1988-04-20152
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on April 20, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., in 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. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:34 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 Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to accept the Consent Agenda 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. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond ReporC for the month of
March, 1988, was received as information.
Item 4.2. A copy of the Planning Commission's minutes for April 5, 1988,
was received as information.
Item 4.3. Notice dated April 12, 1988, from Mr. Thomas F. Farley,
District Highway Engineer, stating a public hearing will be held on May 18,
1988, at 7:30 P.M~, to consider proposed spot improvement~~ to Route 631 (Rio
Road) at the intersections of Route 659 (Lamb's Road), 76~ (Pen Park Road) and
Agnese Street, was received as information. .~
Item 4.4. Notice dated April 15, 1988, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Highway
Maintenance Supervisor, concerning repairs to bridge over the MechumRiver,
was received as information. Mr. Mills notes that the re~airs will be made
between May 2 and May 6, 1988.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZTA-87-03. Lot Regulations (Deferred from April 13,
1988).
Mr. Horne said the proposed amendments are text amendments to both the
Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance. The Board~ previously adopted
the amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance and is now considering the amend-
ment to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments are~ intended to
clarify the method of measuring lot frontage, provide for reduction in lot
frontage in certain cases and to restrict residential subdivision involving
two lots served by an easement to the RA and VR zones. At~a previous meeting,
the Board expressed some concern as to the affect of the reductions in lot
frontage on cul-de-sacs particularly in the RA zone and whether additional
lots could be achieved in the RA zone which would otherwise not be achievable.
This text amendment was referred back to the Planning Commission and the
Commission responded that it continues to recommend the amendment, and
confirmed that certain additional lots would become available in some circum-
stances in zones in which those lots would not normally bel'achievable. Mr.
Horne then presented an illustration of the most constrained example of where
additional lots may be achieved. ~
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
153
Mr.%.,Bowie asked if the wider frontage is now being required and this
amendmen~would delete that and go to a smaller frontage on cul-de-sacs. Mr.
Home said~hat is correct. Under current interpretation by the Zoning
Administratok~ 150 feet of frontage is required in all cases. The Zoning
Administrator~lso feels there is a conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is a standard diameter for cul-de-sacs. Mr.
Home said yes, fo~,a public road it would be a 10x0 foot diameter and a 50
foot radius cul-de-sac.
Mr. Lindstrom said~the illustration confir is former feelings and he
does not intend to suppo~ the amendment. /
Mr. Bain said in reali~ what happens this amendment in terms of
creation of extra lots only ~lates to the ~1 areas because it is already
available in the urban areas. ~r. Home sai that is correct, this would be
largely restricted to the rural~reas becau that is where the most strin-
gent restrictions on the number okf lots ar, but it is used extensively in
the other districts. Mr. Lindstr~n said language could be amended as
previously discussed with a sentence would provide that the language
would not apply in the rural areas, but all other zones. That amendment
would avoid problems in the areas the County is trying to encourage
development.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered mot/on to approve ZTA-87-03~ Lot Regulations,
as proposed by the Planning Commis/ion, and Set out in the minutes of
3anuary 20, 1988, excluding the R~ral Areas.
Mr. Bowie said he has the~ame feeling he previously expressed. It does
not make sense to him to allow/extra in all zones except rural areas. He
wmll support the text amendment, but only mf ~t applmes to the rural areas
also. /
Mr. Lindstrom sa~ t~ amendment as propOsed i~ in an absolute
sense ~ the numbe~of lots that are possible in the rural areas.
Mr. Perkins said seems to him the amehdment would mean having to
build less road which/~ould be creating less 9f an environmental impact.
Also, the number of ~6ts are going to be restricted by the number of develop-
ment rights of the ~arcel of land.
M /
r. Bain sai~ he is not so concerned with larger tracts in the rural
areas, but he is/concerned with smaller tract~ and feels this is going to
encourage those/owners to try to get a little lbit more when in reality there
is not the ava~iable space. Mr. Perkins saidlmost landowners are going to
figure out so~ way to get the maximum number!of lots.
Mr. Bai~ then seconded the foregoing mormon.
There~ being no further discussion, roll Was called and the motion was
denied by/the following recorded vote:
/
AYES: P}~. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, and Mr. Lindstro~.
NAYS: ~r. Bowie, Mr. Perkins and Mr~ Way.
~r. Bowie said again he would support the text amendment as recommended
by t~e Planning Commission as long as it does not eliminate a specific area
of ~oning.
/ There was no further discussion at this ~ime.
(Note: The following two items .were heard simultaneously.)
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: To amend Chapter 5, Buildings, of
the Albemarle County Code to include the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building
Code, Volume II, Building Maintenance Code. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on April 5 and April 12, 1988.)
154
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Agenda Item No. 7. To amend and reenact Section 5-1, Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code, of the Albemarle County Code (Deferred from
April 13, 1988).
Mr. Agnor said action on Agenda Item No. 7 was deferred at the last
Board meeting, at the request of Mr. Ed Whalen, so that these two ordinances
could be heard together. To summarize, the Board received information in
March which indicated that the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development had adopted the Virginia Building Maintenance Code to cover both
the maintenance, and use of public and private buildings applicable to rental
and owner-occupied properties. The Board discussed three alternatives in
considering adoption of the Code and advertised for tonight's public hearing
an ordinance to enforce Volume II of the Statewide Building Code through the
written request or complaints for residential rental properties only in order
to protect the occupants from health and safety hazards that might arise from
improper maintenance and use. Further the Building Maintenance Code provi-
sions will not be enforced upon private owner-occupied property, residential,
commercial or industrial. Agenda Item No. 7 is a reference in the County
Code to the Statewide Building Code Volume I which is the volume called the
New Construction Code Book. This provision has been in the County Code and
in operation in the County for a number of years and this amendment simply
refers to the updated version of that book.
Mr. St. John said he thinks Volume II of the Building Maintenance Code
should be studied further and some more options presented~to the Board.
Because of the way it is written, this amendment would apply not only to
rental-residential properties, but it would also apply to'~ingle family
rental houses. If this is adopted, a tenant could call his landlord and say
"it snowed last night and I want you to come out and plow my driveway". The
Board may want to limit the application of the Code or make certain parts of
it apply to all rental residential houses only with regard to safety. The
Board may also want to take the substantive parts from th~ Code and make it
applicable to multi-family and single-family residential r!ental property only
insofar as regarding decent habitation, safety, health or,welfare as opposed
to cosmetic things. He has found that a lot of the language is for cosmetic
purposes designed to require owners to keep up the appearance of the property
to keep up the tax base. The Board may want to study the iamendment further
before taking action. ~
Mr. Bain said the maintenance code speaks to supplem~nting the State's
Landlord Tenant Act and his understanding is that it does not apply to
single-family residential. Mr. St. John said that is true~', but that exclu-
sion is not written out in this language. The Landlord Tenant Act does not
apply until there are more than ten rental units. This a~ndment would fill
the gap between one or two. At any location where there age common areas
maintained by the landlord, this Code would be applicable.liI He does not think
the Landlord Tenant Act is a complete substitute for what ~s in this Code.
Mr. Bain asked if there is any rush for the Board to adopt~the Code. The
Board could adopt it and not provide for enforcement untili~a study had been
completed. Mr. St. John said he does not think the Board ~hould adopt the
Code unless it intends to enforce it. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said although he does not know for sure:he may have a
conflict and therefore will abstain from discussion and vo~ing on this issue.
The public hearing was opened. (Mr. Lindstrom left t~e meeting at 8:06
P.M.) ~
Mr. Ed Whalen, of the Albemarle Housing Coalition, said there are
serious gaps in the Landlord Tenant Act. Without a code sdch as this, it
would be possible for serious structural defects in a rental unit to occur
and there would be no enforcement mechanism to involve theliCounty. The
Coalition feels this Code has been promulgated by an appropriate state agency
and would be a helpful addition to the County system. The !Coalition encoura-
ges the Board to enact the draft of Section 5-1. The Coalftion has no
objection to the County Attorney's suggestion that the details be studied
further, but if further studies are to be made, the Coalition would request
that the Board again defer action on Section 5-1 so that bdth ordinances can
be acted on together.
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
155
Ms. Amy Spinnell said she is in favor of hearing more about the Building
Maintenance Code. It would seem that one of the gaps a section of this Code
could fill is for rental residents of condo units. Typically in condo units
the management companies serve fewer than ten units, therefore the tenant
gets neither action from existing tenant codes nor the voting privileges of
ownership in a condo subdivision. It would seem at an initial glance that
this Code could help fill the gap for tenants who are in the pricier subdivi-
sions where there are typically going to be fewer than ten units.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. St. John said the Board cannot defer action on Volume I any longer.
This is a preexisting section that has been in the County Code for years and
is the only part of that Code that authorizes the inspectors to go out and
inspect construction while it is being constructed, to require a building
permit and to require an occupancy permit. The County has no construction
code in effect and the building inspectors have no duties without Volume I
being in effect. He would suggest that the Board adopt the ordinance readopt-
lng Volume I of the Statewide Building Code as written and then adopt the
ordinance to adopt Volume II but state that adoption of Volume II will not be
enforced by the County and adoption is intended solely to vest civil rights
in those tenants to which it applies.
Mr. Way said he does not understand what is going on and does not intend
to vote-f~f~-y~tonight.
Mr. Bowie said he could vote tonight, bu~t has no problem deferring this.
He would like some more information on Volume II. He had not even thought of
condominiums. He is prepared to vote on Volume I.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
following ordinance amending and reenacting Section 5-1, Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code of the Albemarle County Code:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 5-1
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, CHAPTER 5, BUILDINGS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 5-1, Chapter 5 BUILDINGS, of the Code of
Albemarle, be amended and reenacted to rgad as follows:
Sec. 5-1. Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code adopted.
The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, Volume I, New
Construction, a copy of which is and shall remain on file in the
office of the building official, shall c~ntrol all matters concerning
the design, construction, alteration, addition, enlargement, repair,
removal, demolition, conversion, use, lo~ation, occupancy and mainte-
nance of all buildings and structures in.ithe county, and all other
functions which pertain to the installation of systems vital to all
buildings and structures in their service equipment as defined by the
Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code,~ Volume I, New Construction,
and shall apply to existing and proposed ~uildings or structures in
the county.
Roll was called and the motion carried bM'the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. PErkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom. ~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconde~'by Mrs. Cooke, to defer action
on adoption of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, Volume II, Build-
ing Maintenance Code, until a staff report is ~eceived showing various ramifi-
cations, suggested levels of implementation an~ other pertinent information.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
156
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 8:26 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: To consider extending the Albemarle
County Service Authority service area for water to existing structures only to
property known as Chathill Farm on Route 677. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 5 and April 12, 1988.)
Mr. Horne said this is a request from Mr. Alexander von Thelen to extend
water service to existing structures only to property located on Route 250,
near Kearsarge Subdivision. Mr. von Thelen has stated that he has experienced
water quality and quantity problems with an existing wellon that property
which has a single-family dwelling. The staff does not think water service to
existing structures sets a precedent in this area. The staff recommends
extension of water service to Parcel 17 to the existing structures only.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Way asked for comments from Mr. J. W.
Brent. Mr. Brent said he has no comments. The Service A~thority takes no
positions on such matters.
There being no one from the public to speak on this request, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to extend the
Albemarle County Service Authority service area for water to existing struc-
tures only to Tax Map 59, Parcel 17. 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. ~
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: To amend and reenact certain
sections in the County Business License Code. (Advertised'~. in the Daily
Progress on April 5 and April 12, 1988.)
Mr. Agnor said at the request of a citizen, the staff!~ examined the filing
dates of personal property assessments, business license taxes and the turn
around time from the date of those filings to payment dates. In an effort to
respond to that concern and to improve the process dates, the staff recommends
that the filing date for business licenses be May 1 to coincide with the
personal property filing date and the payment deadline for~payment of business
licenses be June 15. He recommends that the County Code ~ amended as
advertised and the amendment be effective the date of thiSlmeeting.
The public hearing was opened. There being no one from the public
present to speak on this amendment,~,~.~ the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Cook!~ to adopt the
following ordinance: ~
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS ll-12(a)
AND 11-13 (b) OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, ~
ARTICLE I, LICENSES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Sections ll-12(a) and ll-13(b) are hereby amended and
reenacted as follows: ~.
Article I. In General.
Sec. 11-12. Taxes--When payable; penalties for nonpayment.
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
157
(a) All licenses imposed by this chapter, except as herein
otherwise provided, shall become due and payable on or before June 15
of each year.
Sec. 11-13.
Same--Persons liable to keep records~ report of gross
receipts.
(b) Each licensee whose license is measured by gross receipts or
gross expenditures shall submit to the director of finance, not later
than May 1 of each year, a report of his gross receipts or gross
expenditures for the preceding year.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Ordinance Amendment. An Ordinance to amend and
reenact Section 2.1-4, Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of
the Code of Albemarle, by the addition of a subsection (j) to be known as the
Carter's Bridge Agricultural Forestal District. Proposed on Rt. 20, and on
St. Rts. 618, 627, 708, 727, 761 and 795 in the vicinity of Carter's Bridge,
Blenheim and Woodridge. It is comprised of: Tax Map 101, Parcel 55A; Tax Map
102, Parcels 17A, 17B, 17B1, 17D and 18; Tax Map 112, Parcel 15; Tax Map 113,
Parcels 1, IA, 2, 3, 11 and llA; Tax Map 114,: Parcels 21, 25, 30, 51, 55, 56,
67, 67B, 69 and 70; Tax Map 115, Parcel 10; Tax Map 123, Parcels 2, 24 and 59;
Tax Map 124, Parcel 11; and contains 7969.719~acres. The Advisory Committee
unanimously recommended approval as proposed !for a time period of ten years
before the initial review. (Advertised in th~ Daily Progress on April 5 and
April 12, 1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Location: The proposed district is located on both sides of Route 20
South, and on State Routes 618, 627, 708-; 727, 761 and 795, in the
vicinity of Carter's Bridge, Blenheim and Woodridge.
Acreage: The total acreage is 7,969.7191acres owned by ten landown-
ers. Most of the district is included in the core area; in addition
there are three out-parcels within one mile of the core.
Zoning: The entire proposed district is~zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Comprehensive Plan: The entire proposed~district is located in Rural
Area IV. Agriculture and forestry are appropriate land uses in Rural
Areas. ~
Issues:
Time Period: The applicants are prdposing a ten year time period
before initial review. ~
Jurisdiction: According to the tax'nap, one of the parcels may
extend into Fluvanna County. Albemarle County may only act on
the portion of the parcel which is physically located within its
boundaries. Staff has requested a plat and description of the
parcel in order to make a determination. The deed states that
the entire parcel is located in Sco~tsville District in Albemarle
County. Therefore, staff is assuming that the entire 80 acres of
Tax Map 124, Parcel 11, is located in Albemarle.
Advisory Committee:
The Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee on March 8, 1988, recom-
mended unanimously to approve the Carter's Bridge Agricultural/
Forestal District as proposed for a time period of ten years before
the initial review. The Committee's report and soils report are
attached.
158
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Staff Comment:
This proposed district is predominantly a forestal area, with 5,456.4
acres in the forestal land use tax program, 2,448.8 acres are in
agricultural land use and 45 acres are non-qualifying under the land
use tax program because of dwellings or other reasons. Only one
parcel containing 19.5 acres is not currently enrolled in the land use
tax program. There are ten dwellings in the district."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 5, 1988,
recommended approval of the Carter's Bridge Agricultural Forestal District as
proposed for a time period of ten years before the initial review.
The public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Betsy Carter said she lives in the area and represents the five
Carter landowners who are very enthusiastic about this and hopes that the
Board will grant the request. The landowners are glad this is available to
them to protect their rural area.
There being no one else from the public present to speak concerning this
request, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Way said this property lies in his district and he supports the
request. He does question the ten years, but if that is ~hat the landowners
have agreed to, he will support it.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the
following ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4, Chapter 2.1, Agricul-
tural/Forestal Districts by the addition of the Carter's Bridge Agricultural/
Forestal District as recommended by the Planning Commission:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code of Albemarle~ibe, and the same
hereby is, amended by the addition of a subsection (j) to be known as
the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District, as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
(j) The district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties:
Tax Map 101, Parce 55A; Tax Map 102, Parcels 17A, 17B~ 17B1, 17D and
18; Tax Map 112, Parcel 15; Tax Map 113, Parcels 1, 1~, 2, 3, 11 and
llA; Tax Map 114, Parcels 21, 25, 30, 51, 55, 56, 67,1~!67B, 69 and 70;
Tax Map 115, Parcel 10; Tax Map 123, Parcels 2, 34 and 59; Tax Map
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:35 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Ordinance Amendment. An Ordinance to amend and
reenact Section 2.1-4, Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of
the Code of Albemarle, by the addition of a subsection (k)to be known as the
Lanark Agricultural Forestal District. Proposed on the eastern slope of
Carter's Mountain on St. Rt. 627. It is comprised of Tax Map 91, Parcel 20;
Tax Map 103, Parcels iA, 1J, 1K, 1L and 2A and contains 996~.047 acres. The
Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval as proposed for a time
period of ten years before the initial review. (Advertised .in the Daily
Progress on April 5 and April 12, 1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Location: The proposed district is located on the eastern slope of
Carter's Mountain on State Route 627. ~
Acreage: The total acreage is 996.047 acres owned by two landowners.
The entire district is contiguous.
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
159
Zoning: The entire proposed district is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Comprehensive Plan: The entire proposed district is located in Rural
Area IV. Agriculture and forestry are appropriate land uses in Rural
Areas.
Issues:
Time Period: The applicants are proposing a ten year time period
before initial review.
Advisory Committee: The Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee on
March 8, 1988, recommended unanimously to approve the Lanark Agricul-
tural/Forestal District as proposed for a time period of ten years
before the initial review. The Committee's report and soils report
are attached.
Staff Comment: The entire proposed district is currently enrolled in
the land use tax program. About half the district, 540.483 acres, are
in forestal land use and 448.564 acres are in agricultural land use.
7.000 acres are non-qualifying under the land use tax program because
of dwellings or other reasons. There are two dwellings in the dis-
trict. :
Lanark District is located about 1.5 mi~es north of the proposed
Carter's Bridge District. The nearest growth area is the Urban Area
(0.9 mile) across Carter's Mountain.
Staff recommends approval of the district as proposed, for a time
period of ten years before the initial ~eview."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, 'at its meeting on April 5, 1988,
recommended approval of the Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District for a
time period of ten years before the initial review.
The public hearing was opened. There being no one present from the
public to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
following ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4, Chapter 2.1, Agriuul-
tural/Forestal Districts by the addition of the Lanark Agricultural/Forestal
District as recommended by the Planning Commiission:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code of Albemarle be, and the same
hereby is, amended by the addition of a Subsection (k) to be known as
the "Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District, as follows:
(k) The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal
District" consists of the following described properties: Tax Map 91,
Parcel 20; Tax Map 103, Parcels lA, 1J, 1K, 1L and 2A.
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.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 8:43 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Ordinance Amendment. An Ordinance to amend and
reenact Section 2.1-4, Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of
the Code of Albemarle, by the addition of a subsection (1) to be known as the
Panorama Agricultural Forestal District. Proposed at the end of St. Rts. 661
and 844 near Earlysville. It is comprised of~Tax Map 45, Parcel 1; Tax Map
31, Parcel 23A and contains 842.25 acres. The Advisory Committee unanimously
recommended approval as proposed for a time period of ten years before the
initial review. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 5 and April 12,
1988.)
160
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Home presented the following staff report:
"Location: The proposed district is located north of the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir, at the end of State Route 661 and 844 near
Earlysville.
Acreage: The total acreage is 842.25 acres owned by Panorama Farms,
Inc. The entire district is contiguous.
Zoning: The entire proposed district is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Comprehensive Plan: The entire proposed district is located in Rural
Area I. Agriculture and forestry are appropriate land uses in the
Rural Areas.
Issues:
Time Period: The applicant is proposing a ten year time period
before initial review.
Special Use Permit Conditions: This district is unusual in that
part of the development rights have been "transferred" to an
adjacent parcel for development. Under Special Use Permit 87-06,
James Murray, part of Tax Map 45, Parcel 1, containing 193 acres
could have been divided into five two acre lots and eight 21 acre
lots. All five small lots and one of the 21 acre lots were
relinquished to Tax Map 31, Parcel 21, leaving '~the right to
develop seven lots of minimum 21 acres. The remaining portion of
Tax Map 45, Parcel 1, may still be divided int0i~ minimum 21 acre
lots. Tax Map 31, Parcel 23A, is not restricted as to subdivi-
sion rights under the conditions of the specialJ use permit. In
addition, both Tax Map 45, Parcel 1, and Tax Map 31, Parcel 23A,
are under a restriction to have Best Management! Practices insti-
tuted on them within five years or prior to fucther subdivision,
whichever occurs first.
Advisory Committee: The Agricultural/Forestal Advi~.ory Committee on
March 8, 1988, recommended unanimously to approve t~9 Panorama Agri-
cultural/Forestal District as proposed for a time pe~iod of ten years
before the initial review. The Committee's report ~d soils report
are attached.
Staff Comment: The entire proposed district is currently enrolled in
the land use tax program. About half the district, 432.990 acres, are
in agricultural land use, 406.260 acres are in fores~al land use, and
3.0 acres are non-qualifying because of dwellings. There are two
dwellings in the district.
Panorama District is situated about 1.5 miles east o~ the Moormans
River District, and less than one mile south of Jaco~.'s Run District
(but about two miles from the core).
The nearest growth areas are Earlysville Village (1.2 miles) and the
Urban Area (1.4 miles).
The proximity of the reservoir makes this district significant because
it may help provide watershed protection.
Staff recommends approval of the district as propose(
period of ten years before the initial review."
Mr. Home said the Planning Cox~ission, at its meeti~
recommended approval of the Panorama Agricultural and For~
time period of ten years. Since that time applications h~
four new parcels to be included in the district. The new
acres which would bring the total of this district to 1,0(
parcels are Tax Map 44, Parcels 9C, 9A, 12 and 12Q.
, for a time
g on April 5, 1988,
stal District for a
ye been received for
parcels total 223.86
6.110 acres. The
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
161
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Forrest Boyd said his property is next to the proposed district
property and he would like to know the ramifications of putting property into
an agricultural and forestal district. Mr. Home said the property cannot be
developed to a more intensive use which in the county is defined as any
subdivision of less than 21 acres. The property cannot be intensified through
other uses except by the explicit approval of the Board of Supervisors. In
terms of other impacts, there are some restrictions on governmental actions
which may affect the property through actions of a legislative nature such as
rezonings or special permits on surrounding properties.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
following ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4, Chapter 2.1, Agricul-
tural/Forestal District by the addition of subsection (1) the Panorama Agricul-
tural/Forestal District as recommended by the Planning Commission and to
include the additional four parcels presented to the Board tonight:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code of Albemarle be, and the same
hereby is, amended by the addition of a subsection (1) to be known as
the "Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District," as follows:
(1) The district known as the "Panorama Agricultural and Forestal
District" consists of the following described properties: Tax Map 45,
Parcel 1; Tax Map 31, Parcel 23A; Tax M~p 44, Parcels 9a, 9c, 12 and
Roll was called and the motion carried bY the following recorded voter
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-87-110. Design Builders (Emerald Ridge Subdivi-
sion). To create 33 lots from a 375 acre parcel, requesting different config-
uration than by right development, zoned RA. Property located on the west
side of Rt. 684, one-fourth mile north of Mint Springs. Tax Map 39, Parcel
20. White Hall District. (Advertised in the~iDaily Progress on April 5 and
April 12, 1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Request: To create 31 lots from five existing parcels totalling 375
acres. This is a request for the same nnmber of lots and the same lot
size, but in a different configuration than "by right."
Zoning: RA, Rural Areas.
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 39, Parcel 20, is located on
the west side of Route 684, one-fourth mile north of Mint Springs
Park. White Hall Magisterial District.
Immediate Environs and Existing Characteristics: This property abuts
Bucks Elbow Mountain and is approximately one mile east of the
Shenandoah National Park. Topography in'the area is moderately
rolling to severely steep, with several streams traversing it. Rock
outcroppings are visible on-site and on adjacent land. Along Route
684 there are areas of developed residential lots and of orchard and
open pastureland. '
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: Thi~ property is located within
the Rural Areas identified in the Land Uge Plan and within the South
Fork Rivanna River Watershed. Residenti~! density standards in the
Comprehensive Plan recommend a maximum o~ one dwelling unit per ten
acres for those lands located in drinkin~ water impoundment water-
sheds. ~
162
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Applicant's Request: This special use permit is a request for a
reconfiguration from 'by right' subdivision, with no decrease in lot
size proposed. This property is comprised of five separate lots noted
on the tax maps under one parcel number. Each lot has full theoreti-
cal development rights; however, resulting primarily from the steep-
ness of the property, the number of actual building sites is less.
The applicant has demonstrated to the reasonable sanisfaction of the
Planning staff that 31 building sites exist under 'by right' subdivi-
sion: 21 for lots under 21 acres, and 10 for lots of 21 acres or
greater. Therefore, this is a request to reconfigure the building
sites to create a 'clustered' subdivision.
This redivision requires a special use permit because of the manner in
which the lot lines are to be changed. Based on the Board of Supervi-
sors' determination on the Hopewell Subdivision, each new (daughter)
lot must contain one development right and at least 2.0 acres with a
building site from an existing (parent) lot. This proposal does not
create the new lots from within the existing lots from which the
development right originates.
The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors may recall approval
of similar requests such as SP-86-18, Free Union Subdivision (Shelter
Associates), and SP-86-31, Harry L. Garth (Garthfield Subdivision).
Special Use Permit Criteria: Since this petition does not propose an
increase over the number of lots allowed 'by right,' most of the
criteria for the review of special use permits (Section 10.5.2.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance) are not applicable. Nevertheless, all criteria
will be provided for informational purposes. Of the nine criteria,
the applicant is responsible for #1, #2, #3 and #9.
1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the
property ....
The somewhat irregular shape of the 375 acre tract is related to
the tract being the combination of five parcels!~ Situated on the
eastern slope of the Blue Ridge, the tract displays two distinct
topographies. The lower approximate one-half f~atures rolling
foothills covered by abandoned peach and apple orchards. On the
upper one-half the slopes steepen and become coyered with large
hardwoods. Selected timber has been harvested ~ver the last
several years on the upper portion. The proper~y has never been
in the County's land use program.
There are orchards in this area and this property has been an
active orchard until recently. Therefore, this:iland· is useful
for orchards.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural ....
The Soil Survey of Albemarle County prepared by .the U. S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture describes the soils as stony silt loams well
suited for forestry and or pasture.
Because of the topography of Albemarle County, only a small
percentage of soils would be classified as prime agricultural
lands, though the soil quality may be identical !to prime soils.
Prime soils range in slope from zero to seven percent. Beyond
seven percent these same soils are classified asz important
agricultural lands indicating a high suitability for grazing,
pasture and forestry use. According to legislation enacted by
the General Assembly, important farmlands shouldi include soils
classified as classes 1, 2, 3 or 4 by the Soil Conservation
Survey.
On this property, there are no areas of prime solils and an
insignificant area of important soils. The area~ of important
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
163
soils are in three distinct pieces, totalling less than ten
acres. Due to their size and location, in staff's opinion, these
areas of important soils are not viable agricultural areas on
their own. The vast majority of soils are comprised of classes
6&7.
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses ....
Since 1950 the low areas have been used as orchard. This contin-
ued to be the case until recently when the orchards were aban-
doned. The upper areas have been and remain forest.
If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable
effect of the proposed development ....
The majority of land within one mile of this property enjoys
preferential land use taxation for either agricultural or
forestal usage. Of the 4,603 areas in this area, 3,491 acres or
76 percent have been under land use taxation. Therefore, staff
opinion is that this property is in an active agricultural area.
In regard to the effect of development on the character of the
area, staff offers the following:
As discussed during the development of the Zoning Ordinance,
development in an agricultural area has direct and indirect
effects.
Among direct effects are: the~.vandalism of crops and
equipment and the destruction of livestock by children and
pets; the desire to regulate routine farm activities by
residents of the development (~.e., spraying of pesticides
and herbicides; spreading of llime and manure; proximity of
livestock to residential areas!; commercial timbering activi-
ties); and high land prices which make it difficult for
existing farmers to expand and new farmers to locate in the
area.
Indirect effects are generallyl~related to the expectation of
continued development in the area, resulting in the impres-
sion that agricultural land is in transition. Indirect
effects include: reduced or marginal production; disinvest-
ment in equipment, livestock a~d other aspects of farming
requiring large and/or long-te=m investment and idling of
farmland.
Development in an agricultural and forestal area can change
the character of the area, not Only in the immediate vicinity
but in remote areas. Increased residential traffic on rural
roads can result in hazardous conflicts with slower moving
tractors, fruit trucks and logging trucks. New or expanded
utility corridors through active farms may be required to
serve new developments.
b. Where development occurs in identified agricultural and
forestal conservation areas, regulations should be flexible
to permit site locations that minimize interference with
agricultural and forestal operations, that use marginally
productive areas, and that cause a minimum loss of produc-
tive agricultural and forestal ~creage.
Staff is not suggesting that the proposed Emerald Ridge Subdivi-
sion would generate all of these negative effects. However, the
subdivision would increase residentiD1 development in the area
which is viewed as inconsistent withithe agricultural objective.
One of the applicant's reasons for the proposed lot configuration
is to provide more separation between the residential lots and
larger lots proposed for forestal preservation. The applicant
states '... there will be deed restrictions for the larger tracts
164
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
to be included in the forestry land use .... Also, we have
proposed the roadway through the lower part ofthe land to avoid
disturbing the existing orchards and clusters of trees.'
The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural
areas .....
This property is considered to be in an undeveloped rural area
because two percent or 103 acres of the land is in parcels of
five acres or less. This property is adjacent to and north of
the County Park, Mint Springs (455 acres), and is approximately
1.2 miles east of the Shenandoah National Park. There are
several developed lots along this segment of Route 684; although,
the majority are found south of the C & 0 Railway within and
adjacent to the Community of Crozet.
The relationship of the proposed development to existing and
proposed population centers, ....
This property is approximately 0.9 mile from the Community of
Crozet.
Ye
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital
improvements ....
There is no anticipated need for the increased provision of
services than with 'by right' development. The' response time for
the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department is five to'itCh minutes.
The traffic generated from the proposed development ....
This segment of Route 684 is presently non-tolerable. The
Virginia Department of Transportation comments !if this request
is for more lots than can be developed by right~ then the addi-
tional traffic will add to the problems on thisiinarrow curvy
section of Route 684.' In staff's opinion, this is not a request
for more lots than 'by right' development.
With respect to applications for special use permits for land
lying wholly or partially within the boundaries?for the watershed
of any public drinking water ....
a. The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover ....
Orchard grass, broom sage, and honeysuckle~cover the lower
portion of the tract and should filter storm runoff very
well. Water quality will be maintained by~the 100 foot
strict conservation easement.
The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be
removed .... ~
The low density provided by 31 lots on 375-acres should not
adversely affect vegetation. Construction~of roads will
precede the home construction thus affording a minimal
disturbance at any one time. The approximately 5000 linear
feet of private road proposed will work we~l with existing
topography and will also disturb a minimal area.
The amount of impervious cover which will ~Xist after devel-
opment. ~
Impervious surfaces such as roads, driveways, and roofs will
cover about 300,000 square feet or about 1.!'6 percent of the
tract.
The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area, ....
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
165
A 100 foot strict conservation easement will parallel all
streams to protect them from any encroachment. Drainfields
will be setback to meet County ordinances. At the two
stream crossings, care will be taken to disturb only what is
necessary to install the drainage pipes. Soil erosion
control measures will be installed according to County
standards.
e. The type and characteristics of soils ....
The soils are medium to highly erosive and contain many
stones. The stones are the only item noted in The Soil
Survey of Albemarle County that should adversely affect
drainfield installation. Lew, extremely stony silt loam,
Unison, very stony silt loam, Porters, very stony loam,
Myersville-Catoctin, very stony silt loam, and Tusquitee,
stony loam, cover the tract.
f. The percentage and length of all slopes ....
About 3,000 linear feet of proposed road has a slope of less
than 10 percent, the remaining 2,000 linear feet has a slope
of 10 percent to 13 percent. The home sites are all under
25 percent slope with 60 percent of the sites being under 10
percent slope. (There is a total of approximately 5,400
feet, or one mile of road proposed.)
The estimated duration and ti~ing of the construction phase
Road construction will be preformed in two phases. Saddle-
back Drive will be phase one and Timber Ridge Road will be
phase two. Phase one will be: completed by fall 1988 and
phase two will be completed by fall 1989.
h. The degree to which original topography ....
The original topography and vegetative cover have not been
altered in anticipation of filing for any permit.
i. The extent to which the standards of Chapter 19.1 ....
This does not apply. '~i
The County Engineering Department commehted in regard to this crite-
ria, 'We generally concur with Steve Key's analysis with two excep-
tions: items 9e. and 9f. The Soil Conservation Service soil survey of
Albemarle County indicates the soils on 'this site as listed in Mr.
Key's letter range from moderate to severe for septic field installa-
tion with the bulk rating being in the ~evere range due to slope, slow
percolation and shallow soils. Since the lots being proposed are five
acres or larger, this may or may not prove to be a problem in the
future. The new alignment and grades a=e improved and somewhat
gentler than had originally been proposed as indicated by the afore-
mentioned letter. We recommend approval..'
The Watershed Management Official's comments include 'the imposition
of a full 100 foot conservation buffer none measured from the edge of
both perennial and intermittent streams ion the property is an appro-
priate water resource protection measur~ for use in this application
.... The donation to the County of Albemarle of 57.4 acres of land
that drains into the Mint Springs Park ils a generous gesture on the
part of the developer and should be acce~ted with the concurrence of
the Albemarle County Parks Department. As this property is part of
the watershed for Mint Springs its donation will provide both water
quality and water quantity protection for the park area .... I do not
have any problem or overriding concerns with this application .... '
166
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Staff Comment: The analysis of the nine criteria indicate that this
request does not meet all the criteria requirements for proposed
development in the RA (Rural Areas) zone. It does, however, meet the
intent of several design standards of the Comprehensive Plan and of
the Rural Areas zoning goal. The Zoning Ordinance states in Section
10.1, Rural Areas Intent, that: 'It is intended that development be
permitted on land which is of marginal utility for agricultural
purposes, provided that such development be carried out in a manner
which is compatible with the agricultural activity of the area. In
addition, it is intended that such development occur in locations and
at scales compatible to the physical characteristics of the land and
to the availability of public utilities and facilities to support such
development. Roadside strip development is to be discouraged through
the various design requirements contained herein.'
Review of this special use permit request will be in two parts:
technical criteria and policy considerations. The technical criteria
are as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
The policy considerations are appropriately addressed under the
legislative discretion of the Planning Commission and Board of Super-
visors. Staff opinion is that while this request does not meet all
the criteria requirements for proposed rural areas development, there
is a demonstrable public benefit in terms of protection of critical
slopes and of the watershed which outweigh the criteria in this case.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-87-110. ~.
Technical Criteria: Review of technical criteria wi'll focus on issues
of protection of critical slopes, preservation of ag~ricultural activity,
and protection of watershed quality.
A. Protection of Critical Slopes
Several of the existing parcels consist of a portion of one side
of Buck's Elbow Mountain. These parcels are comprised predomi-
nantly of slopes of 25 percent or greater (critical slope) and
are heavily wooded.
To meet the critical slopes goal in the Comprehensive Plan, the
applicant proposes the following:
Restriction of building sites to the lowerlielevations with
the exception of two dwellings (lots numbe~ 17 and 25).
This is a significant reduction from 18, the approximate
number of lots at higher elevations 'by right.'
Restriction on the removal of trees, unless directly in the
building area.
3. Design of roadways through the lower part ~f the land.
This area is recognized in Map 18 of the Comprehensive Plan as a
scenic area worthy of protection. The three preceding measures
for hillside protection work in concert with scenic area protec-
tion. In addition, the applicant proposes to r~Strict all
buildings to the other side of the ridge from Mint Springs Park
in an effort to protect that scenic area.
Preservation of Agricultural Activity ~
As revealed in the Special Use Permit Criteria, '~his property has
limited agricultural value as a result of marginal soils and
steep slopes. The applicant offers the followin ~:
There will be deed restrictions for the lar
included in forestry land use. Once the su
recorded, they will be enrolled. The appli
'passive' forestry use in which trees will
ier tracts to be
~division plat is
.ant proposes a
,e maintained
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
167
with restrictions on cutting. While this will not contrib-
ute to the active forestry industry with timbering, it is
acceptable to the Real Estate Department for forestry land
use.
Proposed building sites and roadway alignments seek to
preserve the existing orchard.
The smaller lots (under 21 acres) are proposed to be clus-
tered to provide separation from and more practical usage of
the larger lots (minimum of 21 acres) in forestry land use.
C. Protection of Watershed Oualitv
Several unnamed streams traverse this property. The western
portion of this property drains into Mad Run in the Mint Springs
subbasin. The applicant proposes to donate to the County of
Albemarle, an area of 57.4 acres to become a part of Mint Springs
Park. This donation is proposed 'for the preservation of the
watershed.' Pat Mullaney, Director of the Parks and Recreation
Department recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept this
donation to expand the Park. This voluntary donation on the part
of the applicant is not intended in any way to justify approval
of the request. As a result of this donation, four lots will be
reduced below 21 acres to 9.8, 7.8 and 7.3 acres.
For development in the watershed, ~he Comprehensive Plan recom-
mends several design guidelines, including: 'Watershed Manage-
ment areas should be established along each water supply impound-
ment and its associated tributaries. These management areas
should extend a minimum of 100 feet~ horizontally from the edge of
an impoundment and its tributaries'~.', These areas will serve as
filter strips along the water courjes and impoundments which, if
properly maintained, should filter sediment from overland flow
and maintain the inherent temperatq~re norms in the adjacent
streams and other bodies of water, i All clearing, grading and
construction activities should be ~estricted to the minimum area
required for the proposed development.'
The applicant proposes the following:
1. A conservation buffer zone of 'il00 feet from the edge of all
streams in which removal of trees is prohibited.
Subdivision restrictions to prohibit the use of poisons on
the orchards to only an organic treatment.
Restriction on areas to be disturbed to be limited to that
area necessary for improvements.
Restriction on building locations adjacent to Mad Run stream
to the side adjacent to the roadway, to reduce stream cross-
ing for driveways. This is for lots number 8 through 16.
Policy Considerations: By the rearrangement of these lots, the
character of the area adjacent to Route 684 will be more of a devel-
oped appearance and the area adjacent to Buck's Elbow Mountain will be
less of a developed appearance than 'by ~ight.' This proposal concen-
trates or 'clusters' the smaller lots on the low land near Route 684.
The developed lots adjacent to Route 684 are compatible in character
with the existing developed lots in that area, although these are
proposed to be significantly larger.
From the adoption of the Rural Areas zone in December, 1980, through
January, 1988, 23 special use permits have been filed. Of these, two
or nine percent of the requests were for a different configuration,
with no proposed increase in the number Of lots or decrease in lot
size from 'by right' development. Both requests were approved for
reasons including: the creation of more logical building sites, the
reduction in number of entrances to the state road and the creation of
more practical agricultural tracts.
168
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Conclusion: The present request does not meet all of the technical
criteria as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
Based on measures proposed by the applicant and on the subdivision
design proposed, this request clearly will better serve the goals of
protection of critical slopes and of watershed quality. This request
creates more logical building sites and a significantly shorter road
system than 'by right' development.
Based on information submitted to date, staff will recommend that this
development be served by public roads. This issue will be discussed
with review of the subdivision plat.
Staff recommends approval of SP-87-110 subject to the following
conditions:
County Attorney and Watershed Management Official approval of
deed restrictions to include a) the conservation buffer zone, b)
the minimization of earth-disturbance including tree removal, and
c) the location of building sites on those lots (#8-16) proposed
for no driveway stream crossings on Mad Run;
Best Management Practices shall be utilized durling construction.
The Watershed Management Official shall review ~he Soil Erosion
Plan; ~
Not more than two dwellings shall be constructed on the higher
elevations (Lots 17 and 25), the location of which shall be
specified on the final plat; ~
The subdivision shall be limited to 31 lots, ten of which are a
minimum of 21 acres (seven after donation of acyeage to Mint
Springs Park), and shall be in general accordance with the plan
by Steven L. Key, Inc. dated January 19, 1988; ~
No further division of any lot without amendment of this permit."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 19, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions in the staff
report, but amended number 4 to change the word "seven" to "six" and amended
condition number 5 to read: "No further division of any 19t."
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne to speak about the impact of building
private roads versus State standard roads. Mr. Horne said that in order to
allow private roads, the applicant must demonstrate to the Planning Commission
that there are significant environmental reasons for the ~equest. There are
limitations on the amount of data that the applicant could be asked to provide
for the special permit. Based on the information provided~, thus far, the
staff could not make a determination as to what specific ~nvironmental bene-
fits there would be for a private road. This is not an iHdication~ that the
staff automatically assumes that the applicant cannot demdnstrate those
benefits, in fact it is just the opposite. The staff is teery of making that
determination without explicit data due to the number of ~iequests it receives
for private roads. ~
Mr. Bain asked what the Highway Department standards ~re with regard to
roads on slopes. Mr. Horne said thatis complicated. Uniformly, Albemarle
County applies a rolling standard which would restrict vertical curvature and
would require additional grading to get to some of the higher slopes. A
mountainous standard would require less grading, but the Highway Department
requires the submission of a fairly detailed oust~f~cat~on~ Mr. Lindstrom
said he is often concerned about the Department's standard~ in some places.
Mr. Bain asked the rationale for the two lots (17 audi25) being on the
higher mountain elevation. Mr. Horne said that is something the applicant
needs to address.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the donation of the land to th~ park could be tied
to the application. Mr. St. John said he does not think that would be contrac~
zoning. In an attempt to avoid that appearance, a deed was put in escrow. If
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
169
that element has any bearing on the Board's decision to approve or disapprove
the application, based on the applicant's voluntary offer, it would be perfectl~
legitimate to make the donation a condition of the special permit to be
accomplished before the final plat is signed. This offer is totally voluntary,
and was without any suggestion by the staff. In addition, that 57 acres will
in part protect Mint Springs from the effects of the subdivision. Also, the
State statute makes it legitimate for counties to accept donations of land to
add to or protect an existing park.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Katurah S. Roell, the applicant, said with regard to lots 17 and 25
there is an existing logging road which cuts through the property and runs
along a pathway and hillside. A person could access those sites now with a
four-wheel drive vehicle, and with a little grading and some gravel, an
automobile could have access. To spread driveways through the upper portions
of this property would scar the hillsides and he does not want houses all over
the hillsides. From the backyard of his residence, he can look out at this
scenic hillside slope which is the natural beauty of the area he does not want
to destroy. He has worked extensively with the Engineering Department redraw-
ing those roads to keep the area fairly undisturbed, although moving the lots
to the lower slopes would put the homes in a.more buildable area. There is an
electric line that runs across the lower boundaries of the property and is in
direct use to those lower lots. His reason for requesting private roads is to
preserve the woodlands and natural areas as much as possible. As a part of
his subdivision restrictions he'has personali~discretion over house sites and
driveway accesses in order to protect the adjacent neighboring property and
the feel of the development. This will be an accessible residential area. He
proposes donation of acreage to prevent encroaching on Mint Springs Park. To
tie that donation to this decision would in effect defeat the purpose of the
gift and his attitude toward preservation which is the reason for the buffer
line and restricting all building to the right side of the property. He
intends to follow through with that donations!
Mr. St. John asked if Mr. Roell would be willing to have the conveyance
made a condition of approval of the special permit. Mr. Roell responded he
would be unwilling to make the donation a condition of approval because it
would seem as if the offer is made contingent on him receiving something in
return. That would misrepresent the fact that it is a gift. Mr. Lindstrom
said he is a little put off by Mr. Roell's attitude because it seems to him
that it is clearly the appearance that the donation is part of the request.
If it was meant purely as a gift, it would have been best not to know anything
about it. Mr. Roell said the staff felt the!donation should be presented to
the Board and Planning Commission so as to l~it everyone know that there would
no longer be 21 acre lots, but nine or ten acre lots. He would be glad to
supply Mr. St. John with anything necessary tO satisfy the County's acquisi-
tion of the property.
There being no further comments from the. public, the public hearing was
closed. ~
Mr. Perkins said he has no problem with the request. Mr. Perkins then
offered motion to approve SP-87-110 subject to the conditions of the Planning
Commission. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said based on what has been stated it would be appropriate
to add an additional condition that access to'~'the building sites on lots 17
and 25 would be over the existing logging roads. Clearly that is the intent
of the applicant and that would address the concern raised by Mr. Bain. Mr.
Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne if he feels the conRitions recommended by the
Planning Commission were specific enough. Mr{ Horne said it might be appro-
priate to add to the end of condition #1 prio~ to the semicolon "as described
in the staff report presented at the Board ofi~Supervisors meeting, initialled
by John T. P. Horne and attached hereto;".
Mr. Perkins said he will amend his motio~ to include the suggested
amendment. Mr. Bowie agreed as seconder.
170
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Bain said he likes the concept but does not like to see all of that
development take place. He thinks the development is a good one in the way it
is shown with the preservation shown by Mr. Roell in his plan. He still has
some concerns with the roads but is willing to leave that to the Planning
Commission to make the determination on how that should be done. He will
support the motion.
Mr. Perkins said the only problem he has with regard to the condition
concerning use of the logging road is that a lot of times logging roads are
not constructed in the best way. Mr. Roell has indicated that there may be
some switchbacks installed to reduce the grade in places. Mr. Lindstrom
suggested the wording be: "The developer will use the existing logging roads
to the extent feasible for access to the building sites on lots 17 and 25."
Mr. Way asked Mr. Roell if he had any problem with these added sugges-
tions.' Mr. Roell responded no.
Mr. Perkins said he has no problem with adding the condition #6 as
suggested by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Bowie agreed as seconder.
There being no further discussion, 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.
(Note: Conditions of approval are set out in full below:
County Attorney and Watershed Management Official approval of
deed restrictions to include: a) the conservation buffer zone,
b) the minimization of earth-disturbance, including tree removal,
and c) the location of building sites on those~?lots (Lots 8 - 16)
proposed for no driveway stream crossings on Mad Run, as de-
scribed in the staff report presented at the Board of Supervisors
meeting, initialled by John T. P. Horne and attached hereto;
Best Management Practices shall be utilized du=ing construction.
The Watershed Management Official shall review ~the Soil Erosion
Plan;
Not more than two dwellings shall be constructed on the higher
elevations (Lots 17 and 25), the location of whi~ch shall be
specified on the final plat;
The subdivision shall be limited to 31 lots, te~ of which are a
minimum of 21 acres (six after donation of acreage to Mint
Springs Park), and shall be in general accordange with the plan
by Steven L. Key, Inc. dated January 19, 1988;
No further division of any lot;
The developer will use the existing logging roads to the extent
feasible for access to the building sites on lots 17 and 25.
At 9:38 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:48
P.M.
Agenda Item 14. SP-88-7. A. T. Williams Oil Company,. To allow for the
placement of approximately 6,800 cubic yards of earth in Che floodway fringe
of the Rivanna River. Property located on north side of l~t. 250 East at Rt.
1421 (Elks Drive). Tax Map 78, Parcels 2A, 2B, 2C, 4A an4 4B. Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 5 a~d April 12, 1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Petition: A. T. Williams 0il Company petitions the 'Board of Supervi-
sors to issue a special use permit in accordance wit~ Section 30.3.5.2.2
of the Zoning Ordinance, to authorize the placement Of fill in the
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
171
floodway fringe of the Rivanna River. Property, described as Tax Map
78, Parcels 2A, 2B, 2C, 4A and 4B, is located on the north side of
Route 250 East at State Route 1421 (Elk!s Drive), adjacent to the west
of the Wilco gasoline station.
Character of the Area: These parcels are undeveloped C-i, Commercial
zoning. Adjacent parcels are zoned C-i, Commercial, and HC, Highway
Commercial, and are developed with two gasoline stations (Wilco and
Texaco), with undeveloped property to the north.
This special use permit is sought for the development of this property
for commercial uses. The single family dwelling which presently
exists on parcel 2C is proposed to be removed.
History: The property on the frontage of Route 250 has been used as a
wayside stand for the sale of fruit, vegetables and the like on many
occasions. In 1987, Greene Gardens East temporarily used this site.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes the placement of approximately
6,800 cubic yards of earth into the flood fringe of the Rivanna River.
The fill will be constructed from clean material and stabilized with a
suitable vegetative covering. The area proposed for fill is a gully
adjacent to Elk's Drive which extends several hundred feet to the east
and is shown to be a 'back water area' during a one hundred year
storm. The proposed fill will not further constrict or reduce the
conveyance capacity of the existing average channel.
The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed fill will not in-
crease the water surface elevation of the one hundred year flood by
more than 1.0 foot at any point. The l~gest change is at one station
(near Free Bridge) where the water surface increase is +0.4 feet. The
County Engineering Department comments 'He believe it complies with
all County and Federal requirements' an~ recommends approval of the
special use permit.
The Virginia Department of Transportation noted concern about the
request if it would cause more frequent Ylooding, or flooding of a
longer duration on Route 1421 (Elk's Drive). The recent storms of
November, 1985 and September, 1987 cause~ flooding along this section
of Route 1421 with water over the road.
The public issue of this proposal is the~impact on the public road,
Elk's Drive. This is particularly important due to the plans for a
cul-de-sac on Elk's Drive, in conjunction with construction of the
Rivanna Park. The County Engineering Department has confirmed that
the proposed fill will not cause more frequent flooding or a longer
period of flooding during which the road is impassable. According to
FEMA calculations, at its lowest point, Elk's Drive will presently
flood to 8.5 feet deep in a one hundred year storm. The additional
0.4 foot depth resulting from the proposed fill will not create a
significant difference for public access~ The County Engineering
Department comments 'the net effect of depth of flood and duration for
a ten year storm are so small they can o~ly be calculated. I doubt
you will even be able to measure the difference.' The County Engi-
neering Department further comments: Presently, 'there is a four foot
differential in flood plain elevation between the upstream and the
downstream flood plain. This is due to the back water effects created
by the bridge. We believe at such time as the Department of Transpor-
tation replaces the bridge, as they currently propose to do, the
b ~
upstream flood plain elevation will e lowered due to the increased
hydraulic efficiency of the new bridge a~d from the likelihood the
bridge elevation will be raised.' ~
It is staff's opinion the proposal will ~ot further obstruct the
navigability of the Rivanna River or otherwise negatively impact the
public interest. Staff recommends approval subject to the following:
1. Limits of fill in general accordance with the A. T. Williams
Preliminary Plan dated January 22, ~988, by Gloeckner and Osborne,
Inc. (site plan approval is subject to separate review by the
Planning Commission):
172
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
County Engineer approval of construction activity in the
flood plain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay
District."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 22, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions in the staff's
report.
Mr. Bain asked if the applicant used plans prepared by the Highway
Department for the new Free Bridge in his engineering. Mr. Home said no, the
Highway Department does not have any plans available at this time. It is the
assumption of the Engineering Department that a new bridge will be installed
with a better hydraulic capacity than the old bridge. The applicant's analyr
sis is not done based on the assumption of the improved hydraulic capacity of
the bridge.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Samuel Saunders, of Gloeckner and
Osborne, representing the applicant, said the percentage volume of fill to be
taken out of the river is computed to be .0002 percent, ks far as the total
magnitude of the project, the applicant is looking at about a 4.6 acre foot
potential storage out of 225,000 acre feet in total storm volume. The appli-
cant's work would not affect Elk's Drive because all of the fill is on the
uphill side so that at the time the water level has risen into the area the
applicant is filling, Elk's Drive would already be under water.
There being no one else from the public to speak regJrding this applica-
tion, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said this property is in his district. Heiis very familiar
with the area and the only use that makes sense is commercial.
Mr. Bain asked who would monitor the applicant's work to know when he got
to the maximum fill. Mr. Horne said the County Engineerihg Department. There
would be on-site inspections during the project to calculate the extent of the
fill being placed in the area.
Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is not with the relat~elyminor amount of
fill, but this situation is happening all over the country~ People buy
marginal land and then want to add fill dirt. It is a way, to take almost
worthless land and make it attractive and valuable. There~is a lot of flood
plain area in Albemarle County and this is one of the more~major areas. The
problem with allowing this is the cumulative effect and he, is concerned about
how the Board will say no to the next applicant. This should not be treated
as just an individual application. He is worried about getting into the
business of allowing significant fill in the flood plain f6r commercial or
other development because there is a lot of area along that river where that
is a possibility. He can see the potential demand for commercial. The
problem is knowing when to draw the line on a request. He,has some reserva-
tions about allowing this although in and of itself this request does not pose
the potential for creating a significant problem. There is a lot of commer-
cially zoned land in the county. The county is not facing~!a scarcity of
developable commercial land.
Mr. Bowie said the proposed Comprehensive Plan calls for more intense
development between Elk's Drive and Route 20 North. He then asked if the area
to be developed would it require some fill anyway. Mr. Ho~ne said he cannot
answer that tonight. The area immediately adjacent to the north is also zoned
commercial. He does agree with Mr. Lindstrom about the cumulative effect.
Mr. Bain asked if a new bridge would affect the back Bp areas further
upstream. Mr. Horne said he does not.
Mr. Bowie asked if something is to be done, besides c~l-de-sacing, to
Elk's Drive during peak use hours. Mr. Home said that is~to be discussed
with the Highway Department, but VDoT does not know what t~ do at that loca-
tion at the present time.
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
173
Mr. Horne said if the Board does not approve this request, it does not
destroy the developability of the property. There are some commercial uses
that could be made of the property although those uses would be restricted.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the total acreage of the parcel. Mr. Horne responded
5.247 acres.
Mr. Bowie said in light of the engineering report and the Planning
Commission's actions, he sees no objection to allowing the fill if the area is
to be used for commercial.
Mr. Lindstrom said whoever purchased the property p6rchased it as is. He
thinks this should not be viewed as an individual request, but as something
desirable for the flood plain area. This property is usable without allowing
this activity.
Mrs. Cooke said she is inclined to agree with Mr. Lindstrom. The land is
useful and the buyer certainly knew what he had when he purchased the property.
She is concerned about doing bits and pieces of this along the way. If the
Board approves one of these requests, it would be difficult to deny the next
one. There is also the unknown factor of what is going to be there when the
Highway Department finishes the Free Bridge replacement. She is not inclined
to support the request.
Mr. Perkins asked the depth of the fill.~ Mr. Horne replied approximately
26 feet. Mrs. Cooke asked what methods will be used to stabilize the fill.
Mr. Saunders said the plan is to use a vegetative cover with a fabric under-
neath to hold it in place and to plant trees .mt the bottom of the slope.
Mr. Bowie said he also has considerable concerns about this and the
effect of that much fill that close to the river. Motion was then offered~by
Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bain, to deny SP-88-7. 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.
Mr. Horne said the County Engineer should provide a report on the ramifi-
cations of activities such as this request in-the flood plain areas.
Mr. Bain said he has no problem with the?study suggested by Mr. Horne as
long as it does not take a long time.
Mrs. Cooke said she is leery of tamperin~ with the river and the flood
plain because what is done upstream ultimatel~ affects what goes on downstream.
Agenda Item No. 15. ZMA-88-4. Republic-Homes. To amend ZMA-79-27
(North Pantops PRD) to allow for a change in access. Property adjacent to the
northeast side of Ashcroft PRD, approved with existing entrance through
Ashcroft off Rt. 250, desiring to change access through Franklin Drive off Rt.
20. Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 (part of). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on April 5 and April 12, 1988.)
Mr. Home presented the following staff report:
"Petition: Republic Homes petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend
ZMA-79-27 to permit change in access. Property, described as Tax Map
78, Parcel 57 (part), is adjacent and northeast of Ashcroft PRD in the
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Staff Comment: North Pantops PRD was originally approved for a
maximum of 28 lots with access through the Ashcroft road system.
Currently, Republic Homes proposes no access through Ashcroft, serving
the property instead through the Franklin subdivision roadways.
At time of adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance, planned developments
were recognized, subject to original conditions of approval. In the
174
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
past, staff has supported amendments to such developments which would
result in a.more conforming situation relative to current regulations
or otherwise serve the general public interest:
Under prior approval, North Pantops PRD would be served by a
combination of public and private roads. Under the proposed
amendment, North Pantops would be served by public roads, consis-
tent with current subdivision regulation;
Prior approval required North Pantops residents to become members
of the Ashcroft Homeowner's Association. Development of North
Pantops would have been dependent on the development schedule for
Ashcroft. While proposed amendments would negate these require-
ments, emergency access into Ashcroft is recommended;
Public water is available in the area now and should be extended
to the development to provide a more reliable source and for fire
protection purposes. This property is within an Albemarle County
Service Authority 'water only' service area.
Staff recommends the following amendments to conditions of approval of
ZMA-79-27:
Approval is for a maximum of 28 dwellings subjeQt to conditions
contained herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses
shall comply with the approved Application Planl In the final
site plan and subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated
in proportion to the number of lots approved; ~
No grading or clearing for street construction S~hall occur within
any area until the final Stormwater Detention and drainage plans
for subject subdrainage basin have been.approved for concurrent
construction;
No grading or construction on slopes of 25 percent or greater
except as necessary for road construction as approved by the
County Engineer;
e
Ail lots shall be served by ~ne-~r-m~re-¢entral~wa~er-~ymtem~
approved-~n-aceordanee-w~h-~he-regnta~n~-~-t, he-¥~rg~n~a
Bepar~men~-of-Heat~h;-~he-~ode-of-Atbemarle-~onn:ty~-and-att-~her
applicable-taw public water, ii
Pr~va~e-read-shalt-¢~mply-w~h-~he-pr~va~e-r~ad~pr~v~n~-~f
~he-Sn5d~v~n-Srd~nan~e Virginia Department or, Transportation
approval of road plans including revised plans f~r Bache Lane;
6. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Association agreements.
Alt -pr~per~y-~wner~ - ~halt-~e~me-mem~e~ - ~f- ~he-A~h~r~-H~me~wn-
ers'-Assoe~a~on- and-shall- be- snbj e¢~- ~o-att- regulations- g~vern-
~ng-~a~d-a~oc~a~on~ ~
7. Minimum yard regulations shall be as follows: f~ont~ - 25 feet;
side - 15 feet; rear 20 feet. A separation o~100 feet or more
between dwellings shall be provided maintained, for fire protec-
tion provided that such distance may be reducediby the Fire
Official in accordance with Section 4.11.3 of th~ Zoning Ordi-
nance (Yard regulations shall not be reduced). Fire Official
approval of fire prevention system. Such system!~shall be provided
prior to any certificate of occupancy; ill
8~ - -- Ptann~ng-~omm~ss ~on-approvat-of-areas-~o-be-~tea~ed- ~n- ~nd~v~d~at
~s ~- Planning- ~mm~ss ~n-appr~vat-~-generat-dwe~tt~ng- ~a~n
on-ea~h-te~
Virginia Department of Health approval of two se~
locations on each lot. The Health Department shs
supervise or test each lot utilizing soil tests
soil scientist and undertake or supervise percol
tic field
11 either
y a qualified
tion tests as
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
175
they may be required. Such tests must demonstrate that two
septic drainfields can be located on each lot without encroaching
on any slope exceeding 25 percent. Septic tanks and/or
drainfields shall not be located on any slope of 25 percent or
greater. Any lot not having adequate septic system site shall be
combined with a building lot and/or added to the common open
space.
Mr. Horne noted that the following letter of proffer was presented to the
Planning Commission:
"April 5, 1988
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Planning Department
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA-88-04 (North Pantops PRD)
Dear Mr. Keeler:
In conjunction with the above application, Republic Homes proffers
that the subject lots will be platted only so long as the projected
vehicular traffic on Franklin Drive remains within the standards
established by the Virginia Department of Transportation's Subdivision
Street Requirements.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Robert M. Hauser
President"
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 5, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval subject to the proffer as outlined in the
April 5, 1988, letter from Republic Home Building, signed by Robert M. Hauser,
President.
Mr. Horne presented the following proffe~ letter which was received after
the Planning Commission meeting:
"April 11, 1988
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
Albemarle County Planning Department
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
RE: ZMA-88-04 (North Pantops PRD)
Dear Mr. Keeler:
In conjunction with the above application, Republic Homes proffers
that the subject lots will be platted only so long as the projected
vehicular traffic on Fran¥1in Drive remai~ns within the standards
established by the Virginia Department of Transportation's Subdivision
Street Requirements, provided that traffic calculations under current
traffic generation standards shall not exceed 500 vehicle trips per
day.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Robert M. Hauser
President"
176
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Horne said the reason for the applicant's proffer of April 11 is that
if the traffic from North Pantops PRD exceeds 500 vtpd on Franklin Drive he
must change the vertical and horizontal alignment of Franklin Drive. Mr. Bain
asked how many of the lots in Franklin Subdivision would be using Franklin
Drive. Mr. Horne said 28 of the 32 lots in Franklin have authorization to use
Franklin Drive.
Mr. Horne said at the Planning Commission meeting, a property owner who
lives on the other side of the ridge brought up a concern about additional
water runoff from this development to the ridge area. The Commission felt it
was a valid concern and that it should be addressed at the subdivision plat
stage. There was evidence that there are existing flooding conditions in the
area now and this development could add to those conditions. The staff
intends to monitor the conditions prior to approval Of the subdivision.
Mr. Bowie asked if the runoff problem can be corrected at site plan
review. Mr. Horne replied yes.
Mr. Bain asked why the staff recommended deleting the original condition
#8. Mr. Horne said the staff did not feel that it was a valid condition at
this time and felt that the issue could be addressed during subdivision
approval. Mr. Lindstrom said he would rather see this condition during zoning
approval than rely on just subdivision approval. It is a critical part of the
plan. There was a similar condition added to Ashcroft when it was developed.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Hauser, representing Republic
Homes, said in response to Mr. Lindstrom it is his understanding that condi-
tion #8 was in Ashcroft's original approval which is the reason it was added
to this application. It is also his understanding that since approval of
Ashcroft, the condition has been withdrawn and the Plannin!g Commission does
not enforce the condition. Interrupting, Mr. Lindstrom said he does not
remember ever voting to delete the condition which would have been put on the
petition by this Board. The condition may not be exercised on every lot but
it has not been deleted. Continuing, Mr. Hauser said, with regard to the
drainage, he does not think it will create more impervious:'area. Given the
opportunity the applicant can demonstrate that the effect ~f runoff will be
minimum.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Robert Main said he is~'a part owner in Tax
Map 62, parcel 30, which adjoins the subject parcel. His request to the Board
is that the County consider gaining an easement from this :piece of property to
possibly service the adjoining property in the future with!.water and public
road access, should future development move in that direction. He is slowly
being hemmed in on all sides because the County seems to be directing growth
that way. He would like to see the County plan for some future growth in the
area.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is willing to support the petit%on, but would like
existing condition #8 to remain in effect. Mr. Bowie said!ithe Planning
Commission can ignore the condition if it chooses, but in light of the drain-
age problem he would like to insure that the County has coJtrol and there is
no runoff into Franklin or any other area. Mr. Bowie thenloffered motion to
approve ZMA-88-4, as proffered dated April 11, 1988, addressed to Mr. Ronald
S. Keeler, Chief of Planning, signed by Mr. Robert M. Hauser, President,
Republic, to reinsert the originalcondition #8 and to ren~ber~ the next
condition as #9, set out as follows: ~
1. Approval is for a maximum of 28 dwellings subjec~ to conditions
contained herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses
shall comply with the Application Plan. In the ~inal site plan
and subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in
proportion to the number of lots approved;
No grading or clearing for street construction shall occur
within any area until the final stormwater deteniion and drain-
age plans for subject subdrainage basin have been~ approved for
concurrent construction;
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
177
No grading or construction on slopes of 25 percent or greater
except as necessary for road construction as approved by the
County Engineer;
4. Ail lots shall be served by public water;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans
including revised plans for Bache Lane;
6. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Association agreements;
Minimum yard regulations shall be as follows: front - 25 feet;
side - 15 feet; rear 20 feet. A separation of 100 feet or
more between dwellings shall be maintained, for fire protection,
provided that such distance may be reduced by the Fire Official
in accordance with Section 4.11.3 of the Zoning Ordinance (yard
regulations shall not be reduced). Fire Official approval of
fire prevention system. Such system shall be provided prior to
any certificate of occupancy;
Planning Commission approval of areas to be cleared on indivi-
dual lots; Planning Commission approval of general dwelling
location on each lot;
Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field
locations on each lot. The Health Department shall either
supervise or test each lot utilizing soil tests by a qualified
soil scientist and undertake or supervise percolation tests as
they may be required. Such tests must demonstrate that two
septic drainfields can be located on each lot without encroach-
ing on any slope exceeding 25 percent. Septic tanks and/or
drainfields shall not be located on any slope of 25 percent or
greater. Any lot not having adequate septic system site shall
be combined with a building lot and[or added to the common open
space. ~
Mr. Bain seconded the foregoing motion.
Mrs. Cooke said she is familiar with the runoff problems the County has
had in the Bennington/Four Seasons area. In ~hat area, the development on top
of the ridge contributed significantly to those problems. She hopes that this
applicant is willing to deal with those kinds.of problems when the time comes.
Nothing can be assured about drainage when a problem already exists. To
possibly create another problem is asking for ~trouble. Mr. Lindstrom said he
agrees with Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Bowie said there~is a difference when the loca-
tion has grass, swales and engineering efforts as opposed to streets. In
addition there is more development in the Fou~ Seasons area than in the
Franklin area.
Mr. Bain said there was a comment by the staff concerning emergency
access yet nothing is recommended in the conditions. Mr. Horne said those
concerns will be addressed at the subdivision stage because there are just not
adequate plans available at this time.
There being no further discussion, 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.
Agenda Item No. 16. SP-88-20. United Land Corporation. To permit
vehicle rental on a 6.2 acre parcel proposed to be zoned C-1. Property on
north side of St. Rt. 649, approximately one-half mile west of Rt. 29. Tax
Map 32, Parcel 17. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
April 5 and April 12, 1988.)
178
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Noting that no one from the public was present concerning this applica-
tion, and complying with the applicant's request, motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer this petition to May 4, 1988, to be
heard with an accompanying petition for a Zoning Map Amendment. 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.
Agenda Item No. 17. SP-88-9. Ralph A. Hall. To replace an existing
temporary interim housing mobile home permit-with a permanent single-wide
mobile home permit, zoned RA. Property on north side of Rt. 641, approxima-
tely 0.5 miles northwest of its intersection with Rt. 20. Tax Map 35, Parcel
4lA. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 5 and
April 12, 1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
Petition: Ralph A. Hall petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a
permanent mobile home permit for a single-wide mobile home on 53.7
acres. This mobile home is to be located on property described as Tax
Map 35, Parcel 4lA. This parcel is located on the nQrth side of Route
641, 0.5+ from Route 20. Zoned PA, Rural Areas. Ri~anna Magisterial
District.
Character of the Area: The area east of the propertY is primarily
open agricultural land while to the west the area is mostly forest
with scattered residential units. The mobile home is located in a
deciduous wooded section of the parcel 1600+ feet fro'm the road, and
is not visible from the road. Dense deciduous woods 'lie to the north,
west and east effectively screening it from adjacent~properties.
Currently, there are six mobile homes within a one mile radius.
Staff Comment: The mobile home is currently located ion the property
and occupied under a temporary mobile home permit which was issued
administratively on February 14, 1986. A temporary mo. bile home
permit, issued by the Zoning Administrator without public hearing, is
intended to provide interim housing during constructilon of a permanent
dwelling. In addition to the mobile home and housingI under con-
struction, there are two dwellings on the property, one of which is a
rental unit. ~
Three letters of objection came from adjoining lando~ers stating
concerns about the use of the mobile home once a permanent dwelling is
built and concerns about a devaluatIon of adjacent pr!ppertles.
The applicant has said he intends to remove the mobil~ home once the
permanent house is completed.~"
The applicant currently has approximately ten months ~ntil his tempo-
rary permit expires, at which time the Zoning Administrator may extend
the permit twice for a period of one year each time. .~
The County has tended to look favorably on permanent ~
permits when there has been a demonstrated need for hd
there is a potential of approximately 34 months until
mobile home permit expires. At the end or during thai
unit could be used as housing, if the applicant is una
construction of the permanent dwelling. Staff opinioh is that five
years is adequate time to construct a dwelling and thJt conversion of
temporary permits to permanent permits should be avoided except under
extraordinary circumstances. ~
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve the petition staff recommends the following c~nditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval: ~
obile home
using. Currently
the temporary
time the rental
ble to complete
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
179
Removal of the mobile home within thirty (30) days of issuance of
certificate of occupancy for permanent dwelling;
2. The mobile home unit shall not be rented;
3. Compliance with Section 5.6.2;
a) Albemarle County building official approval;
b)
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable require-
ments for district in which it is located;
c)
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
d)
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Albemarle County Health Department approval, if applicable
under current regulations;
e)
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or
screening to be provided to t~e reasonable satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall be
maintained in good condition and replaced if needed.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, ~t its meeting on April 5, 1988,
unanimously recommended denial of SP-88-09. ;
Mr. Horne said on April 12, 1988, Dr. Halil (the owner) and Mr. and Mrs.
Davis (the applicant) met with Charles Burgess, Zoning Administrator; Jesse
Hurt, Director of Inspections; and Planning staff members to discuss the
current temporary mobile home permit as well ~s the pending special use permit
request for a permanent mobile home. Several misconceptions were clarified at
that meeting. One is that the County will notify the applicant prior to field
inspection. The applicants were unaware that six month inspections are
necessary to maintain the building permit andlifor compliance with temporary
mobile home regulations. The applicant stated confidence in being able to
complete the single-family dwelling within fiye years of obtaining financing.
Mr. Horne said the Board received a letter from Mrs. Davis proposing how
the applicants would like the County to approach this current request. The
applicants propose that only after obtaining financing would the five year
review begin. The staff is concerned about that proposal in that the County
has no control over when financing is received. The staff is comfortable with
its original analysis in that it feels there ~s adequate time under the
temporary permit to complete the permanent home under normal circumstances.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Biery Davis, the applicant, said he was advised by Mr. Andy Evans of
the Zoning Department to apply for a permanent mobile home. He had previously
informed Mr. Evans that he did not think he would be able to complete the
permanent house in accordance with County regulations. At the end of 1988 he
would have about $25,000 invested in his mobil~e home, septic field and road,
and he does not want to see that "go down the ~rain" because he cannot meet
the County's deadline. In his opinion, this ~equest would have been approved
administratively if it had not been for the objection of some neighbors who do
not like the way a mobile home looks. This property has not been subdivided.
It belongs to him and his wife in trust. The land consists of 54.5 acres and
they plan on living there permanently. He has long term goals and in achiev-
ing those goals he is trying to keep from going into tremendous debt. He has
a real problem with this transition from the administrative process to a
public hearing when he feels the whole thing s~ould have been approved admin-
istratively from the beginning.
Mr. Lindstrom questioned the substantial investment in the mobile home
Mr. Davis is making. Mrs. Cooke questioned taking five years to complete
building of the house. Mr. Davis said it took him and his wife two years to
180
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
recover from paying for their previous move, purchasing the mobile home and
installing the mobile home. He feels they just need more time that what the
County allows.
Mr. Pierre Boucheron, an adjacent property owner to the northwest of the
applicant's property, said the applicant makes this mobile home sound as if it
is completely surrounded by woods and cannot be seen from adjacent property
which is not true. He submits that the mobile home is about 50 feet from the
applicant's property line, there is no screening, no visible landscaping and
no skirting around the mobile home. If the mobile home remains a permanent
fixture, it forecloses his right to harvest his timber without exposing
himself to the view of the mobile home which he finds unattractive. He thinks
that no mobile home is attractive. If this request is granted, the mobile
home will be there forever and could conceivably be rented. In either case,
the mobile home should be properly screened from adjacent~property. The
adjacent property owners have no objection to the applicant building a house
or occupying the mobile home until a permanent structure is built, but to have
the request with no limit seems to him to be totally aborgating the whole idea
of a temporary mobile home permit.
Dr. Ralph Hall, owner of the property, said he is trying to help his
children get their home together. He does not know how the Board can deter-
mine that five years is sufficient to build a home. He thinks that estimate
is far outdated. This whole process started because inspectors were coming
onto the property unannounced which has since been settled. This is not a
request for a mobile home to remain on the property forever. It is a request
for extension to at least 1994. .~
There being no further comments from the public, the ilpublic hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowie said this property lies in his district. ~he County allows a
temporary mobile home while a person is building a permanent home. There are
still ten months left on the original application and two ',one-year extensions.
Additionally, he can think of two situations since he has ~been on the Board
where someone has gotten to that five year point and the home is not quite
completed, but there was significant progress in building 'and the Board has
extended the request. He cannot imagine the Board turnin~ down such a request
in that situation as long as the person is, in good faith,:: building the home.
He cannot see setting up a special situation for one person.. He has problems
with this application and thinks the Board should follow ilts ordinances.
There being no further cox~nents motion was offered bM, Mr. Bowie, seconded
by Mrs. Cooke, to deny SP-88-09. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote: i~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,~ Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Transfer of Funds Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated April 14, 1988:
"There is an unexpended balance of $27,713.76 in Codeig000-0600
Court Square Improvements, which was left over after the replacement
of the ceiling and acoustical work in the main court ~oom of the Court
House. Only approximately $1800 is needed to complet~ the job at
Court Square.
On April 12, 1988, bids were taken on renovations in ~he Police
Department of the County Office Building. The original estimate on
this job eighteen months ago was $120,000. The lowest bid was
$141,500. Therefore staff recommends the following transfer in the
Capital Improvement Fund:
From: Code 9000-06000 Court Square Improvements $26,000
To: Code 9000-43100 County Office Building Improvements $26,000
April 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
181
The above transfer will make adequate funds available with $4500
available for contingencies toward the contract on this area. The
renovations will add a new entrance with a handicap ramp to the Police
Department. Currently, there is no handicap access to the Police
Department on weekends and at night when the rest of the building is
locked off with hallway gates. The change will add some office area
currently used for storage, separate the records division from staff
and public, provide a waiting area, rest room and pay telephone for
the public; retain the current entrance near the gas pumps for staff;
separate investigation, patrol and management into designated and
separate physical areas. The new layout should be more efficient and
less disruptive for the staff."
Mr. Lindstrom asked the actual cost of the Courthouse project. Mr. Agnor
said the project cost was $43,000. The project was estimated at a high cost
because it dealt with asbestos removal.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve
transfer of $26,000 from the Court Square Project to the County Office Build-
ing as set out above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Contract Extension - Jordan Development.
It was noted that no one was present concerning this item, therefore, due
to the lateness of the hour, this item was deferred until April 21, 1988.
Agenda Item No. 20. Appointment: County Engineer.
It was noted that no one was present concerning this item, therefore, due
to the lateness of the hour, this item was de~erred until April 21, 1988.
Agenda Item No. 21. Approval of Minutes~ October 21 (N), 1987. Mr.'
Bain had read pages one through nine and found them to be in order. Motion
was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Lind~trom, to approve the minutes as
read. Roll was called and the motion carried!iby the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. L~ndstrom and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
There were no other matters mentioned.
Agenda Item No. 23. At 11:13 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn to April 21,1 1988, at 4:00 P.M. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following, recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs,. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.