1989-08-02August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
198
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on August 2, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, COunty
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H, Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and
Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and
seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve Item 4.1 and accept the remaining consent
agenda items as information.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Resolution to Accomplish the Addition/Abandonment of a Portion
of Route 674, was adopted by the vote shown above and set out below.
WHEREAS, Secondary Route 674 from 0.ii07 miles east of Route 673
to 0.06 miles west of Route 673, a distance of 0.13 miles, road has
been constructed and approved by the State Highway Commissioner,
which new road serves the same citizens ~s the road so altered; and
WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road follow new loca-
tions, these being shown on the attached sketch titled "Changes in
Secondary System due to Relocation and Cdnstruction of Route 674
Project 0674-002-231, NS01, Albemarle CoUnty", dated at Charlottes-
ville, Virginia, July 27, 1989.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the portions of Secondary
Route 674, i.e. Sections 3 and 4, and a portion of Route 673, i.e.
Section 5, shown in red on the sketch tiCled "Changes in Secondary
System due to Relocation and Constructio~ on Route 674, Project
0674-OO2-231, N501, Albemarle County", da~ed at Charlottesville,
Virginia, July 27, 1989, a total distanc~ of 0.13 miles on Route 674
and 0.01 miles on Route 673, be and hereby is, added to the Secon-
dary System of State Highways pursuant ta Section 33.1-229 of the
Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended;
And further, that the sections of o~d location, i.e., Sections
1 and 2, shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total dis-
tance of 0.14 miles, be, and the same hereby is, abandoned as a
public road pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended.
Item 4.2. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority's Budget for Fiscal
Year 1990, as adopted June 29, 1989, received as information. (Copy on file
in the Clerk's Office.)
Item 4.3. Letter dated July 13, 1989, fr~m Ms. Margaret T. Peters,
Department of Historic Resources, to Dr. David!L. Morris, concerning the
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
199
inclusion of Cocke's Mill on the Virginia Landmarks Register and nomination of
same to the National Register of Historic Places, received as information.
Item 4.4. Notice dated July 6, 1989, from the State Corporation Commis-
sion, of an Application filed by Old Dominion Electric Cooperative for Appro-
val of New Generation Facilities Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-234.3
and for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Pursuant to Virginia
Code Section 56-265.2, received as information.
Item 4.5. Letter dated July 20, 1989, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resi-
dent Highway Engineer, to Carolyn J. Belt, Charlottesville Track Club, grant-
ing permission to close sections of Route 601 and Route 676 for a road race on
Saturday, September 2, 1989, received as information. Mr. Way pointed out
that the Virginia Department of Transportation could close a road for a foot
race, but could not close one for the Fourth of July parade in Scottsville.
Item 4.6. Letter dated July 24, 1989, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, giving notification that the speed limit on Route
29 North from Rio Road to the South Fork of the Rivanna River has been reduced
to 45 miles per hour, was received as information.
Item 4.7. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for July 18 and July 25,
1989, received as information.
Item 4.8. Letters dated July 21 and July 20, 1989, from Commander Thomas
Maxwell, Police Department, stating that thr~e property owners of Pancake
Falls on Route 631 have advised that they will post "No Trespassing" signs,
and the police department will pay special attention to this area, was re-
ceived as information.
Item 4.9. Letter dated July 26, 1989, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resi-
dent Highway Engineer, stating that Route 627 near Carter's Bridge would be
closed to traffic for a two week period beginning Monday, 3uly 31, 1989,
received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: Alderman Road Water Improvements Preliminary
Site Plan (deferred from July 19, 1989).
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the staff report which had been presented at the
July 19, 1989, meeting. He said that staff had visited the site and felt that
the natural grade of the land was more conducive to the proposed tank at this
location than the other possible locations around Lewis Mountain. He said the
visual impact from any location on the Mountain would essentially be the same,
based on what staff was able to see at the site.
Mr. Way said there had been some legal questions raised at the last
meeting. He said Mr. St. John had written the Board a memo addressing those
questions. He asked Mr. St. John to address those before he allowed the
public to speak again.
Mr. St. John said he had written a memo of law dated July 21, 1989. He
had sent a copy of that letter to Mr. Ned Slau~ghter and to Mr. Bill Brent.
Since that time, Mr. Slaughter's office had sent a response to his letter.
Mr. St. John said that today he had written a~one page response to Mr. Slaugh-
ter's letter. He said the Board had copies of all of those letters, and he
would answer any questions they might have.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bill iBrent, Executive Director of the
Albemarle County Water Service Authority (ACS~), said he had several people
from his staff to answer any questions the Board might have. Mr. Brent then
had his staff give a slide presentation showing the location and the visual
impact of the tank.
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
2O0
Mr. Henry Budzinski, engineer for this project for ACSA, gave the slide
presentation. He indicated that a five-foot diameter balloon would be shown
over the proposed location of the water storage tank in the slides. He said
the balloon is at an elevation ranging from 70 to 100 feet above the ground.
He said the reason for such height was becauSe the balloon could not be seen
from anything less because it would be masked by the tall trees which range in
height from 60 to 100 feet at this location. Mr. Budzinski then proceeded
with the slide presentation, indicating the location of the balloon in each
slide. Photographs of the proposed locationi~were taken from Zehmer Hall,
Colony Drive, University Hall, University Heights, Newcomb Hall and from Mrs.
Julia Campbell's house, among other locations surrounding Lewis Mountain.
At the conclusion of the slide presentation, Mr. Brent pointed out that
two profiles showing a line of sight from the University of Virginia to the
Campbell mansion at the top of Lewis Mountain had been prepared for the
Board's information. He then addressed his remarks to a letter from Mrs. Jane
Clarke of Slaughter and Redinger law firm. He pointed out several statements
which he said were not correct, and further ~xplained some points that were
essentially correct. Mr. Brent said he feel~ the bottom line to this appeal
is the question of money. On at least two different occasions during negotia-
tions with Mr. Vining, he said it had been made perfectly clear to him that
there would be no appeal and no contest, if ~CSA would meet Mr. Vining's
price. ~
Mr. Rutledge Vining, appellant, said he land his wife have a great deal at
stake in this matter. He believes his land ds being condemned by ACSA for
nearly the sole benefit of two large and powerful developers who have been the
predominant force in the planning of the sit~ location. He said what he was
offered as compensation was less than one-thi~rd of the estimate by an indepen-
dent appraiser of the damage that would be d0~ne to his property. He said he
has owned and lived on this property for ove~ 40 years. At his age, he said
he is not in a position to resort to real estate maneuvers to avoid income
taxes. Thus, he is being forced into litigat~ion that he can ill afford for
the protection of his estate. ~
Mr. Vining said his appeal is based on t~o things. First, there has been
an outrageous difference in the way two sets ~f citizens have been treated.
On the one hand, there are two real estate de~elopers, and there are the
property owners on the other hand. He said h~ has had absolutely no negotia-
tions with ACSA. In fact, he did not hear anFthlng about the water tank until
the location had already been fixed. He said? he had only been able to obtain
the file of documents pertaining to the water!-tank a few days ago. He feels
there has been a virtual secrecy of the dealings between the Service Authority
and the developers over the past few years. He said if that much difference
can be made between citizens lawfully, it should not be. Further, if that is
lawful, then other landowners in the County s~ould know about it.
Mr. Vining's second basis for appeal is ~hat the Service Authority is
exercising the power of eminent domain in thi~ case for the private benefit of
a private party. Mr. Vining said that is unlawful. He said he would not
address the legal aspect of the case, but he ~ould like to address the non-
lawyers with regard to his reactions to Mr. S~. 3ohn's letter. He said he
intended no discourtesy by his remarks. Howe~er,~ he felt that Mr. St. John's
remarks reflected a hurried reading of the file of letters and memos, since
only one of the letters in the file was discuised by Mr. St. John.
Mr. Vining then read from several letter~ and memos to support his
position that the developer was substituting ~r. Vining's land for the tank in
order to free his own land for the developmen~ of apartments. He said there
was not another location for this tank that wg.uld be more beneficial to Mr.
Heischman, the developer, and more detrimenta~i to Mr. Vining's property. Mr.
Vining said if he had been asked about the plans in the beginning, he would
have been willing to swap some of his land wh~!ch borders the University of
Virginia property, in order to use the tank a~eady, on Observatory Mountain,
rather than to destroy Lewis Mountain. He concluded by saying he feels there
is a pretty good argument that eminent domain ~authority has been used to free
land for the development of apartments and that the developer had a good deal
to do with the planning of that.
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
20
Mrs. Jane Clarke, lawyer representing Mr. Vining, commented on several
statements Mr. Brent had made concerning Mrs. Clarke's letter of August 1.
She said it appears that what has happened to Mr. Vining is no different than
the Service Authority condemning one-half an acre of Mr. ¥ining's land and
giving it to a developer so that he could develop an apartment complex. The
result is the same. The developer had enough influence in the process to
cause the site to be moved, thus giving them land available for development.
She said Mr. Brent had stated he knew of no plans for the development of Mr.
Heischman's land, but in the contract between the developer and the Service
Authority, it is mentioned that the purchase price of the property was to be
based on the number of units allowed per acre. Mrs. Clarke felt there was a
strong inference that development was intended. She said that is not a valid
use of the power of eminent domain. Further, the process by which the site
was chosen was totally flawed and unfair to the property owners. She said she
felt it was the duty of the Board to protect the citizens of the County who do
not have a half million dollars to get the tank moved off their land onto
someone else's land. Mrs. Clarke said that Mr. Brent had illustrated clearly
the disparity of treatment between the developers and the landowners, because
the developers had been involved every step of the way, and Mr. Vining knew
nothing about the project until late 1988. She said never had Mr. Vining been
contacted to discuss the access over his land, although it was discussed with
Mr. Heischman.
Mrs. Clarke pointed out that she has grave reservations about what Lewis
Mountain will look like in the winter when the leaves have fallen from the
trees. She felt it would be hard to disguise a twenty-five foot high tank
just below Mrs. Campbell's house on Lewis Mo~oSntain. Mrs. Clarke concluded by
saying that since Mr. Vining became involvediin the process, he has been told
that the Planning Commission would decide in flavor of this, but that Mr.
¥ining could appeal to the Board of Supervisdrs. She asked the Board not to
force Mr. Vining to further appeal to the courts in order to protect his
rights.
Mrs. Julia Campbell, adjoining property :owner, said her general view
regarding her neighbors is to "live and let ~iVe". She said she had heard
about the proposed water tank in 1987 when sdrveyors were on Mr. Vining's
property. She heard the tank was going to be:ion Mr. Heischman's land border-
ing Mr. Vining and bordering Mrs. Campbell on one side. She felt that was Mr.
Heischman's business, but it appeared the tank would be in plain view of her
front porch.
Mrs. Campbell said she asked her lawyer to look into the matter, and he
reported that there was nothing she could do because the pipe would be in-
stalled under a roadway which was on Mr. Vining's land. Later she realized
that the tank location was moved to Mr. Vinin§'s property in such a way that
would be horrible for him. She felt the BoarR should not allow any developer
or anyone else to dump their utilities, in effect, onto their neighbor in
order to benefit their own property to get th~ highest value for their land.
Mrs. Campbell said it is not her land that isi~':~eing taken, but her objection
has to do with the future maintenance of the ~Oad. She said she does not feel
the Board should allow the Vining's to be treated in this fashion for the
benefit of a developer who has plenty of othe= occupations he could pursue if
he chose.
Mr. Gerald Ferguson, a retired engineer ~ith 30 years of experience with
the united States Public Health Service on wa~er supply programs, said he has
worked with the Service Authority since beforgi. Mr. Brent was there. He said
there has never been enough water pressure to!~eet fire standards in the
Farmington area. Mr. Ferguson said he knows ~0thing about the details of this
case, but he does know that more water is need;ed in this area, and this pro-
ject will give that water. The planning for such a water tank has been going
on for years now. Mr. Ferguson said he hopeslthe Board will approve something
so that construction can begin to allow more water in that part of the County.
Mr. Bill Heischman, real estate developer, explained that he needed water
for his University Village property. He coul~put a tank on University
Village property for between $350,000 and $400i~000 to serve only that piece of
property. He said he could do that with no problem. However, in order to
solve the water flow problem for fire protectiOn in the area, he had discussed
with Mr. Brent the possibility of having a joiDt venture with ACSA rather than
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
2O
spending money to serve only one area. He said this is the hardest he has
ever worked to give away a half a million dollars. He does not care where the
water tank goes. The Service Authority has engineers who determined where the
tank should be built. If they put it on his land, he will donate the land.
Otherwise, he will put a tank in the ground at University Village. Mr.
Heischman said it does not matter to him.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had asked the question in the previous meeting
regarding the aesthetic impact, and he appreciated the efforts ACSA staff had
made to elucidate the Board on that point. He said the information provided
seems to point to the proposed location being as acceptable as any on that
mountainside. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that a rust color paint should be used
for the tank to diminish the visual impact in the winter.
Mr. Bain said he hopes that the staff will review carefully at the time
of site plan review the actual elevation and whether the trees will cover and
obscure the structure. He said he does not think the Board's job is to make
decisions on the value of a property owner's !land. That is appropriate to the
courts in the condemnation process. He does not agree with this process in
terms of notification, but the proposed project would be a vast improvement
for the water system to the County and to the City.
Mr. Bowie said he wanted to get clarification on one item. Was the
original proposal to serve University Village only, and is the joint venture
to serve a much larger area? Mr. Brent said there has actually been only one
proposal. There were discussions between Mr. Heischman and the Service
Authority with regard to his development at University Village. The only
concrete proposal has been for a water tank at Lewis Mountain.
Mrs. Cooke asked how much of the water flow in this area would be en-
hanced by the waner tank. Mr. Brent indicated a large shaded area on the map,
including everything from Chancellor Street in the City, and then west to
Farmington, the Boar's Head complex, and Ednam Forest. Mrs. Cooke asked if
Mr. Heischman's contribution to this project would enable the Service Authori-
ty to develop a project to enhance the water 'flow to these areas. Mr. Brent
said that was correct. ACSA would have to build this facility at some time in
the future. With Mr. Heichman's offer, it could be built at a much lower cost
to the public.
Mr. Bowie asked the County Attorney if i~i is correct that in a dispute
over value of property, during condemnation p,,~oceedings the court sets the
worth of the land taken. Mr. St. John said t/4at was correct.
Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board takes no:~iiaction on this appeal, the
project can go forward. However, due to the ~ontroversy, he thought the Board
should take an action. He is non clear on exactly what happened in this case,
but the Board is not set up to take the kind ~.f evidence necessary to get the
answer to that question. He said his motion ~o support the site location is
not intended to speak to the question of whetjer or not the process was
appropriate. If the property owners are inclined, the courts are available
for that process.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom.~.~to confirm the Planning Commis-
sion's recommendation as to site and location~',!depicted on the Alderman Road
Water Improvements Preliminary Site Plan Lewis: Mountain Water Tank. The
Albemarle County Service Authority's permanen~'~ easement is to be reduced to 20
feet. The construction easement is to be limited to 20 feet, with the under-
standing that access by workers on foot may e~;ceed that limit. Mr. Brent said
the Service Authority would concur with that. i:' The tanks should be painted a
rust color and careful consideration is to be Igiven to maintenance of trees
during siting of the tank. Staff can accomplish this under Section 32.7.9 by
requirement of a conservation plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bain.
Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrsi~ Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
2O
Agenda Item No. 6. Request from Ronald T. Castelino concerning the
Stormwater Detention Basin in Camelia Gardens (deferred from July 19, 1989).
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the staff report which had been given at the
July 19, 1989, meeting. The question had arisen as to whether or not the
Basin has met the maintenance requirements established in 1980. He said Mr.
St. John would address the legal aspects raised by Mr. Castelino's request.
Mr. St. John said he had forwarded a memo on this subject to the Board.
He said he was asked to list the alternative remedies to this problem. One
thing Mr. St. John said he forgot to include in the letter was the question of
whether the developer of this subdivision, if the Board found he did not
comply with the conditions imposed originally, could be required to join in
funding of the regional basin which is being planned. Mr. St. John said in
his opinion, the Board could not do that. He said the Board could enforce the
conditions originally set up at the time of approval, but it could not use
default of those conditions as grounds to add new conditions. Other options
would be to revoke the occupancy permit with timing so as not to interfere
with the rights of innocent third parties, and/or to file a suit for specific
performance of the homeowners' requirements, or to have the County do the work
needed at this basin and then bill the owner for that work.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be acceptable if the developer offered
voluntarily to contribute a specified sum in settlement if the Board found
that there was not compliance with the requirements for this subdivision, and
the Board directed Mr. St. John to proceed with one or more of the options he
had listed. Mr. St. John said that would be~acceptable, and the Board would
need to approve that offer. However, the Board could not impose this as a
condition.
Mr. Agnor said another question that arose during the last discussion was
whether the basin had been built to approved specifications. He said the
Engineering Department had examined that question, and the basin was built as
originally approved. After construction, itiwas surveyed the second time to
be sure the requirements had been met. Staf~i also looked at the feasibility
of diverting the flow to this basin to the Birnam regional facility. It was
determined that it is not feasible. This pacticular basin is needed sepa-
rately from the regional basin. The questio~of maintenance of the facility
is provided for by the homeowners associatioH~ which is not a functioning
organization. .~
The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Lee, the developer of the subdivi-
sion, came forward to speak. He thanked theiBoard for the opportunity to tell
his side of the story. He said the problem ~tiginated from the proPerty owner
not mowing his lawn faithfully. He said there may also be poor design of the
original detention pond. He received a letter in March of last year from Mr.
Castelino's representative concerning the detention pond. That letter sug-
gested that someone be hired to maintain the .lawn to assure the functioning of
the detention pond. He responded on March 13. saying that most of the main-
tenance required was mowing the lawn, and th~ should be the responsibility of
the property owner. He said if there was anything that needed to be done in
terms of gravel, he was willing to talk to M~i! Castelino to correct the
problem. If it was a problem of cleaning up,'he would volunteer to help twice
a year. Mr. Lee said he met with Mr. Castelino to discuss the letter and a
possible solution to the problem. His impression was that Mr. Castelino
absolutely refused his offer, and Mr. Lee felg it was not even safe to walk on
Mr. Castelino's property. He heard nothing mpre until he got a call from a
Daily Progress reporter about Mr. Castelino's~!:.~.appearance before the Board. He
was not informed of that meeting beforehand.
Mr. Lee said to remedy the situation, he~!would require that all property
owners mow their lawn. As an example of the poor maintenance by property
owners, Mr. Lee said all the mail boxes of prpperties not managed by him were
rusted. He said mowing is the main problem b~cause he maintains another
property having a detention pond where the tenants take care of the lawn, and
there is no problem with the pond whatsoever, ii If Mr. Castelino does not want
to mow his lawn, Mr. Lee said he would establish a mechanism to hire someone
and have Mr. Castelino pay for his portion. ~e would be happy to talk to the
engineers about his concern about the incorrect design of this pond which he
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
2O
feels creates some of the problem. In some areas rocks have been required by
the County, which makes the mowing very difficult. In summary, Mr. Lee said
he would be happy to cooperate in doing any maintenance other than mowing the
lawn.
Mrs. Cooke asked if there is an organized homeowners association. Mr.
Lee said most of the owners there know him personally. Mrs. Cooke asked if
the association has been organized. Mr. Lee said it has not been, and it
should be. He said it was a mistake to think that because all the owners know
him they would come to him and talk about any problems. Since he represents
the majority of the owners, he would be happy to form an association and let
people know they can contact him for any actions necessary.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Lee if he owned more. than half of the property in
Camelia Gardens. Mr. Lee said he did not own. more than half. He said that
friends and relatives together with him own the majority.
Mrs. Cooke asked if most of the houses in the-subdivision were rental
houses. Mr. Lee said they were. Mrs. Cooke ~aid the tenants would have no
say in the homeowners association if there was one. Mr. Lee said theoreti-
cally that was correct, but in order to make this an enjoyable place for
tenants it is desirable for the owner to take' care of the property. He said
he tries in every way he can to help his tenants.
Mr. Bowie said he thought the pond was to have been built on community
property. It ended up in one landowner's yard. Mr. St. John said the ground
on which this facility is located is not owned by the homeowners association,
and the deed does not call for that. It calls for the association to have an
easement. He said in hindsight, that is not a good idea. For future busi-
ness, the County would be better off to have ~he pond owned as a separate
piece of property by the association. By having the easement as it is, Mr.
Lee did not violate the deed. The two owners/actually own the pond.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the issue is whether the conditions for
compliance have been met. Apparently they ha~e not been because there is no
homeowners association established.
It was the consensus of the Board that Mr.. St. John's office and Mr.
Moring's office work with Mr. Lee to be sure a~ agreement is drawn up and
reviewed.
Mr. Castelino said there were other property owners who wished to speak.
It was suggested that, since the Board had he~rd at length from Mr. Castelino,
and the Board realizes assistance is needed w~th this problem, staff should
proceed as directed by the Board.
An unidentified lady from the audience s~id she resents the fact that Mr.
Lee said she does not mow her grass. She sai~ she moved there in January, and
when it rains children cannot go outside ~*
because the area fills up. She said
she was going to have someone haul in dirt toifill it in until she found out
that it was a requirement of the County. She!i!said there is nothing the
property owners can do about the problem. Sh~i has offered to help solve the
Problem. She said the Board should come out ~ the area after it rains and
see the trash, mosquitoes and flies. !i!
Mrs. Cooke said she hopes that the properly owners understand that the
basin has to be there. It is the clean up an~.. maintenance issue that is
before the Board today. ~
Mr. Castelino said he also resents Dr. L~'s comments about him. He
never refused to work on the property. He didirefuse to have the sole respon-
sibility for getting Mr. Lee and his relativesito do their part. He said that
is not his obligation. Mr. Castelino said Mr.i!Lee has an easement on that
property. He does not need to feel threatened?by Mr. Castelino. If Mr. Lee
wanted to maintain the property, he could have!done so with no threat from Mr.
Castelino. However, Mr. Castelino said Mr. Le~ did not maintain the property
before he moved there, and Mr. Lee has not maintained it since he moved there
two years ago. He and another property owner,i!Mrs. Rambo, should not only
have the pond maintained, but they should be c~mpensated for having it on
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
205
their property. He urged the Board not to allow a similar detention pond to
be built in someone's back yard in the future. He asked whether the pond
could be put underground so he could use his land.
Mr. Way then dismissed those property owners from Camelia Gardens, along
with Mr. St. John and Mr. Moring to select a time to meet and discuss these
problems. Mr. St. John was directed to come back before the Board at the
September day meeting with a recommended action.
(NOTE: The Board recessed at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened at 9:32 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-89-47. David & Joseph Wood (James Garth). For an
auto rentals and sales on .828 acres, zoned C-1. Property on the west side of
Route 29 North at its intersection with Dominion Drive (Rt. 851). Tax Map
61M, parcel 12-1H. Charlottesville District (deferred from July 19, 1989).
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant had requested withdrawal of the peti-
tion.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to
approve withdrawal of SP-89-47 without prejudice. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-89-52. Maple Gr~ve Christian Church. For a
church and parsonage facility on 4.1 acres, zoned R-1. Property located on
the south side of Route 649 (Proffit Road), ~pprox. 1200 feet east of inter-
section with Route 29 North. Tax Map 32, Pamcel 29G. Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 18~iiand July 25, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
Background: A special use permit was is'=sued for this proposed use
in 1984, however, the permit was not perfected and has since
expired. ~
Staff Comment: Staff can determine no ~hange of circumstance in
this area which would require reassessment of this proposal under
the criteria for issuance of a special use permit (31.2.4.1).
Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the following
condition:
Administrative approval of the sit~ plan;
Approval is for worship services a~d related activities as
described in the staff report for ~P-89-40. Day care, private
school or other such activities shall require amendment of this
special use permit."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 18,
1989, unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to the condi-
tions in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened. A representative of the applicant was
present to answer any questions. ~
There being no other members of the public present to speak to this
application, the public hearing was closed.
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
206
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve the
request subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission,
correcting a typographical error in the special use permit number as set out
below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
1. Administrative approval of the site plan;
Approval is for worship services and related activities as
described in the staff report for SP-84-40. Day care, private
school or other such activities shall require amendment of this
special use permit.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-89-28. Richard & Geraldine Muller. To allow for
the transfer of four development rights (Deferred from July 5, 1989).
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant had again requested deferral to Septem-
ber 20, 1989.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to defer this
petition to September 20, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vone:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-88-97. Christ Community Church. For a church on
7.63 acres, zoned R-2. Property located in the Woodbrook Subdivision on the
east side of Idlewood Drive at the intersection with Brookmere Road south of
Brentwood Road. Please note that access is not proposed through Woodbrook
Subdivision. Tax Map 45C-2, Parcel 6. Charlottesville District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on July 18 and July 25, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This property is currently vacant and has a
substantial amount of existing vegetation! located on its southern
and easternmost boundaries. A row of evergreen and deciduous trees
exists along the northern boundary of the site, beginning approxi-
mately 350 feet into the property. A perennial stream generally
flows around the periphery of the site.
The property is bordered by Woodbrook Subdivision to the north,
Raintree Subdivision on the southeast, a~d two large parcels on the
southwest which are presently unimproved~
History: This parcel previously (until 1982) served as a sewage
treatment lagoon for the Woodbrook Subdivision and adjacent commer-
cial properties, and is currently unimproved vacant land. The
western portion of this parcel contains as stream bed and swampy
area. The remainder of this property primarily served as the sewage
lagoon when it was operative. When the iagoon operation was aban-
doned, this area was filled with dirt, approximately two feet in
depth, and the area is now level to gent%y rolling.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes re]locate a church of 10,000
square feet, in which 4500 square feet will be designated as sanctu-
ary area. The proposed sanctuary area will ultimately seat 450
people. At present, the church has 138 a~ult members and 75 chil-
dren. ~
The Planning Commission, at its meeting o~ December 6, 1988, recom-
mended denial of the applicant's original?proposal, by a vote of
five to one. The applicant has revised the access to this site and
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
207
returned to the Planning Commission instead of proceeding to the
Board of Supervisors with a plan that contains substantial changes.
Staff Comment will be addressed to four main issues:
2.
3.
4.
Traffic Generation
Building and Site Design
Adjacent Owner's Concerns
Site Suitability.
Traffic Generation: The applicant's original proposal included
access through the Woodbrook Subdivision. The applicant has revised
the plan to provide access through the recently approved The Gardens
site. Staff is of the opinion that safe and convenient access can
be provided through The Gardens. Staff's opinion is based on site
design of The Gardens and nonconflicting hours of use.
Building and Site Design: The church facade is proposed to be wood
and masonry. The applicant has stated that the height of the
building will not exceed 33 feet (The maximum allowed building
height in the R-2 zone is 35 feet). The applicant's original
proposal included a playing field and entrance road located approxi-
mately 20 feet from adjacent residential property. The current plan
has been revised to indicate no playing field and a relocated
entrance road located approximately 180 feet from the nearest
property line. The applicant's application plan indicates new
screening to be installed. However, a more detailed landscape plan
will have to be prepared prior to site plan approval. At this time
the applicant has no plans for lighting the proposed parking area.
A sign is to be located at the entry of the property, and land-
scaped. Staff opinion is that objectionable features on the church
site (i.e. parking areas, roadways, etc.!) can be effectively
screened to reduce their visual impact.
Ad3acent Owner Concerns: Staff has included the comments of adja-
cent owners which were submitted at the time of initial review. No
comments have been received concerning this revised proposal.
In general, the following complaints wer~ consistently noted:
Construction of church in Woodbrook~iis incompatible with
the surrounding residential character. Previously ad-
dressed under Building and Site Design. Churches are not
uncommon in residential areas in Charlottesville and many
other localities.
Increased traffic generated by the Church use. Previously
addressed under Traffic Generation.~ Access through
Woodbrook is not proposed.
Proposed church facilities (i.e. playing fields) will
attract unwanted outsiders. Ail playing fields have been
deleted from the application.
Suitability of this site with regard to existing soil
conditions, previous use as a sewag~ lagoon, and flooding
potential. These items are typically evaluated at the
site plan review stage, and are considered irrelevant to
the review of this application. ThJ~t is to say, these
issues would need to be addressed fq~ any development of
the property.
Other requests such as day care will follow with no
assurance of denial. Change in use iof this nature will
require Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
review and approval. ~i
In addition, members of the Planning Commission as well as Woodbrook
residents requested that the following q~estion be raised in this
report:
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
20~
Is there any church in the County which has been granted a
special permit for the purpose of building where the only
access is through an established residential neighborhood.
No such application has been submitted. Access through a residen-
tial neighborhood is not proposed.
Site Suitability: During review of the initial plan the issue of
flood plain presence was raised. The presence or absence of flood
plain has not been determined at this time. Prior to this or any
development an engineering study must be conducted at the developers
expense to determine the presence of flood plain. Staff is of the
opinion that this issue will be adequately addressed prior to Site
Plan Review.
Summary: Staff has found this application consistent with the
following required finding outlined in Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance:
Such use will not be substantial detriment to
adjacent property;
b. The character of the district will not be changed; and
c. Such uses will be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance~
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Sanctuary area limited to 4500 square feet;
Approval is for worship and related church uses only.
Day care or other such uses will require amendment to
this permit; :
o
A 30 foot undisturbed buffer shall be established
between the building and parking area and adjacent lots
in Woodbrook. These buffer areas shall be consistent
with Section 32.7.9.8 (screening) of the Zoning
Ordinance;
4. Should parking lot lighting be inst,!led in the future,
thes~ structures shall not exceed fi~e feet in height
and shall be subject to 4.12.6.4 of %he Zoning
Ordinance;
5. The site plan shall be in general accordance with plan
titled "Christ Community Church", dated February 1,
1989;
6. Verification by Department of Engineering and
Inspections Department for:
a. site suitability for building construction;
location of one hundred year f~lood plain. This
verification shall be made pri~r to review by the
Planning Commission;
Planning Commission shall review the preliminary site
plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 18,
1989, unanimously recommended approval of the?petition subject to the condi-
tions set out in the staff's report.
The public hearing was opened, and Mr. B~uce Wardell, architect for the
project, came forward to speak. He said the church had tried to address the
concerns of the neighborhood by obtaining an alternate access to the property,
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
209:
eliminating playing fields, and by investigating site suitability and develop-
ment on the property. He said there was concern about building on a former
sewage lagoon. Available land for church congregations is limited, and this
property is within the financial means of the church. Regarding the concern
that this property is within the flood plain, Mr. Wardell said the flood plain
study would be a major financial undertaking which the church did not feel
they could do without special permit approval first. Circumstantial evidence
supports that this land is not in the flood plain.
Mr. Wardell showed photographs indicating that nothing could be seen on
this property from the adjoining properties because of the existing trees and
vegetation. He said the applicant is willing to thicken any visual barrier
between the subdivision and this property in order to minimize visual impact
during the winter. They would remove none of the trees shown in photographs
he handed out.
Mr. Wardell said one of the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance was to tell
property owners what they could do on their land. In this case, the require-
ments of that ordinance and the concerns of the neighborhood have been ad-
dressed as far as possible. The church does not know whether it has the
right to build on the property at this point~ Without the approval of this
special use permit, the church would be required to spend a significant amount
of money on various studies without knowing that their investment would bear
any return. Mr. Wardell urged the Board to approve this permit.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said he wanted to update the Board on
a matter dealing with this petition. During~the Planning Commission hearing,
there was substantial discussion about drainage and flooding problems in the
Woodbrook area. It appears there are problems in locations other than this
stream in the Subdivision. He informed the ~lanning Commission that there is
a CIP drainage improvement project scheduled for this stream. Given the
change in circumstance from upstream development and comments at the meeting,
it would seem that the CIP project should be i~e-evaluated. It was then
decided that Mr. Keeler and Mr. Moring, the d~unty Engineer, would review all
areas of Woodbrook where there have been complaints to determine what the
problems are. Mr. Moring is then to prepare ~a comprehensive report for the
Planning Commission with cost figures for corrective measures in the form of a
CIP proposal.
Mr. Mark Hartman, member of the church and resident of Berkley subdivi-
sion, spoke. Mr. Hartman said the church has i:tried to meet the concerns of
the homeowners in the neighborhood. Although'~he is sympathetic to the concern
about having any development on that site, the congregation's hope is that
this development may help to improve some of ~he drainage problems. Consider-
ing the possible alternative uses of this lan~, Mr. Hartman said a church
located there could be a good neighbor for Wo~dbrook. He then presented a
copy of a petition which had been presented t~ the Planning Commission with 83
signatures of members and friends of the church who live throughout the City
of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Mr./~.Hartman concluded by asking
everyone present in favor of the proposal to Stand.
Ms. Dana Matthew, attorney from McQuire, i~Woods, Battle, and Boothe and
member of the church, spoke. She said she wa~ted to raise some legal issues
implicated in the decision before the Board. i'She said she is bringing these
issues before the Board because they are significant and because of the
authority the Board has pursuant to the GenerAl Assembly enactment forming the
Board. She said the petition before the Board implicates the first amendment
of the Constitution of the United States as w4il as Article I, Section 16, of
the Constitution of Virginia with regard to f~ee exercise of religion. She
said she raises this issue because of the law~ that prohibit the State from
forbidding, obstructing, or burdening freedom!of religion. In this
Commonwealth, the law specifically addresses ~hat its ministerial bodies,
including the Board of Supervisors and the Planing Commission, should not
impede the erection of public houses of worshiP. She said this is so because
the forefathers of this country placed an ext~ordinarily high priority on
religious freedom and on the freedom to erect !houses of worship. As a commu-
nity and as a nation, there is a strong belie{i in the very essential purposes
of a church. This addresses very directly th~: Woodbrook community's concern
that this church will be other than a good neighbor. She said the church
members come to be a part of the neighborhood ~in a way that is not logically
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
210
or efficiently filled by any other institution in our society. They come to
be a refuge for the poor, and to work as a societal locus of morality. Ms.
Matthew said those were all reasons this country's forefathers acknowledged.
More to the point there are specific reasons today for allowing this church to
be there.
Mr. Way interrupted Ms. Matthew at this point to ask what she was talking
about. Ms. Matthew asked Mr. Way to bear with her a few minutes and consider
the implications of the Board's decision. M~. Way said he would not be able
to consider anything because he did not understand what she was talking about.
Ms. Matthew said she would be clearer. Mr. Way asked if Ms. Matthew was
implying that because this was a church, the Board would vote against the
request. Ms. Matthew said she was not saying that. She was asking the Board
to consider that a vote to deny a special use permit to a church would rele-
gate churches to purchase land that is in rural communities because it cannot
afford land zoned commercially. She said if the Board makes a decision to
deny the special use permit, necessarily these larger issues which appear at
first blush to be a waste of time, are implicated. She said it is not only
this church which is at issue, but all churches in the City of Charlottes-
ville, in the County of Albemarle, and in the Commonwealth of Virginia which
are implicated. The action of this Board directly impacts the lives of
community members as well as churches and other entities. She said that to
deny the permit is to do more than say that Ghrist Community Church may not be
located where they want to be. The Board wo~ld be sending the message that
churches are welcomed into the community or ~hat they are not welcomed. The
action the Board takes is larger than just this church.
Mr. Bowie said he has never voted against a church, and he really does
understand the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. John Manzano, Pastor of Christ Comm~ity Church, said the issues that
Ms. Matthew raised were to highlight the whole question of neutrality. The
posture of Albemarle County can be one of endouraging churches to locate here
or of making it difficult. He said there was! a negative implication because
previously the church had the Planning staff~ recommendation, yet the Plan-
ning Commission voted against their own staff's recommendation. Mr. Manzano
said that seemed to him to cloud the issue. ~If the Planning staff is hired
for the purpose of making recommendations to i~he Planning Commission, and the
Commission rejects the plan, the question hasi to be asked regarding what
issues are really at stake. Is it possible t~at everyone is not as neutral as
they claim to be. ~
Mr. Manzano said that churches find it d~fficult to locate property
within the County. He said he recognizes that neither the Planning Commission
nor the Board of Supervisors is responsible f6r the availability of affordable
land within the area. Nevertheless, the issu9 is that when available and
affordable land is found by a church, he woul9 like to see the County have a
posture of trying to encourage that if at allipossible. When new churches are
being started in the County, rent is a large 9xpense. He pointed out that
churches can rent school facilities for only limited periods because of the
risk that Albemarle County would be charged with promoting religion in the
schools. He said they were told by the schools they could only be there for a
limited period of time. He just wanted to st~
churches trying to locate in the County is no~
Board's indulgence along those lines.
Mr. Manzano said he purposely drove on ti
before they purchased the property to make su~
He said he drove all around the property and
foot of standing water in the lower parts. A
said from a buyer's standpoint he was not dis(
the property. He said he has a copy of a let
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority confirming
letter confirmed that only twice in a nine ye~
actually come into the sewage lagoon itself.
es was a report required by either the State ~
Health Department, both of which regulate this
opinion, this property is neither in a flood p
location. The only objection is the fact that
next to a church. They would prefer to have a
something that is developed. He said that wou
it does not warrant hindering a group of peopl
~te that the situation for new
a simple one. He asked the
e property during the rains
e of the flooding conditions.
ound about ten inches to one
far as serious flooding, he
ouraged at all from purchasing
er from Mr. Gene Potter of the
discussion they had. The
r period did the stream bed
In neither of those two instanc-
ater Control Board or the State
facility. In Mr. Potter's
lain nor a regularly flooding
people just do not want to be
nice empty lot as opposed to
ld be everyone's preference, but
~ from building a church.
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
211
Those in opposition to this request came forward to speak at this time.
Mr. Sam Kaplan, President of the Woodbrook Community Association, spoke. Mr.
Kaplan said he would prefer that the property be a green buffer against a
commercial development. However, the residents are realistic enough to know
that is not going to happen. Some of the community's objections can be dealt
with at the time of site plan review. The concerns of the Woodbrook residents
include the access to the property from Idlewood Drive. Mr. Kaplan asked the
Board to permanently close that access before construction begins to prevent
excessive construction traffic through Woodbrook and to prevent the health
hazards of dust from construction to the adjacent property owner. The resi-
dents are worried about trespassers. Church~s are not used 24 hours a day,
and this one will be somewhat isolated behind the parking lot of a cinema. He
suggested that possibly a gate to the proper~y or some other means to make it
inconvenient for trespassers to get onto the~iproperty could be built. Mr.
Kaplan said he could save Mr. Wardell the problem of a flood plain study by
showing a short film which would make it clear why there are concerns about
drainage and run-off problems. Mr. Kaplan said residents are not worried
about the standards of the run-off ordinancei'ibeing met, but about making sure
there is no water in their backyards. He said the two are not necessarily the
same. The residents are concerned that the ~onditions previously set on The
Gardens development not be compromised by th~s petition. He referred particu-
larly to conditions relating to preventing 16itering and pedestrian traffic.
Finally, the residents want the access road ~roperly screened and not to be
used as an entrance into Woodbrook. He saidiresidents of Woodbrook have
C ° ° °
onslstently opposed additional entrances, e~Pecially from commercial areas
:i '
Mr. Peter Schrepfer spoke in opposition ito the petition. He showed a
film strip of the sewage lagoon during the 1~69 Camille hurricane. He said
there were six inches of rain in three days. [: Mrs. Cooke said there was water
everywhere in 1969. She said houses had flo~'ted away as a result of that
storm, and she hardly thought that was a good, example. Mr. Schrepfer said the
site has been filled in with silt, which is what it was intended for.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this flooding ha~ilreoccurred. Mr. Schrepfer
responded that it occurs every time it rains itike this. Mr. Lindstrom asked
if there were pictures of that. Mr. Schrepf~ said he did no~ have any other
pictures. He said the concern of the residents is that if this area is filled
in for construction, where is the water goin~
Mrs. Cooke asked if her understanding wa!s correct that flooding occurs
every time it rains. Mr. Schrepfer said when~it rains an appreciable amount,
there is flooding. He said the area now is filled in with silt and has grass
on it. If it rains an inch or two, there will not be that much water, but it
does have quite a bit. Mrs. Cooke said she d~d not understand why, especially
with the amount of rain there has been this summer, the problem has not been
brought to the attention of the Board prior t~ this. Mr. Schrepfer said the
complaint is not about flooding. The point is that if a church is built on
this site, where will.the water go which the ~agoon was built to handle.
Mrs. Cooke said if this happens every ti~e there is appreciable rain, why
has that not been brought to the Board? Mr. ~chrepfer asked why should he
bring that to the Board. Mrs. Cooke said she~would think that flooding would
be a detriment to the area and the surrounding property would be damaged by
the flooding when there is heavy rain. She s~id that was the statement that
was made, and she was trying to get to the boqtom of it. Mr. Schrepfer said
his property was not damaged by any rain.
Mr. Kaplan said most of the neighbors kn~w this was a sewage lagoon, and
are not upset that there is running water whe~ it rains. They assume that is
normal for a lagoon. It has been the case in!the past that Mr. Powell has had
water up to his back door, and has let the Co~ty know about that.
Mr. Eugene Powell, a resident of Woodbro0k, said he has had two floods on
his property in the last 14 years. He said t~ere is more water coming in the
lagoon now than there used to be. Evidently ~here is more run-off due to the
Rio Hills development. He said he has no problem with a church as a neighbor,
but he does not know how in the world a churc~ can be built there. He is
worried about the road and what will happen t~ the water that runs off
Albemarle Square. He said a culvert 15 feet ~i~ep would be needed. The issue
is not whether a church should be there, but ~he run-off problem that would
result.
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
212
An unidentified woman said water is on the road now as of last night's
rain. She said there is a pipe under her property that rUns directly into
this property. She said there is always water there every time it rains. The
Service Authority is there at least once a month cleaning out the storm sewer
because grease collects in it, and people complain about the flooding in their
backyard. She said someone in the County is'aware of this problem because
there have been complaints made. She said nothing more than cleaning it out
every month has been done to solve the problem.
Mr. Fred Kane, property owner at WoodbrOok, said that the movie was made
in 1969 before Albemarle Square was built. Now all the run-off from there and
The Gardens development has been added to this area. He said the situation
has changed considerably, and there is a great increase in run-off.
There being no other members of the public to speak, the public hearing
was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would like to make a correction to Condition No. 6
as outlined in the staff report. It should read, "Planning Commission shall
review the site plan, to include review of the landscape plan."
Mr. Lindstrom said the topographical map seems to indicate, as has been
testified to by several people, that there is a greater potential for drainage
problems in this area. He asked when the Planning Commission would review the
property for flood plain determination as called for in the conditions. He
asked what would happen if the special permi~ were approved with the condition
that a flood plain determination be made, and~iit were determined that this is
a flood plain. ~:
Mr. Cilimberg said the findings would b~presented in a preliminary plan
review to the Planning Commission. Followin~i'that and subject to engineering
review, a final determination would be made ~ to whether or not the site
could be developed. This special use permit process allows the procedure just
described to be accomplished by the applican~b Approval of a special use
permit does not presuppose that there will b6!approval of a development plan.
Mr. Keeler said the ordinance is based on streams that are mapped. He
said operative here would be a provision in the ordinance that requires flood
plain limits to the one hundred year storm fo~ all water courses with an
upstream drainage area of 50 acres or more. That is a requirement of final
site plan, and would be required on the preliminary plan because this is a
feasibility study.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that if this special use permit is approved,
there should be a condition spelling out the ~onsequences of being in the one
hundred year flood plain. Mr. Keeler said th~ consequences under the Flood
Hazard Ordinance are that you can develop or fill within the one hundred year
flood plain to the extent that no detriment i~ caused to other property owners
by virtue of increased flood levels. That may mean channelization measures in
order not to obstruct the carrying capacity of the flood plain. Mr. Keeler
said he was hopeful that he and Mr. Moring co~ld~ integrate this site plan
review to ensure that all drainage problems i~ this area are investigated
before action by the Planning Commission on a'isite plan. The homeowners and
the church would then know the situation.
Mrs. Cooke asked if a special use permit !.would have to be issued to this
property in order to have it included in the Study of the drainage problems in
this area, or would it be included in the study regardless of the decision
tonight? Mr. Keeler said this property would ibc included in the study no
atter what happens tonzght. He sazd he dzd ~ot want anyone to get the idea
that this project is going to cure the draina~!e problems in Woodbrook, because
they are not all associated with this piece ofi land.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is sympathetic to ~he applicants, and he knows the
church has looked long and hard for a site. H~wever, he said a church needs
to be considered like any other land use. Th~' notion that subjecting a church
property to zoning just the same as any other ~,land use is an intrusion on
freedom of religion is something a court would' have to determine. Mr.
Lindstrom said he would exercise the authorit~ he has as a Supervisor until a
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
213
judge tells him he does not have that authority. He said the Board owes no
less to anyone in the room than to treat everyone the same. That is truly
neutrality. He said the threat that was implied is counterproductive. The
Board has been operating under this ordinance for a long time, and he does not
intend to stop operating under it unless someone takes the Board to court. He
said churches, drive-ins and residences are all treated by the same rules.
The Board has never, to his knowledge, stated opposition to a church. If
there is any opposition, it is to the impact of a structure, and that is the
way he looks at this application.
Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the application, but he is concerned about
the issue of flooding. He just wants to be sure that the conditions speak
fully to an unusually complicated situation. He said he thinks it is appro-
priate to suggest that access from Idlewood Drive be permanently closed before
construction so there is no temptation to use it. He said he knows the church
has been through a lot to try to find a site, and he does not have a problem
with this location as long as the drainage problem is addressed.
Mrs. Cooke said Mr. Lindstrom's remarks mirror her feelings on the
subject. She further stated that she was a little bit insulted by two speak-
ers who insinuated that the Board is against churches and should relax their
review of site plans just because this is a church. The church is the people;
it is the structure that the Board is concerned with and the impact a struc-
ture would have on an area. She said the Board would be compromising its
duties and responsibilities to Albemarle County to look at a building, whether
it be a church or not, in any way other than in the light of the ordinance.
To relax the ordinance and allow a church to.i.~be built in an area where it
would result in problems for the church and community, is not good stewardship
of the responsibility the Board has. Before the Board was attacked (Mrs.
Cooke said she considered the remarks made as being an attack), she had no
objection to this request whatsoever. She s~id she would support this appli-
cation, but she objects to having been attacked as being against churches in
general.
Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to
approve the petition with the conditions recdmmended by the Planning Commis-
sion with the additional condition suggestedl'by Mr. Lindstrom that Idlewood
Drive be closed. .~
Mr. Lindstrom then suggested that a sentence be added to condition 6b
that, "In the event it is determined that an~ portion of the property lies
within the one hundred year flood plain, the'~i~applicant shall comply with
Section 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay District ~f the Zoning Ordinance." Mrs.
Cooke accepted that as part addition of the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he did not want to delaylithis vote, but he has never had
anything more insulting than a lecture on the first amendment of the Constitu-
tion and the laws of Virginia. He said he came in tonight with no problem
with this application. He advised this group to consider how they make their
presentation before coming before another Board.
Mr. Bain pointed out that condition No.12 says that no other use can be
permitted without coming back to the Board for legislative action. The
members need to recognize that there is nothing automatically allowed. If
this permit is approved, the conditions given are permitted, and that is all.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
(NOTE: The conditions of approval are ~et out in full below:)
1. Sanctuary area limited to 4,500 square feet;
Approval is for worship and relate~ church uses only. Day care
or other such uses will require amendment to this permit;
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
214
A 30-foot undisturbed buffer shall be established between the
building and parking area and adjacent lots in Woodbrook.
These buffer areas shall be consistent with Section 32.7.9.8
(screening) of the Zoning Ordinance;
Should parking lot lighting be installed in the future, it
shall be subject to Section 4.12.6.4 of the Zoning Ordinance;
The site plan shall be in general accordance with plan titled
"Christ Community Church", dated February 1, 1989;
Verification by Department of Engineering and Inspections
Department for:
a. Site suitability for building construction;
Location of one hundred year flood plain. This
verification shall be made prior to review
by the Planning Commission. In the event it is
determined that any portion of the property
lies within the one hundred year flood plain,
the applicant shall comply with Section 30.3,
Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning
Ordinance;
Planning Commission shall review the preliminary site plan, to
include review of the landscape plan;
Access from Idlewood Drive shall be permanently closed before
construction begins. !.
The Board recessed at 9:50 P.M. and reconvened at 9:58 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-89-6. Mechum River Land Trust. To rezone
192.410 acres from RA to R-4. Property located between the C & O Railway and
Route 240, approx, one-half mile west of intersection of Route 240 and Route
250; a smaller piece of the property is located on the north side of Route 240
between Route 240 and Route 802. Tax Map 57f~parcels 29 and 29D. White Hall
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress.on July 18 and July 25, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
Summary and Recommendations: Review of-this rezoning petition,
submitted in May, has paralleled and been complicated by growth area
boundary decisions of the ComprehensivelPlan adopted July 12, 1989.
The preliminary development plan for th~?site, in staff opinion, has
been effectively foreclosed by decision ~s to the Crozet growth area
limits. The Plan limits the Crozet eastern boundary to those areas
naturally draining to the Lickinghole c~eek Regional Sedimentation
Basin, based on final engineering design!of the basin which has yet
to be completed. This raises a question~'of whether this application
is premature. ~
Recently, the applicant has proposed alteration to natural drainage
patterns in order to increase site acreage susceptible to urban
residential zoning based on an assumed 16cation for the Lickinghole
basin. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors determine whether or not this is an acceptable develop-
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
215
mental practice prior to rezoning action. Such determination would
allow the applicant to assess project viability and provide staff
opportunity to work with the applicant towards a definitive plan of
development which is appropriate to a project of this scale. It is
recognized that this proposal provides an opportunity for signifi-
cant residential development in a growth area, clearly a high
priority of the Comprehensive Plan.
Character of the Area: The area south of this site, across the
C & 0 Railroad, is the proposed site of the Lickinghole Creek
Regional Sedimentation Basin. North of the site across Rt. 240 are
the Beaver Hill mobile home park and several small lots.
This site is open pasture towards the west and heavily wooded
towards the east. The site is described by three north-south ridges
with steep slopes occurring along the ridge valleys adjacent to
streams.
Public sewer is available at the Crozet Interceptor south of the
C & 0 Railroad. Public water can be extended from the storage
reservoir at the Crozet water treatment plant.
Applicant's Proposal: While the Comprehensive Plan was under
review, the applicant met with staff to discuss various development
scenarios for this property. When submitted in May, the rezoning
petition was accompanied by a preliminary development plan which
proposed a gross density of 1.2 dwellings per acre on the main
tract.
The Plan proposed 166 single-family detached lots served by an
internal public road system with two po{nts of access to Rt. 240.
The plan also proposed 30 single-family attached units west of the
water treatment plant adjacent to Rt. 240 and 30 single-family
attached units in the southwest corner df the site. Conventional
subdivision was proposed for single-fam$1y detached lots while open
space areas would have been provided for the single-family attached
units. In order to provide two access ~oints to Rt. 240, an inter-
nal road of necessity traversed areas oS critical slope. All lots
appeared viable in terms of adequate bu{lding and yard areas exclu-
sive of critical slopes and 100 foot stream setback.
Mechum River Land Trust proposes rezoning "consistent with low-
density residential shown in the Comprehensive Plan" in order to
"provide affordable housing to the Croz~,~ growth area."
Staff Comment: Review of this rezoning~petition has been compli-
cated by the simultaneous discussions as to the eastern boundary for
the Crozet growth area. While the rezoj%ng petition was submitted
in May, 1989, final determination of the Crozet limits was not made
until July, 1989.
The Comprehensive Plan as adopted state~ that, "The eastern boundary
of Crozet between Rts. 240 and 250 shall.be adjusted to include all
areas which naturally drain into the Li~ikinghole Creek Regional
Sedimentation Basin. Determination of t!his boundary shall be based
on the final engineering design of the b~asin. Any extension of the
existing boundary shall be designated low density residential."
In regard to this Comprehensive Plan sta%ement, staff offers the
following comments: ~
1. Premature Application: This rezoning petition could be viewed
as premature since the final engineeringlldesign which will determine
the exact location of the Lickinghole Creek impoundment has not
begun. By letter dated March 23, 1989, Mr. John Horne advised the
applicant's representative that the appropriate time for review of a
rezoning application for this area would~be concurrent with a
revised eastern boundary determination f6r Crozet. However, from
preliminary studies, it does not appear that the dam site would be
subject to relocation unless geological ~urveys reveal unforeseen
restrictions to the current proposed sit~.
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
216
2. Natural Drainage: Of the 192 acres proposed for rezoning, it
appears that about 117 acres in the westerly portion of the site
would naturally drain to the Lickinghole Creek basin as currently
located. The applicant proposes to alter on-site drainage patterns
to increase the site area available for urban residential zoning by
about 30 acres (i.e. - 147 acres). Staff views a policy determina-
tion by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors regarding
drainage diversion as essential to future progress of this petition.
It is staff's opinion that the current policies of the Comprehensive
Plan as recently discussed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors
do not support such a diversion and the area of drainage diversion
would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
In order to realize a viable project consistent with the
affordable housing market, Mechum River Land Trust must
realize a minimum project scale (The original preliminary
plan showed 200+ units). Assuming some market flexibility
as to lot size and unit mix, development scenarios would
vary with acreage subject to urban development. Located
within a reservoir watershed and representing more than
100 dwellings, a planned approach to development is
favored by the Comprehensive plan and staff. For this
reason, staff would recommend~.a determination be made as
to drainage diversion prior to rezoning action. However,
the Commission and Board may wish to rely on existing
Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance regulations as
adequate to ensure appropriat~ development, and make
zoning decision at this time.
Of the 192 acres proposed for~rezonlng:
- About 117 acres would naturally drain to the proposed
Lickinghole Creek basin as ~urrently located and would
be appropriate to urban resfdential zoning;
About 45 acres would not drain to the Lickinghole Creek
Basin and would be inapprop~iiate to urban residential
zoning;and ~
do
- About 30 acres are proposed ~or drainage diversion to
the Lickinghole Creek basin'~n order to become suscepti-
ble j
to urban residential zoning.!!
Historically, the Watershed MJ~agement Official, County
Engineer, and Planning staff h~ve opposed substantial
alterations to natural drainag~ patterns and encroachment
into stream channels within re§ervoir watersheds. Staff
did not support the Blue Ridge!Shopping Center proposal
for piping and substantial fil~ over the stream to the
rear of that Site. Likewise, staff cautioned in the
recent Ann Horner rezoning tha~ encroachment into the
restricted development/flood p~ain area would not be
viewed favorably. ~'
In this case, diversion of drainage is proposed in order
to increase the site area eligible for urban zoning. In
this regard, the proposal is s~milar to past proposals
for drainage alterations of or~lwithin reservoir watersheds
(It should be noted that for a~development of this scale,
the extent of'drainage alteration is not usual). The
Watershed Management Official, County Engineer and Plan-
ning staff have not supported :uch proposals in the past
and are unable to support this current proposal.
A primary focus of the Compreh~nsive Plan is to accommo-
date future residential growth in designated growth areas
and the Mechum River Land Trusf proposal is viewed as
consistent with this goal. The! area proposed for drainage
diversion was initially identified by the applicant as the
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
217
more desirable and marketable portion of the site. A
successful residential project by a major local developer
could promote interest in the Crozet community for addi-
tional residential development. The issue is whether or
not the objectives for urban residential development as
proposed in this application~outweigh issues of drainage
alteration.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors not make a zoning decision at this time, so as
to allow for final engineering design of the basin and/or policy
determination of the site area appropriate for urban residential
zoning. Staff opinion is that such determination can be made
without any promissory implication as to density or other develop-
ment considerations. Such determination would allow the developer
to assess project viability and consider further options. Also, the
Planning staff would be afforded opportunity to work with the
developer on specific issues related to development of this prop-
erty. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
desire to make a zoning decision at this time, staff offers the
following:
Assuming that the Lickinghole Creek Basin location is not
subject to relocation with final engineering, the western 117
acres will naturally drain to the ~basin and will thus fall
within the area to be included in ~he adjusted eastern boundary
of Crozet. ~
2. The remaining 75 acres will not n~{urally drain to the Licking-
hole Basin and falls within the Comprehensive Plan Rural Area.
The applicant's proposal to diverti!~drainage for about 30 acres
is inconsistent with current Comprehensive Plan policy and
should be addressed through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment."
Mr. Cilimberg handed out a proffer fromi~the applicant which he said
essentially changed the request as follows: "i
Delete from this rezoning request the 23.84 acre eastern
portion. ~
2. We commit hereby to installing a diyided road entrance
from Route 240 to the first off-road within the subdivision.
He said this leaves a total request of 149.9~ acres, and 117 acres of that
total, based on the latest engineering desig~ for the Lickinghole Creek basin,
will naturally flow into that basin. The applicant proposes to divert drain-
age of the remaining 30+ acres into the Lick~nghole Creek basin. He would
work with the contour of the land and pipe the water into the basin. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that since the applicant~as reduced the area requested
for rezoning, he is losing the second planne~ access.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 25,
1989, had recommended denial of the petition ~iby a vote of 4/3. That applica-
tion was for the entire 192 acres. Mr. Bowi~i~ asked if three members of the
Planning Commission were voting to rezone the~ entire 192 acres. Mr. Cilimberg
said three members voted against denial.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understood there was a majority who simply wanted
to deny the application, and several disagreed with just denying it "flat out"
as he understood it. The acreage that would ihave been outside the drainage
area was never discussed. Mr. Cilimberg saidl that was correct.
Mr. Bain asked if it was realistic from !staff's point of view to allow up
to four units per acre on the land that is i~¥olved. Mr. Cilimberg said he
thought it was realistic that the 200 plus un~ts planned for the entire
acreage could be developed within the 117 ac~s. He said he thought a more
reasonable density would be about three dwellling units per acre. He said that
was based on a quick review.
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
218
Mr. Lindstrom asked what density was originally proposed. Mr. Cilimberg
said it was 1.2 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Lindstrom said as he understands
it the essence of staff's recommendation is that the Board should defer action
until it is determined where the dam and basin will be built. Mr. Cilimberg
said that was staff's first reaction to what is contained in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what would happen if rezoning is approved for the
portion that is thought to drain naturally, and it is determined later that
the capacity is not available. He asked if the study could say that a dam
could not be built at all. Mr. Cilimberg said the County Engineer could
address that question. He said there were other sites further east that were
considered as possible locations. Mr. Cilimberg said he understood from the
engineering analysis that this was considered the best site, but if the
location had to be moved eastward, there would not be a problem. If the
location were to be moved westward, the whole basin concept would be changed,
and some rethinking of the basin would be required.
Mr. Moring said the concern is not the elimination of the basin but
possible relocation. Mr. Agnor said Lickinghole Creek basin was to be located
where it is proposed because moving it eastward would mean putting it too
close to the railroad. Mr. Moring said that ,!was correct, but also the slope
and strike of the rock in the area to the east appeared less favorable than
the site selected. Mr. Moring said in the absence of coring samples and
subsurface data, no one is willing to say wi~h certainty where the dam should
be built.
Mr. Lindstrom said this project has bee5 proposed for years. He asked
Mr. Agnor if he knew what was taking so long~ito get the engineering work
accomplished. Mr. Agnor said he did not, andl understands that the contract
for the final design has not been completed. Some of the delays have occurred
while trying to get the City to join in the l~roject. Mr. Lindstrom said,
notwithstanding that delay, it has been a lon~ time since the Board gave its
approval. He said it should be a higher priority than it appears to be. If
the people in charge cannot do it, maybe the County should try to do this
project itself.
The public hearing was opened at this t~me.
The applicant, Mr. Hunter Craig, came forward to speak. He said this was
a great opportunity to create an attractive memghborhood within a designated
growth area. This particular property has p~lic utilities, is in a designat-
ed growth area, and has under-utilized school~, all of which are essential in
achieving affordable housing. He said his company's development record speaks
for itself. He said they have built Ivy Oaks!i Mill Creek, and Earlysville
Forest. He did non think the County had any ~omplaints on any of those
subdivisions. He said this plan meets the goals of the County Planning
Department and the goals of the Comprehensive!'Plan to direct growth into a
designated growth area.
Mr. Bowie asked how the applicant planned to divert the water. Mr. Craig
said the water would be easily diverted by a ~etention basin with a pipe under
the ground going about 75 feet. He said it i: easy to think of a detention
pond as a man-made ditch running all around ti e mountain, but that is not what
this is. There would be one detention basin
Lickinghole Creek basin.
Mr. Bain asked what density the applican
achieve on the 117 acres. Mr. Craig said he ~
point. He said he had stopped all design wor~
size acreage he would have to work with. Thel
hich is funnelled over into
felt he could economically
eally did not know at this
because he did not know what
smaller the acreage, the more
houses would be necessary to make the development economically feasible. He
has proposed several possible options which h~ve not been finalized. Mr.
Craig felt that if he could only use 117 acres, there was a good chance he
would have to use R-4 zoning. He did not kno~ yet what type of house would be
built at this point.
Mr. Keeler said the original application ~or R-4 zoning was made in order
to obtain townhouse units, not necessarily se~ing the maximum density. Mr.
Lindstrom said the point is that the same number of dwelling units per acre
could be obtained on 117 acres under R-4 zoning.
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
219
Mr. Perkins asked the applicant if he would be willing to proffer the
total number of units that could be built on 149 acres. Mr. Craig said he
would need some time to think about that.
Ms. Donna Manley, a resident of Crozet, pointed out that this could be a
perfect opportunity to develop this land in a way that is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and to benefit people in the community. She said it is an
opportunity to bring families, not commercial development, into the Crozet
area. The boost to the local economy in money and human resources would be a
benefit, as well as a boost to tax dollars to the County. She said these
positive things would outweigh any negativesi. She urged the Board to approve
the rezoning request, realizing that the developer would still be subject to
all County regulations.
Mr. Ken Deppolt, a resident of Crozet, said he views the opportunity to
have additional residential development in C~ozet as consistent with the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan the Board has worked on for so long. He
agreed that the boost to the economy for local residents and the Charlottes-
ville area in general could not be denied. He also urged the Board to approve
the request.
Mr. Cory Newman, adjoining property owner, spoke in opposition to the
request. He said he recognized the need for ~residential growth in the County
and in his community, but his concern is that the development be done with
caution and responsibility. As growth is accommodated, consideration should
be given to preserving the environment and t~e quality of life which the
residents now enjoy. He objects to this development for several reasons. The
Planning Commission staff recommended denial.!of this request because it is
premature. Mr. Newman said the question of elreating artificial flow into a
basin is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or the Watershed Management
Official's statements.
Mr. Way interrupted to ask Mr. Cilimberg to clarify staff's opposition.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff was not opposed to 117 acres being rezoned if the
Board felt the Lickinghole Creek basin project was stable.
Mr. Newman said one thing that had not been discussed so far in this
meeting was the effect of this development on traffic on Route 240. He quoted
from a letter from the Virginia Department o$ Transportation (VDoT) to Mr.
Keeler saying that there would be a significant increase in the volume of
traffic under this zoning. He said that approximately 5400 vehicles per day
could be generated from R-4 development of this property. He said that VDoT
does not support this rezoning request. He said he called VDoT and found out
that between Route 250 West to the intersection of Route 240 and Route 810,
3770 vehicles per day have been counted. This includes large trucks coming to
ConAgra and other businesses in Crozet. Mr.i~ewman said there was absolutely
no way this road could handle the additional~traffic. He summarized by saying
that the Planning staff felt a decision would~be premature; the Planning
Commission denied the petition; the Watershe~i?Management Official recommended
against artificial drainage; and the Department of Transportation did not
support the request. He said the final engineering design for the sedimenta-
tion basin has non been completed. Altering i~rainage patterns could have
legal implications under new legislation. I~the face of this evidence, he
felt the Board had no alternative other than ito deny the rezoning request.
Mr. Lynwood Coffman, an Albemarle Count~l!resident, said that contrary to
what has been said, residential growth is coM~ly to everyone involved. He
said it costs $4,240 per child in the schools~{ He read that this development
calls for 166 new houses. According to the statistics he has read, each 100
new houses produces 71 new students. If thatlfiis true, this development would
add $500,320 to the budget of which new residents would pay $400,256, and the
old residents would have to pay the rest. He'said there are three kinds of
people in this County: the born here's, the been here a good whiles, and
those who just got here. He has been here fo~ 22 years. He is tired of
paying taxes for new residents. He said his ~uality of life is going down.
The developers are greedy, and their appetites are insatiable. Developers
will take 100 percent of Albemarle County eventually if they are not re-
strained, according to Mr. Kauffman. He said!someone has to say no to devel-
opers. The Board should think of the fairness of the situation. He asked why
he should have to pay for that developer's profits.
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
220
Ms. Barbara Schulman said she and her husband have a home, a small farm,
and a business in Crozet. She said she is concerned about the provisions for
growth, such as emergency medical care, for fire and police, traffic safety,
and schooling. She said these provisions are not luxuries. They are given in
most communities, and she wants to assure that these will continue. She said
she called the fire department and the rescue squad to determine if they felt
they could provide adequate care if multipleilhousing units are developed in
Crozet. She said she talked to Mr. Mark Adams at the rescue squad who ex-
pressed grave concern about the traffic and adequate emergency service. She
said residents of Crozet who see farm vehicles or Mrs. Schulman's horse and
buggy on the road usually slow down and proceed with caution. Mrs. Schulman
asked the Board to proceed with caution as well in considering the development
of Crozet.
Mrs. Adelaide Spainhour, neighboring prQperty owner, said she has lived
on Route 240 for 32 years. She is in the real estate business and is not
opposed to growth. However, she is opposed to growth if it presents a hard-
ship to existing landowners and to the area. ~ Her greatest concern is the
roads. Mrs. Spainhour said her son had a serious automobile accident on this
road and was told by the police that it was mot his fault; it was due to the
condition of the road. She asked the Board to consider the impact on traffic.
She felt the Board needed more information before making a decision.
Mr. Robert Sable, a resident of Greenwood, said he is opposed to the
rezoning .for three reasons. He said this tra~t is one of the few wooded areas
left in the Crozet area. Since there is plenty of open land in the Crozet
growth area, this zoning should be refused o{:amended to provide for less
development and more preservation of wooded ~And. Secondly, Mr. Sable said
the plan calls for complete development of t~e property which means substan-
tial removal of top soil. Deforestation would result in maximum silting and
maximum erosion, even if replanting is done. i~He said during the construction
period alone, substantial damage would be do~e to the Lickinghole sedimenta-
tion plant. Thirdly, he said Crozet has bee~'~designated a growth area, but
there is no by-right zoning change necessary ~in this case. Just because the
developer asked for R-4 zoning does not mean !it should be given. Mr. Sable
said that growth should start in areas more ~dapted to growth which are
already cleared and closer to Crozet. He said basic economics teaches that
when the demand is there, the supply will arr.ive. Contrary to a statement by
a Planning Commissioner, Mr. Sable this is not the last tract of acreage that
will ever come up for sale.
Mr. Jeff Clayton, neighboring property owner, said when the sewer line
was installed in Crozet, he was concerned about the quality of the water. He
said he is a farmer, and farmers are accused ~Of pollution. In his opinion,
developers contribute far more pollution than farmers. He had understood that
the basin would be built at the same time as the installation of the sewer
lines. However, the basin never materialize~i~ He said he was also told that
the proposed basin would operate at 16 perce~ efficiency. If the County
plans to spend the kind of money it would cos!~ to build a basin, they should
be certain of the actual efficiency of the ba'~in. He said he is worried about
the basin being a mosquito pit and a health h~zard. No one has any cost
estimates, the location of the dam is not certain, and some people he talked
to thought the whole idea had been dropped. ~o approve a development draining
into a non-existent basin is like buying a piece of resort property in a
swamp. Mr. Clayton said the water quality off, the area, even without this
development, concerns him. The addition of tRe development at the high
density requested on rolling land with the condition of the road gives him
great concern. He said he is for developmentiin the Crozet area, but this
property is three miles out of Crozet.
Mrs. Ellen Robb, resident of Crozet, sai~
of Crozet presented tonight include the traff:
services by fire, rescue and police, the ques~
and the protection of water resources. She s~
within the already established growth area.
favorable criteria for proceeding with the pr~
Board heed the reasons presented in the staff
rezoning.
the concerns of the residents
c flow and safety, the impact on
ion of solid waste utilization,
id there are hundreds of acres
ntil staff could recommend more
ject, she would request that the
report and deny this request for
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
221
Mr. Marty Schulman, said he was present to represent his family's inter-
est and safety, as well as the public's highest benefit. He said he had been
before the Board on issues that had been closely examined by the Board regard-
ing expansion of veterinary services one mile east of this proposed develop-
ment. He said he could not support the present proposal, and he fully sup-
ports the Planning staff's recommendation. He is concerned about the impact
on water quality and of interior roads that traverse critical slopes. He is
concerned about Route 240 which has two serious impediments, both east and
west of the site. He said no one has addressed the limited horizontal and
vertical sight distance at the proposed access. He is concerned that VDoT
cannot support this proposal and that the Planning Commission dismissed the
traffic problem as an issue. Mr. Schulman said the impact of the answers to
these questions Will materially affect the Crozet residents on a long term
basis. Where safety, fire, police and rescue access are concerned, these
questions must be answered.
At this point, Mr. Craig came forward to say he thought he could make
this development work on 117 acres with three units per acre for a total of
350 units. However, he proffered to limit the acreage to 149 acres with 350
units for a density of 2.33 units per acre.
Mr. William Colony, President of Citizens for Albemarle, said he came to
listen to the information presented by the s~aff and by the applicants to the
proposed rezoning. He said he is disappointed because he has not heard some
information that he feels the Board should h~ve. before making this decision.
Based on two students for each dwelling unit~i this development would produce
700 additional students. Even with the new ~rozet School, there will be only
about 60 vacant seats available. He said abgut 100 seats are presently
available at Henley Middle School. Mr. Cology said this growth would have to
be paid for by some means. He asked the BoaCd to consider that there are
limits to the capacity of every public servi~e program and facility in this
County. In all likelihood, this development~iwill not overstress the water and
sewer facilities in Crozet. However, the highway and school capacity issues
should be considered. Mr. Colony wondered ill, anyone knew how many extra
policemen, rescue squad volunteers, fire fig~ers, and teachers would be
needed for this development. Mr. Colony said~ neither as a member of Citizens
for Albemarle nor personally, is he opposed ~6 a development in the Crozet
area. He does question whether the County c~n afford the extra cost that
development will bring. He assured the BoarR~that the costs would exceed the
revenues. Before this request is approved, he suggested that staff look in
depth at the costs of development. ~'
Mr. Richard Mawyer, resident of Crozet on Route 240, spoke in opposition
to the request. He said one of the major problems the Board faces is whether
Crozet is ready for growth, particularly in t!erms of emergency services. He
pointed out the waner problems in this area. ~He felt the Board should think
seriously about all the issues before making ia decision haphazardly on the
request. He said growth in Crozet probably w~ould come, but right now the
community is not in a position to support that growth.
There being no other members of the pub]~!~c present to speak, the public
hearing was closed at 12:20 A.M. ~,!
Due to the lateness of the hour and the !complexity of the issues, Mr.
Lindstrom said it would be difficult to make A decision on this petition
tonight. He thought it would be better to defer this for a week. Mrs. Cooke
said she supported that suggestion, ii
Mr. Perkins said he went back to the 197~ Comprehensive Plan which showed
Crozet as having 12,000 people by 1995. He s~id there has been virtually no
growth in Crozet since he moved there 21 year~ ago, although it has been
talked about for that length of time. He sai~ in 1968, he was told it would
be three years until a sewer line was installed. That finally happened in
1988. He said the community is now ready fori~igrowth. He said people are not
just moving to Crozet; people are coming intoi!~Albemarle County. They will
cost the same in one area as the other. Unlike other areas of the County, the
public utilities are in place in Crozet. He giaid he called Mr. Jeff Echols,
Assistant Resident Engineer, about the transp6~rtation count on Route 240. Mr.
Echols said he obtained the count by multiplying the number of dwelling units
times seven. Mr. Perkins said that gives you about 2400 vehicle trips per
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
222
day, not over 5000 as was stated tonight. He said there were concerns ex-
pressed about schools, fire and rescue services. If there is any place in the
County that has some space in schools, it is Crozet. He said Crozen probably
has the best volunteer fire department in the State of Virginia. It continu-
ously receives the highest rating a volunteer company can get. Ten years ago,
there was no rescue squad. He felt that 100 or 1000 houses would not make a
difference. He said development might even help the rescue squad, because
what they need is more people to volunteer. He said this Board has talked
about affordable housing and rural development probably more than anything
else. He looks at this development as saving about 7500 acres of rural land
from development. By putting the growth into growth areas, that rural land
can be preserved. He pointed out that the developer would have to meet all
the County's requirements regarding soil erosion. Mr. Perkins said that
studies show that an on-site sedimentation pond would do a much better job
than the proposed Lickinghole Creek basin. Approval of this rezoning request
would not be setting a precedent by including the 30 acres that would be
diverted into Lickinghole. He said there are other areas in Crozet, such as
the Blue Ridge Shopping Center area, that do not flow toward Lickinghole
Creek. He views the 30 acres as a place for development that would otherwise
go into rural areas.
Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Perkins made thi~ request sound tempting. Mr.
Lindstrom then offered a motion to defer fur%her discussion and action on the
petition to August 9, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried!~by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Bond Issue,
Adopt Resolution Authorizing Application fox,Loan.
Mr. Agnor said a resolution authorizing,~ithe bond application has to be
sent to Richmond by August 7, 1989. The resolution would request a maximum of
$13.675 million for the Crozet, Cale, YanceY?.and Stony Point School projects.
He said staff had inquired of VPSA officials what would happen if the County
does not spend all the bond proceeds on the four projects. Staff was told the
County would have two options in that case. The unexpended funds could be
transferred to new projects or applied on th~ first year's debt service. Both
of these options are used frequently by localities and would have to be
approved by the School Board, Board of SuperVisors and Bond Counsel. He said
staff is recommending that the Board adopt t~e resolution for a maximum of
$13.675 million.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt
the resolution as set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messis. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, the Board of County SuperVisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia (the County), in collaboration~with the County School
Board, has determined that it is necessary and desirable for the
County to undertake capital improvementJ for its public schools;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia that an application be made to the Virginia Public School
Authority for a loan to the County in the maximum amount of
$13,675,000 to finance capital projects .for public schools. The
County Executive, in collaboration with~other officers of the County
and the County School Board, is hereby authorized and directed to
complete and file such application withllthe Virginia Public School
Authority.
Agenda Item No. 13. Authorize Chairman ~o Sign Deed of Easement Granting
the Albemarle County Service Authority an Easement for Installation of Sani-
tary Sewer Line in the Rivanna Park. ii
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
223
Mr. Agnor said the City Attorney's office had forwarded a deed of ease-
ment for signature from the City and the County to the Albemarle County
Service Authority for installation of a sanitary sewer line in Rivanna Park.
The deed requires the Chairman's signature.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to authorize
the Chairman to sign the deed as set out below. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT made this 13th day of July, 1989, by and
between THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA and THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantors, and the ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE
AUTHORITY, Grantee, hereinafter "Authority", whose address is 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars
($10.00) and other valuable consideration, the receipt of all of
which is hereby acknowledged, Grantors do hereby GRANT and CONVEY
with SPECIAL WARRANTY unto the Albemarl~ County Service Authority a
perpetual easement and right-of-way twenty (20) feet in width to
lay, erect, construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend
a sanitary sewer line consisting of a Pipe and all equipment,
accessories, and appurtenanc.es necessar~ in connection therewith,
including manholes, located within the ~ight-of-way, as shown on
plat made by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. dated June 1, 1989,
W ' ' !5!
h~ch plat ~s attached hereto and made ~ part of this deed. This
easement and right-of-way crosses a port'ion of the property acquired
by Grantors by deed dated February 19, i~986, of record in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of ~lbemarle County, Virginia,
in Deed Book 872, page 1.
Reference is made to the attached ~lat for the exact location
and dimensions of the perpetual right-of-way. Grantors agree that
new trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, o~erhangs, or other improve-
ments or obstructions shall not be plac~d within the perpetual
right-of-way conveyed herein.
As part of this easement and right'of-way, the Authority shall
have the right to enter upon the above-~escribed property within the
easement area for the purpose of installing, constructing, maintain-
ing, repairing, replacing, and extendin~ the sanitary line and
appurtenances thereto, within such ease~nt, sewer
· ., and the right of
zngress and egress thereto as reasonabl~ necessary to construct,
install, maintain, repair, replace, and ~!~xtend such line. Whenever
it is necessary to excavate earth wzthi~~ the easement, the Authority
agrees to backfill '
such excavation mn a ilproper and workmanlike
manner so as to restore surface conditions as nearly as practicable
to the same condition as prior to excavation.
The facilities constructed within ~he right-of-way shall be the
property of the Authority, which shall h!~ve the right to inspect,
rebuild, remove, repair, improve, and m~ike such changes, alterna-
tions, additions and connections to or e~tensions of its facilities
within the boundaries of said right of ~y as are consistent with
the purpose expressed herein.
The right-of-way provided for hereii? shall include the right to
cut any trees, brush, and shrubbery, remove,~ obstructions, and take
other similar action reasonably necessary to provide economical and
safe sewer installation, operation, and maintenance. The Authority
shall have no responsibility to the Gran%ors to replace or reimburse
the cost of said trees, brush, shrubbery~ or obstructions if cut,
removed or otherwise damaged.
August 2, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
This deed is exempt from state recordation tax pursuant to
Virginia Code Section 58.1-811(A)(3) and exempt from grantor's tax
pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-811(C)(3).
224
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. No appointments were made.
Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: October 19(A), November 9,
November 16(N), December 7(N) and December 14, 1988; January 11, February 15,
March 8, March 29, April 3, April 5(A) and May 22, 1989.
No minutes had been read.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Agnor said the County would need to engage a Bond Counsel for the
Virginia Public School Authority Bond issue. He said he had contacted Mr.
Harry Frazier, III of Hunton and Williams and asked him to submit a proposal
for his services in this capacity. He recommended that the Board approve the
engagement of Mr. Frazier.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom andlseconded by Mr. Bowie approving
Mr. Harry Frazier, III as Bond Counsel. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessES. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 12:29 A.M.
CHAIRMAN