Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-06-12
FINAL · 7:00 P.M. JUNE 12, 1996 ROOM 241, COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1) Call to Order. 2) Pledge of Allegiance. ~ 3) Moment of Silence. 4) Presentation of Certificiates of Appreciation. 5) Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. 6) Consent Agenda (on next sheet). 7) ZMA-96-03. Worrell Land & Cattle Co. Public Hearing on a request to amend existing agreements & proffers of ZMA-92-12. Property in NW corner of inters of Rt 25011-64. Area recommended for office regional use in Neighborhood 3 by Comprehensive Plan. TM78,P20B,20C,20K,20M,31,32,71,71A. Rivanna Dist. (Applicant requests deferral until June 19, 1996.) 8) ZMA-96-05. Kenneth J. Newell (applicant); CCAT2/University Limited Liability Company (owner). Public Hearing on a request to amend proffers of ZMA-$7-08 for University Village to allow development on portioh of property closest to Old Ivy Road originally designated as landscaped/recreation area. Property, zoned R-10 w/proffers is designated for high density residential in Neighborhood 7 by the Comprehensive Plan & is located on N sd o[ Rt 601just E of Rts 29/250 Bypass. TM60B2,Pl(part). JackJouett Dist. 9) SP-96-09~ Kenneth J. Newell (applicant); CCAT2/University Limited Liability Company (owner). Public Hearing on a request to establish assisted living facility (nursing home or similar institution) on portion of University Village property described in ZMA-96-05. 10) SP-96-14. Jerome M. Beazley, Time Tech Management Inc. Public Hearing on a request for a home o. ccupation Class B to allow commodity trading advisory service with one outside employee in accessory structure on residential property of approx 22 ac located on W sd of Rt 627 about 2 mi Wof Keene & 2 1/2 mi Nof Esmont. TM120,P15B. Scottsville Dist. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) 11) SP-96-15. Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity. Public Hearing on a request to establish 5 add'ti development rights for a total of 10 lots on property in Esmont area on W sd of Rt : 627 approx 1/3 mi S of Rt 6. Lots to be served by public road. TM128,P85. Scottsville Dist. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) 12) Approval of Minutes: April 25, 1995. 13) Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. ~14) Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 Appropriations: a) Education Grants & Cafeteria. $63,785.49 - (Form #95064). b) Miscellaneous School Grants, $2,625.~'7 - (Form #95076). FOR INFORMATION: 6.2 Supts. Memo. No. 5. dated May 29, 1996, [rom William C. Bosher, Jr., Superintendent of Public instruction to Division Superintendents. re: Changes to 1995-96 Final Entitlements. 6.3 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for May 21, 1996. 6.4 Letter dated June 3. 1996, from Cynthia J. Stratton, Chair. Charlottesville-Albemarle Children and Youth Commission, to Charlotte Y. Humphris. Chairman. re: ~Beating the Odds" Program. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Katherine L. · Member of Route 29 Interchange Design Committee · Historic Preservation Committee Thomas ~. Jenkins - January 6, 1988 - De~ember 31, · Member of Rou~e 29 Interchange Design Committee · Crozet CO~L~LLUnlty Study Conlmlttee Thomas Blue - January 8, 1992 - DecemberJ31, 1995 · Member of Charlottesville Area Transportation Study CommitteeI · Planning and Coordination Council Technical (PACC Committee · Chairman, Planning Commission (Calendar Year 1995) Monica G. Vauqhan - January 12, 1994 · Participated in Thomas Jefferson Council BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Imhoff - January 12, 1994 - December 31, 1995 · Carl M. Van Fossen - April 20, 1982 - Jan% · Mr. Van Fossen's keen judgement, astut~ for the citizens of Albemarle County, and forth: greatly missed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. people of Albemarle County, I sincerely thank years of faithful service. Tech) - De~ember 31, 1995 Regional Sustainability ary 1, 1996 logic, compassion right views will be On behalf of the CARL for his many 1995 (CATS) PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTtORITY David Bass - Decel~ber 13, 1989 - January ~ 1996 COUNTY OF ALBEMAR!,E TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive ¥. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CM~ June 13, 1996 Board Actions of June 12, 1996 At its meeting on June 12, 1996, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. '1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m, by the Chairman. Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were none. Agenda Item No. 6.1a. Appropriation Request: Education Grants & Cafeteria, $63,785.49 (Form #95064). Approved. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden, Agenda Item No. 6.1b. Appropriation Request: Miscellaneous School Grants, $2,625.77 - (Form #96076). Approved. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Agenda item No. 7. ZMA-96-03. Worrell Land & Cattle Co. Public Headng on a request to amend existing agreements & proffers of ZMA-92-12. Property in NW corner of inters of Rt 250/I--64. Area recommended for off]ce regional use in Neighborhood 3 by Comprehensive Plan. TM78,P20B,20C, 20K, 20M~3'I,32,71~71A. Rivanna Dist. DEFERRED ZMA-96-03 until June 19, 1996. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-96-05. Kenneth J. Newell (applicant); CCAT2/University Limited Liability Company (owner). Public Hearing on a request to amend proffers of ZMA-87-08 for University Village to allow development on portion of property closest to Old Ivy Road originally designated as landscaped/recreation area. Property, zoned R-10 w/proffers is designated for high density residential in Neighborhood 7 by the Comprehensive Plan & is located on N sd of Rt 601 just E of Rts 29/250 Bypass. TM60B2,P'l(part). Jack Jouett Dist. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: June 13, 1996 Page: 2 DENIED ZMA-96-05. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-96-09. Kenneth J. Newell (applicant); CCAT2/University Limited Liability Company (owner). Public Headng on a request to establish assisted living facility (nursing home or similar institution) on portion of University Village property described in ZMA-96-05. DENIED SP-96-09. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-96-14. Jerome M. Beazley, Time Tech Management Inc. Public Headng on a request for a home occupation Class B to allow commodity trading advisory service with one outside employee in accessory structure on residential property of approx 22 ac located on W sd of Rt 627 about 2 mi W of Keene & 2 1/2 mi N of Esmont. TM120,P15B. Scottsville Dist. APPROVED SP-96-14 subject to the following condition recommended by the Planning Commission: The entrance onto Route 627 shall be maintained such that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) minimum sight distance requirement for a private entrance (250') is provided. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-96-15. Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity, Public Headng on a request to establish 5 add'ti development rights for a total of 10 lots on property in Esmont area on W sd of Rt 627 approx 1/3 mi S of Rt 6. Lots to be served by public road. TM128,P85. Scottsville Dist. APPROVED SP-96-15 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and the addition of a fourth condition: 1. Staff approval of final subdivision plat; Development shall be in accord with the statements of the applicant as contained in the March 25, 1996, Description of the Request (copy attached); The road serving these ten lots must be built to state (Virginia Department of Transporta- tion) standards for acceptance into the state (Virginia Department of Transportation) system; and 4. This special permit shall expire 36 months from the date of approval. ADOPTED the attached Resolution to waive the application fee for the special use permit. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker mentioned that he had a copy of a fetter from the Department of Housing and Community Development notifying the County that it did not receive a grant offer for its Community Development Block Grant proposal in the 1996 competition. Mr. Tucker provided Board members with a copy of a letter from Amelia McCulley and Wayne Cilimberg, addressed to Art Petrini, regarding the Ivy Landfill stormwater/leachate control project. The Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V, Wayne Cilimberg Cate: June 13, 1996 Page: 3 letter states that in their opinion the activity related to stormwater and leachate control is exempt from the requirement of the site plan. Therefore, this activity may proceed despite denial by the Planning Commission of the plan proposing expanded landfill activities. Mr. Tucker also discussed the proposed expansion of the restroom facilities to provide separate male and female facilities, and a lunchroom for the staff. He believes expansion of the restroom facilities can occur within the existing building. A lunchroom may require renovating an existing office. If staff can find a way, it will move forward with these improvements. He reminded the Board that anything done would be on an interim basis and not of the magnitude of the original plan. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. /ewc Attachments (4) cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Kevin Castner Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley Bruce Woodzell Larry Davis Richard Wood Jan Sprinkle File the affairs of the community. By providing I0 lots, the development costs that must be carried by each house would be reduced increasing the affordability of the houses themselves. This would provide tangible evidence of the goals established by the County last year to encourage the development of Iow and moderato cost housing within the next decade. Habitat for Humanity does not depend upon public money or funding for the provision of low cost housing. Nationally, Habitat for Humanity is among the fifty largest homebuilders in the nation, providing affordable housing for thousands of families each year. The assistance that city and county governments throughout the country provide in partnership with Humanity comes in the form of administrative and planning support. This project provides and ideal opportunity m assist with the provision of low cost housing without the burden of financing or managing, the project itself. Each home owner will contribute to the tax base of the County itself at the properties are developed and the houses built. The planning of the development and the design of the houses is being done by members of the local planning and architectural community. The houses that are built will be specifically designed to reinfome the best aspects of the local neighborhoodand will the finest example of this type of cooperation between the partner families, the professionals, and the volunteers. In the family selection process, it is the intention of Habitat for Humanity to serve the families in the surrounding community. While not making the availability of the houses exchis[ve to the Esmont community, we have focused our recruitment efforts in the local community. To this :date the families that have been selected as partner families for this project have all come from the local community. As the construction of the subdivision nears we will increase our efforts within the community to recruit families and envision the majority of r~idents in this subdivision to come from the local Esmont community. In summary, the development of this property for ten houses seems to fit perfectly within the contoxt Of the neighborhood, the goals of the County for affordable housing, and the resources of Greator Habitat for Humanity. Most importantly, it will providehousing for 10 families, that would not be able to own their own homes without this development. Additional information will be attached for the remainder of the Application. GREATER CHAF{LO'{ ~*.-SVll I F HABITAT FOR HUMANITY P.O. Box 7'a0~, C~-~llle, Va. 22906 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ALBEMARLECOuNTy ZONING O[PARIMEN! bu#dlnghouse~lnpm~emhlpw~h(~od'speol~e~nm~ Greater Charlottesville Habitat fo~ Humanity requests a Special Use Permit to allow the 24.5 acres shown on the attached plat to be divided into 10 lots for the construction of 10 single family low cost houses. ~ch lot would exceed the minimum 2 acre lot size required by the County and would be served by individual septic and well. The residences to be built would be owner occupied by families that i~xticipate in the construction of the houses. The development of the property and construction of the houses would be carried out according to the national standards of Habitat for Humanity and would be built by a combination of volunteer labor and professional supervision. Details of the program are included in the attached brochure and project description. YUSTIFICATION Habitat for Humanity seeks to build houses in partnership with families that would under normal circumstances not be able to afford owning their own home. The houses are built and sold to the partner families at cost with a zero interest mortgage to be paid back over 20 years. Habitat provides both construction and counselling support for families as they obtain and learn to manage the responsibilities of home ownership. Habitat for Humanity has built thousands of homes for families throughout the country and has recently completed its third residence in the CharIottesville/Albemarle area. In parmersbip with volunteers, donors, and professionals Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity is seeking to meet a portion of the need for affordable housing in the Charlottesville/Albemarle County area. The greatest need we have found in three years of preparation and research is the availability of affordable land in areas suitable for residential construction. In developing land for the construction of Habitat houses it is our intention to allocate the maximum percentage of our resources to the actual construction of the houses themselves. This means that in order to make the houses more affordable, the acquisition and development costs of land and infrastructure must be kept to minimum. In searching for available land we looked for locations that would benefit from the addition of good simple owner occupied housing. In providing low cost owner occupied housing the amount, of land that each house owns cannot be excessive. It must both relate to the size of the house to be built and the neighbor hood within which it will be constructed. It is with this in mind that we considered the property in Esmont. In considering the division of this property into 10 lots rather than the 'by right', 5 lots that are permitted, there are a number of factors that support this strategy. The 2+ acre lots that would result would correspond to the majority of residential lots within the neighboring area. The three lots that had previously been subdivided out of the original property are of this size. The proposed development fits into the character of the 0 The vast majorit~ of Habitat families include children of school age and the proximity of this property to the school would be only logical for the children. Families tend to become involved where their children are involved and this would enhance their integration into RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DONATION TO GREATER CHARLOTTESVILLE HABITAT FOR HUlvLAiqITY WI{~REAS, Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity is an entity permitted under the Code of Virginia no receive donations of money or property from the County of Albemarle; and Wi~EREA~, the Board finds it is mn the public interest to donate funds to support the development of facilities necessary for this entity no provide services to the community. NOW, T~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board o~ County Supervisors hereby appropriates and donates to the Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity an amount equal no the fee charged by Albemarle for an application fee for special permit 96-15 for the Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity project, provided, however, the amount shall not exceed $990. Upon certification by the appropriate development review depart- ment~ such funds shall be transferred by the Department of Finance to the revenue accounts of that deparmmen5 or directly to Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity if the fee has already been paid Eo the County. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing ms a true, correcn copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on June 12, 1996. COUNTY OF AI JBEMARLE MEMORANDLrM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey; Clerk, CMC~~ June 13, 1996 Board Actions of June 12, 1996 At its meeting on June 12, 1996, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. 6.1a. Appropriation Request: Education Grants & Cafeteria, $63,785.49 - (Form #95064). Approved, Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden, Agenda Item No. 6,1b. Appropriation Request: Miscellaneous School Grants, $2,625.77 - (Form #95076), Approved. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden, Agenda Item No, 11. SP-96-15. Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity. Public Hearing on a request to establish 5 add'ti development dghts for a total of 10 lots on property in Esmont area on W sd of Rt 627 approx 1/3 mi S of Rt 6. Lots to be served by pubiic road, TM128,P85. Soottsville Dist~ ADOPTED the attached Resolution to waive the application fee for the special use permit. /ewc Attachments (3) ce: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne W. White Kevin Castner FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATION REQUEST 95/96 NUMBER 95064 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRAI~SFER X NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ~ YES NO X FUND GRANTS/CAFETERIA PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR STONY POINT GARDENING NATURE GRANT AND SUMMER FEEDING PROGRAM. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1310460211600000 MISC SUPPLIES S150~00 1300263105119300 1300263105210000 1300263105600000 1300263105600200 1300263105600500 1300263105600900 1300293010939999 1300063100800100 SALARIES FICA MISC SUPPLIES FOOD SUPPLIES LAUNDRY/JANITORIAL SUPPLIES VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES TRANSFER TO FOOD SERVICE MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 9,650.61 738.27 1,443.25 14,483.48 43.28 106.70 18,584.95 18,584.95 TOTAL S63,785.49 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2310451000510100 2300216000161204 2390233000330230 2300251000510100 2390051000512014 GP3~NT FUND BALANCE FOOD SALES USDA-CITY FUND BALANCE TP,~NSFER FROM SUMMER FEEDING PROGR3~M TOTAL $150.00 15,325.50 28,286.15 1,438.89 18,584.95 $63,785.49 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE DATE ~- ~--~-~ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GRANTS/SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TO CLOSE OUT VARIOUS MISC. GPg~NTS IN THE 3104 FUND. 95076 X EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1310460205600000 HOLLYMEADE-MISC SUPPLIES $150.00 1310460275312700 STONY POINT-COMPETENCY GRANT 1,235.18 1,240.59 1243193010930000 TRANSFER TO GRANT FUNDS TOTAL $2,625.77 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 231045!00051C100 GRANT FUND BALANCE $150.00 2310451000510100 GRANT FUND BALANCE (5.41) 2310451000512001 TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL FUND 1,240.59 2200051000510100 SCHOOL FUND BALANCE TOTAL 1,240.59 $2,625.77 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION/FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE°" EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ApproPriation - Education Grants and Cafeteria SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request apProval of Appropriation #95064 in the amount of $63,785~49 to appropriate funding for Stony Point Gardening Nature Grant and Summer Feeding Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: June 12. 1996 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X ATFACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ,/ At its meetings on November 13, 1995 and December 11, 1995, respectively, the School Board approved the following requests. DISCUSSION: · Re-appropriation of $150 for the Stony Point Gardening Nature Grant. At its May 8, 1995 meeting, the School Board accepted an award of $150 f~om the Department of Natural Resources, virginia Museum of Natural History. This grant was not expended in FY 94-95 and has a fund balance of $150. The remaining funds will be used to complete "The Companion Garden". All children in grades K-5 will be involved in planting and maintaining the garden. This project was designed to actively demonstrate the mutual and symbiotic relationships that plants have with animals, natural elements, and people. Appropriation of the Summer Feeding Program budget and approved the additional expenses and revenues for the Food Service Program. USDA encourages Child Nutrition Programs (School Lunch Programs) to participate in their Summer Feeding Program which targets Iow income, at-dsk students and offem a program similar to school lunch for ~w income children in summer camps, parks or recreations programs. The Charlottesville City Parks and Recreation Department operates a Summer Feeding Program ~n 7 ~es for 37 days in June, July, and August feeding approximately 4~0 children per day. Because 50% of the children in these sites are income eligible for free lunch, the entire site is federally ~unded for lunches and snacks under USDA guidelines. Because the City School Lunch Program was not interested in providing this sen/ice, the City Parks Department contacted Albemarle County Schools Food Service. There had long been a desire for lunch to be served in Albemarle County summer school programs. Serving summer programs in Charlottesville made this a practical option. The USDA funding for summer feeding is fair and equitable Sumn>~r feeding can generate revenue to offset cafeteria losses in small schools and support division wide pumhases. Projected revenue is earmarked for pumhasing transport equipment and kitchen equipment for dMsion wide use; and pumhasing an ice machine for Cale Elementary School. To accurately track the total cost and revenue generated by this program, a separate fund code was established for summer feeding. Following the completion of the Summer Feeding program, a fund balance of $18,599.59 ex'sts. This fund balance will be used for the aforementioned purchases. RECOMMENDATION: ,l~ Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #9506~ in the 96.101 amount of $63,785.49. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 95064 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER X NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ~ YES NO X FI/ND GRANTS/CAFETERIA PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR STONY POINT GARDENING NATURE GRANT AND SUMMER FEEDING PROGRAM. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1310460211600000 MISC SUPPLIES S!50.00 1300263105119300 1300263105210000 1300263105600000 1300263105600200 1300263105600500 1300263105600900 1300293010939999 1300063100800100 SALARIES FICA MISC SUPPLIES FOOD SUPPLIES LAUNDRY/JANITORIAL SUPPLIES VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES TRANSFER TO FOOD SERVICE MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 9,650.61 738.27 1,443.25 14,483.48 43.28 106.70 18,584.95 18,584.95 TOTAL $63,785.49 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2310451000510100 2300216000161204 2300233000330230 2300251000510100 2300051000512014 GPJ~NT FUND BALAiqCE FOOD SALES USDA-CITY FUND BALANCE TRANSFER PROM SUMMER FEEDING TOTAL PROGRAM S150.00 15,325.50 28,286.15 1,438.89 18,584.95 $63,785.49 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Miscellaneous School Grants SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation ~95076 in the amount of $2,625.77 to close out vadous miscellaneous school grants. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden AGENDA DATE: June 12, 1996 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: . REVIEWED BY: DISCUSSION: Several years ago a miscellaneous grant fund was established to account for the numerous small grants received by the various County schools. A review of these grants revealed adjustments that need to be made to close out mrnor balances in several grants. The major adjustment is the transfer of $1.250.59 from the School Fund Balance to the miscellaneous grant fund resulting from the erroneous coding ora grant revenue to the School Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of these adjustments as detailed on attached Appropriation #95076. 96.102 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i FISCAL YEAR 95/96 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATIO/~{ TO CLOSE OUT VARIOUS MISC. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY APPROPRIATION REQUEST AU3MBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO GRANTS/SCHOOL GP~kNTS IN THE 3104 FUND. DESCRIPTION X 95076 AMOUNT 13.10460205600000 KOLLYMEADE-MISC SUPPLIES $150.00 1310460275312700 STONY POINT-COMPETENCY GRANT 1,235.18 1243193010930000 TRANSFER TO GRANT FUNDS 1,240.59 TOTAL $2,625.77 REVEAUJE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2310451000510100 GRANT FUND BALANCE $150.00 2310451000510100 GRANT FUND BALANCE (5.41) 2310451000512001 TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL FUND 1,240.59 2200051000510100 SCHOOL FUND BALANCE TOTAL 1,240.59 S2,625.77 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION/FINAI~CE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE CO.ONCe. TH OF ~G~A DEP~ OF EDUCATION P. O. BOX 2120 ~C~O~, VA 23216-2120 REGULATORY Supts. Memo. No. 5 May 29, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Division Superintendents William C. Bosher; Jr., Superintendent of Public Instruction Changes to 1995-96 Final Entitlements Supts. Memo No. 170 (Informational), dated December 18, 1995 provided you with revised est/mates of ADM-driven accounts, based upon revisions to estimates of the one-cent state sales and use tax and average daily membership, as proposed by Governor Allen to the 1996 session of the General Assembly While the General Assembly made no further changes to these accounts, other changes were made in the current year budget (House Bill 29). As you may have read, Governor Allen has not signed House Bill 29 due to some concerns sUrrounding the manner in which the bill was enrolled and presented to him by the General Assembly. The Attorney General has initiated an action in the Supreme Court of Virginia requesting the Court to provide answers to several major questions surrounding this bill. Attached is acopy ora letter which was presented to the members qfthe General Assembly last week in this regard. Supts Memo. No. 82 (Informational), dated April 19, 1996 provided you with entitlements in the Standards of Quality accounts based upon your March 31, 1996 averagedaily membership and the estimated sales tax contained in House Bill 29 Due to the above mentioned action, entitlements for Basic Aid and Enrollment Loss must be mcomputed using the estimate of sales tax that was contained in the 1994-96 budget as adopted by the 1995 session of the General Assembly as Chapter 853. A chart reflecting these revised entitlements is attached for your use. All other SOQ accounts will remain as reflected in Supts. Memo. No. 82. To avoid any adverse impact on local school divisions, the Governor has authorized a special payment in July of 1996 equal to the amount of Basic Aid and Enrollment Loss increase that would have been received under House Bill 29 as a result of the reduced sales tax. These payments will be made from funds appropriated in the 1996-97 budget. The Governor has stated his intention to ask the 1997 General Assembly to appropriate this additional payment in 1996-97 so that school divisions wilt receive their regular Standards of Quality payments for 1996-97 and also receive this additional special payment. The additional funds should be provided to you as early in July as possible If you have questmns, please cai1 Mrs Kathryn S. Kitchen. Division Chef, Finance at (804) 225- 2025. WCB,Jr./kk Attachments Geo~e A~en COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRqlNIA Office of Governor May 16, 1996 TO THE ME"~,fBERS OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY: During the last two yeats, the General Assembly has de, par, ed from long- standing pasl practice ill its tr_~amlellt of appropriation billa. It ha~ elltolled ~ presented to the Governor budget legislation that consisted, not of the entire appropriation act as amended nor of emite amended ~ctions of the appropti~on act, but only amended items and ~ of the appropriation act. The apparent intent and clear effect of this unp~.~:eden~d lcgisin*/ve m~neuvefiug is to resmct my ability as Govemor to exercise the item veto powe~ granted under Article V, Section 6 of the Constitution of ¥ir~'nla Its effect also is to avoid accOuntability to Virgin/a taxpayem. While short-term paxtisan differences over spending leveh and priorities apparently motivated the General Assembly 1 ~e~iemhip to take this unprecedented action ia~ year, the implications of th/a in'espon~ble acfign fa~ transcend any po]/fical or philosophical diffe~nees tha~ may arise from time to 6m~ between the executive and leg/sla6ve branches. At stake is the value and usefulness of the Governors item vew power - a vitally im?ol~ant check and b~lnnee which the people of Virgin/a included in their Constitution, to:prevent le~i~atlve spending excesses and ensure a balanced budget. This power is pomeased.by 43 governors, and just thla year i~ was .finally ~ the ,nfion's ch/el executive in an effort to ~ the notoriously, profligate habits of the federal governmem. Also at stake in Virginia is the righ~ of citizens to have leg/shrive proposals considered on the/r merits under the penewafing spotlight of full leg/ela~ve and public scrutiny, rather than having them slipped through unnoticed in the sba,tows of wide- rang/ng appropriation acts passed in the closing houm of hectic leg/elmive sess/ons. State Capitol * Richmond. Virginia 23219 · (804) 786-2211 · TDD (804) 371-~015 Today. w/th my concurrence, the A-ome¥ General of Virginia is [vi*~.tm$ an action in ~ Supreme Court of Virginia that will raL~. and provide an opportunity for the Commonwealth's highest court to resolve, these recurring issues of importance to Virginia's taxpayers. The vehicle for presenting tb~e~_, issues for resolution by the Supreme Court is House Bill 29. I have been advised by the Av;omey General that House Bill 29is no~ properly before me, having been enrolled and presented to me previously in viol~t~,~u of Article IV, Section 11, Article IV, Section 12, and Article V, Section 6 of the Constitution of Virginia- Accordingly, on the advice of the Attorney General. I .m tr~fiug House Bill 29 as a legal nnllity and am tnidng no action respecting it. Importantly, the dispute over House Bill 29 presents an opportunity for the orderly resolution of these si~,nificant constitutional issues withou~ adverse consequences for th~ Commonwealth's f'~.al standing or for tho~e who rely on sta~e appropriations. That is because House Bill 29 only affects the few remaining ~ of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1996, and the sul0~tance'of House Bill 29 can and will be achieved through executive action. Where necessary, I will call upon the General Assembly in the 1997 Session to approprlale additional funds out of unexpended b.l.nces from f~zl year 1996 to cover the cost of these executive actioas. For erample, I have already signed an Executive Memorandum th~ allows the Commonwealth's health insurance premium holiday to proceed on schedule. Similarly, I have authorized the paymem of $4.1 million in Standards of Quaiky payments to Virginia's local school divisions in July 1996 out of funds appropria~l in House Bill 30. This will replace, without delay, th~ increased amount that would have been made avail.hie to localities under House Bill 29 to adjust for lower than projected sal~ ~ax revenues. Provided that the General Assembly appioves my recommend,tlon to appropriate, a like amonnt in the 1997 Session from b~lances carried forward a~ the end o£ fiscal year 1996, localities will experience no f~mding reductions, delays or adverse effects from the General Assembly's failure to enact House B/Il 29 in the constitutionally required manner. Although the mo~ recent ve~ion of House Bill 29 includes the entire appropriation act, this action was token only after the leaders of the General Assembly ~-~mpted nn-~cc.~'/ully w exwact from me an assurance that I would n~ exercise the item veto powers confen'cd upon me by the Con.~/tufion. After that appr~_ch failed, the House leadership made clear thai it reserved the right to engage in the ~m~ unconstitutional practice next year. By presenting these recurring consUtu' tional issues to the Sulm~me Court for resolution now, when them are no adverse practical effects, I intend to avoid the untenable choice that faced me last year and thai undoubtedly will face other govemom in years ahead. That choice is between (a) signing the budget bill and thereby acquiescing in the abus~ of "log-rolling' and erosion of.the Governor's ~lutaty item veto power, or (b) vetoing the entire budget and thereby precipjtuting a budget with negative implications for the Commonwealth's t-mini stability, rept, tu6on and cr~it rating. In miring this action, Ium keenly awaze of the ~ttides that have been mado by the General Assembly and' my ~eiminix'tl~atioll to move forward together positively to address such pr~-~ing issues as measurement of students' acquishion of our new high academic slanclards in thc basics of English, ~n~th. science, and history in V'uginia's public schools, a freeze on college, mit. ion, expansion and restructuring of thc Commonwealth's economic development programs, and historic juvenile justice reform. This beneficial cooperation for the people of Virginia should continue. Indeed, I trust that all members of the General Assembly will agree with me that it is wise to seek and: receive the guidance of the Supreme Court of Virginia in resolving these imlxxmm~ and recurring constitutional issues reluting to enm;iment of the state budget. George Allen 1995'-96 Basic Aid and Enrollment Loss DIVISION . 001 IACCOMACK 002 IALBEMARLE 003 ALLEGHANY 0O4 AMELIA 005 IAMHERST 006 IAPPOMATTOX 007 IARLINGTON OO8. AUGUSTA '009'" BATH RD BOTETOURT BUCKINGHAM ELL ; CiTY CHARLOTq~E CLARKE CRAIG CULPEPER 1995-96 Revised Entitlement Total (Chapter 853) 9,367,305 1995-96 Entitlement TOTAL (Supts. Memo. No. 82) 9,394,597 11,705,514 11,663,099 4,294,027! 3,026,092! 8,305,3611 4,361,110 7.820.930 !'7.335.712 4¢4.~ ............ 13,510,512 2.526,366 7 4 8,869.402 4,081,400 14 6,231,137 8,150,120 Difference (27,292) (42,415) 4,308,900 I (14,873) 3'036'039 i I (9,947) 8,335,202 I (29,841) 4,375,581 (14,47t ) 7.856.585 (35.655) 1 -./:..3_B .5. ~I '~.. .............. --_-- ' '._('5'0-~. i ~'..-~], 476.C94 225~ .2,532,995 4,703,757 8,920,1 14 8,177,132 1,785,838 1,791,312 4.182,685 4 70 70,508,747 1.349,567 1,353,406 7,354,652 7,381,544 CUMBERLAND 2,01 DICKENSON 6 6,282 FAIRFAX 7,164,484 2,245,259 2,253,399 83,619 7,972,817 8,000,567 3,309,611 10,939,176 1 3,321,54 4,216,928 FLOYD FLUVANNA GILES 1,579,915 --ENE GREENSVILLE HALIFAX 9,553,612 18 1,585,466 4,702,517 4,060 588.302 18.584 43,119 43,269 15.343.686 1995 - 96 Basic Aid and Enrollment Loss 1995-96 Revised ~ 1995-96 Entitlement Entitlement . DIVISION Total TOTAL Difference I (Chapter 853) I (Supts. Memo. NO. 82) (1,601 045 HIGHLAND I 580,458 582,059, 046 lISLE OF WIGHT 7,072,5851 7 099 181 ~ (26,596' 047 JAMES CI3'Y 6,625,328. 6,648,035 (22,707' 048 KING GEORGE 4,186,082 4,202,324 ' (16,242' 049 KING QUEEN 1,541,649 1,546,854 (5,205' 050 ~KING WILLIAM 2,654,649 2,663,728 (9,079 051 LANCASTER 1,447,5761 1,452,771 I (5,195 052 LEE 8,356,8471 8,397,235 , (40,388 053 LOUDOUN 10,335,399/ 10,363,970 (28,571' 054 LOUISA 3,296,1971 3,308,305 (12,108' 055 LUNENBURG 4,063,659i 4,080,152 (16,493 056 MADISON 3,065,164 3,076,413 (11,249' 057 MATHEWS 1,720,236 1,725,427 (5,191 058 MECKLENBURG 8,580,996t 8,616,893 (35,897 059 MIDDLESEX 1,514,316 1,519,357 ! (5,041 060 MONTGOMERY 13,6~2,8991 13,744,947 , (52,048' 062 NELSON 2,801,475 2,812,261 (10,786', 063 NEW KENT 3,101,381 .3,113,104 (11,723' 065 NORTHAMPTON 4,296,360 4,312,290! I (15,93(; 066 NORTHUMBERLAF 1,463,320 1,468,638I (5,318 067 NOTTOWAY 4,657,415 4,673,514 (16,0991 068 ORANGE 5,416,806 5,437,004' (20,198', 069 PAGE 5,937,229 5,958,461 (21,232: 070 PATRICK 4,762,998 4,781,230 (18,232; 071 PITTSYLVANIA 17,046,174 17,107,528 (61,354~ 072 POWHATAN 4 306,245 4,320,282 (14,0371 073 PRINCE EDWARD 4,490,900 4,507,372 (16,472~ 074 PRINCE GEORGE 10 162,318 10,197,420 (35,102 075 PRINCE WILLIAM 66,414,923 66 630 074 (215,151' 077 PULASKi 8,801,931 8,837,167 (35,236' 078 RAPPAHANNOCK 937,277 940, 49, (3,472 079 RICHMOND 2,194,879 2,201,990 (7,111' 080 ROANOKE 19,733,254 19,804,457 (71,203' 081 ROCKBRIDGE 4,765,703 4,782,185 (16,482', ~082 iROCKINGHAM "- 15,657,684 15,715,949 ~ (58,265' 083 RUSSELL 9,111,134 9,141,306: (30,172', 084 SCOTT 7,753,699 7,781,064 ~ (27,365', 085 SHENANDOAH 7 978 884 , 8,005,656 (28,77_21 086 SMYTH 9,387,401 9 424 666 I (37 265, [087 [SOUTHAMPTON 4,829,210 4,848,234 (19,0241 088 SPOTSYLVANtA 23,986,189 24,058,626 ~ (72,437, 089 STAFFORD 25,355,906f 25,430,949 ~5,043', 090 SURRY 681,9241 683 727 (1,803' 091 SUSSEX 2,503,612 2,514,523 (10,91 1995-96 Basic Aid and Enrollment Loss 1995-96 · Revised 1995-96 Entitlement Entitlement DIVISION Total TOTAL Difference ~ (Chapter 853) (Supts. Memo. No. 82) 092 ITAZEWELL 14,492,115 14,552,679 (60,564', 093 WARREN 6,295,724 6,319,073 ~ (23,349', 094 WASHINGTON 12,419,984 12,474,952 (54,968 095 WESTMORELAND 3,222,825 3233470 (10,6451 )96 WiSE 14,883,240 14,940,304 (57,064' 097 WY'THE ~ 7,631,948 7,659,474 (27,526; 098 (ORK 15,92t,944 15,977,665 I (55 721 101 ALEXANDRIA · 4,785,345 4,803,493 (18, t48 102 BRISTOL 3,902,668 3,916,518 (13,850 103 BUENAVISTA . 1,981,920 1,988,962 (7,042 104 CHARLOTTESVILU 4,742,789 4,763,756 (20,9671 I (4,325) 105 CLIFTON FORGE 1,303,456 1,307,781 (12,652) 106 COLONIAL HEtGH' 3,407,362 3,420,014 107 COVINGTON 1,463,038 I 468 727 (5,689) 108 DANVILLE 12,601,715 12,663,150 (61 435 109 FALLS CHURCH 755,091 757,283 (2~192) 110 FREDERICKSBUR¢ 1,845,706 1,853,419 (7,713~ 111 GALAX 2,059,242 2,064,295 (5;053! 112 'HAMPTON 36,032,407 36,181,974 (149,567t 113 HARRISONBURG 3,650,145 3664215 (14~070)~ 114 HOPEWELL 6,830,671 6,856,187 (25,516 115 LYNCHBURG 13,866,0Q2 13916497 (50,4951 116 MARTINSVILLE 4,178,899 4,193,598 (14,699' 117 NEWPORT NEWS 49,599,944 49,809,236 (209,292: 118 NORFOLK 53,837,223 54,085,1091 (247,886 119 NORTON 1,302,921 · 1,308,109 (5~188 120 PETERSBURG 10,357,480 10,397,851 ~ .(40,371 121 PORTSMOUTH 31,157,184 31,270,943 (113,759: 122 RADFORD 2,29i,478 2,299,085 (7,607' 123 RICHMOND CiTY 32,341,430 32,491,929 (150,499' 124 ROANOKE CITY 17,663,055 17,739;925 (76,87£ 126 STAUNTON 4,169,256 4,186,625 (17,369', 127 SUFFOLK 16,117,t89 16,182;665 (65,476' 128 VIRGINIA BEACH 117,160,902 117,588,995 (428,093~, 130 WAYNESBORO 4,110,052 4,124,376 (14,324'~ 131 WILLIAMSBURG 306,441 307,880 (1,439', 132 WINCHESTER 3,270,093 3,282~523 (12,43C 133 SOUTH BOSTON 2,'[29,457 2,138~503 (9,04E 134 FAIRFAX CITY 1,197,375 1,202,020 (4,6451 135 FRANKLIN CiTY 3,268,518 3 276;942 (8,424 136 CHESAPEAKE CI'P 52,906,105 53,101,481 (195,376 137 LEXINGTON 976,092 979,323 (3,231 138 EMPORIA 1,787,596 1,793,829 (6,233 139 SALEM 5,200,072 5 217 465 (17,393 1995-96 Basic Aid and Enrollment Loss 1995-96 Revised ' 1995-96 Entitle ment Entitlement DIVISION Total TOTAL Difference (Chapter 853) (Supts. Memo No 82) . 140 BEDFORD CITY 1,528,991 1,534,217 (5,226) t42 POQUOSON 3,795,754 3,809,086 (13,332) 143 MANASSAS CITY 6,424,677 6,446,347 (21,670) 144 MANASSAS PARK ' 2,717,243 2,725,803 (8,560) 202 COLONIAL BEACH 1,224,627 1,227,599 (2,972) 207 WEST POINT 1,278,140 1,281,264 (3,124) (5,355,920 CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBE~M~A~L~' Children And Youth Commission P.o. Box 911 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 Telephone 804-971-9550 June 3, 1996 Charlotte Humphries Chairman Albemarle Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Chairman Humphries: We appreciate the Board's commitment to addressing the issue of teen pregnancy prevention for our overall community, as evidenced by your willingness to continue to consider funding for "Beating the Odds" based onthe CACY Commission's recommendations. The specific questions asked in your letter of April 19, 1996, have been studied thoroughly and the answers supplied in the body of this letter reflect consensus among the Commission as well as the Teenage Pregnancy/STD Prevention Program Area Team. Both the Commission and their subcommittee have worked on comp'fling the requested additional information. 1. How wffi "Beating the Odds" relate to a community strategy for preventing teen pregnancy?. As Chair of the Commission ! can personally speak on how much work has gone into this issue over the past three years, not only by Commissioners and staff, but by several dozen ve~ dedicated volunteers from our community. The overall study identified three areas of strategy, to be addressed, 1) parent education, 2) character and values education for our community's children, and 3) small-group educational programs for at-risk children. As can be expected, the first two areas will require long term initiatives and community involvement for change; the third area was aided in development by the volume of work comp'fled during the two year study done by tbe CACY subcommittee under the leadership of Audrey Welbom. Within our own limited spectrum of community programming for teenage pregnancy prevention, Teensight being the sole currently funded program for the County of Albemarle, only two non-profit agencies have addressed this problem, MACAA and Teensight. The directors of these programs are meeting on a monthly baits to coordinate their approach, and the CACY Program Area Team wilt continue to identify, monitor and involve others needed in an overall community effort. The programs listed below are either with MACAA or Teensight. Programs identified for service delivery to at risk youth are: "Beating the Odds" Camp Horizon Stepping Up MJH Mentoring 8-11 10-14 CH graduates olderto younger teens Teensight Parenting Pregnant and Parenting teens We listened to you and have developed a continuum of services such as you requested, with no overlaps, nor duplications, and as needs are identified ute will develop programming to fill in the pieces. "Beating the Odds" is an essential, necessary piece, reco~uzing the truth about teen pregnancy prevention, that it is more realistic to have an impact when programming begins before adolescence, and with males as well as females. 2. Does the CACY Commission see teen pregnancy as a priority area for Albemarle County? For the past four years the CACY Cornmission has included the issue of Teen Pregnancy Prevention or Teen Health Issues in their listing of priority areas for their annual assessment reports. While there are other critical needs for children and youth in Albemarle County, the majority of these are being addressed through a variety of other programming, while primary prevention for teenage pregnancy is not. If we look at teen births as a proportion of all births, in the last two years for which data is available-1993 and 1994--the proportion of teen births is significantly higher than in 1985 or 1990. (In the April 19th letter, the 1993 and 1994 data was not cited, and the proportions were mistakenly labeled "teen birth rates." Figures can be supplied fi~om CAPP as requested.) There are doubtless wide variations in teen pregnancy rates among different sub-groups within the county, For high risk teens in the urban ring of the county, pregnancy rates probably approximate those of high risk teens in Ch'ville, and the ciys teen pregnancy situation is grim. It is these county high risk teens (e.g. in Whitewood Village and Esmont) that "Beating the Odd" targ~ets. The CACY Commission unanimously endorsed this program, on the basis of it's first year being considered a pilot project~ which will be carefully monitored. Ifafter the eighteen months, it is not meeting its objectives, the CACY Commission and the project Advisory Committee will reconsider the design and service delivery system, making additional recommendations at that time. 3. Evaluation by CACY of the projected costs of "Beating the Odds." As reported in the Daily Progress, children of single parents are 164 percent more likely to have out-of-wedlock babies, 111 percent more likely to he teen-aged parents and 92 percent more likely to divorce Early pr*¢ention and intervention programs provide a long-term economic benefit to the commuaity; Children born to teen mothers face a far higher risk of failure in school and a life spem in poverty. The cost to our community of not addressing this problem with our at-risk population will prove to be far beyond that of $2,000 per family. However, s'mce the "Beating the Odds" funding application was submitted, the Subcommittee and staff have reevaluated their design and have determined they will be able to serve both Whitewood Village and Esmont for the project year, at acost of $973_00 per family. This would extend the Albemarle section ofthe project to serving a minimum of sixteen families, which has lowered the cost to a maximum of $973.00 per family. Included in this cost per family are the services of the therapeutic counselor with Region Ten. which wilt provide services for identified youth and fatales in "Beating the Odds" as welI as other pregnancy prevention programs such as Stepping Up, Camp Horizon and Project Discovery. This position of therapeutic counselor will serve children who have been traumatized by sexual abuse. If the service of this specialist are not provided as needs are identified, it would be considered negiect on the part of the agency. Often a predictor of early teen pregnancy is a child's history of being sexually abused and not receiving specialized treatment for that abuse. I apologize for the length of our answer, but believe it is imperative to take this opportunity to explain that this funding request is the culmination of three years ofwork on the part of the Commission, the Subcommittee and several dozen professional and commtmity volunteers. Based on this long term study, and as a follow-up on the Human Services study of your County Executive's office, our subcommittee on innovative projects recommended our first program work with our at-risk children, our citizens who are most in need. We applaud the focus the County has placed ma human services and your work in taking a lead in bringing evaluation and structure to programs and delivery systems. "Beating the Odds'' will be monitored and evaluated on a yearly basis. Please accept this letter as a recommendation for funding support for "Beating the Odds? Sincerely, Cynthia J. Stratton Chair Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission MEMBERS OF THE STUDY COMMITTEES OF THE TEEN PREGNANCY/STD PREVENTION ROUNDTABLES STF. FRING COMMITTEE: Chair, Charlie Gteason Ruthann Brown Cathy Bodkin Crystal Dobson Monica Gearhart Jack Marshall Steven Stem Audrey Welborn BUll .DING COMMUNITY SUPPORT Crystal Dobson, Chair Laurine Bennett Aticia Lugo Sue Sheffield MEDIA Charl[e Gleason, Chair Rory Carpenter Kate Gaston PROGRAM RESEARCH AND DESIGN Audrey Welbom, Chair Cathy Bodkin Marie Derdeyn Monica Gearhart Jack Marshall Steven Stem lohn Tansey Ivfitzi Ware PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Cathy Bodtdn, Chair Diane Aretakis Ruthann Brown Crystal Dobson Lois Sandy Deborah Smith, M.D. Mary Sullivan DA'tm AGENDA AGENDA I'~'~,,1 NAME Form. 3 7/25/86 POST (.)FFtCE BOX 5386 - CHARLOTTESVILLE VIRGINIA 22905 TE!,EPHONE 804 977 680.s FACSIMILE 804 977 6578 June 12, 1996 Mr. WilYmm Fritz Department of Planning and Community Development Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Peter Jefferson Place ZMA 9603 Dear Mr. Fritz: Worroll Land and Cattle Company, L.C. hereby agrees to the deferral of the public hearing before the Board of Supervisors on the above referenced matter for one week in order to enable certain transportation matters to be resolved. Sinoerely, Andrew J. Draoopoli Vice President AJD:dtb May22,1996 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning 8t ComrnuniW Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 ~804) 296-5823 Kenneth J. Newell Manor House Retirement Center, Inc 7201 Glen Forest Drive, Suite 100 Richmond, VA 23226 ZMA-96-05 Kenneth J. Newell SP-96-09 Kenneth J. Newell SDP-96-015 Kenneth J. Newelt Tax Map 60B2, Parcel 1 Dear Mr. Newell: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 21, 1996, took the following actions regarding the above-noted petitions: ZMA-96-05 Kenneth J. Newell: Recommended denial by a vote of 5-1. SP-96-09 Kenneth J. Newell: Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-1, subject to the following conditions: Facility to be located in general conformance with the preliminary site plan for "Manor House at University Village" dated February 26, 1996 and revised through May 2, 1996; 2. The number of beds for the assisted living facility shall not exceed 126; Landscape buffering between the assisted living facility and the Huntington Village residential development shall be provided as required by the Albemarle County Planning Department staff; 4. Parking shall not exceed minimum Ordinance requirements; 5. A pedestrian link shall be provided between University Village and this facility. Page 2 May 22, 1996 $DP-_9_6-015 Kenneth J. Newell: Unanimously deferred to June 18, 1996. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review ZMA-96-05 and SP-96-09 and receive public comment at their meeting on June 12 1996_,_ 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 ~o contact me. Sincerely~ ~o~ald A~ Lil~ Senior Planner RAL\jef CC: ~ Carey Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley rom Gale CCAT2/University Limited Liability Corp COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mc~tire Road Charlottesville Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 MEMO TO: VIA: FROM: SUB J: Date: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community DevElopment Ron Li/ley, Sr. Plam~er ~ ZMA 96-05, Kenneth J. Newell/University Village -- proffer update June 5, 1996 The applicant for ZMA 96-05 (Kenneth Newell/University Village) has been working with the County Attorney staff to refine the proffers that accompany the rezoning request. None of the refinements are substantial with respect to the Planning Commission consideration of and recommendation on the rezoning petition. The proffers are still being finalized, again on minor issues, and are expected to be completed and signed by the owner prior to the Board's consideration of the matter on June 12. The most recent draft of the proffers is attached for your review, with an indication of the proffers that are st'gl being finalized. Copy m: Greg Kampmer. Assistant County Attorney I:\general\share\lilley\tmivill.mem Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # ) PROFFER FORM Date: May 14, 1996 ZMA -96-05 Tax Map Parcel(s) # TMP 60 B2-1 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily agrees to amend ZMA-87-08, by revising existing proffers 1-6 as follows: As attachments to this proffer amendment, the following materials are included and shall become part of the revised proffers: Exhibit A - Proffer Schematic-dated October 7, 1987 Exhibit B - Preliminary site plan entitled Manorhouse at University Village-An Assisted Living Retirement Community, dated February 26, 1996, revised March 25, 1996 and May 2, 1996 Exhibit C - Schematic showing proposed proffer revisions, dated May 14, 1996. AMENDED PROFFER FOR UNIVERSITY VILLAGE FORMER ZMA-87-08 1. The property will be developed for residential use as set out in paragraph 2 below, designed primarily for retired or older persons, with eligibility for residents to be limited to persons 62 years of age or older, except a spouse, other relative or not more than one unrelated person living with a qualified resident may be less than 62 years of age and may continue to be a resident even though such qualified person shall no longer be a resident. 2. The development of the property will be limited to a maximum of 204 residential units, an assisted living facility, phis service facilities which may include dining and recreational facilities, administrative offices, banking and other services for the residents. 3. The buildings will not exceed the height limits established in Section 17.8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as in effect on October 7, 1987, a copy of which is attached hereto. Building, road and parking areas will be confined and residential units and service facilities will be built in accordance with the attached preliminary site development plan entitled "University Village - Proffer Schematic", dated May 14, 1996 (Exhibit C). An assisted living facility will be built in accordance with the attached preliminary site development plan rifled "Manorhouse at University Vffiage-An Assisted Living Retirement Community", dated February 26, 1996, revised March 25, 1996 and May 2, 1996, (Exhibit B). Area 4, designated as "Recreation Area", may include the following facilities: shuffleboard, croquet, 3 outdoor tennis courts, 2 indoor tennis courts, horseshoes, lawn bowling, benches and walkways. The balance of the site will be developed so as to provide substantial natural or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site shown as areas 1, 2 and 3 on Exhibit C. A walking path or trail shall run through areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 on Exhibit C. 4. (DELETE) The applicant is currently pursuing obtaining a Certificate of Need from the State Health Department for a nursing care facility with a maximum of 45 beds, and if successful, may construct a nursing care facility on the property, or whether successful or not may construct a personal care facility for the aged. 5. *In an effort to minimize traffic, a shuffle bus will be provided for the benefit of resident to give access to cultural and social events, required retail and personal services. 6. Parking requirements for the residential living units will be determined based on those requirements for multi-family dwellings for the elderly per Section 4.12.6.6.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, with a minimum of one parking place per dwelling unit to be in the basement area of the buildings, in covered parking enclosures or in individual garages. **Additional surface parking for guests and employees will also be provided. * Subject to further clarification relative to the number of buses and hours of operation. **Subject to further clarification relative to definining the ratio of additional surface parking for guests and employees to the number of residential living units. CCAT2/University Village Limited Liability Company, A Delaware Limited Liability Company CCAT2/L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, its manager Cheyenne Investments, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, its general partner Signatures of All Owners Brace D. Thom, Secretary See Above Printed Names of All Owners Date A:\UVILLAGEPR0 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING RON LILLEY MAY 21, 1996 JUNE 12, 1996 ZMA 96-05. Kenneth J. Newell (Applicano SP 96- 09, Kenneth J~Newell (Applicant) SDP 96-015, Kenneth J. Newell, Manor House at University Village Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes m amend the proffers for the University Village property, so that an area previously designated as recreation and landscape area can be used for development and an area previously designated for development would be used to replace the recreation and landscaped area that would be lost, and then to develop the re-designated area with an assisted living facility. Petition: To amend the proffers applied to Tax Map 60B2, Parcel 1, as established with ZMA 87-08, to allow development on the portion of the property closest to Old Ivy Road, previously designated as landscaped and recreation area, and instead provide landscaped and recreation area toward the rear of the property, previously designated for future development, and to grant a special use permit to establish an assisted living facility [Section 17.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance (nursing home or similar institution)] in the re-designated area. The property is located at the existing University Village.complex on Crestwood Drive on the north side of Route 601 (Old Ivy Road), just east of the Route 29/Route 250 Bypass in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District (see Attachment A). The property is zoned R-10 with proffers and is designated for High Density Residential use in Urban Area Neighborhood 7o Characte~ The immediate area is generally of a medium density residential character, with the subject site in the fxont lawn of the University Village condominium development along Old Ivy Road, with Ivy Garden Apartments to the east and Huntington Village townhouse/condominiums to the west, and some office and light industrial uses across Old Ivy Road. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and with the intent for the initial rezoning of the property and recommends approval with acceptance of the revised proffers and with conditions for the special use permit. Staff also recommends favorably for the allowance of one- way circulation as indicated on the preliminary site plan for the assisted living facility. Planning and Zonim, History: This area has been designated for high density residential land use since the original Comprehensive Plan (1970). The property was rezoned to R-10 in 1982 (ZMA 82-11), with proffers indicating a general development plan and limits on the types and amount of development (260 residential units) and a special use permit to allow nursing home 3_ services for the residents of the developmem was granted (SP 82-60). The special use permit was granted two extensions and expired on April 20, 1986. Iff 1987, a rezoning to amend the proffers of ZMA 82-11 to allow increased building height, a somewhat revised general development plan, and a looser relationship between the potential nursing home facility and residential facility was granted (ZMA 87-08). In 1989, a new special use permit (SP 89-65) was granted for a 45-bed nursing home at the rear of the University Village property. This special use permit has now expire& The proffers of ZMA 87-08 are provided as Attachment B and the conditions of SP 89-65 are provided as Attachment C. STAFF COMMENT: The major issues for this rezoning and special use permit request are: - consistency with the intent of the present proffers - impact on adjoining properties/areas - Lmpact on road network These will be addressed in mm~ Recommendations regarding the special use permit and the site plan will follow this discussion. Rezoning The applicant proposes an assisted living facility to be constructed essentially in accordance with the preliminary site plan (amended proffers, including the preliminary site plan, are provided as Attachment D), which provides for a 2-story building of 56,000 square feet, providing up to 126 beds, to be constructed in the area near Old Ivy Road presently designated for landscaped and recreation area. To make up for the lost recreational and landscaped area, Area 9 on the proffer schematic (currently shown for future development) would be designated for landscape/ recreation area. As proposed, Area 10, shown for future development for a health care facility, would remain designated for health care facility. The applicant indicates that Area 10 is envisioned for a nursing home facility, which involves more constant care of residents (and requires a Certificate of Area Need from the State) than does the proposed assisted living facility, The applicant also has indicated that Area 10 is not as desirable a location from a marketing/visibility standpoint and from a soils/topography standpoint and that Areas 3 and 4 provide for a better stand-alone facility. The intent of the current proffers involves the amount of occupant loading on this property and the general location of facilities and landscaping to address buffering from adjoining uses. Based on staff reports and minutes of previous considerations for this property, the main concern for occupant loading relates to the traffic capacity of Old Ivy Road. The County has taken a position that rezonings along roads with serious capacity problems should not be approved unless the resultant traffic generation would not be increased appreciably or unless capacity upgrades are scheduled. In this case, the applicant is proffering a commensurate reduction in the number of residential units that could be located on the property to compensate for the traffic increase resulting from the proposed facility~ The applicant indicates that the proposed facility is expected to employ approximately 50 persons, with the largest shift accounting for approximately 20 persons. Occasional deliveries would also be expected. A very low percentage of the residents would be expected to drive, and visits to residents typically occur during non-peak traffic hours and on weekends. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip -Generation manual, such a facility with 50 employees would be expected to generate approximately 202 trips per day, which is the equivalent traffic generation of 56 units of retirement community condominiums. The applicant is proffering to reduce the potential number of residential units at University Village by 56 to 204 total units. Old Ivy Road is scheduled to be widened beginning in January 2000 which is expected to substantially increase its capacity, however, difficulties with improving the raikoad overpass cast doubt on the schedule being maintained. Given all these factors, staff opinion is that this rezoning ~s supportable from the standpoint of traffic generation from this site. The Virginia Department of Transportation will assess the need for a left mm lane from Old Ivy Road onto Crestwood Drive as part of the site plan review for each phase of improvements at this site. With respect to fixing the general location of facilities and landscaping to address buffering from adjoining uses, the primary impact of this proposal is to the Huntington Village residents immediately adjoining the area proposed for development. The current proffer schematic indicates Area 4, comprising 2.4 acres, as recreation area, with facilities to include shuffleboard, croquet, tennis (indoor and outdoor), horseshoes, lawn bowling, benches, walkways, etc. Area 3, comprising 3.95 acres, is indicated as Landscaped area, with substantial landscaping around the periphery. The proposal would place a two-story building (approximate height of 28 feet) and parking areas, with a total footprint of approximately 1.7 acres, on a 5.4 acre site in the middle of Areas 3 and 4. About 3.7 acres of the assisted living facility site would remain open and landscaped. The applicant has indicated that very substantial landscaping would be placed between the building and the Huntington Village buildings, and staff is recommending this be made a condition of site plan approval if the rezoning and special use permit are granted. A portion of the assisted living facility site is within Area 8, presently designated as future development area, and given the small portion of Area 8 that would remain (0.4 acres), it is not likely that Area 8 could be developed with buildings, so the potential impact of buildings in Area 8 on Huntington Village residents is actually decreased by this proposal. Further, Area 4 was envisioned for recreation facilities, which could have included an indoor tennis pavilion with a similar footprint to the proposed assisted living facility, so putting the assisted living facility here would not be a significant change from what would have been expected. Area 9 (2.3 acres), which is presently shown for future development (expected as residential cottages), would become landscape/recreation area, so the Huntington Village residents along that portion of the University Village property are less likely to be impacted by building development under this proposal. Given all these factors, staff opinion is that the intent of the proffers regarding buffering of adjacent properties is not significantly compromised by this proposal. However, the Huntington Village Homeowners Association and several individual residents/property owners have expressed concern about the proposal and their letters are provided as Attachment E. Special Use Permit Assuming the amended proffers are accepted, the location of the proposed assisted living facility will be consistent with the proffers. The use itself has been reviewed for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and staff opinion is that, given approval of the general location of the facility and subject to conditions regarding facility size and prowsion of landscape screening, the use itself will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, the character of the district will not be changed by the nature of the use, the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ZoningOrdinance, with the uses pennitted by right in the R-10 district, and with the public health, safety, and general welfare. The facility is intended to provide an intermediate level of care, between independent living and nursing home-level of care, to primarily elderly residents. Activities would be mostly indoors or in interior courtyards. The preliminary site plan indicates that the building would be built into the grade of the existing slope such that its visibility from Huntington Village will be limited and the provision of significant landscaping will further buffer the Huntington Village residems from the change to rite presem landscape. To address the sensitivities regarding traffic generation from the University Village property and regarding impact on buffering from adjacent properties, staff recommends the following conditions for special use permit approval: Facility to be located in general conformance with the preliminary site plan for "Manor House at University Village" dated February 26, 1996 and revised through May 2, 1996. 2. The number of beds for the assisted living facility shall not exceed 126. Landscape buffering between the assisted living facility and the Huntington Village residential development shall be provided as required by the Albemarle County Planning Department staff. Site Plan The preliminary site plan has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee and is approvable with the resolution of two issues. One is Planning Commission authorization of one-way circulation in the parking lot, and the other is a determination of whether some pedestrian link between the proposed assisted living facility and the existing University Village building should be provided. The applicant's request for one-way circulation in the area of the drop-offat the entrance to the assisted living facility is provided as Attachment F. Staff finds this request supportable, provided adequate signage to control traffic flow in the area is provided, and recommends approval. Regarding the provision of a pedestrian link from the proposed facility to the existing condominiums, staff opinion is that such a link would be desirable to facilitate the interaction between the residents of the two facilities which could be expected to occur. The applicant has provided a response to,this suggestion (provided as Attachment G) which disagrees with the staff opinion, citing reasons of topography and the availability of a shuttle bus as a better alternative. Staff notes that the current proffers call for site development to include a network of walking paths and maintains that a pedestrian link could be designed so as to overcome the topographic challenges and would be a desirable option for some residents and visitors. SUMMARY: Staff finds that the traffic generation from this property is adequately addressed by the proposed proffers and that the trade of development area and landscape/recreation area of the currem proffers would not significantly compromise the intent of the currem proffers regarding buffering of adjacent properties. Staff finds that the special use permit for the assisted living facility is supportable with conditions regarding facility size and provision of landscape buffering, and stafffinds that the allowance for a one-way drop-off area is supportable. Staff believes that a pedestrian link between the proposed facility and the existing condominium building should be provided. Recommended Action: Approval of ZMA 96-05 with acceptance of the revised proffers provided as Attachment D; B. Approval of SP 96-09 for an assisted living facility with the following conditions: Facility to be located in general conformance with the preliminary site plan for "Manor House at University Village" dated February 26, 1996 and revised through May 2, 1996. 2. The number of beds for the assisted living facility shall not exceed 126. Landscape buffering between the assisted living facility and the Huntington Village residential development shall be provided as required by the Albemarle County Planning Department staff. Approval of the preliminary site plan, with a modification to allow one-way circulation at the drop-off area at the entrance to the facility, with the understanding that a landscape buffer between the proposed facility and the existing residences at Huntington Village be provided to the satisfaction of Planning Department staffas part of the final site plan, and 5 with the provision of a pedestrian link between the proposed facility and the existing condominium building. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map -~ B - ZMA 87-08 proffers C - SP 89-65 conditions D - Amended proffers E - Letters from Huntington Village residems F - One-way circulation request G - Applicant's comments on provision of pedestrian link I:\general\shar e\litley\univill.zma ALBEMARLE CO . ATTACHMENT 59 ZMA-96-05/ SDP-96-15/ SP-96-09 KENNETH J. NEWELL 76 SAMUEL MILLER, JACK JOU. ETT AND OHARLOTTESVILL E DISTRICTS ALBEMARLE COU N~-"( ZMA-96-05/ SDP-96-15/ SP-96-09 KENNETH J. NEWELL UNIVERSITY VILLAGE CONDO'S AFFECTED AREA (]~ JACK JOUETT DISTRICT SECTION 60BZ AMENDED PROFFER FOR UNIVERSITY VILLAGE RE TAX MAP 60, PARCEL 53 FORMER ZMA-82-11 Background: On October 20, 1982, the Board of Supervisors rezoned the above desoribed property from R-1 to R-10 with a proffer ~de by the then owner. The current owner, University Village Limited Partnership, wishes to amend the proffer to allow a more orderly developmeat of the property, to provide for better preservation of the landscape and lessen impaet on the surrounding properties. The entire proffer adopted on Oetober 20, 1982 is hereby deleted, and the following snbstitnted therefor. Applicant hereby proffers: 1. The property will be developed for residential ~se as set ont in paragraph 2 below, designed primarily for retired or older persons, with eligibility for residents to be limited to persons 62 years of age or older, except a spouse, other relative or not more than one unrelated person living with a qual~fled resident may be less continue to be a resident even shall no longer be a resident. than 62 years of age and may though such qualified person 2. The development of the property will be limited to a maximum of 260 residential units, plus service facilities which may include dining and recreational facilities, administrative offices, bankln9 and c~-her sc~;iccs for the re~i~ents. 3. The buildings will not exceed the height limits es~ablished in paragraph 17.8 of the residential R-18 ~oning district. Building, road and parking areas will be confined and residential units and service facilities will be built essentially in accordance with the attached preliminary site development plan titled "University Village Proffer I ATTACHMENT B I Page Schematic," dated October 7, 1987 (Exhibit A), and the balance of the site will be developed so as to provide substantial natural or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site shown as areas 1, 2 and 3 on Exhihit A. Site development will include extensive landscaping, a network of walking paths and trails~ gardens, outdoor activity areas and a main entrance drive from Old Ivy~Road~ 4. The applicant is currently pursuing obtaining a Certificate of Need for a ~ursing care facility from the State Health Department, and if successful, may construct a nursing care facility on the property, or whether successful or not may construct a personal care facility for the aged. 5o In an effort to minimize traffic, a Shuttle bus will be provided for the benefit of residents to give access to cultural and social events, required retail and personal services. 6o Parking requirements for the residential living units will be determined based on those requirements for multi-family dwellings for the elderly, with a minimum of one parking place per dwelling unit to be in the basement area of the buildings, in covered parking enclosures or in individual garages~ Additional surface parking for guests and employees will also be provided. UNIVERSITY VILLAGE LIMITED PA~,~ERSEIP Partner I Page 21 Page 3] I ATTACHMENT C I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntl~e Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 October 20, 1989 University Village Limited partnership P. O. Box 8133 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: SP-89-65 University Village Limited Partnership Tax Map 60, Parcels 53 and 24C Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on October 18, 1989, unanimously approved the above-noted request to allow for a nursing home/home for adults to be located on approximately 61.50 acres in conjunction with University Village Retirement Com~aunity. Property, located on the north side of Old Ivy Road (Rt. 601) about 1900 feet east of its intersection with the Rt. 29/250 Bypass and old Garth Road. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Nursing home facility shall be limited to 45 beds. Future expansion shall require amendment tothis special permit; Approval of the appropriate state and local agencies. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~ireWca~or oC~l~l~ng& Community Development VWC/jcw cc: Kathy Dodson Charles Mitchell I ATTACHMENT D Original Proffer lPage 11 Amended Proffer (Amendment # ) PROFFER FORM Date: May 14, 1996.. ZMA -96-05 Tax Map Parcel(s) # TMP 60 B2-1 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily agrees to amend ZMA-87-08, by revising existing proffers 1-6 as follows: As attachments to this proffer amendment, the following materials are included and shall become part of the revised proffers: Exhibit A - Proffer Schematic-dated October 7, 1987 Exhibit B - Preliminary site plan entitled Manorhouse at University Village-An Assisted Living Retirement Community, dated February 26, 1996, revised March 25, 1996 and May 2, 1996 Exhibit C - Schematic showing proposed proffer revisions, dated May 14, 1996. AMENDED PROFFER FOR UNIVERSITY VILLAGE FORMER ZMA-87-08 1. The property will be developed for residential use as set out in paragraph 2 below, designed primarily for retired or older persons, with eligibility for residents to be limited to persons 62 years of age or older, except a spouse, other relative or not more than one unrelated person living with a qualified resident may be less than 62 years of age and may continue to be a resident even though such qualified person shall no longer be a resident. 2. The development of the property will be limited to a maximum of 204 residential units, an assisted living facility, plus service facilities which may include dining and recreational facilities, administrative offices, banking and other services for the residents. 3. The buildings will not exceed the height limits established in Section 17.8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as in effect on October 7, 1987, a copy of which is attached hereto. Building, road and parking areas will be confined and residential units and service facilities will be built essentially in accordance with the attached preliminary site development plan entitled "University Village - Proffer Schematic", dated May 14, 1996 (Exhibit C). An assisted living facility will be built essentially in accordance with the attached preliminary site development plan rifled "Manorhouse at University Village-An Assisted Living Retirement Community", dated February 26, 1996, revised March 25, 1996 and May 2, 1996, (Exhibit B). Area 4, designated as "Recreation Area", may include the following facilities: shuffleboard, croquet, 3 outdoor tennis courts, 2 indoor tennis courts, horseshoes, lawn bowling, benches and walkways. The balance of the site will be developed so as to provide substantial natural or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site shown as areas 1, 2 and 3 on Exhibit C. A walking path or trail shall run through areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 on Exhibit C~ 4. The applid~nt is currently pursuing obtaining a Certificate of Need from the State Health Department for a nursing care facility with a maximum of 45 beds, and if successful, may construct a nursing care facility on the property, or whether successful or not may construct a personal care facility for the aged. 5. In an effort to minimize traffic, a shuffle bus will be provided for the benefit of resident to give access to cultural and social events, required retail and personal sereices. 6~ Parking requirements for the residential living units will be determined based on those requirements for multi-family dwellings for the elderly, with a minimum of one parking place per dwelling unit to be in the basement area of the buildings, in covered parking enclosures or in individual garages. Additional surface parking for guests and employees will also be provided. By: CCAT2/Uuiversity Village Limited Liability Company, A Delaware Limited Liability Company By: CCAT2/L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, its manager By: Cheyenne Investments, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, its general partner Signatures of All Owners Bruce D. Thom, Secretary See Above Printed Names of Ail Owners Date A:\IJVI LLAGE.PRO 17.4.4 (Amended 8-14-85) 17.5 17.6 (Amended 8-14-85) 17.7 17.8 (Amended 8-14-85) Mobile homes for rent in an approved mobile home park shall b~ considered rental units under this section provided they qualify ms low or moderate cost housing under the Housing and Urban Development Section 8 program; (Added 3-5-86) Mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mobile home owners for a period of five (5) years~, (Added 3-5-86) Mobile home %~ts for sale in an approved mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall re- strict the use of the lots to mobile homes or other low or moderate cost housing for a period of five (5) years. (Added 3-5-86) The cumulative effect of density factors above may not exceed fifty (50) percent, - CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION REGULATIONS (Amended 8-14-85) At the option of the owner, regulations under cluster development provisions in section 17.3 may be used for cluster development of the land to be subdivided and developed. Use of cluster provisions shall be subject to other requirements of this ordinance, applicable health requirements and the provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of Albe- marleo BUILDING SEPARATION In any case in which there is more than one main structure on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between such structures except as otherwise provided in section 4.11.3. This provision shall not apply to structures built to a common wallo (Amended 1-1-83) RECREATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS See section 4.16 for recreation requirements. (Amended 3-5-86) HEIGHT REGULATIONS Except as otherwise provided in section 4.10, structures may be erected to a height not to excees sixty-five (65) feet; provided that any structure exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set · back from any street right-of-way or single-family residential or agricultural district; in addition to minimum yard requirements, s distance of not less than two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height in excess of thirty-five (35) feet. (Amended 9-9-92) -124- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) .L33HS U3AO5 ~9VqqIA AIISU3AINA .LV =:ISflOHI:JONV~I '3NI "30SS¥ ~ ~'1¥9 'Hsns¥onou M3IAB3AO NY-Id 3/IS ,( .,,/ /// /- t ATTACHI~IENT D] ©~ U.I Huntington V [ L L A G E IATTACHM ENT EI [Page 11 30 April, 1996 Mr. Ronald A. Lilley, Senior Planner County of Albema(fe Department of Planmng and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 1996 SP-96-09 - Kenneth & Newell ZMA-96-05 - Kenneth J. !Newell SDP-96-015 - Kenneth J. Neweil Dear Mr. Lilley: I am writing to you concerning the above-referenced petitions. As President of the Huntington Village Homeowners Association and an owner and resident in Huntington Village, I wish to share our grave concerns regarding the proposal of an 86-bed assisted living facility comprising 56,000 square feet on the site referenced in the above petitions. When the developer of University Village was seeking the necessary approvals from the County of Albemarle for development of the property, it was proposed as a continuing care retirement facility consisting of 260 dwelling units. At that time, in addition to the proffers required of the developer, the Planning Commission recommended as a condition (among others) of approval of SP-82-52, that "Support uses shall be limited to such uses as: housekeeping and laundry services; nursing and hospital facilities reasonably necessary to serve the residents; retail stores and shops, professional offices and food services, all of which are designed and intended to serve the residents of the development... ". At that time, homeowners of Huntington Village condominiums vigorously and vocally opposed such intensive development of the property and there was substantial discussion at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings of the concerns of the neighborhood and county officials regarding traffic generation on already hazardous Old Ivy Road and the provision of adequate buffer areas to protect surrounding development. ha order to address traffic and other concerns, the developer attempted, through the proffer approach, to limit traffic generation from the property to a level comparable to developmentunderthepropert3/sthen-existingR-1 zoningclassifieation Amongother things, the applicant profferred: 2. The development of the property will be limited to a maximum of 260 residential units, plus service facilities which may include dining and recreational 133 Harvest Drive · Charlottesville. Virginia 22903 · (804j 293-2543 facilities, administrative offices, banking and other services for the residents (emphasis added). 3 Building, road and parking areas will be confined and residential units and service facilities will be built essentially in accordance with the attached preliminary site plan.., and the balance of the site will be developed so as to provide substantial ,n,amral or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site... Now comes a nursing home developer seeking to radically change the profferred limitations on development of the site without making any provision to address the overriding, and still critical, concerns which inspired the original proffers This developer is proposing an assisted living facility of nearly double the size originally planned for the property. Specifically, there was to be a 45-bed assisted living facility comprising 37,000 square feet on a site between University Village and the 29 By-Pass (there is already a foundation on the site). This developer is now asking permission to build a two-story, 86-bed, 56,000 square feet nursing home/assisted living facility on the land between Ivy Gardens and Huntington Village, land that the original developer of University Village promised ( profferred in order to secure county and neighborhood support for the development) to keep as landscaped and recreational area. The applicant fails to address in any meaningful way increased traffic generation on now still-hazardous Old Ivy Road. The applicant fails to explain why the originally proposed site behind University Village is not a perfectly adequate location for this facility. In fact, the originally proposed site is a more appropriate location for serving the needs of University Village residents and protecting the interests and safety of the neighborhood and larger community. The obvious inference is that the facility is not meant to serve only the residents of University Village as profferred, which inference is strengthened by the fact that an 86-bed facility is planned for a development that currently consists of only 94 dwelling units, with no promise that more of the permitted 260 dwelling units will be built. Perhaps the residents of University Village simply wish to shift the burdens of such a facility to their neighbors and are willing to break a bargained-for promise in order to do so. Finally, the applicant wishes to develop the portion of the property closest to Old Ivy Road, previously designated as landscaped and recreation area, and instead provide landscape and recreation area toward the rear of the property. The applicant fails to point out that the landscaped and recreation area at the front of the property was originally profferred as a buffer area in order to secure the support of Huntington Village and the County of Albemarle for the development of University Village, and that the proposed substitute recreation and landscaped area will be a buffer between University Vffiage residences and an open field. The buffer wffi buffer nothing! IPage 31 If the request of this developer is granted, the construction and operation of such a facility will permanently erode the quality of life in our community. The noise and traffic associated with employee arrivals and departures, deliveries, food service, waste disposal, visitors and ambulances will forever alter the character of our neighborhood and reduce property values throughout Huntington Village. Mr. Lilley, many residents of Huntington Village took into account the profferred landscaped and rec'feation area when we purchased our homes here and, because of the proffer, considered its preservation a joint promise of the developers of University Village and the County of Albemarle, We consider this developer's petition to be an act of bad faith and, if approved, a betrayal of our neighborhood by both University Village and the County. I understand from our telephone conversation of this morning that this matter will be considered at the Planning Commission meeting of May 21, 1996, and I assure you we will be present to be heard. I urge you and the planning staff to study this matter with care, taking into account the concerns expressed here, and to include this letter in the staff report to the Planning Commission. If you, your staff, the planning commissioners or any of the Supervisors to whom I am sending copies of this letter have questions or wish to speak with me for any reason, please do not hesitate to call my office at 971-9764 or my home at 296-2002. Yours very truly, -Robin L. Cordle, President Huntington Village Homeowners Association 202 Harvest Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 May 8, 1996 Larry W. Davis, Esq. 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Davis: This letter is to say that as homeowners in Huntington Village, we are unalterably opposed to the construction of an 86-bed nursing home facility on the open space between Huntington Village and Ivy Gardens! Permission for the construction of Universky Village was granted on condition of a 45-bed nursing home and a landscaped recreational area fronting Old Ivy Road. Construction of the proposed facility on this open space would indeed change the entire nature of Old Ivy Road which at present remains of rural nature. Those of us who bought homes in University Village would indeed feel betrayed if this proposed facility is permitted in this open space. Sincerely you r..% Z/ K. R. Crispell Marjorie Crispell ICRC/nlm May ~0, 1996 Mrs. Sally H~ Thomas 889 Leigh Way Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: SP-96-09/ZMA-96~05/SDP-96-015 - KennethJ. Newell Dear Sally: FLESIIMAN A~ CIATES MARKETING AND ADYERTISING As a resident of Huntington Village, I am very concerned to learn that the new owners of University Village are now interested in relocating the nursing home/assisted living facility on the land at the entrance to University Village, fronting on Old Ivy Road, between Ivy Gardens and Huntington Village. It was my impression that the original development was approved based on sipuladons regarding landscaping, dedicated recreational areas, and traffic control. I'm not opposed to the building of an assisted living facility on the University V'fllage property as long as the owners abide by the original agreements which places the nursing home/assisted living facility between the main building and the By-Pass, maintaining the open areas as defined in Phase 3 and Phase 4 of the orginial proffer. Ifthls request is granted, not only is the the quality of life for residents and homeowners of Huntington Village significally altered, but the hearing and proffering procedures are diminished. I have endosed a map showing where the nursing home is proposed to be built. I inwre you to visit the site. Please feel free to call me at 295-2727 or 293-6496 if you have questions. Sincerely, ~/a'~L. Fa L. Fleshman 214 Harvest Drive cc: Mr. David P. Bowermam Board of Supervisors Rio District Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Board of Supervisors Jack Junett District Mr. Forrest R, Marshall, Jr., Board of Supervisors Scottsville District Mr. Charles S. Martin, Board of Supervisors Rivanna District Mr. Walter E Perkins, Board of Supervisors White Hall District Mr. Lar~W. Davis, Esq., County Attorney Mr. Robert Tucker, County Executive .,--"~r.r. Ronald A. Lilley, Senior Planner voice 804-295-2727 fax 295-7992 John Ruvalds Physics Department UNIVERSITY of VIRGINIA Charlottesville, VA 22903 email jr7k@Virg~.mia.edu Fax (804)924 - 4576 Office (804)924-6796 May 10, 1996 Albemarle Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 229024596 I am writing to oppose the zoning requests; 1. SP-96-09 K.J.Newell 2, ZMA-96005 " 30 SDP-96-015 " As a resident of Huntington Village at 317 Harvest Dr. I had agreed with the original plan for University Village to construct a nursing facility behind their main building as described in SP-82-52. Unfortunately, the new proposal would create congestion at the Ivy Road entrance to University Village which is very close to Ivy Gardens and Huntington Village. Such congestion would harm the elderly residents in University Village and also spoil our neighborhood. Your NO vote regarding the amended zoning proposal would be appreciated by my neighbors, friends and colleagues living in Albemarle county. Sincergly'~ Box 274 - 977 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 804-977-4719 May 12, 1996 Mr. Ronald A. Lilley, Senior Planner County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Lilley: I am writing to you as a member of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. I wish to register a very strong protest against a possible zoning change which is being petitioned by University Village, namely permission for them to build a large assisted living facility on land which was originally promised to be kept as landscaped and recreational areas, accessed from the Old Ivy Road. There is no need for me to emphasise the effect this type of facility would have upon the Old Ivy Road, nor upon the quality of life for us residents of Huntington Village, a quality of life for which we have paid and on which we counted when purchasing property in the Village. I can see no possible reason for your permitting this change in zoning - the permission for a 45-bed assisted living facility was granted when University Village was first being developed and at that time the promise was made to keep the disputed parcels as open land as part of the overall deal This 45 bed facility was to be sighted between University Village and the Rte 29 Bye-pass, which is objectionable to no one living in Huntington Village. live at 314 Huntington Village. Your~cerely, Sarah G. Worthington (Mrs.) J, THOMAS GALE, L.S, MARILYNN R. GALE. WILLIAM $. ROUDABUSH, L.S. ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOC., INC. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 914 MONTICELLO ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 PHONE (804) 293-425~ (804) 977-0205 FAX (804) 296 April 4, 1996 Ron Lilley, Senior Planner Albemarle County Planning Department 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Rom On behalf of the developers of the Manor House of University Village, I am requesting a waiver for one-way traffic along the drop off semicircle at the front entrance of the Manor House. One-way travel will not cause any disturbance to the internal flow of traffic of the parking lot since the area of one-way travel is not adjacent to any parking spaces, and is not necessary for convenient or safe access on-site. The purpose of this drop off is to provide ambulance or vehicular access as dose as possible to the front door for handicap or infirm residents. The developers will provide signage at both points of connection to the parking lot to indicate that the aisle is one-way. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, J. Thomas Gale, L.S. architects ATTACHMENT March 27, 1996 Mr. Tom Gale Roudabush Gale & Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: University Village Assisted Living Retirement Community Charlottesville, VA Dear Tom: Please accept this letter as a reply to the Site Review Comments - SDP96-015 for the above captioned Project. Item 1 states "insure adequate provision for pedestrian link with the main building on the property. Sidewalks out to and along Crestwood appear m be the best way to provide this." There is an aggressive topography between the proposed facility and the condominium structure at the top of the hill. We believe a sidewalk between the two facilities is not conducive to everyday use and, in some cases, could be considered a detriment to the health of the user in returning to the condomininm from the Assisted Living Facility. A feature of the Assisted Living Facility is a shuttle bus. We have discussed this situation with the Owner. He conf'mned that the shuttle bus will be available to pick up residents of the condominium and bring them to the Assisted Living Facility and tatum them at their request. We believe this is a mom practical situation that would.be conducive to the residents of both structures. Please take the necessary steps to convey this information to Albemarle County during the review~ Very truly yours, FRF. EMAN & MORGAN ARCHITECTS President FREEMAN &MORGAN ARCHITECT~, 7110 FORESTAVENUE. SUITE 201, I~ICHMOND, ~rIRGINIA 2322§ (804) 282*9700 FAX (804) 282,82§7 JOHN C. MORGAN,JR. AIA. SENIOR PRINCIPAL · JOHN E. SHADy AIA. PRESIDENT ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS 401 MCINTIRE ROAD CHARLOTI~SVILLE, VA. 22902-4596 June 1, ~996 Dear Sit/Madam: COUNTy OF Ro OF SUP£RV~SO~S As long-time residents of Albemarle County and Charlot~ville, and presently horaeowners at Huntington Village, we would like to exix~ our concent about the proposed conshn~ion of an ~,/sted living cate center at the foot of University Village, When we attended the mzeting of the A.l~maflc Coun~ Planning Commision on May 21st, we were graiefut for th~ outcome of the vole ~ainst ~his l~apoaal, and specif~aat fairness and careful reasoning of most of its members with re~ to their stand on the original dev~ plans and p~ffe~ed area (i~,~.87-08). It sh~wed that we, as tax pay- ers, permanent residems and homeowners can and should have trust in Albemarle County's officials~ It is for the~ reasons that we urge you, tl~ members of the Albcmat/e Board of Coan~ Supervisor, to vote along with the County of Alben~le Planning Ccominlzn to could visit their confined friends back and forth. Please let us stove to preserve ~ of the comb's n~aemi~ area's olin ~ ~o en- b~ac~ g~e qualiii~ of lif~ ~ so many o[ as seek 1V~ Sally H. Thomas David 1~ Bowrman Mrs, Charlotte Y. Humphries Fonl~ R, Marslatl, tr. Charles 5, Martin Walter F. Perkins Lany W. Davis, Esq. Ella W, Ca~, CMC 996 Huntington V I L L A G E May 28, 1996 Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 109 Falcon Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 SP-96-09- Kenneth & Newell ZMA-96-05 - Kenneth J. Newell SDP-96-015 - Kenneth J. Newell Dear Mrs. Humphris: I am writing to you concerning the above-referenced petitions. I am President of the Huntington Village Homeowners Association and an owner and resident in Huntington Village, and we at Huntington V'Alage are gravely concerned about the effect that the size and location of the proposed health care facility will have on the neighborhood and the community. When the original developer of University Village was seeking the necessary approvals from the County of Albemarle for development of the property, homeowners of Huntington Village condominiums vigorously and vocally opposed such intensive development and there was substantial discussion at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings of the concerns of the neighborhood. In order to address these concerns, the original developer attempted, through the proffer approach, to provide adequate landscaped buffer areas m protect the neighborhood. I was, at the time, chief financial officer for the original developer and a member of the development team that negotiated the accomodations embodied in the proffers. I was not then a Huntington Village resident or Homeowner The original developer has since sold most of his interest in University Village to a developer from Oregon, who now wishes to sell the parcel that is the subject of this hearing to the applicant developer, Mr. Newell, who is propos'mg an assisted living facility of hearty double the size originally planned for the property. Specifically, the existing proffers provide for a future health care facility to be located on a site between University Village and the 29 By-Pass (there is already a foundation on the site) and the original developer planned a 45-bed assisted liv'mg facility comprising 37,000 square feet. This developer is asking permission to build a two-story, 126-bed, 56,000 square feet assisted living facility on the land between Ivy Gardens and Huntington Village, 133 IIarvest Drive · Charlottesville. Virginia 22903 · (804) 293-2543 land that the original developer of University Village, in order to secure county and neighborhood support for the development, proffered as landscaped and recreational area. We are aware that circumstances change, and it is clear that there can be good reasons for mending proffers and changing zoning classifications, reasons such as changes in traffic patterns, in infrastructure, in the character ora neighborhood or perhaps the presence of an overriding public interest. No such reasons exist in this instance. The character of the neighborhood and vehicular access are exactly as they were when the original proffers were written, the only infrastructural changes have to do with increased utilities occasioned by the University Village development, and, while there is no doubt an important public interest served by ~he availability of assisted living services, there certainly is not a compelling public interest in having such a fa~flity on the subject site. It has been reported by the Dally Progress and confirmed by the Jefferson Area Board for Aging that there are developers vin'ually lining up to build assisted living facilities in Albemarle County. Only Mr. Newell thinks the subject site is indispensible It seems to pass unnoticed by Mr. Newell that there are at least three alternative sites on the University Village property which would have very little impact on the neighborhood and which would be closer to the University Village residents. Moreover, there are at least two appropriate and available sites on adjacent properties which have not been investigated by Mr. Neweil. The sole justification offered in the planning staff report for the movement of the proposed facility from a site that would minimally impact the neighborhood to a site that would decimate the ne'ighborhood, is the desirab'flity to the applicant of the subject site "from a marketing/visibility standpoint and from a soils/topography standpo'mt" - or, more simply, the convenience and profit of this developer. Given the absence of any intelligible jusfifieafion and in view of vigorous and well- reasoned community opposition, I believe that to permit this zoning change would be a violation of the public trust and would undermine the integrity of the proffer approach and the_commnni~ planning and d~'elopment system. I'd like also to address the planning staffreport observation (adopting, practically verbatim, an argument ventured by Mr. Newell) that a portion of the subject site "was envisioned for recreational fac'fifties, which could have included an indoor tennis pavilion with a similar footprint to the proposed assisted living fac'dity, so putting the assisted living facility here would not be a significant change from what would have been expected". (emphasis added) The existing proffers provide for two indoor tennis courts. A facility housing two indoor tenms courts with showers, locker rooms and parking could be easily accomodated in a footprint of approximately 18,500 square feet, According to the planning staff report, the footprint of the proposed development is approximately 1.7 acres (75,752 square feet), more than four times larger than a prospective indoor tennis fae'flity. I suspect that if the planning department budget were cut by a factor of four, they would consider it a significant change. More importantly, such a tennis fac'flity which, under the exisfmg proffers, must be for the use of the University V'fllage residents (there are only 66 occupied homes up there, I don't know how many of them play tennis), would have a negligible impact on our neighborhood. Unlike the proposed assisted living fac'flity, there would be virtually no employee arrivals and departures, deliveries, food service, waste disposal, ambulances and visitors. On the other hand, this proposed assisted living facility, larger by a factor of four than the oft-mentioned prospective indoor tennis pavilion, is only viable because of the profitability of filling it with patients who have no affiliation with Um'versity V'fllage and is precisely the sort of neighborhood~devastating development the original proffers were written to prohibit. Finally, let me po'mt out the real motivation for this change. The Oregon developer who now owns the University Village land has been approached by a potential purchaser for the five (5) acres on which the earlier planned assisted living/nursing care fac'flity was supposed to be built. They now may have an opportunity to sell that parcel at a nice profit, and also sell the parcel that is the subject of this zoning change request. This is not about the needs of University Village residents, not about "visibility" and "marketab'flity", not about "soils/topography"~ It is about aecomodating the profit and convenience of these two developers at the expense of an entire neighborhood and community. If the request of this developer is granted, the lights, noise and traffic associated with employee arrivals and departures, deliveries, food service, waste disposal, visitors and ambulances will forever alter the character of our neighborhood. Many residents of Huntington Village, including myself, took into account the proffered landscaped and recreation area when we purchased our homes and regarded the proffer as a joint promise of University Village and the County of Albemarle. Accordingly, we consider this developer's petition to be an act of had faith and, if approved, a betrayal of the promises made to our nei~ghborhood. If you have questions or ifI may help in any way, please do not hesitate to call me at either my office (971-9764) or my home (296-2002). Perhaps it would be helpful for you to meet with someone from our neighborhood in order to visit the site and perhaps thereby better understand our concerns, I will be happy to arrange such a meeting. Respectfully, Robin L. Cordle, President Huntington Village Homeowners Association Mr. David P. Bowerman Mr. Charles Martin Mrs. Sally Thomas Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Mr. Walter F. Perkins Mr. Larry W. Davis, Esq. Box 274 - 977 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 804-977-4719 May 12, 1996 Miss Ella W. Carey 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Miss Carey: I am writing to you as a member of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. ! wish to register a very strong protest against a possible zoning change which is being petitioned by University Village, namely permission for them to build a large assisted living facility on land which was originally promised to be kept as landscaped and recreational areas, accessed from the Old Ivy Road. There is no need for me to emphasise the effect this type of facility would have upon the Old Ivy Road, nor upon the quality of life for us residents of Huntington Village, a quality of life for which we have paid and on which we counted when purchasing property I can see no possible reason for your permitting this change in zoning - the permission for a 45-bed assisted living facility was granted when University Village was first being developed and at that time the promise was made to keep the disputed parcels as open land as part of the overall deal. This 45 bed facility was to be sighted between University Village and the Rte 29 Bye-pass, which is objectionable to no one living in Huntington Village. I live at 314 Huntington Village. Yours sincerely, Sarah G. Worthington (Mrs.) COUNTY OFALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 202 Harvest Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 May 8, 1996 Ella W. Carey, CMC 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Ms. Carey: This letter is to say that as homeowners in Huntington Village, we are unalterably opposed to the construction of an 86~bed nursing home facility on the open space between Huntington Village and Ivy Gardens! Permission for the construction of University Village was granted on condition ora 45-bed nurs'mg home and a landscaped recreational area fronting Old Ivy Road. Construction of the proposed facility on this open space would indeed change the entire nature of'Old Ivy Road which at present remains of rural nature. Those of us who bought homes in University Village would indeed feel betrayed if this proposed facility is permitted in this open space Sincerely yqurs, K. R. Crispell Marj orie Cdspell KRC/nlm John Ruvalds Physics Department UNIVERSITY of VIRGINIA Charlottesville, VA 22903 BOARD OF $I..JPEf:tSI~SO~,~ email jrTk@Virginia.edu Fax (804)924 - 4576 Office (804)924-6796 May 10, 1996 Albemarle Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville. VA 22902-4.596 I am writing to,oppoSe the zoning requests; 1. SP-96-09 K,J.Newell 2. ZMA-96005 " 3. SDP-96-015 " As a residem of Huntington Village at 317 Harvest Dr. I had agreed with the original plan for University Village to construct a nursing facility behind th(n: main building as described in SP-82~52. Unfortunately, the new proposal would create congestion at the Ivy Road entrance to University Village which is very close to IW Gardens and Huntington Village. Such congestion would harm the elderly residents in University Village and also spoil our neighborhood, Your NO vote regard'rog the amended zoning proposal would be appreciated by my neighbors, friends and colleagues living in Albemarle county. Sincergly~ 9 /~J. Ruval~ To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors From: Thilo Best Date: June 12, 1996 Re: University Village Mr. Heischman first attempted to develop Parcel 10 into a nursing faciIity. It failed. Following those efforts his staff did outreach to other' developers in several states. One of the developers at the time included Manorhouse. Attached please find copies of contacts made by Mr. Heischman's employees in 1994 for an assisted living at University Village. Please note the following: Responses and interest Companies demonstrating interest in the end Please note that Mr. Heischman found no one interested in developing an assisted living facility at University Village. Attachments LISTING OF POTENTIAL ASSISTED LIVING DEVELOPMENT/MANAGEMENT FIRMS Company Name & Address Amurcon Corporation of Virginia 1001 East Main Street Suitell00 Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 644-1086 FAX: (804) 644-1098 contact Date Classic Residence by Hyatt 200 West Madison Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 750-8426 FAX: (312) 750-8580 ~ ~,~ ~ Penny S. Pritzker~~'~ c~ Bruce Mondschain' Mary G. Leary Tracy Lux Benjamin Pearce George M. Leader Family Corporation 30 Cherry Drive Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033 (717) 533-2474- George M. Leader G. Michael Leader Haskell Community Developers, 111 Riverside Avenue Suite 200 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (904) 791-4770 FAX: (904) 791-4699 Thomas R. Brennan Inc. · Integrated Health Services, Inc. * 11011 McCormick Road · Hunt Valley, Maryland 21031 (301) 5~-7~50 . . Robert N. Elkins (~ ~2 Timothy F. Nicholson Leimbach Development Corporationl P. O. Box 364 Millersville, Maryland 21108 (301) 768-6006 Ernest J. Litty Life Care Services Corporation 800 Second Avenue Des Moines, Iowa 50309 (515) 245-7650 FAX: (5!5) 245-7609 Stan Thurston Terry Ward David W. Beathard Mack Booher Longwood Group 1489 Baltimore Pike Suite 109 Springfield, Pennsylvania (215) 543-6440 FAX: (215) 543-8532 Anthony J. Mullen Frank A. Martin 19064 Manorhouse Management & Development, Inc. Post Office Box 29314 Ricrnmond, Virginia 23242 (804) 2~-7088 Kenneth ~ Newell, President McNickols & Associates, 5015 Williamson Road Roanoke, Virginia 24012 (703) 366-0622 Robert McNickols I nc. National Health Management, Inc.* 4415 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 (412) 578-7800 FAX: (412) 621-4780 Robert C. Lohr Thomas Grape National Healthcare Services, Inc. Box 12 Bear Creek, Pennsylvania 18602 (717) 829-0770 Charles L. Wilson National Corporation for Housing Partnersh Ii~c. 1225 Eye Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 347-6247 Kenneth H. Becker Oxford Retirement Service, 7316 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 300 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (301) 654-3100 FAX: (301) 907-2996 Thomas C. Lewis Keith N. Johannessen Parkside Senior Services Robert L. Clapp Mitzi Salemme Radnor Corporation 2 Radnor Corporate Center Suite 420 Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 (215) 293-6920 FAX: (215) 293-6946 Rudolf Hanisch Retirement Centers of America, Inc. 456 North East 291 Highway Lee's Summit, Missouri 64063-2932 (816) 524-4010 Emerson Hartzler Mark Turnbull ips Retirement Living Associates, 1800 Sawmill Road Raleigh, North Carolina 28655 (919) 848-7000 David Ammons, President Inc. Retirement Living Group 101 North Lynnhaven Road Virginfa'.-Beach, Virginia 23452 (800) 274-0101 FAX: (804) 498-5294 Vernon H. Baker Marc H. Benson Third Age, Inc.** 722 East Lincoln Highway Exton, Pennsylvania 19341-2873 (215) 594-8100 FAX: (215) 594-8105 James F. Standish, Jr., President Scott Townsend, Partner Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc.** 2775 South Quincy Street Suite 600 Arlington. Virginia 22206-2204 (703) 845-7500 FAX: (703) 379-8458 Gardner W. Van Scoyoc, President * Specific to Healthcare ** Primarily Consultants MANORHOUSE RETIREMENT CENTERS, INC. PRESENTATION TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY June 12, 1996 TAB 1 2. 3. 4. 5. Amended Proffer for University Village - October 7, 1987 University Village Proffer Schematic - October 7, 1987 Excerpt from September 16, 1987 Board of Supervisors Meeting Comparison of Landscaping and Recreation Areas Snow v. Amherst County Board of Zoning Appeals a. Case Summary b. Copy of Case - 248 Va. 404 (1994) Notestein v. Board of Supervisors of Appomattox County a. Case Summary b. Copy of Case - 240 Va. 146 (1990) Virginia Code §15.1-493 regarding preparation and adoptio~ of zoning ordinance and map and amendments thereto, and § 15.1-486 regarding zoning ordinances, respectively. a. Code Summary b. Copies of Code Presented by: Phyllis M. Rubinstein, Esc~ dire Mezzullo & McCandlish 1111 East Main Street Richmon(~ Virginia 23219 (804) 775-3814 AMENDED PROFFER FOR UNIVERSITY VILLAGE ~E TAX MAP 60, PARCEL 53 FORMER ZMA-82-11 Background: On October 20, 1982, the Board of Supervleors rezoned the above described property from R-1 to R-10 with a proffer made by the then owner. The current owner. University Village Limited Partnership, wishes to amend the proffer to allow a more orderly development of the property, to provide for bet%er preservation of the landscape and lessen impact on the surrounding properties. The entire proffer adopted on October 20, 1982 is hereby deleeed, and the following substituted therefor. Applicant hereby proffers: 1. The property will be developed for residential use as set Out in paragraph 2 below, designed primarily for retired or older persons, with eligibility for residents to be limited to persons 62 years of age or older, except a spouse, other ~elative or not more ~han one unrelated person living with s qualified rasident may be less than 62 years oK age and may Continue to be a resident even though such qualified person shall no longer be a resident. 2. ~he development of the property will be limited to a maximu~ of 260 residential units, plus service facilities which may include dining and recreational facilities, administrative offices, banking and other serv'ices for the resident~. 3. The buildings will not exceed the height limits established in paragraph 17.8 of the residential R-10 zoning district. Building~ road and parking areas will be confined and residential units and service facilities will be built essentially in accordance with the attached preliminary site development plan ~itled "University vi3Iage Proffer Schematic," dated October 7, 1987 (~xhibit A). and the balance of the site will be developed so aa to provide substantial natural or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site show~ as areas 1, 2 and ] on Exhlb~t A. Site development will include extensive landscaping, a network of walking paths and trails, gardens, outdoor activity areas and a ma~ entrance drive from Old Ivy Road. 4. The applicant is currently pursuing obtaining a Certificate of Need for ~ nursin9 care facility from the State Health Department. and if successful, may construct a nursing care facility on the property, or whether successful or not may construct a personal care facility for the aged. 5. In an effort to minimize traffic, a shuttle bus will be provided for the benefit of residents to give access to cultural aud social events, required retail and personal services. 6. Parking requirements for the residential Living units will be determined based on those requirements for multi-family dwellings for the e~derly, with a minimum of one parking place pe~ dwelling unit to be in the basement area of the buildings, in covered parking enclosures or in individual garages. Additional surface parking for gnests and employees will also be provided. UNIVERSITY VILLAGE LIMITED PAETN ERSH I P BY:~.W. ~eis~ma~ . General Partner 228 Comparison of Landscaping & Recreation Areas Existing Proffers Ama 3 Landscaping Area 4 Recreation 3.95 acres 2.40 acres TOTAL Designated for landscapin~ aha recreation 6.35 acres Proposed Proffers Manorhouse Assisted Living Facility Areas 3 & 4 5.4 acre site B[dg & Parking 1.7 acres Remaining acreage for 3.7 acres anascap~ng Designate Area 9 2.3 acres for L&R Area 8 left over & not develoeable) TOTAL Designated for landscaping & recreation 6.0 acres .40 acres 6.40 acres FACTS: SNOW v. AMHERST COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ~c Snows f~nd a 3+ acre p~cel of land w~ch ~ey desir~ W develop for reside~ pu~oses. ~e l~d w~ l~ated next to a co~e~afion zo~ created by a zo~ ord~e. ~t or~nce pro~bited com~cfion of a house on ~e ~d b~anse of ~ sha~ of ~ lot. Before pure~s~ ~e prope~, ~e Snows ~ught a vari~ce w~ch wo~d reduce ~c setback re~emem W bund ~e house on ~e l~d. T~c v~i~ w~ granted in 1989. Thc Snows ~em~er bou~t ~e pre~ for a~rox~tely $5.000 ~ paid bctw~n ~.000- $5,000 for a ~ey, for removal of t~s and under~o~. ~d for come,on of a g~vel road. ~ 1991_ ~e Co~ ~ended ~e zc~ng oranges ~ such a way as m prohibit ~e b~ld~g of a house on ~ Snows' pro~. T~ Snows again s~t a v~nce. It was de~. The Snows bsu~ht mit. LEGAL HOLDING: To demonstrate that one has a vested property right in a particular land use. the landowner must (1) identify a significant official governmental act that is manifested by the issuance of a permit or other approval authorizing the landowner to conduct a use on kis property, such use wkich would not otherwise be allowed, (2) establish that he has diligenuy pursued the use authorized by the government permit or approval, and (3) show that he has incurred substantial expense in good faith prior to the change in zon~g. Proof of each of these elements is essential. One does noz acquire vested property rights merely by showing a significant official goveramental act and reliance thereon. The grant of a variance is not a significant official governmental act APPLICATION: The Court ruled that the Snows had no vested property rigla at issue becanse e~ere reliance on the zoulngjzl~_sifica_gon was insufficient. Further. the Snows could not identify any significant official governnfdfita-I act, for the granting of a variance is not such an act. 404 Snow v. Amherst County Bd. of Zoning Appeals 248 Va. 404 (1994) JAMES H. SNOW, ET AL. AMHERST COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Record No. 931613 September 16, 1994 Present: All the Justices The trial court correctly determined that petitioning land- owners had not acquired a vested property right to use their land in the manner described by a variance before the zoning changed, and that judgment is affirmed. Zoning -- Variances -- Real Property -- Vested Rights -- Setbacks -- Governmental Acts A couple acquired a long, narrow piece of property located adjacent to a conser- vation zone subject to an ordinance which specified that no structure might be located within 200 feet of-such zone and this prohibition effectively pre- cluded construction of a house on the property. In 1989 the county beard of zoning appeals granted a variance that reduced the setback requirement and the landowners expended considerable sums to prepare for construction. Two years later the county enacted amendments to the zoning ordinance which made it impossible for the landowners to build a structure anywhere on the land. The landowners filed a request for a variance from the new zoning ordinance, which was denied. The landowners filed a petition in the circuit court requesting a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the board of zoning appeals. The trial.court held that the landowners had failed to show that the decision of the beard was plainly wrong and that they did not have a vested property right in usage permitted under the variance granted in 1989 because they failed to construct a residence on the parcel before the zoning ordinance was amended. The landowners appeal. 1. The test, articulated in other cases, is that where a special use permit has been granted under a zoning classification, a bens fide site plan has been filed and pursued, and substantial expense incurred in good faith before a change in the zoning, the permittee has a vested right to the land use de- scribed in the use permit and cannot be deprived of such use by subsequent legislation. 2. A landowner must show a significant official governmental act that is mani- fested by the issuance of a permit or other approval and establish diligent pursuit of the use authorized by the permit or approval and that substantial expense has been incurred before a change in zoning. 3. The grant of the 1989 variance was not a significant official governmental act within the meaning the established precedent and mere reliance on a f 5 VI b h ( ; Appeals ~PPEALS and- ~se '~ the ~ --Setbac~ -- ~ent to a conser- ~ structure might n effectively pre- ~ ~"~,ty board of ~, ;emcnt and for construction. zoning ordinance ~eture anywhere :e from the now a petition in the : decision of the ,wners had failed nd that they did ier the variance ,ce on the parcel ~ appeal. I use permit has e plan has been d faith before a he land use de- e by subsequent et that is mani- stablish diligent that substantial tl governmental ~ reliance on a Snow v. Amherst County Bd. of Zoning Appeals 405 248 Va. 404 (1994) 4.. particular zoning classification, whether created by ordinance or variance, creates no vested right in a property owner. A variance is simply an authorized deviation from zoning requirements be- cause of special characteristics of a particular property and the grant of a variance cannot confer upon a landowner greater rights than could be af- forded by the enactment of a zoning ordinance. A landowner whose property is subject to a zoning ordinance must identify a significant governmental act and the grant of a variance by the board of zoning appeals is not the type of significant governmental act required by legal precedent. - ........ Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Amherst County. Hon. J. Michael Gamble, judge presiding. Affirmed. James O. Watts, IV (Bernard C. Baldwin, III; R. Edwin Bur- nette, Jr.; Edmunds and Williams, on briefs), for appellants. W. Edward Meeks, III, County Attorney for appellee. JUSTICE HASSELL delivered the opinion of the Court. In this appeal, we consider whether landowners have obtained a vested property right to use their land in the manner described by the terms of a zoning variance. In 1989, James H. and Mary C. Snow wanted to buy and de- velop for residential purposes a 3.76-acre parcel of land (the par- cel) in Amherst County. The parcel is surrounded on three sides by property owned by Amherst County. The County's property had been developed as a watershed lake and is known as Mill Creek Reservoir. The parcel is also located adjacent to a conservation zone cre- ated by a zoning ordinance, which prohibited construction within 200 feet of a conservation zone. This prohibition effectively pre- cluded the construction of a house on the property due to the shape of the lot. Accordingly, before purchasing the property, the Snows applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals of Amherst County (the BZA) for a variance reducing the minimum setback requirement from 200 to 120 feet. That variance was granted in 1989. Thereafter, the Snows purchased the parcel for approximately $5,000 and expended between $4,000 and $5,000 to survey the 406 Snow v. Amherst County Bd. of Zoning Appeals 248 Va. 404 (1994) parcel, remove trees and undergrowth, and construct a gravel road. In November 1991, the Board of Supervisors amended the County's zoning and subdivision ordinances m include the Mill Creek Reservoir and the Snows' parcel in the watershed district. This amendment proscribes the location of structures, on-site sew- age systems, and drain fields or reserve drain fields within 350 feet of the normal pool elevation of a water suppby reservoir. The amendments effectively prohibit construction of a residence any- where on the parcel. The Snows filed a request for a variance from the 1991 zoning ordinance amendments. The BZA denied the Snows' request. The Snows filed a petition in the circuit court, pursuant to Code § 15.1-497, requesting a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the BZA. During the proceedings in the circuit court, the Snows and the BZA requested that the court decide what they believed was the dispositive issue in this case: whether the Snows had obtained a vested right to use the property in the manner permitted by the variance. The trial court held that the Snows failed to show that the decision of the BZA was plainly wrong and that it was "abun- dantly clear that the adoption of the Watershed District by Am- herst County in 1991 was intended to protect the Mill Creek Res- ervoir watershed." The court also held that the Snows do not have a vested property right in usage permitted under the 1989 vari- ance because they failed to construct a residence on the parcel before the zoning ordinance was. amended. We awarded the Snows an appeal. The Snows argue that they acquired a vested property right to use their land in the manner described by the variance because, they say, the BZA's act of granting a variance constituted a sig- nificant official act upon which the Snows relied.* The BZA, how- ever, asserts that the Snows do not have a vested property right. We agree with the BZA. [ 1 ] We have repeatedly and consistently stated and applied the test that we use to determine whether a landowner has obtained a vested right in a land use classification. In Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Medical Structures, Inc., 213 Va. 355, 192 S.E.2d 799 (1972), the County Board of Zoning Appeals issued a sp~ pe nil M ra of Ce ac st: 2 2 v 1 $ * We find no merit in the Board of Supervisors' contention that the Snows' arguments are not within the scope of their assignment of error. ,r~'als Snow v. Amherst County Bd. of Zoning Appeals 407 248 Va. 404 (1994) ct a gravel mended the de the Mill ,heat district. on-site sew- bin 350 feet ;ervoir. The idence any- 3,991 zoning 'equest. The nt to Code the decision ~ws and the ~%d was the obtained a t~l~ by the : w that was "abun- ict by Am- ~'~reek Res- do not have 1989 vari- the parcel t the Snows ~y right to ce because, uted a sig- BZA, how- ?erty right. applied the obtained a ~upervisors ~ 355, 192 ds issued a ~rguments special use permit to Medical Structures' predecessor in title. The permit allowed Medical Structures' predecessor to construct a nursing home on its property. After purchasing the property, Medical Structures expended $247,500 in development and prepa- ration of the site plans, which were a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit. The County notified Medical Structures that certain zoning amendments, enacted after Medical Structures had acquired the property, prohibited approval of its site plan. We stated: [W]here, as here, a special use permit has been granted under a zoning classification, a bona fide site plan has there- after been filed and diligently pursued, and substantial ex- pense has been incurred in good faith before a change in zon- ing, the permittee then has a vested right to the land use described in the use permit and he cannot be deprived of such use by subsequent legislation. 213 Va. at 358, 192 S.E.2d at 801. We have applied this test in Holland v. Board of Supervisors of Franklin County, 247 Va. 286, 290, 441 S.E.2d 20, 22 (1994); Town of Stephens City v. Russell, 241 Va. 160, 163, 399 S.E.2d 814, 815 (1991); Notestein v. Board of Supervisors of Appomattox County, 240 Va. 146, 151, 393 S.E.2d 205, 208 (1990); and Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Cities Service Oil Co., 213 Va. 359, 362, 193 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1972). [2] We reject the Snows' contention that a landowner may ac- quire a vested property right in a particular land use merely by showing a significant official governmental act and reliance thereon. Rather, as we have stated in each of the aforementioned cases, a landowner who seeks to establish a vested property right in a land use classification must identify a significant official gov- ernmental act that is manifested by the issuance of a permit or other approval authorizing the landowner to conduct a use on his property that otherwise would not have been allowed. Addition- ally, and equally important, our test requires that the landowner establish that he has diligently pursued the use authorized by the government permit or approval and incurred substantial expense in good faith prior to the change in zoning. A landowner, who seeks to assert a vested property right, must establish all these elements. ,il 408 Snow v. Amherst County Bd. of Zoning Appeals 248 Va. 404 (1994) [3] On each occasion in which we have considered whether a landowner had acquired a vested property right to a particular land use, we have held, among other things, that the property owner must identify a significant official governmental act that would permit the landowner to conduct a use on his property that otherwise would not have been allowed. For example, in Medical Structures and Cities Service, we held that the landowners had acquired vested rights in their respective land uses because gov- ernmental entities had issued special use permits to them, and the landowners had complied with the other legal requirements neces- sary for the establishment of a vested right. By contrast, in Notestein, Town of Stephens City, and Holland, we held that the landowners had not obtained vested property rights because they failed to show that a governmental entity had committed a significant official act, manifested by the issuance of a permit or other approval authorizing the landowner to engage m a specific use that otherwise would not have been allowed. [4-5] Contrary to the Snows' assertion, the grant of a variance is not a significant official governmental act within the meaning of our established' precedent. The mere reliance on a particular zon- ing classification, whether created by ordinance or variance, cre- ates no vested right in a property owner. A variance is simply an authorized deviation from zoning requirements because of special characteristics of a particular property. The grant of a variance cannot confer upon a landowner greater rights than could be af- forded by the enactment of a zoning ordinance. Accordingly, we conclude that the BZA's grant of a variance is not the type of significant governmental act required by our prece- dent. Thus, we need not consider whether the Snows established the remaining elements of the test that we articulated in Medical Structures. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court. Affirmed. JUSTICE STEPHENSON, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. The majority correctly states the elements that a landowner must prove to establish a vested property right. I submit that, in the present case, the Snows have proven the requisite elements. S Coll granti Board varian board' appea Bros. More~ unless of lay consti duct ~ allow~ findin the w · ~o tht Fir lady wortl this ( agric Ac avoid a ar ~y at al :y d ~f 2;l Snow v. Amherst County Bd. of Zoning Appeals 409 248 Va. 404 (1994) Contrary to the majority's conclusion, I would hold that the granting of a variance is a "significant official governmental act." Boards of zoning appeals are authorized and empowered to grant variances pursuant to statute, Code §§ 15.1-495 to -496.1, and a board's decision to grant a variance is presumed to be correct on appeal to a circuit court. Board of Zoning Appeals v. Glasser Bros. Corp., 242 Va. 197, 200, 408 S.E.2d 895, 897 (1991). Moreover, a board's decision cannot be overturned by the court unless it is plainly wrong or the board applied erroneous principles of law. Id. Also, I would hold that the granting of the variance constituted an "other approval authorizing [the Snows] to con- duct a use on [their] property that otherwise would not have been allowed." (Emphasis added.) Additionally, the record supports a finding that the Snows diligently pursued the use authorized by the variance and incurred substantial expense in good faith prior to the zoning amendments. Finally, I think the result reached by the majority is particu- larly harsh because it leaves the Snows with land that is virtually worthless. The BZA's attorney conceded in oral argument before this Court that the only use the Snows can make of this land is for agricultural purposes. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court's judgment and avoid this harsh result. NOTESTEIN v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF APPOMATTOX COUNTY FACTS: The Notesteins owned 600 acres of land in Appomattox County. Across the street from their property was a landfill owned by the County. Tlse Notesteins sought to lmve the zomng changed m allow them to use 300 of the acres for landfill purposes, q[hey sent an application to Virginia Department of Waste Management. The County informed that Department of unspecified objections; however, the County also asked the Deparmaant to condncr an on-site evaluation of the land. After so doing, the Department determined that the land was suitable for landfill uses. No ordinance prohibited the County from issuing a permit for the plaintiffs to use the land as they desired. In fact. the County Administrator. who also served as zoning administrator, advised the Notesteins that the County had no legal basis to prevent the operation of a landfill Relying on these statements, the Notesteins obtained financing for the project. They also rejected several offers for the purchase of the land. Prior m plans to use the properff, as a landfill, offers for the property had approximated $400 per acre. Afterward. the offers were as high as $3000 per acre. In July of 1988. the Notesteins learned from a newspaper article that the Board of Supervisors was considering the adoption of a new zoning orthmnce. They discussed the proposal with each individual Board member and the County Administrator. The Notesteins were assured that any zoning change would not affect their ability to develop the landfill. Nevertheless. in August of 1988. the Board adopted a zoning ordinance which, in essence, prohibited the Notesteins from operating a landfill mi their property. The Notesteins sued. LEGAL HOLDING: Estoppel is aot applicable to governmental entities in the performance of governmental functions A landowner does not have a vested right in a zoning classification unless (ll A governmental entity has committed a significant official act. such as the issuance of a permit which allowed the permittee to conduct a "use" on the property which otherwise would not have been allowed AND (2) The ownor thcurred substantial expense in good faith before the zoning APPLICATION: The Court found that the Notesteins had no vested interest in the zoning because they failed to identify a significant official governmental act. The Court. following well-settled precedent, suled that the Board could not be estopped from enacting the zoning ordinance, because estoppel is not applicable to governmental entities in the performance of governmental functions. 146 Notestein v. Board of Sup. of Appomattox Cty. 240 Va. 146 (1990) JOHN A. NOTESTEIN, ET AL. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF APPOMATTOX COUNTY, ET AL. Record No. 891258 June 8, 1990 Present: All the Justices In a zoning case involving a private landfill, the trial court properly sustained the county's demurrer to the allegation that it had waived its right to object as provided in the Code. The county did not have a zoning ordinance when it was notified of the application and it cannot be deemed to have waived its right to object to the issuance of a permit because of that. The judgment of the trial court is af- firmed to the extent that it dismissed the landowners' claims of vested rights, estoppel, and waiver. The plaintiffs will be allowed to prosecute their claims that the county's refusal to place their land within the same zoning classifi- cation as the county's landfill was unwarranted, arbitrary and capricious, and that the ordinance was enacted in vio- lation of Code ~ 15.1-493(C). Cities, Counties and Towns -- Zoning -- Landfills -- Ordinances -- Statu- tory ConstrUertiOn -- Code § 15.1-493(C1 -- Practice and Procedure -- De- partment of Waste Management -- Vested Rights -- Waiver Plaintiffs own a large tract of land across from the county operated landfill. In February, 1988. they filed an application with the Virginia Department of Waste Management for a permit to construct and operate a landfill on half of the tract. The Department notified the county of the application and ad- vised it that it was required to inform the Department whether the proposed site was consistent with the county's zoning ordinance. The county objected, generally, and decided to conduct a public hearing. The Department evalu- ated the site and notified the landowners that portions of their property were suitable for a landfill and advised them to proceed with the necessary techni- cal studies. When the county board of supervisors had a regularly scheduled meeting, the plaintiffs attended and found that no county ordinance existed which would prohibit a permit being issued to them. The county administra- tor. who is also its zoning administrator, advised the plaintiffs that the county had no legal basis for preventing the operation of the landfill. Plain- tiffs relied upon these statements and secured financing for the development of the landfill. The board conducted a public hearing on a proposed amend- ment to the county's solid waste disposal ordinance. The amendment was enacted and imposed a license tax on landfills in the county. The county mattox Cry. ~ OF trial court allegation ~ed tn the rce when it deemed to f a permit ~ plaintiffs ~',county's lg classifi- arbitrary te~io- - Ordinances -- Statu- nd Procedure -- De- -~Vaiver ty operated landfill. In 'irginia Department of ,erate a landfill on half he application and ad- 3~whether the proposed ,'. 'The county objected. ['he Department evalu- of their property were h the necessary techni- I a regularly scheduled unty ordinance existed 'he county administra- '~..e plaintiffs that the i of the landfill. Plain- ~g for the development on a proposed amend- The amendment was e county. The county Notestein v. Board of Sup. of Appomattox Cty. 147 240 Va. 146 (1990) planning commission and board of supervisors adopted a zoning ordinance which created numerous zoning classifications including an "environmental hazard District.' The plaintiffs' property was placed in an agricultural clas- sification in which a landfill is not a permitted use. The county advised the Department that operation of a landfill on the plaintiffs' property was incon- sistent with the zoning ordinance, and requested that the Department deny the application for a landfill. The plaintiffs filed suit and asked the court to declare the zoning ordinance null and void on the basis that it was enacted in violation of Code § 15.1-493(C); that the plaintiffs' right to operate a landfill was vested and the county was equitably estopped from prohibiting plaintiffs from operating a landfill, that the classification of their property was arbitrary and capricious and that the county had waived its right to object to the issuance of a permit. The county filed a demurrer which was sustained by the court and the plaintiffs appeal. 1. Where a special use permit has been granted under a zoning classification, a bona fide site plan has thereinafter been filed and diligently pursued, and substantial expense has been incurred in good faith before a change in zon- ing, the perr~ittce then has a vested right to the land use described in the use permit and cannot be deprived of such use by subsequent legislation. 2. Where, after a special use permit had been issued for a gas station and a beard changed the zoning classification of the property to a use which did not permit the erection of the gas station, the owners of the property had a vested right to develop the property as permitted by the special use permit. 3. In beth those cases, a governmental entity had ~ommitted a significant offi- cial act by the issuance of a permit which allowed the permittee to conduct a '"use" on its property which otherwise would not have been allowed: here the plaintiffs did not identify a significant official governmental act to sup- port their claim of a vested property right. 4. The board cannot be estopped from enacting a zoning ordinance which pro- hibits the plaintiffs from operating a landfill because estoppel does not apply to the government in the discharge of its governmental functions. The trial court did not err when it sustained the county's demurrer to the plaintiffs' claims of vested rights and equitable estoppel. 5. Code § 15.1-493(C) provides that no land may be zoned to a more intensive use classification than was contained in the public notice without an addi- tional public hearing after the statutorily required notice. 6. That section does not require that the governing body conduct a second pub- lic hearing when property is placed in a less intensive use zoning classifica- tion than was contained in the notice of the public hearing because any person interested in preventing the less intensive use Would or should be present at the hearing for a more intensive use. 7. If the plaintiffs are able to prove that the board was required to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of the code and failed to do so. then the zoning ordinance would be invalid. 148 Notestein v. Board of Sup. of Appomattox Cty. 240 Va. 146 (1990) 8. The trial court erred because it granted the demurrer on the basis that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies. A zomng ordinance is invalid if adopted in violation of Code § 15.1-493(C) and plaintiffs are not required to pursue administrative remedies but have standing to proceed di- rectly to court to seek redress. 9. The county did not have a zoning ordinance on the date the department was notified of the plaintiffs' application and cannot be deemed to have wmved as right to object to the issuance of a permit because no zoning ordinance existed at the time of the required certification. Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appomattox County. Hon. John R. Snoddy, Jr., judge presiding. Affirmed in part', reversed in part, and remanded. Brian L. Buniva (Kelly, Lewis & Buniva, on brief), for appellants. Robert T. Billingsley (Charles F. Witthoefft; Peter L. Trible; Gary L. Kessler: Hirschler, Fleischer, Weinberg, Cox & Allen. on brief), for appellees. JUSTICE HASSELL delivered the opinion of the court. This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court sustaimng a demurrer filed by the Board of Supervisors of Appomattox County and Dennis Gragg, the County Administrator, (collec- tively, the Board) to a bill of complaint filed by John and Lois Notestein. The Notesteins challenged the validity of a zoning ordi- nance that prohibited them from developing and operating a non- hazardous solid waste landfill in Appomattox County. The Notesteins alleged the following facts in their bill of com- plaint, which must be considered true at this stage of the proceed- ings. The Notesteins own 600 acres of land on State Route 632 in Appomattox County. The County operates a landfill across the road from the Notesteins' property. In February, 1988, the Notes- teins filed an application for a permit with the Virginia Depart- ment of Waste Management (the Department) to construct and operate a landfill on 300 acres of their property. The Department notified the County of the Notesteins' applica- tion and advised it by letter dated February 17, 1988. that the Notestein v. Board of Sup. of Appomattox Cty. 240 Va. 146 (1990) 149 the basis that ~g ordinance is iaintiffs are not ; to proceed di- tepartment was to have waived ~ning ordinance ~.ppomattox ,~d in part, d in part, handed. brief), for ?r,~". Trible; · .lien, on uurt. .rt sustaining Appomattox ~tor, (cotlec- ~ n and Lois ~z~oning ordi- rating a non- ¢. bill of com- the proceed- Route 632 in ~ across the 8. the Notes- ~inia Depart- 'onstruct and eins' applica- ~88. that the County was required to inform the Department whether the pro, posed site of the landfill was consistent with the County's zoning ordinance. The letter also notified the County that its failure to respond within thirty days would be deemed a waiver of any ob- jection the County might have to the issuance of a permit. The County notified the Department by letter dated March 14, 1988 of unspecified objections to the issuance of a permit. The County also informed the Department of the County}a intention to conduct a public hearing and asked the Department to evaluate the proposed site before the hearing. The Department considered the County's letter and conducted an on-site evaluation of the pro- posed location. The Department notified the Notesteins that por- tions of their property were suitable for a landfill and advised them to proceed with the necessary hydrogeological and geo- technical studies. On April 8, 1988, the Notesteins attended a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. The meeting's minutes indicate}t that no ordinance existed that would have prohibited the issuance of a permit to the Notesteins. The Board asked the Appomattox County Commonwealth's Attorney to request that the Depart- ment conduct a public hearing on the Notesteins' application. The Department refused to do so. The County Administrator, who also serves as its zoning admin- istrator, advised the Notesteins that the County had no legal basis upon which to limit the source of waste to be received at the land- fill or to prevent the operation of the landfill. The Notesteins, rely- ing in good faith upon statements of the Board and County Ad- ministrator, secured financing for the development of the landfill. During the mouths of May and June, 1988, the Notesteins re- ceived several offers for the purchase of their land. Some of the offers were as high as $3,000 per acre for 250 acres of their prop- erty. Previously, the Notesteins had received offers for the purchase of their property for approximately $400 per acre. Thus, 250 acres of the Notesteins' land which had been valued at ap- proximately $100,000 for agricultural use was worth $750,000 for use as a landfill. The Notesteins rejected these offers. The Notes- teins executed a written agreement with private investors to secure additional financing. The Board conducted a public hearing on a proposed amend- ment to the County's solid waste disposal ordinance. The County Administrator informed the Notesteins that the purpose of the 150 Notestein v. Board of Sup. of Appomattox Cty. 240 Va. 146 (1990) amendment was to generate tax revenue. The proposed amend- ment, which was enacted, imposed a license fee upon the opera- tion of landfills located in the County. In July, 1988, the Notesteins learned from an article in a local newspaper that the Board was considering the adoption of a new zoning ordinance. The Notesteins discussed this proposed action with individual Board members and the County Administrator. The Notesteins were assured that any zoning ordinance which might be enacted would not affect their ability to develop and op- erate a landfill. The County planning commission and the Board conducted a public hearing on August 18, 1988. On August 22, 1988, the Board adopted a zoning ordinance which created numerous zoning classifications, including agricultural classifications and an "envi- ronmental hazard district" classification. The Notesteins' property was placed in an agricultural classification in which a landfill is not a permitted use. The County's landfill was placed in the enw- ronmental hazard classification in which landfills are permitted by special use permit. After the enactment of the zoning ordinance, the County sent a letter to the director of the Department and informed her of the newly enacted ordinance. The County advised the Department that operation of a landfill on the Notesteins' property was now inconsistent with the County's zoning ordinance, and requested that the Department deny the Notesteins' application. The Notesteins filed this suit and asked that the court declare the zoning ordinance null and void on the basis that it was en- acted in violation of Code § 15.1-493(C); that the County's re- fusal to place the Notesteins' property within the same zoning classification as the County's landfill was unwarranted, arbitrary, and capricious; that the Notesteins' right to operate a landfill was vested and the County was equitably estopped from prohibiting the Notesteins from developing and operating the landfill; and that the County had waived its right to object to the issuance of the permit. The Notesteins also requested that the court enjoin the County from taking any action which might interfere with ei- ther the issuance of the permit or result in enforcement of the zoning ordinance. The County filed a demurrer which was sus- tained by the court. The Notesteins argue that the trial court erred when it sus- tained the County's demurrer on the basis that the Notesteins ~, ~ox Cty. te proposed amend- fee upon the opera- ,An article in a local : adoption of a new his proposed action mty Administrator. ~g ordinance which - to develop and op- Board conducted a gust 22. 1988, the :d numerous zoning tions and an "envi- qotesteins' property ~.which a landfill is placed in the envi- ls are permitted by .... County sent a nformed her of the ~! the Department property was now me, and requested lication. t the court declare sis that it was eh- & the County's re- ~ the same zoning rranted, arbitrary, :rate a landfill was t from prohibiting : the landfill; and ~to the issuance of ~ the court enjoin · interfere with ~forcement of the ~'r which was sus- fred when it sus- the Notesteins Notestein v. Board of Sup. of Appomattox Cty. 151 240 Va. 146 (1990) failed to allege sufficient facts to support their claims of vested rights and equitable estoppel. The Notesteins alleged the following facts in support of these claims: members of the Board advised them that the permit would be granted if they complied with all applicable state and federal waste regulations; the Board in- structed the Appomattox County Commonwealth's Attorney m re- quest that the Department conduct a public hearing on the Notes- teins' application; the County Administrator advised the Notesteins that the County had no legal basis to prevent the Notesteins from constructing and operating a landfill; they, in good faith reliance upon the County's statements, executed writ- ten agreements with private investors to obtain capital to finance and operate the landfill; they rejected offers of $3,000 per acre for the sale of their land when previously they had received offers of approximately $400 per acre; they retained engineers to assist with geotechnical and hydrogeological studies of their property; and individual members of the Board assured them that they would be allowed to operate a landfill on their property if a new zoning ordinance was enacted. [1] We have discussed the legal requirements which are neces- sary to create a vested property right in a zoning classification in Fairfax County v. Medical Structures, 213 Va. 355, 192 S.E.2d 799 (1972), and Fairfax County v. Cities Service, 213 Va. 359, 193 S.E.2d 1 (1972). In Medical Structures, the county board of zomng appeals issued a special use permit to Medical Structures' predecessor in title, allowing it to construct a nursing home on its property. The board of supervisors amended the zoning ordinance after the special use permit had been issued. The amended ordi- nance did not allow Medical Structures to operate a nursing home. Medical Structures, in good faith reliance upon the special use permit, incurred considerable expenses in the development and preparation of site plans and bond costs. Medical Structures, 213 Va. at 356-57, 192 S.E.2d at 800-01. This Court held: [W]here... a special use permit has been granted under a zoning classification, a bona fide site plan has thereinafter been filed and diligently pursued, and substantial expense has been incurred in good faith before a change in zoning, the permittee then has a vested right to the land use described in the use permit and he cannot be deprived of such use by sub- sequent legislation. 152 Notestein v. Board of Sup. of Appomattox Cty. 240 Va. 146 (1990) Id. at 358, 192 S.E.2d at 801. [2] In Cities Service, the county board of zoning appeals issued a special use permit to City Engineering and Development Com- pany, Cities Service's predecessor in title. The special use permit authorized Cities Service to erect a gasoline station on its prop- erty. After the permit had been issued, the board changed the zoning classification of the property to a use which did not permit the erection of a gasoline station. We held that Cities Service had a vested right to develop its property as permitted by the special use permit because of the principles which we articulated in Med- ical Structures. Cities Service, 213 Va. at 362, 193 S.E.2d at 3. See Medical Structures, 213 Va. at 358, 192 S.E.2d at 801. [3-4] In both cases, a governmental entity had committed a sig- nificant official act: the issuance of a permit which allowed the permittee to conduct a "use" on its property which otherwise would not have been allowed. Unlike the landowners in Medical Structures or Cities Service, the Notesteins did not identify a sig- nificant official governmental act to support their claim of a vested property right. Additionally, the Board cannot be estopped from enacting a zoning ordinance which prohibits the Notesteins from operating a landfill because "[e]stoppel does not apply to the gov- ernmem in the discharge of its governmental functions." Gwinn v. Alward, 235 Va. 616, 621, 369 S.E.2d 410, 413 (1988)(citations omitted). Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it sustained the County's demurrer to the Notesteins' claims of vested rights and equitable estoppel. The Notesteins argue that the trial court erred when it sus- tained the demurrer because their bill of complaint alleged that the Board failed to comply with Code § 15.1-493(C), which states: Before approving and adopting any zoning ordinance or amendment thereof, the governing body shall hold at least one public hearing thereon, pursuant to public notice as re- quired by § 15.1-431, after which the governing body may make appropriate changes or corrections in the ordinance or proposed amendment. However, no land may be zoned to a more intensive use classification than was contained in the public notice without an additional public hearing after no- tice required by ~ 15.1-431. Such ordinances shall be en- acted in the same manner as all other ordinances. attox Cty. lng appeals issued )evelopment Corn- special use permit ation on its prop- oard changed the %h did not permit Cities Service had ted by the special rticulated in Med- , 193 S.E.2d at 3. ~.E.2d at 801. ~ committed a sig- which allowed the ~ which otherwise ~wners in Medical not identify a sig- r claim of a vested ~be estopped from ~e Notesteins from t~t~ly ~,o the gov- .,~f~' ~(as. Gwinn v. .3 t ~988)(citations r when it sustained ~s of vested rights :rred when it sus- plaint alleged that 5.1-493(C), which ng ordinance or all hold at least ~lic notice as re- rnmg body may the ordinance or ~u be zoned to a bontained in the ~eanng after no- ces shall be en- lances. Notestein v. Board of Sup. of Appomattox Cty. 153 240 Va. 146 (1990) (Emphasis added.) The Notesteins alleged that the County v~o- lated Code § 15.1-493(C) because its landfill was placed in a more intensive use classification than was contained in the public notice of the August 18, 1988 hearing. The Board contends that the zoning ordinance permits a variety of uses within agricultural classifications whereas "no uses are permitted by right" in the environmental hazard district. Thus, the Board argues that, by definition, the environmental hazard district is the most restrictive and least intensive classification within the County. [5-6] Code § 15.1-493(C) does not require that the governing body conduct a second public hearing when property is placed in a less intensive use zoning classification than was contained in the notice of the public hearing. "This is because as a practical matter any citizen interested in preventing the less intensive use would or should be present to be heard at the hearing on the request for the more intensive use." Fairfax County v. Pyles, 224 Va. 629, 637, 300 S.E.2d 79, 83 (1983). [7-8] The Notesteins alleged in their bill of complaint that the County's landfill was placed in a more intensive classification than was contained in the notice of public hearing. We are unable to discern from the bill of complaint whether the County's zoning ordinance placed its landfill in a more or less intensive use classifi- cation. If the Notesteins are able to prove that the Board was re- quired to comply with the mandatory notice requirements speci- fied in Code § I5.1-493 and failed to do so, then the zoning ordinance would be invalid. See Town of Vinton v. Falcun Corp., 226 Va. 6Z 306 S.E.2d 867 (1983). The Notesteins also argue that the trial court erred because it granted the demurrer on the basis that they failed to exhaust ad- ministrative remedies. We agree. The Notesteins alleged that the zoning ordinance is invalid because it was adopted in violation of Code § 15.1-493(C). If the Notesteins are correct, they are not required to pursue administrative remedies created by an invalid ordinance. Under these circumstances, the landowners have "standing to proceed directly to court to seek redress of this un- lawful act." Rinker v. City of Fairfax, 238 Va. 24, 29, 381 S.E.2d 215, 218 (1989). The Notesteins next argue that the County waived its objections to the issuance of their application for a permit because the County failed to notify the Department as required by Code 154 Notestein v. Board of Sup. of Appomattox Cty. 240 Va. 146 (1990) § 10.1-1408.1(B)t Former Code § 10-271(A) (which was re- pealed and the substance of which was later incorporated in Code § 10.1-1408.1) required that the director of the Department no- tify the locality in which a proposed landfill was to be located, upon receipt of an application for a permit to operate a landfill. A county was then required to certify to the Department that the site of the proposed landfill was consistent with its zoning ordi- nances. A county's failure to provide such certification within thirty days was deemed a waiver of any objections that it might have had to the issuance of a permit on the basis of a conflict with local ordinances. [9] The trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the Notesteins' allegations that the County waived its right to object as provided in former Code § 10-271(A). The County did not have a zoning ordinance on the date the Department notified it of the Notesteins' application. The County cannot be deemed to have waived its right to object m the issuance of a permit because no zoning ordinance existed at the time of the required certification. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed to the extent that it dismissed the Notesteins' claims of vested rights, estoppel, and waiver? The Notesteins will be allowed to prosecute their claims that the County's refusal to place their property within the same zoning classification as the County's landfill was unwar- ranted, arbitrary and capricious, and that the ordinance was en- acted in violation of Code § 15.1-493(C). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. ' At the time of this controversy, Code § 10.1-1408.1(B) (1988 Cum. Supp.) stated in part: "failure of the county.., to provide notification within the thirty day period shall constitute a waiver of the governing body's objections to the issuance of a [~ermit which are based on conflict with a local ordinance." ~ The Notesteins argued that the trial court abused its discretion because the final order. which sustained the County's demurrer, dismissed the bill of complaint with prejudice and did not grant the Notesteins' leave to amend. We do not decide this issue bemuse we will remand this suit for further proceedings. VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 15.1-493 Section 15.1-493 clearly anticipates the amendment of zoning ordinances by county boards. Indeed, it is entitled "Preparai~on and adoption of zordn~ ordinance and nu~ and a~mendments thereto; appeal." Subsection A of the statute says that ' It]he planning comn4ission of each county or municipality may, and at the direction of the governing body shall, prepare a proposed zoning ordinance." VA. CODE AblN. § 15.1-493(A) (Emplmsis added). Generally, a Board may amend the zorung ordinance if it first refers the proposed amendment to the local commission for recommendation. The Board must also hold at least one public hearing on the proposed amendment after providh-~g appropriate notice thereabout. VA. CODE AWN. § 15.1-493 (B)~(D). Tiffs statute makes clear that Boards of Supervisors have discretion to change zoning ordinances They need only comply with procedural requisites set forth in the smm~e. § 15.1-492 COUNTIES, CITIES AND TOWNS § 15.1-493 as may be determined by the designee of the governing body for the affordable dwelling units, exclusive of the cost of land acquisition and cost voluntarily incurred but not authorized by the ordinance, upon the sale of an affordable dwelling unit. (1990, c. 834; 1991, c. 599; 1992, c. 244; 1993, c. 437; 1994, cc. 88, 679.) The 1991 amendment rewrote subsection A; in subsection B inserted ~or, at the discretion of the local governing body, site plan or subdi- vision plat~ in subdivision 2. added subdivision 3, redesignated former subdivision 3 as present subdivision 4 and inserted "up to~ and 'of the density orr in present subdivision 4, redesig- nated former subdivisions 4 through 11 as present subdivisions 5 through 12, in presen~ subdivision 5, substituted ~B 4" for ~B 3~ and added the language beginning ~unlese reduced by the twenty to twelve" a~ the end of the subdivision, rewroto present subdivision 6, in present subdivision 7, substituted "B 6~ for ~B 5" and added the second sentence, inserted %r the letter's designee" near the beginning of subdivision 11, added the subdivision designa- tion "13~ preceding "The salce~ and, in subdivi~ sion 13, inserted "and rental~ in the first sen- tonce and inserted ~fer sales untte" in the second sentence, added subdivision 14, and radasignated former subdivisions 12 through 16 as present subdivisions 15 through 19. The 1992 amendment, in the first sentence ofsubsectionA, deleted rand" following '45,000~ in clause Iv), and inserted "and (vii) countice that have a population of moce than 34,600 but Ices than 36.000." The 1993 amendment substituted "require- ment" for ~prowsion requlrlng~ throughout this section; in subsection A, in the first sentence, deleted 'and~ preceding the clause (vii)desig- nation, and inserted ~and (viii) counties that have s population of more than 45.700 but less than 45,800"; in subsection B, in subdivision 9, deleted ~e prevision giving' preceding ~a local housing authority," and inserted ~te have,~ in subdivision 10, deleted 'a provision giving," preceding "a local housing authorityf and in- serted ~te have," deleted former subdivision 13 relat'mg to %cenomic iossf redesignated former subdivisions 14 through 17 as present subdivi- sions 13 through 16, substituted ~provide~ for %hall previde~ in present subdivision 16; added subsection C; and redceignated former subdivi- sions B 18 and 19 as present subsections D and E respectively. The 1994 amendments. -- The 1994 amendment by c. 88 rewrote this section. The 1994 amendment by c. 679 rewrote this section. Law Review. -- For 1991 survey of plan- ning, zoning and subdivision law, see 25 U. Rich. L. Rev. 841 ~1991). § 15.1-492. Vested rights not impaired; nonconforming uses. Editor's note, -- Acts 1993, c. 707, cl. 1, as amended by Acts 1994, c. 257 effective April 4, 1994 and by c. 683, effective April 10, 1994, providce that notwithstanding the previsions of this section, the governing body of the City of Martinsville may, by amending its zoning ordi- nance, provide that an existing noncenfonning use may be terminated after a reasonable pe- riod of time where such nonconforming use involves the transportation or temporary s~or- age of any hazardous waste, as defined in § 10.1-1400, if the governing body finds that the transportation or temporary storage of any hazardous waste involved in the nonconform- ing use poses a clear and present threat to the health and safety of persons livin4: or working adjacent to such nonconforming use. Acts 1994, c. 257, cl. 2, and Acts 1994, c. 683, cl. 2, provide that the 1994 acts will expire on July L 1998. Acts 1993, cc. 707 and 716, cl. I provide that notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the governing body of the City of Martinsville may, by amending its zoning ordinance, provide that an existing nonconforming use may be terminated after a reasonable period of time where such nonconforming use involves the transportation or temporary storage of any hazardous waste, as defined in § 10.1~1400, which such governing body determines poses a clear and present threat to the health and safety of surrounding residential homeowners living immediately adjacent to such noncen- forming use. Law Review. For article, 'On Vested Rights to Land Use and Development", see 46 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 373 (1989). § 15.1-493. Preparation and adoption of zoning ordinance and map and amendments thereto; appeal. -- A. The planning commission of each county or municipality may, and ar the direction of the governing body shall, 174 § 15.1-493 :ly~ the affordable )st voluntarily a~ of an affordable 437; 1994, cc. 88, ent substituted "require- .quirbag" throughout this A. in the first een~enee. ~g the clause (vii) desig- ~nd (v/ii) counties tha~ ~uro than 4§.700 but less :tion 8, in subdivision 9, ',vmg' preceding 'a local d inserted ate have~' in !d ~a provision giving," ~sing authority," and m- ~d former subdivision 13 ~&s, edes~gnated former '~ 17 as present subdivi* ~ubstlmted ~Previde' for nt subdivision 16; added ~agnated former subdivi- 'esent subsections D and ments. -- The 1994 this section. c. 679 rewrote this ,r 1991 survey of plan- i~ law, see 25 U. ~.Ang uses. d 716, cl. 1 provide that 'ovisions of this section, :he City of Martinsville ,ning ordinance, provide ~nforming use may be ff~.nable period of time ~amg use /nvolve~ the porary storage of any !efined in ~ 10.1-1400, ody determines poses a ~a~ to the health and esldential homeeWnere acent tn such noncon- .~d Rights w Land Use 16 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. finance and map ommission of each body shall, § 15.1-493 PLANNING, SUBDMSION OF LAND AND ZONING § 15.1-493 ~e.pare a proposed zoning ordinance including a map or maps showing the wsion of the territory into districts and a text setting forth the regulations applying in each district. The commission shall hold at least one public hearing on such proposed ordinance or any amendment of an ordinance, al[er notice as required by § 15.1-431, and may make appropriate changes in the proposed ordl-ance or amendment as a result of such hearing. Upon the completion of its work, the commission shall present the proposed ordinance or amendment includin~ the district maps to the govermng body together with its recommen- dations and appropriate explanatory materials. B. No zoning ordinance shall be amended or reenacted unless the governing body has referred the proposed amendment or reenactment to the local commission for its recommendations. Failure of the commission to repor~ ninety days after the first meeting of the commission after, the proposed amendment or reenactment has been referred to the commission, or such shorter period as may be prescribed by the governing body, shall be deemed approval, unless such proposed amendment or reenactment has been with- drawn by the applicant prior to the expiration of such time period. In the event of and upon such withdrawal, processing of the proposed amendment or reenactment shall cease without further action as otherwise would be required by this subsection. C. Before approving and adopting any zoning ordinance or amendment thereof, the governing body shall hold at least one public hearing thereon, pursuant to public notice as required by § 15.1-431, al[er which the governing body may make appropriate changes or corrections in the ordinance or proposed amendment. In the case of a proposed amendment to the zoning map, such public notice shall state the general usage and density range of such proposed amendment and the general usage and density range, if any, set forth in/he applicable part of the comprehensive plan. However, no land may be zoned to a more intensive use classification than was contained in the public notice without an additional public heari.ng after notice required by § 15.1- 431. Such ordinances shall be enacted m the same manner as all other ordinances. D. The governing body of any county which has adopted an urban county form of government provided for under Chapter 15 (8 15.1-722 et seq.) of this title may provide by ordinance for use of plans, profiles, elevations, and other such demonstrative materials in the presentation of requests for amendments to the zoning ordinance. E. The ac~option or amendment prior to March 1, 1968, of any plan or ordinance under the authority of prior acts shall not be declared invalid by reason of a failure to advertise, give notice or conduct more than one public hearing as may be required by such act or by this chapter, provided a public hearing was conducted by the governing body prior to such adoption or amendment. F. The adoption of a zoning ordinance prior to July 1, 1968, by the board of supervisors of a county having the county executive form of organization and government shall not be declared invalid by reason of a failure by said board to call for and hold an election in said county for approval of said ordinance, grovided that the provisions of this section for advertisement and public carings were complied with. Nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to affect any litigation pending on March 20, 1970. G. Every action contesting a decision of the local governing body adopting or failing ~o adopt a propose.d zoning ordinance or amendment thereto or granting or failing to grant a special exception shall b.e filed within thirty days of such decision with the circuit court having jurisdiction of the land affected by the decisiom However, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to create any new right to contest the action of a local governing body. (Code 1950, 175 8 15.1-494 COUNTIES. CITIES AND TOWNS 8 15.1-494 88 15-822, 15-846, 15-968.7; 1962, c. 407; 1964, c. 279; 1968, c. 652; 1970, c. 216; 1972, c. 818; 1975, c. 641', 1984, c. 175; 1988, cc. 573, 733, 856; 1989, c. 359; 1990, c. 475; 1991, c. 235.) The 1990 amendment added the next-to- the-last sentence in subsection C. The 1991 amendment substituted 'the gen- era] usage and density range, if any, set forth in the applicable part" for ~the general usage and density of the applicable part" in the second sentence of subsection C. Law Review. For survey on proper~y law in Virginia for 1989, see 23 U. Rich. L. Rev. 773 [1989). For 1991 survey of planning, zoning and subdivi- sion law, see 25 U. Rich. L. Rev. 841 (1991). Construction of subsection (G). -- Sub- section fO] of this section and city charter are enactments of the General Assembly, and therefore, they must be read and construed mgethar in order to give full meaning, force, and effect to each. Kole v. City of Chesapeake, 247 Va. 51, 439 S.E.2d 405 (1994). The thne period in subsection G is not a statute of limitations, Friends of Clark Mt. Found., Inc. v. Board of Supvrs., 242 Va. 16, 406 S.E.2d 19 (1991). Necessary parties. -- The only required parties to a proceeding under subsection G of this section are the contestant and the local governing body. A~ec the contesting action has been instituted and is pending, however, and the absence of a necessary party is noted of record, the trial court should not a~udicate the cen~roversy until that party has intervened or has been brought into the proceeding. Friends of Clark Mt. Found., Inc v. Board of Supvre., 242 Va. 16, 406 S~E.2d 19 (1991). Referendum process must be completed prior to ordinance telrtng effect.-- The city, by its charter, has a unique process for adopting ordinances. Unlike most local governments, the people of the city, no~ the governing body, are empowered to make the final decision about ordinances. Thus, no ordinance can take effect or exist until the referendum process is fin- ished. Kole v. City of Chesapeake, 247 Va. 51. 439 S.E.2d 405 {1994). Charter subjecting ordinance to refer- endum did not conflict with statutes. -- City charter provision, which provided that referendum process applied m zoning ordi- nance, was compatible, and not in conflict, with state statutes affecting rezoning. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Committee for the P, epeal of Ordinance R(C)-88-13, 239 Va. 484~ 391 S.E.2d 587 (1990). Charter subjecting ordimmce to refer- endure was not invalid special legislation. -- Since the constitutional prohibitions against special laws are directed at ~economic favorit- ism" and since the referendum prevision of the city charter was not the type of proscribed economic favoritism, nor did it ~grant relief" as contemplated by the prohibition, city charter subjecting zoning ordinance to referendum wa~ not invalid special legislation. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Committee for the Repeal of Ordlnunce R(C)-88-13, 239 Va. 484, 391 S.E.2d 587 (1990). Landowners had standing and had not failed to exhaust administrative remedies. -- Landowners, who alleged that county unlaw- fully passed a zoning ordinance in violation of the requirement to issue notice for public hear- ing, had standing w proceed directly to court and thus had not failed to exhaust administra- rive remedies before bringing a challenge to the validity of a zoning ordinance which prohibited the development of a nonhazardous solid waste landfill. Notostein v. Board of Supvrs., 240 Va. 146, 393 S.E.2d 205 (1990). Trial court erred in refusing to cenduct an evidentiary hearing as requested by land- owners to determine whether they filed bill of complaint within 30 days of council's decision, for evidence was necessary to determine what decision, if any, was made by the city council after the 30-day period. Kole v City of Cbesa- peake, 247 Va. 51, 439 S.E.2d 405 (1994). 8 15:1-4,94. Boards of zoning appeals to be created; membership, organizatwn, etc, -- In and for any county or municipality which has enacted or enacts a zoning ordinance pursuant to this chapter or prior enabling laws, there shall be created a board of zoning appeals, which shall consist of no more than seven and no less than five residents of the county or municipality but shall always be an odd number, appointed by the circuit court of the county or city. Their terms of office shall be for five years each except that original appointments shall be made for such terms that the term of one member shall expire each year. The secretary of the board shall notify the corot at least thirty days in advance of the expiration of any term of office, and shall also notify the court promptly if any vacancy occurs. Appointments to fill vacancies shah be only for the unexpired portion of the term. Members may be reappointed to succeed themselves. Members of the board shall hold no other public office in 176 § 15.1-486 CODE OF VIRGINIA § 15.1-486 ARTICLE 8. Zoning. § 15.1-486. Zoning ordinances generally;jurisdiction of counties and municipalities respectively. -- The governing body of any county or municipality may, by ordinance, classify the territory under its jurisdiction or any substa~tial portion thereof into districts of such number, shape and size as it may deem best suited to carry out the purposes of this article, and in each district it may regulate, restrict, permit, prohibit, and determine the following: ta~ The use of land, buildings, structures and other premises for agricul- tural, business, industrial, residential, flood plain and other specific uses: (b) The size, height, area, bulk, location, erection, construction, rec~nsvruc- tion. alteration, repair, maintenance, razing, or removal of structures; (c) The areas and dimensions of land, water, and air space to be occupied by buildings, s*ructures and uses, and of courts, yards, and other open spaces ~o be left unoccupied by uses and structures, including variations in the sizes of lots based on whether a public or community water supply or sewer system is available and used; (d) The excavation or mining of soil or other natural resources. le~ [Repealed.] For the purpose of zoning, the governing body of a county shall have jurisdiction over all the unincorporated territory in the county, and the governing body of a municipality shall have jurisdiction over the incorporated area of the municipality. (Code 1950~ §§ 15-819. 15-844: Code 1950. § 15-968; 1962. c. 407: 1966, c. 344: 1969~ Ex. Sess.. c. 1; 1972. c. 789: 1975, c. 641. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Members, Board of Supervisors Albemarle County James C. LAmb III, Vice President University Village Owners Association June 9, 1996 Request to Amend Proffers, by Kenneth Newell and CCAT2/University Limited Liability Company. Enclosed please find copies of several communications concerning this matter from Residents of University Village. The originals are being sent to Mrs. Charlotte ttumphris, Chairman. Dr. Jackson Riddle, President of University Village Owners Association, is out of town on a ~rip currently, but is expected to return in tSme to offer a statement in support of the Request at the Hearing. Other Residents, including myself, also would like to have opportunities to present brief oral statements to the Board at that ~me. STATEMENT TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS by James C. Lamb 111 Meeting of June 12, 1996 My name is James C. Lamb III. I am an owner and resident of the University Village condominiums and vice president of the University Village Owners Association. I am a Registered Professional Engineer in Virginia. Background I have reviewed the requests of Kenneth J. Newell and CCAT2ftIniversity Limited Liability Company for approval of an amendment to existing proffers for the University Village Development (ZMA 96-05), as well as the 1987 proffers (ZMA-87-08) and conditions of SP 89-65. Also. I have reviewed the Staff Report, letters to the Planning Commission ~rom Robin Corelle and others concermng this matter, and attended the May 21~t meeting of the Planning Commission. I have participated in meetings with Manorhouse officials and architects in which details of the proposed assisted living facility were discussed, reviewed preliminary plans for the building and site, and walked over the property to examine it. Further, I have reviewed preliminary drawings and a model of facilities approved for that site, subject to the existing proffers, several years ago, and determined approximate dimensions of those facilities by scaling the drawings. Much has been said by individuals and groups about extent and imPhct of the proposed development, some of which may be confusing or even misleading. Opposition to the Manorhouse proposal by residents of Huntington Village emphasizes '~romises' made in the existing proffers. Some objections are based on incorrect assumptions that the area was to be kept as "green" space; others complain that facilities to be placed on the property would be larger than those planned under the existing proffers. On the other hand. the County Planning Staff studied all aspects of the matter and concluded that: ';..the potential impact of buildings in Area 8 on Huntington Village residents is actually decreased oy this proposal." L C. Lamb Statement to Albemarle County Board of Supexvisors Page 2 and that: "..~4rea 4 was envisioned for recreational facilities, which could have included an indoor tennis pavilion with a similar footprint to the proposed assisted living facility, so putting the assisted living facility here would not be a significant change from what would have been expected." Clearly, it is vitally important to consider carefully the actual sizes ~£.' buildings and paved areas proposed under both sets of proffers. Based on my activities and studies, listed above, I have been able to distinguish certain facts that should be brought to your attention because they could be helpful in reaching an equitable decision. Investigational Approach The property that is of most immediate concern in analyzing potential impacts of the various px~ffers is that land area lying betwee~ Crestwood Drive and the Eastern property line of the Huntington Village development. In addition to reviewing the documents referred to above. I examined a model that is about four feet square of the University Village development, which was displayed in our lobby and used in sales efforts by the original developer (See Photo # 1). Also, I examined a 15x20 inch drawing showing the proposed buildings (See Photo # 2). Both of these are consistent with the existing proffers. The area in question on the model is shown in Photo # 1 near the center of the photograph. It is above and to the left of Crestwood Drive, which enters the development from Old Ivy Road, near the nameplate for "University Village". The drawing shown in Photo # 2 includes tennis courts, an enclosed tennis building and eight residences shown to the left of the main University Village building. The proposed facilities are shown in more detail in Photos #3 and 4, which are closer photographs of these parts of the model. Layouts in the model and drawing differ somewhat in placement of the road for Residences, but include essentially equivalent facilities, building placements, and areas. Neither shows the other proposed recreational facilities, which included shuffleboard, croquet, horseshoes, lawn bowling, benches and walkways (see Staff report). The scale of the drawing shown in Photo # 2 was determined by scaling the center wing of the main building, the actual dimensions of which are known. Using that scale, dimensions of the other buildings, parking areas, tennis J. C. Lamb Statement to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Page 3 courts, and roads were determined, as shown in Table 1. Obviously these dimensions are not exact, but they are close enough to permit reasonably accurate comparison of the sizes of facilities proposed under the original proffers with those of the Man6rhouse proposal. Through similar scaling of preliminary drawings available to us now for the Manorhouse facility, I obtained the figures in Table 2. Discussion of Areas to be Developed Examining data in the two Tables, it is seen that the assisted living building would cover 39,080 square feet, compared with 17,000 square feet for the tennis building, 13,200 for the eight residences, and 10,800 for the outdoor tennis courts, for ~ total of 41,000 square feet. This figure does not include areas for the other proposed recreational facilities. It should be noted the 39.080 square foot Manorhouse building is considerably less than the 56,000 square foot figure cited by Mr. Cordle and referred to by the Staff. The difference probably can be attributed to a misunderstanding about the 56,000 square foot area, which is the floor area. Actually, most of the building would be two-story, making its footprint considerably less (39,080 square feet). Further examination of the two Tables reveals that the original development plan, consistent with existing proffers, included 27,300 square feet of roadways and parking areas as compared with 35,575 square feet in the Manorhouse proposal. The planning Commission concluded during its hearing that the 45 parking spaces proposed by Manorhouse should be reduced to the minimum required by the County, or 32 spaces. That would reduce the area allocated to parking by Manorhouse by several thousand square feet, producing an area very close to original plan. Considering overall modifications of the site, the total area that would be graded and covered by buildings or other structures would be 68,300 square feet under the existing protibrs and 74,655 square feet under the proposed ones, an increase of only 9%. However, ffparking spaces are reduced, as recommended by the Planning Commission. the new proffers actually could reduce the area to be graded and built upon to a figure less than that allowed under the old proffers. It is reasonable to conclude from these figures that, although uses of the site would be substantially ditYerent from those in the original proposal, the total areas of baildings and other structures to be butt on it would be approximately equal for the two plans. J. C. Lamb Statement to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Page 4 It should be noted that a different preliminary design that meets the existing proffers is on file at the County Planning~ Office It shows one more residence, a marketing office, with additional paring, and other outdoor recrea~on facilities. Those would add several thousand square feet to the plan, giving a total butt up area significantly larger than the Manorhouse proposal. Additional Considerations With respect to visual impacts on neighbors, the Manorhouse building would be about 100 feet from the Huntington Village property line, making it about 125 feet from the back doors of a few of' the 134 existing condominiums. That is farther than other buildings, or parking, or streets are from the front doors or sides of those sarae units. In fact. it would be impossible even to see the Manorhouse budding from over 100 of the Huntington Village units. Further, with respect to those within sight of it. the Manorhouse building would be much more attractive in design than a tennis building, which could be anticipated as very plain, with no redeeming features aesthetically. The South parking lot is closer to the property line than the building, but may be reduced in size ff recommendations of the Planning Commission are met, or it may be redesigned to modify it, s location and layout. In any event, Manorhouse and the Staffboth have stated clearly that there would be extensive landscaping along that side o4 the property, making existence of the parking tot of little or no significance visually. Impacts of noises on Huntington vi]lage~ residents from the assisted living facility should be negligible -probably l~ss than those from the outdoor recreational facilities, including tennis, approved under the existing proffers. Any concern about possible increased traffic is unfounded. The Staffhas analyzed the situation carefully and recognized that the ultimate number of living units in University Village would[be reduced from the 260 approved under existing proffers to 204, at least offsetting traffic generated by the assisted living facility. Request The Manorhouse proposal would result in addition of a much-needed health- care facility in this region of the County, and would relieve some of the pressure on local crowded ones. This would be accomplished without cost to the County and without significant adv~rse impact on neighbors. For reasons that have been discussed here, and many additional ones to be covered by others at the hearing, we request your approval of the new proffers, as well as approval for construction of the facility. J. C. Lamb Statement to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Page 5 TABLE 1 - Areas of Facilities to be Installed as Planned Originally Facility Size, feet Area, sq. ft. Total, sq. ft. Tennis Bldg. - Main Bldg. ~ 110 x 140 15,400 Entrance, & Bldg. ! 40 x 40 1600 1%000 Residence Buildings 4 @ 30 x 60 7200 4 @ 30 x 50 6000 13,200 Total Area for Buildings 30,200 Roads: To Tennis Parking 20 X~70 1400 1400 For Residences 20 x 650 13,000 13,000 Residence Drives 15 x 145 2175 2175 Total Roadways 16,575 Tennis Bldg. Parking 75 x 135 10,125 + 30 x 20 600 10,725 Outdoor Tennis Courts 90 x 120 10,800 10,800 Total Area Built & Paved I 68,300 Table 2 -Areas of Facilities to be Installed Under Manorhouse Plan Facility Size, feet Area, sq. ft.Total sq. ft. Main Building, Including 185 x 208 38,480 8800 sq. ft. Courtyard Covered Auto Entrance 24 x 25 600 Total Area for Building 39;080 Road: to South Parking 30 x 90 2,700 to North Parkin~ 20 x 160 3,200 Total Roadways 5900 Parking Areas: South End 23,375 North End 6,300 Total Parking Areas 29~675 Total Area Built and Paved 74,655 J. C. Lamb Statement to All.marie County Board of Supervisors PHOTO # 1: Page 6 Model Showing Layout for University Village PHOTO # 2: Preliminary Layout for University Village J. C. Lamb Statement to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Page 7 PHOTO # 8: Tennis Building, Tennis Courts and Residences PHOTO # 4: Tennis Building, Tennis Courts, and Parking KERR L. WHITE M.D. 2401 OLD IVY ROAD, #1410 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, 22903-4858 TELEPHONE: (804) 293-6252; FAX: 804 293-5283 June 6, t996 Mrs. C hadotte Humphris. Chair, AIbermade County Board of Supervisors, 109 Falcon Drive, Charlottesville, 22901. Dear Mrs. Humphris: I am an owner/resident of a condominium at University Village, located the Jack Jouett Magisterial District, and am writing in support of Kenneth Newell's request to amend the proffers for the University Village development. The intent of his organization is to build and operate an urgently needed Assisted Living facility within the University Village campus. To all those familiar with the checkered history of University Village's evolution it is nothing short of egregious chutzpah for Bill Heischman to be urging his in-house lawyer, Robin Cordle, to front for him in opposing construction of our Assisted Living facility. It has the obvious appearance of a spiteful effort to prevent fuJflment of promises Heischman made to the original purchasers of condominiums in University Village. As nearly as I can tell the so-called "proffers" were essentially a form of self- dealing since Heischman was the putative owner/investor/developer of Huntington Village, Ivy Gardens and University Village. The matter of ManorHouse should be assessed on the basis of contemporary community need and sim pie fairness to the current owners of University Village - to say nothing of the credibility of Albemarle County as a venue that is attractive to retirees. Resort to the facts may prove helpful. The initial advertisement for University Village stated: "University Village's combined professional experience i~i.the fields of architecture, development, planning, construction, health care, nursing home administration, and retirement living exceeds a century!" A sales brochure states: "Quality health care is available to all residents including wellness programs, health counseling, emergency call, sickbay, pharmacy, home health care, assisted living care, and short or long term nursing care. This broad continuum of care allows residents to extend their freedom by utilizing the level of care necessary to meet their medical and health care needs" Within a year of moving into University Village I realized that these statements were grossly inaccurate and patently misleading. It so happens that I know a fair amount about health care having been the founder and for many years chair of the Johns Hopkins Department of Health Policy and Management and more recently was concerned with similar activities internationally as an officer of the Rockefeller Foundation. In spite of his bold statements Heischman seemed ignorant of many modalities of health care for the elderly. Both the size and proposed services of his widely touted Nursing Home were not viable clinically or financially. He was stubborn in his refusal to seek advice and equivocating, to put it charitably, in statements about his intent and timing for construction of any health facility. On my own I consulted the Virginia Attorney-General's officer in charge of fraud. He told me at the time that it sounded as if there was a probable basis for a charge of untruthful advertising if we wished to pursue it. Other views prevailed among University Village owners that hope would prevail over experience and that Heischman would eventually deliver. He never did. As further ewdence of his inaccurate statements let me quote from a personal letter sent to me by Heischman on December 1, 1989: "I am personally, professionally, and financially committed to completing University Village as it has been conceived and communicated ,to you. I fully intend to see that University Village becomes one of the tiniest communities in the country. I would like to assure you that we have already secured construction loans to complete the first two phases of University Village. In addition, I have invested over six million dollars of personal finances to this project. We have both the marl(et and financing for Phases i and II at the present time. As Phase I is occupied this coming summer those monies will provide sufficient additional funding for Phase III. University Village has been carefully planned so that the primary amenities and services, including the Dining Building, Swimming Pool, Lake, and adjacent Nursing home and Assisted Living Suites, will be built and ready for use by the completion of Phase II. Our timetable for Phase II to be up and running in its entirely is summer of 1991. I assure you that the organization and financing is in place now to complete Phases I, II, and III as planned with or without me." Since I know something about the health care field I have examined the backgrounds of the principals behind the ManorHouse initiative. I have complete confidence ~n the integrity of Kenneth Newell and capacity of his organization to construct and operate a first-class Assisted Living facility that will be a credit to the community and an urgently needed addition to University Village in order to fulfill the initial promises. My wife and I moved to this area from Manhattan and bought a home ~n University Village on the basis of the promises set forth by Heischman as developer. Although there is risk in participating in the early stages of any development it will certainly not enhance the attractiveness of Charlottesville and Albemarle County as a retirement haven if it becomes widely known that University Village was denied this essential Assisted Living component. I look forward to a favorable decision by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on June 12 so that construction of ManorHouse at University Village can go forward promptly. Yours sincerely, Cecil Y. Lang University Village 2401 OM Ivy Road No. 1507 Charlottesville. Virginia 22903 Telephone 804 293-4673 E-mail: cyl@virginia.edu Fax 804 977-0857 6 June 1996 Dear Mrs. Humphris: As owner-residents of University Village in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District, we write in support of Kenneth Newell's proposal to amend the proffers for the University Village development to permit the location of an assisted living facility on a portion of the property. We have been living here for five years and are still waiting for the medical facility we were promised before we took possession, and we would not have moved here without such a promise. Along with many other such promises (five phases of development in the central building as well as cottages~to be built on several sides, indoor tennis courts and a croquet lawn, a branch post office, a small general store, nature walks, etc.-- in other words it was to be truly a "Village"), the most important one of all has somehow evaporated, and those of us who bought here in good faith feel that we have been sold a bill of goods. At the meeting of the Planning Commission on the proposal to construct such a facility, some of the arguments were absurd or invalid or irrelevant. 1. In the first place, despite the explicit use of the word by one of the planning commissioners, proffers are not and never have been "sacred," and in any case they had previously been altered in several ways by the first developer. 2. With the original "Village" proposal the increase in traffic on Old Ivy Road would have been horrendous; the modest Manorhouse proposal would have a negligible effect on traffic. 3. Esthetically, the tennis barn proposed and authorized would have been a blight on the landscape and beneficial only to a minute percentage of University Village residents. (Our average age is about 75, and among the present population only five ever play tennis. Any such facility there would obviously depend on support outside University Village.) The Manorhouse building proposed is discreet in size and elegant in appearance. 4. Some of the residents of Huntington Village present at the meeting of the planning commissioners are themselves likely applicants for admission to such a facility in the not distant future. Yours sincerely University Village #1310, 2401 Old Ivy Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903-4856 June 6, 1996 Charlotte Humphris, Chair Albemarle County Board of Superdsors and Jack Jouett District Representative 109 Falcon Drive Charlottesville, VA 2290] Dear Charlotte: I am writing in support of the requests of Kermeth Newell (Manorhouse) and Thilo Best (CCAT2/ULLC) for approval of an amendment torte existing proffers IZMA 96~05) and special permits (SP-96-09 and SDP 96-015) to allow the establishment of an assisted living facility on a portion of the CCAT property. As you know, the Planning Commission, at its May 21st meeting, denied the amendment despite a highly favorable staffreport. In taking this action, the Commission members appeared to rely almost entirely on their feeling that proffers are sacred and cannot be changed except under very special conditions. No one pointed out that the set of proffers related to this property has already been amended in some very substantial ways. (a) In October 1982 the property was rezoned from R~I to R-10 with proffers based on a conceptual site plan for a continuing care center to consist of a number of three- and four-story buildings surrounding a health center which was to be the first building put up. The land between Huntington Village and Ivy Gardens Apartments fronting on Old Ivy Road was designated as Open Space. b) In 1986, Wyam Associates (architects) requested, in behalf of their client S. W. Heischman, and obtained approval to "locate the recreational buildings for his project on the land fronting on Old Ivy Road, and...to transfer the open space requirement formerly imposed on that land to the property which fronts on the By-Pass," Justification for this change cited was the need for open space on the west side of the property as a buffer between the high traffic of the Route 250-29 By-Pass and residential areas. (c) In 1987, the proffers were again amended when Mr. Heischman changed his whole plan and received approval for building the six-story structure now in place. The designation of recreational and landscaped area remained the same. By the end of 1994, Mr. Heischman found himself financially unable to complete the University Village project and a sale was negotiated with CCAT. Thilo Best, representing the new owner, quite naturally has some ideas that are different from those pursued by Mr. Heischman. He has discussed those ideas with the residents of University Village who, as condominium owners, share ownership with him. We believe that it is not unreasonable to expect that the new owner should have the same right to make changes indicated by changing circumstances that Mr. Heischman had. We believe that the proposed Manorhouse proposal provides a much mom attractive view for the limited number of ltuntington Village residents actually affected than the indoor tennis facility (2 courts), outdoor courts, shuffle-board etc. and related park/ng which were included in previous proffers. We have been waiting impatiently for the health-care facilities promised us in the sales offerings for University Village back in the late 'eighties and we believe that the presence of Manorhouse at our front door w/Il meet an important need, not only for ourselves but for the community as a whole. We hope very much that you will support these three requests. Sincerely yours, June 9, 1996 Mrs. Charlotte Humphris 109 Falcon Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mrs. Humphris: I am'enclosing for your information copy of a letter I received from Mr. Heischman in December 1989, with under- lining added by me. This letter and similar promises had a lot to do with my signing up to come to University Village because I am very much "on my own" with no family nearby, and I trusted I would be taken care of. Contrary to what is written in this letter, Phase I ~as not occupied until 1991 except for two units occupied late in December 1990. The first occupants of Phase II moved in during February 1994. The "adjacent Nursing Home and Assisted Living Suites" have never materialized. Now we have a new developer who keeps his word and who agrees with us about the need for the kind of care the Manorhouse proposal offers. It seems to me that he, and all of us who have invested our money in University Village, are entitled to more consideration than the adjacent property- owners and renters, who happen to include the previous developer. I am appealing for your support of the Manorhouse pro- pesal, not just for myself, but for my fellow-residents and those who will be coming here in the future. Sincerely yours. Priska Szaloki 989 Mrs. Zoltan Szaloki 1886 Field Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 University Village Dear Mrs. Szaloki: The University Village Condominium documents, with some glaring errors, were mailed to you'the middle of November. I am embarrassed by our mistakes, and I sincerely apologize for any concerns our errors have caused you. Some of the papers which you received were standardized legal documents and, thus, not customized for University Village. This fact, in itself, would have made them confusing to you. However, our greatest error was in not correcting the inconsistencies between the various segments of the total package sent to you. With chagrin on our part and patience on your part, we are in the process of revising the Purchase Agreement and certain pages within the documents which seem to have caused you the most concern. You will receive these corrected pages as soon as they have been completed and reviewed I am- personally, professionally, and financially coxanitted to comtoleting University Village as it has been conceived and com~aunicated to you. I fully intend to see that University Village becomes one of the finest communities in the country. I would l~ke to assure you that we have already secured construction loans to complete the first two phases of University Village. In addition, I have invested over six million dollars of personal finances to this project. We have botk the market and financing for Phases I and II at the present time. As Phase I is occupied this coming summer, those monies will provide sufficient additional funding for Phase III. University VillaKe has carefully planned so that the primary amenities and services, includin~ the~. Dining Building, Swimming Pool. Lake, and adjacent .Nursing Home and Assisted Livinm Suites, will be built and readT for use by the completion of Phase II. Our ~imetable for Phase II to be up and running in its entirety is summer of ~ I assure you that the organization and financing is in place now to complete Phases I, II, and III as planned with or_ without me. As some of you may know, University Village has been in planning for quite some years now. We have continually revised and refined the concept during that time until the University Village as you know it has evolved. I truly believe that we will be able to provide you with s degree of comfort and independence within a framework of financial and physical security that you will not find elsewhere. P.O. Box8133 · Charlottesville. Virginia 22906 · Tclephonc (804) 977-8497 Page Two December 1, 1989 I apologize again for any anxieties and mnconvenience we have caused, but I want you to know that we are genuinely committed to developing University Village into a residence of which you will be proud. Should you have further questions or concerns, feel free to contact Beverly Kocotas, Jim Firster, or me. Sincerely. S. W. Heischman. President University Village, Incorporated SWH/ddm MRS. FRANK McCuI&OCH 24OI OLD IVY ROAD, ~230? CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 229O3 June 9, 1996 Charlotte Humphris, Chair Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 109 Falcon Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Charlotte: As owner-residents of University Village, located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District, Frank and I write to support Kenneth Newell's proposal to amend the proffers for University Village development to permit the location of an assisted living facility on a portion of the property. The zoning for the property in question is cleared for high-density housing - similar, we assume, to what the Huntington Village residents already have. And, the property will he developed. It was never the intent of Mr. Heischman's proffer to provide a private park for non-residents of his University Village project. The Manorhouse facility being proposed is self-contained and well designed with adequate landscaping to shield parking and delivery areas. More importantly, it would meet m health care need not easily available in Albemarle County or Charlottesvile. Assisted living is proving to be the kind of care most needed for those no longer able to live in their own homes, and it is certainly preferable to current nursing home care. We hope that you will approve Mr. Newell's application. Edith L. and Frank Wo McCulloch ¸ ,il Chades E. K[Ibourne T£ Umvers~ty Village #1301 2401 Old ivy Rd 229ol Charlottesville. VA 22903-4855 June 9, 1996 Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 109 Falcon Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mrs. Humphris: I am an owner/resident of University Village located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District and I am writing in support of the proposal to amend the proffers relating to University Village to permit the location of an assisted living facility on a portion of the property. The promisor having a health care facility nearby was an important consideration for me and my wife, Lucy Lee Kilbourne, who had emphyzema and needed skilled help. My wife died shortly before University Village was opened for residents. Since I moved into the Village, I married Evelyn Boyle and we are very happy together in our condominium. As time goes by, we are beth getting older and can foresee our need for help in living and in case of illness. Many of our friends who live here face similar problems. Health care availability is a~so a consideration for prospective buyers and we need them to.help in future development. I hope you will support the Kenneth Newell proposal for a health care unit as presented. Sincerely, Charles E. Kitbourne / /~401 Old Ivy Road #1404 Charlottesville, Va 22903 June 8, 1996 Mrs. Charlotte Humphris Jack Jouett Representative Albemarle Board of Supervisors 109 Falcon Drive Charlottesville, Va 22901 Dear Mrs. Humphris: I am a resident of University Village. My daughter owns my apartment, but I have full power-of-attorney to act on the affairs of the condominium and I am writing in support of the proposed amendment to permit the construction of an assisted living facility on the CCAT property near Old Ivy Road. I believe that had the plans for an enclosed tennis court and other recreational facilities material/zed that there would have been much more traffic engendered than by this proposal. In case any neighbors object to the sight of wheelchairs (there but for the Grace of God go we all!) there will be an enclosed courtyard for ex&rcise and recreation as pan of the Manorhouse building. In April I had a "slight" stroke. I am not incapacitated, but it does make one think of the future. Insurance companies are emphasizing, and sometimes insisting upon, assisted living care rather than other more costly options: Albemarle County and its residents are fortunate to have the opportunity to have Manor. hguse, a first-'class operation, interested in building in this location. Sincerely, 24~01 01~1 Ivy Road #1&OS C[~arlottesville. Virginia 22903 William G. & Mary L. Bastedo 2401 Old Ivy Road #2502 Charlottesville, VA 22903 June 6, 1996 Mrs. Charlotte Hnmphris, Chair Albermarle County Board of Supervisors 109 Falcon Drive ChartotW, sville, VA 22901 Dear Mrs. Humphris, We are owner-residents of a unit in University Village looated in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. We are writing to you to lend our support of Kenneth Newell's proposal to amend the proffers for the University Village developmem to permit the location and construction of an assisted living facility tm a portion of the University Village property. We are one of the newest residents in University Village having relocated from Northern Virginia in January of this year. In addition te being one of tho newest we are also one of the youngest couples in this community. As such, we are currently fully capable of independent living, but we may, in the future have the need/'or an assisted care facility. Other retirerae~t communities in the area offer assisted living and full nursing cam fac'dRies. The approval ofthe Manor House Proposal to build and operate as assisted living facility seems to us to be the next logical step in the evolution of University Village and for the surrounding Albermarle County. As the general population of this area, and the entire natitm, increases in age the need for assisted living will also increase. We need to start now to meet the future challenge. We have personally looked at tho Manor House facility in Richmond from the outside and found it to be tastefully done and an asset to adjoining properties. Such a design located here would certainly be much better than a "barn luke" indoor tennis court which the original approved proffer indicted would be placed on the proposed location. In summary, we are definitely for tho proposed assisted living care facility location and urge your support tm June 12~. Sincerely, F~o G. B~s~ ~40~ o~o ~w ~o~a) m~r. ~40~ CFIAP~OTTESVILLE~ VIRGINIA ~905 '1 M. Alcxia Williams 717 Park Street Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 M. ALEXIA WILLIAMS University Village//1207 2401 Oki Iv~ Ro~d Charlotte~vil~ VA ~ 2401 Old IV>, l~d. 7/1 $01 Charlo~sville, Virgi~ia 22903 Mrs. Robert T. Reid 2401 Old ivy Rd./~1501 ChadoU~ille, Vir~inla 22903 2.-II 9-1o 7~ 15~ e. l¥~ r, I )~{~ o I'>q o t'> t g, i-o "& - '7 PETITION OF APPROVAL We, the undersigned, support the applicant's request to amend the existing proffers for the University Village property to permit areas designated for landscaping and recreation to be redesignated for development to permit the construction of an 86 bed assisted living facility on the fronl portion of the property near Ivy Road. (ZMA-96-05; SP-96-09; SDP-96- 015; Kenneth J. Newell) NAME ADDRESS TEL # 65. 66. 68. 69. 70. 72.~,~ ~ ~ c,~ 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 82m 83. 84-. 85. 86° 87, 88. 89, 90. 91 92. 93. 94. TO 3TIE ALBF_~MARLE COL~N~I~Y BOARD OF SI3-PERVISORS JUNE 12~ 1996 I am Dr. Jackson W. Riddle, President of the University Village Owners Association, and Chairman of Rs Board of Directors. My purpose in speaking to you tonight is to present the very strong endorse- ment of the proposal of ~Manorhouse by the officers and residents of University Vil- lage. This petition which I will give to the clerk carries tt~ signatures o nearl one hundred per cent of our residents. The petition and the letters which you have received from us are from people who may need this facility ~ and as time passes some of you, and perhaps some of those who object today, may be glad for a facility of this ty~pe in this location. Of our 80 residents some are abroad or traveling in other locations, but I now ask those who are here tonight to stand and show their support. At our open board meeting in March, 1996, the residents expressed strong support for the Manorhouse proposal, after being convinced of the quality of the proposed assisted living faciliW and also of the quality of the care (o be available. As plans progressed, in May the Board of Directors voted unanimously to grant the two easements on Crestwood Drive requested by Manorhouse if this application is appro-¢ed by the Board of Supervisors. At the Plarming Commission meeting on this proposal the gist of the comments of the commission were mostly concerned with keeping the original proffers inviolate. The definition of proffers in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary is as follows: an offer made; something proposed for acceptance by another. There is no implication of inviolabiliW or sacredness about such offers. The real question before you tonight is whether the opposition of a very few owners of units in Huntington Village, whose backdoors would overlook a building far more attractive than the one which they knew was a possibility when they bought there --- whether those few objections of a personal nature should outweigh the advantages to the people of this counW of a much needed, fine assisted Hying facility which will bring to our community expanded opportunities for jobs in construction, main~enanee, additional pro- fessionals, an increase in tax income from this property, and a substantial inducement to other retirees to move to Charlottesville. The wishes of a very few versus the enormous benefrts to the entire community; that is the real issue before you~ We residents of University Village strongty urge your approval of the -Manorhouse request, and we tirank you for this opportunity to express our wholehearted support for th~s application. May 10, 1996 Jeanine G. Miller, ETAL Coleswood Rt. 1, Box 159 Esmont, VA 22937 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntim Road Charlottesville, Vir~tinia (804) 2965823 SP-96-14 J Paula Pierce/Jerome Beazley Tax Map 120, Parcel 15B Dear Ms. Miller: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 1996, unanimously recommended approval oft. he above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following condition: The entrance onto Route 627 shall be maintained such that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) minimum sight distance requirement for a private entrance (250') is provided. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 12, 1996. 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 heating date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ronald A. Lille-y Senior Planner RAL/jcf cc: Ella Carey Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley Staff Person: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Ron Lilley May 7, 1996 June 12, 1996 SP 96-14. J. Paula Pierce and Jerome Be. azley Applicant's Proposal: The applicant would like to operate a commodity trading advisory service with one outside employee in an existing accessory structure on an existing residential property. Petition: To grant a Special Use Permit for a Home Occupation, Class B [Section 10.2.2.31] in order to operate a commodity trading advisory service on 22 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 120, Parcel 15B, is located on the west side of Route 627, about 2 miles west of Keene and about 2-1/2 miles north of Esmont, in the Scottsville Magisterial District (see Attachment A). The property is not is a designated Growth Area [Rural Area 4]. Character of the Area: The area around this property is rural, with farms and wooded areas nearby. Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 (special use permit review)of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Staff Comment: The criteria for issuance of a special use permit are addressed in order, as follows: - the use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property The office is in an accessory building beside the house, out of view of adjacent properties, and the activity there should not be noticeable (see Attachment B). The applicant indicates that the use generates no traffic and that no sales take place on the premises. The use should not be of any detriment to adjacem properties. - the character of the district will not be changed This activity will be of such limited scale that the rural character of the district will not be changed. - the use will be consistent with the public health and welfare There is nothing hazardous or objectionable about the proposed use, The Virginia Department of Transportation has recommended the trimming of a bush at the entrance to Route 627 to enhance sight distance there (see Attachment C). Staff opinion is that this should be a condition of special use permit approval. The supplementary regulations of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Home Occupations [Section 5.2.2] would all be met (limits on space devoted to such use, no change to outside appearance, no on-premises sales other than handcrafted items, no unusual traffic volumes, egg .) Recommended Action: Approval with the following condition: 1. The entrance onto Route 627 shall be maintained such that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) minimum sight distance requiremem for a private entrance (250') is provided. Attachments: A - Location map with Zoning B - Applicant's drawing of property C- VDOT comments !: \general~share\lilley\beazley. sp ALBEMARLE COUNTY [ATTACHMENT Al --- J Z2 JEROME M. BEAZLEY TIMETECH MANAGEMENT, INC. SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT $$ SECTION 120 $CALE:'t'=100* DATE: OCT. 29. 1993 ROUDABUSH~ EIALE & A~;~BOC., INC. A PROFESSIONAl,. CORPORATION DAVID R. GEHR COMMiSSiONER COMMONWEALTH V[RQ/NIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22911 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGtNEER April 15, 1996 May Rezonings Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Deps, of Planning & Community Development County Office Bldg. 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Keeler: Please find our comments in response to your letter of March 27, 1996. FP-96-14 Jerome M. Beazlev, Time Tech Management, Inc., Route 627 There should not be any significant impact to infrastructure of roads in the area since there will only be one employee and no sales to take place on the premises. Route 627 is a non-tolerable road in this area. The existing Ientrance has a "Y" at its intersection with Route 627 and sight distance is hindered by a bush in the middle of island. The bush should be trimmed back to enhance sight distance. ~P-96r15 Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity Special Use Permit Route 527 which fronts the proposed developmen~ is presently shown/ as a tolerable road. There may need to be sight easements to obtain minimum commercial entrance sight distance. If the proposed road is so become a public facility there will need to be a submittal of road and drainage plans along with an approved plat. We recommend that all access to Route 627 be internal and not onto the private lane 5c the south. If you have any questions, please contac~ development community. M. W. Mills cc: J. A. DePasquale; Irma vonKutzleben J. H. Kesterson this office before forwarding to the ~s I rul~ % Assis[ant Resident Engineer TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DONATION TO GREATER CHARLOTTESVILLE'HABITAT FOR HI/MANITY W1REREAS, Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity is an entity permitted under the Code of Virginia to receive donations of money or property from the County of Albemarle; and W~EREAB, the Board finds it is in the public interest to donate funds to support the development of facilities necessary for this entity to provide services to the community. NOW, T~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby appropriates and donates to the Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity an amount equal to the fee charged by Albemarle for an application fee for special permit 96-15 for the Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity project, provided, however, the amount shall not exceed $990. Upon certification by the appropriate development review depart- ment, such funds shall be transferred by the Department of Finance to the revenue accounts of that department or directly to Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity if the fee has already been paid to the County. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on June 12, 1996. Board of C~ty Supervisors May 10,1996 D~str)buted ~) · · ' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & CommuniW Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesvil}e, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity P. O. Box 7305 Charlottesville, VA 22906 SP-96-15 Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity SUB-96-21 Simpson Habitat Preliminary Subdivision Plat Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 1996, took the following actions regarding - the above-noted items: $P-96-1 $ Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanit~ - Recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: i-. Staff approval of final subdivision plat; Development shall be in accord with the statements of the applicant as contained in the March 25, 1996 Description of Request; The road serving these ten lots must be built to state (Virginia Department of Transportation) standards for acceptance into the state (Virginia Department of Transportation) system, Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on Jane 12, 1996.. 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. $UB-96-21 Simpson Habitat Preliminary Subdivision Plat- I. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until tho following conditions are met: a. Approval of SP-96-15; b. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan; c. Roads built or bonded in accordance with the approved final public road plans; d. Albemarle County Engineering approval of public road plans and drainage calculations; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final of final public road plans and draimage calculations; e. Health Department approval of primary and reserve drain fields locations for each lot; f. Staffapproval of road name. Please be advised that preliminary plat approval is valid for s'm (6) months. Failure to submit a final plat to the Department of Planning & Community Development within that time will render the preliminary approval null and void. In order to expedite completion of'the above noted items, please have the appropriate agency'or deparnnent notify the Department of Planning & Community DeveloPment, in writing, that the applicable condition has been met. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact mo- Sincerely, Planner JS/jcf cc: Ella Carey Jo I-Iiggins Amelia McCulley COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP-96-15 Habitat For Humanity SUB-96-021 Simpson Habitat Preliminary Plat SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Petition for five additional development rigbts [Section 10.5.2] to permit a total often lots on a 23.75 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Area. This petition is accompanied by a request for approval of a preliminary plat. STAFF CONTACT(S): John Shepherd AGENDA DATE: ITEM NU3qBER: Planning Connuission: May 7, 1996 Board of Supervisors: lune 12, 1996 ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: No ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed and reeommanded approval of this request on March 24, 1994. The Board of supervisors reviewed and approved this request on April 20, 1994. The approval of the Special Use Permit has expired. The applicant has now resubmitted this petition for a special use permit as well as a new preliminary plat. The original staff report, action letters, the applicant's information, the former Housing Coordinator's comment, the history of Special Use Permits for additional lots, a memo f~om Ron Keeler, as well as the applicant*s March 25, 1996 Description of Request and present Housing Coordinator's comments, are attached. The new preliminary plat with Engineering Department and VDOT comments are also attached. STAFF COMMENT: ($P-96-1~lStaffhasre~iewedtheZoningandSubdivisionOrdinancesandtheComprehensive Plan to determine if any amendments have been approved that would necessitate a change in design or alter the original comments provided by staff in the 1994 review of this application. Staff is unable to identify any changes in circumstances which alter the original staff report prepared for this application. Staff notes that the applicant has made progress in the effort to recruit families from the Esmont area since the original application. This was a matter of concern during the original review of this request. This is addressed in #6 of the March 26, 1996 Description of Request. Staffopinion is that no changes in circumstances have occurred since the original review. Therefore. staff recommends approval of this special use permit with minor modification to conditions contained in the April 22, 1994 letter regarding the action of the Board of Supervisors. ($UB-96-02~) The preliminary plat that accompanies this request could be approved administratively. However, k is placed before the Commission due to its direct relevance to the special use permit request. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SP-96-15: 1. Staff approval of finai subdivision plat; Development shall be in accord with the statements of the applicant as contained in the March 25, 1996 Description of Request; 3. The road serving these ten lots must be built to state (Virginia Department of Transportation) standards for ,~' acceptance into the state (Virginia Department of Transportation~ system, RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SUB-96-021: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Approval of SP-96-15; b. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan; c. Roads built or bonded in accordance with the approved final public road plans; d. Albemarle County Engineering approval of public road plans and drainage calculations; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final of final public road plans and drainage calculations; e.Health Department approval of primary and reserve drain fields locations for each lot; Staff approval of road name. A:\SP9615.RPT GREATER CHARLOi i ~-E~I~ I F HABITAT FOR HUMANITY P.O. Box 7305, Charl~tesvllle, v& 22906 ALBEMARLE COUNIY ZONING DEPARTMEN)' building houses In partnership with God's people In need March 25, 1996 Members of the Board of Supervisors Albemarle County, Virginia Dear Members of the Board: The attached application for a Special Use Permit is, in fact, a renewal of a Special Use Permit granted by the Board in April of 1994. Since the initial granting of the Permit Habitat for Humanity has been fundraising, organizing and planning for the subdivision. We have addressed the reservations expressed by the community at the initial public hearings by holding board meetings within the community, selecting community families as partner families to receive houses, and involving community members in our Board of Director's. With the immanent funding for the road and the submission of the preliminary site plan we are preparing for the beginning of construction of ,the road and then the first houses in the · subdivision. We have found that mis'lng funds for infrastructure has been more difficult than raising funds for the houses themselves. We have commitments from local organizations to build three houses in the subdivision over the next three years. Our delay has been in fundmising for the road and infrastructure. In cooperation with AHIP we are applying for CDBG funds for the construction of the road for the subdivision. We are also currently pursuing other funding sources to insure t)e timely progress of the project. To this end the design of the subdivision is 'piggybacking' this renewal for the Special Use Permit. We would request the renewal of the Special Use Permit as granted by the Board in 1994 so that we can proceed with the housing as we had anticipated in our original application. Thank you for your consideration. Chairman, Board of Directors Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity GREATER CHARLO"~ 0-8Vil I F HABITAT FOR HUMANn"Y P.O. Box 7305, Ohado{te~'vlile, Va. ~ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING DEPARTMENt building t~ou~e~ in partnemhlp with God's people In need Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity requests a Special Use Permit to allow hhe 24.5 acres shown on the attached plat to be divided into 10 lots for the construction of 10 single family low cost houses. Each lot would exceed the minimum 2 acm lot size required by the County and would be served by individual septic and well. The residences to be built would be owner occupied by families that paxticipate in the construction of the houses. The development of the property and construction of the houses would be carried out according to the national standards of Habitat for Humanity and would be built by a combination of volunteer labor and professional supervision. Details of the program are included in the attached brochure and project description. JUSTIFICATION Habitat for Humanity seeks to build houses in partnership with families that would under normal circumstances not be able to afford owning their own home. The houses are built and sold to the partner families at cost with a zero interest mortgage to be paid back over 20 years. Habitat provides both construction and counselYmg support for families as they obtain and learn to manage the responsib'flities of home ownership. Habitat for Humanity has built thousands of homes for families throughout the country and has recently completed its third residence in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. In partnership with volunteers, donors, and professionals Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity is seeking to meet a portion of the need for affordable hous'mg in the Charlottesville/Albemarle County area. The greatest need we have found in three years of preparation and research is the availability of affordable land in areas suitable for residential construction. In developing land for the construction of Habitat houses it is our intention to allocate the maximum percentage of our resources to the actual construction of the houses themselves. This means that in order to make the houses more affordable, the acquisition and development costs of land and infmstructore must be kept to minimum. In searching for available land we looked for locations that would benefit from the addition of good simple owner occupied housing. In providing low cost owner occupied housing the amount of land that each house owns cannot be excessive. It must both relate to the size of the house to be bui/t and the neighbor hood within which it will be constructed. It is with this in mind that we considered the property in Esmont. In considering the division of this property into 10 lots rather than the 'by right', 5 lots that are permitteA, there are a number of factors that support this strategy. The 2+ acre lots that would result would correspond to the majority of residential lots within the neighboring area. The three lots that had previously been subdivided out of the original property are of this raze. The proposed development fits into the character of the The vast majority of Habitat families include children of school age and the proximity of this property to the school would be only logical for the children. Families tend to become involved where their children are involved and this would enhance their integration into the affairs of the community. By providing 10 lots, the development costs that must be carried by each house would be reduced increasing the affordability of the houses themselves. This would provide tangible evidence of the goals established by the County last year to encourage the development of low and moderate cost housing within the next decade. Habitat for Humanity does not depend upon public money or funding for the provision of low cost housing. Nationally, Habitat for Humanity is among the fifty largest homebuilders in the nation, providing affordable housing for thousands of families each year. The assistance that city and county governments throughout the country provide in parmership with Humanity comes in the form of administrative and planning support. This project provides and ideal opportunity to assist with the provision of low cost housing without the burden of financing or managing~the project itself. Each home owner will contribute to the tax base of the County itself at the properties axe developed and the houses built. The planning of the development and the design of the houses is being done by members of the local planning and architectural community. The houses that are built will be specifically designed to reinforce the best aspects of the local neighborhood and will the finest example of this type of cooperation between the partner families, the professionals, and the volunteers. In the family selection process, it is the intention of Habitat for Humanity to serve the families in the surrounding community. While not making the availability of the houses exclusive to the Esmont community, we have focused our recruitment efforts in the local community. To this date the families that have been selectext as partner families for this project have all come from the local community. As the construction of the subdivision nears we will increase our efforts within the community to recruit families and envision the majority of residents in this subdivision to come from the local Esmont community. In summm-y, the development of this property for ten houses seems to fit perfectly within the context of the neighborhood, the goals of the County for affordable housing, and the resources of Greater Habitat for Humanity. Most importantly, it wig provide housing for 10 families, that would not be able to own their own homes without this development. Additional information will be attached for the remainder of the Application. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: John Shepherd - Planner Glenn E. Brooks - Civil Engineer II 8 April 1996 Site Review Comments Simnson Habitat Preliminary_ Plat Watershed Boundary - James }Liver Watershed, Ballinger Creek Subwatershed, unnamed intermittent stream drainage basin Streams~Watercourses -There are no imermittcnt streams shown on the plan. Wetlands - There are no jurisdictional wetlands on the site. Water Resources Ordinances - The Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance does not apply. The Runoff Control Ordinance does not apply. Albemarle County Engineering will recommend preliminary approval when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. [Each item is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision Ordinance unless otherwise specified.] 1. [18-52(d)] Show the easement or right-of-way, and indicate the width for Dawson's Lane. 2. [18-52(e)] Provide a permanent drainage easement for drainage through Lot 9 and between Lots 2 and 3. This may be addressed with road plans and final plats. 3. [Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Indicate the available sight distances on Route 627. Final plats will be subject to Albemarle County Engineering rewew o£all relevant final plat requirements and the following conditions: a. [18-55(rn)] Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan. b. [18~J 9] Roads built or bonded in accordance with the approved final public road plans. MEMORANDUM Site Review Comments 8 April 1996 Page Two c. [I8-55(rn)] Albemarle County Engineering approval of final public road plans and drainage computations. d. [18-55(rn)] VDOT approval of final public road plans and drainage computations. The VDOT comments are attached. Below, each comment is clarified as it pertains to final or preliminary approval. Albemarle County Engineering's position in regard to recommendations and informative comments are also stated. VDOT # 1. The sight easement will not affect the buildable area, and so may be addressed with final plat~ and road plans. VDOT # 2. This note must be added for preliminary approval. VDOT # 3. Any proposed right-of-way dedication must be shown for preliminary approval. VDOT # 4-6. These items may be addressed with road plans. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. GEB/ctj Attachment Copy: SUB-96~021 DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 70'1 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE 22911 A. G. TUCKER RF~SI DFJ'NT ~NGINEER April 3, 1996 Site Review Meeting April ll, 1996 Mr. Jack Kelsey Dept. of Engineering County Office Bldg. 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Kelsey: The following are our comments: SDP-96-024 Monticello High School Preliminary Site Plan, Rt, 20/742 This plan was previously reviewed, see comments from letter dated March 20, 1996. 8UB-96-021 Simpson Habitat Preliminar~ Subdivision Plat, Route 627 1. A minimum of 350' of sight distance is required in each direction. A sight easement will be required across a portion of Lot $1. 2. Add a note indicating that no access will be allowed through Dawson's Lane. 3. A right of way dedication of 25' is recommended along the frontage. 4. Recommend the cul-de-sac radius be 40'. 5. Road plans and drainage computations will be required for review. 6. A permit will be required for activity within the right of way, upon final approval of plans. If you should have concerns with these commenns, office prior to sharing with the developer; please discuss with our Sincerely, J~.' S~ Kesterson Per. & Sub. Spec. Supv. TRANSP(JRTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. ol Planning & Community Developmem 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4696 (804) 296-5823 April 22, 1994 Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity P. O. Box 7305 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: SP-94-03 J. E. Simpson Estate Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on April 20, 1994, approved the above-noted request for five additional development rights (Section 10.5.2) to permit s total of 10 lots on a 23.75 acre parcel zoned Rural Areas. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of subdivision plats; Development shall be in accord with the statements of the applicant as contained in Attachment C and the information packet entitled "Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity Esmont Property Special Use Permit." Revisions to the sketch of development contained in the applicant's information necessary to meet requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances are not included in this condition. The road serving these ten lots must be built to state (Virginia Department of Transportation) standards for acceptance into the state (Virginia Department of Transportation) system. Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you mus= comply with the conditions in this letter. For further information, please call Babette Thorpe at 296-5975. Page 2 April 22, 1994 If you should have any questions or comments reEardtn§ the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to co~taet me. Sincerely, Director of Pl~mmunity UWC/j cw Development cc.' Amelia McCulley Jo Higglns Bruce Wardell Estate of J. E. Simpson 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. o! Planning & Comrnunitp Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 92902-4596 (804) 29~58~3 March 30, 1994 Greater Gharlottesville Habitat for Humanity P. O. Box 7305 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: SP-94-O3 J. E. Simpson Estate The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 29, 1994, by a vote of 4-3, recommmended approval of the above-noted request to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Please, note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Staff approval of subdivision plats; Development shall be in accord with the statements of the applicant as contained in Attachment C and the information packet entitled "Greater ~harlottesville Habitat for Humanity Esmont Property Special Use Permit." Revisions to 'the sketch of development contained in the applicant's information necessary to meet requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances are not included in this condition. Please be advised that the A~marle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and_~eiv~ipublic comment at their meeting on April 20, 1994. 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, Senior Planner WDF/J cw cc: Ella Carey Bruce Wardell Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley Estate of J. E. Simpson STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: NI~i.TAM D, F~ITZ MARCH 29, 1994 APRIL 20, 1994 SP-94-03 J.E. SIMPSON ESTATE Petition; Request for five additional development rights [Section 10.5.2] to permit a total of 10 lots on a 23.75 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 128, Parcel 85 is located on the south side of Rt. 627 opposite Yancey School in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4). Character of the Area: The site is wooded with an intermittent stream dividing the property roughly in half. The intermittent stream runs roughly parallel to Route 627. The Yancey Elementary School is on the opposite side of Route 627. Scattered residences are located in the area. The more developed portion of Esmont (including country stores and post office) lie to the north. 6pDlic~nt's Proposal: The applicant is requesting to create 10 lots (5 more than permitted by-right) in order to construct houses for Habitat for Humanity, The applicant has submitted a description of this request (Attachment C) and other support information in,a packet titled "Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity Esmont Property Special Use Permit". SUMI{ARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the §eneral provisions for review of special use permits in Section 31.2.4.1 and recommends approval. Planntne and ZontnK History: June 23, 1976 - Three lots were divided off leaving the residue acreage now under review. (Development rights were not in existence in 1976 and, therefore, that action does not affect current development potential.) Comprehensive Plan: The Housing Coordinator has provided comments intended to address the housing strategies of the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment D). Other Comprehensive Plan related comments follow. STAFF COMMENT: Staff reviews all requests for additional lots in the Rural Area under Section 10.5.2 of the ordinance. Since adoption of the ordinance in 1980, 17 requests heard by the Board of Supervisors have bee~ for additional lots. Seven (7) petitions have been approved for a total of thirteen (13) additional lots (Attachment E). Board approval has typically been based on a finding that the application adequately meets the criteria of Section 10.5.2..1, such as location next to a growth area or existing development, or has some unique circumstance. The Zoning Ordinance specifies criteria in Section 10.5,2.1 which is to be used durin§ review of a special use permit for additional lots. The following is a analysis based on those criteria: The Board of Sunervisors shall determine that such division is comnatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31,2,4,1 of this ordinance, with reference to the seals and obtectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the t~pe of division proposed and specifically, as to this section only, with references to the following; The size. shape, toDographv and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States D~.partment of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry, The existing vegetation consists of predomtnately evergreens on the half of the property nearest Route 627 and mixed hardwoods on the remainder. The topography of a good portion of the site appears to be difficult for agricultural activities. The acreage of the site, 23.75 acres, is effectively cut in half by an intermittent stream and associated stream valley. Some small portions of the site are in slopes of 25% or greater. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or foresta] production as the same shall be shown on the most recent published map~ of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Gonservation Service or other source deemed or equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service, A complete description of the soils is included in the applicant's prepared packet. Most soils on the site are well or moderately well suited to agricultural use. However, areas of soils not suited to agriculture are also found on-site which reduce the areas available for USe. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available, No history is available. Due to the pattern of reforestation it appears that part of the site was cleared for agricultural use at some time. If 19cared in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the ProPosed development on the character of the area, For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to he in an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or ~orestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for snecial use permit, In making this determination, mountain ridges, ma~or streams and other physical barriers which detract from tbm cohesiveness of an area shall be considered, Sixty-six percent (66%) of the land within one mile of this site is under land use taxation which indicates commercial agricultural or forestal activity. Some land within a mile is also included in an Agrtcultural/Forestal District. The property proposed for subdivision does enjoy land use taxation and was not included in the. calculation of the percentage of land within a mile used for agriculture or forestry, gased on the percentage of land in use value taxation, this site is within an agricultural or forests1 area. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purpose of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in narcels of record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In maktn~ this determination, Mountain ridges, ma4or streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered, Eighteen percent (18%) of the land within a mile of this site in Albemarle County was in lots of five acres of less on the adoption date of the ordinance. Therefore, this is not a developed Rural Area. The relationship of the ProPosed development to existin~ and proposed population centers, services and employment centers. A propert~ wfth{n areas described below shall be deemed in proximity_ to the area or use described; Within one mile roadway distance o~ the urban area boundary described in the comprehensive plan; Within on-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comnrehensive plan. The property is located approximately 14 miles from the Urban Area, 5.5 miles from the Town of Scottsvtlle, and 10,4 miles from North Garden. Staff notes that while Esmont is not currently listed as a Village, it has been designated as such in previous Comprehensive Plans and displays many of the characteristics of a Village. (This property was included as part of the Village of Esmont in the Comprehensive Plans of 1970-2000 and 1977-1995.) .Th.e probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements Dro~rammin~ in re~ard to increased provision of services, Staff typically prepares a fiscal impact analysis for requests resulting in increased units. However, as this request results in a maximum increase of 5 units, staff has not prepared an analysis. Staff notes that the fiscal impact analysis are cursory only. This request may result in 50 vehicle grips per day more than could be generated by-right. Approximately three more elementary school students (Yancey), one more middle school student (Walton) and one more high school student (Albemarle High School) can be expected. The applicant has stated that most of the families who would he residents of the development currently live in Albemarle. 8. The traffic ~en~_ated from the proposed developm~..c would not~ in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Occasion the need for road improvement~ Cause a tolerable road to become a non-tolerable road; c__~. Increase traffic on an existing non-tolerable road. This development will result in approximately 50 more vehicle trips per day than could be generated by-right. This portion of Route 627 is listed as tolerable and will not become non-tolerable because of this development. No improvements, other than those performed by the applicant ko obtain an entrance, will be required due to approval of this development. Staff will also address each provision of Section 31.Z.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Specie% use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a findinK by the Board of Supervisors that such use ~ill not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property Staff opinion is that single family residential units would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. Adjacent property is occupied by residential, forestal @nd school uses. that the character of the district will not be chan~ed thereby, This item was addressed during review of Section 10.5.2.1. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4 and 1.5 and with particular reference to Section 1.4.11 which states "to promote affordable housing". Section 1.6 addresses the purpose and intent of the Ordinance in relation to the Comprehensive Plan. The ~ousing Coordinater has provided comments designed to address the various statements of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the provision of affordable housing (kttachment D). Staff opinion is that this request supports the goal, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan as to the provision of affordable housing. Staff notes that the densities proposed are not aonsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Rural Area designation of this site. This request is not in conflict with resources identified in the Comprehensive Plan (Open Space Plan). with the uses permitted by right in the district~ This request will not affect permitted uses. with additional regulations urovtded in Section 5,0 of this ordinance, Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations. and with the public health, safetv and ~eneral welfare. With approval of this request, staff will review th~ subdivision plat(s) to ensure all ordinance regulations are met. SUM~AI{YAND~ECOMI{ENDATION: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The size, shape and topography reduces the viability of the site for a§rlcultural/forestal use. There is no evidence of recent agricultural/forestal activity on this property. While not a designated Village, this site is near Esmont which has Village characteristics [lot sizes, services (scho~l/stores)]. This site was in the previously designated Esmont Vill~§e of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development should have minimal impact on capital improvements programming. 5. Comprehensive Pla~ (Open Space Plan). The request is not in conflict with resources ideqtifted in the 6. The proposal supports the goal, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan as to the provision of affordable housing, Staff has identified the following factors which are un avorable to this request: The site is in a agricultural/forestal area and iR not within a developed rural area. 2. The site is not within close proximity to a desi~ated growth area. 3. The density proposed is not consistent with the ~omprehensive Plan Rural Area designation, l/~ Staff can identify one request where the provision of low/moderate cost housing was considered as a factor in the request (SP-~O-11 Kenneth Carrol) which was approved. That request was for 3 more development rights to allow division of. land which had been previously developed. ~That request resulted in no more lots than could have been created by-right ~s a condition limits the number of lots of 21 acres or greater which may beJcreated. While the review of SP-90-11 did include discussions about l~w/moderate cost housing, 5 the main discussion centered on the existence of the units. Therefore, staff opinion is that no precedent has been set for review of permits intended to provide low/moderate cost housing. Staff opinion is that approval of the additional lots would have minimal effect on the inte§rity of the four purposes of the Rural Areas as described by the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states on page 203: "Ail decisions concerning Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the four major elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The-four major elements~are: 1) preservation of a§rtcultural and forestal activities; 2) water supply protection; 3) limited service delivery to the Rural Area; and 4) conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources." This request meets some, but not all, criteria of Section 10.5.2.1 of the Ordinance. (It should be noted that historically applications have not satisfied all criteria of Section 10.5.2.1.) Current zoning does provide reasonable uae of the land. In addition, under Section 31.2.4.1, this proposal does support the affordable housing goal, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. While review of this application has provided mixed findings, staff is able to support this request based on an analysis of S~ction 10.5.2.1 and 31.2.4.1 and due to the existing character of the area. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following condition: RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. Staff approval of subdivision plats; Development shall be in accord with the statements of the applicant as contained in Attachment C and the information packet entitled "Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity Esmont Property Special Use Permit." Revisions to the sketch of development contained in the applicant's information necessary to meet requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances are not included in this condition. ATTAGHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map G - Applicant's Information D - Housing Coordinator Comment E - History .of Special Use Permits for Additional Lots F - Memo from Ronald S. Keeler .¸% ..% SP-94-03 J. E. Simpson Estate o ALBEMABLE COUNT3 14G 9t 9O DAWSON / / SP-94-03 J. E. Simpson Estate , 9C;,3TTRV t !.~' DISTRICT SECTION 128 ATTACHt4EFIT C 1 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity requests a Special Use Permit to allow the 24.5 acres 'shown on the attached plat to be divided into 10 lots for the construction of 10 single family low cost houses. Each lot would exceed the minimum 2 acre lot size required by the County and would be served by individual septic and well. The resideeces to be built would be owner occupied by families that participate in the construction of the houses. The development of the property and construction of the houses would be carried out according to the national standards of Habitat for Humanity and would bebuilt by acombination of volunteer labor and professional supervision. Details of the program are included in the attached brochure and project description. JUSTIFICATION Habitat for Humanity seeks to build houses in parmership with families that would under normal circumstances not be able to afford owning their own home. The houses are built and sold to the partner families at cost with a zero interest mortgage to be paid back over 20 years. Habitat provides both construction and counselling support for families as they obtain and learn to manage the responsibilities of home ownership. Habitat for Humanity has built thousands of homes for families throughout the country and has recently built the first house loacally in Charlottesville. In partnership with volunteers, donors, and professionals Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity is seeking to meet a portion of the need for affordable housing in the Chariotesville/Albemarle County area. The greatest need we have found in three years of preparation and research is the availability of affordable land in areas suitable for residential construction. In developing land for the construction of Habitat houses it is our intention to allocate the maximum percentage of our resources to the actual construction of the houses themselves. This means that in order to make the houses more affordable, the acquisition and development costs of land and infrastructure must be kept to minimum. In searching for available land we looked for locations that would benefit from the addition of good simple owner occupied housing. In providing low cost owner occupied housing the amount of land that each house owns cannot be excessive. It must. both relate to the size of the house to be built and the neighbor hood within which it will be constructed. It is with this in mind that we considered the property in Esmont. In considering the division of this property into 10 lots rather than the 'by right', 5 lots that are permitted, there are a number of factors that support this strategy. The 2+ acre lots that would result would correspond to the majority of residential lots within the neighboring area. The three lots that had previously been subdivided out of the original property are of this size. The proposed development fits into the character of the area. The vast majority of Habitat families include children of school age and the proximity of this property to the school would be only logical for the children. Families tend to become involved where their children are involved and this would enhance their integration into the affairs of the community. By providing 10 lots, the development costs that must be carded by each house would be reduced increasing the affordability of the houses themselves. This would provide tangible evidence of the goals established by the County last year to encourgage the development of low and moderate cost housing within the next decade. Habitat for Humanity does not depend upon public money or funding for the provision of low cost housing. Nationally, Habitat for Humanity is among the fifty largest homebullders in the nation, providing affordable housing for thousands of f~ilies each year. The assistance that city and county governments throughout the country provide in partnership with Humanity comes in the form of administrative and planning support. This project provides and ideal opportunity to assist with the provision of low cost housing without the burden of financing or managing the project itself. Each home owner will contribute to the tax base of the County itself at the properties are developed and the houses built. The planning of the development and the design of the houses is being done by members of the local planning and architectural community. The houses that are built will be specifically designed to reinforce the best aspects of the local neighborhood and will the finest example of this type of cooperation between the partner families, the professionals, and the volunteers. In summary, the development of this property for ten houses seems to fit perfectly within the context of the neighborhood, the goals of the County for affordable housing, and the resources of Greater Habitat for Humanity. Most importantly, it will provide housing for I0 families, (two of which have been selected already and are waiting for their houses) that would not be able to own their own homes without this development. Additional information will be attached for the remainder of the Application. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM IATTACHMENT D I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: William D. Fritz, Senior Planner Lynne Carruth, Housing Coordinat~ March 8, 1994 SP-94-03 J.E. Simpson Estate I have reviewed the various information available regarding this request for a special use permit which would allow an additional five lots to be created for affordable housing development. I have also contacted the principals of Habitat for Humanity and obtained additional information on the organization as well as this current proposal. As you may know, Habitat for Humanity is a nationally recognized, non-profit housing provider which accomplishes its work through local affitliates such as the Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity (Habitat). The subdivision under consideration would provide new single-family residences for 10 families with incomes between $14,000 and $28,000 per year. All of the families must have a stable work history and must agree to assist in the construction of their residence as well as others. Additionally, all of the families must currently be living in sub-standard or over-crowded housing. If the special use permit is granted, the cost of the residences to the families is estimated to be $40,000. Habitat sells the houses for cost and does not charge interest. The family does make regular mortage payments and pay property taxes, however. I believe that this application is emblematic of the difficulty low-and moderate-income families encounter in obtaining affordable housing in Albemarle County. Land is expensive as a result of various factors, including the growth management ordinances which seek to preserve certain existing land use pattern~~ Increasingly, such families are seeking housing in adjoining areas and commuting to jobs in Albemarle County and the city of Charlottesville. Traveling long distances between home Mr. William D. Fritz, March 7, 1994 Page 2 Senior Planner and employment creates financial burdens on the families as well as placing additional strain on the transportation system. You indicated that the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the criteria to be used in the review of this type of request and that the criteria do not permit evaluation of the benefit to low-and moderate income persons. I would like to point out that the Comprehensive Plan, the County's adopted land use policy document, does, very explicitly, address housing for such families as a desired land use activity. The Plan sets forth a goal of promoting a variey of safe, sanitary and affordable housing types for County residents of all income groups. This goal is supported by several objectives and strategies for creating housing for low- and moderate-income families, including: Assess housing needs and issues and identify mechanisms to address market deficiencies. Support projects that provide units for the disadvantaged Work with organizations in pursuing innovative means of providing housing for lower-income persons and the homeless,including purchase or development of housing for sale or rent cooperative housing, accessory apartments and emergency housing. support programs which aid in the effort of the County to rehabilitate the existing housing and provide low/moderate income housing opportunities in a variety of areas. The project proposed by Habitat for Humanity is consistent with these adopted goals, objectives and strategies. All of the families meet HUD's definition of low- and moderate-income families, an income group which has difficulty affording decent housing at market rates; this proposal clearly will provide units to financially disadvantaged persons; Habitat's program is an innovative one, combining homeownership opportunities for families as well as creating a sense of community and cooperation among all the new homeowners. Although not articulated in the Comprehensive Plan, two additional significant benefits would be gained through approval Mr. William D. March 7, 1994 Page 3 Fritz, Senior Planner of this request: families would be removed from current substandard living conditions and persons employed in Albemarle County could afford to live in the County. The majority of the families currently selected for this project are employed zn Albemarle County~ I would be happy to discuss this with you and answer any questions that you may have. /LLC 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dep~ of Pl~nnin§ & Community Development 401 Mchatire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902*4596 (804) 296-5823 TO. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner FROM: Ronatd S. Keeler, Chief of Planning DATE: March 22, 1994 RE: SP-94-03 J E. Simpson Estate There has been substantial discussion on this application as it relates to affordable housing. I do not believe the Comprehensive Plan is locattonal as to recomendattons for affordable housing (This should be addressed in the upcoming review). Therefore, I recommend that past and current actions he considered AHIP, which has done extensive work in the County, has directed its efforts primarily to rehabilitation of existing units, most of which have been located in the Rural Areas. However, ~AHIP has also eonstructed two new units of housing in the Rural Areas. Another ease involving new construction in which A}{IP participated was Bishop Hill Subdivision in 1981. This was a self-help program involving a 14 lot rural subdivision near Ash Lawn (i.e. - remote from a growth area). Currently, the County has made Conu~unity Development Block Grant application for funding of AHIP rehabilitation efforts in the Esmont-Porters target area. This site is located within that geographical target area. In closing, there have also been recent requests for additional lots for family members (The Comprehensive Plan does state that "development right lots are also intended for family divisions." p. 205). Should the Commission and Board determine that housing affordabillty and/or family divisions he given consideration as positive factors in staff reports, the ordinance criteria should be amended accordingly to ensure consistent review. RSK/jcw David P. Boatman Charlotte Y. Humphm Forrest BI. Marshall. dr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 %04) 296-5843 FAX ~804) 296-8800 MEMORANDUM Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sal¥ H. Thomas TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~~'~ DATE: June 7, 1996 SUBJECT: Reading List for June 12, 1996 ~, i995 EWC: mms Printed on recycled paper June 12,1996 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning, Room 223 401 Mclntire Road Charleffesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4035 TDD (804) 972,4012 Art Petrini Executive Director Rivanna Solid Waste Authority P. O. Box 979 Charlottesville, VA 22902 FAX # 293-8858 Re: Albemarle County Ivy Landfill Stormwater! Leachate Control Project Dear Mr. Petrlni: It is our opinion that the activity related to storm water and leachate control on the above-referenced project (Erosion Control Permit #1561} is exempt from the requirement of a site plan. Therefore, this activity may proceed despite denial by the Planning Commission of the plan proposing expanded landfill activities. This is the same activity as is described in a letter to you and copied to me, dated June 12th from C. Ronald Smith of the Department of Environmental Quality. The work involves two sediment basins and a [eachate pad. The construction of the sediment basins and a leachate pad does not necessitate a site plan (reference Section 32,2.1} because there is no change in or expansion of use such that parking or ingress/egress is required or recommended to change as a result. There are no additional parking spaces required nor is there an impact on existing parking. The entrance onto the state road is not changed ~y this work. We have not found record of an existing site plan which would be changed by this activity and woule therefore be subject to site plan amendment. If you are aggrieved by this decision, iou have a right to appeal the notice within thirty days in accordance with Section 15,1-496,1 of the State Code, or the decision shall be final and unappealable. Such appeal shall be taken within thirty days after the decision appealed from by filing with the zoning administrator, and with the board, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. Sincerer. Amelia G. McCulley, AJ.C.P. ~/ Zon~qg Administrator V. Wayne (~limberg /'~ ~ Director of Planning ~ C~¢unity Development cc; Robert Tucker, County Executive (hand deliverl Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ~XECUTIVE