1986-10-15October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
041
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
)ctober 15, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
2hartottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
2ounty Attorney; Mr. Ronald W. Keeler, Chief of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1.
2hairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Cooke offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way to
~pprove the consent agenda and accept items 4.3 and 4.4 as information. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
~YES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses (State Compensation Board) for the Director of
Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, and Regional Jail for the Month of September,
1986, were approved as presented.
Item No. 4.2.a. Request was received to take Locust Hill Drive in the Locust Hill North
~ubdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. The following resolution was
~dopted:
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 in the Locust Hill North Subdivision:
Beginning at station 10+12, a point common with the edge of
pavement of Route 678 and the centerline of Locust Hill Drive,
thence in a northwesterly direction 684.07 feet to station
16+96.07, the end of pavement 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 and
drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 838, page 112, Deed Book
876, page 339, and Deed Book 900, page 612.
Item 4.2.b. Request was received from Mr. Harley C. Easter to take Westover Drive in
~he Westover Hills Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. The following
resolution was adopted:
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 in the Westover Hills Subdivision:
Beginning at station 31+50 on the plans of Westover Drive prepared by Warren F.
Wade, and being the same as station 0-136.5 on the plans by B. Aubrey Huffman &
Associates, thence in a westerly direction 554.97 feet to station 4+18.47, the end
of pavement of the cul-de-sac of Westover Drive.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 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 512, page 39, and Deed Book 824, page 44.
Item No. 4.3. A copy of Planning Commission minutes for its meeting on September 30,
[986, was received as information.
Item No. 4.4. Notice from State Corporation Commission dated September 9, 1986, re:
~pplication of Central Telephone Company amending application to set rates and charges
pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-508.5 for improved mobile telephone service (IMTS) and
radio paging services was received as information. The notice sets a public hearing before a
Hearing Examinor to be held, commencing December 10, 1986.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-27. S. L. Williamson. To rezone approx, five acres of
i352~05~ acres from R-4 to R-4 Residential with NR, Natural Resource OVerlaY. Property part of
he Dunlora Estate located on east side of Rio Road (Rt. 631) opposite the VOTEC Center. Tax
042
(October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting.)
(Page 2)
Map 62, Parcel 16 (part or) ~zvanna Dzs---gSTi-d~.
30 and October 7, 1986.)
(Advertised in-the Daily Progress
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-85-77. .S.L. Williamson. To amend aP-81-10 allowing for the
removal of sand and gravel to abandon the southernmost site and establish an additional site
on the South Fork Rivanna River. Property part of the Dunlora Estate located on the east
side of Rio Road (Rt. 631) opposite the VOTEC Center. Tax Map 62, Parcel 16 (part of).
Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 30 and October 7, 1986.)
Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant has requested an indefinite deferral. Mr. Fisher
commented that it was not the normal practice of the Board to grant an indefinite deferral.
Mr. Bowie agreed, stating that a date should be set or the item be 'deleted from the agenda.
Mr. Keeler recommended that if the Board chooses to defer the item to a specific date, that
the time period should be for at least 90 days. The Planning Commission has requested the
staff to look into certain allegations regarding current sand and gravel operations. Mr.
Keeler added that it would take at least that length of time to conduct that study. Mr Agnor
commented that the study involves state and federal agency guidelines, and he is not positive
about the amount of time required. Ninety days should be sufficient. Mr. Keeler added that
the 90 days would also permit the staff to report back to the Planning Commission. Mr.
Fisher stated that January 18 is the closest evening meeting to 90 days. Mr. Fisher asked if
anyone present would object to that date. Since there was no objection, Mr. Fisher recom-
mended the Board set this date to be certain that this would come back on the agenda.
Mr. Bowie offered motion and Mrs. Cooke seconded that ZMA-85-27 and SP-85-77 be de-
ferred until January 18, 1987.
Mr. Fisher asked for any discussion. Mr. Bowie stated that according to the Planning
Commission minutes of September 30 there had been considerable input from numerous residents
in that area. There were two specific allegations: One concerning the building of a dike
and one concerning dredging outside of the approved area. Both were investigated by the
County Engineer and Zoning Administrator who reported back that both allegations, were, in
fact, correct. The allegations all refer to the current Special Use Permit and Mr Bowie
would like to have a report back on just what is going on. He requested that this be dis-
cussed at the November 12 meeting. Mr. Keeler agreed to have a status report for the Board
at that time.
Mr. Fisher asked for futher discussion. There being none, roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, .Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-86-57. Richard T. & Donna M. Harry. To locate a double-wide
mobile home on 60.383 acres zoned RA. Located on south side of Rt. 618, about 600 feet east
of its intersection with Rt. 729. Tax Map 105, Parcel 20E. Scottsville District. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on September 30 and October 7, 1986.)
Mr. Keeler read the following staff report:
Request: Mobile Home (double-wide).
AcreaGe: 60.38 acres.
ZoninG: RA, Rural Areas.
Location: The property is located on the south side of Rt. 618, approxi-
mately 1/4 mile east of its intersection with Rt. 729. Tax Map 105, parcel
20E. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: The property is presently vacant. The surrounding
area is generally rural in character. The Saddlewood Farms Subdivision is
located on the opposite side of Rt. 618 from the property. There are three
mobile homes located within a one mile radius of this site.
Staff Comment:
The applicant is the owner of the property and intends to reside in the
mobile home. The mobile home is proposed to be located approximately 110
feet from Rt. 618 and 110 feet off the existing right-of-way, in the north-
east corner of the parcel.
Two objections have been filed against this petition (letters on file).
Their concern is that the mobile home is not consistent with the other uses
in the area and would have an adverse affect on property values.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve
this petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Existing vegetation within 75 foot front setback and 60 foot corner lot
setback (eastern boundary) shall be maintained as an undisturbed buffer
area.
Mr. Keeler commented that two objections had been filed when the staff report was
written and since that time a third objection had been received from Mr. Gibbs, the developer
October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
043
~lofl Saddlewood Farms Subdivision. He further added that the property had apparently been
llplanted with commercial pines 10 or 15 years ago. Mr. Fisher asked if the property is in
Ipines now. Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively. The applicant, Mr. Harry, added at this time
IIthat it was all in 14-year old pines. Mr. Keeler noted that the Planning Commission, at its
meeting on October 14, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of this petition with the
conditions of the staff.
Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Upon
being requested by Mr. Fisher for a statement, the applicant replied that he had no statement
to make. Mr. Fisher asked the applicant if he had any other place of residence. Mr. Harry
replied that he resided in Fluvanna County. Mr. Fisher asked if he owned that residence and
the applicant answered yes. Upon being asked if he planned to sell that and move into this
structure, the applicant said he plans to rent the other place. He added that his present
residence was temporary when he built it three years ago above a business. He wants to move
away from the business. Mr. Fisher asked him who is going to live in this unit. The appli-
cant answered, "I am." Mr. Fisher continued that the Board doesn't normally grant permits to
people who intend to rent them out. He asked if the applicant would object to a stipulation
that the mobile home cannot be rented. The applicant replied that he would object. That
would deny him any future flexibility. He feels that everyone has the right to rent their
residence. Mr. Fisher stated that the Board's purpose is to provide housing for people who
have no other housing. It is not to create rental units in mobile homes throughout the
county. Therefore, if the Board is going to approve this application, the Board would like a
statement that Mr. Harry intends to live in the mobile home and does not intend to rent it.
The applicant stated he does intend to live in it.
Mrs. Cooke stated that for mobile home applications in the past, the Board has stipulat-
ed that the people live in them and not rent them. There should be no deviation from what
has been done historically to other mobile homeowners.
The applicant explained that this particular double-wide is located on a 60-acre tract
of land with 50 acres adjacent to it. It is his intention to move there for a period of time
to work and upgrade the farm and to get away from his business. He emphasized he did not
desire to live in the mobile home for a short time and then leave it vacant; that it didn't
make sense to do that with a $35,000 investment. Mrs. Cooke asked the applicant if it is his
intent to build on this land eventually. The applicant replied yes. Mrs. Cooke continued
that what has been done in the past is to allow owner occupancy until such time as a perma-
nent residence is built. Then the mobile home has to be removed from the premises. The
applicant objected to that because of the $35,000 investment. Mr. Harry continued to
describe the attractiveness of the home and site, adding that the value of the property would
only be increased by it. Mr. Fisher thanked the applicant and asked if there were other
persons to speak concerning this application.
Mr. Tom Bernier came forward and stated that he and his wife own the acreage immediately
across Route 618 from this property. The other property owners whose property borders the
site, although sharing his concern, were not able to be present this evening. He added that
the unwillingness of the applicant to indicate he will not rent the mobile home, and the fact
that Mr. Harry wants to locate it quite near the roadway although the site is large, have
caused him more concern. Mr. Bernier said he understands is that one of the conditions for
granting a Special Use Permit is a demonstration of need. No need has been demonstrated.
The applicant does own housing elsewhere. He continued that if the mobile home is to be
permitted to be located on the property, then there should be more screening than the Commis-
sion has recommended, as much as 600 feet. However, 150 feet, which is the Saddlewood
subdivision setback requirement, might be appropriate. Mr. Bernier stated he is concerned
about what may happen when the applicant decides he's lived there long enough and wants to
rent the mobile home. He concluded by stating that since the applicant can build and will
build at some point, why not simply build and avoid the issue of a special use permit and the
inherent problems it may cause for other property owners.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way asked Mr.
Keeler if he had visited the site. Mr. Keeler replied that he had not. Mr. Way continued
that he wasn't exactly sure where the mobile home is proposed to be located, but that he does
know that the property has very dense cover. He stated that he is inclined to grant the
request, but he feels a third condition should be included. Mrs. Cooke stated she feels she
could support a motion for approval, but that it should be granted as it has been on other
applications before the board. That is, these mobile homes have to be on an "as need" basis
and that once a permanent residence is built, the mobile home would have to be removed and
not used as a rental property.
Mr. Way then offered motion that SP-86-57 be approved with the two conditions recommend-
ed by the Planning Commission and a third condition that the trailer may not be used for
rental purposes and be removed at such time as permanent residence is built. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion.
Mr. Harry then stated that there is already a permanent dwelling on that property. Mr.
It is an old farm house on the 50 acres he owns which is adjacent to this 60 acres. Mrs.
Cooke asked if someone lives on that piece of property. Mr. Harry replied affirmatively, but
added that it is a different tract, not the same piece of property. Mr. Fisher then restated
the motion that SP-86-57 be approved subject to the two conditions recommended by the Plan-
ning Commission, and the third condition stating: "The mobile home may not be used for
rental purposes and shall be removed upon completion and occupancy of any new residence."
Mrs. Cooke seconded.
Mr. Henley stated that the applicant has been honest with the Board in telling it the
situation. He has a problem with the fact that these double-wides are like homes; not
something to drag off to another location. He has a problem adding a condition that he has
to move the mobile home if he builds another home there. Mr. Fisher stated that he feels the
Board is only being honest with the applicant. This will allow the mobile home for Mr.
Harry's use until he doesn't need it any more.
O44
(October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-86-43. Ail Saints Anglican Church. To amend SP-85-100, Bruce
Tyler, to permit minimum setback consistent with scenic highway provisions on four acres.
Located on south side of Rt. 250 W near the West Leigh entrance. Tax Map 58, Parcel 91E.
Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 30 and October 7,
1986.)
Mr. Keeler read the staff's report:
During review of SP-85-100, Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion noted that the CATS study recommends an increase in right-of-way for
Route 250W from 80 feet to 120 feet. Accordingly, staff recommended an
additional 20 feet of building setback for purposes of right-of-way reserva-
tion. During public hearing and upon agreement of the applicant, parking
area setback was increased from 50 to 150 feet. Overflow parking would
occur along the entrance drive. Due to infrequency of usage, staff would
recommend that overflow parking not be subject to the 150 foot setback but
comply with a 50 foot setback.
Currently the applicant requests reduction of building setback from 170 feet
to 150 feet.
Parking would meet a 150 foot setback. A church is not deemed visually
incompatible by staff. The applicant has agreed to landscaping measures
recommended by staff. While the applicant's proposal does not meet a
literal interpretation of section 30.5.6.3.1, staff opinion is that the
proposal would be consistent with the objectives of the scenic highway
provisions. Staff recommends that condition 3 of SP-85-100 be amended as
follows:
3. Building setback ~-~8-~ee~? and parking area setback of 150 feet.
Mr. Keeler noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 30, 1986,
unanimously recommended approval of this request.
At this time the public hearing was opened.
Mr. James Boyd with Heyward, Llorens & Boyd, Architects, stated that his firm is prepar-
ing the architectural drawings for the church. The church is of a traditional character and
proposed to be of a board and batten construction. It is to be a typical country church.
Also Mr. Boyd pointed out that this move of 20 feet does affect the way the building is
sited, in that the topography is such that the building is more naturally placed at 150 feet
from the highway than it is at 170 feet. Mr. ~Fisher commented that the site does have
limitations. He asked Mr. Boyd if he felt he could handle the parking and all that with the
150 foot setback. Mr. Boyd replied that he believed they had done so. Mr. Fisher asked if
anyone else wished to speak; there being no one else, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that SP-86-43 be approved as recommended by the
Planning Commission to amend Condition ~3 of SP-85-100 as set out above. Mrs. Cooke second-
ed.
Mr. Fisher stated that Condition 93 should be a little more specific and say, "from
existing highway right-of-way." Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs. Cooke concurred with this change.
The condition to now read: "Building setback and parking area setback of 150 feet from
existing highway right-of-way.'~
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-86-53. Warren K. or Janet M. Maupin. To allow for the division
of a vacant 19.156 acre parcel which has no development rights zoned RA. Located at south-
western portion of the intersection of Rts. 668 and 601. Tax Map 17, Parcel 18H. White Hall
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 30 and October 7, 1986.)
Mr. Keeler read the staff's report:
Request: This is a request to divide a 19.156 acre parcel into 3
lots, for an average lot size of 6.3 acres (Section 10.5.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance).
Zoning: The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Location: The property is located at the intersection of Route
601 and Route 668, approximately one mile north of Free Union.
Tax Map 17, Parcel 18H. White Hall Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: The property consists of mostly open
cropland. A small portion of the property is wooded. The land.
is gently rolling, with slopes on most of the property between zero
and seven percent. There is no dwelling unit on the property.
October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
045
There are several parcels adjoining or adjacent to this property
which are in active agricultural or forestal use. There are also
a number of small lots adjoining or located near this property,
most of which run along the frontage of Route 601.
2omprehensive Plan:
I. Important Farmland
A great majority of this property is composed of soils
classified as "prime farmland" (Class I & II soils).
Approximately 75% of the property contains prime farmland
soils. The soils classified as I, II, III or IV by Soil
Conservation Survey are considered important farmlands
according to legislation enacted by the General Assembly.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends a maximum density of one
dwelling unit per 10 acres on important farmlands. This
petition proposes a density of one unit per six acres.
II. Watersupply Watershed
This property is also located within the watershed of the
South Fork Rivanna Watersupply Reservoir. A small stream
runs through the southwestern portion of the property. The
Comprehensive Plan also recommends that a maximum density of
one dwelling unit per 10 acres for an impoundment watershed.
The Comprehensive Plan also recommends that watershed
management areas be established a minimum of 100 feet
horizontally from the edge of an impoundment and its
tributaries. These areas will serve as filter strips, which
if properly maintained, should filter sediment from overland
flow and maintain the inherent temperature norms in the
adjacent streams and other bodies of water.
Special Use Permit Criteria: The following criteria is a review
of the proposed subdivision for appropriateness of development as
set forth in the nine criteria of the RA district: (The
applicant has responded to 91, ~3 and 99.
The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the
property ....
"The 19.15 acres is a corner lot bordered by Routes 601 and
668 on two sides, housing and forests on the other two
sides. The parcel is approximately 99% open, gently sloping
northeast to southwest cropland, with one percent in hardwoods
surrounding the small stream on the northwest corner of the
property.
The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or
forestal production ....
Soils for agricultural use are recorded in the Agricultural
Soil Survey report as a capability class. The classes
listed as Class I and Class II have few or moderate
limitations as to choice of plant material and conservation
measures. The proposed subdivision has three such suitable
soils, Braddock loam 7B, Cullen loam 19B, and Thurmont loam
8lB. Areas containing these soil types (Classes I and II)
are considered prime farmlands. The other soil types
located on this site are Braddock loam 7C (classified as
Class III) and Thurmont loam 81C (also classified as Class
III). Land with these soil classifications (Class II to IV)
are also considered important farmlands.
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 as
important agricultural lands indicating a high suitability for
grazing, pasture and forestry use.
On this property there is a substantial area of prime
farmland. Approximately fifteen acres of the 19 acres
are considered prime. Of the soil types not listed as
prime, the Soil Conservation Service does consider them
important agricultural lands (slopes less than 15 percent).
The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses ....
The property has been used as an annexed drop field to
subsidize large farms since 1950.
These properties have enjoyed preferential taxation. The
entire acreage of this property has been in land use since
1975. Therefore the owners have demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the County Real Estate Department that
legitimate, continuous agricultural or forestal use has
O48
(October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
been maintained·
If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable
effect of the proposed development ....
The majority of the land within a mile of this property
enjoys or enjoyed preferential land use taxation for either
agricultural or forestal usage. Of the 3,000 acres
(approximate) in this area, 2,250 acres, or 75%, have been
under land use taxation. Approximately 20% is in five-acre
lots not in land use. 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:
ae
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 (i.e.,
spraying of pesticides and herbicides; spreading of
lime and manure; proximity of livestock to residential
areas, commercial timbering activities) and high land
prices which make it difficult for existing farmers to
expand and new farmers to locate in the area.
Indirect effects are generally related to the
expectation of continued development in the area,
resulting in the impression that agricultural land is
in transition. Indirect effects include: reduced or
marginal production; disinvestment in equipment,
livestock and other aspects of farming requiring large
and/or long-term 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 development.
Be
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 are marginally productive and, that cause a
minimum loss of productive agricultural and forestal
acreage.
This proposal consists of only three lots, therefore,
it probably would not generate all of these
negative effects. The overall impact of this
particular development, by itself may not be
significant.
However, the Commission and Board should be mindful of
the overall effect of development in agricultural
areas. A certain amount of development is
theoretically inevitable in this area through "by-right"
division of existing parcels. Therefore,
allowing additional development beyond what is allowed
by right further amplifies the negative effects of
development to this agricultural area.
e
The relationship of the property in regard to developed
rural areas ....
A majority of the land within this area is in lots of five
acres or greater. Approximately six percent of the area or
250 acres are in lots less than five acres in size. This is
not considered to be a developed rural area.
The relationship of the proposed development to existing and
proposed population centers ....
This property is located approximately five miles west
of the village of Earlysville, six miles northwest of
Urban Neighborhood One and nine miles east of Crozet.
Therefore, this area is remote from proposed growth areas
and supporting facilities.
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital
improvements ....
October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
047
The response time for the Earlysville Volunteer Fire
Department is 10 to 15 minutes.
The total projected enrollment from this development is one
student. School impact, therefore, is not significant.
The traffic generated from the proposed development ....
The traffic generated from this development would be about
21 vehicle trips per day. Both Route 601 and Route 668 are
presently considered non-tolerable roads. Some
"improvements" may be required to obtain adequate sight
distance at the entrance of some of these lots. Direct
access to Rt. 668 may be restricted due to limited sight
distance and vertical and horizontal curvature of the road.
With respect to applications for special use permits for
land lying wholly or partially within the boundaries for the
watershed ....
a. The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover ....
The very small percentage of forest is in hardwood
trees for the most part, and the balance of the
property is and would be covered with grass. There
doesn't appear to be a problem with erosion or runoff.
be
The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be
removed ....
Only to the extent needed to prepare driveways and
house sites;
The amount of impervious cover which will exist after
development;
Using a formula of 1500 square feet by three and 30 feet
by 10 feet by 3 feet, this being an approximate of three
houses and driveway the total square feet of 5400 or
less than one percent of the total acreage.
do
The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious)
area ....
Nothing would be built within 100 feet of the only
stream on the property. (A septic setback would be
required on any subdivision plats.)
e. The type and characteristics of soils ....
The predominate soils are Braddock, Thurmont and Cullen
loams. All three are rated as moderate for septic
field location; all have moderate to slow percolation
rates. They also have a moderate rate of erodability~
fo
The percentage and length of all slopes subject to
disturbance ....
There being numerous flat building sites on all three
proposed lots, there should be no need to build on
anything but the most nominal grade or slope;
The estimated duration and timing of the construction
phase ....
Since these lots will be offered for sale for
individual housing, the time length will be set by the
market, and whether or not the buyer wishes to build at
once;
The degree to which original topography or vegetative
cover ....
None;
i. The extent to which the standards of Chapter 19.1 ....
No artificial devices should be necessary. (This
development will be accomplished so as to not exceed five
percent impervious ground cover for the entire
development. Such developments are exempt from the
requirements of the Runoff Control Ordinance and will
therefore neither require inspection nor be susceptible
to failure from storm runoff.)
Staff Comment:
If the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors choose to
-048
(October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
approve this request, it will be difficult to deny other requests
to divide parcels of land with no remaining division rights.
Staff does not support this r~quest for two additional lots
on this property (for a total of three lots at an average lot
size of six acres). Property located on lands designated as
important farmland or within a watershed impoundment are
recommended for development at one dwelling unit per ten
acres. This property contains both important farmlands ("prime
farmland" soils) and is located in the South Fork Rivanna River
Watersupply Reservoir.
Staff opinion is that this proposal does not satisfy the criteria
for granting a special use permit. Therefore, staff recommends
denial of the petition.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 30, 1986, unani-
mously recommended denial of the request. Mr. Lindstrom stated that a plat sent to the Board
has a note stating that there were no further division rights.
Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing.
Mr. Warren Maupin, the applicant, stated that the larger tract of land still has divi-
sion rights. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this plat was done at the time the property was ac-
quired. He asked if Mr. Maupin were aware there were no division rights. Mr. Maupin stated
that was correct. Mr. Maupin continued by stating that basically he has a corner lot that is
too large for one house and a bit too small to farm. He believes the size of the lots would
be in keeping with what is on each end of the land. He does not feel the extra three lots
would hurt the character of the land.
Mr. Ed Bauer spoke against the application. He said the area is in the rural areas and
in the South Rivanna Watershed area which is already receiving much more growth than has been
targeted in the Comprehensive Plan. He believes for that reason the Board should not be
granting further subdivisions in this area. Also, 58 percent of the secondary roads in
Albemarle County are considered as being non-tolerable, as are the roads near this plot.
There being no one else present wishing to speak, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
closed.
Mr. Fisher said it is rare to receive an application with so many objections. -
Mr. Henley said approval of this request would go against what the Board has put into
the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Although he understands what Mr. Maupin
wants, as the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan now read, he can't support
the request. Mr. Henley offered motion that SP-86-53 be denied. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-86-58. Caleb Stowe Associates, Ltd. To allow for warehouse
facilities and a wholesale business. Located on the east side of Rt. 606 approx, one mile
north of Rt. 649. Tax Map 32, Parcel 19A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress September 30 and October 7, 1986.)
(Mrs. Cooke excused herself from discussion of this item because of a conflict of
interest and left the meeting at 8:20 P.M.)
Mr. Keeler read the following staff report:
Character of the Area: Properties on the east side of Rte.
606 in this area are industrially zoned. Single family
dwellings are across Rte. 606. In October 1985, the Board
of Supervisors approved a special use permit on adjacent
property to the east for warehousing facilities.
Staff Comment:
The 12,000 square foot building on this property was
originally intended to house Milodon Engineering and was
later occupied as a satellite facility by General Electric.
Currently, the building would be used as a shipping facility
for specialty food products with associated office usage for
product distribution (Section 4.14 Performance Standards of
the Zoning Ordinance applies to the nature and method of
materials storage in warehousing facilities).
Employment would consist of 10 to 15 persons. Truck traffic
would involve about five package van stops per week and one
tractor trailer delivery per month. No building expansion
is proposed. Staff opinion is that this use would not be
objectionable to the area and is consistent with current
Zoning, Comprehensive Plan, and Airport Master Plan. Staff
recommends approval.
Mr. Keeler noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting on october 7, 1986, unani-
mously recommended approval with no conditions.
October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Cooke, representing the applicant, came for-
~ard. Mr. Bowie questioned him about the number of vehicle trips to be made. Mr. Cooke
responded that the information in the staff report given to him by the company that wants to
~o business here. Mr. Fisher asked if the number stated included all vehicles, incoming and
outgoing. Mr. Cooke explained that the company does not produce the product here. The
product will be distributed from the site. Mr. Cooke also explained that the food product is
~ dried food supplement. The company is the Fortunate Life Diet Centers. Mr. Cooke contin-
ued that the development could handle much greater truck traffic than is proposed because two
other warehouses in the area presently handle quite a few tractor trailer trucks per day.
Hr. Bowie added that he is somewhat familiar with this product and the foodstuff is pressure
packed.
With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie offered motion that SP-86-58 be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way.
~oll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke.
Mrs. Cooke returned to the meeting at 8:27 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-86-59. City of Charlottesville. To allow for the installation
of bank erosion control structures in the floodway of the Rivanna River at Pen Park. Located
on Rio Road at the City-County line. Tax Map 62, Parcel 22. Rivanna District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on September 30 and October 7, 1986.)
Mr. Keeler read the following staff report:
Petition: The City of Charlottesville petitions the Board
of Supervisors to issue a special use permit to authorize a
bank erosion stabilization project (30.3.5.2.1.5, bank
erosion structures) in the floodway of the Rivanna River.
The project, which would involve about 1200 feet of
shoreline at the Pen Park running from the confluence of
Meadow Creek eastward. While stabilization work would be
conducted on the north bank and river bed, three temporary river
crossings (30.3.5.2.1.2) would be established. Property,
described as Tax Map 62, parcel 22, is zoned RA Rural Areas
and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Applicants Proposal:entitled "Bank Protection, Pen Park,
on the Rivanna River, Albemarle County, Virginia, prepared
for the City of Charlottesville, Department of Public Works,
by Baldwin & Gregg, Ltd."
The Pen Park golf course site on the Rivanna River is
experiencing severe erosion in several locations. Portions
of the river bank, while not experiencing erosion problems
at this time are very steep and subject to meandering of the
river. Human activities in the river exacerbate the erosion
problems. Additionally, the golf course watering program
has increased groundwater levels resulting in seepage
weakening of the river bank.
Several alternatives for repairing and stabilizing the river
bank were considered. Based on a combination of cost,
feasibility, and aesthetics, the alternative involving
riprap slope protection at the bottom of the bank and gabion
baskets (loose rock enclosed by wire mesh similar to a
mattress) at the top of the bank is deemed by the City to be
the most desirable alternative.
Staff Comment:
The consultant's report sites an urgency for this project
since continued erosion is costly and since a major storm
could result in substantial damage to the public investment
at Pen Park. Two golf greens are clearly in danger and the
consultant "strongly recommend(s) that the repairs in the
vicinity of Green No. 1 and repairs in the vicinity of the
pond be constructed as soon as possible." (Attachment A,
Page 3).
Staff offers the following observations:
Staff opinion is that this project is clearly a case of
protection of public investment and should proceed
accordingly. While approvals from state and federal
regulatory agencies have not been received to date, it
is likely that seasonal construction restrictions will
be imposed;
The County Engineer has commented that the project is
consistent with the general requirements of the Flood
Hazard Overlay District in that the project should not
affect the flood water discharge capabilities of the
O5O
(October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
river. Other detailed aspects may need additional
review (i.e. - fill material shall not pollute surface
or groundwater, therefore, "coke stone" may not be
acceptable)..
While it may not be necessary to bond the City for
certain aspects of the operation, the Zoning
Administrator or County Engineer should be authorized
to cause inmediate correction of any problems together
with removal of temporary stream crossings and the like
at project end;
This bank stabilization project may cause or exacerbate
the need for similar bank stabilization efforts across
the river on private property and at the proposed
Rivanna Park.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following
conditions:
The Zoning Administrator shall issue a development
permit for this project as required by Section 30.3.3.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance. No such permit shall be issued until
all conditions of this special use permit have been
met;
Approval of appropriate local, state, and federal
agencies and presentation of evidence of such approvals
to the Zoning Administrator;
County Engineer approval in accordance with the
requirements of 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District with
particular attention to approval of access and river
crossing plans.
Bonding or other mechanism by which the Zoning
Administrator may cause immediate compliance with this
special use permit and all other County regulations;
Temporary stream crossings shall be removed when no
longer utilized and all disturbed and denuded areas
shall be stabilized as required by the County Engineer;
Only those areas necessary for the conduct of this
project shall be disturbed. Activity shall be
conducted in such a manner so the equipment shall not
travel over, be parked on, or otherwise encroach on
tree root systems on property of others;
Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance;
The County Engineer shall make periodic inspection of
the site to insure compliance with conditions imposed
herein. The County Engineer may require such
corrective measures as deemed necessary to insure
compliance with these conditions.
Mr. Keeler said the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 7,
1986, recommended by a vote of 5-2, approval of this petition subject to the first seven
conditions recommended by the staff, but rewriting No. 4 and No. 5 as follows, deleting No. 8
of the staff and replacing with No. 8 and No. 9 as follows:
Bonding or other mechanism by which the Zoning
Administrator may cause immediate compliance with this
special use permit and all other County regulations.
The County Engineer shall make periodic inspection of
the site to insure compliance with conditions imposed
herein. The County Engineer may require such
corrective measures as deemed necessary to insure
compliance with these conditions.
Temporary stream crossings shall be removed when no
longer utilized and no more than one crossing shall be
used at any one time; all disturbed and denuded areas
shall be stabilized as required by the County Engineer;
Posting of warning signs upstream from site to advise
canoeists and other users of construction activity and
temporary obstructions.
Work to be accomplished between the dates of July 1, and
January 31.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Berberich, Chief Engineer for the City, offered to answer any questions.
051
October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
~r. Fisher inquired as to what was proposed to be done to the banks. Mr. Berberich described
the conditions of the bank as seen from the other side of the river including fallen trees,
~hich are crossing the river, and a badly eroded bank. The measures chosen by the city were
to stabilize the toe of the bank with large riprap (stones that vary in size from 150 pounds
to 500 pounds) and three levels of gabions (wire baskets full of rocks six to twelve inches
in size) to make the face of the bank slightly more vertical.
Mr. Berberich said the project is divided into two phases. Phase 1 includes those areas
that are most seriously eroded now. Phase 2 includes things to be done if the budget per-
nits. Phase 1 comprises three different locations along the 1200 feet of the bank.~L~.~ The
~ork will be done progressively and the temporary crossings in the stream are made from the
riprap material that will be hauled into the area. This is to create an access to get into
and across the river. The plan is to have a crane sitting on a riprap pad in the river; the
low water capacity would be created by three 48-inch pipes filled in so the river can contin-
we to flow. These accesses would be constructed one at a time, and the work would go pro-
~ressively downstream from just south of where the sewer interceptor crosses the river.
~orking from this pad, the rock will be placed on the bank going as far downstream as possi-
Dle and, as each section is completed, the stone that had created the temporary crossing will
De recovered. The crossings are temporary. They will be removed as the work progresses down
the river. Mr. Bowie asked if the work is planned to begin before January 31. Mr. Berberich
replied that is no longer the objective. The plan is now to readvertise next spring for work
to commence after July 1, 1987. Mr. Fisher then asked if the dates of the project are
actually to be between July 1, 1987 and January 31, 1988. Mr. Berberich stated that the
sstimate for the work is between 60 and 90 days, and those dates would permit easy completion
time. Mr. Fisher asked if the work was intended for the time of year when the water flow is
lowest. Mr. Berberich replied that is the intention. Mr. Bowie expressed concern over what
~ould happen if there were high water, and if on January 31, 1988, the work is not complete.
2hese temporary crossings may still be in place. Mr. Berberich said that the worst possible
~ondition would be that one crossing might be in place. The intention is to go to work in
July and finish before the end of September. Once the work is complete, the third crossing
~ill be removed. Something would have to go wrong for one pad to be still in the river at
that time. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the consultants felt there would be no problem with
serious flooding once this work is completed. Mr. Berberich stated that the one hundred year
flood elevation on the golf course is 20 feet above the cart path. Mr. Berberich felt he
~ould not say it couldn't be washed away; however, it is a sound design that the engineer
Delieves will remain there. Mr. Lindstrom stated he had seen attempts to stabilize lakeshore
banks before, and when the storms came, the devices became destructive when they stopped
stabilizing the lakeshore. Mr. Berberich replied that the engineer seems satisfied that this
~esign will withstand a great deal.
Mr. Bowie asked about the appearance of the project. Mr Berberich assured him that the
riprap should grow up in brush. Initially it will look stark, but will fill with silt and
brush. Mr. Fisher said that the staff's report mentioned that watering the golf course had
contributed to the erosion. He asked if any measures were being taken to reduce the amount
of water to avoid that problem. Mr. Berberich said the consultant's report states that the
water in the pond added to the height of the water table adjacent to the pond and that
additional groundwater is the problem, not the watering. Mr. Fisher asked if access is
needed to the crossings from the new Rivanna River Park. Mr. Berberich stated that the City
has oral permission for access from the property adjacent to the new park location, and he
will obtain it in writing.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said he is
reasonably satisfied with the projected appearance of the project. He was also concerned
over the crossings in the river remaining there too long and somehow backing up the river.
He feels the project is necessary. Mr. Bowie then offered motion that SP-86-59 for the City
of Charlottesville be approved with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission
except to amend No. 5 by changing the word "used" to "in place." ~'us~d" shcul._
"~ ~.~-~" Mr. Fisher also suggested that in No. 8 after the word "other" insert the word
"river" to become "other river users," and in No. 9 to insert after July 1, the year "1987"
and at the end of the sentence, insert the year, "1988." Mr. Bowie agreed to incorporate
these three changes in his motion. Mrs. Cooke the seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom expressed some concern over the possible consequences of doing this
project. There being no further discussion, the roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Note: The conditions as approved are set out in full below:
The Zoning Administrator shall issue a development permit for this
project as required by Section 30.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. No
such permit shall be issued until all conditions of this special use
permit have been met;
Approval of appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and
presentation of evidence of such approvals to the Zoning Administrator;
County Engineer approval in accordance with the requirements of 30.3
Flood Hazard Overlay District with particular attention to approval of
access and river crossing plans.
Bonding or other mechanism by which the Zoning Administrator may cause
immediate compliance with this special use permit and all other County
regulations. The County Engineer shall make periodic inspection of the
site to insure compliance with conditions imposed herein. The County
Engineer may require such corrective measures as deemed necessary to
insure compliance with these conditions.
052
(October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Temporary stream crossings shall be removed when no longer utilized and
no more than one crossing shall be in place at any one time; all
disturbed and denuded areas shall be stabilized as required by the
County Engineer;
Only those areas necessary for the conduct of this project shall be
disturbed. Activity shall be conducted in such a manner so the equip-
ment shall not travel over, be parked on, or otherwise encroach on tree
root systems on property of others.
Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
Posting of warning signs upstream from site to advise canoeists and
other river users of contruction activity and temporary obstructions.
Work to be accomplished between the dates of July 1, 1987, and January
31, 1988,
At 9:07 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:12 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-86-60. Cistercians of the Strict Observance in MasRachusetts,
Inc. To allow for a church building and adjunct cemetery with living quarters (convent).
Located on north side of Rt. 674, two miles east of White Hall. Tax Map 27, Parcels 40A and
40. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 30 and October 7,
1986).
Mr. Keeler explained that this application may be in conflict with a part of the state
code. The county attorney's office and the applicant's attorney have determined that the
best approach is to amend the ordinance to provide by Special Use Permit the specific uses of
a monastery and convent. The Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend
the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. St. John stated that it is the opinion of the County Attorney's office that this
application is not properly before the county. Mr. St. John suggested that this item be
dropped from the agenda. Mr. Fisher then suggested that instead this petition be deferred
until such time as it is advertised for a new series of hearings or March 1, 1987, whichever
comes earlier. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to this effect. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Henley. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item 13. ZTA-86-05. To amend Section 28.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance by the
addition of subsection (24) to allow "Motorcycle and off-road recreational vehicle sales and
service." This amendment would allow this use as a permitted use in the HI, Heavy Industrial
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 30 and October 7, 1986.)
Mr. Keeler gave the staff's report:
On April 9, 1986 the Board of Supervisors adopted a
Resolution of Intent to amend Section 28.0 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance to permit the sale of off-road
rccreational vehicles and motorcycles in the HI-Heavy Industrial
District.
This amendment was the outcome of request by Jarman's Sportcycles
to be allowed to sell and service motorcycles and off-road
recreational vehicles at the Northside Industrial Park on Route
29 North. This business is now in operation at this site
pursuant to authorization granted by the Board of Supervisors
given at the above-referenced meeting (letter on file).
Prior to making his decision on this matter, the Zoning
Administration consulted with the Director of Planning and
Community Development on this matter and it was their opinion
that this use was not now nor should be in the future allowed in
the HI zone. Mr. Horne expressed this opinion to the Board of
Supervisors at its meeting on April 9. Of primary concern is the
mixture of retail motor vehicle uses and client traffic with
heavy industrial traffic. The Board of SUpervisors felt that the
potential nuisance characteristics of motorcycle and off-road
recreational vehicles (ATV's) made this use appropriate in this
zoning district.
The Board of Supervisors has directed that this amendment be
brought to a public hearing by the Planning Commission. The
amendment is as follows:
An amendment to Section 28.2.1 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance by the addition of the following:
(24) Motorcycle and off-road recreation vehicles sale and
service.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 7, 1986, recommended
denial of this petition. The Commission felt this usage was not consistent with the HI Zone.
O53
October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Keeeler stated that prior to the 1980 revisions, the Zoning Ordinance industrial
districts were a mixture of industrial and commercial uses. During the drafting of the 1980
Zoning Ordinance a concerted effort was made to delete commercial type uses from the light
and heavy industrial zoning districts. Offices were subsequently included in the light
industrial district at the request of citizens. At present the majority of the uses speak to
manufacturing, assembly, processing and distribution c~f such items. The heavy industrial
district consists of brick manufacturing, asphalt plants, and very obnoxious-type uses.
Because of the noise levels caused by revving up motorcycles, etc., motorcycle sales were
considered appropriate to heavy industrial districts.
At this time the public hearing was opened.
public hearing was closed.
Since no one came forward to speak, the
Mr. St. John said that he disagreed with the Planning Commission's recommendations from
a legal standpoint. He cited a letter from Mr. Charles Burgess, Zoning Administrator, to Mr.
Horne which expresses the same opinion Mr. Horne had in April. The key paragraph states that
"the Zoning Ordinance states in Section 28.1 (the preamble to the Heavy Industrial
Zone),...to permit industries and commercial uses which have public nuisance potential."
That preamble is still in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. St. John concurred that trying to
determine what constitutes a public nuisance is difficult at best, but disagreed with the
opinion that this subjective determination is virtually unenforceable.
Mr. St. John said he feels the Board is capable of deciding which uses have nuisance
potantial and which do not. Retail uses have not been totally eliminated from the Heavy
Industrial District (dry cleaning plants, boarding kennels for example). These uses do have
nuisance potential and are in the new Ordinance in the Heavy Industrial Zone. Mr. Fisher
asked in which zones motorcycles and off-road recreational vehicles are sold. Mr. Keeler
replied that motor vehicle sales are permitted as "by right" uses in the highway commercial
zone. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he would prefer the use to be by special permit. He asked
if this amendment restricts where these uses are permitted now. Mr. Keeler replied that it
does not; it would just amend this zone to permit these by special use permit. Mr. Keeler
added that motorcycle sales and motor vehicle sales should be distinguished. An off-road
motorcycle is not considered a motor vehicle. Mr. St. John discussed the difference between
illegal and nonconforming uses.
Mr. Bowie asked the effect of approving this amendment. Mr. St. John declared that new
motorcycle sales would have to come into the HI district. Mr. Bowie asked about motorcycle
who do not sell off-road motorcycles; are they permitted to sell anywhere the ordinance says
motor vehicles can be sold. Mr. St. John stated they could.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt this amendment to the HI District as a use by
special permit by adopting the following ordinance:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and
reenacted in Section 28.0, Heavy Industry District, by the addition of the
following as a use by special use permit:
28.0
HEAVY INDUSTRY LI
28.2.2
USES BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
(15) Motorcycle and off-road recreation vehicles sale and
service.
Mr. Henley seconded the foregoing motion.
the following recorded vote.
Ross was called and the motion carried with
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda No. 14. ZTA-86-06. To amend the building separation provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance to refer to the current Table 401, Fire Resistance Ratings of the BOCA Building
Code, 1984 Edition. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 30 and October 7, 1986.)
Mr. Keeler read the following staff report:
Origin: Requested by Director of Inspections.
Public Purpose To Be Served: Bring zoning provisions into consistency with
current building code requirements.
Staff Comment:
In January 1983, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to base building sepa-
ration requirements in part on BOCA Building Code requirements. The build-
ing code has since been amended occasioning the need for the following
Zoning Ordinance amendment:
(A) AMEND 4.11.3 REDUCTION OF BUILDING SEPARATION AND SIDE YARDS.
4.11.3 REDUCTION OF BUILDING SEPARATION AND SIDE YARDS
054
October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
4.11.3.1
Ail such structures for which separation and/or side
yards are reduced shall be constructed in accordance
with ~a~e-~8~-F&~e-6~a~-~-~se-6~ps Table 401 Fire
Resistance Ratings of Structure Elements of the BOCA
Building Code 1984 Edition; ot its equivalent in the
current edition of BOCA Basic Building Code; or
(B) AMEND 21.0 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, GENERALLY.
21.9
BUILDING SEPARATION
Whether or not located on the same parcel, main structures
shall be constructed and separated in accordance with Table
~8~-F~e-6~a~-e~-~se-6~e~ps 401 Fire Resistance Ratings of
Structure Elements of the BOCA Basic Building Code, 1984
Edition or its equivalent in the current edition of the BOCA
Basic Building Code.
(C) AMEND 26.0 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, GENERALLY.
26.13
BUILDING SEPARATION
Whether or not located on the same parcel, main structures
shall be constructed and separated in accordance with Table
~8~-F~e-6~a~-~-~se-6~s 401 Fire Resistance Ratings of
Structure Elements of the BOCA Basic Building Code, 1984
Edition or its equivalent in the current edition of the BOCA
Basic Building Code.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 7, 1986, recommended
that these petitions be approved.
Mr. Fisher asked about a problem involving some townhouse residents who wanted storage
sheds backed up to their fences. He asked if approving this would solve that problem~ Mr.
Keeler explained that the new table breaks thiS out into a number of categories by type of
construction. Fire separation would still be required. Mr. Keeler added that if the build-
ing requires a building permit, the fire separation wall would be required.
The public hearing was opened. There being no one who wished to speak, the public
hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said he does not understand the ordinance as written, and he
believes there are others who won't understand it. He feels it will be back on the agenda
again. Mr. Henley said there was a lot he didn't understand either, but he would support it.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that certain sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
relating to building separation provisions be amended and reenacted as
follows:
4.11.3
REDUCTION OF BUILDING SEPARATION AND SIDE YARDS
4.11.3.1 Same
Same.
Ail such structures for which separation and/or side yards
are reduced shall be constructed in accordance with Table
401 Fire Resistance Ratings of Structure Elements of the
BOCA Building Code 1984 Edition; or its equivalent in the
current edition of BOCA Basic Building Code; or
c. Same.
21.0
21.9
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, GENERALLY.
BUILDING SEPARATION
Whether or not located on the same parcel, main structures shall
be constructed and separated in accordance with Table 401 Fire
Resistance Ratings of Structure Elements of the BOCA Basic
Building Code, 1984 Edition or its equivalent in the current
edition of the BOCA Basic Building Code.
26.0
26.13
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, GENERALLY.
BUILDING SEPARATION
Whether or not located on the same parcel, main structures shall
be constructed and separated in accordance with Table 401 Fire
Resistance Ratings of Structure Elements of the BOCA Basic
Building Code, 1984 Edition or its equivalent in the current
edition of the BOCA Basic Building Code.
October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
055
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item. No. 15. Authorize revision to McIntire School Financing.
Mr. Agnor called the Board's attention to his memo, dated October 9, 1986, stating that
the McIntire Village Associates has requested a figure for prepayment of the $550,000 note
held by the County over a ten-year period beginning in December 1988. The payments over the
ten-year period amount to $55,000 per year beginning December 1988. The payments are sched-
uled as revenues to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget. The present value of the
note based on 4% interest, which is the County's present cost of borrowed funds (Literary
Fund loans) in the CIP, is calculated to be $435,000. From the County's perspective, calcu-
lating the present value on this basis is legitimate because (1) the County does not current-
ly need these funds for any purpose other than capital projects, and (2) the only borrowing
planned for the next five years (CIP projections) is from the Literary Fund at 4%. In other
words, if ~-epayment were received, the resulting proceeds would diminish the amount planned
to be borrowed from the Literary Fund.
Mr. Agnor said it is recommended that staff be authorized to advise McIntire Village
Associates that if they are desirous of prepaying the note, the County will accept $435,000
as payment in full by December 31, 1986.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to accept the recommendation of the County Execu-
tive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. There being no further discussion, the roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Supplementary CIP Appropriation: Fire Truck.
Mr. Agnor referred to his memorandum dated October 10, 1986, concerning the purchase of
a fire engine.
"Bids have been received for the fire engine scheduled for purchase in the
Capital Budget under the contract with the City for providing fire ser-
vices. Six bids were received, one was withdrawn because of an error in
pricing, and the five remaining are~
Kovatch $178,990
Pierce $183,303
Seagrave $187,229
Hahn $190,746
Steeldraulics $193,400
The Capital Budget included an estimate of $159,000 for the engine, $3000
for communications equipment, for a total appropriation of $162,000.
Bid specifications have been reviewed by City and County staff, and there
are no changes that can be made to reduce the costs. The bid prices indi-
cate that we have received a good bid with a spread of $4313 or 2.4%
between the low bidder and the next highest bidder, as well as a spread
between the five bids of only $14,410 or 8%.
As you may recall, the purchase of this piece of equipment has been de-
ferred for two years awaiting revisions to the fire services contract with
the City. The engine currently being used is ten years old, and needs to
be removed from active service, and placed on reserve status. For that
reason, plus the analysis of the specifications and the receipt of close
bids, staff believes the purchase should proceed without further delay. It
is therefore recommended that the staff be authorized to proceed with
acceptance of the low bid.
A supplemental appropriation of $19,990 is requested to be made to the
$162,000 current appropriation, which will provide a total appropriation of
$181,990 for the acceptance of the Kovatch bid of $178,990, leaving $3000
for the communications equipment that will be purchased separately.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to accept the staff's recommendation and adopt the resolution.
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $19,990 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
Undesignated Fund Balance of the Capital Improvements Fund and coded to
1-9000-32010-7005003 entitled Fire Department - Service Vehicle;
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Agenda Item No. 17o Statement: Additional Allocations for Primary Roads for 1986-87.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum, dated October 10, 1986:
Attached for your review and information is the statement presented to the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Preallocation Hearing
last April, a sheet of listed needs from the March presentation to the
Commission on Transportation (COT-21), and a memorandum for the Director of
Planning recommending a priority list for this upcoming hearing.
The April hearing statement endorsed the Route 29 improvements from the 250
Bypass to the river as first priority, and commented that the Board was
planning an eastern bypass and strongly opposed a western bypass. Second
priority was a joint request with the City for Free Bridge and four laning
of Route 250 to 1-64. No other projects were included.
The March list of needs given to COT-21 additionally included a Route 29
eastern bypass, an interchange at Avon with 1-64, connecting Meadowcreek
Parkway with 250 East, and improvements to Route 20 South.
The Planning Department memo adds the improvements to Route 29 from the
river to Airport Road, and prioritizes the Route 29 improvements into three
phases and the Route 250 improvements into two phases. It also recommends
supporting the City's urban funds allocation for Meadowcreek Parkway and
Free Bridge.
It is recommended that a revised statement be drafted supporting, with the
City, the Meadowcreek Parkway and Free Bridge, and requesting the following
priorities:
1. Route 29 improvements, Hydraulic Road to the River.
2. Route 250 East from Locust Avenue to 1-64.
3. Interchange - Avon Street at 1-64.
4. Route 29 improvements, River to Airport Road.
5. Improvements to Route 20 South.
The statement could request that consideration of a Route 29 bypass, east or
west, be discontinued until a sufficient information data base has been
developed from placing into service, and operating for at least three to
five years, the improvements to Route 29 from the Route 250 Bypass to
Airport Road.
Mr. Fisher remarked that this seems to be a pretty good statement. He thanked the staff
for putting something together for the Board to review. Mrs. Cooke added that in light of
the statements made by the Highway Department that there is to be a bypass around
Charlottesville, she does not feel able to make a statement at this time. That a statement
must wait until after the public hearing on the Route 29 North improvements. Mr. Fisher
commented that he did not believe there would be that kind of answer by the October 30th
hearing. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he thought the staff's final paragraph was very well
thought out; that there will not be a need for a bypass once the present improvements are
completed. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs, Cooke. He added that since the
public hearing on the Route 29 North improvements is only three days before this statement is
to be made, there must be some position taken. If something dynamic should happen, the Board
can change its position.
Mr. Ed Bauer from the Crozet Community Association said some of its members plan to
attend the hearing. He requested that the Board consider improvements to Route 240. Mr.
Henley agreed with this request and suggested it be considered because Crozet is a growth
area in the County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said Crozet is a growth Community in
the Comprehensive Plan and one of the biggest problems with implementing this concept has
been transportation. He sees no reason not to add something that already shows in the
comprehensive plan.
Mr. Fisher said improvements to Route 240 could be added as Item 6. Mr. Bowie also con-
curred with this suggestion although he feels that the primary objectives have to be Route 29
North and Route 250 East. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to accept these recommendations,
adding "improvements to Route 240 to Crozet," and to authorize the staff to draft a statement
for presentation at the Preallocation Hearing in Culpeper on November 3. Mr. Henley seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, (Mrs. Cooke prefaced her vote by saying she has no problem with
the statement proposed, but she feels there should be some mention of a bypass alternative if
the project as proposed by the Highway Department for Route 29 North seems to be "over-
kill.")and Messrs. Fisher, Henley Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Way asked if the last paragraph in the memo was being included. Mr. Fisher replied
that it was not a statement, but the basis for a statement. It was decided that Mr. Bowie
will attend the Highway Department meeting in Culpeper on November 3, 1986, with Mr.Lindstrom
as alternate.
Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Minutes: October 3, 1984.
Mr. Henley stated that the pages assigned to him were in order.
057
October 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mrs. Cooke also found the pages assigned to her in order.
Mr. Lindstrom then moved to approve the portion of the minutes of October 3, 1984, as
noted above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie.
Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19.
Members.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board
Mr. Ken Clarry, owner of the New Deli, located on Rt. 29 North across from Fashion
Square Mall spoke. He stated that, although alone this evening, he is on a committee repre-
senting many merchants in the Rio Road/Rt. 29 area. After a meeting with Highway Department
representatives, this committee reached a position which Mr. Clarry asked the Board to
consider. This group would like to see Rt. 29 widened to eight lanes at grade, with no
overpass, or the associated ramps or service roads at Rio Road. In addition, the committee
would like to keep the current accesses to Rt. 29 for the businesses in this area. This plan
would reduce the cost, the impact on the merchants and property owners, and construction
problems and later would make shopping easier for all. He brought up the subject of
right-of-ways. As Mr. Clarry understands it, landowners will be compensated for the differ-
ence in the present land value and the value after construction. The landowners are offered
an amount by the State, and if agreement is not reached, the problem goes to a condemnation
court. Mr. Clarry wished to speak particularly for the renters. The only compensation
available for businesses that move or go out of business is between $2500 and $10,000. It
costs at least $100,000 to set up a business in a given location. Mr. Clarry stated that he
would lose at least $90,000. Mr. Clarry said that Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department
had stated that a bypass is inevitable. Mr. Clarry asked the Board to consider that this
area in question is a primary commercial area for the County and the community. The mer-
chants feel that widening Rt. 29 to eight lanes and leaving an "at grade" intersection at Rio
Road will serve the community well for many years.
Mr. Fisher stated that some of the Board will attend the Highway Department public
hearing on Route 29 North improvements next week. The Board has ten days after the hearing
to file a final statement on the project. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Clarry to send a copy of his
statement and anything else he wished the Board to see, before the Board discusses this again
at the November 5 meeting.
Mr. Ed Bauer requested the opportunity to make a comment about agricultural and forestal
districts. He stated that generally the people who join these districts tend to be wealthy
and do not expect to rely on any income from dividing their land in the future. They join
these districts with the hopes that they would encourage their neighbors to join. The people
who rely on the land for their income tend not to join these districts. Mr. Bauer stated
that a member of County staff told him it would be legal to have a lower tax rate for proper-
ty in an Agricultural/Forestal District. Mr. Bauer believes that if there were a lower tax
rate, it would encourage more people to join these districts which would slow down the growth
rate in the rural areas. He is asked the Board to have its Staff look into the consequenc-
es of this.
Mr. Fisher stated that the County already has a lower effective tax rate in these
agricultural/forestal districts than on land not subject to land use appraisal. The tax rate
is uniform, but the assessment value is lower. He then requested that the County Attorney
give an answer to this question.
Mr. Bowie expressed a desire to serve on the Western Bypass Environmental Impact Commit-
tee when it is appointed. Mr. Fisher also volunteered to serve on the committee. Mr. Agnor
said Mr. David Bowerman will serve for the Planning Committee.
Mr. Lindstrom moved, and Mr. Way seconded, that Mr. Bowie, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Bowerman
be appointed to serve on the Western Bypass Environmental Impact Committee. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 P.M.
CHAIRMAN