Mr. Muncaster said a special use permit for this church has been ap-
proved, and the church will be built, but there is a question of whether to
build in an environmentally sound manner by connecting to a public sewer or no
let the site layout be dictated by a mass of drain fields. From an engineer-
ing standpoint, the best option is obvious. He said the Board has accepted
such risks in the past under the assumption that the risks were less than the
increased pollution which could be caused by development. In his experience,
this has been an issue when a particular project has been in the watershed of
one of the County's public drinking wa~er impoundments. He pointed out that
this pro3ect ~s different because it is not in the watershed of one of the
County's public drinking water impoundments, and it is next to an existing
sewer line. He added that the flood plain will provide a buffer betweem two
growth areas. He reiterated that increased development pressures are not an
issue with this project.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Muncaster to point out on the map the part of the
property that would be in the growth area, if the Comprehensive Plan were
changed so as to allow this property to be included in the growth area. Mr.
Muncaster did so, Mrs. Humphris asked how many acres would be involved in the
growth area. Mr. Muncaster replied that 30 acres weuId be involved, ge
pointed out that the Meadow Creek Parkway wouldaiso take some of the land if
the Parkway is ever built.
Mr. Bain stated that the 30 acres mentioned by Mr. Muncaster is not part
of the church property. He asked how many acres are actually par~ of the
church property. Mr, Tucker responded that the church has a ten-acre parcel.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Muncaster to point out the sewer and water lines.
Mr. Muncastet showed Mr. Perkins the sewer line on the map, but Mr. Muncaster
stated that the nearest water line traveled along Route 29 north.
Mr. Harold Bare, Pastor, Covenant Church of God. said the special use
permit an important factor for his local parish. He realizes that there may
be some present tonight who could be opposed to his request. He asked church
representatives to stand and be recognized, and he then presented a petition
to the Board, He stated that within 15 or 20 minutes he could fill the room
with 100 plus people who are standing by with buses, but he did not want to do
that.
Mr. Bare said his concern is simple, and he thinks that it is quite
clear. He has listened to the evidence and heard the talk about the green
space, but the church property is hOC involved with th~ green space area. The
property has already been r~moved from the farm tract, and more than $500,000
has been invested in th~ property, so the matter cannon be treated trivially.
This is a significant monetary investment, so something has co happen with
this pieoe of land. Time is a factor, and he would like to begin the project
this summer~ If this Board chooses to have a Comprehensive Plan amendment, he
believes that by the time the Board went through its time tables and the
for. the Church went through their site plan and everything were
cleared with all County departments, it could be 1994 before ground could be
broken for the church. This is a.time-consuming process, and any delays in
the procedure would put the time further into the future because a site plan
could not be done until everything were settled. Site plans are expensive and
the church cannot afford ~o spend money on a sit~ plan anticipating something
that may not materialize.
M.B. 40, Pg. 123
February 12, 1992 (Regular Might Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Bare pointed out that the choice for the church li~s between instal-
lation of a septic field which will taka the prime land, or connecting to a
public sewer line. He feels that going through the Comprehensive Plan proce-
dure would cause an inordinate delay for the church. Mr. Bare said he does
not sit in the supervisors' chairs, and he does mot know ~s much as they know
about government, but he ~eminded th~ Board that it made a decision that this
meeting would be held, and he f~els it has the right to go ahead and commend
the progress of this work. Re pointed out that this is America, and Americans
do thingm by the democratic process and they do not have to feel tied to
always r~peat what has been done in the past. He feelm this is an extraordi-
nary situation because the property is mot attached to any other area. The
property is a piece of isolated land, so it is not ms though the Board would
be setting a precedent. Re does not know of any other place in the County
where there ~s a church surrounded by a flood plain which is attached to a
growth con~nunity with public services nearby.
Mr. Bare said this is a unique situation, and he does not think there is
any need for the Board to feel as though ordinances would be violated. He
asked how there could be a violation when the Board has the right to vot~ for
water and sewer service. This is a momentous tim~ for the church members, and
he does not ~eel that he is asking Pot anything exceptional. He thinks that
this is a reasonable request, and he mentioned that many of the people's names
on the petition have never attended his church. These people heard the case
he presented, and ~hey thought it made sense and that strong churches are
needed in the community. He added that he had submitted these remarks to Mr.
Cilimberg in a privat~ discussion. Mr Bare said he is almo a sociologist,
and is trying to finish his doctorate a~ the University of Virginfa~ H~ said
it takes approximately 80 people to support a pastor and 125 people to have a
healthy, social metwork in a local church. He noted that sociologists are
saying acros~ the country that healthy churches are a healthy part of the
community, and churches need to be able ~o grow. He said that this is an
importmnt factor. He feels the Board memberm have before them ~ clear-cut
case, and th~ prayers and petitions are that the Board will grant its. approv-
al. He respectfully thanked the Board for its consideration.
No one else wished to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Humphris conm~nted that SP-90-35 was the request that allowed the
Covenant Church to' be built in this area. She stated that the st~ff indicated
in its report that this church was of an urban scale and implied that it
should more appropriately be built in an urban area. She said that it was
known from the very beginning that if the church was built in a rural area, it
could possibly present a problem. In spite of that fact and the Comprehensive
Plan goals and zoning' implications, the church group made a conscious decision
to go ahead ~ith the request for issuance of the special use permit, and it
was eventually approved. Even though the development potential may be limited
in this area, the County has made a very conscious and careful decision to
maintain that area on the map as a buffer between two growth areas, recogniz-
ing its value as a green space. She thinks that such m change requires a
praposal for m Comprehensive Plan amendment, and if there are problems.with
that procedure, it is not the fault of this Board. She reminded the group
that this Board did not make the original proposal. She noted that the church
representatives decided that the septic system would not do and that public
sewer was desired. She thinks the manner in which this Board should handle
this situation would be not to gran~ an exception to the Comprehensive Plan
and there would not be th~ possibility of setting a precedent.
Mrs. Humphris noted that no matte~ how often it is believed that no
similar circumstances wili ar~se in the future, it could be discovered at a
later date that a precedent had been established. She referred to the peti-
tion and said that good planning is mot done based on popularity contests.
Good planning is based on good sound planning and policies; it is not a
objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, and she pointed out that
the staff had given a lot of time and attention to the request and still feels
that it is not in th~ best intergst of the ~ntir~ County. She realty believes
that it ~s possible that anytime an exception is granted to the Comprehensive
Plan, it will cause problems for the County at a later time. She is opposed
to this toques= and believes that this decision has to be based on existing
policies.
M.B. 40, Pg. 124
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Bowerman said that Mr. Bain had raised a good point Mr, Bowerman
asked if the Board could take action on this request and change the Compr~hen-
sire Plan later ~o coincide with these actions. He wen~ on to say that when
the Board voted to go ~o public hearing, comments were made r~cognizing that
200 acres were designated as green space. He said the green belt can still be
maintained because there ~s plenty of land area alone the river, but basically
this piece of proper~y was a convenient boundary between the Rollymead growth
area and the urban growth area. He stated that the situation was considered
closely. He had argued that a person could legitimately look at this mrea not
as separate from the urban area, but almost ms part of it, sxnce it is in such
close proximity to it. He pointed out that the majority of the land there is
not buildable. It was for that reason that he made the motion [o hold a
public hearing. He does non think this will create any bad precedent because
he thinks it is a unique piece of proper=y, even though there is some more
acreage there which this Board may have to deal with in the future. He
believes that this is a reasonable use in a reasonable location. Me thinks it
is impossible to get any closer To the urban area and no~ be in it because the
property falls between the ~wo growth areas, and it is located on a Stats
highway. It is for all of these,reasons that he will support the application
for change in the service areas. He will consider, when the Comprehensive
Plan is reviewed, studying this area and legitimately changing some of the
lines.
Mr. Bain remarked that he would rather change the lines . He would
unquestionably support the request if the Board supports changing the growth
are~ boundaries. He recalls that when the Comprehensive Plan was being
developed, and the whole Hollymead area was considered, areas east of
Hollymead were examined as possible growth areas because there was pressure
from thos~ residents. He added that the people north of Route 643 were
requesting t~e same thing. He thinks that the staff and Board decided that
the whole' area n6rth of the river should mot be ~n the growth area. He said
that the green space was considered, but a lot of time was not spen~ on
considering whether or not the property south of Route 643 could, be ~sed for
development aparn from the flood plain. He asked Mr, Cilimb~rg if he was
Mr. Cilimberg replied that topography maps idehtified flood plain areas
and steep slopes during the overall consideration of growth areas and the
i~ediate areas around growth areas. He thinksthat this decision [o stay
with the buffer between Rout~ 643 and the River was because there were two
identifiable physical boundaries which provided a reasonable separation in
this high area. He went on to say that if the area is not developed, and
green space is desired in a high area that is very visible, then this area
would be serving that purpose. He does not think that the staff consciously
considered examining the sounn side of Route 643 to establish a reasonable
addition to the growth area. The staff knew that there was an area there that
might be available for development, but it was no~ identified because the
staff and Board seemed satisfied with continuing the ~eparation.
Mr. Bain stated that the area in question is a very small area and he
thinks it could be included as part of the growth area. He will support a
resolution indicating that the Board will consider adding that area as part of
the growth area. ~e is no~ sure, however, that this is a unique situation.
He has being trying to recall other areas tha~ are adjacent ~o streams and
close ~o the urban area, where there is a similar situation. H~ said that he
keeps in mind what the Comprehensive Plan indicates as far as extending
utilities, and for that reason, he has difficulty supporting the request apar~
from a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Mr. Marshall commented that he also will support a resolution for an
amendmDnt to the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan can be
changed. He pointed out that this Board is not considering a r~quest from a
retail establishment, a night club or a bar. He added that this is a request
from m church group, and he wants no see as many people in church as possible.
Re asked if there was any reason why the church group should be denied its
requesn. He said that he will suppor~ the church group and its efforts.
Mr. Martin wondered if there was a way that a compromise could be worked
out whereby the supervisors could approve the intent of ~his public hearing,
and at the same time pursue a possible Comprehensive Plan change.
February 12,' 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
M.B. 40, Pg. 125
Mr. Bain replied that the Board can do than, but he cannot support the
motion as it was stated. He understands that the church group has a lot of
money involved in this project, but he reminded the church representatives
that he voted against the motion in the beginning because it represents
putting an urban use in a rural area.
Mr. Marshall ~sked if Mr. Bain could support the motion if the church
were allowed to connect to the utilities and the Board made a resolution to
follow this action. Mr. Bain responded, "no." Re said that he would support
the resolution, but the matter should be brought back to this Board in 60
days. The property is a limited area of 30 or 40 acres of land~ and if the
staff feeds that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is a way go handle the
situation, then he could probably support a motion at that time. Re believes
that supporting the request before a Comprehensive Plan amendment is consid-
ered would not allow the matter to progress in the proper order.
Mr. Bowerman stated ~o Mr. Bare that he believes there is Board support
for considering a Comprehensive Plan change first and delaying action on this
request for 60 days. Mr. Bowerman said he does not know if the motion will be
approved or disapproved if it is voted on now. Me asked Mr. Bare his feelings
about waiting for 60 days to look at a Comprehensive Plan change. Mr. Bare
replied that he realizes that to wait would create a greater probability of a
favorable vote. Me said, again, that the 60 day wait would almost assuredly
not allow the church to be built this year because the winter months would be
here before any construction could be started. Me also understands this
Board's political position. He knows the Board has a legal right to vote
tonight, and it is as legal as waiting six years and going through 50 Compre-
hensive Plan changes. He added that this is due procedure, and he stated that
this is the church group's position.
Mr. Perkins commented that he can support this request because the
important thing for this church group is the time element Be thinks this
piece of property is unique. If the Board only adheres to the Comprehensive
Plan there would not be any need for the Supervisors to meet as often as they
do. Me thinks the Comprehensive Plan was made to be ~hanged, and h~ thinks
that this is one of those times when it can be changed. Me would not be
opposed to the request b~ca~se the timing is very important to these people.
He will support a change in the service area boundaries.
Mr. Bain said the issu~ before the Board is land usa. and that is what
the Board should base its decision on. He said that Mr. Bare and his congre-
gation have the right as landowners to come before this Board and ask for a
change. Be added, though, that this Board makes decisions that are related to
land use and the Comprehensive Plan, etc. This Board has already approved the
request for the church to be built on that property, but now this Board is
having to make another decision tonight. Mr. Perkins replied that a lot of
requests have been before this Board, and some have been approved and some
have been denied. ~e said that there will always be requests from people, ~nd
some of the requests will continue to be approved, unless there is a change in
the Board member~.
Mr. Marshall stated that he feels each case has its own merits.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that the Board has turned down a lot of requests
along Hydraulic Road, north of Albemarle High School, because the property was
in the drainage area of the Reservoir. He thinks that this is important. He
said that this is not the case with the piece of property in question, and he
thinks that this situation is unique.
Mr. Marshall agreed with Mr. Perkins' previous statement that if the
supervisors were only going no adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, then they
have no reason to be at these meetings.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that the whole point is that if the supervisors
don't want ~ adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, then the Comprehensive Plan
should ~be changed, but exceptions should not be made to the Plan.
Mr. Marshall said that he does not agree. He stated that ~ whole text-
book would non be changed just because it was necessary to change one area in
February t2, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 126
(Page lO)
it. He said that the Comprehensive Plan is good, but it is not the Holy
Bible.
Mr. Martin stated that he would support a motion for Mr Bare~s requesg
because a special use permit was given go th~ church, and he feels that once
that special use permit was given, any legitimate argumeng of using that space
as a buffer disappeared.
Mr. Bain explained that any agricultural land outside of the flood plain
can be developed, so this property could have been developed with houses. He
said that in a rural area there are still development rights.
Mr. Martin remarked that he thought the special use permit was given with
the idea that a church would be built there. He reiterated that once the
special use permit was issued, then it was already determined that some of the
buffer space would be lost. This decision was made when the special use
permit was issued. He understands what Mr. Bain is saying about the order in
which these matters should be handled, and he thinks that the Comprehensive
Plan is a guide and should be treated as a guide. He also believes that the
Board should always try to stay within the Plan except when there are excep-
tions. To him, this is one of the exceptions that the goard should approve,
but he realizes that perhaps the next r~quest will not be approved.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he has non supported any exceptions sinc~ he
has been on this goard or when he was ~ member of the Planning Commission
where there was a question of extending the service areas into a watershed of
any of the water supply ~eservozrs, including the Totier Creek watershed. He
voted against changing the servzce lines for exactly the same reason, He
pointed out that this property is not in a watershed area. He asksd if there
is a motion.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Marshall ~o approve inclusion of
Parcel 22.on Tax Map 46 in the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for both waEer and sewer service, for the 10,3 acres to be
occupied by the church, and further limited to only the church building as
approved under SP-90-35 ~or Covenant Church of God.
Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Mr. St. John pointed out that this request is for water and sewer ser-
vice, He asked, if this request is approved, how will the water be routed to
the church. He pointed out that the sewer service is not on the church
property, but it is near co the property. He stated that someone on the staff
should supply this information.
Mr. Bowerma~ asked if there is service area coverage between the wa~er
and sewer lines and this parcel. Mr. St. John answered that there has to be a
service area where the lines are. He said that there are houses adjacent ~o
this church along Route 643. He added the% if the water line is brought along
the road ~o reach this ~hurch. i~ will be in the street adjacent to these
houses. He said that this raises the question of whether or nog these people
might ~uake the same request.
Mr. Marshall noted that his motion stipulates that the water and sewer
service will only be ~o the church.
Mr. Martin asked if this would be a ma~er that will be brought back 5o
this goard. Mr, St. John replied that the matter would be brought back to the
Board if someon~ else made such a requess.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bill Brent if he could comment on the proximity
water and sewer service <o this specific site. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Brent
~o explain how the new lines will be rouged if new lines are necessary to ge3
the utilities to the site.
Mr. Brent responded that the applicant has not made a specific design as
to how ~o extend the water line to the particular site. ~e added that the
path of least resistance and the obvious route would have the wager routed
M.B. 40, Pg. 127
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page i1)
down Route 643 from Route 29 because the closest water line is located at
Route ZP. He went on to say that he is not sure if the sewer kine crosses the
property in question, but if it doesn't, it is very close to it
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the sewer line is on a portion of the residue
parcel. He pointed out on the map the portion of the property the sewer line
crosses
Mr St. John asked if the sewer line crosses a portion of the proper~y
now owned by the church. Mr. Cilimberg answered that as far as he knows the
church owns the proper~y where the sewer line is routed. Mr. St. John ex-
plained that easements would have to be golden if other people's property is
involved.
Mr. Hrent stated that there are easement rights. Mr St. John stated
that this answers his question. He went on to say that it would probably be
impractical to connect to sewer service without also connecting to the water
service.
Mr. Brent next explained that if the church was not connected to the
County's water system, it would be impossible to know how much sewer service
was being used. He said that. zn such a case. the church representatives
would be required to put a me,er on the well.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Marshall. Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: Mrs. Humphris ~nd Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-91-12. Beechtree Associates Limited Partnership.
Public Hearing on a request to rezone 1,12 acs from CO (proffered) to
(proffered). Property in SE quadrant of Whitewood/Hydraulic Rds inters is
located in Neighborhood I. Property shown in the Comprehensive Plan for
Neighborhood Service. TM61.P25. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on January 28 and February 4, 1992.)
Mr. Citimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"CHkRACTER OF THE AREA: This site is currently developed with a
commercial building consisting of multiple rental spaces. Adjacent
properties are also developed commercially. This site has access
directly to Whitewood Road and is connected to Hydraulic Road through
the adjacent commercial developmenE. Albemarle High School is located
on Hydraulic Road opposite this site.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to amend the exist-
ing zoning of the propergy in order ~o broaden the range of permdtted
uses. The applicant has proffered to delete uses which are ~nconm~s-
tent with the Neighborhood Service designation of this site or which
may. b~ inappropriate in this location due ~o proximity ~o the high
school and/or access. The applicant's proffers are included as
Attachnlent ~ ~set out in full below).
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
March 13, 1963 - Subdivision creating parcel under review was ap-
proved.
January 28, 1976 - The Board of Supervisors rezoned the one parcel
from R~2, Residential. to B-l, Business. subjec~ [o the engrance ~o
the site. being limited to Whitewood Road.
March 24, 1981 - The Planning Con~nission approved the site plan for
this property.
July 20. 1983 - The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-83-08 (Prof-
fered). This action rezoned the property from C-l. Commercial, to CO.
Commercial Office.
August 14, 1998
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
40I McIntire Road
Charlottesville. Vir~linia 22902-4596 ~ ~ ~
(804~ 296-5823
Osteen Phillips Architects
108 Second Street, SW
Chrlottesville, VA 22902
SP-98-38 Ken Rogers
Tax Map 61, Parcel 13A
Dear Sir:
The Albemarle County Harming Commission, at its meeting on August 11, 1998 unanimously recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the
following conditions:
A buffer strip, a minimum 15 feet in width shall be ma'mt~med along both abutt'mg property lines, with
landscaping and screening to be approved with the site plan in accordance with Section 32.7.9. The buffer
strip abutting Garden Court shall be undisturbed, with existing trees within the buffer preserved and
incorporated into the landscape plan. A six foot high opaque fence shall be placed between the parking lot
and the Townwood units.
All exterior light'mg shall be full cutoff luminaires ff the lamps emit 3,000 or more lumens.
The building shall be no more than two-stories in height.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on September 9, 199& Any new or additional information regarding your application must
be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mary Joy Scala
Senior Planner
Ce:
Ella Carey Jack Kelsey
Amelia McCulley Jim Morals/Ken Rogers
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MARY JOY SCALA
AUGUST 11, 1998
SEPTEMBER 9, 1998
SP-98-38 KEN ROGERS
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to locate a mammum 8,000 square foot, two-story professional j
office building and approximately 24 parking spaces on a triangular-shaped parcel which currently contains an
abandoned gas station. The build/ng would house several small business operations (offices) and would collectively
employ 10 persons. The hours of operation are anticipated to be 9 am to 5 pn~
(See applicant's project descripaon and sketch plan- Attachment A)
Petition: Proposal to construct professional offices on 0.794 acres zoned R- 10 Residential (Section 17.2.2.11 ).
The property, described as Tax map 61, Parcel 13A, is located on the east side of Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) just
south of its intersection with Rio Road West (Rt. 631) in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is located in a
Devalopmen~ Area, Neighborhood 1. (See tax map - Attachment B).
Character of the Area: The site is adjacent to Townwood townhouses and Garden Court townhouses. It fronts on
a newly-widened section of Hydraulic Road~ It is situated opposite thc Roslyn Ridge subdivision.
The surrounding properties are also zoned R- 10, Residential. The property across Hydraulic Road is zoned RA,
Rural Areas.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions.
Planning and Zoning History: VA 87-12 for a canopy denier[
Comprehensive Plan: Tlfis site is designated Urban Density (6.01-34 du/ac), and is located within Neighborhood
1: Hydraulic Road forms the Development Area boundmy, with Rural Area designation on the west side of
Hydraulic Road.
Approval of this special use pen'uit would sacrifice the residential infill use of this property. However, two
justifications for the proposed office use are: (I) the former commercial use of the property, and (2) the shape and
dimensions of the parcel, which may be more conducive to an office rather than a residential use.
The Land Use Plan, General Principles for Land Use in designated Development Areas, states:
"Encourage infitl development of vacant lands and development of under-used areas within the designated
Development Areas." (page 17)
Residential Land Use Standards states:
"Maintenance of the integrity of residential areas can be accomphshed with standards for the relationship of
residential use to adjacent non-residential uses. Bufferiag, screening and Physical separation of non-residential uses
can alleviate such relational problems." (Page 22)
Commercial Land Use Standards states:
"Commercial uses adjacent to residential areas should be effectively buffered and screened in accordance with
zoning regulations. Generally, commercial office uses should be employed as transitional areas between residential
development and heavier commercial or industrial areas. Any uses (including commercial offiCe uses) allowed
adjacent to residential areas should be compatible in operational aspects, and any potentially objectionable aspects*
should be adequately addressed at rezoning.
* Objectionable aspects are factors which could reasonably be anticipated to disrupt a residential atmosphere
including such factors as extensive hours of operation (i.e., delivery traffic), and factors which may trespass into
residential areas to an objectionable level such as lighting, nff~se, smoke and odors," (,page 24)
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff has addressed each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance pertah~ing to approval of special use
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the fight to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder.
Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding bv the Board of Superwsors
that such use will not be of substantial detr/ment to adjacent property,
Staff opinion is that the proposed office use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, with proper
screening/buffering. The proposed building is planned to be s'nnilar in appearance to a two-story multi-family
structure, a use which would be allowed by right. Hours of operation are planned to be 9am te 5 pm, which could
change. Ten employees are anticipated. The only issue is the width of the setback/buffer fi'om abutting residential
properties to provide screening fi'om the parking lot~ In this case, staff would rely to some extent on the opinions of
the abutting owners. Staffhas reecived one request for a 35 foot buffer adjacent to Garden Court townhouses.
that the character of the district will not be changed therchv,
The applicant's proposal will not change the character of the district. The proposed office use is compatible with the
existing townhouse residential use.
and that such use will be in harraony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, relation to the env'tronment, and relation to
Comprehensive Plan as stated in Sections 1.4. 1.5 and 1.6, and has found this application to be in harmony with
these sections. Specifically, this request facilitates provision of an economic development activity which provides
employment opportunity in close proximity to residential areas.
with the uses penuitted by right in the district,
This property and the adjacent properties are zoned R- 10, Residential. Staff opinion is that the proposed use is in
harmon.v with the uses permitted by right in the district, provided the parking lot is adequately buffered.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no supplementary regulations for office buildings.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
2
There are no health or safety issues. Providing a buffer fi-om the residential properties will promote general welfare.
No site plan has been submitted. However, the site review committee has made preliminary comments on the sketch
plan, which has no official status.
The Virginia Department of Transportation said that the proposed entrance location as shown on the sketch plan is
adequate. The existing entrance would require removal, and the existing sidewalk and curbing would have to be
replaced.
The County Engineering Department has noted an exisfmg drainage ditch across the fi'ont of the property, that may
or may not affect the building location, and stormwater management/BMP reqmrements, all of which are site plan
issues.
The Building Official and the Fire Official anticipate no unusual problems or concerns.
Zoulng comments are attached (See memo- Attachment C). They are suggesting that (1) the architectural style of
the building be made a condition, and (2) that some additional screening or fencing be required beyond the minimum
of twenty feet, but not as much as the fifty feet required when a commercial district abuts a residential district.
Staff opinion is that an adequate area should be provided to allow for a landscaped buffer area along both property
lines. There are existing trees along bolla property lines; the trees adjacent Garden Court are more substantial. The
location of the parking lot adjacent to residential units is more of a concern than the rear of the office building,
however, privacy is an issue in both cases. Staff is recommending that a minimum of twenty-five feet be m~fmtalned
along both property lines. In addition, a fence should be placed between the parking lot and the Townwood units.
Crhere is an existing fence along the Garden Court line.)
The size of the boding will be limited by the size of the site, and the amount of parking which can be accomodated.
The owner has stated that the building will be two-story, and physically similar to a multi-family structure; no
spec'fflc design has been offered.
SLrMMARY: Staffopinion is that this request is in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinanco. Staffrecommends approval of the special use permit with conditions.
RECOMMENDED CObrDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SP 98-38:
1. A buffer str/p of minimum twenty-five feet in width shall be maintained along both abutting property lines,
with landscaping and screening to be approved with the site plan in accordance with Section 32.7.9. The
buffer strip abutljng Garden Court shall be undisturbed, with existing trees within the buffer preserved and
incorporated into the landscape plan. A six foot high opaque fence shall be placed between the parking lot
and the Townwood units.
2. All exterior lighting shall be full cutoff lominaires if the lamps emit 3,000 or more lumens.
3. The building shall be no more than two-stories in height.~nd ~ezi~e~ ;~n Iczc~g -:,~&~ tM :h~_~ t,*r~ff~Iho-
ATTACttMENTS:
A - Applicant's project description, sketch plan and plat
B - Tax maps
C - Zoning comments
A:SP9838.RPT
3
will not l~e changed thereby and that such use will be in hartnony with the lC
or~nance,~with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional reguh ATTACItMENT A
5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welf0J:e.
The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete
this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request.
If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property?
Howwilltheproposedspecialuseaffectadjacentproperty? b~3l-~T ICo gO.13 ~ ,s~g~31331~l~ ~ ~'['IDM Ibl[l'~
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? T~'It~ ~q:~4~ 0.~:~ ~ lt~
I~A~f~ ,~4~O~'r )/SF/'C--f:~T/. llx~lc c_m~¢S Pll~r~Tuh' oFF- ~". 74~. ¢3e~-qt~ ~ ¢3~tb ~T ~g.~O~r~f
C, tl~f-~:TCf---~u^f-. 'Fo TH[~ AI~.IAcfn'6'I' T't~dI,~Ho05V:~5
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? 'T"I~]~ ~z~lt~TIt~U I~4J~LO{~/~4.~z~'~1
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? T4T]~ ~ Folll~ bO I~ ~
What additional regulations provided in Section 5,0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?_ I,I 0~
How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community ? "[T{:~ ~l'~ 12 q~[~
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved in the use. operating hours, and any unique features of the use:
/ /
ATTACHMENT A
r'~(~ 3nowlng Survey of
O.G?8 Ac. of Land
The Property of William
Located on Stale Rou1e
About 1.5 Miles North
Albemarle County
Vlrglnla
S¢~[e, I" - 40'
Dec.bar 23,1986
o' zo' 4o' m'
~o' ~ od
Gloackner, Lincoln ~ Osborne, h,c.
Charloltesvills, Virginia
Charlottesville
ATTACHMENT A
:Fox Map 61 Parcel 13A
0.678 Ac.
O. 8. 749, p. 558
D.B. 755, p. 573 Hwy T~ka
D B. 68Z ,p. 8
D,B. 414 ~p, 408
D. a. 406 ~p. 496,499 P~ol
D.B. 2G~, p. 558
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACIIMENT B
45
SP 98-38
Ken Rogers
,2,- f
6O
Cn'Y
OF
7;'
,JACK JOUETT, RIVANNA AND SECTION
GHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS
Bui|ding Code lnformatinn
(804) 296-5832
COUNTY OF ALBEMARf F
Department of Building Code and Zoning S~rvice~
401 Mclnfire Road. Room 223
Charlottesville. Virginfa 22902~k596
FAX (804) 972~-126
'!TD f804 972-4012
ATTACHMENT C
Zoning Information
(804} 296-5875
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner
FROM: Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration ,~¢
DATE: July 29, 1998
RE: SP 98-38
There are no spedal restticdons on the SP for office in the R10 district. However, in the pre-
application conference, the applicant indicated that his intention is to construer one 8000 square
foot building that would architecturally resemble the surrounding single family homes. If he is still
indicating that style, we would like to have that conditioned. Perhaps he can submit a rendering of
the building that we could reference as a condition-
Normally, I recommend that any commercial use in a residential district be required, as a condition
of the spedal use permit, to use the commerdal setbacks of Secdon 21.7. However, in this case, the
site is quite small and the applicant has already presented a sketch plan that shows the building
closer than the 50 feet required under that section. I think the 20-foot undisturbed buffer would also
be difficult on this site. It appears that to locate the building so dose to the property line; some
grading and excavation will occur within the buffer area. With that in mind, perhaps the'SP could
condition additional screening or fencing or some special treatment that would normally be allowed
in a commerdal district under 21.7.3 to protect the adjacent residential development. These extra
reqturements can only be applied now through the legislative process. The site plan review will only
cover the standard required screening from ~32.7.9.8.
To be certain that the interpretation is the same as the intent and is enforceable by this department.
I would appredate an opportunity to review the language of any conditions you propose prior to
your final report, if at all possible. Thanks.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
August 14, 1998
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. ot Planning & Community Developmem
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-459fi
(804~ 296-5823
Richard E. Carter
414 Park St
Charlottesville. VA 22902
SP-98-33 International Cold Storage
Tax Map 109, Parcel 33
Dear Mr. Carter:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission. at its meeting on August 11, 1998. nnaniraously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval 'is subject to the following conditions:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Compliance with Section 32.7.9 Screening of the Zoning Ordinance to include extension of
proposed screening fence across new storage area adjacent to Rte. 633.
Engineering Department approval of engineer's report as required by 4.14 Performance Standards
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance upgrade to minimum commercial
entrance standards.
Building expansion and outdoor storage area expansion limited to those areas depicted on site plan
prepared by Roudabnsh, Gale & Associates, revised July 8, 1998.
Only shipping/storage activities to be conducted outdoors.
All outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on September 9, 1998. Any new or additional
ixfformation regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at leasl
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
Col
International Cold Storage
G'tfford Childs
Amelia McCulley
lack Kelsey
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Ron Keeler
August 4, 1998
September 9, 1998
SP-98-33 INTERNATIONAL COLD STORAGE
Applicant's Proposal: International Cold Storage (ICS) assembles walk-in refrigeration units.
Currently, lighting and wiring and finish/testing work is conducted outdoors. ICS proposes
building expansion to house this portion6fthe operation. In addition, an increase is proposed for
the outdoor storage.of finished goods.
Petition: International Cold Storage Co., Inc. petitions the-Board of Supervisors to issue a
special use permit to bring the existing assembly of modular building units use (Section 27.2.2.3
of the zoning ordinancel into conformance vdth the zoning ordinance and to allow building and
storage area expansion. Property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 33 is located about 0.1 miles
west ofU. S. Rte. 29S on Heards Mountain Road (Rte, 633) in the Scottsville Magisterial
District. This site is not in a designated development area and is recommended as Rural Areas in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Character of the Area: This site has been developed with industrial-type buildings since the late
1930's. A 1967 survey of this and other properties in the area shows a machine shop, storage
buiJding, residence and water storage tank on this site. Today, the water storage tank remains but
is not used and a portion of the mach'me shop has been incorporated into the plant. Currently,
the plant consists of about 27, 275 square feet of building area. In addition, a urethane storage
building (+/- 1,950 sq. ft.) and two other storage structures (+/- 700 sq. ft, each) are also on the
site. The 30, 000 square foot concrete slab on the northwest side of the plant is the area where
outdoor work is conducted and finished product is stored.
As to surrounding properties, ICS is clearly visible to dwellings on two properties (TM 109-34A
& TM 109-32). The dwellings are located about 200 and 300 feet respectively from developed
areas of ICS. Screening trees, a single row of spruce, have been planted along these common
boundaries. ICS may be partially visible from the dwelling on TM 98-35 during the winter
months; a minimum of 120 feet of deciduous woods provides a buffer to the common boundary
and the dwelling is about 150 feet from developed areas oflCS. Dwellings on TM 98-15A are
remote from the site. This property (TM 98-15A1 is the Wingspread Farm Estates subdivision
and proposed Lot 2 would have 36 feet of common boundary with ICS. Lot 2 has a depth of
over 1,000 feet.
Property across Rte. 633 is open pasture. Wooded areas oflCS provide screening to the church
to the east across Rte. 633. ICS is visible from Rte. 633 and U.S. Rte. 29S. Rte. 29S is an EC
district, however, due to the distance to ICS, the EC regulations do not apply.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the request for conformity with the Zoning
Ordinance (particularly Section 31.2.4.1, criteria for issuance of a special use permit) and the
Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval with conditions.
Planning and Zoning History: At time of adoption of the County's first zoning ordinance in
1969, this property was designated A-1 Agricultural. Later that year, Wayland Machine Co.
obtained rezoning to M4 Industrial, the predecessor of the current L! Light Industrial district. In
1975, ICS obtained site plan approval for building expansion. ICS subsequently purchased the
property in 1977. During consideration of the 1980 zoning ordinanceand map, the Board
directed staffto develop the map through policy statemem. For properties outside of designated
development areas with existing zoning other than rural, those properties were to be recognized
with corresponding zoning if developed as zoned. Therefore, ICS received LI Light Industrial
zoning.
ICS recently proposed addition to the building and was initially advised that the use required HI
Heavy Industrial zoning. 1CS filed ZMA-98-09 in February, 1998 "to allow the construction of
a building addition which will provide weatherproof cover for current manufacturing, improve
appearance of the site and add to the comfort and safety of the employees." Since setbacks for
HI are greater than those for LI, rezoning would have made the building and parking more non-
conforming to zoning regulation. While such rezoning is not prohibited, the Board of
Supervisors has preferred variance review by the Board of Zoning Appeals prior to rezoning
consideration so as not to influence BZA deliberation. The BZA granted variance in April, 1998.
This variance is also applicable to the current LI zoning.
Following BZA action, the Zoning Deparunent, upon examination of additional information
from the applicant, determined that the use was permissable by special use permit under existing
LI zoning (Attachment D- Official dtermination by Zoning Administrator).
Comprehensive Plan: This site is in the Rural Areas as recommended by the Comprehensive
Plan. The Rural Areas is intended only for RA Rural Areas zoning and, therefore, the existing LI
zoning oflCS does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. The Open Space Plan shows this as
an area of agricultural/forestal significance. Given the existing development of the property, it is
unlikely the site would be devoted to agricultural use in the future.
STAFF COMMENT:
This is an industrial use situated in the rural areas of the County. However, the appropriateness
of industrial zoning was determined in 1980 by adoption of the zoning map. At question is
whether or not expansion of this particular use is appropriate. It should be noted that the
property could be devoted to "by right" LI uses with only site constraints and ministerial
regulation to control expansion/intensity of usage. Special use permit conditions can limit both
expansion and intensity of the existing use.
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the criteria,for
issuance of special use permk.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itsel£the right to issue all
special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as
provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to ad_iacent
property.
Enclosure of all processing activity within a building would reduce noise. ICS has indicated that
this will allow reduction in the number of outdoor lighting fixtures. Screening requirements as
proposed by the applicant and supplemented by Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance can
improve aesthetics to abutting properties and from public roads. Staff opinion is that
improvements proposed by the applicant together with appropriate conditions of approval can
reduce detrimental effects which may be currently experienced.
---the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The district applicable to the site is LI Light Industrial. The district surrounding the site is RA
Rural Areas. Staff opinion is that a 6, 500 square foot or 23 percent plant expansion and a (net)
expansion of about 1/4 acre for storage of finished product would not substantially change the
character of either district.
---and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent
oftlfis ordinance
Staff would suggest that an analysis of similar requests can provide an assessment of the
County's historical view regarding the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning
Ordinance and accompanying zoning map are intended as toolsto implement the Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a general guide for, among other things, determination of
future land uses.
While this petition does not constitute a rezonmg from one district to another, analysis of the
decisions ofrezoning petitions since adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance provides an
historic background as to the disposition of such requests. The Board of Supervisors has
entertained eight (8) petitions which sought industrial zoning in a rural area. Of these eight (8)
petitions, five (5) petitions were approved:
--- ZMA-81-19 Alvin Breit (TM 32. p 5F' 6.4 ac. From RA to LI; approved ): Property, located
across Rte. 29 from Piney Mountain Village, had been zoned industrial and changed to RA Rural
Areas with 1980 map. Applicant demonstrated that due to grading and nearby uses Lt zoning
was and RA zoning was not appropriate.
---ZMA-§I-21 E. Morris Chishlom (TM 31. p. 23:10 ac. From RAto LI; approved)- Located
in the SFRR watershed, this site was a non-conforming contractor's yard with several
construction-related buildings and shops. Approval permitted upgrade and~expansionincluding.
housing of equipment previously stored outdoors, which was viewed as an overall improvement.
---ZMA-82-04 Higgins Engineering (TM 128. p 31C: 10 ac. From RA to HI; denied)- Near
Schuyler, request was to allow for a pipe fitting operation on undeveloped land.
---ZMA-83-15 Gleco Mills. Inc. (TM 88. p. 26A: 1.8 ac. From RA to LI: approved) - On Rte.
29s toward Red Hill, rezoning allowed usage of an old existing mill building for a contractor's
storage facility. Property had been developed to the extent that site permitted with a railroad-
oriented building which had lost its non-conformity from dormancy. In that report, staff had
suggested that "staff has reviewed permitted uses of the RA district and recommends that a
consideration be the extent to which Rural Areas uses could reasonably be anticipated to be
established on this site."
---ZMA-83-20 Murray Manufacturing (TM 31. p. 10B' 2 acres from RA to LI; approved)-
Allowed'Murray Manufacturing to utilize the old Earlysville Fire Co. Building for vehicle
storage/maintenance and employee meetings/tralhing. Located in the SFRR watershed across
Rte. 660 from the main plant, Murray had already established a parking area adjacent to the fire
company which was included in the rezoning.
---ZMA-88-27 David Spradlin (TM 104. p. 14F:7 ac. From RA to LI: denied]: Board had
repealed special use permit for repeated and wilful non-compliance. Rezoning was requested in
attempt to continue salvage yard.
---ZMA-94-18 Donald Robertson'(TM 55B. P. 17:4.3 ac from RA to LI: denied): The rezoning
was proffered to allow for light warehousing. Though several uses of a commercial or industrial
character were in the immediate area, the vacant site was outside of the Crozet Community and
within SFRR watershed.
---ZMA-96-14 Albemarle Com~tv Service Authority (TM 57.. p.29B: 4 ac. From RA to LI:
ap_nroved): Rezoning vias to allow for private use of public buildings. Proffers limited usage to
that compatible to historic public use.
Most of the approved petitions were to bring existing uses into zoning conformance to allow
expansion or to utilize existing buildings/sites which were not particularly suited to P_A_ uses.
At the same time. rezonings for vacant lands have not been successful.
---with uses permitted by right in the district
4
The proposed building and storage area expansions should not affect uses permitted by right on
any adjacent property. To the contrary, given the applicant's proposal together with appropriate
conditions of approval, the use will become more compatible to surrounding uses.
---with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this Ordinance
There are no supplementary regulations applicable to this use. Section 4.14 Performance
Standards requires a certified engineer's report (4.14.8). Since this is an existing use, discretion
by the County Engineer as to report content is offered in the recommended conditions of
approval. Determination as to report content would follow a 'walk-thru' of the plant by
Engineering.
---and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
VDOT has recommended that access to Rte. 633 be upgraded to meet minimum commercial
entrance standards. Though no intensification of use is proposed, this use involves trucking of
materials and finished product and staffwill require entrance improvement as a part of site plan
approval.
Staff opinion is that enclosure of the manufacturing process within a building will provide for
increased health and safety of the employees. Site improvements proposed by the applicant and
supplemented by recommended conditions should improv& the overall general welfare of
landowners in the area.
SUMMARY:
Staffhas identified the following factors that are favorable to the request:
1. The requested building expansion is about 23 % of the existing floor area. This is not an
extraordinary expansion considering this use has occupied the site for over 20 years. Staffdoes
not view this as an unreasonable request.
2. Special use permit conditions can limit both the expansion and intensity of the use while
improving compatibility to the area (noise, screening).
3. While not consistent with literal application of the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for
the Rural Areas, approval of the request would not be inconsistent with similar actions in the
past. In this case, LI zoning is in place and other industrial uses could be made of the site.
4. Enclosure of the manufacturing activity would promote the health and safety of the
employees. Site improvements proposed by the applicant and supplemented by recommended
conditions should improve the overall general welfare of landowners in the area.
Staff has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to the request:
1. ICS is clearly visible to dwellings on two adjoining properties and is likely to remain partially
visible even with screening measures.
2. This use does not strictly adhere to the Comprehensive Plan recommendations~for the Rural
Areas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of tltis special use permit petition subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with section 32.7.9.8 SCREENING of the zoning ordinance to include extension
of proposed screening fence across new storage area adjacent to Rte. 633;
2. Engineering Department approval of engineer's report as required by 4.14 PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS of the zon'mg ordinance;
3. VDOT approval of entrance upgrade to minimum commercial entrance standards;
4. Building expansion and outdoor storage area expansion limited to those areas depicted on site
plan prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., revised July 8, 1998;
5. Only shipping/storage activities to be conducted outdoors.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Location Map
B- Tax Map
C- Site Plan; July 8, 1998 revision
D- Zoning Administrator Official Determination
6
BOAZ
MOUNTAIN
\
%
ROCK
TOP
TOM
MOUNTAIN
./
SDP 98-33
INTERNATIONAL COI_D STORAGE
ESMONT & PORTER AREAS
108
9¢
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
I ATTACHI~IENT B I
SDP 98-33
INTERNATIONAL COLD STORAGE
2C
/
/
t
5O
SA SCOTTSVlLLE AND
.... MUEI. MILLER DISTRICTS
SECTION IO9
~Rot DABLJSk, GAl
ENGINEERS S~VEY~S 9 4
.,. ....
Bui{ding Code Information
(804) 296-5832
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road. Room 223
Charlollesville. Virginia 22902-4596
FAX I804) 972-4126
~[-FD (804) 972-4012
ATTACHPIENT D
Page1]
~ningln~on
(804)2~-58~
June 5, 1998
Gifford Childs, Operations Manager
International Cold Storage
5678 Heards Mountain Road
Covesville, Virginia 22931
Re:
OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
Assemblv of Modular Buildings
Dear Mr. Childs:
This determination is in response to your letter of May 15, 1998 requesting
reconsideration of my previous decision that your business fits under the HI, Heavy
Industry use, "manufacture of heavy household, commercial and industrial appliances."
You suggested that International Cold Storage is better described by the LI, Light
Industry category, "assembly of modular building units" which is allowed only if a special
use permit is approved by the Board of Supervisors. My reply takes a position and
offers a written determination from which the parties in interest will either be satisfied, or
if aggrieved, may seek an appeal.
It is my opinion, after review of your letter, the informational brochures produced
by your company, standard definitions, information gathered from various
sources, discussion with the Albemarle County Building Official, and visiting the
ICS plant, that your business falls under the category, "assembly of modular
building units." Under our current zoning ordinance this is a use by special
permit in the LI, Light Industrial zoning district.
In making this decision, I started with the definitions of "appliance," and "modular."
Webster's, New Collegiate Dictionary, defines appliance as, "an instrument or device
designed for a particular use; specif: a household or office device (as a stove, fan or
refrigerator) operated by gas or electric current." These are generally the items sold at
appliance stores, such as Ron Martin's or Sears. When looking at the advertising in the
yellow pages of the telephone book. not one appliance store ad mentioned "walk-in
refrigerators or freezers." I called several merchants and found that regular and heavy
duty residential appliances which also double for light commercial use, are generally
sold at what we know as "appliance stores." Commercial appliances, such as large,
.sub-zero refrigerators and freezers as well as ovens and stovetops, are generally sold
m specialty stores, such as restaurant supply stores. Finally, walk-in refrigerators and
freezers are generally sold directly from the manufacturer, such as ICS. ICS does not
Page 2
Letter to Gilford Childs, International Cold Storage
Official Determination: Assembly of Modular Buildings
LA._'r_TAC _HME
June ~ 1998
have even one model that is mass-produced or stocked in a store for future sale
purposes. Each unit is custom made, as designed by the customers' needs, and
delivered by ICS to the buyer. Aisc of note in this case is the fact that the advertising
brochures produced by ICS do not call their products appliances. They are referred to
as: walk-in, walk-in unit, unit, building, structure, outside walk-in storage, or module.
Webster's definition of modular is, "1: of, relating to, or based on a module or a modulus
2.: constructed with standardized units or dimension for flexibility and variety in use."
Module in this application means, "any in a series of standardized units for use
together," or, "a usu packaged functional assembly of electronic components for use
with other such assemblies", or finally, "an independent unit that is a part of the total
structure of a space vehicle." An ICS walk-in unit could be described as a packaged
functional assembly of components that can be used independently or with another
building, or in other words, a modular building.
Next I considered if the product ICS makes is truly a building. The walk-in units that are
produced at this ICS plant are indeed buildings. They can and often do stand alone
whether they are the refrigerated or dry storage type. These buildings are completely
regulated by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (Va. USBC.) They must be
able to withstand wind, snow and seismic loads. They are usually set on a permanent
foundation, and have framing, floors, walls, windows and roofs that must comply with
state codes. Underwriters Laboratory (UL) has inspected and tested all the individual
components that are appended to the unit, e.g., refrigeration units, fans and ventilators,
but the lighting, wiring and plumbing within the walk-in unit itself must meet the Va.
USBC. The addition of a walk-in unit to an existing building is separately regulated by
the Va. USBC and requires a building permit. On the other hand, standard appliances
as described above, are not, in and of themselves, regulated by the Va. USBC only
the installation within a building, e.g., separation from counters or walls.
Lastly, I considered the distinction between "to assemble" and "to manufacture."
Assemble means, "1: to bring together (as in a particular place or for a particular
purpose)", or, "2: to fit together the parts of." Manufacture Bas a verb] means, "1: to
make into a product suitable for use 2 a: to make from raw materials by hand or by
machinery b: to produce according to an organized plan and with division of labor."
Although these terms are very similar, the most obvious distinction is the materials from
which one starts to either assemble or manufacture. Assemble brings and fits together
parts for a particular purpose, while manufacture starts from raw materials and labors to
produce a product, n the case of ICS, they start from processed and previously
manufactured items, such as sheet metals and refrigeration components. They do not
manufacture the refrigeration components, nor add the coolants. They do not
manufacture the motors for the fans and ventilating systems. Instead, they put together
the sheet metal to form walls, doors, floors and roofs; they ~nject foam insulation into
the cavities of those; and then add the refrigeration systems, lighting systems, p~ping,
wiring and whatever is needed in a particular Case. All of this is done on each
Page 3
Letter to Gilford Childs, International Cold Storage
Official Determination: Assembly of Modular Buildings
CHPIENT D~
June 5, 1998
individual unit that they sell. There is no customized, assembly line or automated
process. The normal cycle, from receiving a custom order to producing a finished unit,
takes approximately three weeks (two weeks of which is actual time in the shop.) There
is some welding, but most of the assembly uses fasteners and adhesives. It is my
opinion that the type of assembly done by ICS is not as intensive nor has the public
nuisance potential as is suggested by the term "manufacture" in the HI, Heavy Industry
zoning district.
All of the research that is noted in this letter has lead me to the conclusion: ICS
assembles modular refrigerated buildings.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty
(30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section
15.1-496.1 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination
shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning
Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the
grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with
the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date
of this letter.
Sincerely,
Janice D. Sprinkle
Deputy Zoning Administrator
CC:
Larry Davis. County Attorney
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning
Richard E. Carter, Attorney
John V. Little, Attorney
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
[~ NA~E
~ l~rIL
Fo.~ n. 3
7/; 5/86
To: Rotisa C. Smith
From: Ella Washington Carey, Clerk, CMC
Subject: Ordinance Adopted by Board on September 9, 1998
Date: September 10, 1998
Attached is a copy of an ordinance which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on
September 9, 1998:
to amend and reenact Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts. of The Code of
The County of Albemarle. Virginia.
Attachments [ 1)
cc: Ma.fy Joy Scala
File
ORDINANCE NO. 98-3(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND EORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWiDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF THE CODE OF TH~ COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3, Agricultural
and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, is hereby amended and reordained by
amending section 3-210, Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District; section 3-213, Free Union Agricultural
and Forestal District; section 3-221, Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District and section 3-224, Panorama
Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows:
Sec. 3210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 101, parcels 55A, 60; tax map 102, parcels 17A, 17B, 17B1, 17D, 18, 19, 19A, 19C,
20B; tax map 112, parcels 3, 15, 16, 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F, 17, 18H, 20 (part), 21, 33A, and 37D; tax map 113,
parcels 1, lA, 6A, 11, I lA; tax map 114, parcels 25A, 30, 51, 55, 56, 69, 70; tax map 115, parcel 10; tax map 122,
parcels 4, 4A, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 12N, 33, 33A, 36; tax map 124, parcel 11. This district, created on April 20, 1988
for not more than ten years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
(Code 1988, § 2.14(j); Ord; 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98)
See. 3-213 Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 7, parcels 6, 7, SA, 9, 9A, 9B, 9B1, 9C; tax map 16, parcels 4B, 4C, 13A, 13D, 15A,
15A3, 15C, 15E, 15G, 16B, 17, 26, 30B, 36, 37, 38, 39, 52B1, 52B2, 54; tax map 17, parcels 8, 8B, 8C, 17C, 18H,
20A2, 22; tax map 29, parcel 1H (part). This district, created on September 21, 1988 for not more than 10 years and
last reviewed on September 9. 1998, shall be next reviewed prior to September 21.2008.
(Code 1988, ~ 2.1-4(m); Ord. 98-A~ 1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98)
Sec. 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Foresta! Dislrict" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 90B, parcel A-11; tax map 91, parcels 21.2lA. 2lB. 31; tax map 92, parcels 64, 64A; tax map
102, parcels 33, 35B, 37, 40, 40A. 40B: tax map 103, parcels 1. lA, lB, lC, 1D, 1E, 1F, 1G, IH, 1J, IK, 1L, 1M,
2A, 3, 5, 9, 10, 10A, 1 OB, 10C, 1 OD. 43. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more than 10 years and last
reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20. 2008.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(k); Ord. 98-A(1 ), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98)
Sec. 3-224 Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Panoran~a Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 44, parcels 9A, 9C, 12, 12Q, 12X, 12Y, 12Z; tax map 45A, section 1, parcel 27. This district,
created on April 20. 1988 for not more titan 10 years and last reviewed on September 9, t998, shall next be
reviewed prior to April 20. 2008.
(6-14-95: Code 1988, § 2.1-4(1); Ord. 98-A(l), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98)
I, Ella Vi. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 5 to 0, as recorded below, at a
regular meeting held on September 9, 1998.
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman X
Ms. Humphris X
Mr. Martin X
Mr. Perkins X
Ms. Thomas X
DRAFT: September 9. 1998
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of AIbemarle. Virginia, that Chapter 3, Agricultural
and Forestal Districts. Article I1, DisuScts of Statewide Significance, is hereby amended and reordained by
amending section 3-210, Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Foxestal District; section 3-213, Free Union Agricultural
and Forestal District; section 3-22I, Lanark A~g-icultural and Forestal District and section 3-224, Panorama
Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows:
Sec. 3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultnral and Forestat District.
The district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described proper[les: Tax map 10t, parcels 55A, 60; tax map 102, parcels tTA, 17B, t7Bt, 17D, 18. 19. 19A, 19/~,
19C, 20 (Tm~.) 20B; tax map 112, parcels 3, 15, t6, 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F, 17, 18H, 20 (part), 21, 33A, and 37D; tax
map 1 t3, parcels l, 1A~ ~ % 3, 6A, I 1, I lA; mx map t 14, parcels 21, 25, 30, 51, 55, 56 .... 67E, 69, 70; trax map
115, parcel t0; tax map I22, parcels 4, 4A, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 12N. 33.33A, 36; tax maD 123, D~cclz 2, 34, 59; tax
map 124, parcel 11. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on April
2~0 September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(j); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(~), 9-9-98)
See. 3-213 Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Free Union Agricultnral and Forestat District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 7, parcels 6, 7, 8A, 9, 9A, 9B, 9B1, 9C; tax map t6, parcels 4B, 4C, 13A. 13D, 15A,
i5A3. 15C, 15E, 15G, 16B, t7, 26, 30 Cm'~.), 30B, ¢-3&, 36, 37, 38, 39, 52B1, 52B2, 54; tax map 17, parcels 8, 8B,
8-~, 17C, 18H, 20A2, 22; tax map 29, parcel iH (part). This district, created on September 21. 1988 for not more
than I0 years shall ~:xt bc r:~.-i~wc~ prior tc S:ptcmber 21, 199~ and last reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall be
next reviewed prior to September 21, 2008.
tCode 1988, § 2.1-4(m); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-31.~), 9-9-98)
Sec. 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and ForestaI District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 90B, parcels II, 12, I~ A-Il; tax map 91, parcels 243, 21, 2lA, 2lB, 31; tax map 92, parcels
64, 64A; tax map 102, parcels 33, 35B, 37, 40, 40A, 40B; tax map 103, parcels I, lA, lB, lC, 1D, tE_ IF, 1G, IH.
1J, 1K, 1L, IM, 2A, 3, 5, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D. 43. This district, created on April 20. 1988 for not more than
10 years and-l~t reviewed on April 29 September % 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20. 2008.
(Code 1988, § 2.14(k); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(~), 9-9-98)
Sec. 3-224 Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: ~r ..... ~ ~ ~*c! 23A; Tax map 44, parcels 9A, 9C, 12, 12Q~; q' ..... ~ ~ ..... ~ ~'
mx map 45A, p~ca! 27, zect~un I section 1, parcel 27. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more than 10
years and last reviewed on..pr~ 2~ September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
(6-14-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(1); Ord. 98-A(1). 8-5-98: Ord. 98-3(~), 9-9-98)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Carl W. & Odette M. Mortenson
Mountain Spirit Virginia Organics L.L.C.
4691 Sherwood Farm
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
July 18, 1998
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
& Community Development
22902-5823
Dear Supervisors,
Pursuant to Senior Planner Mary Joy Scala's letter, dated June 26,
1998 regarding the inclusion of 4 parcels of land titled in the names
of my wife and myself and our Limited Liability Company in the
Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District, I am writing to formally
notify you, in accordance with the terms set forth in the above stated
letter, that we do not wish to have these four parcels included in
the District.
This is being mailed to you via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Request
so that we have a record of having mailed our response to you by the
September 9, 1998 deadline.
Sincerely, ~
Carl W. Mortenson & Odette Mortenson as individuals and as
Manager/Members of Mountain Spirit Virginia Orgamcs. L.L.C.
PANORAMA FARMS
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
August 17, t998
Mr. Forrest Marshall,Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Melntire Rd.
Charlottesville, Va 22901
Dear Mr. Marshall,
We have spent the last two years at Panorama Farms researching low impact,
compatible activities to supplement agriculture in the mral area. As you are aware, these
activities we propose could conflict with the present comprehensive plan, Nevertheless, in
the interest of preserving the counties most precious natural resource, it is imperative that
we as a coumy consider more land use flexibility in our rural area. In agfieulm e's
economic climate, this flexibility would allow rural land owners oppommities other than
the present option of subdivision and subsequent perminant loss of this resourse.
With this in mind, and to avoid potential conflict, we will not be renewing
Panorama Farms in the Panorama Agricultural and Forestall District. This by no means
should be construed as a tack of connnitmem by our exaire faraily toward the concept. We
fulty intend to remm Panorama Farms to the District once our land use issues are sorted
out. Our commitment to preserving Panorama Farms in open space is paramount, and we
would not want a concept designed to preserve this open space to become a roadblock to
flais resolve.
ce: Mary Joy Scala
300 Panorama Road * Earlysville. Virginia 22936 * (800 973-8547
SUPERVISORS
PRAIRIE THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGEONS
Harry A. Wellons. Jr.. M.D.. EA.C.S., F.A.C.C., EC.C.P.
Wil/iam S. Stevens, Jr., M.D.. EA.C.S.. EC.C.P.
Eric Thompson, M.D., F.A.C,S., F.C.C.P., F.A.C.C.
Carl E. Arentzen. M.D.. EA.C.S.
Stanley A. Gall, Jr., M.D.
August 17, 1998
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Fourth Floor
County Office Building
401 Mclntire R~oad
Charlottesville, Virgima 22902-4596
ATTN:
Mary Joy Scala, Senior Plarmer
Departmem of Planning and Community Development
Dear Sirs:
It is my understanding that the Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District
will soon be reviewed.
It is the desire of the Carrboro Limited Parmership to have its property
removed from the Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District. This
property ss on tax map 16, parcel 30.
Despite its removal from the Agricultural and Forestal District, the property
will contin,~ ~o be used for a~icutV.~ral and foresta! use.
~ Prairie
HEART INSTITUTE 619 East Mason Street · Springfield. IL 62702-5295 m/~T~°r~AL
ARDiOV^SCULAR
St.$ohn'sHospital Phone: 2171325-7640 · Fax: 217/525-2552 ~IgV/VORK
BARACK FERRAZZANO KIRSCHBAUM PERLMAN & NAGELBERG
333 WEST WACKER DRIV~i S~rrE 2700
CHICAGO, ]iLLINOIS 60606
Dennis A. Ferrazzano
Telephone 012) 984~3100
Facsimile (312) 984~3150
August 31, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY AND
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
Dept~ of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclmtire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Re: Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is the owner of approximately 2,100 acres of real property in
Albemarle County, Virginia (legal description attached) which is presently included within the
Carter's Bridge Agricultural Forestal District. This is to inform you that the undersigned
hereby elects to withdraw all of such property from the above-captioned District.
Please refer a~y questions or communications regarding the foregoing to the
undersigned.
Very truly yours,
Mount Pleasant Farm, Inc.
President
DAF/cs
09-0t-98^10:77 RCVP~
SCHEDULE A
parcel One: Ali ofthar parcel of land lying and being in Scorrsville District, Albemarle Count',
Virgima. contaimng t87 acres, more or less. and more particu!arty described as Parcel #3 ora
plat of survey by James C. May & Associates, dated May 15, I980 and revised June 5, 1980.
entitled "Plat of Survey for James F. Jackson, III and WESTVACO Corp." recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court o£Albemarle County. Vir_.qinia ("Clerk's Office") in Deed
Book 748, page 469: BEING the same property conveyed to the Grantor by Deed of Malcolm M.
Cb_fisrian, sole acting trustee, dated September 20. 1982, recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed
Book 748, page 467.
Parcel Two: Ali that certain lot. piece or parcel of real estate wi~ any improvements thereon and
appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being in Scotrsville District of Albemarle Co~q',
Virginia. described as Parcel No. I. as sho~n on plat of survey made by James C. May &
Associates, Engineers-Surveyors-Planners, Lynchburg, Virgiraa, dared May 15, i 980, revised
June 5. 1980. entitled "Plat of Survey for James F. Jackson, III and West~'aco Corp., Sconsville
District. Albemarle Co.. Va.", of record in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 695. page 127; LESS
A~'qD EXCEPT from Parcel No. I thar ~ort~on of ParceI No. I cross-hatched on the copy of the
survey of record in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 713. page 123. wMch pursuant to a certain
.4_mendmem to Deed of Trust and Deed of Trust NoTe, dated June 9, 1980, of record in the
Clerk's Office.in Deed Book 6.96. page 689, is deemed to be a oart of Parcel No. 3 as shox~n on
said survey: BEING the same prope~wy conveyed to the Grantor by Deea of John P. Eckerr and
Ursei Eckem. husband and ~Sfe. dated June 2. 1986. recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book
883. page x2.
Parcel Three: Ail that certain tot. piece or parcel of real estate, with improvements thereon and
appurtenances thereunto belonging. Iying and being in the Scottsvilie Magisterial Dismcr of
Albemarle Count>-, Virginia. containing 766.87 acres, more or less, being all of the property
shown on plar made by James C. May & Associates. Engineers-Surveyors-Planners, Lynchburg,
Virginia. dared April 22, 1980. which plat [s recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 693.
page 7; BEING the same property conveyed to the Grantor by Deed of Arthur M. Sanson, Jr. and
Nancy M. Sanson. husband and wife. dared June 7, 1982. recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed
Book 740. page 342 and Deed of Correction of Arthur M. Sanson. Jr. and Nancy M. Sanson.
husband and wife. dated July 12. 1982. recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 742, page
44I.
Parcel Four: Ail that certain rraar or parceI of land, together ~Sth the improvements thereon and
appurtenances thereunto pertaining, situated in the Scottsvilte Magisterial Disrr/ct. Albemarle
County. Virginia. containing eleven acres, more or less, more particularly sho~n as Parce! 33 on
Albemarle County Tax Map 123: Being the same property conveyed to the Grantor by Deed of
Elsie J. Moon. single, et a_!I., dated May 1 h t99.3, recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book
i37t. page 563.
1
Parcel Five: All those certain tracts or parcels of land, situate, lying and being in Scottsvitle
Magisterial District, Albemarle Count,, Virginia, with all. improvements thereon and
appurtenances thereunto belonging, know as "Brookley", containing in the ag~egate t,064.3
acres, more or less, and composed of the following parcels:
(1) A tract containing 912 acres, more or less. as shown on plat made by Hugh F. Simms,
C.L.S., dated May, 1942, of record in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 254, a~ page 523; and
(2) Two tracts adjoining the above described 912 acre tract on its westerly boundao-, comalm, g
respectively, 125.7 acres and 26.6 acres, aggregating 152.3 acres, more or less, as slaown on plat
made by Hugh F. Simms, C.L.S.. dared May, 1946, of record in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book
268. page 572; BEING the same propero.~ conveyed to the Grantor by Deed of Paut W.
Hoffmann and Camille O. Hoffmann, husband and wife. dated August t0, 1978, recorded in
Clerk's Office in Deed Book 655, page 102.
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICTS
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
The following guidelines will be used for this public hearing:
EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MINUTES.
INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER
SPE kKER.
INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK.
PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK WHO WILL
CIRCULATE COPIES TO BOARD MEMBERS
NAME (Please prim clearly)
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i2
13
14
15
16
PHONE NUMBER (Optional)
PANORAMA AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
TM/P TOTAL USE VALUE ACREAGE OWNER DWELLINGS
ACREAGE AG FOR HORT NQ
44 9C 29.760 26.760 3.6 John & Jacquelyn Huckle 2'
44 9A 8.380 Mary Morris Riviere 0I
44 12 162.739 Mary Mords Riviere 3~
44 - 12Q 2.120 Mary Morris Riviere 1
44 - 12)( 0.401 Wingfield Hughes 0
44 12Y 10.000 Cameron Hildretl~ 0,
44 12Z 10.000 Martha Offutt 0
45A - 01-27 42,400 Jeremy O. Caplin 0
TOTALS 265,399 26.760 0.0O0 3.0 6
F{EQUESTED FOR WITHDRAWAL
45 706.512 429.560 274.952
45 IA 4.430 3.430
TOTAL 841.622
Panorama Farms
2.0 Panorama Farms Inc
1.0 Stephan and Merr ck Murray
1
BARACK FERRAZZANO KIRSCHBAUM PERLMAN & NAGELBERG
333 WEST w^CraR
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606
Dennis A. F~o
Telephone 012) 984-3100
Facsknile 012) 984-3150
August 31, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY AND
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Re: Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is the owner of approximately 2,100 acres of real property in
Albemarle County, Virginia (legal description attached) which is presently included within the
Carter,s Bridge Agricultural Forestal District. This is to inform you that the undersigned
hereby elects to withdraw all of such property from the above-captioned District.
Please refer any questions or communications regarding the foregoing to the
undersigned.
Very truly yours,
Mount Pleasant Farm, Inc.
DAF/cs
SCHEDULE A
Parcel One: Ali of that parcel of land lying and being in Scottsvitle District, Albemarle Cou.np',
Virginia, containing 187 acres, more or tess, and more particularly described as Parcel #3 of a
plat of survey by James C. May & Associates. dated Ma>' I5, 1980 and revised June 5, 1980,
entitled "Plat of Survey for James F. Jackson, tli and W~ESTVACO Corp." recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of AIbemarle County., Virginia (~'Clerk's Office") in Deed
Book 748, page 469; BEING the sm'ne prope~wy conveyed to the Grantor by Deed of Malcolm M.
C.h_dstian. sole acting trustee, dated September 20, 1982, recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed
Book 748. page 467.
Parcel Two: Ail that certain Ion piece or parcel of real estate w/th any improvemems thereon mud
appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being in Sconsville District of Albemarle Co,r>.',
Virginia. described as Parcel No. 1, as sho~n on plat of survey made by Jarnes C. May &
Associates. Engineers-Surveyors-Planners, Lynchburg, Virgima, dated May 15. i980, revised
June 5. 1980. emitled "Plat of Survey for.Tames F. Jackson, II! and Weswaco CoT., Scortsville
District. Albemarle Co.. Va.", of record in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 695. page 127: LESS
AND EXCEPT from Parcel No. I that portion of Parcel No. ! cross-hatched on ~e copy of the
su~'ey of record in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 713. page 123, which pursuant to a cerrmn
.Amendment ro Deed of Trust and Deed of Trust Note~ dated June 9. I980, of record in the
Clerk's Office in Deed Book 696. page 689, is deemed to be a hart of Parcei No. 3 as sho~m on
said survey: BEING the same property conveyed to the Grantor by Deed of Jol~n P. Eckerr and
Ursei Ecken. husband and Mfe. dated June 2, 1986. recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book
883. page a2.
Parcel Three: Ali that certain ] ~r. piece or parcel of real estate, with improvements thereon and
appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being in the Scottsville Magisterial District of
Albemarle Count?', Virginia. containing 766.87 acres, more or less, being ail of the propem7
sho;~n on ptat made by James C. May & Associates. Engineers-Surveyors-Planners, Lynchburg,
Virginia. dated April 22. 1980. which plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 693.
page 7; BEING the same property conveyed to the Grantor by Deed of Arthur M. Sanson, Jr. and
Nancy M. Sanson. husband and wife. dated June 7, 1982. recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed
Book 740. page 342 and Deed of Correction of Arthur M. Sanson. Jr. and Nancy M. Sanson.
husband and wife. dated July !2. 1982. recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 742. page
a-Zl.
Parcel Four: Ail that certain tract or parcel of [and, together with the improvements thereon and
appurtenances thereunto pertaining, situated in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Albemarle
County, Virginia, containing eleven acres, more or less, more particularly sho~x2 as Parcel 33 on
Albemarle Counw Tax Map 123: Being the same property conveyed to the Oranror by Deed of
Elsie J. Moon. single, et al., dared May i I. 1993. recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book
i37i. page 563.
_I
Parcel Five: Al1 those certain tracts or parcels of land. situate, lying and being in Scottsvitle
Magisterial District, Albemarle Count3.', Virginia, with all -improvements thereon and
appurtenances thereunto belonging, know as '~Brookley", containing in the aggregate 1,064.3
acres, more or less, and composed of the following parcels:
(1) A tract comainmg 912 acres, more or less. as shown on plat made by Hugh F. Simms,
C.L.S., dated May, 1942, of record in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 254, at page 523; and
(2) Two tracts adjoining the above described 912 acre tract on its westerly boundary', containing
respectively, 125.7 acres and 26.6 acres, agg-regating 152.3 acres, more or less. as shown on plat
made by Hugh F. Simms, C.L.S.. dared May, 1946. o£record in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book
268, page 572; BEING the same property.' conveyed rc the Grantor by Deed of Paul W.
Hoffmann and Camille O. Ho£fiuarm, husband and wife, dated August 10, 1978, recorded in the
Clerk's Office in Deed Book 655. page 102.
DRAFT: September 3, 1998
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3, Agricultural
and Forestal Districts, Article Il, Districts of Statewide Sign/ficance, is hereby amended and reordained by
amending section 3-210, Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District; section 3-213, Free Union Agricultural
and Forestal District; section 3-221, Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District and section 3-224, Panorama
Agricultural and Forestal District. as follows:
Sec. 3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 101, parcels 55A. 60; tax map 102, parcels 17A, 17B, 17B1, 17D, lg. 19. 19A, 19E,
19C, 20 ~a~)20B; tax map 112, parcels 3, 15, 16, 16C, 16D. I6E, 16F, 17, 18H, 20 (part), 21, 33A, and 37D; tax
map 113, parce]~-i~, lA, ~ 2, 3, 6A, 11, I lA; tax map 114, parcels 21, 25, 30, 51, 55, 56, 67, 57E, 69, 70; tax map
115, parcel 10; tax map 122, parcels 4, 4A, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 12, 12N, 33, 33A, 36; tax map 123, ~arz:!z 2,~a., ,,,~' tax
map 124, parcel 11. rhls dislrict, created on Apr//20. 1988 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on April
gO September 9. 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
tCode 1988, § 2.1-40); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3C_), 9-9-98)
Sec. 3-213 Free Union AgricnItural and Forestal District.
The district knovm as the "Free Urfion Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 7, parcels 6. 7, SA, 9, 9A, 9B, 9Bl, 9C; tax map 16, parcels 4B, 4C, 13A, 13D, 15A.
u-~-,, 30B, 33B, 36, 37, 08, 39.52B1, 52B2, 54; tax map 17, parcels 8, 8B,
15A3, 15C, 15E. 15G, 16B, 17, 26, 39 ~ ~
8-"~-~-7C, 18H, 20A2, 22; tax map 29, parcel 1H (part). This district, created on September 21. 1988 for nor more
than 10 years z~xt b: revicw~d ~cr tc S:~tz~bzr 2!, !99S and last reviewed on September 9, 1998, shail be
next reviewed prior to September 21, 2008.
(Code 1988, § 2A-4(m); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(__), 9-9-98)
See. 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
propenias: Tax map 90B, parcels ll, 12~ 13 Aql; tax map 91, parcels gO, 21, 2lA, 2lB, 31; tax map 92, parcels
64, 64A; tax map 102, parcels 33, 35B, 37, 40, 40A, 40B; tax map 103, parcels 1, lA, lB, lC, 1D, 1E, IF, 1G, 1H,
1J, 1K, 1L, 1M, 2A, 3, 5, 9, 10, IOA, 10B, 10C, IOD, 43. This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more than
10 years and-~t reviewed on Arr,/29 September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
CCode 1988, ~ 2.1-4(k); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(__), 9-9-98)
Sec. 3-224 Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax mar 31, Far::! 22A; Tax map 44, parcels 9A, 9C, 12, 120, 12Y, 12Z; Trcc m~p ~.5, ~arccI !: tax
map 45A,w~--~ ~,"'~, o~..~^~ ~ section 1, parcel 27. This d/strict, created o~ 1988 for not more than 10
years and last reviewed on ~ ~pzL -~ September 9, 1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
(6-14-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(1); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(.~), 9-9-98)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department ofPlanndng & Community Development
401 M¢lnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
804/296-5823
FAX 804/972-4035
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Mary Joy Scala
September 2, 1998
AgriculturaFForestal Districts Withdrawals
Attached find an updated list for each of the four districts currently under review. The lists
include all requests for withdrawal from the districts as of this date.
REQUESTED FOR WITHDRAWAL
114 - 67 202.65C 182,050 19.600 1.0 Mount Pleasant Farm, [nc
114 - 67E 197,29(3 146,690 40.600 Mount Pleasant Farm, lnc 0
123 ~ 2.75¢ 2.750 Mount PJeasant Farm, Inc
123 - 3z 1064.30~ 393.000 699.300 2,0 Mount Pleasant Farm, Inc
123 - 5~ 764.120 570.990 188.130 5.0 Mount Pleasan~ Farm,[nc 4
113 - 224.674 224.674 Mountain Spirg Virginia Organics LLP
113 - ~ 23.19~ 7.949 t2.946 3.0 CarlMontenson
113 - 3E 419.'i05 259.051 158.054 2.0 MountainS~iritVirginfaOrganicsLLP 0
LANARK AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
TM/P TOTAL USE VALUE ACREAGE OWNER DWELLINGS
ACREAGE AG FOR HORT NQ
103 1M 266.700 81.5 180.2 5.00 Benjamin Brewster 4
103 1J 333,42, 114.1 218,324 Benjamin Brewster 2
103 1L 16,027 16.027 Benjamin Brewster
103 lA 33,756 20.824 12.932 Benjamin Brewster 0
103 2A 200 87 113 Benjamin Brewster 0
103 1K 147.14 147,14 Benjamin Brewster 0
90B - A-11 15.260 J W K Properties C
91 21 97.194 53 33.214 10.98 J W K Properties
91 21A 821.580 121.75 674.54 25.29 J W K Properties 4
91 21B 381.110 190.5 174.88 13.73 J W K Preperties 8
91 31 488.500 151.4 337.1 J W K Properties 1
92 64 378.912 378,912 J W K Properties
92 64A 672.795 64.65 608.145 JWK Properties 3
102 - 33 43.545 21.645 22 J W K Properties
102 - 35B 61.950 44.281 17.669 Oregon LandTrust
102 37 78.125 13.4 64.725 J W K Properties
102 40 174.010 174.01 J W K Properties
102 40A 10.042 J W K Properties 1
102 4OB 9.120 8.025 1.095 J W K Properties
103 1B 173.040 146.1 26,94 J W K Properties
103 1C 1.420 J W K Properties
I03 - 1D 7.180 7,18 J W K Properties
103 - 1E 326,630 147.5 179_13 J W K Preperties
103 ~ 1F 3,010 3.01 J W K Properties
103 * 1G 4.140 JWKProperties 1
103 1H 10.820 10.82 J W K Properties
103 1 144.270 28.896 115.374 J W K Properties
103 3 123.116 123.116 J W K Preperties
103 5 36,952 J W K Properties
103 - 9 12~722 J W K'Properties
103 '- 10 229.118 37.336 191.762 JWKProperties
103 10A 22.753 I 22.753 Oregon Land Trust
103 10B 22,110 13.754 8.356 Lowell a nd Cia udia Weicker
103 10C 12.681 J W K Properties
103 10D 20.470 Edith Grey Land Trust
103 43 253.,¢ 160.837 93,063 J W K Properties
TOTALS 5633,522 I 1848.558 36t3.277 55,00 4,~
I91 - 2IA(part)
2.096
REQUESTED FOR WITHDRAWAL
Spring Hill Baptist Church
FREE UNION AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
TM/P TOTAL USE VALUE ACREAGE OWNER DWELLINGS
ACREAGE AG FOR HORT NQ
16 - 54 47.26 32,66 13.600 1.0 Robert and Nancy Spekman 1'
16 - 52B' 23.062 12.803 9.259 1.0 Michael and Thelma Del Grande
1,
16 - 52B2 23.315 22.315 1.0 Julia Lezzoni
17 - 17C 98.777 Phyllis Fontana 0
17 - 22 62.841 Phyllis Fontana
16 - 36 3.004 3.004 Thomas B. Mclntosh orCarolColnon 0
16 - 37 81.44 50.305 30,135 1.0 Thomas B. Mclrdosh or Carol Colnon 1
16 - 15C 22.005 22.005 Thomaa B. Mcintosh 0i
16 - 26 47.81 18.24 29.570 Farmington Kennels, Inc 0
17 - 8C 21.899 9.512 11.387 1.0 Richard or Joann Haden 1
17 - 8 21.899 2%899 JannyVan Beek 0
17 - 8B 24.779 23.779 1,0 Mary Coe Lynch
16 ~ t5E 10,000 William B~odgett or Susan Hammers 1
16 - 15G 22.132 21.132 1,C wgJiam M. Ward 0
I7 - 18H 19.156 17.007 1.149 1.0 DedeA. Maloney 1
16 - 30E~ 21.010 20.010 1.(: Charles P. Ancona 0
16 - 39 4.116 Amy Ellertson 1
16 - 38 3.175 Amy E~lertson 0
16 - 4C 21.489 20.489 1.£ John W. & Mathilde S. Kauffman 1
16 - 4B 27.191 26.191 1.(: PethoiaBesch-HarderandStevenHarder 1
16 - 17 t08.880 Gary Hollow LandTrust 0
16 - 15A 38,000 14.164 22.836 1.(: _awrenceA. and Kristine Haas Lawwi]l 0
16 - 16B 22.200 21.200 1.¢ Allan T. Donaldson or Cynthia C. Janchiid 1
17 - 20A2 27.380 27.38 Eugene and ReginaSullenberger 0
29 ~ 1H(part) 17.841 11.34 5.507 1.(: ~obert and Jane Paxton 1
16 - 13D 15.005 Richard B. Hays 0
16 - 13A 15.005 Sergio and Christina Conetti 1
7 - 7 71.500 71.500 Doris R. Co es 0
7 - 8A 251.400 251.400 John Coles 0
7 - 6 75.000 69.000 6.¢ 3edha V. Morris 1
7 - 9 46~520 46.520 David E, & Nancy H. Ross 0
7 - 9A 10.000 9.000 1.C David E. & Nancy H. Ross 1
7 - 9C 33.000 23.000 5.¢ David E. & Nancy H. Ross 0
7 - 9B 24.179 24.179 David C, & Sharon Smith 0
7 - 9B1 15.000 14.000 1.C IDavid C. & Sharon Smith 1
16 - 15A3 2.000 1.000 1,¢IVeJta Haas 1
FOTALS '1379.27 242.O93 791.384 28.~ '19
t16 - 30(pad)
16 33B
TOTAL
REQUESTED FOR WITH DRAWAL
822.78 437.2 383.58 2.0 Carrboro Limited partnersh p
189.77 William Massey Jr,
1012.55
PANORAMA AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
TM/P TOTAL USE VALUE ACREAGE OWNER DWELLINGS
~,CREAGE AG FOR HORT NQ
44 - 9C 29.760 26.760 3.0 John & Jaoquelyn Huckle 2
44 9A 8.380 Mary Morris Riviere 0
44 - 12 162.739 Mary Morris Riviere 3
44 - 12Q 2.120 Mary Morris Riviere 1
44 12Y 10.000 Cameron Hildreth 0
44 - 12Z 10.000 Martha Offutt 0
45A 01-27 42.400 Jeremy O. Caplin 0
TOTALS 265.399 26.760 0.000 3.0 6
REQUESTED FOR WITHDRAWAL
44 12X 0.401 Wingfield Hughes
31 23A
45 I
45 - lA I
TOTAL 842.023
130.680J 130.650
706.512 429.560 274.952 2.0
4.430 3.430 1.0
Panorama Farms Ino
Stephen and Merrick Murray
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 M¢Intire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
~804) 296-5823
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
MaE, loy Scala, Senior Planner
August 6, 1998
Planning Commission Actions - Agricultural/Forestal Districts
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meefmg on July 28, 1998 took the following
actions:
Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District - Recommended continuation for ten years with
the following withdrawals:
Tax Map 102, Parcel 19B Karla Berger and four parcels improperly subdivided: Tax map
114, Parcels 25, 25A~ 25B and 25C.
Lanark AgriculturaFForestal District - Recommended continuation for ten years with one
withdrawal:
2.096 acre part of Tax map 91, Parcel 2lA Slate I-Yfll Baptist Church
Panorama AgriculturaFForestal District - Recommended continuation for ten years.
Free Union AgriculturaFForestal District - Recommended continuation for ten years with one
withdrawal:
Tax Map 16, Parcel 33B William Massey
Attached please find a staff report which outlines the above-noted requests. The Board is
scheduled to review these at their September 9, 1998 meet'mg.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact to me.
MJS/jcf
2'-~ ~P2~: ~C
STAFF PERSON:
ADVISORY COMMIITEE:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Mary Joy Scala
June 22, 1998
July 28, 1998
September 9, 1998
REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL/FORE STAL DISTRICTS:
CARTER'S BRIDGE
LANARK
FREE UNION
PANORAMA
Procedure: In conducting a review, the Board shall ask for the recommendations of the local
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commissmn in order to determine whether to terminate,
modify, ar continue the district.
The Board may stipulate conditions to continue the district and may establish a period before the
next review of the district, which may be different fi-om the conditions or period established when
the district was created. Any s~uch different conditions or period must be described in a notice
sent to landowners in the district, and published in a newspaper at least two weeks prior to
adoption of the ordinance continuing the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board of Supervisors, the district shall
continue as originally constituted, with the same conditions and period before the next review ( 10
years) as were established when the district was created.
When each district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner's
discretion by filing a written notice with the Board of Supervisors at any time before the Board
acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
Purpose: The purpose of an agricultural/forestal district is "to conserve and protect and to
encourage the development and improvement of the Commonwealth's agricultural/forestal lands
for the production of food and other agricultural and forestal products..." and "to conserve and
protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide
essential open space for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as welt as for
aesthetic purposes."
Factors to Consider:
The following factors must be considered by the Advisory Committee and at any public hearing
when a proposed district is being considered:
The agricultural and forestal significance of land within the district and in areas adjacent
thereto;
]?he presence of any significant agricultural lands or significant forestal lands within the
district and in areas adjacenl thereto that are not now in active agricultural or forestal
production;
The nature and extent of land uses other than active farming or forestry within the district
and in areas adjacent thereto:
4. Local development patterns and needs;
5. The Comprehensive Plan and, if applicable, the zoning regulations;
The environmental benefits of retaining the lands in the district for agricultural and
forestal uses; and
7. Any other matter which may be relevant.
Effects of a District:
1. The proposed district provides a community benefit by conserving and protecting
farmlands and forest; environmental resources such as watersheds, air quality, open
space, and wildlife habitat; and scenic and historic resources.
The State Code stipulates that the landowner receive certain tax benefits*, and
restrictions on public utilities and government action (such as land acquisition and local
nuisance laws) to protect the agricultural/forestal use of the land. In exchange, the
landowner agrees not to develop the property to a "more intensive use" during the
specified number of years the district is in effect.
*Since Albemarle County currently permits all four categories of use value assessment, a
dislrict designation may not provide any additional real estate tax deductions. Land in a
district is protected from special utility assessments or taxes.
The State Code stipulates that, '!Local ordinances, comprehensive plans, land use
planning decisions, administrative decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land
adjacent to any district shall take into account the e>fistence of such district and the
purposes of this chapter." The district may have no effect on adjacent development by
right, but could restrict proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit which are
determined to be in conflict with the adjacent agricultural/forestal uses. Districts must
now be shown on the official Comprehensive Plan map each time it is updated.
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The property owners in
the district are making a statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the
near future, and that they would like the area to remain in the agricultural and forestal
uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue agricultural uses if they
do not anticipate development of adjacent lands.
2
REVIEW OF CARTER'S BRIDGE AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
Carter's Bridge District was created on April 20, 1988 for a time period often years. Two
additions have occurred in the district during the ten year period, in 1990 and 1997.
Location: Carter's Bridge District is located east of Route 20 South, and on State Routes 618,
627, 708, 727, 761 and 795, in the vicinity of Carter's Bridge, Blenheim and Woodridge.
Acreage: The Carter's Bridge District contains 12,005.839 acres in 62 parcels.
Time Period: The time period for Carter's Bridge District is 10 years.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the district is being used primarily for forestry,
but significant acreage is also devoted to pasture and hay.
Significant Land Not in AgriculturalfForestat Production: The use value taxation program is a
good indication of the actual use of the properties. Approximately 4.277 acres are being used for
agriculture, 7,636 acres are being used for forestry, 35 acres are non-qualifying because of
dwellings or other reasons, and 35 acres are not enrolled.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Fores~v: There are 48 dwellings in the Carter's Bridge
Dis~ict.
Local Development Patterns and Needs: The Carter's Bridge area is very rural. There are many
large farms as well as scattered dwellings.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Carter's Bridge District is located within the
Rural Ama of the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Developmem
Area is the Urban Area, a distance of about three miles north.
A Comprehensive Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in
the interest of the four major elements of the Rural Areas. with highest priority given to
preserving agricultural and forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development.'
(p.203). A strategy is to "Actively promote and support voluntary techniques such as
agricultural/forestal districts...." IP. 53~
The Open Space Plan shows this area designated as important farmlands and forests. Many
historic resources are in the district, including Redlands. Several of the parcels in the district are
located within an area on Carter's Mountain recommended for mountain protection. Them are
also critical slopes in this area.
Environmental Benefits: l'he district lies within the Hardware River watershed. Several creeks.
Eppes, Harris, Murphy, and Turkey Creek, also traverse through various properties in the district.
Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the
protection of valuable resources such as critical slopes, open space, and the historic landscape.
StaffRecommendation: With Carter's Bridge district being the largest Agricultural/Forestal
District in the County, staff recommends continuation of the district for a ten year time petiod.
As of July 13, 1998 no requests for withdrawal from the Carter's Bridge District had been
submitted. Staff noted to the Advisory Committee its intent to remove four small parcels from the
district which had been impropertly subdivided (Tax Map 114 Parcels 25.25A, 25B, 25C). The
Committee recommended contacting the four owners to see if they would like to remain in the
district,
Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee
unanimously recommended that the Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District be continued
for a ten year time period.
CARTER'S BRIDGE AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
TM/P TOTAL USE VALUE ACREAGE OWNER DWELLINGS
~,CREAGE AG FOR HURT NQ
113 - 1/~ 94.580 92.000 0.580 2.0 MiilQuarterLP 1
t14 - 67 202.650 182.050 19.600 1.0 MountPleasant Farm, inc 1
114 - 67E 187.290 146.690 40.600 Mount Pleasant Farm, lnc 0
123 - 2.75~D 2.750' Mo[mt Pleasant'Farm. Inc 0
123 - 3~ 1064.30~J 393.000 669.300 2.0 Mount PleasantFarm, [nc 2
123 - 5.~ 764,120 570.990 188.136 5.0 Mount Pteasant Farm, Inc 4
102 - 18! 277.80C 70.600 207.200 Mary Ross Carter
102 J 17E 117.470 33.300 84.170 Mary Ross Carter 0
113 ~ ; 224.674 224.674 Mountain SpirftVirginia O~ganic~ LLP
113 - 23.198 7.949 12.246 3.0 Car~ Mortenson 6
113 ~ 3E 419.105 269.05t 158.054 2.0 MountainSpifitVirginiaOrganicsLLP 0
113 - 11 824.34~ 219.000 604.340 1.0 Peter Nielsen
114 - 25! 3.65~ Chdstapher Earbour 2
114 - 25A 2.61¢ JamesandMarciaStraker
'~14 - 25B 3.826 Johnand Cathie McCutchen 0
114 - 25C 6.003 ;ur'dsa~dBrendaCariisie
114 - 21 7.680 7.680 Mountain Spidt Virginia Organics LLP
114 - 30! 5,508 Bryant and Karen Bibb
102 - 17A 91.60C 91.600 Dr John E. Carter
101 ~ 55/ 43.86¢ 22~000 21.860 Jo~nand A~drew Carter
102 - 17D 195.07£ 34.739 149.290 12.041 AndrewCarter
102 - 7B1 11.53C 4.060 7.530 ohnCarter ·
113 - 1 682.69C 67.111 598.710 7.869 9.0 ~rRobertHCarter 6
REVIEW OF LANARK AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
Lanark was created on April 20, 1988 for a time period often years. One addition has occurred
in the district during the ten year period, in 1992.
Location: Lanark District is located near Carter Mountain, Overton, and along Route 627.
Acreage: The Lanark District contains 5,633.522 acres in 36 parcels.
Time Period: The time period for Lanark District is 10 years.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the district is being used primarily for agriculmre
and forestry.
Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The use value taxation program is a
good indication of the actual use of the properties. Approximately 1,849 acres are being used for
agriculture, 3,613 acres are being used for forestry, 55 acres are non-qualifying because of
dwellings or other reasons, and 114 acres are not enrolled.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: There are 42 dwellings in the Lanark District.
Local Development Patterns and Needs: The area surrounding the Lanark District is very rural.
There are many large farms as well as scattered dwellings.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Lanark District is located within the Rural
Area of the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development Area
is the Urban Area, a distance of about one mite west.
A Comprehensive Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in
the interest of the four major elements of the Rural Areas. with highest priority given to
preserving agricultural and forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development."
[p.203). A strategy is, "Actively promote and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/
forestal districts...." (p. 53)
The Open Space Plan shows this area to have important farmland and forestal soils. Two National
Register properties, Morven and Blenheim. are within the district. Two other National Register
properties lie adjacent to the district: Ash Lawn and Redlands. Several of the parcels in the
district are located within an area on Carter's Mountain recommended for mountain protection.
Environmental Benefits: The district lies within the Rivanna River watershed. Conservation of
this area maintains the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground
and surface water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, the historic landscape, and open space.
Staff Recommendation: Staffrecommends continuation of the Lanark District for a ten year time
period. As of July 13, 1998 one property owner in the district had requested to withdraw. Slate
Hill Baptist Church has requested to remove a portion, 2.096 acres, of Tax Map 91 Parcel 2lA
from the district.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee
unanimously recommended that the Lanark AgriculturaVForestal District be continued for a ten
year time period.
RECEIVE~
slate Hill Baptist Church
2895 Polling Poad
Scottsville, VA 2459o
~I~Y 2 0
Planning Dept.
13 May 1998
Ms Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner
Department of Planning.& Commurfity Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottes~flle_ VA 22902-4596
Dear Ms Scala:
As trustees of the Slate Hill Baptist Church, we reqhest that the 2.096 AC "Parcel X--a portion of
Tax Map 91 Parcel 2 lA' as identified on the attached Subdivision Plat be removed fi.om enrollment
in the Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District.
Please advise, if we need to provide you with more information~or take further action to remove
"Parcel X" from the Lanark District.
Thanking you for your attention and service_ we are_
Sincerely,
JOHN NqEWTON Trustee
Slate ~L143~ist Church
CLYDE SNODDY, Tms[ee
Slate Hill Baptist Church'
NELLIE HOUCHENS. Trustee
Slate Hill Baptist Church
SUBDIVISION PLAT ~HOWING
:'ARCEL ~<--A PORTION OF
TAX MAP 91 PARCEL
HEREBY ADOEO TO AND
BECOMING A PART OF
TAX MAP 103 PARCEL 68
LOCATED ON STATE ROUTE 795
NEAR SLATE HILL
ALSEMARLE COUNTY. VIRGINIA
LANARK AGRIGULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
TM/P TOTAL USE VALUE ACREAGE OWNER DWELLINGS
ACREAGE AG FOR HORT NQ
103 1M 266.700 81.5 180.2 5.00 Benjamin Brewster 4
103 - 1J 333.424 114.1 218.324 Benjamin Brewster 2
103 - 1L 16.027 16.027 Benjamin Brewster 0
103 lA 33.756 20.824 12.932 Benjamin Brewster 0
103 2A 200 87 1t3 Benjamin Brewster
103 1K 147.14 147.14 Benjam n Brewster
90B A-11 I5.260 J W K Properties
91 21 97.194 53 33.214 10.98 J W K Properties 3
9I 21A 821.580 121.75 674,54 25.29 J W K Properties 4
91 21B 381.110 190.5 174.88 13.73 J W K Properties 8
91 31 488.500 151.4 337.1 J W K Properties 1
92 64 378.912 378.912 J W K Properties 0
92 64A 672.795 64.65 608.145 J W K Propert es 3
102 33 43.545 21.545 22 J W K Properties 0
102 - 35B 61.950 44.281 17:669 Oregon Land Trust 0
102 37 78.125 13.4 64.725 J W K Properties
102 40 174.010 174.01 J W K Properties 3
102 40A 10.042 J W K Properties
102 40B 9.120 8.025 1.095 J W K Properties
103 lB 173.040 146.1 26.94 J W K Properties
103 lC 1.420 J W K Properties
103 1 D 7.180 7.18 J W K Properties 1
103 - 1E 326.630 147.5 179.13 J W K Properties
103 - 1F 3.010 3.01 J W K Properties
103 1G 4.140 J W F, Properties 1
103 1H 10.820 10.82 J W K Properties
103 1 t44.270 28,896 t15.374 J W K Properties
103 3 123. I16 123,116 J W K Properties
103 5 36.952 J W K Properties
103 9 12.722 J W K Properties
103 10 229.118 37,336 191.782 J W K Properties
103 10A 22.753 22.753 Oregon Land Trust
103 1 OB 22.1 I0 13.754 8.356 Lowell and Claudia Weicker
103 10C 12.681 J W K Properties
103 10D 20.470 Edith Grey Land Trust
103 - 43 253.9 160.837 93.063 J W K Properties
tOTALS 5633.522 1848 558 3613,277 55.00 42
REVIEW OF FREE UNION AGRICULTURAL/FORE STAL DISTRICT
Free Union was created on September 21, 1988 for atime period often years. Two additions
have occurred in the district during the ten year period, in 1989 and 1991.
Location: Free Union District is located near Free Union. Gibson Mountain, and along Routes
67t, 601, and 687.
Acreage: The Free Union District contains 2,391.82 acres in 38 parcels.
Time Period: The time period for Free Union District is 10 years.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the district is being used for agriculture and
forestry.
Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The use value taxation program is a
good indication of the actual use of the properties. Approximately 679 acres are being used for
agriculture, 1,175 acres are being used for forestry, 30 acres are non-qualifying because of
dwellings or other reasons, and 508 acres are not enrolled.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: There are 24 dwellings in the Free Union District.
Local Development Patterns and Needs: This area consists of large farms, steep wooded land and
scattered dwellings.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Free Union District is located within the Rural
Area of the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development Area
is the Community of Hollymead, a distance of about 5 miles east.
A Comprehensive Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in
the interest of the four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to
preserving agricultural and forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development."
[p.203). A strategy is. "Actively promote and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/
forestal districts...." (p. 53/
The Open Space Plan shows this area located within the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
Watershed, and it is designated as important farmlands and forests. Several of the parcels in the
district are located within an area on Fox Mountain recommended for mountain protection.
Environmental Benefits: The district lies within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed.
Environmental benefits provided by conservation of wooded areas include protection of ground
and surface water quality, wildlife habitat, and critical slopes. This is also a very scenic area.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends continuation of the Free Union District for a ten year
time period. As of July 13, 1998 no requests for withdrawal from the district had been received.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Agricultural/Forestry Advisory Committee
recommended that the Free Union District be continued for a time period of ten years.
FREE UNION AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
TM/P TOTAL USE VALUE ACREAGE OWNER 3WELLINGS
ACREAGE AG FOR HORT NQ
16 - 54 47.26 32.66 13.6 1.0 Robert and Nancy Spekman
16 - 52B1 23.062 12.803 9.259 1.0 ~lichae~ and Thelma Del Grande 1
16 - 52B2 23.315 22~315 1.0 luiia Lezzoni 1
17 - 17C 98,777 Phyllis Fontana
17 - 22 62.841 . Phyllis Fontana 1
16 - 36 3.004 3.004 Thomas B. Mclntosh or Carol Colnon
16 - 37 81.44 50.305 30.135 1.0 Thomas B, Mclntosh or Carol Colnen
16 - 15C 22.065 22.005 Thomaa B. Mclntceh
16 - 26 47.81 18.24 29.57 Farmingtoh Kennels, Inc
17 - 8C 21.899 9.512 11.387 1.0 Richard or Joann Haden
17 - 8 21.899 21.899 Janny Van Beek
17 - 8B 24.779 23.779 1.0 Mary Coe Lynch 1
16 - 30(part) 822.780 437,2 383.58 2.0 .~arrboro Limited Partnership
16 - 15E 10.000 William Biodgett or Susan Hammers
16 - 15G 22.132 21.132 1.0 William M. Ward
17 - 18H 19.156 17.007 1.149 '1.0 DedeA. Maloney 1
16 - 30B 21.010 20.01 1.0 Chades P. Ancona
16 - 39 4.116 Amy Ellertson
16 - 3t 3.175 Amy E]lertson (
16 - 4C 21.489 20.489 1.0 John W. & Mathilde S. Kauffman 1
16 - 4B 27.191 26.191 1.0 Patricia Besch-Harderand Steven Harder
16 - 17 108.880 (~tcy Hollow Land Trust ~£u,'
16 - 15A 38.000 14.164 22.836 1.0 Lawrence A. and Kristine~Haas Lawwi[P -
16 - 16B 22.200 21.2 1.0 Allan T. Donaldson or Cynthia C, Janchild 1
17 - 20A2 27.380 27.38 Eugene and Regina Sullenberger
29 - 1H(part) 17.841 11.34 5.507 1.0 Robert and Jane Paxtoh 1
16 - 13D 15.005 Richard B. Hays
16 - 13A 15.005 Sergio and Christina Conetti
7 ~ 7 71.500 71.5 Doris R. Coles
7 - 8A 251.400 251.4 John Coles 0
~ 7 - 6 75.000 69 6.0 BerthaV. Morrs
, 7 - 9 46.520 46.52 David E. & Nancy H. Ross
, 7 - 9A 10.000 9 1~0 David E. & Nancy H. Ross
7 - 9C 33.000 28 5.0 David E. & Nancy H. Ross
7 - 9B 24.179 24.179 David C. & Sharon Smith 0
7 - 9B1 15.000 14 1.0 David C. & Sharon Smith 1
16 - 15A; 2.000 1 1,0 Veita Haas 1
16 '- 33B 189.770 W'~lliam Massey Jr. 2
TOTALS 2391.82 679.293 1174.964 30.C 24
REVIEW OF PANORAMA AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
Panorama was created on April 20, 1988 for atime period often years. One addition was
approved in 1995.
Location: Panorama District is located on the north and south sides of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir.
Acreage: The Panorama District contains t,107.422 acres in 11 parcels.
rime Period: The time period for Panorama District is 10 years.
A~ricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the district is being used for pasture, forestry,
fruit trees, and wildlife.
Significant Land Not in A~ricultural/Forestal Production: The use value taxation program is a
good indication of the actual use of the properties. Only four of the parcels are enrolled in the
program. Approximately 460 acres are being used for agriculture, 406 acres are being used for
forestry, and 6 acres are non-qualifying because of dwellings and other uses. 236 acres are not
enrolled in the use value taxation program, but most of this acreage is under easement.
Land Use other than A~riculture and Forestry: There are 8 dwellings in the Panorama district.
Local Development Patterns and Needs: Panorama Farm is part of the district, as well as several
other large lot parcels and a parcel within the Ardwood subdivision.
Comprehensive Plan and Zonine Regulations: The proposed addition is designated Rural Area in
the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development Area is the
Urban Area, located about one mile to the east.
A Comprehensive Plan objective is. "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in
the interest of the four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to
preserving agricultural and forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development."
(p.203) A strategy is, "Actively promote and support voluntary techniques such as agricultaral~
forestal districts...." [p. 53)
The Open Space Plan shows this area located within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
watershed, and is designated as important farmlands and forests..
Environmental Benefits: The district lies within the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
watershed. Conservation of this area helps to maintain the environmental integrity of the County,
and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, agricultural and forestry land, open space,
and wildlife habitat.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends continuation of the Panorama District with a ten year
time period. As of July 13. 1998 no requests for withdrawal from the district had been received.
The owner of Panorama Farms (Tax Mao 45 Parcel I and Tax Map 31 Parcel 23A) has indicated
an intention to withdraw from the district, however, no letter has been received to date If those
two parcels should be withdrawn, the district wilt still contain over 200 acres in the core, with the
Caplin acreage located within a mile of the core. Therefore. the remaining district would not be
affected~
Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Agricultural/Foresu? Advisory Committee
unanimously recommended that the Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District be continued for a
ten year time period.
I :\department\planning\0728afd.doc
8
PANORAMA AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
TM/P ~ TOTAL USE VALUE ACREAGE OWNER DWELLINGS
ACREAGE AG FOR HaRT NQ
45 1 706.512 429,560 274,952 2.(~ Panorama Farms Ina l
31 23A 130.680 130.680 Panorama Farms [nc , 0
44 - 9C 29.760 26.760 ' 3.0 John & Jacquelyn Huckle 2
44 - 9A 8.380 I Mary Morris Riviere 0
44 12 162.739I Mary Morris Riviere 3
44 - 12Q 2.120 Mary Morris Riviere 1
44 12X 0.401 Wingfield Hughes 0
44 - 12Y 10.000 Cameron Hildreth 0
44 - 12Z 10.000 Martha Offutt 0
45 - lA 4.430 3.430 1.0 Stephen and Merrick Murray
45A - 01-27 42.400 Jeremy O. Caplin 0
TOTALS 1107.422 469.750 405.632 6.0 8
Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
June 22, 1998
Stephen Murray called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Other members present were
Joseph Jones, Walter Perkins, Brace Hogue, David vanRoijen, Rosemary Dent, Robert
Bloch, Sherry Buttrick, and Bruce Woodzell. Staffmembers presem were Mary Joy
Scala, Senior Planner, and Miranda Darden, Planning Intern. Landowners Mr. and Mrs.
Lynch representing Free Union District were presem.
Review of Carter's Bridge District
Smffpresented the staff report recommending continuation of the district for a ten year
period. Highlighted items included the reviewprocedure, the acreage, the # of parcels in
the district, the uses, and the environmental benefits of the district.
Mr, vanRoijen asked for clarification of the Board adding a condition.
Staff noted that an improper subdivision had occurred in the district (TM 114. P 25,25A,
25B, 25C).
Mr. Jones suggested that we send a letter to the landowners in the subdivision Ietting
them know that they will be taken out of the district because of the improper subdivision,
and asking them if they wish to remain in the district.
Mr. vanRoijen asked for clarification of the adjacent property owner process, specifically
whether they are invited to join the district, and requested to see the letter (to the adjacent
property owners) before we send it out.
Mr. Jones moved to continue the district for ten years.
Ms. Bnttrick made a second to the motion.
The committee voted unanimously to recommend continuation of the district.
Review of Lanark District
Staff presented the staff report recommending continuation of the district for ten years.
Mr. vanRoijen asked if the Carter's Bridge and Lanark districts should be consolidated.
Ms. Scala said they could, but there was no reason for that. Most people who form a
district like to keep the original name.
Ms. Buttrick said that it was a good idea to keep two "cores" so that more properties were
eligible to join.
The committee had a discussion on "cores" and the rules for joining a district.
Ms. Butttick questioned why a lot of land in the district was nor enrolled in the Use Value
Taxation program.
Mr. Bloch made a motion to continue the district for ten years.
Mr. vanRoijen made a second to the motion.
The committee voted unanimously to continue the district for ten years.
Review of Panorama Distriet
Mr. Murray turned the meeting over to Mr. Jones while Panorama District was being
discussed.
Mr. Murray told the committee that he was mml~orarily pulling his parcels out of the
district because he does not want it to lever against him while he is pursuing other
activities on his property. He noted that he believes in the act and wants to put his
properties back in the district in 18 months or so.
Ms. Scala noted that the district can continue without Panorama Farms.
Mr. Murray said that he planned to remove Tax Map 45 Parcel 1 and Tax Map 31 Parcel
23A from the district and to leave Tax Map 45 Parcel lA in the district.
Staff presented the. staff report recommending the continuation of the district for ten
years.
Ms. Buttrick noted that the parcel from the Ardwood subdivision is under easement: also
Mary Riviere's parcel is under easement.
Ms. Dent asked about the possibility of the Virginia Rowing Association (boathouse
property) joining the district.
Mr. Hogue made a motion to continue the district for ten years, to continue with the
acreage that's left.
Mr. Bloch made a second to the motion.
Mr. Murray abstained.
The committee voted unanimously To continue the district for ten years.
Review of Free Union District
Mr. Murray resumes as chair.
Staff presented the staff report recommending the continuation of the district for ten
years.
Ms. Buttrick asked about the high number of parcels not enrolled in the Use Value
Taxation Program. She mentioned several parcels are under easement.
Mr, vanRoijen asked if the committee should tell these landowners about the program,
and then asked Mr. Woodzell for clarification on easements and their role in the land use
program.
Mr. And Mrs. Lynch were present. Mr. Lynch told the committee that they intended to
stay in the district and that they had spoken with_the Haydens and Janny Van Beek and
they also intend to stay in the district.
Ms. Dent thanked them for coming and suggested they might want to be put on a
committee to recruit new members.
Ms. Buttrick noted that Dr. Wellens took his cue from John Rogan, he was a
conservationist and sold his 800 acres subject to it staying in the district for ten years.
Ms. Butttick made a motion to continue the district for ten years.
Ms. Dent made a second to the motion.
The committee unanimously voted to continue the district for ten years.
Discussion on how to encourage landowners to join/remain in a district
Ms. Scala told the committee that she received an email/rom Sally Thomas that she
wanted to work on encouraging participation in the ag/forest districts.
Mr. Murray said that we are at the forefront of compatible land use change in the County
and used his bike~trail project as an example. He said that the Board was using the fact
that his property was in an ag/forest district against him. He said that when the Land Use
Plan is reviewed the County should look at uses in the Rural Areas and in ag/forest
districts.
Staff pointed out that uses allowed in the Rural Area and uses allowed in ag/forest
districts are closely related.
Mr. vanRoijen brought up the cellular tower issue. During the review of the Hardware
District Fred Scott took his property out because he said he didn't get protection. The
landowners were protected against roads and such but not against much else. There is
nothing visible to differentiate the district. People are not aware.
Ms. Buttrick: Land in ag/forestry districts are classified as "4F" by VDOT; this is not
publicized.
Mr. vanRoijen: He said that land use tax is readily available. He called other counties to
see what they do with land use and ag/forest districts. Other counties have to show tax
records, production records, forestry and conservation plans etc. to get land use taxation.
Shenandoah County hired someone to tightenthe landuse program. Hethen askedifthe
Board was really serious about land use and enforcing it? He said the County needed
more staff and money. He recommended more differentiation of land use from ag/foresl
districts. He proposed that the County do away with ail of the land use categories but
open space, so that enrollment in an ag/forest district is a requirement for land use mx.
Mr. Murray said that he had studied land use wi.thin the Jack Jouett district with the
Venture Group, and found that the number one problem was sprawl. The #1 positive
aspect is this region's beauty. Ag/forest districts become a commitment to the
landowner. This committee has not been favorable to withdrawals other than emergencies
and hardships. If you start restricting qualifications for land use tax, you will get more
development and more sprawl.
Mr. Hogue said the County should give a tax break if the property is enrolled in an
ag/forest district.
Mr. Murray said if a tax break was given people would sign up in droves.
Mr. vanRoijen said there is no authority to further reduce the land use tax in districts?
Mr. Woodzell said that is correct.
Mr. vanRoijen suggested that someone could join the land use program for five years and
then have to either join a district or lose their land use designation.
Mr. Hogue said he would not join.
Mr. Murray said that ifa landowner is forced into a district they may have to get out (for
financial reasons) and wouldn't be able to pay the taxes to get out.
Mr. Hogue suggested that farms not pay taxes and that the burden be shifted entirely to
the residential parcels.
Ms. Buttrick asked if we can lower the SLEAC ('State Land Use Advisory Council)
numbers?
Mr. Woodzell talked about land use rates. He said every year the County can choose not
to accept SLEAC's numbers, but he does not have the expertise to develop new numbers.
The committee discussed changing the value of property to a lower rate.
Ms. Buttrick suggested.using less than 100% (maybe 75%) for ag, forest and horticulture;
use 100% for open space category..
Mr. Woodzell told the committee to keep equity in mind and who the burden would have
to be shifted to.
Mr. Perkins noted that a change in the legislature would be necessary.
Ms. Buttrick pointed out that the rate can't be changed, only the value can. Have to apply
72 cent rate uniformly.
Mr. Woodzell talked about changing the minimum acreage required for joining the land
use program.
Mr. Murray said never enough weight is given to the lack of infrastructure needed for
open space. That should be the main argument- the cost to the County is negligible.
Ms. Buttrick said there are fiscal impact studies that say that. Augusta County last year,
Albemarle in 1984, Culpepper in 1990.
Mr. Perkins said the system we have isn't broke. The problem is bigger than we realize.
The tax system is based on an agrarian society. Need major changes in the state
legislation. If land stays green for one more year then we get a benefit.
Mr. vanRoijen said that more information was needed on how to lower the value on open
space,
Mr, Woodzell said he would speak to the County Attorney about lowering the value.
Ms. Buttrick said that open space requires up to a ten year commiunent, which is more
than the other categories. She said that it may be worth talking to the SLEAC
Committee.
Ms. Buttrick and Mr. vanRoijen said that the five year rollback was not a disincentive.
Mr. Woodzell said that the Farm Bureau plays a big role in the legislation.
Mr. Bloch said the Farm Bureau is opposed to an increased rollback.
Mr. Hogue said that the SLEAC figures were based on surveys from the farmers.
Mr. vanRoijen said they only send the survey to the 1000 largest farms.
Ms. Scala asked if the Farm Bureau would endorse ag/forest districts.
Mr. Jones said he would endorse them, up to deleting land use tax.
Mr. vanRoijen said that the Board should enforce the phrase in the staff report about
"effects ora district" to protect the districts when projects come up near them. He said
that only by fight projects should be allowed, special use permits should be denied
whenever they are near a district. He said Fauquier County "tapers" development near a
district.
Mr. Murray brought up his mountain bike project and said that it required a special use
permit and he disagreed with Mr. vanRoijen's comment. He asked if bike trails came
under the same scrutiny as cell towers?
Ms. Buttrick said review is based on adverse impacts.
Mr. vanRoijen reminded everyone that they are trying to find ways to encourage districts.
Mr. Bloch suggested that the County pay $1 an acre to owners in the districts.
Mr. Perkins noted that the County can only expend funds on public benefits. He thoughl
the County could rant open space land, send the owner a check for $3 an acre. The
County Attorney said you couldn't do that.
Mr. vanRoijen suggested a tax credit program.
Mr. Woodzell noted that if the County gave more credits to the farmers they would not be
paying taxes at all.
Mr. Perkins noted that the disabled and retirees that are financially burdened are already
exempt from paying taxes.
Mr. Bloch asked if an individual could purchase another's development rights?
Mr. Murray said all these questions would be resolved in the next 5 years.
Mr. Perkins said the General Assembly is controlled by Northern Virginia - they don't
have land use tax.
Mr. vanRoijen asked for a clarification for rejecting only open space rate and not using
SLEAC numbers.
Ms. Buttrick suggested that the committee pursue lowering the open space value. She
also suggested encouraging participation in ag/forest districts through active educational
programs and through the Piedmont Environmental Council.
Mr. vanRoijen said to talk to PEC. If they don't acquire a conservation easemem, do
they then encourage Ag/forest districts? [Staff Iater inquired about this ~tuestion and they
answered affirmatively.]
Ms. Dent said that it is not easy for new property owners to find out about the ag/forest
district program. It was suggested that information be put on the intemet.
The meeting adjourned at 9:06pm.
1'o: Members, Board of Supervisors
From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Cie
Subject: Reading List for September 9, 1998
I)ate: September 3, 1998
March 13(A), 1995
September 4. 1996
December 4, 996
Februa~, 19. , 997
.une 0 998
Vlr. Martin
pages 29 0zero # 0) - eno - Ms. Humphris
,/ewc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FIRE & RESCUE ADMINISTRATION
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Tel: (804) 296-5833
Fax: [804) 972-4123
interoffice
MEMORANDUM
to: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
from: Brace Crow, Assistant Fire Mars~
subject: Ivy Landfill Fire
date: September 9, 1998
As requested, the findings of my investigation into the origin and cause of the fire at the Ivy
Creek Landfill on September 7, 1998 are as follows:
The information gathered would indicate the fire cause to be accidental in nature. Given the dry
conditions, the most probable ignition source would have been a burning cigarette or other
common ignition source. My observations revealed a discharge of smoke from the burning pile
consistent with that of burning consumction debris. The fire was reported at approximately 2:00
p.m. and units remained on location until extinguished at approximately 8:00 p.m.
In response to questions regarding the use of the lake at Rosemont, this location had been
identified as a water source for fire protection in the area from past incidents. Selection oftbe
water source was based on this knowledge. Water sources are identified ahead of time by pre-fire
planning. A second water source was identified on the landfill property, a storm water detention
pond. This pond was used to support fire suppression effort as well.
Should you have further questions, feel free to contact me.