1985-04-17April 17, 1985 (Regular - Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
April 17, 1985, beginning at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. F. R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom
and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. James R.
Donnelly, Director of Planning & Community Development; and Mr. George R. St. John, County
Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-84-28. Crozet Kiln Drying Company, Inc. To rezone 5.37 acres
(woodyard) from C-1 Commercial to HI, Heavy Industry. Property located on south side of
Route 240 in Crozet (Barnes Lumber Company). Tax Map 56(a)2, Parcels 71 and 7lB. White Hall
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly said the applicant has asked for indefinite deferral of this petition; the
Planning Commission unanimously granted the request at its April 9, 1985 meeting. Mr. Tucker
suggested the Clerk be instructed to drop this item from the Board's agenda until the appli-
cant is ready to have the petition heard. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Henley,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-84-29. Grayrock PRD. To locate 294 townhouse units on 73.96
acres zoned PRD/R-1 in Crozet. (Deferred from February 20, 1985.)
Before Mr. Donnelly began his presentation, Mr. Fisher ascertained that the applicants
were not present. He asked that this item be skipped temporarily.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-85-2. Blake Hurt/Larry McElwain. To rezone 1.691 acres from
R-4 to C-1. Property on east side of Greenbrier Drive near Wynridge. (Deferred from
March 20, 1985.)
Mr. Fisher ascertained that the applicants were not present at this time, and suggested
that the Board move forward to the next item.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-85-18. Laurentina A. Goode. To locate a single-wide mobile home
on one acre zoned Rural Areas. Property on east side of Route 616, about 2/10 mile from
Route 250 East. Tax Map 94, Parcel 35A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progess
on April 2 and April 9, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the staff's report as follows:
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 35A, is located on the
east side of Route 616 approximately 0.2 mile north of its intersection with
Route 250 East.
Character of the Area: The site is wooded, with a mix of hardwoods and
evergreens. Land use in the area consists of scattered single-family resi-
dences and vacant undeveloped acreage.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to locate a single-wide mobile
home on the lot on a temporary basis until the future construction of a
permanent single-family dwelling.
Staff Comment: The mobile home is proposed to be located approximately 75
feet from Route 616, 50 feet from the rear property line and 25 feet from
side lot lines. Staff opinion is that the mobile home would be visible from
the public road and adjacent dwellings. Should the Commission and Board
choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The mobile home be located centrally within the property as represented
by the applicant and only those trees and vegetation necessary for
location of the mobile home be removed.
This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder si~all expire
upon the completion of a permanent single-family dwelling.
Upon completion of a single-family dwelling, the mobile home shall be
removed from the property.
April 17, 1985 (Regular - Niqht Meetinq)
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 16, 1985, uanimously
recommended approval of this request subject to the conditions recommended in the Staff
Report, but added words to Condition No. 3, so that it reads:
This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire
upon the completion of a permanent single-family dwelling or at the end
of three (3) years, whichever comes first;
Mr. Fisher noted that this is a substandard sized lot. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the
Planning Commission's Condition No. 2 requiring the mobile home to be centrally located and
only trees and vegetation necessary for location of the mobile home to be removed would cause
a problem with the building of a permanent home. Mr. Bowie said he had looked at this parcel
of land and most of the trees would have to be taken down to fulfill the septic tank require-
ment. Mr. Tucker said this particular condition applies only to location of the mobile home.
There is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance that prohibits the removal of trees for the building
of a permanent dwelling.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mrs. Goode said it is her intent to make
the mobile home presentable for the public. It is a temporary thing. She does not think
that Mrs. Wyant, who objected to the location of the mobile home, understands that they plan
on building a permanent home on this parcel of land.
Mrs. Karen Wyant, the adjacent property owner who objected to placement of this mobile
home, said she did not realize it was to be only a temporary installation. She still would
complain because she can see the trailer from her front porch and feels it is an eye-sore.
Although she does not dislike trailers, she feels there are better places for them.
With no one else rising to speak for or against this petition, the Public Hearing was
closed. Mr. Lindstrom said this seems to be like other mobile home applications which have
been approved by the Board, and he then offered motion that SP-85-18 be approved with the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie asked if Condition No. 4 could
be modified to add the words, "or at the end of three years, whichever comes first." Mr.
Lindstrom suggested that instead, Condition No. 3 be reworded to state, "upon expiration of
the Special Use Permit, the mobile home shall be removed from the property." Mr. Bowie
agreed to this wording and made second to the motion. Roll was called, and the motion was
carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
The mobile home be located centrally within the property
as represented by the applicant and only those trees and
vegetation necessary for location of the mobile home be
removed;
This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder
shall expire upon the completion of a permanent single-family
dwelling or at the end of three (3) years, whichever comes
first;
Upon expiration of the special use permit, the mobile home
shall be removed from the property.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-84-29. Grayrock PRD. Mr. Fisher having ascertained that the
applicants were now present, asked Mr. Donnelly to proceed with his staff report.
Mr. Donnelleey said that at the February 20, 1985, Board meeting several questions were
raised regarding the impact the proposed Grayrock PRD would have on the Crozet area, Staff
has studied the questions raised and offers the following comments:
What is the status of the growth area in Crozet with respect to the
roads?
Traffic volumes on most roads in Crozet exceed design capacity and
therefore the vast majority of roads in the area are considered as
nontolerable. The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges this fact with the
statement that "numerous roadway improvements are planned to correct
existing problems and to assist the community in accommodating traffic
from future growth" (for recommended improvements see pp 180-181 from
the Comprehensive Plan). In summary, existing roads in Crozet are
inadequate to support development as recommended in the Comprehensive
Plan.
In Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, several references
are made to transportation concerns in rezoning deliberations:
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.4
1.4.6
1.5
To provide for ... convenience of access.
To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets.
To facilitate the provision of adequate transportation.
To protect against one or more. of the following ... danger
and congestion in travel and transportation.
This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly
situated and environmentally similar in like manner with
reasonable consideration for ... the transportation require-
ments of the conmunity.
~ril 1_~7 1985 (R~lar - Night Meeting)
As can be seen in the development of statements of purpose and intent,
a variety of terms were employed which were taken from the Code of
Virginia - convenience of access; congestion; adequate transportation;
danger and congestion in travel and transportation. Staff offers the
following comment:
For designated growth areas, it may be appropriate to distinguish
between nontolerable (traffic exceeds capacity) roads and roads where
additional traffic may result in danger. Where additional development
could result in a public danger, such development should not be
approved. Different consideration should be given where development
would add burden to a road but not result in dangerous traffic
situations;
Road improvements are unlikely as long as traffic remains "status quo."
This was the experience in the Urban Area where improvements to Hydraulic
and Rio Roads were preceeded by substantial development.
2. How would using the lower end of the one-to-four dwelling units per
acre density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan affect the overall
priorities for that area if the conditions of the roads require that
development be kept to the low end of the recommended density?
To date the Crozet area has grown slowly. In 1982, there were
approximately 725 dwelling units in the designated growth area. In
1983, four, single-family building permits were issued in Crozet and 16
were issued in 1984. Growth has been minimal as sewer capacity has not
been available. Completion of the Moore's Creek-Crozet interceptor in
1987 will eliminate this constraint to growth.
To analyze the growth potential for the Community of Crozet the staff
performed the following analysis:
(1) The growth area of Crozet was identified on a parcel base map.
(2)
Areas presently "developed" were deleted from study. An area
was assumed to be developed if it had structures on it and a
density of development comparable to the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendation for that area. Therefore, a parcel could have
an existing structure or structures and be tallied as "unde-
veloped'' if its density was below the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendation by this method.
(3) Acreages for all undeveloped parcels were tallied.
(4) Comprehensive Plan's recommended density ranges were identified
for each undeveloped parcel.
(5)
Undeveloped acreages were compared for development potential under
three categories:
a) development at the minimal or low end of
Comprehensive Plan ranges;
b) development at maximum or high end of
Comprehensive Plan range;
c) development at one dwelling unit per acre
regardless of Comprehensive Plan recommendation.
Crozet Growth Potential:
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations
Projected
Population
Minimum development potential
Maximum development potential
Development at 1 dwelling unit per acre
3,502 dwelling units
10,518 dwelling units
2,106 dwelling units
9,455
28,400
5,690
Utilizing the lower end of the units per acre density recommended in
the Comprehensive Plan for both low density and medium density
development would result in an additional 3,502 dwelling units which
would accommodate a population of 9,455. Combining the projected
population of 9,455 with the 1982 estimated population of 1,925
yields a total population for the Crozet Community of 11,380. This
figure is 1,647 less than proposed in the Comprehensive Plan; however,
it is significant in light of the investment made in public facilities
and services designed to serve the Crozet Community. The County should
continue its policy of directing growth to the Crozet Community.
What would staff recommendations be if the only development allowed
is the first phase of the project, located in the north end of the
property?
Currently, the Grayrock property is approved for 47 dwellings on approxi-
mately 74 acres which is a lower density than other undeveloped residen-
tial properties in Crozet. Therefore, at a minimum, staff would recommend
a density equivalent to R-1 zoning. The Board may wish to consider an
approach as outlined in Attachment 2. This approach has received con-
ceptual endorsement by the Planning Commission. Should the Board wish
to pursue this approach, a deferral to develop appropriate conditions or
agreements would be in order.
April 17, 1985 (Regular - Night Meeting).
How would staff address the question of actively maintaining orchards
in a residential area?
The use of apple orchards, as a landscape element, would require continuous
care, pruning and spraying. The problems and undesirable effects of an
active orchard include harvesting of the apples, bees during pollination,
and responsibilities related to management of the orchard.
Staff suggests that existing trees on the periphery of the project may be
appropriate as buffers; however, the use of apple trees as a landscape
element in parking lots and around buildings and recreation areas may
prove to be undesirable. At the time of site plan approval, consideration
should be given to the remaining years of life in trees to remain, alter-
natives regarding maintenance, and other factors which may arise and become
a concern to existing residents of the development.
What phasing is necessary for the project if the total project is
approved? .
A method of phasing related to road capacity is outlined in Item 93
above and in Attachment 2. The applicant has prepared a plan that
proposes phasing of recreation improvements as development occurs
(see Attachment 3).
6. Where will sight buffers be located on the project's boundaries?
The applicant has stated that buffers would be placed at all locations
along the project's boundaries. The type and amount of buffering
required would be addressed at the site plan approval stage.
Mr. Donnelly concluded by reading Attachment No. 1 which excerpts road improvements for
the Crozet area which are listed in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted Attachment No. 2, a
memorandum from Ronald S. Keeler to the Albemarle County Planning Commission dated January 8,
1985, which is a method of proffering the staff presented to the Commission which they
endorsed conceptually. It would allow the developer to develop a certain number of units and
the rest of the units could not be constructed until roads or utilities were available to
accommodate this increase in density. Attachment No. 3 was a letter dated April 10, 1985
from Robert McKee, addressed to Mr. Donnelly outlining the developer's proposed method of
phasing.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff had determined which of the roads serving this project
would be made the most dangerous by the increase in traffic. Mr. Donnelly said he did not
have an answer to that. The staff did not deal with the nontolerability of roads. When
queried further, Mr. Donnelly said he believes that Route 691, Jarman Gap Road, could handle
additional traffic from the phases south of the lake. Route 684 is tolerable to the railroad
tracks. Mr. Jeff Echols, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, said the tolerability of
roads is based on traffic volume, surface of the road and travel width. When the traffic
volume gets to a certain point, and the width is not sufficient, the road becomes
nontolerable, but this word has nothing to do with safety. Phase one of Grayrock has direct
access from Route 684 which is now tolerable to the railroad track and beyond that
nontolerable. Mr. Lindstrom commented on the growth potential of the Crozet community. Mr.
Tucker said the gross density for Crozet is four dwelling units per acre. Mr. Donnelly said
the Planning Commission has recommended that this be reduced to three dwelling units per acre
for this development.
At this time the Public Hearing was reopened. Mr. Richard Brandt urged the Board to go
toward the lower end of what is permissable for the density of this project. He said the
road is a dangerous road.
Mr. Robert McKee, representing the applicant, said it would be very difficult to realize
a townhouse development on the property leaving two-thirds of the site in open space with
only one unit per acre. Four units per acre is low for townhouse development. He asked that
the Grayrock petition be approved as submitted but that the Board allow no future development
over and above the first seventy units or the initial three clusters, until such time as the
road is improved by someone. He would like to keep the density of the proposal intact for
all the reasons outlined in the original submittal. Mr. Fisher said approving the whole plan
based on a concept that the road will be improved by somebody at sometime in the future is a
bit loose. He personally feels that if one of the roads giving access to this development is
tolerable at this time, that phase should be approved and then when the road is improved, the
County could look at the proposal again. Mr. McKee said the applicant would accept that as
an alternative. The Savages are only concerned with beginning development. They are not
interested in developing this property in one acre lots.
With no one else rising to speak for or against this petition, the Public Hearing was
closed again. Mr. Henley asked if the Board approved Phase One and did not consider the
other two phases, if that would remove them from the site plan. He is willing to approve
Phase One, but cannot say that at some time in the future he would be willing to approve the
other two phases as currently shown. Mr. Tucker said if only Phase One is approved, that
action would alter the site plan.
Mr. Bowie said that the Planning Commission had reduced the number of dwelling units
requested and asked if only Phase One is approved, how that affects the reduction of units
made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Donnelly said they had reduced the total number of
units on the entire site. The Board's approval of only Phase One would not necessarily
affect that number. Mr. Fisher asked if Phase One is approved as shown, if the part north of
the lake is still at four units per acre. Mr. McKee said he had done a flip flop on the plan
on the north side of the lake based on highway department recommendations. It is the same
number of units, but the configuration is somewhat different from the original submittal.
1985 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked the density. Mr. McKee said he did not know. Mr. Henley said he would lik
to stay with the Planning Commission's recommendation of three dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Lindstrom asked to be shown exactly where Phase One was located on the map. Mr.
Donnelly said Phase One is for the seventy units shown north of the lake. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if that is a parcel which is distinguishable by some method. Mr. Tucker said that
Phase One is described as Clusters One, Two and Three and they are shown on the original
submittal. When referring to Phase One, that means those three clusters for a maximum of
seventy dwelling units. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be uneasy about approving any of this
plan until he knows how many acres are involved. Originally, this was such a major proposal.
Now the Board is looking at only seventy dwelling units, and although it seems innocuous to
go ahead and approve Phase One, it is a large chunk of land without having any details to
address. If Phase One is as shown on the plan plus the lakes, that area would seem to be a
fairly low density. But, If Phase One is shown without the lakes, it is an entirely differ-
ent situation.
Mr. Henley said he will not approve more than three dwelling units per acre for the
entire original plan. Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is that Jarman's Gap Road is less
likely to have a safety problem than Route 684.
Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney if this plan is approved if it will supplant the
PRD on the whole property. Mr. St. John said it will not unless some words to that effect
are placed in the conditions for this PUD. Mr. Lindstrom said it seems that the Board
members are inclined to approve Phase One. However, there are so many loose ends he would
ask the staff to address the following questions:
3.
4.
5.
The area now defined as Phase I of the Grayrock PRD is to be
developed as a separate PRD, taking in the lakes on the property
and comprised of 70 dwelling units, including a calculation of
the density in dwelling units per acre;
Staff to recommend conditions for approval;
Recreation provisions for Phase I/Grayrock PRD are to be stated;
Uses for the balance of the property are to be proposed;
Define whether or not the increased traffic on the surround-
ing highways would constitute a public danger;
The applicant should prepare these revisions with assistance
from the staff.
Mr. St. John said if the Board is unwilling to approve the request as it is why does the
Board not just deny the request. The Board does not know if the applicant wants just Phase
One approved. It does not just abolish the previous PRD. The Board could let the applicant
apply for something smaller. Mr. Henley said he would hate to deny the application, and have
Mr. Savage start all over again. Mr. St. John said the Board can let the applicant come up
with what he wants, but he does not think there is any way to force him to accept something
that will result in a downzoning of the previous part of his PUD. Mr. Lindstrom said that
under the existing plan, he would be allowed forty-seven dwelling units on seventy-four
acres. -What he is suggesting is that there could be seventy dwelling units on just a portion
of those acres, leaving the balance in agricultural use. He does not think that what has
been suggested would take a lot of work. And if the applicant says now that he does not want
that, the Board could go ahead and deny the application before any work is put on it. He
then offered motion to defer until the staff answers the questions set out above. Mr. Henley
said he thinks the motion should say that the applicant will work with the staff instead of
the other way around. He then gave second to the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher (Mr. Fisher prefaced his vote by saying that he will support
this request for deferral ~but he feels that it is a mistake and the application
Probably should be denied.), Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-85-2. Blake Hurt/Larry McElwain. The applicant was now
present, and Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report:
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This lot was created as residue during development of Wynridge Subdivision.
The property is undeveloped and wooded. On the north and east the
site abuts 13 lots in Wynridge Subdivision. On the west, the site
surrounds a vacant lot, zoned C-1 Commercial.
BACKGROUND:
During platting of Whitewood Road and Greenbrier Drive lots 46 and 47
were created. These lots were rezoned from R-3 Residential to B-1
Business in 1971. The pipestem between these lots, which was intended
as a continuation of Whitewood Road, remained under residential zoning
and is a portion of the property subject of this petition. The applicant
proposes to rezone the 1.691 acres to C-1 Commercial for sale to the owners
of lots 46 and 47. Should the applicants' request be approved, resultant
C-1 zoning would be as follows:
ZMA-85-2
Tax Map 61W2, Parcel 46
Tax Map 61W2, Parcel 47
Total
1.691 acres
1.365 acres
1.409 acres
4.465 acres
240
April 17, 1985 (Reg__ular - Ni_~ht Meetinq~
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan does not recognize the existing commercial
zoning of lots 46 and 47 and does not recommend commercial use in
this area. Commercial Land Use standards from Chapter 10 of the
Comprehensive Plan relevant to this rezoning request are as follows:
- Commercial office uses should be employed as transitional areas
between residential areas and heavier commercial or industrial areas.
- RezOnings to a commercial designation for sites of three acres or
more should be accomplished under a planned development zoning
designation accompanied by a transportation analysis plan.
The current rezoning petition does not reflect either of these
Comprehensive Plan standards.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff recommends denial of ZMA-85-2, as submitted, for the following
reasons:
The request is inconsistent with recommendations of the Land Use
Plan of the Comprehensive Plan;
The request is not reflective of cited Commercial Land Use Standards
of Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan;
Currently three (3) lots in Wynridge abut C-1 zoning. Rezoning
as proposed would increase this number to sixteen (16) lots. In
addition, the odd shape of the site and length of exposure (over
1,000 feet) amplify the need for special measures not reflected in
the current petition;
This site is residue acreage from Wynridge Subdivision. Regardless of
the nature of development of this particular site, reasonable usage
of the parent tract has been enjoyed by the current owner through
residential development. (It may be appropriate to amend the zoning
and/or subdivision ordinances to authorize the Commission to require
dedication of residue acreage as open space.) Staff opinion is that
the site could be developed residentially.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT:
Staff has commented on this petition as submitted. In review, however,
staff has developed an alternative zoning scheme which may further the
interests of the buyer and seller, adjoining property owners, and the
public interest in general. This alternative would require some variation
from a literal interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan, but if all interests
are served, staff can determine no impropriety in consideration of such an
approach. Should the Commission desire, staff will present this proposal at
public hearing.
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 9, 1985, unanimously
recommended denial of this petition. The Commission noted that this is a sensitive area next
to residential development, so it deserves more planning. The Commission also noted that the
applicant had made no attempt to address the concerns of the Commission or the neighborhing
property owners.
Mr. David J. Wood said that Blake Hurt is the owner of this parcel of land on the east
side of Greenbrier Drive. David W. Carr, Lockwood Frizzell, William H. White, III, Joseph M.
Wood, II and David J. Wood, Jr. are the owners of the two parcels adjoining this land which
are currently zoned C-1. The owners of Parcels 46 and 47 contracted to purchase from Blake
Hurt this acreage if C-1 zoning could be obtained, so that all of this land would have the
same zoning. The owners have owned this land for fifteen to twenty years. They built
Whitewood Road. The subject parcel of land is odd-shaped and difficult to develop. It wraps
around one parcel and adjoins the other. It only makes sense to incorporate it into the two
lots. They have offered to buy the property subject to obtaining satisfactory zoning. They
do not wish to do anything to annoy or disturb the residential neighborhood, and in order to
overcome any annoyance have proffered to restrict not only the property which is the subject
at this meeting, but the other two pieces of property, also against any development of
automobile filling stations or auto repair shops, in addition, they proffer to take a strip
of land thirty feet in width along the residential area and leave it in its natural state and
in addition plant white pines or whatever the staff recommends within reason as a buffer.
The applicants have no plans for development of the land at this time. Mr. Wood said the
staff had indicated that they had not made every effort to meet with residential owners.
However, he would like to correct that statement. He had sent the president of the Homeown-
ers Association a photocopy of the Zoning Ordinance so that he would know what was requested
of the County.
Mr. Bowie said he did not have a copy of the proffer and asked if the thirty foot buffer
is along the entire property line. Mr. Wood said yes. He then showed to the Board a plan
which showed the property line in question. He said that there must be a fifty foot buffer
between the two zones in which he could not build a structure and he proffers to leave it in
its natural state although he could use it for parking.
Mr. Blake Hurt said the two adjoining parcels could be developed as two different uses
and probably at a more intensive scale than what is being proposed.
April 17, 1.985 (Regular - Night Meeting)
With no one else rising to speak for or against the petition, the Public Hearing was
closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees that it makes more sense that this property be devel-
oped as a unified property, but he is .not comfortable with expansion of a use not recognized
by the Comprehensive Plan. There are some very intensive uses available under the C-1
zoning. The property owners do have an opportunity to provide development which is relative-
ly compatible with the residential area. With respect to Parcel 46 there is some buffer that
would protect the residences. Mr. Fisher said the proffer does not apply to the existing C-1
parcel. Mr. Wood said it does. He said that in his oral presentation. Mr. Henley said it
does not affect Parcel 47. Mr. Wood said the proffer does include 47, also. Mr. Bowie said
he does not have any problem with rezoning the small pipe stem to C-l, but the residue behind
the b. omes, he has trouble approving for that zoning category. Mr. Fisher said from looking
at the plat it is obvious that this little parcel was set aside at one time as access to the
property and the property has been developed with another entrance. Lot 14 exists and may be
developed, but it appears unlikely that the roadway will ever be used and it seems ridiculous
to leave it that way. He would support drawing a line along the backs of Lots 46 and 47
across the pipe stem and approving that portion for zoning C-1. He is not willing to support
the rest of the rezoning request. Mr. Henley said he could support the entire request with a
decent buffer. Mr. Donnelly asked the County Attorney if the proffer could be extended to
apply to the two parcels which are already zoned C-1. Mr. St. John said yes, as long as they
are owned by the person making the proffer. That is what he thought Mr. Wood had just done.
Mr. Wood said no, he did not. He was only speaking about the subject property. Mr. Bowie
said that is what he heard. Mr. St. John said Mr. Henley just asked Mr. Wood and Mr. Wood
said yes. Mr. Wood said no, his proffer would restrict the two pieces of property which he
owns as well as the subject property from the use of an automobile repair shop or an automo-
bile filling station. He said that he would draw a thirty-foot buffer strip on the subject
property.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that this item be deferred until Mr. Wood could place in writing
the exact proffer to be reviewed by the Board, and offered motion to this effect. This
motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-85-7. Edgar S. Robb. Request to subdivide 144.537 acres into 12
parcels of from six to 16 acres. Property located in southeast quadrant of the intersection
of State Routes 708 and 637 is zoned Rural Areas. Tax Map 73, Parcel 33. Samuel Miller
DiStrict. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report, as follows:
REQUEST:
Division of 144.5 acres into 12 lots with an average size of 10.3 acres
and 20.8 acres of common area (Section 10.5.2.1). The applicant
can by right divide the existing parcel into 11 parcels. Lots one
to seven will be served by a public road, lots eight to twelve by a
private road.
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas.
LOCATION: Property described as Tax Map 73, parcel 33 is located south of
Interstate Route 64, at the intersection of Rt. 708 and Rt. 637.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The northern part of this parcel is rolling pasture
land with first succession growth of grass and cedars. The area north of Ivy
Creek forms part of the Ragged Mountain Range visible along and parallel to
Rt. 637. Although there has been some timbering on this mountain it has not
been clear cut, many trees still cover the slopes. The surrounding land con-
sists of agricultural or forestal use on large tracts.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property is important farmland and lies within an
impoundment watershed, both recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for a maximum
density of one dwelling unit per ten acres.
The Environmental Standards (Chapter 10) of the Comprehensive Plan defines
critical slopes as areas where the slope measures 25% or greater. Clearing,
grading, building, cropping and overgrazing of these lands can result in
extensive erosion and land slides or sloughing of soil and rock; excessive
stormwater runoff; increased siltation and sedimentation of natural and man-
made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource and in the event of septic
system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent. A slope study
shows that the area south of Ivy Creek along the Ragged Mountain Range has an
average slope of about 27%.
Routes 637 and 708 that bound this property are shown as tolerable.
The Comprehensive Plan also designated the intersection of Rt. 708
and Rt. 637 as a deficient roadway as identified in the statewide
transportation plan for Albemarle County.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA:
The following is a review of the proposed Colston Subdivision for
appropriateness of development as indicated in the nine criteria of
the RA, Rural Areas District.
April 17, 1985 (Regular - Night Meeting)
The applicant was informed at Site Review that he was responsible for.
providing staff with information concerning criteria 1, 2, 3, and 9.
Because the information has not been received by staff at this date,
staff will comment on all nine criteria.
The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of ....
The Colston Subdivision has been in land use taxation: 73.9 acres
in Forestral Use, and 65.1 acres in Agricultural Use.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for a~ricultural ....
Because Colston Subdivision is enjoying land use taxation, staff
feels that the soils must be suitable for agricultural and
forestral production.
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses ....
Colston has been taxed as Agricultural and Forestral use
since 1975, when the taxation program began.
If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable
effect of the proposed development ....
Within a mile radius of Colston approximately 76% of the area
(1613 acres) enjoys forestal or agricultural land use taxation.
Staff feels that this area is in active farm use.
The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural
areas .....
Small clusters of lots measuring five (5) acres or less exist to
the west and south of Colston. These clusters comprise only
four percent of the land area within a mile of this property. The
majority of land in this area consists of parcels measuring
21 acres or greater. Twenty percent or 5+ acres, is not in land use.
6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing ....
This property is located approximately four (4) miles southwest
of the village of Ivy and approximately six (6) miles southeast
of the Community of Crozet. Therefore, this area is remote from
proposed growth areas and supporting facilities.
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital ....
The impact on the schools in this area would be favorable.
The schools have space and low teacher student ratio. The eleven
proposed lots will increase the enrollment by six (6) students.
Response time for the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company would be
about twelve minutes.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, ....
Traffic generated from this development would be about 80 vehicle
trips per day. Because this intersection has been indicated in
the Comprehensive Plan as deficient, the additional traffic can
only aggravate the existing deficiency.
With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying
wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed ....
(Not addressed in this staff report.)
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff opinion is that the Colston Subdivision as proposed does not
satisfy the RA, Rural Areas, criteria for granting a special use permit
for additional development. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this
petition.
This parcel is currently being taxed under the agricultural and
forestral land use. This is also true of the majority of parcels
surrounding it. Lots 8-12 form part of the Ragged Mountain Ridge.
Staff feels the agricultural use should continue. The Ragged
Mountain ridge provides a visual boundary along Route 637 and
would detract from the cohesiveness of this area and provide a precedent
for further ridge degradation if development necessitating a large
loss of vegetation is allowed.
The average slope in this area is 27%. While some building sites
could be identified, staff believes that road construction, grading,
and other development activity in the area would be contrary to the
critical slopes standards in Chapter 10 of the Comprehsnsive Plan.
If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve
this petition, staff recommends that more intensive development be
permitted north of Ivy Creek, and less south of Ivy Creek. That is,
April 17, 1985 (Regular - Night Meeting)
nine lots average eight acres in area designated as Lots 1-7 (north
of creek); and south of creek one building lot, building site to be
in slopes less than 20%.
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 19, 1985, by a vote
of 3/2 recommended denial of this petition because they did not feel it meets the criteria
for a special use permit in the Rural Areas zone.
Mr. Donnelly noted that since March 19 when the Planning Commission recommended denial
of SP 85-7, the applicant had submitted additional information on Question No. 9. Neither
the staff nor the Planning Commission had time to review that information, although the staff
did review the five building sites south of Ivy Creek and feel that only one site has the
30,000 square foot building site required by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bowie noted informa-
tion received from the applicant dated April 9, 1985 in which the applicant states that the
five lots do have the required 30,000 square foot building sites. Mr. Fisher asked who would
normally do the surveying on these lots. Mr. Tucker said that the definitive study is made
by the applicant and information put on the subdivision plat. If a lot could not meet that
30,000 square foot requirement, it could not be used. The County Engineer reviews a subdivi-
sion plat with the topographical maps.
At this time the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Edgar Robb, the applicant, said that he
has employed professional people to help in doing a better job than what he would be entitled
to do by developing only eleven lots by right on this property. All the neighboring land-
owners, as well as contract buyers on parts of the property have stated no objection to this
property being subdivided. Under current zoning laws, he has the right to eleven lots on
this 144 acres, and he is asking for one additional or twelve total lots. This twelfth lot
will help pay for the public road and additional amenities that will help make this a better
project. Mr. Robb said he is not a developer. The property in question is a run-down farm
of broom grass. The outbuildings are gone, and there is a deteriorating old country home.
It would be very difficult to make this into a productive farm. The logger who did the last
operation was awful. It will be fifty years before this particular mountainside can come
back as any reasonable forest. He feels they have met each of the Planning Commission's
objections and the staff's objections. He does not believe in hop-skotch development and
supports the Comprehensive Plan.
Next to speak was Mr. Rip Thompson, Coordinator and Planner. He feels that the charac-
ter of Colston will benefit the area. Mr. Robb has waded through the County planning pro-
cesses in order to do the right thing. The County objects to development of a rural area,
but these houses are far back from the road. There will be only two access points to the
public highway. Because of objections to developing on the ridge of Ragged Mountain, there
are only five sites on that twelve acres. Each house will have 2400 square feet under roof.
He said that the person logging the property probably violated County ordinances at the time
because there is plenty of debris in Ivy Creek. They had had restrictive covenants drafted
which will help to prevent any further cutting of trees. He said there is a statement that
the average slope on this property is 27 percent, and that is misleading. They did identify
five parcels that had slopes of less than 25 percent. Recently they have been told that the
septic fields must be on slopes of less than 20 percent. Their soils' engineer did not try
to find slopes of less than 25 percent because that is what they thought the requirement was.
But he feels sure they can find slopes with less than 20 percent. They did identify 30,000
contiguous square feet, most of which is below the 20% grade on these five lots. Mr. Fisher
asked about road construction to get access into these lots. Mr. Thompson said the access
road will follow an existing logging road. The driveways to Lot 8, 9, 10 and 12 will be
short and level. The driveway to No. 11 goes down across an existing draw and will require
some fill and cutting. If necessary the driveway to Lots 8 and 9 could be a common driveway
to reach the level of the houses and then go across the slope to each of the house sites.
The house sites will take up a very small portion of this acreage. The total impervious
surface is calculated to be 2.25 percent of the total area or 3.25 acres. On the hillside
itself, there would be less than one acre of impervious surface on over sixty acres of land.
The applicant must still submit plans for site plan review and if the building sites cannot
be shown with more detailed engineering study, then the sites cannot be used for a building.
There has been some confusion as to how much information is needed to be submitted for the
issuance of a Special Use Permit. They have been getting more and more requests for informa-
tion, to the point where they almost need to do all the engineering on the hillsides even
before they have an indication that the five lots will be approved. Mr. Fisher said these
five lots are a point of controversy. Both the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff
are worried about these lots. Mr. Thompson said this density is one dwelling unit per twelve
acres, and the Comprehensive Plan recommends one dwelling unit per ten acres. He feels it is
a much better plan than they could do by right.
Mr. Robb indicated that Mr. John 0. Higginson has submitted a letter for the record in
support of the application. Mr. Fisher noted that it would be made a part of the record.
Mr. Nicholas Munger said he is directly across the road from this property and knew
nothing about this development and was actually here tonight on another matter. The devel-
opment being discussed is certainly preferable to what has already been done by right. The
timbering operation conducted on this property a year or so ago was an outrage, in terms of
devastation of the forest. Oil and gas were pumped into Ivy Creek. He feels the plan is far
superior than allowing multiple accesses onto the highway.
Mr. Gale Pickford, Attorney for Mr. Robb, said that he had prepared restrictions which
are fairly sweeping and stringent. They wish to make sure that the abuses that have occurred
before do not happen again.
Mrs. Gertrude Webber presented a petition signed by about ten adjoining property owners
supporting this proposal.
April 17, 1985 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Mr. Sanford Wilcox said that he has contracted with Mr. Robb to buy a portion of the
property. He wants to move to this area because it will not look like a subdivision, and
there will be a lot of amenities that will benefit the neighbors.
With no one else coming forward to speak for or against the petition, the Public Hearing
was closed. Mr. Fisher said it is clear a lot of thought has been put into this proposal.
If the issue of the five lots on the hillside can be resolved, he is willing to support the
proposal. Mr. Bowie said after reading the materials he had been furnished he does intend to
support the proposal. He will go back to his original question. If there are not building
sites on the hillside, will there be just the seven lots? Mr. Fisher said unless the Board
of' Zoning Appeals grants some type of variance. That is not clear-cut.
Mr. Robb said he can appreciate the Board's position, and he would not mind leaving the
mountainside property to satisfy engineering necessity. But, by right, he can sell a couple
of lots he has under contract, and he needs to sell those lots because of high interest
rates.
Mr. Fisher said he was thinking about approving the request and then letting the County
Engineer certify that those sites conform to the Zoning Ordinance, figure out where the roads
are to be placed, and let everybody agree on that portion. The petition would not have to be
returned to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Robb said he had hired E. 0. Gooch, a soil scien-
tist, who did the slope studies. The staff has had the result of those studies for two
weeks.
At this time, Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve SP-85-7 with the following two condi-
tions:
Staff must concur in the placement of five building sites
in the five, steep wooded lots to the rear of the property;
2. County Engineer approval of all private road provisions.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Henley said he would hate to start subdividing
every 150 acre parcel. Mr. Lindstrom said he could wish that the Board had had this proposal
before it three years ago when some of the Board members thought it was a mistake to allow
the twenty-one acre parcel divisions by right. However, there weren't enough people on the
Board who agreed and created a lot of exceptions so now, the proposal tonight is better than
what Mr. Robb could do by right. And even though that may be a mistake it is too late to
correct it. Mr. Henley said he wished he had gone to review the property, but looking at the
map the lines on the mountainside appear to be awfully close together, and he does not think
they ought to just stick houses up there like that. Mr. Bowie said he does not understand
why the Zoning Ordinance says that you can take a farm and chop off five two acre lots by
right along a road. Mr. Lindstrom said that was a compromise made when drafting the new
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Henley said he has a feeling that the mountainside should be just one
tract. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board made a mistake four years ago, and they are
just beginning to see the fruits of that mistake. As for this application, he thinks the
Board will just have to live with it. Mr. Henley asked if he voted for approval of this
petition, he would have to vote for every one like it. Mr. St. John said that everything is
on a case by case basis. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has put itself into a position of
being blackmailed into doing something it does not want to do. Mr. Henley said if Route 637
had not been upgraded recently, he would not vote for this petition.
At this time, roll was called, and the motion to approve carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
At 10:05 P.M., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:10 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-85-8. Edgar S. Robb. Request to locate a country inn on six
plus acres zoned RA conversion of existing historical structure located at the intersection
of Routes 708 and 637, Tax Map 73, Parcel 33. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report:
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The area is rural in character with scattered single-family
residential development. The existing structure, constructed in 1809,
is presently vacant and in a deteriorating condition. The applicant
has stated that the Virginia Landmarks Commission and the National
Park Service have stated the property is of historic significance
and worthy of Virginia Landmark and National Register status.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff has reviewed this proposal for consistency with the Compre-
hensive Plan and special use permit criteria as set forth in
Section 31.2.4.1 and offers the following comments.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends that "conversion of historic
buildings to commercial uses compatible in character should be
considered as a method of historic preservation" (Page 130).
A_Ikril 17_~_1985 (Re_~lar - Ni~ht Meeting)
2. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that highway service businesses
which primarily rely on interstate travel as a market, including
hotels, motels, restaurants and other uses be considered for
location at selected interchanges of Interstate 64. The closest
interchange is approximately 1.7 miles north at the Route 637
interchange. Highway service businesses are not recommended for
development at this location. The Plan further states: "The
random, individual location of highway service businesses should
be discouraged."
3. The Comprehensive Plan states "residential, commercial and other
development activities should be directed to designated growth
areas rather than being permitted to encroach on agricultural
and forestal areas with detrimental effects."
This area is not recognized as a growth center in the Comprehensive
Plan and introduction of commercial uses in this area would result in
a change in the character of the area and may set a precedent for
similar requests. Staff is reluctant to recommend or encourage
commercial uses in this area and recommends denial of SP-85-8.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose
to approve this petition, staff would recommend the following
conditions:
1. Structure to be restored to the architectual character of the
period. An effort should be initiated to place the structure
on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register
of Historic Places.
e
Approval is limited to four (4) rooms for overnight travellers
with no restaurant facilities beyond that necessary to serve
residents of the inn.
3. No expansion beyond the original limits of the structure.
4. Site plan approval.
5. Approval of signage at site plan review to ensure signs are
of a design appropriate to the architecture of the period.
6. Building and Fire Official approvals.
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 19, 1985, unanimously
recommended approval of this petition with the following conditions which are somewhat
different from those recommended by the staff:
Structure, and/or any expansion thereof, to be restored to
the architectural character of the period, in accordance
with the guidelines established by the National Register of
Historic Places;
Approval is limited to four (4) rooms for overnight travellers
with no restaurant facilities beyond that necessary to serve
residents of the inn;
Site plan approval;
Approval of signage at site plan review to ensure signs are
of a design appropriate to the architecture of the period;
Building and Fire Official approval;
Planning Commission has recommended favorably on this petition
under representation by the applicant that written verification
from the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission will be presented
to the Board of Supervisors at their public hearing as to the
historic/architectural/cultural significance of the structures and
that the same received substantial useage as an inn.
The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Rip Thompson said he is an architectural historian
and did considerable work to document the history of this building. It was a tavern from
1784 to 1806, and it might have been the site of an earlier tavern in the 1760's. It is
considered archaeologically significant, as well as being an architectural site. He has a
letter from the State Review Board for the Historic Landmarks Commission indicating that Hill
and Dale was also known as Woodstock Hall or Wood's Tavern and does meet the criteria for
inclusion on the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic
Places. This structure was an ordinary and was issued permits periodically during the
described. The Elders and the Whebys, who will be operating this facility, do not want to
have a restaurant. They want to use it as a bed and breakfast, a commercial usage. This
would allow use of the preferential tax treatment which would in turn allow restoration of
the building. Otherwise, it would not be economically feasible. The building is a worthy
structure for Albemarle County to preserve. It was one of the earliest buildings on the
and was known as Richard Wood's tavern. Richard Wood is a man whose name has been affixed
the road for a number of years. He was a person of some note. His son who lived on the
property for over fifty years was surveyor of the County from 1796 to 1822 and was a Colonel
in the militia.
Mrs. Certrude Webber came forth to present a petition signed by neighboring property
owners supporting this application.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. The motion
immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve SP 85-8 with the conditions of the Planning
A~ril 17_x_1985 R/_~lar - Ni:ht Meetin-i .
Commission. Mr. Bowie asked if Condition No. 6 had not been satisfied. Mr. Lindstrom said
he felt it was satisfied tonight, so that condition could be deleted. The motion then was to
approve SP 85-8 with the first five conditions of the Planning Commission. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
(Note - Approved with the following conditions:)
Structure, and/or any expansion thereof, to be restored to
the architectural character of the period, in accordance
with the guidelines established by the National Register of
Historic Places;
Approval is limited to four (4) rooms for overnight travellers
with no restaurant facilities beyond that necessary to serve
residents of the inn;
Site plan approval;
Approval of signage at site plan review to ensure signs are
of a design appropriate to the architecture of the period;
Building and Fire Official approval.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-85-5. Jordan Development Corporation. To amend approved PRD
to increase number of dwelling units from 27 to 58. Property on west side of Route 240 near
its intersection with Route 250 West. Property .contains 27.8 acres and is known as Tax Map
56, Parcels 14B and 14C. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2
and April 9, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the staff's report:
Existing Zoninq:
Planned Residential Development (27 dwelling units).
Acreage:
27.8 acres.
Proposed Zoning: Planned Residential Development (58 dwelling units).
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 56, parcels 14B and 14C is located
on the west side of Route 240, north and adjacent to Brownsville Elementary
School.
Character of the Area:
This site is currently developed with a community center and seven (7)
quadraplex units (one requested unit would be an unfinished area in an
existing building). Previously, the site was open rolling pasture. The site
is bordered on the northwest by a farm. The Henley/Brownsville School
complex and two single-family dwellings are to the south.
Applicant's Proposal:
The Jordan Development Corporation proposes construction of five (5) new
residential buildings. Each building would contain six (6) one-bedroom
dwelling units. In addition, one unit would be completed in one of the
seven existing quadraplex buildings.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium density residential usage in this
area (i.e. - 5-10 dwelling units per acre). This proposal would increase
density at the Meadows to 2.1 dwelling units per acre.
Staff Comment:
The Meadows, a development for the elderly and elderly deaf, was approved by
the Board of Supervisors in July, 1977 for development of 27 dwellings (see
staff report for ZMA-77-07, on file). The current petition would expand the
project to fifty-eight (58) dwellings.
Section 8.5.4 of the planned development regulations requires that "recom-
mendations of the commission (to the Board) shall include findings as to:
The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD district pro-
posed in terms of: relation to the comprehensive plan; physical
characteristics of the land~ and its relatiOn to surrounding area~
As stated earlier, the Meadows is proposed at a lower density than the
Comprehensive Plan recommends for this area. The Application Plan is gener-
ally reflective of Comprehensive Plan development standards including
clustering to avoid encroachment into steep areas and floodplain. Physical-
ly, the property can easily accommodate this additional development.
No other urban residential development currently exists in the area, though
other low and medium density development is recommended in the area. When
originally proposed, the Meadows was a controversial project. Staff has
received no public inquiry or comment regarding the current proposal.
A_~ril 17x~1985 (Regular - Night Meeting)
b. Relation to major roads, utilities, ~public facilities and services~
Most features necessary to accommodate additional development were installed
under prior construction (i.e. - decel/turn lane, water and sewer lines).
Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance wo~ld be required, probably in
the form of contribution to the Lickinghole Creek regional pollution control
facility. Presently, an equivalent of 63 service connections are available
at the Brownsville Sewage Treatment Plant. Should this petition be approved,
the Jordan Development Corporation may wish to purchase adequate sewer
connections immediately since no other means of reservation is available.
An issue unresolved at this writing is the adequacy of the internal state
road, Rt. 1230, to accommodate additional development. Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation maintains that tha road should be upgraded
from a Category II to Category III design. The Planning staff disagrees
with this recommendation for the following reasons:
1) The Meadows is currently developed with 27 residential units and a
community center. In August, 1984, average daily traffic counts taken
by Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation showed 112 vehicle
trips per day. This is equivalent to 4.2 vehicle trips per unit
including community center traffic.
2) Employing 4.2 vehicle trips per day per dwelling, additional development
would add 130 vehicle trips per day for a total generation of 242
vehicle trips per day.
3) Category II design is adequate to accommodate 400 vehicle trips per day
compared to staff's projection of 242 vehicle trips per day at full
development.
4) The Meadows is a housing project for the elderly and elderly deaf. In
the past Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has accepted a
reduced traffic generation figure for developments of this type (i.e. -
Branchlands; Harkins Associates on Old Ivy Road). In this case,
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is employing a
generation figure of seven (7) vehicle trips per day per unit, which is
applicable to a conventional single-family development.
For reasons stated above, staff has requested that Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation reconsider its recommendation regarding up-
grading of Rt. 1230.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the Meadows PRD as
described by the Application Plan consistent with the requirements of the
planned development regulations and Comprehensive Plan. Section 8.5.1(i)
requires, among other things, that the applicant submit:
A report identifying all property owners within the proposed district
and giving evidence of unified control of its entire area. The report
shall state agreement of all present property owners to:
Proceed with the proposed development according to regulations existing
when the map amendment creating the PD district is approved with such
modifications as are set by the board of supervisors and agreed to by
the applicant at the time of amendment;
Staff recommends that the Jordan Development Corporation agree to proceed
with the following conditions (some of which have been carried over from
ZMA-77-07):
Approval is for a maximum of 58 dWelling units located in general
accordance with the Application Plan;
Final site plan approval by the Planning staff after submittal to the
Site Review Committee, including but not limited to:
a. County Engineer approval of method of compliance with runoff
control ordinance;
b. Fire Official approval of fire flows and fire lanes;
c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer
plans;
d. Purchase of adequate sewer connections prior to issuance of a
building permit;
e. Only those areas where a structure, street, utility or other such
improvements are approved shall be disturbed; all other land shall
remain in its natural state;
Review and approval by the County Attorney of all agreements, contracts,
requirements, and other transactions among the Jordan Development
Corporation and other entities involved to insure that the County of
Albemarle shall bear no responsibility for the development or future
operation and maintenance of this project.
e
Occupancy shall be limited to persons age 62 years or older. For the
purpose of this condition, if one spouse is aged 62 years or older, the
other spouse shall be considered 62 years of age.
Apri~ 17, 1985 (Regular - Niqht Meetin__q~
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 2, 1985, unanimously
recommended approval of ZMA-85-5, with the conditions recommended by the staff, but amended
the wording of 93 by adding the following sentence: "County Attorney may rescind this
condition at his option prior to Board action."
Mr. Fisher said the first petition on this property was the subject of several law
suits. The citizens were very unhappy at that time. Often, his concern has been not so much
about what might happen on the property, but the scale of development and how many units
should be permitted on one site. Mr. Henley said he has a concern about allowing them to
start construction before sewage disposal capacity is available.
The Public Hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Forrest Kerns, president of the
Jordan Development Corporation Board of Directors. He said that the units will not be
completed before the sewage capacity is available. They want to build on the site and yet
not diminish the sense of community the residents have in that housing development.
Mr. John Farmer, Architect, reviewed the architectural features of ~the Proposal, which
he said would be in compliance with the structures already built. Mr. Henley asked if there
is any natural buffer existing on the property. Mr. Farmer said there is a tree line.
Mr. Fisher said there is nothing in the conditions of the Planning Commission to relate
this housing development as being for low income people. It appears from their conditions
that the fifty-eight dwelling units could be used by people aged sixty-two years or older.
Mr. Kerns said the development is for low income people and is identical to what is already
located in The Meadows. Mr. Henley said he would like to have a condition placed that the
tree buffer line would be preserved.
Mr. Nicholas Munger, another member of the Jordan Development Corporation Board of
Directors, said they are trying to respond to the need in the community. When The Meadows
was first opened, it filled relatively quickly, and they have a waiting.list of fifteen to
twenty people for low income, elderly and elderly deaf. The contrast between the first
request and this request is in terms of public response which is quite different. There is
now a general level of acceptance of this project.
Mr. Harry Kennedy, a County appointee to the Jordan Development Board of Directors said
these units are needed. It is emotionally draining every month to have to select among so
many people who really need this type of housing. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the garden will be
kept. Mr. Kennedy said he believes there is still space for a garden.
Mr. Roy Patterson said he lives in Crozet about one-quarter of a mile from The Meadows.
This has been a happy,- busy place and a good environment for people of that age. He has been
on an informal citizens advisory committee ever since The Meadows was built.
With no one else coming forward to speak for or against the petition, the Public Hearing
was closed. Mr. Henley said he feels the Crozet interceptor line should be in operation by
the time construction is started. Mr. Kerns said that is the present plan. Mr. Fisher
suggested that Condition 2.c. have a sentence reading: "Sewer connections to the Moore's
Creek Treatment Plant shall be completed prior to issuance of building permit or certificate
of occupancy," added. He also suggested that in Condition No. 4 that the occupancy be
limited to "low and moderate income elderly and elderly deaf occupants." Mr. Henley suggested
that 2.f. be added reading: "A buffer of trees is to be left along the boundary of the
property."
Mr. Fisher said there is a need for this type of housing unit, and he will support the
request. But, he is concerned about doubling the number of people and the number of units on
this property.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is curious. He has heard that there is to be a similar project in
another part of the County. Mr. Kerns said the Jordan Development Corporation had investi-
gated such housing for Scottsville, but was unable to obtain financing. They are applying to
FmHA now for a forty year mortgage and rental subsidy but they must have the zoning first.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels it would be a real benefit to have these types of units placed
around the County. Mr. Henley said he might have a problem if Jordan Development tried to do
this same thing again. Mr. Kerns said he does not believe they will do it again and asked
about Condition No. 3 of the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John recommended that the whole
condition be dropped, since there was no need for the condition in this case.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve ZMA-85-5 with the following modi-
fied conditions:
Approval is for a maximum of 58 dwelling units located in
general accordance with the Application Plan;
Final site plan approval by the Planning staff after submittal
to the Site Review Committee, including, but not limited to:
a. County Engineer approval of method of compliance with
runoff control ordinance;
b. Fire Official approval of fire flows~and fire lanes;
c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans. Sewer connections to the Moore's Creek Treat-
ment plant shall be completed prior to issuance of building
permit or certificate of occupancy;
d. Purchase of adequate sewer connections prior to issuance
of a building permit;
e. Only those areas where a structure, street, utility or
other such improvement are approved shall be disturbed;
all other land is to remain in its natural state;
f. A buffer of trees is to be left along the boundary of
the property;
A__~ril !7_~ 1985 (Regular - Niqht Meeting)
249
3. Occupancy shall be limited to persons aged 62 years or older,
low and moderate income elderly and elderly deaf occupants.
For the purpose of this condition, if one spouse is aged 62
years or older, the other spouse shall be considered 62 years
of age.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, FiSher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 11. CPA-85-2. Resolution of Intent adopted by the Board of Supervisors
to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include provisions for handling requests from citizens for
amendments to the Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly said the proposed amendment is basically the same as the resolution of
intent. He said the staff had suggested an addendum to the prepared report regarding the
application process for requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The advantages of a complete, formal application process are:
1. Planning Commission determines compliance with proposed criteria based on
information supplied by applicant.
Very limited staff work prior to adoption of resolution of intent to amend
the Comprehensive Plan.
Places burden of responsibility on applicant to justify a change in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The disadvantages of such a proposal are:
1. Requires that Planning Commission evaluate criteria for application without
staff recommendation.
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 19, 1985 unanimously
recommended approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Policy (CPA-85-2). The
Commission also approved the policy recommended by the staff as an addendum to the draft
policy regarding clarification of the application process. The addendum is as follows and
would be inserted between the first and second paragraphs of Item 2 under POLICY PROPOSAL:
The application for requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall consist
of the following. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to submit, in
writing, a response to each of the criteria specified in this report,
including justification for the requested change. The criteria are outlined
herein as items A through E. An application form would be prepared by the
Department of Planning & Community Development, summarizing the guidelines
of each criteria point and provide a framework for a written response to be
prepared by the applicant. This application in full would then be submitted
directly to the Planning Commission for determination regarding the adoption
of a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Should the
Planning Commission adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan pursuant to an application, such application would then be forwarded to
staff and the Site Review Committee as applicable.
The Planning Commission requested the staff, should the policy be adopted,
review the application and make a preliminary recommendation to the Commis-
sion prior to the Planning Commission determination regarding the adoption
of a resolution of intent to amend the Plan. However, no application would
be reviewed by the Technical Site Review Committee, or receive extensive
staff work prior to the adoption of a Resolution of Intent to amend the
Plan.
The public hearing was opened. With no one coming forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following policy as recommended
by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
POLICY FOR SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1. Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, made by citizens, shall
be reviewed twice annually. The Planning Commission or the Board of
Supervisors may initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment study at any time
deemed appropriate.
2. Comprehensive Plan amendment applications may be filed at the
Department of Planning and Community Development on or before the first
Tuesday, respectively, of the months of March and September.
250
April 17, 1985 ~lar - N_~_ght Meetinq~
It shall be the responsibility of the citizen requesting a Compre-
hensive Plan amendment to submit, in writing, the following: A response
to each of the criteria specified in this report, including justification
for the requested change (criteria are outlined herein as, items A through
E). An application form should be prepared by the Department of Planning
and Community Development, summarizing the guidelines of each criteria
point and providing a framework for a written response to be prepared by
the applicant. This application in full would then be submitted directly
to the Planning Commission for determination regarding the adoption of a
resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Should the Planning
Commission adopt a resolution of intent, the application would then be
forwarded to staff and the Site Plan Review Committee as applicable.
If additional information is required, it is the responsibility of
the applicant to submit this information to the Planning Department in
a timely fashion. Additional information may include, but is not limited
to: slope studies, soil studies, engineering calculations and profiles,
preliminary site development plans, etc. The applicant will be informed
of what specific items are required prior to the scheduled Site Plan
Review Committee meeting.
3. Notice of Comprehensive Plan amendment submission shall be sent
by first class mail to the last known address of all owners of the property
adjacent to the subject property. In any case in which the applicant owns
the adjacent property, notice shall be given to the owners of the next
adjoining property. Mailing to the address shown on the current real
estate tax assessment books of Albemarle County shall be deemed adequate
compliance with this requirement. No Comprehensive Plan amendment shall
be approved within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the mailing of
such notice. The notice shall state the type of use proposed, specific
location of development, county office where the site development plan may
be viewed, and date of the public meeting. The applicant shall reimburse
the County the cost of postage incurred for notification of adjacent pro-
perty owners.
4. Within ninety days after the application deadline, the Board of
Supervisors shall take action to approve or deny applications initiated by
citizens. Prior to the Board of Supervisors' review of Comprehensive Plan
amendment applications, the Planning Commission shall review all amendment
requests and make recommendations to the Board. The Site Plan Review Com-
mittee shall be consulted for recommendations as necessary.
5. No Comprehensive Plan amendment application from a citizen
will be processed within six months prior to the expected date of adop-
tion of a ma3or five-year Comprehensive Plan revision.
6. Prior to the deadline for Comprehensive Plan amendment requests,
the Board of Supervisors, or its agent (the Planning Commission) should
hold a public hearing for the purpose of discussion and to entertain pub-
lic comment on the Plan, in general. This public hearing would provide
a public forum for Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors' requests to
amend the Plan. The date, time and purpose of the public hearing should
be advertised in a newspaper in advance.
CRITERIA FOR THE REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
A. The Comprehensive Plan provides a long-range guide for direction
and context of the decision-making process for public and private land
uses. The Comprehensive~Plan is general in nature rather than attempting
to identify specific geographic locations. The Land Use Map of the Com-
prehensive Plan suggests the relationship of recommended uses to general
areas. Proposed amendments to the Land Use Map should be reviewed for
compliance with the general plan rather than area-specific or parcel-
specific requests for a change in the recommended use. The purpose of the
Land Use Map is to provide and plan for a balance of land uses, equipped
with adequate utilities and facilities, in a comprehensive, harmonious
manner. Any proposed change in the Land Use Map will be evaluated for pro-
tection of the health, safety, and welfare of the general public rather
than the proprietary interests of an individual.
B. The merit of Comprehensive Plan amendment requests shall be
largely determined by the fulfillment of support to the "Goals and Objec-
tives'' specified in Chapter 9 and the "Plan Standards" outlined in Chapter
10 of the Comprehensive Plan.
C. A primary purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map
is to facilitate the coordination of improvements to the transportation
network and the expansion of public utilities in an economical, efficient
and judicious manner. Comprehensive Plan amendments which direct growth
away from designated growth areas shall be discouraged unless adequate
justification is provided. Amendments to the boundaries of growth areas
may be considered appropriate if the request is comprehensive, proposes
to follow a logical topographic or man-made feature and is supported by
adequate justification. No Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be con-
sidered in areas where roads are non-tolerable or utilities are inade-
quate unless the improvement of those facilities is included in the
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal.
April 17, 198'5 (Regular - Night Meeting)
251
D. Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be evaluated for
general compliance with adopted County plans, policies, studies and
ordinances and to determine if corresponding changes are necessary.
E. Except as otherwise provided, the following conditions may be
considered in the evaluation of a request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan.
Change in circumstance had occurred; or
Updated information is available; or
Subsequent portions of the Comprehensive Plan have been adopted
or developed; or
A portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible; or
The preparation of the Plan as required by Article 15.1-447
of the Code of Virginia was incomplete or incorrect infor-
mation was employed.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-85-2. An amendment to the LI, Light Industrial, District of
the Zoning Ordinance to permit dwellings in said district under certain circumstances.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly said this amendment was suggested by the Planning Staff in its report for
SP-84-90, M. C. Partnership.
Public Purpose to be Served: Permit continuous security at industrial
locations; reduce need for police patrol.
Staff Comment:
Dwellings are currently permitted in the CO and C-1 commercial districts
by right. This provision, intended primarily to house a proprietor
or security guard, is subject to supplementary regulation (5.1.21).
Staff opinion is that similar provision in the LI, Light Industrial,
zone would be appropriate and recommends the following amendments:
(1) Amend 5.1.21 as follows:
5.1.21 DWELLINGS IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
Dwellings in commercial and industrial districts are intended
primarily for owners or employees of establishments including
night watchmen;
Such dwelling may be located individually or in the same
structure as the main use, subject to Albemarle County building
official and fire official approvals;
Not more than one (1) dwelling unit shall be permitted per
establishment.
(2) Amend the LI, Light Industrial, District as follows:
27.2.1 BY RIGHT
15. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21).
Mr. Donnelly said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 19, 1985,
unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendments, but made the following changes
in the recommended language: In 5.1.21(a), the words "intended primarily for" were changed
to "limited to". The Commission also added a 5.1.21(d) reading: "No mobile home shall be
permitted as a dwelling unit for a period in excess of six months."
Mr. Fisher asked why a mobile home should be permitted at all in industrial or commer-
cial locations. Mr. Donnelly said they are often used as. temporary facilities for a night-
watchman during construction phases of a facility.
The public hearing was opened. With no one coming forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Way to adopt the following ordinance as recommended by
the Planning Commission:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Section 5.1.21 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended and reenacted to read as
follows:
5.1.21 DWELLINGS IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
Dwellings in commercial and industrial districts
are limited to owners or employees of establish-
ments including night watchmen;
Such dwelling may be located individually or in
the same structure as the main use, subject to
Albemarle County building official and fire
official approvals;
252
April 17, 1985 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Not more than one (1) dwelling unit shall be
permitted per establishment;
d®
No mobile home shall be permitted as a dwelling
unit for a period in'excess of six (6) months.
AND, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that Section 27.2.1 By Right
uses in the Light Industrial Districts is amended by the addition
of:
15. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21).
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley.
by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Fisher suggested that the following ordinance amendments be discussed together since
they all concern an increase in fees charged for various functions.
Agenda Item No. 13. ZTA-85-1. An amendment to Section 35.0 of the Zoning Ordinance
entitled "Fees". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1985.)
Agenda Item No. 14. STA-85-1. An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 18-43 of the
Albemarle County Code, Subdivision of Land, concerning fees. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the staff's report on these two amendments as follows:
HISTORY:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting of January 9,
1985, adopted resolutions of intent to amend the Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances regarding respective application fees. Previously, the
Department of Planning & Community Development conducted a survey of
fees assessed by twelve other Virginia Counties. Additionally, an
analysis was done by staff of the average length of time and admini-
strative costs of reviewing and processing the various zoning and
subdivision applications handled by this department, as well as those
administered in the Zoning Department. Application fees were last
changed in November, 1976.
FINDINGS:
As indicated in the supporting data, the 1983 total estimated cost for
development review and application processing was $114,285.00 of which
$18,166.00 or 15.9 percent was recovered through application fees.
The proposed fee schedule is based on recovering 50 percent of the
calculated cost of staff review and administrative expenses through
application fees.
Agenda Item No. 15. An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 5-3, Permit Fees, of the
Albemarle County Code (Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical, and Miscellaneous 'permit
fees, Reinspection fees, Zoning inspections, to increase same.) (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1985.)
Agenda Item No. 16. An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 7-4 of the Albemarle
County Code entitled "Soil Erosion and Sedimentation" concerning fees for soil erosion plans.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 19, 1985,
unanimously endorsed the proposed resolutions of intent to amend Section 35.0 of the Zoning
Ordinance, Article 18-43 of the Subdivision Ordinance, and Section 7-4 of the County Code
relating to soil erosion.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Don Wagner, representing the Blue Ridge
Homebuilder's Association, said they realize that it has been some time since there has been
an increase in fees. They have no problem with the concept that inspection fees should
recoup 100 percent of the charge, and no problem with the concept that the other fees should
pay a fair share. They would like for the Board to give some advance notice to peopie in the
business about this change in fees. People who have bid on projects for construction in the
near future would be impacted by these changes if they all take place immediately and all at
one time. He asked that the fees be phased in over a period of time.
Mr. Fisher said that the question of staging the increased fees has a negative side.
Mr. Bowie said if the fees are to be raised, he would suggest that it be done all at once.
Mr. Fisher suggested that the effective date of the changes be September 1, 1985.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the County Attorney if all of these amendments could be adopted with
one motion. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Bowie said he has a problem with the amendments to
Section 5-3, and will not be able to support the motion. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion
A_p_~il 17~__1985 (Reg. ular -_.Night Meeting)
25,3
to adopt the amendmentS, as advertised, set out under ZTA-85-1, Section 35.0 of the Zoning
Ordinance; STA-85-1, Section 18-43 of the Subdivison Ordinance, and Section 7-4, Soil Erosion
Ordinance, with the effective date of each ordinance to be September 1, 1985. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
(NOTE: THE ORDINANCES AS ADOPTED ARE SET OUT IN FULL BELOW:)
BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance in Section 35.0, entitled ".Fees", as follows.
35.0 FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application
made to the zoning administrator, the commission, or the
board of supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee as set
forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such
application.
For a special use permit:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Mobile home and home occupation - $20.00.
Rural area divisions - $125.00.
Commercial use - $125.00.
Industrial use - $125.00.
Private club/recreational facility - $125.00.
Mobile home park or subdivision - $125.00.
Public utilities - $100.00.
All other uses - $75.00
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $50.00.
c. For amendment to zoning map - $125.00 plus Si/acre.
For requests for a variance to the board of
zoning appeals - $50.00.
For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals -
$20.00.
e. 1. For site development plan - $200.00.
2. For site development plan waiver - $100.00.
3. For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation,
building size, location - $25.00.
b) Major - planning commission review - $50.00.
f. For relief from a condition.of approval from commission -
$50.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice
required under Chapter 11, Title 15.1 of the Code shall be
taxed to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall
exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section. Failure
to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the
denial of any application.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance shall be effective
on and after September 1, 1985.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia that Section 18-43 of the Albemarle County
Code entitled "Fees", a part of "Subdivision of Land" is hereby
amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Section 18-43. Fees.
(a)
Preliminary Plat. The subdivider shall pay a fee
at the time when the preliminary plat is filed.
Such fee shall be in the form of cash or a check
payable to the "County of Albemarle, Virginia,"
the amount thereof to be determined in accordance
with the following schedule:
(1)
One hundred dollars base fee plus one dollar
per lot.
(2)
Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or
not a preliminary plat for the same property
has been filed previously, shall be subject to
the same requirements; provided, however that
no fee shall be required for the review of a
preliminary plat of any subdivision involving
three or fewer lots.
.... 254,
April 1_ 7,= 19~ular - Niqht Meetinql
(b)
Final Plat. The subdivider shall pay a fee at the
time the final plat is filed. Such fee shall be in
the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of
Albemarle, Virginia," the amount thereof to be deter-
mined in accordance with the following schedule:
(1) Administrative approval. Twenty-fiv~ dollars,
including family divisions.
(2)
Commission Approval: One hundred and fifty
dollars base fee plus one dol'lar per lot.
(3) Exempt plat: Ten dollars.
(4)
Condominium Plat: Fifty dollars base fee plus
one dollar per unit.
(5)
In addition to the foregoing, in the case of
any plat on which is shown any road to be
dedicated to public use, or any private road,
the subdivider shall pay to the county a fee
equal to the cost of the inspection of the
construction of any such road. Such fee shall
be paid upon completion of all necessary
inspections, and shall be deemed a part of the
cost of construction of such road for purposes
of section 18-19.
(c)
Waiver request of Subdivision Requirement:
five dollars.
Twenty-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Ordinance shall be effective
on and after September 1, 1985.
BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby amend and reenact Section 7-4,
subsection (d) of the Albemarle County Code, in Chapter 7, Soil
Erosion and Sedimentation Control, to read as follows:
Sec. 7-4. Submission of plans and specifications.
(a) Same.
(b) Same.
(c) Same.
(d) Upon the submission of any plan submitted pursuant to
Section 7-3 of this article, the applicant shall pay to the County
a fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) to cover the cost to the
County to review and to act upon such plan. For each and every
erosion control inspection necessitated by this plan, a fee of
twenty-five dollars ($25.00)-shall be paid by the applicant.
The maximum fee chargeable under this section, inclusive of
inspections, shall not exceed three hundred dollars ($300.00).
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance increasing fees in
Section 5-3, Permit Fees, Chapter 5, Buildings, of the Albemarle County Code, with the
effective date of this ordinance to be September 1, 1985. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Way.
Mr. Bowie said he supports the change in principle, but he has a concern for the home-
owner, the person who is just trying to improve his home. The person who has had no increase
in income. Mr. Bowie said he took the new ordinance and calculated the amount of building
permit fees he would have had to pay for changes he made in his home recently and found that
it would have cost over $300.00. He feels this increase in fees will just cause more people
not to comply with ordinance provisions, and until that is resolved, he cannot support this
increase in fees.
Roll was called on the motion to adopt, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
(NOTE: ~THE ORDINANCE AS ADOPTED IS SET OUT IN FULL BELOW:)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 5-3, PERMIT FEES,
CHAPTER 5, BUILDINGS,
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED that Section 5-3 of the Albemarle County Code,
a part of Chapter 5 entitled "Buildings" is hereby amended and
reenacted to read as follows:
April 17, 1985 (Regular - Night Meeting)
255
Section 5-3. Permit Fees.
No permit to begin work for new construction or other building
operation shall be issued until the fees prescribed in this section
have been paid. The fees shall be fixed at the following rates,
which may be amended by resolution of the board of supervisors
we well as by amendment to this section:
(a) Building permit fee schedule.
New Construction:
(Including additions) BOCA use groups R-3, R-4
(Residential dwelling units - one and two-family)
Calculate on gross finished floor area.
Include finished basement area .......... $ 0.14 per sq ft
Minimum fee ..................................... $ 75.00
(Note: For garages, decks and porches, use fee schedule
for accessory structures. No additional fee for landings
less than ten square feet.)
Accessory Structures.
Residential use group.
Calculate on gross floor area of structure.
Accessory structures include attached garages, detached
garages, sheds and decks, and porches over nine square
feet .................................... $ 0.10 per sq ft
Minimum fee ..................................... $ 15.00
Maximum fee ..................................... $ 75.00
Swimming Pools:
Residential ................................. $ 25.00 each
Alterations and Repairs:
Ail Use Groups. Includes finishing of basement or other
unfinished space, structural alterations or repairs
that do not increase the size of the existing building
or structure. Calculate on gross square foot area
affected by the work ................... $ 0.10 per sq ft
Minimum fee ..................................... $ 25.00
Mobile Homes - State or HUD Seal:
Pre-fabricated Building - State Seal:
The building permit fee for mobile homes and pre-fabricated
(modular) structures includes the inspections required for
the foundations, anchors, porches, and exterior stairways.
Units without basements . ........................ $ 25.00
Units with basements ............................ $ 40.00
New Construction:
BOCA use groups A-I, A-2, A-3, A-4, B, F, H, I, M, R-I,
R-2 and S.
Calculate on gross floor area.
0 to 5,000 sq ft gross floor area ...... $ 0.14 per sq ft
Excess over 5,000 gross floor area ..... $ 0.08 per sq ft
Minimum fee ..................................... $ 75.00
New Construction:
BOCA use group A-5.
Coliseums, stadiums and similar structures for outdoor
assembly use and indoor participant sport areas such as
equestrian clubs, enclosed swimming pools, tennis courts,
and skating rinks.
Calculate on gross floor area.
0 to 20~000 sq ft gross floor area ..... $ 0.02 per sq ft
Excess over 20,000 sq ft ............... $ 0.01 per sq ft
Minimum fee ..................................... $ 75.00
Swimming pools, commercial:
Calculate on gross pool area ........... $ 0.05 per sq ft
Minimum fee ..................................... $ 50.00
(b) Plumbinq permits:
New Construction:
(Including additions) BOCA use groups R-3 and R-4
Residential dwelling units - one and two-family)
The plumbing permit fee is based on the coSt of the
minimum inspections required by the Code.
Fee per dwelling unit ........................... $
75.00
Ail Other BOCA Use Groups:
Fee per fixture ................................. $
Minimum fee ..................................... $
4.00
75.00
Sewer lateral to public system ............. $ 15.00 each
258
April 17, 1985 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Mobile homes or pre-fabricated (modular) units with State
or HUD inspection seal:
Units placed on foundation without basement $ 10.00 each
Units placed on basement foundation ........ $ 25,00 each
Alterations and Repairs:
Ail BOCA use groups.
Includes finishing of unfinished spaces where plumbing
is existing in structure, and repairs to existing
plumbing ............................. $ 4.00 per fixture
Minimum fee ..................................... $ 25.00
(c) Electrical permits:
New Construction:
BOCA use groups R-3 and R-4
(One and two-family residential dwelling unit)
The electrical permit fee is based on the cost for
minimum inspections required by the Code.
Fee per dwelling unit .............. ; ............ $
the
75.00
New Construction:
Ail Other BOCA use groups:
Fee includes cost for plan review and required inspections.
Calculate fee on gross floor area of building or structure.
Include basement area .................. $ 0.02 per sq ft
Minimum fee ..................................... $ 75.00
Alterations and Additions:
Ail BOCA use groups:
Includes finishing of unfinished space and repairs or
alterations to existing electrical systems.
........................................ $ 0.02 per sq ft
Minimum fee ..................................... $ 50.00
Accessory Structures - residential only:
Minimum fee ..................................... $
25.00
Temporary service ............... ; .......... $ 15.00 each
Early service .............................. $ 10.00 each
Swimming pools - bonding inspection only ...$ 10.00 each
Swimming pools - wiring .................... $ 25.00 each
Signs ....................................... $ 15.00 each
Mobile homes or pre-fabricated (modular) units With State
or HUD seal:
Units placed on foundation without basement $ 10.00 each
UnitS placed on basement foundation ........ $ 25.00 each
(d) Mechanical permits.
New Construction:
(Including additions) BOCA use groups R-3 and R-4
Residential dwelling units - one and two-family.
The mechanical permit fee is based on the cost of the
minimum inspections required by the Code.
Central heating and cooling systems including all ducts,
wood stoves, and fuel-fired water heaters, fireplaces,
range hoods, exhaust fans, etc.
Fee per dwelling unit ........................... $ 50.00
New Construction:
(Including additions) Ail other BOCA use groups.
Fee includes cost for plan review and required
inspections.
Central heating and cooling systems including all ducts
........................................ $ 0.02 per sq ft
Minimum fee ..................................... $ 50.00
Elevators ....................................... $ 30.00
Escalators ................. $ 25.00 plus $5.00 per floor
Fuel-fired water heaters ................... $ 15.00 each
Space heater - fuel-fired .................. $ 10.00 each
Wood stoves and fireplaces ................. $ 10.00 each
Oil and gas line inspections - from structure to public
main or storage tank ....................... $ 10.00 each
Tanks - fuel tanks 2,000 liquid gallon capacity or more
............................................ $ 15.00 each
Fuel dispensing pumps ...................... $ 5.00 each
Minimum fee of .................................. $ 15.00
April 17, 1985 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Spray paint booths ......................... $ 15.00 each
Vent hoods ................................. $ 10.00 each
Hood suppression systems ................... $
Fire pumps .................................
25.00 each
10.00 each
Suppression systems - fixed
Includes all systems - water sprinkler,
Halon, CO2, etc .............. $ 25.00 plus $0.50 per head
Minimum fee .....................................$ 25.00
Alterations and Repairs:
Ail BOCA use groups.
Duc~ work - each supply, return, subducts and fire
dampers .................................... $ 1.00 each
Minimum fee ..................................... $ 15.00
Other Mechanical Equipment:
The permit fee for installation, repair, or replacement
of all other meChanical equipment shall be determined by
the building official.
Minimum fee ..................................... $ 25.00
(e) Miscellaneous fees:
(1)
Change of Use - Nonresidential:
The change in the use of a building or structure from
one use to another requires an inspection to determine
if the change of use necessitates structural, egress,
or other changes in order to comply with the building
code for a new use.
Inspection and report only ................. $ 25.00
Other Inspections:
The building permit fee for inspections for which no
fee appears in this schedule shall be determined by
the building official ........... Minimum of $ 15.00
Plan Review and Permit Processing Fees:
The above building permit fees include the cost of
plans examination, application processing, and all
administrative cost of the Inspections Department.
Amendments to Approved Building Permit or Plans:
Changes made in the approved plans
................................ Review fee $ 15.00
New plans submitted requiring a complete review
..... ........................... Review fee $ 25.00
(2)
Reinspection Fee:
(Ail types of permits)
If a required inspection is made and work is not in
compliance with the Code, the inspector will give
written notice of the defective work to the permit
holder or his agent. The work must be corrected and
a reinspection must be made. If the reinspection
determines that the corrected work is in compliance,
no additional inspection fee will be required. If the
reinspection determines that the work is still not in
compliance with the Code, the inspector will again
give written notice of the item not in compliance
with the Code, and a reinspection fee shall be paid
by the permit holder before any further reinspections
are made of the work.
The fee for the second reinspection, and each
reinspection thereafter shall be ...... $ 20.00 each
(f) Zoning Inspections Fees:
Laying of foundation of main and accessory structures
.................................. $ 10.00 per inspection
Laying of surface water drainage pipes and culverts
(as to size and location) ........ $ 10.00 per inspection
Laying of subsurface stone for parking or entrance
(checking proper depth before final surfacing)
.................................. $ 10.00 per inspection
Final site inspection before requesting a certificate or
temporary certificate of occupancy (forty-eight hours
prior notice is requested) ....... $ 10.00 per inspection
April 17, 1985 (Regular - Night Meeting)
(g) Refunds:
If a permit application is withdrawn or becomes void, the
applicant may request, in writing, a refund. A refund
will be issued based on the following .qualifications:
(i)
A plan review and processing fee will be deducted
from the original permit fee as follows:
Residential, industrial, or commercial use - twenty
percent of original fee ........ Minimum fee $ 25.00
(2)
There will be no refund if the original permit fee
was the minimum fee o.f $25.00 or less.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance shall be effective on
and after September 1, 1985.
Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: June 20, August 8, August 23 and
DeCember 12, 1984. None of the minutes had been read.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Tucker said fraternity houses at the University of Virginia are to be renovated and
the Charlottesville RedeveloPment and Housing Authority is being requested to issue tax
exempt bonds for this project. State law requires that a Conservation District Plan in order
be adopted after a public hearing in order to make the project eligible for this financing.
A public hearing is also required before the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing
Authority Can issue bonds on behalf of the Delta Kappa Epsilon Renovation Associates.
Authorization is needed for the staff to advertise for these public hearings a~ the May 8,
1985, meeting. They had hoped to being renovation work on May 1.
Motion to authorize the staff to advertise for public hearing of the required Conserva-
tion Plan and City Redevelopment and Housing Authority financing was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. C.ooke.
Mr. Bowie noted that both he and Mrs. Cooke had attended the Pre-Allocation Highway
Hearing in Culpeper and entered speeches for the record.
Agenda Item No. 19.
the meeting was adjourned.
At 11:26 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board,