HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-17FINAL
7:00 P.M.
APRIL 17, 1996
ROOM 241, COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Ailegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Other Mattexs not Listed on the Ageflda from the PUBLIC.
Consent Agenda ton next sheet).
Public Hearing: on proposed revisions to the "Development Environmental Chapter of
the Comprehensive Plan, which includes County Land Use Plan. Major
recommendations include: (1) expanding designated growth areas of Hollymead,
Piney Mountain &Neighborhoods 4 & 5 along Rt 20 S andRt 631; (2] deletion of
Earlysviile & North Oarden Villages as designated growth areas; and (3)
encouraging higher gross densities of residential & non-residential development
& more infill development within designated growth areas.
Approval of Minutes: October 6, 1993 and March 22. 1995.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1
Adopt resolution to take Blackburn Bluff and Blackburn Way in Dunlora Subdivision,
Phase lA, into the State Secondary System of, Highways.
5.2 Authorize staff to coordinate road name change requests.
5.3
Adopt resolution authorizing County Executive to submit Virginia Community
Development Block Grant. Commtmity Organizing Planning Grant Application.
5.4
Proclamation proclaiming April 21 through April 27, 1996 as Crime Victims' Rights
Week.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.5
Copy of letter dated April 11, 1996 from Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, to
David J. Toscano, Mayor, City of Charlottesville, re: renegotiation of shared
funding arrangements and service agreements.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARI E
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~'~
April 18, 1.996
Board Actions of Aprll 17, 1996
At its meeting on April 17, 1996, the Board-of Supervisors took the following actions:
Agenda Item No. 1 Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m.,
by the Chairman.
Agenda Item No. 4 Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
There were none.
Agenda Item No, 5.1. Adopt resolution to take Blackburn Bluff and Blackburn Way
m Dunlora Subdivision, Phase lA, into the State Secondary System of Highways.
ADOPTED resolution. Original forwarded to Engineer.
Agenda Item No. 5.2. Authorize staff to coordinate road name change requests.
APPROVED.
Agenda Item No. 5.3. Adopt resolution authorizing County Executive to submit
Virginia Community Development Block Grant, Community Organizing Planning Grant
Application. ADOPTED resolution. Original forwarded to Ginnie McDonald.
To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: April 18, 1996
Page: 2
Agenda Item No. 5.4. Proclamation proclaiming April 21 through April 27, 1996 as
Crime Victims' Rights Week. ADOPTED proclamation.
Agenda item No. 6. Public Hearing: on proposed revisions to the "Development
Environmental Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, which includes County Land Use Plan.
Major recommendations include: (1) expanding designated growth areas of Hollymead,
Piney Mountain & Neighborhoods 4 & 5 along Rt 20 S and Rt 631; (2) deletion of
Earlysville & North Garden Villages as designated growth areas; and (3) encouraging
higher gross densities of residential & non-residential development & more infill
development within designated growth areas. Public hearing held. Board to hold a work
session on May 1, 1996.
Agenda Item No. 8. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
/ewc
Attachments (3)
cc: Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
Kevin Castner
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
Bruce Woodzell
Larry Davis
Richard Wood
Jan Sprinkle
File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mark B. Henry, Civil Engineer H
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~
April 18, 1996
Dunlora Subdivision, Phase lA, Blackburn
At its meet'mg on April 17, 1996, the Board of Supervisors adopted the following resolution:
Resolution to accept Blackburn Bluff and Blackburn Way in Dunlora Subdivision,
Phase IA, into the State Secondary System o£Highways.
Attached are the original and four copies of the resolution.
/EWC
Attachments
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
® I
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Mark B. Henry, Civil Engineer II ~
April 8, 1996
Dun/ora Subdivision, Phase 7A, Blackburn (SUB 72.354)
The roads serving the referenced subdivision are substantially complete and ready for
VDOT acceptance. At the next opportunity, I request the Board of Supervisors to adopt
a resolution for the reads specified in the attached VDOT SR-5(AJ form. After the
resolution has been adopted, p/ease date and sign the SR-5(A) and provide me with
the original and four copies.
Thanks for your assistance. Please contact me ff you have any questions,
MBH/ctj
Attachment
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, ~n regular meeting
on the 17th day of April, 1996, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase IA, Blackburn (SUB
12.354) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated April 8, 1996, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Reauirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in
Dunlora Subdivision, Phase IA, Blackburn, as described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) dated April 8, 1996, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant
to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements:
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
.Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Thomas.
Seconded by: Mr. Martin.
Yeas: Mr. Bowerman Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins
and Mrs. Thomas.
Nays: None.
A Copy Teste:
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Blackburn Bluff from Station 10+10, left edge of pave-
ment of Dunlora Drive (State Route 1177) to Station
23+84.43, rear of cul-de-sac, 1374.43 lineal feet as
shown on plat recorded 12/1/89 in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, in Deed Book 1078, pages 566-575 with a right-of-
way width of 50 feet, with additional plats recorded
7/5/91 in Deed Book 1164, pages 2-11, and 4/5/96 in
Deed Book 1528, page 559, for a length of 0.26 mile.
2)
Blackburn Way from Station 10+10, right edge of pave-
ment of Blackburn Bluff to Station 15+47.75, right edge
of pavement of Blackburn Bluff, 537.75 lineal feet as
shown on plat recorded 12/1/89 in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with addi-
tional plat recorded 7/5/91 in Deed Book 1164, pages 2-
11, for a length of 0.10 mile.
Total length - 0.36 mile.
0
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Road Name Changes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Road Name Change Requests
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Weaver
AGENDA DATE:
Ap~117,1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
Staff has recently completed the read name change phase of the Enhanced 911 implementation project by processing
27 read name change requests in accordance with the Board's road name change policy. The Board's policy states that
after this phase of the project has been completed, no further changes to road names would be permitted. Staff has been
approached o~ two (2) occasions since the completion of this phase to further entertain road name changes as outlined
below. In addition; there is a staff recommended read name change to complement a requested change recently
completed (also outlined below).
DISCUSSION:
Radford Lane/Yellow Brick Road (see attached map) - A petition was submitted in accordance with the Board's road
name change policy to make a change from Radford Lane to Yellow Brick Road. This petition contained 6 of 8 landowner
signatures which was subsequently approved. After the change was made~ a second petition was submitted containing
7of8 landowner signe~tures in favor of reversion back to Radford Lane. The remaining landowner that did not sign the
pe~on was contacted by staff and is now in favor of the change back to Radfard Lane as well. Road signs have been
fabricated. There is no cost involved for new signs.
Monticello Road/Monticello Loop (see attached map) - A request has recently been made by Mr. Daniel P. Jordan of
Monticello to change the name of the road serving the Monticello grounds from Monticello Road to Monticello Loop in
an effortto reduce confusion with other similarly named roads in the County/City. Monticello will be responsible for the
cost of the new sign.
Hydraulic Road/Eariysville Road (staff recommended - see attached map) - A petition was submitted and approved in
accordance with the Board's read name change policy to make a change from Hydraulic Road (a portion from its
intersection ~ StHwy 743 at the reservoir to Free Union Road - StHwy 6011 to Woodlands Road. To compliment this
change, staff recommends changing Hydraulic Road (a portion from its intersection with StHwy 631 at the Rock Store
to its intersection with Woodlands Road - StHwy 676 at the reservoir) to Earlysville Road. This change will eliminate
confusion bynot having to switch from Hydraulic Road to Earlysville Road when traveling on StHwy 743. The logical
beginning/end point for Earlysville road is at the controlled intersection near the Rock Store. One new sign will need to
be fabricated ay the County at a cost of approximately $60.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant staff the authority to coordinate the above referenced changes to road names.
BOARD4-1 .WPD
96.063
C3
3~AS
,%
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
PROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ginnie McDonald, Housing Coordinator
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
April 18, 1996
Resolution for Virginia Community Development Block Grant,
Community Organizing Planning Grant
At its meeting on April 17, 1996 the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolution
authorizing the County Executive to sign and submit a Virgin/a Community Development Block
Grant, Community Organizing Planning Grant application for Whitewood Village in the mount of
$7,000. Attached is the signed, original resolution.
/ewc
Attachment
cc: Roxanne White
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has long recognized that citizen leadership and involvement
is a perquisite for empowered and self-sufficient neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the County believes that empowered and self-sufficient neighborhoods should be
developed and encouraged in all possible ways; and
the County's new Neighborhood Team initiative has begun to bring together the
various County deparmaents and community agencies that work most frequently to
create an organized , coordinated, on-going process to address neighborhood
problems and concerns; and
the neighborhood of Whitewood Village provides 96 units of decent, safe and
affordable housing through the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Rental Assistance
Program, serving 96 Low and Moderate ~ncome households and 288 LMI
individuals; and
the Whitewood Village Section 8 Rental Homing Assistance Payments Contract
expires in the year 2002 and such expiration could result in the displacement of 96
LMI households; and
V~tEREAS,
the Monitcello Area Community Action Agency is a member of the County's
Neighborhood Team; is experienced in neighborhood organizing; and is partially
funded by the County; and
WltEREAS, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency has agreed to administer a
Community Organizing Planning Grant on behalf of Albemarle County;
NOW, THlgREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr, County Executive, of
Albemarle County, Virginia, is hereby, authorized to sign and submit a Virgima
Community Development Block Grant,Community Organiz'mg Planning Grant
Application for Whitewood Village in the amount of $7,000.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a tree correct copy of a resolution
unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular
meeting held on April 17, 1996.
~l~l~rl~ County Board of/Supervisors
/
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution for Virginia Community Development Block
Grant Community Organizing Planning Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of resolution authorizing the County
Executive to submit the Community Organizing Planning
Grant Application
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White & Ms. McDonald
AGENDA DATE:
April 17, 1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development administers the federally-funded Community Development
Block Grant Program (VCDBG). These funds are available to "nonentitlement" localities, on a competitive basis, to implement
a wide variety of housing and community development activities. There are two kinds of grants: (1) Community Improvement
Grants (CIG) and (2) Planning Grants A CIG application was submitted by the County on March 29. 1996 for housing
rehabilitation in the Esmont community. Planning Grants do not require public hearings, only an authorizing resolution.
DISCUSSION:
During the 1994.1995 and the 1996 CDBG public hearings: the Whitewood community was identified as a potential targeted
neigh 3orhood for a future CIG, possibly a community center. The design of the 1996 VCDBG program introduces a new
category of planning grants, the Community Organizing Planning Grant. This grant is intended for neighborhoods that have not
already selected a future Community Improvement Grant project: but who may need to undergo a process of organizing and
visiomng In order to select, develop and prioritize an appropriate improvement agenda for the future. These types of grants must
involve community groups OR non-profit groups in the organizing of neighborhood residents and in the development of
community assessment of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, goals and objectives, and a strategy for future
social and physical improvements. The result of such efforts must be capacity building among future beneficiaries who will
create a wsion of their future, using CDBG and other resources. The maximum grant amount is $10.000.
The Whitewood Village apartment complex contains 96 units of Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Rental Assistance. The
fifteen-year subsidy contract expires in the year 2002 Dependinguponthewishesoftheownerofthe property and the funding
availability of future Section 8 funds, the County may lose these rental units currently serving Iow and moderate income
residents. There is no requirement for the owner to continue with rental assistance if it is available. A community organizing
planning grant would create the opportunity for the current residents to plan for their future in cooperation with the current
owners
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the submission of a Community Organizing Planning Grant for the Whitewood Village neighborhood in the
amount of $I0,000~ $7,000 to be subcontracted to the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MAC,AA); and the adoption
of the attached resolution authorizing the County Executive to submit this application to the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Develooment.
96.064
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution for Virginia Community Development Block
Grant, Community Organizing Planning Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Request approval of resolution authorizing the County
Executive to submit the Community Organizing Planning
Grant Application
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White & Ms. McDonald
AGENDA DATE:
April17,1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHM _ENTS: Ye,~
REVIEWED BY.'~
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development administem the federally-funded Community Development
Block Grant Program (VCDBG). These funds are available to "nonentitiement" localities, on a competitive basis, to implement
a wide variety of housing and community development activities. There are two kinds of grants: (1) Community Improvement
Grants (CIG) and (2) Planning Grants. A CIG application was submitted by the Counbj on Mamh 29, 1996 for hous'mg
rehabilitation in the Esmont community4 Planning Grants do not require public hearings, only an authorizing resolution
DISCUSSION:
During the 1994, 1995 and the 1996 CDBG public hearings, the Whitewooa community was identified as a potential targeted
neighborhood for a futura CIG, possibly a community center. The design of the 1996 VCDBG program introduces a new
category of planning grants, the Community Organizing Planning Grant. This grant is intended for neighborhoods that have not
already selected a future Community Improvement Grant project, but who may need to undergo a process of organizing and
visioning in order to select, develop and prioritize an appropriate improvement agenda for the futura. These types of grants must
involve community groups OR non-protit groups in the organizing of neighborhood residents and in the development of
community assessment of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, goals and objectives, and a strategy for future
social and physical improvements. The result of such efforts must be capacity building among future beneficiaries who will
create a vision of their future, using CDBG and other resources. The maximum grant amount is $10,000.
The Whitewood Village apartment complex contains 96 units of Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Rental Assistance. The
~een-year subsidy contract expimsin the year 2002. Depending upon the wishes of the owner of the property and the funding
availabitity of future Section 8 funds, the County may lose these rental units currently serving Iow and moderate income
residents. Them is no requirement for the owner to continue with rental assistance if it is available. A community organizing
planning grant would create the opportunity for the current residents to plan for their future in cooperation with the currant
owners.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the submission of a Community Organizing Planning Grant for the Whitewood Village neighborhood in the
amount of $10,000, to be subcontracted to the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA); and the adoption of the
attached resolution authorizing the County Executive to submit this application to the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development.
96.064
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has long recognized that citizen leadership and involvement is a perquisite
for empowered and self-sufficient neighborhoods: and
WItEREAS, the County believes that empowered and self-sufficient neighborhoods should be developed and
encouraged in all possible ways; and
WHEREAS,
the County's new Neighborhood Team initiative has begun to bring together the various County
departments and community agencies that work most frequently to create an organized, coordinated,
on-going process to address neighborhood problems and concerns; and
WHEREAS,
the neighborhood of Whitewood Village provides 96 units of decent, safe and affordable housing
through the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Rental Assistance Program, serving 96 Low and
Moderate income households and 288 LMI individuals; and
WHEREAS, the Whitewood Village Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance Payments Contract expires in the year
2002 and such expiration could result in the displacement of 96 LMI households; and
WHEREAS, the Monitcello Area Community Action Agency is a member of the County's Neighborhood Team;
is experienced in neighborhood organizing; and is partially funded by the County: and
WHEREAS, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency has agreed to administer a Community Organizing
Plarming Grant on behalf of Albemarle County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr, County Executive, of Albemarle County,
Virginia, is hereby, authorized to sign and submit a Virginia Community Development Block
Grant. Community Organizing Planning Grant Application for Whitewood Village in the amount of
$1O,0OO $7,000.
96.064
PROCLAMATION
NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK
one violent crime is committed in America every seventeen seconds; and
43.6 million Americans victimized in the United States each year; and
crime victims play an indij~pensable role in bringing offenders to justice;
and
WHEREAS, law abiding bi~ilbn;-'~;~ ~io lebs"desb~ving of justice, rights, resources,
restoration and rehabilitation than the violent offenders who victimize
them; and
WHEREAS,
the dawning ora new day of victim justice is being heralded across our
land by the strong spirit and COmmitment of millions of survivors of
crime, their families and'advocates who proudly bear the banner of
justice; and
as a nation devoted to liberty and justice for all, America must increase
its efforts to protect and ?estore crime victims' rights; and
tbe'County of Albemarle ¥ictim-Witness Assistance Program ss ]ommg
forces witb~victim service programs, criminal justice officials and
concerned citizens throughout Virginia_ and America to observe
National Crime Victims' Rigbts Week;
THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOL~, that L Charlotte Y. Humpbris,
Chairman, on behalf of tbe Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do
hereby designate the week of Apri121 tbrougb Alyri127, 1996, as
CRIM, E VICT2~S' RIGH'I~$ ~F_.K in the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, and reaffirms tbe commitment to address victims'
rights and criminal justice issues during 1996 and tbrougbout tbe year.
CHARLOTTE ~. HUMPHRIS
CHAIRMAN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Police Department
Comay Office Building
401 McInfire Road
Clmrlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(8O4) 296-5807
March 29, 1996
BOARD OF SUPERWSORS
The Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris
Chairman. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. VA 22902
Dear Ms. Humphris:
The annual observance of National Crime Victims' Righls Week is planned for April 21 to
April 27, 1996. During this commemorative week. crime victims, their advocates and organizations
which service them will join together in Virginia to educate citizens about crime and victimization and
encourage their support to improve victim's rights and services.
As Director of the Albemarle County Vicfim/Wimess Assistance Program, I would be very
appreciative if you could sponsor an official proclamation to recognize April 21 to April 27 as "Crime
Victims' Rights Week in Albemarle County". Such a proclamation will emphasize your commkment
to this important cause, and recognize the efforts of those who serve victims of crime in our
community,state.
I have enclosed a sample proclamation. Please feel free to use it to help compose a
proclamation for Albemarle County.
If you have any questions concerning this request, the sample proclamation, or National Crime
Vidiins' Righls Week. please call me at (804) 296-5830.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. I truly appreciate you support of crime
victims and their concerns.
Sincerely,
CusanL~M.~Pa~t:r~O~
Program Coordinator
Victim/Witness Assistance
Enclosure
PROCLAMATION
CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK
Whereas, one violent crime is committed in America every 17 seconds; and
Whereas, 43.6 million Americans are victimized in the United States each year; and
Whereas~ crime victims play an indispensable role in bringing offenders to justice: and
law abiding citizens are no less deserving of justice, rights, resources, restoration and
rehabilitation than the violent offenders who victimize them: and
crime victims and their advocates over the past twe decades have made unparalleled progress
toward balancing the scales of justice in our criminal justice system; and
the dawning of a new day of victim justice is being heralded across our land by the strong spirit
and commitment of millions of survivors of crime, their families, and advocates who proudly
bear the banner of justice; and
Whereas~ as a nation devoted to liberty and justice for all, America must increase its efforts to protect and
restore crime victims' rights; and
the Albemarle County Victim/Witness Assistance Program is joining forces with victim service
programs, criminal justice officials, and concerned citizens throughout Virginia and America to
observe National Crime Victims' Rights Week:
Therefore, be it
Resolved,
that I. Charlotte Y. Humphris. Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors. designate the week of April 21 to 27. 1996 as Crime Victims' Rights Week in the
County of Albemarle: and be it further
Resolved, that I. Charlotte Y. Humphris. reaffirms a commitment to address victims' rights and criminal
justice issues during 1996 Crime Victims' Rights Week and throughout the year.
Charlotte Y. Humphris. Chairman
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
PLEASE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PLEASE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE t~-~ ~ ~ ~,,~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~- ~- ,~ ~ /
AGENDA TITLE: Update oftheComprehensive Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Summary of the major recommendations and changes
to the "Developed Environment" chapter (Land Use Plan,
Utilities, Community Facilities, and Transportation
sections).
STAFF CONTACT(S):Messrs. Cilimberg, Benish
AGENDA DATE:
February 7, 1996
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY: ~
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a brief summary of the major changes to the Developed Environment chapter of the Comprehensive Pla~
recommended by the Planning Commission. The Commission completed its work on this portion of the Plan December 19,
1995.
DISCUSSION:
The February 7 work session on the Comprehensive Plan will focus primarily on utility issues. Art Petrini. Executive Director
of RWSA, and Bill Brent, Executive Director of ACSA will be in attendance.
RECOMMENDATION:
None,
SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS/MAJOR
CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPED ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER (CHAPTER THREE)
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Planning Commission has been reviewing the "Developed Environment" chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan since January 1995. This chapter consists of components which establish
and support the County's land use planning efforts and include: 1) the Growth Management
Goal; 2) the Land Use Plan and 3) sections on facilities planning (transportation, utilities, and
community facilities).
The following is a summary of the most significant recommendations/changes to the Developed
Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
Encourage greater utilization of developable land within designated Growth Areas. This
is to be accomplished by achieving higher gross densities in new residential and non-
residential developments and through the promotion ofinfdl development/redevelopment
of underdeveloped or undeveloped properties.
The Plar)~ Commission believes that the planning time frame of this chap)er-~0
years) ~ to :5~on for adequate utility, facility and transportation planning bu(to_~g
for Grow~rlfArea designation, which may result in excessive land being alloca~d and
serve to encourage urban sprawl. Therefore, it is recommended that consideration be
given to structuring this chapter w/th two~f'different time frames. A short term (5-
10 years) "development plan" would address more pressing issues (i.e. establishment
of goals and objectives, development of an infill policy and update of the Master
Water and Sewer Plan). The long term (20-50 years) "horizon p~lan" would identify
areas of possible furore long term growth. This would servers)guide for the citizens
and allow for more accurate planning of utilities, facilities and transportation related
projects. The Commission has recommended the development of~t~e~"horizon plan" as
a priority Action Agenda item to undertake after the adoption of~"*5~prehensiv~ P1an.
All Designated Growth Areas are to be served by public water and sewer facilities.
Based on the above recommendation, the Villages of North Garden and Earlysville are
recommended to be deleted as designated Growth Areas due to the infeasibility of
providing public water and sewer services to these areas.
Expand the existing Growth Area in order to provide a sufficient inventory of land to
accommodate anticipated growth over the next 10 years. Continue to discourage new
development in the Rural Areas. The expansmn of the Growth Area not' only serves to
accommodate new growth in the area but replaces the inventory of land lost with the
removal of North Garden and Earlysville as Villages. The Commission recommends
expanding Urban Neighborhoods 4 and 5 by a total of approximately 1,800 acres.
Recommended general revision to the development standards relating to residential
uses, non-residential uses and transportation systems. A major addition is the inclusion
of a standard that encourages a more "human scales" pedestrian oriented and urban
style type of development.
Two of the more significant modifications to the Land Use Classifications:
Establishment of two new residential land use designations (Neighborhood
Density, 3-6 dwellings per acre and Urban Density, 6.01- 34 dwellings per
acre). These new categories replace the current residential land use categories
(Low, 1-4 dwellings per acre; Medium, 4.01-10 dwellings per acre; and, High,
10.01 to 34 dwellings per acre). The new categories allow for higher densities
to be achieved and greater flexibility within new- residential development.
Also, these new classifications support the recommendation to increase density
within the Growth Area.
Creation of a new non-residential land use designation; the Transitional Area.
This designation is to be used in areas between residential and non-residential
(particularly Industrial and Regional Service areas) to provide a more gradual
transition of uses. Also, th/s land use is appropriate in areas where a mixture
of uses, or the need for more flexibility in possible uses is desired. The uses
allowed in the Transitional Area are consistent with those uses allowed in the
current Office Service, Medium and High Density Residential and
Neighborhood Service land use categories.
2
Further Explanation of Growth Area Expansion Issue
Early in the review process, Staff identified the need for 5,100 acres of expansion area
re accommodate anticipated growth over the full 20 year planning period of the Land
Use Plan. This mount was based on the following assumptions:
1. 2115 population of 96,100 (1994 population estimate, 73,700)~
2. An average development density of 2.4 dwellings per acre.
3. An average of 2.53 persons per household.
4. Providing a market factor of 3 times the anticipated demand for land to
accommodate future growth.
5. Growth Areas would be anticipated to accommodate up to 100 percent of new
development.
Staff determined that the existing inventory of developable land in the Growth Areas
(including N. Garden and Earlysville) was sufficient to accommodate the short-term
needs (5-10 years). Staffs recommendation for expansion was based primarily on the
need to maintain a long term pla~mng perspective for guidance, particularly regarding
utility, ncansportation and public facility planning, as well as for advising the general
public of potential long-term direction of future development.
The development community also expressed a concern that some of the land deemed
developable within the Growth Areas is unavailable due to cost, owner's unwillingness
to sell, or other site characteristics which affect development potential (impact of
proposed roads; substandard or non-existent road access; topography). Staff analysis
found that approximately 1,700 acres could be consider "constrained" by any of the
factors noted above, including owners willingness to sell (but not cost).
The following is a brief summary of totals for developable land (in acres):
5,900 inventory of developable land (existing Land Use Plan)
-1,200 developable area in N. Garden and Earlysville
4,700 developable a w/out N. Garden and Earlysville
-1,700 developable but limited by "certain constraints"
3,000 total developable w/out major constraints
Upon evaluat'mg and discussing these issues, the Commission determined that a smaller
expansion should be considered based on a smaller market factor. The Commission
instructed the staff to evaluate an expansion of 3,100 acres, which would provide
approximately 2 times the anticipated land needs. Ultimately, a total of 3,900 acres of
expansion identified in the Draft Land Use Plan presented at the public meet'mgs and
Public Hearing held by the Commission (3,250 expansion recommended by Staff, plus
approximately 650 acres which included several public requests for Growth Area
designation that the Commission wanted to receive public comment on).
Based on the public comments received and the Commission's concern of balanc'mg
the need for long term planning with the potential impact of designating too much land
to soon and thereby potentially encouraging developmem to sprawl, the Commission
recommended a more moderate expansion of approximately 1,800 acres. The
expansion maintains flexibility in the Plan to accommodate short to mid-term needs
and replaces the developable area lost with the removal of North Garden and
Earlysville as Village Growth Areas~
The Commission's recommendation to locate the expansion in Urban Neighborhoods 4
and 5 and not in Hollymead or Piney Mountain was based primarily on: 1) the desire
m better balance future growth between the Growth Areas north and south of the City:
and, 2) the concern that essential planning initiatives and decisions need to be in place,
particularly in regards to transportation, before expansion should be considered in the
Hollymead/Piney Mountain area. The exist'rog inventory of land available in the
Hollymead/Piney Mountain Commtmities was also considered sufficient to meet the
short-term demands that may arise from the developing employment centers in this
area.
SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS/MAJOR
CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPED ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER (CHAPTER THREE)
OF THE COMPREHE~NS1VE PLAN
The Planning l~ommission has been reviewing the "Developed Environment" chapter of the
Comprehensiv6xPlan s~,c.e January 1995. This chapter consists of components which establish
and support the ~Qunty s land use planning efforts and include: 1) the Growth Management Goal;
2) the Land Use Pi~ and 3) sections on facilities planning (transportation, utilities, and
community fac'flities).X,,
The following is a summa( of the most significant recommendations/changes m~qg~eloped
Environment Chapter oftheX~omprehensive Plan.
· Encourage greater utiliz~on of developable land within desi~ated Growth Areas. This is
to be accomplished by achieving higher gross densities i~kn~w residential and non-
residential developments and~brongh the promotion o/f/refill development/redevelopmem
of underdeveloped or tmdevelo~ed properties.
\
· The Planning Commission believes ~t t~anning time flame of this chapter (20 years)
is to short for adequate utility, facility/h~d transportation planning but to long for Growth
Area designation, which may result/i~ ~Xo~ssive land being allocated and serve to
encourage urban sprawl. Theref. eire, it is re~mmended that consideration be given to
,s,_,t~_ cturing this cha,,pter with ~o (2) different'X~mae ~ames. A short term (5-10 years)
development plan' would;a~dres's ~more pressi~t~ issues (i.e. establishment of goals aaa
object,yes, development fan infill policy and up~te of the Master Water and Sewer
Plan). The long term 920-50 years) "horizon plan" ~v~uld identify areas of possible future
long term growth. T/l~s would serve aas guide for th~x~itizens and allow for more
accurate plann/ng ~utilities~d transportatio~elated projects. The
Commission hasfecommended the development of the "hb~zon plan" as a priority Action
Agenda ~tem 7unde~ake after the adoption of Comprehens~ Plan.
· All Designated Growth Areas are to be served by public water anXd~sewer facilities.
· Based on the above recommendation, the Villages of North Garden axed Earlysville are
recommended to be deleted as designated Growth Areas due to the in~asibility of
providing public water and sewer services to these areas.
\
· Expand the existing Growth Area in order to provide a sufficient inventor~kofland to
accommodate anticipated growth over the next 10 years. Continue to discoCfage new
development in the Rural Areas. The expansion of the Growth Area not only~serves to
accommodate new growth in the area but replaces the inventory of land lost w~h the
removal of North Garden and Earlysville as Villages. The Commission re~mm~{}ds
1
expanding Urban Neighborhoods 4 and 5 by a total of approximately 1,800 acres.
· Rec~,. nded general revision to the development standards relating to residential uses,
non-re~dential uses and transportation systems. A major addition is the inclusion of a
standardh[hat encourages a more "human scale," pedestrian oriented and urban style type
of development.
· Two of the m~re significant modifications to the Land Use Classifications:
1. Establis~ent of two new residential land use designations (Neighborhood
Density, 3-~ dwellings per acre and Urban Density, 6.01- 34 dwellings per acre).
These new daxtegories replace the current residential land use categories (Low, 1-4
dwellings per ~xcre; Medium, 4.01-10 dwellings per acre; and, High, 10.01 to 34
dwellingsper are). The new categories allow for higher densities to, achieved
and greater flexib~xty within new residential development. Also~e new
classifications supp~the recommendation to increase dens, within the Growth
Area.
2. Creation ora new non-reX'sidential land use des'~afion; the Transitional Area, This
designation is to be used~in"a[eas between/r~denfial~ and non-residential
(particularly Industrial and Re'~onal Se~ce areas) to provide a more gradual
transition of uses. Also, this lan~usfirSs appropriate in areas where a mixture of
uses, or the need for more flexibi~ in possible uses is desired. The uses allowed
in the Transitional Area are co~'steX~t with those uses allowed in the current
Office Service, Medium an~tigh Density Residential and Neighborhood Service
land use categories.
/
\
1. Very early in the review ~ocess, Staff identified the ny for 5,100 acres of expansion
area to accommodate ~ficip, ated growth over the full 20)~exar planning period of the Land
Use Plan. This amo?t was based on the followiag_assumpt~
1, 2115 population of 96,100 (1994 population est'maate, 73,700')X
2. An average development density of 2.4 dwellings per acre.
3. an average of 2.53 persons per household,
4. Providing a market factor of 3 times the anticipated demand for lan~to
accommodate future growth.
5. Growth Areas would be anticipated to accommodate up to 100 percent,of new
development.
\
Staffidenftfied that the existing inventmy of develop able land in the Growth AXreas
(including N. Garden and Earlysvilte) was sufficient to accommodate the sort terln needs
(5-10 years). Staff recommendation for expansion was based primarily on the need to
maintain a long term planning perspective for guidance, particularly regarding utility,
tr~sportation and public facility planning, as well as for advising the general public of
pot~tial direction of development.
The de~opment community also express concern that much of the land deemed develop
able witlu'~ the Growth Areas is unavailable due to cost, owner's unwillingness to sell, or
other site c[aracteristics that otherwise affect development potential (impact of proposed
roads; substandard or non-existent road access; topography). Staff analysis found that
approximately~hat approximat.ely 1,700 acres could be consider "constrained'' by any of
the factors notcqtxabove, including owners willingness to sell (but not cost).
(acres)
5,900 inventorYdevelop able i~ea°~evel°pin N.ableGardenland (includingand EarlysvitleN' Garden and Earlysville)
-1,200
4,700 develop able a wX/i~ut N. Garden and Earlysville
-1,700 develop able but li'~ited by "certain constraints"
3,000 total develop able w~Xo,ut major constraints
/
./
\
2. Upon evaluating and discussiing th~, the Commission determined that a smaller
expansion should be considered bas~ 6t[ provideing smaller market factor. The
Commission instructed the staff tg/evluat[kan expansion of 3,100 acres, which would
provide approximately 2 times t)fe anticipated land needs. Ultimately, a total of 3,900
acres of expansion identified iix/the Draft La~ Use Plan presented at the for public
meetings and Public Hearin~,/held by the Comlbission (3,250 expansion recommended by
Staffbased on the Commi~ion's target number, i~lasxapproximately 650 acres which
included several public r~uests for Growth Area desl~tion that the Commission wanted
to receive public comme~nt on).
/
Based on the public commeCs received and the Commission's concern of balancing the need for
long term planning with th{potential impact of designating too much land to soon and thereby
potentially encouraging dtvelopment to sprawl, the Commission recommended a more moderate
expan
/
February 14, 1996
SUMMARY OF MAJOR MAP CltANGES TO TIlE LAND USE PLAN
The following are the more significant changes to Land Use Recommendations.
(Also see recommendation in Growth Area Profiles beginning on page 26).
Neighborhood One
The area west of Berkmar Drive is recommended for Transitional use (the Transitional
designation recommends uses consistent with Urban Density Residential, Office Service,
and Neighborhood Service use. This area had previously been recommended for
Medium and High Density Residential Use. Ultimate impact of the Route 29 Western
Bypass to this area will affect the developability of this area and the appropriateness of
Residential uses here. The Transitional designation provides greater flexibility in
utilizing the developable areas.
The undeveloped portion of the Sperry site along Rio Road is recommended for Regional
Service use. It has been previously recommended for Industrial Service use. Property
provides an opportunity to support future commercial development within (very near)
existing commercial corridor. Major concerns with development of this site will be the
ability of existing roads to accommodate traffic and impact to adjacent residential areas.
This is a public request.
Neighborhood Two
The area north of Rio Road (across from CATEC) between the railroad and the proposed
Meadow Creek Parkway is recommended for Urban Density Residential use (previously
recommended for Low Density Residential).
The area east of Rio Road between Pen Park Road and Pen Park Lane is recommended
for Urban Density Residential use (previously recommended for Low Density
Residential).
Neighborhood Three
General re-designation of areas previously recommended for medium and high density
residential to Urban Density Residential. A portion of the area on the north side of Route
250, west of Westminster-Cantebury, has been designated to Neighborhood Density
Residential (from High Density Residential) to reflect a recent rezoning of property.
Neighborhood Four
The area purchased for high school site and other public use is designated for
Institutional use, along with the PVCC property.
The area south of the Avon Street/Route 20 connector road previously recommended for
Low Density Residential is now recommended for Urban Density Residential,
A new Community Service designation is recommended on the east side of Avon Street,
south of the Lakeside Apartments site. This area replaces the commercial area previously
recommended in the Land Use Plan, essentially across Avon Street from the proposed
site. Some commercial/service area is seen as important to support a rapidly developing
residential area and reduce the need to travel to more distant commercial areas.
The area between the proposed Commumry Service area and Cale Elementary School is
recommended for Transitional uses, replacing Medium Density Residential. This would
allow for the existing structure in this area (construction company office and yard), and
the area m general, to be developed with uses which are more in keeping with the
adjacent school site to the south and commercial area to the north.
10.
Expansion of the Neighborhood boundary south of the existing boundary and west of
Route 20 to just north of the Wolverly subdivision. Wingfield Brook is the southern
boundary. This area would be shown for Neighborhood Density Residential. The
Neighborhood Profile text indicates that some internal pordons of this area could be
developed with Urban Density Residential and commercial uses under a planned
development concept for the area.
Neighborhood Five
11.
The Virginia Power site is recommended for Office Service designation (previously
designated Regional Service) to reflect character of actual development.
t2.
The area between Fifth Street Extended and 1-64 is reeonm~ended for Regional Service
uses This would provide for regional scale shopping/service opportunities south of the
City (pubhc requesO.
13.
Expansion of the Neighborhood south and west of its existing Neighborhood boundary.
This area is shown for Neighborhood Densky Residential. For the expansion area east of
Lynchburg Road, the same recommendation regarding potential for Urban Density
Residential and Commercial use is provided in the text.
Neighborhoods Six and Seven
14.
An area under Virginia Outdoors Foundation Conservation Easement has been identified
on the map and text for Neighborhood Six. This area was previously shown as Low
Density Residential
15. No significant changes to Neighborhood Seven
Crozet
16.
Industrial Service designation has been extended west along the railroad to include the
Barnes Lumber Company and Crozet Lumber Company sites (public request). This
area was previously designated Community Service
A Transitional designation has been recommended between Claudius Crozet Park and
the Industrial Service area to the north
18.
A previously recommended Neighborhood Service designation at the proposed
intersection of the Park Road and the Route 240/250 connector road has been deleted as
recommended in the Crozet Community Plan.
19.
Two areas previousIy recommended for Medium Density Residential (The Crozet
Crossing area and the area around Crozet Mobile Home Village on Park Road) are now
recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential.
Hollymead and Piney Mountain
20.
The area along the east side of Worth Crossing is recommended for Transitional uses.
This area was previously designated Medium and High Density Residential.
21
A small area along the west side of Route 29 has been recommended for Regional
Service. It encompasses the area is across the street from the two entrances to North
Forest Lakes (the Main entrance and at McDonalds) .This area has been previously
shown for Industrial Service. This change connects two Regional Service areas already
designated in the Plan.
22.
No significant changes to Piney Mountain, other than the recommendation to change its
designation from a Village to a Community.
.Rivanlla
23
The Commission has recommended the deletion of the Village Density Residential land
use designation and proposes that Villages should be developed at the Neighborhood
Density level (3-6 dwellings/acres). Based on this proposed change, the current
recommendation in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan (Rivanna Profile) limiting the type of
dwellings permitted in the Village to to single-family detached has been deleted.
I:\gen\sh\benish\bosws214. dbb
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Offtc¢ of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(8041 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
April 5, 1996
Chades S. Martin
Walter F Perkir~
Sall~, H. Thomas
TO: ALL ADJACENT OWNERS LISTED ON PROCEEDING PAGES
RE: Proposed Revisions To The Land Use Plan
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Board of Supervisorswill be holding a public hearing or proposed revisions to the
County's Land Use Plan. This letter is to notify you as a property owner adjacent to an area
being considered for designation as a Growth Area in the Land Use Plan.
The Board of Supervisors will receive public comment at its APRIL 17, t996 meeting.
This meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor. County Office
Building, 401 Mclntire Road. Charlottesville, Virginia.
Please contact the Department of Planning & Community Development. at 296-5823, or
at the address above, for further information.
Sincerely,
cc: David Benish
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Printed on recycled t~per
(Page 1)
ABDEL-QUADER. MAHER SAMER OR ABEER HASAN
ALLEN, MERRY LEWIS
ALLEN, CLYDE E & MARY F
ALLEN BRENDA J
ALSMAN, GUY K OR KAREN L
ALUMNI ASSOCIATINOF THE U NIV OF VIRGINIA
ANDREWS. JAMES CLAIRE OR KATHERINE PATRICIA
ARCHER. ROBERT (3 OR SHERRY M
ARMENTROUT. EDWIN L OR JANET LU EBBERT, ERIC H
AUSTIN, VIR(31NIA L
BARKSDALE. ANDREW M OR ANNE [VI
BARWlCK. JOYCE & W R JR
BATTEN. DONALD S
BEELER. LOUIS OR SANDRA G
BENSON, RITA CHRISTINE
BERRY. ALFRED L & JOYCE W
BEST. EDDIE L & MINNIE L
BETTY O BENNETT
BEYER. RICHARD L OR DIANE S
BONNER. LANE L III
BOURNE ARTHUR E OR LENA M
BOURNE. LENA M
BRADLEY, H HAWKINS
BRAGG, KENNETH R OR REBECCA J
BRIEDIS RUTZ. THOMAS L & E JANA
BROWN KEITH J
BRUCE, JOHN P & ETHEL L
BRYANT, HERMAN W & GLADYS O
BYERS. SAMUEL F JR & JOANN
BYERS. R COLE OR LINELL S
CARR, JEFFREY J OR JENNIFER ANN
CARROLL MINNIE WHORLEY
CERSLEY, HENRY L OR PAMELA J
CHARLOTTESVILLE SOUTH HAVEN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH WITNESSES & ETAL
CHERYL L TAYLOR
CHESTNUT GROVE BAPTIST CHURCH
CHEVE$. KEYWOOD C JR.
CHRONISTER, STEVEN OR ELIZA
CLARK, J. DEWART
CLIFTON FORGE-WASHINGTON TELEPHONE CO ETAL (NO ADDRESS)
COFFEY. DANIEL EVAN & LINDA MAY
COLLIER, DANIEL L OR MARIE L
CONNER. JERRY D OR BERNICE
COSNER, E GRANT & BARBARA H
COTTEN. JEFFREYY OR DIANE P
CRAWFORD, JOAN E
CRUTCHFIELD CORP
DEAN, JAMES A & SALLIE G
DEBUTTS RICHARD H
DELICIO, EDWARD T OR SUZANNE
(Page 2)
DIFIORE, GINO A
DILLARD. JACK H & MILDRED N
DUNBAR. WILLIE N
DUNBAR, ROBERT A
DUVAL, GRACE D
EASTON, DAVID N OR LESLIE W
ELLIS, LINDSAY. STERLING OR WENDY JO
ELSWICK, MICHAEL E
FARMER. BEVERLY P OR MARY B
FIRST & MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK
FITZGERALD P, OBERTA B
FOLEY. THOMAS L OR UN'HWA
FOREST LODGE LAND TRUST THE HILDA M BREEDEN TRUST
FOX, STEVE W & BERNICE L
FRAZIER, FANNIE M
FRAZIER. VALERIE D OR GARY W
G E FANUC AUTOMATION NORTH
GENTRY, DALLAS E OR EDITY P
GLOVER, JAMES A OR MARGARET
HAGUE, HARVEY J
HALL, LARRY B OR BARBARA A
HAMILTON, JOEL B OR LINDA R
HARLER, JOHN A OR SHELBY C
HARTMAN FAMILY CORP
HAWN JACK L OR BETTY B
HAYNES. JASPER L OR MALLIE P
HERRING, GERALD A & ALMA W
HERRING, GERALD A & ALMA W
HINELINE. EDSON S JR
HUGHES. WALLACE B & IDA MARIE
HUGHES. WALLACE B & IDA MARIE
HURT INVESTMENT CO
HYMAN ELLIOT L TRUST
JACKSON FRANKLIN D. R. OR VIRGINIA M KING
JEFFERSON VILLAGE INC.
JOHNSON. STEVEN OR BE~i-Y
JQHNSON. MICHAEL J OR SUSAN E MICHAELS
JOHNSON. WALTER H & LAURA J
JOHNSON. MICHAEL WAYNE
JOSEPH BURTON M OR PAMELA H
KIMCO. LC
LAGE, RICHARD L SR & EMILY F
LEAKE, DENNY S OR YONGHAM C
LEAKE LUClLLE M
LEAKE. GEORGIA M
LEE. ROBERT E
LEW~S, HARRY N
LIGHTHOUSE BAPTIST CHURCH
LOESER. ARTHUR ESR
LOWE. M DOUGHLAS OR KlM H
LOWRY, RALPH A & JEAN D
(Page 3)
LOWRY RALPH A & JEAN D
LUKE$, DAHLARD L & MARLENE C
LUNG. WO-SENG OR KATHERINE M
LYONS. LAWRENCE E JR OR DONNA B KIMELMAN, ETAL
MADDEX, RAYMOND D & LEWIS D. POUND
MANLEY. WALKER J & GERTRUDE
MARSHALL. FORREST & REVA
MARTIN. JEFFREY A OR SUSAN B
MARUSAK, TONY J OR DEBORAH A
MAYO. THOMAS M R
MCCAULEY, GEORGE H
MCDANIEL. JESSIE F ESTATE
MCGURN COMPANY, INC.
MCMAHAN. J MICHAEL & KATHERINE A RALSTON
MELCHER, MARGARET SAUL & FREDERIC G. MELCHER II
MEYERS, EDWARD J OR DEBRA P
MILHOAN, LOWELL W & JANICE F
MINOR, LESLIE W OR LUCY L
MINTER, JAMES T OR LISAA
MITCHELL, NORMAN & THELMA
MITCHELL. CHARES G JR OR ELIZABETH M
MIZELL. CHARLES T & DORIS H
MORGOGLIONE. GREGORY OR DAYLE
MYERS, FRED L OR CAROL M
NALLE. BOLLING HOBSON
PACE JOHN P OR VIRGINIA C
PACE GEORGE H & DORIS H
PEERY PAUL L
POOR. BRUCE O OR JUDITH JANE
POTAK. FAY L
PRITCHETT. BARRY G OR MELISA
PROTZMAN. DALE G OR PATRICIA
RAMSEY. THOMAS L & GLORIA B
RIEBEL. JAMES OR BRENDA
RIVANNA RIFLE & PISTOL CLUB
RIVER HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES LTD
ROSS, WALTER 13 & MARION W
ROSSON. EDWIN A & JUDITH W
RR 19. BOX 67
RT 4 BOX 243-E
RVC DESIGN BUILDERS CORP
SAUL, LANDON T OR HELEN C
SEWARD. DAVID A OR TONI J
SHANK, MELVIN OR DAWN M
SHERWOOD MANOR LTD PARTNERSHIP
SHIFFLETT. MARY S
SHIFFLETT. FREDERICK OR SANDRA
SHIFLETT. STEWART & RUBY L
SHIPP DAVID R OR DEBRA M
SIBBALD, GARY E OR STUART M ZELLMER
SIMON MARILYN L
(Page 4)
SLEETH. ROBERT L OR BARBARA L
SMITH AMPY OR REGINA S
SOURS, CHARLOTTE G
SOUTHWOOD MOBIEL HOME ESTATES, INC
STARKS OLIVER A OR PHYLLIS D
STONER, FRANK R IV OR ELIZABETH BONDURANT STONER
STRATTON EVELYN L
TAYLOR. GLENN EDWARD OR MARY BETH PAUL
TEATES, CHARLES D & MARY B
THOMAS MAURICE J JR
TOMS. JOHN A OR PAIGE B
VARNER, DON E OR LINDA B
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES
VIOLET HILL ASSOCIATES
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST. CHARES W HURT & SHIRLEY FISHER, TRS
VIRGINIA LAND TRUST
WARTHEN BENJAMIN POLLARD ALSOP OR TERRY GWYN
WESTVACO CORPORATION
WHITE. KEVlN M OR ELIZABETH R
WILLIAMS. JOE W OR SANDRA S
WILSON TERMINAL CORP
WILSON JUANITA L
WILSON MICHAEL L OR STACIE K
WISE, CORNELIA B
WOOD. VANZY L JR & VIRGINIA F
WOOD. WENDELL W & HUNTER W
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804] 296-5843 FAX (804) 296~5800
Charle.. S. Martin
Waiter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
April 5, 1996
TO: ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LISTED ON PROCEEDING PAGES
RE: Proposed Revisions To The Land Use Plan
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Board of Supervisors will be holding a public hearing on proposed revisions to the
County's Land Use Plan. This letter is to notify you as a property owner within an area being
considered for designation as a Growth Area in the Land Use Plan.
The Board of Supervisors will receive public comment at its APRIL 17, 1996 meeting.
This meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor. County Office
Building, 401 Mclntire Road. Charlottesville, Virginia.
Please contact the Department of Planning & Community Development. at 296-5823, or
at the address above, for further information.
Sincerely,
cc: David Benish
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Printed on recycled paper
(Page 1)
ADAMS, CHARLES B. OR KRISTI L.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
ALLEN, MERRY LEWIS
AMBURN, RANDALL M & ALESIA
AMBURN, ALESIA M
ARNOLD, EUGENE D JR OR JEANNLE P
ARTISAN HOMES LIMITED
BADGER FIRE PROTECTION 1NC
BANNING, RICHARD P OR ELIZABETH L
BARLOW, JAMES H JR OR LAVETTA
BARRETT, PAUL G
BATTEN, JULIAN P ce: MYRTLE E
BEEGLE, CHARLES W OR ~EAN R
BENEDICT, ROBERT
BENZINGER, JAMES F
BEKEAN BAPTIST CHURCH
BERRY, ERNIE D & ELLA J
BEST, EDDIE LEE & MINN~ LEE
BIEBER, MITCHELL R OR JEANNETE
BIRCKHEAD, WILLIARD HOWELL JR OR CHARLOTTE E
BJRCKHEAD, WAYNE OR BETTY L
BLACK, CECIL A & ALICE WOOD
BOWER, KAREN M
BOYD, JOHN D II OR APRIL W
BRADLEY, H HAWKINS
BREEDEN, H]LDA M
BREEDEN, ~LAY W & JANICE D
BREEDING,¼GREGORY A OR LYNDEE
BREEN, GERALD W OR MARY C
BRICH, STEPHEN C OR REBECCA S
BROOKMAN, RUSSELL T OR PAMELA R
BROOKS, GLENN E OR CHRISTINA
BRYANT, WILLIAM JR
BUSHEY, WARREN ARTHUR JR OR REBECCA D SACCO
BUSOFSKY, RICHARD M OR BRENDA
BUTLER, BILLEY R OR KATHRYN H
BUTLER, BRUCE S OR DIANE
CARVER, FORREST WAYNE OR FRANCIS S
CASON, LESLIE M & SB~LBY
CASON, DOROTHY ELIZABETH
CENEDELLA, ATTILIO H & VIRGINIA TRS OF THE CENEDELLA 1984 TRUST
CENTRAL VIRGINIA EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION
CERV, RICHARD M
CHARLOTTESVILLE REALTY CORPORATION
CHAP&TON, DONALD EUGENE OR FREDERICA OFFUTT C
CHOI, Ku2'q TAI
CLARK, ANDY OR KATHY
CLEMMER, BILLY LYNWOOD AND NANCY RUTH
COBLE, J NEWELL
COLLIGAN, JOHN K OR JOANN L
COLLINS, ROBERT P OR MICHELLE R
COOPER, CELESTE A & DAVID YOUNG
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SCFlOOL BOARD
CRAIG, BARRY P & CAROL H
CRAWFORD, NATHAN1EL J EST
CRAWFORD WADE L & JOAN
CRAWFORD. LAWRENCE H
CREIGHTON, FRANCES OR PHILIPPA
CRISS, PERCY OR SHIRLEY B
CROWELL, JOHN L
CUNNINGHAM. DAVID W OR SYLVIA
CURTIAN. STEVEN E OR GLENN S HIRSCH
DANIEL, JEFFREY C OR ANN L
DAVIS. RUSSELL Fl III OR JANICE V
DEAN, PAUL K OR E1LEEN M
DEANE, CARL OR JOYCE
DELONG, ROBERT G OR HELEN S & MARTHA D CALDERWOOD
DEVLIN, DANIEL K OR THERESA A
DICKMAN. RICHARD I OR LYNN M
DILLARD, JEFFREY M OR STEPHANIE S
DODD, PAUL R OR CONNrlE
DUBOSE, LEIGHTON CRAIG
DUDLEY MOUNTAIN LAND TRUST;
DUGAN. THOMAS M OR LINDA J
DUNN. CRAIG P OR CONSTANCE H
DUNSMORE, MARK G OR NANCY J
EASTER, JOHN M OR MARION B
EDGELL. MARGIE N
ELFORD, RONALD L OR VICKI L
ELLIOTT, LEO H JR OR MEL1NDA L
EMERY, ROBERT J OR SANDRA S
ESTES, ZI1LICLE JAMES JR
ESTES, WARREN M
FLOYD, EDDIE L & DORIS O
FOLEY, THOMAS L OR LIN HWA
FORD, BRUCE OR SARAH
FOREST LODGE LAND TRUST THE
FOSTER, ROBERT A OR PATTY U
FOWLEY. DANIEL OR CAROLYN
FRATICELLI_ MARIE L OR MICHAEL A
GARWOOD, ROBERT W OR ROCHELLE
GENTRY, JAMES EDWARD & BETTY ANNE
GIANN1NI, BRYSTON OR ELIZABETH
GIBSON, ANN GARDNER & MURIEL SUE VAUGHT
GIUDICE, THOMAS P OR JOANNA F
GLEASON, THOMAS G
GMW PARTNERSHIP
GOODMAN, NORMAN C OR PATRICIA
GRAVES, CANDACE J
GREEN, HIAWATHA OR JULIA
HALL, GEORGE S
HANCOCK, JOFIN'R OPJ!9IATINA S ·
HANEY, CATHERINE OR KATHLEEN CLAUS
(Page 3)
HAPWORTH, PETER J OR HAL1NA T
HAYSTEAD, TIMOTHY A J OR CLARE M
HERRING, GERALD OR ALMA
HERRING, LOYD R
HILDA M BREEDEN TRUSTEE
HILL_ KENNETH OR ANGELINA L
HILL, DAVID L OR CAROL A
HINES, DAVID WATERFIELD JR & NORMA EUGENIA
HINSON, STEPHEN J OR NANCY B
HOFFMAN, RUBY C
HONEYWELL, GARY BRYANT OR NANCY LOU
HOOPER, RICHARD C OR TRACY L
HORN, JOHN D OR HILLARY T
HOWELL, JESSIE & NANCY LAMB
HUBONA, MICHAEL & MURIEL R
HUNT, NANCY I & WILLIAM E
INTALL, JOSEPH H OR MARIE-CLAUDE
ISAACS, STEPHEN R OR CARLA T
JABLON, JEFFREY T OR PATRICIA A
JACKSON, ELLISON B OR MARY E
JACKSON, ESTELLE M_ ESTATE
JENKINS, BOYD E JR.
JENSEN. P. DOUGLAS OR PATRICIA B
JERNIGAN, JERRY C OR LINDA M
IESSIE C. MUNDIE
JESSUP, JAMES L JR. & SUZANNE JESSUP STATON, TRUSTEES
JOHNSON_ H. ANDREW OR KAREN M. SISCO
JOKL, JAMES A OR JAYNE BRITTLE
KEHOE, WILLIAM J & KAREN J
KESSLER, GEORGE L OR WINNIE N
KEYS. WILLIAM H
KILLORY, MARGARET A
KNOEBBER, JANE E OR STEPHEN A
LANDESS. FRED S & STEVE BLAINE
LARUE, DAVID OR AMPARO
LEWIS, HARRY N
LEYTHAM, WALTER OR JUDITH
LIBERIA DEVELOPMENT CORP
LLOYD, MICHAEL L
LOH1L PATTI G
LOTT, FRANK B & JUANITA L
LOUISELL, MARK N
LOVE, GREGORY A OR JUDY L
LOWE, MELVIN DOUGLAS OR KIM H
LUCERO, DONALD OR BARBARA
MAHER, CHRISTOPHER M OR LAURIE D MQ, IST ARMORED DIV (SJA)
MARGARET R MCIN I'IRE
_MARSHALL, FOREST R. JK
MARSHALL, NANCY H
MARSHALL, WILLIAM SCOTT
MARTIN, CHARLES S DR CAROLYN C
MARTIN, JOHN H OR FANNIE
(Page 4)
MASON, KARL EUGENE OR JOYCE M
MAYO. CHARLES R OR JUDY S
MAYO, MICHAEL OR KATHY
MCCLUR~, M CLIFTON & ROBERT M
MCCRAY, BRENDA A OR TERRENCE L
MCCKICKARD, MARY LEE
MCDANIEL, DONNIE OR CAROLYN
MCDANIEL, JESSIE F ESTATE
MCDANIEL_ JESSIE F ESTATE, ETAL
MCDANIEL CLIFTON OR SUSAN ANN
MCNEISH, KEV1N J OR NICOLE R
MCGURN COMPANY. INC. THE
MCLEAN, JOAN B
MIKULA. VICTORIA
M1LIOTIS, ANDREAS OR DESPINA
MILLER, CECIL J OR MONIQUE C
MILLER EUGENE D. JR & NELLIE W
MILLER, RHODA M & MARGARET MCINTIRE
MILLER, RICHARD S OR LORETTA LYNCH
MILLER, MORGAN D OR CAROL J
M1NNIS_ STEVEN R OR LINDA M
MINOR, SUE BREEDEN
MINTER, JUDITH
MORRIS, KENT AUTRY & PEGGY ANN
MORRIS, CLIFTON TINSLEY
MORRIS, LUTHER G & JEANETTE ~
MUELLER, WILLIAM K OR SUSAN M
MULLINS, CHARLES L OR DIANE B
MUNDIE, LOUISE LEE OR JESSIE CLAY
MURPHY, MAUREEN ETHEL
MYRTLE, THOMAS W OR CARLA
N J CRAWFORD LAND TR
N~EFF, TODD A OR LAURA L
NEWCOMBE, BERNARD A OR MARTHA B
NUTTER, RANDALL W OR KATHRYN M
OAKHILL WATER COMPANY, INC.
OPIELA. R PAUL
OUTLAW, JONATHAN C OR RUTH E
PACE, GEORGE H OR DORIS B
PACE, DORIS B
PAINTER, TIMOTHY F
PARRY. MARK E OR CYNTHIA C
PAYNE, ALFRED BROACH OR SUSAN BOSWELL
PERRY, PAUL L
PERRY, SUSAN E
PERRY, BOYD A & RACHEL PURVIS PEERY
PETTY, ARTHUR PALrL JR
PLAISANCE, HELEN J OR AMY SUZANNE GRIFFITH
POOLE, DAVID E OR RUTH B
PORRITT, GERALDINE L
PRINCETON-DOYLE COMPANY
PRITCHETT, WALTER LEE
(Page 5)
PRITCHETT, BARRY G OR MELISA L
PURCELL, PATRICIA H
RAE, COLIN T OR REGINA L
RAWSON, REBECCA
RECTORS & VISITORS OF ~ UVA
REDFIELDS COMMLrNITY ASSOCIATION INC.
REDFIELDS LAND TRUST
REDFIELDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
RE]ID, DONALD L TRUSTEE
RENTFROW, FLOYD J OR LINDA K
REYNOLDS, DAVID N OR ELIZABETH A PRATT
RICItLANDS FARM LAND TRUST,
RIDDLE, JAMES B & JANE N
RINI, JOEL OR PAMELA DE VRIES R
RI~ANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
RIVER HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES LTD
ROARK. JACKIE E
ROBERTS, GEORGEANN S
ROBERTSON, LINDSAY G OR MADELYN J
ROGERS, RALPH V
ROSS. NORMAN J OR WANDA M
ROSSETTI, MANUEL D OR AMY H
ROSSMAN, DARWIN OR EMMAJANE
ROTE, GAYE E
ROUTE 20 LAND TRUST
RUNNELS, JEAN L
RUPP, VERYL W OR HAZEL T
RVC DESIGN BUILDERS CORPORATION
SCHINASI. LEE OR BONNIE
SCHLANGER, FRANCES A TRUSTEE OF FRANCES SCHEANGER, TRUST
SCHIV[ELTE1L DOUGLAS OR LINDA M
SCItMIDT. JAMES A OR L1NDA T
SCHMIDT, VIRGINIA B
SCHUBERT, FRED O OR MARY TABB JOHNSON
SEXTON, DOROTHY & JESSIE
SHICK, DAVID W OR MARTHA A
SHOULDERS, JAMES EARL JR OR MONICA LOGAN
SIELING. AMY BASSET
SINDEN, JAMES V OR ANA ABAD
SMITH, DAVID E OR ANNE M
SMITH, DUANE A & JOYCE A
SMITH, RUSSELL B OR BRENDA M
SNYDER, JOHN H OR JOAN S
SNYDER. ANGELA L
SOUTHLAND CONSTRUCTION INC.
SOUZA, DAVID A OR ELIZABETH M
SPROUSE, HERMAN C & JOYCE M
STATES, MICHAEL E OR SHERI A NUNN
STEINBERG. JACK G OR THERESA A MCCLANAHAN
STEWART, HERBERT L OR DONNA M
STOKES. DENNIS'D ~ BE~ M
STRALEY, ALICE & OAKLEY
STROTHERS. MARY DEBUTTS & ETA[,
STRUB, STEPH~N C
TAYLOI~ DAVID
THAltP, ROBERT V OR MIN-NIE M
THOLLANDER, LANCE N OR CHRISTINE L
TOWER, STEVEN A OR JAYE MORGAN
TURNER, ROBERT F OR LYNN L
TLFRNEP~ IRENE ALLEN
VALENTE, ANTHONY OR MARY
VAN DERVEER. ROBERT & DAWN ARGENBRIGHT TI{ U/W OF LK,LIAN VAN DERVEER
VAN DERVEER, ROBERT HANCE
VAN DERVEER, ROBERT H
VOHRA. MOHAMMAD NASIR
VON STORCH, CATHERINE C
WADE L CRAWFORD, TR
WALKER, DONALD R OR PAMELA M
WALKER, SAMUEL STANItOPE II OR JANICE M
WARD, FRANCES W & JANET W GLOVER
WAKTHEN, BENJAMIN POLLARD ALSOP OR TERRY GWYN
WATT, FRANCIS HANSELL, JR OR MARYLOU
WEISS, PATRICIA J
WELLS, SAMUEL & WILLIAM KREMER
WELLS, ROBERT & ADDIE F
WHEELER, GORDON L
WHITE, EARL T OR JOANN M
WILLIS, SCOTT R OR JOANN J
WINTERGREEN FARM LAND TRUST
WOLF PROPERTY CORPORATION
WOOD, WILLIAM COVELL & MARY M
WOOD. WILLIAM & LUCILLE
WOOD, THOMAS E & LOUISE
WOOD, VANZY LA SALLE, JR & VIRGINIA F
WOOLLEY, MADELINE C
WRAY, JOHN E iV OR PAULINE
WRIGHT. WILLARD S OR SANDRA F
WRIGHT, JOHN STERLING OR ANN
YANKEY, JAMES D OR SHIRLEY A
COPY
April 9, 1996
580 Forrest Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
! ~ ~D OF SUPERv iSO~
Dear Mrs. Humphris:
The recent announcement relative to a public hearing scheduled for
April 17, 1996 has come to my attention. This includes, among other
matters, expanding the Growth Area along Route 20 South. In the
event my wife and I should be unable to attend or to be heard, it
will be appreciated if you will take the time to consider the contents
of this letter in forming your voting decision.
We are residents of the sub-division named l~larshall Manors. Our
property borders the Route 20 eastern right-of-way at the northeast
corner of Route 20 and Forrest Road. The land directly across Route
20, from our home, is currently being considered to be included in
the proposed Growth Area expansion. For a number of very worthy
reasons, we are unalterably opposed to this revision in classification.
During the period when this expansion was under consideration by
the Planning Commission and at their public hearing I presented our
objections as representing the will of every home owner in Marshall
Manors. At that time I submitted an opposition petition bearing the
signature of the owner, or owners, of every residence in the sub-
division. I do not know if you have been made aware of this unanimous
expression of objection. In the event you have not, I am taking the
liberty of sending you a photocopy of the documents.
Additionally, during the December 20, 1995 meeting of the Planning
Commission (which was the final meeting for several of the members)
the recommendations of the Planning Department staff was to omit the
area which is the subject of our objection. Notwithstanding, the vote
was made to include the area. In all candor, I am puzzled to know who
is being considered more favorably - the'Citizen or the Developer?
I do appreciate your attention in this regard and am hopeful your vote
will serve the best interest of the citizens of this area of Albemarle
County.
Charles G. MitclSell, Jr. //¢
~ z ~ ~> mro
~ o~O~
November 27, 1995
Mi. V..Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning and Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
........... ~-h'~rlot~-iiie, VA 2291Ji--~'9'6 .....
Re: Zoning Change
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
Please be advised that we are in complete agreemen.t, with the other residents of/vlarshall ManOr
to "flexible UD area~q We own the property at 585 Forrest goad and we would like our names
added to the' petition which reads
"The undersigned, all property owners and residents in Marshall Manor subdivision,
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby request and petition the Department of Planning and
Community Development and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle to leave unchanged
the designation of the property lying to the west of and bordering Route 20 along the
distance occupied by the above mentioned subdividion which borders the East side of
Route 20.
The undersigned! hereby wishes to be on record as to objecting to the proposed revision
in designation of~ said property to that of a growth area in land use."
Since we are in Ft. Myers, Florida for the winter months, we have not been able to attend the
meetings which are being held on this zonnlg change. If we had been present, you can rest
assured that we would have been most active ill opposing tiffs proposal. We understand that
Charles and Liz Mitchell, and peflmps some of our other neighbors, will be in attendance at
these meetings to speak iagatns~ the proposal. We support Iheir opposition 100%.
Very truly yours,
{~.Aames J. H~/pes
cc: ~. & Mrs. Cha?les Mitchell
Ahgela M. Hopes
ZONING
Citizen~ for,Albemarle
Position Paper Regarding
The Proposed Revision to Land Use Plan for Developed Areas
17 April, 1996
Citizens for Albemarle proposes that you, the Board of Supervisors:
Accept simply as an incomplete report the proposed revision to the land use
ptan for the developed environment. The document is incomplete because it
does not address the relation of our developed areas to our open spaces.
Return the proposed developed areas land use plan to the Planning
Commission for further consideration during the coming review of the rural
areas. We ask also that the Planning Commission be instructed to submit a
revised developed areas/and use p/an at the same time that a rural areas/and
use plan is forwarded.
3. Form a citizen advisory committee to examine how our growth areas should
be redesigned so as to be more attractive, walkable, affordable and dense.
Set as a high priority the completion of already endorsed studies needed
for long term planning. These include the biological critical resources inventory
called for in the Open Space P/an and the urban neighborhood studies.
Should you feel compelled to make a final judgment this evening about the land use plan
for developed areas, we urge that you reject any conversion of land into growth areas at
this time. Our arguments against growth areas expansions are detailed in the attached notice.
The basis for these proposals is as follows. The goal of planning should be to actively determine
the future of our community, not simply to accommodate or passively respond to outside forces,
especially when those forces create changes that Albemarle residents do not want.
The comprehensive plar~ should by definition derive from some encompassing design.
Developed areas exist within natural areas. Developed areas depend on open spaces for water,
clean a~r. agricultural and forest products and esthetic experiences that emerge from contact with
nature. We cannot decouple planning for developed areas from planning in rural areas
The last systematic consideration of rural areas planning issues occurred four years ago during
the development and adoption of the Open Space Plan. Given the age of this review and the
linkages between rural and developed areas, the County is not now in good position to make
judgments about growth areas expansions or any other major changes ~ our land use system.
Growth areas expansions are rural areas reductions. Expansion of growth areas should not be a
given in revisions of our comprehenswe plan. The burden of proof lies with those who advocate
reduction of our rural areas. If we do not have the information required to adequately understand
the consequences of rural area reduction, a conservative approach requires that we postpone
growth areas expansion.
Analyses indicate that there is an ample supply of undeveloped land in already designated growth
areas to meet the needs of our community for the next 20 years. Public sentiments expressed at
the Planning Commission hearing on the developed areas plan were overwhelmingly against
growth areas expansions. There was no consensus on the Planning Commission as to how the
growth areas might best be expanded. The forwarded recommendation was simply a motion that
managed to pass after many others were tried and failee Costs of utilities required by the
various proposed growth areas expansions are incomplete. Without a critical resources
inventory, we do not know the biological consequences of the different possible growth area
expansions.
For all of these reasons Citizens for Albemarle is opposed to any growth areas expansions at
this 'time.
We recognize the importance of growth areas in our land use system. The growth areas should
be large enough so that most of our residents can live in them. They should be safe. affordable
and enjoyable places to live. They should foster walkable neighborhood communities. Our
growth areas should be concentrated enough that our green spaces are not displaced or badly
fragmentee
There have been recent successes regarding the growth areas (for exam pie the high percentage
of new housing starts that are in them). However, we are not achieving sufficient density and
infill i~ our growth areas and they often are not as affordable and walkable as we seek.
There appears to be widespread support in our community for redesigning our growth areas to
make them better. Thus. we ask that a citizen advisory committee be formed to examine how our
growth areas should be redesigned to make them more safe. affordable, enjoyable and dense.
The development of a comprehensive plan based on an encompassing design requires much
good information and analysis. Albemarle County already has endorsed or begun the conduct of
studies that would significantly assist in development of a comprehensive plan rooted in an
encompassing design. The Open Space Plan endorses the conduct of a biological critical
resources inventory that we could use dght now. Neighborhood studies have been started that
should shed light on how to improve growth area designs,
Citizens for Albemarle believes that in the near the greatest need is to better understand, not
alter, our system of lands in various uses. We believe that we are at a point where completion of
many already endorsed studies would be highly productive and should be emphasized in
allocation of staff time.
The proposals at the beginning of this statement are designee to help implement a
comprehensive plan with a sound encompassing design. We hope you wiJl support them.
NOTICE
On April 17, 1996' the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will take
public comment on major revisions proposed for Chapter 3 of the county's
Comprehensive Plan, includ'mg conversion of hundreds, if not thousands,
of acres rural land in Albemarle to new designated urban area.
*Confirm with board's office at 296-5843,
The upcoming hearing is step two. Last autumn the planning commission
took public comment, which led to the following statement in December by
the commission's outgoing chair:
'I have been to every public meeting we have held and listened to
hundreds of citizens, and with very few exceptions--in the business
community and developer$--I find absolutely no support (for I~rowth).
The people who live here don't want it." (T. Blue, Dee. 19, 1995)
The board has taken up consideration of the expansion issue, nevertheless;
their deliberations include any or all of the 3,800 acres studied by the
commission. A few of the arguments against expansion are discussed below,
along with ideas for what we might do with our development efforts as
alternatives to expanding them. This hearing is a critical moment in the near
future of Albemarle County. Speak up now, if ever you will.
Ten good arguments against growth-areas
expansion
1. After a whole year of deliberation, the planning commission
could not agree on any aspect of growth areas expansion--not on
how much or where or whether.
Any decision to sacrifice rural acres of Albemarle County to new growth area
is so drastically opposite the community's wishes that compelling reasons
must be firmly established. In the face of such compelling reasons, even an
unwilling majority might see the sense of expansion--might at least agree
that no othermove makes any sense. Neither this community, nor its
planning commission, nor--we suggest--this Board has established
compelling circumstances at this point.
This mismng evidence for expansion was quite apparent at the meeting
where the the planning commission finalized its recommendations on growth
areas.
Drafted and distributed by Citizens for Albemarle, Inc., PO Box 3751, University Station,
Charlottesville, Va. 22903. Phone: 961-3123. Reproduce and distribute this information
if you like. Please also consider a contribution to defray the costs of Citizens for Albemafle's
ail-volunteer efforts. And remember, every voice counts. Come to the public heating and
express your views.
At their fmal meeting in 1995, under the gun of breaking up as a group (three
commissioners stepped down in~6), the six commissioners present
attempted to come up with some recommendation on expansion or
nonexpansion. Numerous motions were made: '600 acres in the north, and
600 acres in the south'--failed. 'None in the North and everything studied
in the south'--failed. "None in the North and only the westernmost portion
in the south~-~no second. On it went. This parcel and that.
Two of the commissioners supported eve~'y motion, no matter which
parcels were included or excluded. One commissioner supported none
of the motions. When there remained only one untried combination of
spots on the map--which happened to be all the proposed area in the south
except that east of Route 20--the motion carried 4 to 2. However, the very
next comment from one of the supporters of this south-only motion was that
he hoped that the board of supervisors would consider the addition of area to
the north. (Information taken from the plarming commission minutes for 12/19/95)
Clearly, this decision has been tossed, in exasperation, as a ball into the
supervisors' court. And we are back to square one,
We believe this situation reflects the fact that there is no good
decision that can be made at this time. Reasons behind that belief are
stated below.
2. What would be the logic in a board of supervisors vote in mid-
April to designate up to 3,800 acres of rural land for new growth
areas, when the planning commission will be launching a full
review of rural areas development two weeks later?
Protection of the rural areas has been cited as a rationale for expansion of
the growth areas. A rural areas assessment by the Planning Commission is
slated to begin at the end of April 1996. Will we conclude after this rural
areas assessment the same thing concluded in the 1989 Comp Plan review:
"The amount of by-right rural area residential developmel~t which continues
to occur is compromising the intent of the Plan [to channel growth into
designated growth areas and preserve the rural areas]."
That well may be the conclusion; ff in advance we have already justified a
1996 growth-areas expansion on the grounds of rural areas protection, we
will have made a tragically baseless decision indeed.
Consider that every year since 198 t, more than 225 building permits have
been issued for residential construction in the rural areas, with an average
Drafted and distributed by Citizens for Albemarle, Inc., PO Box 3751. University Station,
Charlottesville, Vm 22903. Phone: 961-3 I23. Reproduce and distribute this information
if you like, Please also consider a contribution to defray the costs of Citizens for Albemafle's
all-vohlnteer efforts. And remember, every votce counts. Come to the public hearing and
express your views.
2
lot size'for 50% of the plats in the 2-5 acre range (from a county planning staff
report dated 10/31/95).
If one looks at percentages of permits issued, it appears that the rural areas
may be doing pretty well. In 1994, only 25% of residential building permits
were issued for rural areas properties--but that still amounted to 231
permits. Twelve years earlier, when the percentage of permits in the rural
areas looks much worse--53% in 1982--the actual number of permits was
255. Not much difference in net rural impact.
In the upcoming rural areas review, many strategies for additional rural-
areas protection may be reviewed. It would be premature to exercise the
growth, areas expansion strategy for protection, before we have really
decided that it is the best and only of ~ possible means.
3. There is no housing crisis here to justify an immediate need
for growth-areas expansion.
In the last four years} the~:e has not been a single month when any fewer
than 1,400 homes were on the market in this area. These data were provided
by the Charlotteville Area Association of Realtors (CAAR Briej~, whose
statistical analyst characterized the inventory as "high."
4. There is no crisis of unavailable land to justify an urgent
neetl for growth-areas expansion.
Herei are the county's numbers (from a staff report of the department of
planning and community development, prepared for the beginning of the
planning commission's deliberations on Comp Plan chapter 3):
20,000 new residents proj.~cted for Albemarle over the next 20 years.
8,800 new dwellings required to house these folks.
3,300 acres (maximum}* o,/building sites needed to build those dwellings
over the next 20 years--nOt in the next 5 years--the next 20!.*
33,300 acres was thee staffs outcome based on assumptions for various
dwelling types and the percentage of each type might we might
anticipate. The estimate was not calculated at the higher densities of
development propose
The higher densities
capacity, so the 3,30
maximum.
6,000 acres is roughly the
growth areas (exclusive of
d now for the infill strategy in the growth areas.
should demand less acreage for equal housing
acres may be considered an estimate of the
xventory of undeveloped land available in existing
:he villages of Earlysvllle and North Garden, which
are likely to be deleted as growth areas for lack of public water and sewer).
Drafted and distributed by Citizens for Albemarle, Inc., PO Box 37.51, University Station.
Charlottesville, Va, 22903. Phone: 961-3123. Reproduce and distribute this information
if you tike. Please also consider a contribution to defray the costs of Citizens for Atbemarle's
all-vo[uuteer ef/brts. And remember, every voice counts. Come to the public heating and
express your v~ews,
Undeveloped inventory = 6,000 acres
20-year maximnm demand = 3,300 acres
Whore is the urgency for immediate expansion of the growth
areas? These nnmbors demonstrate ample capacity for the near torm,
and possibly even for the long term if our community were to take
steps to limit its population growth rate below that used by staff for
projections.
If we were to cut our rate of growth from 2% per year to 0.5% per year, our
community would double in population in 140 years rather than in 35! The
slowed growth rate would demand quite a bit tess than the projected 3.300
acres of development capacity over the next 20 years--only 8:20 acres in
fact--maximum_! Less is needed if infili development densities are figured
in! To accomplish this lessened level of need, we would limit residential
building permits and creation of new square footage of office/commercial/
industrial space to levels necessary to support a 0,5% annual population
increase.
5. The new ~infill development strategy" for urb~ttizing the
growth areas is a complete mystery at this time.
A proposed 'infill development" approach to higher density development in
areas designated for growth appears to be sailing forward without opposition,
including none from Citizens for Albemarle.
We support the concept, but point out that a concept is all that it is.
The steps toward implementation have yet to be developed. We support the
action agenda item that would pursue infill development ordinances. These
steps will take time to devise and implement. Until the actual mechanisms
for infitl development are in place, the community will have no way to judge
the impact of infill strategies on the existing growth areas. [nfill may turn
the growth areas into dynamic urban communities with carrying capacity for
all anticipated growth in the next 20 years, or into asphalt-and-utility wires
nightmares. Before additional growth areas {which would be subject to
the new inflll level of development densitiesl are designated, we need
some time to determine whether the in£ffi strategy is a good one, to
find and correct its flaws, to know whether the strategy obviates the
need for furthor growth-areas expansions.
Existing neighborhoods matter the most.
Drafted and distributed by Citizens for Albemarle, Inc., PO Box 3751, University Station,
Charlottesville. Va. 22903. Phone: 961-3123. Reproduce and distribute this information
ff you like. Please also consider a contribution to defray the costs of Citizens for Albemafle's
all-volunteer efforts, And remember, every voice counts. Come to the public hearing and
express your views,
4
During~ the/~rocess of figuring out how to implement infill development
stategies, Citizens for Albemarle and others believe that another issue is
extremely important to incorporate. This second issue is related to the
exisiting urban ring in Albemarle, which is divided on the maps into seven
sections, referred to as neighborhoods 1-7. We strongly favor a process
that takes each of these segments of the urban ring and surveys it to
determine what compostion and planning elements would enhance its
existence as a true neighborhood. For example, where is the communal
green space in each segment; where is the housing in relation to the
schools, recreational areas, post offices, shopping areas, emptoymen~
centers; is there integration of these elements and if not, what would it take
in terms of planning to facilitate the evolution of each area as a true
community?
Here again, such plans are part of an action agenda proposed to the board of
supervisors. Note that these are plans, not yet accomplishments. The
county planning staff has estimated that it will take up to 2 years
after completion of the c~rrertt Comp Plan review for the neighborhood
studies to be completed.
We believe it is critical to know what our neighborhood plans are for
the existing ~rowth areasuand what our community's commitment wlil
be to implemenation of the plans--before we designate new growth
areas.
Remember, a better not b/ggerAlbemarle.
7. Expansion of growth areas diverts attention from seriously
attempting to solve the problem of affordable housing.
Is Albemarle a more affordable place to live today than years ago? What are
the provisions that will assure affordable housing? We have opportunities
provided by the new infill development strategy to artfully design the growth
areas to include intermingled affordable housing. The Piedmont
Environmental Council has called the county's attention to Virginia enabling
legislation (Virginia Code section 15.1-49 1.9) that would allow the county to
takes steps to safeguard the affordability of a portion of the housing in the
community, powers currently not exe~rcised. Simply changing boundaries
on the map has not been demonstrated by anyone to satisfy the community's
aspirations for affordable housing.
8. Water issues are in the pipeline, so to speak.
Drafted and distributed by Citizens for Albemarle, Inc., PO Box 3751, University Station,
Charlottesville, Va. 22903 Phone: 961-3123. Reproduce and distribute this information
ff you like. Please also consider a contribution to defray the costs of Citizens for Albemafle's
all-volunteer efforts. And remember, every voice counts. Come to the public heating and
express your views.
Another ite/n on the proposed action agenda for the county is an assessment
of ground water withdrawal. The county planning staff advised the board of
supervisors that it "may be later necessary to change the growth areas
section [of the Comp Plan] to reflect that assessment." (Board of Supervisors
w~rk session on the comp plan 2/14/96).
We say, "Do the assessment f'~rst, before any expansion of the growth
areas." In fact, the groundwater withdrawal assessment was also an aim
stated in the Open Space Plan adopted by the county in 1992. If we stop
expanding long enough, perhaps we can actually have staff available to
accomplish stated aims that have been good ideas for a long time now.
9. Those who would seek expansion of the gro.£h areas by
conversion of rural land need to join the lobby for execution of
the critical resources inventory called for in the Open Space
Plan amendment to Comprehensive Plan.
How on earth can legit/mate, sound decisions about land consumption be
made when we haven't determined what resources must be saved? How
silly for a community that values tile environment to inadvertently
destroy what it would have meant to keep had planning occurred after
the inventory instead of the other way around. The order of events is
really up to us.
10. Gotta plan those utilities!
County planners have advocated over and over designation of additional
growth area now to enable long-range utilities planning to begin.
However, Mr. J. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service
Authority advised the board of supervisors on 2/14/96 that "we are quite
few years from a dec/sion necessity."
Also, more data pertinent to the Albemarle water supply situation will be
available by the end of this year, when the Buck Mountain reservoir
consulting report is due. (Board of Supervisors mi,~utes for Feb. 7, 1996)
Once age/n, better data than we have now will be available a ways down the
road for making a sound growth-areas expansion decision.
Plan to speak at the public hearing. Write the Board of Supervisors at 40t
Mclntire Road, Charlottesville 22902. Call the chair, Charlotte Humphris.
Call your supervisor (if you don't know who your supervisor is call the Board
of Supervisors office at 296-5843 or call Citizens for Albemarle 961-3123}.
Drafted and distributed by Citizens for Albemarle, Inc., PO Box 3751. University Station,
Charlottesville, Va. 22903. Phone: 961-3123. Reproduce and distribute this information
if you like. Please also consider a contribution to defray the costs of Citizens for Albemarle's
all-volunteer efforts. And remember, every voice counts. Come to the public hearing and
express your views.
6
BLUE RH)GE HOME BUfLDERS ASSOCIATION POSITION PAPER
PUBLIC HEARING GROWrlH AREA EXPANSION AND INFILL DEVELOPMENT
4/17/96
Growth area expansion and infill development is a complex endeavor when you try to
provide the correct balance in order to achieve the County's goals..In addition, public sentiment
ranges fi:om the no-growth advocates to those that favor moderate expansion.
I'm sure you have, as ! do, reams of data and material as a result of the extensive staff
work and public input that guided the planning Commission toward its final product. Rather than
deal with all facets of this issue, I would like to, instead, briefly support our position with some
critical salient facts.
About six years ago, the B.O,S. reviewed some disturbing data. A majority of
development was taking place in the rural areas --- sprawl The Board (five of you were on that
board) decided ~ remedial measures were necessary to protect the rural areas from sprawl and
to channel new development, both resident/al and commercial, where it would be sm-ed by
necessary :affrastmcrc~-e -- water, sewer, roads. You added about 5,000 acres to the ex/sting
growth area conliguous To the urban ring m an attempt to direct growth into the proper niche.
What were the results? Your plan was successful. You enacted good public policy. The
data charting building permits show a dramatic shift with over 75% now occurring in the growth
area. You recently spent $25,000 on a survey of County residents. The survey showed that over
90% support the Growth Managemem policy you adopted. Uae plann~g staff originally
recommended about the same acreage for the next five years as they did in 1989. That has since
bean reduced to only 1,800 acres in the south portion of the urban ring by the Planning
Commission.
Why change? Why, in 1996, with concrete evidence of good public policy m protect the
rural areas, would you change directions? We believe the basic plan presented to you by the
Planrdng Commission is flawed.
The major emphasis is on an inflll policy that we believe has very good merit. However,
it will fail without regulatory changes in the subdivision and zaning ordinances that preclude
increased densities in the growth areas.
Some impediments that preclude higher densities and infill development are as follows:
*R.O.W. for roads -- 50'.
*Cul-de-sacs - 50' R.O.W. and 40' radius.
*Lots must t~ont on public roads.
*Comer lots - extxa width- front both roads.
*Side lot lines at right angles.
*Lots shall not be peculiarly shaped.
*Street grades no more than 10%.
*Open space reqmremenm
*Critical slope restric"dons.
*Why require an open space percentage at all in the growth areas when
topography and storm water management requirements usually provide it?.
There are many other examples that could be used. Builders and developers, however,
must plan their projects usmg current regulations, Changes m the subdivision and zoning
ordinances will take a year or more to implement. Immediate work must be done to have any
effect on this Comprehensive Plan period.
Also, the thrust toward increasing densities in the growth area ignores the marketplace.
The only way m merease densities in any dramatic faskion, assuming current regulations, ~s
through attached housing. What the County desires and whaI people want is diametrically
opposed. Current demand is 75% singie-family detached housing. The key question is - how do
you separate the issue of increased densities in the growth area from the environment in which
people want to live?
The next question to be asked is - how much land is available in large enough tracts in the
growth areas at realistic prices to make development economically feasible?
Let me give you an example of unrealistic pricing in the growth area A forty-acre ~act
recently was made available for $1,000,000 or $25,000/acre. One half is unusable because of
topography, so the price is really $50,000 per acre. Now, the acreage is further depleted by
requirements for open space, R.O.W., critical slopes and storm water management. There is no
way a project could be brought to market, let alone increase densities or affect affordable hous'mg,
at these prices.
lnfill development should not be viewed as a means to eliminate growth area expansion
all together, A balanced plan with immediate changes m create a meaningful infiT1 policy and
moderate expansion of the growth areas seems to be good public policy.
You are also undoubtedly aware that over 18,000 lots have been subdivided in the rur~
area and another 50,000 parcels have by-right development potential. It is just as easy or easier m
build in the rural areas.
Without the proper number of growth area acres added near the urban r~g ~nd served by
infrasmmmxre, you could be encouraging suburban sprawl. There is no magic number to handle
the 21.000 population increase over the next fifteen years; but it certainly should be more than just
the areas to the south which, itself; has development problems. The most hnportant question to
bear in mind is not what effects decisions 1/kc these will have on the region now, but rather, how it
will impact the next ten to fifteen years.
You recently showed wisdom, contrary to some public opinion, when you finally
approved the Meadowcreek Parkway. It was a sound decision based on the logic of expansion of
the noffitem part of Albemarle County. We encourage immediate regulatory changes to the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances to support infill development and the addition of the proper
number of acres in the growth area to prevent rmal sprawl.
You have a tough call to make. I would ask each of you to err on the side of logic and
reason and not succumb to one-dimensional arguments. I'm asking that you do what you feel to
be ~he correct thing --even ia the face of some public pressar¢ t~ preserve the status quo. For the
most pm-t; the public is not here tonight. Protect their iateres~s the way you see it as elected
officials.
Respectfully Submitted
April 17, 1996
Robert F. Watson
Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
Protecting The Environment Is Everybody's Busines~
Statement of the Piedmont Environmental Council
before the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
April 17, 1996
My name is Reuben Clark. I appear tonight to summarize the position of the Piedmont
Environmental Council with respect to the recommendations of the Planning
Commission concerning our growth areas. For the past 24 years, the PEC has worked
to preserve farm and forest land in the nine counties which make up our region. To
this end, we have cng supported Albemade's growth management policy and its goal
of channeling growth into designated areas while cG nserving our countryside.
Toc~ ay however, we are concerned that our Comprehensive Plan and our zoning
regulations are not working satisfactorily to achieve this goal. A major reason for this
concern is that our growth areas now accommodate too much Iow density
development-development standards in such areas are .~ust too Iow to advance our
Plan's objectives of preserving farmland, providing affordable housing, and lowering
the costs of public services.
We believe this concern is now more widely shared in our community than it once was.
Recently we have heard some very good suggestions from the Blue Ridge
Homebuitders, your planning staff and the Planning Commission on the necessity to
increase density in our growth areas and, equally important, to encourage infill in
those areas that have remained undeveloped. PEC has itself made specific
suggestions to this end, which we have listed in a separate attachment just handed to
you.
tn addition, if our rural areas are to be protected, the question of the impact of
expanding our growth areas into our relatively unprotected rural areas requires further
study. Maps which PEC has recently prepared identifying new parcels created in the
rural areas since 1980 show that our current zoning and subdivision regulations are
failing to meet our Comprehensive Plan's promise to protect farm and forest land by
discouraging excessive residential development. We understand that consideration
will shortly be given by the Planning Commission to additional measures to protect our
rural areas. PEC intends to submit specific suggestions at that time to the Commission
While PEC has supported -- reluctantly, I may say -- the expansion of the growth areas
by an amount to make up for the loss of Earlysvitle and North Garden, we urge the
Board not to expand these areas any further until the County has been able to
45 Hornet Street. Box 460 Warrenton Virginia 2218{: 703-347-2334/Fax 349-9003
lI11 Rose Hill Driw Suite [. Charlottesville. Virginia 22903~804-977-2033~Fax 9-7-030{
consider and adopt measures that not only will increase densities in the growth areas
but will offer further protection to our rural areas. If the growth areas are now
expanded without first making such necessary changes, new land thus added will
continue to be regulated and developed under the same policies and regulations that
nave contributed to needless sprawl in the first place. Since our existing growth areas
provide in any event for growth for many years into the future, there is no need now to
rush to judgment. PEC cannot support such further expansion in the growth areas
until measures of the kind we note here tonight have been considered and are in
place. We trust that the County wilt move quickly to make these necessary changes.
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
Pro~ecrz:~g Tl~e Er~viro~ment Is Everybody's t3usiness
Growth
Position Paper of
The Piedmont Environmental Council
on
Management and the Enlargement of the Growth Areas
November 21, 1995
PEC recommends taking the following steps to increase the density of
our growth areas and provide more opportunities for affordable
housing, without compromising the character of our community:
Limit the expansion of the growth areas to land needed only to
replace the Villages of North Garden and Eariysville. This
comprises about 1200 acres and should consist of land served, or
to be served, by sewer and water.
Identify a target density in the growth areas of about six to
eight dwellings per acre. According to many fiscal impact
studies, this density allows public utilities to be delivered
more efficiently and less expensively, which ma~es housing more
affordable. This density also leads to communities which are
more pedestrian-friendly and more easily and effectively served
by public transportation.
Establish a minimum density for land in the growth areas. Under
current regulations, a landowner can develop land zoned for ten
dwellings per acre with only two dwellings per acre. Densities
lower than the minimum density would be available only by
special use permit.
4. Monitor biannually how well the County is meeting its target
densities in the growth areas.
Subsidize half the cost of development fees for development
occurring in the growth areas. While this would not translate
into a large savings per dwelling unit, it would underscore the
public's commitment to planning and growth management.
Consider an administrative process for granting waivers for
grading on critical slopes in the growth areas, provided the
area of disturbance is reasonably limited, and the slopes
disturbed are not identified in the Open Space Plan.
Given the strong local market for upscale, single-family homes, it is
clear that some form of government subsidy or mandate, or combination
-1-
43 l~lorner Street. Box 460. Warrenton. Virginia 22186~703-347-2334~Fax 349-9003
Rose Hill Drive. Suite 1 Charlottesville. Virginia 22903/804-977-2033/Fax 977-6306
of the two, will be necessary in order to achieve low- and moderate-
cost housing in Albemarle County. ~igher densities in themselves
make housing more affordable, but they can make roads and utilities
more expensive. Members of the development community and several
Commissioners have identified this expense as a significant barrier
to providing affordable housing in our growth areas.
In order to link utilities, density increases and affordable housing,
PEC supports the following steps:
The County should "front-end" the cost of utilJ
the growth areas where the topography and tran~
appropriate for higher density residential devE
The County should not grant rezonings to highe~
these areas until an applicant proffers areas(
affordable units. Even though some market-val~
benefit from the subsidy, insuring a mix of ho~
rather than segregating the affordable units, J
significant enough to warrant public support f¢
project.
In order to insure that some portion of these
affordable, the County should implement an aff(
provision in its current zoning ordinance, as
by Virginia Code section 15.1-491.9.
.ties to places in
portation are
lopment.
densit%es in
~nable mix of
e units will
.sing types,
s a public goal
~r the entire
nits remain
rdable housing
ecently enabled
The County should continue to work with VDoT t¢ reduce
applicable road standards (except for the right-of-way
requirements needed to accommodate future expansions) and seek
other ways to expedite and reduce the cost of obtaining
approvals for residential development proposals which are
consistent with Comprehensive Plan recommendati)ns.
The County should allow administrative approval
of appropriateness for multi-family housing loc
Corridors if the requests are consistent with t
Plan. This approval should be appealable to th
Review Board and the Board of Supervisors.
The con, unity vision forum, in which hundreds of Cha
of certificates
~ted in Entrance
~e Comprehensive
Architectural
.ottesville and
Albemarle residents participated, led to a vision organized around
five themes. Under the theme of land use and environmental balance,
the vision compiled by the participants describes a community with
"the feel of a town, rat.her than a 1.arge city," which has maintained
~ctS hu~n scale rooted ~n strong ne~ghborhoo~ns."
itize s also spoke their minds on the rate a d scale of growth in
the 19~4 Albemarle County Planning Needs_S3LrdAe~ prepared by the
University's Center for Survey Research. Sixty percent of the
residents surveyed desired a slower rate of growth 'than the rate
experienced in the 1980's. Rapid growth would undermine all five of
-2-
the top planning goals identified by citizens in this survey: high
quality public education, protecting water quality, public safety,
preserving natural resources and open space and preserving farmland.
What people like about this community will be altered irrevocably if
the Commission and Board give up their ability to control the scale
and rate of development by zoning too much land, in too many large
parcels, for commercial and industrial development. Once the land
· s zoned, we lose our ability to select commercial or industrial
development based on its fit with our employment base, the salaries
and benefits offered, or its overall compatibility with onr
community.
We recommend the the following strategies in order to insure that the
rate and scale of development do not overwhelm the character and
infrastructure of our community:
Require special use permits for commercial and industrial
development over a certain square footage. One possible
threshold would be 100,000 square feet for new industrial uses
and 50,000 square feet for new office uses. Allowing larger
industrial and commercial enterprises by special use permit only
would allow the County to select those industries targeted in
its economic development policy: industries which use moderate
amounts of water, which provide better jobs and wages for local
residents, and which are consistent with other Comprehensive
Plan goals.
Recognize that new, large-scale employment centers demand new
services, in part because they increase the rate of residential
development in areas such as ours which enjoy an extraordinarily
low rate of unemployment. Require that the development of these
large-scale employment centers be phased with the necessary
upgrades to infrastructure, including those improvements
required as a result of increased population growth.
3. Encourage the use of traditional elements of design in the
development of new residential and mixed-use subdivisions.
Developing land to such standards should be required in the
Community of Crozet to insure that the new development is
compatible with the old. These design standards should be
outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, under the residential land
us~ standards.
PEC believes that the recommendations outlined in this paper will
increase the density and opportunities for affordable housing in the
growth areas, without compromising the character of our community.
-3-
~Aprll 17 '~1996 ,
To - Members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Re'- Preddy Cree~ Tract
My name is Elizabeth Murray~ I've lived in Albemarle County for 32 years, I
worked for 10 years as the Co-ordinator ~ for the Ivy Creek Foundation at the Ivy Creek
Natural Area, but I'd li~e to say that I'm speakimg here as a private person, although
the/ICF, supports my position and my comments are influenced by my experience at I~y Creek.
My position is that whenever the expansion of Growth Areas is consldered~ the
expansion of public Natural Areas must be considered as part of this ~rocess. This has
not happened sufficiently in the past. So it's perfectly appropriate and vital to consider
it now, whether or not you CT~? agree to growth area expansion, but particularly if you DO,
and -. ' ~------~_ -- you keep Hollymead and Piney Mountain under consideration.
Growth always seems to mean growth of population, reside% tial. areas~ roads,
utilities and schools, but only as an afterthought, growth of places of recreation, active
or passive. This comes tater~ as a result of pressure, and pressure for'active recreation
~lalways be louder. I would llke to urge you never to forget passive recreation and the
part it plays in what we are ~lways vaguely referring to as "our quality of life here"
and also to remember that some forethought is needed to accomodate it.
At the Ivy Cree~ Natural Area~ the action was RE~ACTIVE, taken in a hurry under
the throat of high density development~ development which has now occurred all round the
area, and the resulting population come gratefully to the area. which is in danger of
over-use.
I'm asking the County now for a PRO-ACTIVE commit~anent, 'this time for a piece
o f already-county-owned land, 568 acres in the northern part of the county known as
the Preddy Creek Tract. I've looked at this land with some forestry and Ivy Creek
friends and think it would make an excellent public natural area. There's a letter in
the county files from ~ the former state Forester of Virginia written 11 years ago,
page 2
urging the county to preserve this land. I've talked with Pat Mullaney, Director of County
Parks and Recreation, who agrees that it would ma~e a good natural area, but is under great
pressure for more active recreation areas, particularly from the soccer comunity. I know
there is some level land which could accomodate one soccer field and Pat has urged us to
face up to the possiblity of two. I have talked to our county Game Warden, Kenneth Dove,
who says I may quote his full support for natural area designation.
So I'm asking you, please~ _~o write into this revision of the Comprehensive
tract
Plan, as part of a consideration of Growth Areas, that the Preddy Cree~l) remai~
perpetually in County ownership, and 2) that except for a small ballfield area, it_~ ~
be designated for low-impact recreation~ hiking trails and access for passive enjoyment3
With the Ivy Creek experience to guide us~ I believe that it's very important
to have such a commit~ment in writing, now, in this Comprehensive Plan.
Thank you, and I ask that this statement be made part of the permanent record.
Elizabeth Murray
1601 Bentivar Farm Road
Charlottesville VA 22911
804-973-~693
November 21 1~.5 ~
To: Members of the Albemarle County ,Planning Con~nission
Re: Preddy Creek Tract
My name is Elizabeth Murray~ and I have been a resident of Albemarle County
for 31 years.
In the draft of the County Comprehensive Plan update, I see the attention
paid Co the_expansion of Growth Areas. Growth here seems to mean growth of population,
of places for this expanded population to live, have good roads, utilities, schools,
shops and communication. Not enough attention is paid to the growth of free public
places where this expanded population will walk, be outside and enjoy our natural countryside
close to their homes, and I'd llke to address this point.
There ms always pressure for public areas devoted to high-impact recreation,
playing fields and developed par~s. Our Parks and Recreation department is well aware of
this and addresses it admirably. The need for LOW-impact recreation is less easy to
quantify and does not have such a collective voice. It is, none the less~ a real need, the
satisfying of which contributes much to our quality of life, and it should be addressed.
And addressed before other aspects of growth, since meeting it requires setting asides
ahead of time, space where native habitat has not yet been disturbed~ and making a
commitment that zt will not be much disturbed in the future except for the provision of
reasonable access.
At the Ivy Creek Natural Area, this commitment was made, but it happened
reactively, in a hurry, responding to a threat of high density development. That was
lC years ago. The density development has now occurred in many places, and all the people in
that development now come, in increasing numbers, to the Natural Area, delighted that it is
there, and grateful for the amenity.
The update of the Comprehensive Plan gives the County a chance to act pro-activel)
Low impact parks are low budget items compared with schools and playing fields, so they
are easy to accept fiscally, but they do require commitment. I have been looking at land
already in County ownership, and I'm suggesting a proactive commitment be written now into
this Comprehensive Plan.
page 2
In northern Albemarle County, just north of our main growth corridor, there
are 568 acres of county-owned land ~nown as Preddy Creek. The land has a good cree~,
beautiful hardwood forest, mixed pine and bottomland trees, and some wetland and open
space. It'~ good mixed habitat, and closer than the Ivy Creek Natural Area to the
community of Hollymead an~ the Piney Mountain Growth Area and the schools of Hollymead,
Broadus Wood~ Stony Point mhd the proposed new elementary school. I was delighted to
see the November 2 Board of Supervisors vote to finance an accurate survey of this land.
And I am pleased to note the reco~maendation on page 40 of the Parks and Recreation part of
the draft plan to conduct an evaluation to determine the most appropriate use for the land.
I would like to see the term "use" defined more specifically in THIS plan.
I ask you, please, to include a written statement in this update 1) that the
Preddy Creek tract remain permanently in county ownership, and 2) that it be designated
for future use as a low-impact recreation area, a natural area with minimal disturbance of
existing habitat, hiking trails and acces for natural history observation and study.
If it is earmarked thus in writing, we can return later to the details, with the Ivy Cree~
experience in front of us, which most people agree was a model of federal, state, local
and private, non-profit collaboration.
record.
I would be grateful if you would make this statement part of the permanent
Thank you
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Albemarle County Housirlg Comrnitlee
40l Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
r804 296-5841 FAX f804) 296-5800
STATEMENT BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LAND USE PLAN
My name is Karen Lilleleht, and I am the chair of the Albemarle
County Housing Corm~ittee. While most of our comments will be
addressed, at the appropriate time, to the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, we do have some suggestions to make regarding
the Land Use Plan as it affects affordable housing.
The Land Use Plan is one of several tools -- such as creative
financing, tax incentives, counseling and good management -- that
the county needs in order to deal with its affordable housing
problems. The plan is your opportunity to ensure that this tool
is up to the job.
The committee suggested in 1992 that the Growth Area be
increased, and we support it today but with two caveats.
1. It must result in a net increase in residential acreage, and
There must be a significant increase in densities in the
growth areas, and those densities must be enforced. The
Bonus Density provision has been on the books since the mid-
1980s, and we must ask ourselves the question, "Why has it
never been used? What is the missing catalyst?"
Clearly, our concern here is to reduce the cost and therefore the
selling price and rent of new housing. Housing costs get higher
every year and the supply of affordable units dwindles. You will
hear impassioned pleas, for instance, to leave the Growth Area as
it is. Let me suggest that if you eliminate that choice, you
have an obligation to replace it with some other tool that will
achieve the same end.
It is clear that nothing the Housing Committee can say will
dissuade you from removing the villages of Earlysville and North
Garden from the Growth Area. We understand that this is being
done, at least in part, because it is not financially feasible to
provide sewer and water to these areas, and you are leary of
private systems. However, there are many low income people
already living in rural Albemarle County who, for financial or
other reasons, need the support systems available to them in
their home areas. Because of their needs, we urge you not to
Printed on Recycled Paper
close your~minds to alternative water and waste water systems.
Much work is being done in this field. It is surely not beyond
human ingenuity to come up with a reliable small wastewater
system that can be used in small community settings and monitored
by the RWSA. Sometimes we make a rule and over the years go
right on enforcing it long after the need for it is past. We
don't want that to happen here.
The Land Use Plan also contains some fine amenities that many of
us find appealing. As you consider them, we do ask you to
consider postponing funding amenities to be used by a few
citizens until all county citizens have access to basic,
affordable housing. It is, in fact, imperative if we are going
to solve our housing problem that when the Planning Commission or
the Board of Supervisors takes a vote, each member asks him or
herself, "How will this vote affect our ability to produce
affordable housing? Are our teachers, secretaries, technical and
service workers, police and fire personnel going to have to live
outside the county and commute to work? Are an ever-increasing
number of our children goin~ to find themselves locked out of
their own communities?"
April 16, 1996
Rt. 1, Box 23A
Charlottesville, VA 22903
April 17, 1996
BY HAND DELIVERY
MS. Charlotte Humphris
Chair, Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Ms. Humphris:
We write as homeowners to express our opposition to the
proposed redesignation of the land west and east of Route 631 as
a growth area. This land is of exceptional historical value. In
the mid-19th Century, it comprised the Tudor Grove farm, the
boyhood home of Colonel John Mosby, the "Grey Ghost" Of the
Confederacy. After the War, Tudor Grove was the home of Colonel
Lucius Northrup, close friend of Jefferson Davis and Confederate
Commissary General.
The area has changed little since Mosby's youth. Route
631 is still a two-lane country road, popular with cyclists.
Indeed, in 1991, Route 631 was chosen as part of the course for
the Tour du Trump, now the Tour DuPont, one of the world's great
cycling events.
Albemarle County, of course, has numerous country
roads. None, however, is in such close proximity to the city of
Charlottesville, and none provides direct access to a county park
-- Walnut Creek -- itself designed as a place to escape the city.
For this reason alone, the county should safeguard the road.
Redesignation as a growth area would attract developers
and encourage the widening of Route 631, increasing traffic and
effectively eliminating the psychic benefits Route 631 presently
provides the residents of Albemarle County. In our own case, the
loss would be more immediate. Road widening and increased
traffic would deprive our home, built at the turn of the century
by Northrup's son on the site of a grove of ancient oak trees
just south of the Tudor Grove house, of all of its present
privacy and much of its economic value.
We realize that based on current projections the county
will continue to grow. We believe, however, that the public
interest would be better served by placing the burden on
developers to prove the case for expansion, rather than inviting
such expansion by creating new designated growth areas.
Retaining the present plan will not deprive the county -- i.e.,
the public -- of its power to direct growth through the review of
rezoning applications.~ But it will signal prospective
developers that the county continues to adhere to the vision of
its founders, that this place -- of spectacular natural beauty --
should not be forsaken by its custodians, but rather preserved
and cherished as a peaceful and civilized counterpoint to its
troubled and overdeveloped peers.
Sincerely,
Lindsay G. Robertson
Madeline J. Robertson
Eliza W. Robertson
1. In fact, it will preserve that power, because under current
law, if this land were redesignated for growth, the county would
effectively relinquish its right to reject any rezoning
application in the area consistent with that redesignation. In
effect, the county would tie its own hands with regard to future
rezoning applications. It is difficult to see just what benefit
the public would receive in exchange.
STATEMENT OF NORMAN BELL, STUDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION, 4/17/96 BEFORE THE
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
Mr. Norman Bell representing Student Environmental Action at the University of Virginia was next to
speak. He said some of the members of this group attended the Planning Commission's hearing in Novem-
ber. It seemed clear to them that the residents of Albemarle County oppose the expansion of designated
growth areas in both the northern and southern portions of Albemarle County. For this mason, they are
puzzled by the proposal given the Board by the Planning Commission since the proposal recommends a large
expansion of the growth areas in the south and a net decrease in the growth areas to the north. Clearly, this
was done because many people are upset by the amount and kind of development occurring along Route 29
North. Wilt a large expansion in the south improve the situation in the north? The only strong argument they
have heard for any growth area expansion now is the need to replace land lost through deletion of the North
Garden and Earlysville growth areas. They have heard no strong argument for the southern expansion. In
fact, there are many factors arguing against it. A substantial portion of the land in the southern expansion area
was labeled significant farmland in the County's Open Space Plan and therefore should be protected. Much of
the southern expansion area lies along Route 20, a State designated scenic byway, and much along Route
631, Old Lynchburg Road, a designated rural bikeway in the Bicycle Plan which this Board approved five years
ago. The Director of the Albemarle County Servica Authority has stated that the southern expansion area
includes the land most remote from existing utilities of all the areas studied. Developers have stated that many
landowners to the south are resistant to selling their property, and that much of the land is undevelopable. The
southern expansion area includes a 578 acre tract of land which according to an article in The Observer last
July, the County Planning Staff.did not plan to recommend because it is not as close to utilities and roads and it
is more rolling than some of the land the staff did recommend. The article also stated that most of the parcels
in the southern expansion area are too small for much development. Finally, most of the new jobs created in
the County will be along Route 29 North and encouraging people who work there to live south of Charlottesville
will result in long commutes and no relief of traffic congestion. Since the southern growth area expansion is not
a good idea. and since County residents are not going to accept a large expansion to the north, it is necessary
to find an alternative. There is one. In recent years, planners across the country have begun to plan
communities that are compact, promote walking, cycling, and public transit and include affordable housing Jn
the mix. This type of development goes under the names, neo-b'aditlonal and new urbanism. Some people
prefer to avoid the labels and simply call it good planning. An example of this trend is the Kent[ands
Community in Montgomery County, Maryland. When completed next year, Kentlands will have about 1500
residences and 5000 people in an area of 400 acres. This is an average of 3.7 dwelling units per acre, more
than double that of some developments being built in Albemarle County. Prices in Kentlands range from the
Iow one hundred thousands to over $300.900. This is in the expensive D.C. area. Recently Kentlands
residents participated in the design of their own downtown which will be within walking distance of all the
residents. An article in the Engineedng News Record a leading magazine of the construction industry report a
survey of active home buyers in which two-thirds said they would like to live in a neo-traditional neighborhood.
The survey showed that the only market resistance was to small lots and minimal setbacks from the street.
Since the concept is fairly new, it is likely further design changes and significant price advantages would offset
these objections. Some argue that the real problem facing Albemarle County is not suburban sprawl, but rural
sprawl. Mr. BeiJ said since he grew up in suburbia, in an area fitting the description of a suburb given by the kid
on The Wor~der Years, ~a place having all the disadvantages of living in the country combined with all the
disadvantages of living in the city, ha has a hard time accepting that statement, but it does have a lot of truth in
it. Rural sprawl is a problem that must be dealt with, but there are legitimate ways to deal with it that do not
encourage suburban sprawl. We hope you will consider them when redoing the plan for the rural areas. In
sum, the members of Student Environmental Action would like you, the Albemarle County Board of Supervi-
sors, to be extremely cautious about adding any new land to the growth areas. We ask you to reject the plan
that passed the Planning Commission in favor of one that protects both the northern and the southern parts of
the County. We ask that you strongly encourage compact, people-friendly development in the existing growth
areas. Finally, we ask you to keep in mind the vision Thomas Jefferson had when he designed the University
of Virginia to look out into the hills of southern Albemarle which were to remain a symbol of the illuminable
freedom of the human minds.
My name is C'mdy Parry. This is the first time I have spoken at a Board of Supervisors meeting.
My husband and I are homeowners on Pritchett Lank
£ thought the Comprehensive Plan was designed to CHECK suburban sprawl and concentrate
development around of Charlottesville allowing Charlottesville to become "a vital urban core
surrounded by a rural area that remains predominately green and open". I'm concerned that
suburban sprawl is nevertheless occurring. I am concerned that our "vital urban core" will
become neither vital nor a core. Residents of the County of Albemarle are necessary to help
maintain the vitality of the downtown. I am concerned that the farther you get from downtown
with growth area designations, the more difficult it will become for business owners downtown to
keep afloat. I am not so sure that this is a large issue today, but I wonder if in ten years or twenty
yeats, it won't become a problem as you shift the populations further and further away from that
core. That said, I am certain that it is clear that I am a big fan of and encourage in-fill
development.
As a shopper and purchaser of a new home in Albemarle twice in the last six years, my husband
and I found no shortage of home supply. In one sense I was shocked, in another I was not
surprised to learn that there were 1400 homes in the marketplace in any given month in recent
years. When the realtors statistical analyst characterizes this inventory, as "high", well, I have no
difficulty believing him As I stated, certainly my husband and I found a seemingly~ endless supply
of houses in two price categories that fit our needs. In fact, one individual termed the existing
supply as hedonistic.
Again, yesterday afternoon my husband came across yet another bad accident at the intersection
of Airport Road and 29N. I personally have witnessed an accident on 29N, been a victim of a
minor fender bender, and saw someone run off the road at this very intersection in the last several
months. If we continue to increase population in this area how many more accidents will
happen?
I would like to read a brief letter, m part, which appeared in the Progress January 4, 1996 written
by a visitor to our area. I do not know this individual -- nor, to my knowledge, do I know anyone
that knows this individual. It reads:
1 visit Albemarle County about every five years. It has always been a respite from the
more densely populated areas I tend to visit in my work. I am hoping all Albemarle
citizens recognize how special your area is (-o the mountains, the farmland, the
neighborhoods, the roads with beautiful views, the lack of air and noise pollution, the
workable quantity oftraffic, the trustworthy people, the safe schools.) I am concerned
about the negative changes I saw atler my last visit to your special area. There were many
more people, bringing more traffic and more buildings, destroying beautiful views. The
area seemed less personable. Some of the wondrous, peaceful feeling was lost. I have
watched many cities and their surrounding areas become undesirable because of major
population increases and poor planning Be careful with your beautiful Albemarle County
- it is but a generation away from being trashed like so many other areas in our country.
signed - Mary G. Rahs. North Grafton, ME ~ ~ ~ ¢~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~1}~
Isn't it alarming that someone not from our area perceives tremendous negative differences in our
community when comparing her infrequent trips to our area? That she is alarmed, not as a citizen
of Albemarle but as s'tmply a visitor? Alarmed enough to take the time to write a letter to OUR
editor? ls she right? Are we losing our old Virginia charm? [ think, and I believe I can speak for
many of my neighbors that the answer is "Yes".
I think it was dear by the representation by the homeowners from the north during the public
hearings held by the Planning Commission, that growth area designation to the north is not wha!
the people want. They moved here for the quality of life they enjoy -- not a subject many take
tightly. I would like to present this petition at this time, with names additional to those which I
presented at the Planning commission public hearing in November 1995. All the petitions contain
names of homeowners in Jefferson Villages, Terrybrook, on Proffit Road and Pritchett Lane.
PETITION
We, the homeowners signed below, oppose the plan to designate the area north of Proffit Road as
the new Growth Area.
NAME (Print)
ADDRESS and PHONE
Signamre
Si~ature ~,
~ ~ 7 ~-7q05
Signature
P~:TITION
We, ,~he homeo~(mers signed below, oppose th~ plan to designate the area north of Proffit Road as
the n~w Growth Area.
~qlE (Print) ADDRESS and PHONE
S~gnatur
Signature ~.t4~ '~ ,~)
Signature
Signature
Silage
PETITION
We, the homeowners signed below, oppose the plan to designate the area north of Proffit Road as
the new Growth Area.
NAME (Print)
ADDRESS and PHONE
Signature -
Signature
ur?7
Signature
Signature
Signature
l/';~ . 'O q/ t
PETITION
We, the homeowners signed below, oppose the plan to designate the area north of Proffit Road as
the new Growth Area.
NAME (Print)
Signature
ADDRESS and PHONE
qO00 Monroe
Signature
Signal./_. ¢
Signatut~ _
/
Signature
Signature
Signmure
PETITION
We, the homeowners signed below, oppose the plan tO designate the area north of Proffit Road as
the new Growth Area.
NAME (Print)
Signature
ADDRESS and PHONE
Signature
6
Signature
7.
Signature
TO'
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOERD OF SUPERVISORS
LEAGUE OF WOMAE VOTERS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREJENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
PROPOSED RIVISION TO THE LAND USE PL~N~"THE DEVELOPED
ENVIRONMENT."
APRIL 17, 1996
Our comments tonight summarize our statement at the
Planning Commission's public hearing Nov. 20, 1995.
We recommend consideration of three ways to implement
the county's growth management policy of directing growth into
designated areas for ~evelopment while conserving the balance
of the county for agricultural and forestal uses and other
resource prctection purposes.
I. Provide ~ore active aupport for ~row~ area_develop-
merit.
1. Implement the policy recommended in the current
Comprehensive Plan to assist in financing the provision of
utilities in certain areas in order to achieve higher densities.
2. Encourage greater utilization of land within
designated growth areas.
Insist that developers meet density recommenda-
tions. Permitting 2.5 dwelling units per acre (2.5 du/A) is
a leading cause for loss of development capacity and leads to
premature build-out.
*Permitting 2.5 du/A is a waste of other utility
users' money, because utilities were sized for higher density.
*We believe there is a market for development
with higher densities, combined with a varied mix of uses
and sophisticated design that can result in a sense of community,
which appeals to a growing market for such development.
:..a non~artisan organization ~d~tcat¢~ to the j~romotion of informeaC a~C actt'v~ ~artici. pation of citizens in t?o~ernment.'
13 East Market Street, Room 203, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (804) 972-1795 Fax: (804) 972-1796
--page 2--
*We support the concept of an infill policy for all
the reasons staff cited. We mnderstand that these are p~oblems
yet to be solved such as road standards.
The plan suggests one strategy which causes us concern.
The plan suggests ~flexibility" in applying development re-
quirements for evaluation of zoning and subdivision regulations,
such as for critical ~lopes, flood plain, etc.
"Flexibility" these days is one ~T the buzz-words for
de-regulation unless carefully used, flexibility could open the
way to disregard the careful planning that prctects the con-
sumer and the environment. We do not believe development
should be increased at the cost of weakening protective regu-
lations.
II. Protect and Support Rura~ Areas.~According to the
Compregensive Plan, resource protecid~fn~.i~basic underlyin~
theme in the county's growth management approach. Agricultural
and forestal uses have been identified as the most critical
county resource.
county policies to protect and suppor~our country-
We
have
side. (I.E. protecting wetlands, floodplains, critical slopes,
open space, etc. and discouraging central well systems and
package treatment plants.)
We believe we can and should do more, especiall~ in
efforts to protect groundwater upon which the rural areas depend.
Before growth areas are expanded, we should have informa-
tion as to what rural resources would be forever lost by the
expansion of development into the immediate rural area.
Because of the close relationship between the two parts
of our growth management policy (directing growth into desig-
nated areas while protecting the rural areas) and the emphasis
'...a no~..p~zrtisa~ wrl~a~izatio~ ~c[~wate~ to tAe~promotio~ of i~fo~,nec[ an~ active ~vartici. patlm[ of citizer~ i~t tio'vernm~t. "
413 East Market Street, Room 203. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: {804) 972-1795 Fax: (804) $72-17~6
-- page 3--
on resource protection, we believe the expansion of the growth
area should be deferred at least until the rural area review is
completed.
III. The third way of implementing our growth managemant
policy is by expanding the growth areas.
The League does not recomment any specific area at this
tim'e. Nor are we totally convinced that we need to compensate
even for the deletion of Earlysville and ~orth Garden. Rather,
we believe we should immediately develop the necessary mechanisms
to implement the policies for increased density, infill, and
up-front financing of utilities structure. Until we know how
effective these changes will be in producing developable lots
in the existing growth areas, it seems premature to take more
land from the rural areas for expansion that we don't need
no~j
However, we did develop a list of criteria for selection
of growth areas. Additional acres should include areas that
have:
* Good topography for development (not steep slopes).
* Eave at least one large tract of undevelooed lando
* Water and sewer easily available by extending or upgrading
existing service lines.
Have a roadway network already in place.
believe that growth area boundaries should not be ex~ended
We
to:
Lands that can be affected by The Meadow Creek Parkway.
Tracts that have potentially high costs for upgrading
roads and/or water and sewer facilities.
Important farm and forestal lands, identified as the county's
"most critical resources."
'...a non-.partisan orga~i~atio~ ~e~wate~r to t~e ~romotion of inforr~r ~tn~ active ~varticiyation of citizen~ in t~rvernment. "
easue of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
413 East Market Street, Room 203, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (804) 972-1795 I;ax: {804) 972-1796
--page 4--
* Tracts along the east side of Rt. 20.
* Tracts where the development would seriously impact the
character of the area itself, the roadway and/or adjacent
property owners.
We believe development must be limited to tolerable
levels to protect 9hr resDnrces and sD t~at we dp not exceed
the "carrying capacity" of our area either in terms of fiscal
or natural resources.
'...a non-.partisa~ ort~a~zizatio~ d~ricate~r to t~e.Fromotion of infornz~ a~ active~vartic~atio~ of citizens in t~overnme~tt.'
2050 Fray Road
Advance Mills Village
April 17, 1996
Board of Supervisors of County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Board Members:
We are unable to attend tonight's Board of Supervisors meeting and are submitting with this letter a
statement for you to consider regarding the proposed County Land Use Plan.
We appreciate your careful re-dew of the proposal and our mews.
sm~cerely,
Miriam A, Bender
f
Alfred~FDougherty
~tatement to County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors ~egarding the County Land Use Plan
by Miriam Bender and Alfred Dougherty, residents of Albemarle County
As the Board of Supervisors considers the elimination of Earlysville and North Garden as growth areas
and the expansion of growth areas, m general, and along Routes 29 North and 20 South, in particulm,
we urge the Board to consider the following ~ssues:
l. What growth management policy should be established? Debates about the County's land use
frequently focus on whether the county will favor growlh or bar growth. That the decision will not be
the County's to make. Growth will occur given the desirability of this geographical area and the
growth trends that exist. The County can decide, however, where and how that growth will occur.
We strongly support long range planning for the management of that growth. Such planning is
essential if we are to maintain the county's quality of life and avoid undesirable sprawl that has
occurred elsewhere;
2. Will a growth management policy be implemented seriously? Planning for managed growth is
only the first step. Unless the plan is implemented seriously, it is not worth the considerable efforts
and resources that lho Board, Plannillg Comlxlission and the public put into it. Serious implementation
entails several factors:
~ae Board must make a serious commitment and send a clear message to the public that
once a plan is adopted, it will form the basis for all of the Board's land use decisions.
Too often, developers seek and receive permission for non-conforming developmem. Such ad
hoc decision making leaves the impression that, despite the approved plan on paper, the Board
will reconsider its planning decisions in the context of requests for approval of individual
projects. Carving exceptions and making revisions in the plan in this way undermines the
planning process, wastes enormous amounts of time and resources and makes the whole
process seem a bureaucratic "game".
The Board must adopt measures to encourage development in growth areas that serves
the growth management policy. Experience in current growth areas indicates that, even if
areas are designated as "growth areas", there is no assm'ance that development will bo of
sufficienI density or variety or that growth will occur throughout the "growth area." We urge
the Board to implement pohcies to encourage in-fill development in existing growth areas and
promote sufficiently compact and varied building in all growth areas.
3. How do the growth areas designations fit with other land use and resource management
plans? We are not in a position m make a recommendation regarding how much, if any, additional
acreage should be designated as "growth areas" or where additional growth areas should be. However,
the designation of growth areas and other growth management decisions must be made in
canjunctiowwi~h (1) encouraging in-fill development in existing growth area~ (2) decisions about
the future of the rural areas, infra~ucture improvements (including roads, water and other
utilities) and resource use plans; and (3) plans which will enhance comity development.
In conclusion, we urge the Board to adopt a growth management plan in conjunction with other long
range plans and implement it seriously with a commitment, clearly made and communicated to the
public, that the plan will govern ail future land use decisions.
Dr. and Mrs. Charles W. Beegle
2163 Scottsville Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902
(804] 295-5424
COUNTY OF AILBEMAR[E
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
April 10, 1996
To the Supervisors:
I am writing with respect to the proposed additional housing
suggested in the current revision to the Comprehensive Plan.
The housinG in question is proposed adjacent to, and south of,
the Redlands pro3ect.
My concern is the lack of infrastructure present ~o support even
the current zonings. Water, sewer, and road improvements are all
necessary before any more land is altered into higher density
development. The potential build-out in this area already pos-
sible, in addition to Redlands, is considerable.
This request has not been generated by county needs or expected
needs within the time span of this current review; I feel it is
premature, and I urge it be removed from current consideration.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Norma A. Diehl
108 Mountainview Dr.
Charlottesville, VA
22902
president
Denny Maupin
Vice-President
John Ytasis
S~cmtery
Sandm Maupin
Edna Dmmheller
Albemarle County Boa~l of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
40I Mclntire Road
Charlouesville, YA 22901
Hand Delivared
zoning changes and
Gentlemen,
Please include this letter itt the record of your April 1~ meeting concerning
other issues relating to high-growth areas of Albemarle County. of the old Sl~rY
letter represents the thoughts and concerns of residents of "The MeadowS" residential area
This Road from the proposed slmpping ceraer development
located directly aCrOSS Hydraulic concerned about the possible negative
property. We ~iscuSsed this shopping center proposal at the last meeting o[ our Northerly Neighborhood
Watch meeting. We wouldlike for you to know that we are very ' '
effects this shopping center development mtght have un our neighborhood in pafficul~r und on our city m
, ere is any real need for another shopping
general . ....... u,, in oeneral, we don t feel that ~,_ ,u~ oily limits would ouly serve to pull
center in our area. Farthem~ore, anomet ~-uw * and other revenue into the city. We
business away from oar city shopping centers thus reducing taxes
would suggest leaving the zoning as it is and worldng toward attracting businesses which would help
create more good-paying jobs for all of the citizenS of this area. concerned abOut the inorease ia uaffic
As relates te our neighborhOOd in patliealat, we are very
volume the proposed shopping center would generate. Oarforneighb°rh°°d many morOnsts streets betwee~ (Cedar Hydraulic I-Iii[ Road.Road AngUS and
already become a shOrt-cra ·
Road and Ricky Road)have , . oh our neighborhood has inereaserl drmnat~callYthataS Hydraqlicthe
BarrackS Roa& This "short-ea¢ traffic throu=
~arned aa every-heavier volume of tragic. We are very concerned
Road has, over the years,
- ' o center on the Sperry property will again increase the --short-cut" lraffic through the
proposed snoppmo
Meadows, bringing with it aa increase in accidents and noise. We are akeady worded about the safety of
to see the problem get any worse.
our children and we certainly do nor want trod we look forward to hearing from you.
We would appreciate your considemlion in this maueX
Best xegards,
Denny Maupth
2312 Wayne Avenue
Charlottesville. VA 2290[
296-7968
cc: Mayor David ToscanO
Mr. Satyendra
Mr. Ron Keeler
.....
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 2290244596
~804] 296-584~ FAX (80~1 296-5800
MEMORANDUM
Charles S, Martin
WMter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~ ~
DATE: April 11, 1996
SUBJECT: Reading List for April 17, 1996
March 22, 1995 - Mrs. Thomas
EWC: mms
Printed on recycled paper