HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-13FINAL
DECEMBER 13, 1995
7:00 P.M.
ROOM 241, COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
z)
2)
5)
6)
7)
9)
mo)
10a)
ll)
12}
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC
Consent Agenda {on next sheet)
SP-9S-32. Tiger Fuel Company. Public Hearing on a request to establish
a drive-in window on 0.9 ac zoned KC & EC on properuy located in
KTW corner of inters of Rts 250 20. TM78,P4. Rlvanna Dist.
(Deferred from November 15, 1995.)
SP-95-34. Virginia Electric & Power Company. Public Hearing on a
request to establish an electrical substation on approx 7 ac zoned
P~A & EC. Property on S sd of Rt 53 approx 900 ft E of Rt 729.
TM93,P47L. Scottsville Dmst. this smte is not located in a
designated growth area [Rural Area 4] ~)
SP-95-35. Woodmen of the World Lodge 279 VA. Public Hearing on a
request to establish a Lodge Hall on approx 2.6 ac zoned RA
Property located on W sd of Rt 606 opposite Quail Run. TM32,P9J1,
Rivarkna Dist. (This site is not located mn a designated growth
area [Rural Area 1].)
ZNnA-95-07. Rio Associates. Public Hearing on a request to amend
ZMA-88-06 in order to modify proffers limiting vehicle urmp
generation. Property (Lowe's) on W sd of Rt 29 between Rt 29 &
Berkmar Dr. Site is recommended for Regional Service mn
Neighborhood 1. TM45,P109. Rio Dist.
ZTA-95-06. Pavilion at Riverbend LLC. Public Hearing on a request uo
amend Section 22.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to add "Outdoor
Amphitheater" as a use by special use permit mn the C-I,
Commercial District.
Appointments.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1
Resolution granulng JABA uax exempt status (deferred from December 6,
1995).
5.2
Appropriations:
a) School Division - $730,984, (Form #95045).
b) Technical Assistance Grant - $2,000, (Form #95046).
from agenda.)
(Deleted
5.2d
Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court for the
month of Nove~ber, 1995.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.3
Copy of Planning Commission minutes for November 14 and November 28,
1995.
5.4
Abstract of Votes case in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, a5 the
November 7, 1995, General Election.
5.5
Copy of the Albemarle County Service Anthority's Capital Improvement
Program for the period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 2000.
5.6 1994 Annual Report for the Albemarle CounEy Planning Commission.
5.7
Lerner dated November 29, 1995 from the Honorable George Allen, Govenor,
to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing notice that Jay Graves was
reappointed to the Rockfish State Scenic River Advisory Board.
5.8
Memorandum dated December 12, 1995 from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Executive, to the Board of Supervisors re: Ivy Landfill Issues.
5.9
1994 Development Activity Report as prepared by the Department of
Planning and Comunity Development.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804~ 296-584,3 FAX (804) 296-5800
MEMORANDUM
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sail5 H. Thomas
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executmve
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning &
Community Developmenn
Ella W. Carey, Clerk~~/~
December 14, 1995
Board Actions of Decer~ber 13, 1995
Following ms a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its
meeting on December 13, 1995:
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 4.
PtIBLIC.
Other Mathers Mot Listed on the Agenda from the
Agenda Item No. 5.1.
(deferred from December 6,
forwarded to Roxanne Whine.
Resolution granumng JABA tax exempt status
1995). ~OPTED the attached resolution. Original
Item No. 5.2a. Appropriation: School Divismon - ~730,984, (Form
#95045). APPROVED. Original form forwarded no Melvin Breeden.
Item No. 5.2b Appropriation: Tectnqical Assistance Grant - S2,000,
(Form #95046). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item NO.
5 2c Appropriation
(Deleted from agenda.)
Agenda Item Mo. 6. SP-95-32. T~ger Fuel Company. Public Hearing on a
request no establish a drive-in window on 0.9 ac zoned HC & EC on property
located in NW corner of inters of Rts 250 20 TM78,P4. Rivanna Dist.
(Deferred from Novem%ber 15, 1995.) APPROVED SP-95-32 subject co the following
conditions:
Printed on recycled paper
Memo TO:
Date:
Page 2
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
December 14, 1995
2
3.
No direct access ~o Route 20 shall be permitted;
Access mo Route 20 through Tax Map 78, Parcel 4A (McDonald's site shall
be required;
Provision of a raised curb to separame the drive-thru lane from the
travel lanes;
Developmenn shall be mn general accord with the site plan titled
"Pantops Texaco" dated August 14, 1995 (copy attached), except as the
plan shall be amended to address the above conditions and the recom-
mendations of the Smte Review Commmttee.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-95-34. Vmrginma Electric & Power Company.
Public ~earing on a requesn 5o establish an electrical substation on approx
ac zoned RA & nC. Properny on S sd of Rt 53 approx 900 ft E of Rt 729.
TM93,P47L Scottsville Dist. APPROVED SP-95-34 sub]ecu mo the following
conditions:
Approval is for a 230 to 34.5k~V conversmon substation mo be developed in
general accord with Attachment E (copy attached~;
Compliance with Section 5.1.12 o~ the Zoning Ordinance;
Proposed and existing landscape which serves mo screen adjoinmng
dwellings shall be maintained by Virgmnma Power and replaced mn accord
with §32.7.9.2c of the Zoning Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-95-35. Woodmen of the World Lodge 279 VA.
Public Hearing on a request 5o establish a Lodge Hall on approx 2.6 ac zoned
RA. Property located on W sd of Rt 606 opposmte Quail Run. TM32,PgJ1. White
Hall Dist. APPRO%-ED SP-95-35 subjecn mo the following conditions:
Use of outside amplification devices for sound shall be prohibited;
Use shall nom commence without smne plan approval. The site plan shall
not receive final plan approval until such mmme as information ms
provided 5o verify that sound generated within the building does non
exceed forty (40) decibels am the nearest properny line;
Use of the smne for subordinate uses and fundraising activities such as.
but not limited to, bingo, rafflas, auctions, receptions and dances
shall non occur between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.;
Provmsion of a smngle row of screening trees planted 15 fifteen) [eet
on center or a double staggered row of screening shrubs planted 10 (ten)
feet on center adjacent mo Tax Map 32, Parcel 9H (the adjacent properny
5o the north);
The building shall not exceed 4,000 ~four thousand) square feet;
Maximum occupancy load shall be determined by the Building Official and
shall non exceed those limits as established by the Health Deparnmenn:
No alcoholic beverages shall be ~llowed on-site.
(Note: This property is located in the White Hall District not the
Rivanna District as was advertised.)
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-95-07. Rio Associames. Publlc Hearing on a
requesn to amend ZNL~-88-06 in order no modify proffers limiting vehicle crmp
generanmon. Properny (Lowe's) on W sd of Rt 29 between Rt 29 & Berkmar Dr.
Site zs recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1. TM45,P109_ Rio
Dist.
APPROIrED ZNLA-95-07 subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers as
se~ oun on Attachment D (copy attached).
Memo To:
Date:
Page 3
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
December 14, 1995
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-95-06. Pavilion at Riverbend LLC. public
Hearing on a request to amend Section 22.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to add
"Outdoor Amphitheater" as a use by special use permit in the C-l, Commercial
District. DENIED.
Agenda Item No. 10d. Appointments.
REAPPOINTED Mr. William J. Nitchmann to the Planning Commission,
representing the Scottsville District, with term uo expire on December 31,
1999.
REAPPOINTED Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., to the Industrial Development
Authority, representing the Scottsville District, with term ro expire on
January 19, 2000.
REAPPOINTED Mr. George R. Larie 5o the Equalization Board, representing
the Jack Jouett District, with term to expire on December 31, 1996.
Agenda Item NO. 11. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Perkins mentioned a letter received from Kevin Cox encouraging the
Board ~o adopt a policy governing disclosure of possible conflicts between
members of Albemarle boards and commissions and organizations appearing before
those bodies. He also referred to a statement from Kat Imhoff concerning her
employment by PEC while on the Planning Commission. After talking with the
Commonwealth's Attorney, Mr. Perkins did nor feel it was necessary for this
Board to adopt a policy. Board members concurred.
Agenda Item No. i2. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
EWC:mms
Attachments (6)
cc: Richard E. Huff,
Roxanne White
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
Jan Sprinkle
Bruce Woodzell
Richard Wood
Larry Davis
File
II
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 95/96
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUA~
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
NUMBER 95046
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW X
YES
NO X
GRANT
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1155153129300205 CONSULTANTS $2,000.00
TOTAL $2,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2155124000240109 CSA GP3tNT $2,000.00
TOTAL $2,000.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
SOCIAL SERVICES
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
FISCAL YEAR
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
95/96 NUMBER
95045
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL X
TRANSFER X
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
SCHOOL BOARD REQUEST TO USE CARRYOVER FUA!DSAND RESERVE.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1241090610999981
1211161311210000
1211161311135000
1211161311160300
1211161311312700
1211161311601300
SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE
FICA
P/T WAGES-OFFICE CLERICAL
STIPENDS-STAFF/CUR. DEVELOPMENT
PROF. SERVICES-CONSULTANTS
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
($69,356.46)
1,990.46
7,000.00
19,000.00
11,464.00
29,902.00
1211161311312700
1242093010930C03
1243062150580610
PROF. SERVICES-CONSULTANTS 10,000.00
DEBT SERVICE FUND-VRS 355,492.00
MISC. EXP.-REDISTRICTING 10,000.00
1990068000910110 SCH/VRS EARLY RETIREMENT
355,492.00
TOTAL $730,984.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
2200051000510100 SCHOOL FUND BALANCE $375,492.00
2990051000512011 DEBT SERVICE-TRANSFER FROM SCH. FUND 355,492.00
TOTAL $730,984.00
EDUCATION
SIGNATURE DATE
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION
SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO DESIGNATE
PROPERTY OF JEFFERSON AREA BOARD FOR AGING
TO BE TAX EXEMPT
WHEREAS, Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, Inc. (hereafter "JABA, Inc.") has
petitioned the Board of Supervisors (hereafter "Board") m support an amendment to Title 58.1
of the Code of Virginia to designate certain of its property to be exempt from taxation pursuant
to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virgima: and
WHEREAS, JABA, Inc. is a non-profit corporation operated for the purpose of providing
health, retirement, social advocacy and other support services to those persons over sixty-five
years of age; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing, duly advertised as required by Section 30-
19.04 of the Code of Virginia, on December 6, 1995, to recetve public comment on whether
property of JABA, Inc. should be exempt from taxation; and
WHEREAS, the Board has examined and considered the provisions of Section 30-
19.04(B) of the Code of Virginia in determining the appropriateness of the tax exempt
designation request of JABA, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby supports the adoption of an amendment m Title 58.1 of the Code of
Virginia to designate certain property of Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, Inc. located in
Albemarle County to be exempt from taxation, state and local. This tax exempt designation shall
be limited to a 3.489 acre parcel of property, and future improvements thereto, designated as Lot
2, Branchlands, and more particularly described as Tax Map Parcel Number 61z-03-07, located
on Hillsdale Drive in Albemarle County.
The Board recommends that Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, Inc. be classified as a
charitable organization for the purpose of obtaining this tax exempt status. The designated
property has a 1995 assessed valued of $548,000.00 and the 1995 mx on the property is
$3,945.60.
The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to convey certified copies of this resolution to
the members of the General Assembly representing Albemarle County.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of six
to zero on December 13, 1995.
Clerk, Board of County Superv/~ors
· -1104/
/
.'1/
: ',, \ ,, ,, ',
,___ ==============================
' '"' .... ~-5522--L;LLLL-. '"
Date: lo/ 31J 95 ZMA#
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer
(Amendment #
PROFFER FORM
95-07 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 45 parcel 109 & i09c
Acres to be rezo~ed 'from to ~
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or
its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily pellets the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if re. zoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that (1) the rezoning itself ~ives dso to the need for
the conditions; and (:2) such conditions have a reasonable' rela. t!on to the rezoning
requested.
(1)
Request to change previous proffer:
a) Traffic generated by this site accessing Woodbrook drive
shall not result in a level of service of less than C.
b) Traffic generated by this site accessing route 29 shall
eot result in a reduction in the level of service.
OCT ?, 1 1995
Planning. DepL
Rio Associates
Pfint~d Names of Ali Ownem
Signature of Attomey-in-Fal?t
(Attach Proper Power of Altomey)
Printed Name of Attomey-imFact
RESOLUTION
SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO DESIGNATE
PROPERTY OF JEFFERSON AREA BOARD FOR AGING
TO BE TAX EXEMPT
VffHEREAS, Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, Inc. (hereafter "JABA, Inc."~ has
petitioned the Board of Supervisors (hereafter "Board") to support an amendment to Title 58.1
of the Code of Virginia to designate certain of its property m be exempt from taxation pursuant
to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia: and
WHEREAS, JABA, Inc. is a non-profit corporation operated for the purpose of providing
health, retirement, social advocacy and other support services to those persons over sixty-five
years of age; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing, duly advertised as required by Section 30-
19.04 of the Code of Virginia, on December 6, 1995, to receive public comment on whether
property of JABA, Inc. should be exempt from taxatiun; and
WHEREAS, the Board has examined and considered the provisions of Section 30-
19.04(B) of the Code of Virginia in determining the appropriateness of the tax exempt
designation request of JABA, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby supports the adoption of an amendment to Title 58.1 of the Code of
Virginia to designate certain property of Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, Inc. located in
Albemarle County to be exempt from taxation, state and local. This tax exempt designation shall
be limited to a 3.489 acre parcel of property, and future improvements thereto, designated as Lot
2, Branchlands, and more particularly described as Tax Map Parcel Number 61z-03-07, located
on Hillsdale Drive in Albemarle County.
The Board recommends that Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, Inc. be classified as a
charitable organization for the purpose of obtaining this tax exempt shams. The designated
property has a 1995 assessed valued of $548,000.00 and the 1995 mx on the property is
$3,945.60.
The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to convey certified copies of this resolution to
the members of the General Assembly representing Albemarle County.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board af Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of six
to zero on December 13, 1995.
Clerk, Board of County S~ervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTWE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
JABA - Tax Exemption Public Hearing
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Background information and draft resolutions for the public
hearing on the Jefferson Board for Aging's request for tax-
exempt status for the proposed Adult Health Care Canter.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, White
AGENDA DATE:
December 6, 1995
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: ye~
REVIEWED B~
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
X
DISCUSSION:
Attached for your information for the public hearing to be held on the Jefferson Board for Aging's request for tax exempt status
for the proposed Adult Health Care Center in Albemarle County are the following:
A copy of the November 1 staff report recommending against granting tax exempt status and recommending the adoption
of resolution setting a policy for future tax exemption requests from non-profit organizations.
· A copy of the proposed resolution setting future policy on tax exemption requests
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached summary and resolution are presented for the Board's information. Should the Board wish to approve JABA's
request for tax exemption, a resolution will be provided at your December 13, 1995 meeting.
JABAPUB. SUM
95.209
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
JABA-Tax Exempt Request
AGENDA DATE_:
November 1, 1995
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request from the,Jefferson Board for Aging to suppor~ a petition
to the General Assembly for tax exempt status for the proposed
Adult Health Care Center
.ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA_:
ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
~'~d~e~The Jefferson Board~fa~e~ fc~ ~1~ ~ ~ P~M~e~ C~ ~~ ~3'5 ~ ~ ~ ~ve up~ wMeh ~ey M~ ~ ~d ~e ~ Jeff~n H~
D~SSION:
~ ~ by ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ ~pt m~ for non-profit org~o~ ~v~ d~t
~ ~ w~ ~ ~ ~ Fo~ a f~on ~ e~ ~ ~, bm wl~
it wo~d pay a ~ f~ to ~e Co~ b~ on ~ ~ fo~ vol~ ent~ ~ ~ a~t wh~eby
~ ~M si~on ~volv~ ~ a p~ ~ e~pt m~ ~ ~ L~ ofPe~. ~e B~ by s~e a~ ~t
ii . .:
~l~pm~g a ~t ~mge ofb~ f~ E~t e~e ~ge~ for ~b~le C~W ~nm ~d ~ L~ ofPe~ a~ ~ pay a
~ f~ ~ ~ ~t of 20% ~ ~'ex~t~ ~ ~te ~ on im prope~ m ~v~ ~ eo~ ~ b~c garret
~ss ~pro~ $18,~. ~ Bo~ ~p~m ~ ex~p~on for Y~A
h~ m~ ~ held ~ a ~lufion of ~ ~om ~ 1~ gov~g ~ m~ ~ c~e f~w, a pubic
A~. ~my J~A's re~
S~d~ aot ~p~ ~ e~pt ~ for J~A for ~e foHo~g re~;
or~ T~ e~fi°a~ ~ °ff'~'~ ~ whch ~ a°t P~t ~u~ ove~t or review by ei~ ~ Bo~ of S~o~
T~ e~t ~ ~ ~ ~e~ ~c~ ~ ~ of~ ~~
~ ~ve ~ J~A's pm~ ~ ~ ~ ~e d~o~ ~out
~ ~ ~ m ~ ~n ~d pro~ ~u~ ~om ~ ~W ~ ~ r~ed ~ ev~u~ ~ ~ b~get
pr~;
to be ~lu~ ~ ~e ~ of ~s pro~, ~ well ~ ~ ~ s~e ~e~afio~ for ~b~le Co,W;
~fi~ P~ ~n ~ ~y for ~ exempt m~, ~eh ~ proving a ~ffie n~ber of s~'
~e~t ~ momtor, md aeenr~g ~ ~ Co~ A~ ....... '~ ·
le~slaaon ~t ~ ~ ~ ~t ~; v ,~, may oe ~emt ~ ~or~ ~ ~e r~e~o~
~ ~t ~ ~ J~A oP~ ~ d~r ~ o~ ~m~W organi~fio~~ . .
P~g ~ek o~ f~s. ~e ~ r~ who ~ en~id~g
AGEI~IIA 'llTl,[: ~AI~A-Tax Exempt Request
AI;ENDA DATE: November l, 1~95
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDATION':
Due to~ho re. asc~ cite~ abovo, staff does not recomm~d granting tax exempt status to JABA's proposed now h~alth cato facih'ty, b~ would
suppor~ approving an additional $1 g,000 to ~ABA to provide schoIarships to low incom~ Albemarl~ Coun~ resides, onco th~ heakh ~
c,~t~ opens.
Staff also recommends fl~at the Board approve tho aflached re~olmion, which is ~mil~ to one approved by tho City of Charlottesville in 1998,
that sets ~ policy for fu~e tax ex. apriori reqaosts Rom non-profit organ/gatioas,
95.162
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the ,Virginia General Assembly requires qualifying entities desiring property tax
exemptions under state law to first seek a resolution of support from the local governing
body, and
WI~REAS, the number of requests to the Board of Supervisors for such resolutions supporting Tax
exemptions are likely to increase in these times of budget cuts, and
WItEREAS, many of the applicants seeking such tax relief already are subsidized by the county
through its regular budget funding, and
WHEREAS, this Board, to be fair and orderly in its treatment of all organizations, both those that
have been granted property tax exemptions under Virginia law, and those which do not have
property tax exemptions, would prefer that most or all of its subsidies be analyzed as part of
the budget process rather than piecemeal during the entire fiscal year through the tax exempt
process,
NOW,
Tme~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors shall not adopt
resulutions supporting tax exempt status for organizations under state law unless there are
compelrmg circumstances,
BE IT FURTItER RESOLVED, that during its annual budget process this Board will take into
account whether a fund'mg applicant has a property tax exemption, and if so, its nature and
extent, and then shape the aggregate County fimding ammmt accordingly, all with the goal
oftreafmg every applicant fairly.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
of a resolution adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Alhemarle County,
Virginia, at a meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
RWW/dbm
95.079
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Superwsors
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-58~ FAX (804) 296-5800
MEMORANDUM
Char]es S. Mar ~/n
~Va~ter F. Perkins
Sall~ H. Thomas
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance.
Ella W. Carey, Clerk~0~'/
December 14, 1995
Board Actions
At its meeting on December 13, 1995, the Board of Supervisors took the
following actions:
Item No. 5.1. Resolution granting JABA tax exempt status (deferred from
December 6, 1995). ADOPTED the attached resolution.
Item No. 5.2a. Appropriation: School Division - $730,984, (Form
#95045). APPROVED. Attached is the sign form.
Item No. 5,2b. Appropriation: Technical Assistance Grant - $2,000,
(Form #95046). APPROVED. Attached is the sig~ed form.
Item No.
$.2o. Appropriation:
(Deleted from agenda.)
EWC:mms
Attachments
cc: Richard E. Huff,
Roxanne White
Kevin Castner
Kare Morris
II
Printed on recycled paper
FISCAL YEAR
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
95/96 NUMBER
95045
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL X
TRANSFER X
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED
YES
NO X
FUND SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
SCHOOL BOARD REQUEST TO USE CARRYOVER FUNDS AiqD RESERVE.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1241090610999981
1211161311210000
1211161311135000
1211161311160300
1211161311312700
1211161311601300
SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE
FICA
P/T WAGES-OFFICE CLERICAL
STIPENDS-STAFF/CUR. DEVELOPMENT
PROF. SERVICES-CONSULT~NTS
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
1211161311312700 PROF.
1242093010930003 DEBT
1243062150580610 MISC.
1990068C00910110
SERVICES-CONSULTANTS
SERVICE FUND-VRS
EXP.-REDISTRICTING
SCH/VRS EARLY RETIREMENT
($69,356.46)
1,990.46
7,000.00
19,000.00
11,464.00
29,902.00
10,000.00
355,492.00
10,000.00
355,492.00
TOTAL $730,984.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200051000510100 SCHOOL FUND BALANCE $375,492.00
2990051000512011 DEBT SERVICE-TRANSFER FROM SCH. FUND 355~492.00
TOTAL S730,984.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
EDUCATION
SIGNATURE
DATE
FISCAL YEAR 95/96
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO
GR3LNT
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT.
95046
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1155153120300205 CONSULTANTS $2,Q00.00
TOTAL $2,000.00
REVENTJE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2155124000240109 CSA GRANT $2,000.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TOTAL $2,000.00
SOCIAL SERVICES
SIGNATURE DATE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - School IYlvision
SUBJECT/PROPOS AL/REOU-EST:
Request approval of Appropfiatioa #95045 in the amount of
$730,984.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S~:
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Castner
AGENI}A DATE:
December 13, 1995
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED ~,Y:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on Novea~ber 27, 1995, the School Board approved the following appropriation requests.
DISCUSSION:
Transfer of $69,356 fi-om the School Board Reserve Account. The School Board approved this transfer in order to pay the SASI
coordinafio~ activities in the amount $19,000 and $50,356 has been designated for the cuntinuafion toward alignment of Standards
of Learning.
Re~appropriatienof$375,492inesrryover fundsfirattl~Y 94/95. '[hese funds are allocated for one-time expenses accordingtoBoard
of Supervisor financial guidelines and includes $355,492.00 for the VRS Early Retirement Program. The attached appropriation form
also auttmrizes the transfer of the VRS funds to the Debt Service Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffmcommends approval of Appropriation #95045 in the amount of $730,984.00,
95045.WPD
95.210
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Memorandum
November 29, 1995
Robert W.~er, Jr., County Executive
Kevin Ca~, Division Superintendent
Request for Appropriation
At its meeting on November 27, 1995 the School Board
approved the following appropriation requesT:
Transfer of S69,356 from the School Board Reserve
Account. The School Board approved this transfer in
order ~o pay for SASI coordination activities aE
$19,000 and $50,356 has been designated for the
continuation toward alignment of SOL's.
Re-appropriation of $375,492 in carryover funds from
the FY 1994-95 fiscal year. These funds are allocated
for one-time expenses according ~o Board of Supervisor
financial guidelines.
It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the
appropriation ordinance to disburse these funds as displayed
the attachment.
on
/ siam
xc: Melvin Breeden
Ed Koonce
Ella Carey
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SCHOOL BOla_RD RESERVE TRANSFER
FROM:
1-2410-90610-999981 School Board Reserve
$69,356
TO:
1-2111-61311-210000 FICA
1-2111-61311-135000 PT Wages-Office Clerical
1-2111-61311-160300 Stipends-Staff/Cur. Dev.
1-2111-61311-312700 Prof. Svcs-Consultants
1-2111-61311-6C1300 Ed/Rec. Supplies
$1,990
$7,000
$19,000
$11,464
$29,902
$69,356
FY 1994-95 Ci~RRYOVER FUNDS
REVENUE
2-2000-51000-510110 Appropriation-Fund Balance
$375,492
EXPENDITURE
1-2111-61311-312700 Prof. Svcs.-Consultants
1-2420-93010-930003 Debt Service Fund-VRS
1-2430-62150-580610 Misc. Exp.-Redistricting
$10,000
$355,492
$10,000
S375,492
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTWE SUMMARY olvm u ' 'ro
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Teehrfical Assistance Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 95046 in the amoont of
$2,000.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S}:
Messrs. Tucker, Broeden, Walters, Ms. Morris
AGENDA DATE:
December 13, 1996
ACTION:
NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes ~~
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The State has given the County of Albemarle a Technical Assistance Grant to conduct a needs assessment and develop a plan for use of funds
from the Federal Family Preservation/Family Support Act. These funds will be funneled through the Community Policy and Management Team.
The Thomas ~effersen Ptanalng District Commission conducted the needs assessment study and assisted in the development of the plan. This
is a one-time only grant.
DISCUSSION:
The State gave the Coumy of Albemarle $2,000.00. There is no local mdtch.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffreoommends approval of the $2,000.00 appropriation as detailed on attached form 95046.
TECI-IASST.APP
95.212
:"' ~D OF SUPERVISO.~S
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Comprehen~ve Services Act
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval o£ Appropriation 95047 in the amount of
$1,033,374.00.
STAFF CONTACT(Sh
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Ms. Morris
AGENDA DATE:
December 13, 1995
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) was passed by the General Assembly in 1992 and implemented in FY 1995/94. Under the Act,
communities are required to form collaborative teams with members fi.om public child-serving agencies, pnvate agencies, and parent
representatives. TheadministrativebedyisthcCommanityPolieyandManagement Tean~ Statefundingforvariousservicesineluding: foster
care, ~pecial educat/en, and Court 286 funds were all put into one fund known as the CSA Pool Fund. The ultimate outcome is to develop the
most effective servic~plan through collaboration so that money would follow the child, rather than having to make the child fit into a category
to access fimding.
DISCUSSION:
Theloesl$357,450;00GcneralFundand$157,000Edueationmatehingshaseswere approved in the 1995/96 AppropriofiunOrdinance. ~s
request is to approve an appropdatien authorizing the expenditures and to recognize the State share of $518,924.00.
RECOMMENDATION.:
Staffrecommends approval of the $1,033,374.00 appropriation as detailed on attached form 95047.
CSA.APP
95.211
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 95047
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TR3~NSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED
YES
NO X
FI/ND GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
COMPRENENSIVE SERVICES OPERATING BUDGET.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION kMOUNT
1155153120300205
1155153120571211
115515312~571212
1155153129571213
1155153120571214
1155153120571217
1155153120571218
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC-MANDATED
RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE-MANDATED
NON RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC-MAIqDATED
NON RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE-MANDATED
NON RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC-NONMANDATED
NON RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE-NON MANDATED
$10,231.00
256,019.00
532,034.00
20,462.00
204,628.00
3,000.00
7,000.00
TOTAL
$1,033,374.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2155116000160521 LOCAL-ALBEMA~RLE COUNTY $357~450.00
2155116000160522 LOCAL-EDUCATION 157.000.00
2155124000240109 STATE-COMPRENENSIVE SERVICES 518,924.00
TOTAL S1,033,374.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINA/qCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SOCIAL SERVICES
S I GNATURE
DATE
TO: STATE COMPENSATION BOARD
FOR: MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 1995
STATEMENT OF EXPENSES
DEPARTMENT COUNTY STATE TOTAL
SHARE SHARE
Department of
Finance 1,029.04 1,029.06 2,058.10
Sheriff -0- 459.95 459.95
Commonweal t h ' s
Attorney -0- 167.81 167.81
Regional Jail -0- 4,275.82 4,275.82
Clerk, Circuit Court -0- 3,250.67 3,250.67
NOTE:
Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
which the State Compensation Board has agreed to
participaue, and are not the total office expenses of
mhese deparmments.
ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the County/City of
Virginia, at the November 7, 1995 General Election, for:
~ ~ Dist~ct
]Varnes of Candidates
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 1995, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the above office.
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
ELECTORAL
BOARD
ISEAL)
,/
day of November, 1995.
[/~~/ ,l~.,,'~~ S~ecretary, Electoral Board
i~/~BER, SENATE OF VIRGINIA
c;~ f~ District
County/City of ,~ ~ ~4/qv~ff_
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page ~-~ of 2__-
~arnes of Candidates
ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the County/City of /~ z~ ~ ~ fi7/]/~ L ~_~
Virginia, at the November 7, 1995 General Election, for:
1WF~M~ER, HOUSE OF DELEGATES
~- 7 ~' District
Names of Candidates
Total Votes
Received
(In Figures)
I
i
/
i
!
i
I
I
con~n~ on reve~ s~e, ~e~
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 1995, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the above office.
Given under our hands this
A copy rede:
ELECTORAL
BOARD
(SEAL)
day of November, 1995.
/
lV~,MBER, HOUSE OF DI~LEGATES
District
County/City of
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page__ of__
Total Votes
R~ceived
Names of Candidates fin ~4~ures)
/~ hslract Continua/ion Sheet
I~rcmber, House of Delegates
571h District
Name Total Votes Cast
CHAPMAN, SHIRLEY A i
DAY, DONAL 1
DAY, D. 1
DEINLEIN, JIMMY 1
DONALD DUCK 1
DONLDDAY i
EHALT, LAURA i
FARMER, JAMES 2
FLINTSTONE, FRED 1
GREENE, W.G. 1
HARJ i
I HARON-STNE 1
HESSJONES 1
HIRLEY-JONES I
HJN 1
HOGES 1
JOKEMAN, JACKIE 1
JONES, SHARON 1228
JONS 1
KIRTLEY, BRUCE 3
LINDAY, CHRIS 1
MARTIN, SHARON 1
MASON 1
MCINTYRE, ALEASA 1
MCKEEL, WALLY 1
MICKEY MOUSE 1
NONE OF THE ABOVE 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page ~ of ~
tx hstract Continuation Sheet
Member, House of Delegates
57th District
Total Votes Cast
NOVOTE 1
OALE 1
ORR 1
PEROT, ROSS 1
RAH i
I RAMBO, RONALD I
ROLLINS, HENRY
SHAOJES 1
SHARON 3
SHJS 1
SHNNS I
SMITH 1
SMITH, SARAH 1
SMITH, SHARON 1
STONE, SGARON 1
STRZEPEK, ERIC 1
WAY 2
WAY, PETER
WHITE, S. 1
WINN, WENDELL 1
WOOD SHARON 2
November 7, 1995
Geueral Election
Page.__
~ of~
ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the County/City of
Virginia, at the November 7, 1995 General Election, for:
1WE, MBER, HOUSE OF DELEGATES
District
Names of Candidates
Received
(In Figures)
(
(
I
I
!
I
i
(continue on rever~ side, if r~eeded)
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 1995, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the above office.
Given under our hands this ~ 7-Ix day of November, 1995.
A copy teste:
ELECTORAL
BOARD
(SEAL}
/
/' /
/
~. ~-~ ~Seeretary, E~ectoral Board
3SEMI,ER, HOUSE OF DELEGATES
~5~(~7~ District
County/City of f~L~ ~_~a ~(-~__
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page
Names of Candidates
Total Votes
l~eceived
(In ~igures)
!
ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the County/City of //~ L/$ ~fF~ ~/~ z_ ~_
Virginia, at the NOvember 7, 1995 General Election, for:
CO1VIMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY
Names of Candidates
Total Votes
~eceived
(In Figures)
I
[
I
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 1995, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person has
received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
Given under our hands this ~"1~.. . day of November, 1995.
A copy teste:
IELECTORA~~L
BOARD
(SEALI
C 01VI3/IONWEALTIt'S ATTORNEY
County/City of
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page , of
Names of Candidates
Total Votes
R~celved
(In Figures)
hstracl Continuation Sheet
Commonwealth's Attorney
Name Total Votes Cast
CLARK, MARSHA 1
CORYREISS 1
DAY, D. 1
DELORIA 1
DEPUTY DOG 1
GIBBS, DARBY 2
GOGAL, DAVID 1
HERMAN, PEEWEE~ 1
HIGGINS, CHERYL 5
ILLIAM-MORE 1
JONES 1
KISTLY, BUCE 1
LEE, OTIS 1
LITTLE, JOHN
LOACH 1
MICKEY MOUSE 2
MINTYRE, ALEASA 1
NONE 1
NONE OF THE ABOVE 1
OOO 1
ORR 1
RIPKIN, CAL JR 1
ROOLLINS, HENRY 1
SATAN 1
STERN, HOWARD 2
TREAKLE, BUD I
TREAKLE, JAMES E 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page~-of~
Abslracl Continuation Sheet
Commonwealth's Attorney
Name Total Votes Cast
VANYARES, MITCH · 1
WAY, PETER 1
WILSON, LESTER 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page~ of-63
ABST~ACT OF VOTES cast in the County/City of ff~
¥irginia, at the November 7, 1995 General Election, for:
SHERIFF
Total ¥otes
Received
(In Figures)
[
I
]
!
!
¢corstlnue on reverse side, if needed)
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examir~ation of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 1995, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election and ~lo, therefore, determine and declare that the foIlowir~g person has
received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
Given under our hands this day of November, 1995.
ELECTORAL
BOARD
(SEAL)
SHERIFF
County/City of
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page of __
Total ~rotes
Received
Names of Candidates (ln Figures)
Abstract Continuation Sheet
Sheriff
Name Total Votes Cast
BILLSCOT
BLAKE, DAN
BOOTH, MAUREEN
BOWEN
BOZO
BROOKS, MEL
BROWN
BROWN, DORIAN
BROWN, KENNY
BUGS-BUNNY
C
CADMAN, GERALD
CLAPTON, ERIC
COX, DAVID BAXTER
CUNNINGHM, VALERIE
DALLAS, NATHANIA
DAVIS, ANGELA
DAY, D.
DEPUTY DAWG
DEPUTY DOG
DOE, IOHN
DONALD DUCK
DONALO DUCK
DOUGHERTY, DENNIS
EARl>, WYITT
EDDINS, BUCK
EHALT, LAURA
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page e2of(~
~.bstract Continuation Sheet
Sheriff
Name Total Votes Cast
EWAYS, FRANK 1
FOX 1
GEORGE 1
GEORGE-KNGHT i
GEORGEKNIGHT 2
GOD 1
GRAVES, CARL 1
GRIFFITH, ANDY 2
GRINCI-I 1
HANKS, TOM 1
HARVEY, PAUL 1
HAWKINS 1
HERMAN, PEE WE 1
HIELMAN, JIM 1
HOUCK, ED i
JAMES, JESSE 1
JOE 1
JONES 1
JONES, SHARON 2
JONES, VINCE 1
KNIGHT, GEORGE 7
LANG, PHILIP 1
LAYMAN, ROBERT 1
LEE, MARK A. 1
LINDSTROM 1
LOACH, TOM 1
MACINNIS, MAGGIE 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page. ~ of 6
Abstract Continuation Sheet
Sheriff
Name Total Votes Cast
MARTIN, RICHARD 2
MAYS, SILAS 1
MCINTYRE, ALEASA 1
ME 2
MICKEY MOUSE 3
MILTON-BRNHM,JR. 1
MORRIS, GEORGE i
MOSBY, JERRY i
MURRAY, STEVE 1
NO ONE 1
NONE 3
NONE OF THE ABOVE 2
NORTH, PETER i
NULL VOTE 1
OOO 1
ORR 2
OUTKA, PAUL 1
PAX, CHRIS i
PERKOVICH, GEORGE 1
PIPPIN, ROBERT W i
PLUTO 1
POGO i
PQOOIRABODZANSKY- 1
PRATT? GATE 1
RAMBO, RONALD 1
RASMUSSEN, JUDY 1
REED, LESLIE 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
rage ~ of (~
Abstract Continuation Sheet
Sheriff
Name Total Votes Cast
REED, LOU 1
REITER, TOBIAS 1
REYNOLDS, DAVE 1
RICHARDS, MARTIN 1
RICHARD, MARTIN 1
RIPKIN, CAL JR 1
RITTENHOLTSE, BUDDY 1
ROBB, ED 1
ROLLINS, HENRY 1
RUTSCHOW, WILL 1
SABATO, LARRY 1
I
SANNS 1
SCOTT, BILL 1
SHERIDAN, PHIL 1
SHERMAN, BILL 1
SHERRIF BILEY 1
SHIFFLETT, D. W. IR. 1
SHIFFLET, DAVID JR. 1
SIMPSON, OJ 1
SMITH, RAYMOND DWAYNE i
STANNARD, BEATRICE 1
STASKO'GARY i
STERN, HOWARD 1
TAYLOR, ANDY 2
TAZ 1
THACKER 1
THOMAS, CHRISTINA MARIA 1
November 7. 1995
General Election
Page.
Abstract Continuation Sheel
Sheriff
Name Total Votes Cast
VIA, DAVID 1
WALSH, BUCKY 1
WELLEN, CHARLOTTE 1
WHALLEY, ALBERT 1
WHEELER, GEORGE 1
WILSONk VAN 1
WILTSHIRE, GEORGE 1
WOODS, T. K. JR 2
W. WODPECKER 1
XXX 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page 6~of(4v
ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the County of ~ L
V~rgin~a, at the November 7, 1995 General Election, for:
~MBER, BOAP~D OF SUPERVISORS
~/A ~' ~J/V~ District
Nan.s of Candidates
Total Votes
Received
(In Figures)
"-/ Ozq L
(continue on reverse side, if needed)
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, I995, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes ca~t at election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person(s) has
(have) received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
Given under our hands this
ELECTORAL
BOARD
fSEAL)
day of November, 1995.
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
Abstract Continuation Sheet
Member - Board of Supervisors
Rivanna District
BUTTON, C 1
CADDOCK 1
CHAPMAN
CLARK, RICHARD 1
CRADDOCK 6
CRADDOCK, PETE 1
CRADOCK 1
DANIELSON, LEE 1
DUCK
D.RRF E 1
FORNADEL, WILLIAM 1
GALLION 1
GEEKE, FREDERICK C. 1
GERKE-FRED 1
HALLOCK 2
HALLOCK, PETER 2
HALL, ELWOOD 1
HESS 2
HITCHCOCK, RUBIN 1
ItOMPSO, JOHN 1
IACHETTA, A. 1
JOE MA MA 1
JOHNSON-JOHNSON, BILL 1
JONES 8
JONES, SHARON 1
KEPPLER, DONNA 1
KUHLMANN KATHY 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page ~ ot'
Abstract Continuation Sheet
Member - Board of Supervisors
Rivanna District
LINDSTROM, C. TIMOTHY 1
MARSHALL 2
MARSHALL, FOREST 1
MAYA ENTERRA 1
MCDONALD, JACK 1
ME 1
MICCICHIE, FRANK 1
MICICCE
MORRIS
MY DOG 1
NELSON, BRUCE
NEWMAN, ALFRED 1
NONE OF ABOVE 1
NOONE 1
OLIN 1
OOO i
ORRJONESSJONESORR 1
ORR, WILLIAM 139
PRESLEY, ELVIS 1
R 1
REYNOLDS, DAVE 1
RIPKIN, CAL JR
SILVA, HENRY
SIMMONS, LC 1
SIMPSON, OJ 1
TARRANT 1
TARRANT, BILL 1
VAN YAHRES, MARK 1
VAN YERIES, MARK 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page ~'~ of
Abstract Continuation Sheet
Member - Board of Supervisors
Rivanna District
WASULKO' DAVID 1
WASULKO, DAVE 1
WAY 1
WHEELER, GORDON 1
WOOD 1
WOOD, SHARON 1
YOU 1
ZIMMERMAN 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page ~/of
ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the County of
Virginia, at the November 7, 1995 General Election, for:
~M]3ER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
~ 5~ ~T7-5 V/LLC.- District
Names of Candidates
Total Votes
l~eceived
(In Figures)
325 '~
[
/
/
I
continue on reverse side, if ~e~d)
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 1995, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes co~t at election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person(s) has
(have) received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
ELECTORAL
BOARD
(SEAL)
/
day of November, 1995.
.I_ Cz'~Lf~ Chairman
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T 75 t t c ~_ District
County of ~ ~ ~-g-~
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page.. ~ of ~
Numes of Candidates
Total Voles
Received
(~n Figures)
I
ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the County of f-~ L/~ ~/~ ¢---
Virginia, at the November 7, 1995 General Election, for:
i~IBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
~/M ! ~ ~ ~-~ f~ L U District
2~'ames of Candidates
K/.,,J 5
Total Votes
P~ceived
(/n F/gures)
30::7-6,
I
!
I
(~ontlnue on rever~e side, if needed)
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 1995, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person(s) has
¢h~ve) received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
ELECTORAL
BOARD
(SEAL)
day of November, 1995.
u/~ ~ (~..~, ~ Secretary
/
1WEMBER, BOAP~ OF SUPERVISORS
District
County of
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page , of
~ames of Candidates
Total Votes
~ecelved
(In F~gures)
Abstract Contim~ation Sheet
Member, Board of Supervisors
White Hall District
Name Total Votes Cast
BUTLER, S.D. 1
CARTER, CINDY I
CROSBY, WILLIAM 1
CRUM, TOM 1
DE DONATO, MARIA 1
DIEPOLD, KEN i
DONALD DUCK 1
D. DUCK 1
FILBERT-PIG 1
FREEMAN, ALAN 2
FREEMAN, ALLEN 3
HENRY, WILLY 1
HESS i
HOZA, LANI 1
HUNT, SHORTY 2
JENKINS, TOM i
JOHN P.
JONES, J. BARRETT
JONES, S i
JONES, SHARON 1
KIRK, JAMES T. 1
LOACH 3
LOACH, JOHN 1
LOACH, THOMAS 1
LOACH, TOM 39
LOCHE, TOM 1
MARSHALL, JACK - FREE 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page. ~ of ~
Abstract Continuation Sheet
Member, Board of Supervisors
Wbite Hall District
Name Total Votes Cast
MARTIN 2
MARTIN, CHARLES 2
MAURO, D.I. 1
MEEKS, STEVEN G. 4
MICKEY MOUSE 5
MICKY MOUSE 1
MIKEWOOD 1
NONE OF THE ABOVE 1
NULL VOTE 1
OACH TOM LOACH 1
ORR 2
PATTERSON, I.D. 1
POOL, ALICE 1
POOL, ALICE P 1
REITER, STEPHEN 1
REYNOLDS, DAVE 1
SANDRIDGE, LEONARD 1
SNOOPY 1
SSTHHOM LLOACH 1
STRICKLAND 1
STRICKLAND, KAREN 1
THE OTHER GUY I
TOMLOACH 6
WARD 1
WARD, CHARLES 1
WAYANT, DAVID 1
WYANT, DAVID
November 7, 1995
General Election
Pages of 3
ABST. R~CT 014' VOTES cast in the County of the November 7, 1995 General Election, for:
, Virginia,
~MBER~ SCHOOL BOARI)
/~ T L/~ 6_ District
Total Votes
Received
Names of Candidates
(~n~n~ on revere s~e, if ~e~d)
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 1995, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do. therefbre, determine and declare that the following person(si have
received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
Given under our hands this
A cbpy teste:
ELECTORAL
BOARD
(SEAL)
day of November, 1995.
·. .x.L
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
1Vr~.MBER, SCHOOL BOARD
District
County of
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page of__
Total Votes
Received
Names of Candidates (In Figures)
Abstract Continuation Sbeel
Member - School Board At Large
Name Total Votes Cast
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page g of~<~
BRUCE, WANDA - CROZET. VA
CHAPMAN
CHLDRESS, EVAN
COLE
COLE, SHARON I(RICK
COUR1C, EMILY
COX, AUSTIN
D 1
DAFFY DUCK 1
DAVIS. C'k~NTHIA 1
DAVIS. CYNTHIA BELLAIR FM
DAY. D.
DON'T KNOW ANY OF THEM 1
DONTKNOW 1
1
DOUGLAS-GOLDER
EMERSON, HELEN B.
FINLEY
FORTUNE, JEREMY I
FRANK
FRAZER. SCOTT
FREELY. I.P.
GARCIA, JERRY
GARNER. PAM
GOHANER-LYLES, PYNKE
HALL. JOItN
HARMAN. LISA
HARRIS. PRISCILLA
HESS
HOFFMAN. KOBBY
HUNDLEY, PA'UL
ItURT, CAROL
JOHNSON. KE1TH I
Abstract Continuation Sheet
Member - School Board At Large
Name Total Votes Cast
JONES 11
JONES'SHARON 1
JONES, HANON 1
JONES, SALLY 1
JONES, SHARN 1
JONES, SHARON (VAR) 36
JONES, SHI?RLEY 3
JOSEPH, JEFF 1
KEEVER, LEN 1
KYRTLEY, I~24RLA i
KOLEZAR
LAMOR 1
LANORITH 1
LEAR, CAROLE 1
LEE, MARI( A
LITTLE~ JOHN 1
LUX, JOHN 1
MANN, KELLY TAYLOR
MARSHALL 1
MARSHALL, MIKE 4
MAXA, KATHY 1
MCGREW, BILL 1
MCIx~EL, DIANTHA 1
hie 2
MINNIE MOUSE 1
MITCHELL, HOSEA 1
MOORE 1
MORRISON, JIM 1
NORTON, DEBORAH P. 1
NOTA 1
O'BREEN, KEVIN 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page_~ of~'
Abstract Continualion Sheet
Member - School Board At Large
Name Total Votes Cast
OOO 1
OR 1
ORC 1
ORR 36
ORR, BNJAMIIq 1
ORR, JAMES 1
ORR, ROBERT 1
ORR, WILL.lAM (VAR) 407
ORR, W.M. 1
PATRICIA-MILLR 1
PERKOWSKI, JEANNETTE 1
PH1LIPS, MARK 1
POPCORN 1
POWER RANGER 1
QR 1
RAMBO, RONALD 1
REARDON, KEVIN 1
REYNOLDS, DAVE 1
RttODES, StmRRY 1
RIPKIN, CAL .IR 1
RR 2
SHARON 1
SIBLEY, WILLIAM L. 1
STAFFORD, WILLIAM S. 1
STANNARD, ROBERT 1
STAUNTON, ROLAND** 1
STRZEPEK, ERIC 1
TAYLOR, BOB 1
TEEL, NANCY 1
T. T. BOYS 1
WALLACE, JAMES 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page 4 of~'
Abstract Continuation Sheet
Member ~ School Board At Large
Name Total Votes Cast
WARD, CHARLES 2
WARD, CHUCK 1
WAY, ELIZABETH 2
WHO CARES 1
WILLIAM 1
WOOD, E. 1
WOOD, SHARON 1
ZISK, GRACE 1
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page~'of~-'-
ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the County of
at she November 7, 1995 General Election, for:
. ¥irgi~ia,
~IVIBER, SCHOOL BOARD
'~1 g~AJ ~ ~% District
Names of Candidates
Total Votes
l~eceived
(In Figures)
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 1995, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract oflVotes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person(s) have
received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
Given under our hands this
A copy texte:
ELECTORAL
BOARD
(SEAL)
/
day of November, 1995.
1V~,MBER, SCHOOL BOARD
District
County of
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page of
~'otol Votes
Received
Names of Candidates (In Figures)
Abstract Continuation Sheet
Member, School Board - Rivanna District
Name Total Votes Cast
HESS, CHARLES 2
HOBB 1
HSESS
JEFFRIES
JONES 2
JONES, SHARON 2
KIRTLEY, BRUCE 1
ME 1
MIKELL, EDDIE 1
NONE OF THE ABOVE i
NORTON, DEBORAH P. 1
ORA
ORR, ROBERT i
ORR, WILLIAM 1393
OTT 2
PRORKY PIG 1
R 6
ROE 1
RR 5
STERN, HOWARD I
TRYHAWKISHAWKINS O-ORR
US i
WAY 1
WAY, WILLIAM i
WILLIAMS, DAVID I
WRITE-IN 1
XX 2
November 7, 1995
General Election
Page. 2~ of ~-
ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the County of
at the November 7, 1995 General Election, for:
1WI~.lVlBER, SCHOOL BOARD
Total Votes
P~eceived
Names of Candidates (In Figures)
(continue on reverse side, if needed)
We, the undersigrvzd Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 1995, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person(si have
received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
i4.
Given under our hands this
A copy texte:
ELECTORAL
BOARD
(SEAL)
\
day of November, 1995.
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES cast in the County of
at the November 7, 1995 General Election, for:
., Virgnnia,
SCHOOL BOARD
Total Votes
Received
Names of C~ndidates (In Figures)
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 7, 1995, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare that the following person(s) have
received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said election:
Given under our hands this.
A copy teste:
ELECTORAL
BOARD
(SEAL)
, q day of November, 1995.
1995 ~ 2000,
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
1995-2000
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Projected Revenues (July 1, 1995-June 30, 1997) ..........
~roject Cost/Type (July 1, 1995-June 30, 1997) ..........
Utility Mapping ......................................
Painting Ednam Tank ..................................
Nob Hill Waterline Replacement .......................
Albemarle Square Sewer ...............................
Camelot Sewer Replacement ............................
PRV Vault Replacement ..................................
Woodbrook Sewer ........................................
Berkley Sewer Replacement ..............................
Deerwood Sewer .........................................
Miscellaneous .........................................
Flordon/Farmington Water ...............................
Oak Hill Sewer .........................................
Airport Acres Water ....................................
Oak Hill Water .........................................
Pig Ragged Mtn. Line ...................................
Crozet Filter Plant Expansion ..........................
Projected Revenues (July 1, 1997-June 30, 2000) ...........
Project Cost/Type (July 1, 1997-June 30, 2000) ............
Ednam Forest Water .....................................
Northfields Water ......................................
West Leigh Improvements ................................
Pa~e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
West Leigh Replacement ................................
Glenorch~ Water .......................................
Mapping ...............................................
Crozet Sewer Cempletion ...............................
Northfields Sewer Phase II ............................
West Leigh/Lewis Hills Water ..........................
Crutchfield Water .....................................
Capital Projects Beyond Jul~ 1, 2000 ..................
Airport Acres Sewer .................................
Biscuit Run Interceptor ..............................
Buckingham Circle Sewer ..............................
Bellair/Liberty Hill Sewer ...........................
Carrsbrook Sewer .....................................
Chapel Hill Sewer ....................................
Ednam Forest Sewer ...................................
Scottsville Industrial Park Sewer ....................
Stony Point Sewer ....................................
Hessian Hills Sewer Phase III ........................
Camelot Sewer/WW~P Replacement ........................
Oak Hill Water Replacement ............................
Page
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Revenue For Capital Projects
July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1997
Source
1. Beginning Balance
Capital Improvement Fund
2. FY '96 Small Capital
Improvement Funds
3. FY '97 Small Capital
Improvement Funds
4. FY '96 Depreciation
5. FY '97 Depreciation
TOTAL
Water
$100,000
271,740
282,609
490,180
490,180
$1,634,709
Purpose
Sewer
$100,000
188,836
196,390
623,865
623,865
$1,732,956
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
JULY 1, 1995 - JUNE 30, 1997
Project
New
Project Cost/Type
Water
Replacement New
Sewer
Replacement
1. Utility Mapping $20,000
2. Painting Ednam Tank $42,000
3. Nob Hill Water Repl. 28,000
4. Albemarle Square Sewer
5. Camelot Sewer Replacement
6. PRV Vault Repl. 42,000
7. Woodbrook Sewer $408,480
8. Berkeley Sewer Repl.
9. Deerwood Sewer 273,000
10. Miscellaneous 95,000
11. Flordon-Farmington Water 90,000 186,000
12. Oak Hill Sewer 725,000
13. Airport Acres Water 275,000
14. Oak Hill Water 207,825
15. Pig Ragged Mtn. Line 40,000
16. Expand Crozet Filter 792,000
Plant
17. Developer Participation/ 0 0
Contingency
Cost By Project Type $1,384,825 $433,000
Total Projects
$1,817,825
$118,000
124,000
337,000
$1,406,480 $579,000
$1,985,480
Available Resources
Transfer From Improvement/
Redemption Fund
Balance/Deficiency
$1,634,709
$183,116
$0
$1,732,956
$252,524
$0
-- 2
UTILITY MAPPING
Not to Scale
Digital base maps have been
UrbaulGeog~aphic InfOrmation ~repared for Use. in d~velopin~
~iel~ Verification of System (GiS). This prONect will be
e~istin~ ut~.. an
· nfrastructure %o the lgitat files.
.d ....... &ss to add ou~
PAINTING
EDNAM TANK
Not to Scale
taken _out of service and repaintad inside and ont.
0 r
NOB HILL
WATER LINE
REPLACEMENT
(Not to scale)
This project was originally proposed to improve flows
in the Nob Hill subdivision. Completion of the
Southern Urban Transmission Main reduced the scope of
this project.J The current estimate is $28,000 to
replace the undersized lines and improve fire protection.
I~!-.
OU~IJJ
/]
'7
6. Camelot and Four Seasons are served
by pressure reducing valves that have
reached their effective life. This
$42,000 project will replace vaults
and fittings with a new design that
meets current standards.
PRV VAULT
REPLACEMEN'i'
Not to scaIe
CAMELOT
PRV VAULT
FOUR SEASONS
PRV VAULT
8
WOODBROOK
SEWER
(NOT TO ~CALE)
· , /
N
/
?
This project will replace the Woodbroc
Pump Station with a gravity sewer
through Carrsbrook. This $408,480
project will also make sewer available
to large blocks of the Carrsbrook
Subdivision.
9
BERKELEY SEWER
REPLACEMENT
(Not to scale)
8. Recurring maintenance problems and blockages
necessitate rehabilitation of a number of
sewer lines in Berkeley. Collapsed lines,
roo~ intrusion and age have required repeated
cleaning in sewers along Dominion Drive,
Williamsburg Road and Commonwealth Drive.
$337,000 will be used to fund replaoing the
wors~ of these lines.
DEERWOOD SEWER
Not to Scale
~ /t/ '' Subdivision have petitioned the
--~ // Service Authority to provide public
~ ~../ sewer. The sewer to serve this
~ ~// subdivision would extend from the
~ '~./~. Airport sewer and include ff
~ collection system for Deerwood.
-~ The total projec~ would be funded
'~x.. by the Authority and is estimated
to cost $273,000.
11
MISCELLANEOUS
LINE
REPLACEMENTS
DRIVE
-
(Not to scale)
10.
WOODLAKE DRIVE
Miscellaneous. A n~her of construction
projects are needed to upgrade existing
~tilities. Galvanized waterlines and
failed sections of sewers are included in
this list. The scope of these projects
.exceed routine maintenance capability and
will be considered under tkis appropriation.
An example of this will be'replacing the
galvanized waterlines in Four Seasons.
-- 12
FLOR D ON/FAR M I NGTON
WATER
IMPROVEMENTS
(Not to scale)
FLORDG
l!.
Extending fire protection tkrough
Flordon and connecting the Urban
System to Farmington will siqnifican~ly
improve service in both areas.
Construction of Chis projec~ is
expected ~o cos~ $276,000.
N
13
I
OAF. HILL
SEWFR
(NOT TO ~C.~,! ~
\.. !
7..2.
Extension of the Biscuit Run
Interceptor has opened
availability of sewerin~ the
Oak ~il! area. The total
estimated cost for this
project is $725,000.
AIRPORT ACRES
WATER
(NOT TO SCALE)
® /
f
/
· /
13. AirpoL-h~ Acres is presen~!y sa~ed by individual
existing 12" ~tar line crosses part of this
t~ough A~o~ Acres providing residential
15
14.
The western branch of the Southern Loop
provides service ~o the southern growtk
areas. To serve properties enclosed by
this loop, and to provide interconnects
to tke City system, a 12" water line is
planned along Stagecoach and Old Lynchbur~
Roads. A 12"~spur would also follow Old
Lynckburg Road north to a City connection.
The estimate for this project is $207,825~
OAK HILL
WATER
(Not to scale)
16
f
17
Rt
CROZET FILTER
PLANT
EXPANSION
Requests for additional wa~er
service to Con-Agra and recen~
residential development in
Crozet had prompted the need
for additional water treatment
capacity. The expansion of the
filter plant Will be undertaken
by'RWSA and ~unded from ACSA's
Capital Improvement Fund.
Projected Revenues
July 1, 1997
For Capital Projects
- June 30, 2000
Source
(1) FY '98 Small Capital
Improvement Funds
(2) FY '99 Small Capital
Improvement Funds
(3) FY 2000 Small Capital
Improvement Funds
(4) FY '98 Depreciation
(5) FY '99 Depreciation
(6) FY 2000 Depreciation
Water
$ 293,914
$ 305,670
$ 317,897
$ 490,180
$ 490,180
$ 490,180
$2,388,021
Purpose
Sewer
$ 204,245
$ 212,415
$ 220,911
$ 623,865
$ 623,865
$ 623,865
$2,509,166
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
JULY 1, 1997 - JUNE 30, 2000
PROJECT
NEW
1. Refund Improvement/
Redemption Fund
WATER
2. Ednam Forest Water
3. Northfields Water
4. West Leigh Imp.
5. West Leigh Repl.
6. Glenorchy Water
7. Mapping
8. Crozet Sewer
Completion
9. Miscellaneous
10. Northfields Sewer
Phase II
11. West Leigh/Lewis
Hill Water
12. Crutchfield Water
13.
PROJECT COST/TYPE
SEWER
REPLACEMENT NEW REPLACEMENT
$91,558 $ 91,558 $ 126,262 $ 126,262
19,500
92,000
96,000
100,000
32,000
64,000
Developer Participation/
Contingency 626,203
235,000
114,000
200,000
100,000
112,000
1,124,000
626,202 460,321 460,321
Cost by Project Type
Total Projects
Available Resources
Balance Deficiency
$1,121,261 $1,266,760
$2,388,021
$2,388,021
$0
$1,922,583 $ 586,583
$2,509,166
$2,509,166
$0
20
EDNAM FOREST
WATER IMPROVEMENTS
This project loops exis%ing 6" watar!ines
to improve sym~a= hydr~u!ics. Onher
$!9,500.
O~
)--
WEST LEIGH
WATER IMPROVEMENTS
(NOT TO SCALE}
¢~nne=ting an 8" !~e ~ ~!~ Drive, up
23
'-GLENORCHY
WATER -
(Not to scale)-
....
Construction of the I6" weter line to ~".'/
serve Rivanna Village made water service
available to the Glenorchy Subdivision.
This private well system will be "
connected to publlc water in the near
future. Ultimately there will be a need
to upgrade the internal system at an ~'~-"
estimate~ oost of ~,000.'
CT-
25
MAPPING
Not to Scale
As the current and planned phases of the Urban Map~i~ and
GI$ system ere completed we will be able to link urDa~ data
to the plans and use the system to generate network models
for long renge planning. This project shoul~ complete the
field verification of our utilities relative to State Plane
Coordinates and make the program into a future GIS.
26
~Z
'L
,\
~(
~ h
=,, I!
.al I
28
12.
CRUTCHFIELD/
INDUSTRIAL PARK-
WATER
This project is an intarconnect of the
system at Crutchfield with the system
in the Airport Industrial Park. This
project will improve system hydrau!ics
at the industrial park and includes
1,600 if of 12" water line. The
estimated project cost is $54,000.
(Not to scale)
AIF~OKT
/
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECTS BEYOND JULY 1, 2000
PROJECT
AIRPORT ACRES SEWER
BISCUIT RUN INTERCEPTOR
BUCKINGHAM CIRCLE SEWER
BELLAIR LIBERTY HILL SEWER
CARRSBROOK SEWER
CHAPEL HILL SEWER
EDNAM FOREST SEWER
SCOTTSVILLE IND. PARK SEWER
STONY POINT SEWER
HESSIAN HILLS SEWER PHASE III
CAMELOT SEWER./WWTP REPL.
OAK HILL WATER REPL.
COST
$285,000
98.00/LF
$184,000
$562,000
$645,000
$158,000
$982,000
$332,000
$212,000
$64~000
NOT AVAILABLE
$143,600
AIRPORT ACRES-
SEWER
(NOT TO $CAL~
/..~ I' . /~' -,,
/.' ¢, /~ I~.~', / ~ //-~
~~// / / ~'
w~tew%t~ se~ic~ =o ~ e~stinq
feasible wi~ ~e ~ension of the TO AIRPORT
have e~ressa~ an in=crest in this
syst~ and adjo~ing developments may
add additlo~l ~e. ~e e~timated cost
of ~is ~=ojec= is $285,~O0.
32
BISCUIT RUN
INTERCEPTOR
Conmtz~c~ion of the Biscuit Run
for th~ ~-.t~e drainage basin.
con~ution to f~er e~ensicn.
_ 33
BUCKINGHAM
SEWER
(HO"~' TO SC.~.L....~.
CIRCLE
Buckingham Circle is presently served with private septic
tanks. Little interest has been expressed in public
wastewater service. Construction of this $!84,000 project
will occur only when public health becomes an issue.
34
35
- CARRSBROOK SEWER
{NOT TO ~CALE)
-/
-1
· m~o
ThLs $~45,000 pr=ject will provide
sanitary sawer service to 141
potential custome_~e. Its
prior cons~ructio~ of a gravity
Pu~p $~ation.
-- 36
I!I
0
3?
This project is servinq an existing subdivision to
eliminate septic tanks. The scope of the $982,000
project to serve large lots exceeds its need. Parts
of the system could ~e undertaken in the vicinity ~f
project cost.
EDNAM FOREST
SEWER
J
(NOr TO $ 'C~/_~
38
,/
0 I-.- ~
0 .09
~®
· u~u~unoH K~u~d o~ p~oH
3~oda{v 30 q3aou ~IquI~eau ~aass u~Iqnd a~ea
~q~ ~o ~o~ q~oN aq~ ~e uoT~s dmnd ~
bU~On~SUOS ~o s~s~suoo ~oa~o~d s~q~
h
IUOdUl~
/
/;
ij
d~fld
/ qVIUiSflONI
OAK HILL
- WATER I~/IPROVEMENTS
(Not to scale)
Eventually the infrastructure in Oak Hill
will need to be replaced. The existing
2" and 4" water lines will.provid? limited
fire protection when this ~y~tem ls connected
to public water. Replacing the system will
cost approximately $143,600.
43
MEMORANDUM
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Deve}opmen~
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virgirda 22902~4596
(804) 296-5823
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Developmentfft/l 1 ~
December 6, 1995
Albemarle County Planning Commission - 1994 Annual Report
Attached please find a copy of the 1994 Annual Report approved by the Albemarle County
Planning Commission at their meeting on November 28, 1995.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
VWC/jcf
ATTACHMENT
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
F_.XECUT~VE OFFICE
1994 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
I. INTRODUCTION
The Code of Virginia states that local Planning Commissions shall make recommendations
and an annual report m the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the
stares of plarming within the jurisdiction. This report is a brief summary of what the Albemarle
County Planning Commission accomplished during 1994 and some of the issues which are being
addressed during 1995.
II. PERSONNEL
The Commission is composed of seven members, one member from each of the six
magisterial districts, and one member "at large." The Commission members during 1994 were:
I
('(i\IMI'~SI()\I R I)I?,'I'RI( T 'l I'RM
Thomas D. Blue, Vice- Rivanna 1/08/92 - 12/31/95
Chairman
Thomas H. Jenkins White Hall 1/06/88 - 12/31/95
Jacquelyn N. Huckle, Jack Jouett 1/03/90 - 12/31/97
Chairman
William J. Nitclmaann Scottsville t/08/92 - 12/31/95
A. Bruce Dotson Samuel Miller 1/12/94 - 12/31/97
Monica G. Vaughan Charlottesville 1/12/94 - 12/31/97
Katherine L. Imhoff At-Large 1/12/94 ~ 12/31/95
III. EXPENSES
The Commission does not have a separate budget. Expenses for commission members were
a total of $24,600.00 all of wtfich was spent on commissioner salaries.
IV. REGULAR ITEMS
The Planning Commission held 47 regular meetings in 1994, primarily to review
development proposals. A total of 132 items were reviewed.
Major zonine/soecial use permit reviews included:
ZMA-93-03 Craig Builders (applicant) Mechum River Land Trust (owner)
Petition to rezone approximately 56.77 acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-
4, Residential. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED
DENIAL
ZMA-93-21 Robert Clark - Petition to rezone 32.064 acres from RA,
Rural Areas to VR, Village Residential. APPLICATION WITHDRAWN.
ZMA-94-04 Forest Lakes Associates - Petition to rezone 12.08 acres from
R-1, Residential and R-4, Residential to R-10, Residential (9.73 acres) and
C-l, Commercial (2.35 acres) [proffered]. PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
ZMA-94-05 Hillcrest Land Trust - Petition to rezone 14.56 acres from
R-l, Residential to PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
ZMA-94-15 Philip A. Sansone - Petition to rezone 7.87 acres from R-I,
Residential to R-10, Residential. PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
ZMA-94-18 Donald Robertson - Petition to rezone 4.34 acres from RA,
Rural Areas to LI, Light Industrial for the purpose of establishing a mmi-
warehouse facility. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL
SP-93~34 Putt-Putt Golf & Games - Petition to expand the existing
miniature golf course with additional activities. PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL.
SP-94-12 Todd Shields - Petition to establish a commercial recreation
facility on 6.0 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
SP-94-16 Health Services Foundation - Petition to establish professional
offices on 4.8 acres zoned R~15. PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
SP-94-26 Sprint Centel Cellular - Petition to locate an antennae and
support facilities on 70.87 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL.
SP-94-27 Joseph R. Adlesic - Petition to locate a stream crossing on a 6.43
acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas and within the SS,Scenic Streams
Overlay District. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL
Zoning text amendments addressed such issues as:
ZTA-94-01 Accessory_ Apartments - Amend 3.0 Definitions to def'me"accessory
apartments as accessory to a single family dwelling. Amend 5.0 Supplementary
Regulations to allow "accessory apartment" in all single family dwellings without
regard to density and to impose certain restrictions on "accessory apartment.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
ZTA-94-02 - Westgate Limited parmershiv - Petition to amend the provisions of
the Planned Residential District, Section 19.3.2 to add by special use permit all
uses permitted by special use permit in the R-15 district under Section 18.2.2.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
ZTA-94-03 Building Permit Review - Amend Section 30.6 Entrance Corridor
Overlay District to require a certificate of appropriateness be granted from the
ARB prior to building permit approval. PLANN1NG COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
ZTA-94-04 Fees - Petition to permit the Board of Supervisors to reduce fees in a
particular case in order to provide access to the review process by all citizens.
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN.
ZTA-94-05 Fees - Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section
35.0 Fees, m allow fee reduction for uses that may be subject to multiple fees,
minor expansions to non-conforming uses and the like, and family divisions that
necessitate a special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOM2MENDED APPROVAL.
An important procedural measure implemented in March, 1988 was the Consent Agenda.
In 1994, the Planning Commission authorized approval of all of the items which appeared on the
Consent Agenda, resulting in an agenda time savings of about l hour or the equivalent of about 1
meeting.
The Commission also took action on other proposals outside of the development revie~v
area. These included:
AgricuHural/Forestal Districts
Six Districts Reviewed.'_
April 2, 1994 Jacob's Run
May 11, 1994 Eastham (additional review)
July t3, 1994 Blue Run
October 12, 1994 Keswick
October 12, 1994 Kinloch
1,124.99 acres
178.08 acres
3,634.89 acres
6,063.81 acres
1,683.96 acres
December 21, 1994 Moorman's River 9,989.36 acres
Additions:
July 13, 1994 Pasture Fence Mountain
October 12, 1994 Keswick
October 12, 1994 Kinloch
453.50 acres
320.52 acres
393.16 acres
Capitallmprovements Program - The Commission reviewed project requests for
the FY95-96 to the FY99-2000 Capital Improvements Program. The Board of
Supervisors approved 26 projects (excluding public school projects) for funding
in the first year of the CIP at a cost of $10,556,729.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments - The Commission reviewed four
Comprehensive Plan amendments during 1994:
CPA-92-05 Towers Land Trust - March 3, 1994
CPA-94-01 University Real Estate Foundation - November 8, 1994
CPA-94-02 The Kessler Group - South Forest Lakes -November 8, 1994
CPA-94-03 Crozet Community Study - November 22, 1994
456 Review - Review for compliance with the Comnrehensive Plan - The
Commission reviewed two public projects for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan under Virginia Code Section 15.1-456. These projects were:
Albemarle County Service Authority proposal to construct a new water
main in Crozet between Jarman's Gap Road and Brownsville Elementary
School. Portions of the existing water main in Jarman's Gap Road will
also be replaced.
Albemarle County Service Authority water line extension to existing
structures in Oak Knoll Subdivision located off Rt. 250W in the Ivy
Area.
V. ACTION SUMMARY
The number of actions considered by the commission during 1994 and in each of the
previous four years is shown by category in the following table. Consent agenda items are listed
separately.
\( '1 I(>\ ("(}XSII)I:RI:I) 1994 i903 ).)_ 1991 190f}
( Olllpl'ch,~ll',i x
I
~ning Text ~en~ts 5 4 8 9 9
Subdivision Or~n~ce Amendments 0 0 0 1 0
Comprehensive PI~ Compli~ce Reviews 4 1 7 5 2
Zoning Map ~endments 27 18 12 19 23
Special Use Pe~its 40 38 55 67 63
Preli~n~ Site Pl~s 9 12 20 25' 21
Fin~ Site Pl~s 0 0 1 5 2
Prelimin~ Plats 3 4 14 15 21
F~ Plats I 0 1 3 3
Site PI~ Extensions 0 0 0 2 8
Site PI~ Waivers 0 1 3 0 0
Site PI~ AmendmenB 7 8 4 12 9
Fin~ Plat E~ensions 0 0 0 0 2
Subdivision Waiver 1 2 0 3 0
Agricultura~orest~ Dis~icts 9 10 2 4 5
( 'Oll~Cnl ~g~
lh'climninarI Silo PI:ms 5 f: Il (l 2
l'in,:i Si:~ l~l:in< -[ 0 2 5 -[
l'i'.'!iminar} l~h:L< i~ t~ i} 2 2
l inal PI:il.
Xl:l'iCtlhtlral I'orcqal I)isirict~ {~ 8 i 2 5
~efe~ of applicmion)
Plying Co~ssion ~ual Rpt 1
456 Reviews 2
VI. OTHER PLANNING ACTIVITIES
The Commission discussed a number of immediate and long-range planning issues in
1994. Worksessions, typically of 1.5 - 2 hours duration, were held in addition to regular items to
address the following:
Comprehensive Plan - Status of Plan (1 worksession)
Six Year Secondary Road Construction Plan (1994-2000)
Accessory Apartments
Comprehensive Plan Background Reports - Particular emphasis will be given to
the Employment section (2 work sessions)
Economic Development Policy for the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission members also served on the following committees:
Jacquelyn Huckle:
Planning & Coordination Council Technical Committee
Bypass Committee
Rural Area Transportation Study
Tom Jenkins and Katherine Imhoff:
29 Interchange Committee
Tom Jenkins:
Crozet Study Committee
Thomas Blue:
Charlottesville Area Transportation Study
William Nitchmann and Brace Dotson:
Fiscal Impact Committee
PLANNING ACTIVITIES FOR 1995:
These activities are over and above the normal case workload and annual projects.
Five year review of Comprehensive Plan - Emphasis on completion of Economic
Development Policy and Land Use Plan.
A:\PC94.RPT
COMMONWEALTH t>[ VIRGINIA
Office of the Governor ....
November 29, 1995
Ms. Ella W. Carey
Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Vir§inia 22902-4596
Dear Ms. Carey:
It is with pleasure that I inform you of ntV reappointment of Jay Graves as a
member of the Rockfish State Scenic River Advisory Board. I am confident that
your candidate will serve the Commonwealth to the fullest extent of his talents
and abilities in promotin§ our a§enda for positive chan§e in state §overnment.
Thank you again for your personal involvement in keepin§ me apprised of
qualified individuals who are willing to serve their fellow Virginians. I truly
appreciate your advice.
With warm personal re§ards, I remain,
George A1 len
GA:sdm
State Capitol * Richmond, Virginia 23219 * (80~) 786-2211 * TDD (8~4) 371-8015
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive /~~-
December 12, 1995
Ivy Landfill Issues
Attached are three reports that I think you will find informative regarding the Ivy Landfill. The first
of these is an Executive Summary t~om a report commissioned by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority to determine whether the Ivy Landfill was currently impacting the water quality of the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and whether the landfill could be anticipated to impact the water
quality of the reservoir in the future. The report was prepared by Draper Aden Associates and they
indicated that, based upon their analysis of available data and samples that they took in various
locations, they found no evidence that the Ivy Landfill has impacted the quality of water in the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir. They also indicated that they could find no evidence that the landfill was
likely to impact the reservoir. The report goes further to offer recommendations to expand the
surface water and sediment monitoring program and the inspection of erosion control measures to
help ensure that the RWSA can continue to make the statement that there are no reservoir impacts
from the landfillL RWSA did not take action on the report but I wanted to provide you with a copy
of the Executive Summary for your information.
The last two items attached are basically informational status reports regarding the Solid Waste Task
Force and other programs and issues surrounding the landfill that you may be interested in following.
Finally, the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority reviewed a preliminap] master site plan for the landfill that
will be re-submitted to the Planning staffin the near future. This master plan does not include any
vertical expansion of the landfill, but simply looks at three areas: upgrading the stormwater detention
facilities, improving the Citizen Convenience Center for recycling and garbage drop-off, and a minor
expansion to the existing maintenance building as well as improving visitor parking.
Should you have any questions concerning any of these matters, please do not hesitate to contact me.
RWT, Jr/dbm
95.196
Attachments
~- X..RD OF SUPERVISORS
SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RESERVOIR
WATER QUALITY ISSUES
DAA PROJECT NO. 21547
1.0 SUMMARY
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority retained Draper Aden Associates (DAA) to assess
existing and potential impacts of the Ivy Sanitary Landfill on the quality of water in the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Toward completion of this project, DAA personnel (1) visited the
lan.drill to observe operational procedures and site conditions that might impact surface water
quality, (2) reviewed the results of groundwater and surface water chemical analyses conducted
on samples obtained from the landfill, (3) obtained surface water and sediment samples from
nearby streams and analyzed those samples for selected chemical constituents, and (4) assessed
risk to the reservoir based upon available surface water and groundwater chemistry.
1.1 Existing Impacts
Based on our analysis of the available data, we find no evidence that Ivy Landfill has impacted
the quality of water in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir; we find no evidence that the Ivy
Landfill is likely to impact the Reservoir. Specifically, we find no evidence that contaminants
have been transported to the Reservoir via surface water; we find no evidence that
contaminants have been transported to the Reservoir via groundwater.
The landfill appears to have ~mpacted groundwater beneath the landfill and surface water in
streams immediately bordering the facility; however, the observed contamination does not
appear ro extend beyond the confluence of the unnamed stream that forms the western
boundary of the site and Broad Axe Creek. The organic constituents observed in the stream
immediately adjacent to the landfill appear to volatilize and/or become diluted ro levels that
cannot be measured a short distance downstream from ks confluence with Broad Axe Creek
(to the north of the facility) and do not appear to be transported to the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir. Similarly, any inorganic constituents observed in the stream appear to become
adsorbed onto sediment particles and/or become diluted to levels that cannot be measured a
short distance from the landfill.
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
Water Quality Issues
DAA Project No. 21547
December. 1995
Page 2
1.2 Future Impacts
Recent changes in landfill operational procedures and planned construction are expected m
reduce the potential impact of the landfill on surface water quality 'in the vicinity of the facility.
Reduction in the potential for future impacts is based upon controlling the mechanisms of
contaminant transport from the landfill m adjacent streams: stormwater runoff, leachate
m~gration, and groundwater discharge. Significant controls include the following measures:
Changes ~n operational procedures, including seeding and placement of
additional intermediate cover, will reduce the potential for stormwater runoff to
affect the streams bordering the facility.
A leachate interception trench has been constructed adjacent to well MW-03.
Construction of the leachate collection trench ~vill reduce the potential for
leachate or contaminated groundwater to affect the unnamed stream on the
western border of the facility.
Cell 1 and Cell 2 ate currently being capped. Capping of Cell 1 and Cell 2 will
reduce infiltration into the cells, thereby reducing the potential for leachate
production and consequent groundwater contamination.
Additional leachate collection trenches and improvements in the stormwater
management system are planned for the facility. The improvements to the
stormwater managemem system are designed ro enhance treatment ofstormwater
runoff and thereby prevem the discharge of contamination to the streams
adjacem to the facility.
In summary, recent construction at the landfill and furore construction plmmed for the facility
are expected to reduce the potential for the landfill to impact local surface water quality in the
future.
South Pork Rivanna Reservoir
Water Quality Issues
DAA Project No. 21547
December, 1995
Page 3
1.3 Recommendations
Although surface water quality does not appear to be impacted by the Ivy Sanitary Landfill
beyond the immediate vicinity of the landfill site, we offer several recommendations to help
ensure that any future contamination that might be derived from the landfill does not migrate
to the South Fork Rivauna Reservoir.
· Expand the surface water monitoring program to include five additional stations:
Broad Axe Creek, immediately upstream from the point at which the stream
enters the site (upstream from the Route 637 crossing).
Broad Axe Creek, immediately downstream from the confluence of Broad Axe
Creek and the unnamed stream that borders the western end of the facility (north
of 1-64, upstream from the Route 682 crossing).
Mechums River, immediately upstream from the U.S. Route 250 crossing.
Mechums River, immediately upstream from the Route 614 crossing.
Mechums River, upstream from the confluence of Mechums River and
Moormans River (immediately upstream from the Route 601 crossing).
Note ~hat all of these stations are downstream from the landfill. Surface water samples
and sed'unent samples should be obtained. In order to be consistent with the
groundwater monitoring program at the landfill, samples should be analyzed for all
constituents listed in Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations (VSWMR)
Appendix 5.5. In the event that any additional organic constituents listed in VSWMR
Appendix 5.1 are observed in the groundwater monitoring wells at the landfill, then the
surface water and sediment samples should also be analyzed for those constituents.
The frequency of sampling events, and the number of stations to be included in each
sampl;,ng event, can be varied through time to reflect the results obtained from
preceding events.
Develop baseline data for metals in stream sediments based upon three sampling
stations:
Mechums River, immediately downstream from the Route 635 crossing.
Dollins Creek, immediately downstream from the Route 635 crossing.
Met'hums River, immediately downstream from the 1-64 crossing.
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
Water QualiW Issues
DAA Project No. 21547
December. 1995
Page 4
Note that all three stations are upstream from the confluence of Broad Axe Creek and
Mechums River. Only sediment samples need be obtained: since volatile organic
constituents have not been detected in sedimem samples, surface water samples are not
necessary. Sediment samples should be analyzed for all metals listed in VSWMR
Appendix 5.5. Each of the three baseline stations should be sampled a minimum of
three times, for a minimum total of nine background data points. Samples should be
obtained during the summer low-flow interval over a period of three years.
Accumulation of the recommended baseline data would permit metals data obtained
from any station downstream from Broad Axe Creek ro be statistically compared to
presumably natural background levels.
In addition to the expanded monitoring program, we also recommend 'that the following
inspections be performed (preferably by a third party):
Inspect the inactive portions of Cell 3 in December, 1995, to verify that intermediate
cover has been placed and that a vegetative cover was established prior to the end of
the 1995 grow/ng season.
Inspect the closed and inactive areas of the landfill for erosion damage after each
significant storm event; Any erosion damage should be promptly repaired.
Conduct semi-annual inspections of the stormwater managemem system beginning in
June, 1996, to help ensure that the improvements to the system are being implemented
in a timely mmmer, that the system is performing as designed, and that seeding and
mulching are being performed as required.
RIVANNA
P.O. BOX 979
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902~0979 ~ (804) 977-2976
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Board of Directors
Steve Chidsey~, Solid Waste Director
Status Reports
December 4, 1995
Task Force
The Solid Waste Task Force has continued to meet since the last Board
meeting. Most of the discussions have centered around the past and current status
of the Landfill. A visit was made to the Landfill and surrounding residents' homes
as well as viewing a historical video tape. The Task Force has been extremely
interested in the environmental problems and their remediation (copy of response
included). A speaker presented the concept of full cost accounting to the g~oup.
The County Administrator, City Manager and City Director of Public Works also
answered questions at an informal session.
The next meeting will involve the State Landfill inspector for this areaand a
summary of recycling activities in the region. The following meeting, scheduled for
Janu~a~r~ 9i 1996, wiR :in~9tv,e a tour-of, Harrisonburg Waater,t0-Er~erg~, Plant, the
Wayne~boro bale fill and t]{e -New-River ,Waste-to- Compost pr0j~ct. A F~bruary trip
is planned for~ tha~BFI,Imansfer~station-in Fluval~na County and the Chambers
Landfill in Amelia COUnty. In addition, attached are the questions for evaluating
alternatives that the Task Force is considering.
Waste-to-Compost
The RSWA hearing for the pilot waste-to-compost was held at the Piedmont
Virginia Community College on November 28, 1995. Eight citizens spoke at the
hearing where I served as hearing officer. The DEQ will respond in writing to ali
comments within the nex~ 45 days. Most comments were in favor of the project
although a number of individuals questioned locating the facility at the Ivy Landfill.
The final DEC} hearing will be held within the next 60 days on the experimental
permit Discussions have been held with Con-Agra concerning their early
participation in the pilot project.
Odor Complaints
The RSWA staff and Dr. Iachetta have received complaints from neighbors
concerning odors from the Landfill. Although staff has not been able to confirm
these complaints, it recognizes that there are climatic conditions periodically
occurring in the Landfill area which result in the reduced movement of air. Such a
lack of movement could result in odors being held in the area rather than quickly
dissipating. In order to help remedy the possibility of this situation, the RSWA is
installing an odor neutralizer adjacent to the leachate pump station and will have a
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
mobile unit on the farm tractor to respond as required. Research is also being
carried out on systems that may be attached to the gas vents.
Gas Monitoring Wells
The recently installed parameter gas monitoring wells were checked for
methane on November 29, 1995. No methane was detected inany of the wells. These
checks will be made every quarter by RSWA staff.
Tree Plantings
The Landfill staff has planted pine and ceder trees on the western side of the
facility. In addition, leyland cypress trees are being l~l~nted around the asbest~s
disposal area fence line. Underbrush has been eleared m the front of the Landfill
to stimulate the growth of the evergreens in that location.
A member of the Ivy Steering Committee has suggested that the RSWA make
av~lable approximately 100,of the leyland cypress trees to the neighbors who have
a[direct vi~ corridor of :the LaKc~fi/1J The individual 'felt that sereening might be
b'e~tter obtained ~t ~hese ~oc~fior~i. The ~crees cost is around $t0 each and ar? about
4 foot tall.
Cells 1/2 Closure
The contractor should complete the closure of Cells 1/2 in the next week. Most
of the top soil placement, seeding and shrub planting has been completed at this
time. The gas vents have their full piping in place. Work will move to road and
drainage ditches and the enlarging and upgrading of eastern storm water pond in the
near future following County approval. Design of final upgrades for the storm water
pond at the base of Cell 2'has begun. Recommendations of the County staff have
been Incorporated into both designs. The contractor will begin closing out the
borrow area in the next two weeks.
Master Site Plan
Joyce Engineering has revised the Master Site Plan to reflect the direction of
the Board. The Plan calls for only essential changes that arc,required for the
Landfill's OPeration over the next'two years. Joyee Engineering will give a short
presentation at the meeting and will be available to answer any questions,
Yard Waste
The City has begun its leaf qolleetion program and is working with the RSWA
on final utilization methods. As the Board is aware, staff is working with Virginia
Teoh to determine the best system for the future. They may include: farmer
utilization, central composting, and grinding to mulch and marketing.
Flow Control
Congress is continuing its effort to hammer out a compromise on flow control.
Congressman Bliley, Chairman of the House Commerce Committee, heads this effort.
His staff has been working with BFI and WMX to come up with acceptable language.
Enclosed you will find a recent summary from SWANA concerning this matter.
RIVANNA
P.O. BOX 979
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902-0979 (804) 977-2976
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director
Thomas Jefferson plannin~ District Commission
Steve Chidsey~, Solid Waste Director
Landfill Correction Actions
November 15, 1995
During the past year, the landfill h~s endeavored to correct a number of zssues
associated with the facility.
Cell 1 and Cell 2 (lined) are nearing completion of closure. This includes capping
the area, installing a methane collection system and seeding the area. In addition,
the Authority is implementing a program that will vegetate the stormwater diversion
berms with a combined, on of small shrubs, including blackberries and black
raspberries. This is an effort to provide a habitat for animals in the area. The
stormwater basin at the toe of the western slope of Cell 2, has been enlargened and
awaits final modifications. In addition, the former sediment trap has been eliminated
by this entargenment. Also, safety berms have been placed behind the pond on the
western edge of the property.
The leachate collection system, which included a manhole in the middle of the access
road to the aforementioned area, has been eliminated. A new collection system has
been put in place in this area which includes a new pump station from which leachate
can be directly pumped or, pumped to the leachate holding pond. Drainage
improvements have also been made in the access road to this area which include rip
rap channels and diversions.
Upon the discovery of a seep entering the creek on the western portion of the site,
a small interceptor line was put in place so that the contaminated groundwater could
be collected and circulated into the leaehate collection system.
The boundaries of the site are characterized by a number of newly installed methane
gas monitoring wells. These wells were installed as per the requirements of EPA and
the DEQ. The access roads will be maintained, but reshrubed where possible and
seeded with a natural seed that will also provide food stock for animals.
Nancy O'Brien
November 15, 1995
Page Two
The most northern sediment pond on the western side of the site has been regraded
with new stone added to it. This regrading was performed by Authority staff.
Cell 3 (lined) has had additional organic placed on its slopes to reseed some areas
that have become barren. This procedure involved placement of partially composted
leaves with a manure spreader. The~ same technique was utilized in the most
northern borrow area that has been taken down to final base grade by the
Authority's panning operations. The Authority ~has p~urehased 4'80 Letand CPqOrus
trees, pius a nu, mber of Loblotly-Pines and Virgln~a c~d~]~s', ~v~6:l~':~v~i~i ~5~ ~se"*-~:::tb
help screen the ~ite and fill ~ ~i~ua] ~apS.tha, t ~ay:~exist. -
The former stormwater collection pond associated with the western edge of the
construction demolition debris area has been closed out. The standing wa~er .was
transported to the sewage treatment plant and the area filled and graded. This has
greatly limited the area of exposure during the CDD operation. During this process,
the pipe that extended under the CDD area to a small eastern stormwater pond was
plugged with concrete. The eastern portion pond has also been filled and
closed out.
The drainage ditch dissecting the center of the site between Cells I and 2 (being
closed) and Cell 3 (unlined), will be partially piped and rip rapped to improve
drainage. In addition, the access road to the center of the site will be upgraded
during the final stages of the contract for closure.
The former paint pit, associated with the central part of the site, has been capped
utilizing a Subtitle C capping mechanism. This is a multicomposite liner material
designed to eliminate infiltration and therefore, migration from the paint pit location.
The Authority has entered into a contract to provide soil to the site from off site.
This together with Authority efforts will result in placing intermediate cover
throughout the site. These areas v~ll also be seeded. It is anticipated that Cell 3
unlined will begin a progressing slope closure beginning in Spring of 1996. This
should help to lessen the impact of closure on the western neighbors in the future,
whereupon it is done slowly as the site goes upward by smaller equipment.
Joyce Engineering is currently evaluating the various alternatives associated with
remediation of the unlined cells. The Authority, in conjunction with Joyce
Engiueering, is performing a rate and extent study throughout the site to determine
the level and extent of contamination within the site's groundwater. A remedial
action plan to correct this situation might include either a pump, haul system or in
place groundwater bioremediation or other available technologies.
The first area of bioremediation of petroleum contaminated soil has been approved
by the State for utilization as cover. It is hoped that the second area will be
available for utilization within the next 30 days. In addition, over 4,000 tires have
been shipped out from the site for recycling.
Nancy O'Brien
November 15, 1995
Page Three
The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and its engineers, Joyce, have submitted a plan
to the County Engineering Department to greatly enlarge the stormwater pond on the
eastern portion of the site. The current pond is inadequate in size and also allows
for some direct discharge of stormwater into the stream. Construction should be
initiated within 30 days.
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has also purchased a roll-off truck, which is
currently being utilized for hauling dirt around the site. This roll-off truck will
provide, under the new master plan, a number of roll-off containers for the
convenience center which will improve public dumping areas at the facility.
During the past number of months, there have been a number of complaints
concerning noise levels primarily associated with the closure of Cell 1 and Cell 2 and
the excavation of borrow material from the soil area to the southwest part of the site,
These noise levels should be substantially reduced within the next two weeks,
weather permitting.
Complaints have been received over the past few months concerning periodic odors
from the facility. An odor neutralizer has been ordered to be placed adjacent to the
leachate pump station since power is available at that station. Also, a mobile system
will be installed on the farm tractor. In addition, primary work has begun on
designing an active gas collection and treatment system.
On the northern edge of the site, where Faulconer Construction has previously used
the borrow area for earlier closure projects, additional erosion controls have been
put in place as per requirements from the County Engineering Department.
An area to the southeast of the site, which drained the Closed-out brush and CDD
area, has had a pipe installed to better handle the surface flow of water. The prior
open rip rap ditch had been failing and this improvement eliminated the problem.
Litter is picked up along Route 637 twice a week on a schedule, and more often if
conditions dictate.
The RSWA is working to resolve the historical and current concerns about the Ivy
Landfill. The agency will continue to be pro-active in its efforts and resolutions.
Development Activity Report
1994
Croze~
North Garden
Ea rlysville
'l-lollym ead.
' Piney
?~Iountain
Scottsvill~
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
PREFACE
Beginning in 1991, the Annual Status of the Comprehensive Plan Report was included
within the Development Activity Report. This annual status report provided a detailed
update of activities undertaken during that calendm: year associated with the
implementation of the goals, objectives, strategies, and action agenda of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Due to the timing of Albemarle County's review of the Comprehensive Plan mandated to
take place every five (5) years, the annual status report has not been included in
subsequent Development Activity Kepons. A status report will be developed as part of
the Comprehensive Plan review process. Once the review of the Comprehensive Plan
has been completed, the Annual Status Report of the Comprehensive Plan will again be
included within the Development Act~Mty Report.
A summary of all Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests approved by the Board of
Supervisors in 1994 has been included in Section IV of the 1994 Development Activity
Kepon.
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT
Residential Building Permits
* Residential building permits issued in 1994 totalled 939 dwelling units This represents
a slightly above average year as compared to the five (5) year average of 805 dwelling
units.
Of those 939 new housing starts, 708 dwelling units (75%) were located in Designated
Growth Areas and 231 dwelling units (25%) were located in the Rural Areas.
* Residential building permits issued in 1994 were composed of the following dwelling
units:
- 54% conventional single-family detached;
- 6% single-family attached;
- 6% townhouse/single-family attached;
- 31% multi-family/apartments;
- 3% mobile homes located throughout the County.
Mobile homes accounted for 10 percent of all building permits issued for dwelling units
in the Rural Areas.
Residential Subdivisions
* 137 subdivisions plats were signed in 1994 creating 487 new lots.
* Of the 487 new lots created, 308 (63%) were located in the Designated Growth Areas and
179 (37%) were located in the Rural Areas.
* 159 (89%) of the Rural Area tots were development right lots of less than 21 acres.
* The average lot size of all 487 lots decreased to 4. I acres in 1994; the average lot size
increased in the Designated Growth Areas (308 lots) to 0.6 acres and the average lot size
in the Rural Areas (179 lots) decreased to 10.0 acres.
Site Development Plans
* One (1) major residential site development plan was signed in 1994 representing 139
multi-family dwelling units.
15 major non-residential site development plans were signed in 1994. These plans
represented 76,460 square feet of commercial/retail services space, 701,690 square feet
of industrial space, 75,000 square feet of office space, and 93,190 square feet of
public/institutional space.
Land Use Taxation and Aaricultural/Forestal Districts
* Landowners have enrolled 31 percent of the Designated Growth Areas and 68 percent of
the Rural Areas in the land use taxation program as of December 31, 1994. The total
land area in the land use taxation program comprises 66 percent of Albemarle County.
* Voluntary enrollment by rural landowners in agricultural and forestal districts increased
by 2 percent in 1994 to a total of 75,514 acres, which represents approximately 16
percent of Albemarle County.
Zoning
* A total of 114.8 acres were rezoned in 1994.
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a total of 12 variances of zoning regulations in
1994. Signvanances comprised the largest category ofvarianceswith 5 sign variances
approved in 1994.
A total of 29 special use permits were approved in 1994. Eighteen (62%) of the special
use permits were approved in the Rural Areas.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
1I, RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY
A. BuitdLug Permit Activity
1. Overview
2. Building Pexmits by Comprehensive Plan Area
3. Building Permits by Dwelling Unit Type
4. Building Permits by Magisterial District
5. Residential Building Activity Comparison
B. Subdivii~on Activity
1. Methodology
2. Analysis of Signed Plats
3. Historic Comparison of Subdivision Activity - Signed Plats
4. Signed Plats - State vs. Private Roads
5. Dedication of Common Open Space
6. Rural Preservation Development
C. Site Plan Activity
III. INVENTORY OF LAND USE
IV. ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PL~X[ MODIFICATIONS
A. 1994 RezoningActivity
B Variances of Zoning Regulations
C Special Use Permits Approved in 1994
D. Compreheni~ve Plan Modifications in 1994
APPENDIX (Reference Maps)
[
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
8
8
8
11
14
14
14
19
19
24
24
29
29
29
34
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Comprehensive Plan Growth Areas -
Actual Dwellings Summary, 1990-1994 3
Table 2-2: Dwelling Uints by Comprehensive Plan
Growth Areas by Building Permits Issued in 1994 4
Table 2-3: Number ofDwalling umts by Magisterial
Disaict by Building Permits Issued in 1994 6
Table 2-4: Building perrmt Activity Comparison, 1988-1994 7
Table 2-5: Total Number of New Dwelling
Units from Building Permits Issued, 1974-1994 9
Table2-6: Residential Subdivision Activity in 1994 - Signed Plats 10
Table 2-7: Dish4bution by Size (Acreagn)
Based on Signed Plats Located in the Rural Areas 12
Table 2-8: Changes m Subdivision Activity, 1983 - 1994 Signed Plats 13
Table 2-9: Rural Area Average Lot Size (development fight lots) 15
Table2-10:1994 Signed Plats - State and Private Roads 16
Table 2-11: Dedication of Common Open Space - 1994 17
Table 2-12: Rural PreservafionDevelopments, 1991-1994 18
Table 2-13: Major Res/dential Site Plans Approvedin 1994 20
Table 2-14: Major Non-residential Site Plans Approved in 1994 21
Table 3-1: Residantial Land IJse Summary 22
Table 3-2: Commercial and Induslrial Land Use Summary, 1994 23
Table 3-3: Acreage in Land Use Taxation by Year and Land Use Type, 1981-1994 25
Table3-4: EstimateofDistributionofCoontyLandUnderLandUse, 1994 26
Table 3-5: Agricultural/Forestal Districts 27
Table 4-1: Approved Zov2ng Map Amendments, 1994 28
Table 4-2: Variances Approved in 1994 30
Table 4-3: Special Use Permits Approved
in 1994 by Comprehensive Plan Area 31
Table 4-4: Special Llse Permits Approved m 1994 by Zoning District 32
I. INTRODUCTION
The Development Activity Report is an annual review of the residential, commercial, and
industrial development activity in Albemarle County. Throughout the year, building permits are
issued, subdivision plats are approved and signed, site development plans are approved, and
changes to zomng regulations are approved. The purpose of this report is to track these changes,
to analyze where new growth has occurred during the past year, and to identify trends
developing over a period of two (2) or more years. The location of new residential and
commercial growth is not only important to planners, but is also useful information for those
involved in rural preservation, commercial development, or marketing activities.
In July of 1989~ the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted the 1989-2010
Comprehensive Plan. The new Comprehensive Plan is similar in many ways to the pl
Plan. However, the Villages of Stony Point and Ivy were eliminated in the Plan as D
Growth Areas. Development information for these areas are included in Rural Areas
respectively. It is important to point out that an amendment to the Plan, approved in
of 1989, created a new growth area, the Village of Rivanna. Please note that some d
may appear in chronological data sets due to the addition of the Village of Rivanna.
report, some of the data previously attributed to Rural Area 4 is now shown as belon
Village of Rivanna. Additions have also been made to the growth areas of Piney Mo
Hollymead. It is also important to point out that a significant portion of the Commm
Scottsville was incorporated into the Town of Scottsville by boundary annexation on
1994
This report is divided into three (3) major sections. The first section addresses resid
evious
,~signated
2 and 3,
December
~screpancies
~n this
,:,ing to the
retain and
dtyof
January 1,
activity by analyzing where building permit, subdivision, and site plan activity occurred The
next section describes inventories of residentially, commercially, and industrially zon&d land,
including the distribution of County land in preferential land use taxation. The third section
presents the changes in zoning map amendments, zoning variances, the tracking of special use
permats, and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan approved in 1994.
As in past reports, one (1) purpose of the Development Activity Report is to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, adopted December 10, 1980. One
objective of the Zoning Ordinance is to encourage development in the Designated Growth Areas
(the specific growth areas are described in detail in the Comprehensive Plan). While the
Comprehensive Plan outlines goals and objectives for effectively managing Albemarl~ County's
growth, the Zoning Ordinance provides the legal structure by which the goals and ol~jeetives are
accomplished. For the purposes of this report. 1994 development activity comparis6ns wifl be
made to the 1989-2010 Comprehensive Plan.
RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY
A. BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY
1. Overview
The annual number of new residential dwelling units is an important indicator of growth in a
locality. Forths report, the number of building permits issued for new residential structures ~s
the measure of new dwell'mg units in Albemarle County. Though the total level of activity from
one year to the next is ascertained from building permit volumes, the distribution of new housing
by location and by type of dwelling can also be analyzed from information provided on a permit.
The location and type of dwelling relative to existing ufdities and public facilities provides
direction for long-term planmng efforts.
2. Building Permits by Comprehensive Plan Area
In 1994, the number of dwelling units from building permits totalled 939 (see Table 2-1). The
1994 total represents an increase of 134 dwelling U~ts from the 1993 total of 805 dwelling units.
Overall, the total number of building permits issued in 1994 for residential dwelling units
represents the second highest total over the last decade (since 1984) with the highest total
occurring in 1989 (1,309 units).
Designated Growth Areas (Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages) accounted for 75 percent
of all new dwelling units in 1994. The Urban Area, consisting of Urban Neighborhoods 1-7,
accounted for 48 percent (450 units) of the total 939 new dwelling units in 1994, an increase
from 33 percent (265 units) in 1993. Of the 450 units located in the Urban Area in 1994, 429
units (95 percent) were located in Urban Neighborhoods 2 and 4 (see Table 2-2).
The Communities (Crozet, Hollymead, and Scottsville) continue to show.a substantial amount of
new dwelling building activity. In 1994, the Communities accounted for 163 (17 percent) of the
County's total new dwelling units. The proportion of total new dwellings in the Communities
has remained fairly constant over the past six (6) years (since 1989). The average number of
new dwelling units within the Communities between 1989 and t994 is 186 units. The five (5)
years prior to 1989 averaged a total of only 24 units per year. The Community o'fHollymead,
with the continued expansion of the Forest Lakes and Hollymead subdivisions, accounted for
123 of the 163 total new units in the three (3) Communities.
In 1994, the number of dwelling units from building permits in the Villages (Earlysville, North
Garden, Piney Mountain, and Rivanna) totalled 95, an increase of 13 units over the 1993 total.
This represents the largest number of total units in the Villages since 1984. The Village of
Rivanna, with the continued expansion of the Glenmore subdivision, accounted for 77 (81
percent) of the 95 total new dwelling units.
In the Rural Areas, the percentage of residential building permits issued in the Rural Areas
decreased from 33 percent in 1993 to 25 percent in 1994, with a commensurate decrease in the
total number of new residential building permits issued: 264 in 1993, and 231 in 1994 This
Jl
TABEE-:2~I ,~, ~-
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GROWTH AREAS - ACTUAL DWELLINGS SUMMARY
1990-1994
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AREA
1990
URBAN AREAS 271 34%
COMMUNITIES 175 22%
VILLAGES 23 2%
RURAL AREAS 335 42%
ACTUAL DWELLINGS AND DISTRIBUTION
(from Building Reports)
1991 1992 1993
1994
219 .36% 388 45% 265 33% 450 48%
115 19% 154 18% 194 24% - 163 17%
38 6% 60 7% 82 10% 95 10%
242 39% 264 30% 264 33% 231 25%
614 100% 866 100% 805 100% 939 100%
TOTALS 804 100%
TABLE 2-2
DWELLING UNITS BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GROWTH AREAS
BY BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN 1994
' TOTAL DWELLING UNITS % OF
COMP PLAN AREA SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF ' MH URBAN RURAL TOTAL D.U.
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 391 0~ 33 0 138 0 210 , 22.4%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0.4%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 61 10 0 0 148 0 219 23.3%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 9 5 0 0 0 0, 14 1.5%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 2 0 0 0 0 0[ 2 · ' 0.2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 1 0 01 0 0 01 1' 0.1%
CROZET COMMUNITY 9 28 0 2 0 1 40 4.3%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 95 2, 26 0 01 0 123 13.1%
SCOTTSVILLE COMMUNIT'¢ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0.0%
EARLY'SVILLE VILLAGE 4 0 0 0 0 2 6 0.6%
NORTH GARDEN VILLAGE 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.2%
PINEY MOUNTAIN VILLAGE 1 '9 0 0 0 0 10 1.1%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 77 0 0 0 0 0 77 8.2%
GROWTH AREA SUBTOTAl- 300 58 59 2 286 3 708 75.4%
RURAL AREA 1 53 0. 0 0 0 6, 591 6.3%
RURAL AREA 2 48 0 0 0 0 3 ' 51 ' 5.4%
RURAL AREA 3 63 0 0 '1 0 4 68 7,2%
RURAL AREA 4 47 0 0 0 0 6 53 5.6%
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 211 0 0 I 0 19 231 24.6%
TOTAL 511 58 59 3 2861 22 939 100.0%
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING: .
SF- Single-Family (includes Modular) DUP- Duplex
SFA- Single-Family Attached MF- Multi-Family
SF/TH- Single-Family Townhouse MH- Mobile Home
represents the lowest number of total units located in the Rural Areas of the County since the
tracking of this particular data set began m 1983.
3. Building Permits by Dwelling Unit Type
As in previous years, the highest percentage of 1994 residential building permit activity occurred
in the category of conventional, single-family detached homes, including modular homes (see
Table 2-2). In 1994, 54 percent (511 units) of all building permits issued for dwelling units were
for single-family homes,' a decrease ~om 1993 totals in which single-family homes represented
69 percent (551 units) of all dwelling units. In the Rural Areas,. 92 percent of all dwelling units
were single-family homes. In the Designated Growth Areas, 42 percent of all dwelling umts
were single-family detached homes.
The total number of single-family attached dwelling units decreased from 62 units in 1993 to 58
units in 1994. The Crozet Community accounted for 48 percent of the 58 new single-family
attached units in 1994. Of all building permits issued for dwelling units in Albemarle County, 6
percent were for single-family attached units.
The total number ofsingie-family townhouses decreased from 95 units in 1993 to 59 units in
1994. Urban Neighborhood 2 had the largest concentration of single-family townhouses (55
percent) located in the Stonehenge, Branchlands, and Riverrun subdivisions. Of all building
permits issued for dwelling units in Albemarle County, 6 percent were for single-family
townhouses.
In 1994, 286 (30 percent) of the 939 total dwelling units were multi-family residences. This
represents a significant increase in multi-family dwelling units as compared to 1993 totals where
72 (9 percent) oftbe 805 total dwelling units were multi-family residences. This number was
concentrated in two (2) projects, Dunlora Apartments (Neighborhood 2) and Lakeside
Apartments (Neighborhood 4).
4. Building Permits by Magisterial District
The magisterial district boundaries u~ed in this report are those which were revised on May 15,
1991, as a result oftbe release of the Census Bureau population figures for Albemarle County
(see reference map in Appendix). Of the six (6) magisterial districts, the Rivanna district
recorded the highest level of residential building activity in 1994 with 319 new dwelling units,
accounting for 34 percent of all new dwelling units (see Table 2-3). The Jack Jouett district
contributed only 2 percent (17 units) of the total number of dwelling units in 1994.
5. Residential Building Activity Comparison
The average number of total dwelling units for which building permits were issued between
1988 and 1994 was 859 units (see Table 2-4). The 1994 total of 939 units represents an above
average year for building activity as compared to the seven year average.
In the Urban Area (Neighborhoods 1-7), Neighborhoods 2 and 4 continue to account for the
TABLE 2-3
NUMBER Or= DWELLING UNITS BY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BY BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN 1994
TOT^L % OF TOTAl_
MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT - SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MH D.U. D.U.
o
RIO 12 0 11
138 0' 161 17%
JACK JOUETT 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 .' 17 2%
RIVANNA 253 15 48 0 0 3 319 34%
SAMUEL MILLER 521 10 0
5 1 C 6 641 7%
SCOTTSVlLLE 114' 0 0 148 4 276 29%
WHITE HALL 63 28 0 2 0 9 102 11%
TOTAL 511 581 59 31 286 22i 939 100%
(EY TO TYPES OF HOUSING:
.~F- Single-Family (includes Modular) DUP- Duplex
SFA- Single-Family Attached · MF- Multi-Family
SFrI'H- Single-Family Townhouse MH- Mobile Home
TABLE 2~. '
BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY COMPARISON 1988-1994 -
; ·
1988 1989 19901991 1992 1993 1994 Total
COMP PLAN AREA #units -#units #units #units #units #units #units '88-'94
LJRBAN NEI~GHBORHOOD
ONE 4 21 ' 22 5 1 60 01 I 1:t31
TWO ' ' 100 110 81 70 74 85 210 I . 730
THREE 10 123 0 0 144 1 4[ 282
FOUR 80 104 102 97 79 85 2191 · 766
FIVE 21 2 0 11 24 20 14' 92
SIX I 31 10 5 0 21 2 . 23,
SEVEN 1 265 56 31 66 12 1 [ r 4321
SUBTOTAL 217 628 271 219 388 265 450 2438
COMMUNITY [
C ROZET 19 12 39i 6 51 72 401 239
HOLLYMEAD 22 296 100 105 103 122 123 871
SCOTTSVILLE 6 2 36 4 0 0 0 48
SUBTOTAl. 47 310 , 175 115 154 194 163 1158
VILLAGE
EARLYSVILLE 10 2 0 0 0 I 6 19
NORTH GARDEN 1 I 3 3 4 3 3 2 19
PINEY MOUNTAIN 3 19 19 346046 812 10 132
RIVANNA 0 0 1 0 11 77 77 166
SUBTOTAl 14 24 1 23 38 95 336
GROWTH AREAS TOTAL 278 962 469 372 602 541 708 I 3932
RURAL AREAS
ONE 132 104 96 51 57 62 59~ 561
TWO 74 72 68 51 54 52 I 51 422
THREE 116 103 81 69 85 80 68 602
FOUR 73 68 90 71 68 70 53 493
SUBTOTAl 395 347 335 242 264 . 264 231 2078
GRAND TOTAl 673 1,309 804 6141 866 805 939 6010
largest amount ofbuitding activity. Since 1988, Neighborhoods2 and 4 have accounted for over
50 percent of all residential building activity in the Urban Area. Amongst the Communities, the
Community of Hollymead continues to account for the majority of the residential building
activity. On average over a seven year period, the Community of Hollymead has accounted for
75 percent of all residential building activity in the Communities. In the Villages, Rivanna
Village has recently overtaken Piney Mountain as the largest contributor to new building
activity. In 1994, Neighborhoods 2 and 4, the Community of Hollymead, and the Village of
Rivanna accounted for 69 percent of all residential growth in the Designated Growth Areas.
The total number of new residential dwelling units located in the Rural Areas of the County
decreased from 264 in 1993 to 231 in 1994. This decrease is consistent with a downward trend
in the total number of dwelling units in the Rural Areas of the County since 1987 when 427 new
units were located in the Rural Areas.
The 939 building permits issued in 1994 for residential dwelling units represents an above
average year for housing construction within the last two (2) decades (see Table 2-5). From
1974 to 1983, an average of 640 residential building permits were issued. Over the next eleven
years, from 1984 to 1994, an average of 805 permits were issued annually. Consequently, from
1974 to 1994, the average number of permits issued annually equaled 726. The University of
Virginia expansion in the early 1970s continues to be the largest single generator of new housing
starts over the past 20 years.
B SUBDIVISION ACTMTY
1. Methodology
For the purpose of this report, the definition of a subdivision is limited to the division of a parcel
of land, including re-divisions, that results in at least one (1) new residential building lot. The
creation of condominium lots is separated from that of other' residential lots in the analysis of this
report. Condominium lots do not include acreage as part of the individual lot; therefore, it would
be-misleading to include them in calculations such as average lot size.
This section of the 1994 Development Activity Report examines the characteristics of new
residential building lots through subdivision activity during the year The Planning Commission
granted staff the authority to administratively approve final plats that were reviewed and
approved as preliminary plats by the Commission, provided the final plat meets all conditions of
approval placed upon it by the Commission. This report includes data for plats signed for
recordation.
2. Analysis of Signed Plats
In 1994, 137 residential subdivision plats were signed and 487 new lots were created (see Table
2-6) The Designated Growth Areas accounted for 31 percent of the signed plats, 63 percent of
the new residential building lots created, and 10 percent of the total acres subdivided in 1994.
The major subdivisions in the Designated Growth Areas that contributed a s~gnificant number of
new lots were: Forest Lakes South and Forest Ridge in Flollymead, Dunlora in Neighborhood 2,
8
TABL~'2~5
TOTAL NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS
FROM BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED
~ 1974-1994
NUMBER OF #CHANGEFROM
YEAR DWELLING UNITS PREVIOUS YEAR
1974 659 --
1975 ~ 510 -149
1976 452 -58
1977 863 411
1978 602 -261
1979 585 -17
1980 583 -2
1981 598 15
1982 482 I -116
1983 1,063! 581
1984 725 -338
1985 714 -11
1986 737 23
t987 654 -83
1988 673 19
1989 1,309 636
1990 804 -505
1991 614 -190
1992 866 252
1993 ; 805 -61
1994 939 134
TOTAL i 15,237
AVERAGE 1974-83 = 640 DWELLING UNITS/YEAR
AVERAGE 1984-93 = 791 DWELLING UNITS/YEAR
AVERAGE 1974-94 = 726 DWELLING UNITS/YEAR
TABLE 2-6
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY IN 1994 - SIGNED PLATS
COMP. AREAPI:AN SUBDIVISIONS# % #NEW LOTS% TOTALAcres ACREAGE%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 3 2.2%~ = 18 3.7% 1.97 0.10%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 6 4.4% I 64 13.1%I 44.62 2~25%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 18 13.1% 88 18.1% 52.71 2.66%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 1 0.7% 1 0.2% ,1.46 0.07%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.001 0.00%
SUBTOTAL 28 20.4% 171 35.1% i 100.76 5.08%
SROZET COMMUNITY 2 1.5% I 2 0.4% I 5.56 0.28%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 10 7.3% 133 27.3% 44.37 2.23%
SCOTTSVlLLE COMMUNITY 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00% i
SUBTOTAL.~ 12 8.8% 135 27.7% 49.93 2.52%
/
EARLYSVlLLE VILLAGE I 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00%
~ORTH GARDEN VILLAGE I 2 1.5% 2 0.4% 43.00 2.17%
~INEY MOUNTAIN VILLAGEI 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00%
SUBTOTAL I 2 1.5% 2 0.4% :43.00
2.17%
I
3ROWTH AREA SUBTOTAL I 42 30.7% 308 63.2% 193.69 9.76%
RURAL AREA 1 30 21.9% 87 17.9% 314.54 15.84%
RURALAREA2 21 15.3% 36 7.4% 428.45 21.58%
:~URAL AREA 3 33 24.1% 37 7.6% i 794.23 40.01%
:~URAL AREA 4 11 8.0% 19 3.9% 254.36 12.81%
RURALAREA SUBTOTAL 95 69.3% 179 36.8% 1,791.58 90.24%
TOTAL~ 137 100.0% 487 100.0% 1,985.27 100.00%
l0
and Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia in Neighborhood 4.
The Rural Areas accounted for 69 percent of the total number of residential subdivision plats
signed, 37 percent of the new lots created, and 90 percent of the total acreage subdivided in 1994
(see Table 2-6). The number of riew subdivisions in the Rural Areas has fallen offfrom previous
years: there were 114 subdivisions m 1991, 126 subdivisions in 1992, and 123 subdivisions in
1993. The number of new lots created in the Rural Areas decreased, as well, going from 273 lots,
in t993 to 179 lots in 1994. The total acreage subdivided in the Rural Areas decreased from
3,205 acres in 1993 to '1,792 acres in 1994. Most of the subdivisions inthe Rural Areas were
created through by-right divisions and family divisions.
The distribution of new Rural Area lots by size is shown in Table 2-7. The total number of new
lots created this year (179) is a substantial decrease from the 1993 total (273). However, the size
distribution of new lots in the Rural Areas has remained fairly constant over the last three years
with about 65 percent of new tots being between 2 and 9.99 acres in size. A total of 77 new lots
were created in the 2 to 4.99 acre range, representing 43 percent of the total lots created in 1994.
In the 5 to 9.99 acre range, 39 new lots were created in 1994, accounting for 22 pement of the
total.
3. Historic Comparison of Subdivision Activity - Signed Plats
The comparison of subdivision activity in 1994 to that of previous years is a useful tool for
identifying growth patterns (see Table 2-8). The Villages of Stony Point and Ivy were
eliminated with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1989 and the Village of Rivanna was
added to the Comprehensive Plan (CPA 89-0t) later that year. Additions to Piney Mountain and
Hollymead were made through Comprehensive Plan Amendments 92-01 and 92-05.
In 1994, there was a decrease in the total number of new residential subdivision plats signed
from 176 in 1993 to 137 in 1994 (see Table 2-8). This was the first decrease in the total number
of subdivisions signed in five years. There was a decrease in the total number of new residential
buiiding lots created through subdivision activity from 756 new lots in 1993 to 487 new lots in
1994 The 487 new tots in 1994 represent the lowest number of lots created in a single year
since 1990, when 448 new lots were created (1992 had the highest number of new lots in the last
eleven years with 866, and 1985 had the lowest number with 319).
The Designated Growth Areas accounted for 308 of the 487 new lots in 1994, a decrease of 175
lots from 1993 total, but about the same percentage of total lots (from 64 percent in 1993 to 63
percent in 1994). The total acreage subdivided also decreased from 214 acres m 1993 to 194
acres in 1994. Urban Neighborhoods 1-7 accounted for 171 new lots, the Communities
accounted for 135 new lots, and the Villages accounted for 2 new lots in 1994.
In the Rural Areas, the 179 new lots created in 1994 represent a decrease of 94 lots over the 1993
total of 273 new lots. The 179 new lots created by signed plat in 1994 represent the lowest
number of new residential lots subdivided in the Rural Areas since 1985. In the years prior to
1985, the number of new lots created per subdivision was fairly high (3 to 5 lots per
subdivision), and the resulting average lot size tended to be smaller (see Table 2-8). From 1985
tl
TABLE 2-7
DISTRIBUTION BY SIZE (ACREAGE)
BASED ON SIGNED PLATS
LOCATED IN THE RURAL AREAS
RANGE NEW LOTS % OFTOTAL
IN ACRES CREATED RURAL LOTS
INDER2.0
0TO4,g9
0 TO 9.99
% OF TOTAL NEW LOTS
RURAL LOTS CREATED
104 54% 123 45%
16% 59
13%
~5%
29
15%
12%
100%
% Of TOTAL
119941 RURAL LOTS
35 20~
77 43~
39 22~
4~
20 11%
179 I 100%
TABLE ~'.~
1983-1994 SIGNED PLATS '
SUBDIVISIONS 14 17 19 22 8 22 15 17 26 '26 32 i 28
NEW LOTS 191 210 162 I 81 96 167 200 162 190 234 191 171
COMMUNITIEsACREAGE ~2 225,1 228 378 48 183 144 348 48 160i 13007.[ 100.76
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 0.5 1.1 1.4 4.7 0.5 1.1 ' 0.7 2.1 0.3 0.7 0.59
SUBDIVISIONS 5 4 2 3 0 6 7 3 12 2 ~ ' 12
NEW LOTS 25 5 2 3 0 207 42 14 125 127 272 i 135
ACREAGE 75 , 21 49 126 0 99 24 6 118 82 75/ 49~69
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 3.0 4.2 24.5 42.1 0.0 0.5 0,6 0.4 [ 0.9 0.6 0.3 1 - 0.37
VILLAGES
SUBDIVISIONS 5 2 2' 3 2 2 2 2 4 5 3/ 2
NEW LOTS 110 33 2 35 29 3 2 27 16 314 201 2
ACREAGE 90 52 23 51 56 40 4 14 11 169 9 43
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 0.8 1.6 11.5 1.4 1,9 13.3 2.1 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 21.5
TOTAL GROWTH AREAs
SUBDIVISIONS 24 23 23 28 10 30 24 22 42 43 53 I 42
NEW LOTS 328 248 169 119 125 377 244 203 331675 483 / 308.
411 214 193.69
ACREAGE 257 '1.2298 300 555 104 322 172 368 177
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 0.8 1.8 4.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.8 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6289
RURAL AREA t
SUBDIVISIONS I 24 25 40 ~ 37 36 29 31 18 20 33 I 30
NEW LOTS 93~ 48 69 70. 135 59 82 42 27 70 87
ACREAGE 704 369 817 609 993 993 584 316 150 930 314.54
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 7.6 6.7 7.7 11.8 8.7 7.4 16.8 7.1 7.5 5.6 13.3 3.62
RURAL AREA 2
SUBDIVISIONS 12 22 12 21 16. 23 26 27 25 25 21 21
NEW LOTS I 42 37 273823 60 51 48 30 38
ACREAGE 129 246 498 11091 136649 . 786 672 510 280~ 428 428.45
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 3.1 6.6 18.4 29.25.9 10.8 15.4 14.0 17.0 7.41 11.9 11.90
~.URAL AREA 3 ' J
SUBDIVISIONS 30; 28 25,~3i ~, 9~5.33 34 37 34 441 34 33
NEW LOTS 195 87 64 87 65 68 76 92 37
ACREAGE 1035 493 369 809 671 I 515 862 733 550 8731 460 794.23
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 5.3 5.7 5.7 9.4 7.1 8.0 9.9 11.3 8.1 11.51 .5.0 21.47
RURAL AREA 4 24 J 3711 35 11
SUBDIVISIONS 15 19 17 32 18 26 25~ 33 37
NEW LOTS 34 25 24 40 28 72 50 48 50' 75 19
ACREAGE 277 102 400 468 134 504 59! 880 848 593 1387 254.36
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 8.1 4.1 16.7 11.7 5.6 18.0 8-2 17.6 17.7 11.9 18.5 13.387
TOTAL RURAL AREAS '
SUBDIVISIONS 81 94 77 135 169 118 11~t 128 114 126 123 95
NEW LOTS 364 197 153 233 212 287 269 245 188 191 273 179
ACREAGE 2145 1161 1573 320z 1550 2691 3232 2869 2224 1896 3205 1791.6
GRANDAVERAGE LOT SIZE TOTAL 5.9 5.9 10.3 13.8 116 7.3 9.3 12.~) il 11.7 11.8 9.9 11.7 10.01
SUBDIVISIONS 105 117 100 163 148 138 150 156 169 176 137
NEW LOTS 690 445 . 319 352 337 664 513 448 519 866 756 487
ACREAGE 2401 1458 1873 3759 1654 2983 34C~ 3237 240t 2307 3419 1985.3
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 3.5 3.3 5.9 10.7 49 4.5 6.6 7.2 4.6 2.7 4.5 4.08
to 1994, many of the Rural Area subdivisions created only one (1) or two (2) new lots, and the
average lot size tended to be larger, ranging from 7 to nearly 14 acres. In 1994, the average
mean lot size in the Rural Areas was 10.0 acres.
The average new lot sizes for Rural Area lots that were created with development right lots
(excluding tots greater than or equal to 21 acres) from 1991 to 1994 appear in Table 2-9. All
Rural Areas except for Rural Area I decreased. Rural Area 2 decreased by over four (4) acres
while Rural Area 1 increased by .70 acres.
4. Signed Plats - State vs. Private Roads
Effective January 1, 1984, the provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance regarding private roads
were substantially mended to state that private roads would be the exception to public road
construction in subdivision developments. Prior to this amendment, the number of subdivisions
on private roads was higher than the number with state roads. After the amendment was enacted,
the distribution of subdivisions on state roads versus private roads generally began to favor state
road development. In 1994, the proportion of state to private road subdivision developmemwas
about even: 50 percent of all new subdivisions and 47 percent of the new lots created were on
state roads (see Table 2-10).
5. Dedication of Common Open Space
As part of the subdivision approval process, common open space is dedicated under provisions
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Common open space may be required for
clustering, density increases through bonus factors, and/or to satisfy conditions of a special use
permit or rezomng. Common open space may also be provided by the developer as an amenity.
Common open space may include both active and passive non-commerc'hal recreation facilities as
well as a number of other uses as permitted by Section 4.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. A total of
100.77 acres were dedicated in 1994 (see Table 2-11), which represents a decrease of 47.35 acres
over 1993's dedication of 148.12 acres.
6. Rural Preservation Development
The Rural Preservation Development was created as an alternative to the conventional
development subdivision provisions set forth in Section 10 (Rural Areas District) of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The Rural Preservation Development opuon, added to the
Zoning Ordinance in November, 1989, is intended to encourage more effective land usage in
terms of the goals and objectives for the Rural Areas as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, in addition to the standard subdivision provisions which appear in the Zoning
Ordinance, applications for Rural Preservation Developments are reviewed for the preservation
of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; water supply protection; and/or conservation of
natural, scenic, or historic resources. There were zero Rural Preservation Developmems
approved in 1994 (see Table 2-12).
14
TABLE2~
RURAL AREA AVERAGE LOT SIZE
(development right lots)
AREA
1991 Size
1994 Size
4,86
4.10
3.38
From 93-94
-2.21
1 4.52 5.1( 4,16
JRAL AREA 2 4,58 8,39
RURAL AREA 3 5.39 5.4~ 4.49
3,74 5.39 7.67
5.46
TABLE 2-10
1994 SIGNED PLATS
NEW STATE AND PRIVATE ROADS
3LASSIFICATION
# %
STATE ROADS
SUBDIVISIONS - PRIVATE ROADS
NEW LOTS - STATE ROADS
NEW LOTS - PRIVATE ROADS
ITOTAL
125 47
1142 53
267 100
16
TABLE 2-'i'i
DEDICATION OF COMMON OPEN SPACE - 1994
AREA IN
STATUS PROJECT NAME COMP PLAN AREA ACRES
. Signed Branchlands Neighborhood 2 [, ! 0.17
Signed. . Dunlora Neighborhood 2 -~ 61.20
Signed Lakeland at Reynovia Neighborhood 4 - 6.90
Signed Mill Creek Neighborhood 4 24.60
Signed Forest Lakes South Hollymead 3.25
Signed I Gateway Village -For. Lk.S. Hollymead I 4.65
~ 100.77
Total Common Open Space Dedicated
17
TABLE 2-12
RURAL pRESERVATION DEVELOPMENTS, 1991-1994
COMP PLANAREA 1991 '~992 1993 :1994 TOTAL
RURAL AREA 1
¥otal
Acreage 0.00 0.00 ~0~0 0001 000
~lumber of Dev. Lots 0.00 0.001 ~iwv 0100 01001
~,ve. Acreage of Dev. Lots 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00
RPT Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00
Common Open Space Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.00
RURAL AREA 2 I
Total Acreage 0.00132.90 0.00 0.00 132,90
Numberof Dev. Lots 0.00 13.00 0.00 0.00 13.00
~ve. Acreage of Dev. Lots 0.00 5.79 0.00 0.00 5.79
RPT Acreage 0.00 57.70 0.00 0.00 57.70
Cpmmon Open Space Acreage 0.00 0,001 0.00 0.00 0.00
~URAL AREA 3 J J
TotalAcreage 0.00 84.13 521.91 0.00 606.04
Number of Dev. Lots 0.00 7.00 40.00 0.00 47.00
Ave. Acreage of Dev. Lots 0.00 5.26 2.94 0.00 8.20
RPTAcreage 0.00 47.33 385.43 0.00 432.76
Common Open Space Acreage I 0.00 0.00 19.20 0.00 19.20
RURAL AREA 4
~otal Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
Number of Dev. Lots 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ave. Acreage of Dev, Lots 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00
~__PT Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Common Open Space Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00, 0.00
~-OTALS I
TotalAcreage 0.00 217.03 521.91 0.00 738,94
Humber of Dev. Lots 0.00 20.00 40.00 0.00 60.00
~-ve. Acreage of Dev. Lots 0.00 5.60 2.94 0.00 3.76
~-PTAcreage 0.00 105.03 385.43 0.00 490.46
~ommon Open Space Acreage I 0.00 0.00 19.20 0.00 19.2(:
18
C. SITE PLAN ACTIVITY
The approval of site development plans is another measure of residential growth in Albemarle
County. This section ofthe'Development Activity Report examines the site development plans
which were signed in 1994.
In 1994, one (1) residential site development plan, totalling 1'39 new dwelling units, was signed
(see Table 2-13). Of the total number of dwelling units approved, all were multi-family units.
These units were associated with the Rio Hill Apartments site development plan in
Neighborhood 2, within the Designated Growth Area.
Non-residential site development plans signed in 1994 appear in Table 2-14. Atotal of 15 major
non-residential site development plans were signed creating 946,340 square feet of
commercial/retail, industrial, office, or public/institutional construction. Ofthe total square
footage approved, 76,460 square feet was for commercial/retail services (as compared to 14,708
square feet approved in 1993), 701,690 square feet for industrial services (as compared to 55,150
square feet approved in 1993), 75,000 square feet for office services (as compared to 190,180
square feet approved in 1993), and 93,190 square feet for public/institutional services (as
compared to 98,620 square feet approved in 1993).
Of the 15 site development plans approved in 1994, four (4) were approved outside of the
Designated Growth Areas: Albemarle Racquet, W. Wray Brothers, Virginia Rowing, and
Christian Aid Mission.
HI. INVENTORY OF LAND USE
An inventory of residential, commercial, and industrial land was conducted to identify
population and commercial centers in Albemarle County (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2). The
development of the County's parcel data computer file facilitated the identification and grouping
of developed and undeveloped properties in residential, commercial, and industrial categories.
The purpose of this inventory is to examine the distribution of land uses in specific areas of the
County.
The inventory of residential, commercial, and industrial development was assembled with the
assistance of a computer program which stored each Comprehensive Plan Ama's developed and
undeveloped parcels within each zoning district. Commercial and industrial developed and
undeveloped acreages were determined through research in the Real Estate Division of the'
County. The parcel acreage within each zoning district was totalled to construct tables for each
of the three (3) categories of uses. For those parcels with more than one (1) zoning, the parcel
acreage was researched or estimated with a planimeter and distributed accordingly.
A parcel was considered developed if the current building assessment was greater than $15,D00.
It was anticipated that this assessment level would eliminate sheds, barns, and garages as being
counted as developed, yet include those mobile homes assessed as real property.
TABLE 2-13
MAJOR RESIDENTIAL SITE PLANS
APPROVED IN 1994
COMP PLAN TYPE OF NUMBER OF
PROJECT NAME AREA DWELLING DWELLINGS
Rio Hill Apartments Neighborhood 2 Multi-family
TOTAL 139
2O
APPROVED IN 1994
AREA MAGISTERIAL COMP PLAN
PROJECT NAME ' USE (SQ FT) DtSTRICT AREA
COMMERICAURETAIL SERVICES
' I 13,7401 Whitehall I ! Crnset Community
Blue Goose Center comrnercial
Ubernarle Racquet sales/commercial 2,720 Jack Jouett Rural Area 1
Outback Steakhouse restaurant 60,000 Rio Hill Urban Area 2
SUBTOTAL 76,460 ~ '
INDUSTRIAL
~licreaire Industrial 461,340 Rivanna / Hollyrnead
Nray Brothers inc. Industrial 220,000 Rivanna
[_v'/Landfill Recycling Center Industrial 1600 Samuel Miller I Rural Area 3
Fitzgerald Warehouse Warehousing 1,500 Scottsville I Urban Area 4
Isotemps Industrial 17250 Scottsville Urban Area 4
SUBTOTAL I 701,690
OFFICE
~erkmar Crossing Office 75,000 Rio Hill Urban Area 1
SUBTOTAL . 75,000
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL
:orest Lakes South Clubhouse { Recreation I 2,400 Rivanna [ Hollymead
~eace Lutheran Church I ChurchI 8,090 RivannaI Hollymead
hariott esville/Albema de Airport ~ Transportation 10,400 Rivanna Hallymead
/irginJa Rowing { Recreation 9,900 Jack Jouett Rural Area 1
3hdsfian Aid Mission Churnh 14400 Samuell Miller Rua} Area 3
3onvenantsuBTOTALChUrch . Church 93,19048000 { Rivanns Urban ARea
TOTAL 946,340
21
~z ~ ~
°
~°°°°°°°o ~ ~ o
~o'oooooo~ ~ ~§
O~ZZZIZZZ ~
22
23
The data represented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were revised for the 1994 Development Activity
Report to reflect the most up-to-date development information available. Therefore, the data in
these tables can not be directly compared to those published in previous Development Activity
Reports.
Also included in this section of the Development Activity'Reporf is an inventory of land
currently in the Land Use Assessment Program (see Table 3-3 and 34). This program was
created in 1971 when the Virginia General Assembly enacted a law permitting localities to adopt
special assessments for properties in agriculture, forest, horticulture, and/or open space. The
County land use ordinance was adopted in 1975. Since rural area preservation has been an
expressed concern in Albemarle County, the inventory of parcels in land use is an estimate of at
least part of the acreage currently being maintained in agriculture, forest, horticulture, and open
space. The percentage of County acreage in land use decreased in 1994 to 64 percent (see Table
3-3). A total of 31 percent of the total acreage within the Designated Growth Areas is in land
use (see Table 3-4).
In addition to enrollment in the Land Use Assessment Program, rural landowners also have the
option of joining an agricultural and forestal district. Agricultural and forestal districts are
created voluntarily by landowners. By joining an agricultural and forestal district, the landowner
agrees not to subdivide or develop their property to a more intensive non-agricultural use during
the period which the property remains within a district. The districts are approved for a period of
six (6) to 10 years after which time they are eligible for re-approval.
Increased activity in the creation of new agricultural and forestal districts, as well as additions
made to exisfmg districts, prompted the listing of these districts in the Development Activity
Report for the first time in 1987. The total acreage for all districts had reached 31,779 acres as
of December 31, 1987. The total acreage for all districts has increased every year. As of
December 31, 1994, a total of 75,514.01 acres were dedicated to agricultural and forestal
districts (see Table 3-5). This represents approximately 16 percent of the total land area of
Albemarle County.
IV. ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODIFICATIONS
This section of the Development Activity Report is a review of zoning changes that were
approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in 1994. The ability to modi~ the
Zoniflg Ordinance provides flexibility in land use regulations. The purpose of these actions are
to mitigate unreasonable hardships imposed by the ordinance, to recognize compatibility with
neighboring uses, and to acknowledge changes in growth patterns that affect the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
A 1994 REZONING ACTIVITY
A total of 114.84 acres were rezoned in 1994 as a result of nine (9) Zoning Map Amendment
applications (see Table 4~1). The most significant rezoning occurred in Neighborhood 3 with
24
TABLE 3~3 '
ACREAGE IN LAND USE TAXATION
BY YEAR AND LAND USE TYPE, 1981-1994
LAND USE TYPE OPEN % OF COUNTY
YEAR AGRICULTURE HORTICULTURE FORESTRY SPACE TOTAL ACREAGE
1981 121,060 1,462 222,0731 0 344,595 ! 72.8~
1982 121,917 1,868 227,915 0 351,700 , 74.3~
1984 108,519 1,919 207,243 9 317,690 67.1%
1985 109,051 1,93t 209,312 9 320,303 6716~
1986 107,832 1,92t 208,259 8 318,020 67.1%
1987 110,036 1,952 210,653 8 322,649 68.1°~o
1988 109,283 1,985 211,489 8 322,765 68.2~
1989 110,236 2,195 216,036 8 328,475 69.4%
1990 109,541 2,306 215,221 6 327,074 69.1%
1991 109,440 2,506 216,389 6 328,341 69.3~
1992 109,932 2,521 218,936 6 331,395 70.0%
1993 110,736 2,447 219,593 6 332,782 70.3%
~994 101,819 2,392 200,950 63 305,2241 64-0°~o
Note: Totals for 1983 are not available.
Estimated total acreage of Albemarle County is 473,600.
25
TABLE 3-4
ESTIMATE OF DISTRIBUTION OF COUNTY LAND
UNDER LAND USE, 1994
I ACREAGE ACREAGE
IN NOT IN
,~LASSIFICATION LAND USE LAND USE TOTAL
GROWTH AREAS 6,615 14,785 21,400
:~URAL AREAS 305,647 146,553 452,200
TOTAL ' 312,262 161,338 473,600
Note: Total County land area is based on a total area of 740 square
miles x 640 acres/square mile = 473,600 acres. Approximately
14,000 acres of rural area not in land use is owned by the
Federal government as a national park.
26
TABLE 3-5
AG RICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICTS
NAME ACTtON/ACREAGE CURRENT ACREAGE DATE REVIEW PERIOD REVIEW DATE
Totier Creek ~istrict Created/6,070.77 acres 8,638.74 acres 06-29-83
~isbict Reviewed/7,246.52 acres 06-29-91
Hatton N:ldition/1,392.22 acres 09-16-92 10 years ' 06-26-2001
;)istrist Created/2,913.69 acres 2,824.22 acres 06-29-83
~/ithdrawal/40 acres 12-16-84
)istrict Reviewed/2,8242.2 acres 06-29-91 10 years !06-26-2001
-'estham District Created/764.75 acres I 900.58 acres 16-02-85
~istrict Reviewed/587.30 acres ! 16-13-93
~,ddifion/135~19 acres ~ 12-08-93 8 years 10-13-2003
~,ddirion/178.09 acres 05-11-84 '
~lue Run District Created/I,136.08 acres 4,134.75 acres )6-18-86.
~,ddition/2,998.67 acres )1-04-89 I 8 years ' I 06-16-2002
District reviewed/4,134.75 acres 07-13-94 ~ --
(eswick District Created/5,223.11 acres 6,384.33 acres ~9~03-86
Addition/699.01 acres~ 39-07-88 I --
N:ldifion/263.00 acres I )1-16-91 10 years
09-03-2004~
District Reviewed/6.063.81 acres' 10-12-94
Addition/320.52 acres 46-12-94
<inloch )isbict Created/1,586.60 acres 2,077.12 acres 39-03-86
Addition/63.40 acres 6-02-90
Add[tiorv34.17 acres :)4-14-93
~ddifion/3.81 acres 11-17-93 , 10 years 0903-2004
}istrict Reviewed/1,683.96 acres 19-12-94
Addition/393.16 acres 10-12-94
Vloorman's River District Created/8,035.98 acres I 989.36 acres 12-17-86
AdditioW2,269.03 acres 9-07~8
Additisn/173.69 acres 31-04-89
Addition/443.44 acres I 35-02-90
Addition/170.45 acres ;34-14-93 10 years 12-17-2004
District Reviewed/9,989.36 12-21-94
-iardware District Created/6,023.94 acres [ 6,230.82 acres 1-94-87 I
27
TABLE 4-1
APPROVED ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS, 1994
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AREA
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5
CROZET
NORTH GARDEN
RURAL AREA 3
RURAL AREA 3
TOTAL AREA REZONED
PREVIOUS NEW
'.ONING ZONING ACRES
R-4
R-l/R-15
R-15
R-4
PD-SC
C-1
R-6
0.61
106.8
C-1 2.4
AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT
C-1
YR AMENDMENT
LI
PRD
AMENDMENT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.026
N/A
114.836
28
over 100 acres being rezoned, the majority of which involved residentially zoned properties.
B. VARIANCES OF ZONING REGULATIONS
In 1994, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved atotal of 12 variances of zoning regulations.
The distribution of these variances by Comprehensive Plan Area, zoning district, and type of
variance is shown in Table 4-2. The 5 sign variances, allowing nonconforming sizes and
setbacks of signs, comprise the largest category of variances approved in 1994.
Of the 12 variances approved in 1994, 6 variances occurred in the Designated Growth Areas and
6 occurred in the Rural Areas. All of the variances approved in the Designated Growth Areas
were for signs or setbacks.
C SPECIAL USE PERMITS APPROVED IN 1994
A total of 29 special use permits were approved in 1994. The distn~oution of special use permits
is measured both by Comprehensive Plan Area (see Table 4-3) and by zoning district (see Table
4-4). Eighteen (62 percent) of the special use permits were approved for uses in the Rural Areas
as designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
A review of special use permits by zoning district indicates that most activity occurred in areas
zoned Rural Areas (18 special use permits), reflecting distributions described above. Special use
permits approved for commercial zoning districts included grading in the floodplain and various
miscellaneous uses.
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MODIFICATIONS IN 1994
A total of three (3) Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests were approved by the Board of
Supervisors in 1994. The following is a summary of these requests and the actions taken by the
Planning Conmfission and Board of Supervisors.
1. CPA 92-05 Towers Land Trust
Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to include the area north of Proffit Road, east of Route
29, south of the North Fork Rivanna River, and west of Route 785 in the Growth Area boundary.
Action: Approved by the Planning Commission on October 5, 1993; Board of Supervisors on
March 3, 1994.
2. CPA 94-01 University Real Estate Foundation
Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to include the area west of Route 29, north of the
existing Hollymead Community boundary, east of Route 606, and south of the North Fork of the
Rivanna River in the Hollymead Community Growth Area.
Action: Approved by the Planning Commission on November 8, 1994; Board of Supervisors on
29
TABLE 4-2
VARIANCES APPROVED IN t994
SCENIC TEMP/PRM --
~,OMP PLAN AREA HWY/STRM PARKING AREA MBL NM/ SUBDI- ROAD
~,ND ZONING SETBACK SIGN SETBACK RQRMNT RQRMNT OFFICE VISION TOWER FRONTAG OTHER TOTAL
qEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 '-
C~1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
PD-SC 0. 2 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 I0 0 2
qEIGHBORHOOD 2 , 0 ~ --
PDSC 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
HC I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
{URAL AREA 2
RA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
~URAL AREA 3
RA 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 [ I 0 3 4 --
tOTALS I 5 0 0 0 , 0 0 i I 0 5 12
3O
31
ZONING
DISTRICT
TABLE 4-4
SPECIAL USE PERMITS APPROVED IN 1994
BY ZONING DISTRICT
PRIVATE MISC.
MOBtLE SUBD[- HOME FLOOD PRIVATE RECREATION DAY- DRIVE IN COMMERCIAL
HOME VISION OCCUPATION PLAIN SCHOOL FACILITY CARE WINDOW CHURCH USES
32
December 14, 1994.
3. CPA 94-02 The Kessler Group - South Forest Lakes
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the area west of the Norfolk Southern
Railroad, north of Route 643, east of Powell Creek, and south of Forest Lakes in the Hollymead
Community Growth Area.
Action: Approved by the Planning Commission on November 8, 1994; Board of Super~'sors on
December 14, 1994.
33
APPENDIX
35
GROWTH AREAS , 1989 - 2010
North Garden
Rivanna ~,._.
LEGEND
Villages
Communities
Neighborhoods 1-7
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
URBAN AREA NEIGHBORHOODS
7
1' -- APPROXIMATELY 5800'
PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS & PRECINCTS
(Adopted May 15, 1991)
JACK JOUETT (Amended June 02, 1993)
DISTRICT
WHITE HALL
DISTRICT
"FREE UNION PRECINCT
WHITE HALL
DISTRICT
./
RIVANNA
EARLYSVILLE PRECINCT DISTRICT
' '-".:'~'.:-:',~,~ '
CROZETPRECtNCT
IVY PRECINCT
JACK JOUM"C[
PRECINCT
SAMUEL'"~"x '"
MILLER ~ : ". ,' .'
DISTRICT',
PORTER*S PRECINCT
'.' ,' );: "[CELLO PRECINCT
SCOTTSVILLE
DISTRICT
FREE BRIDGE
PRECINCT
KESWICK PRECINCT
SCO]q'SVILLE PRECINCT
DISTRICT
CH'VILLE
CT
RIO HILL
PRECINCT
WOODBROOK
PRECINCT
BERKELEY
PRECINCT
~SCOTTSVILLE
DISTRICT '5
BRANCHLANDS
PRECINCT
UNIVERSITY HALt
PRECINCT
Albemarle County, Virginia
TYPE OF RESIDENCE
Single-family residence
1 building, 1 lot~ 1 dwelling unit
bldg.
1 lot
Exam pies:
North Pines
Earlysville Forest'
Wynridge
Oak Forest
e
Single-family attached
I building, 2 lots, 2 dwelling units
I
1 lot Z lot
Exam ples:
Cam ella Garden
Georgetown Court
Commonwealth Drive
Briarwood
e
Single-famil townhouse
1 building, or more lots,
1 i
lot 2 lot 5 lot
3 or more dwelling units
Examples: Townwood
Birnam Wood
Minor Hill
Duplex
1 building, 1 lot, 2 dwelling units
1 lot
Examples: Whitewood
Multi-r esidenee
1 building, 1 lot, 3 or more dwelling units
1 lot
Old Oak Court
Huntington Village
December 1, 1995
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept· of Planning & Community Developmen~
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
Ehzabeth Harper
Virginia Electric & Power Company
OJRP 10th Floor
P O Box 26666
Richmond, VA 23261
RE: SP-95-34 Virginia Electric & Power, Tax Map 93, Parcel 47L
Dear Ms. Harper:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 28, 1995,
unanimously recommended approval of the abovemoted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Approval is for a 230 to 34.5KV conversion substation to be developed in general accord
with Attachment E;
Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Proposed and existing landscape which serves to screen adjoining dwellings shall be
maintained by Virginia Power and replaced in accord with § 32.7.9.2c. of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on December 13. 1995, Any new or additional
information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at least seven days prior to your schedule hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
RSK/jcf
cc: &E~la Carey
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RONALD S. KEELER
NOVEMBER 28, 1995
DECEMBER 13, 1995
SP-95-34 VIRGINIA POWER - MT. EAGLE-SUBSTATION
!~OARD OF SU ERVISO~ ~
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Virginia Power is requesting approval to construct an elec~lcal
substation to serve increased load in the area east of Charlottesville and the Lake Monticello area
of Fluvanna County. This new substation would supply exisfmg and future distribution circuits.
The facility would consist of one 230-34.5 KV transformer with provisions for a future
transformer, and associated equipment that would be fed from an existing 230 KV transmission
line.
PETITION: Virginia Power petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for
the establishment of an electrical power substation [10.2.2.6[ on about 7 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as Tax map 93, Parcel
47L, is situated south of Rte. 53 approximately 500 feet east of Rte. 729 in the Scottsville
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 4).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This is a "pipestem" property with 50 feet of frontage on Rte.
53. This frontage is within an existing 175 foot transmission line easement. The substation
would be situated between the easement and Rte. 729. The fence line surrounding the substation
would be about:
150 feet from a dwelling on the Rte. 729 side
270 feet from Rte. 729
330 feet from a dwelling on the Rte. 53 side
650 feet from Rte. 53
The site is heavily wooded in hardwoods which would screen the Rte. 53 home. Virginia Power
proposes additional plantings to help screen the Rte. 729 home (NOTE: Some residential
outbuildings encroach onto the Virginia Power and screening would be placed around these
buildings).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has viewed tiffs petition for consistency with the criteria for
issuance ora special use permit and recommends approval with conditions.
PLANNING & ZONING HISTORY: In 1980, the County reviewed an upgrade of the
transmission line from 115KV to 230KV for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This
upgrade occurred between Charlottesville and Farmville and was called the Bremo Transmission
line. In 1988, Virginia Power purchased 6.95 acres which is the proposed substation site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan contains the following statements, and
objective/strategy related to "non-public" utilities (p. 153):
Objective: Maintain cooperative planning efforts between the County and other non-
public utilities which provide essential services, such as telephone, electric, and natural
gas nfilities, to insure the adequate provision of these services to support existing and
anticipated development in the County.
Private utilities provide essential services to the County. The most important of these are
electric, telephone, and natural gas services.
The County is served by three private compames, Virginia Power, Potomac Edison, and
Appalachian Power Company. Two cooperatives also serve th9 County. They are
Central Virginia Electric Cooperative and the Northern Piedmonl Electric Cooperative
(Rappahannock).
Virginia Power and Appalachian Power serve the greatest portion of the County.
Virginia Power services approximately 60 percent of the County including the City and
the Urban Area of the County. Most of the southern portion of the County, including the
Town of Scottsville, is served by Appalachian Power Company.
Coordination of County and Private Utility Planning
The primary issue related to non-public utilities is the assurance that adequate provision
and capacities of non-public services are available for the present and anticipated growth
within the County. In order to achieve this, cooperative and coordinated planning efforts
must be maintained by the County and the respective utilities.
Through the development review procedure established by the County tor view sire
development plans and subdivision requests, local utilities, including Virginia Power and
Centel, are informed of current development proposals. This procedure should be
continued and improved as may be necessary in the future.
Strategy: Continue to inform utilities of long-term planning goals and current
development proposals as reviewed by the County.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION: Circuit #314 from the existing Charlottesville Substation
currently serves the areas east of Charlottesville to Lake Monticello Subdivision in Fluvarma
County. Due to residential and commercial growth, this circuit is expected to exceed it's rated
capacity this winter. It is a long circuit which contributes to service reliability problems due to
excessive exposure. This area of electrical load east of Charlottesville should be removed from
the Charlottesville Substation to allow for growth on other circuits from that substation. In the
next few years electrical load is expected to increase in the Charlottesville area and the
Charlottesville Substation cannot handle that local load and the increase load to the east.
2
It is, therefore, necessary to locate a new substation close to the electrical load center east of
Charlottesville to increase reliability and to minimize service interruptions to customers. The
proposed Mt. Eagle Substation is located in the load center and is adjacent to a transmission line.
It's location would allow for the orderly development of our distribution system. A substantial
amount of load would be transferred fi:om circuit #314 to provide retiefto the Charlottesville
Substation. Additionally, there will be circuit ties with Charlottesville Substation that will allow
us to shift load or pick up load as necessary.
This project is essential for Virginia Power to meet its obligation as a public utility to provide
adequate and reliable service to its customers.
STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address each provision of § 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the rieht to issue all soecial use
permits permitted, heretmder. Special use nermits for uses as provided in this ordinance
may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Su_nervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property.
The substation would be similar in design to the Virginia Power substation at North
Forest Lakes. The pad for the substation would be graded downward. As stated earlier
under Character of the Area existing vegetation together with supplemental plantings are
provided for screening. In past applications staffhas viewed some utility uses as
industrial in character.
The LI, Light Industrial and HI, Heavy Industrial zones have 50 and 100 foot setback
requirements from adjoining Rural Area property lines. The proposed substation would
have a 150 foot separation to the nearest dwelling. S~affopinion is the proposal would
not'be of substantial detriment to adjoining properties.
The character of the district will not be changed thereby
This use would not affect active agricultural or forestall operations. The Architectural
Review Board has reviewed the proposal for impact to Rte. 53 (Attachment C).
The substation would not be visible from Rte. 53.
And that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of [the zoning
ordinance_]
Staff has reviewed this petition under § 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 which establish the purpose and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance. One purpose is "to facilitate the provision of
adequate...public requirements," Virginia Power states that it is "necessary to locate a
new substation close to the electrical land center east of Charlottesville to increase
reliability and to mirfimize service intenmptions m customers" (see applicant's
justification).
3
With uses permitted by-right in the district
The relationship to residential uses is discussed above. The proposal wilt not interfere
with agricultural or forestall uses.
With additional regulations provided in §5.0 of this ordinance
Section 5.1.12 Public Utility StmvturedUses (Attachment D) contains several provisions
to protect adjoining properties. This petfion substantially complies with those
requirements.
And with the public health, safety, and general welfare.
An enduring questions is whether or not electrical transmission lines, radio and television
broadcast towers and the l~e pose health hazard to area residents. There is no unanimity
in the scientific community on this issue. In this particular case, the 230KV transmission
line is in place.
Site distance at Rte. 53 is adequate.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff opinion is that approvalofthispetitionwotfld ~atisfyalegitimate public purpose. Staff
opinion is that the proposal adequately satisfies the criteria for issuance of a special use permit and
staff recommends approval mbject to the following conditions:
1. Approval is for a 230 to 34.5KV conversion substation to be developed in general accord
with Attachment E;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. Proposed and existing landscape which serves to screen adjoining dwellings shall be
maintained by Virginia Power and replaced in accord with § 32.7.9.2c. of the Zoning
Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Parcel M
C - ARB Letter
D - Supplementary Regulations
E - Site Plan
A:ISP9S$4.RPT
cs.x~: ....
,3 C
N
G t~
o
c
t~
ALBEMARLE
79
COUNTY
94
RIVANNA AND SECTION 93
· =- - .... SOOTTSVILLE DISTRIOTS
I ATTACHMENT C I
Virginia Power - OJRP 10th Floor
P.O. Box 26666
Richmond, VA 23261
Attention: Liz Harper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 9724060
'FDD (804) 9724012
October 17, 1995
ARB-F(SDP)-95-29 Mt. Eagle Substation
Tax Map 93 Parcel 47L
Dear Ms. Harper:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday,
October 16. 1995. The Board voted unanimously (3:0) to recommend approval of the special use permit
request, and to grant administrative approval of the certificate of appropriateness with conditions, if the
distribution line is placed undergromtd. The conditions ~,re as follows:
1)
Place a double staggered row of evergreen trees 6 - in height 15 on center alon= the most northern
part of the disturbed area if possible.
2)
Add additional screening trees on the eastern most side of the entrance road. These should be placed in
the area w~here the entrance road begins to turn into the site.
3)
Indicate on the site plan that the tree line will remain as indicated on the site plan. Note "This area is
to remain undisturbed.'
If the distribution line is placed above ground, or the special use pernfit changes, then the item m~st be
reviewed by the ARB prior to granting a certificate of appropriateness and final approval of the site plan.
If you have questions concernLng any of the above, please call me.
Sincerely,
Marcia Joseph'~'~
Design Planner
cc: ~on Keeler
O.F. Elliot, Jr. , P.E.
ATTACHHEN? D I
PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES/USES ~
a. The proposed use at the location selected will not
endanger the health and safety of workers and/or
residents in the community and will not impair or prove
detrimental to neighboring properties or the devel-
opment of same;
b.' Public utility buildings and structures in any resi-
dential zone shall, wherever practical, have the
exterior appearance of residential buildings and shall
have landscaping, screen planting and/or fencing,
whenever these are deemed necessary by the commission;
In addition, trespass fencing and other safety measures
may be required as deemed necessary to reasonably
protect the public welfare;
In-cases of earth-disturbing activity, immediate
erosion control and reseeding shall be required to the
satisfaction of the zoning administrator;
Such structures as towers, transmission lines, trans-
formers, etc., which'are abandoned, damaged or other-
wise in a state of disrepair, which in the opinion of
the zoning administrator pose a hazard to the public
safety, shall be repaired/removed to the satisfaction
of the zoning administrator within a reasonable time
prescribed by the zoning administrator;
In approval of a public utility use, the co~issio~
shall be mindful of the desirability of use by more
than one utility company of such features as utility
easements and river crossings, particularly in areas of
historic,visual or s.cenio value, and it shall, insofar
as practical, condition such approvals so as to mini-
mize the proliferation of such easements or crossings,
~as described by the comprehensive plan.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Comraunity Development
401 Mclntire. Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
November 30, 1995
gOARD OF SUPE~V~$ORLg i
Pete Pdcoua
Woodmen of the World
P. O. Box 6252
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE: SP-95-35 Woodmen of the World Lodge 279 VA
Tax Map 32, Parcel 9J1
Dear Mr. Ricotta:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 28, 1995, by a vote of
6:1, recommended approved the above-noted special use permit to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Use of outside amplification devices for sound shall be prohibited;
Use shall not commence without site plan approval. The site plan shall not receive final
plan approval until such time as information is provided to verify that sound generated
within the building does not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest property line.
Use of the site for subordinate uses and fund-rais;ng activities such as, but not limited, to
bingo, raffles, auctions, receptions, dances shall not occur between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00
a.m;
Provision of a single row of screening trees planted 15 feet on center or a double
staggered row of screening shrubs planted 10 feet on center adjacent to Tax Map 32,
Parcel 9H (the adjacent property to the north);
5. The building shall not exceed 4,000 square feet;
Page 2
November 30, 1995
Maximum occupancy load shall be determined by the Building Official and shall not
exceed those limits as established by the Health Department.
7. No alcoholic beverages shall be allowed on~site.
Please note that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will act on this petition and receive
public comment at their December 13, 1995 meeting. Any new or additional information must
be submitted to the Ckerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to the scheduled
meeting.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcf
cc: Ella Care Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
NOVEMBER 28, 1995
DECEMBER 13, 1995
SP 95-35 WOODMEN OF THE WORLD
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposmg to construct a facility for.use as a civic
organization. A detailed description of the use is included as Attachment C.
Petition: - Petition to establish a Lodge Hall on approximately 2.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas
[ 10.2.2(2)]. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 9Jl is located on the west side of Route
606 opposite Quail Run in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area. [Rural Area 1].
Character of.the Area: This site is located to the north of the airport, and borders airport
property to the west. The property immediately to the south is used as a music school and
wayside stand with greenhouses. Property to the east is developed industrially. Quail Run,
located directly to the east will serve as an entrance to a large area of currently zoned Industrial
land and will also serve the area currently proposed for rezoning by the University Real Estate
Foundation. The property to the north of this site is developed in residential units. This site is
gently sloping with mature oaks.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval.
Planning and Zoning History_: None available for this site. The adjacent property to the south
was recently reviewed for a site plan waiver (for a wayside stand) and was issued SP 94-06 for a
music school.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located at the edge of the Hollymead Growth Area.
While this site is zoned PA, it is within the growth area and based on the land use maps is
public/semi-public.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use
permits permitted hereunder. S~ecial use permits for uses as nrovided in this ordinance
3_
may be issued uoon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property_.
The applicant is proposing to use this site as for a civic organization. Staff can identify no
negative impacts that this use could have on the airport, adjacent school or industrial area. The
use does have a potential to impact the residential unit located to the north of this site. Staff has
recommended as a condition of approval compliance with the provisions of Section 21.0 which
will require this site to meet the same setbacks as a commercml developmem. This will help m
minimize the impact on the adjacent property. In addition ,staff will require landscaping during
site plan review adjacent to the property to the north designed to minimize potential impact. The
landscaping recommended by staff is a single row of screening trees planted 15 feet on center or
a double staggered row of screening shrubs planted 10 feet on center. While this landscape
provision is less than the screening requirements for objectionable features, it is greater than the
standard screening requirements for a commercial development adjacent to residential property.
With the provision of this screening and other conditions staff opinion is that this use will not
result in a substantial detriment to adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
As stated previously, the areato the west, south and east is predominated by non-residential/
non-agricultural uses. The only residential activity is to the north of this site. Staff opinion is
that the nature of the use will not be a substantial change in the area. It is unlikely that this site
would develop residentially or that residential development would be desired due to the
proximity of the airport. A portion of this site is in the noise impact area of the airport which
means that any structure located on this site will need to address interior noise levels as required
by the ordinances. The size of the building (3,750 square feet), while larger than many houses, is
not inconsistent with the size of residential units and is significantly smaller than most of the
non-residential uses in the area.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6.
The proposed use forwards the purpose and intent of the ordinance due to the provision of
recreational facilities and a civic organization which provides additional services in the
community.
with the uses permitted by right in the distfict~
This use will not restrict permitted uses in the district. The small size of the parcel makes
agricultural use unlikely. The zoning of the property, RA, provides for a limited number of
permitted uses for which this property is suited. The use of the property for residential
development is not encouraged as the site is located within the noise impact area. Residential'
2
development in proximity to airports can result in complaints against the airport and requests to
mod'fly/limit the airport operations. The applicant's proposed use of the site is unlikely to result
in such requests.
with additional regulations provided in Section.5.0 of this ordinance.
Section 5.1.2 of the Zon'mg Ordinance provides for regulations for clubs and lodges.
(Attachment D) This site is not intended to be used as a shooting club. All activities regulated by
the provisions of Section 5.2 will occur indoors. Staff has contacted the Zoning Depanmem to
determine what conditions would be appropriate to insure compliance with the ordinance. To
insure compliance with the sound Ylmits staff will require the submission of information at the
time of site plan review. This information cannot be reasonably provided at this time as the
sound levels will be detenn'med by distance and the type of construction used in the building.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
This proposal will require ske plan approval which will insure that the public health is protected.
The Department of Transportation has reviewed this request and provided comments.
(Attachment E). A commercial entrance will be required for this development. If this property
were to develop residentially, the anticipated trip generation would be 10 vehicle trips per day.
The applicant's proposed use will not generate daily trips, but will generate potentially large
numbers of trips for specific events such as the Christmas dance. Based on the infrequent use of
the facility a direct comparison of the vehicle trips generated by the proposed use and by
residential development is not possible. This use will operate in off-peak traffic hours and,
therefore, its impact on the transportation system will be limited. Based on the comments of
VDOT and the requirement of a site plan staff opinion is that the public health, safety and
welfare will be protected.
SUMMARY:
This site is unlike other rural area property due to th~ nature of the surrounding uses. Therefore,
staff has not reviewed the impact of this use in terms of the general impact on the Rural Areas.
Staff has instead focused on the nearby uses which may be impacted.
staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. Approval of this request will not change the character of the district;
This type of use provides a service to the general community which is consistent with the
intent of the Zoning Ordinance;
This site is located partly within the an'port noise impact area. Therefore, residentiai use
of this site is mdikely.
4. The small size of the parcel makes agricultural use unlikely also.
Staffhas identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. This use will be in close proximity to a residential unit.
With adequate conditions the potential impact on adjacent property can be mitigated.. Staff
opinion is that the proposed use provides for a reasonable use of the property which will not
conflict with the surrounding uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this request based on the fmdings of the review of this project for
compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.l ofthe Zoning Ordinance. Staff
recommendation is subject to the following conditions;
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Use of outside amplification devices for sound shall be prohibited;
Use shall not commence without site plan approval. The site plan shall not receive final
plan approval until such time as information is provided to verify that sound generated
within the building does not exceed forty (40l decibels at the nearest property line.
Use of the site for subordinate uses and fund-raising activities such as, but not limited, to
bingo, raffles, auctions, receptions, dances shall not occur between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00
a.m;
Provision of a single row of screening trees planted 15 feet on center or a double
staggered row of scmeening shrubs planted 10 feet on center adjacent to Tax Map 32,
Parcel 9H (the adjacent property to the north);
5. The building shall not exceed 3,750 square feet;
Maximum occupancy load shall be determined by the Building Official and shall not
exceed those limits as established by the Health Department.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Applicant's information
D - Section 5.1.2
E - VDOT Comment
A:\SP9535.RPT
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
SP-95-35
WOODI'~xl OF ~ WORLB
WHITE HALL
RIVANN,~ DISTRICT ,~
SECTION
I' tATTACHMEi~i. B I
O
EARLYSVILLE AREA
SP-95-35
WOODMEN OF THE WORLD
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The property will be used as the local Woodmen of the World Family Life Center.
Woodmen of the World is a non-profit Life Insurance Society.-The lodge is
involved it/~ommunity service work such as providing Easter haslcets to:~;~ .......
hospitalized children, Christmas caroling to Elderly Care Centers or buying:, ? -,
corem/miry equipment such as firehouse needs or playground equipment_: .We also
provide canes, crutches, wheelchairs and hospital beds for the public to'burrow as
welt as providing Halloween candy to children in the hospital and TheRonald, ;~ -
McDonald HoUSe. ~ ' ~, -~..~
Beeanse our members are involved in giving to the community, we provide some
social activities for them. The list which follows is a list of activities wehave done
on a regular hasis in the past; This is also a good estimate of future use for the-
lodge hall. All activities not listed are done off site such as King's Dominion trip,
roller skating or: summer camp at the 4-H Center. :; . . -:.: ~- -
Our organization is s'unilar, in the use of this fac'rlity, to a church. Although I hesitate to
compare with a church due to the fact that our use would actually be much less, even at
peak hours. We have about 1200 members in Charlottesville, Alhemarle, Madison,
Greene, Nelson and Buckingham counties. This is all considered the Charlottesville Area
Woodmen group. Many of our members would never think of coming to any of our
functions. Most are in the organization sa-apb/to support the work that we do. Our
largest event is the Christmas Party and attendance them is around 70-90 people.
January Youth Pizza Pax~ 15-20
t3rd Saturday- l :OO p. m.)
January thru Monthly Business Meeting 10-12
November (3rdMonday - 7:00p. m.)
May Spring Family Picnic 40-60
(Sunday- 2:00 p.m.)
October Fall Family Picnic 40-60
(Sunday - 2:00p. m.)
December Christmas Party 70-90
(Saturday - 5:00 p. mO
J ATTACHMEN&T~ C j
[Page 11
We will be building our facility in phases generally in this order: the well, driveway,
septic system, and then the building which will also be built in stages. Our intent is to
build a 50' x 75' building that will include a 50' x 50' meeting room with adjacent men and
women's restrooms as well a conference room and other space for use as a place to keep
the children during meetings and space for storage of our wheelchairs and hospital beds.
We will also eventually add a kitchen for warming food as well as cleanup of facilities.
Our picnics and Christmas party are covered dish dinners brought in by the members.
We would like to be able to preserve as much of the natural environment around the area
as possible and will work toward this in any way we can. As noted on the "conceptual'
layout" most of the area will be let~ as nature area.
We are requesting the earliest dates for the Planning Commission Meeting and the Board
of Supervisors Meeting. This is very important to the timeliness of the proposed schedule.
Because we will be progressing with development in stages, we are asking that the Special
Use Permit be put on an extended schedule to avoid having to reapply for the same
purpose.
JUSTIFICATION:
Woodmen of the World is an organization that is an asset to any community. Woodmen
of the World supports family values and does community service work such as providing
Easter baskets to hospitalized children, Christmas caroling to Elderly Care Centers or
buying community equipment such as firehouse needs or playground equipment. We also
provide canes, crutches, wheelchairs, and hospital beds for the public to borrow, as well as
providing Halloween candy to the Ronald McDonald House, KIuge Children's
Rehabilitation Center and to children in the hospital. As mentioned previously, all of
Woodmen's activities are family-oriented and children are always involved. Alcohol is
never allowed at any Woodmen function or on 'Woodmen properties. The hours of
operation at our events are very reasonable and would not be a bother to neighbors. We
will not have use for any type of outdoor amplification that would disturb the neighbors.
With minimum impact on the natural environment, a good family organization and the
community involvement of Woodmen of the World, Albemarle County would certainly be
enla. anced and made a better place to live with the endorsement of this Special Use Permit.
[ATTA¢..~.~_¢]
~ATTACH~ EI~ C
/
/
5.1.2
5.1.3
.5.1.4
5.1.5
5.1.6
CLUBS, LODGES
Regardless of provisions of individual zoning districts,
gun clubs and shooting ranges s~aI1 be Permitted by
special use permit only;
Such subordinate uses and fund-raising activities as
bingo, raffles, auctions, etc., shall be conducted in
enclosed buildings only. Noise generated from such
activity shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the
nearest agricultural or residential property line. No
such activity shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m. and
8:00 a.m.
COMMERCIAL STABLE
Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered
and maintained with a material such as pane bark to
minimize dust and erosion~
be
Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall
be maintained at all times.
COMMUNITY CENTER
Any such use seeking public funding shall be reviewed by the
commission in accordance with section 31.2.5. Specifically,
the commission shall find that the proposed service area is
not already adequately served by another such facility. In
addition, the cormmission shall be mindful that such use is
appropriate to villages, communities and the urban area of
the comprehensive plan.
DAY CAMP, BOARDING CAMP
Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking
pits, etc., shall be subject to Albemarle County fire
official approval whether or not a site development
plan is required;
Ail such uses shall conform to the requirements of the
Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establish-
ment Sanitation and other applicable requirements.
DAY CARE, NURSERY FACILITY
No such use shall bperate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center.
It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to
transmit to the ~6ning administrator a copy of the
original license and all renewals thereafter and to -
notify the 'zoning administrator of any license expira-
tioh, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days
of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed wilful
noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance;
-60-
I ATTACHMEI~ E~
DAVID R, GEHR
COMMIS~IONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT Of: TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLO~ESVILLE, 22902-2013
Mr, Ronald S. Keeler
Department of Plannit9 &
R01 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
~ ~'~'- ~ ~b~ %Y~'~, 1995
Submittals for November
1995 Public SearinGs
A. G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ~NGtNE~R
Dear Mr. Keeler:
Our comments for the November public hearings are as follows:
~P-95-33, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Route 29
The proposal ~o expand the outdoor s5oraGe and display should no~ have any
mmpact on infrastructure of local roads. There shall not be any stored or displayed
items on the state right of way or impede any eight distance.
SP-95-3R, Virqinia Electric & Power Company, Route 53
Per site plan review a 30' commercial ennrance with 25' radii is required.
SP-95-35, Woodmen of the World, Route 606
This site will brinG additional traffic no a Growmn9 business area and a road
system that will need improvements made for potential traffic. We anticipate 5he
~raffic for this site no be in off hours and weekends. A commercial entrance with
adequate sight distance will be required.
~-95-36 & 36, Pavilion At Riverbend, Ltd., Route 1165
We request information re~ardin~ the frequency, time and cype of planned events
in order to assess the impact of this development. We would like to see an
intersection analysis at Riverbend and South Pantops Drive for the wors£ case
scenario for the time frame of the events such as eveninps or weekends. If police
officers are ~o be utilized to direct traffic at the evenns, a traffic management
plan should be submitted for review.
The intersection an South Pantops and Riverbend ~s currently controlled on all
four ~4) approaches by stop signs. Future development of Pantops will warrant a
traffic signal an this location and until that happens any special event along with
normal background traffic will require additional traffic control.
If you have any questions, please advise.
cc: J. H. Kesterson
//~. W. Mills
Assistant Resident EnGineer
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE ')1 ST CENTURY
Department of Planning
County of Albemarle
40l Mc[ntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
November 19, 1995
Attn: ~r. Fritz
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Since i didn't receive a return call from you on November 17 and we are not going
to be in town for the 28th public hearing, I would like to raise some serious
questions about the Special 'Use Permit for building a lodge for the Woodsmen of
the World on Route 606.
I presume that a lodge would bring all types of social activities into the area,
such as 'Saturday night get-togethers~ week-day events such as bingo, bowling,
etc.. dances, rentals to outside parties for weddings, anniversaries and celebsrations
of all types, i frankly am very surprised that the County planners ars consider-
ing allowing this type of activity into a rurally-zoned area. The music school
nex~ door is at least in a house and is a traditional house-type activity, although
~t is a co~nnercial endeavor, it certainly does bring in more traffic, but there are
no social problems such as late-night parties, noise; large numbers of outside groups
converging on the neighborhood.
We have been told that you may be considering approving this non-home-type structure
because of the lot's proximity to high noise levels from the airport run-ways,
which would make it unsuitable for sale as residential property. But people con-
tinue to live all around there and on Chris Greene Lake Road. How many co~plaints
about excessive noise does the Airport receive from these neighbors? People are
also still buying homes, also, as in the case of the home which was part of the
same property and just recently sold.
in our mind, approving this lodge for special permit usage is tantamount to rezoning
it "Commercial." I realize that Woodsmen is e non-profit organization, but the
fact that they sell insurance makes them very "commercial" in reality.
~ believe that we neighbors need to be given a lot more information about this
Special Permit request and that you and the Planning Commission need a lot more time
to look into all facets of exactly what might occur in our neighborhood as a result
of your actions. This should be an overriding concern in your decision-making
process.
£ would appreciate hearing from you. I should be back in town on the 30th of November.
Thank you for your consideration. Will you Dlease let don ~eeler see thi~ letter.
4392 Die~erson Rd, (606)
Charlottesville, VA~ 22901
Teleph one: 973-8197
Sincerely yours,
(Mrs.) Peggy Sacuto
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLEll
Dept. of Planning ¢ Commun,W ~vel¢
Charlottes~lle, Vir~nia 22902-~
November 17, 1995
Jim Hill
Virginia Land Corporation
P. O. Box 8147
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA-95-07 Rio Associates Limited Partnership
Tax Map 45, Parcel 109
Dear Mr. Hill:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 14, 1995,
unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on December 13, 1995. Any new or additional
information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcf
~//ll'a Carey
CC:
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
William D. Fritz
November 14, 1995
December 13, 1995
ZMA 95-07 Rio Associates
Annlieant's Proposal: The apphcant ~s p[oposmg to remove the existing proffer which states
the maximum number of vehicle trips which m~y be generated and replaces the proffer with a
level of service standard for traffi9 generated by this use.
Petition: Petition to amend ZMA 88-06 in order to modify the proffers limiting vehicle trip
generation. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 109, is located on the west side of Route
29 between Route 29 and Berkmar Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1.
Character of the Area: This site is located to the north of the existing Lowe's development.
(The proposed Lowe's developmem makes use of a portion of this property.) Other development
in the area includes Kegler's (to the north) and Little Links Miniature Golf(to the north).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for consistency with the intent of the original proffer and
recommends approval.
Planning and Zoning History_: The proffers for this site were amended in 1986 in accord with
an agreement reached during the approval of the Rio Hill Shopping Center. The original
rezon/ng was in 1985 when this site was rezoned from HC and R-6 to HC with proffers limiting
vehicle trip generation.
Some of the property covered by the original rezoning has been used in the existing Lowe's
development. The recently approved UVA Credit Union also makes use ora portion of this site.
Ar the time of the UVA Credit Union application staff prepared a status letter addressing the
remmning number of vehicle trips available based on the proffers (Attachment .C).
Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended for Regional Service in the Comprehensive
Plan. This designation provides for the widest variety of uses.
STAFF COMMENT:
At the time of the original rezoning of this site staff attempted to limit commercial rezonings 6n
Route 29 to a traffic generation level equal to that which could have been achieved ,under the
previous zoning. That is to say, staffcalculattd the trip generation potential of the site pr/or to
the rezoning and attempted to limit trip generation potential after rezoning to the same level.
This site was rewewed in ~he above described manner. This approach was taken in an effort to
minimize impact on Route 29 resulting from commerctal rezonings as Route 29 was unimproved
at the~time.
Pa~e 1 of ~
At the time of the rezoning of this site the only access to the parcel was from Route 29.
Therefore, if the rezoning resulted in increased traffic it resulted in a direct impact on Route 29.
Since the approval in t986 of the traffic proffers for this site conditions in the field have
changed. Whereas the site was previously accessed only from Rofite 29, access is now available
on Route 29, Berkmar Drive and Woodbrook Drive. _In addition, Route 29 is currently being
improved.
This change in the traffic network allows for the~ dispersal of traffic generated by this site over a
number of roads which removes the original concept for the limiting of trip generation from this
site. Staff, however, does not believe that the proffers should be removed entirely from this site
as the potential for negative impacts still eXists, In review of this application with VDOT it was
determined that the issue surrounding this development was not the number of trips generated
from this site, but the impact to the entrances on the public road network. Therefore, it was
determined that the most suitable limitation to development on this site should be based on a
level of service calculation. (Level of service is used by VDOT to determine the functional
capability of the entrance. Improvements to the road system, such as signals ahd turn lanes, can
improve the level of service.)
Using a level of service method will allow staff'to review each development making use of this
property for the impact to the road network and allow for improvements to the road system if
appropriate. The applicant has provided a proffer, Attachment D, which establishes level of
service limits for this property.
Summary: Staff opinion is that due to changes in circumstance since the original mzoning the
use of total trip limits is inappropriate. The use ora level of service to determine permitted
development is superior to total trip limits as it allows for a detailed analysis of the impact of a
development on the transportation network. Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with
the intent of the original proffer which was designed to limit impacts. In addition, this rezoning
with the proffers of the applicant is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to
minimize congestion in the public streets, provide for a convenient community a~.d provide for
adequate transportation.
Based on the above comments staffrecommends approval of this request subject to the
acceptance of the applicant's proffers:
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Tax Map
B - Location Map
C - Letter Describing Available Trips
D- Proffer
A:~ZMA9507.1~T ~
Pa~e 2 of 2
TOM
MOUNTAIN
ALBEMARLE COUNTY~
ATTACHMENT
44
CHARLOTTESVILLE, RIVANNA
JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
SEGTION 45
IATTACHMENT C
March 14,' 1994
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning &, Community Development
401 M'clntim Road
Charlotlesville, Virginia 22902-4596
{8.04) ' 296-5823
Virginia Laud Company
ATTN: Charlie Hurt, Jr.
P.O. Box 8147
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE: Tax Map 45, Parcel 109
gear Mr. Hurt,
Parcel 109 along with other parcels was rezoned with proffers by ZMA-85-17 and
ZMA-88-06. Those rezonings established a maximum trip generation of 4,334
vehicle trips per day. The existing Lewes development generates 2,500 vehicle
trips per day based on available traffic studies. The Lewes site is on part
of Parcel 109 affected by the proffers. 1,400 vehicle trips per day of the
Lewes traffic must be deducted from the 4,334 vehicle trips per day available.
This leaves 2,934 vehicle trips per day available on the residue.
The tTE manual 5th Edition does not carry traffic generation figures for
Credit Unions however, it does contain figures for Drive-In Savings and Loans
which are described by ITE such that they are similar to credit unions. Page
1,5t8 of the 5th Edition of ITE states that the trip generation rate is 445
trips/window on a weekday. The IIVA Credit Union proposes 5 windows which
results in a trip generation of 2,225 vehicle trips per day. 'This utilizes
almost all of the available trip generation on the properny affected by'
ZMA-85-17 and ZMA-88-06.
Should you choose re pursue ~ special use permit for drive-through windows on
this property, I recommend you review SP-93-36 for McDonalds an Forest Lakes.
Th~s requesn has not yet been heard by the Board of Supervisors, but has been
recommended for approval by both staff and the Planning Commission.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Wil'liam D. Fritz
Senior~ Planner
WDF/mem
IATTACHMENT D I
PROFFER FO_RM
. Original Proffer z
Amended Proffer ,,,
(Amendment # .... )
Date: [0/ 317 95 ZMA # 95-07 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 45 parcel 109 & 109c
11 Acres to be rezonedTrom to
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or
its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is, agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself. ~ives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
requested,
(1)
Request to change previous proffer:
a) Traffic generated by this site accessimg Woodbrook drzve
shall not result in a level of service of less than C.
b) Traffic generated by this site accessing route 29 shall
not result in a reduction in the level of service.
OCT .5 1 1995
Planning D
Rio Associates
Printed Names of All Owners
Signature ~t'Attomey-in-Fa~t
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
OR
Printed Name of AttomeyAn-Fact
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & CommuniTy Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
December 1, 1995
Jacquelyn Bolduc
Osteen Phillips Architects
108 Second Street, SW
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZTA-95-06 Outdoor Amphitheater
Dear Ms. Bolduc:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 28, 1995,
recommended denial of the abovemoted zoning text amendment.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comraent at their meeting on De~¢mher 13, 199.5. Any new or additional
information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at least seven days prior to your schedule hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcf
cc: Ella Carey j
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
NOVEMBER 28, 1995
DECEMBER 13, 1995
ZTA -95-06 OUTDOOR AMPHITHEATER
Description of Request: To amend Section 22.2.2 to add Ontdoor Amphitheater as a us~ by
special use permit in the C-i, Commercial, District,
Origin: Petition by the public, Pavilion at Riverbend LLC.
Public Purpose to be Served: To add as a use by special use permit Outdoor Amphitheater
which is not currently permitted in any zoning district.
Anticipated Character of Use: An Outdoor Amphitheater can be anticipated to hold regular
entertainment events such as concerts which attract large numbers of visitors. These evems can
result in traffic congestion in the area of the Outdoor Amphitheater. Other potential impacts
include noise, lights, security concerns and emergency services. Staffhas viewed these facilities
as commercial in nature, but notes that the potential impacts could approach levels more
industrial in character.
In the review of this proposal staff contacted other localities which have similar facilities. These
localities have limited regulations and reviewed each request on a case by case basis. Hanover
County (Kings Dominion) regulates these types of facilities by requiring a conditional use permit
in Agricultural and Business districts. The County Code contains additional requirements for
sanitation, food sales and ticket sales. Henrico County (State Fair Grounds and Innsbrook
Pavilion) regulates these types of facilities by requiring a special use permit in their most
intensive commercial districts. Specific conditions are reviewed on a case by case basis and a65
Dba sound limit is included in the County Code. Prince William County (Nissan Pavilion)
allows these types of facilities in various commercial and industrial districts and in recreation and
entertainment district. In all districts the use is by special use permit. Conditions to regulate
these types of facilities are addressed on a case by case basis. The Nissan Pavilion is located in
an Industrial district. Noise is limited by regulations contained in the County Code. Fairfax
County (Wolftrap) allows these types of facilities by special use permit in areas zoned
commercial/recreational with conditions addressed during the review of the special use permit.
STAFF COMMENT:
Zoning Text Amendments axe reviewed in accord with the provisions of Section 33 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Section 33.9 states "Proposed amendments shall be reviewed in regard to
Sections 1.4, Purpose and Intent; 1.5, Relationship to Environment: and 1.6, Relationship to the
Comprehensive Plan; of this ordinance". Staffhas provided as Attachment A sections 1.4, 1.5
and 1.6. This use is currently not permitted in the ordinance. Staffhas not been able to identify
any intent by the Board to exclude this use from the ordinance at the time of its approval in 1980.
Section 1.4 states in part that the ordinance is "intended to improve public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the citizens of Albemarle County". This provisiun can be
interpreted to be supportive of a wide variety of existing and potential uses. The proposed
addition of outdoor amphitheater does provide for a facility not currently provided for in
Albemarle County. Approval of additional entertainment facilities within the County does serve
m provide diverse oppommities in the community. The convenience to the public may also be
increased by the provision of such a facility within the County as it alleviates the need to travel
to other localities. (The City of Charlottesville does operate a small outdoor amphitheater which
provides the same or similar opportunities as envisioned by the proposed amendment3
The remaining provisions of Sectionl.4 address a wide variety of purposes which the ordinance
is intended to serve. Section 1.4.2 states "To reduce or prevem congestion in the public streets".
The nature of the proposed use is such that impact on the transportation network of the
community can be substantial. These facilities typically operate in a manner which results in a
surge of traffic attempting to leave the site at the same time. Traffic is also concentrated over a
short period of time (several hours) prior to the start of any event. These factors tend to result in
temporary congestion in the public streets. Section 1.4.4 states in part that the intent of the
ordinance is to facilitate the provision of recreational facilities. This type of use clearly provides
for increased entertainment facilities and provides for an enterminmem option not currently
available in the County.
Section 1.5 addresses the relation of the ordinance to the environment. In the opinion of staff the
site plan regulations which currently exist in the ordinance adequately address the potential
environmental impacts of an Outdoor Amphitheater.
Section 1.6 address the relation of the ordinance to the Comprehensive Plan. This section states
in part "it is a stated and express purpose of this zomng ordinance to create land use regulations
Which shall encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan". Staff has
reviewed the non-residential land use guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan hereinafter referred
to as the Plan. The Plan includes amble of non-residential land use guidelines on page 161.
(Attachment B.) Outdoor Amphitheater is not a use listed in the Plan. Theater is listed as a use
in the Community Service Area. However, this refers to theaters typically used to exhibit movies
and plays.
Staff will address the appropriateness of including Outdoor Amphitheater in each of the areas
identified in the nomresidentiai land use guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan.
Village and Neighborhood Service Areas
This designation is intended to provide convenience services which are small scale. These areas
are intended to include uses with a maximum building site of 40,000 square feet with no use
exceeding 4,000 square feet. Access to these areas is by collector roads convenient to
development. This designation is not appropriate for an Outdoor Amphitheater.
Community Service Areas
This designation provides for larger scale development with 250,000 square foot maximum floor
area with individual uses limited to 65,000 square feet. Access to these areas is to be from major
collector roads. These areas are intended to serve larger portions of the County with a wide
variety of uses. The typical primary uses in this designation allow for a wide variety of retail
services. The level of development for the Community Service Area is significantly more
intense than that recommended for the Village/Neighborhood Area. The list of Uses included in
the Community Service designation are moderate scale uses for v~hich impacts to adjoining
properties and County infrastructure mu~t be carefully evaluated in the development process.
The level of activity likely to occur with an Outdoor Amphitheater is such that potential impact
on the infrastructure may be significant. Access demands for such a fac'flity are such that major
collector access and potentially specialized access (frontage roads, in~erior circulation) are likely
to be necessary. In general, this designation is not appropriate for an Outdoor Amphitheater.
Regional Service Areas
This designation provides for the widest variety of coinmercial uses and has no maximum size
limitation for any single use. Access to these areas is intended to be by major collector or arterial
roads with interior circulation. The intent of this designation is to provide areas for activities
which serve the County at large as well as portions of adjoining localities. The locations of
Regional Service as shown in the plan are intended to be in locations where the potential impact
on adjoining properties and the County infrastructure is significant, but are anticipated in the
Land Use Plan scheme and can be appropriately accommodated in the development process.
This designation is most appropriate for an Outdoor Amphitheater which will draw its attendance
from the Central Virginia region and has the potential of creating significant off-site impacts on
adjoining areas.
Industrial Service Areas
This designation is intended to provide areas for use by industrial services. Access provided to
these areas is the same as fox Regional Service. However, significant tmek traffic can be
anticipated in these areas and efforts should be taken to minimize mixtures of track and auto
traffic. This service area is located in a manner that will minimize the impacts on adjacent non-
commercial/non-industrial areas due to the potential impact of industrial activity on surrounding
areas. While the locational and access criteria for this area would serve to provide reasonable
areas for an Outdoor Amphitheater, staff does not support the inclusion of Outdoor
Amphitheaters in Industrial portions of the County. The uses stated in the Plan for Industrial
Service Areas are solely industrial with Offices being a secondary use. Only commercial uses
which support the industrial activities are recommended. Stuff opinion is that industrial areas
should not be used to provide for commercial activities. In the event that the Board is of the
opinion that due to the potential impacts of an Outdoor Amphitheater that Industrial Areas are
appropriate, staff can address the appropriateness of various Industrial districts for this use.
Office Service Areas
This designation is intended to provide for employment centers with lircdted production and
marketing of products. Access provided to these areas is the same as for Regional Service.
Only commercial uses which support the actives of the area arexecommended. While the
locational and access criteria for this area would serve to provide reasonable areas for an Outdoor
Amphitheater staff does not support the inclusion of Outdoor Amphitheaters in Office Service
portions of the County. This area is to be used for the employment needs of the County and
should not be used to provide for solely commemial activities.
Office/Regional Service Areas
This area provides for a combination of the services recommended in the Regional and Office
Service Areas. Staff has previously commented that the Regional Service designation appears
be appropriate for an Outdoor Amphitheater. Therefore, this designation would also be
approprmte for use by an Outdoor Amphitheater.
The ordinance contains in Section 9.3 a relationship of the Comprehensive Plan service areas to
the zoning district regulations. Staff has recommended that the most appropriate Comprehensive
Plan service areas for Outdoor Amphitheater are Regional Service and Office/Regional Service.
The zoning district designations which correspond to these serv/ce areas are CO, Commercial
Office; C-l, Commercial; HC, Highway Commercial; PD-SC, Planned Devlopment Shopping
Center; PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial; LI, Light Industry; PD-IP, Planned
Development Industrial Park. Staff has reviewed the nature of this use as compared to the
purpose and intent of these zoning districts. Staff opinion is that due to the scale and impacts of
this use it is only appropriate on larger parcels approved under a plan of development as required
in the various planned districts (PD) and is, therefore nor recommended in the CO, C-I, HC and
LI Districts.
(Staff has included the full text of the purpose and intent of each district as Attachment C.)
Planned Development Shopping Center (PD-SC)
This district is intended to provide for centers which are carefully organized. This district allows
all uses permitted by-right in other commercial districts and allows for fewer uses by special use
permit than the other commercial districts. This district provides for a comprehensive review of
issues such as access, building orientation and relationship to other areas. The intent of the
district combined with the l!st of permitted uses indicates that this district is primarily intended
for large scale retail activities. It does not provide for all the uses by special use permit provided
in the other commercial districts. Based on the review of the permitted uses staff opinion is that
an Outdoor Amphitheater is not appropriate in this designation.
Planned Development Mixed Commercial (PD-MC)
This district provides for large scale commercial areas with a broad range of commercial uses.
The intent of this district recognizes that large scale developmem may substantially reduce the
functional integrity and safety of public roads if permitted with unplanned access. As stated
previously an Outdoor Amphitheater is likely to have significant negative impacts on the
transportation system. This district does allow for all uses, both by right and by special use
permit, which are permitted in other commercial dislri~ts. Based on the advantages offered by a
Planned District staff opinion is that the PD-MC district is an appropriate zoning district for an
Outdoor Amphitheater, This statement is not intended to indicate that any or all PI~~MC districts
would be appropriate for an Outdoor Amphitheater,
Planned Development Industrial Park (PD-IP)
The PD-IP is listed under the Office/Regional Service Areas to allow for industrial type uses
such as research and development typically associated with larger scale office uses. This district
allows for a planned approach to improve the level of developmem and address the potential for
impacts to surrounding areas. The intended uses in the district are the same as in the LI district
and staff does not support the inclusion of non-supporting commercial activity into this industrial
district. Therefore, this district under the Office/Regional Service Areas designation is not
appropriate for an Outdoor Amphitheater,
Summary:
Staff has reviewed this proposal for compliance with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and
the Plan. Staff review of the relationship of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
results in a finding that Outdoor Amphitheaters are only potentially appropriate in designated
Regional Service and Office/Regional Service Areas by special use permit in the PD-MC zoning
district.
Recommendation:
Staffreco:mmends denial of the applicant's request to amend the C-1 district
to include Outdoor Amphitheater. Should the Board choose to approve this request staff offers
the following comments regarding the proposed text amendment:
Proposed Zoning Text Language:
An Outdoor Amphitheater has the potential of creating a number of potential impacts on
surrounding areas. These impacts include: traffic, noise, lighting, parking Most development
related issues are addressed by existing regulations. These regulations will require any Outdoor
Amphitheater to provide adequate parking, limits light spillover and addresses general physical
design concerns. Many issues of development are addressed by existing regulations however, fhe
nature of an Outdoor Amphitheater is such that supplemental regulations to address the peculiar
characteristics of any such facility are warranted. Staff has contacted other localities m
determine what types ofregulations are most appropriate. Based on these discussions, staff
review and contact with the applicant staff has prepared the following proposed ordinance
amendments:
Add Section 3.0 Definitions:
O .utdoor Amphitheater- A pennanem structure, whether open or enck~sed, including a stage and
tiered and/or sloped seating.
Add Section 5.1.35 Supplemental Regulations:
Outdoor Amphitheater
a. Overnight parking or camping shall not be permitted;
b. No such use shall be approved until adequate provisions for traffic management have
been demonstrated;
e. No such use shall be approved until adequate provisions for on-site emergency medical
facilities have been demonstrated;
d. Maximum sound levels shall be measured at the nearest property line. Sound levels shall
be averaged on a ten minute observation.
1. Maximum sound levels measured at the nearest residential or rural area property
line shall not exceed 60 dBa (daytime) or 55 dBa (nighttime). Daytime shall be
from 6 am to 10pm. Nighttime shall be from 10 pm to 6 am;
2. Maximum sound levels measured at the nearest commercial property line shall not
exceed 65 dba;
3. Maximum sound levels measured at the nearest industrial property line shall no~
exceed 70 dBa;
e. No special use permit shall be approved without approval of a monitoring program to
insure maximum sound levels are not exceeded.
Add Section 22,2.2(13):
Outdoor Amphitheater.
The applicant has proposed language which is different from that recommended by staff. The
applicant's proposed language is included as Attachment D. The applicant proposes that
maximum sound be measured at the nearest affected area. 'Staff opinion is that this language is
ambiguous and unenforceable. The applicant has not included an averaging for the sound
measurements which in the opinion of staff is needed to aid enforcement.
The applicant has proposed longer hours for daytime than has staff. The applicant's proposal
will allow for a higher sound level for a longer period of time. Staff has utilized daytime and
nightime hours identified in studies prepared by County staff. Staffdoes not support the
applicant's requested sound level as it may result in a substantial detriment to residential
properties should they be located.in proximity to any Outdoor Amphitheater. The applicant has
proposed higher sound levels for commercial and industrial properties. Staff is of the opimon
that higher sound levels may result in negative impacts on these areas should they be adjacem.
Staffdoes not support the higher sound levels proposed by the applicant. Should this use be
allowed be-right in the C-1 district.
Should the Board want to further consider staffs analysis that Outdoor Amphitheater is a use
appropriate by special use permit in the PD-MC district staff recommends that the Board adopt a
resolution of intent to amend Section 3.0 Definitions, Section 5.0 Supplementary Regulations,
and Section 25A.2.2 PD-MC.
Should the Board want to further consider this use as Industrial use, staff recommends that the
Board adopt a resolution of intent to amend Section 3.0 Definitions, Section 5.0 Supplementary
Regulations, and Section 29.2.2 and 29.2.4 PD-IP.
ATTACHMENTS:
A-Propose and Intent of Zoning Ordinance
B- Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines
C- Purpose and Intent of Various Districts
D-Applicant's Proposed Language
ASZTA9506.RPT
~ At t achmen~ A1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
AUTiSm, F..,STABLISI~,IEI~]T~, PtlRPOSE ~ OffF.tCIAL ~ON'XNC ~
AUTHORITY AND ENACTM~
This ordinance, to' be cited' as the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle.
County, is hereby ordained, enacted and published by the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia, pursuant to the provisions
of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 8, Code of ¥irginia, 1950, and
amendments thereto.
AMEN~TO ADOPT
An ordinance to reenact and readopt the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance and the Albemarle County Zoning Map.
Be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Alb-m-rle County,
~irginla: That the following ordinance known as the Zoning Ordinance
of Albemarle County, ¥irglnia, together with the Zoning Map attached
thereto, be and the same are, readopted and reenacted effective
immediately upon adoption of this ordinance.
EFFECTIVE DATE, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
This Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall be effec-
tive at and after 5:15 P.M., the 10th day of December, 1980 and at the
same time the Albemarle County "Zoning Ordinance" adopted Decamber 22,
1969, as amended, is hereby repealed.
PURPOSE AND INTENT
This ordinance, insofar as ts practicable, is intended to be in accord
with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County
adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article
4, Code'of Virgln~a, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent
set forth in Title 15.1, Chapter Ii. Article 8.
As set forth in sect bun 1%.1-&27 of the Code, this ordinance is
intended to improve public he'{th, safety, convenience and welfare of
citizens 9f Albemarle Counzv, ¥1rElnia. and to plan for the future
development of cou~aunitie$ i~, ~he end that transportation systems be
carefully planned; that n,,~ commun{ty centers be developed with
adequate highway, utilitY, health, educational and recreational
facilities; that the nee~ ~! agriculture, industr~ and business be
recognized in future growth; [nat residential areas be provided with
healthy surroundings for %a~v lite; that agri6ultural and forestal
land be preserved: and %ha! ~ne growth of the couuuunity be consonant
with the efficient and economtca! u~m. of public funds. (Added 9-9-92)
Therefore be it ordained by the Board of ~upervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, for the purposes of promoting t~e, health, safety,
convenience and general we~[are of the public and of planning for the
-1- (Supp. ~68, 9-9-92)
Attachment A2
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
1.4.5
1.4.6
1
1.4.8
1.4~9
1.4.10
1.4.11
1.5
future development of the co~mmity, that the zoning ordinance of
Alba-~rle County, together with the official zoning map adopted by
reference and declared to be a part of thiz ordinance, is designed:
To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety
from fire, flood end other dangers;
To reduce or prevent congestio~ in the public streets;
To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
comm~mity;
To Facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection,'
disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation,, water, sewerage,
flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational
facilities, airports and other public requirements;
To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon.historic areas;
To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of
land, undue density of population in relation to the comity faci-
lities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and
congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or
property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers;
To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable
employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92)
To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and
other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environ-
ment; (~mended 9-9-92)
To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed air-
ports, including United States government and militar~ air facilities;
(Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92)
To include reasonable prey[stuns, not inconsistent with the applicable
state water quality standards to protect surface water and groundwater
defined in section b2.A-&,.85{8) of the Code of ¥irginia; and. (Added
11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92)
To promote affordable housInR. {Added 9-9-92)
RELATION TO EN%'IRON~ENT
This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated
and environmentally similar ~n like manner with reasonable considera-
tion for the exxst*ng use and character of properties, the Comprehen-
sive Plan, the sui~abil~%~ o4 property for various uses, the trends of
growth or change, the current and future lgnd and water'~equire~ents
of the community for var~ou~ purposes as determined by population and
economic studies and other studies, the transportafi~n requirements of
the community, and the requlre~nents for airports, housing, schools,
parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for
-2- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92)
Attachment A3 -~-
1.6
1.7
1.B
the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood
plains, the preservation of agricultural and forests1 land, the con-
servation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the
most .appropriate use of land throughout the county.' '(Amended 11-1-89)
RELATION TO COMPI~'~g:~SIVE PLAN
In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable .consi-
deration of the Comprehensive. Plan, it is a stated and express purpose
of this zoning ordinance to create land use regulations which shall
encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan. To this end: development is to he encouraged in Villages,
Com~ualities and the Urban Area; where services and utilities are
available and where such development will not conflict with the
agricultural/forestal or other rural objectives; and development is
not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to
preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water
supply protection, and conservation of natural, scsi. lc and historic
resources and where only limited delivery of public services is
intended. (Amended 11-1-89)
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
The unincorporated areas of klb-marle County, ¥irginia, ars hereby
divided into districts, as indicated on a set of map sheets entitled
"Zoning Map of Album=tie County, ¥ir§inia" which, together with 'all
explanatory matter thereon, is hereby adopted by reference and de-
clared to be a part of this ordinance.
The Zoning Map shall be identified by the signature or the attested
signature of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, together with
the date of adoption of this ordinance.
The zoning administrator shall be responsible for maintaining the
Zoning Map, which shall be located in his offices, together with the
current zoning status of land and wauer areas, huitd%ngs and other
structures in the county.
The zoning administrator shall be authorized to interpret the current
zoning status of ~and and water areas, buildings and other structures
in the qoonty.
No changes of any nature shall be made on said Zoning Map or any
matter shown thereon except in conformity with the procedures and
requirements of this ordinance. It shall be unlawful for any person
~o make unauthorized changes on the official Zoning Map, ¥iolations
of this provision shall be punishable as provided in section 37.0.
CERTIFIED COPY, FILING
A certified copy of the Zoning Ordinance-and Zoning MapPer Albemarle
County, ¥irginla. shall be filed in the office of the zoning admini-
strator and in the office of the Clerk of the .CirCuit Court of Albe-
marle County, ¥irginia.
-3-
(Supp, #6g, 9-9-92)
Attachment B1
z
At tachmenn B2
9.3
RELATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SERVICE AREAS TO ZONING
DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Generally, the following zoning districts compare favorably
to recommended service areas as to recommended primary and
secondary land uses:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SERVICE AREA
ZONING ORDINANCE
ZONING DISTRICT
Village/Neighborhood
Service Areas
22.0 C-1 Commercial
23.0 C0 Commercial Office
Community Service
Areas
22.0 C-1 Commercial
23.0 CO Commercial Office
24.0 HC ~ighway Commercial
25.0 PD-~C Planned Develop-
ment shopping Cen=er
25A.0 PD-MC Planned Develop-
ment Mixed Commercial
Regional Service
Areas
22.0 C-1 Commercial
23.0 CO Commercial Office
24.0 HC Highway Commercial
25.0 PD-SC Planned Develop-
ment Shopping Center
25A.0 PD-MC Planned Develop-
ment Mixed Commercial
Industrial Services
Areas
27.0 LI L~ght Industry
28.0 HI Heavy Industry
29.0 PD-IP Planned Develop-
ment Industrial Park
Office Service
Areas
23.0 CO Commercial Office
27.0 LI Light 'Industry
29.0 PD-IP Planned Develop-
ment Industrial Park
Office/Regional
Service Areas
23.0 CO Commercial Office
27.0 LI Light Industry
29.0 PD-IP Planned Develop-
ment Industrial Park
(Together with)
22.0 C-1 Commercial
24.0 HC Highway Commercial
25.0 PD-SC Planned Develop-
-. ment Shopping Center
25A.0 PD-MC Planned Develop-
ment' Mixed Commercial
-87.3- (Supp. #62, 6-19-91
Attachment C1
22.0
22.1
COI'D~]~HCTkl. - C-1
C-1 districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by.
amendment to the zoning map to permit selected retail.sales, service
and public ~se establishments which are primarily oriented to central
business concentrations. It is intended that C-1 districts be estab-
lished only within the urban area, commn*nities and 'villages in the
comprehensive plan. (Amended
23,0
23.1
INTENT, WHERE PERMI'rr~u
CO districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by
amendment to the zoning map to permit development of administrative,
business and professional offices and supporting accessory uses and
facilities. This district is intended as a transition between resi-
dential districts and other more intensive commercial and industrial
districts.
24.0
24.1
HISHWAY CO~CIAL - HC
INTENT , WHERE PERMITTED
HC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be
established by amendment ito the zoning map to permit
development of cOmmerciall establishments, other than
shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway locations
rather than to central business concentrations. It is
intended that HC districts be established on major highways
within the urban area and co~m%nities in the comprehensive
plan. It is further zntended that t~1s district shall be
for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip .commercial
development by providing sites with adequate frontage and
depth to permit controlled access to public streets.
Attachment C2
25.0
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
PD-SC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be estab-
lished by amendment of 'the zoning map to permit the development
of neighborhood~ .community and regional shopping centers in
accordance with standards set forth in the comprehensive plan,
PD-SC districts are intended to serve areas not conveniently and
adequately provided with a broad range of commercial and service
facilities. Regulations provided are intended to encourage
planned commercial centers with carefully organized buildings,
service areasf parking areas and landscaped areas,
PD-SC districts shall be located in areas served by both public
wa=er and sewer systems; provided that neighborhood shopping
centers may be permitted in areas not served..by public water
and/or public sewer systems where adequate alternative water
supply and/or sewerage disposal systems are available. PD-SC
districts shall have direct access to public streets adequate tc
accommodate traffic generated by the developmentJ
2~. 3.
DEVELOPMENT - MIXED COMMERCIAL - PD-MC
INTENT~ WHERE PERMITTED
PD-MC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be es=ab-
lished by amendment of the zoning map to permit development of
large-scale commercial areas with a 'broad range of commercial
uses under a unified planned approach. It is intended that PD-M
districts be established on major highways in the urban area and
communities in the comprehensive plan. In recQgnltlon that.su
largelscaie development may substantially reduce' the functional
integrity and safety of public.roads if permitted with unplanned
access, it is intended that multiple access to existing public
roads be discouraged and that development and access be oriente~
toward an internal road system having carefully'planned inter-
sections with existing public roads.
27.0
2] .1
LIGHT INDUS,TRY - LI
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
LI districts are hereby crea~d and.may hereaftem be estab-'
lished by amendment to the zoning ma~ to permit industries,
offices and limited commercial uses which a~e compatible
with and do not detract from surrounding districts. Uses
and land previously established in industrial limited (M-l)
and research and technical manufacturing (RTM) districts,
where in conformity to the comprehensive plan, shall be
~ncouraged to develop as active centers cf employment on
both individual sites as well as within industrial parks.
It is intended that LI districts may be established in areas
Attachment C3
29.1
pL~N~R~D DE%r~LOPMENT - IN1)U~TRI~L~ pAP. K - PI)-!P
INTENT, WNERE PERMITTED
PD-IP districts are hereby created and may hereafter be estab-
lished by amendment to the zoning map to permit a variety of
industrial uses, together With certain uses ancillary thereto~
which are compatible, with and do not detract either from each
other or from surrounding districts. It is l~tended that PD-IP
districts may be established i~ areas in conformity with the
comprehensive plan and having ali of the following characte~ls-
tics~
-Areas served by water and sewer facilitie6, or if such facilities
are reasonably available;
-Areas nerved by major highway, rail or air service,'or secondary
road improved to standards approved by the oounty; and
-Areas having clearly demonstrated suitability ~or intended uses
with regard to physical charasteristios and relationship'to
surrounding development.
In the establishment of any PD-IP district, the board of supervi-
scm shall d~signate the oategory of uses whioh shall be permitted
in eac~ parcel, or part thereof, which is the nubje=t of the
application for such amendment.
10:14
~804 296 0177
Attachment
Applica~t's Proposed Language (11116/95)-
Section 3.0 Definitions;
~- A permanent stnJ~ture, Whether open or enclosed, including a stage and
tiered and/or sloped seating arranged in a semleirouiar fashion.
Section 5.1.35 Supplemental Regulations;
Amphitheater
a. in the approval of any special use permit the Board el Supervisors may authorize
the use of off-site perking in ac, cord with the provisions of Section 4.12.3,3
provided that edequete access arrangements are made;
b. Overnight parking or camping shall not be permitted;
c. No such use shstl be approved until adequate provisions for traffic management
have been demonstrated;
d. NO such use shall be approved until adequate provisions for on-site emergency
medical facilities have been demonstrated;
e, Maximum sound levels shall be measured at the nearest affected area.
1. Maximum sound levels measured at the nearest affected area of a residential
property shall not exceed 60 dba (daytime) or 55 dba (nighttime). Daytime shall
be from 6 am to 10 pm Sunday through Thursday and 6 am to 11 pm on Fridays,
Saturdays and the evenings preceding a holiday.
2. Maximum sound levels measured at the nearest affected area of a oommerclal
property shall not exceed 75 dba.
3. Maximum sound levels measured at the nearest affected area of ar Industrial
property shall not exceed 75 dba.
No special use permit shall be approved without approval of a mo.nitorlng program
to insure maximum sound levels ere not exoeeded.
solation prize, but the
tea~ Philips
by 1781 Productions, the group headed by
o~ its v(mue for a dramatic _
approval to ,b_?ld in a rural area, ~
~.apshaw s Pavilion, by contrast,
the City Market, graduations,
~tic 9:~-,ptembea
chased
coraxected to high-profile, high-acrea~
FroductionS, Linda Mc. Raven n~ .
started a wav~ of q~.eations.
)break ground
the traffic of,7 000+ rock'n' mil fans
Vi2QT.. ~efi~ir/~er~exv ressed a .
c~us~ th~$ile ls located lust across the Rivanna
Greanbeif Trail, Charlottesville's
shaw build a bridge over me . ~ .
Capshaw could not be reached for comment.
One thing's for cra-rain, the Cit)
, taxeg the County facility will generate,
Cb,,r otte~:~
: ~,! '. i~c~, the I')O'.,':m~w n Mall .\mphithl,ater, wh~ ~wl-I~ . ..
bo~. Two m~d-~ehoraB
stage ~d ~e fa~ ~at ~e sp~ ~
D~pite berg l~t~
December 12, 1995
?OP-~RD OF SUPERVISORS !
Mr. Walter Perkins, Chairperson
County Board of Supervisors
Cottnty Offi?e Building ,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mr. Perkins:
on behalf ~f,my husband Raymond and several of my
friends I am writing this letter to express eur views
concerning the Pavilion at Riverbend.
We feel that a venue like this is very much needed in
the county and city, There are so many events that our
families would like to see take place in this sort of
out-doer facility. We also fee} that the property back of
the Rose's store is a d.u?ping gro?nd right now, People park
back there and I have witnessed plck-ups and folks milling
around drinking at mid-day.
As residents of Ashcroft we felt it was necessary to
make our feelings known to the Board of Supervisors before
any action ~ould be taken to reject the.proposed facility.
We feel that it is very important to think of the good for
the entire community when considering this project,
Sincerely,~ ~ ~-~;.4'~.,.,~/
Raymond & Merle Painley
1880 N, Pantops Drive
AshGroft
Charlottesville, VA 22911
MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF CHARLO'F[ESVILLE-ALBEMARLE
513 Sl'ewart Street · SuiteJ. · Charlotfesville, Virginia 22902
December 12, 1995
Mr. Walter Perkins, Chairperson
County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building~ 4th Floor
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mr. Perkins:
The Mental Health Association of Charlottesville/Albemarle
has reviewed the plans for the new Pavilion at Riverbend,
which Mr. Coran Capshaw is interested in building. As the
Director of this organization, I attended the outdoor sessi~~
held on the property, and listened to the concerns of the
property owners who live near the proposed site. Our Board
voted to send you this letter expressing our feelings
concerning this project.
The Mental Health Association is a non-profit organization
and it is necessary for us to raise money, through special
events, within the community. These funds are used to pay
for mental health services for the people in the community
who have no insurance and no other means to receive
treatment. We have an annual Country Music Fest and would
like to do more outdoor events for children and families.
There is no facility available in this community which meets
the needs of these fundraisers. There are many other
projects we could use the Pavilion at Riverbend for and would
like to see this project become a reality.
The Mental Health Association Board of Directors and some
of our colleagues were very excited at the prospect of having
a Pgvilion like the one Mr. Capshaw is proposing to build.
It is our feeling that new growth of this nature needs to be
looked at from the viewpoint of how many people it can
benefit. We feel that Mr. Capshaw has a project which an
overwhelming number of people can enjoy plus, help
organizations like ours, in our fundraislng efforts.
It is in this spirit that MHAC/A is sending this letter in
support of the proposed Pavilion at Riverbend.
Sincerely,
Merle M. Painley, irector
Mental Health Association of Charlottesville, Albemarle,
Greene, Nelson, Fluvanna, Louisa, Orange and Madison COunties
United Way
Mr. Waiter Petklns
Chairman
Alb~raarle County Board o£ Supervisors
401 McIntir~ Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
520 Car$1ine Avenue
Charlottesville, VA 22902
11 Decem~r 1995'
VIA FAX TRANSMISSION
To: 296-5800
From: 296-9692
De~ Mr, Perkins:
Please allow this letter to serve as official public comment on the decision to be made at the
13 December meeting Of the Board of Supervisors regarding the proposed zoning text amendment
which would permit outdoor amphitheaters in. a public service, cciramerclal district, We commend
the Planning CommissiOn for voting unanimous}y to recommend denial of this ordinance change
and hope that you and other members of the Board will consider their concerns carefully and vote
against the amendment.
As homcowner~ in Chaxlottesville's Woolen Mills neighborhood, we are personally distressed
about the impact an ~mphltheater on Pantops Moun,am v~ould have on our quiet neighborhood.
(And given the City/County dichotomy, we certainly apg eciate that our neighborhood is being
· given sexiou~s consideration in this debate.) However, wi
impac~ of this amendment since it would be applied broai
Albemarle County, Residential areas are not designed to
impgcts associated with outdoor amphitheaters, nor are ~
concert-goers to park their cars. puny with their friends
the responsibility for protecting the sanctity of all of Chat
from inappropriate d~veiopment should thus be adamant~
We urge YOU to please vote against this zoning text ame~
this unique and wonde~nl community. Thank you for y~
~o~nW~.. Godard, Jr.
Krist~n C. God,rd
are also concerned about the larger
ly io other commercial areas'in
handle the traffic flow or other pUblic
tey apPrOpriate places to encourage
)r dispose of theix trash. A Board with
ottesvilledAlbemarle's residential areas
? opposed to such ~ proposal.
dment and protec~ thc neighborhoods of
~ur consideration,
DRAFT: December 13, 1995
ZTA 95-06
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING,
ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND
ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the Cotmty of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic
Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained
by amending section 3.0, Definitions, Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations, and
Section 22.0, Commercial. C-l, as follows:
CHAPTER 2O
ZONING
3.0
DEFINITIONS
OutdoorAmphitheater: A permanent structure, whether open or enclosed, induding
staee and tiered and/or sloved seating.
5.1.37 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
Outdoor Amphitheater
a. Overui~ht varkin~ or camoin~ shall not be permitted;
b. No such use shall be approved until adeouate vrovisions for traffic
management have been demonstrated;
No such use shall be aooroved until adeouate provisions for on-site emerg, encv
medical facilities have been demonstrated:
Maximum sound levels shall be measured at the nearest properw line. Sound
levels shall be averaied on a ten minute observation.
Maximum smmd levels measured at the nearest residential or rural area
property line shall not exceed 60 dBa (daytime) or 55 dBa (ni.[httime).
Daytime shall be from 6 am to 10pm. Nighttime shall be from 10 pm
to 6 am;
Maximum sound levels measured at the nearest commercial orooertv
line shall nor exceed 65 dBa:
Maximum sound levels measured at the nearest industrial prot>ertv line
shall not exceed 70 dBa
No special use permit shall be approved without am)royal of a monitorin~
pro,ram to insure maximum sound levels are not exceeded.
22.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
13__ Outdoor Am hitheater.
ZTA95 -06.WPD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles $. Martin
Waiter F. Perkins
Sail9 H. Thomas
January 18, 1996
Mr. William J. Nitchmann
P.O. Box 2378
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Nitcbmarm:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on December 13, 1995, you were reappointed
to the Albemarle County Planning Commission with said term to expire on December 31, 1999.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Vice-Chairman
WFP/cp
CC:
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Juliet Jennings
The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
Pr/nted on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
{804} 296-5848 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
White Hal
Sall~ H. Thomas
January 18, 1996
Mr. James B. Murray, Jr.
0 Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Murray:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on December 13, 1995, you were reappointed
to the Industrial Development Authority with said term to expire on January 19, 2000.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Vice-Chairman
WFP/cp
CC:
Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk, Circuit Court
The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
Printed on recycled paper
'~ i2-I3-95
I0:3OAIV[ FR0~ F~HA CHARLOTTESVILLE
STAT~NT BY KAT I~HOFF TO
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COF~ISSIOI~
D~CE~BER 12~ 1995
LaSt week a member o£ the public voiced concern that I serve as a
Planning Ccm~ieelone= and also work ~or The Piedmont Knvironmental
Council, a Ch~ritable organization that works ~or rural lend
conservation, For the record, I have been a Planning Co~missioner
£or two years and I went to work Eot PEC approximately
agO. At that time, I no%iliad the County and Planning
o~ my change of employment. I also consulted with a number of
attorney~, including the County Attorney, and concluded, as did
they, that I have no legal con~lic~ of ~nteresto I also informed
Com~issioner after December 31, 1995.
Therefore, the question is whether I have acted ob~ectively 2hess
past two months and whether I can continue to act objectively
during the last two meetings o~,the C~ion before my term
ends. I have given a 1ut o~ consideration to these questions
sinceMr. Cox expressed his concern~ I have always acted in an
ethical and objective manner and will continue to do so. I have
been a professional planner for [ifteen years and have drawn on
listened very hard to the public and re~lected on community
Co~cernso
I have been honored to serve as a Co,missioner. I have s
responsibility to finish the job to which I was appointed and to
contiuue to represent the general public to whom all of us have
been ii,taping these past two years. I will do so honestly,
~eirly, end to the best of my professional ability. Thank you.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
December 13,1995
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Sirs and Madams:
I am writing to
Supervisors to adopt
encourage The Albemarle County Board of
a policy governing disclosure of possible
conflicts between members of Albemarle's Boards and Commissions and
organizations appearing before those bodies. I would like to
respectfully suggest that you as a Board require members of any
board, commission, or authority in Albemarle County to publicly
disclose their membership in, employment by, or any other
affiliation with any group speaking at a public hearing and that
this disclosure take place at the time of the public hearing.
Though I personally believe that most Albemarle citizens who
serve on such bodies are ethical people, I believe that such a
policy will help build the public's trust. The appearance of
ethical conflict should be avoided. I hope that you will make an
effort to demonstrate your commlttment to open government.
Cordially: ~~. ~
Kevin Cox ~
i739 Lindsay Road
Gordonsville, VA 22942
cc: News Media