1985-05-15295
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
May 15, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of the County Office Building, McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None'.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; County Planner, James R. Donnelly; and Deputy County Executive, Robert W.
Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to approve item 1 on the consent agenda, and accept item 2 as information. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Commonwealth's
Attorney for the Month of April, 1985, were approved as presented.
Item 4.2. The following report from Mr. A. Bruce Dotson, Chair, Land Use Regulation
Committee (LURC), on the progress of the committee was received as information:
Back~round
This past fall the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Planning
Commission agreed to address the possibilities of streamlining the County's
land use and development regulations. A committee representing developers,
citizens groups and the Planning Commission was appointed. The members of
the Land Use Regulation Committee are Don Wagner (Great Eastern Management
Co., Inc.), John Greene (Roudabush, Greene and Gale), Treva CromWell
(League of Women Voters), Peggy Van Yahres (Piedmont Environmental Coun-
cil), Tim Michel and James Skove (Planning Commission). Bruce Dotson
(Institution for Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia) chairs
the group. The initial meeting of the entire committee was held on
February 7, 1985.
Committee Objectives
At its initial meeting, the Committee agreed upon a preliminary list of
objectives to guide its work. It was agreed that the focus of the group
was to be upon provisions and/or practices that were confusing, contradic-
tory or which contributed to unnecessary delays. The Committee also agreed
that it would be useful to compare Albemarle County to other jurisdictions
in order to gain a sense of perspective and to seek examples of streamlin-
ing that might be adapted for our own uses. Attached (on file) is the
complete list of twenty objectives of the Committee.
The Committee also agreed that its charge is to examine how the County
might more efficiently and effectively deal with land use regulation and
not to judge whether a particular item ought to be regulated and not to
judge County purposes in undertaking land use regulation.
Work Plan and Progress
A work program was agreed upon by the Committee. An interim report of
"Findings and Directions" is scheduled for early August. Leading up to
that point was an initial period of familiarization with Albemarle County's
procedures and field trips to learn about practices in six other jurisdic-
tions. These were chosen on the basis that their levels of building
activity were comparable to our own or they represented jurisdictions that
the Committee members felt might be the sources of innovative or useful
examples. Two single day trips included Prince William, Fairfax,
Arlington, Henrico, Chesterfield, and Hanover Counties. In this process,
it was learned that Prince William County is also undertaking a study of
regulatory streamlining employing a consultant under a $45,000 contract.
We have obtained copies of their reports. In addition, comparison data
were collected for Loudoun, Fauquier, Frederick, James City, and Rockingham
Counties and the cities of Chesapeake and Charlottesville.
On Thursday, May 23, at 7:30 p.m. in the County Office Building, the public
will be invited to meet with the Committee to discuss the need for regu-
latory streamlining and the public's suggestions about improved practices
or procedures. The intent of this Round Table Meeting is to discuss with
interested individuals their ideas and suggestions in an informal setting.
May 15, 1985' (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Tentative Observations
While it is premature to draw final conclusions, several tentative observa-
tions can be stated at this time:
a)
In time required to process development applications, it does not
appear that Albemarle County is out of line compared to other juris-
dictions;
b)
Among the state's jurisdictions that are ..rapidly growing, Albemarle is
unusual in requiring Planning Commission action on detailed site
plans - most jurisdictions expect the major citizen input to occur
earlier at the zoning state;
c)
d)
Even among the rapidly growing jurisdictions, it is rare to find the
Planning Commission meeting weekly as they do now in Albemarle;
Several jurisdictions have developed simple and useful brochures to
explain each of their regulatory procedures to persons not familiar
with up-to-date local practices;
e)
Almost all jurisdictions employ checklists to determine the complete-
ness of applications but, unlike Albemarle, staffs elsewhere have
authority not to accept applications that are incomplete or not in
proper form;
f)
One hears in almost all jurisdictions that larger developers - often
outsiders and usually employing professionals - experience fewer
processing difficulties while smaller land developers are more likely
to find themselves at odds with a jurisdiction's current practices.
Next Steps
After the Round Table Meeting on May 23, the Committee will digest all the
information it has received and will begin working on its Interim Findings
and Directions Report to be completed by the end of July.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-2. Blake Hurt/Larry McElwain. (Deferred from April 17,
1985, so that the applicant could submit a written proffer stating specifically what was
presented orally at the April 17 meeting.)
Mr. Donnelly noted that the following letter of proffer had been received:
"April 29, 1985
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re:
Greenbrier Drive rezoning
ZMA-85-2
Gentlemen:
At the meeting on April 17, 1985, the applicant was directed to reduce the
proffers to writing and, so, this letter.
Blake Hurt is the owner of a tract of 1.6910 acres on the east side of
Greenbrier Drive, a plat of which is enclosed with the application.
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, designated on the tax map as parcels 61W(2)-46 and 61W(2)-47. The
owners of parcels 46 and 47 contracted to purchase from Blake Hurt the
1.6910 acres if we can obtain a zoning of C-l, which is the same zoning as
parcels 46 and 47. The owners have owned this commercially zoned land for
many years. Recently, the adjoining land has been developed residentially.
We do not wish to impact the new residential area, but we do wish to pre-
serve our commercial rights in our land. In order to make the rezoning of
the 1.6910 acres more appealing to the residential area and to the board of
supervisors, we are willing to proffer as follows:
1. To restrict the 1.6910 acre tract, parcel 46 and parcel 47 to
prohibit the construction of automobile service stations and automObile
repairs shops.
2. To establish a buffer zone along the boundary line of the 1.6910
acre tract adjoining the Wynridge residential neighborhood 30 feet in width,
which would be retained in its natural state and/or planted with white pine
th~eeto four feet in height and spaced twenty feet apart.
The applicant is advised that he has a vested right to construct filling
stations and automobile repair shops on parcels 46 and 47 at the present
time. The applicant is also advised that these uses are the uses that the
residential neighbors desire to avoid. The applicant is also advised
that the 30 foot proffered is a wider buffer zone than would be required
under the ordinance.
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
The applicant respectfully requests a rezoning of the 1.6910 acres, subject
to the above proffers.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) David J. Wood, Jr."
At this time, the public hearing was reopened. Mr. David wood was present, and
explained the letter of proffer once again, along with other information he had given the
Board on April 17.
Mr. Jim Garmey, adjoining property owner in Wynridge Subdivision, was present to speak
for himself and his neighbors. He presented a statement (on file in the Clerk's Office) in
which it was requested that: 1) the Board permit only rezoning of the pipestem to C-l; 2)
the upper triangular areas be maintained in their present state as common ground; 3) supple-
mental evergreens be planted against the buffer strip to more clearly define the separation
between the two areas; 4) the use of the property be limited in order that it be consistent
with the family-oriented, residential community; and 5) the buildings be designed in keeping
with the style of the current development. Mr. Garmey then requested that the adjoining
property owners who were present in support of the statement stand. Several people were
present to express their support.
Mr. Jeff Echols said he owns a home near Wynridge, and most of the surrounding area is
zoned residential. He feels the only appropriate use of this property would be for profes-
sional, commercial offices.
Mrs. Joan Atkins, an adjacent property owner, said the adjacent property owners are
opposed.
Mr. Blake Hurt said he also is an adjacent owner. He is concerned that this property is
surrounded by two properties which have C-1 zoning, and if this property is not included, the
two C-1 parcels will be developed more intensely than if there were a larger parcel with
which to work. As part of any site plan approval, there will be the opportunity for the
County to require traditional landscaping or buffering.
Mr. Martin Beekman, said he is a neighbor in Minor Hills and Vice-President of their
homeowners association. The comments he has received from his neighbors and the statements
by Mr. Garmey are the same.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher asked that the Board be reminded of the staff's recommendation for this
petition. Mr. Donnelly said the staff had recommended denial, as had the Planning Commis-
sion.
Mrs. Cooke said she can sympathize with the residents in the area as to how the property
can be developed. Mrs. Cooke said before she can make a decision in favor of this petition,
she will need to have more information about the proffer.
Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes the property is difficult and should be developed as a
unified piece of property. He thinks the Board should encourage development of the parcel so
as to respect the residential character of the area. He would rather see a proffer that
specified commercial office uses r&ther than the number of other uses that are permitted
under C-l, and have not been excluded under the proffer. Mr. Lindstrom said he cannot
support the request for C-1 zoning on this property even with the proffer offered.
Mr. Bowie said it is obvious that this piece of property needs to be rezoned to some
category. He also would like to know about the intended use of the property and does not
think the proffer really affects the neighboring property owners.
Mr. Way said he agreed, but since the two pieces of property are already zoned commer-
cial, he thinks the pipestem piece of property has got to be commercial also.
Mrs. Cooke said under the circumstances, she would move for denial of ZMA-85-2. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion, but he
hopes the neighbors realize some of the uses that can be put on that lot by right under the
current zoning. Mr. Fisher said he supports the. staff and Planning Commission on this
petition. At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-84-20. Keswick. Proposal to rezone 490.94 acres from RA, Rural
Areas to PUD, Planned Unit Development. A total of 145 units is proposed; with clustering,
total gross density to be one dwelling per 2.2 acres. Property located south of Keswick,
bordered by 1-64 on the south, Rt. 616 on the east and Rt. 731 on the west. Tax Map 80,
parcels 8, 8B, 8B-l, 8C, 8I, 8J, 8K, 8N, 8N-l, 8P, 8Q, 8u, 8v, 8W-l, 8x, 8Z, 9, 31, 60A, 61,
61F, 61J, 62 (part), 70 (part), 97, and Tax Map 94, Parcel 42 (part). Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 30 and May 7, 1985.)
Mr. Lindstrom said his firm represents the applicant for this petition. The conflict of
interest statute requires that he not participate in this discussion even though his arrange-
ment with the firm is one which prevents him from obtaining any financial benefit from their
representation of this applicant. Because this is an important issue, he sought the opinion
of the Commonwealth's Attorney who must render opinions on the applicability of the conflict
of interest statutes. He wrote Mr. Lindstrom a fairly detailed letter in which he holds that
288
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Lindstrom, in fact, does have a conflict. Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom is unable to
participate in this discussion. Mr. Lindstrom left the table at this time.
Mr. Donnelly proceeded by giving the staff's report as follows, however, he noted that
since the writing of this report, the applicant had submitted 'a proffer which reduces the
request to 67 lots:
"Requested Zoning:
Acreage:
Existing Zoning:
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
490.94 acres
RA, Rural Areas
Location: Tax Map 80 (various parcels), Tax Map 94, parcel 42 (part).
Property is located south of Keswick, bordered by 1-64 on the south, Route
616 on the east and Route 731 on the west.
Applicant's Proposal: Applicant proposes the development of 147 single-
family detached dwelling units of which units are located in one cluster
with a total acreage of 35 acres (density of 2.28 dwelling units per acre)
and the remaining 67 dwelling units/lots would total 204.32 acres (average
lot size 3.05 acres). Gross density requested is one dwelling unit per 3.3
acres.
Lots 1 - 26 are to be served by a central water system and individual septic
tank systems. All Other lots to be served by central water and central
sewer systems with connections available to existing residences. Non-
residential land use consists of 251.62 acres including 79.7 acres in open
space. Lots 1 - 26 are to be served with a public road with all other roads
proposed as private. The golf course, clubhouse and pool and tennis courts
(158.12 acres) will be operated on a private club basis with membership open
to the general public.
Summary Proposed Land Use
Non-Residential:
Well lot
Sewage treatment lot
Roads
Golf course, pool, tennis courts, etc.
Club house, guest quarters, commercial condominiums
TOTAL
1.00 acre
1.65 acres
11.08 acres
149.52 acres
8.60 acres
171.85 acres
Residential:
Existing lots - 26 dwelling units
Residential cluster - 80 dwelling units
New lots 1 through 41 - 41 dwelling units
TOTAL
65.90 acres
35.00 acres
138.42 acres
239.32 acres
79.77 acres
490.94 acres
Open Space:
TOTAL ALL USES
History: In August, 1984 an application was submitted by Keswick Country
Club Land Trust requesting rezoning of 522.2 acres from RA, Rural Areas, to
PUD, Planned Unit Development. At that time, the applicant was requesting
253 dwelling units of which 194 units were located in four clusters with a
total acreage of 45 acres (density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre). The
applicant subsequently submitted a request for a comprehensive Plan amend-
ment which was studied by staff and the Planning Commission, however, the
Commission determined a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was not in order, The'
applicant, in January, 1985, requested an indefinite deferral. In February,
a revised application was submitted requesting approval of 147 dwelling
units with one cluster of 80 units.
Character of the Area: The Keswick area is basically characterized by
farms, large estates and large lot developments, with scattered
single-family residences. The proposed PUD area includes the existing
country club area, golf course, and 332.8 acres of land primarily in vacant
and woodland uses. Presently, 15 single-family residences are developed on
private roads within the PUD area. Royal Acres Subdivision approved prior
to 1969 and approximately 40 percent developed is located to the east, while
Shadwell Estates and Milton Heights also approved prior to 1969 are to the
south across Interstate ~4. The Keswick "center" consisting of the Post
Office, general store and fire station located at the intersection of Routes
22 and 731 is approximately one-half mile to the north of the entrance to
the country club area.
Section 10.5, Special Provisions for Multiple Single-Family Dwellin~ Units:
This section of the Zoning Ordinance addresses the division of Rural Areas
land into more than five lots by special use permit. While this application
is a rezoning, rather than a special use permit, the same criteria would
apply.
Special Use Permit Criteria:
1. The size, shape, topograDhy and existing vegetation of the property ....
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal ....
The site consists of gently sloping topography and sloping ridges with
slopes ranging from two to 15 percent. Areas along streams and bluffs
consist of hilly and steep slopes with slopes in excess of 25 percent.
The majority of soils on the site consist of Manteo channery silt loam.
This is a very shallow soil with bedrock at 10 to 20 inches. The
predominate land use except for the golf course is woodland of marginal
quality. Due to the soils' shallow depth and low fertility the area is
not considered to be a high quality hardwood producing soil and agricul-
tural potential is limited to primarily low grade pastureland. Septic
limitations are severe due to depth to bedrock.
The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property
since 1950.
The County land use records show that only three percent of the subject
property is currently taxed under preferential land use taxation.
If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the.probable effect of
the proposed development on the character of the area .....
Approximately 65 percent of the land within one mile of this develop-
ment is under land use taxation. Most of the parcels have been classi-
fied under land use since 1975. The visual impact of the proposed
development would be minimized by its location'in wooded areas. The
physical impact of the development in an area of large farms and
estates will be felt in the increased pressure for additional develop-
ment and the impact on public facilities and the transportation
system.
5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas.
This property is not located in a developed rural area as less than 20
percent of the land within one mile of the boundary of the proposed
P.U.D. is in parcels of five acres or less. The majority of small lots
are concentrated in the Royal Acres Subdivision and in lots scattered
in a linear fashion along Routes 744, 616 and 685.
The relationship of the proposed development to existin9 and proposed
population centers, services and employment centers.
a. The proposed development is' not within one mile of an urban area
boundary as described in the Comprehensive Plan. Urban Neighborhood
Three is located approximately four miles west of the property.
b. The proposed development is not within one-half mile of a
community boundary as described in the Comprehensive Plan. Hollymead
Community is located approximately thirteen miles to the northeast.
c. The proposed development is not within one-half mile of a village
as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The nearest village, Stony
Point, is located approximately thirteen miles to the northeast.
Potential village areas, included in the Comprehensive Plan, do not
include Keswick for future consideration for village status.
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements
programming in regard to increased provision of services.
Schools: Stone Robinson/Burley/Albemarle. The projected 28 elementary
students would cause serious overcrowding at Stone Robinson which is
presently at capacity. Albemarle High School, is presently approaching
capacity and increased immigration could result in future overcrowding.
Fire Protection: The response time for the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Company would be approximately five to ten minutes.
Water and Sewer: The applicant is proposing a central well system and
a package treatment plant to serve the majority of the development to
be owned and operated by the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority. The
Albemarle County Service Authority in their review of the PUD recom-
mends the central water and sewer systems should be dedicated to and
operated by the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority. Specific comments
related to water and sewer include:
a. Explore the feasibility of extending the water transmission line
from Pantops to the Keswick PUD. If this proves infeasible, an engi-
neering study of groundwater availability should be conducted to
ascertain the potential of groundwater to serve the development.
b. Pumping sewage from Keswick to the Moore's Creek Regional Waste-
water Treatment Plant would be too costly. The proposed plant location
in the PUD serves the major portion of the project by gravity but
sewage from the eastern portion must be pumped. Expansion of the
growth area beyond the boundary of the PUD would require other pumping
stations. Efficient servicing of the area would include consideration
of a treatment plant site further downstream on Carroll Creek, which
would involve crossing Interstate Route 64.
--..300
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Be
Would the traffic generated from the proposed development, in the
opinion of VirginiaDepartment of Highways & TransDortation, occasion
the need for road improvement~ cause a tolerable 'road to become a
nontolerable road~ increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road?
The proposed development would generate 1,030 vehicle trips per day.
Under present zoning, 63 lots could be developed by right generating a
traffic count of 441 vehicles per day. The residential portion of the
PUD would, therefore, generate approximately 590 more vehicles than can
currently be generated by right.
Specific impacts on the transportation system in the area are as
follows:
Se
Additional traffic in the range of 600 to 900 vehicles will use
Route 22 and Route 250 between Keswick and Charlottesville. In
the immediate future, this development would aggravate the current
traffic situation at Free Bridge on Route 250.
The impact on Route 744 from Route 731 to Route 22 will be to make
this section nontolerable. Traffic would increase from the cur-
rent 191 vehicles per day to 600 vehicles per day or more. Traf-
fic of this volume would require a 22 foot surface and a gated
crossing at the railroad.
Route 73i from Route 744 to Route 250. This section of road,
presently nontolerable would experience an anticipated increase to
200-300 vehicles per day.
Route 731 from Route 744 to Route 22. This gravel road is pre-
sently nontolerable. Additional traffic toward the post office at
Keswick would aggravate an already undesirable situation.
Route 616 from Route 22 to Interstate 64.
nontolerable.
This route is rated
fe
Private road systems such as proposed for this development present
future maintenance and improvement problems. The Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation recommends, as a minimum, that
the internal road system meet Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation standards to allow for their consideration for
state maintenance in the future.
(Applies only to property located within a water supply watershed, and
this site drains into the Rivanna River and is outside the water supply
watershed management areas of Albemarle County.)
Comparative Development Statistics:
Staff has calculated the following figures for comparison of existing and
proposed zoning:
Dwellings
Population
Vehicle trips per day
School Children
Existing Zoning Proposed ZMA-84-20
63 147
170 397
441 1,029
29 67
Staff Recommendation: Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Planning
Commission Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, regarding Planned
Developments requires that 'specifically recommendations of the Commission
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: The Comprehensive Plan recommends
this area as Rural Areas with a recommended density of one dwelling
unit per two acres. The rural areas of the County are recommended for
an increase in population of 4,540 during the 1982-2002 planning
period; Keswick PUD would represent approximately nine percent of that
increase while representing only .001 percent of the County's rural
areas. Additionally, the Keswick PUD would have a greater population
than all of the existing villages recommended in the Plan. In staff's
opinion this represents an inordinate amount of growth for an area not
designated as a growth area.
The scale at which application of this PUD concept is recommended
begins at the 75 - 100 dwelling unit range and is recommended primarily
as neighborhoods or mini-neighborhoods within designated Communities
and the Urban Area. Other locations may be considered where the
possibility of establishing a 'new village' or the nucleus of a future
community exists and where the development of such PUD would not
preclude achievement of the County's objectives for the urban area,
communities and villages.
The Comprehensive Plan states that 'residential, commercial and other
development activities should be directed to designated growth areas
rather than being permitted to encroach on agricultural and forestal
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
areas with detrimental effects. Development has direct and indirect
effects on agricultural and forestal activities.' Staff is concerned
that approval of this request may set a precedent' for similar future
requests in the rural areas.
Goal Number 11 of the Comprehensive Plan states 'guide the location,
form and size of new development in the County by providing and con-
trolling public utilities in a cost-effective manner.' Further, Objec-
tives 1 and 4 of Goal 11 state 'Insure that public utility improvements
are consistent with land use policies.' and 'Maintain conformance of
water and sewer project areas with proposed land use patterns.' An
amendment to the jurisdictional area of the Service Authority would be
required prior to the operation and maintenance of central water and
sewer systems serving the Keswick area. Staff is concerned that this
would involve development guiding the location of utilities rather than
utilities guiding the location of development.
Suitability of Plan in relation to Physical Characteristics of the
Site: In general, slopes in the Keswick PUD are gentle; however, the
area has development limitations due to poor soils for septic systems
and drainfields and limitations on local wells to supply adequate water
due to low flow rates.
Relation to Surrounding Area: The proposed development would result in
an intensification of land use in an area where existing development is
presently limited by natural constraints and availability of public
utilities, services and an adequate transportation system.
Relation to Major Roads, Utilities, Public Facilities and Services:
Schools, roads, and public utilities were addressed under the special
use permit criteria (page 4 of .this report).
Adequacy of evidence of unified control:
The report required under Section 8.5.1(i) of the Zoning Ordinance has
not been submitted as of this writing.
Summary and Recommendation: The proposed development has been reviewed
first for consistency with the division of Rural Areas land by special use
permit and second for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
In regard to special use permit criteria, the development meets only three
of the criteria primarily with regard to the unsuitability of the area for
agricultural or forestal production. The remaining five criteria deal with
the impact of the development on the surrounding area, the transportation
system and public facilities and services. In this regard, the development
would have a negative impact.
Concerning compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the development is not
consistent with the Plan's objectives of directing growth to designated
growth areas and with the pattern and timing of growth with regard to the
provision of public facilities and services.
Staff recommends denial of ZMA-84-20 based on the following factors:
The proposal does not satisfy the RA, Rural Areas, special use permit
criteria pertaining to the division of land into more than five lots;
2. The proposal is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Section 8.4 of the Zoning Ordinance states: 'PD districts shall be
approximately located with respect to the pattern and timing of the
development proposed in the Comprehensive Plan, and to public and
private facilities existing or scheduled to be available when required
by the development.' The proposed PUD is premature in respect to the
pattern and timing of the development proposed in the Comprehensive
Plan, which is further exemplified by the fact that public water and
sewer is not proposed for the Keswick area during the Comprehensive
Plan's planning period;
The proposal will have a negative impact on schools and the transporta-
tion system serving the area;
®
The proposal, while providing common open space, does not promote an
economical and efficient land use pattern;
Inclusion of the Keswick area in the Service Authority's jurisdictional
area (as proposed by the applicant) would result in a 'leapfrogging'
type development pattern without the benefit of proper planning for the
expansion of public utilities."
Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 30, 1985, by a
vote of 4/2 recommended denial and stated the following concerns: 1) Not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan; 2) inadequacies of the roads; 3) negative impact on groundwater; and 4)
lack of utilities.
302
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Fisher then noted that a copy of the following proffer had been distributed to the
Board members on Monday, May 13, the day it was received:
"May 13, 1985
Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director
Department of Planning and
Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Re: Keswick Country Club PUD--ZMA-84-20
Dear Mr. Donnelly:
I am writing you this letter on behalf of the applicants for the Keswick
Country Club PUD, ZMA-84-20. The purpose of this letter is to offer prof-
fers to the County of Albemarle as a condition of the rezoning request.
The applicants are willing to proffer the following conditions as a part of
the rezoning petition as follows:
There shall be no development of the cluster area (80 dwelling units on
the 35-acre tract within the PUD) until such time as the applicants
submit a new request to the County for the right to proceed with the
80-unit cluster on the 35-acre tract.
The applicants shall not use the existing wells (the three old wells
located (a) behind cottages near tennis courts; (b) capped well near
clubhouse; (c) near 17th green; to supply the water for the central
well system to serve the residential units in the PUD.
This proffer does not take away the applicants' right to serve 30
connections under the existing central well permit for Keswick, but
does deny the applicants the right to use the existing wells to serve
the residential units in the PUD.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Attorney for Applicants"
Mr. Fisher said he does not believe the staff has had time to review the proffer, nor
has the Planning Commission. The Board is essentially faced with two applications; one which
has gone through all of the processes, and the second application with the cluster and with
the limitation on the use of the wells. Procedurally, the Board can accept the application
with the proffer, or can send the entire application back for review by the Planning Staff
and Planning Commission. That matter can be decided after the public hearing.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Tom Curtis, the applicant, was present. He said they have been making plans for
development of this property since August of 1984. He noted that 72 percent of the
population in the area has moved to Keswick since the club was opened in 1940. In the
surrounding area, 86 percent of the property owners within one mile of the Keswick Country
Club, live on plots of five acres or less. Geologists from the Richmond area, through
reconnaissance infrared work have found water on the property in a limestone area on the s-
outheastern corner of the property which is sustaining 50 gallons per minute of flow. This
can be substantiated with data that is accepted under the standard method of geology work
throughout the State. The method of sewage treatment proposed tonight will be designed to
treat the sewage needed for the 67 dwellings. They have a right to 63 dwelling units.
Sewage will be treated through a sewage treatment plant and the fluid will be discharged
through a creek called Carroll Creek, which will then travel two miles to the Rivanna River.
People will probably protest tonight that Carroll Creek has zero water flow. They Can
substantiate, through proper engineering, that even with zero water flow in a canal or
tributary, it is acceptable with the proper method of design of the sewage treatment plant.
Mr. Curtis said, as far as roads are concerned, the Planning Commission report did not
mention any additional extension of roads to Route 616 or 1-64. Nor does it make traffic
calculations as to what amount of traffic will travel from the part of Keswick development
exiting onto those two roads. He is prepared to document tonight the amount of traffic they
feel will travel this path.
Next to speak was Mr. Bill Roudabush, who explained the layout of the property and why
it was designed as shown. First he showed a map depicting the existing conditions at
Keswick, noting the area of the existing golf course, the tracts of land owned by persons
other than the applicant and the tracts of land that are owned by the applicant. Next came
tax maps of the area. He said there are 56 subdivided lots within the boundaries of the
Keswick Country Club property. There is the golf course which runs through the middle of the
property and wraps around some of the lots and forms a complete circle. He then noted the
five roads in the area and a number of major subdivisions in the area where lots are very
small. They analyzed all the property within the Keswick boundaries and found that within
one mile of the boundary of the Keswick PUD there lie 5,277 acres divided into 711. parcels.
The number of parcels of five acres or less is 609 or 86 percent of the total land area.
Most of the larger parcels lie along the outside perimeter. The area within the PUD as
proposed is 491 acres or nine percent of the total area within one mile of the center of
Keswick.
303
May 15, t985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Roudabush then showed the relationship of the project to Charlottesville and the
major highways in the area. He showed on a map the boundaries of the aquifer formation in
which the test wells were drilled. He said there are only four or five existing dwellings
located on top of that limestone belt. Mr. Rou~abush said the plan under consideration
tonight shows an eighteen hole golf course, nine tennis courts, three swimming pools, a
clubhouse with the nineteenth hole, a six unit guest quarters on the grounds, 30 lots in the
subdivision owned-by others, 26 lots owned by the applicant and six guest suites in the
clubhouse. On the 26 existing lots owned by the applicant, individual wells will be replaced
with the central water system and sewage disposal by a septic system. Eighty cluster units
on the proposed new lots would all be served by a sewage disposal treatment plant with the
exception of the 26 lots in the area where the soil has been tested and found to be adequate
for support of individual septic systems. The treatment plant is being designed so if
necessary, these lots could be put on line. The main entrance would be on Route 616 near the
end of the newly constructed portion of 616 which was built in conjunction with the inter-
change for 1-64. There would be right and left hand turns constructed for access into the
property. There will be no connection to the portion of 616 near the railroad bridge.
The applicant has set aside a three acre tract near the ent which will be available
for a neighborhood center. There has been interest by the Fire Department in Keswick in
obtaining more land for their use with better access. Some of this land is available for
that need. In this area is a riding stable where owners in the development will be able to
keep riding horses. Open space will be reserved and owned in common by home owners in the
project. The area contains large hardwood timber stands which are designed ~o protect the
drainage swales and steep areas surrounding the drainage swales so that no d'~velopment can
take place on those areas and the trees will be maintained. A buffer will also be provided
along the interstate main access road which crosses Carroll Creek and continues to the
intersection with the existing subdivision road. This road will be constructed to State
standards all the way to Route 616. Cul-de-sacs would be constructed to State standards for
State maintenance.
The development calls for 80 cluster units which are single family detached homes on
individual lots located on the outer perimeter and buffered with a green belt to preserve the
existing hardwoods in that area. There are 26 lots which are already subdivided and owned by
the applicant which he has put into the PUD, not because he had to, but because he wanted to
have this as a unified cohesive package with joint control. There are 30 lots already
platted which are owned by others, so there will be a total of 56 existing platted lots in
the project. Mr. Roudabush noted that there will be a new State road built as an extension
of Club Drive coming in and connecting to the existing private road. He then gave some
statistics on which they had based their proposed road facilities. He said that no one knows
which direction the traffic will flow within the project. They feel by emphasizing that the
main entrance will be off of 616, most of the traffic will go in that direction, but they
cannot be sure of that. He said that even if only the club facilities were built and the
existing lots developed, there is not at this time a connection to 616, so all of the pro-
posed traffic would have to use the existing entrance off of 731 and 231. Their traffic
calculations were based on ultimate development usage. The club has been closed for a number
of years, and the existing lots have not developed.
Next to speak was Mr. Steve Warner, from Snoebel Engineering Associates in Richmond, to
discuss water. He said their firm was asked to locate water for the project in an area that
would have the least impact on the existing community. They did locate two wells in the
limestone formation. The first test well at 305 feet pumped 48 gallons per minute. The
second well located on the west edge of the formation at 205 feet got 12 gallons per minute.
They did the pump tests that are required for 48 hours at 50 gallons per minute and had a
draw down of 228 feet. After 48 hours of pumping, they had the same level of water at~50
gallons per minute. They also had two observation wells, one located 640 feet to the west in
the Louden formation, and there was no draw down on that well. They also monitored the well
located next to the Keswick Country Club, and there was no draw down at that point. The
second well was tested for 24 hours, and after 11 hours at 10 1/2 gallons per minute, the
water level stabilized. After checking the observation wells and all the other wells a
second time, they concluded that there was no interconnection between the existing well of
the Keswick Country Club and the~new well. The well in the Louden formation actually had
water above ground level both before and after the test. They felt that by putting at least
one well in the limestone formation, it would not affect anyone, particularly Keswick Country
Club, which is over 9,000 feet away. Because of the concern expressed by residents about
what would happen if the three existing Keswick wells were used,~ they recommend development
of a well field in the limestone formation. They have already 50 gallons per minute and feel
they can put down additional wells in the area and get as much as 100 gallons per minute.
They feel that plenty of water is available because artesian conditions were encountered.
Mr. Warner said they had done a simple water budget for the area. The rainfall in the area
is 38 inches. Four to six inches a year goes into the ground and is recharged in the ground
water system. That equates to approximately 69,000,000 gallons of water in a one square mile
area. If they put a well in and pump several wells at 100 gallons per minute a year, that
would take out 53,000,000 gallons of water. Therefore, there is more recharge in the system
than total withdrawal so they would not be depleting or exceeding the recharge of the wells.
Mr. Fisher said a copy of the technical report had been made available to him, and he
questioned using the one square mile area for recharge. He asked if they would not be using
water from somebody else's property. Mr. Warner said they were planning to use the limestone
aquifer and take the water all from this one formation. Mr. Fisher asked why they had used
one square mile as a recharge area. Mr. Warner said it was done as a simple calculation.
Mr. Fisher said it is then a standard method of calculation which bears no relation to the
property. Mr. Warner said they are sure there is no hydraulic interconnection, and that is
why they stayed with the one aquifer.
Mr. Ed Bain, Attorney for the applicant, said Mr. Gilbert O'Neal is present to speak
about the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Bain said he would address other issues dealing with
application and question of ownership. Mr. O'Brien owns a country club on part of the
property and has signed a document required by Section 8.5.1(i) of the Zoning Ordinance that
says these people will use what is necessary to go forth with a PUD. Mr. Bain said they
304
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
believe there is a unique situation with this property which has a golf course and has been
platted as a subdivision since the 1940's. A central water permit has been in existence for
equally as long. This property does not take away from the agricultural, forestal areas or
the rural areas of the County. It is bordered by 1-64, Route 616 and Route. 231. The
proper~y is tucked in among large farm areas. The majority of the parcels are less than five
acres ~ the immediate vicinity of this property. This Board has expressed concerns about a
central~well. He thinks the central well system, as proposed, is needed, and he assumes that
they will meet the requirements of the Health Department for the gallons per minute or they
will not be able to have the central well system. The same thing applies to the central
sewer plant. The staff's report goes into Objectives one and two of Goal 11 of the
Comprehensive Plan. He feels that what is being done here as far as central well and sewer
usage is being done in a cost effective manner.
Mr. Bain said the Comprehensive Plan speaks about nucleus of communities. This property
has been here for years, and he thinks that adds to the uniqueness of the situation. The
property does not lie in the urban area but is consistent with land use policy in terms of
the number of lots that exist there now in terms of a one mile radius. One unit per 3.3
acres is better than one-half acre permitted in areas under the Comprehensive Plan. He said
that Mr. Roudabush had gone over the traffic figures pointing out that the Highway Department
figures did not take into account the new road coming in from Route 616. No school problem
exists here that is worse than in any other areas of the County. The traffic is no worse
than in other areas. They feel that people will use Route 616 going out to 1-64, and that
situation is unique in terms of this plan. He does not think there will be any precedence
setting that will affect this Board later. They feel the area should be developed in terms
of a unified plan rather than with individual wells all over the place. There was a neigh-
borhood meeting held some months ago, and he feels they have met most of the concerns
expressed at that meeting. The plan, as it exists, is appropriate for the Board's approval
tonight.
At this point, Mr. Fisher interjected that the applicant had been speaking for almost an
hour and he would now open the Hearing to the general public, but he wished to have a ques-
tion answered first. Mr. Fisher inquired about No. 1 in the proffer of May 13, 1985 which
states: "There shall be no-development of the cluster area until such time as the applicants
submit a new request to the County for the right to proceed with the 80 unit cluster on the
35 acre tract." Mr. Fisher said he interprets that to imply that the cluster area will be
left vacant, but it also implies that that area is approved and the only question is when it
will be developed. Mr. Bain said that was not the intent, and that is not the way he reads
that sentence. Mr. Fisher asked what the land will be used for. Mr. Bain said that, basi-
cally, the area is there and for people coming in to buy and build, there is a Master plan.~
This plan shows a cluster that has not been approved, but they cannot come back later and say
they did not know that the unit was proposed. Mr. Fisher said that was not much different
from what he just said. Mr. Bain said he disagreed. Mr. Fisher said that is the way he
interpreted that language.
Mr. Bowie asked if the total PUD includes the 26 platted lots on the golf course. Mr.
Bain said it does. Mr. Bowie said Paragraph 2 of the proffer notes that the applicant shall
not use the existing wells . . . to supply water for the central well system to serve the
residential units in the PUD. The next paragraph goes on to say that this does not take away
the applicant's right to serve 30 connections under the existing central well permit for
Keswick. He asked if those are the 26 lots because they are in the PUD. Mr. Bain said they
had a hard time with the language. There is now in existence a central well permit for 30
connections. They do not want to get caught in a situation where the State Water Control
Board says they do not need those wells so they don't have those connections. They do not
intend to use those wells, but they don't want to lose the permit for the existing 30
connections. They will use the new well for those, so it is a clarification of that
situation. Mr. Bowie said to clarify, the applicant is proffering that these wells will not
be used for any housing including the 26 units at this time. Mr. Bain said that is correct.
First to speak from the public was Mr. Gordon Wheeler, who said that he was present
tonight as a neighbor, and to speak about the 147 units. He had been led to believe there
would only be 67, but to him the proffer means that it will be only a short lived proffer.
Actually, they are asking for approval of the entire PUD. Mr. Wheeler said he has lived all
of his life in the neighborhood. There are a number of small lots in and around Keswick.
What Mr. Roudabush did not mention in his presentation is that there is not a house on any of
those small lots. A number of people in Keswick have been able to accumulate a number of
those tracts, so that ownership is in larger tracts. In relation to roads, Route 616 from
the point where the roads come from Keswick is crooked and there is enough traffic on it
already. The Post Office is located in Keswick, and most people coming out in the morning
stop by the Post Office. There are 26 lots in the area. The State road goes to a point
where it meets the present road which the residents living in Keswick now maintain. He has
not heard anyone say they will help these residents with this maintenance when the additional
traffic is put on this road. Routes 744 and 731 are marginal. He is also concerned that if
this PUD is approved, they will be here in the near future objecting o another one. Mr.
Wheeler said if the applicant is sincere in wanting to develop 67 units, he can do that
through a Special Use permit and not through a PUD application. He asked that the petition
be denied. Mr. Wheeler then said he would like to present a letter from Mr. James Butler,
former Supervisor from the Rivanna District, who could not be present tonight. Mr. Fisher
said the letter notes four reasons for denial. Mr. Butler does not feel the application
agrees with the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Staff or the Planning Commission's
recommendations, and the highways cannot support this much additional traffic. Also, the
water situation in the area does not support development.
Next to speak was Mr. Peadar Little, a homeowner close to the Country Club and the
proposed cluster units. He expressed concern about lack of notice regarding the new proffer
and the lack of clarity in the composition of the proffer. He is worried with respect to the
future use of the wells and does not feel that is tied down by the proffer. He remembers
that a geologist had indicated that a well drawing 35 gallons per minute in the Louden
aquifer would have a significant impact on wells within a one mile radius. If this plan goes
305
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
forward, he would ask that the Board of Supervisors insure that no future use is made of the
existing wells. He has two children and is concerned that the traffic will increase from 104
vehicle trips per day in the neighborhood to over 690 which means that there will be a car
passing his house continuously. He has doubts that the present narrow,
superficially-surfaced road within the confines of the Country Club would support this
traffic, and pointed out that access to the Country Club for the public consists of less than
100 yards of road that does not cross in front of any of the residents' property. The newly
constructed road would carry the majority of the traffic through one-half mile of the
~property on which the~private residences stand. He then explained all of this while pointing
to a map.
Next to speak was Mr. Bruce Averill, a Professor of chemistry at the University of
Virginia, who lives one mile northeast of the proposal. His basic problem is why the appli-
cant would go to so much trouble to get permission to build four more units than he is
allowed to do by right, 67 instead oft 63. Cost effectiveness is out of the question. The
question is really one of what they p~an to do about the extra 80 units. This really just
gets a toe in the door for future development. His major concern is that if even a small
deviation is made from the Comprehensive Plan, it opens the door to someone to come in, buy
relatively large chunks of property and then start turning them into development properties.
Mr. Averill said that he was recruited by the Chemistry Department at the University and one
of the reasons he decided to come to this University was that he had the option of living
within a relatively easy distance but in a rural environment. He chose to move to the
Keswick area on the assumption that it was not slated for development. He and his neighbors
have proceeded on the assumption that this Board will abide by the recommendation of their
long range plan. The general feeling is that if the County is not going to abide by its own
plan, it could save itself a lot of money by just disbanding the Planning Commission and
putting up a sign saying, "Welcome, developers free to do whatever they like."
Mr. Archibald Craig said he lives in Keswick and is opposed to the project. Even though
the petition has been amended, it fails to separate the amendment from the cluster concept.
This project is a classic example of leapfrogging without the benefit of proper planning and
without the planning for the basic public utilities. It is the wrong project in the wrong
place and at the wrong time. Mr. Craig said he would like to make one other point. After
hearing Mr. Lindstrom state that the Commonwealth's Attorney said he had a conflict of
interest so he must excuse himself from this hearing, he feels the Attorney General is dead
wrong in his opinion, and he would like to enter into the record his opposition to Mr.
Lindstrom having to abstain from this discUssion.
Next to speak was Mrs. Shirley Munson, from the League of Women Voters, who read a
letter dated May 10, 1985, concerning this petition signed by Sue Lewis, President:
"The League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County urges
the Board of Supervisors to deny this rezoning petition for several reasons.
1. The State Department of Highways and Transportation's analysis of
the proposed development indicates that it would require road improvements,
cause several roads to become intolerable, and increase traffic from 441
vehicles per day to over 1000. We note that the department's letter of
March 7, 1985 states that it 'Cannot support this rezoning request and the
additional traffic that would be generated by these units not allowed under
current zoning.' ~
We share the department's concern about future maintenance and improvement
problems the proposed private road system presents, as we know what head-
aches other such systems have produced.
2. The developer's report of wells producing enough water to provide
90 gallons per capita per day indicates sufficient water for the develop-
ment. What the report did not show is the effect of such heavy pumping on
the wells of nearby owners, some of whom already have water supply problems.
We note that 26 lots are to be served by individual septic tank systems.
Soils in the area are very shallow with only 10 - 20 inches to bedrock. A
careful evaluation of each lot for a drainfield and reserve area will be
necessary, for close proximity to bed rock of drainfields could easily lead
to groundwater contamination. The League continues to be concerned about
the twin problem of the impact of growth in rural areas on ground and
surface waters and the threat to water quality from septic systems.
3. Finally, we agree with the staff report that the development is not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's objective to direct growth to
designated areas with public water and sewage facilities. The County has
made an effort to encourage growth into areas where services can be provided
and away from farm land--and should continue to do so.
The Comprehensive Plan provided for protection of rural lands. We believe
that allowing random development in the County's farm areas will neither
maintain Albemarle's rural character nor be compatible with farming uses.
Unless rural areas are kept rural, the rural category becomes simply a
'holding category' for future-residential or other development."
Mr. William Orr said he has lived in Keswick for fourteen years. He had bought 11 acres
and the property was subdivided. He had then asked the Board to revoke the subdivision plan
and that request was granted. He felt farm use was appropriate then and still does. He has
three points. In 1977 his well ran dry three times, and in August of 1977, he had a new well
drilled to 310 feet and got only one and one-half gallons per minute. Since that time, the
well has been dry once, and several times low and pumped muddy water. This is not an unusual
3O8
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
situation in the Keswick area. There are a number of marginal wells along Route 744 and
Route 616 which lie on either side of the Keswick property. The people who live there are
"pr~ably the people who are least able to afford new wells if their water source disappears.
He hoes not think this Board should allow Mr. Curtis to threaten his well or other residents
in.~eswick by a central water system that might deplete the groundwater. He said that when
you are totally responsible for your own water supply, you learn to conserve.
Mr. Orr said his second point has to do with what happens to the treated sewage water
when it is expelled from the plant. On either side of his house are creeks that run under
the road and onto the Keswick property. The one to the west goes dry nearly every summer.
The one near the Post Office, Carroll Creek, which is the creek to receive the sewage water
picks up two small streams after it leaves his property, and they are already dry this year.
The creek gets down to a mere trickle most summers, and stopped running entirely in the dry
summer of 1981. Mr. Orr said he has a statement signed by himself and other neighbors
bordering the creek to verify that it gets nearly dry at times. The last man who signed the
statement lives below the proposed sewage treatment plant on the creek, and the creek goes
through his yard within 25 yards of his house. Mr. Orr said that he walked the creek yester-
day and took pictures to show that the creek is only a foot wide in some places. If this
plan is approved by the Board, he will forward his photographs and a signed statement to the
Water Control Board.
Mr. Orr said he lives in Keswick because he likes living in the country. The area was
labeled as not suitable for growth in the County during the last revision of the Compre-
hensive Plan and zoned RA. Some of the land in the area has been in the same family since it
was obtained as a land grant from the King of England over 300 years ago. To allow this
development to break the RA zoning in the Comprehensive Plan will probably open the door to
other developments in this area and other parts of the County. Mr. Curtis has the right to
build 63 units, and the property owners in the area do not object to that. The golf course,
tennis courts and swimming pools are owned by Mr. George O'Brien, and the area residents
welcome that and hope that they will flourish. Mr. Orr said that he noticed that Mr. O~Brien
has not stepped forward to speak for Mr. Curtis at any Public Hearing. He then asked the
Board to follow the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for the rural areas and the
strong recommendations of the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission and deny this
planned unit development.
Mr. Paul Benoth said he lives at Belmont Farm just across Route 22 from the Country
Club. He and his wife moved to Virginia two years ago and have had great problems with water
at Belmont Farm. They have drilled three holes at a cost of $7,000 with the help of the
Geology Department at the University of Virginia and found nothing. They finally called in a
water deviner, and he found three gallons per minute. Two months ago they called in C. R.
Moore, Well Driilers, because the water pressure was already down to one and one-half gallons
per minute. The people from Snoebel Engineering said they had approached people in the area
but no one approached him. They mentioned a 48 hour test, but he does not believe a well can
be tested to serve that number of people for just 48 hours. He said that Keswick is a
beautiful area because it is used for farming, horses, etc. He is not opposed to growth, but
this is a no growth area, and he would like to see it held as such. The last time this plan
was discussed, this was called a sensitive development plan. He finds that an astounding
choice of words. He does not see how you can threaten the water supply of the area and
consider that as sensitive. Also, there are people who live on Black Cat Road who would not
have the resources to redrill their wells. It'threatens those people, and he does not call
that sensitive. It causes traffic problems on the roads. He does not think you can change
the nature of a whole area, and call that sensitive. He feels this whole proposal is for one
man's personal gain, and he asks the Board to vote in opposition to this petition. He said
there are far too many doubts about the future, and far too few guarantees. He asked the
Board to go along with the will of the vast majority of residents and not allow this wedge to
be driven into the Keswick area.
Mr. Ralph Kittle said he has lived in Keswick for almost 20 years and expects to retire
this summer. Everyone has heard from the experts hired by Mr. Curtis, and they have made
a lot of proffers and promises. He does not know anything about Mr. Curtis, but thinks that
with all of these promises, this is an idea worth looking into. He understands that Mr.
Curtis bought a home in the Keswick area, but it is well isolated from this area that he is
going to drastically attack. Mr. Kittle said it seems the Board has two choices to make in
their decision. One is to respond to the human needs which are defined in the Zoning Ordi-
nance itself, and the second is-to respond to greed for the larger tax base.
Mrs. Caroline "X" said she is a property owner in Keswick, and asked the people present
who think it is neither sympathetic nor well planned to stand. A substantial number of
people stood to show support of her position. She then asked that the Board represent the
wishes of the people.
Mrs. Pat Spicer said she is a life long resident at Keswick and a teacher at Stone-
Robinson School. She is opposed to the project. Stone-Robinson School is at capacity and as
an educator she is concerned that development of this magnitude would have an adverse effect
on the quality of education in the schools. She is also concerned with the increased traffic
and increased water consumption. She thinks that the beauty and uniqueness of the Keswick
area should be left as it is.
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, said that they support ~the
recommendation of the staff.
At 10:07 p.m. Mr. Fisher called a short recess.
resumed the Public Hearing.
The Board reconvened at 10:15 p.m., and
Mr. Robert Musselman, owner of a large number of acres adjoining the property across
Route 616 spoke next. He said if the Board denies this request, he hopes that the people in
the area will realize what they are getting into. The developer is not starting from
307
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
scratch. Development has been in the area for 45 years. The question that needs considera-
tion is, is it better to do it under control. He thinks it is.important to the community
that the Board not turn down this petition just because it is a change since he thinks it
would best be handled under control.
Mr. Jack Dillard said he has lived on the Keswick Golf Course for 18 years. If dreadful
changes are to come about, then he also would be opposed to the petition. He has joined with
his neighbors on numbers of occasions opposing things which he thought were inconsistent with
the recreation facility. He opposed putting a food distribution center right outside of the
Keswick gates. He opposed people wanting to put a winery in the clubhouse. He opposed the
applicant when he requested 254 units. He signed a petition last fall because he did not
feel it was appropriate at all. He said the golf course at Keswick has been used for State
championships; the tennis courts for the middle Atlantic tennis championships. The last
tenant was there for only four months and before him was someone who stayed two years.
Before that it was a year and a half. He said the recreational facilities are outstanding
and located in the eastern part of Albemarle. He does not endorse everything the applicant
has said but would certainly hope that the Board would seriously consider salvation of the
recreational facilities because he thinks they are at stake.
.With no one else from the public rising to speak for or against the petition, the Public
Hearing was closed at 10:20 p.m.
Mr. Fisher said he spoke to Mr. Bowie earlier today about this procedure. It seems to
him that on an issue like this, it is easy to get involvedin questions of water, roads,
sewer, or recreational facilities. But the real question has to do with land use. Is the
land suitable for this type of development? If the answer is yes, the other questions then
become important.
Mr. Bowie says he has a different opinion as to priorities. He thinks the key problem
in the Keswick area is water. And even if the petition meets objectives in the Comprehensive
Plan but endangers the water supply, he could not support the petition. A new proffer has
been received this week. Three or four of the Board members have read it and don't agree as
to what it says. The County Attorney did not get a copy, and he asked if that was correct.
Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Bowie said he has no legal opinion as to what the proffer says.
He is ~mpressed with the number of people who came out to speak tonight. He thought the
proffer killed the issue of the cluster homes and that was a dead issue, but it appears now
that it is not. He thought it said that in exchange for the 67 units, the wells on the golf
course would not be used. He cannot support the petition until he gets answers to those
questions. In addition, the Board has received three different sets of traffic data which
the Staff has not seen. He does not understand the proffer and can't support the request and
would have to vote against the petition if the vote were taken tonight. He noted that Mr.
Orr had spoken to him several times about the water problem.
Mrs. Cooke reminded the Board Members that they had recently enacted a resolution
concerning materials that come to the Board without first having Staff review. Since this
letter was hand delivered on Monday, she cannot vote until she knows what the proffer means.
She would like to have the Staff and Legal Staff review the proffer in order for the Board to
be able to make a fair decision in this matter.
Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Cooke if she wanted to send the whole petit~o~ack to the Plan-
ning Commission and have it start over. Mrs. Cooke said Mr. Fisher ~as pa~t~--the &ccep
T-an-c%-~f--the language that s~ there would be no guarantee the Board would make a decision
on brand new material without~first having advantage of Staff review. If that is a Board
policy, and it was made for definite reasons, the Board should go by it, or it should not
have adopted the policy in the first place. The Board was forced to do that because so much
new information came in to the Board without Staff review. Mrs. Cooke said she would not be
comfortable in making a decision until after this new information had received review from
the technical and the legal Staffs.
Mr. Way said he does not understand the proffer. If indeed the 80 units are excluded,
it makes a considerable difference as to how this whole project came about and that is not
clear. He has a number of questions. 1) What is the status of the private roads within the
development to be? 2) Are the water facilities being deeded to the County? Will the water
facilities be built to specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority so that they
might be hooked to the Authority lines? 3) What about development of the commercial pro-
perty in the PUD? 4) There was a question in the Staff report concerning railroad tracks.
Would this require putting up a gate? 5) Stone Robinson School is already in an overcrowded
situation. Are the figures the Board has received minus the 80 units accurate? Mr. Way said
he cannot vote on this petition without knowing the condition of the 80 units.
Mr. Henley said he would support Mrs. Cooke's recommendation.
Mrs. Cooke said she knows the public is disappointed, but the Board must deal With the
facts or they are not responsible otherwise. Not all of the facts are here, so she cannot
vote tonight.
Mr. Fisher suggested that to get the information that is needed, this petition might be
sent back to the staff and the Planning Commission. It is a fairly different proposal and it
could start over.
Mr. Bowie said nobody has been able to answer any of his questions tonight. He is
concerned with deferral because of the opposition of the citizens and having to ask them to
come back. Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission had reviewed an entirely different
proposal. If the Board is going to send it back to the Staff and skip the Planning Commis-
sion, that is one thing. He is not in favor of deferring. If the Board wants better answers
to its questions, he would suggest that they let the Planning Commission advise them.
308,,
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Bowie said he would like to state, and this will be the motion if he can get it out
right, that he does not want any more road studies or traffic studies or school studies. He
only wants to know about the proffer that changed the package and the 147 units is not an
issue. Of the 67 units versus 63 units the 80 units are out permanently, and if that is the
case, he wants that specified. If you're talking about 67 units, he wants to know that the
wells on ~e golf course will not be used. Those are his two questions. Mr. Fisher said the
question of whether the 80 units are in or out will only be determined when some other use of
that land is determined. If that property is divided into the large acreage lots, and that
become~ a part of the PUD, then that determines what the future use will be. If that pro-
perty i's left vacant, with the kind of proffer he sees here, it is only saying that there
will be a future development at some time on that acreage.
Mr. Henley said he does not feel this petition needs to go back to the Planning Commis-
sion. He feels the Board could postpone taking action until its next meeting so the appli-
cant can explain the proffer. He could vote on it tonight, but in fairness to the applicant,
he should be allowed to explain. Mrs. Cooke said the only thing she is asking for is review
of the brand new information. That is all she wants the Staff to review.
Mr. Fisher then asked if there were a motion to defer this petition until such time as
the Staff can respond to the questions raised by the Board members at this hearing. Mr. Way
offered motion to this effect, which was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at this time.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-85-23. Michael G. Collier. To locate a single-wide mobile home
on property located on east side of Woodridge Road about 0.8 mile south of intersection with
Rt. 663. Tax Map 9, Parcel 5, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
April 30 and May 7, 1985.)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-85-24. Michael G. Collier. To locate a single-wide mobile home
on property located on east side of Woodridge Road about 0.8 mile south of intersection with
Rt. 663. Tax Map 9, Parcel 5, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
April 30 and May 7, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly gave the combined staff report as follows:
"Acreage: 12.88 acres
Zoning: RA, Rural Areas
Character of the Area: Land use in the immediate area consists of scattered
single-family residences (including mobile homes) and extensive acreages in
vacant woodland and agricultural uses. Woodridge Road, a privately main-
tained road in deteriorating condition, serves as access to approximately
eleven single-family residences of which four are mobile home-s. Parcel 5 is
heavily wooded with a mix of hardwoods and evergreens. The area proposed
for the location of the mobile home has been selectively cleared.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant is requesting this mobile home for rental
purposes. The proposed location of the mobile home would be visible only
from the residence (mobile home) directly across Woodridge Road. The
applicant is proposing to locate the mobile home a minimum of 70 feet from
the side lot line, 80 feet from the front lot line, and 350 feet from the
rear lot line.
SP-85-23 and SP-85-24 are requests for two mobile homes to be located on the
same lot, with approximately 130 feet separation between the two mobile
homes.
Should the Planning Commission and Board choose to approve the petition,
staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Both mobile homes to be served by a common entrance."
Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 14, 1985, by a
vote of 4/2 recommended approval of these special use permits subject to the conditions in
the staff's report.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is any structure on this property at this time.
said the property is vacant.
Mr. Donnelly
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Gale Pickford was present to represent Mr. Collier.
He noted that these mobile homes are proposed to be rental units. He then explained the
boundaries and the location of the property and noted that the property is served by a
private road. Mr. Fisher asked who will maintain the road. Mr. Collier explained that he
had done considerable work on the road to get it into good condition.. Most of the people
living along the road are low-income people. Mr. Fisher asked who will maintain the road
when Mr. Collier is no longer willing or able to do so. Mr. Collier said there is no written
agreement for maintenance of the road.
309
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
With no one from the public coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has voted to approve mobile home permit,s for those persons needing
a home, but not for rental purposes. Such an approval would set precedent. Mr. Henley
said he has never voted against a mobile home request for a person who needed a place to
live, but not for rental purposes.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to deny the request for. both SP-85-23 and
SP-85-24. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-85-10. David Wood. To rezone 3,333 sq. ft. from R-2, Residen-
tial to C-1 Commercial. Property located near intersection of Dominion Drive and Rt. 29.
Tax Map 61MU, Parcel 01-16. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
April 30 and May 7, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report as follows:
"ZMA-85-10: David Wood (buyer), Rickey Jackson (seller)
Requested Zoning: C-1 Commercial
Acreage:
3,333 square feet
Existing Zoning: R-2, Residential
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61M, Parcel 01-16, a portion of a
lot in Berkeley Subdivision.
Character of the Area: This lot, one of the larger lots in Berkeley,
extends to a point in the rear abutting commercially-zoned land. The seller
proposes a straight rear line with common corners to adjoining residential
lots. The buyer proposes rezoning of the resulting triangular residue so as
to make adjoining property more developable.
Staff Comment: Mr. Wood, the buyer, owns adjoining parcel 61M-12-1 and has
recently purchased Lot 1 of the Mary Brown commercial subdivision. Rezoning
of the 3,333 square foot area would increase development potential of both
of these properties. Rezoning would also permit building location closer to
three lots in Berkeley Subdivision: Lot 15 (Foo Jeng Tang), Lot 16 (Rickey
Jackson - seller) and Lot 17 (William West). Of these three lots, staff
opinion is that Lot 17 (West) would be most affected. Because of various
setback restrictions on commercial Lot 1, current building setback from the
corner of Lot 17 is about 120 feet. If this reZoning is approved, a build-
ing could be located 50 feet from the lot corner.
Mr. West has had previous negotiations with Mrs. Brown regarding screening
from the commercial subdivision which may or may not provide adequate
buffering from additional commercial zoning. Staff would not want to make
any recommendation which would be contrary to these past negotiations.
Otherwise, staff views this as a reasonable request which could result in
improved development of the property."
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 1985, by an unani-
mous vote, recommended approval of this petition.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. David Wood, the .applicant, was
present. He said that he and his brother are the contract purchasers of this triangular
piece of property which is made by drawing a line across the back of Lot 16 from the corners
of Lots 15 and 17 in Berkeley. He explained the advantages of adding this small piece of
property to their already existing commercially zoned property.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Cooke said she had heard nothing from constituents concerning this petition. Since
there was no opposition expressed, she offered motion to approve ZMA-85-10. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way,
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-85-14. Claude Cotten. To rezone with proffer a parcel of
about 48 acres from PUD, Planned United Development, to LI, Light Industrial. Property
located on east side of Fifth Street, about one-half mile north of 1-64 and is a portion of
the Willoughby Planned Unit Development. Tax Map 76M(1), Parcel 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4B, 4C.
Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 30 and May 7, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report:
"Requested Zoning: LI, Light Industrial (Proffer)
Acreage:
Approximately 0.48 acre
Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development
· -- 3!0 '
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Character of the Area: This property contains the old Willoughby house.
Moores Creek and the access road to M. C. Thomas Furniture Warehouse border
the property on the north. 1-64 and the Holiday Inn are to the west and
south.
Due to steep slopes and flood plain along Moores Creek, the location of tke
access road and other constraints, about 25 - 30 acres of the site is
appropriate for development (i.e., areas on PUD plan approved for commercial
and residential use. Development of other areas would likely require
extensive earth-moving.) Developable area consists of two knolls with
moderate slopes.
Willoughby PUD: The Willoughby PUD Plan, approved in 1975, shows 260
multi-famil~ dwellings and 17 acres of commercial land in this area. The
area for residential development is adjacent to 1-64, industrial land, and
commercial land and remote from any other residential areas. The commercial
area could accommodate about 170,000 - 200,000 square feet of building area
based on existing development of other large tracts.
In review of Willoughby earlier this year, staff stated that this area 'does
not appear particularly suited to commercial/multi-family development due
to: terrain, presence of 1-64, and relation of land uses. Over the years,
staff has discussed alternative development schemes, but no interest has
been shown in developing the area as approved under the original PUD.'
During review of ZMA-85-14 for R. D. Wade, the Board deleted the internal
connector road between this property and the residential portion of the PUD
across Moores Creek.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant requests removal of this property from
Willoughly PUD and rezoning of the land to LI, Light Industrial. The
applicant has proffered deletion of certain uses in'order to develop the
property with uses appropriate to an office/research and development
climate. Regarding the applicant's proffer, staff opinion is that the
following uses should not be deleted:
10.
11.
Engineering, engineering design, assembly and
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilitieS'ii..
Comprehensive Plan: The Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes
the approved Willoughby PUD in this area. Review of land use policies
contained in the Plan's 'Interstate Interchange Development' section is
appropriate due to the character of this rezoning request. The 'Interstate
Interchange Development' section of the Comprehensive Plan is intended 'to
provide a set of flexible, yet definitive guidelines for development' at
certain 1-64 interchanges. Staff has reviewed this rezoning proposal for
consistence with these guidelines and offers the following comments:
1. This rezoning is consistent with recommended uses at certain ~-64
interchanges: The Plan states that permitted uses should be related to
and supportive of the interstate highway function. Recently, concerns
have been expressed that access to existing industrially-zoned areas
should be improved and that direct access to 1-64 is highly desirable
for research/development uses. Among uses recommended at interchanges
in the Plan are major office, business or industrial employment cen-
ters. The Plan also states that 'light industrial, warehousing, and
wholesaling business dependent on trucking of goods also favor such
locations.'
0
Access to the site is consistent with Comprehensive Plan recommenda-
tions: The Plan states that a regional use need not be located
adjacent to an interchange, but should have direct access to an inter-
change over a road segment of adequate capacity and non-local func-
tion.' This site is in close proximity to the interchange. Fifth
Street extended serves as an access to Charlottesville from 1-64 for
work/shopping/downtown traffic.
Access to this site and M. C. Thomas Warehouse is over an existing
roadway which has been considered for extension to Avon Street to
improve access from industrial lands in that area. The access road
intersects Fifth Street at a crossover, more than 800 feet from the
interstate ramps (i.e., minimum separation recommended by Comprehensive
Plan).
The Plan recommends buffering from the Interstate: Much of the site
would be visually screened due to differences in elevation. Screening
for westbound traffic could be provided by maintenance of some of the
existing woodlands.
Regarding Industrial Land Use Standards found in Chapter 10 of the Compre-
hensive Plan, staff offers the following comments:
(1) The rezoning request is reflective of the following standards:
Industrial uses should seek locations adjacent to compatible uses (commer-
cial, public or other industrial, etc.) ....
Industrial development would be separated by 350 - 400 feet from
residential uses in the remainder of Willoughby. Maintenance of trees
along the north side of the access road would provide further buffer.
~-3
311
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
The M. C. Thomas property is zoned Light Industrial and is in warehouse
usage. Location adjacent to the Holiday Inn South could be an advan-
tage to office and industrial uses in terms of convenient accommodation
for clientele.
Industrial uses should locate within a half-mile of highway, air or rail
transportation facilities ....
Industrial access should be to major collector, state primary or arterial
highways. Industrial intersections ....
While industrial sites need not be restricted to designated ~rowth ....
These standards have been previously addressed. Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation has stated that so long as traffic gene-
rated from this site would be equivalent or less than under the
approved plan, no problems are anticipated.
Industrial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities
are ....
Public water and sewer are available in the area.
Fifth Street is anticipated from this reZoning.
No upgrading of
(2)
This rezoning request could be improved in regard to the following
standards:
Objectionable aspects of an industrial use should be addressed through a
combination approach including ....
Natural site characteristics should be appropriate to the intended use.
Extensive ~rading, cuttin~ and filling, ....
Rezonings to an industrial designation for sites of 50 acres or more ....
While this rezoning is slightly less than 50 acres, a simple plan could
address issues outlined by these standards and earlier in the staff's
report. Such a plan would: 1) Identify areas to remain wooded as a
buffer to the residential area of Willoughby and 1-64; and 2) Identify
areas on the site unsuited to industrial development;
Staff Recommendation: The staff will meet with the applicant prior to
public hearing to discuss issues of buffering and areas for development.
With the exception of these two concerns, staff opinion is that the
requested rezoning is highly reflective of Comprehensive Plan recommenda-
tions and of the perceived need for an office/research/development site with
direct access to 1-64. ~
Proffer for Willoughby Zoning Amendment:
We propose zoning that will allow Research/High-tech facilities, corporate
park offices and light warehousing. All such facilities to comply with the
restrictive covenants for safety, health and benefit of all the owners in
this corporate park. All building to pass an architectural review board
composed of the applicant or his authorized agent, an architect and an
engineer/land planner.
The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and
limitations of these regulations:
1. Compounding of drugs, including biological products, medical and
chemical as well as pharmaceutical.
2. Manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, distribution of
products such as but not limited to: (reference 5.1.24)
-Artists' supplies and equipment.
-Business, office machines and equipment.
-Cosmetics, including perfumes, perfumed toiletries and perfumed toilet
soap.
-Drafting supplies and equipment.
-Electrical lighting and wiring equipment.
-Electrical and electronic equipment and components including radio,
telephone, computer, communication equipment, TV receiving sets,
phonographs.
-Gifts, novelties including pottery, figurines and similar ceramic
products.
-Glass products made of purchased glass.
-Industrial controls.
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
-Jewelry, silverware.
-Light machinery and machine parts, including electrical household
appliances but not including such thin~s as clothes washers, dryers
and refrigerators.
-Musical instruments.
-Paper products such as die-cut paperboard and cardboard, sanitary
paper products, bags and containers.
-Photographic equipment and supplies including processing and
developing plant.
-Rubber, metal stamps.
-Small electrical parts such as coils, condensers, transformers,
crystal holders.
-Surgical, medical and dental instruments and supplies.
-Toys, sporting and athletic equipment, except firearms, ammunition or
fireworks.
-Watches, clocks and similar timing devices.
Publishing, printing, lithography and engraving, including but not
limited to newspapers, periodicals and books.
Preparation of printing plates including typesetting, etching and
engraving.
5. Research and development activities including experimental testing.
6. Scientific or technical education facilities.
Public uses and buildings such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds
and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies
(reference 31.2.5).
8. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
9. Business and professional office buildings.
The following uses shall not be permitted:
1. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9).
0
Food products, such as bakery goods, dairy produCts, candy, beverages,
including bottling plants.
3. Wood cabinets and furniture, upholstery.
Assembly and fabrication of light aircraft from component parts
manufactured off-site.
5. Contractor's office and equipment storage yard.
0
Engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrication of machinery
and components, including such on-site accessory uses as machining,
babbitting, welding and sheet metal work employing machinery not
exceeding fifteen (15) horsepower per unit and excluding such uses as
drop hammering and foundry.
m
Electric, gas, oil and 'communication facilities excluding multi-legged
tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes;
meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and
owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewer-
age collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and
operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. ExcePt as other-
wise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage
systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
Permitted by special use permit:
1. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
2. Moving businesses, including storage facilities.
3. Warehouse facilities.
4. Wholesale business.
Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations
(reference 5.1.27).
6. Helistop or heliport (reference 5.1.1).
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Not permitted by special use permit:
1. Airport.
2. Assembly of modular buildings units.
3. Truck terminal.
Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers;
gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances;
unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave
transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances.
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 1985, by a vote of
five in favor, with one abstention, recommended approval of ZMA-85-14. The Commission did
suggest that the proposed buffers along 1-64, and between the access road and Moores Creek,
be incorporated as a part of the proffers to the rezoning.
Mr. Donnelly then noted that the following letter had been received in the office on
May 10, 1985:
"May 8, 1985
Mr. Ron S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Re: Willoughby East
Dear Mr. Keeler:
This is to confirm our verbal amendment of our rezoning proffer presented
last evening at the Planning Commission meeting May 7, 1985. This is in
agreement with the staff recommendation more specifically to include as
permitted uses item $6 and $7 submitted as 'uses not permitted' in our
original proffer.
Please submit this amendment with the application approved last evening to
the Board of Supervisors meeting.
I thank you for your help in making and presenting this application.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Claude W. Cotten
Associate Broker, Real Estate III"
Mr. Donnelly then noted that the following proffer had been received in the Planning
Office on May 13, 1985, and a copy hand-delivered to the Board that afternoon:
"May 13, 1985
Mr. James Donnelly
Director of Planning
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Dear Mr. Donnelly:
Please attach this corrected proffer to our rezoning application of
Willoughby East to be considered at the meeting of the Board of Supervisors,
Wednesday, May 15, 1985 at 7:30 p.m.
Thank you for your help in preparing this application.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Claude W. Cotten
Associate Broker
Proffer for Willoughby Zoning Amendment
The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and
limitations of these regulations:
Compounding of drugs, including biological products, medical and
chemical as well as pharmaceutical.
Manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, distribution of
products such as but not limited to: (reference 5.1.24)
-Artists' supplies and equipment.
314
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
-Business, office machines and equipment.
-Cosmetics, including perfumes, perfumed toiletries and perfumed toilet
soap.
-Drafting supplies and equipment.
-Electrical lighting and wiring equipment.
-Electrical and electronic equipment and components including radio,
telephone, compUter, communication equipment, TV receiving sets,
phonographs.
-Gifts, novelties including pottery, figurines and similar ceramic
products.
-Glass products made of purchased glass.
-Industrial controls.
-Jewelry, silverware.
-Light machinery and machine parts, including electrical household
appliances but not including such things as clothes washers, dryers
and refrigerators.
-Musical instruments.
-Paper products such as die-cut paperboard and cardboard, sanitary
paper products, bags and containers.
-Photographic equipment and supplies including processing and
developing plant.
-Rubber, metal stamps.
-Small electrical parts such as coils, condensers, transformers,
crystal holders.
-Surgical, medical and dental instruments and supplies.
-Toys, sporting and athletic equipment, except firearms, ammunition or
fireworks.
-Watches, clocks and similar timing devices.
Publishing, printing, lithography and engraving, including but not
limited to newspapers, periodicals and books.
Preparation of printing plates including typesetting, etching and
engraving.
5. Research and development activities including experimental testing.
6. Scientific or technical education facilities.
Public uses and buildings such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds
and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies
(reference 31.2.5).
8. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
9. Business and professional office buildings.
10.
Engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrication of machinery
and components, including such on-site accessory uses as machining,
babbitting, welding and sheet metal work employing machinery not
exceeding fifteen (15) horsepower per unit and excluding such uses as
drop hammering and foundry.
11.
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding multi-legged
tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and
owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewer-
age collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and
operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as other-
wise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage
systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law.
The following uses shall not be permitted:
1. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9).
Food products, such as bakery goods, dairy products, candy, beverages,
including bottling plants.
3. Wood cabinets and furniture, upholstery.
315
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
4. Assembly and fabrication of light aircraft from component parts
manufactured off-site.
5. Contractor's office and equipment storage yard.
Permitted by special use permit:
1. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
2. Moving businesses, including storage facilities.
3. Warehouse facilities.
4. Wholesale business.
5. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations
(reference 5.1.27).
6. Helistop or heliport (reference 5.1.1).
Not permitted by special use permit:
1. Airport.
2. Assembly of modular buildings units.
3. Truck terminal.
4. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers;
gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances;
unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave
transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances.
Buffer Areas:
1. The applicant will provide a tree buffer along the property boundary by
1-64 to screen the property from the westbound lane of 1-64.
2. The existing natural buffer between the property and the Willoughby
Residential Subdivision will be undisturbed in the area between the
existing road to M. C. Thomas Warehouse and Moore's Creek."
Mr. Fisher asked if the staff had had time to review this petition under this newest
proffer. Mr. Donnelly said they had, and feel that the proposal is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan and also with the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Fisher asked if the County Attorney had reviewed the latest proffer. Mr. St. John
said he had not seen the proffer, but if there is no ambiguity, there is no legal question
connected with the proffer.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Claude Cotten was present to speak for
this request. He noted that one of the characteristics of an LI area is that it be in an
isolated area, away from other uses. This property is so located, but yet is close to 1-64
and Charlottesville. Also, sewer, water, and gas services are available to the property.
There has been opposition to this request expressed, and the applicant has deleted all
"heavy" uses through the proffer.
Mr. Jim Murray, Jr. was present to speak in support of the proposal. He said the Board
has agonized in past years over where to put LI uses. This is the first time that such a
request has been presented that is planned for the right place. He supports the request.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this is an appropriate use of this parcel. He then offered
motion to approve ZMA-85-14 with the proffer dated May 13, 1985~ which is set out in full
above, and which was hand-delivered to the Board members on May 13, 1985, and which is signed
and dated May 13, 1985 by Claude Cotten. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was
called ~and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-85-16. James B. Murray, Stephen M. Murray and Panorama Farms,
Inc. To locate 80 lots on a 189.10 acre parcel with average lot size of 2.13 acres. Pro-
perty zoned RA is located on the south side of Rt. 660, about one mile west of intersection
with Rt. 743, surrounding Crouse-Hinds. Tax Map 31, Parcel 21, Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 30 and May 7, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 14, 1985, voted
unanimously to indefinitely defer action on this special permit request. The Commission
requested additional information concerning extension of public water.
Mr. Fisher said he had heard questions about the land use implications of extending
water service into this area of the reservoir watershed. He asked that the Planning Commis-
sion consider the overall question of the effect of extending public water into this area
when it reconsiders this petition.
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Motion was then offered by Mr. ~Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer this petition
pending completion by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote: '
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None. '
Agenda Item No. 12.
Agenda Item No. 13.
Request to establish an Agricultural/Forestal District in Eastham.
Report from the Land Use Facilities Committee.
Both of these items were deleted from the final agenda due to time constraints.
Agenda Item No. 14. Set hearing date to amend Chapter 6 of the Albemarle County Code to-
establish a second voting precinct in Charlottesville Magisterial District.
The following memorandum from Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, dated May 8, 1985,
entitled "Status report on locating a second voting precinct in Charlottesville Magisterial
District and request to hold a public hearing on the recommended site" was presented:
"Background - The number of registered voters at the Woodbrook voting
precinct exceeds the maximum of 50'00 set by State Code Section 24.1-37.
This section of the State Code delegates the responsibility of creating a
new precinct to the governing body and sets forth the requirements for a
voting precinct. In addition to the State Code requirements, the voting
place must have approval of the Federal Justice Department and State Board
of Elections. Some of the requirements are:
-Must be three hundred yards from the boundary.
-Shall be located in public buildings whenever practicable.
-Have no less than seven hundred fifty voters in order to use voting
machines.
-Boundaries must be clearly observable and composed as nearly as
possible of contiguous and compact areas.
-The site must be easily accessible with adequate ingress and egress
plus parking. ·
-Facility must provide adequate space to provide for precinct workers and keep the public forty feet from voting machines.
-Facility must meet handicap requirements.
At your April meeting, you designated Mrs. Cooke, Mrs. Matthews, and me to
select a place and come back to your for your consideration.
Actions to Date - After looking at fire houses, rescue squad buildings,
churches, elder care centers, and other locations in the Berkeley/Westfield
area, the site selected is located at 2360 Commonwealth Drive (DMV Build-
ing). After several discussion with the manager, Mr. Hodnett, official
written request was made to the Commissioner of the Division of Motor
Vehicles, Mr. Donal Williams, for use of the facility. (A copy of his reply
is attached hereto with the conditions). Since the conditions only allow
for November General Elections when DMV is closed, verbal arrangements have
been made with the Resident Highway Engineer to conduct Special Elections
from a mobile office parked on Westfield Road. Over the past ten years,
there have been only two Special Elections. Also, the turnout at Special
Elections has been less than one-half of voters when compared to a General
Election. The use of a mobile office trailer has been discussed by the
Registrar with the State Board of Elections. All of the other conditions
in Mr. Williams' letter can be met. It is anticipated that only the lobby
and examining room will be used with the counter and inner offices being
barricaded from the public.
The new precinct tentatively called the Berkeley Precinct will serve all of
those voters in the Charlottesville District on the west side of U. S. 29
estimated to be 2950. The remaining 2500 voters on the east side of U. S.
29 will continue to vote at Woodbrook.
Recommendation - The Planning Department has prepared a description and map
of the Berkeley Precinct and the new boundary lines of the Woodbrook
Precinct. The County Attorney's Office is preparing the necessary
revisions to the County Code to establish the new voting precinct which
will be available to you on May 15.
It is recommended that you officially order the advertisement at your
May 15 meeting which must run once per week for two weeks in succession,
for a public hearing at either the June 5 or June 12 meeting. Once the
above is accomplished, approval will be sought from the Justice Department
and voters affected by the change will be notified by Mrs. Matthews the
Registrar." '
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to set a public hearing for
June 12, 1985, on the amendment to the County Code. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote: '
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Agenda Item No. 15. Special Appropriation: Removal of Asbestos from Seven Schools.
The following memorandum dated May 9, 1985, from Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive,
was presented:
"Background - In recent conversations with David Papenfuse and Robert
Thraves, I was made aware of the need to remove asbestos from seven county
schools - Burley, Crozet, Murray, Rose Hill, Stone-Robinson, Stony Point and
Yancey. Asbestos was confirmed to be present at all of these schools from a
survey by a firm specializing in this field - Waco, Inc. Asbestos was found
in the boiler area of the heating plants and around some of the pipes.
Buildings at three of these schools (Stone-Robinson, Stony Point and Yancey)
are used in the summer recreation programs.
Current Status - The school administration has gotten the firm prices on
asbestos removal in the boiler areas of the seven schools. They have also
gotten estimates on the removal of asbestos from the pipe areas based on time
and material. The total price is $71,000. This amount was placed in the CIP
program, since the CIP program is currently under review and scheduled for
completion in late May and probably will not reach the appropriation (fund-
ing) stage of the CIP procedure until July, there are significant problems as
follows:
(1)
The Federal Regulations do not allow any maintenance or repair in
the asbestos area until it is removed.
(2)
The work was planned to begin in June, 1985 and be completed while
schools are closed.
(3)
Prices for this type of work are skyrocketing due to the high cost
of insurance for contractors.
(4)
The liability insurance carriers of the County will probably
require asbestos clearance certificates for public buildings when
current insurance contracts are renewed.
Recommendation - In order to resolve this asbestos exposure problem, take
advantage of the current price quotation of $71,000 which was reaffirmed
today with Waco, Inc., and in order to get the work done this summer, staff
recommends the project be removed from the CIP program and the necessary
funds be appropriated at your May 15 meeting as follows:
FROM: 9000 - 99999
Capital Improvement Fund Balance $71,000
TO:
9000-00200-972002 Asbestos Removal-Various Schools $71,000
Similar requests are being made to the School Board (May 13), Planning
Commission (May 14), and to you on May 15. David Papenfuse will attend the
School Board meeting and I plan to attend the Planning Commission to respond
to any questions.
It is recognized that the request places the staff, Planning Commission and
you in an awkward position, however, the request is believed to be in the
best interest of the citizens from a cost standpoint and the students from an
exposure standpoint."
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following
resolution approving the request:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $71,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Undesignated
Fund Balance of the Capital Improvement Fund, and be transferred to-Code
1-9000-00200-972002 entitled "Asbestos Removal"; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation be effective this date.
Mr. Fisher asked if any of these costs will be recovered through various suits. Mr.
Agnor said he knows that suits have been filed by NACo, and that information has been for-
warded to Mr. Bowling, attorney for the School Board. Mr. St. John said he will report on
this question at a later date.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
For the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, Mrs. Cooke nominated Mr. Mark Reisler to fill out
the term of Mr. Walter Hurd, who had resigned, term to expire on October 20, 1986. Mr. Bowie
nominated Mr. Edward J. Jones to replace Mr. Edgar Paige, Jr. as a member of this Board; term
to expire on March 31, 1987. There being no further nominations, motion to appoint was made
by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Way, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
318
May 15, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
For the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board of Directors, Mrs. Cooke recommended
the reappointment of Dr. James R. Batten to a new term to expire on June 30, 1989. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Way, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: December 19, 1984 and January 2, 1985.
item was deleted from the final agenda due to time constraints.
This
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board and the Public.
Mr. Agnor noted that Judge Gerald Tremblay had written to Mr. Lindstrom requesting funds
for a part-time law clerk (copy of letter dated May 8, 1985, is on file). Mr. Agnor said he
believes this person has already been hired. Judge Tremblay needs an appropriation of $1,450
in order to pay this person for an entire year.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Judge has had law clerks before, but they were funded differ-
ently. He does not believe anybody will work for this salary, but he then offered motion to
approve the request by transferring $1,450 from the Board of Supervisors Contingency Fund,
Code 1-1000-11010-999999, to Compensation-Part-Time, Circuit Court, Code 1-1000-21010-100300,
for the Fiscal Year 1985-86.
Mr. Fisher said this Board has already agreed to pay the salary of the Judge's Secre-
tary, and he does not believe there is no other source of funding for this clerk. Mr. Agnor
said that in past years this position was funded by the Bar Association. Mr. St. John said
there is no provision in State Code for a law clerk. This judge was not aware of the budget
time schedule, and should have included this request in his regular budget request.
Mr. Fisher asked if the former judge had a law clerk. Mr. St. John said there is no
such thing as a law clerk, the duties have been passed around to various law_firms in the
past. Mr. Fisher did not think this request should be approved until the Board had contacted
the Bar Association.
Mr. Lindstrom said the judge has indicated a need for this persons, and he feels the
whole community will benefit from approval of this request. Mr. Fisher said he does not
disagree, but thinks that taking on additional financial responsibilities for this court will
continue in the future, and is something the Board has a right to question. Since the State
hires judges and officers and sets their salaries, he thinks the state should pay this salary
also. Mr. St. John said the Bar Association agrees. Mr. Fisher said this request has come
completely "out of the blue" and with no particular explanation.
Mr. Lindstrom moved the appropriation of funds as previously set out. He said there is
a real need for this person, and he thinks it will be a benefit to everyone who appears in
court; not only lawyers, but citizens also. Mrs. Cooke said she does not mind supporting
Albemarle County's fair share, but feels the other counties should participate also.
At this time, the motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie.
carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called, and the motion
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Fisher noted that he had received a petition from Don Nobles which had been signed
by several hundred residents in the Greenwood area. A copy was sent to Mr. Cerighino at
Greenwood Chemical. These residents ask that the Chemical company not be allowed to rebuild
or reopen. Mr. Fisher said he spoke to Mr. Nobles and told him that he would .~ot propose
that the Board take any action on this petition, but had said that he might have this placed
on the agenda in the future for a report.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjournment. Mr. Agnor said he did not believe that two hours will
be enough time for next week's agenda and suggested that the Board start at an earlier hour.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn this meeting until
2:00 p.m. on May 22, 1985, in Room 5. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:07 a.m.