1985-07-17441
Jul-. 17 l"SRe, ular Ni. ht ~eetin_~
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
July 17, 1985, at 7:30 .p.m., in Meeting Room #7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Cha~lott.esville, 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; and Deputy County Executive and Interim Director of planning, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Ztem No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. The following items were received as information.
Item No. 4.1. Notice from the State Corporation Commission dated June 10, 1985, re:
Cent&l Ruling governing the definition of network termination interface. The order directed
public notice and invited comments. A copy of the notice is on file.
Item No. 4.2. Notification of Grant Award to Department of Education for Special 2~
Education/Inservice P~oject in the amount of $7,625.63 was received.
Item No. 4.3. A memorandum dated July 8, 1985 from Judy Gough, Administrative Assistant
to the Director of Finance, listed refunds made on business and professional licenses, real
estate and personal property taxes during the period beginning May 1, 1985 and ending June 30,
1985 by the Department of Finance. The.abOve referenced memorandum is on file.
Item No. 4.4. Planning Commission minutes for its July 2, 1985 meeting were received.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-7. Tri-Ton, Inc. Rezone 5.0 acres from R-1 to HC. Property
on east side of Rt. 29. North south of Rt. 649. Tax Map 32, part of parcels 36 and 42. Ri'
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2, 1985 and July 9, 1985.) (Deferred from
May 1, 1985.)
Mr. Tucker reported that the applicant has requested deferral until August 21, 1985.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr-. Way, to defer ZMA-85-7 until August 21, 1985.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Co.oke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-85-34. Wallace M. Forloines [owner), Grover M. Forloines m~
(applicant). Conduct home occupation, Class B, on property zoned R-1. Located on northwest
corner of intersection of Wellington Drive and Deer Run Road on L-9, B-J, S-4, Ednam Forest.
Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress July 2, 1985 and July 9, 1985.)
Mr. Tucker reported that no action is required of the Board since this application was
withdrawn by the applicant before the ~Planning Commission.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-85-39. Joseph M. Terry, Sr., et al. Locate a single-wide mobile
home on 1.1727. acres zoned VR. Property on east side of Rt. 784, north of intersection with
Rt. ~600. Tax Map 48, parcel 9. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July
2, %985 and July 9, 1985.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report to the Board:
"Character of Area: Residential and farm use comprise the land use in
this area. The vegetation in the area is primarily deciduous with a
dense undergrowth.
Staff Comment: The mobile home proposed in this application is sited
on an existing non-conforming lot. The Zoning Ordinance (in Section
4.1.3) states that a lot must measure~0].0G0 square feet, this site
measures 85 percent of that requirement. The unusual shape of this
lot and the non-conforming acreage make the proposed use more appropriate
than siting of a more conventional dwelling.
The applicant is proposing a 200 ~foot setback from Tax Map 48, parcel 10.
This will provide space for evergreen plantings or fencing to screen from
the adjacent owner. The' implementation of screening and the proposed con-
figuration of the driveway will make the mobile home less visible from
State Route 784.
J..uly 17., 1985 (Re~ularNi~ Meetinf~____
If the Albemarle Counvy Planning ~Commission and Board of Supervisors choose
to approve this petition, the staff recommends the following:
a. Applicant must adhere to Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
b. Location and screening of the mobile home to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator;
c. Applicant receives Health Department approval;
d. Driveway confirguration must adhere to that as shown on plat."
The Planning Commission at its meeting on July 2, recommended in a vote of 5/2 that the
~pecial permit be approved with the recommendations of the staff, adding the words "septic
"to condition (c).
Mr. Tucker said that several letters of opposition to the application had been received.
~he letters are from Franz and Elizabeth Schubert, Laurie S. Armentrout, George B. Blue, Woods
P. Stringfellow and Floyd Hurt and copies are on file. There is also a letter on file from Mr.
and Mrs. Terry stating their plan for the property.
The public hearing was opened and Mr. Lecky Stone, attorney for the applicants, addressed
lithe Board. The applicant agreeswith the staff report and will comply with all of the condition~
~mmposed. The original lett.er from Mr. Terry to the Planning Commission dated June 25, 1985,
states that he plans to plant whi'te pines on six-foot centers. He has located, from a supplier
in Michigan, a new breed of loblolly poplar which grow about eight feet a year and is nov very
scrawny at the base. The applicant is proposing to use two rows of buffer; one of white pines
and the other of these loblolly poplars. This is a triangular piece of property that fronts
approximately 300 feet along State Route 784. The applicant feels that given the shape of the
parcel, the proximity of t~e neighbors, and the lay of the land, this use is the most
appropriate for the parcel To place a full size home on this parcel woUld crowd Ms.
Armentrout who lives immediately to the south. As accurately planned, there would be over 200
feet of buffer. There are at least twelve mobile homes within a quarter mile of this site.
Mr. Stone said he has picturea of the neighb'o~ing areaand existing structures, some of which
are extremely run down. (He handed the Pictures to the Board.) A mobile home properly
screened in this area and kept up will not be detrimental at all to property values in the
area. The property is owned Jointly by Mr. Terry and his son. It is planned as a residence
for his son and wife. This property was purchased by Mr. Terry in the Spring at a delinquent
tax auction. This property has existed for a long time as a little triangular portion along
the road, but has never been developed. This use will allow the property to become useful to
the County from a tax base standpoint and a local property value standpoint. The Highway
Department has approved the entrance plan and the septic field site has been approved by the
Health Department.
Mr. Stone said this mobile home is intended for Mr. Terry's son, Joseph M. Terry, Jr.
~rs. Cooke asked about the pictures. Mr. Stone said the pictures ~how property within a quarter
of a mile of the site in question. The pictures of foliage ar'e p~ctures Mrs. Terry took of the
~arcel, itself. Mrs. Terry state'd that this property is currently barren.
Mr. Bowie asked Mrs. Terry to explain about the loblolly poplar tree. Mrs. Terry
?esponded that this is a new strain of poplar tree. It bushes out at the bottom. The tree
provides a lot of shade, is disease resistant and grows very well in all types of weather.
They propose to plant one row of the poplars and one row of the pines all the way around the
property. Mr. Bowie asked Mrs. Terry if the driveway sketched on the plat is where the ·
driveway will actually be located. M~s. Terry said the sketc~ contains an error. The Highway
Department stated that the road cannot be at the angle sketched. The road must go straight in~.
twenty feet and then it turns and comesin behind the mobile home. That way the foliage will stay
in front of the trailer. The driveway, at the point shown, will connect to Rt. 784. ~Mr.
Fisher suggested that the sketch be revised or the recommended condition be changed.
Mr. Floyd Hurt addressed the B~ard. He has land adjacent to the proposed mobile home. He
feels there are already a sufficient number of mobile homes in this area. There is one home
that was placed a couple of years ago, never occupied, and is in significant disrepair. He is
concerned that the applicant is already underway with the project when nothing has been a
approved. The applicant has already changed the manner in which they plan to shield the mobile
home, from pines to poplars. Poplars loose their leaves in the winter and the neighbors will
be confronted with a "no screen" situation again. ~n the past, there have been a couple of
attempts to put a mobile home park in th~s area. It appears to be happening anyway from the
trend. The more mobile homes allowed, the more likely that a park will be the next step. The
current highway system cannot handle that kind of traffic without major improvements and this
would become a tax burden to the landowners. His other concern is that the inherent value of
the land tends to decrease with moh±ie 'hOmes and he has quite an investment in the area. He
has a petition signed from everyone in the' area stating their opposition to another mobile home
in the area' (he handed same to. Mr. Fisher). Se in general, Mr. Hurt is concerned that some of
the plans currently underway are not approved. Also if the applicant cuts trees without approve
plans, then the screening they all want ~ill he .gone.
Mrs. Schubert, a neighbor, next addressed the Board. She signed the petition, also. She
and Dr. Schubert also sent a letter to the Beard dated July 16, 1985 (on file) voicing their
opinion.
With no one else to speak the public hear&rig was closed. Mr. Bowie a~ked Mrs. Terry if
the current screening is about twenty feet around the outside growth. Mrs. Terry replied yes.
They are currently having someone remove some of-the ver~ tall pines. Mr. B~wie asked how much
of that is going to be 'left .along theroad. Mrs. Terry explained to Mr..Bowie ~y pointing out
to him on the plat, all the area where the growth iwould remain. She stated that when someone
comes down the road, they will not be able'to, see anything other than the foliage. Mr. Hurt,
again addressed the Board. He said that a lot. of that growth is winter bare. The pines are
extremely tall, and therefore the' neighbors are still left with no ~creening.
July 17, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Bowie said that he talked to several of the residents in the area and he walked the
property exactly where the mobile home is proposed to be placed. He does not see how a ~
standard large house could go on the lot. Mr. Bowie said he understands the concerns but has
problem denying someone an affordable home on a. small lot when they are going to.extensive
pains to screen it. If this were for rental, he would not vote to approve it. With adequate
screening and location of this home with regard to other homes, he does not see any problem
with this application.
Mrs. Cooke suggested that a condition beplaced on the permit that the home can be used
for the family member intended, but at no time can it be rented. Mr. Fisher said the Board
approves about 95 percent of the mobile home permits that come before them, because they are
concerned about people having a place to live. Mr. Fisher said if the driveway location can ~
straightened out and the Highway Department approves the entrance, he thinks this permit shoul~
be approved.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to see-different conditions. It should be specified that
there will be a row of loblolly poplars and a row of pine trees all the way around the ~
and that twenty feet of the existing screening will be left voluntarily offered by the ~
apPIicant. Also, a condition that the mobile home will be used as a residence and not a renta
~Unit, and when the mobile home stops being a residence, it will be removed. Mr. Henley ~
suggested the trees be listed as hybrid poplars. Mr. Lindstrom suggested a size be added for
the trees so the applicant would not plant'just slips. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. St. John if a
condition could be added that the mobile home be owner occupied as opposed to becoming a piece
of rental property. Mr. St. gohn said the condition could be added if the applicant agrees to
same. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve SP-85-39
~iwith the following conditions:
Applicant must adhere to Section ~5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Location and screening of the mobile home to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator with twenty [20) feet' of the existing screening to be left
around the property. In addition, one [~) row of hybrid poplar trees and one
(1) row of white pine trees six (6) feet tall to be planted around all sides of
the property as proferred by the applicant at the meeting of July 17, 1985;
Applicant to receive Health Department approval (septic permit);
4. Entrance as approved by the Department of Highways and Transportation;
Property to be owner-occupied only, shall not be rented.
Mr. Stone felt all of the conditions were acceptable except the owner-occupied condition~
He has some problems with the legality of such a condition. He does not mind the condition
that it only be rented for a specified period of time. He is concerned that if Mr. Terry
should die and the property were not marketable, there is the problem of not being able to ren~
the mobile home until it ig sold. He has no problem with a time restriction, as it is not
intended as a rental property. The applicant should at least be allowed to rent the property
whi~e he has it listed with a local realtor for sale. He has real concerns with saying it mus~
be removed if not occupied. Mr. B~wie stated that he has the option of moving to approve this
application or moving to deny it,~ and he 'has moved to approve it with the above conditions.
There are many people present 'who are concerned about the area and he respects that. He will
not move to deny a person a place to live, but wilt not move to approve this permit without thi
rental restriction. Mr. Stone discussed the motion with his clients, then stated that the
conditions are acceptable to the applicants. The motion carried by the following recorded
~ote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None,
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-85-46. Edith Batten (owner), Eugene & Dorothy Holsapple ap>
~.~applicant). Locate double-wide mobile home on 17.760 acres zoned RA. Property on east side
of Rt. 729 near Rt. 728. Tax Map 105., parcel 8C (part of). Scottsville District. (
in the Daily Progress on ~uly 2,. 1985~and July 9, 1985.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The property is presently developed with one
single-wide mobile home. The' remainder of the tract is vacant and heavily
wooded. The surrounding area is rural in character with the predominant
land use agricultural or forestry related. Along Rt. 729, one-fourth
mile in each direction, there are fourteen residences of which four or
twenty-nine percent are mobile homes.
Staff Comment: The applicant is in the process of purchasing a portion
of parcel ~C for the purposes of locating a double-wide home. It is the
intent of the applicant to reside in the mobile home. The proposed
location of the mobile home would be approximately 800 feet east of Rt. 729
(plat for approximate location on file). Et is staff's opinion that the
proposed location would not he visibIe from Rt. 729~ or existing residences
in the area due to the distance from the ~ro. ad and the fact ~hat .the parcel
is heavily wooded.
Should the Planning Commission and Board .of Supervisors choose to approve
this petition staff recommends the following conditions:
444
July 27, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance:
Access to Rt. 729 shall be limited to the thirty foot easement as
indicated on the attached plat;
Rental of the double-wide shall not be permitted under this special
use permit."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 16, 1985, unanimously
recommended approval of this petition subject to staff rec0mmendations.. In addition the
Planning Commission added condition 4 to wit: Removal of existing trees shall be limited to
area of mobile home and ancillary utilities.
Mr. Tucker said there are letters from Robert and Margaret Childress, Harry and Barba~'~
Yowell, Edward Joyce, Burton and Margaret Armstrong and a signed petition (all letters and the
)etition are on file) in opposition of this application.
Mr. Way noted that there is another mobile home on this same piece of property. Mr ......
~ucker replied that is correct. However, the owner is in the process of dividing the property
as shown on a proposed plat submitted with the application. The existing mobile home is on the
front part of the property. The mobile home is proposed to be located to the rear. There is
an existing 30 foot easement along the edge of the frontage of the property to gain access
~he rear of the property· ' -~.
The public hearing was opened and Mr. Bryan Yates, representing the Ho!sapples, addres~sed
the Board. The division of the property was approved as of July 5. There is a separate parcel
now of about ten acres with a 30 foot easement for a driveway; there is no state road frontage.
The Holsapples have lived on Rt. 53 for 18 years. They own a conventional house presently, but
are trying to upgrade their living conditions, so the home is being sold. The double-wide
home is larger than their present home. The area in which it will be placed is heavily
wooded and cannot be seen from the road. Mr. Yates thinks that the objections that have been
are based largely on a fear that the Holsapples will let their house deteriorate, not use
skirting, have it on a permanent foundation, can be seen by those driving to and from work,
thus it will devalue surrounding property. These are all nonexistent fears. The double'wide
looks very much like a modular home. The only difference is the joists are a little different
inside and you cannot hook the electric meter directly to the side of the dwelling since it is
a mobile home. The applicant agrees to all of the conditions of the Planning Commission except
number four, no trees can be cut except for the placement of the mobile home and for the .~
utilities. On ten acres this is a rather large burden to be put on the Holsapples. They would
like to have a yard and a garden. They would certainly agree to having a buffer zone from all
of the property-lines. The neighbors cannot see the mobile home anyway. '~
Mr. Edward Joyce, an area property owner, addressed the Board. He was representing
several other property owners, namely, Robert Chiidress, David Robishaw and Harry Yowell who
could not be present. Mr. Joyce said .the property owners feel this is a "lulu", a locally,
ed land use. There are already a significant number of mobile homes in the area along
· 729 between Rt. 53 and Rt. 728.. Over'half of the home sites along this road are being used
mobile homes. In the past two years, 66 percent of the new home sites have been used b~,
homes. The property owners are concerned that this is becoming a defacto trailer park.
of these mobile homes have no landscaping; They are on cinder blocks and have no
Some of these were placed after' the' zoning ordinance was amended in the early
1980's. Essentially what the property owners see are that requirements placed on special
apparently have no teeth. If a b-rief inspection is made along Rt. 729 this will be
apparent. Within the last year, a mobile home was located close to Mt. Eagle Baptist
Church. It was located several hundred feet back in forested pine area and within a couple
~onths of moving there, the landowner clearcut all the way out to the state highway. The
~obile home now sits right out in the open. What happened to the screen requirements? What
happened to the landscaping requiremen'ts? If Someone is going to own ten acres, it would seem
that they might want to put a couple of acres under the plow, they may want to put in a pasture
or several other things, including renting the property. A.gain, where is the enforcement going
to come from? The Holsapple attorney is trying to get more leeway in what the Planning _
~ommission recommended. The photographs shown were taken in the summer. What happens when t~e
leciduous trees drop their~leaves? Mr. Chi'ldress is surrounded on two sides by this parcel.
~here is already one mobile home on that property. Checking with the County real estate, you
~ind out that there is no value for the building. The existent mobile home is in such a state
)f disrepair that it has no value. That is the reason the neighboring property owners are
~oncerned. Mobile homes clearly erode property values, the tax base and what is going to
~appen to the property values of those who have homes in the immediate area ($75,000 assessment
~nd up, Mr. Robishaw $140,00.0.).? Mr. Childress has been trying to sell his home for two years.
~he price he is asking is beneath the appraised value. He has not been able to sell it. His
?eal estate agent told him it is largely due to the condition of the mobile home next door and
the proliferation of mobile homes in the area. The presence of another mobile home will not
help the situation. Since Mr. Fisher pointed out earlier that one of the considerations in
granting these permits is whether or not the applicanv has a strong need for economic housing,
ae feels that anyone who can afford to pay $20.',000 cash for an entire ten acres and already
owns a relatively nice-looking conventional ho'me is not in dire need of economic housing. The
~conomic consideration does not apply her'e. Mr. Joyce said 70 percent of the adjacent property
owners have signed in opposition to thi's application. The adjacent property owners ask that
the Board deny this "lulu", locally unwanted land use, and deny the permit.
Mr. Bowie stated that if there was a mobile home approved in the last six months that was
in violation of Conditions he wants the Zoning ~dministrator to check it out. He requested
~hat the allegations be investigated and contact Mrs. goyce. (A memorandum dated July 18, 1985
~as sent to the Zoning Administrator (on file)requesting .that this be inye~t~gated.)
Juiy 17, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. John Pierce, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Board· He lives on Rt. 729,
approximately three and three'quarters mile south of its junction with Rt. 53. He is here to
protest the continuing influx of mobile homes on the Rt. 729 corridor. This is fast becoming
~known as mobile home road. He also urges that this special permit be denied. Six and a half
years ago he and his wife came here and l~bought fifteen acres of very undesirable land. They
worked hard andbuilt a conventional dwelling and they have continued to.add improvements each
year. The County has increased the assessment by 88 percent and the taxes by 110 percent.
Du~ing the same period of time 'there have been at least four mobile homes in the area, in
addition to the eight or more that were already, there.. They are not opposed to mobile homes
per se but they do object to their impact on the value of property. The argument in this case
is that it is a double-wide mobile home and it is going to be well screened. One only need to
travel down Rt. 729. and see what surrounds some of the better properties. The people are very
careless with regard to the maintenance of these mobile homes and he cannot believe that mobile
homes do not impact the value of properties.
Mr. Wilson Cropp, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Board. He owns a farm across
Rt. 729 from this piece of property. He has lived in the area for about nine years and there
have been an influx of mobile homes. Most of the property that is for sale must have access
along Rt. 729 where in a piecemeal fashion a trailer park has been placed on the road frontage.
{e is wondering what the impact of more trailers is going to do to about 9,000 acres of totally
~ndeveloped forest land in the future, as a tax base and what plans he should make for his
~roperty.
Mr. Yates, representing the applicant, responded to the comments made by the property
owners. Again, a double-wide is different from a single-wide mobile home. There will be a
permanent foundation. The Holsapples want to improve themselves by moving to some place bigger
and better. The Holsapples are being confused with the people who already live in this area.
there is no reason why they will turn from very neat people to suddenly very messy people· No
one will see the mobile home because of its location and since the Holsapples will be living
there, it will not be rented. The land was financed, not purchased with $20,000 cash. Again,
the restriction of not cutting any trees should be changed. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Yates had
any suggested language. Mr. Yates suggested some sort of buffer zone around the property
lines. Mr. Tucker suggested it he 50.feet depending on the density of the surrounding area.
Mr. Yates stated this seemed reasonable. Mr. Bowie asked if this is to be all the way around
the property line or just around the mobile home. Mr. Fisher stated it was around the ~:a
periphery of the lot, the entire ten acres. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Yates if his client would
have any objection to a restriction on further Subdivision of this parcel so long as the
special permit for the mobile home is in effect. Mr. Yates said not being able to subdivide
the property into parcels of less than three would be acceptable· That would give the couple
and their two sons approximately three acres each. Mr. Lindstrom said he recognizes the
neighbors concerns and the applicants feelings, but he is concerned that the applicants do not
continue subdividing this parcel. Mr. Yates said they could agree to havi,ng any future ~
subdivision come before this Board for approval.
Mr. Joyce again addressed the Board. He stated that he believes that Virginia Power
requires a 50 foot clean cut easement to bring in an electrical line from the nearest power
line. So essentially the Board is telling the adjacent property owners that they are going to
have to give up a 50 foot wide strip, that will be clearcut through their land. Mr. Fisher
said he believes that anyone who builds a conventional home has the right of access to ~
electrical power. Mr. Joyce asked what is the point of having screening with this type of 50
foot wide corridor? He asked if the property owners can have the utilities put underground
since screening of the mobile home is required in the Zoning Ordinance. Secondly, the buffer
zone does not make any allowance for the terrain. Having a buffer zone on the edge of the
property is not going to camouflage the mobile home. Third, this request for one mobile home
is turning into a request for threemobile homes. He is suggesting that the Planning ~
Commission recommendations be'enforced plus a recommendation for no subdivision.
~,_ At this point, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way said that on a parcel of this size,
a double-wide mobile home request is reasonable. This mobile home is obviously not going to be
seen. It is too great a restriction to not cut down any trees and he agrees to the suggestion
of.a buffer. He also agrees with the recommendation that no further subdivision of the ~
property be allowed until such a request is approved by this Board. Mr. Way offered motion to
approve SP-85-46 with conditions 1, 2 .and 3 as recommended by the Planning Commission, ~
condition 4 reworded to state: "The property owner shall maintain at least a fifty-foot buffer
of existing vegetation along the entire periphery of the property, "and condition 5 reading:
"Any additional subdivision of the property must be brought back to the Board." Mrs. Cooke
said she did not feel comfortable with the fact that a request for further subdivision might
come back before the Board and the division might include a request for more mobile homes· Is
it possible to add a condition that should it come back for subdivision that mobile homes could
not be put on these but conventional homes? She feels that one mobile home on this property is
sufficient. Mr. Llndstrom stated that a special permit would have to be approved by the Board.
At this point, Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. The conditions as approved are set out below:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Access to Route 729. shall be limited to the thirty-foot easement as indicated
on plat (plat showing physical survey, of 17.687 acres located on east side of
State Route 729 and shown on Tax Map 105 as parcel 8C, plat 11/5/84 and drawn
by Frank A. Gregg; (copy on file)
Rental of the double-wide mobile home shall not be permitted under this special
use permit;
The property owner shall maintain at least a fifty (50) foot buffer of existing
vegetation along the entire periphery of the property;
5. Any additional subdivision of the property must be brought back before the Board.
446
July 17, 1985 [Regular Night Meeting)_
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-85-47. Clyde W. McAllister (owner), Rodney C, McAltister
(applicant). Locate single-wide mobile home on 1.6.80 .acres zoned RA. Property on south side
of Rt. 674, east of Rt. 673. Tax Map 26., parcel 5'0. White Hall District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on July 2 and July 9, 1985.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The property is presently developed with a brick single-family
residence occupied by the applicant and a single-wide mobile home occupied by
the applicant's mother-in-law. The remainder of the tract is vacant with rolling
pasture land. The surrounding area is rural in character with the predominant
land use being agricultural or forestry related. Residences in the immediate
area consist of conventional single-family dwellings and scattered mobile homes.
Staff Commenv: The applicant is requesting the proposed single-wide mobile home
for use by his son. The applicant is proposing to locate the mobile home approxi-
mately 350 feet to the rear of the existing mobile home, 120 and 500 feet from
side lot lines and 400 feet from the rear property line. The mobile home would
be visible from Rt. 674 and from existing residences in the area. Access to the
mobile home would be from a private drive to Rt..674.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this
petition,staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Approval of a site plan in accordance with Section 32.2.1(a) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. Access to Rt. 674 shall be limited to the private drive.
4. Occupancy shall be limited to Mr. McAllister's son and his family; should
Mr. McAllister's son and family vacate the mobile home, the special use
permit is rescinded and the mobile home must be removed within 90 days
of vacancy.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 16, 1985 unanimously
recommended approval of the above noted petition. The approval is subject to conditions one
(1) and four (4.) of the staff recommendations and the following reworded conditions:
2. The location of mobile home was approved as shown on plan drawn by Rodney McAllister,
a~.~i~.!, dalled "Rodney McAllister Site Plan Waive'r." Mobile home to be located in general
area of original proposal, 350 feet to rear of existin-g mobile home, 120 feet and
500 feet from side lot lines and 400..feet from rear property line;
3. Access to Route 67q shall be limited to middle entrance.
The public hearing was opened and Mr. Rodney McAllister addressed the Board. He is the
son that plans to live in the mobile home. He is presently living in the basement of his
's house. He has a daughter and wife and. is trying to find an affordable home. Mr.
asked Mr. McAllister if he understood the conditions the Planning Commission placed on
this approval, that if he moved out he would have to take the trailer with him. Mr. McAllister
said he understands all of the conditions placed by the Planning Commission. There is a site
plan on file showing the location of the mobile home. Route 674 is the front of Mr. ?~:.~
McAllister's parent's property. He would not have access off this road, but a different road.
Mr. Tucker said there was no one at the Planning Commission to oppose this petition, but
that there was one letter filed in opposition. With no one else to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom felt that condition #4 should be refined that (Rodney C.) is the son being.
~eferred to in the condition. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs.
~ooke, to approve SP-85-47 with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. The location of mobile home was approved as shown on plan drawn by Rodney
MCAllister, called "Rodney McAllister Site Plan Waiver". Mobile home to be
located in general a~ea of original proposal, 350 feet to rear of existing
mobile home, 120 feet and 500~.feet from side lot lines and 400 feet from rear
property line;
3. Access to Route 674 shall be limited to middle entrance;
4. Occupancy shall be limited to Mr. McAllister's son (Rodney C.) and his family;
should Mr. McAllister's son and family vacate the mobile home, the special use
permit is rescinded and the mobile home must be removed within 90 days of vacancy.
Roll was called, and the' motion carri.ed by the following recorded vote:
kYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
~AYS: None.
447
July 17, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-85-48. George A. & Myrtle W. Critzer (owner), George E. or Mae S.
Critzer (applicant). To locate a single-wide mobile home on 2.0 acres zoned RA. Property on
south side of Rt. 717 near Rt. 755. Tax Map 127, parcel 31C. Scottsville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2 and July 9, 1985.)
Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission had deferred action on this petition
indefinitely until the applicant could meet with the surrounding neighbors and work out some
issues which were raised at the Planning Commission's meeting on July 16, 1985.
It was determined that there was no one present tonight to speak about the application.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Llnds~rom, to defer this petition indefinitely
until the Planning Commission study is completed. The motion carried by the following'recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
~Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-85-12. Green Acres Land Trust. Rezone 2.407 acres from RA to
CO. Property on north side of Barracks Road (Rt. 654), west of Georgetown Road and adjacent to
Huntwood Subdivision. Tax Map 60A-9, parcel 24. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the
Dail~ Progress on July 2 and July 9, 1985.) (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:45 p.m.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The property, located in the South Fork Rivanna
River watershed, is presently developed with a two-story, single-family
.dwelling (vacant). Property to the north 'and west consists of single-
family dwellings, to the' east is Huntwood Subdivision, and property to the
south is vacant, but recently rezOned (ZMA-84-19) for the development of
176 dwelling units.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes the conversion of an existing,
vacant, two-story, single-family dwelling into professional offices with
parking provided east of~ the structure [plat on file).
Comprehensive Plan: The proposed rezoning is located within the South Fork
Rivanna River watershed and is indicated as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages commercial land use activity
within planned growth areas and further states that 'commercial office uses
should be employed as transitional areas between residential areas and
heavier commercial or industrial areas".
Staff Recommendation:
reasons:
Staff recommends denial of ZMA-85-12 for the following
The request is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan;
The request is inconsistent with the statement of intent of the
CO, Commercial Office district;
Staff opinion is that a reasonable use can be made of the property under
existing zoning;
Staff is concerned that a commercial designation of the property could
result in similar rezoning requests in the area." (Mr. St. John returned
to the meeting at 9:05. p.m.)
Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 4, 1985, unanimously
commended denial of the pet'ition based on the staff,s reasons for denial. On July 16, 1985,
Joe Gieck, representing Green Acres Land. Trust, submitted a proffer which states, "It is
iproposed that if this property is zOned commer'cial office, the existing structure will remain
the same size or a replacement structure will be of similar size". Mr. Tucker said this
~roffer does not make any difference in the' staff's recommendations.
~Mr. Tucker said a letter was received from Kathleen M. Delaney dated July 15, 1985, (on
?ile), a resident of Huntwood Subdivision, in. opposition to this application. She had just
learned of the rezoning request and did not receive written notice of this hearing. While the
property is contiguous to Huntwood Subdivision, the' Subdivision is surrounded by open space.
the staff relied on the Homeowner's Association to get the message out to the homeowners who
rould be affected by this proposal.
The public hearing was opened and Mr. Joe Gieck addressed the Board. Mr. Gieck said he
and Mr¢ Tom Newell own this piece of property. They are interested in getting this rezoned to
commercial office since he does not feel a single-family dwelling is desirable in this area
because of the multiple dwellings surrounding the parcel. A small office building in this area
rould be better able to meet the watershed requirements in this area. The applicants sent
.nformation to all of the homeowners in the area and there was no opposition stated at the
Planning Commission meeting. Several people in the room voiced dissent with this statement.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Gieck how long the applicants had owned this particular piece of
property. Mr. Gieck responded approximately 14 to 16 months. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Gieck to
~erify his signature on the proffer and then asked if the proffer is for use of the existing
building for offices rather than as a residence-. Mr. Gieck replied yes; they plan to use the
existing building, and if a building must be built, it would be of similar size. Mrs. Cooke
asked the size of the property. Mr. Gieck responded that it is 2.407 acres. Mrs. Cooke then
asked if Mr. Gieck had any plans to deVelop more than the one structure. Mr. Gieck said that
448
July 17, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
would be the only use. Mrs. Cooke said it was not a part of the proffer and asked if Mr. Gieck
would be willing to proffer that he would restrict this piece of property to one and only one-
use. Mr. Gieck replied yes; also in .the watershed area there is only a certain amount of -
parking allowed.
Miss Mona Reinhardt, representing her father, a homeowner in Huntwood Subdivision, -
addressed the Board. Her father was'not properly informed of this hearing, so could not v-~ice
any objections prior to tonight'. The' only notice received of the proposed rezoning was a sign ....
posted near the mailboxes. A number of people living in the subdivision are students whose
parents Ubought the townhouses, and they do .not live there in the summer. No notification was
received through the mail. The' Homeowner"s_Association is really not an association, it is
just a name given to something run by the builder to take care of maintenance. The reasons-for
objecting to this petition are improper notification and it sets an undesirable precedent for
commercial development in a rural residential area. If the applicant wants to use this house
for commercial offices, her father feels he should apply for a variance and not something so
drastic as a complete rezoning which will probably increase the property value of the applicant
but decrease the property value of the surrounding homeowners.
Mr. Micky Hendricks, a resident of Huntwood Lane, addressed the Board. He is the person
who posted the sign about the proposed rezoning. Huntwood Association does not exist. He saw
an advertisement of the hearing in the Observer and_called the Planning Commission. He then
a little sign and posted it. He wants to urge the Board to deny the application. Except
for the existing small store near Salem Apartments, there is no commercial development along
this section at all. Also, he felt where no homeowners association in existence, some proper
notification of such a request should be given to the affected homeowners. The applicant
ned that he would proffer to remodel the existing house. His indication is that some
has been proceeding during the last months on the renovation of the property. Mr. _U
Hendricks asked if the work has been toward renovation for a commercial office or. to restore
the house for residential use. There is a single-family house located near this building.
this parcel would greatly impact the Huntwood Subdivision. This has been an extremely
uiet and tranquil community and he would like to see it stay that way. He is somewhat ~:
a at the value of the land in this community. His land is assessed at $6.25 per
square foot which is about $27.0,.00.0 .per acre. His property is located only 60 feet from the
's property. Other houses are only 20 feet from the applicant's property. He wants
maintain the quality of the neighborhood and i.s not concerned so much with the land value.
of this request would constitute spot zoning, be opposed to the recommendation in the
~rehensive Plan, and would set a bad precedent for zoning on Barracks Road and other such
in the County.
Mr. Robin Lee, representing the Hunt~ood Homeowners Association, next addressed the Board.
is normally the reoipent of mail to the' homeowners association and does not, recall receiving
notice of this request. He first heard of this from some of the people who live in the
ision. This zoning would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. He does not feel it
be good to rezone this Property.
Mrs. Virginia Dofflemeyer said there are a number of retired people in the subdivision.
is concerned that there was no notification of either the Planning.Commission or the Board
.g. After returning from vacation she found a notice posted near the mailbox of this
)osed action. The area is lovely and traffic is becoming very bad on Barracks Road at the
ction with Georgetown. There are no walking fa¢.ilities. There is quite a bit of
estion in the area. This use would be out of character. She hopes that the Board wilZ
onsider that many people retired and moved to this area to have a nice living residential
rea.
Mrs. Jean Roberts next addressed the Board. She had no notification of this request other
;han the little notice posted near the mailboxes last week. The area is lovely and there is no
~ommercial property from the Route 250Z2¢~ Bypass out Barracks .Road. It is all residential on
)oth sides including Georgetown Road other than Georgetown Yeternary Hospital. There is one
Little convenience store near Old Salem Apartments. She is a native of Charlottesville but
Lived in New York for 23 1/2 years. Her home was Riverbend and after seeing what has been done
;o Pantops Mountain that is why she is concerned about what can happen with Just one little
)iece of commercial zoning. She hopes that the Board will deny this request. _-~..
Ms. Marian Fritz real estate agent in Charlottesville, addressed the Board. This pi. ece
3f property has been ~nathe market for approximately nine months. Because it is zoned rural _
areas, there has been little or no interest in the property. She asked that the Board consider
a variance for commer.cial office, not commercial zoning as such. There has been no interest
shown in the property as rural areas because of Huntwood Subdivision on one side and Old Salem
~partments in the immediate area. She lee'Is the' land would be best rezoned as light commercial
2r something with which thecy could work.
Mr. Billy Brett, a retired resident of Huntwood, next addressed the Board. He purchased
ais home in Huntwood two years ago so he could have a nice retirement place. The area is
~lready congested enough and there is no reason for an office building in the area. The area
~hould be left as it is, peaceful.
Mrs. Dofflemeyer addressed the Beard again and stated .that Mr. Larry Fielding, Mr. Ed
]hapman and Mrs. Gloria Wood, who' could not balthere tonight, had asked that Mrs. Dofflemeyer
express their discontent with this plan.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom stated..
that he frequently defends the Jack ¢ouet't district, which he represents, from commercial
aevelopment or residential development contrary to the RA zoning. He does not feel that he~an?
add much to Mr. Hendrick's statements, but he will reiterate a couple of points. There is
absolutely no commercial dev'elopment from the'l, nterSection ,el ~eJrgetown and Barracks Roads
~estward. It is entirel'y reaidentl'al, wiitk o.ne. e~.cept.ion and .tha~ ~ the Barracks Road Market
~hich existed for a number of years p~ior' tm.thel designation .oF that entire area as rural areas
July 17, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
because of the watershed problems. The Huntwood development itself was approved just prior to
the redesignation of the areas as rural areas and that is why Huntwood was developed. Even
though Mr. Gieck is talking about a fairly minor change in the outward appearance, the change
would be spot zoning so from a legal standpoint this is ~ significant one. The character of
the use would change. Commercial office, while not as bad as light industrial or highway
commercial, is a significantly different use than residential. The property was purchased
after the zoning actions which took the land out of the urban area, after the rural areas
district was applied, and all of these actions were on the record. Mr. Lindstrom Said he
cannot see any basis to overturn the Planning staff's recommendations. Mr. Lindstrom offered
motion that ZMA-85-12~b~~d. Mr. Way seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mrs. Cooke asked if someone
would explain to her about a comment made about a variance for that piece of property. Mr.
Lindstrom replied that he did not think a variance is an appropriate way to change the zoning
or actual nature of use of the property. Mr. Fisher replied that in some other states, the
variance process is used but it is quite different. Mr. St. John stated that process would be
called a use variance and there is different criteria for such a procedure. The Board of
Zoning Appeals would be the forum for that. A use variance is totally outside of the Board.
He cannot comment one way or another on the idea. It would not do the Board any good to
consider such an idea; Mr. Bowie said he had a question. If there was a building on the
property which was falling down and no one was planning to repair it, is there any way some use
could be made of the property without spot zoning. Mr. St. John responded that he did not
llthink the variance route was the proper route for this request-, but it would be up to the Board
tof Zoning Appeals. They are the ~nt~ entity that can issue or deny a variance. Mrs. Cooke
It~en asked that since this prop'er'ty ~s in a state of dispair, would someone have to buy this
Ipmece of property for a residence in order to upgrade it in anyway. Mr. St. John replied that
if there is evidence that the' property is unmarketable under the RA zoning, then the proper
remedy is to apply for a special use permit within the allowed RA zoning or a rezoning to
another classification. If the Board does not feel this commercial zoning is appropriate,
there are rezonings to higher density residential than the RA district allows. It is not
unusual in an RA district that there are options available other than a variance. Mr. Lindstron
said that the staff had commented that in their opinion a reasonable use can be made of the
property within its existing zoning. Mrs. Cooke asked what would constitute a higher density
for that parcel? Mr. Lindstrom replied that in the Comprehensive Plan this area is designated
as rural areas because it lies in the' watershed, so under the Plan the parcel would have to
remain as a single-family dwelling. Mr. St. gohn responded that rezoning to a higher density
is not the subject before the BOard tonight so could not be acted on at this meeting. The
staff report did not address such a type of rezoning.
Mr. Bowie remarked on comment #3 from the staff report which concerned making a reasonable
~se of the property under the existing zoning. The only reasonable use is what it currently
is, a lot with only one house. Mr. Tucker replied that their are other uses. The property
could be used for veterinary-type 'services with off-site treatment, agriculture service
occupation, tourist lodging, and by special permit, a day care/Child care/nursery facility.
Mr. Fisher stated that he does not.feet.there has been any evidence presented to sh~ow that a
parcel of land this size zoned RA zs in anyway deprived ~of all reasonable uses. There must be
tlthousands of similarly sized parcels in the County that people are living on or on which they
tlintend to build. No evidence has been presented ~hat'something else could not be done with the
property and he agrees completely with the staff and Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke stated
that her purpose for asking is Just .to know exactly what can be done by right. With no further
discussion, roll was called and the motion to deny the request carried by the following ~
recorded vote: .~,~?~ ~,~;~ ~.~/~.- ~,i~
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
At 9:35 P.M., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:45 P.M~
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-85-15. George A. Bowles. Amend PUD to expand recreational
building formerly used as a club house, by 25.,500 square feet. Located on north side of Four
Seasons Drive, south of intersection with Rt.~631, zoned PUD. Tax Map 61X-U-2, parcel 4B.
~harlottesville District. (Advertised in'the Daily Progress on July 2 and July 9, 1985.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"R. equest:
Amend Four Seasons PUD to expand existing recreational building by'
25.,500. square feet.
Acreage.:
Location:
11.81 acres
Property, described as Tax Map 61X(1), parcels 4 and 4A, and Tax
Map 61X(2), parcels 4B, 4C and 4D, is located on Four Seasons
Drive between the patio house section and tOwnhouse section. This
property is commonly known as the' Four Seasons Swim and Racquet
Club and will be referred to in this report as the 'clubhouse tract'.
Applicant's Proposal:
The proposed renovation and expansion of the recreational facilities at~ Four
Seasons would involve the utilization of existing amenities plus the addition
of other fitness facilities with 'the goal of offering a wide range of health
and fitness activities in one locationat a reasonabIe price.
45O
Jul_. 17,_1985 (Re.~lar Ni_~ght Meetin_gO_
Facilities or amenities currently at Four Seasons to be upgraded include:
o olympic sized swimming pool
o two children's pools
o five clay tennis courts
o restaurant/lounge
o lockeroom/bathrooms
o staff offices
o aerobics room,
Facilities or amenities to be added:
o 10 racquetball/squash courts
o pro shop
o children's activity room
o weight room
o gymnasium (basketball)/volleyball (gymnastics, etc.)
o indoor jogging track
o additional lockeroom facilities - saunas, steamrooms, whirlpool and massage.
Offices for club associated medical and health related personnel.
Other planned improvements call for additional landscaping, utilization of
open space for walking/jogging path, outdoor volleyball and other miscellaneous
recreational activities.
The proposed club would be a private club with a variety of membership plans
available. Operating hours would be 6':00 a.m. to 11':00 p.m. Sunday through
Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
The building will be built in phases and will be enlarged as demand dictates with
a total square foot size of approximately 36]000 square feet.
The design used in renovating and enlarging the clubhouse will be done in such
a way as to complement the designs of the surrounding community.
History:
Records show that the Four Seasons development was under discussion in 1969,
shortly after establishment of the Albemarle County' Planning Department.
(Note: Records and files are incomplete. It appears that much information
submitted to the court during litigation in the early 1970's was never returned.)
Initially called 'Berkeley Hills,' the Four Seasons development was approved
in April of 1'969 under conditional use permit CU-111.
The Berkeley Hills plan showed fourteen acres in 'major recreation' and
2.3 acres in 'minor recreation'. T~e major recreation area, the property
subject to this rezoning request, was not shown on the original plan as separate from
common open space areas. The plan called for a community building, tennis
courts and baseball field, as well as construction of the larger pond. A
later plan (August, 1970) shoWe~ the'clubhOuse tract as an area separate
from common open space. In June, 1970 the State Corporation Commission
issued a certificate of incorporation to Four Seasons Recreational Association,
Inc. In October, 1970, the' developer stated in a letter to the County that:
'The central recreational area bounded by Four Seasons Drive, the Townhouse
area and the Patio House area will be conveyed by Woodlake Corporation 'to 'the
FOUR SEASONS RECREATION ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED to be used for recreation and
related uses only, available to residents of the one hundred acre Four Sea~on~
development as well as others.'
A plat of the clubhouse tract, consisting of il.81 acres, was approved in
December 1970, and title to the property was subsequently transferred from
the Woodlake Corporation to the Four Seasons Recreation Association,
Inc. By July, 1975 construction on the clubhouse tract was
nearing completion and a certificate of occupancy was issued for the Four
Seasons Swim and Racquet Club building.
Following discontinuance of the swim and racquet club and transfer of owner-
ship to First Federal Savings & Loan Association and American Federal Savings
and Loan Association, a special use permit for a day care center CSP-80-23)
and a subdivision plat, were submitted'in the spring of 1980. The special use
permit, proposing a maximum enrollment Of one hundred seventy-five
children, was approved and subsequently amended CSP~81,31, Charles & Sharon
Jones). The subdivision plat was also approved, requiring among other things,
installation of a decei and turn lane at the entrance to Four Seasons Drive.
In February, 1984 First Federal Savings & Loan and American Federal Savings &
Loan filed a rezoning petition proposing 96 mid-rise condominium units in
twelve buildings (ZMA-84-9). Prior to pUblic hearing, the plan was
revised to show 48 condominium units in six' mid-rise buildings and 28 to~nhouse
units. In May, 1984 the' Planning Commission' reoo'mmended denial .of the
project and the petition was withdrawn prior to public hearing by the Board.
JUlY 17, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing expansion of the existing commercial
recreational use of the property as opposed to a change of use. Therefore,
staff comment will be directed primarily at intensity of use and physical
development·
1. Based on parking standards of the Zoning Ordinance, existing parking would
be inadequate for the proposed~eXpansion. However, since the applicant intends to
operate~the facility on a membershi~p basis and can schedule activities, actual
parking demand would be based on these two factors. Also, many members may
walk to the area (i.e. - Four Seasons residents);
2. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation expressed concern as to the
possibility of increased traffic. Both traffic and parking demand would be
heaviest in summer months with usage of outdoor f~acilities. While reviewing
this petition, staff noted twenty-five parked vehicles during YMCA usage of the
pool and playground.
Available traffic generation figures cover a broad range of recreational uses
(i.e. - zoos to bowling alleys) and are based on only a few stUdies. Employing
this figure compared to past uses, parking could~be expanded to 127 spaces (105
spaces exist). Again, traffic would be dependent on membership, residence of
members and activity scheduling.
3. Staff has discussed other aspects of. the'plan related to outdoor lighting,
screening/landscaping and pedestrian easements.
Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal .is reasonable, provided that
expansion can be physically accommodated on. the site. To date few comments have
been received from FOur Seasons residents.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following:
Planning Commission approval of site plan to include method of outdoor
lighting, screening/landscaping provision and Cif deemed warranted)
location of pedestrian easements;
2. Zoning Administrator approval of parking prior to each phase of development;
Building expansion shall not exceed 25~,500 square feet. Building height
shall not exceed height of existing clubhouse by more than ten percent.
Mr. Tucker stated that when the Planning Commission originally heard this application,
action was deferred until the applicant could meet with the adjacen~ townhouse and patiohouse
residents to work out an agreement concerning their differences of opinion. Mr. Bob Zak is her~
at the Board meeting tonight representing both 'the'townhouse and patiohouse associations. The
Planning Commission at its meeting on ~ul¥ 9,. 1~85 unanimously recommended approval of the
above-noted petition with the recommendations of staff and a fourth condition added to wit:
"~Ours of ope~.ation to he determined at site plan." Mr. Tucker said a schematic site plan has
been prepared and is on file to show generally where the expansion is proposed to take place.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if it is possible to make the recommended expansions and
maintain setbacks from property lines and not overbuild the site. Mr. Tucker replied that he
thought so, but the final plans have not been reviewed because they have not yet been prepared.
In a PUD, the setbacks are very flexible and are determined by the Planning Commission at the
time the final site plans are reviewed. Basically from what has been seen so far, it looks
fine. Mr. Fisher asked if the site will be able to accommodate additional parking. Mr. Tucker
said yes. With no further questions of Mr. Tucker, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. George A. Bowles, the applicant, addressed the Board. He said Mr. Tucker had addresse~
most .of the issues. The property has been in a state of limbo and deterioration for the past
five or six years and he believes that the current plans will make this property a real asset t~
the homeowners' associations in Four Seasons. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bowles to speak on how he
intends to accommodate membership. Mr. Fisher said he also felt the principal purpose for this
recreational facility was to accommodate the Four-Season residents. Are any special arrange-
ments going to be made-for those persons? Mr. Bowles replied that specific issue has been
a~dressed in the agreement with the homeowners association. Memberships to the club will be
open to everyone in Four Seasons, but the facility will also be open to others. There has been
talk about a membership just for use of the pool without a person having to join the whole club
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bowles if he is saying that the residents of Four Seasons would be treated
the same status as anyone else who wants to become a member, having no greater privileges. Mr.
Bowles replied that is basically true. To be an economically and feasible club, they will have
to do what they must to make it work.
Mr. Bowie. commented about a "Joint Statement of the Four Seasons Townhouse Assoc., Inc. an~
the Four Seasons Patio House Assoc., Inc." dated July 17, 1985 and wanted to know if the ~
Planning Commission is aware of the statement.
Mr. Robert M. Zak, President of Four Seasons Patio House Association, Inc., presented the
following statement to the Board:
"ZMA-85-15 is a request to modify and expand the existing recreational facilities
in the Four Seasons Subdivision as detailed in Attachment A. This request is of
the utmost concern to the residents of Four Seasons. We believe that the proper
maintenance and operation of recreational and related facilities on the site in
Four Seasons designated in the Planned Unit Development is essential to the
well being of our community. As you will recall from our visit with you in
1984, .while we regretted that the receiveship status of the property limited the
452
.July 17, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
maintenance and operation of the facilities to less than their full potential
and intent, and while we have yet to find any financial means by which we could
maintain and operate the facilities ourselves, we still cannot accept.any use
of the property other than the intended purpose designated in the Planned
Unit Development.
As the designated representatives of.the members of our Associations, and in
consultation with the residents of Four Seasons, we are here tonight to support
and endorse the request of Mr. George A. Bowles and his associations (applicant)
that the Four Seasons Subdivision Planned Unit Development be amended to permit
the construction of additional recreational, health maintenance, and'related
social facilities and operation of the renovated and expanded facilities as a
private club supported by its membership. We are convinced that the applicant,s
request is a reasonable.proposal in light of financial realities and complies
with and fulfills the intent of the Planned Unit Development.
We therefore request that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of
Supervisors that ZMA-85-15 be approved.
The residents of Four Seasons have certain long-standing interests concerning
the property involved which we understand lie outside Of the zoning ordinance.
In accepting our support for his petition, the applicant has agreed to observe
certain conditions which we believe to be reasonable and necessary to protect
these interests. Attachment. B is a copy of this agreement and is provided for
your information."
(The above-noted attachments are'on file in the Clerk's office.) Mr. Zak stated that the
question concerning membership is addressed in the Joint agreement. Basically the'homeOWners'
associations are happy to endorse this apPlication. The Planning Commission is aware of this
statement.
Mrs. Marian Ross, Vice'President of the TOWnhouse ASsociation, neXt addressed the Board.
Mr. Gregory Johnson, President of the Association, is out of town and asked her to come and
state that they are in favor of the changes as recommended bY Mr. BoWles. This is an improve-
over what was Previously recommended for the property.
Mr. Dave Davidson, a landowner, addressed the Board. His only concern is the lighting and
noise this operation will cause. Does the Board have any say with regard to this concern? Mr.
replied that the Board normally.does not see site plans. The Planning Commission will
approve the plan after being reviewed by a number of staff people. The staff Will remember the
types of con. cerns expressed here, but in the event that the staff does not, the site plan can be
appealed to this Board.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing Was Closed and the matter placed
before the Board. Mrs. Cooke stated that at the Planning Commission meeting the hours of .1
operation were discussed. At that time, the homeowners and Mr. Bowles were to decide on a
agreeable operating hours. Zt appears from "Attachment A" mentioned abOVe that this has
rked out. The °perating hours will be 6 to 11 Sunday throUgh Thursday, and 8:00 t° 12
d Saturday. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion t° approve ZMAL85-15 with the fOllOwing ~¢~(~
commendations:
1. Planning Commission apPrOVal of site '~lan to include method or'oUtdOOr lighting,
sCreening/landscaping provision and [~f deemed warranted) location'of Pedestria~
easements; · .
2. Zoning Administrator approval of parking Prior to each' phase o£ develop.ment; ~_~:
3. Building expansion shall not exceed 25,500 square feet. Building height shall ·
not exceed height of existing clubhouse by more than ten ~10) percent;
4. Hours of operation to be determined at site plan.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing moti°n. Mr. Fisher stated that for the record the ~::~..
stated did not have an a.m. or p.m. which is subject to considerable controversy at soma
point if not agreed to, Mr. Bowles said it is 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. and 8 a.m. to 12 p.m~,
Bowie stated that he intends to' support this application. ~ith no gurther discussion, roll
called and the motion passed by the following .recorded vote:
: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None. ~ ....
2:O'U~gSfldS;![I~em No. lB. SP-85-~2. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Construct hydropower
enerating station within 100 year floodplain of South Rivanna River. Located on 72 acres zoned
on west side of Ri. 29 North adjacent to South Rivanna dam ,at the South Rivanna Water ?
nt Plant. Tax Map ~5, parcels' 66A and 67. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in-t,he'
Progress on July 2 .and July 9, 1985.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff rePort:
Request: Hydroelectric Power Generation (10.2~2.39; 30.3.5.2.1.6)
Acreage: ~72 acres
Zoning:
Location:
RA, Rural Areas
Property, deSCribed as Tax Map 45, Parcels 67 and 66A, houses the South
Fork Rivanna River dam located at the end of Rt. 659 (Woodburn Road).
, 53
Character of the Area:
The powerhouse would be located on the south bank of the river about 180 feet
downstream of the dam. Properties across the river are zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property zoned R-15, Residential is located about 700 feet east of the site.
Project Description:
Staff has'attached selected text and plans from a feasibility study prepared by
Mead & Hunt, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Madison, Wisconsin (Attachment A on file
in Clerk's office).
Review Format:
County policy as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance
emphasizes detailed consideration to intrusion into floodplain areas and potential
degradation of water quality and riverine habitat. To these ends, 'hydroelectric
power generation' receives exhaustive review under three zoning ordinance provisions.
The use must satisfy the general criteria for issuance of a special use permit
(31.2.4.1). The use must meet technical approval of the County Engineer for
location in the floodplain (requirements of 30.3). The use must meet supplementary
regulation (5.1.26). Staff has reviewed this request under these provisions and
offers the following comments:
~'~ Cr-i't'e'r'i'a 'for Special Use Permit:
Many aspects of special use permit review specific to hydroelectric power
generation are covered under supplementary regulation. The basic issue to
be addressed under this section of the report is whether or not the use would
be of substantial detriment to adjoining properties. GiVen the noise
restrictions of supplementary r~gulations and remoteness of 'development'
properties, staff opinion is that the use would not be of substantial
detriment to adjoining property, nor would the general character of the area
suffer substantially'from the presence of the powerhouse.
F'l'o'o'~ Haz'ar'd 'Ore'flay D'is't'rict:
Provisions of the Flood Hazard Overlay District parallel Federal regulation
to insure continuation of Albemarle County on the regular program of the
National Flood Insurance Program. Issuance of a 'development permit' by the
Zoning Administrator is required as well as construction in accordance with the
requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code for potential
hazards. Structures must be designed to prevent flotation, collapse, or
lateral movement as a result of flooding.
In this particular case, substantial excavation is proposed within the 100
year floodplain. While most work would occur in rock, overburden should not
be stored in the floodplain and silt disturbing activity should be avoided
during fish spawning season. While the proposed access road would not encroach
into the floodplain, special attention should be given roadway design to
avoid excessive erosion due to steepness (i.e. - 18 percent average grade). To avoid
liability problems, consideration should be given to gating the access road
against vehicular traffic, providing security devices at the powerhouse and
providing warning signage at appropriate location of the powerhouse discharge.
'S'u'pp'~eMe'~t'&ry Regu'l'ations applicable to this project are set out in Section 5.1.26,
HYDROELECTRIC POWER GENERATION, of the Zoning Ordinance.
Materials required to be submitted by the applicant are provided in Attachment
B. item (d) of the regulations is not applicable in this case. Regarding
substantive review staff offers the following comments:
1. ''C'oMp~e'~e'~s'i'v'e''p'l'an: Energy Cons'ervation: This project is anticipated to
satisfy ~o'st of Rivanna's. energy demands at the water treatment plant. In
fact, the' feasibility report states that 'generation may exceed ~Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority) energy requirements and a buy-back agreement will have to
be established with YEPCO'. Staff opinion is that this project is highly
reflective of energy conservation and natural resource goals of the Comprehensive
Plan and recommends that the Commission find favorably in regard to 15.1-456
of the' Code of Virginia (i.e. compliance with the Comprehensive Plan).
2. Review by regulatory agencies has focused primarily on water quality and
aquatic life concerns outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. A staff concern during
discussion of this project some years ago was maintenance of downstream aquatic
life. This concern is reflected in comments of regulatory agencies (Attachment B)
particularly in regard to dissolved oxygen content. In regard to
dissolved oxygen, Rivanna proposes modification of the turbine to create
vacuum induction of air into the water. The State Water Control Board will
require maintenance of certain levels of dissolved oxygen, temperature, total
suspended solids, and pH level. Of these factors, dissolved oxygen (in the
short term) is the most critical and most likely traumatic event to occur.
Rivanna proposes daily monitoring for dissolved oxygen content at the Rt. 29 North
bridge. During the first year o£ operation and in order to establish reliable
history data, staff would recommend, if deemed appropriate by the State Water
Control Board, more frequent or continuous monitoring, particularly at times
of seasonal reservoir cycle. Regarding concerns of passage for anadromous
fish, Rivanna is ~greeable to. fish ladder installation at such time as no
downstream obstacles exist (~.e. - at least six dams exist downstream).
454
July 17,1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
3. Noise; Electrical Interference: Compliance with noise and electrical
interference limitations of the industrial performance standards is required
for this use. While no review of these standards has been made, review should
be required prior to issuance of a building permit.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
County Engineer approval in accordance with requirements of 30.3 FLOOD
HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT and 5.1.26 HYDROELECTRZC POWER GENERATION;
Staff approval Of site plan after review of Site Review Committee;
Comments of this report to be considered in all approvals.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 18, 1985, unanimously
commended approval of the above-noted petition with the conditions as recommended by staff.
The public hearing was opened and Mr. George W. Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna
& Sewer Authority, addressed the Board. The hydroelectric project is designed to take
advantage of the excess energy at the South Rivanna Dam to generate electricity using the excess
water that goes over the dam. The artist's conception of the project shows the location of the
project. The powerhouse is located right on top of the existing 72-inch drain tunnel. The
beneficiaries of this project are of course the water consumers'. While this project is slightly
different from any previously undertaken in the past, he is enthusiastic about it because it is
not only attractive financially but also will serve to minimize the cost of Water production in
the future. Mr. Fisher stated that he has read most of the engineer's report and found it to
one of the best technical reports he has ever seen. The first item that caught his eye was that
of excavating rock approximately 30 feet deep at the lower end of the flow. Will it require
blasting to do that? Mr. Williams said it may require some blasting. Mr. Fisher then asked if
anyone has considered whether this will pose any danger to the dam. Mr. Williams replied that
has been considered and is continuing to be considered, but at this point in time, it is not
thought that any danger will be posed. Mr. Fisher said there was a lawsuit some years ago about
who owns the property on Which this facility will sit. Has that lawsuit been resolved? Mr.
Williams replied that he is happy to say that issue has been resolved recently. Mr. Bowie
Mr. Williams what it means when the report states that the Rivanna Authority is agreeable to
ladder installation. Are more downstream dams reqUired? Mr. Williams said that if the
ever get up stream as far as the South Rivanna Dam, the Rivanna Authority will do whatever
it can to get them over the dam. Mr. Fisher said there are six dams downstream that are
preventing the shads from getting here now. It is his understanding that there are~ several
Ilagencies~ committed to restoring f~sh ~pawning in the streams where~the ~2sh used to spawn. Mr.
IIWilliams said that is the long-term goal. Mr. Way stated there is a resolution coming before
"the Board next month dealingwith this situation. With no one else rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
~._, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-85-32 with the following conditions:
County Engineer approval in accordance with requirements of 30.3 Flood Hazard
Overlay District and 5.1.26 Hydroelectric Power Generation;
2. Staff approval of site plan after review of Site Review Committee;
Comments of Planning staff report dated June 18, 1985 to be considered in all
approvals.
Mr. Bowie seconded the foregoing motion. Mr. Fisher stated that if in fact the benefit
cost ratio is as good as the reports shows, the area will be in good shape and he strongly
supports this application. Roll was called at this time and the motion carried by the followin
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. F~sher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. JAUNT: Request to use Carry-Over Funds.
Mr. Agnor reported that at the July 10 Board meeting, the Board received a request from
JAUNT to use $5,000 from carry-over funds for a half-time outreach worker. The Board asked
whether the JAUNT Board had ratified or approved this request. The following letter was ~
received from Ms. Donna Shaunesey, Assistant DireOtor for JAUNT, dated Jul~ 15, 1985:
"In answer to your letter of July 11, 1985 w~th regard to JAUNT's request to
use $5,000 of its carry-over baiance to fund the salary of a half-time outreach
worker, please inform the Board of Supervisors that the JAUNT Board has
approved this use. Enclosed are copi~es of the Board minutes. Please note that
the JAUNT Board empowered its Finance Committee to authorize this use of funds
at its May 20th meeting and the Finance Committee gave final approval at its
June 7, 1985 meeting."
In reference to the minutes of the JAUNT Finance Committee for June 7, 1985, Mr. Bowie
stated that he continues to have a problem with people l±Sted as being present at meetings and
when asked, these people state that they were. not at the meeting. Mr. Tucker said that he was
at the meeting. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if he had any reason to doubt that these minutes
are correct. Mr. Tucker replied no. He is on the Finance Committee along with Mr. John Carter
and they both support this action· This also was part of the Program Review Committee
~ations which were reviewed by this Board during adoption of the budget. Mr. Agnor
~ated that he would recommend approval of this request. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the
approve JAUNT's request to use $5,000 from their carry-over balance to fund the salary of
half-time outreach worker. Mr. Way seconded the motion which carried by the following
¥ote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
455
July 17, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 15a. Appropriations: Victim Witness Grant, FY 1985-86.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum to the Board from Mr. Melvin Breeden dated
July 3, 1985:
"The County of Albemarle has been officially notified that the Victim Witness Program
has been awarded a '85-86 Grant in the amount of $3,825 from the Department of Criminal
Justice. This grant must be used in the Victim Witness Program to expand the use of
volunteers in the Program.
I would respectfully request that an appropriation in the amount of $3,825
be made from the Grant."
Mr. Agnor stated that part of the appropriation, $1,500 will be used for a data processing
Ilremote terminal for Mrs. Charlene Easter's office so she will be able to access information
lldirectly from the files in the Police Department on micro-computer.
Mr. Bowie offered motion that the following resolution be adopted.
Ilmotion which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mrs. Cooke seconded tht
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $3,825 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Fund and
transferred to the Victim Witness Fund and coded as follows:
1-1225-31012-540104
1-1225.-31012-300601
1-1225.-31012-550401
1-1225-31012-550100
1-1225-31012-700700
Copy Supplies
Printing
Volunteer Educ. & Training
Travel - Routine Mileage
Data Processing Equipment
$ 100.00
225.00
1,200.00
8OO.OO
1,500.00
$3,~25.00
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County budget
is hereby amended by the addition of $3,825 to Code 2-1225-24000-240500 entitled
Grant Revenues - State; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date."
Agenda Item No. 15b. Appropriation: Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum to the Board:
"Individual fire companies, through the allocation of funds from the Jefferson
Country Firefighters' Association, have commitments on equipment purchases that
must be met this month (July). It is therefore requested that the FY 85-86 allocation
of $200,000~, shown in the Capital Improvements Program as a five year continuing
project, be appropriated for disbursement in July."
Mr. Agnor said that in addition to this request, there is a request to sign a service
agreement with the North Garden Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. for $120,000 for purchase of a fir~
engine. Mr. Agnor requested the appropriation of $200,000 from the Capital Improvements Fund
and that the Chairman be authorizated to execute the agreement with the North Garden Volunteer
'ire Company. Mr. Fisher stated that he had not seen the agreement. Mr. Agnor stated that the
~greement provides that at anytime during the life of the agreement, if North Garden is no
longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services, then the fire engine becomes the
property of the County for purposes of fighting fires. The agreement provides for a six-year
~ayback of the funds.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to adopt the following resolution and to authorize the
~hairman to sign the following service agreement with North Garden Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.
Mrs. Co.oke seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $20.0,00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital
Improvements Program Fund and transferre to Code 1-9000-05801-975801, entitled
Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this'lgth day of July, 1985, by and between
the COUNTY 0Y ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the NORTH GARDEN FIRE
COMPANY, INC. ("North Garden");
WITNES SETH
That for and in consideration of the operation by North Garden of a
volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and
human life from loss or damage by fire during the period of this agreement
and the purchase by North Garden of a new engine for use during the period
of this agreement, the County shall pay to North Garden One Hundred Twenty
Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00), which shall be paid in July, 1985 from the
456
July 17, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
County's capital fund. Thenceforth, the sum of Seventeen Thousand One Hundred
Forty-three Dollars ($17,143.00) per year shall be withheld each year from the
County's annual grant to North Garden, for~a period of six (6) years, beginning
with the fiscal year 1985-86 and extending through the fiscal year 1990-91, and ~-
the sum of Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Forty-two Dollars ($17,142.00) shall
be withheld in the seventh fiscal year [1991-92) from the County's annual grant
to North Garden, so that at the end of the seventh year, which is the term of
this service agreement, a total of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00)
will have been withheld. This withholding is in addition to any other withholding
as a result of prior service agreements with North Garden.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, North GardEn is no longer
in the business of providing fire-fighting services involving the use of the
engine to be purchased by North Garden, North Garden covenants that it will convey
its interest in the engine to the County at no cost to the County so long as the
County or its assigns use the engine for fire-fighting purposes.
Agenda Item No. 16. Request from Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors to adopt
resolution regarding '!No Smoking" signs in regional Division of Motor Vehicle offices.
Mr. Agnor recommended that this item be removed from the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: July 11, 1985.
Mr. Henley stated that he read pages eight through the end of the minutes and found them
be in order. Mr. Henley offered motion that this section of minutes be approved. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Way which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. There were no other matters Not on the Agenda from the Board and the
Public. There were no other matters to discuss.
Agenda Item No. 19. At 10:20 p.m,, the meeting was adjourned.