1993-03-10March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
M.B. 43, Pg. 236
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 10, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and
Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, George R. St. John, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Hum-
phris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to accept items 5.1 through 5.4 on the
consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority for January 25, 1993, was received for information.
Item 5.2. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 9 and
February 18, 1993, received for information.
Item 5.3. Letter dated March 3, 1993, from Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning
Administrator, addressed to T. K. Woods, Jr., Arrowhead Corporation of
virginia, re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels Section 10.3.1,
Tax Map 88, Parcel 20, and also currently shown as Parcels 20A, 20B, 20C and
20D (property of Arrowhead Corporation of Virginia), was received for
information.
Item 5.4. Letter dated February 24, 1993, from The Honorable John W.
Warner, U. S. Senate, re: resolution adopted by Board of Supervisors concern-
ing proposed EPA regulations on financial assurance requirements as they
affect local governments, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-92-67. Marie Mahanes. Public Hearing on a
request for cat care clinic on 1.0 ac zoned HC. Property on E side of Route
29 approx 300 ft N of Woodbrook Dr. TM45,P93B. Charlottesville Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 23, 1993 and March 2, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and is a part of the permanent records of the Board. The
applicant proposes to establish a veterinary clinic exclusively for cats.
facility will provide medical/surgical care, boarding and grooming.
The
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of SP-92-67 subject to the
following conditions:
1. There shall be no outside activities;
2. Approval is for cat care only.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at it meeting on February 9,
1993, unanimously recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. There shall be no outside activities;
2. Approval is for cat care only.
Ms. Marie Mahanes, applicant, was present to answer any questions the
Board may have.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. There being no comments from
the public, the public hearing was closed.
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
M.B. 43, Pg. 237
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-92-67, Marie
Mahanes, to establish a veterinary clinic exclusively for cats, subject to
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission {set out below). Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. HumPhris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: Conditions of approval for SP-92-67)
1. There shall be no outside activities;
2. Approval is for a cat care only.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 1993-94 Budget.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 28, 1993.)
Mr. Bowerman thanked everyone for attending the meeting and expressing
an interest in the budget. He said this is the preliminary step in the budget
process. Last year, these public hearings were held before staff worked on
the budget to receive input from the citizens and this is a continuation of
that process. In the next six weeks, there will be no consideration of
changing the methods for the system of appraisals or any forms of tax relief
not already granted. After the budget process is over, he is sure this Board
will consider legislative initiatives to request changes of the General
Assembly, but citizen comments regarding these issues are still welcome. He
wants everyone to understand that this Board does not have the power to make
decisions in the immediate future on some of the items which citizens are
concerned about.
Last week, at the Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board acted to
increase the amount of tax relief available for the elderly and handicapped.
The upper limit was $15,000 for income eligibility and that was increased to
$22,000. A net worth cap was $65,000 and this was increased to $75,000.
Collectively, that will amount to approximately $100,000 in tax relief if all
persons eligible apply.
After tonight's meeting, at least four work sessions will be held to
discuss and debate specific spending levels, department and agency
appropriations. If a specific issue is raised tonight, he would like to be
able to tell everyone when that specific item will be discussed during the
Board's work sessions. If there is enough attendance at the work sessions,
those meetings will be moved to the auditorium so that everyone will be able
to attend. If there are questions on those it6ms, citizens can follow up with
staff to get more information. This will be an open process and he urges the
citizens to attend the meetings.
Mr. Tucker then gave a presentation using the overhead projector. He
said the total amount of revenue anticipated in the next fiscal year (FY 1993-
94 beginning July 1) is $96,568,248. The largest portion of this is from
property taxes (47 to 48 percent) totalling approximately $45.8 million. This
figure includes real estate and personal property taxes. The other major
portion of the revenue allocation is in school funds from the state. This
represents approximately 22 percent of the revenue budget. The next major
allocation is General Fund revenue from the state such as: ABC taxes, social
services assistance funds and constitutional officer contributions.
Mr. Tucker then reviewed the expenditures recommended for FY 93-94. The
school fund is the largest part of the expenditure at approximately 64 percent
which is $61.4 million of the total recommended budget. The next major item
is public safety at seven percent. The next item is debt service which is
primarily devoted to school facilities that were built in the last several
years. This debt service includes the debt, interest and principal which
accounts for approximately six percent of the total budget. Human service and
social service needs in the community is the next item which represents
approximately five percent of the budget. Revenue sharing and administration
is approximately four percent of the budget.
The last graph Mr. Tucker outlined was the allocation of new revenue.
The total amount of new revenue is approximately four million dollars which is
anticipated in the next fiscal year. The school operations will receive
approximately one-third of that new allocation (33 percent). The second
largest portion of that revenue is 22 percent for the Revenue-Sharing
Agreement with the City of Charlottesville. The general government operations
will make up approximately 16 percent. Debt service is approximately 12
percent and, a reserve fund will take approximately 11 percent of the new
revenue.
Mr. Tucker said there are budget highlights in the handout provided. As
mentioned during the last graphic, there is a reserve fund which is a
discretionary fund for the Board of Supervisors which amounts to approximately
$551,800. This money is for the Board to use at its discretion during the
budget process. Over the next six weeks, the Board can use this money to fund
any new initiatives or programs that have not been funded. This money can
also be used for a rate reduction in the tax rates. This money could be used
as a reserve to be maintained for fiscal year 1995; the reason this is being
recommended is because it is anticipated that there will be an additional debt
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
M.B. 43, Pg. 238
service in fiscal year 1995 in the amount of approximately one million
dollars. This would fund the debt service on the new middle schoOl that is
being built at Hollymead. This budget also provides for approximately $1.2
million in funding for minimum growth needs of the school system to
accommodate approximately 360 new students anticipated in the next fiscal year
and an increase of approximately $475,000 that will cover next year's debt
service for school facilities. Finally, this budget also provides for
approximately $893,000 for the Revenue-Sharing Agreement with the City of
Charlottesville.
Mr. Tucker then outlined issues which affected this budget, both
indirectly and directly. The country is still in a recessionary time, the
economy is "sluggish" and this is anticipated to continue for some time. The
population in Albemarle County continues to grow at approximately two percent
annually. Over the past five years, the County had many new students enrolled
each year. To educate a child in Albemarle County, it costs approximately
$5000; $3600 of that amount comes from the local tax revenue. The additional
$1400 comes from state or federal funds. The local revenues are very
important in educating the County's children and the County depends on
property taxes. Approximately 47 to 48 percent of the budget is devoted to
property taxes. The County has, in the last several years, along with other
counties, gone to the General Assembly and asked for a diversity of revenue
sources to reduce their dependency on property taxes, but this has not been
successful. Construction activity has not yet returned to the levels
experienced in 1989. Bankruptcies have stabilized over the past six months,
but still remain much higher than experienced in the 1980's. State and
federal mandates, without offsetting revenues, continue to be a burden on
local government, particularly for education, social services, solid waste and
recycling. Most recently, the County was faced with an extremely costly
closure and groundwater monitoring mandates for the Keene Landfill, with no
funding from the state or federal governments. Due to the increasing market
value of rural property values and a 25 percent decline in State Land
Evaluation Advisory Council (SLEAC) land use values, tax deferrals from the
land-use program have risen almost $1.2 million from $4.2 million in FY 1992-
93 to almost $5.4 million in FY 1993-94.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker to comment about the tax relief for the
handicapped and disabled and asked him to outline methods that interested
citizens could use to determine if they are eligible and how to apply. Mr.
Tucker said the County has worked with the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, and
an individual on staff will go to the residence if a person fits the category
of elderly or disabled, help them fill out the forms, and determine if they
qualify for the tax relief. The forms are also available from the County's
Finance Department and employees in that department are ready to work with
interested citizens. JABA has worked closely with the County and individuals
who qualify for this relief.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Annette Grimm, Executive Director of the Sexual Assault Resource
Agency (SARA), asked everyone in support of SARA and the Child Assault
Prevention (CAP) project to stand. She asked that the Board fully fund SARA'S
request and that the funding of CAP be given a top priority.
Ms. Bambi Chapin read a letter on behalf of the Thomas Jefferson Child
Advocacy Group and Child Sexual Victimization Task Force (on file). She urged
the Board to fully fund CAP.
Ms. Rachel Harrison, resident of the Rivanna District and a SARA
volunteer trainee, said she hopes to make the Board understand the full
meaning of the catch phrase "client services." The staff of SARA coordinates
over 100 volunteers in activities such as the sexual assault hotline which is
serviced 24 hours per day with one volunteer answering calls and a staff
member acting as back-up. Eighty to 100 calls a month are received by this
hotline. The trauma of an emergency room exam can often be as intense as the
rape itself. SARA staff escorts victims and provides much needed support
during all of these important visits. SARA conducts individual as well as
group counseling sessions on short and long-term bases at no charge. This
provides victims, friends and family of sexual assault with a safe place to
voice emotional needs. SARA goes with victims through police interrogation,
meetings with the Commonwealth's Attorney and the trial itself. These
services take on a very personal note for her because she was brutally
assaulted in her home in 1990 by a man she had never seen. Her recovery began
the next day when she was visited by a counselor from SARA. Over the next two
years, the SARA organization provided her with constant support and this had a
great impact on her healing process. This summary represents two full years
of her life. It is stated in her report that over 270 hours of SARA client
services were devoted to her case alone. She stresses that this represents
assistance to only one individual. Statistics show that 25 percent of the
population will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime. Hopefully,
through public awareness, more victims of sexual assault will seek the
professional help SA/~A is able to provide. To fund client services, $25,000
is needed to allow SARA to function and grow with the needs of this community.
She asked that the Board carefully consider this request.
Ms. Betty Wheelock said she is a mother, grandmother, business owner and
has dedicated a considerable amount of time and energy to issues that impact
her country, state and the County in which she has resided for 14 years. She
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
M.B. 43, Pg. 239
is also aware of the difficult decisions elected representatives face in
carrying out the many responsibilities demanded of such a position. The
funding of SARA in both elementary and teen CAP is only one issue facing this
Board tonight. In 1988, when she joined the Board of Directors, the SARA
staff consisted of two people, had a budget of $50,000 and a client base of
40. By the end of June, 1992, the number of Albemarle County residents
receiving direct services through SARA's client services program had climbed
to 268. The number of County residents for whom educational programs had been
implemented had risen to 2479. In that five-year period, funding from
Albemarle County for those two programs increased 60 percent, from $11,500 to
$18,650. For fiscal year 1993-94, SARA has requested a total of $25,000 for
two programs; $18,650 for client services and $6350 for community education.
This is the same exact amount of funding that SARA requested last year. She
asked the Board to bear in mind that while Albemarle County residents comprise
40 percent of SARA's client services and community education, $25,000 is only
14 percent of the budgets of these two.programs. There are two other requests
before the Board, both of which were submitted to Dr. Robert W. Paskel, School
Superintendent. First, a proposal for elementary CAP totalling $41,522.
Second, a proposal for teen CAP which is broken down into two parts, $18,010
to implement teen CAP to 1300 middle and high school students and $2530 to
continue office hours and support groups at the high schools. These proposals
are now to be considered by this Board.
For the past three years, the CAP project has been implemented in City
and County elementary schools. It has been assessed by teachers, guidance
counselors, program review committees and the Children and Youth Commission.
All parties felt that this prevention program had a tremendous positive impact
on the children and staff and should be continued. SARA agrees and feels it
should continue, but unless this program is funded, it will simply become a
memory. When CAP was first introduced into the Charlottesville area, SARA
agreed to house the program, share its resources and find the necessary
funding to maintain it. SARA has done this to the extent that it is
jeopardizing its existence. As the treasurer of SARA and with the full
agreement and support of the Board, she can only state that it would be
fiscally irresponsible to allow SARA to continue in this manner. This Board
must make certain that most of the costs of this program are fully secured.
SA/~A will continue to house CAP, provide the back-up support for the program
and 20 percent of the operating costs for the program.
The fact that CAP's task has been noted by seven other counties and two
cities in the state, all of whom have asked repeatedly that CAP be brought
into their school systems confirms that CAP works. It is a fact that when
implemented as designed, CAP is an effective prevention tool. Before this
Board makes its decision regarding the funding of CAP, she asked the Board to
experience CAP at work. The facilitators are still in the schools and would
like to have the Board members come and personally observe the children as
they participate in a CAP workshop. She can almost guarantee that this Board
will not be able to easily walk away from it.
It is largely due to the success of elementary CAP that teen CAP has
been requested in County middle and high schools. Since the beginning of
school year 1992-93, SAi~A's community education coordinator has provided
educational programs to hundreds of high school students at both Albemarle
High School (kHS) and Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) at their request.
Programs to these students will continue until the end of the school year. In
addition to these school programs and, again, by request, SARA provides a
staff to hold office hours at Albemarle and several support groups at both
high schools. These school programs and additional school services are
provided by one staff person who, in addition to providing services to the
community at-large, provides, by request, training for guidance counselors and
teachers wanting to learn how to address issues surrounding the sexual assault
of teenagers. The schools provide no funding or support, although 40 percent
of the education coordinator's time is devoted to school programs. The cost
of travel to and from County schools is borne by SARA. County government
contributes $6350 to SARA's educational programs, which is only eight percent
of the total education budget. While implementing a program as comprehensive
as teen CAP in area middle and high schools is certainly appropriate, given
the high incidents of sexual violence among this age group, this Board may
perceive this request as impossible at the present time. She asked the Board
to consider the work that SARA is doing in the upper schools. She invited the
Board to talk to the teachers, guidance counselors and principals and ask them
if it is worth $18,000 per year to bring CAP into the schools or $10,000 per
year to continue the same kind of program that they have been receiving over
the past several years. The request before this Board may seem great, but
SALSA has become, in its short existence, a considerable resource in this
community; one that has been recognized and acknowledged by state offices in
Richmond to be the proto type for 22 centers in Virginia. People are
fortunate to live in a community that can claim ownership to an agency that
the Lieutenant Governor's office call second to none and that the state
silence prevention program in Richmond refers to as a true community based
organization. For years, SAR3~ has given far more to this community than it
has ever received. She does not mean for that statement to seem ungrateful.
The staff has never asked either from this Board, the County or the City, from
anyone in the community for anything for themselves. On behalf of the SARA
Board of Directors, its staff and volunteers and the many survivors of sexual
assault, she urges the Board's support of SARA's request.
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.437 Pg. 240
(Page 5)
Mr. Bill Daggett, President of United We Stand America, Central Virginia
Chapter, distributed a statement (on file) and asked everyone present in
support of the Coalition for Tax Equity to stand and be recognized. Mr.
Daggett read the statement. The Coalition has two basic goals in mind: (1)
It asks for the Board's support and assistance in bringing a proposal to the
State Legislature creating a ,'Homestead Tax Rate". While details will be
presented at the appropriate time, the intent is to protect individuals from
suffering assessment increases beyond the rate of inflation, applicable, of
course, only to their primary residence; (2) Implore the Board to make
whatever adjustments are necessary to reduce and contain the cost of
government in this County so that it's budgetary growth does not exceed the
overall rate of inflation, adjusted to accommodate increases in population.
Again, it is not the Coalition's purpose to make specific proposals. There
are various members of the coalition working with the facts and figures along
with the development of strategies to be presented and discussed in the coming
weeks.
Mr. Max Coble said two of his neighbors asked him to speak to the Board.
Although he is not experienced in public speaking. One of the neighbors said
he has as much experience as that of these Supervisors in supervising. That
message is two-fold; the first thing he wanted to say is that this Board's
ability to spend has exceeded the resident's ability to pay. This is apparent
in White Hall when it was found that people who worked for local contractors
had moved out of the County because they could not afford the taxes. He is a
farmer and raises cows. If he did not have income from other sources, he
would move out of the County because the gross sales from his calves will not
pay his Albemarle County taxes.
Mr. William Taskey, speaking on behalf of the Western Albemarle Band
Boosters and students, said he supports the proposed budget increase for band
activities. Currently, the enrollment is 120 students in the band program at
WAHS. The band has 12 graduating students. Their equipment is not up-to-date
and cannot handle the increase of 50 students which is anticipated. The band
does not currently have all of the instruments needed to perform some musical
selections properly. No matter what the increase in student population, an
increase in instrument inventory is needed. The band currently operates with
a single instructor, responsible for 120 marching band members. Parent
volunteers have been a great help in the program, but lack certain
requirements. A paid assistant director is needed for marching band to
continue the marching program. If the program increases with an additional 30
to 50 students, the marching band program will cease next year because it will
not be able to operate with only one instructor. The parents and band
boosters have worked with the program for a number of years in the way of
fundraising to help whenever possible with certain pieces of equipment, but
are only able to do so much. Additional assistance is needed for parades,
football games, after school rehearsals, help sessions, district band
competitions, festivals, jazz festivals, etc.
Mr. Harold Pillow, Scottsville District, said his real estate taxes have
increased more than 20 percent with the new appraisals, and his salary has
only increased approximately three percent. He thinks this is excessive. His
land joins land owned by the Monticello Foundation, which is several hundred
acres and tax exempt. There are several residences on this land and he does
not feel this is fair.
Mr. Claude Monger, White Hall District, said he has lived in Albemarle
County approximately 50 years. He is concerned about the taxes and
assessments. The newspaper said assessments normally increase about 11
percent. His taxes increased 22 percent. During the last four assessments,
his taxes have increased an average of 20 percent each time. To him, this
means that every ten years the cost of his land and home have increased 100
percent. He does not know how much longer he will be able to afford the
increase in taxes. He can only afford it now because he is working two jobs.
He is concerned that the poor and middle income people are being forced out of
Albemarle County because they cannot afford to pay their taxes. He does not
get tax breaks because he is a homeowner, he does not own enough land to be in
land use and his only hope is that since the assessments went up again, this
Board may be able to figure out a way to reduce the tax rate.
Mr. Scott Bazzarre said a number of people move out of Albemarle County
because of taxes. His taxes increased 33 percent this year. His in-law's
taxes increased 58 percent, a friend's increased 67 percent and another
friends increased 77 percent. These increases are with no improvements. This
is crushing to him, his family and friends because there is no way to fight
back. He then read a letter from his mother-in-law about ridiculous
assessments. He supports a homestead tax and thinks it is a good idea. He
knows the Board does not have authority to implement a homestead tax, but it
can support and help the citizens at the General Assembly. He expressed the
idea of electing the County Assessor. He asked who controls the County
Assessor or who he answers to. Mr. Bowerman said he answers to the Director
of Finance who answers to the County Executive. Mr. Bazzarre said if the
County cannot get a homestead tax, it would be nice to be able to pick who
will assess the taxes so that this person could be more adaptable to the needs
of residents. Mr. Bazzarre thanked Mr. Perkins and Mr. Marshall for coming
out to his property. He feels all Board members should get more involved and
help the citizens.
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 24!
(Page 6)
Mr. Martin said concerning his statement that the rest of the Board
members did not come to his property, he does not know whether other Board
members received an invitation to visit his property, but he never knew about
the request. ~
Mr. Edward Strauss said he is frustrated with this Board. The Board has
gone on record tonight as wanting to change the Dillon Rule. He feels this is
just another way to tax the residents. There is an arrogance in County
government, in these times, when a police department can come before the Board
and request $71,096 for a Harley Davidson motorcycle and patrol officer. The
State Police have decided that motorcycles are not suitable for police work.
Schools are for teaching children, not for therapy centers. This Board needs
to get back to basics and look at the budget the way it was looked at in 1975
and fund the basics, i.e. state mandated programs, writing, reading and
arithmetic. If taxes truly need to be raised, the Board members should look
at the situation and show the residents the figures and be able to justify
them.
Ms. Diane Behrens, Principal of Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, said she
is speaking on behalf of the students, faculty and staff of Agnor-Hurt.
Agnor-Hurt is the product of many months of planning by individuals dedicated
to the goal of providing excellence in a facility, as well as program
offerings to the students of Albemarle County. She is grateful to the work of
these individuals, for the vision and commitment to the students. Agnor-Hurt
has experienced an outstanding beginning, its faculty and staff have enjoyed
the many benefits of the careful plan provided by the numerous County
departments which contributed to the overall success of the opening of Agnor-
Hurt. It's student population is quite diverse. Daily challenges are faced
that require considerable mental and fiscal resources to satisfy the
requirements of its students in learning quests. Agnor-Hurt's staff is
concerned that the proposed budget for 1993-94 falls short of supporting the
varied student needs of its population. The need to enrich the academic
challenges for the students remains unfunded in the 1993-94 budget. Agnor-
Hurt is proud of its students and looks forward to next year's entering class,
however, it is hesitant to guarantee the quality of its products without a
similar guarantee of basic financial support from this Board. Albemarle
County's children are its future and they should be taken as far as they can
reach academically, assuring the community that the students have worked hard
and learned much. She asked that the Board begin helping the schools by
funding the unfunded priorities listed by the School Board for fiscal year
1993-94. Without those funds, student learning will be seriously compromised.
Mr. Paul Matherne said he has two children in the Albemarle County
public schools. Clearly, public education benefits each and every member of
Albemarle County and each member of this society. If everyone who had
participated or benefitted from public education were to stand, he ventures
that everyone in this auditorium would stand. Education has changed over the
past 75 years. The education that our parents received is much better than
what our grandparents received. The education that each of us received is
better than what our parents received. Now, for the first time in many
generations, as he stops and looks at the education that his children are
receiving, the best he can hope for is that it will be as good as what he
received. There is a good possibility that the educational standards will
decline over the next few years. Many challenges face schools that were not
present 20 and 30 years ago. There are many new mandated programs and new
members of our society that are now benefitting from education. All of these
things cost money and he does not feel it is possible for our educational
process to grow and improve if funding is only going to be increased for
education at the rate of inflation. There are many things in the current
unfunded budget for the school program that are disturbing to him, i.e.,
growth, at-risk students and students with special needs both in the learning
disabled and gifted categories. He thinks the present budget, at best, holds
its own, but makes no advances for the education of our children. He asked
the Board what year in the past will be used as the benchmark for education,
or instead, is this Board going to state that it wants to achieve new goals
and make more progress so that students tomorrow and the next year will
benefit from an ever improving and better educational process? There are many
people here who are talented and have a lot to offer to Albemarle County's
schools, even if they do not have children in school. The schools are always
in need of volunteers and all anyone needs to be able to do is read to
kindergartners, first graders or participate in any of the number of PTO
programs that are on-going in each of the schools. By participating and
volunteering, all of us can help improve the schools without raising taxes and
increase the quality of student education.
Mr. David Martin, resident of Free Union, said his property assessment
increased $25,000 this year. This assessment, as he understands it comes from
what the land value near your property sells for in that area. Free Union is
a growing community and has housing being built throughout. This is causing
the taxes of other working class residents to increase and within a few years
those working residents will not be able to pay those taxes. He has called
the Finance Department twice to have his reassessment evaluated and was told
nothing could be done about the way the assessments are figured because it is
mandated by the state. He asked the Board if the state does the assessments
or the County. He does not own a fertile piece of property, it has hills and
gullies. He is willing to pay his portion of taxes, but feels other measures
should be taken besides increasing real estate taxes.
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
M.B. 43, Pg. 242
Ms. Elizabeth Yancey, parent and volunteer at Agnor-Hurt Elementary
School, thanked the Board for the physical plan that has been provided for
Agnor-Hurt. She said Mr. Tucker stated that it costs Albemarle County
taxpayers approximately $3600 to educate a student each year. This outlay is
much less than society will have to pay to support a student whose educational
needs are not met if funding does not give the student an opportunity to earn
a decent living. She is not an Albemarle County native, but grew up in a
rural area. The drop-out rate when she was in school was 50 percent. No one
worried about the drop-out rate at that time because they went back to the
farm or worked in poultry plants, but that option is no longer available. The
students who do not know how to read have no where to go. It is hard to work
with the students every day and know that there is nothing for them unless
there are more funds to help them. There are a tremendous amount of people
present tonight. If each would dedicate one hour per week to their
neighborhood schools, the needs of most of these students could be served
without additional funds, but she does not. think this will happen. When this
Board is asked by its constituent schools to read to students during library
week, ask if you can assist a teacher by reading a test to a student who knows
the material, but will otherwise fail the test because the student cannot
decipher what the words are on the page.
Ms. Pam Schendt, President of Agnor-Hurt PTO, said in order for
Albemarle County to remain competitive in this ever changing world, there must
be a well-educated society. To our generation and generations past, being
well-educated meant attending school and learning the "three R's." As PTO
President and a volunteer in schools for the past four years, education is
much more complex than most people can imagine. In order for schools to meet
the needs of our children and the needs of society, sacrifices must be made
and all of the children must be educated. This means providing for the
special needs of our talented and gifted students through challenging
materials and teaching methods. These children will be our leaders in the
future and we need to make sure that they are challenged and motivated to use
these abilities by what they are taught in our schools. This means providing
the support that our teachers need to meet the needs of these students. The
needs of students at the other end of the spectrum also need to be met. The
at-risk students will need the support in order to become productive members
of our society. If we fail to provide for their needs now, we will pay a much
higher price in the future because they will become dependent on society
instead of contributing to it. Many parents and/or taxpayers, especially
those who have children considered just typical students, feel that they
should not have to foot the bill for these special needs of education. She is
both. Her children are typical students while she is also a taxpayer whose
assessment went up $30,000. As a parent, she wants these areas funded not to
benefit her children directly, but to allow them to be in a classroom where
the teacher gets the support he/she needs and therefore has the time and
energy to give her children the instruction that they need. As a taxpayer,
she feels the needs of the children will either be paid now or later. The
price will be much higher later since the demands will be placed on the
locality by a generation not prepared to handle the challenging world in which
it lives. She asked the Board to give careful consideration to providing the
additional funds for the school budget, for the gifted, remedial and at-risk
programs.
Ms. Margaret Martin, resident of Free Union, said her tax assessment
last year was $13,000 for one-half acre of land and this year it increased to
$17,100. She called to talk with the County Assessor and was told that her
taxes were increased because of her driveway and septic tank, but both have
been there since 1963. The middle-class residents are the people who are
being hurt by the reassessments. She wanted this Board to know that the
assessments are not fair.
Mr. John Cubero, resident of Crozet, has lived there 38 years and has
been retired for 18 years. He came to this meeting to complain about the
reassessments. In 1990 his land assessment increased 46.5 percent and his
home assessment increased 12 percent. This year his assessment increased 67.8
percent for the land and 9.1 percent for his home. He has not done anything
with his land, but the assessment has increased 67.8 percent. He asked why
the County could not keep the assessment within the cost of living. He has to
live according to the money he receives. The County is driving its residents
out of the County. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cubero if he appealed his
assessment. Mr. Cubero said "yes." Mr. Bowerman asked what the ruling of his
appeal was. Mr. Cubero said he is not satisfied and was given a form to fill
out. Everyone has to live according to his means. The County cannot go
"haywire" and meet the budget by continuing to raise taxes.
Mr. Jim Clark said he thinks there needs to be more growth in the
County, especially in rural areas. There needs to be more income to fund this
budget. He does not see anything wrong with the method of assessing property,
but the County needs to control its spending. If County employees receive an
increase, he feels it should be done in a method other than by a percentage.
When a percentage increase is given, the rich get richer and the poor get
poorer. He feels everyone needs to create more revenue in the County and
there needs to be growth for that to happen.
Ms. Rellen Perry, advocate for indigent, low-income families,
distributed and read a statement to the Board (on file) regarding fairness in
taxation for low income residents.
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 4.B. 437 Pg. 243
(Page 8)
Mr. David van Roijen said he has been through the tax assessment routine
many times before. It does not work even if appealed to the Equalization
Board. He does not think anyone present would fault higher assessments if the
County had a lower rate. There is not a lower rate because the County does
not plan for a lower rate, it plans to use all of the money it already has or,
possibly, to increase the tax rate to meet the added needs. He has been to
budget hearings before and he knows this Board is asked to be a "Fairy God
Mother" and grant money for various things, but it was not elected to do that.
This Board was elected to plan and spend carefully, just as each member would
spend his/her own money. This Board should be thinking of ways to decrease
the tax rate. If everything he has heard is approved tonight, this Board will
increase the tax rate although it will not be upfront and say it. When this
is done, he would like each member who votes for a tax increase to explain why
planning is so poor that the tax rate has to be increased.
Ms. Pam Starling, PTO President at Woodbrook, taxpayer, homeowner and
parent of two children in Albemarle County public schools, read and
distributed a statement (on file) urging the Board to reexamine the resources
available to increase funding for the critical needs of the County school
system and to reconsider the direction of County services in general.
Mr. Arther Ankney, Rivanna District, said he is frustrated with his real
estate assessment. Three years ago he came to the County Office Building and
got a permit to put a roof over his back porch. He paid $45 for the permit
and the roof cost $200. He also built a two-car carport. He is willing to
have a higher assessment on these two improvements, but is not willing to take
a 25 percent higher assessment. Three years ago he had to purchase one-eighth
of an acre of property in order to install a septic field. His property is so
swamped that when they tried to dig out a septic line, before they had dug
five feet there was one foot of water in the ditch and the request for a
septic field was denied. He had to buy one-eighth of an acre of property
which cost $5000 in order to install this septic field. Approximately one
year ago, there was a flood and his land was washed out. He then put in 110
cubic yards of dirt. His assessment has increased at least 25 percent the
last three years. His family (he and his wife) makes $1220 per month. They
own a home, have to pay electric, fuel and taxes. It is difficult for them to
meet their bills each month. He does not know where the money paid on taxes
goes. He is not against educating children, but feels there is something
wrong with the school system. He went to the Real Estate Department to see if
he could get his property reassessed and was sent to the same person who
assessed his property the first time and still did not receive any kind of
adjustment. Until tonight, he was never informed of who he should see or how
to go about filing an appeal.
Mr. Bowerman said based on Mr. Ankney's comments, he would qualify for
tax relief if he applied for it. This program considers Mr. A~kney's net
worth and income. Mr. A~kney said his assessment is $89,700 on one and five-
eighths acres and it is a swamp. He extended an invitation to the Board to
visit his property. Mr. Martin said he will visit Mr. Ankney's property
tomorrow, walk the property and get information so that he can apply for tax
relief and be evaluated. Mr. Ankney asked that Mr. Martin bring the person
who assessed his property with him.
Mr. Kevin Cox said he picked up a list in the Planning Department of the
24 major employers in Albemarle County. The list shows the number of
employees that each firm or employer had in 1990, 1991 and 1992. The largest
employer in the community was the University of Virginia (UVa). In 1990, UVa
had 13,100 employees and in 1992 that number dropped by 2626. Between 1990
and 1992 the number of employees at Centel dropped by 108 and the number of
employees at Sperry dropped by 282. The second largest employer in the
community, Albemarle County, increased its number of employees by 133. All
other employers have downsized and it seems that the County payroll continues
to grow. He does not want to see anymore growth in County employment,
especially in Planning and Zoning. He thinks County officials should enforce
issues of health, safety and welfare and stay away from aesthetics and social
engineering. He believes many of the high assessments were on rural lots in
rural areas. His assessment increased by 40 percent. There is a strong
demand for empty building lots in Albemarle County and many builders are
looking for lots and cannot find them, as well as people from out-of-state, to
construct custom built houses. These lots are sold at enormous prices and
used according to state guidelines as the basis for assessing developed lots
with smaller houses on them. He believes the subdivision regulations in the
County could be changed, creating an increased supply of lots to meet the
demand, without endangering increased costs through a surge in the school
population. Much of the demand for residential building lots in Albemarle
County is coming from people who do not have children and want to settle in a
wonderfully rural county. If the Board looks at amending the subdivision
regulations, there could be some effect on the demand side.
Mr. Cox said he has a daughter in first grade who attends an elementary
school in Albemarle County. In watching her education, he has come to believe
that there are fundamental problems with education in Albemarle County and
these will not change no matter how much money is given to the School
Division. He does not know what watching 101 Dalmatians, Beauty and the Beast
or numerous other full-length films has to do with teaching students to read,
write and do basic arithmetic. He was in a classroom in first grade with 50
other students and one teacher and he learned to read and write. He believes
in public education and feels everyone in society benefits from it, but he
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
M.B. 43, Pg. 244
will not support another dime to the School Division until some fundamental
changes are made which result in educating children and not sensitizing them.
He is so distressed at the lack of education that his daughter is receiving
that he is taking her out of County schools and his wife is going to teach her
at home so that she receives the fundamental education she needs.
Mr. Cox said many Board members support a local option income tax as an
alternative to real estate taxes and he does as well, He also believes that
use value taxation acts as a pressure release valve by giving many of those
people who would be in favor of a local option income tax, a band-aid and
relief. Some pressure will have to be brought into use value taxation if this
Board expects to see this fundamental change.
Mr. Vernon Fisher said most residents are facing an increasing tax
burden and spending between 45 to 55 percent of their income for taxes.
Residents cannot continue to do this. The money spent at the County level is
probably the best tax dollars spent. A lot of residents would like to have
more participation in government and how tax money is spent, what it is spent
on and how taxes are raised. A lot of residents on the east side of Albemarle
County feel that the services they receive are not adequate for the money they
have to spend. He knows that the County's funds are limited and it must
figure out its priorities. The residents want the Board's help in figuring a
way to keep taxes at a low level and some people feel the taxes should be held
at the 1991 level and rolled back. He asked the Board to explore the
possibility of a roll back to the 1991 tax rate level. There are residents
that would like to see a permanent ballot that would allow residents to ballot
at election time on whether taxes should be increased, maintained or
decreased. He feels this is the American way.
Ms. Ginger Ellingwood, co-chair of the AIDS Support Group Board of
Directors, said she is present to ask the Board to consider continuing funding
for the AIDS Support Group (ASG). ASG needs the County's support and funding
in terms of HIV prevention programs. ASG currently has an information line
and a speaker's bureau, but there are groups in the community that are
considered a high risk for this disease that do not or cannot use these
facilities, i.e., people with low literacy, youth, migrant workers, rural
residents and inmates in the Joint Security Complex. Currently, ASG has a
one-half time outreach education coordinator and she works hard to provide
workshops and community based outreach programs, but she is the only person in
this office for the entire planning district. There is no cure for AIDS at
this point nor a vaccine. HIV is preventable and the way to get this message
to everyone in the community is through education.
At 9:14 p.m., with no further comments from the public, the public
hearing was closed. Mr. Bowerman thanked everyone who attended and spoke.
At 9:15 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-92-13 & SP-93-02. George & William Clark.
Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 102.89 ac from RA to VR & for a
permit for a stream crossing in the flood plain of the South Branch of the
Hardware River. Property in SE corner of inters of Red Hill School Rd & North
Garden Lane (Routes 760/712). Site located in designated growth area (North
Garden Village) is recommended for village use (1 du/ac). TM87,P57C&66-76;
TM99,P109-116. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
February 23, 1993, and March 2, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The
applicant seeks a rezoning to Village Residential (VR) with proffers and the
issuance of a special use permit to allow a stream crossing in the flood
plain. All engineering data and subdivision plats would be submitted after
approval of the rezoning and special use permit. Staff has received no
information regarding the nature or scale of the proposed development.
Approval of VR zoning would allow for 74 dwelling units.
Based on unfavorable factors, staff is unable to support ZMA-92-13 or
SP-92-03 and recommends denial of both requests. Should the Board of
Supervisors approve SP-93-02, staff recommends the following conditions with
proffers submitted by the applicant:
Department of Engineering approval of hydraulic analysis of the stream
crossing to ensure compliance with Section 30.3;
2. Department of Engineering approval of grading plans and calculations;
Water Resource Management Official approval of Water Resource Impact
Assessment.
No proffers were submitted for ZMA-92-13, therefore, approval would have
no limitations.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 9,
1993, recommended denial of both ZM3~-92-13 and SP-93-02.
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 4.B. 43, Pg. 245
(Page 10)
Mr. Marshall asked if the~assumption is that this developer could build
on each of these lots as they were zoned in 1980 without having to come before
this Board. Mr. Bowerman said if a place for a house outside of the setback
requirements, water, septic field, alternate septic field and the property has
access, it is his understanding that each of these lots are by-right uses
because it is a platted subdivision. The developer must meet the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of development.
Mr. Marshall said one of the lots on the plat is only 80 feet wide at
one point. Mr. Bowerman said the lots on the plat are no longer allowable
under current Subdivision Ordinance regulations. Mr. Marshall said he
understands that these lots are not allowable under present zoning, but the
lots are already platted and could conceivably be built on. Mr. Bowerman said
this is correct.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to let everyone speak on this matter,
but feels it is important to recognize that all comments should be succinct
and should not be repetitive. He said he would like to limit organized
presentations of both sides to 25 or 30 minutes.
Mr. Richard Carter, representing the applicant, said there have been
some concerns raised in the staff report and the applicant's representatives
are present to try and address those concerns. There are two applications
before the Board and each stands on its own merits and should receive separate
consideration. Sometimes a rezoning is good for planning and that is the
situation tonight. The Board has already seen and eluded to the fact that
there are already 19 platted pipestem lots; seven lots front on Route 760, 11
on Route 712 and one has frontage on both roads and does not seem to have any
land in the center. By-right, the applicant can build a single-family
residence plus a rental cottage on each lot. By-right, the applicant can also
build a duplex on each lot. If the applicant uses the current subdivision
plat, he will need 18 other special use permits for stream crossings. He
asked the Board to consider, when hearing opposition, that the applicant is
not an out-of-town developer and is not in a hurry to develop this property as
shown in the proffers of the special use permit. The applicant has proffered
not to build more than the 39 units, which he is already entitled to build,
until 1996 and until water has been verified. The applicant purchased this
property in 1947. If he were in a hurry to develop this land, he has had 50
years to do it. He asked the Board to consider that the merits of these
applications outweigh the zoning and subdivision plan that already exists.
This is only a rezoning and, at this point, not a development proposal. The
Board will hear the Comprehensive Plan eluded to where it states "verification
of water must be made before a development proposal will be allowed." The
applicant is not requesting a development proposal, but only a rezoning. When
a development is proposed, the applicant will have to come before this Board
and has proffered that these requirements will be met.
Mr. Carter also asked the Board to consider that this rezoning complies
with the Comprehensive Plan which states this is an area for village
residential. Therefore, in this case, rezoning is good planning. The
applicant also has Messrs. Eichman, Yancey and Gloeckner who will concisely
and succinctly address the concerns in the staff report.
Mr. Carter said he would like to have a rebuttle period if time permits.
Mr. Bowerman said if significant issues are raised and he and the applicant
feel they need to address those issues, they will have that opportunity.
Mr. Ed Eichman with Brown, Eichman, Dalgiesh, Gilpin and Paxton, PC,
Architects, said as a design professional, he feels there are three important
issues relative to real estate development. First, visual impact of
development on the property and its surroundings. When a new development is
completed it has to look like it belongs there. Second, impact of adding a
built environment to a natural environment. The built environment has to be
sensitive to the natural environment to be successful. Third, successful
marketing of a new development. If the new development lends itself to
successful marketing it, therefore, can be an asset to the community and if
not, it may be a detriment. Those three points are his general opinions. In
the case of Mr. Clark's property, there is another consideration which is the
existing subdivision plan. The plan, as previously indicated, includes 19
lots and, to him, does not relate to the property at all. This plan is a
classic example of a way land can be subdivided on paper so that each lot has
frontage on the two public roads running along the property. He feels this
plan gives no consideration to the natural characteristics of the site and the
result is a group of lots awkwardly proportioned and very irregular in shape.
He sees the existing plan, as far as being developed, as promoting the
scattering of homes over the entire property as the required building sites
are established, based on the proportion of the lots. As future owners may
add landscaping and fencing at boundary lines, the irregularity of the
existing lots would become more visually evident. The irregularities are not
visible at this time and are just lines on paper, but he sees, from
development considerations, an opportunity for this existing plan to become
more visually evident if the property is developed according to that plan.
Mr. Eichman said he feels another unfortunate aspect of this particular
plan is that it limits itself to creating multiple stream crossings for
driveways and access building sites from the existing road frontage. Given
these factors, he feels the new zoning, as requested, would "wipe this slate
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
M.B. 43, Pg. 246
clean" and provide an opportunity to create a new plan that addresses the
initial visual and environmental issues stated. He then gave examples.
Mr. Eichman said the possibility of additional lots, as referenced in
the staff report, relative to the new zoning, provides, in his opinion, the
financial flexibility for Mr. Clark to consider other aspects of developing
this property, such as architectural guidelines, a good site amenities program
for landscaping, fencing, site lighting, etc. When completed, all of these
things will visually contribute to the North Garden community, as opposed to
it being a potential detriment. His concern with implementing the existing
plan is that an opportunity will be lost to do the type of things he has
mentioned.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Eichman if he had any type of concept for
development. Mr. Eichman said at this time, he has not yet taken that step
because the applicant feels he first needs to know if, in fact, they will be
granted the opportunity to work with a different zoning classification that,
in turn, will effect how they go about creating a new development plan for the
property.
Mr. Eichman said marketing is another important issue. These existing
five plus acre lots, in his opinion, will produce combined home and lot values
in excess of $200,000, if sold and developed as the property is platted based
on the size of the lots. He feels strongly in having an opportunity to
include a mix of moderate and intermediate value properties where some could
be in the $85,000 to $125,000 range and, perhaps, none above the $200,000
range. This is another advantage to the new zoning, in that, there is an
opportunity to include smaller sized lots which will bring the lot value
portion of the ratio down and give an opportunity to accomplish this
possibility as well. Me does not feel that in this general location,
competition with a number of. other developments in the County of higher value
ranges should be done.
Mr. Leroy Yancey, President, Lee-Judd Development Corporation, partner
in this project with Mr. George Clark, said he would like to compliment the
Board on its hard work on the Comprehensive Plan. Everyone does not always
agree with the intent, however, in this case, it is easy to see the wisdom of
the County's planner, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
This site is in view of Red Hill School, close to Route 29 and within one mile
of fire protection, emergency medical service, a post office and the new
Crossroads complex. He asked where else would qualify as a village
residential community. As a community, North Garden is proud of its fire
department and first response team. The applicant's have talked with Mr.
Richard Spitler, Principal of Red Hill School, and Mr. Spitler said the school
is about 30 students short. There has been talk of adding students to Red
Hill School, but not because of growth in North Garden, but bussing them from
the outskirts of Charlottesville (mainly Redlands). The police department is
talking about a satellite station at the Crossroads and this is without this
development. The roads will be addressed by Mr. Gloeckner. From experience,
everyone knows that tolerable roads do not come until after development. To
the best of his knowledge, there have been only two roads improved in the
North Garden area within the last 40 years. Mr. Clark has lived in North
Garden for approximately 70 years and in 1980 he had this property subdivided
into the present substandard plan. That plan was platted for the future and
the future is now.
Mr. Yancey said the staff states in its report that it is favorable
because the application is in the growth area and approval means that growth
is not being accelerated, but is being concentrated which is what village
residential zoning is all about. Some people do not realize the aesthetic and
economical consequences of developing a sub-standard plan. The property is an
economic burden to Mr. Clark and development of some sort is inevitable. The
objecting neighbors, except for one or two, have moved to North Garden since
the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and, to his knowledge, only a couple of
the 16 adjacent property owners are objecting.
Mr. Yancey said it is time for Mr. Clark to let the property generate
$100,000 worth of tax revenues to the County. The applicant disagrees with
staff's final comment which states that the approval of ZMA-92-13 would have
no limitations. Approval of this request would have a number of limitations,
all of which are agreeable. The applicant would have Mr. E. L. Gooch, Soil
Scientist, determine whether the lot will accommodate a house, septic and
possibly a well. This is a limiting factor. The applicant would also have to
provide adequate water. The applicant cannot and will not attempt to build in
the flood plain or on slopes of more than 25 degrees and, this too, is a
limiting factor. Erosion must be controlled and there are many other limiting
factors. The proposed village would be controlled by an architectural review
committee and conditions which would make it an asset to the community and the
feed lot next to Mr. Simpson would be eliminated.
Mr. Yancey said regarding the water, the Comprehensive Plan states on
page 189 "verification of suitable water supply shall be required for
development proposals," and they did not feel that they were presenting that
proposal, but simply requesting a zoning change to village residential to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If this property were already zoned
village residential they would have a difficult time getting it zoned rural
agricultural because it would defy the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has
planned to get this property first rezoned, then verify~the adequate water
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
M.B. 43, Pg. 247
supply and design the village around the water. The applicant realized the
sequence of events needed to be changed and, since the Planning Commission
hearing, has verified adequate groundwater supply. Five wells have been
drilled which were picked by the Virginia Department of Health's Office of
Water from Lexington and there have been excellent results. The Commonwealth
of Virginia Uniform Water Well Completion Report was done by C. R. Moore and
Mr. Moore is present to verify the results. By state standards, there is
enough water for roughly 212 to 215 houses. He prefers to look at this as
having an adequate water supply for maximum development and equal backup
supply. Without drilling the sixth well site the Health Department Engineer
picked, there are 106 gallons per minute or 6360 gallons per hour for a total
of 152,000 gallons plus per day. According to the Office of Water Programs in
Lexington, 85 percent of the water that is expected from the ground would
return to the water tank. The property is such that there are two major cross
forks and when the wells were picked, the officials were sure that there would
be good water because of these two major cross forks running into what is
another major fork throughout the entire length of the property. Mr. David
Hirschman, County Water Resources Manager, paid the applicant's a compliment
on the phone about the wisdom of developing a village around the water instead
of trying to develop the water around the village. If a community well is
used, the applicant must get approval from this Board.
Mr. Yancey said Ms. Barbara Stubs, adjacent property owner, had planned
to be present but was unable to attend and gave him a letter to read regarding
this request. The letter stated that she does not object to the zoning change
to village residential and that affordable housing is needed in this area.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Yancey is saying that there is enough water
for a central water system if it is needed, but the intent is to develop
individual wells on individual lots. Mr. Yancey said "no," in drilling the
five wells, an adequate water supply was obtained for a central well system,
as well as enough water for a backup to the central system and almost a full
third backup central system. After testing for quality and quantity, they
will come back to the Board for a community well or private wells. At this
time, they feel they have satisfied the clause in the Comprehensive Plan
regarding verification of adequate groundwater.
Mr. Kirk Gloeckner, Gloeckner and Osborne, said he was present to
address the road issue and stream crossing. The roads in the area are non-
tolerable. Fortunately, Route 712 is in the Six Year Plan to be improved.
Route 712 runs the length of the property and is straight with a slight rise
in the middle and has good sight distance in both directions. Along Route 712
there are an infinite number of entrance positions. Leaving the development
with one entrance onto Route 712, if one travels north, the road splits and
gives two alternate routes. To the south, the same thing happens, the road
splits and there are two alternate routes to the south. Beyond the bridge,
the road splits again so there is a possibility of six directions in which to
leave this property. If this property is developed as village residential,
there will have to be an emergency entrance through the right-of-way. This
emergency entrance would give another two directions in which to leave the
property. The internal road system he sees as using contours. There will be
several major roads inside and cul-de-sacs where there are neighborhoods
within the village concept.
Mr. Gloeckner said the stream crossing was checked with the County's
Engineering Department and Water Resources Official and neither required that
data be submitted. He looked at the potential stream crossings. The stream
is deep, adjacent soils are well dry and there are no wetlands in the area
that they intend to cross. The structure is obvious. Upstream slightly is a
State highway bridge with steel gutters and a wood deck. More than likely
there would be concrete box culverts that would take more than the bridge
could carry at the present time. This bridge is 30 feet long and has an
average clearance span to the lower part of the beams of approximately eight
feet. He foresees box culberts of equal length, probably three, and a depth
of approximately 10 feet so as not to impact the flood plain.
Mr. Gloeckner said he would also like to address the village residential
concept. In the years when he served on the Planning Commission, they
struggled with a problem that is still present which he calls "rural sprawl."
That is where residents and homes are on large tracks and using land in a
hurry. The applicant's approach is to develop the village concept to provide
smaller lots, neighborhoods and communities to stop the "rural sprawl." This
piece of property is in the Comprehensive Plan with a village residential
recommendation, has all of the characteristics for a village residential
development, is the furthest downstream property and if this does not suit
village residential, he does not feel a property will be found.
Mr. Bowerman then opened the public hearing.
Ms. Raigh Eiley said she is present to speak on behalf of the majority
of landowners in the North Garden area. She distributed petitions signed by
more than 200 people, a majority of which are residents of North Garden.
Contrary from what the Board has been told, all but three of the 15 adjacent
landowners signed the petition. Everyone is familiar with the Code
requirements and County ordinances provided for notice. The notice indicates
to the public in the period of advertisement that the application and details
of the proposal are on file in the office of the County Executive and Planning
Department. She is concerned that things have been stated tonight that are
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) ~4.B.43, Pg. 248
(Page 13)
not in the county's files and have not been presented to the Board, she
assumes, having to do with wells, yields and tests. It bothers her that
people came to the Planning Commission with virtually no information. County
staff has virtually no information and, now, in the last 10 minutes, there
have been all of these serious problems solved and the public has not had an
opportunity to review, analyze or have their experts and witnesses look at the
data. The public feels the applicant is in error in coming to this meeting
without abiding by the rules to provide notice and information to the public.
The applicant and developer have waited for 50 years to develop this property
and it seems that an appropriate thing to do would be to wait until they have
"all of their ducks in a row" and make this request so there would have been
an intelligent conversation and everyone could have reviewed the information.
It seems the people concerned are present to fix an error that the applicant
made when this plat was filed, prior to the implementation of the 1980
rezoning. The owner of the property is stating that he made a mistake in
laying out 19 pipe stem lots and would like this Board to fix it by rezoning
to a category to allow 74 lots. The citizens submit that, before the night is
over, it may be as many as 112 lots. It has been suggested to the Board that
this is good planning. She disagrees with that statement as a basic premise
to this applicant's case. She respectfully requested, if necessary, that she
be given an opportunity to rebut at the close of the public hearing.
Ms. Ruth Rollins, resident of Route 710 in North Garden, said in the
1990 groundwater protection study prepared by the County Planning Department,
under the heading groundwater problems in Albemarle County, it is stated that
"a major concern is that groundwater quantity or quality problems may occur in
the rural areas or villages where no extension of public utilities is planned.
A specific example which must be addressed in the near future is the village
of North Garden, where proposed growth may be dependent on groundwater
supplies." Plans for the 200-acre acorn field rural preservation development
on Route 710 in North Garden have recently fallen through because of
insufficient water. She and her family live approximately one-quarter mile
from the proposed development in one of the oldest houses in the area. For
decades, their well, which is the second to be dug on the property, has
periodically run dry, sometimes due to drought, occasionally one too many
showers, even failing to jiggle the toilet handle. In order not to generalize
unfairly, she called and visited dozens of area residents to discuss the
nature of their water problems. A family on Route 760 draws one-half gallon
per minute and uses a second well to supplement their metered water supply.
Three homes use two wells all of the time to meet their needs. Even the Red
Hill School which is adjacent to the proposed development operates on two
wells which yield a combined total of only eight to 10 gallons per minute.
Several families found it necessary to drill a second well and even a third,
when the original well was exhausted. A nearby family, after their well went
dry for the second consecutive winter was forced to run a line to their
neighbors well. An elderly neighbor had to have a seventh well dug on her
property two years ago and another neighbor whose own well was sufficient, was
turned down by two different insurance companies due to "inadequate water in
the area." She was also told of a bank which was unwilling to finance
mortgages in North Garden for these same reasons. Everyone she spoke with
uses their water very cautiously and is extremely concerned about water
conservation in this sensitive area. According to a publication by the State
Water Control Board "heavy pumpage from one or several wells may cause such a
decline that water in nearby wells may be lowered below pump intakes. This
necessitates lowering pump intakes and often requires drilling the well deeper
or abandoning it altogether." Given all of this information and the fact that
the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) "does not consider central
groundwater systems to be a reliable permanent source of water for sizable
populations," she believes the concerns and fears of residents are well
founded. Since the residents have no recourse to public utilities, the
availability of groundwater is of utmost importance to the community of North
Garden. A smaller, well-conceived development might be comfortably
accommodated in this community, but a project of this density and scale could
have a devastating impact on the groundwater, as well as the other assets of
the area. Therefore, she requests that the Board reject this proposal.
Ms. Beth Reynolds, active community member and neighboring landowner to
the proposed development, said she owns a neighboring historic property known
as the Melony Homestead which was originally a log cabin. The Melony
Homestead was remodeled in 1818 when clapboard siding and a second story were
added. She attended the Planning Commission meeting and became concerned when
she deduced that a central well would be required because the lots would be so
small that they could not support individual wells and septic fields. She
moved here eight years ago from Washington state, where she saw first-hand the
problems that can be caused by the failure of a central well. She was
surprised to learn in the County's 1990 Groundwater Protection Study that West
Leigh, Westwood and Meriwether Hills Subdivision's were forced to connect with
the public water supply due to well yields that, although initially adequate,
proved to be inadequate over time. She asked if this development lacks water
in the future, how will it or the rest of North Garden Village be rescued.
Even if the County decided to go the great expense of building a reservoir for
this area, according to ACSA this reservoir would be contaminated by spraying
from nearby orchards. She asked that the Board draw its attention to a
memorandum dated 1988, accompanied by a utility study of the North Garden
area, written by the chief engineer of ACSA, which states, "the increased
population with corresponding water needs does not look optimistic for well
development due to expected low groundwater yields and reliability. One could
expect problems in North Garden, similar to those encountered in the
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
M.B. 43, Pg. 249
Lovingston area where wells decreased in flow with use. To encourage
development under such conditions would not appear to be in the best interest
of the County." In the various proffers that have come in since the Planning
Commission recommended denial of the rezoning and special use permits, the
applicant's attorney continues to refer to the 39 units. She asked that the
Board ask the attorney how he arrives at that figure because it was her
understanding that there were 20 lots on which 20 structures could be placed
which is far more than the nine or 10 lots which could be placed today on the
102 acre parcel in rural agricultural zoning. Without rezoning, the existing
development potential, may or may not occur depending on market forces. It
will certainly occur if this Board approves this rezoning and special use
application and will also increase traffic, water problems, environmental and
other interests.
A person who did not identify herself, said she is a land-use planner
with the firm of Braley and Associates~ The County's Comprehensive Plan
requires verification of suitable water supply and the planning staff has
responsibly upheld this requirement in correspondence with the applicants.
Despite multiple requests from the County, no water supply information has
been supplied to the County or for any review by citizens until this hearing
tonight. At the applicant's request, the County Engineer clearly defined the
procedures necessary to verify the adequacy of groundwater supply and there is
an administrative policy that describes the procedures for accessing water
supplies. By the administrative policy, 48 or 72 hour pumping tests are
required under the supervision of the County Engineer. She spoke to someone
in the County Engineer's office and was told that no one had been asked to
oversee or supervise a pumping test by the applicants. In addition, the
policy also outlines the procedures for evaluation of existing wells during
the test. She is not aware of any resident whose existing well was observed
during any kind of test for yield figures presented to the Board this evening.
The formation from which the North Garden residents draw their water and from
which any new residents would also draw water contains the groundwater in very
small spaces. A short duration pumping test may be artificially high, in that
it is pulling on the storage of the aquifer for a short period of time. The
only way to truly assess the yield of the aquifer is through a long duration
sustained pumping test and this will also give some indication of the possible
impact to existing wells in the area. As the applicant stated, the intent for
the water supply is not defined, along with a lot of other missing definitions
which the Board has been presented tonight. However, if this rezoning is
approved, as many as 79 individual wells may be constructed in this aquifer
with no consideration given to the existing well users or future water supply
of any newly constructed wells. She asked the Board to think carefully about
the possible obligations of Albemarle County in mitigating any potential
groundwater impacts from a development which does not fulfill the requirements
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. John Waring, resident of North Garden, retired airline pilot and
school bus driver for Albemarle County, said he took a bus through the curve
on Route 760 and the bus takes the entire road. He has experienced clipping
mirrors with other vehicles going through this curve. The road, in his
opinion, is very unfit for any type of traffic presently using it in the size
of buses, small trucks, farm vehicles, etc. There is no way of knowing what
is coming in the opposite direction. He does not see how additional houses,
people and traffic in this proposed development would do anything but become
more of a hazard.
Mr. John Messinger, resident and adjacent property owner to the proposed
project, made a slide presentation regarding the road conditions on Route 711.
He said the traffic averages well above 55 miles per hour, a one-lane bridge
exists on Route 712, the view to Route 29 south is restricted and there is
poor visibility. Traffic on Route 711 also reaches a 90 degree hill on a
curve which is blind to traffic from both directions. The roads are non-
tolerable and unsafe.
Ms. Ann Lineweaver Messina, resident of Route 760 in North Garden, said
the staff report, dated February 24, 1993, lists factors unfavorable to the
rezoning and special permit request. The applicant has chosen, at this time,
not to address these concerns: no plan of development has been provided to
indicate design, scale or scope of the proposal; roads fronting the site are
currently non-tolerable; verification of adequate groundwater has not been
provided; impact to sensitive environmental areas is unknown; the number of
locations of entrances is unknown; and, the impact on the flood plain by the
stream crossing is unknown. By not addressing these issues the applicant is
not keeping with the spirit of responsible land use. This action could pose a
potential threat to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of North
Garden and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Supporting the necessity for review,
in this case, is the sensitive environmental and historic areas involved.
This site contains sensitive soils, critical slopes, a major stream valley
with adjacent critical slopes, part of a surveyed historic site and is boarded
by at least two historic properties. These designations are found in the
North Garden inventory maps and composite map of the Open Space Plan adopted
by the Board in July, 1992. Cooperation and communication in a review process
has a valid function in implementing the Open Space Plan. As noted in the
staff report called "residential rezoning requests reviewed since 1980 have
been accompanied by proffers for development, design, scope and scale, most of
which included proffered plans." She is concerned about the precedent these
two requests would set for future development in North Garden and Albemarle
County. She supports the staff's recommendation to deny these requests.
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B. 43, Pg. 250
(Page 15)
Mr. Joe Garofalo, resident of Indian Hill across from Route 711 and
member of North Garden Fire Fighting Company, gave a slide presentation of
what the proposed area looks like when it rains. The slides showed the amount
of runoff in the flood plains, Route 760 during a three to four inch rainfall
covered by water, road closed by VDoT, and VDoT's crew trying to drain Route
712 and open a clearing to get water off. He is not against development in
the North Garden area, however, he believes that this site and the proposed
density are inappropriate. Mr. Yancey is in error regarding the feelings of
the adjacent property owners. Almost all of the adjacent property owners are
very much against the proposed development.
Ms. Ann Smith, resident of North Garden for 36 years, said her property
is adjacent to the proposed development. She supports the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny the applicant's request. She has spoken with many
of the residents in the area, all of whom have lived in the area for at least
20 years. She distributed a letter from Virginia Mays and Kathleen Newbarr
who were born, raised and lived on the May's family farm in the North Garden
community for almost 80 years each. They, too, express opposition to this
proposed zoning request. She is also aware of other long-term residents who
have signed a petition opposing the rezoning request presented. Many of the
people who signed the petition were unable to come to this public hearing
because they do not drive at night. She speaks for those people as well, in
requesting that the Board of Supervisors deny the request for rezoning. The
North Garden community has requested that she present a petition containing
220 names to the Board. Also, when reviewing this petition, the Board will
see that the majority of the 16 adjacent landowners have signed the petition
opposing the rezoning request, including a faxed letter from a landowner who
lives in Washington, D.C. She then distributed the petition to the Board (on
file).
Mr. Thomas Carter, resident of Taylors Gap Road in North Garden, said
one of the few points staff was able to cite in favor of this application is
that the site is located in the village of North Garden, but the mere fact of
this does not, in itself, entitle a landowner to have his or her property
rezoned. Each application should be considered on its own merits and only
when all valid concerns have been addressed should a rezoning request be
granted. The Board has heard arguments tonight from members of a group
opposing the proposed request, suggesting that it is hard to imagine a worst
place than North Garden to put a village residential development. He asked
the Board to consider that this would be the first such development of its
kind in the area. He asked the Board to imagine the precedent this would set.
He said the Board would be sending a message to future developers that they
can get rezoned VR in North Garden without providing even the minimum of
information to allow the Planning Department to review the request. A clear
signal would be sent that even the most ill-conceived, incomplete rezoning
application has a chance at the Board of Supervisors' level without having to
demonstrate that the land, water or road can carry it.
Mr. Thomas Carter said as the Board is well aware, the Comprehensive
Plan itself is scheduled for review this year. The Board may have heard that
the Planning Commission, at its February 23, 1993 meeting, has already begun
to hear strong evidence from a large number of North Garden residents that the
village designation is not appropriate for this community with its history of
water problems. He asked why else North Garden would be the only village in
the Comprehensive Plan where "verification of suitable water supply shall be
required for development proposals." There is no wonder why such verification
still has not been provided by the applicant. He strongly believes that a
mistake was made in targeting North Garden for village growth without a
thorough study of its ability to carry this growth. It is simply
incomprehensible that the boundaries of North Garden's water poor area
continue to expand, while other villages in the County are dropped. He asked
that the Board remember that the applicant has already had tremendously good
fortune in obtaining similar subdivision rights just weeks before adoption of
the more restrictive Zoning Ordinance of 1980. Not many landowners in the
area can boast of the luxury of a 100-acre parcel, already platted into 20
lots of five acres each. Clearly, a lot of sympathy should be felt for the
development potential which already exists without rezoning. He said there
are several things that can be done with this property that would be both
appropriate and financially rewarding, without rezoning, i.e., rural
preservation.
Mr. Thomas Carter said he is not opposed to growth in North Garden or
residential development, but is opposed to a large-scale development on an
inappropriate site where there is a very wide flood plain, critical slopes,
the likelihood of finding a continuously adequate water supply for a
population of the proposed size is remote at best, and where the roads already
are very hazardous even with the limited traffic which currently exists. He
asked the Board to imagine the increased danger when this traffic is
quadrupled due to the 39 units which the owner says he will build before the
road improvements are scheduled in 1996. A plan has still not been submitted
to indicate the design or scale of this development and this Board is being
asked to approve a "pig in a poke." It is hard to imagine what compelling
reasons one could have for doing anything but supporting the carefully
considered recommendations of the Planning Department and the recommendation
of the Planning Commission to deny these requests. He respectfully urged this
Board to deny these requests.
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 251
(page 16)
Mr. David Van Roijen said what he has heard ms a developer (a farmer who
has given up farming), land planner and attorney present a plan which he
believes is out of touch with the whole neighborhood of North Garden. The
applicant says the existing zoning is terrible, that may be true, but this
Board should not be asked to accept something that could be worse. He feels
the applicant should try and replan what is already there. The applicant
mentioned a road which will not be improved until 1996 and he feels the
project should have to wait until that time. There should not be plans for
services when it is still unknown whether VDoT will actually be able to fund
improvements to this road in 1996. Central wells will create problems which
the County will eventually have to maintain. A well-known developer like Mr.
Yancey should know better than to present a plan like this which is only half
complete. He does not know why the applicants are in a hurry to begin this
project when they have already waited 50 years to try and develop this
property. He does not feel there will be any harm if a couple of years are
taken to allow sound planning and a plan were to come forth that the whole
neighborhood could appreciate, enjoy and which would fit with the North Garden
community. He does not feel this request has been planned at all. He
respectfully requested that the Board deny these requests.
Mr. David Franzen, attorney and partner with the firm of Feil, Deinlein,
Pettit & Williams, said his firm has on occasion done work for Mr. Yancey. He
is not appearing this evening on behalf of Mr. Yancey but is speaking on
behalf of himself, his wife and his daughter. He is a resident of North
Garden and lives on Route 712 across from this proposal. He said the proposal
is not about development versus no development in North Garden because
development already exists. The discussion tonight is not about the wisdom of
the Comprehensive Plan, what the development will look like, where the roads
will go, how much water is available, or anything about this development.
This is not what the Board of Supervisors is about and this is not the issue
this Board has confronting it. The request is for a rezoning which is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The choice this Board has is: 1) a
substandard subdivision already in place with a theoretical maximum of 39
units; or, 2) rezoning which offers the possibility of a cohesive, consistent,
planned community. This applicant is not presenting a development plan, but
is requesting a rezoning. This Board does not give up positive control by
approving this request. A subdivision plan, roads, placement of drain fields
will have to be approved by this Board and there will have to be water. The
Board is being asked to rid this County of a subdivision plan already of
record and which could be developed. Mr. Franzen said he lives across the
road and is terrified of what Mr. Clark can do by-right with the current
zoning. What is important and special about North Garden is its sense of
community. These are very emotional issues and he feels people of good will
and good judgement can speak on either side of this rezoning request. Density
and roads are a concern, but in his view, the benefits to be offered by the
rezoning are the potential of doing better and not the guarantee that better
will be done, but a guarantee that no worse will be done and all of the
concerns that the community has voiced will be dealt with on a step-by-step
basis as required by law. This Board will maintain positive control because
the vital issues will be brought back before this Board. He does not want
this issue to become divisive. He wants the sense of community to prevail.
The approval of this request by the Board does not end the debate, but begins
it, which is appropriate.
Mr. Ronald Harvey, resident of Route 710, owner of three acres of land
in Covesville, said he is attuned to groundwater aspects and the lay of land
and site locations. His residence is close to Red Hill School and the site of
the proposed development. His home has an artisian well with 15 gallons per
minute and his neigb_bor has a 40 gallon per minute well. He feels this
depends upon where your residence is located in North Garden. Mr. Yancey has
illuded to the fact of his findings. As far as roads, the slides showed what
southern Albemarle County has a problem with. He urged the Board to look at
the roads in Albemarle County. One nice thing about this proposal is that it
is in eyeshot of Red Hill School, bordered by churches and the children will
be nurtured by the community. Most elementary schools in Albemarle County are
near subdivisions. Red Hill Elementary School is one of the best elementary
schools in the County and the area of the proposed development needs
affordable housing. He urged the Board to approve this proposal.
Mr. Steve Clark, resident of North Garden, said 10 years ago he was one
of the few people against making North Garden part of the residential village
community. At that time, there was very little opposition, but the door has
now been opened in North Garden. He would like to see this development, if
granted, done properly. He does not like the plan which was presented to the
Board tonight. He would like to see this plan corrected and made more
pleasing and aesthetic to the North Garden community. If there is going to be
development in North Garden, he would rather that it be done by local
developers who have been a part of the community and are concerned about the
area. The cost of development in Albemarle County is very high. He would
rather have more density, within reason, than sacrifice quality. He would
also rather have a well-planned and well-constructed development, even if it
means a few more houses, then to have unsightly houses and driveways with no
covenants and restrictions.
Mr. Will Riley, resident of North Garden, Route 710, said he is
sympathetic to the rezoning application for several reasons. The higher
density required in the rezoning application is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and could lead to a better organization of the property
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 252
(Page 17)
than the existing subdivision. The rezoning will help to consolidate new
housing into a location with good proximity to the school, fire house and
stores. The smaller lot size will help provide owner-occupied housing
opportunities to many who simply cannot afford the two, five and twenty-one
acre parcels which RA zoning produces. The increased density will generate
revenues for more public and semi-public amenities than would the existing
zoning. He is also sympathetic to the request because it is proposed by
lifetime residents who have a deep interest in the welfare of the community.
His concerns about the rezoning hedge on the degree to which the applicants
are willing to make assurances through proffers about how the rezoning,
ultimately, will affect the community. He knows the Board cannot require
proffers as a condition of rezoning, but he can suggest them as a resident and
as a means to answer general concerns of neighbors. He then stated some
questions which could be answered through additional proffers: 1) How will
the flood plain be created, will it become open space or parts of individual
lots? 2) How will critical slopes be addressed as part of the overall plan?
3) What are the total number of lots proposed? 4) Will the development be
served by a water system or individual wells? 5) Will sidewalks or trails be
a part of the plan? 6) Will any recreation areas be provided? 7) Will there
be trees on the streets and roads? and; 8) How many and where will the public
and private entrances to the existing state roads be located?
The questions stated have not yet been answered, however, the residents
insist that such relevant questions be addressed. If this rezoning is simply
denied, it will likely result in a development of the property along the lines
of the existing subdivision which is a "mess" and in no ones best interest.
If the Board approves the rezoning with the limited proffers offered by the
applicants, it could result in the maximum density allowable under the zoning,
a configuration that is limited only by the requirements of the subdivision
ordinance, and amenities which could help mitigate the effects of additional
houses in the neighborhood. If, however, the Board refers this matter back to
the Planning Commission with a suggestion that the applicants clarify how they
will address these important questions, he believes it will send a clear
signal that greater specificity is required for approval. From this process
will come a more definite proposal to satisfy the community and the applicants
will also profit.
Mr. Roy Clark, resident of North Garden, said it took him 20 years to
find a lot he could afford in North Garden. In 1978, he applied for and had a
subdivision built and it is full. He had additional land behind the
subdivision and now only has one plot left. He said approximately 80 percent
of the residents of North Garden speaking tonight, have moved there within the
least 15 to 20 years. Prior to that time, there was not any land available.
If these people do not want the growth, he does not understand why they moved
to North Garden.
Mr. Bill Moyer, civil engineer and resident of North Garden, said he
supports the comments made by Mr. Franzen and Mr. Harvey. He supports the
rezoning, primarily for the purposes of affordable housing and the inadequacy
of the current zoning and plan of the property.
Mr. Bowerman then said the Board will allow the applicants, or their
representatives, five minutes to speak to the comments made, as well as Ms.
Raigh Eiley.
Mr. Richard Carter said regarding the problems of roads, the roads will
be there whether this rezoning is approved or not and whether the development
is or is not done. The roads were non-tolerable before, during and after
whatever this Board decides to do tonight. They were told that the roads will
be improved in 1997 and the applicant has made a proffer not to construct
anymore units than what can currently be constructed with current zoning until
1996. This was done to try and tie in with the road situation. Regarding the
water, Mr. Yancey mentioned the number of wells that were drilled, the amount
of water found. Regarding the information not being given until a certain
length of time, information is given as it is received. The opposition is
that the Comprehensive Plan says verification of water for a development
proposal and this is not a development proposal, but the applicants are
showing cooperation with staff by drilling the wells. If the applicant is to
have a central water system, that request will have to come before the Board
and a permit must be issued.
Mr. Carter said a comment was made regarding an error made by the
applicant in 1980 when this property was rezoned and the applicant is
requesting that this Board correct that error. He feels anyone who remembers
1980 and what was happening regarding the subdivision ordinance knows that the
mistake was made by the County. The County then realized its mistake and
corrected it by no longer allowing this type of subdivision. This mistake was
grandfathered and this Board now has the chance to correct that mistake. He
asked the Board to approve this proposal for rezoning and the special use
permit for the stream crossing.
Ms. Eiley said the worst idea she ever heard presented before the Board
of Supervisors to support a rezoning was terror and fear of what was currently
on the books. She sympathizes with Mr. Franzen's position and understands his
concerns, but that is simply not a cognizant reason for this Board to consider
what has truly been shown to be a "pig in a poke." This is a rezoning based
on just being a rezoning and there are no plans or details with the request.
To say that an applicant can rush in and file a pipestem plan a couple of
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) ~4.B. 43, Pg. 253
(Page 18)
weeks before new rules are put into place and then come before the Board and
have people say they must support it because they are terrified of what will
happen if it is developed the way it is currently zoned is not a cognizant
reason for approval. Mr. Clark has admitted that he has a problem with the
arrangement and will have to make some changes to develop the existing by-
right development opportunities, but those can be worked out and there are
things he can do. In 1970, the County's Comprehensive Plan went into effect
and in it, it states that there has to be assurances of adequate water. The
applicant knew this in 1980 when he filed the plat and that is not
justification for a rezoning. Now that there has been a public hearing and
the citizens have spent a tremendous amount of time and money dealing with all
of this, the applicants are asking that it be referred back to the Planning
Commission. It is not realistic to send this request back to the Planning
Commission and start this process all over again. The applicants could have
had this request deferred tonight to get all of the information together and
presented, but chose not to. She asked that the Board consider the evidence
it has heard in hard data and not just in vague representations.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowerman thanked everyone for their presentations and said he
appreciates their stamina.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Lenny Moore, C.R. Moore Well Drilling Co., if the
wells drilled on this property are adequate for the development proposed by
the applicants. Mr. Moore said the wells have been drilled and tested to a
certain extent, but have not been tested to meet the County requirements (48
hour flow test). That test was not done because it would not have been
recognized unless an engineer from the County had been present. That process
could not have been done until the request came to the Board of Supervisors.
The wells have been fl°w tested approximately four hours each with the well
drilling machine. To the best of his knowledge, the wells appear to be
producing the rate of water stated by Mr. Yancey. He has the water well
completion reports, a State form that has to be completed by the well driller
saying that to the best of his ability what gallonage the wells are producing.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Moore's professional opinion is that these wells
would support the type of development being proposed. Mr. Moore said the
wells will produce in excess of 75 to 100 gallons per minute combined. Mr.
Marshall asked how many houses that will support. Mr. Moore said under State
and County standards, wells producing up to 100 gallons per minute will
provide one-half gallon per minute per connection. This, in theory, would
supply over 200 houses with ample storage under State and local standards.
Mrs. Humphris said she needs clarification on the ramifications
surrounding a central well system if approved, the Service Authority's
position, and future requirements for testing under federal regulations. She
also asked what the implications of cost to current water users would be. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Service Authority is not encouraging central wells and by
its resolution recommended that they be given the opportunity to review and
approve central systems when those came to the County in application,
particularly in those cases where they may, at some time, need to bring such a
system into its overall operational system. There is very extensive testing
requirements that are now instituted as part of the last reauthorization of
the Clean Water Act which will be much more expensive than in the past.
Central well systems are subject to Board of Supervisor approval now under the
County Code with recommendations as to technicalrequirements and conditions
by the Engineering Department. As the applicant has stated, any appliCation
would have to come through and, in addition, there would have to be fifty or
more connections to be considered a public utility. The central well system
would also have to be reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board wanted to act on this petition tonight
or if it would like to defer. He feels if this is going to be deferred it
should be done early and the questions it wants answered clearly stated. Mr.
Martin said he has not heard any reason to defer this discussion.
Mr. Marshall said Mr. David Franzen made a statement that this Board is
just to consider a rezoning of this property. He said the water was a concern
to him and Mr. Moore has answered his questions concerning that. He asked if
the water is pertinent to the request before the Board tonight and what is the
Board's legal obligation to the applicant and the opponents to this request.
Mr. Bowerman said, as he understands it, the question that the people in the
audience disagree on is whether the adequacy of water is an issue that should
be addressed at the time of rezoning or at the time of subdivision plat and
development. If individual Board members feel that the concern about water
adequacy outweighs moving forward with this until that question has been
answered, then, they have the right to deny or defer this application; if
individual Board members feel to the contrary, they have the right to vote to
rezone this property. Mr. Bowerman said there are certain conditions in the
ordinance regarding the plat for the subdivision which deal with the planning
aspects of what the applicant will have to do when the subdivision is
recorded. There are State and County requirements for a central well system
that have to be met. There is a lot of information that would have to be
furnished at a subsequent step in this process.
Mr. St. John said he disagreed with Mr. Franzen's statement that even
though the Board may grant this rezoning, it maintains as much control later
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) k4.B. 43, Pg. 254
(Page 19)
as it currently has. The density of village residential will become by-right
to the developer the minute the property is rezoned. This Board will not have
nearly as much control once the land is rezoned. Furthermore, the State Code,
on the purposes of zoning ordinances and what should be considered in zoning
cases, includes adequacy of water as a consideration at the time of a
rezoning. He does not feel this Board should wait until a subdivision plat is
before it to consider the water issue. If water adequacy is an important
issue to this request, the Board should deal with it now rather than later.
Mr. Martin asked if a central well were used, would the request come
back to the Board. Mr. Bowerman said the question of a central well approval
would come back to the Board. The subdivision approved remains with the
Planning Commission unless the Board were to choose to hear it. Mr. Martin
asked if the Board could choose to hear it. Mr. Bain said "yes," but it would
only be administrative and would not be legislative at that point. Mr.
Bowerman said flexibility would be lost and if the conditions of the ordinance
were met, it could not be denied unless the applicants were told how to
correct the reasons indicated for denial.
Mr. Cilimberg said the way the County Code is written on the central
utility, the Board is not making a judgement of whether there is adequate
water or not, but simply a judgement that the technical aspects'have been met
according to the Engineering Department review and the Board agrees to allow
the central utility. The question of whether there is or is not adequate
water would not be reopened during consideration of the central utility
according to the County Code.
Mr. Bain said North Garden is a community and no matter what decision is
made tonight, there are people on both sides who believe strongly that it is
or is not a good thing. He read the Planning Commission minutes and listened
to the people who have looked at whether this development proposal should be
part of the Plan. This Board discussed this issue during discussions of the
Comprehensive Plan in 1987, 1988 and 1989. The issue was somewhat analogous
when the Board had the 3:3 vote on the Crozet Crossing Project and Mr. Perkins
and Mrs. Humphris both made comments that it is in the Comprehensive Plan
which is a 20 year plan. Most of the comments at that time related to the
traffic that Jarmans Gap Road could sustain. This was an issue and it was a
rightful determination and the Supreme Court, even though this Board split on
a 3:3 vote, disagreed and said that this could not be done. In that
particular case, water was not an issue because public water was available to
the property. When both requests are tied together, it creates problems. He
does not feel that this Board has to make a decision tonight if it makes sense
and there is willingness to address some of the issues raised, particularly
issues Mr. Riley commented about. This Board cannot require proffers, but
does have proffers, and he feels there is a legitimate attempt in those
proffers to address some, if not all, of the issues that staff and the
citizens have raised. His inclination is to defer this item to get specific
answers to the questions and issues raised. If the rezoning is voted on
tonight, given all of the parameters and arguments both pro and con, he would
not be able to support the request. He is distinguishing the rezoning from
the stream crossing and wants to discuss and review these separately.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Bain which questions he would like answered. Mr.
Bain said the number of lots and information on the draw downs of the testing
of wells, beyond where they are at this point.
Mr. Bowerman said after listening to the discussions tonight, he concurs
with Mr. Bain's comments because significant issues have been raised that he
feels need answers, even though it is not specifically required under all
interpretations of what the Board is requested to do.
Mr. Richard Carter asked if the information would come back to the Board
without another public hearing. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the issues when
brought back would require the public hearing to be reopened. He feels there
needs to be some type of rudimentary development plan showing at least some
concept of the lots and access, and more definitive information on the water
questions in terms of draw down, and engineering input from the County. In
this case, the Board would ask, as part of the application, the County
Engineer to review part of the process.
Mrs. Humphris said she, too, concurs with Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowerman.
This Board does not have any idea of the scope of this proposed development.
She feels this Board would be wrong if it were to go forward with the rezonin9
knowing nothing about the implications, most particularly the water, given the
message in a memo from the Albemarle County Service Authority about the
possibility of high levels of iron and manganese in that water. She did not
ask Mr. Moore about this because she assumed that he has not dealt with that
in this particular situation.
Mr. Perkins said he feels there are a lot of financial questions
concerning this project. He prefers that this Board get answers to the
questions, but if he had to vote on the project tonight he would support it.
He thinks the free enterprise system takes care of the concerns and feels Mr.
Clark and Mr. Yancey are going to develop the best product they can. If
limited by water, then that will limit the number of houses that can be built.
He feels all rezonings are different. Mr. Perkins said Mr. Bain mentioned the
example of rezoning in Crozet which was a R-6 zoning and there were lots as
small as 8000 square feet. There is a lot of difference between 8000 square
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) ~4.B. 43, Pg. 255
(Page 20)
feet and an acre. His concern with the Crozet request was the amount of run-
off that would be created because so much of that site was going to be paved
by roads and streets to serve the houses built. He feels it all comes back to
the individuals involved and what type of product will be created. If a
"sorry" product is created, there will probably not be any purchasers. To
make this request go forward, any proffer would probably be for no more than
the number of units the applicant now has by-right until there is proof that
there is adequate water. This would allow the applicant to proceed with the
project after proof is given.
Mrs. Humphris said she is confused. This Board may be dealing with
small lots which would require a central well system. This presents a major
problem as to whether or not this Board should approve the rezoning request.
There are many implications to the County for the future of a central well
system. Mr. Bowerman said he does not feel that what the Board is asking the
applicant to do would answer Mrs. Humphris' questions, Mrs. Humphris said she
has a grave concern because she cannot see the current public water users
having to support running a line to serve other users as was done at West
Leigh. There are extraordinary costs involved and this Board does not know if
this rezoning is approved if this would happen. The water users are the ones
who woUld have to assume this burden. She feels this Board has to be very
careful about the future burden that may be placed on these water uSers.
Mr. Bain said his concern is if the water will survive this'development
with the draw downs that are required by the process. This will help him make
a decision as part of the other plans for development. Mrs. Humphris said she
wants everyone to understand the potential problems a central well system has
on the public users in Albemarle County.
Mr. Martin said he understands Mrs. Humphris' point, but also realizes
that this Board may be asking the applicants for more burden than they are
willing to accept. The applicants need to decide from what has been heard
from their neighbors, residents and this Board, how much information they are
willing to bring back before too much of a burden is assumed.
Mr. Bowerman said either the applicant can agree to provide the
information the Board feels it needs before voting on this issue or they can
request that a decision be made.
Mr. Bain then made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer ZMA-92-13,
to March 17, 1993, to address the concerns regarding the lack of a development
plan, and water quantity. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Cilimberg, regarding the special use permit and
stream crossing where the location is and what the applicants have proffered.
He also asked if there is any other information without doing a complete
design of the facility that will make any difference at this point. Mr.
Cilimberg said one thing proffered that was not in the condition of the
special use permit was the location. He feels this should be a condition of
the special use permit. This proffer has no standing at the current time
because the Board has chosen to defer action on the zoning map amendment. If
the Board is satisfied, the technical aspects can be addressed during later
review by the Engineering Department. The other question that needs to be
addressed is where the stream crossing will be located, and/or how many
crossings there will be. The proffer, related to the zoning, was that the
stream crossing would be on the boundary of subdivision plat lot six and seven
or on the southern most side of lot seven. If the Board feels this needs to
be included as a condition, it has the option to do so.
Mr. Bain said if the Board takes action, no matter what is done with the
rezoning request, the applicant would be granted one stream crossing under
current zoning on the property. He asked if the applicant would have to come
before this Board again for any other stream crossings. Mr. Cilimberg said a
condition would have to be included that approval is for one stream crossing
only at the specified location. Mr. Bain asked why this requirement is in the
ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said he is not certain of the history of flood plain
stream crossings and why this is in the ordinance as special use, but Board
review has been based on two considerations. First, the Engineering
Department's review of the proposal for its engineering adequacy (ability to
pass one hundred year flood) and the fact that it has been designed to do
that. Secondly, whether there was an alternative to that stream crossing
(another access to the property) or whether a specific stream crossing should
be designated to provide for crossing by more than one parcel.
Mr. Bowerman said another factor considered was whether it is adequate
during low water and whether a canoe could be put on the water. Mr. Cilimberg
said the Board has, in the past, considered whether it is a trap stream and
whether there is any impact on the stream. Mr. Bowerman said one concern
raised was the floodway and part of the engineering information criteria is if
the structure cannot raise the level of water upstream more than a certain
amount, nor can it restrict the floodway. There are certain technical
requirements that must be dealt with which would deal with the concerns raised
tonight.
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
M.B. 43, Pg. 256
Mr. Bain said in terms of Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance,
Engineering Design, those requirements have to be met whether the request does
or does not come to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said there is more than one way
to meet the technical engineering requirements. In some cases, the Board has
had a couple of alternatives, one which engineering or the watershed
management official have been supportive of. This has been one of the reasons
this kind of review has remained in the special use permit category. Staff
has not reviewed any information regarding deleting this requirement from the
ordinance.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-93-02 for
one stream crossing to serve this property subject to four conditions (set out
below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs~ Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Department of Engineering approval of hydraulic analysis of
the stream crossing to ensure compliance with Section 30.3;
2 o
Department of Engineering approval of grading plans and
calculations;
3 o
Water Resource Management Official approval of Water
Resource Impact Assessment; and
Identification of the location of the stream crossing as
shown on subdivision plat showing Lots 1-19 of the George W.
Clark property, Samuel Miller Magisterial District, dated
November 28, 1980, as prepared by Wm. Morris Foster, Land
Surveyor and Land Planner, and initialed VWC on March 10,
1993, with said stream crossing to be located at the
boundary line of lot six and seven on that plat.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-93-01. Public Hearing on a request to amend
Section 33.10.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to consider zoning
text amendment petitions by property owners at specified intervals of three
months. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 23, 1993, and March 2,
1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The Board
adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend Section 33.10.2 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance to consider zoning text amendment petitions by
property owners at specified intervals of three months.
Staff recommends the Board adopt an ordinance to consider zoning text
amendment petitions by property owners at specified intervals of three months.
Staff feels this interval will be more responsive to public need, will not
adversely affect the ordinance and can be managed in the work program of the
Department of Planning and Community Development.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February
18, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-93-01.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
There being no one from the public to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt an ordinance
(set out below) to amend Section 33.10.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to consider zoning text amendment petitions by property owners at
specified intervals of three months. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 33.10.2 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance be amended and reenacted to read as
follows:
33.10 SCHEDULE OF REVIEW
33.10.2
The board of supervisors shall consider zoning text
amendment petitions by property owners at specified
intervals of three (3) months. Hearing times in
accord with such intervals shall be established by
resolution of the board of supervisors during the
month of January of each calendar year following
enactment of this ordinance, and said resolution shall
be published at least once per week for two
M.B.
257
March 10, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) f~.
(Page 22)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in Albemarle County.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Draft Recommendations for 1993-94
Spring Preallocation Hearing for the Six-Year Improvement Program for the
Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems.
There was a consensus of the Board that this item be deferred to March
17, 1993.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: September 2 and November 11,
1992; and January 13, 1993.
Mr. Marshall read the minutes of September 2, 1992, pages 1 - 14, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Bain read the minutes of January 13, i993, pages 1 - 10, and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins read the minutes of September 2, 1992, pages 14 - end, and
found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris read the minutes of November 11, 1992, pages 25 - end, and
handed a list of typographical errors to the Clerk.
Mr. Marshall made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the minutes
of September 2 (complete set), and November 11, 1992, pages 25 to end, and
January 13, 1993 pages 1 - 10. Roll was called and motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Martin said he would like to add a discussion on a Grass and Weed
Ordinance to the Board's agenda on March 17, 1993. It Seems that there is
strong interest in such an ordinance.
Mr. Cilimber9 said when the Board is thinking about the highway
preallocation hearing comments, he has a specific request from Mr. Huja,
verbally, that on the enhancement project list the City's interests be
considered for enhancement projects to cover the Amtrak train station,
preservation of the building and infrastructure.
Mr. Bowerman said that is in the recommendation and City Council has
also communicated that desire to him so he could voice that same comment.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are also three particular bicycle routes that
have been discussed at PACC-Tech which are: Rugby Road and McCormick Road,
Alderman Road to Jefferson Park Avenue to SunSet Avenue and along both Old Ivy
Road and new Ivy Road. He wanted to mention these to the Board so they were
aware of them when considering the list.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn to March 15, 1993, at 1:00 P.M.
At 12:04 a.m., Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to
adjourn to March 15, 1993, at 1:00 p.m. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Chairman