1992-07-15M.B. 42, Pg. 49
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 15, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., Auditorium, 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. The meeting was called to order ak 7:03 p.m. by the
Chairman, Mr~ Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. Edward Strauss came forward and requested accounting of what the
E-911 system costs and the cost of putting up the road signs. He also asked if
all the information in the data base will remain confidential.
Mr. Tucker commented that all the financial information is on file in the
Planning Department and that it is available to the public. All of the'other
information is confidential and will not be released to the general public. At
the request of the Board, Mr. Tucker said he would prepare a total accounting of
the E-911 costs.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Item 5.4, and to accept the remaining items on
the consent agenda as information. There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris,
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Item 5.1. Copy of Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and
Expenditures for the Year Ended June 30, 1991, as prepared by the State Auditor
of Public Accounts, was received for information.
Item 5.2.
information.
Financial Management Report for May, 1992, was received for
Item 5.3. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for July 7, 1992~ was
received for information.
Item 5.4. Resolution requesting that Berkmar Drive Extended in Rio Hills
Shopping Center be taken into the State Secondary System of Highways. (In a
letter dated July 13, 1992, Mr. Robert T. Smith, Smith/Lebo, Inc., on behalf of
Rio Hill Assoc. Charlottesville Limited Partnership, requested the existing
Berkmar Drive behind Rio Hill Shopping Center be taken into the state highway
system. This section of road runs from Woodbrook Drive south to the county's new
extension currently under construction.) The following resolution was adopted
by the vote shown above:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229,
the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested
to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
.following road in Rio Hills Shopping Center:
Berkmar Drive Extended
Beginning at Station 88+14, a point at the terminus of the
constructed curb and gutter, thence in a northerly direction
for 1231 feet to station 100+45, just north of the
intersection of Berkmar Drive Extended and Woodbrook Drive
Extended.
M.B. 42, Pg. 50
July 15, 1992 (Regul'ar Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 60 foot unobstructed right-
of-way and drainage easements along this requested addition as
recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 985, pages 698, 709 and 731; and Deed
Book 1164, page 376.
Agenda Item No. 6. Presentation of Plaque: Southwest Mountains Historic
District.
Mr. Hugh Miller, Director of State Historic Resources, congratulated the
County Board of Supervisors and staff for their interest and encouragement to
survey and register the Southwest Mountains rural district. He also thanked the
property owners, the Piedmont Environmental Council, the consultants' Land and
Community Associates who organized and completed this comprehensive work by
talking together, by explaining and understanding the process of making a
landmark and the meaning of this designation. For example, a lot of the
controversies that have been seen in other parts of Virginia were avoided in this
case. By designation of the district, the landscape of a cultural, scenic and
historic asset has been defined. The value has been defined for the owners, for
the officials who make land use decisions, for other residents, for other
Virginians and for visitors. This place has the feeling of Virginia. The
nomination of this landmark identified potential historic sites now gone,
patterns, early settlements and roads, continuing occupation of the land with
buildings of note, individually and collectively vernacular building and small
settlements. This place is about people, events, places, things, buildings and
landscapes. It is about feeling, culture and association as it applies to
history.
Mr. Miller said the Southwest Mountains rural historic district is a
different kind of resource. It is defined not by its buildings, but by the
spaces between the buildings. This country-side is a visual and scenic asset.
It embodies ideas, feelings and assocfations with the past. This landmark
designation defines what is historically significant, why it is significant and
where it is located. The Department of Historic Resources hopes to continue this
partnership, it hopes to shape a vision for Virginia's historic landscapes and,
together, to learn and grow smartly.
Mr. Miller said he is presenting this plaque as a token of partnership.
The Department of Historic Resources looks forward to continuing its partnership
with the County and the owners.
Mr. Martin accepted the plaque on behalf of the citizens in the Southwest
Mountains Historical District in the Rivanna District. He gave the award to Mr.
Bowerman (Chairman) so that it can be displayed in a prominent place in the
Rivanna District. He also thanked Mr. Miller, the Department of Historic
Resources, the Piedmont Environmental Council, Jeff Odell and Julia Vosmik.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-91-57. First Gold Leaf Trust/United Land Company.
(Deferred from March 18, 1992.)
Mr. Martin made motion and Mrs. Humphris seconded to refer SP-91-57 back
to the Planning commission, at the request of staff.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. P~blic Hearing: An amendment to the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan to be know as the OPEN SPACE AND CRITICAL RESOURCE PLAN.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 7, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave a brief summary of the amendment of the Open Space and
Critical Resource Plan. He then presented the following questions and answers
regarding the plan:
What is open space?
The Comprehensive Plan defines open space as "Land or water left in
undisturbed natural condition and unoccupied by building lots,
structures, streets, or parking lots." The intent of open space is
to serve varied Comprehensive Plan objectives:
Protection of natural, scenic, and historic resources,
including agricultural and forestal lands, and groundwater and
surface water resources;
M.B. 42, Pg. 51
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Buffering between dissimilar uses; and
Provision of active and passive recreation areas.
Most open space land meets several of the objectives, thereby
providing multiple benefits.
What is the purpose of the Open Space Plan?
The purpose of this Open Space Plan is to guide efforts to plan for
and protect open space in the County in a comprehensive and
integrated fashion. One of the most important accomplishments of
this Plan is the delineation of open spaces and open space
characteristics considered important to conserve, protect and
utilize for their environmental, aesthetic, cultural,
agricultural/forestal, and recreational value.
Why do we need an open space plan?
Open space plays a major role in establishing the character,
appearance, vitality, and quality of life of our community. The
open space which currently exists in the community is mostly
privately owned, with "public access" limited to our visual
enjoyment. Because most open space is privately owned, the current
use of the property is subject to change. An open space plan is
critical in identifying the most important areas to recognize for
their environmental, aesthetic, cultural, agricultural/forestal or
recreational value. New growth can then be carefully planned to
incorporate and protect these resources that make our community an
attractive and desirable place to live.
When did the County decide to prepare an Open Space Plan?
The 1989 Comprehensive Plan calls for the preparation of an open
space plan. Work on the Open Space Plan began during the summer of
1989.
What public input has qone into preparinq the Open Space Plan?
The Planning Commission held two work sessions during the summer of
1991. Presentations were made during the last year to Citizens for
Albemarle, the Blue Ridge Homebuilders, the Albemarle County
Recreational Facilities Authority, the Planning and Coordination
Council (PACC), and the Architectural Review Board. On March 3,
1992, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended
approval of the Open Space Plan, by a vote of 5/2. The Board of
Supervisors has held four work sessions since April in preparation
for this July 15 public hearing.
How will the Open Space Plan be used?
The Open Space Plan is proposed as an amendment to the 1989
Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County. As part of the
Comprehensive Plan, the Open Space Plan will be used to guide open
space decisions and to identify significant resources on proposed
development plans. The effect of the Open Space Plan depends upon
the type of development proposed.
Discretionary land use proposals requiring Board of Supervisors'
action (such as Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezonings or special
use permits) will be assessed for consistency with the open space
maps. All the goals, objectives, and strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan, including the Open Space Plan, will be
considered in reviewing any such proposal. The Board of Supervisors
could require that significant resources be protected as a condition
of the approval.
Non-discretionary or by-riqht land use submittal (such as site plans
and subdivision plats) are not required to protect significant
resources unless regulations are currently in effect. When
significant resources are not protected by existing regulations, the
open space maps will be considered advisory for by-riqht
development. County staff will then encourage voluntary protection
of those significant resources as open space.
Will the Open Space Plan affect my development riqhts?
NO. The recommendations listed in Part V, Objectives, Strategies,
and Implementation, are not intended to reduce density or
development rights beyond that allowed under current regulations
without compensation. Instead, the intent is to assure that the
developing environment complements important open space.
M.B. 42, Pg. 52
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
What new requlations are beinq proposed?
The Open Space Plan outlines nine objectives and forty (short and
long term) strategies to protect open space. Of these, two of the
strateqies recommend new requlations: (1) A mountain protection
district, and, (2) A historic district ordinance.
Two additional regulatory measures proposed for further evaluation
and study are: (1) Mandatory cluster provisions in the Growth Areas,
and, (2) Mandatory cluster provisions in the Rural Area.
Adoption of the Open Space Plan does not mean that these regulations
are automatically approved. They'must be separately considered by
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors with public
hearings at a later date.
A larqe portion of the County is colored on the Concept Map. What
do the colored areas represent? Does it mean that most of thm
County cannot be developed?
The colored areas accurately depict the extent of Albemarle's
numerous natural, scenic, and historic resources. Within these
colored areas, development is not prohibited, rather these areas
contain important resources which deserve consideration when making
land use decisions. Depending on the type of resource represented,
most of the colored areas are intended for "conservation" rather
than "preservation." For example, the ideal use of the orange areas
designated as important Farmlands and Forests would be continued
farming or forestry operation. When development occurs, it could be
clustered in a manner that leaves most of the important farmland
intact.
It is important to note that some of the colored areas include
resources which are currently protected by regulations, such as
flood plain, water supply watershed, critical slopes, scenic
highways, and entrance corridors.
How will the Open Space Plan affect aqricultural/forestal district
desiqnation?
An agricultural/forestal district is a voluntary, owner-initiated
technique which carries restrictions to protect agricultural and
forestal land. The current County policy regarding
agricultural/forestal districts is that they are encouraged within
the Rural Area of the County, except established subdivisions. The
Open Space Plan does not propose any change in this policy.
In approving a district, the Board would consider the Open Space
Plan (as part of the Comprehensive Plan), but would not entirely
base a decision on the Open Space Plan. For example, a forestal
district could appropriately be located in the pine farm areas of
eastern Albemarle, although the Concept Map does not designate that
area as having prime forestal soils.
Does the Open Space Plan have any priority over other ele~e-ts of
the Comprehensive Plan?
No. The Open Space Plan will be considered in conjunction with all
other goals, objectives, and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Land use decisions are currently made by considering all relevant
goals, objectives, and strategies. Adoption of the Open Space Plan
as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will not change this
procedure, nor any priorities which have already been established in
the Plan.
How will the Open Space Plan affect ~nfrastructure decisions?
The Code of Virginia requires that public uses be reviewed by the
Planning Commission for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The
Commission may establish conditions of approval regarding the
location, character, and extent of the use. The determination of
consistency would be based on all the components of the
Comprehensive Plan: the Public Facilities Plan, the Land Use Plan,
this Open Space Plan, as well as relevant goals and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan itself. The actual effect of the Open Space
Plan would be to alert staff that certain resources would be
affected, so that negative impacts could be better addressed. This
plan does not recommend location of, or improvements to any roads,
water and sewer lines, or other public facilities.
M.B. 42, Pg. 53
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community
Development, presented examples of how the Open Space Plan would affect certain
properties.
The public hearing was then opened.
Mr. Warren Vandell asked what is going to happen to development rights.
He does not want to see individuals lose those rights through some change. The
Plan states "it should be emphasized that the recommendations resulting from this
plan are not intended to reduce density or development rights". The Plan also
includes statements about purchasing development rights and he wants to know what
would happen to those development rights that the County purchases° His
impression was that the County may get involved in purchasing development rights
from one person and then later selling the rights. He hopes the Board will think
about letting the City of Charlottesville annex land and letting the urban area
be urban-governed and the rural area be rural-governed. In response to Mr.
Vandell, Mr. Bowerman said that to his knowledge there has never been any
discussion of the County purchasing or selling development rights.
Mr. Arthur Schulman, President of the Ivy Creek Foundation, presented a
statement in support of the Open Space Plan. He commented that the Foundation
takes no position for or against growth. However, commercial and residential
development have proceeded apace since the founding of the Ivy Creek Natural Area
13 years ago, while during the same period no new natural areas have been
established for public use. It support the Open Space Plan in large measure
because it recognizes the need "to plan for and protect open space in the County
in a comprehensive and integrated fashion". Our resources are finite; we cannot
always replace the things we have lost or destroyed. Any responsible plan for
growth or development cannot ignore the 'goals and values of the community as a
whole. To ensure that growth makes our lives better, and not worse, these
essentially conservative community values must be taken into account. The Open
Space and Critical Resource Plan properly stresses the value in identifying and
preserving open space and in husbanding our significant resources, and so
deserves the support of all of us.
Mrs. Treva Cromwell, representing the League of Women Voters, presented a
statement in support of the Plan and made the following points: (1) The Plan
is a guide for decision-making, (2) The Plan emphasizes that open spaces listed
in the Comprehensive Plan have a function in themselves, (3) The Plan provides
for two important maps, (4) It lists existing regulations and recognizes that
there may be overlapping, simply because a resource can serve more than one
function, (5) The Plan admits that the language in current regulations must be
reviewed for consistency with the Open Space Plan, (6) The Plan continues to
promote private and public ownership and to rely heavily on volunteer measures,
(7) It identifies high priority rural areas where preservation rather than
conservation of resources is needed, (8) It adds two activities to the
Comprehensive Plan's Action Agenda: adoption of a historic districts designation
and preparation of a site plan for the Greenway Corridor along the Rivanna River
so land can be acquired. Mrs. Cromwell also made three other statements of what
the Plan does not do: (1) Designation of open space does not give right of
access. Right of public access is only by the County's purchase of an easement
or by fee simple, (2) It does not reduce density or development rights that are
allowed under current regulations without compensation, and (3) It will not
change priorities already established in the Comprehensive Plan. She urged the
Board to adopt the Plan.
Dr. Peyton Weary presented a written statement on behalf of many of the
residents of Montvue Subdivision. Dr. Weary stated that the residents were
concerned about how this plan would effect the small property owners. Residents
are sensitive because their land use options have been destroyed as a result of
VDOT actions on the proposed Route 29N western bypass. He noted that three
different VDOT plans have shown routes affecting Montvue properties. He pleaded
for a level of flexibility that he does not see portrayed and for the creation
of a due process and appeals process for small landowners whose interests may be
affected by this Plan.
Mr. Ed Strauss stated that he felt the term "open space" was the wrong term
because the land is owned and people pay for their land. He asked why the Board
should penalize people who have kept their land virtually attractive. He feels
if people want to develop their land, then it should be up to the landowner. He
feels that the Plan should include a "Grandfather Clause" which states that
anyone currently owning property is exempt from the Open Space Plan.
Mr. Kevin Cox stated that he believes the Open Space Plan is another
component of growth management strategy by the county and it is the seizure of
private property rights by the county to enhance that strategy. He believes too
much emphasis is put on rural preservation. He does not think the Board should
adopt the Plan until it has taken aggressive action to actually promote economic
development, create jobs and opportunities and let working class people know that
they have a chance to live in Albemarle County.
M.B. 42, Pg. 54
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Edward Scharer, representing the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, spoke
in opposition to the adoption of the Open Space and Critical Resource Plan. He
stated that there are useful concepts included in the Plan, but it is much too
vague and includes mostly undeveloped land in the County. The Plan seeks to
limit "certain agricultural practices" but does not state which ones or under
what circumstances. It embraces the related lands study by National Park
Service, but to what end? It limits use of mountain land, but under what
compensatory plan? Archeological sites will be cataloged and protected, but how
and at what cost? The Plan attempts to enumerate and protect historical
properties, but at what extent to the current landowner? It endeavors to protect
scenic view sheds, but who decides their importance and who compensates the
landowner? Albemarle County is forgetting the current residents and taxpayers.
We are so busy preparing for inevitable growth and the tourists, we have
forgotten the group which provides the taxes which subsidizes these other
concerns. It is the current resident who subsidizes new residential development,
industry, commerce and the tourist business. If you want to channel growth, make
all development, whatever variety, level and neutral. Please stop trying to
control growth through limiting the economic prospects and ownership rights of
the current taxpayers.
Mr. Jack Marshall, a resident of the White Hall District~ spoke in favor
of the Open Space Plan. He stated that if the Board adopts this plan, history
will remember it as: the Board who refused to cave in to minorities pursuing
narrow-based interests and short-term profits, who could not bear to see
Albemarle County die the death of a thousand cuts with fields and forests being
imperceptively carved up parcel by parcel until our soft hills and wooded ridges
became covered in suburban sprawled. This plan would keep Albemarle from
becoming indistinguishable from hundreds of counties to the north. Counties
which lack the vision or the political will to implement that vision°
Mr. Jim Ballheim stated that Mrs. Cromwell and Mr. Marshall stated many of
his feelings. The plan offers a bit of balance to the economical development
stance. This plan would help maintain the county's character.
Mr. George Graham, a resident of the Scottsville District, said he is
concerned that the Plan is another hurdle county government will use to injure
the property rights of individual landowners. He feels individual property
rights will be damaged and the property owners will be put through hoops that
they do not need to go through. He is concerned that this Plan not be another
stumbling block to stand in the way of property owners trying to develop or do
what they choose with their property.
Mr. Ronnie Morris, a county resident, stated that he feels landowners had
been good stewards of their property and he resents restrictions to limit the use
of property for the landowner and his/her children. He lives in a mountain area
and maintaining this natural scenery is important to him, but forbidding him to
build a home in these mountains so it can remain natural for tourists is not his
idea of genuine property ownership. Please stop building subdivisions that
decrease the quality of views from his mountain top. He is against a restricted
use of his property that he has worked for and paid for so the Board can say that
Albemarle County, which now seems to be owned and operated by non-natives, is a
scenic area. Our children will not be here to remember you because the native
children will be gone. Mr. Morris said he feels the vision of the Supervisors
of Albemarle County is owned only by the wealthy.
Mr. Keith Ford, a county resident, said the Board needs to really think
about this Plan before passing it. There needs to be a little bit of space in
the County for the middle-class. He thinks he is the best person to decide what
to do with his 200 acres. The landowner should be able to decide what to do with
his land.
Mr. Steve Blaine, representing the Blue Ridge Homeowners Association, urged
the Board to reject the Plan. He has met with the staff and submitted written
comments. There are three fundamental questions that remain and it is
irresponsible for this Board to adopt this Plan without answering these
questions. Why do we need this plan? Does it achieve its objectives and goals?
Who is going to pay for this plan and is it fair? The citizens have been told
that this is merely a guide, it is not a regulation and it will not change their
development rights; it just reflects policies that are in the Comprehensive Plan.
Why do the citizens need another 68 page document? The citizens have been told
that the Open Space Plan provides additional guidance and strategies for the
County's staff, but the case has not b~en made that existing strategies for
research protection are not adequate. The examples used by the staff earlier are
astounding. One of the examples was a successful preservation plan under
existing regulations. The staff has said many Open Space resources are protected
by regulation. If so, why is this Plan needed? It does not achieve its stated
objective as an integrated approach to open space. There is a listing of
existing regulations, but no analysis or suggestions as to how to provide a
sensible and non-restrictive planning process. Mr. Blaine said this is important
to the people he represents and the people in the County. This directly affects
the cost of housing. Studies show that between $10,000 and $15,000 of the cost
of a new home is directly related to regulations. This Plan bucks the national
trend. Who will pay for this plan? New home buyers. It is regressive, the
M.B. 42, Pg. 55
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
$10,000 to $15,000 does not go up or down with the cost of the house. It affects
middle and lower income people more than it does upper income people. It affects
the landowners. He believes it is possible to reject this Plan and still be pro-
Open Space. He has struggled to find a way to support this Plan because he is
pro-Open Space. He thinks the staff could come up with a better plan.
Mr. Allen B. Kendrick, a resident of Earlysville, said he opposes any
further County regulations. Every regulation adds to the cost of building and
people are being penalized.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom, stated the Board has a very comprehensive proposal
before it. It is a proposal that each board member understands clearly. What
has been said tonight brings up important issues but they do not relate to this
particular Plan. The Board is concerned about the Plan because it is afraid that
it will have to follow it in the future. If the Board members do no~ believe in
the Plan, do not vote for it. It offers balance and guidelines to follow.
Property rights are something that have been mentioned a lot tonight. They are
a very important issue in the country today and always has been. Please consider
that the law gives a considerable amount of latitude to the community to protect
itself from the damage that can be done by individual actions. This Plan has
nothing to do with the law of property rights for the simple reason that it does
not impose any regulations on the use of private property. However, as the Board
considers how it may implement the Plan in the future, regulations may be needed
which would affect private property. These are important and appropriate
considerations for the Board to take when it looks to implementation of the Plan.
Most everyone in this community pays real estate and personal property taxes and
those are a subsidization by the taxpayer, mostly because of development. The
payment of taxes does not give the taxpayer the right to dictate how land will
be used. Those taxes are added to by the actions of private property owners.
This gives the taxpayer a role decision about how the land is to be used. Land
is a non-renewable resource. The use of this resource does cos~ everyone in this
community. This gives all citizens an appropriate responsibility to be involved
in the decisions, but not to dictate the ultimate outcome. Mr. Lindstrom said
he sincerely believes that in a county of 750 square miles there is an
opportunity to provide affordable homes, jobs, economical growth and development
and to provide a comprehensive preservation of its rural character. If we are
going to have one part of those resources, the other part needs to be protected~
That what makes this Plan important. It is a gesture and not a regulation.
There are over 50,000 residential lots that can be achieved under current zoning
in rural areas. This plan does not reduce that number. He urged the Board to
act upon its knowledge of the Plan and to respond sympathetically to the concerns
of the public.
Mr. John Embree, a resident of Albemarle County, presented a statement in
opposition to the Plan. He feels this is another step in a carefully
orchestrated plan to take landowners' property rights. He also stated that the
definition of "Open Space" in the Code of Virginia under the Open Space Land Act
is different from the definition in the proposed Albemarle County Open Space
Plan.
Ms. Ann Via, a resident of Free Union, commented that once the natural
resources are gone they are gone and children in the future will have to pay if
the land is destroyed.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing Citizens for Albemarle, spoke in support
of the Plan. Citizens for Albemarle supports affordable housing and the
promotion of farming and forestry. There is nothing to lose and everything to
gain by passing this Plan.
Mr. Dan O'Neill, owner of land on Buck's Elbow Mountain, stated that not
only are development' rights restricted, but by-right development could also be
restricted. He expressed concern with the broad and vague nature of the Plan and
how it will affect the property owner in the future. He thinks the value of
landowners would be detrimentally hindered.
Mr. Tom Olivier, a resident of $cottsville and owner of a sheep farm, spoke
in support of the Plan. He thinks the Plan is workable and hopes the Board will
adopt it.
Mr. Craig Van de Castle spoke in favor of the Plan. He thinks the
government has the right and the responsibility to act in the public good and for
the public benefit. The plan identifies important resources to insure that they
are considered during review of land use changes and discourages piece meal loss
of important open space. The Plan encourages the evaluation of resources as part
of a larger system. These are worthwhile goals that should be adopted.
Mr. Jim Murray, a resident of the County for 39 years, spoke in support of
the Plan. All comprehensive plans begin with a projection of the population and
this is a final evolution of the plan. He thinks the plan identifies the
treasures in the County and enables the Board to consider those treasures when
making land use decisions.
M.B. 42, Pg. 56
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Blake Hurt, said he does not believe this plan is comprehensive and
integrated or will enhance the resources of the County. The plan fails to
recognize the resources in place which already protect open space. The plan
makes no attempt to weave together the regulations set forth. He thinks staff
should cross reference current regulations and develop a plan that makes use of
the extensive set of regulations currently in place. The focus of the plan is
not to enhance resources, but to regulate them. He thinks a better plan can be
proposed.
Mr. Wendell Wood spoke in opposition of the Plan. He feels that this is
the first step toward further restrictions and'further eroding of property rights
which will add costs to the working man. This plan affects 92 percent of the
County. If adopted, he feels the Board should send a registered letter to each
property owner telling him what will happen to their property and what the
restrictions will be.
Mr. Larry deNeveu, owner of a farm in the White Hall District, believes the
plan is a good idea and would like to see it adopted.
Dr. Charles Hurt, spoke in opposition to the plan. He has approximately
4000 acres in the County that has not been developed, but is being taxed. He
does not buy the argument that he is not paying his fair share. A previous
speaker posed concerns that he did not want this county to be like Northern
Virginia. In response, most of the County's regulations are just mirrors of
these in Northern Virginia.
Mr. Rick Preve, owner and president of National Resources Consultants~
thinks there is a way to use planning and information to make good management
decisions. He believes the Open Space Plan is a compromised solution. He urged
the Board to adopt the Plan.
Mr. Don Wagner, Chairman of the Blue Ridge Home Builders, said this plan
does not carry the same force of law as a county ordinance carries, but once it
is in the Comprehensive Plan it carries a lot of weight. He asked that the Board
keep in mind that the fiscal impact has not been defined. Everything in this
plan costs money but does not state where this money will come from.
There being no further comments, Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Marshall distributed an article from the Washington Post regarding a
legal opinion of South Carolina vs. Lucas. In reference to this case, he asked
if an individual wanted to build on top of a mountain, if these rules and
regulations would apply. Mr. St. John responded that he does not believe what
is before the Board would have anything to do with this case.
Mr. Marshall commented that he was looking at the reasons why the Board is
being asked to have the Open Space Plan incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
He believes the only reason is to control land use. He asked Mr. St. John if the
Open Space Plan is passed, if a year from now Mr. Cilimberg will be before the
Board with ordinances. If this is true, and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor
of the property owner, how can the Board adopt such an ordinance? Mr. St. John
stated that the facts of the case mentioned were totally different than any
situation that may be brought up before the Board if this plan is adopted.
Mr. Marshall commented that he thinks the Board will be very limited as to
what kind of laws can be passed if this plan is adopted. Mr. St~ John replied
by stating that this case did not add to or detract from the existing law of
taking. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states, "Private property shall
not be taken for public purposes without due compensation". This case did not
change the existing moral. He cannot imagine any ordinance being proposed which
would take people's property. (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 9:17 p.m.) The
Plan should not be passed or rejected on the basis of this case.
Mrs. Humphris Stated that people used to think that good communities would
just occur out of everyone's good will, (Mr. Bowerman returned at 9:20 p.m.) but,
in the 1960's it became evident that Albemarle County was a growing community and
having problems. (Mr. Martin left the meeting at 9:20 p.m.) The citizens
insisted that the Board of Supervisors bring forth a zoning ordinance. The Board
was not very anxious to do this, but did. The ordinance basically stated that
everyone was to come to the County and say how they wanted their land zoned. As
years went by, a new public water supply for homes in Charlottesville and the
urban areas of the County was built. Then, that water supply was found to be
dying. This was to be the water supply for 35 to 40 years in the future and was
dying because of development happening around it. A look at the zoning ordinance
showed that it allowed development on the shores of the reservoir at the eastern
end and that development was cited to be high density. This started another
implementation of actions to protect the water supply. The people insisted that
the Board protect the water supply. (Mr. Martin returned, 9:21 p.m.) (St. John
left the meeting at 9:21 p.m.) Through the years, the citizens have been
learning that it is important to plan ahead. Without that future vision, there
has been big trouble which had to be fixed at a great cost. This Board has an
obligation to serve the citizens effectively by looking ahead and looking at
resources which need to be protected.
M.B. 42, Pg. 57
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mrs. Humphris said she feels that planning is the absolute key for the
future of this County. There is a growing population with much more growth to
come. The important thing is that the Board show vision and learn from history.
Economy depends on the environment. She is very much a proponent of the Open
Space and Critical Resource Plan. Staff has done a superb job. This is a key
to having a future that is economically sound. (St. John returned, 9:25 p.m.)
Mr. Martin commented that he came to the meeting very much inclined to
support this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and after listening to the
comments, he was very impressed by Mr. Ronnie Morris and Mr. Keith Ford's
statements. After looking at his notes and considering the concept and composite
map the word "advisory" seems to be the key. Also, during the presentation the
presenter used words like "would like to see", "prefer to see", "encourage them".
He believes there is nothing wrong with identifying the things that are important
to the County. This is what this document does. If we continue to use words
like "would like to see you do this ...., prefer to see you do it this way",
"encourage you to do it this way", "advise you to do it this way", this Plan will
prove very profitable. Also, if rules and regulations are to follow and the
wording is "you must" or "it is mandatory to" then he will not likely support
them. His goal is to promote affordable housing and the need for "good" jobs in
this County. If any strategy or ordinance comes later that is in conflict with
this then he could not support those ordinances or regulations° As this document
is written, it identifies what is important to us.
Mr. Marshall stated that he disagrees with Mr. Martin. He thinks if we
look ahead at what it is going to do and try to anticipate what ordinances you
will support you are in for a surprise. He was elected to represent the people
and if nothing else to protect them. He intends to protect the peoples rights.
This plan is not the way to do it. It.has too many open ends and suggests too
many more regulations on landowners. He believes this document will bring forth
regulations or restrictions to the landowners.
Mr. Perkins commented it is important to identify the critical resources,
however, he does not believe this should be the final ~raft. The Board decided
to have this public hearing to get public input and there has been very good
public input. Comment that have been heard should become part of this plan and
if it is adopted now, that will not happen. His objection is to the portions of
the Plan that will become orders to the planning staff. We already have things
that protect critical resources. He is willing to appropriate funds to identify
critical resources, whether it be done piece meal, as development proposals come
forward or whether we do it all at one time. He read a poem entitled "Some
Things to Consider".
Mr. Bain thinks that everything the Board does particularly relating to
land use and regulations of peoples land, what they have inherited and has been
in their family for generations may be justified vs. the "public good" and how
do you define it is slippery and always will be. It Ks a constant balancing act
in every action that is taken. A lot of consideration has been given through the
process due to comments from other people. It is not just the staff that is
doing this. We need this plan and that does not mean that automatically
something will come from it. This Board is very sensitive to issues of cost of
development. Who is going to pay for it? All of us will. We have all paid and
are paying for what has not happened in the past prior'to zoning. As zoning has
developed in the County, development is taking place. Does it achieve the
objective goals? No, not by itself but it is a part of a step in the right
direction. We should go forward with it. he plans to support, although it is
not perfect, it is a very definite step in the right direction.
Mr. Bowerman intends to support this change to the Comprehensive Plan. The
process and attention that the Commission and the Board paid to all comments made
by the public and special interest groups on both sides of the question were
carefully reviewed by staff and this Board. What came before the Commission was
reviewed. He does not agree with everything that is in this Plan. EmOtionally
he shares some of Mr. Perkins and Mr. Marshall's concerns and he does catch as
much grief as a supervisor for not planning as he does for planning. At some
point, if you identify something that is not broken and say we are not going to
fix it sometimes you get to the point where you do not know that it is broken
until well after the fact then it becomes much more of a problem to correct.
Personally, after what has been heard from the public and letters read from the
public, this is a good addition to the Plan which strengthens it and will serve
this County and the citizens very well for the future. It is possible that if
a problem is identified in the future, this part of the Comprehensive Plan may
give the Board the authority to look at some type of regulation. If the Board
chooses to do that the public has every opportunity to review what we do and make
comments at that time. If there is no problem and we do not need the ordinance
he does not believe that the Board will do it. He agrees with Mr. Bain, Mrs.
Humphris and Mr. Martin and plans to support this change.
Mr. Perkins stated that he feels th~ Board needs to consider that there has
been a large number of people here that have made comments. For some people,
this was the first time they have been able to speak because of their schedules.
For other people, they may have attended every work session that has been held.
Mr. Martin feels that the staff should have time to review those comments and
M.B. 42, Pg. 58
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
implement any changes that they consider worthy under this Plan. This should not
be the final draft. If it is voted on tonight, there will be no changes made
some very good suggestions have been made. How do the regulations on the books
affect the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan? The public deserves this
consideration.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that he comes in contact with more people in rural
Albemarle County than any other member of the Board. These people are not
present. They are at home. A lot of them do not have any idea of what this is
about or what the affects are going to be. A lot of good comments have been made
here and this will f~lter down to those people. The Board does not have a true
picture of what the citizens of this County really want. The Board only has an
idea of what the educated citizens want, but what about the uneducated. If this
is passed, you should send every property owner in Albemarle County a letter
telling them the affects this will have on their land. The Comprehensive Plan
has been used as a law and it is a guide. The Open Space and Critical Resource
Plan will be used the same way.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there was a consensus on the Board that they should
delay a vote on this until staff has had time to review the comments of tonight
and the communications received to see if there is anything that needs to
recommend the Board change in any way. She is not in favor of prolonging the
procedure but would like to make sure that all input received is dealt with in
some way. She asked for comments from Board members on how they felt.
Mr. Martin stated that he had no problem with waiting except one of the
things that would happen is it will be prolonged. This process has been worked
on and we have worked out the technicalities of it. There have been compromises
at each stage. We can either toss it out the window, vote on it or start again
from scratch. He feels the Board can vote on it. If we were to have another
public hearing the same people would attend. If we begin talking about an
ordinance or regulation that will affect people's property, he agrees that the
possibility of mailing to every property owner in the County should be discussed°
This is something that would have to happen down the road. He recommends voting
on it.
Mr. Bain made the motion for adoption of the Open Space and Critical
Resource Plan as part of the County Comprehensive Plan, Mrs. Humphris seconded.
Mr. Bowerman asked for further discussion of the Board.
There being none, roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Open Space and Critical Resource Plan was
adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman called for a recess at 9:51 p.m. The meeting reconvened at
10:10 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-92-40. Elvin and Martha Taylor. Public Hearing
on a request for a single-wide mobile home on 5.05 acs zoned RA. Located N of
Route 810 about 1/2 mi E of Boonesville, TM7~P56A. White Hall Dist. (This
property is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily
Progress June 30 and July 7~ 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The property is accessed through an
existing private road. The site is heavily wooded except for
clearing to accommodate the mobile home. There is a substantial
buffer between the private road, adjacent properties and the
building site. Some landscaping has been done near the proposed
building site. There is a shed on this property but there are no
dwellings. Slopes are flat at the mobile home site and driveway~
but drop towards adjacent properties.
APPLICAnt'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to locate a single
wide mobile home on 5.05 acres.
P~%~q~ING~u~q) ~ONI~G HISTORY: (SP-82-33) - Elvin and Martha Taylor.
Proposal to locate a mobile home on Tax Map 7, Parcel 56A, was
approved administratively. The applicant never pursued the special
permit and eventually the approval expired.
SUMMARY A~D RECO~DATION: Staff has received one letter of
objection. The mobile home presently occupied by the objectors was
administratively approved under SP-82-53. There are six mobile
M.B. 42, Pg. 59
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
homes within one mile. Should the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff recommends the
following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1.
2.
Albemarle County Building Official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
Provisions of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and
approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of
Health, if applicable under current regulations;
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or
screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall be maintained
· n good condition and replaced if it should die."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at the meeting on July 7,
unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-40 with the conditions recommended by
the staff.
The public hearing was then opened.
Mr. Kevin Cox represented the applicant and stated that Mr. Taylor was
unable to be here because of his work schedule. This is an affordable way to
provide this family with shelter. The complaint is coming from someone who is
living in a single-wide mobile home and has a permanent permit to live. Mr. Cox
asked if the Board could come up with a mechanism to stop the filing of frivolous
complaints. He suggested a fee be charged to the complainant and be refunded if
the complaint is held to be valid by the Board.
Mr. Kenny Neff, Sales Manager of Mountainview Mobile Homes, stated that he
had heard the Board speak strongly about affordable housing and feels that this
is a solution. These houses are inspected and have to meet certain
specifications.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Bowerman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Perkins immediately made motion to approve SP-92-40 with the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
There being no discussion by the Board, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vone:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions as approved are set out in full below.)
1. Albemarle County Building O~ficial approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for
district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile
home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy;
4. Provisions of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by
the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to
be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good
condition and replaced if it should die.
M.B. 42, Pg. 60
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-92-03. Henry J. Eiden. Public Hearing on a
request to amend Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit rural retreat
facilities including lodging and recreational activities by special use permit
in the Rural Areas. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 7,
1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has reviewed this zoning text amendment for compliance with
specific provisions of the zoning ordinance:
1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT
1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT
1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
4.8.1 DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING UNSPECIFIED USES
Staff offers the following comments (for discussion of 1.4.7, see
ADDITIONAL SUMMARY COMMENT):
o 1.4.8 To provide for the preservation of aqricultural and
forestal lands: Making agricultural and forestal lands
available to unrelated commercial uses is not a form of
preservation but contrary to such effort.
o 1.5 Relation to Environment: Staff is unaware of any study or
economic policy which recommends as appropriate, additional
commercialization of the rural areas. Allowing commercial
resident'iai uses on the one hand and attempting to limit
residential subdivision development on the other hand may be
difficult to justify. The Comprehensive Plan contains no
policies directed at the tourist economy.
o 1.6 Relation to Comprehensive Plan: This section of the
Zoning Ordinance explicitly states that 'development is to be
encouraged in Villages, Communities, and the Urban Area, where
services and utilities are available and where such
development will not conflict with the agricultural/forestal
or other rural objectives; and development is not to be
encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to
preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and
activities, water supply protection, and conservation of
natural, scenic and historic resources and where only limited
delivery of public services is intended.' Analysis in this
report concludes that the proposed use is contrary to this
objective of the Zoning Ordinance.
o 4.8.1 Determinations concerninq Unspecified Usem states that:
'Uses other than those specified in district regulations as
permitted by right or accessory uses may be added to a
district on application by a landowner if the commission and
board of supervisors find:
ae
That there is no clear intent to exclude such uses; and
That the proposed use is appropriate within the district
and would have no more adverse effects on other uses
within the district, or on uses in adjoining districts,
than would uses of the same general character permitted
in the district.
In such cases, the board of supervisors shall proceed to
amend the ordinance in accord with the provisions of
section 33.0.'
As will be discussed later in this report, Board actions demonstrate
an intent to exclude uses similar to 'rural retreat' from the RA
zone. Compatibility of 'rural retreat' to other RA uses is also
discussed.
The remainder of this report will examine the proposed amendment in
regard to general and specific, issues related to the zoning
ordinance sections cited above, as well as other considerations. A
topical summary of this examination follows:
Definition: Any use providing lodging, boarding, and
entertainment could be deemed a 'Rural Retreat.' Allowing
'Rural Retreat' and discriminating against uses identical or
very similar by definition or function may not be possible°
M.B. 42, Pg. 61
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Adequacy of Current Requlations: Current RAregulations allow
'Tourist Lodging,' 'restaurants and inns' (under limited
circumstances) and 'boarding camp,f any of which could be
tailored by a proprietor to accomplish some of the intent of
'Rural Retreat.'
Statement of Intent of the Rural Areas Zoninq District:
~Rural Retreat' does not contribute to or support the four
stated purposes of the rural~areas district. To the contrary,
aspects of the use could compete with or be contrary to these
objectives. 'Rural Retreat' is not viewed as compatible to
intensive agricultural and forestal operations.
Disposition of Amendments to RA Zoninq District: 1980 tn
Present: There has been consistent decision since adoption of
the 1980 Zoning Ordinance not to include into the rural areas
district' uses which do not contribute to, are not supportive
of, or could conflict with the agricultural/forestal
objective. This statement is bolstered by the fact that the
Board of Supervisors has taken positive action to constrain or
repeal uses deemed inconsistent with the rural areas
objective.
RECOMMENDATION: While many tourist uses may desire rural location,
only small-scale uses have been permitted in the Rural Areas
district. Current RA regulations allow 'tourist lodging,'
'restaurants and inns' (under limited circumstances) and 'boarding
camp,~ any of which could be tailored by a proprietor to accomplish
the intent of 'Rural Retreat.' In additions inclusion of this use
would be in opposition to:
Intent of the RA district
Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan
Deliberate actions of the Board of Supervisors
relative to uses in the Rural Areas district
Staff recommends denial of ZTA-92-03. Should the Board choose to
adopt the amendments, staff recommends the revised definition.
ADDITIONAL SUMMARY COMMENT: Over the years, staff has been
approached as to several uses which desire a quiet rural location:
o Executive retreat
o Executive offices
o Physical therapy farm for professional football
players
o International cooking school
o Inns and restaurants (not in historic structures)
o As well as uses listed in Attachment B (on file).
Tourist-oriented uses such as these are not discussed in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Rural Areas zoning district provides for
limited commercial uses. The Rural Areas district comprises the
majority of the County and has received more discussion and
attention than any other zoning district. Currently, 61 use
categories are permitted by right and special use permit, more than
specific listing for any other conventional zoning district.
Clearly the RA-district provides for reasonable use of land.
Section 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a purpose of
zoning is ~to encourage economic deyelopment activities that provide
desirable employment and enlarge the tax base.' Clearly, 'rural
retreat' and other tourist businesses listed above would enhance the
County's tourist economy and provide employment (Most employment
would likely be housekeeping and custodial in nature). However~
under the current Comprehensive Plan, the Rural Areas are to be
devoted to agricultural and forestal sectors of the economy.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
DEFINITION: This section of the staff report will explore
definitional issues in an attempt to determine the implications of
permitting 'rural retreat' in the RA zoning district.
The applicant has proposed the following definition:
RURAL RETREAT: A tract of land and a cluster of
buildings, normally in a serene, rural setting, used
either commercially or non-commercially for personal and
organizational retreats to foster and produce innovative
plans, ideas, and/or to facilitate intellectual
rejuvenation, and artistic and literary works. Visitors
M.B. 42, Pg. 62
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
are normally lodged, boarded, and entertained completely
on site in varying degrees of isolation for the duration
of a specified treatment period, with little or no
interaction outside of the retreat facility. Diversions
from intellectual activity are normally limited to low
intensity activities such as swimming, tennis, hiking,
walking/jogging, bicycling, and horseback riding. A
large part of the establishment will normally be
retained as natural and/or agricultural space.
Staff recommends several changes to the proposed definition to
remove unenforceable, subjective or qualified language and to
provide a short, clear description: The revised definition would
read as follows:
RURAL RETREAT: Land and/or buildings used, whether for
profit or not, for personal and organizational seclusion
and solitude involving lodging, board, and entertainment
including outdoor recreational activities.
Both definitions on terms such as 'retreats' or 'seclusion and
solitude' indicating a mood or state of mind of patrons is
unmeasurable and unenforceable by a zoning administrator.
Under either the applicant's or st&ff's definition, 'rural retreat'
could be argued or interpreted to include a broad range of uses not
currently allowed in the RA district. Simply stated, ANY USE
PROVIDING LODGING, BOARDING AND ENTERTAINMENT COULD BE DEEMED A
'RURAL RETREAT.' As an example, custodial facilities such as a drug
rehabilitation center or juvenile detention facility provide
'personal seclusion and solitude' (whether voluntary or not)~ are
similar in purpose and function to a 'rural retreat' (i.e. - to
provide a setting withdrawn from society to encourage
rehabilitation). Other uses which may provide lodging, boarding,
and entertainment include hotel, motel, resort of any type, rest
home and boarding house. Therefore, it would appear that such uses
could be allowed (either by interpretation or subsequent amendment)
in the RA district if this amendment is approved. That is to say,
ALLOWING 'RURAL RETREAT' AND DISCRIMINATING AGAINST USES IDENTICAL
OR VERY SIMILAR BY DEFINITION OF FUNCTION MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE.
ADEQUACY OF CURRENT REGULATIONS: Currently, in the RA district,
'tourist lodging' is allowed by right. Uses by special use permit
include 'restaurants and inns' (under limited circumstances to
encourage historic preservation) and 'boarding camp.' As stated
earlier, 'rural retreat' would rely primarily on the intent of the
proprietor and patrons and would likely be unenforceable by the
zoning administrator. Clearly, a proprietor could create a form of
'rural retreat' under any of these three existing provisions.
Therefore, current RA regulations allow 'tourist lodging,'
'restaurants and inns' (under limited circumstances), and 'boarding
camp,' any of which could be tailored by a proprietor to accomplish
some of the intent of 'rural retreat.' These provisions generally
would provide a smaller scale usage than could be envisioned under
'rural retreat,' though 'boarding camp' could involve extensive
development.
STATEMENT OF INTENT OF RA ZONING DISTRICT: This section of the
staff report will discuss the relationship of the proposed use to
the stated intent of the Rural Areas zoning district. The statement
of intent of the RA district was substantially amended in Novemberf
1989 to reflect the increased emphasis of the current Comprehensive
Plan to identify the purposes of the rural areas.
As to the four stated purposes of the RA districts the
following comments are offered:
Preservation of aqricultural and forestal lands and
activities: 'Rural retreats' would use land for
commercial usage as opposed to agricultural/forestal
uses. Amending the Zoning Ordinance to add commercial
uses in the RA district adds 'commercial' value to
properties to the disadvantage of agriculture and
forestry. (A frequent inquiry to staff is alternate
uses for large estate homes such as executive retreats,
restaurants, and the like).
Water supply protection: Large building complexes and
recreational areas could be proposed as 'rural
retreats.'
M.B. 42, Pg. 63
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Limited service to the rural areas: In addition to
patron traffic, such uses would require food, linen and
other such service vehicles adding burden (slight or
major) to rural roadways. Depending on intensity of
development, public utilities may be initially or
subsequently required.
Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic
resources: Agricultural and forestal uses are more
appropriate to this objective. Making rural land
available to commercial uses appears contrary to this
intent, since it would provide additional variety of
development and make the Rural Areas more attractive to
speculation. Therefore, staff analYsis is that 'rural
retreat' does not contribute to or support the four
stated purposes of the rural areas zoning district. To
the contrary, aspects of the use could compete with or
be contrary to these objectives.
The statement of intent of the RA district also emphasizes
conflicts between residential development and
agricultural/forestal activities. Such conflict could be more
intense between agriculture/forestry and a business as
described by the applicant as desiring a 'serene' setting.
While much of the County may fit that description, it should
be noted that commercial agricultural and forestal uses are
industrial in character and can involve intensive activity,
extended hours of operation, heavy machinery, noise, chemical
and manure applications~ and odors. The RA statement of
intent includes the language that 'In relation to residential
development, agricultural / forestal activities shall be
regulated only to the extent necessary to protect public
health and safety.' This language was included as a result of
historical experience with complaints about
agricultural/forestal uses. (Complaints also occur among
other RA uses. Recently, a 'bed and breakfast' opposed a
church across the road). Staff opinion is that 'rural
retreat' is not compatible to intensive agricultural and
forestal operations.
DISPOSITION OF AMENDMENTS TO RA ZONING DISTRICT; 1980 TO PRESENT:
Staff has compiled a summary report to provide background as to the
disposition of zoning text amendments initiated by citizen petition
or request since adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance in 1980.
Staff opinion is that this listing demonstrates consistent decision
regarding the-intent of the Rural Areas district:
AMENDMENTS APPROVED
Farm winery
Hydroelectric power generation
Convent, monastery
Agricultural museum
Temporary events supportive of Rural Areas
AMENDMENTS DENIED
Restaurant
Health resort/health farm
Expanded definition of public garage
Rural salvage yard
In addition, the following uses have been repealed as being
inconsistent with the intent of the rural areas:
10.2.2.24, Motels and inns
10.2.2.26, Restaurants located on or adjacent to motel
premises
Also, the definition of 'public garage' was narrowed to exclude
renting and selling vehicles and to limit the use to repair and
service.
Finally, the following uses permitted in the prior A-1 zone were not
included in the RA zoning district when adopted in 1980:
Planned communities
Country clubs
Hospitals
Horse trailer sales, limited
Professional offices
M.B. 42, Pg. 64
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Executive offices on a minimum of 100 acres in which are
employed a maximum of 15 persons, etc.
Slaughterhouse, custom
Homes for adults
Staff opinion is that there has been consistent decision since
adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance not to include into the Rural
Areas District uses which do not contribute to, are not supportive
of, or could conflict with the agricultural/forestal objective.
This statement is bolstered by the fact that the Board of
Supervisors has taken positive action to constrain or repeal uses
deemed inconsistent with the rural areas objectives...
Mr. Cilimberg said, the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 7, 1992,
by a vote of 5/2, recommended approval of ZTA-92-03, as follows:
1. Revise the definition of Rural Retreat to read as follows:
Rural Retreat: land and/or buildings used, whether for profit or
not, for personal and organizational seclusion and solitude
involving lodging, board, and entertainment including outdoor
recreational activities.
2. Add rural retreat by special use permit in the Rural Area.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Eiden was present and stated that this is not an application for a
special use permit. He feels the opposition here is interested primarily in his
anticipated special use permit application. The two projects that are envisioned
(his and Dr. Donna Frantzen's) are both projects that envision small groups of
people working in secluded places. The process is very harmonious with the rural
character of these places and blends very well with any agricultural or forestal
activity. Both properties, although it is possible to do agricultural and
forestal things, would not be economically feasible. If you examine the purpose
that will be encompassed by this zoning text amendment, this is a very harmonious
thing and blends in well with the open space issue.
Mr. James Brooks, representing a group of 17 near neighbors of Mr. Eiden.
said they are of one view regarding this request and arguments are not directed
toward Mr. Eiden personally. They recognize that this is a request to expand
such intent to include a listing for rural retreat, however, the record clearly
shows that his residence would make a dandy rural retreat. Mr. Brooks believes
this is an implied intention on the part of Mr. Eiden to operate a rural retreat
in the midst of these 17 people. Mr. Brooks asked the 17 to stand.
Mr. Lawrence A. Simpson, speaking as President of Hickory Ridge Owners
Association and as a representative of over 20 residents of the community, said
they strongly oppose the proposed rural retreat special use Zoning Ordinance
request. The material provided and developed by the Planning staff has been
reviewed and they agree with the staff members intent to limit the definition of
the rural areas district. Preference would be to continue the current definition
of the rural areas district. The Board is urged to maintain a more conservative
view of this issue in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan where services and
utilities are currently available and such development will not conflict with
other rural objectives. Also, where scenic beauty will be maintained.
Ms. Martha Harris, a resident of the White Hall District, feels the
approval of these items could open up development throughout the rural area.
This would be possible because of the definition proposed for a rural retreat.
It is too broad and would be rendered unenforceable.
Mr. St. John expressed his concern about the enforceability of such a
definition as quoted in the Charlottesville Daily Progress on Wednesday, July
8th. A report developed by Mr. Ron Keeler, for the Planning Commission meeting
of May 19th also expressed this concern. This discriminates against uses,
identical or very similar by definition or function. The issue of nuisance suits
Ks another issue. The description of rural retreat proposed in this request
could permit activities that are similar in character to resort conference center
uses.
Ms. Donna Frantzen made three points. She stated that the word meditation
was left out of the definition. She gave handouts which tied prayer, meditation
and contemplation together. All three are techniques.
Mr. Ralph Bowden said he was speaking on behalf of people living around
him. They are concerned about the amendment on three different levels. One is
the preservation of the integrity of the system. Secondly, as to what the term
"rural retreat" really means. The definition is to provide boarding and lodging°
Basically this is the same as a hotel. This means catering to transient people
coming into the area. This area has been devoted to agricultural and forestal
purposes. Farmland and residential uses, in essence, would now be supporting
M.B. 42, Pg. 65
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
tourism in the form of lodging. Taxing the water supply (which these people
would not be sensitive to), putting their wastes into the ground and potentially
endangering the water system. This is a threat to him, as well as his neighbors.
The intention may be good but there are other places in which this can be done.
Lastly is the concern of the order of events. The initial application made
mention of a specific property. It is peculiar that Mr. Eiden and Ms. Frantzen
have come before the Board to talk about passing a definition and an amendment.
The People Mr. Bowden speaks for believe that at the next Board meeting there
will be some other kind of application coming before the Board for a permit for
this kind of use. Although this has not yet happened, it is one of the things
they find disturbing.
Ms. Mary Jannick, retreat participant, believes this service is needed in
the community. It provides tools to cope with life and be a productive human
being and a productive citizen in the County. This use is of value to the
County. Retreats are beneficial and the rural area is essential. Any concerns
or fears that people have as to what might develop have been cleared up by the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Julie Hughins, a resident of Crozet, has participated in retreats and
believes that there is a need for this use in Albemarle County° Ms. Amelia
Patterson in the Zoning Department did advise that there was not anything
existing in the County Ordinance in the rural area to allow a retreat center that
individuals could use.
Ms. Eleanor May, President of Adventure Bound School, spoke as a concerned
citizen of Albemarle County. She believes the Comprehensive Plan needs to be
expanded to include "rural retreat". The concept is consistent and compatible
with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. A rural retreat would attract
participants who would appreciate the land and would maintain the characteristics
that now exist. A rural retreat needs to be restricted. What was approved by
the Planning Commission a week ago was not restrictive enough to allow for what
they are talking about. Concrete supplementary regulations are needed regarding
size and scope. She submitted a handout to the Board describing suggested
changes. A rural retreat is important to conserve, protect and utilize the
environmental, aesthetic, agricultural, forestal and recreational value in
Albemarle County.
Mr. Jim McVey, spoke in favor of "rural retreat". There are two
perspectives that can be addressed. One is the direct use which is one that the
Comprehensive Plan expresses and another is indirect. Mr. McVey feels that the
long term benefit of~having a rural retreat is for both local people and others
to see people living in harmony with nature. There are direct connections to the
agricultural and forestal aspects that the Comprehensive Plan promotes. This can
be accomplished in a rural retreat. There are two other restrictions suggested:
(1) If the nature of the property itself is not conducive to agricultural or
forestal use, perhaps there is another use rather than suburbanization of that
property given the by-right use of it. (2) You should give special
consideration to properties having existing improvements, not of an agricultural
or forestal nature and yet able to serve a valuable purpose in this County.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom, Piedmont EnvirOnmental Council, agreed with Ms. May's
suggestions of supplemental conditions and thinks that the definition of rural
retreat will always be a difficulty, but a supplemental regulation will give the
Board a guide. His concern is that of allowing a commercial use in a rural area.
If this happens, the County should get something in exchange to enhance and
protect the rural area. There is no reason that one of the supplemental
recommendations could not impose a requirement for a cluster in the development
and conserve the balance for a conservation easement. This could not be included
by right, but since it is a special permit, it is an option that the landowner
not use his development and do something which may have a negative impact on a
rural area. If the density level of these provisions is kept, this exchange
might be of great benefit. He urged the Board to consider the supplemental
regulations that Ms. May suggested.
There being no further discussion by the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Marshall stated that the Charlestown Home for Boys donated some
property to Adventure Bound. He pointed out that they got out because of the
regulations being put upon them by the state as far as having in-house
psychiatrists and the people they were forced to deal who were uncontrollable in
the environment. He has reservations of a medical aspect and the type of people
that will be involved. He is not opposed to a rural retreat as a place for
someone to go to better his mental health or learning, but he is afraid of having
to meet certain guidelines as far as taking a certain type of individual because
of a psychological medical problem. The problem is the definition of what rural
retreat really is. The medical end of it lies in a rural retreat but belongs
somewhere else.
Ms. May stated that as far as the requirements for Adventure Bound School,
they are quite different. She is not aware of there being any requirements for
a rural retreat.
M.B. 42, Pg. 66
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Marshall asked what kind of medications would be given and what could
be expected from these people. He wants to know how rural retreat is being
defined.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Lindstrom and Ms. May have made suggestions and they
feel these suggestions will make this concept a more workable change to the
zoning ordinance. The Board would need to let the staff and the Commission take
a look at their suggestions.
Mr. Bain does not believe this amendment needs to be sent back to the
Commission. To send it back would be a waste of time since it is before the
Board. He would not support this definition without adding anything else.
Mrs. Humphris stated that the next request for a special permit should be
left alone until the zoning text amendment is addressed. The definition sent
forward from the Planning Commission of rural retreat is unacceptable to her.
It is much too broad and she needs something to assure her that this is going to
be a rural retreat and not a resort or anything similar. Some of the language
used by the Planning Commission and the Staff made her very uneasy given the
history of trying to deal with resorts ~n rural areas. Recently, in the local
newspaper, there was a notice of proposal from the Federal government for a place
"X" miles from Washington D.C., for the purpose of allowing a certain number of
Federal employees to.come and learn about problem-solving. Some of the language
was used in this particular amendment.
Mr. Bowerman said this is a general zoning text amendment and would apply
in different circumstances other than Adventure Bound. Mrs. Humphris agreed.
She feels the Zoning Ordinance still needs to be restricted.
Mr. Bain said the supplementary regulation proposed is something to look
at. The anticipated population is something that he has a problem with. He
asked Mr. St. John what rational basis he has for putting a limit on the
use. Mr. St. John stated his concerns of enforcement for the zoning
administrator after it is enacted. Efforts have been made to narrow this
definition so that what is written would coincide with the vision in the mind of
the Board members. The Board cannot expect the Zoning Administrator and the
County Attorney who has to enforce this to see that this is what is going on.
Staff cannot come up with any language that is going to assure that the vision
will take place.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the information the Board received tonight is
important. It speaks to all aspects: clustering, potential conservation
easements, usage and numbers. Mr. St. John said not to add anything to say this
is not to be a resort because if you use the word resort in the place of rural
retreat, you do exactly the same thing as if you limit the number of people and
structure. He feels that "rural retreat" and "resort" are the same. Mr. Bain
agreed. He asked if the Planning Commission passed the definition of rural
retreat without anything else, lodging, boarding and entertainment including
outdoor recreational activities. He did not think that supplementary regulations
added to some definition will affect the definition; this definition could apply
and allow a hotel or motel that would not be covered by supplementary
regulations.
Mr. St. John responded that whatever definition is set out for rural
retreat, (Mr. Martinleft the meeting at 11:23 p.m.) if someone wants to have an
exact duplicate of Graves Mountain Lodge, and is willing to comply with
supplemental regulations and willing to call it a rural retreat, the Board cannot
examine what the people are going to do by way of meditation. It would be
complying with all of the physical regulations and calling itself a rural
retreat, but the programs would comply with meditation. (Mr. Martin returned at
11:25 p.m.) You cannot put any regulations in the ordinance unless the zoning
administrator enforces it. She can enforce regulations, but not a definition
based on the mental activities set out in a program.
Mr. Martin stated that basically the Board just wants staff to find a way
to define it and limit what is envisioned as a retreat.
Mr. Cilimberg said he could not speak confidently about the definition.
The supplementary regulations that Ms. May presented were simply ones that the
Planning Commission saw as being enforceable. Staff needs to spend time on rural
preservation and how it would work.
Mr. Bowerman asked if "it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, walks like
a duck, but is a chicken, it is still O.K." If it does those three things, but
· s really something else and there are supplementary regulations that deal with
all of the important characteristics, then can the County accept that product in
the future as uses change. They meet conditions of the supplementary
regulations, they cluster their development, create a conservation easement, will
this satisfy the County as to the use because they are limited by the
supplementary regulations. Mr. St. John said, in order to answer thatquestion,
you should eliminate the word "rural retreat". If you say that, you are saying
M.B. 42, Pg. 67
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
that you believe there should be resorts in the rural areas provided they meet
the physical conditions. Mr. Bowerman stated that this is what he meant. This
is what the Board would recommend that staff do.
Mr. Marshall said he could not support this as a rural retreat based on the
fact that it will turn out to be a hotel. Mr. Bain stated that he, too, had real
problems with it. Mr. Bowerman commented that if the Board members could make
that determination then there was no sense in sending staff on a "wild goose
chase".
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Tucker if the 4-H Camp at Free Union and Mount Fair
Campground, which both have cabins that they rent, were developed before the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker answered by stating that they are both non
conforming uses.
Mr. St. John stated that there is a use in the ordinance already called
"boarding camps". This does not limit itself to these definitions which are
unenforceable. If you grant a permit for a boarding camp, there is no reason why
the proprietor of the boarding camp could not conduct these very same activities.
You cannot tell the owner that this is the only thing they could have.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the Zoning Administrator did have a question
as to the legitimacy of boarding camp for the Adventure Bound request and it did
not fit in that request. There was no official determination or anything
appealed, it was simply her view of the request as a boarding camp. Camps, as
they are now defined, are oriented to extensive outdoor recreation. Mr. St. John
said that if the Board granted a permit for a boarding camp, it could not limit
the activities to just outdoor recreation.
Mr. Martin suggested that the Board bring this back for discussion in
August.
Mr. Marshall stated that he felt there was already zoning in place. Mr.
Bowerman agreed, and stated that if it meant an appeal of the zoning
administrator's decision, then the mechanism already exists. He does not believe
the County will be able to do any better than this. Mr. Martin asked if Mr.
Bowerman was stating that they should apply for a special use permit as a
boarding camp. Mr. Bowerman stated that they would have to appeal the Zoning
Administrator's ruling. Mr. Martin thought the informal ruling was based on the
Adventure Bound School itself, and not the school as a retreat. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that Adventure Bound may want to'speak to this question.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board had enough information.
Mr. Bain said he feels that if the ZTA is approved, there will be no way
to avoid a resort in a rural area and he is not interested in this even if it is
limited. Mr. Bain then made motion to deny ZTA-92-03. Mrs. Humphris seconded°
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Adventure Bound, Inc. (owner), Donna Frantzen
(applicant). Public hearing on a request to permit a rural retreat on 33 ac
zoned RA. Property in S corner of iters of Rts 810 & 687. TM6,p24&25B. White
Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 7, 1992.)
Based on the denial of ZTA-92-03, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to
deny SP-92-23 on the grounds that the use requested is not permitted in the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Hu~phris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins. '
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. ll. SP-92-36. Robertson Electric (applicant); First
Berkmar Drive Land Trust/Second Land Trust (owner). Public Hearing on a request
to permit contractor's office & equipment storage yard on 2.3 ac zoned HC.
Property on S side of Berkmar Dr approx 0.2 mi W of Rt 29. TM61U,P8A, Sec 1.
Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 7,
1992.)
Mr. Bain stated he has spoken with one of the adjoining property owners (he
Ks a client) directly regarding this issue. He abstained (11:39) and left the
room.
M.B. 42, Pg. 68
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Cilimberg first passed out minutes from the discussion of special use
permit by the Planning Commission. He apologized that it had not gotten to the
Board. Mr. Cilimberg then gave the following summary of the staff report:
"Character of %he Area: This site is developed with Robertson
Electric. Adjacent uses on Berkmar Drive are commercial. The
Berkeley subdivision is located adjacent to this site.
Applicant's Proposal: This special use permit is requested for
continuing operation of Robertson Electric Company, Inc., a heating,
electrical, plumbing and air-conditioning business. (The current
operation is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, Attachment C, on
file~. The site plan accompanying the special use permit
delineates the storage areas. ·
Planninq and Zoninq History:
April 6, 1970 - The Planning Commission approved a site plan for an
electrical contract£ng office.
April 29, 1978 - The Planning Commission approved a 1203 square foot
addition.
August 24, 1989 - The Zoning Administrator notified the applicant
that a violation of the Zoning Ordinance exists.
February 20, 1990 - The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-88-19
rezoning the property from C-i, Commercial, to HC, Highway
Commercial (Proffered).
February 20, 1990 - The Board of Supervisors approved SP-89-79
permitting a contractor's office and equipment storage yard (The
approval of this permit has expired).
Comprehensive Pla,: This site is located in Neighborhood 1 and is
recommended for Community Service.
SUMMARY AND RECO~m. NDATION:
Staff has combined the review for. the special use permit and site
plan. The Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit for
this use in 1990. That approval has expired. During the Planning
Commission's review of that petition, access and the nature of items
to be stored on site were discussed. The Planning Commission's
minutes for the rezoning and special use permit for this site are
included as Attachment D. In order to address storage of materials
becoming an 'attractive nuisance', a fence is shown on the site plan
as well as a note prohibiting the storage of hazardous materials.
During the Planning Commission's review of the rezoning and special
use permit, staff had recommended closure of the eastern entrance
which did not have adequate sight distance. At that time, it was
unknown if an easement existed to serve this site as well as an
adjacent site. No easement is recorded, however, the applicant has
submitted information indicating that a verbal agreement has existed
(Attachment E, on file). The applicant has also submitted entrance
permits for the two entrances serving this site. These permits were
issued by the Virginia Department of TranspOrtation (VDOT) in 1978
and the entrances were constructed in accordance with these permits.
The comments of VDOT are attached (Attachment F, on file). Staff
recommends that adequate sight distance be obtained for the western
entrance and that the final plan indicate the sight easement and
landscaping proffered with ZMA-88-19. Staff is unable to recommend
closure of the eastern entrance due to an existing agreement
allowing use of the entrance by an adjacent property. Staff
recommends that sight distance for this entrance be obtained to the
north by removing/relocating landscaping. Staff notes that due to
the configuration of the site and the area proposed for expansion
there should be little or no increase in the use of the eastern
entrance.
The applicant has revised the plan to reflect the comments of the
Site Review Committee. Staff opinion is that there has been no
change in circumstance since the original special use permit review
to warrant disapproval of this request. Staff recommends approval
of SP-92-36 subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (SP-92-36):
me
Required site improvements shall be completed within ninety
(90) days of the issuance of the special use permit. This
permit shall expire ninety (90) days from the date of approval
if required improvements have not been completed;
M.B. 42, Pg. 69
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
2. Additional storage areas shall not be established until sight
easements are platted and work to obtain adequate sight
distance for the western entrance and to the north for the
eastern entrance is completed;
3. Staff approval of sight easement plats;
4. All required building permits shall be obtained and complied
with prior to the establishment of additional storage areas.
Additional Staff Comment for SP-92-36: The conditions of approval
reflect those contained in the 1990 approval for this use as well as
additional language designed to correct existing violations/site
deficiencies. The 1990 approval granted an eight (8) month time
limit for the completion of required improvements. That time period
was designed to allow for the preparation and approval by the
Planning Commission of a site plan. Staff is now recommending a
shorter time period for the completion of improvements as the site
plan has been prepared and accompanies this special use permit
request."
Mr. Cilimberg said, the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 30, 1992
by a vote of 6/1, recommended approval of SP-92-36 with recommendations set out
in the staff report. He also noted that Bobby Shaw, Erosion Control Inspector
made inspection on Tuesday, July 14 noting erosion problems on a stream on the
west side of the Robertson Electric property. Staff suggests the following
condition be added to the Planning Commission's recommended conditions:
"5.
Correction of stream erosion problems as identified in the July 13,
1992 memo (on file) from Robert A. Shaw to V. Wayne Cilimberg to the
satisfaction of the Erosion Control Officer."
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Mr. William Robertson was present 'and stated that two of these lots were
purchased for the operation of his business. It was first zoned M-i, then
rezoned C-1 after it~ was in operation. He came to the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors for rezoning of one lot which was the western most lot and
was told to get all of it rezoned. He plans on doing this.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the rezoning took place and is not before the
Board. The special permit attached to that rezoning has expired.
Mr. Robertson stated that they have worked closely with the Planning staff
to resolve issues and are in agreement, except this is the first time he became
aware of the stream having an erosion problem.
Mr. Bowerman said the stream was identified by residents and they met with
the Erosion Control person. Mr. Robertson will have to comply with the
determination because there is an erosion problem.
Mr. Robertson stated that Mr. Bill Fritz, Planning Department, came out and
walked the property with him and told him that this is the natural channel for
this creek and he would convey this information. Mr. Robertson is not saying
that he objects or refuses to comply but he did not know about it.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that Mr. Bobby Shaw, Erosion Inspector, does not
recognize this as being any problem of severe magnitude, but does know that the
problem could get worse and effect adjacent properties~ therefore he is
suggesting that the easiest way to deal with this is to have this correction tied
to the special use permit. Mr. Robertson could choose not to do this and would
still work with the property owner towards satisfying the concerns. Mr. Shaw's
feeling was that this gives it a timeframe.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Robertson if he had any objections to this becoming
a condition. Mr. Robertson said he did not know what was involved or how costly
it would be. Robertson Electric has been through financial trauma for the past
two years and they are just now able to go forward with the improvements and
conditions to be able to afford to pay for them. Mr. Robertson stated that he
wants to comply and can within limited resources which included what he thought
until tonight was all inclusive. He will be glad to cooperate in any way he can.
Mr. Bowerman stated that even if it is not included as a condition it has
to be fixed. Mr. Robertson said he understands this. He also stated that he
would meet with Mr. Shaw.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he did not know that Mr. Shaw had not discussed
this problem with Mr. Robertson. Mr. Shaw said that he had investigated a
complaint but did not mention Mr. Robertson's name in his memo. He assumed that
he had discussed it with Mr. Robertson. He did determine that it was all on Mro
Robertson's property.
M.B. 42, Pg. 70
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Bowerman suggested that it be approved with this condition and dire~
Mr. Robertson to get with Mr. Shaw. If there is a problem after that an appeal
can be made. '
Mr. Marshall then moved to approve BP-92-06 with the conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Humphris seconded.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall Martin and Perkins
NAYS: None. ' ·
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bain.
(Note: The conditions as approved are set out in full below.)
1. Required site improvements shall be completed within ninety (90)
days of the issuance of the special use permit. This permit shall
expire ninety (90) days from the date of approval if required
improvements have not been completed;
2. Additional storage areas shall not be established until sight
easements are platted and work to obtain adequate sight distance for
the western entrance and to the north for the eastern entrance is
completed;
3e
Se
Staff approval of sight easement plats;
Ail required building permits shall be obtained and complied with
prior to the estmblishment of additional storage areas.
Correction of stream erosion problems as identified in the July 13,
1992 memo (on file) from Robert A. Shaw to V. Wayne Cilimberg to the
satisfaction of the Erosion Control Officer.
(Mr. Bain returned at 11:50 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 13. CPA-90-03. Wendell Wood. Public Hearing on a request
to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use
designation from Industrial Service to Regional Service and High Density
Residential on approximately 125 acres of land west of Route 29 and east of Route
606 in the Hollymead Community. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 30 and
July 7, 1992.)
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any way the Board could look at just the
portion of the amendment for a mobile home park. (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting
at 11:58 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff could isolate and look just at
the mobile~ home park by itself if that is what the Board wants to do. He did not
know i~f Mr. Wood would be willing to isolate and have a designation change for
only a mobile home park and not consider the remainder of the application at this
time.
Mr. Wendell Wood was present and stated that the mobile home section was
the driving force.
Mr. Bain stated that he was inclined to look at all of the requested
amendments for the Hollymead Communit~ together, but he does not have to
necessarily wait for the report of the Fiscal Impact Committee for this to be
done. The fiscal impact will not be finished before next summer. (Mr. Bowerman
returned at 12:00, midnight.)
Mr. Martin asked about the time frame.
Mr. Wood stated he was here two years ago on this very issue and Mrs.
Humphris made a motion at that time that the Board delay it for six months to
resolve issues; here it is two years later. Things have happened and sewer lines
have been built. He' does not know if we are any closer to some of these other
items.
Mr. Bain asked when the Commission will look at the Towers Land Trust
request. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Towers land crosses the other
Comprehensive Plan amendment and that request was deferred by the Planning
Commission. A definite date has not been set but is expected to be held by the
next month.
Mr. Bowerman asked where the property is physically located. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that it is on the northeast side of Route 29 near the Route 649
intersection.
Mr. Martin asked when the Board would be able to look at all of the
properties at the same time. Mr. Marshall asked how long it would take to get
utilities.
M.B. 42, Pg. 71
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Wood asked what the Towers Land Trust request had to do with his
request. Mr. Marshall said it was an addition of the Hollymead growth area.
Mr. Wood stated that it there are two different range densities when you begin
talking about sewer. Mr. Marshall said he saw it mentioned in the Service
Authority's minutes.
Mr. Martin said if this can be accomplished within a reasonable time frame
then he feels it should be done.
Mr. Cilimberg stated it depends on what the Board wants to have
accomplished in this entire area. The staff would like to have the consultant's
work on the Meadow Creek Parkway somehow finished, and this should be completed
within this calendar year. The other outstanding issue is the Fiscal Impact
Analysis report. If the Board is comfortable in proceeding without the Fiscal
Impact analysis being done, then once the Meadow Creek Parkway plans are
completed, it is his opinion that the land use request can be dealt with. Staff
would like to know where the Meadow Creek Parkway will most likely be routed.
He does not want to recommend a location for a mobile home park and then have the
Meadow Creek Parkway cut through the middle of it. Mr. Wood has not been privy
to this because it has just become something that staff wanted to look at.
Mr. Martin said the western part of the Meadow Creek Parkway was just
discussed a few weeks ago and now, all of a sudden, plans are being made for it.
It was Mr. Martins understanding that it was a preliminary study and construction
would not begin for six or more years from now. Mr. Cilimberg stated
construction would not begin any earlier than that, but he understood the Board
was looking at that portion within the same time frame as the rest of Meadow
Creek. A rough location for the road is being established.
Mr. Bowerman stated this was his understanding as well. If something is
not planned, all traffic for the western portion would be on Route 29 or on the
eastern section of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Martin stated that the Board has CPA-92-02 and CPA-90-03 and both of
these applicants have applied for amendments. His intent was to recommend that
CPA-90-03 go back to the Planning Commission and he had not intended on making
a deferral on CPA-92-02 but if the applicant is planning on requesting a deferral
until the next meeting, then the Board can make a decision to wait or do whatever
it wants to do.
Mr. Martin then moved that CPA'90-03 be sent back to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Bain seconded and stated that he felt it should be back before this
Board within 60 days or less.
There was no discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs.
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Marshall, Martin and
Agenda Item No. 14. CPA-92-02. South Fork Land Trust - Hollymead. Public
Hearing on a proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, Hotlymead
Community, to include approximately 30 acres designated for low density
residential land use. Property located on Route 643, 1 mi E of Route 29.
TM46,P22C&98A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 30
and July 7, 1992.)
Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Martin made motion that this item be
deferred until August 12th and be first on the agenda. Mr. Bain seconded.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Bain stated that when he abstained and left the room, he spoke with
several people from Adventure Bound and they still believe there is some wa~ to
have a definition or supplementary regulations that could make a distinction in
the "rural retreat" request. If their representative can give a distinction to
Mr. St. John, then the Board can take it from there and reconsider the previous
vote.
The were no suggestions forthcoming.
M.B. 42, Pg. 72
July 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board the meeting was adjourned
at 12:10 a.m.
Chairman