1987-10-21October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 300
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 21, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7,
Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H.
Cooke, Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County
Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; and Director of Planning and Community
Development, Mr. John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Not Docketed. Mr. Way welcomed Mr. Bain as a new member of the Board of
Supervisors to his meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to accept the items of information on the Consent
Agenda and to approve Items 4.8 and 4.9. Roll was called and the motion
carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Letter dated September 24, 1987 from Mr. John A. Dezio,
addressed to Mrs. Mary Joy Scala concerning Guenther Hawranke/Mount Warren
Property request for withdrawal from - Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District.
"As I advised you by telephone on September 24, Guenther Hawranke and
Stephan Hawranke hereby withdraw their application to withdraw 10-25
acres from tax map 135, parcel 30 in the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal
District without prejudice." ~
Item 4.2. Copy of Employment and Wages lin Virginia, Third Quarter, 1986,
as prepared by the Virginia Employment Commission, received as information.
Item 4.3. Copy of Rivanna Water & Sewer: Authority Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report for Year ended June 30, 1987., as prepared by Mr. William
Sessoms, Administrative Supervisor, was received as information.
Item 4.4. County Executive's Financial Report for Quarter Ended Septem-
ber 30, 1987, was received as information. It was stated that this report
shows no unusual variances in revenues or expenditures from what would
be expected at the end of the first quarter. Adjustments will be required on
the appropriations in some of the Grant Funds on completion of the 1986-87
Annual Audit.
Preparation of the annual tax bills has been completed, and projected
collections based on the actual assessments are one percent or $275,561 below
budget projections. The major shortfall is in personal property tax which
hopefully can be offset by improving the tax collection percentage.
Item 4.5. Letter dated September 29, 1987, from Senator Paul Trible
concerning the Secretary of Agriculture's issue of disaster declaration for 66
counties in Virginia due to severe summer drought conditions, was received as
follows:
301
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
"Today, the Secretary of Agriculture issued a disaster declaration
for sixty-six counties in Virginia due to severe summer drought
conditions.
With disaster area status, farmers who have lost crops, pastureland
or herds, may be eligible for low interest emergency loans. In
addition, farmers may purchase discounted Commodity Credit Coopera-
tion feed to maintain livestock.
I suggest that you direct interested farmers to local Farmers Home
Administration and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service offices.
Virginia's farmers have been hard hit by consecutive droughts. I
trust that today's declaration will provide relief for the Common-
wealth's agricultural community."
Item 4.6. Letter dated October 6, 1987, from Senator Paul Trible, with a
copy of a response from the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
regarding possible sources of assistance for the Charlottesville Senior
Center.
"Attached is a copy of a response I just received from the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding possible sources of
assistance for the Charlottesville Senior Center.
As you can see from the enclosed, HUD suggests you explore the
possibility of funding through either the Community'!Development Block
Grant Entitlement program, or the Virginia State Community Development
Block Grant program.
Please advise should you decide to apply to either of these programs,
and I will be glad to write in support of your application.
If I can be of further assistance to you on this, o~ other matters of
importance, please feel free to call on me."
Item 4.7. Copies of the Planning Commission's minutes for October 6 and
October 13, 1987, were received as information.
Item 4.8. Request to take State Farm Boulevard int~ the Secondary S
of Highways. The following resolution was adopted by the vote taken above:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following road:
State Farm Boulevard:
Beginning at station 0+00 a point common with the edge of
pavement of the eastbound lane of U. S. Route 250 and the
centerline of State Farm Boulevard, thence in south
westerly direction 2,724.42 feet to station 27+24.42,
the end of the dedication.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is herebyguaranteed a 100 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easement along this requested addition as
recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 681, page 331, Deed Book 742, page 378
and Deed Book 830, page 314.
Item 4.9. Request to take roads in Willoughby Section IV into the
Secondary System of Highways. A letter of request signed by Mr. Michael C.
West of Wade Builder, Inc., having been on file since May 22, 1986, the
following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above:
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 302
(Page 3)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following roads~in Willoughby Section IV:
Harris Road:
Beginning at station 0+20 a point common with the centerline of
Harris Road and the end of previous dedication, thence in a
southerly direction 222.09 feet to station 2+42.09 the end of
the dedication.
Fielding Drive:
Beginning at station 0+17 a point common with the centerline of
Fielding Drive and the edge of pavement of Harris Road, thence
in an easterly direction 676.64 feet to station 6+93.64 the end
of the cul-de-sac.
Chandler Court:
Beginning at station 0+13 a point common with the centerline of
Chandler Court and the edge of pavement of Fielding Drive,
thence in a northerly direction 380.02 feet to station 3+93.02
the end of the cul-de-sac.
Towler Court:
Beginning at station 0+13 a point common with the centerline of
Towler Court and the edge of pavement of Fielding Drive, thence
in a northerly direction 192 feet to station 2+05 the end of the
cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right-of-way for Harris Road, and variable right-of-ways of 50 foot
and 45 foot for Fielding Drive, Chandler Court and Towler Place and
drainage easement along these requested additions as recorded by
plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 858, pages 706 and ~07.
Agenda Item No. 5. To receive comments from citizens on a proposal to
add a "surcharge" for telephone service. The. surcharge (856 a month for two
years, and 306 a month thereafter) is intended to pay for an E-911 system
which is described as selective routing of t~!ephone calls, automatic tele-
phone number identification, and automatic lo'cation identification performed
by computers and other control center communi:cations equipment. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on October 6 and October 13, 1987.)
Mr. Michael Carroll, Joint Dispatch Center Manager, said he appreciates
the opportunity to present to the Board some information on the Enhanced 911
(E-911) system and to answer any questions ths public may have. The E-911
system is an improvement to the existing emergency 911 system currently in use
in Albemarle County and the City of CharlotteSville. Enhancement of the
system would provide the dispatcher at 911 with the telephone number of the
person dialing 911, the location of that telephone and other information
necessary to respond correctly. This information would be available within a
couple of seconds after the 911 call is answered. The information is impor-
tant in order to provide better service to th~ citizens of Albemarle in
emergency situations. ~
It has been found that there are a large!number of people who do not know
how to describe where they live so have a difficult time explaining the
location of their residence or place of business where the emergency is
occurring. The enhancement of 911 would alleviate some of those problems.
There are situations where the caller is too excited to relate the information
over the telephone. There are also frequent ~ases where calls come from
elderly persons, speech impaired persons, children or new residents of the
community who cannot explain their location. Every day at least one telephone
call is received and has to be traced in order to find the location. E-911
would eliminate the encumbrances of tracing and provide all that necessary
information two to three seconds after the call is received.
303
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Carroll said his request before the Board is to: (1) Authorize the
Management Board of the Joint Dispatch Center to enter into a preliminary
agreement with Centel to establish the Enhanced 911 service; (2) Levy a
surcharge of $.50 per month per allowed telephone, effective October 1, 1987;
provided that the amount of the surcharge is reviewed on July 1, 1988, and
annually thereafter on July 1~ and (3,) Through the Management Board of the
Joint Dispatch Center, to investigate the system options and negotiate a final
agreement. He has met with City Council and City Council has had a public
hearing. Both of the levies requested are authorized by State law and are the
ways other municipalities in the State are funding this type of system.
Mr. Carroll said part of the request before the Board, which is different
from the request before City Council, is that the Board authorize a sum of
money as part of the surcharge to fund a locator system for naming the streets
and roads in the County and numbering the houses. This information is needed
to provide the same level of service for County and City iresidents. The
system should be functional within two and one-half years to provide the
desired level of service to all of the citizens.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Edwar~ Strauss, a
resident of the western part of the County addressed the Board. He said E-911
will not provide service in his area because at the present he cannot access
911. He feels that he should not have to pay for a service from which he gets
no benefit. He is in favor of the system if it is to serve all of the resi-
dents of the County and does not cut out part of them.
Mr. Carroll said, in response to Mr. Strauss, he has~ been directed by the
Management Board to include all citizens of the County for E-911, not just
those currently served by 911. There are approximately 700 household tele-
phone numbers in Albemarle County that are not currently served by 911. The
areas include Greenwood, Dyke and Gordonsville. To inclUde those areas for
E-911 requires the cooperation of the C & P Telephone ComPany and is expen-
sive. However, the estimates provided to the Board include those areas.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if negotiations are not successful with C & P if
those persons not receiving the service will get charged.: Mr. Carroll said
that would be at the discretion of the Management Board. Mr. Lindstrom said
there should be a stipulation that unless a customer receives E-911 service,
he should not be subject to the surcharge. Mr. Carroll said that could apply.
Ms. Betsy Campbell, who lives on State Route 606 andireceives 911 ser-
vice, next addressed the Board and said she is against enhancement of the 911
system. She does not feel that the residents should be billed for the service
until they receive it. She talked with a representative from Centel working
with 911, and he commented that when the program goes on line at the begin-
ning, only 65 percent of all residents affected will have, the service. Mr.
Carroll said, in response to Ms. Campbell, no citizen in the County or City
will receive E-911 until everybody does.
There being no further comments, the public hearing ~as closed.
Mr. Henley asked about the process for naming and numbering all of the
rural areas. Mr. Horne said for such a system to work there must be an
accurate locator system. There presently is a system for~this in the County,
but he does not think that it would be suitable for extension into the deep
rural areas of the County. Road naming can get quite controversial in that
there usually are a lot of different opinions on the name~ In addition it
would require an accurate mapping system which the County!does not have.
Mr. Agnor said when this matter was discussed previously by the Board, it
was proposed that if the Board agreed to proceed a task f~rce be appointed to
develop the plan to implement the system. The Board would have to decide on
the kind of locator system. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the surcharge would go
into effect before the mechanism would be available. Mr.!Agnor replied yes.
The surcharge would be collected so as to accumulate the ~ecessary fUnds
because the computer system would be generating costs. M~. Lindstrom asked
how the cost of the system is determined for purposes of the surcharge and the
length of the surcharge. Mr. Agnor said the amount requeSted is a general
figure and will be specific before adding it to the telephone bills. State
law allows two surcharges; the beginning surcharge to put the the system in
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 304
(Page 5)
operation, and then a reduced surcharge for maintenance of the enhanced
system. The utility company receives maintenance to keep the system opera-
tional and is allowed three percent of the proceeds to administer billing.
Mr. Henley asked how these persons are located now without this informa-
tion being available. Mr. Carroll said the people are being located, but it
just takes longer. Also, the calls are traced. The E-911 provides the
information in approximately two seconds. Mr. Henley asked why all that
information is not in the present system. Mr. Carroll said the 911 center
does not have the computer capacity to handle all the information. The system
is all tied to a telephone number which represents the data base. Mr. Henley
asked if names could be used instead of numbgring and naming. He cannot see
any reason to spend all of this money even if it means having a less effective
service. It would seem to him to be a monumental problem naming every street
and house when there is a simpler way to do everything. Mr. Agnor said one
reason names are not used is because the names and locations change regularly.
The locator system would be tied to a structure and location and not the
person living there.
Mr. Henley said he would like to know the cost before he votes for this.
He is not sure 85~ is going to even start covering the costs. Mr. Bowie asked
what happens after two years if 85~ is not enough to cover the costs. Mr.
Carroll said he thinks that the estimates are fairly accurate. Mr. Henley
asked if the cost includes numbering and namSng. Mr. Carroll responded yes.
Mr. Henley said if the Board votes for this ~ithout knowing the cost, the
County will end up paying for it no matter what the costs. He would prefer to
wait for more definite figures. Mr. Agnor s~id he is also concerned about the
total costs. The recommendation from the Board in September was to get more
accurate costs and then it would decide whether to proceed or stop. The
surcharge would not be added while all this is going on. Mr. Lindstrom said,
short of setting a surcharge, he is willing ~o take the next step to get more
information. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation to the Board is that the Joint
Dispatch Center Management Board develop an ~mplementation plan and schedule
for completion and the costs associated therewith, and also enter into a
preliminary agreement with Central Telephone iCompany to establish a system.
The assumption is that if the total cost is 5rought back to the Board in the
cost range discussed, the E-911 will be allo~ed to proceed. He does not
believe that Centel would negotiate an agreement with the Management Board if
there no intention to adopt it. ~
Mr. Bowie said if the cost can come in at 85~ or less he has no problem
and would be willing to proceed. He does not want to commit to something that
would be three times more expensive than he ~hought it would be. Mr. Bowie
then offered offered motion to proceed with the recommendations as long as the
figures remain the same. Mr. Lindstrom seconRed the motion. (Mr. St. John
left the meeting at 8:10 P.M.)
Mrs. Cooke said she sees the value of the E-911 system, but it seems to
her that there has been no positive response ifrom the public. The two persons
present were skeptical.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would not support the motion unless it was limited
to only those people who actually receive the service and would like to see
that incorporated in the motion. He does not feel there is a lot of opposi-
tion to the enhanced service. Mr. Bowie agreed to incorporate that into his
motion. Mrs. Cooke said she can support that.
Mr. Bowie then repeated the motion to authorize proceeding with the
recommendations as outlined in the County Executive's memorandum dated Septem-
ber 1, 1987, as long as the cost comes within $85~ as advertised and that the
surcharge applies only to those residents who have access to the 911 system.
The recommendations are as follows:
Request the Joint Dispatch Center Board, perhaps through an Enhanced 911
Task Force, to develop an Enhanced 911 Implementation Plan and schedule
for completion;
Enter into an Agreement (along with the City of Charlottesville) with
Central Telephone Company (Centel) to establish an Enhanced 911 system.
305
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Lindstrom again seconded the motion. There being no further discus-
sion, roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley (Preceded his vote by
saying he does not like voting for something like this with so little informa-
tion because if someone is given an amount of money they will spend all of
that money), Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 8:16 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-87-76. Ricky & Lucille Ayers. To locate a
single-wide mobile home on 1.65 acres, zoned RA. Property located on east
side of Rt. 795, ~1.4 miles south of intersection with Rt. 620. Tax Map 103,
Parcel 2F. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 6 and October 13, 1987.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Petition: Ricky and Lucille Ayers petition the Board of Supervisors
to issue a special use permit, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.10
of the Zoning Ordinance, to locate a single wide mobile home on 1.65
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 103,
Parcel 2F, is located on the east side of Route 795,~+ 1.4 miles
south of its intersection with Route 620. Scottsvili~ Magisterial
District.
Character of Area: This site is vacant. The lot is!a rectangular
configuration and partially cleared. The adjacent areas are typically
rural, with limited low density residential development. Both the
site and the surrounding areas have steep topography~ There are
approximately seven mobile homes located within a one mile radius of
the proposed site.
Staff Comment: Two special use permits have been granted for mobile
homes on this site in the past, however, neither request was pursued.
The present applicant intends to reside in the mobile home rather
then rent the dwelling. It appears that the mobile home will be
visible from the state road, due to the large amount, of vegetation
removed from the site.
One objection was filed against this application. The objection
comes from an adjacent property owner who maintains that drainfields
adjacent to his property are currently failing, resulting in seepage
in his rear yard. The property owner filing the objection feels that
locating additional drainfields adjacent to his property will only
increase his current problem.
Should the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
Health Department approval prior to moving mobile home onto
property;
2. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 13,
1987, unanimously recommended approval of this petition w{th the two condi-
tions by the staff.
Mr. Home said the staff has not received verification from the Health
Department on whether there is a seepage problem in the n~ighborhood. As with
all requests, the request will not proceed unless there iq Health Department
approval of the drainfield system. The applicant was infdrmed about the
contents of the objection.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ricky Ayers, the!applicant, said he
had no comments to make.
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 306
(Page 7)
There being no one present from the public to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Health Department will act on the complaint. Mr.
Home said yes, if a problem is determined.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve SP-87-76 subject to the following
conditions as recon~nended by the Planning Commission:
1. Health Department approval prior to moving mobile home onto
property;
2. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-87-75. Montdomaine Cellars, Inc. To allow
increase in sales/testing area including outside deck area. Property located
off north side of Rt. 720, one-half mile west of Rt. 20. Tax Map 112, Parcel
19. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 6 and
October 13, 1987.)
Mr. Home presented the following staff ~report:
"Request: Montdomaine Cellars, Inc. petitions the Board of Super-
visors to issue a special use permit for FARM WINERY SALES/TASTING
AREA greater than 600 square feet in area (Section 5.1.25.e). The
applicant proposes a new structure containing 1400 square feet of
sales/tasting area including outside deck area, and winery office
area. An aggregate floor area not exceeding 600 square feet is
permitted by right in accordance with Ssction 5.1.25 FARM WINERY.
Acreage: 3.779 acres this parcel; 231.36 acres parcel 18 and 23.281
acres parcel 18J.
Existing Zoning: RA, Rural Areas.
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 112, Parcel 19, is located
off the north side of Route 720, off the west side of Route 20, 0.5
mile south of Carter's Bridge. Scottsviille Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: The subject property is grown primarily with
evergreens, with the central portion cleared for the winery produc-
tion area and temporary tasting area/office trailer. There are
several dwellings on property associated with the winery and on
surrounding parcels. An individual dwelling is partially visible
from the proposed development.
Background: A 14 foot by 16 foot temporary office trailer for
sales/tasting area and office space was originally approved by the
Planning Commission on August 20, 1985, for a period of 24 months.
Subsequent to the submittal of this petition, on August 18, 1987, the
Commission extended the approval for a period of 18 months.
Applicant's Proposal: The proposed building will be located on the
east side of the winery complex. Approximately 600 square feet of
office area will be located below ground level, and 1400 square feet
of tasting/sales room and deck area willibe at grade. The existing
parking area will be utilized. The applicant estimates an average of
five visitors at any one time, and a maximum of 70 visitors. No
restaurant facilities nor accommodation for festivals are proposed.
The applicant intends to clear only that~area necessary for the
building, and to maintain the surrounding trees for shade.
307
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Staff Comment: Staff opinion is that this expansion of public
sales/tasting area would not be objectionable to the area and is
consistent with the current zoning.
The proposed development will not be visible from RoUte 20 South, a
scenic highway. In staff's opinion, it will not be more visible to
adjacent residential properties than the existing winery operations
or tasting area. This area is partially visible from one residence,
located some distance from the site. Landscaping will be addressed
by a future site plan.
The Winery properties are served by a private road which crosses a
residential property (parcel 18C) which it does not serve. This
private road has an existing con~nercial entrance to Route 720. The
last 0.3 mile of Route 720 is a non-hard surface road that is cur-
rently non-tolerable. While this petition would increase traffic on
a non-tolerable road for which there are no present plans for improve-
ment, this access point is preferable to direct access to Route 20
South, a high speed, high volume primary. There is ho place across
this property's Route 20 frontage that an entrance can meet sight
distance requirements. ~
Depending on the construction materials, the BOCA Co~e permits a
maximum of a 93 person load in the proposed structure. The Zoning
Ordinance requires the provision of 14 parking spaces (1/100 square
feet). The existing gravel private road is approximately eight to
ten feet in width. During review of the site plan, the County
Engineer shall review the adequacy of this road for the proposed use.
In Staff opinion, this petition complies with the in~ent of the
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan by the continuation and
expansion of agricultural activity.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following:
Public sales/tasting area shall not exceed 1400~square feet,
including outside deck area. ~
Dedication of right-of-way to include 25 feet from the center-
line of Route 720 and area for a turn-around.
3. Staff approval of site plan."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 6,
1987, unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions by the staff.
Mr. Bain asked if the maximum of 70 visitors is for a daily basis. Mr.
Horne responded yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if all of Route!720 is non-tolerable.
Mr. HOrne said he thinks so.
Mr. Bain asked if the width of the entrance road would have to be
increased given the type of use and the number of vehicle trips per day. Mr.
Home said some minor increases might be required in the Width or stabiliza-
tion of the shoulder areas. Although in the past, the County Engineer has
recommended stabilization of the shoulder area and drainage improvements to
insure that the full width of the roadway is stabilized and useful for vehicu-
lar traffic, the County does not have any actual regulations for these types
of special permits.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Shepherd Rouse, ~he applicant, said
he is in agreement with the staff report presented and is!present to answer
any questions. He did want to point out that individual dars are unusual to
travel the roadway. Mr. Way said he agrees with Mr. Rouse, that it would be
unusual for a large number of cars to travel the roadway.
There being no one else present to speak, the public lhearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-87-75 subject to the following
conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission:
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
308
Public sales/tasting area shall not exceed 1400 square feet,
including outside deck area;
Dedication of right-of-way to include 25 feet from the center-
line of Route 720 and area for a turn-around;
3. Staff approval of site plan.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-87-78. Ron Lewis. To allow warehouse facilities
to be located on vacant 6.39 acre parcel, zoned LI. Property located on west
side of Rt. 20, approx. 1100 feet north of its intersection with Avon Street
Extended (Rt. 742). Tax Map 90, Parcel 35P. Scottsville District. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on October 6 and October 13, 1987.)
Mr. Home presented the following staff report:
"Request: Warehouse facilities of inventory equipment
(Section 27.2.2(5))
Acreage: 6.39 acres
ExistinR Zoning: LI, Light Industrial
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 90, Parcel 35P is located
on the west side of Route 20, approximately 0.5 mile north of its
intersection with Avon Street Extended (Route 742). Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: This vacant parcel is adjacent to the south
of Wilson Trucking. It is surrounded by Light Industry zoning on
three sides, and R-l, Residential zoning to the north. The subject
property is presently covered by matureevergreens. The property
rises moderately to severely up, from Route 20 to the rear.
Backsround~ Applicant's Justification: ~his property was recently
approved by the Planning Commission for-subdivision into two lots of
equal size, served by a joint access easement (Ivy Industries Final
Plat). The proposed development will utilize both lots, which will
be combined.
A building 120 feet by 200 feet (24,000 square feet) is proposed for
Lee Tennis Products. This business, presently operating in two
locations, provides tennis court surfacing material and related
tennis items such as nets, rollers, ball machines and the like. The
proposed use of the building will be light manufacturing in addition
to inventory of raw materials and finished products. The manu-
facturing will consist of the machining and assembly of related
tennis items (applicant's description of use on file). The applicant
states: 'We have exhausted our existing area used for the manufac-
ture and inventory of the equipment end ~of our business. We need
this building for our future growth.'
Initially, there will be four to six employees at this location.
average of four trucks per week, ranging in size from UPS vans to
tractor-trailers will visit the site. Only domestic water/sewer
usage is proposed.
Staff Comment: Staff opinion is that warehousing of this nature
would not be objectionable to the area and is consistent with the
current zoning.
309
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
The proposed development will be served by a turn lane and one
entrance to Route 20 South, a primary route and designated scenic
highway. The building will be a metal structure with facade treat-
ment to produce an off-set front. The applicant intends to mee~ the
minimum 150 foot building setback and minimize clearing. As a result
of these and the higher elevation of the property in relation to
Route 20, visibility of the development from Route 20 will be limited.
The parcel adjacent to the north is zoned residentially (R-I). The
applicant intends to maintain the 30 foot buffer zone adjacent to the
residential property, and 'to clear only the central portion of the
property necessary for construction of and access to the proposed
building.'
Staff recommends approval of this petition, subject ,to the following
conditions:
1. Building area limited to 24,000 square feet;
Planning Commission approval of site plan, to include screening
of outside storage and adjacent to residential properties and
along the scenic highway. A 150 foOt building setback from
Route 20 and a 30 foot buffer zone adjacent to residential
zoning shall be maintained."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 6,
1987, unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to the condi-
tions as recommended by the staff.
Mr. Horne stated that Condition #1 recommended by the staff should be
amended based on correspondence received from the applicant. Due to the
necessities imposed by the Building Code for fire separation within the
building, the applicant requests a maximum of 25,200 square feet as opposed to
24,000 square feet. Mr. Horne said it is his opinion, bared on the discussion
at the Planning Commission's meeting, that there would not be a material
difference between the 25,200 square feet and the 24,000 pquare feet. This
request for additional size was received subsequent to the Planning Commis-
sion's meeting and therefore has not been reviewed by the~Commission.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Ivy Industries final plat'lis superseded by
this request. Mr. Home said that plat has also been approved and recorded as
a division of two lots. Mr. Lindstrom commented that this property fronts on
a scenic highway and is in part adjacent to a residentiallarea. Mr. Horne
replied that is true. Mr. Bain asked if the limitations would cause problems
for the applicant. Mr. Home said the applicant is aware'of the conditions
and has voiced no concerns.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Welborne, representing Lee
Tennis Products, addressed the Board. Lee Tennis Product~ have been in
Charlottesville for 24 years. It is a business that deal§ primarily outside
of the Charlottesville area. Lee Tennis Products manufactures tennis court
surfacing and accessories that are assembly-type items. A significant amount
of raw materials are brought in to do the assembly. The Warehouse is needed
for storing, buying and stocking the materials. In addition, the company
needs additional space to grow and an area to store bulk items. Their present
place of business in the City is too confined and would b~ impossible to
expand. The products are made at Shadwell and Grove Street and thus this
location would never be the primary shipping point. The company employs
approximately 25 to 30 people depending on the time of yeJr. Lee Tennis is
not involved with any chemical problems or things that might interfere with
the environment.
Mr. Lindstrom said the application states that it islthe intent "to clear
only the central portion of the property necessary for construction of and
access to the proposed building." He asked if that was added as an additional
condition to the special permit if there would be any objection. He feels
that would give the Planning Commission a little direction~ as to the intent.
Mr. Welborne responded no, but as the site plan is developed, there is no way
to know how much of the land would require rearranging in order to comply with
necessary grades and the access road~
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 310
(Page 11)
There being no one else present to speak on the application, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-87-78 subject to the condi-
tions as recommended by the Planning Commission, with Condition #1 amended as
follows: "Building area limited to 25,200 square feet." Also, because this
property fronts on a scenic highway and is adjacent to existing residential
uses, he added a third condition as follows: "Clearing shall be limited to
the central portion of the property as necessary for construction of and
access to the proposed building." He feels this added language will allow the
applicant the flexibility to meet the requirements for whatever grading is
necessary for access and to construct the building. The conditions as
recommended for approval are as follows:
1. Building area limited to 25,200 square feet;
Planning Commission approval of site plan to include screening
of outside storage and adjacent to residential properties and
'along the scenic highway. A 150 foot building setback from
Route 20 and a 30 foot buffer zone.adjacent to residential
zoning shall be maintained;
Clearing to be limited to central portion of the property
necessary for construction of and access to the proposed building.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke (Preceded her motion by stating that
she was not addressed by the applicant. Shells not one of the "gentlemen,"
but she will vote yes.), Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-87-79. Martin Sdhulman. To allow construction of
veterinary clinic on 2.9 acres, zoned RA. Property located on south side of
U. S. Rt. 250, approx. 1200 feet west of intersection of Rt. 678 at Ivy. Tax
Map 58A1, Parcel 40D. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on October 6 and October 13, 1987.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff~report:
"Petition: Martin Schulman petitions the Board of Supervisors to
issue special use permit for a VETERINARy CLINIC (10.2.18) on 2.9
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,~described as Tax Map 58A1,
Parcel 40D is located on the south side of U.S. Rt. 250W about 1,000
feet west of Rt. 678 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: Physical constraints of this site present
serious limitations to development. The site is located in the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed and more than half of the site is
compromised by setback requirements from a stream which runs along
the rear of the site. The remainder of .the property contains steeper
slopes including areas of 25 percent plus slope. The property slopes
downward from U.S. Rt. 250W, complicating access. The closest
dwellings are across the stream to the rear of the property with
access to Rt. 738.
Comprehensive Plan: The stream across the rear of the property forms
a boundary of the Ivy Village growth area of the Comprehensive Plan.
The majority of the site is outside of the village, therefore, public
water is not available (Public water is available under Albemarle
County Service Authority service area to:the southeast corner of the
property).
U. S. Rt. 250 West is a county and stateidesignated scenic highway.
The applicant has obtained a variance from the Board of Zoning
Appeals as to setback requirements.
311 October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
The Ivy Village growth area contains virtually no land for additional
residential development. During committee work sessions to revise
the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission indicated that Ivy
should be maintained as a village and provide for a limited amount of
additional commercial development in the area.
Applicant's Proposal: In 1982, the Board rezoned land near Crozet to
authorize Dr. Schulman to establish a veterinary clinic. At that
time, Dr. Schulman anticipated that abouthalf of the practice would
be treatment of larger animals. Currently, the vast majority of the
practice is household pets and the center of the practice area is
Ivy. Combined with need for larger quarters, Dr. Schulman proposes
to relocate to the Ivy area and construct a 3000 square foot veteri-
nary clinic.
Staff Comment: While this site is outside the designated Ivy growth
area, the request appears consistent with the Planning Commission's
current position that Ivy be maintained as a growth ~area with some
additional commercial development. Also, since 'veterinary clinic'
is by special use permit in the RA, Rural Areas, district, it need
not be restricted to growth area locations.
A concern to staff is the development of this property for any
commercial use. In order to overcome topographic constraints,
substantial grading and site reconfiguration would be required to
accommodate building and parking areas.
Also, staff will recommend maximum grade for access And parking which
will likely be expensive and require substantial site work. Staff
will not be susceptible to argument as to cost or environmental/
reservoir degradation as compared to safe and convenient access.
These comments are intended to notify the applicant,!Commission, and
Board that this is a poor physical site for commercial use and that
development of the site will be expensive and will require Commission
modification of environmental regulation (i.e. the~!Planning Commis-
sion would need to waive restriction as to development on 25 percent,
plus slopes in reservoir watershed). Detailed environmental safeguards
will be required during and after construction. Thelgeneral location
is, however, acceptable and would provide centrally l~cated services
to support the rural area and village area. Staff recommends approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Building area limited to 3,000 square feet;
2. Planning Commission approval of site plan;
Compliance with Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. Engi-
neer's report addressing performance standards of 4.14 of the
Zoning Ordinance to be submitted with site plan."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 6,
1987, unanimously recommended denial of this petition.
Mr. Bain said for the record that he had a conference iwith Dr. Schulman
regarding the variance that he sought earlier and not regarding this applica-
tion. He did not represent Dr. Schulman at that time.
Mr. Home stated that the staff comment, paragraph th~'ee, third sentence
beginning with "and will require Commission .... watershed)" is incorrect and
should be deleted.
The public hearing was opened. Dr. Martin Schulman, the applicant,
addressed the Board. He would like to demonstrate to the BOard that this
proposal has excellent merit, that the land is unique, thatlsound and reliable
measures are planned for environmental impact and that a great human need
would be filled should the Board agree with the staff and approve the request.
He first would like to clarify some issues raised at the Planning Commission
hearing. Concerns were expressed as to whether the slope of this land would
complicate access and that topographic constraints suggest substantial grading
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 312
(Page 13)
and site reconfiguration. Premise of this criticism is based on the access
road being placed on the western side of this parcel's frontage.. It is the
applicant's plan to locate the access road along the eastern aspect of this
parcel's frontage. Since the Planning CommiSsion's meeting he has met with
Highway Department officials at the site and~based on highway sight distance
it will be possible to locate the entrance several hundred feet east of the
point of criticism. This point is 15 to 20 feet lower in elevation along the
road frontage. This information and a topographic map of the site has been
reviewed by the Director of Engineering. Engineering confirmed that a site
plan can be provided that conforms to staff recommendation for maximum grade
access without elevating the clinic buildinglsite, with minimal grading and
with minimal topographic change. Therefore, regarding the suggestion that an
extensive volume of fill dirt must be trucked to the site is incorrect; any
soil required for the site plan is already at the site entirely on highway
right of way, which has a small three to five foot knoll along the edge of the
road. Although this approach would limit development of the parcel to those
aspects of gentler slope. ~
Dr. Schulman said the present clinic has provided veterinary services to
the community for the last five years duringiwhich the practice has outgrown
its present facilities. There is less than 800 square feet in a 40 year old
cinderblock cottage that presents severe space and traffic flow problems. A
local construction consultant has evaluated the possibility of expanding the
present site and found significant deterioration of the foundation. As of
1989 the State Health Regulatory Board will require all veterinary hospitals
throughout the State to conform to specifications that allow a separate area
to house patients that are considered highlyicontagious for isolation. Since
it is impossible for the present facility to.~accommodate this regulation, it
will be necessary to either significantly cut back the level of veterinary
care or find a new site. Dr. Schulman then ~ead a letter (on file) dated
August 24, 1987, addressed to the Planning Cgmmission outlining the history of
the clinic and the reasons for selection of this site.
Dr. Schulman said, compared to the neighboring parcels, this land is
unique. Both to the east and west there are.steeper slopes and a small branch
of Little Ivy Creek that runs through this region comes closer to Route 250
prohibiting any development. However this parcel is characterized by more
gentle slopes typical of Piedmont land with an excellent building site and
with adequate room for setbacks. To achieve ~maximum grade for access safety,
the proposed building and parking areas would require a small degree of
grading and of changing the slopes to a four!percent to meet grade. The
County Engineering staff has confirmed that this parcel is high enough to be
out of the 100 and 500 year flood plains. Sdil and geological surveys of the
parcel indicate excellent areas for septic drainage area with sufficient
distance to meet the runoff ordinance setback for a watershed area. A Health
Department official reviewed the site and assures good drainage terrain exists
to meet approval with sufficient area to accommodate more than twice their
present or projected needs. In fact if a three bedroom residence were built
at this site instead, he feels that a greater environmental impact would
occur than their proposed clinic. By design, absolutely no animal waste will
be available to either the septic drainage field or to Little Ivy Creek.
Dr. Schulman said with regard to the scenic highway concept, the inten-
tion of the ordinance is that what is viewed ~rom the roadway be aesthetically
pleasing, enjoyable to look at and consistent with the neighboring area. When
one drives along Route 250 that is not always the case and not always corre-
lated with setback distances. BetweenIvy village and Charlottesville there
are several views of blacktop parking areas, commercial sites, neon and glass.
Most of these parcels have been cleared, denuded of the original wooded
character and he too is concerned about that. By contrast the area also
enjoys and is in close proximity to the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive.
The present parcel presents a view of tangledlvines, strangled trees and
weeds. He plans to build an aesthetically pleasing, residential-looking
structure using natural materials of stone an~ cedar which would not be
visible from the roadway, and would be consistent with the scenic concept for
this area. The view of the parcel will be greatly enhanced with professional
landscaping at the roadway and entrance, with~flower and bush, and removal of
the overgrown appearance. He then presented a topographic map showing the
relationship between the parcel in question and the proposed relocation of
Route 678. The map was drawn by an engineering firm hired by the County to
313
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
design the rerouting and is accurate. A major factor regarding the parcel is
that there will be a 1,000 foot turning lane added across the entire length of
the parcel making the parcel location at an intersection. There will be a
third lane for stacking so that any traffic coming east along this site can
stack and wait for turning while all eastern traffic that is passing this
intersection can continue. The proposal is consistent with the Highway
Department's plans. Looking at the parcel gives the appearance of being
steeper than it actually is because the entire right of way has a three to
five foot high knoll. The height and the elevation of the property is the
same as the height of the highway. It is the Highway Department's plan to
remove this right of way knoll thereby increasing sight distance along this
route. This knoll represents all of the fill dirt that ~ould possibly be
needed. Based on sighting distance he will be able to mQve the entrance to an
eastern point where the slopes are more moderate to access the proposed clinic
and parking areas. In conclusion, the building and parking areas represent
only ten percent of the total area of this property. He,feels this would
create minimal disruption to local wildlife. The clinic ipresently serves
approximately 3,000 families representing 5,000 or more ~eople whom he feels
strongly echo the statements he offers. To this point he has had the support
of Zoning, the Planning staff and a strong majority of the community. He then
submitted a petition of more than 175 signatures, including Ivy residents and
the only adjacent resident that would share an entrance an Route 250, in
support of the proposed project.
Mr. Warren Villar addressed the Board. He lives on !the property south of
the proposed lot. The grade on the proposed property is ~xtremely steep. He
does not see any possible way, even with a third lane and a stacking lane, of
relieving traffic congestion. This development would create a noise and
environmental impact. This is not the first occasion this property has been
subject to development. The subject of Little Ivy Creek also must be taken
into consideration. He does not feel this is an appropriate site for the
desired use.
Mr. Victor ¥illar also a resident south of the proposed lot said he has
seen this property flood twice. He travels Rt. 250 to wock daily and there is
always traffic backed up. He is most concerned with traffic, visibility and
noise.
Mrs. Evelyn Craft, a neighbor to the property, referenced her letter to
the Board dated August 24, in opposition to the proposed request. Her con-
cerns are traffic congestion, steepness of the property, ~he scenic highway,
Little Ivy Creek and the proposed setback. She also is c6ncerned with placing
a 3,000 sq. ft. building unoccupied by the owner. There~aUst be some other
place in the Ivy area where this clinic could be placed. She feels that the
reason this location is so desirable is because it is on the highway across
from a new intersection. As a nearby landowner she strongly objects to the
request.
Ms. Yvonne Leveck, an Ivy resident, said she is present to speak in favor
of the request. She has a large parcel of land west of the proposed clinic.
She'feels the clinic would be a great asset to the Ivy community, would render
a needed service. She spends a lot of time at Dr. Schulman's clinic because
she has five dogs. With regard to traffic, there are traffic problems through-
out the county and she cannot see this clinic as being more of a detriment.
Mr. Max Mayo, owner of property on the north side ofiRoute 250, said he
is in support of the clinic at this location. He thinks ghis proposal would
be better to look at than what is presently there. ~
Mr. Warren Villar again addressed the Board and said!Dr. Schulman's
service is necessary and although there is a need for the.service in the
community, he feels this use is unsuitable economically. Both noise, water
and land pollution would occur from this clinic. There are other suitable
places for this type of establishment.
Dr. Schulman again addressed the Board. Regarding visibility at the
site, there will be a 200 foot turning lane and taper lane which meet Highway
regulations and approval, and would occur at the owner's expense. This is not
a large animal practice. He feels that the access road and Route 250 is best
suited to handle the traffic. There would be approximately 20 cars per day.
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 314
(Page 15)
All noise regulations as specified by the ordinance would be met. Regarding
flooding, despite being outside of the flood plain, during September when the
area had a record rainfall he went out to the site on three successive days
and there was no encroachment of water towards the proposed clinic site.
Regarding the one letter of protest from Mrs. Craft there are numerous mis-
statements such as the proximity to the flood plain, septic use and steep
ravines on the property.
There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said according to Dr. Schulman the staff report reflected a
different entrance and asked that it be addressed. Mr. Horne said if Dr.
Schulman could obtain an entrance on the eastern end of the property he would
have the ability to access the property on somewhat gentler slopes and then
transverse across the grade so there would be less fill necessary at the
building site. It is the staff's judgment that a building site can be accom-
plished on the site but cautions that in order to do so would be difficult.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about provisions in the Zoning Ordinance with respect
to kennels for animals housed overnight. Mr~ Horne said the conditions of
approval anticipate the application and perfdrmance standards for noise
regulations which would regulate the amount 6f sound leaving the site. There
is no direct provision regulating animals from running outdoors. This is in
anticipation of boarding activity of sick animals or low level boarding. Mr.
Bain asked if a limit could be set on the number of animals kept overnight.
Mr. Horne replied yes. ~
Mr. Bain referenced a statement by Mr. ~eeler at the Planning Commission
meeting which was that "if enough money was put into the site, it could be
done but was contrary to other county policieS," and asked what that referred
to. Mr. Horne said that may be somewhat of an overstatement, but Mr. Keeler
referred to the general environmental development standards of the Comprehen-
sive Plan that deal with the need to limit development on steep slopes, to
protect against excessive erosion and excessive activities on steep slopes
adjacent to tributary streams in the watershed areas. To allow a large amount
of development activity immediately adjacent to Ivy Creek would be inconsis-
tent with the Comprehensive Plan standards for watershed protection. Mr. Bain
asked if any restrictions needed to be waived. Mr. Home replied no.
Mr. Horne said, for information, there has been some discussion with Mr.
Michael Armm, County Engineer, who is involved in the design of the widening
of Route 678. Mr. Armm feels that there is an entrance location after the
widening and regrading that would require much less grading and/or filling.
To obtain sight distance would require lowering the speed limit from 55 m.p.h.
to 45 m.p.h. He has conferred with the Residgnt Highway Engineer, Mr. Roosevel
who would recommend in conjunction with the new intersection to extend the 45
m.p.h, limit, but that cannot be guaranteed. IMf. Bain asked if there is still
room for the applicant to get a decel lane on!his property. Mr. Horne replied
yes. There is a fairly significant right of kay in the area. Mr. Way asked
the exact number of lanes proposed. Mr. Home replied essentially three
lanes. There is proposed a right turn lane, a westbound lane and an eastbound
lane. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said this lot is not zoned!for commercial use. Given the
constraints of the parcel, he thinks the site!is more suited for the kind of
use permitted by right in the rural areas than the more intensive use that
this permit would require. There are problems with access and having a
heavily used new commercial entrance on Route 250. For those reasons he is
reluctant to support the request. Although the Planning Cox~ission has not
addressed the new proposal, he thinks the Commission's concerns relate to the
general environmental sensitivity of the lot and the limited area in which a
commercial use could be established, regardless of the location of the
entrance. This lot has too many environmental limitations and constraints to
be an appropriate commercial site.
Mr. Bowie said he agrees there are slope ~and environmental problems, but
he does not feel strongly about the request either way.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to deny SP-87-79. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
315
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Bain said he has visited the site. He also does not feel strongly
either way about the request, because the property will eventually be developed
Even if a residence is built on the property there will be problems. He does
not feel this is a heavy commercial use which would change the nature of the
rural area. He is concerned about the environmental aspects. 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. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
At 9:45 P.M., the Chairman called a recess, he Board reconvened at 9:51
P.M.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-87-07. The Albemarle County Planning Commission
has adopted a resolution of intent to amend 4.2 CRITICAL SLOPES of the Zoning
Ordinance to redefine building site and to specify limitations on septic
system location. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 6 and October 13
1987.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"OriKin: Watershed Management Official, County Engineer, Planning
staff.
Public Purpose to be Served: To clarify ordinance language and
redefine building site in accordance with other regulations.
Staff Comment: The Planning Commission held work sessions in June
and August, 1987 to discuss regulating location of septic systems in
relation to property lines. In preparing that report staff identi-
fied other issues which need to be addressed in the Critical Slopes
provisions.
Staff recommends that the attached (on file) revisions be adopted
separately. This would correct/improve current ordinance language
while the Commission continues to deliberate issues Of septic system
location.
Recommended changes to the ordinance are as follows:.
Under Section 4.2, CRITICAL SLOPES, subsection '4.2.1~ BUILDING SITE
REQUIRED, add the following words:
such area as may be located within two hundred (200) hori-
zontal feet of the one-hundred (100) year floodplain of any
public drinkinK water impoundment or within one?hundred
(100) horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream
to such impoundment.
Under Section 4.2.2, AREA REGULATIONS, subsection 4.2.2.1 shall be
reworded to read as follows:
4.2.2.1
For a use served by other than a central sewerage system,
the building site shall have an area of thirty thousand
(30,000) square feet or greater and shall ~e of such
dimension that no one dimension shall exceed any other by a
ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a
rectangle inscribed within the building si~e. Such build-
ing site shall have adequate area for location of two (2)
septic drainfields as approved by the Virginia Department
of Health.
Under Section 4.2.4, LOCATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS, the!existing worded
shall be numbered as paragraph 4.2.4.2. The following new words
shall be added and numbered as paragraph 4.2.4.1:
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting')
(Page 17)
4.2.4.1
316
No septic system nor any portion thereof shall be located
on any lot or parcel in any area other than a building..
site~ provided that the Virginia Department of Health
may authorize location in an area other than a building.
site upon finding that such area is not expressly excluded
from the term "building site" under 4.2.1.
Mr. Horne noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Septem-
ber 22, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of these amendments.
Mr. Home said the recommended change in Section 4.2.1 is consistent with
the attempts being made under current development regulations to develop or
subdivide property, and the Health Department is empowered to approve drain-
fields within these areas.
Mr. Henley said he cannot understand how the Department of Health' can be
an authority on what is or what is not a building site. The Health Department
should be the authority on whether the septi~ system will work. Mr. Horne
said the County does not actually regulate the installation of drainfields,
but there are certain requirements that regulate the location. Over the past
couple of years the Health Department has voluntarily taken on the enforcement
of some of the County's conditions. Although the Health Department is not the
authority, this is a regulation it would be able to enforce for the County.
Mr. Henley said he is not going to vote for this. He sees no problem with
putting a septic system anywhere on the parcel that is reasonable. This looks
to be an attempt to control growth and should not be up to the Health
Mr. Henley said, for example, suppose there is a five acre lot with
30,000 sq. ft. for a building site and 20 fe~t separates from another 30,000
sq. ft. that would allow installation of a septic system, but it is not a part
of the building site, this change would not allow the installation of that
septic field. Mr. Horne said that is correct, but with the amendments if
there is a situation where it is clearly an area nearby or otherwise on the
site that would meet all of the other definitions of building site, then the
Health Department could approve a drainfield.in that location. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if the septic system must be on the sa~e building site as the residence.
Mr. Home replied no, present language does ~ot require the septic system to
be located anywhere on the building site.
Mr. St. John said he questions whether the definition of a building site
is exactly the same or includes all of the 10t except the slopes and the
distance from the tributary. A building sit9 has to be no greater ratio than
5:1. He has a problem with this because he feels that septic field regula-
tions should be related to the science of septic fields rather than to density
He can see no public purpose served by the way this section is written. If
there is a building site of 30,000 sq. ft. with no greater ratio than 5:1 but
there is no way to get a septic field on theibuilding site, and there is
another site that could house the septic field except it is not of a 5:1
ratio, it should be allowed. Mr. Horne said{all building sites must meet all
of the requirements for a building site. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem with what's being proposed, but
would agree with Mr. St. John that the ratiolof dimensional requirement could
be eliminated with respect to the septic fie~d. He thinks the other require-
ments are pertinent to a septic field. His concern about the amendment is
that the only thing this statement does is authorize the Health Department to
authorize septic fields on slopes in excess of 25 percent. He would rather
not do that. Mr. St. John said this amendment was triggered by the suggestion
that a septic field should not be within 50 feet of any property line so as
not to preempt the neighbors right to install a well. Mr. Home said that
issue was dismissed by the Commission for the time being and is an entirely
separate issue. These are environmental considerations of long standing and
the Commission thought it was relatively sim~le. Mr. Bain commented that
under the current code a septic field can can be installed anywhere. Mr.
Home said that is correct, if Health Department approval is obtained. Mr.
Home said with regard to Mr. St. John's suggestion, the Board could repeat
the wording from Section 4.2.1 in Section 4.2.4.
317
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Horne said again that if a lot cannot meet the necessary requirements
and the next lot would meet the requirements, then the second lot could be
used for the septic field if the owner agrees. That is something that happens
with regularity. Mr. Henley said Section 4.2.4.1 would not allow that to be
done now as it is written. Mr. Bowie asked if the building site includes the
30,000 sq. ft. Mr. Lindstrom said he reads it as the Health Department can
authorize location of a septic field anywhere it wants so long as the location
is not within 200 feet of a one hundred year flood plain or 100 horizontal
feet of the edge of a tributary stream to a public drinking water impoundment
and so long as such area is not located in the Flood Hazard Overlay District.
Mr. Home said that also includes the 25 percent slope. Mr. Lindstrom said he
does not feel that is stated because that is not expressly excluded as he
reads the language. Mr. Home said, for this section, building site means a
contiguous area of land and slopes of less than 25 percent as determined
above. Mr. Lindstrom said the language is a little confusing then because the
words "exclusive of" are used at the point where he feels the language is
trying to be keyed into Section 4.2.4.1. He agrees with Mr. St. John to just
list the things being talked about. Mr. Bowie and Mr. Bain said they agreed
with Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Horne said his understanding from this conversation is that the Board
wants to take the description of the 25 percent slope, the description of the
Flood Hazard Overlay District, and the new proposed description of the lo~
in relation to streams and impoundments and place those in Section 4.2.4.1 to
modify the language after the semi-colon where "provided 'that the Virginia
Department of Health may authorize location in any other area other than a
building site except those areas in excess of 25 percent Elope .... " Mr.
Lindstrom said he assumes that the 30,000 sq. ft. in the building site defini-
tion would also apply. Mr. Home replied no. If an area can be found to
locate the drainfield, there is no reason that it must be 30,000 sq. ft~ Mr.
Lindstrom said in the watershed impoundment area it has bgen the practice to
require an alternative site and asked if that is a requirement. Mr. Horne
said yes, that is a requirement. Mr. Lindstrom suggestedieliminating that
language in its entirely and just having the list. Mr. H0rne said he has no
problem with that. Mr. Lindstrom asked that the new language be drafted and
brought back to the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had a constituent who had a fairly large lot with
considerably problems which made it difficult for him to locate a septic
field. A subdivision was built next to him and some septic fields were
located close to his property line. His concern was that_if his well or
septic field ever failed he would not have use of those areas he had environ-
mental problems with on his lot, but would also have to b~ moved 100 feet
the septic fields on the other lots. If, for example, th~ next lots septic
fields were within ten feet of the boundary then he had t6 offset any septic
field or well by 90 feet on his side. Mr. Lindstrom said~he does not think
that seems fair. There should at least be equal rights to that boundary which
is the reason he suggested that wells and septic fields be located no closer
than 50 feet to any property boundaries so the difference~would be split.
Each side would then benefit.
Mr. Horne said the Commission did discuss Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion and
after two work sessions could come to no conclusion because it did not know
the potential effects setback regulations would have on minimum lot size. Mr.
Bowie asked if any home builders commented on this. Mr. Home replied yes.
They did not reject these changes, but strenuously objected to the setback
regulations. ~
Mr. Bowie said he is not ready to vote on these chan~es. Mr. Lindstrom
said he does not want to wait on the Planning Commission and never have this
come back. He would at least like the Board to have a discussion. Mr. Bowie
said this makes sense to him but he would like to know th~ effect on minimum
lot size. Mr. Henley said he also has no problem with that. Mr. Home said
he will bring that information back to theBoard.
Mr. Lindstrom then requested that the County Attorne~ draft language to
modify the proposed changes in Section 4.2.4.1 to clarifyithose areas in which
septic systems could be located, and that consideration be given to setting a
October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 318
(Page 19)
50 foot setback from wells and septic fields from property boundary limes.
When Mr. St. John brings the information back, the Board can then decide if it
wants to send it to the Planning Commission for their reconsideration.
Agenda Item No. 11. Authorize Chairman to sign Agreement - Vacating and
Granting of Drainage Easement, Westover Hills Subdivision.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated October 15, 1987:
"Mr. and Mrs. A. Wayde Glover have requested the Board of Supervisors
to vacate a twelve (12) foot drainage easement (established in 1972)
which encroaches upon'an existing dwelling. This easement is to be
replaced with a new fifteen (15) foot drainage easement free of any
structural encroachment.
Both property owners affected are agreeable to this vacation, and our
Engineering and Planning staffs have reviewed the amended plat and
recommend approval.
Staff recommends that you approve the easement vacation, authorize
the Chairman to sign the document, and that you approve the new plats
for recordation."
Mr. St. John said he has reviewed the agreement and found it to be in
order. Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the
easement vacation, authorize the Chairman to Sign the following agreement and
approve the new plats for recordation:
THIS VACATION AGREEMENT AND DEED OF EASEMENT is made this 21st
day of October, 1987 by and among A. WAYDE GLOVER and NANCY PAYNE
GLOVER, husband and wife, hereinafter "Glovers"; ANTHONY J. SWARY and
JULIA G. SWARY, husband and wife, hereinafter "Swarys"; and THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, hereinafter "County";
WHEREAS, the Glovers are the owners of Lots 25 and 25A, Westover
Hills as shown on plat of Warren F. Wadeldated June 6, 1972, revised
July 31, 1972 of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 512, page 39, as acquired by
deed of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 803, page
262; and
WHEREAS, the Swarys are the owners of Lots 24 and 24A, Westover
Hills Subdivision as shown on the aforesaid plat and as acquired by
deed of record in Deed Book 920, page 700; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid subdivision plat shows a 12' drainage
easement traversing Lots 25 and 25A; and,
WHEREAS, the actual location of theldrainage easement is incor-
rect and the parties by this instrument seek to vacate the previously
drawn 12' drainage easement and establish for public use a new 15'
drainage easement traversing Lots 24A, 25 and 25A.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of $1.00 cash in hand paid, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, iit is agreed as follows:
(1) The Glovers and Swarys, as the owners of all lots shown on
the aforesaid subdivision plat, and the County all hereby agree that
the existing 12' drainage easement as established on the aforesaid
subdivision plat of record in Deed Book 512, at page 39 is hereby
VACATED. The vacated easement is also shown on the attached plat of
G. V. Kirk Hughes dated September 28, 1987 entitled "Plat Showing 15'
Drainage Easement Dedicated and 12' Drainage Easement to be Vacated".
(2) The Glovers do hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the County for
public use a 15' drainage easement across Lots 25 and 25A, the
location of which is shown on the aforesaid plat of G. V. Kirk Hughes
dated September 28, 1987 attached hereto 'and made a part hereof.
AYES .'
NAYS:
319 October 21, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
(3) The Swarys do hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the County for
public use a 15' drainage easement across Lot 24A, the location of
which is shown on the aforesaid plat of G. V. Kirk Hughes dated
October 8, 1987 entitled "Plat Showing 15' Drainage Easement to be
Dedicated to Public Use" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. 'Approval of Minutes: March 18, 1985; February 11,
March 18 (Night), and August 5, 1987.
Mr. Way read the minutes of February 11, 1987, pages 22 (beginning with
Item #14) to the end and found them to be in order with the following correc-
tions:
Page 24, Eighth Paragraph, First sentence should read "Mr. Overstreet
said the School staff is is working on four projects at one time, and have
about 15 others coming later."
Page 25, Fifth Paragraph, Third sentence should read "He said the Board
is being asked to shift the money without reducing the total."
Page 25, Twelfth Paragraph, Second sentence should read "Mr. Fisher
responded that this Board is not slowing anything down anything because the
Board meets many times a month.
Page 29, Sixth Paragraph, Sixth sentence should read "Mr. Fisher said he
does not think everybody understands all of the issues."
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the minutes read. Mr. Bowie
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain (He commented that he was not a Board member at that time).
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and the Public. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. At 10:26 P.M., Mrs. Cooke offered motion,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn the meeting. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
~n