1986-12-03i03
December 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
December 3, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, 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,
County Attorney; Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, 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 Al~l~egiance.
Moment of Silence
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda.
Item No. 4.1. Letter dated November 6, 1986 from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway
Engineer, re: Albemarle County Secondary Improvement Budget Supplemental Allocation 1986-87.
Mr. Agnor stated that Mr. Roosevelt has requested that Item 4.1 be considered tonight
without a great amount of discussion. If there is a need for discussion, the item is
tentatively scheduled for next Wednesday's meeting. He said that the Planning Commission has
concurred in the list. Mr. Lindstrom said he had some questions.
The first is the allocation for the turn lane at Georgetown Road. He asked if that
amount is for a study, the cost of doing the project, or just part of the cost to be
supplemented by other funds. Mr. Roosevelt answered that it is part of the cost of a project
that will be supplemented. The allocation for this turn lane project is in the current
budget. The amount in the current budget is the amount for preliminary engineering studies.
Now, with more detailed estimates available, additional funds are needed. Mr. Lindstrom said
he would need more review of that item before voting on it; that he did not remember the item
in the current budget. Mr. Fisher suggested discussing Item 4.1 at the December 10, 1986
meeting. Mr. Way offered motion to accept the consent agenda with the exception of Item 4.1
which will be deferred until December 10, 1986, as information. Mrs. Cooke seconded the
motion. 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.
Item No. 4.2. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Program Report for Month of October,
1986 was received as information.
Item No. 4.3. Letter dated November 12, 1986 from Senator Paul Trible, re:
Conrail was received as information. The text of this letter follows:
Sale of
"Knowing of your interest in the sale of Conrail, I wanted to let you know
that Congress approved the sale of Conrail as part of the budget reconcili-
ation bill.
The Senate has approved the sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern and I
supported this sale both in the Commerce Committee and on the Senate floor.
However, this sale was killed by the House. As a result, Congress approved
legislation requiring a public offering of Conrail stock.
The Secretary of Transportation will administer the offering. Ownership is
limited to 10 percent of the stock for three years, except for a railroad
which cannot own more than 10 percent of the stock for one year after the
public offering.
The amount the government will make in the sale should be about $2 billion
which will help reduce the federal deficit. In addition, this legislation
will get the federal government out of the railroad business, an outcome
which I have strongly favored.
Your views are important to me and I hope you will continue to keep in touch
on matters of concern."
Item No. 4.4. Notice from State Corporation Commission of Application of the Potomac
Edison Company to revise its fuel factor and cogeneration tariffs was received as
information. Public hearing is scheduled for March 13, 1987, at 10:00 A.M., in Richmond in
the Commission's Courtroom, Richmond, Virginia.
Item No. 4.5. County Executive's Financial Report for october, 1986 was received in
accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. The following memorandum from Mr. Melvin
Breeden, Director of Finance, dated November 19, 1986, accompanied the report:
December 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
"Attached is the County's financial report for the period of July 1, 1986
October 31, 1986.
Ail funds are within normal expenditures for this period of the fiscal year.
In the General Fund, Public Safety expenditures are at 45% due to capital
purchases, yearly insurance premiums and contributions to fire and rescue
services. Parks and Recreation expenditures are at 45% due to normal summer
part-time activities and the County's contribution to the Jefferson-Madison
Regional Library.
School bus purchases and equipment purchases have raised the school's
transportation and operations up to their high expenditure level. These
functions should obtain normal expenditure levels as the year progresses."
Item No. 4.6.
information.
Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 1986 were received as
Item No. 4.7.
information.
Planning Commission Minutes for November 18, 1986 were received as
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-86-65. ArthUr Carter.
acres zoned RA (deferred from November 19, 1986.)
Locate single-wide mobile home on 14.536
Mr. Horne noted that this item was deferred at the November 19 meeting because the
applicant was not present. He then reminded the board that the Planning Commission at its
meeting on November 11 unanimously recommended approval to the Board with two conditions.
explained the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission for location of the mobile
home.
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
He
Relocation of mobile home so as to minimize visibility from Rt. 691 and
adjacent landowners to the reasonable satisfaction of Zoning
Administrator. Location shall be a minimum of 180 feet from
northeastern boundary line.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Arthur Carter addressed the Board. He stated that the location for the mobile home
was chosen trying to consider all the landowners. He said that location is better screened
than any other. Mr. Fisher asked him if he planned to reside in the mobile home. Mr. Carter
replied that he did. He added that the trees are permanent. Mrs. Carter came forward and
stated~ that they had informed Mr. Hunter, the landowner who was objecting, that they would
plant more trees.
No one else came forward to speak so the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve SP-86-65 with the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke stated that a third condition needed to be added: "The
mobile home must be owner occupied, cannot be rented and must be removed from the property at
the time a permanent residence is built." Mr. Bowie agreed to that addition to the motion.
Mr. Way seconded the motion. 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 of approval are set out below:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Relocation of mobile home so as to minimize visibility from Rt. 691 and
adjacent landowners to the reasonable satisfaction of Zoning
Administrator. Location shall be a minimum of 180 feet from the
northeastern boundary line;
The mobile home must be owner occupied, cannot be rented and must be
removed from the property at the time a permanent residence is built.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-86-07. FHM Partnership. To amend the CO, Commercial Office
District to add the following uses by right: "school of special instructions," "sales and
service of musical instruments," and "clubs, lodges and other semi-public establishments."
To amend Section 3.0 Definitions to add "school of special instructions." (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on November 18 and November 25, 1986.)
Mr. Horne read the staff's report:
Petition: FHM Partnership petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend 23.0
COMMERCIAL OFFICE - CO of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (together
with 3.0 DEFINITIONS as necessary) to permit the following as uses by right:
- School of Special Instruction
- Sales and service of musical instruments
- Clubs, lodges, and other similar public establishments
i05
December 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Staff Comment: The CO Commercial Office zone accommodates primarily
administrative, business, and professional offices and is intended "as a
transition between residential districts and other more intensive commercial
and industrial districts."
School of Special Instruction though defined, is not explicitly permitted in
the current Zoning Ordinance. Under prior zoning, "school of special
instruction" was authorized by special use permit in the R-3 high density
residential zone. "Private school" a more encompassing use, is currently by
special use permit in residential districts. Educational, technical and
trade schools are by right in the HC Highway Commercial district.
Sales and service of musical instruments: Retail sale of goods is permitted
in CO only as accessory and incidental to a principal use. "Sales and
service of musical instruments" could be permitted as accessory to "school
of special instruction" or "private school."
Clubs, lodges, and other similar public establishments: "Clubs, lodges -
civic, fraternal, patriotic" are authorized by special use permit in all
residential districts and by right in other commercial districts with
additional controls by 5.0 Supplementary Regulations.
Staff opinion is that the proposed uses are consistent with the intent of
the CO Commercial Office district. Staff recommends the following actions:
Add to 23.2.1 PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT in the CO Commercial Office
district:
23.2.1.11
23.2.1.12
Private school
Clubs, lodges - civic, fraternal, patriotic
(reference 5.1.2)
Add to Section 23.2.1.6 the following:
- Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as
but not limited to: musical instruments, musical scores,
textbooks, artist's supplies and dancing shoes and apparel.
Mr. Horne said the Commission at its meeting on November 18, 1986, took a different
action. The Commission decided to support an amendment of 23.2.2 to add as uses by Special
Use Permit in the CO District "school of special instruction" as presently defined and
"clubs, lodges - civic, fraternal, patriotic." Under 23.2.1.6 "Uses by Right" they added as
one of the accessory uses, "sale and service of goods associated with the principal use, such
as but not limited to: musical instruments, musical scores, textbooks, artist's supplies and
dancing shoes and apparel."
The public hearing was then opened.
Mr. Larry Hunt addressed the Board. He explained that he had some commercial office
space for rent and wanted a piano teacher in one of the offices. Mr. Lindstrom asked what
the piano teacher would be selling. Mr. Hunt responded that it would be incidental goods or
supplies. Mr. Fisher expressed his concern on how the language would be interpreted by the
Zoning Administrator. Mr. Horne stated that it is very difficult to anticipate all
situations. Mr. Fisher said Commercial Office is supposed to be for the most limited of
commercial uses.
.~4' With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. ~,~~
~/~ Mr. Fisher said he is more concerned about the paragraph on sales and service a~sociated
with the principal use than with the principal use itself. Mr. Lindstrom said this language
is worded to be only an acc_essory use for a school of special instruction. HoweverJ it ~
~ccessory use to th~ entir~'~istric~~ Hp~s~!~ t%e .~sp~ ~r~ht in this district are
very limited. The main limitation ~o~"~a~%'~f-o~a~e~#'No"'~d~FfS~h 20 percent of the
floor area can be devoted to any of these accessory uses. Mr. Fisher stated that he prefers
the Commission version. Mr. Bowie then offered motion that ZTA-86-07 be approved as
recommended by the Planning Commission and that the following ordinance be adopted effective
January 1, 1987.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way.
Mr. Lindstrom.
ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and
reenacted through the following changes:
SECTION 23.0 - Commercial Office - CO
23.2.1 - By Right
Add additional language in section 23.2.1.6 to read:
-Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but
not limited to: musical instruments, musical scores, textbooks,
artist's supplies and dancing shoes and apparel.
December 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
23.2.2 - By'Special Use Permit
Add the following uses:
6~ School of special instruction.
7. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal,-patriotic
(reference 5.1.2)o
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-86-08. Cistercians of the Strict Observance in Massachusetts,
Inc. To amend Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow monasteries and convents by
special use permit in the Rural Areas Zoning District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
November 18 and November 25, 1986.)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-86-60. Cistercians of the Stric~ Observance in Massachusetts,
Inc. (Deferred from October 15, 1986.)
Mr. Horne read the staff's report on ZTA 86-08, as folloWs:
ZTA-86-08 Amend the RA, Rural Areas.zoning district to permit CONVENT AND
MONASTERY by special use permit.
Origin: Planning Staff.
Staff Comment:
Monasteries and convents are generally internalized communities often
relying on agriculture/agriculturally related activities as a means of self
support. Such uses tend toward a more permanent character than commercial
group living arrangements such as homes for the elderly, nursing homes, or
even private residential schools. Therefore, staff opinion is that convents
and monasteries are generally long-term, low-intensity uses customary to
rural settings.
Staff recommends the following amendments:
1. ADD TO 3.0 Definitions:
CONVENT: An association or community of recluses devoted ~to a reli-
gious life under a superior; a body of monks, friars, or nuns, consti-
tuting one local community. Includes also MONASTERY.
MONASTERY: See CONVENT.
2. Add to RA, Rural Areas, uses by special permit:
10.2.2.41 Convent, Monastery
3. Add to 5.0 Supplementary Regulations:
5.1.29 CONVENT, MONASTERY
The ownership of the convent/monastery shall conform in all
respects to the provisions of Chapter 2 of Title 57 of the Code of
Virginia, as the same may be amended from time to time, or any
successor statute.
This provision is intended to accommodate the long term residency
of nuns, monks, or friars in a communal setting as opposed to
transient occupancy as may be experienced in other religious
retreats; provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed
to preclude temporary lodging of guests as an accessory use to the
convent or monastery.
Mr. Horne noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting on November
18, 1986 unanimously recommended approval of this petition as set out in the
staff's report.
Mr. Fisher asked how many temporary guests could be accommodated. Mr. Horne stated that
the wording is simply not to preclude someone besides a resident of the community coming to
that community on a short-term basis. It is not intended to take care of large-scale
gatherings. There would have to be a determination by the Zoning Administrator as to whether
the wording can be applied to other activities.
Mr. Horne then read the staff's amended report for SP-86-60.
Petition: The Cistercians of the Strict Observance in Massachusetts, Inc.
petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a
CONVENT (10.2.2.41) on 494.44 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 27, parcels 40 and 40A, is located along Rt. 674 at
Millington in the White Hall Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: Properties in this area are generally large tracts
(50 acres or more). This site is in pasture and woodland and was formerly
Landsdale Farm, Inc., a local cheesemaker. The Moormans River borders the
property on the south and is a designated County scenic stream which carries
special zoning restrictions. Rt. 674 is a one-lane gravel road. Access to
the property is currently inadequate.
107
December 3, 1986 (.Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Staff Comment:
This proposal is to establish a monastery for cloistered nuns. Initial
occupancy would be six persons with a ten-year project expansion to a total
of twenty-five persons. New construction at this time would involve a 6,000
square foot residential structure. Future expansion may include a small
chapel for public worship (i.e.- about twenty people). Staff opinion is
that the proposed use is consistent with thee intent of the RUral Areas and
would be compatible to the immediate area. Staff recommends approval
subject to the following conditions:
Staff approval of site plan including Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation approval of entrance location/improvements;
2. Future development limited to descriptions contained in this report;
3. Compliance with 5.1.29 CONVENT, MONASTERY of the Zoning Ordinance.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Matthew Murray came forward. He stated that the property is owned by the
Cistercian Order of the Strict Observance of Massachusetts, Inc. He explained that this
amendment will permit and guarantee a 500-acre farm will remain exactly as it is. The
sisters intend to revive the cheese business. The community is cloistered, which means there
is little contact with the outside world. Far less traffic will be generated by a dozen nuns
living there than by a family. He gave a little history of the Trappestine nuns. The order
was founded in 1098 in France. The monks came to the United States in 1848 and the sisters
in 1949. There are four convents in the U.S. None have ever disbanded. He stated he feels
this will be a good addition to the County and urged the Board to approve the amendment and
the special permit.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom stated he has no problem with either proposal and offered motion to
approve ZTA-86-08 as recommended by the Planning Commission with the effective date January
1, 1987:
ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended
and reenacted through the following changes:
SECTION 3.0 Definitions
Add - Convent: An association or community of recluses devoted to
a religious life under a superior; a body of monks, friars, or
nuns, constituting one local community. Includes also Monastery.
Add - Monastery: See "Convent."
SECTION 5.0 - Supplementary Regulations
Add - 5.1.29 - CONVENT, MONASTERY
The ownership of the convent/monastery shall conform in all
respects to the provisions of Chapter 2 of Title 57 of the
Code of Virginia, as the same may be amended from time to
time, or any successor statute.
This provision is intended to accommodate the long term
residency of nuns, monks, or friars in a communal setting as
opposed to transient occupancy as may be experienced in other
religious retreats; provided that nothing contained herein
shall be deemed to preclude temporary lodging of guests as an
accessory use to the convent or monastery.
SECTION 10.0 - Rural Areas District - RA
10.2.2. - By Special Use Permit
Add - (41) Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29).
Mr. Way seconded the foregoing motion.
Mr. Bowie asked what would occur if some other religious order buys 500 acres and then
ecides to construct automobiles. Mr. Lindstrom stated it is his understanding that if the
use is an agricultural use, it is permitted by right, but other types of uses would require a
special permit. Mr. Horne stated that any other activity would be subject to the RA
limitations. Mrs. Cooke asked about the traffic. If this is a business, what provisions are
there for shipping the product out. Mr. Horne said that it will be reviewed by the Highway
Department. If the traffic is too heavy, there would be permits required consistent with
108
December 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
other sites. Mr. St. John stated that as this is an agricultural use, they have a right to
haul their product to market. Roll was called at this point and the motion carried with the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-86-60 with the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission but changing Number 2 to read: "Future development limited to descrip-
tions contained in subject staff report." Mr. Way seconded the motion. 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.
NOTE: Conditions of approval are set out below:
Staff approval of site plan including Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation approval of entrance location/improvements;
Future development limited to descriptions contained in subject staff
report;
3. Compliance with 5.1.29 CONVENT, MONASTERY of the Zoning Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-86-67. Nettie Jones (Mallard Ridge). Allow vacant 86.39 acre
parcel to be subdivided into four lots with a residue of 73 acres, zoned RA. Located on
eastern side of Rt. 677 near Candlewyck Subdivision. (Deferred from November 19, 1986.)
Mr. Horne read the staff's report, excerpts of which follow:
Request: Division of 86.34 acres into four lots: three lots range from
2.08 to 6.86 acres, and the fourth lot is 73.18 acres. This is a request
for three additional lots than "by right."
Acreage: Parcel 7B1 = 36.4 acres, of which 23.19 acres is original; Parcel
27A = 14.32 acres, a portion of 97.33 acres; Parcel 28 = 35.67 acres, a
portion of 112.55 acres.
Zoning: RA, Rural Areas.
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 59, parcels 7B1, 27A and 28, is
located on the east side of Rt. 677 (Ballard Road) approximately one mile
north of its intersection with Rt. 250 W. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
Character of the Area: This property is both wooded and open, rolling land.
Much of the residue tract is comprised of critical slopes and flood plain.
This property is between West Leigh/Candlewyck and Ivy Creek PRD/Flordon
Subdivisions. Properties to the north, south and west are large tracts in
agricultural or forestal usage.
By right, the property in question could be only one building lot.
based on the following analysis:
This is
Parcel 7B1 consisted of 23.7 acres at the date of the Zoning Ordinance
adoption. Of this historical acreage, no lawful building sites exist
because the property lies wholly within the 100 year flood plain.
Therefore, while parcel 7B1 has all five theoretical~development
rights, there are no actual building rights.
By an exempt plat signed April 4, 1986, 13~2 acres of buildable land
with no development rights from parcel 20B were added to parcel 7B1.
Prior to staff approval of this plat, the applicant received a decision
from the Office of County Attorney regarding this transaction. Based
upon the "Hopewell" case, the Deputy County Attorney stated,
"consistently with this interpretation by the Board, it is my opinion
that each proposed subdivision lot in the Rural Area district must
consist of at least two acres and must meet the other requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance (e.g., for a lawful building site) without
consideration of any area which may be added from adjacent parcels."
The 14.32 acre portion of parcel 27A cannot stand on its own
without a development right.
The 35.67 acre portion of parcel 28 could be created as a
separate lot without development right because it is at least
21 acres in area and contains a lawful building site (Section
10.3.2).
Therefore, this is a request for three additional lots, each under 21 acres
in size. Review of this application will focus on that aspect. The appli-
cant does not concur with staff's analysis.
The present proposal is similar in several respects to two previous special
use permit requests for this property, both of which were withdrawn prior to
final Board action. Subsequent to these requests, three "by right" plats
have been approved, two of which are signed. The first plat conveyed about
four acres and one development right to become a part of adjacent Lot 7A in
December 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
103
Flordon. The second plat conveyed about 13 acres with no development rights
to become a part of adjacent parcel 7B1. The third plat, Ballard Ridge
Final Plat, creates four lots with an average 4.9 acre lot size, served by a
proposed public road. This final plat, not yet signed, creates the road
proposed to access the three lots in the subject proposal.
Comprehensive Plan:
Important Farmland
A great majority of this property is comprised of soils classified as
I, II, III or IV by the Soil Conservation Survey, which are to be
considered important farmlands according to legislation enacted by the
General Assembly. In Parcel 7B1, 100 percent or 23.19 acres are soil
classes II-IV; in parcel 27A, 41 percent or 40 acres are soil classes
II-IV and 47 percent or 46 acres are classified for excellent forestal
use; in parcel 28, 94 percent or 105 acres are soil classes II-IV. The
Comprehensive Plan recommends a maximum density of one dwelling unit
per ten acres for important farmland. This petition proposes 21.6
acres average lot size.
II. Water Supply Watershed
This property is located within the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna
Water supply Reservoir. Ivy Creek runs along this property at the-Rt.
677 frontage and traverses the proposed residue tract. There is a
substantial area of one hundred year flood plain on the residue (most
of parcel 7B1). The Comprehensive Plan recommends a maximum density of
one dwelling per 10 acres (SP-85-60) for impoundment watersheds. The
cumulative density for SP-86-67, Red Acres, and (SP-85-99) Ballard
Ridge results in one dwelling per fourteen acres.
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. This plan shows Ivy Creek
running through the western edge of one lot, with small areas of
flood plain on each of the three smaller lots. No plan limiting
clearing, grading and construction activities has been submitted,
therefore, the applicant's proposal does not currently satisfy this
standard.
In regard to a development of this scale, the Comprehensive Plan
recommends as follows:
"Small residential developments in rural locations should be limited to
small developments not exceeding 20 dwelling units. Development on
internal public or private roads should be encouraged ..... " The
applicant's proposal satisfies this standard.
Special Use Permit Criteria
The following is a review of the proposed Ballard Ridge Subdivision for
appropriateness of development as set forth in the nine criteria of the
Rural Areas district: (The applicant has responded to ~1, 2, 3 and 9.)
The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation ....
Part of parcel 7B1 is currently in active farm use. Although partially
located in the flood plain, the fields have been planted in corn. This
request will maintain the fields in active agricultural use. Parcel
7B1 also contains areas of hardwood forests with dense underbrush and
open meadowland. Some of this vegetation is on slopes greater or equal
to 25 percent.
The portion of 28 and 27A proposed for combination in this special use
permit currently consists of open fields with pockets of wooded areas.
These parcels also contain areas with slopes greater than or equal to
25 percent. These same areas of 25 percent or greater slopes are
adjacent to the flood plain as indicated on the HUD maps. The
combination of parts of these parcels (28, 7B1 and 27A) will form the
proposed fourth parcel. As previously discussed, the parcel will
contain areas of 25 percent slopes and areas within the flood plain.
HOwever, this 73.18 acre parcel will have areas with slopes less than
25 percent that will be maintained in agricultural use and will contain
a lawful building site of 30,000 square feet in slopes less than 25
percent.
The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal produc-
tion as the same ....
Soils for agricultural use are recorded in the Agricultural Soils
Survey report as a capability class. The classes that are 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
five such suitable soils: River loam 2w, Toccoa fine sandy loam 2w,
Chewacla 2w, Cullen loam 2e and Meadowville 2e.
110
December 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
The soils within the proposed lots 1, 2, and 3 are considered marginal
for forestal and agricultural use according to U. S. Department of
Soil Conservation Service. Removing these marginal soils from forestal
use will not have significant impact on the character of surrounding
land use.
The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses ....
Parcel 7B1 (excluding southernmost 13.215 acres) - 23.19, has been in
agricultural land use since 1973.
Parcel 7B1 (southernmost 13.215 acres) has been in agricultural use
since 1975. Became forestal use in 1984.
Parcel 27A - 97.33 acres (total) 14.5 used in this proposal.
in forestal and agricultural land use since 1977.
Has been
Parcel 28 - 112.55 acres (total). 35.67 acres used in this proposal.
Has been in agricultural land use since 1975. Therefore, the property
owners have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County Real Estate
Department that legitimate, continuous agricultural or forestal use has
been maintained.
In regard to the effect of development on the character of the area,
staff offers the following:
ay
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 ....
Indirect effects include: reduced or marginal production; disin-
vestment in equiPment, livestock and other aspects of farming
requiring large and/or long-term investment and idling of farm-
land. Development in an agricultural and forestal area can change
the character of the area. Increased residential traffic on rural
roads can result in hazardous conflicts with slower moving
tractors, fruit trucks and logging trucks. New or expanded
utility corridors through active farms may be required to serve
new developments.
Staff is not suggesting that the proposed Ballard Ridge Subdivision
would generate all of these negative effects. However, the subdivision
would increase residential development in the area which is viewed as
inconsistent with the agricultural objective.
The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas...
This property lies between two areas of development; north and south of
this property is undeveloped. Therefore, subdivision development in
the area has been moderate. This is not considered a developed rural
area.
The relationship of the proposed development to existing ....
This property is located 1.2 miles north of Urban Neighborhood 6.
Therefore, this property is not remote from, but not within one mile
proximity to proposed growth areas and supporting services.
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements
programming ....
The response time for Crozet Volunteer Fire Department is 10 - 12
minutes.
The total projected enrollment from this development is three students,
or two additional students more than "by right development."
The traffic generated from the proposed development ....
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commented on the
previous proposal: "This section of Rt. 677 is currently a non-
tolerable road. The Department does not support a special use permit
which would create additional traffic."
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 ....
This site has moderate tree canopy along its southern boundary, in
the middle areas and along the western boundary.
b. The extent to which existing, vegetative cover would be removed ....
Estimated total disturbed area is about 2.25 acres.
December 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
111
The amount of impervious cover ....
Total percentage impervious with respect to lots - .22
The proximity of any paved area, structure, or drainfield ....
The estimated amount of disturbed area within 100 feet of the
stream is about 0.46 acres.
ee
The type and characteristics of soils ....
The predominate soils are Chester and Cullen which have moderate
to slow percolation rates and have moderate to high erodabilities.
The percentage and lenqth of all slopes subject to disturbance ....
The average disturbed area will be about 100 feet in length with a
slope of 20 percent.
The estimated duration and timing of the construction phase ....
Based on two houses underway at a time and about three months per
house, the estimated time to completion would be about 18 months.
h. The degree to which original topography or vegetation cover ....
None.
i. The extent to which the standards of Chapter 19.1 et seq ....
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, not require inspection nor
be susceptible to failure from storm runoff.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff recommends denial of this petition for the following reasons:
Farmland: The vast majority of this property is comprised of soils
which are to be considered important farmlands under state legislation.
While major subdivisions exist in the vicinity, two-thirds of the area
is under use value taxation for agriculture or forestry.
The applicant proposes to set aside 73 acres for farm purposes. Given
the extent of flood plain and other development constraints, this land
is not suited to residential development. Conversely, given the shape
of this proposed farm tract combined with additional residential
encroachment represented by this petition and the proposed Red Acres
Subdivision, this residue does not appear conducive to active agricul-
tural use. Also, no guarantee (such as an open space or conservation
easement) has been offered on this farm tract to guarantee no future
development proposals.
Staff opinion is that, if this petition is approved, consideration of
criteria related to "agricultural area" v. "developed rural area" would
be effectively negated in this area for future requests. Therefore at
issue is whether or not the agricultural objective of the Comprehensive
Plan is applicable in the Old Ballard Road area.
Old Ballard Road: As stated earlier, Old Ballard Road has several
constraints to additional development including three one-lane bridges,
an eight-ton capacity railroad overpass, a 90-degree curve near the
railroad overpass, and a travel width of 15 feet. At public request,
to the Board of Supervisors, the intersection of Old Ballard Road and
Rt. 250 W is under study as to safety concerns. Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation has recommended against additional traffic
generation.
In the Urban Area, where development is to be encouraged: rezonings
along Old Ivy Road have been denied due to traffic increase; rezonings
along Rt. 29N have been conditioned on no traffic increase; and the
Commission has on several occasions expressed concern over development
on Rio Road preceding planned improvements.
Given this background, staff cannot support a request on Old Ballard
Road to increase traffic generation in a rural area of the County where
only limited residential development is to be accommodated.
Chapter 10 Comprehensive Plan Standards is intended to promote develop-
ment review consistent with adopted policy. The Ba!lard Ridge proposal
does not adequately reflect Water Supply Watershed standards of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Horne noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 25, 1986,
unanimously recommended denial of this petition.
December 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ethan Miller, representing Mrs. Nettie Marie Jones, came forward. He stated there
are two issues here with which to be concerned. The first is that the Deputy County Attorney
has determined that the applicant is asking for three additional rights. Much of the staff
report relates to that contention. Secondly, there is the request for a special permit to
divide 86 acres into four parcels, three small and one residue parcel of 73 acres which would
remain agricultural. He said he disagrees with the Deputy County Attorney's determination
that this is a request for three rights where only one right exists. He stated that he
interprets Section 10.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to state that any division of land into
21-acre parcels is permitted by right. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the 73-acre residue tract was
originally a free standing parcel. Mr. Miller said no, that it is a combination of four
parcels. It did not originally include the land that is now being proposed for the three
small lots. The land that now includes the three lots was part of the parcel that was fully
developed under the "by right" division rights. Mr. Fisher stated that this will set a bad
precedent. A tract with no development rights has been connected with one which has one or
more development rights. Mr. Miller repeated that under his interpretation of Section 10.3.2
of the Zoning Ordinance the applicant has four rights on 86 acres to create four 21-acre
parcels "by right" if she meets the other conditions required. He added that this tract is
not in the middle of rural Albemarle County. It is surrounded by developed land. Mr. Bowie
asked if the 73-acre parcel could be subdivided. Mr. Miller stated that is not the intention
of the applicant. It could not be subdivided without an amendment to the special permit.
Ms. Debbie Howe, manager of the farm that adjoins the proposed development, came for-
ward. She stated that the other subdivisions in the area were approved before the Zoning
Ordinance. This bit of land is just another step forward in developing farmland. As far as
traffic is concerned, Candlewyck still has 17 lots to be developed - at least 30 more cars
per day. The soil in this area is extremely rich. There is not much farming that can be
done with the remaining 73 acres that the applicant says will be left as farmland. It is a
steep 25 percent slope and is in the flood plain.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said he understands most of the area is in the flood plain. He feels,
despite the applicant's contention, that this land is not developable. He feels that the
effect of moving around these parcels of land would be to sabotage the Comprehensive Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance. He strongly recommended that the Board follow the advice of the staff
and Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Fisher. He added that aside from all
other considerations, Old-Ballard Road is probably the most dangerous road in the county.
Mr. Henley stated he understands what Mr. Miller is saying, but feels he cannot support
the granting of this special permit. He stated that he feels the developers have already
taken both "hams off the hog."
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to deny SP-86-67 consistent with the Planning Commission's
recommendation. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. 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.
The Board recessed for five minutes at 9:18 P.M. and returned at 9:25 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-86-09. Site Development Plan. .Amend and readopt Section 32.0
of the Zoning Ordinance to restructure the Site Development Plan requirements of the Ordi-
nance with the primary change being provisions for a preliminary plan and final plan.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress November 18 and November 25, 1986.)
Mr. Horne stated that this is a public hearing for the adoption of an amendment to the
zoning ordinance to reorganize, amend and change the provisions of the Site Development Plan
section of the zoning ordinance. It was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a number of
work sessions and was recommended for approval unanimously at the November 18, 1986 meeting.
This is an outgrowth of the recommendations of the Land Use Regulation Committee (LURC). The
LURC committee was primarily geared around the concept of amending the ordinance to provide
for a preliminary site development plan which would be reviewed by staff and the Commission.
It would be detailed enough to illustrate all the public issues involved, however, would not
require all the engineering detail the existing site development plan requires. Staff has
been attempting to adopt that recommendation, and also to look at the whole structure of that
ordinance. Staff hoped to rearrange the ordinance so that it would be easier to understand.
Staff has attempted to reorganize the plan to put all aspects of a particular topic in one
place. This modification is designed to lower the cost to applicants, to provide more
effective use of Planning Commission and staff time devoted to site plans, and reserve the
opportunity for the public to provide input on sites, which in many cases were zoned years
ago and where conditions have changed. The public involvement is similar to the existing
process. The design of the preliminary plan is to make sure that all the public issues are
aired. The detailed engineering plans would be added to the final plan, which would be
approved by staff. If during the preliminary plan stage there is any section that causes
concern, the Commission can reserve the right to give final approval.
Mr. Horne summarized the following memorandum from Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of
Planning, dated September 30, 1986:
Among the recommendations of the Board-appointed Land Use Regulation Com-
mittee (LURC) are "two recommendations (which) stand out as having occupied
the greatest amount of LURC Committee attention, and as having been echoed
widely from the different sections of the community." One recommendation
113
December 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
was for a Development Information Office which is currently being estab-
lished and implemented within the Zoning Department. The other recommenda-
tion was that the site plan process be clarified and modified:
ae
To divide the procedure into two phases which parallels the
preliminary and final plat approach now used by the county on
subdivisions. The Planning Commission would continue to review
the "development plan" (a somewhat less technical document than is
now required for first submittal), and the County technical staff
would review the "construction plan" as long as these "construc-
tion plans" substantially agreed with Commission-approved "develop-
ment plans." Where "construction plans" do not comply with
approved "development plans," the Planning Director would be
bligated to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission.
This should be a last resort and not be triggered by minor
changes.
To authorize staff, by ordinance, to reject applications which are
found lacking necessary information or legibility.
Ce
To increase the amount of information about site plan proposals
included in public notification and at the same time to indicate
the nature and limits upon the discretion which may be exercised
by the Planning Commission on site plan matters.
de
To maintain the Planning Commission as the "site development plan"
approval body but to seek ways to reduce the proportion of
Planning Commission time devoted to site plans by employing
consent lists and other time management practices.
The modified site plan process as recommended by LURC is intended:
To lower cost to applicants of preparing site plan submittals;
To provide for more effective use of Planning Commdssion and staff
time devoted to site plans; and
To preserve the opportunity for the public to have input on sites
which, in many cases, were zoned years ago and where conditions
may have changed.
The attached proposed site development plan ordinance is intended to address
items "a", "b", and to an extent "d" of the LURC recommendation as well as
to be reflective of stated intent of the LURC recommendations. Item "c"
which deals with the amount of information to be included in public notifi-
cation can be addressed by more lengthy letters of notification and media
advertisement.
The proposed site development plan ordinance has been referred to the LURC
Committee and Site Review Committee for comment. Presentation of the
proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission at this time will focus on
issues of procedures and administration. Subsequent presentation will deal
with issues of ordinance requirements and site plan content. The proposed
ordinance is structured to provide for preliminary and final plan reviews.
In all cases, the Planning Commission would review the preliminary plan.
Final plans would be subject to staff review except where the Commission
reserves such review to itself (i.e. - public concerns; unresolved issues,
etc.). In practice, the proposed two-step process would function very much
like the current one-step process in regard to Commission review and public
participation.
The proposed ordinance maintains public participation in the process.
Currently, in matters of dispute, the Planning Commission may defer an item
until outstanding issues are resolved and then review the amended site plan
in a second hearing. Under the proposed ordinance, in matters of dispute,
the Planning Commission may defer the preliminary or approve the preliminary
plan subject to certain modifications and elect to review the final site
plan. Therefore, the proposed ordinance can be viewed as a codification of
current procedural practices.
Major advantages of the proposed ordinance compared to the existing ordi-
nance are cost and time savings. Since the engineering/surveying require-
ments would be less for a preliminary plan than a final plan, initial costs
to determine feasibility of a project would be reduced. In terms of time
savings, less time would be necessary to develop a preliminary plan.
Combined with the current twice-a-month submittal process, substantial time
savings could be realized. Other changes regarding administration and
procedures are as follows:
1)
Language related to Planning Commission authority to vary or waive
ordinance requirements has been expanded. Formal procedure for an
applicant to make such requests has been established (32.3.1).
December 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
2)
3)
4)
5)
The Planning staff is authorized to reject and/or suspend review of a
preliminary or final plan which is incomplete or does not reflect
required revisions (32.4.2; 32.4.3).
6)
In cases where a developer does not amend the plan to reflect Site
Review Committee recommendations, the ordinance requires the developer~
to submit in writing his reasons/justifications for not incorporating
Site Review Committee recommendations (-32.4.2.4).
7)
Where final plans are eligible for administrative approval, the prelim-
inary plan is valid for six months. Other preliminary plans are valid
for twelve months. Final plans are valid for twelve months (32.4.3.1;
32.4.3.7).
8)
Reduced preliminary and (sometimes) final plans would be required to
enable plan distribution with the staff report to the Planning
Commission and public. Such plans would be 11" x 17" and would relieve
staff of the current task of reducing/piecing together plans with the
copy machine (32.5.2).
The master drawing (i.e. - original mylar) for final plans would
contain an approval panel similar to a subdivision plat. When
approvable, the final plan would be signed by appropriate Site Review
Committee members. This would ensure that all parties have the
approved plan' together with any revised plans (32.6.6.f).
The Planning staff would have primary responsibility for administration
of landscaping requirements including waiver and modification of
requirements (32.7.9.2).
Appeal procedures appear in several places throughout the text
(32.3.10; 32.4.2.7; 32.4.3.8; 32.7.9.2). While redundancy should be
avoided, repetitive statements are provided for those not familiar with
the ordinance.
Mr Horne said that it is hoped that this effectively implements the recommendations of
the LURC Committee and the directions staff was given by the Board. Mr. Lindstrom commented
that he is pleased ~to see that~those aspects of the LURC committee recommendations have been
acted on. Mr. Bowie asked if this plan was sent to the committee. Mr. Horne replied that it
was sent to all the members. The chairman of the LURC Committee attended the first work
session and clarified for the Commission the general direction in which the Committee had
been heading.
The public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Treva Cromwell addressed the Board. She stated she had been a member-of the LURC
Committee and had received a copy of the draft plan. In early September she met with Mr.
Keeler and Mr. Horne for a very productive session. She stated she had raised some questions
at that time. Some of her recommendations were included in the final draft, but all her
concerns were not answered. She said she wished to say that the staff had developed a Site
Development Plan~that follows the concept recommended by the LURC Committee. She stated she
had compared the first draft witch the final one and has several commen~s. She feels the
ordinance has too many possible bypasses to the proposed regulations. There are too many
possibilities for waivers, substitutions and revisions. Mrs. Cromwell went through the
report citing several sections and her concerns with each. In summary, she feels the plan
will succeed if (1) all waivers have to be submitted with the preliminary plan, thus enabling
the Commission and the public to be aware of these requests, and (2) that a set of guidelines
and criteria on revisions are developed for consistency in decision-making and in order to
protect the agent from pressures exerted by applicants during negotiations.
Mr. Fisher stated he feels giving an agent that authority is going to create problems.
Mr. Lindstrom added that he feels the staff would be reluctant to grant any waivers under any
circumstances. It would be simpler to say no. There is a risk of defeating the flexibility
that is designed to be built into a waiver. Mr. Fisher said he feels it would be more open
and democratic if all waivers were granted by the Commission. Mr. Horne said that most of
the sections cited tonight are in the existing ordinance. Many of the waiver provisions are
already there. Mr. Fisher replied that the Commission has to approve every final plat. Mr.
Horne said the Director of Planning already approves minor changes in site plans. Mr.
Lindstrom said there is a natural desire to try and take out of the hands of the Planning
Commission the review of every detail. There has to be that kind of delegation. At the same
time, someone must be able to exercise some judgment. He suggested that a work session on
this ordinance be scheduled. He also suggested that the Board try to accommodate the kind of
delegation that deals with minor details. There is a need to find some way to describe that.
It's important to try to provide the opportunity for some administrative review. Mr. Bowie
said that one of the purposes of this whole revision was to take some of the detail off the
Planning Commission so the Commission will have time to plan.
Mrs. Joan Graves came forward. She said that as an Albemarle County property owner, her
property is subject to the requirements and limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. The quality
of living on her property can easily be affected by the way the adjacent properties are
developed. She said that all she can really rely on are the development standards contained
in the site plan section of the ordinance. Those development standards are there for a good
reason. They are there to insure proper development. She said she feels the staff did a
good job putting the draft together. It is much more readable. She also is concerned with
the waiver provisions. She said that the ordinance is speaking about minimum standards.
115
December 3, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Fisher recommended that a work session be set and the public hearing continued to
that date. He asked Mr. Horne how long it would take to prepare a reply to the concerns
mentioned tonight. Mr. Horne said he felt the staff could respond within 30 days. The date
set for the work session was the afternoon of January 21, 1987. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to
defer action on ZTA-86-09 until January 21, 1987. Mr. Lindstrom seconded. 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. 11. Approval of Minutes: April 17, 1985 and September 17, 1986.
Mr. Bowie said that April 17, 1985, pages 1 7 through Item 8 are perfect.
Mr. Henley said he had read April 17, pages 7 - 14 and they are fine.
Mr. Fisher said he read April 17, pages 14 - 18 and they are correct.
Mr. Way read Api! 17, page 18, Item 14, to the end and found them correct.
The minutes of September 17, 1986, had not been read, so were deferred.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve the minutes of April 17, 1985, and Mr. Lindstrom
seconded. 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.
Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board Members.
Mr. Bowie said he had been approached by a citizen who told him that he had been in the
County Office Building three or four times with problems and each time had' been treated with
efficiency and courtesy. He specifically mentioned the Finance and Inspections Departments.
Mr. Fisher reported that he had received a letter from the County of Fairfax concerning
Senate Joint Resolution 47, in which the subcommittee was studying the use of private
engineering firms for plan review and inspections by both local governments and state
agencies. The subcommittee has unanimously agreed to recommend no change in State
legislation at this time. However, if local governments and state agencies do not meet
state-mandated time limits for plan review, the issue will be re-examined next year.
Mr. Fisher said he had had a comment from a firm that is building an office building on
Route 250 West. The gentleman stood up at a meeting and said the County had processed the
plan so quickly and well that they were very pleased at doing business here.
Mr. Fisher stated he was not sure how long the meeting next week will take, but suggest-
ed the Board begin at 10:30 A.M. instead of 9:00 A.M. It was decided that when a starting
time was finalized, it could be typed on the Tentative Agenda as notification.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
CHAIRMAN