1984-12-19December 12, 1~84
(Regular Day Meeting)
58
~ Mr. Agnor told the Board that some County employees have asked whether New Year's Eve will
be granted to them as a holiday, falling as it does on a Monday this year. Mr. Agnor said he
hated to bring this up because the Board, after years of granting whole days and half,days for
Christmas Eve, finally gave general government employees that day as a permanent holiday and
thus brought the number of County holidays up to the number granted by the state. .Mr. Agnor
said he recommends that County offices be open on New Year's Eve and those employees who wish
can take a day of vacation on that day. Mr. Bowie supported this position. Mr. Fisher said he
would feel differently if the Christmas Eve holida~y had not been granted permanently.
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 4:25 p~m.
December 19, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on December 19, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
401 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: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr,
Deputy County Executive; Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; Mr. James R. Donnelly,
Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Not Docketed. Piedmont Corridor.
Mr. Fisher told the Board members that he had received a telephone call from Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation Commissioner Harold C. King. Mr. King read a letter
addressed to the Albemarle County Planning Commission over the phone. Mr. Fisher said his
anderstanding is that Mr. King and the Department of Highways and Transportation will proceed
~ith a study of alternatives to the western Albemarle County route of the proPosed Piedmont
~orridor Highway. While this study progresses, no further work will be done on the western
route. If, however, no reasonable alternative presents itself by the time the study is com-
leted, Mr. Fisher said he feels Mr. King will return to the western route as a viable aIter-
.ative. He added that he does not think this means that the matter has been laid to rest, or
bhat the County should relax its stance as regards the Piedmont Corridor.
Agenda Item No. 4.
Consent Agenda.
On motion by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, the Consent Agenda was approved as
)resented by the following recorded vote:
~YES:
AYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. 4.1. Memo dated December 7, 1984, from James R. Donnelly regarding Coal-Fired
team Electric Power Plant - Buckingham County.
Mr. Donnelly noted by memorandum that he had received the following letters in answer to
tuestions the Board had directed him to ask concerning the effect a new coal-fired power plant
~ould have on the air quality in Albemarle County:
"December 5, 1984
Mr. James R. Donnelly
Director of Planning and Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Donneliy:
December 19, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Your recent letter to Mr. Forrest Martin regarding the possible impact
of a proposed coal-fired power station in Buckingham County has been
referred to me for reply.
As you and the members of the Board of Supervisors may know, the proposed
coal-fired plant is currently under study and Vepco has not yet decided
whether or when to proceed with its construction. If and when our studies
determine that such a plant should be built, however, there are four sites
currently being evaluated for possible use, and the site to which you refer
in Buckingham County is but one of the four. Vepco is now conducting
extensive air quality monitoring at the various sites, and this monitoring
and modelling analysis is not scheduled to be completed until next spring.
Only after this work is completed could we give you a specific, detailed
opinion of the impact, if any, a new coal-fir.ed power station in Buckingham
C~un~m~ght have on the air quality of Albemarle County.
Please assure the Board of Supervisors that, when and if Yepco constructs
another coal-fired power station, we will willingly comply with all
applicable air quality standards by using the best available control tech-
nology, as required by the State Air Pollution Control Board. Our intention
is to mitigate or eliminate adverse effects our operations could have on the
environment, consistent with our obligations to provide an adequate and
reliable supply of electric power.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
August Wallmeyer
Manager - Community and Government Affairs
Vepco"
"October 23, 1~984
Mr. James R. Donnelly
Director of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Donnelly:
In response to your letter of October 17, 1984, the utility company has not
made any decision regarding the proposed coal-fired steam electric power
plant, proposed for Buckingham County. At present the utility company is
looking at various sites and doing an Air Quality Impact Analysis for all
the sites for their internal use only. The final decision regarding the
site selection will not be made until year 1985 or 1986.
I hope this will answer your inquiry, and if you have any questions, please
call me at (804) 786-0174.
Sincerely,
( SIGNED )
Kirit Chaudhari, Director
Division of Computer Services, Modeling and
Air Quality Analysis
State Air Pollution Control Board"
Mr. Bowie requested that a copy of the air quality impact analysis be sent 'to Mrs. Wayne
{arbaugh, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, when such
?eport is received by the Planning Department.
Item No. 4.2. Letter dated December 11, 1984, from J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the
klbemarle County Service Authority, regarding review by ~he Service Authority Board of Direc-
;ors of the Keswick PUD and water and sewer of same:
"December 11, 1984
Mr. James Donnelly Director of Planning and Community Development
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Keswick
Dear Mr. Donnelly:
The Service Authority Board of Directors has reviewed the revised
Keswick PUD and is still of the opinion that, if the plan is approved,
the central water and sewer systems should be dedicated to and operated
by the Service Authority. The developer should investigate the
feasibility of extending a water main to Keswick. In the event that
this is not feasible, an exhaustive study of the groundwater potential
should be conducted. As stated in my letter of September 26, 1984,
to Katherine Imhoff, it would be the Service Authority's goal to
eventually extend the water main to Keswick even if a groundwater system
was used initially.
December 19, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Please refer to my letter to Ms. Imhoff . .
of the Board concerning this matter.
Very truly yours,
( S~aNED )
J. W. Brent
Executive Director"
for the specific concerns
Item No. 4.3. Memo dated December 14, 1984 from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive,
regarding Revenue Projections for 1985-86:
"Revenues for fiscal year 1985-86 are estimated to remain healthy
with local funds increasing by $3.0 million at current tax rates and no
additional sources. This would bring the General Fund to a total of $36.5
million and represent a nine percent increase over this year's revenues.
The reassessment of real estate has been sampled, and estimated to produce
new revenues of $1.7 million, $154,000 from new construction, and $1.55
million in market value increases. The new construction represents a one
percent increase, the market value calculates to be 10.7 percent, for a
total increase of 11.8 percent. Other revenues, such as sales taxes and
business license taxes have been calculated on the basis of an economic
growth rate of four percent.
I have recommended that departments and agencies calculate inflationary
costs at four percent for budget planning purposes. On that basis, local
funds to General Government operations would require $492,350 and School
Operations would use $613,290, totalling $1.1 million of the $3.0 million
increase. The City's Revenue Sharing payment will increase $374,000 and
losses in revenue from the Land Use program will increase $106,000,
further reducing the additional revenues until a net. total of $1.4
million would remain for salary adjustments above the four percent,
such as the teachers' scale, and for tax rate adjustments or new programs
to be considered by you when the total budget picture is complete.
($3.0 million less operations of $1.1 million; less Revenue Sharing
payment of $0.37; less Land Use of $0.1; equals $1.4 million remainder.)
State and Federal revenues are not included, nor are budget reductions
below the current level of funding considered. These are unknown at
this point in time. The resources available from local revenues are all
that is considered in this information memorandum."
Item No. 4.4. Letter dated December 12, 1984, from Dr. Richard Prindle, Director of the
Health Department regarding the well at Stone Robinson School:
"December 12, 1984
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Tucker:
This letter is written in reply to your inquiry concerning the well at
Stone Robinson School.
Many years ago there was a fuel oil leak at the school site. Apparently
this leak resulted in contamination of the groundwater in the school
area. The taste of petroleum compounds in the water was noted. At that
time a private company offered to install filtering equipment which, as
they stated, would render the water safe and tasteless. This was done
and no further complaints were made.
In the following years the health department continued to take well water
samples four or more times per year (as required by law) to test for
bacteriological contamination. Ail those tests have been negative.
No testing for chemical contamination was done. Such testing is not
required by law, is time-consuming and expensive, and, we're told, less
sensitive in most cases than taste and odor for detection of contam-
ination.
In mid-October of this year we received a telephone call from a lady
expressing concern about the water's taste. We contacted Mr. (Charles)
Simmons, (Principal) who confirmed that it did, indeed, ~aste. Mr. Jack
Collins, Sanitation Manager for this health district, contacted the
Regional Director for the Division of Water Programs, who informed him
that human use of the water for drinking and cooking should cease immed-
iately. This was done, and the Rivanna Service Authority assisted in
providing water by truck for school use.
Meanwhile a well was drilled but was found to be dry on October 30.
On November 2 another well was drilled and a good supply obtained. No
taste or odor of petroleum compounds has been noted. Three samples
for bacteriological contamination have proven to be negative, as has
one chemical test done at Blue Ridge Analytical Laboratory in Charlottes-
ville. Confirmatory laboratory tests for chemical contamination are
being carried out at the State's Consolidated Laboratory in Richmond.
To date, the water appears to be safe. In view of the sensitivity of
December 19, 1985 (RegularFNight. Meeting)
taste and Sdor for detection of petroleum contamination, this health
department[ and the Division of Water Programs feel there is no hazard
present.
Note: You may hear that a sample from the new well was contaminated
bacteriologically. That was a positive test on a sample taken incor-
rectly, just after the well was drilled but before it was flushed and
sterilized. Under those conditions a positive test would be expected.
Three subsequent samples (after flushing and sterilization) have proven
negative.
I hope this information is helpful to you. The only feasible solution
appeared to be to drill a new well. The use of new filters and devices
to remove the petroleum compounds had been unsmccessful, and the pro-
vision of water from the public supply to the school would have been,
at best, one and one-half years in the future.
We are grateful for the cooperation.and assistance of Charlie Simmons,
Bob Thraves and Bill Brent in working to solve this problem.
I'll be happy to provide further information if you desire it.
Sincerely yours,
(SIaN~D)
Richard A. Prindle, MD, MPH
Director, Thomas Jefferson Health District"
Mr. Way noted concern about the emphasis on bacteriological testing rather than.chemical
~esting evidenced in Dr. Prindle's letter, Mr. Lindstrom-said when he first heard of this
Iproblem he was concerned because he heard reports that the water smelled bad and he did not
know why chemical testing was not done immediately. Mr. Agnor said a staff report on extended
types of testing will probably be ready for-the Board in January.
Item No. 4.5. Correspondence regarding Piedmont Corridor.
The Board received copies of several letters from citizens protesting the location of a
proposed Route 29 by-pass ~through Wester~ Albemarle, known as the Piedmont Corridor.
Item No. 4.6. The County Executive's Financial Report for the period between July 1, 1984
and November 30, 1984, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. The
following paragraph was included in that report:
"Cash balances for all funds on Nobember 30 was $14,918,243, down from
$15,936,528 on July 1, 1984. The cash balance of the General Fund on
July 1 was $9.9 million, on November 1 it was $4.4 million indicating
that from July 1 to November 1, the expenditures exceeded revenues by
$5.5 million ($9.9 less $4.4), and during the month of November when
tax collections began, the revenues exceeded expenditures by $4.8
million ($9.2 bala~ceoon November 30, less $4.4 balance on November 1).
The General Fund balance on November 30 was within $0.7 million of where
we started the fiscal year, indicating that November is our recovery
month for cash in the General Fund. The~December report witl reflect
the remainder of the tax collections which provide a cash balance to
operate on for the rest of the budget year. Ail of the cash balances in
all of the funds are continually invested in interest-bearing accounts."
Item No. 4.7. Memo dated December 19, 1984, from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive,
sntitled "1985 Reassessment"~was received:
"The biennial reassessment of real estate effective January 1,
1985 has been completed, and the results are as follows:
1985 Reassessment Fair Market Value
1983 Reassessment Fair Market Value
Total Two Year Increase
$2,180,482,250
1,839,443,530
$ 350,038,720
New Construction in 1983 and 1984
Net Two-year Increase of Market Values
- 114,420,200
$ 235,61~,520
The Net Market value increase over the two year period is 12.8 percent.
New construction over the two year period expanded the tax base by
6.2 percent. The grand total~increase of both market values and new
construction expands the tax base by 19 percent over the two year period.
The tax base enrolled in the Land Use program will increase over the
two year period from $268,450,960 in 1983 to $311,225,571 in 1985, an
increase of $42,766,611 or 15.9 percent. Subtracting the Land Use
deferments from the total tax base provides a net tax base of
$1,869,256,679 in 1985, which compared to the net base in 1983 of
$1,570,984,570, provides in increase of $298,272,109 or 19 percent.
In an earlier memo on revenue projections (which are one-year changes from
1984 to 1985) it was reported to you that real estate tax revenues would
increase 11.8 percent. It is important that you distinguish between
biennial reassessment numbers and the one-year budget estimate numbers."
December 1~, 1~84 (Ragular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom noted that on the last agenda, the information items normally included on
the Consent Agenda were listed as a separate item entitled "Recieve and Order Filed Certain
Memoranda, Correspondence, Reports, Etc." That was not continued to this agenda tonight, but
he likes the idea, and finds it less confusing as to items for approval as opposed to items for
information.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-84-79. Charles W. Hurt. Request to locate a double-wide mobile
home on 3 acres zoned Rural Areas, RA. Located on the west side of Route 784, 0.3 mile south
of its intersection with Route 640. County Tax Map 34, Parcel 115. Rivanna District (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on December 4 and December 11, 1984). Mr. Fisher noted that a
letter dated December 19, 1984 had been received from the applicant requesting withdrawal of
the petition without prejudice. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any person present to comment on
this petition. No one was present to speak.
Mr. Lindstrom immediately made motion to allow the withdrawal of SP-84-79 without preju-
dice. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(Note: Due to the relationship of the requests, listed as Agenda Items 6, 7, and 8, all
~ere considered together.)
Agenda Item No. 6. CPA-84-9. Amendment to Map 25 of the Comprehensive Plan (Albemarle
~ounty Service Authority Project Areas 1982-2002) to extend water service to Fontana project.
~ounty Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 (part). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 4 and
December 11, 1984.)
Agenda Item No. 7. CPA-84-10. Amendment to Map '9 of the Comprehensive Plan (Urban Area
~and Use Plan 1982-2002) as it affects Fontana property. County Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 (part).
Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 4 and December 11, 1984.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the staff report:
"Background
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 4,
1984, recommended denial of CPA-84-9 and CPA-84-10 by a vote of 5-1.
As a separate action, the Planning Commission approved with conditions-
ZMA-84-13, Fontana (PRD). This is a proposal to rezone 169.8 acres
from R-15 (6.6 acres), R-1 (41.09 acres) and RA (122.11 acres) to PRD.
A total of 83 units is proposed for a gross density of one dwelling unit
per 2.05 acres. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments 84-9 and 84-10 were
requested for the 122.11 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, and with a proposal
for 51 dwelling units.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 13,
1984, adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
extend the jurisdictional district for water only to include-the Fontana
area and to amend the Neighborhood 3-Land Use Plan as it relates to the
Fonatan Area.
Since the adoption of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002,
the Albemarle County Planning Commission and Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors have reviewed eight Comprehensive Plan Amendments. With
regard to the present Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, several of
the previous amendments (CPA-84-1, 84-2 and 84-4) were also requests to
amend the water service jurisdictional area. The first was a request to
extend water only service to property located in Ivy; the request was
denied. The other two amendments were for water only service to certain
properties in existing neighborhoods located within the South Fork Rivanna
watershed and these requests were approved.
To date there have been no Comprehensive Plan amendments which sought to
amend the urban area's land use boundaries. There have been rezoning
requests which sought to accomplish this in part, for example, ZMA-81-1
Pantops, ZMA-81-2 Pantops, and ZMA-81-3 Route 29 North. Ali were eventually
withdrawn prior to Board of Supervisors action but were denied by the
Albemarle County Planning Commission, due in part to the fact that the
requested rezonings did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan recommen-
dations for those areas. It was also noted at that time that proposals
of this magnitude (acreage of the above Zoning Map amendments ranged from
78 to 399 acres) should be considered in a comprehensive manner. In
addition, it was also expressed that no action had occurred to justify
changing the current zoning.
T~e FSntana project, 122.11 acres of which are being requested to be included
in both the water service jurisdictional area and urban area land use plan,
is located, in part, within Neighborhood Three and, in part, outside of the
northern boundary of this urban area neighborhood. The Albemarle County
Cpmprehensive Plan notes under ~Residential Density Standardsw that ~conven-
tional developments are recommended at a scale from 20-75 dwelling units
such developments should be restricted to the designated village, community
and urban areas.· In this instance, an extension in the boundary of the
growth area is requested.
December 19~ 1984- (Regular Night Meet-ing)
Generally, the boundaries of the County's urban area neighborhoods were
based on natural boundaries and significant man-made features, one of the
most important natural boundaries being the'South Fork Rivanna Watershed.
There are several neighborhood boundaries, however, which are defined by less
than obvious land forms such as rivers, watershed divides, ~etc. The south-
western boundary of Neighborhood Six, the eastern boundary of Neighborhood
Four and the northern boundary of Neighborhood Three are examples of boun-
daries that have come under consideration by members of the public. In the
case of Neighborhood Three, it is bounded on the west by the Rivanna River,
on the south by Interstate 64, and on the east by the steep slopes of the
Southwest Mountains. The northern boundary is a line approximately 4,000
feet north of Route 250 East and Route 20 intersection, defined by a ninety
degree bend in the river. The northern boundary also follows an existing
VEPCO easement.
When theZbam~d~r~es~£~r~Neighborhood Three were originally discussed, some
thought was given to extending the urban area boundaries to include the
Ashcroft and Franklin developments. However, the density of these develop-
ments did not match recommended densities for urban area land uses. It
should be noted that the proposed Fontana project is also proposed at a
rural area and not urban area density. Inclusion of this property in the
urban area at a one dwelling unit per two acre density may therefore not
be appropriate.
When the Comprehensive Plan was revised in 1982, Neighborhood Three con-
tained at that time, no community facilities although the proposed constru-
ction of a water tank at Ashcroft was known. Since then a water storage
facility'has been constructed within the adjacent Ashcroft development.
The water line connecting to this tank is located within the VEPCO easement
and this also serves to presently delineate the northern boundary of Neigh-
borhoodThree. The Fontana proposal would propose serving all 83 lots off
this water line, 51 of which are now located outside the boundaries of the
urban area.
Presently Neighborhood Three is the least populated (in 1982 an estimated
150 persons) of all the urban area neighborhoods. There is significant high
density (130 acres for 11-34 dwelling units per acre) and medium density
(50 acres for 5-10 dwelling units per acre) residential potential, as shown
by the Land Use Plan, both south and north of 250 East. There is also 260
acres of low density residential land (1-4 dwelling units per acre) which
is, in part, undeveloped. The Comprehensive Plan notes as a guide for resi-
dential development a macimum development potentiaZ of 7,567 persons (2,975
dwelling units and approximately 400 acres) for Neighborhood Three. The
addition of 122 acres at the proposed residential density of one dwelling
unit per two acres would, if approved~ add approximately 51 dwelling units
or approximately 138 persons to Neighborhood Three.
Option 1.
No revision in the existing service area or land use boundaries for
Neighborhood Three. Such a decision might be based on the already
existing and undeveloped residential property located within Neighbor-
hood Three and a finding that no significant change in circumstances
has occurred to merit amendment to the Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan 1982-2002. Note that the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
recommends encouraging growth in the existing growth areas, infill
incentives and assuring that public utility improvements are consistent
with land use policies. In addition, the density proposed is not
consistent with urban area residential densities and, therefore, it
would not be appropriate to amend the growth area to include this
development.
Option 2.
Amend the jurisdictional map only. Adjusting the jurisdictional map
for water service only would recognize the change in circumstances
occurring along the northern boundary of Neighborhood Three due to the
recently constructed waterline. However, amending the jurisdictional
area alone would appear to conflict with certain objectives of the Com-
prehensive Plan, namely: ensuring that public utility improYements are
consistent with land use policies and maintaining conformance of water
and sewer project areas with proposed !and.~se patterns. It should also
be noted that this Comprehensive Plan amendment is dissimilar from pre-
vious requests which were to serve existing developed properties located
within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir drinking water impoundment area.
Map 25 notes the areas recommended for public water service in the County.
These areas comply substantially with the recommendations of the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan and are supportive of the goals of con-
taining development within the designated growth centers and discouraging
sprawl-type development of the rural areas.
Option 3.
Adjust the northern boundary of Neighborhood Three to allow for bot~
water-only service and urban area land use. If the boundary, in this case
a VEPCO easement, is found to be unsuitable as a delineation between growth
and rural area, reasonable adjustments should be made. In the present case,
the applicant would extend the northern boundary of the Neighborhood Three
De~ember 19, 1984
(Regular Night Meeting)
area to an existing swale adding approximately 122 acres to the urban area.
If this action is taken, it should be noted that the change in circumstances
triggering the reconsideration of the appropriate boundary was the install-
ation of the waterline. Adjusting the boundary of Neighborhood Three should
not set a precedent for future amendments to growth area boundaries. The
appropriate urban area land use would be "low density (1-4 dwelling units per
acre)."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Given the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan relating to maintaining con-
sistency of public utilities improvements with land use patterns, the staff
would not recommend approving Option 2. Of the two remaining options, the
staff would recommend Option 1 based on: the existing undeveloped resi-
dential potential in Neighborhood Three, the reasonableness of the VEPCO
easement as a man-made boundary delineating Neighborhood Three, and the
fact that the proposed density of the Fontana development is not consistent
with recommended urban area residential densities. The staff also notes
that the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan encourages growth in existing
urban area neighborhoods and communities, and infill incentives.
If the Board of Supervisors were to approve Option 3, adjusting the northern
boundary of Neighborhood Three to allow for both water service and urban area
land use, the staff would recommend that the boundary of Neighborhood Three
not be extended as far as the proposed limits of the Fontana proposal, but
rather be ~tan~e~to~th~s~ream~noted on (an attached map). Using the stream
as a boundary would not affect any residential lots but would locate dedicated
open space in the rural area rather than the urban area."
Mr. Donnelly concluded the staff report on CPA-84-9 and CPA-84-t0 by stating that
the Planning Commission, on December 4, 1984, recommended denial of both petitions by a vote of
711.
Following the staff report, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing.
)resent to speak on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Roy Parks was
Mr. Parks told the Board that the applicant, Dr. Hurt, believes the present urban area
~oundary, the VEPC0 easement, to be an arbitrary line. If the line remains unchanged, one side
of the street in the development would have public water, and the other side of the street
would have to have wells. He said the situation called for the application of common sense to
the problem of where the urban area boundary is, versus where it perhaps should be. Mr. Parks
Ruoted the staff report that said the urban boundary is arbitrary and said the applicant is
asking for a refinement of the boundary to better suit the area.
Mr. Fisher interrupted the public hearing for the presentation of the staff report on the
Zoning Map Amendment set out
~ge~Ra Item No. 8. ZMA-83-13. Charles W. Hurt (Fontana PRD). Request to rezone 169.8
acresZ~dm~Rel5 (6.6 acres), R-1 (41.09 acres) and RA (122.11 acres) to Planned Residential
Development, PRD, for a total of 83 units with proposed gross density of one dwelling unit per
2.05 acres. Located north of Route 250 East and east of Route 20 North, adjacent to Ashcroft
and Franklin Subdivisions. County Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 (part). Rivanna District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on December 4 and December 11, 1984).
Mr. Donnelty presented the following staff report summary (a complete copy~--of the staff
report had been furnished to the Board with other materials for this meeting~:
"Requested Zoning: PRD, Planned Residential Development
Acreage: 169.8 acres
Existing Zoning: R-15 (6.6 acres); R-1 (41.09 acres); and RA (122.11 acres).
Location- North of Route 250 East and east of Route 20 North.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
Eighty-three single-family lots served by public water, individual septic
systems and public roads. Density is one dwelling unit per 2.046 acres.
Minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet.
This application was deferred from the Planning Commission meeting on
February 7, 1984 due to the staff's recommendation for denial of the pre-
vious plan. This current plan includes 169.8 acres of the previous plan
for 401.6 acres.
The site is located adjacent to the Ashcroft Subdivision in the foothills
of the Southwestern Mountains. The entrance is proposed on Route 20 North.
Two utility rights-of-way bisect the property. A VEPCO right-of-way running
east-west is also the urban area boundary and jurisdictional area boundary
for public water and sewer.
The applicant is requesting that all the lots be served by public water
and septic systems. Staff had suggested earlier to the applicant that it
might be appropriate to request smaller lots served by public water and
sewer on this portion of his property between the urban area and a major
drainage swale.
Staff opinion is that the PRD request is appropriate on this site, which
can best be developed through a cluster approach with open space. The te. ch-
nical requirements for a planned development plan have substantially been
met. It is difficult to confirm that the project can be developed as pro-
Dma~mhmw 19, 198~'
~2_,'~ ht Meetin-g~~
(~ ~.Ru 1 ~ ~;~,~A~
posed until additional information regarding road profiles, stormwater deten-
tion and soils is received during subdivision plat review. Additional open
space may be required.*
*Not more than 30 percent of the required open space may consist of slopes
ih excess of 25 percent or public utility easements or stormwater detention
~vices.
The main question to be resolved is whether the plan conforms to the
Comprehensive Plan land use recommendations. One way to approach this
question is to look at what could be done under existing zoning. The
area south of the VEPCO right-of-way-could.be developed with about
138 units with sewer and water. The rural area part of this plan could
be divided into 10 parcels, by right, under RA, Rural Areas, zoning. It
could also probably qualify for a special use permit under the RA criteria
due to its proximity to the urban area and services. A conventional two
acre lot subdivision would give almost the same number of lots without
the advantages of open space.
Existing Zoning Acreage Maximum Number of Units Number Proposed
under Existing Zoning
R-i, Residential 41.09
R-15, Residential 6.6
RA, Rural Areas 122.11
39 (conventional)
99
10 (5 development rights
plus 5-21 acre parcels)
148 units - total
29
3
51
83 units
The a~gument against the proposal is that there is no justification for
extending the urban boundary for this low density of only one unit per two
acres. Extending water service without amending the land use plan could be
inconsistent with objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has recommended conditions of approval should the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors choose to amend the Comprehensive Plan to extend
water service to the project. If public water is not permitted, then the
plan will have to be resubmitted to show either a Central well or minimum
lot size of 60,000 square feet.
STAFF COMMENT
In reviewing this rezoning request, the Commission and Board should consider
the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance:
Section 1.4 Purpose and Intent: Regarding the promotion of health, safety
convenience and general welfare of the public and planning for the future
development of the community.
Section 1.5 Relation to Environment: Regarding the similar-treatment of
l~nd~.l~WithJ~i~ilarhaharae~ri.~t~cs.
Section 1.6 Relation to Comprehe.nsive Plan: Regarding encouragement of
development in growth areas, protection of special resources and development
of other rural lands at limited scales and rates.
Section 8 Planned Development Districts: Generally; and Section 19 Planned
Residential Development - P.R.D.: Planned developments are intended to pro-
mote: economical and efficient land use through unified development; improved
levels of amenities; appropriate and harmonious physical development; creative
design; and a better environment than generally realized through conventional
district regulations.
Planned development districts shall be developed to provide for the comfort
and convenience of residents;'to facilitate protection of the character of
the surrounding neighborhoods; and to lessen traffic impact through a reason-
ably short travel time between origins and destinations . . .
Section 10.5 Special Provisions for Multiple Single-Family Dwelling Units:
This section 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.
In general, this plan for Fontana PRD is greatly improved over the initial
submittal a year ago. In meeting with the applicant since the plan was
deferred on February 7, 1984, staff suggested the following changes:
The North Pantops PRD area which was previously approved
should be developed separately;
The center section should have access only through Franklin
Subdivision instead of a loop road which was proposed to
traverse a steep swale. The number of lots permitted in this
section will be limited in a future application by the number
of permitted vehicle trips per day on Franklin Drive.
The applicant should consider requesting smaller lots served by
sewer and water in the area between the Urban area and the steep
swale.
December 19, 1984
(Regula~ Night Meeting)
The applicant is limiting his project currently to an area on the Plan
denoted as #3 which lies adjacent to the Urban area. By doing so, he
has eliminated several of the previous problems of density in the rural
area, protection of special resources and harmonious physical development.
The applicant has chosen to request only water service for minimum 40,000
square foot lots. It should be noted that problems with septic locations
and requests for setback variances are possible with lots this size. The
amount of usable open apace meets the minimum requirement as defined in
Section 4.7.3, Open Space Character, but most of the open space is either
in swales or utility easements; therefore, it probably cannot be used as
an alternative area for septic systems.
The plan does generally meet the technical requirements for a P.R.D. Plan,
as required by Secion 8.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff remains of the
opinion that preliminary road profiles, stormwater calculations and soils
information are needed to confirm that the project can be developed as
proposed.
RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The major question remaining is whether the Comprehensive Plan should be
amended to expand the urban boundary. The alternatives are:
1. Amend the land use map and extend water service as proposed;
2. Extend water service without amending the land use map;
3. Amend the land use map only if water and sewer are utilized to
permit an urban-type density;
4. Require minimum 60,000 square feet lots in the rural area with
no change to the plan.
Staff opinion is that the existing urban boundary is arbitrary in this loca-
tion. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to extend
utilities and/or the urban boundary, then the unique circumstances of this
property should be noted, in order to prevent a precedent for other similar
requests along the boundary.
RELATION TO PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE
The plan is a reasonable attempt to overcome problems of a difficult site.
The drainage swales to the north and south provide logical boundaries to the
plan.
RELATION TO SURROUNDING AREA~
The plan is similar in character to the residential area of Ashcroft.
The proposed residences will be physically separated from the commercial
activity on Route 250 East. The drainage swale to the north provides a
definite boundary between the urban and rural areas.
RELATION TO MAJOR ROADS, UTILITIES, PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
School impact report is attached (copy on file). Elementary SchoOl aged
students will attend Stone Robinson School, which is not overcrowded.
The development will generate 581 trips per day on Route 20 North. Route 20
is a primary highway, with a traffic light located at its intersection
with Route 250 East. The Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation has not indicated a need for road improvements as a result of
this development.
RELATION TO THE INTENT OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
Regarding "improved levels of amenities", and "comfort and convenience
of residents", the proposal offers a recreation area which is not
required under PRD or conventional zoning at this density.
The location and beauty of the site are the major amenities offered.
The roads will be State-maintained and water service is proposed.
The plan affords some protection of steep areas. Residents may be incon-
venienced by septic system, erosion or drainage problems associated with
minimum size lots on steep topography.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has been cooperative in attempting to address staff's pre-
vious concerns. While the plan is reasonable and in substantial compli-
ance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, it may not conform to the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to amend the
Comprehensive Plan as requested by the applicant, than staff recommends
that approval of ZMA-83-13, Fon~ana PRD, b~ conditioned as follows:
594
Deaember 19': 1984'- (Re~u~ar-N~ht M~at-~)
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ail roads to be constructed to State standards. Road plans
must be approved by the County Engineer prior to subdivision
plat submittal;
Residue of Tax Map 78, Parcel 57, zoned R-15, Residential, to
be added to adjacent parcel;
Fire officer approval of emergency access if he determines it
is necessary;
Ail lots approved conditional on verification of building site
on each lot at the time of subdivision approval;
Lot size conditional on amendment of jurisdictional area
'boundary;
Ail lots subject to final technical approvals as required at the
time of subdivision, including:
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
Fire Officer
Albemarle County Service Authority
County Engineer
Health Department;
No unnecessary clearing of existing vegetation except as required
for roads, utilities and building sites.
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission at its meeting on December 4, 1984,
recommended approval of ZMA-83-13 with conditions 1-4, 6 and 7 as recommended by the staff.
Condition No. 5 was changed to read: "Board of Supervisors approval of central well system,"
and added two conditions reading: "8. Open space requirements shall be verified at time of
subdivision approval; 9. Staff approval of recreational area."
~fter~the staff report Mr. Fisher remarked that it was outrageous for the staff to present
the maximum density allowable on a parcel in a zoning category without considering the slope or
other limiting factors on the property. He said he does not think a maximum of 148 units as
listed in the staff report is possible on this piece of land. He said the lack of public
utilities and the VEPC0 easement did nov seem to concur with a density this high. Mr. Lindstro~
said he is concerned because technically, under existing zoning, there could be 99 dwelling
units on the R-15 portion of this property, and the applicant is only proposing three units.
Since he feels any developer is going to try to get the most out of a piece of property, he
wonders why so few units have been proposed on this portion. Mr. Lindstrom said the raw
figures make it look as if the County would be much better off, as far as density goes, to
approved this PUD since it would have fewer units than can-be developed under existing zoning.
But if the staff report does not reflect what can actually be placed on the land, then the
County is probably getting the maximum density anyway. The Board needs realistic~ not theo-
retical assessments of what the land will hold. Mr. Fisher asked how much of the land is in
slopes of over 25 percent and Mr. Donnelly replied that the staff does not have the exact
figures.
Mr. Parks said a slope analysis had been done and presented to the Planning Department.
Ail of the building lots have more than 30,000 square feet inslopes of less than twenty per-
cent. He said he did not do an analysis using existing zoning. He feels the two-acre require-
ment in the Rural Areas section of the property is not appropriate: the property does, however
lend itself topographically to the clustering of dwellings. He said about 33 acres of the 52
acres of proposed open space lend themselves to open areas under County requirement. The
entire area can be, he said, much more easily developed than Ashcroft was. He quoted the staff
report's comment that the slopes in Fontana are moderate in comparison to the slopes in Ashcrof'
Mr. Bowie said that since the waterline goes right through the middle of this property the
Planning Commission recommendation would have one-half of t~e propery ser¥~d by public water an~
the other cng half served by a central well system. He asked if this was a correct assumpt&~n.
Mr. F~her said the Board would hear more about the water service in a minute. He then asked
Mr. Parks what this proposed plan really ~ffers the public and the community.
The major resource of the site, Mr. Parks said, is in drainage areas which serve Ashcroft
as well as Fontana. The developer has left a 150-foot buffer on either side of the stream,
which will eventually be developed with tennis courts, a tot lot, and perhaps a swimming pool
or softball fields. Each proposed lot, with perhaps a few exceptions, is connected to open
space easement, and people can walk to the amenities.
Mr. Parks said he would sugeest that the Board take the Planning Commission's recommen-
dation and approve the zoning request.
Mr. Parks asked that the Board of Supervisors, in considering the petition, remove con-
dition #5 added by the Planning Commission that would require use of a central well system.
He said the developer would prefer extension of the Albemarle County Service Authority
Ijurisdictional boundaries. He reminded the Board that the proposed density would be lower than
tequal to the density in the surrounding area.
Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was present
and drew the Board's attention to the following letter:
"December 18, 1984
RE: Font ana
Dear Mrs. Cooke and Gentlemen~
The Service Authority Board of Directors met in special session this date to
discuss the Planning Commission recommendation that the portion of the Fon~ana
~r
December 19, 1984
(Regular Night Meeting)
595
project~ lying ~utai~e'the Authority water service area be served by a private
central well system~ The BOard of Directors voted 3-2 to recommend to the
Board of Supervisors that all oS Fon~ana~be incorporated into the water ser-
vice area and be served by the Ser¥ice Authority. The Board of Directors
acknowledges this is an unuaual situation. While the practice of the Board
has bemn to refrain £rom becoming in¥olYed in rezoning matters in the past, the
majority opinion of the members was that since the ?tanning Commission had
already approved the project the opinion being offered by the Board w~uld not
influence a decision on the rezoning but the ~means of providing water service
to the subdivision.
The Board recommends consideration of the following ~actors in your review of
this matter: '
The resources this community has put into its water system:and the
Authority's need to develop a wider revenue base to support and improve
the system;
The advantages of adequate £ire protection which a public system would
offer;
3. The past experiences with central well systems in the ~ounty;
When the urban boundary was drawn the ~ater transmission line to Pantops
did not exist.
If we may provide additional information please let me know.
Very truly yours,
~Signed)
J. W. Brent
Secretary-Treasurer"
With no one else present to speak about any of these zoning requests, Mr. Fisher closed
the public hearing on all three petitions (CPA-84-9, CPA-84-10 and ZMA-83-13).
Mr. Bowie said since the Fontana property can be developed'fairly heavily, particularly
the R-15 portion, perhaps the subdivision proposed by Dr. Hurt would be a better use of the
land. He said the development would be no worse than Ashcroft. He prefers a lower density
£o~ the area and this plan seems to address.that preference. He also feels public water should
se made available. By allowing the development but requiring & central well, system for one
3ortion, the County will just be creating a situation whereby the residents on the side of the
~oad having no public water will be petitioning the County for water before many years have
3assed. He said he supports the rezoning and the request for water. Mr. Bowie said he does not
~eel supporting the Fontana project will be precedent-setting~ and he'will worry about future
~evelopment in that area when it happens. He asked Mr. Fisher what sort of procedure should be
~sed in dealing with the three different petitions.
Mr. Fisher said the Board should address the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the growth
area first (CPA-84-i0). If that passes, then the water and rezoning questions should be dis-
2uss'ed. He said what he himself feels is that if the area is to be developed, it should be done
~ith.'public water. If that is to happen, then both Comprehensive Plan amendments should be
adopted.
Mr. Fisher said the real issue is whether or not this rezoning request shows the best use
3f the property. He added that he hopes the Board never gets another staff report that does
aot give a reasonable assessment of what can actually be placed on the land, regardless of the
zoning. He said that outside of this issue, he has no real feeling about the application
except that it' seems that all the steep land is going to be put into the open space areas. If
any land were really left for the residents' use, then perhaps the subdivision would be all
right. The planning staff noted in its report that not more than 30 percent of the required
3pen space may consist of slopes greater than 25 percent. Mr. Tucker said the Board could make
that a condition. It is, however, already required by the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said~he
~ar~c~u~daaIill restate it, and Mr. Fisher said that would not be necessary.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is not convinced that this is the way the Board should go about its
omprehensive planning. He does not see a crying need in the area that this project will
serve. Also, no hardship is stated in the applicant's position. Mr. Lindstrom said that if
the urban area boundary is changed in this area, the Board will be creating a line even more
arbitraty than the existing boundary, and clearly leaves properties zoned RA encircled by
developed lands. If there is a clear need for housing of this type that cannot be met within
the terms of the existing Comprehensive Plan, that would be justification for the amendment,
but Mr. Lindstrom ~i~Lbe~h~a~d!no~suah assessment by the staff of that need He expressed con-
cern about, piecemeal zoning and piecemeal amendments to the Comprehensive P~an that will is
propertie~ and ~reate an obvious case for other rezoning requests and redesignation of those
properties, if t~e Board is going to consider this~a~endment, it should be done at a time when
the Board has more complete and thorough information available. Comprehensive Plan amendments
should not'be treated as if they were zoning amendments.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has problems with amending the map in a way which is contrary to
designation-on the Plan. Therefore, he cannot support any of the amendments, and is very
distressed at the approach the Board seems to be taking, in that it seems to be looking at
Comprehensive Plan amendments without recognizing the impact they are likely to have cumulative
on the surrounding properties and the ~h~e integrity of the plan itself. The Board spent a
good deal of time working on the Plan, particularly in this' area of the County, and Mr. -~
Lindstrom feels a commitment to the Plan and does not see any justification for changint it at
this point.
~ecember 19~ 1984 (Regular Night-Meeting..)
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if th~$~type of request will become a standard package ±£~these
applications are approved, that is zoning and comprehensive Plan matters coming.before the
Board at the same time. Mr. Tucker said he did not think that would be the~case. This appli-
cation is peculiar because this property is next to the urban area and part of it has a higher
density. The applicant aamld have applied for a special use permit to cover this contingency.
He thinks the applicant chose this route because of the added incen~v~e~.~ having water-and
sewer serve eh? entire, development. He said t~~ has manyS~e~outside the growth
a~e~q~areas w~$~a~puh~±¢ water is. aYailabl~, bUt~re were existing developed areas when the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
Mr. Fisher then asked if applications for ComprehensiYe Plan &mendments are being accepted~
on a scheduled basis. Mr. Tucker said no. ~~ah~r~sa~ m~ywh~ban localities are holding
Comprehensive Plan amendment hearings at scheduled times throughout the year so all can be
heard at one time. Mrs. Cooke asked if the Board had not discussed reviewing the applications
twice a year, as ~s done with zoning text amendments. Mr. Lindstro~asked when the plan is
reviewed again, and Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission begins a review in one more year.
He said the staff could do some additional analyses as to what impact this area will have on
the entire plan, He said Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development, who wrote the
staff report:on this request, ~ndicated that she did not feel the balance of density in the
area would be upset by approval of Fontana because many other areas are not being developed to
their maximum.
Mr. Lindstrom said there should be a more coherent approach to comprehensive p!amni~g than
this application represents. The araa seems to be a hodgepodge of lines, and when one boundary
is mo~ed, a more arbitrary line is drawn. He said the Board must develop~ore logical boun~.~~
~aries. For a number of years the Board has tried to be very careful abomt coherence and the
~xpansion of its planning, and Mr. Lindstrom said he sees that concept disintegrating as time
goes by.
Mr. Bowie said ~here ~robabty is a ~tter way to approach amending the Comprehensive Plan,
~nd he would support doing so on a regular schedule instead of having one. amendment come up at
a time. He will not, however, support a del~y of the Fontana project on those grounds, since
he under~tands it has been in the review process for over a year. He said he is not sure the
Board needs to extend the gro~hh &rea just because it wants to provide ~ater to a PUD. He asked
why the growth area needs to be e~tended at all.
Mr. Lindstrom said this amendment is contrary to the G~mprehansive Plan. Zoning property
to comply with the Plan makes sense, but a plan amendment is different. He does not propose a
delay tactic, but he is concerned about this whole ~rocess, which is a deviation from the pro~
cessv;the Board has tried to adhere to in past years. Just because an application has been under
review for a year is no reason to go forward with it. The ComPrehensive Plan as regards the
growth area needs to be amended because if it is not, the Board is zoning something in clear
conflict with the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan~ If the Comprehensive Plan is not
amended before the rezoning takes place, then the Board could fall to the arbitrary and capri-
cious arguement about ignoring a boundary line this time, when it may ~s~ to defend itself
in the future using such a line. He said he feels uneasy with the process and does not see a
need for this type of development.
Mr. Henley asked Mr. Tucker what kind of density could be on.the property if the urban
area were not extended past the existing zoning. M~T~ker said on the 122 acres of RA zon-
ing ~here could be ten units. With a special use permit, there could be more development. Mr.
Henley said he had no problem with extending the water line. He would rather not extend the
~rban araa, but could support all of the applications.~
Mr. Fisher then called for a motion on CPA-84-10 (to extend the urban area boundary). Mr.
Bowie made motion to approve CPA-84-10oaS presented. Mr. Henley seconded the motion, saying he
sees~no problem~with either the recommended use or the number of units involved. He sees no
inGreased pressure from the approval of these applications. Mrs. Cooke said she is having a
hard time with this application, because she is afraid more requests of the same nature will
come before the Board. Mr. Bowie said ~eviewing the Comprehensive Plan amendments at the same
time ~ach year would help. Mr. Lindstrom said approval of CPA-84~ a~d 84-10 would set the
stage for approval of things the Boar~ would rather deny and he feels ~he Board should stay
~ith the Comprehensive Plan recommendations until the next Plan review. Mr. Henley said the
Board should establish a policy for hearing such requests because the Comprehensive Plan has
seen amended several times in the recent past. Mr. Fisher said he is very much against the
)iecemeal approach to amending the Plan.
The following recorded tie vote defeated the motion:
lYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bowie, Henley and Way.
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
Mr. Bowie then made motion to approve ZMA-83-13 with the conditions as recommended by the
P~anning Commission, except for the deletion of condition number five, requirement of a central
~ell system. Mr. Henley seconded the motion, which failed due to the following recorded tie
~ote:
~Y~S: Messrs. Bowie, Henley and Way.
~AYS: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion to deny CPA-84-9.
0y the following recorded vote:
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion, which passed
~YES:
~AYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher called for a five minute recess.
.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 9:17
~ecember 19, 1984· (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No.9. ZMA-84-25. Rezone six acres.from Light Industrial, LI, to Rural Areas,
~A. Property located at the intersection of Hydraulic and. Rio Roads and developed with a
twenty-six unit mobile home park. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 22. Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 4 and December 11, 1984.)
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Lindstrom has indicated that he has a conflict of interest and he will
not participate.
Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report:
"Existing Zoning: LI, Light Industrial
Acreage: +6.0 acres
Proposed Z~ning: RA, Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 22 (part), is located
at the intersection of Hydraulic and Rio roads.
Background:
The property (Tax Map 45, Parcel 22) is located at the intersection of
,Hydraulic and Rio Roads and is developed with a convenience store, garage-
type commercial building, and a 26-unit mobile home park. The property is
located on the fringe of the urban area in the Comprehensive Plan but is
not designated for urban development since it drains into the South Fork
R~n~ River reservoir.
Under prior zoning, the entire property was zoned M-i, Industrial
Limited. During consideration of the 1980 zoning map, agent for Mr.
Patterson appeared before the Board of Supervisors requesting that
industrial zoning be maintained, partly because the garage building
was in industrial use at the time (i.e., cabinetry shop). Under
ZMA-84-13, the store and garage building were rezoned to C-i, Com-
mercial, raising the question of appropriateness of~ maintaining
industrial zoning on the remainder of the property (i.e., mobile
home park).
On September 12, 1984, after consideration of additional materials
presented by staff, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of
intent to rezone that portion of the property zoned LI, Light Indus-
trial, to RA, Rural Areas. The C-1 zoning granted under ZMA-84-13
is not subject to this resolution.
STAFF COMMENT:
The remainder of this report will address the appropriateness of this
property for LI, Light Industrial zoning as well as alternative zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: Due to location in the South Fork Rivanna Reser-
voir watershed, this property is not recommended for urban development
zoning and is shown for rural designation. Chapter 10 of the Compre-
hensive Plan Standards contains locational and developmental standards
for industrial usage:
Industrial uses should seek locations adjacent to compatible
uses (commercial~ public or other industrial, 'e'tC.~) as
opposed to residential, agricultural, or o't'~e'r''s'ensi't'ive areas.
Where an industrial use desires a location near a sensi'tiYe
area, consideration.should be given to transitional uses such
a~ commercial offices.
Property adjacent to the east is zoned LI, Light Industrial,
while other properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas. Squirrel
Ridge, a 24-1ot subdivision, is to the north (average lot size,
1.2 acres).
Objectionable aspects of an industrial use should be addressed
through a combination approach including realis't'ic' p'e'rformance
standards~ buffering and special setback reguiations. T~is
approach should be flexible so as to accomP!is~ 't'He Obj'ectiVe
without creating burdensome and arbitrary regul'ati'ons'.'' ~'t''time
of re'zoning, the applicant should submit propOS'ais'~to' ~i't'iga't'e
objectionable aspects.
Since the property is currently zoned LI, Light Industrial,
no opportunity is offered for the applicant to address objec-
tionable aspects "at time of rezoning". Control would be
exercised through the site plan ordinance, runoff control
ordinance, industrial performance standards and other appli-
cable regulations.
While industrial sites need not be restricted to designated
growth areas, suc~ employment centers should have conVenient~
~ccess from,~owth areas.
This site is convenient to the Urban Area of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Industrial uses should locate in areas where public utilities
and facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgr'ading~
and extension of roads, water, sewer, electrical, t'eiePhone
598
December 19, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
and natural gas systems should be considered in review of an
industrial application.
Public water was extended to the existing mobile home park in
recent years. By Board of Supervisors' policy, public sewer is
not available to new uses.
Industrial uses should locate within a half-mile of highway~
air or rail transportation facilities not only for convenience
of the industry~ but also to avoid industrial traffic through
residential and agricultural areas and on roads not designed for
such traffic.
While Hydraulic Road has recently been upgraded to four lanes,
most traffic is residential and travel distance to U.S. Route 29
is more than one-half mile. Rail and air services are not within
one-half mile of the site.
Industrial access should be to major collector,~state primary
or arterial highways. Industrial intersections should be
planned to minimize traffic conflicts with other land use
activities and with road functions.
No proposals for industrial intersections have been reviewed.
Should significant trucking be involved, conflict with the
Rio/Hydraulic intersection may be realized.
Natural site characteristics should be appropriate to the
intended use. Extensive grading, cutting and filling, piping
of streams, tree removal and like activities to accommodate
an industrial development should be viewed as inconsistent with
other Comprehensive Plan Standards.
A swale and stream traverse the site, limiting, in terms of
Comprehensive Plan Standards, the area available for development.
STATEMENT OF INTENT:
LI, Light Industrial District: The Zoning Ordinance states that "it is
intended that LI, Light Industrial, districts may be established in areas
having all of the fo~loNing characteristics:
Areas served by water and sewer facilities or if such facilities
are reasonably available: This property is outside of Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA) service areas for public sewer
therefore public sewer is deemed not to be reasonably available.
Public water service is limited to existing structures only.
Areas served by major highway, rail or air service or secondary
road improved to standards approved by the County: While Vir~i~ia
~grtment of Highways and Transportation has not been consulted,
the physical design of Hydraulic Road is likely adequate For much
LI, Light Industrial generated traffic.
Areas having clearly demonstrated suitability for intended uses
with regard to physical characteristics and relationship to sur-
rounding development: hAs stated earlier, topographic features
of the site are not particularly suited to industrial development.
SUMMARY:
In terms of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, this property
does not seem well suited to industrial zoning. Since the owner has
voluntarily rezoned a portion of the property, he has extinguished the
need for industrial designation in terms of the Board of Supervisors'
policy of October 1980 regarding development of the zoning map. RA,
Rural Areas would be a designation more in keeping with the current
use of the property (mobile home park)."
Mr. DGnnelly noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 4, 1984, voted
to recommend approval of ZMA-84-25, but recommended that the property be rezone.d to R-i, resi-
denti&l~ The vote was 5/1.
Mr. Fisher noted that while working on the new z.o~i~E map in 1980, the Board had ~onsidere~
this entire parcel for downzoning to RA, but there were two buildings on the property. The
applicant requested that the Board retain the LI zoning on the entire parcel because one of the
b~ildings was being used as an industrial use. Then, the applicant earlier this year requested
that a protion of the property be rezoned to a commerical use because the use of the building
had been changed. The Board approved that change. Tham means that there is no industrial use
on the remaining portion of the property; there is no potential for public ~awe.r to serve the
property; and the property drains directly toward the SouDhy Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The
reason for leaving~the LI zoning on the property was because of the buildings and that protion
the property has now been rezoned to another classification. Mrs. Cooke questioned the zoning
of~the property tO RA. Mr. Fisher said this request does not come fro~'~fihe owner, bud rather
is being donaat the insistance of the Board by resolution adopted after rezoning of a portion
of the property to ~ommercial. At this point, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing.
December 19: 198~ ~ (Regular.Night Meeting)
599
Mr. Bain represented the property owner before the Board. He corrected the statement made
by Mr. Fisher, saying that in 1980 the property owner felt the uses on the property were com-
mercial in nature and indicated to the Planning Commission that he would accept commercial
zoning on the entire property. The Board zoned the area as LI, Light Industrial because, as he
understands, the Board had decided to recognize uses in existence and at that time there was an
industrial use on the property. In looking at the staff report, and other areas the Board has
zoned, this property comes as close as 90 percent of other properties in the County to the
standards set out in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial zoning. The property, Mr. Bain
maintained, is not compatible with either R-1 or RA zoning. The property is on the fringes of
the urban area. Rezoning to RA just because the property contains a mobile home park is not
appropriate because of the proximity to the urban area. It is only appropriate in terms of the
use, but the use has not changed. The staff does not appear to have addressed any zoning
proposal other than RA, Mr. Bain said he does not feel the applecation to change the zoning on
one portion is relevant because the use of the property ha~ not changed since 1980.
II There being no one else present to speak on the petition, Mr. Fisher closed the public
llhearing.
Mr. Fisher said a representative of the owner, Mr. Patterson, had come before the Board in
~980 to request that the zoning remain industrial. He said he feels the whole parcel would
have been zoned RA if that request had not been made. Mr. Bain said the request for industrial
zoning was made after the Board decided it would recognize zoning on certain parcels with
existing uses. The Planning Commission was, at that time, recommending commercial uses for
this property. Mr. Fisher said the industrial use was left on the property because the buil-
dings were being used industrially and because the Board did not want to create a non-confor-
ming use. When the property owner, this year, separated the uses on the parcel, circumstances
changed. If the land stays in industrial zoning, it is less likely, Mr. Fisher said, to be a
mobile home park in five years. Instead, it may come to be used for a higher industrial pur-
0ose. The real issue, he said, is the drainage into the watershed, and the zoning should
~rotect same.
Mr. Bowie said he remembers asking Mr. Patterson when the zoning change was before the
~oard, if he objected to a change in the zoning on the trailer court and he indicated that he
did not. Mr. Bain said he was present and he did not indicate that.
Mr. Fisher asked what the implications would be if the Board decided to rezone the pro-
perty to R-1 as the Planning Commission recommended. Mr. Donnelly said the rezoning would have
to be readvertised. The mobile home park would still be a non-conforming use in the R-1 zone.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the Board could consider approving the higher density at this
meeting. Mr. St. John said the rezoning would have to be readvertised. Mr. Fisher then said
the options are to approve or deny RA zoning or readevertise, or perhaps-defer the matter
altogether. Mr. St. John said the petition does not have to go back to the Planning Commission
Mr. Way asked why the Planning Commission recommended downzoning the property to R-1
instead of RA. Mr. Donnelly said the Commission felt the step to RA would be too drastic. Mr.
Henley said he could support the R-1 zoning, because he did not see where it would be detri-
mental to the reservoir. He would also support deferring action and readvertising.
Mr. Henley made motion to postpone the decision on ZMA-84-25 and to pass a resolution of
intent to rezone six acres from LI, Light Industrial, to R-1 Residential zoning. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher announced that at Mr. Lindstrom's request, the Board would take up Agenda Item
No. 11, Federal Express Site Plan Appeal, and return to Agenda Item No. 10 later in the meeting
Agenda Item No. 11. Site Plan Appeal: Federal Express. Proposal to locate a one-story,
24,500 square foot building comprised of a 14,000 square foot warehouse'area; 7,500 square foot
retail area; and 3,000 square foot office area; all served by 169 parking spaces on a 9,934
acre parcel. Zoned Highway Commercial. Property located on the east side of Route 29 North,
on the south side of the South Fork Rivanna River. Tax Map 45(B1)-6, Parcel lB. Charlottes-
ville District. (Deferred from December 12, 1984.)
Mr. Donnelly told the Board the Planning Department had met with the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation and had developed two additional conditions for the Federal
Express site plan for a building on U.S. 29 North:
"1.
2.
No. additional access from this property to the cul-de-sac and no
direct access to Route 29 shall be permitted;
Access as approved on the Federal Express Site Plan shall be
deemed as temporary to Route 29. At such time as alternative
access is provided (i.e., service road) the temporary access
to Route 29 shall be modified, subject to Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation approval, to permit egress only to
Route 29 or to close it permanently. Should the property owner
fail to comply with this condition within ninety (90) days of the
provision of such alternative access, the Zoning Administrator
shall request the Highway Department to close the temporary
access entirely."
6OO
· December 19, 1984
(Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked if these conditions are suitable to the applicant. Mr. Ed Bain attorney
for the applicant, said the conditions were almost suitable. He requested that the Board
insert the word "additional" into the first condition so that it reads "no additional access".
Ee said the statement as it stood is contradictory.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if this changed the meaning to something different.
~ohn said this word would serve to clarify the condition.
Mr. St.
Mr. Bain said the other problem is with a sketch prepared by the Highway Department that
shows no exit onto Route 29 North for the applicant after the entrance from the highway is
closed. He asked that the slip-ramp be moved so the tenants on the Federal Express property
can exit that way also.
Mr. Fisher said he was going to ask for a motion to defer the appeal again because the
details did not seem to be worked out. Mr. Tucker explained that the original sketches show
the sl~p ramp set back onto another property owner's land. After the Federal Express derek_
lopers objected to this, the slip-ramp was moved so it can be located off the Federal Express
Jul-de-sac.
Mr. Fisher said all these details should have been worked out in advance of this meeting.
~11 the Board wants is the assurance that the applicant is going to fix a slip-ramp for the
exit as soon as a service road is built. Mr. Bain said that as long as it can be used as an
exit by the tenants of the Federal Express building, he has no problem with such a condition.
Mr. Donnelly said the Highway Department can require a bond to insure that the slip-ramp
is built. The County cannot do this.
Mr. Bowie asked why the phrase "no additional access . . .to the cul-de-sac" is in the
first condition. Mr. Donnelly said there are some other properties in the same area that could
be developed and could begin to use the same entrance/exit onto Route 29.
Mrs. Cooke made motion to approve the site plan with the conditions as follows and the
amended language to the condition, presented this date which is listed as Condition #8. Mr.
Way seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
&YES:
NAYS:
&BSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. CoOke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met:
1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of cul-de-sac
and temporary ingress/egress;
2. Staff approval of landscape plan;
3. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and computations;
4. County Engineer approval of design for turning lane and frontage
road;
5. Fire Official approval of fire flow and hydrant location;
6. Certified engineer's report confirming the buildability of the
soil (structural integrity);
7. Recordation of sewer line deed of easement;
8. No additional access from this property to the cul-de-Sac and
no additional direct access to Route 29 shall be permitted;
9. Access as approved on the Federal Express Site Plan shall be
deemed as temporary to Route 29. At such time as alternative
access is provided (i.e., service road), the temporary access
to Route 29 shall be modified, subject to Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation approval, to permit egress only
to Route 29 or to close it permanently. Should the property
owner fail to comply with this condition within ninety
days of the provision of such alternative access, the Zoning
Administrator shall request the Highway Department to close the
temporary access entirely.
Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 9:48 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-84-7. Amend Li' Light Industrial and HI, Heavy Industrial dis~
tricts in the Zoning Ordinance to require special use permit apProval for uses not served by
public water and public sewer. (Advertised in'the Daily Progress on December 4 and December
ll, 1984.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report:
"Recently the 'Board of Supervisors requested that staff develop zoning
amendments to require a special use permit 'for industrial uses not
served by public water and sewer systems. This matter has been dis-
cussed with Bill Norris, Fred Payne and Michael TOmpkins and consensus
was that, rather than attempting to evaluate specific.uses, a general
approach would be more appropriate.
On November 7, 1984, the Board of Supervisors adopted 'a resolution of
intent to amend the LI, Light Industrial and HI, Heavy Industrial dis-
tricts by adding a section to both districts reading as follows:
XX.2.2.X
Uses permitted by right,'not served by .public water
or public sewer~ involving water consumption exceeding
ten thousands(10,000) gallons per day and involving
December 19, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
601
anticipated discharge of sewerage other than domestic
wastes·
After discussion, staff recommends the following wording for the LI, Light
Industrial, and HI, Heavy Industrial districts:
1) xx.2.1
BY RIGHT
Except as limited by XX.2.2.X, the following uses shall
be permitted in any (LI, HI) district subject to the
requirements and limitations of these regulations:
2) XX.2.2.X
Uses permitted by. right, not served by public water,
involving water consumption exceeding ten ~tho'us'and
(lQ,000) gallons per day. Uses permitted by 'right,
not served by public sewer, involving anticiPated
discharge of sewerage other than domestic wastes.
Basis for, and observations about these proposed amendments are offered:
Public purposes to be served by these amendments would be to
protect against pollution and to discourage excessive surface
or groundwater withdrawal;
The~!~000~ga!l~n~f~gnre~cmncerni~g~water~cmnsumption is related
to State regulation and less directly to Comprehensive Plan
recommendations. Specifically, withdrawal of surface
water of 10,000 gallons or more per day is monitored by the
State Water Control Board. Further, the Comprehensive Plan
recommends a rural residential scale of development not exceed-
ing twenty (20) dwelling units (assuming 20 four-bedroom~
structures, daily water demand would be about 12,000 gallons);
and
These amendments would address any amount of industrial sewerage
discharge."
Mr. ~onnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 1, 198~, unanimously
recommended approval of the proposed amendments as set out above.
Mr. Bowie said he did not understand the relationship to dwelling units. Mr. Donnelly
said that us just a general scale to use as a unit of measure. Mr. Fisher asked what
10,000 gallons of surface water has to do with wells. Mr. Donnelly said the State Water
Control Board requires a monitoring system for anything over that figure. Mr. Fisher asked
if that is a state provision for taking water out of a creek or lake, and the staff has related
that to a groundwater situation. Mr. Donnelly said that is Correct.
Mr. Bowie asked how the Board could enforce this ordinance. Mr. Donnelly said any indus-
trial use is required to submit performance standards, so the Zoning Administrator could
require information and documentation of its water use. He added that the County Engineer
approves the performance standards. Mr. Fisher asked what kinds of industrial processes can
take place on !0,000 gallons per day. Mr. Donnelly said that would depend on the size of the
industry as well as the type of operation. Mr. Lindstrom said if an industry runs this much
water through a process, it must be generating industrial waste regardless of the product, and
that is absolutely forbidden by this provision. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned with how
much groundwater pollution the industries will generate and how much the industry will deplete
water supplies for surrounding properties. Mr. Fisher said 10,000 gallons is about the minimum
equivalent for seven houses.
Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing.
Mr. W. T. Kirtley of Colthurst told the Board that the health department usually has
something to say about whether an industry can locate in an area and whether sewer and wells
will be permitted. He said it bothers him that usage of the Crozet sewer interceptor lines
under the Comprehensive Plan is very low, and it does not appear that this will increase in the
future. A third concern Mr. Kirtley stated is that the suggested amendments do not distinguish
between water and sewer and therefore an industry might locate in an area that has one utility,
out not the other. He felt the definition on that point should be more clear. He also asked
~hat would happen to existing industries if they expand and increase their water intake and
sewage output beyond the limits stated in this amendment. Mr. Kirtley urged the Board to
consider these items.
A Mrs. Seltzer told the Board she feels this amendment is good and needed for the protec-
tion of water in the County, but she is not happy with the 10,000 gallon per day limit. It
seems to be a large amount of water and it might deplete the water supply of surrounding
properties. She asked that the Board consider a smaller amount of water.
There being no one else present to speak for or against the amendment, the public hearing
was closed. Mr. Fisher said the 10,000 gallor figure is that used by the state for surface
water withdrawal. Mr. Donnelly agreed.
The Board indicated its displeasure with the 10,000 gallon per day figure. Mr. Bowie said
he is comfortable with neither the number of gallons nor the regulation of the output. Mrs.
Cooke said she feels there should be some yardstick by which the~amount of water used can be
measured other than~the state regulation for surface water useage.
Mr. Henley asked if any other localities have this type of ordinance, and Mr. Donnelly
said none that he is aware of. Mr. Fisher said the Board had recently been faced with a zoning
~pplication for industry in an area where wells and septic tanks seemed inappropriate, yet the
602
December 19, 1984
(Regular_Night Meeting)
zoning on the property made the use possible. Several pieces of property in the County are in
~.similar situation. One option would be to downzone all industrial land that does not have
ess to public water and/or sewer, but the Board felt a special use permit could also control
problem.
Mr. Lindstrom said the staff might consider as a standard, the water consumption and
sewage output of uses that are allowed by right in rural areas. He said perhaps the staff could
consider how many houses can locate by right next to a house on a two-acre lot in a rural area,
~nd take the water consumption figure from the amount those houses would use. Using this base
~or calculation, consumption from six or seven dwelling units would set the standard rather
than twenty dwelling units. He suggested using 3,600 gallons per day as a limit.
Mr. Way said he will vote against the amendment because he feels that number to be too
strictive. Mr. Bowie said nobody seems to know what the right number of gallons per day is,
how the County can enforce its restrictions on property.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would not want to see the Board throw the whole ordinance out just
it is uneasy about the 10,000 gallon limit. Mrs. Cooke said she thought something
be done, but the staff should come up with a figure that is a little more reasonable
than 10,000 gallons. Mr. Fisher suggested the Board defer this discussion to another meeting.
Mrs. Cooke made motion to defer ZTA-84-7 to January 16, 1985. Mr. Lindstrom suggested
that the staff consider his remarks about developing figures for use. Mr. Way seconded the
, which carried by the following recorded vote
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Request to Withdraw Land from the Hatton Agricultural/
stal District (continued from December 5, 1984).
Mr. Donnelly said the staff has met with Mr. Calvin Jones and developed a tentative plan
division of the forty-acre parcel. He then described the manner in which the property
be divided. Mr. Fisher asked what properties the new parcels will adjoin. Mr. Donnelly
said the only portion would directly adjoin an existing parcel would is the ten acres to be
ed by Mr. Calvin Jones. Mr. Fisher replied that this was not the way he had understood
division would be made. He said he rememberd Mr. Jones saying that all of these parecels
be combined with parcels existing outside of the Agricultural/Forestal District. Mr.
called on Mr. Jones to explain the problem. Mr. Jones said Mr. Stuart Tapscott wants a
~iece of property that adjoins the road. This parcel will not touch any property Mr. Tapscott
~urrently owns. Mr. Adcock wants a strip of property on the inner side of the parcel that does
oin his property, but he wants to give this parcel to his daughter. These divisions are not,_
~refore, quite like the Board had planned on December 5.
Mr. Fisher said the changes in the way these division will be made changes how he feels
lout approving the withdrawal of the land from the A/F district. Mr. Jones replied that Mr.
is certainly welcome to his opinion, but these divisions are the ones the principals
~d agreed upon, and since they are the people purchasing the land, their preference
should be honored. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Jones had not said on December 5 that the parcels
all be joined to existing parcels. Mr. Jones said he did not know on that date that the
was going to frighten the potential buyers by telling them they cannot build on the
· Mr. Jones said the request on December 5, 1984 was to take this land out of the
ricultural/Forestal District altogether so the parcel can be subdivided, c
Mr. Way said the man (Mr. F. Pierson Scott) who originally owned the property and placed
it in the A/F district is dead. Now these people want to purchase a parcel of his land and
divide it, and Mr. Way does not see anything wrong with that. He said he does not see why the
district can never be changed. Mr. Fisher said the Board could allow the parcel to be taken out
of the district and then go through the division process. He had hoped the land could be
divided without having it be withdrawn from the district.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John how the Board would go about allowing the land to be
from the district. Mr. St. John said the heirs of Mr. Scott could have withdrawn the
land without any problem. Now the potential buyers have to petition for withdrawal by the
(See minutes of December 5, 1984.) The request can go back to the Agricultural/Forestal
~t Commit.tee, but does not have to do so. The Board can allow the land to be withdrawn.
a district for good cause. There are no other standards for use in this instance.
Mr. Way asked if the other property owners in the district were notified of this meeting
and was informed that they were. There are only three owners involved in addition to the
Mr. Lindstrom said when a property owner wants out of an Agricultural/Forestal District
;he Board needs to establish what constitutes good and reasonable cause. Mr. Fisher asked what
happen to other properties in the district if this one is released. Mr. St. John said land
is placed in an A/F district on a purely voluntary basis. If it becomes impossible to withdraw
that land, and the statute becomes oppressive, then the heirs are going to withdraw it immed-
iately and no one will put land in the district, so the districts will die out. That in itself
said, is good cause to be lenient.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what benefit there is to the establishment of a district, if it is
entered into and left voluntarily. There seems to be no benefit to the public. People in a
district will not develop the property because they choose not to, and when they want to deve-
lop a parcel, they will simply withdraw it. Mr'. St. John said when the property is withdrawn,
it is subject to rollback taxes. Mr. Lindstrom said that alone is not sufficient reason to
keep land in a district. Mr. Henley said he thought it ought to be difficult to take land out
of an Agricultural/Forestal District.
Mr. Bowie said he does not think this is a problem. These property owners are faced with
December 19, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
603
a parcel in the district, whereas the heir to the rest of Mr. Scott's property could withdraw
all of his parcels tomorrow, easily, and leave these people without recourse. Mr. Lindstrom
said these buyers knew about the condition on the land and that is the same as putting it into
the district in the first place. Mr. Bowie said he does not feel the Board would be setting a
precedent.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board ought to be fair, and if it lets Mr. Stuart Tapscott with-
draw this parcel from the district, it should let other property owners do the same. If the
Board does that, then why have these districts in the first place? Mr. St. John said no lo-
cality has had much experience with requests for withdrawing A/F lands and he feels confident
that these prospective buyers did not really know what regulations the land is subject to, or
what had to be done to remove it from the district or to divide the property. The Board first
said to these people that they could get out of the district, then it said they could get out
after a hearing, and now the Board is saying they cannot get out. These purchasers were under
the impression that withdrawing the land from the district would not be a difficult matter.
Mr. Lindstrom said to allow people to drop out of an Agriculturat/Forestal district any time
they want is gutting the intent of the establishment of these districts -- to slow down or
halt development on agricultural land. People who went into the districts to be protected
from development have thus been fooled into a feeling of security.
Mr. Henley said he hates to set a precedent where people can remove land from such a
district easily, but perhaps the Board could justify this case because the heir who sold the
land could have taken it out of the district as a matter of right. ~ne main benefit to the
district, he said, is protection against development. Nonetheless, this case is a little bit
unusual. Mr. Lindstrom said the people who buy property in good faith knowing that it is
within a district still have a responsibility to the district because they knew about the
restrictions. If these purchasers had been deceived in any way, their recourse would not be
to the county but to the person who sold them the land.
Mr. Fisher said he has mixed feelings about this request. Mr. Tapscott bought the land
-and took the timber off of it, so it probably is in a state where it needs to be replanted
and taken care of. Mr. Fisher said he is not sure that dividing the land into smaller parcels
will insure that it is taken care of. He does not want to divide land within the district.
Mr. Henley said the Board would have less problem if it knew that the land would continue to
be used for agricultural purposes. Mr. Fisher remarked that the Board has evidence that Mr.
Adcock plans to put a house on part of his land. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that if the land
is going to be withdrawn, the Board should set a public hearing as a policy matter. He said hz
would not vote to withdraw the land without an advertised public hearing. Mr. Henley said he
would support that. Mrs. Cooke said it might clarify some things for those who did not know
what they were getting into when they tried to withdraw the land from the district, Mr. Henle~
said the problem is that the buyers of the Tapscott property under con~sideration at present
had wanted to sign closing papers before the first of the year, and if this matter is again
delayed, they will not be able to do so.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion to set a public hearing on this request for the January 9, 1985
day meeting. Mr. Way asked what the purpose of a public hearing would be. Most of the people
involved in this request are present at this meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board is setting
a precedent for use on future requests, and he thinks if it does not require a public hearing
now, it will not be possible to do so on the next application. Some minimum procedures should
be established to protect other property owners in the district. Mrs. Cooke said a public
hearing could also bring to light some problems with allowing withdrawal of the property from
the district.
Mr. Jones said the prospective buyers already own land almost completely surrounding the
parcel in question and they will be the ones affected by the withdrawal. The State Code re-
quires that a person who wishes to remove land from an Agricultural/Forestal District appear
before the Board of Supervisors with the request, which the Board shall grant for good cause.
Mr. Jones said in this case good cause is that Mr. Tapscott. does not need the property anymore
and the buyers do. He objected to the public hearing, saying that the buyers came to the
meeting on December 5, 1984 in spite of ice and sleet and the matter was deferred so t~e land-
owners in the A/F district could be notified. That has been done and none of them are present
at this meeting to object. The buy.ers have done everything the Code requires, both on the
state and~county level.
Mr. Bowie asked if the other landowners had been notified of this meeting and learned tha'
they have been. He said he cannot support another delay. Mr. Lindstrom said he can agree if
any approval tonight is given on the condition that in the future the Board will hold an
advertised public hearing on any requests for withdrawals. Mr. Lindstrom also said notice
should be sent to other property owners in the district.
Mr. Lindstrom then withdrew his motion (which had not been seconded). Mr. Way made
motion to allow withdrawal of Parcel 8, Tax Map 136 from the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal
District, stipulating that future requests for withdrawal of land from an A/F district be
scheduled for a public hearing. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Lindstrom then made motion that all requests for withdrawal Of land from an agri-
cultural/forestal district be granted only after advertisement of an amendment to the County
Code and notice is given to other property owners in the district. Seconded by Mrs. Cooke, thc
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
604
December 19, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 13a. Local Options for Administering Industrial Development Bonds
(Continued from December 12, 1984)~
At its meeting on December 12, 1984, the Board of Supervisors agreed upon the follow-
ing basic guidelines, which were then presented to the Industrial Development Authority for
comment at its December 19, 1984 afternoon meeting:
Industrial Development Bond Guidelines
It is the objective of the Board of Supervisors and the Industrial Development
Authority (IDA) of Albemarle County to develop a process which signals those projects believed
by the County to be of high priority, while retaining as much flexibility as possible to
evaluate projects on their independent merits. The Board and IDA are also interested in making
the process of reviewing Industrial Development Bond (IDB) requests as equitable and systematic
as possible.
Accordingly, the IDA will use the following guidelines which are organized into the
following three categories:
Project Characteristics
Application Review Process
Applicant Restrictions
1. Project Characteristics:
While not excluding other types of projects meeting statutory requirements (as out-
lined in the County Code), the IDA will consider projects with the following characteristics
(no order of priority is implied) as High Priority projects:
Projects which create a substantial number Qfnew jobs, the majority of which must
be filled by County residents.
Projects which involve the expansion of an existing business or industry.
* Projects which require primarily skilled labor.
In order that the IDA may assess the above mentioned criteria, IDB applicants must
submit detailed documentation on the amount of jobs created per bond dollar requested. In
addition, applicants must provide a breakdown of the jobs to be created by salary and skill
level.
2. Application Review Process:
The IDA will review and approve applications on a quarterly basis. The quarters will
be on a Federal fiscal year basis, and will end on the last day of September, December, March
and June.
The quarterly review is established in order to stimulate competition for limited
tax dollars, make the application review process more systematic, and as a result, insure that
projects providing the greatest benefit to the community are selected.
For projects which in the judgement of the IDA are high priority projects, if deemed
necessary, the IDA may circumvent the quarterly review process and act as needed in order to
reasonably accommodate the schedule of the applicant. Projects which in the judgement of the
IDA are not high priority projects, will only be considered by the IDA at the end of each
quarter.
In addition, High Priority projects, by their definition, will be given first
priority in the quarterly review process.
3. Applicant Restrictions:
The IDA will impose the following new restrictions on applicants for bond financing:
Bond financing requests must be in excess of $500,000. Projects under $500,000
will be referred to the State Small Business Finance authority.
Signed letters of commitment from lending institutions must be received prior to
bond application.
Inducement letters from the Industrial Development Authority will be limited to
a six month validity period with no extensions.
December 19, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., Chairman of the Albemarle County Industrial Development
Authority, presented the Board with the following memorandum drafted after the December 19,
1984 meeting of the IDA where the above guidelines were discussed:
"The County Industrial Development Authority met this afternoon and con-
sidered the Industrial Development Bond Guidelines draft proposal developed
by the County staff and including suggestions made by the Board of Super-
visors at its December 12, 1984 meeting.
The members of the Authority have the following comments and suggestions
which they would like the Board to consider before adopting final guide-
lines:
The restriction requiring that all bond requests
must be in excess of $500,000 or they will be re-
ferred to the State Small Business Finance Authority
should not, in our opinion, be mandatory. Some
projects which might be of substantial benefit to
the County may not, for some other reason, qualify
for Small Business Finance Authority consideration.
We would suggest as an alternative that the under
$500,000 limitation be adopted as a guideline in
determining whether the project was a "high priority
project" with high priority being granted only to
those projects over $500,000 or for which small
business financing is unavailable or has been sought
and not granted.
The recommendation that the quarterly review process
could be circumvented when in the "judgement of the
IDA" a project is of high priority may be cumbersome
because it will require a meeting of the IDA when-
ever the question of priority is raised. We would
suggest that the guidelines might better be drafted
to grant some discretion to the Chairman of the IDA
to determine whether a project meets the high priority
standards.
The Authority would like to accept the offer of the
Staff (contained in Bob Tucker's letter of November
30 to Jim Murray) to develop criteria for the Authority
regarding how jobs created by a proposed project would
relate to our local employment market.
We disagree with the proposed assignment of priority
to projects which involve the expansion of an existing
business or industry over those which might bring an
entirely new industry to the area. It is our opinion
that some new industries might, in fact, be of greater
value to the County than expansion of some existing
ones. We would recommend that any mention of ex-
pansion of existing industries or the creation of
new industries be deleted from the priority guide-
lines'.
Instead of the preceding guidelines we would recommend
that we have a wider latitude of discretion by assigning
a high priority to projects that have a 'positive im-
pact on the County economy and local community needs.'
In this same regard, we think it should be made clear
that these criteria are only 'guidelines' and not a
precise definition of what constitutes a high priority
project.
We would recommend that the six-month limit for the
validation of inducement resolutions be reduced to
three months. Because all applicants will already
have letters of committment prior to their applications,
we feel that three months is more than enough time for
an applicant to get a project closed.
We would recommend that the Staff be instructed to
prepare an outline of the bond guidelines once they
are adopted. Such an outline should be available to
present to all potential applicants for IDA financing.
We would ask that Mr. James Bowling of the County
Attorney's Office be authorized to redraft a proposed
application form, the adoption of which has currently
been tabled and is pending before the Authority. The
new application form would conform with the new guide-
lines adopted by the Board.
December 19~ 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Murray said the guidelines were generally enthusiastically received, with the
above noted changes. Mr. Murray reviewed item number one. Mr. Tucker said the staff never
intended for the condition to be mandatory, refusing the bond funding to projects of lesser
amounts.
Mr. Murray said the second change has/oeen suggested because the IDA would not really be
holding quarterly hearings if this recomm~dation were in place. Instead, it would be holding
hearings every time ~ an applicationd He asked for the power to use his own discretion on
that item, perhaps in conjunction with polling other authority members by mail. Mr. Fisher
asked if Mr. Murray wanted the authority to determine what is a high priority project without
actually having had a meeting on the question. Mr. Murray said that is essenvially correct.
No Board member objected to this idea.
The Board had no objections to the third item.
Mr. Murray said assigning businesses -- existing ones -- as "high priority" items is some-
thing the IDA disagrees with very strongly. He said the IDA members could envision a situation
where a new business would be much more attractive than the expansion of an old business, yet
the IDA would have to allocate funds to the old business because it has a higher priority. He
said the IDA would like to have any mention of existing businesses removed from the guidelines.
Mr. Fisher said he feels ~hat item .s.ho~ld b~£t'-~nj~U~-r~.~.
Mr. Murray said that item number five referred to the IDA's desire for more general guide-
lines about economic development for the County. Mr. Lindstrom said that would be the same as
having no restrictions at all, since almost any project could arguably be in the best economic
interest of the County. He said this should be discussed later.
Mr. Murray presented item six and said the IDA wished to shorten the period an application
would have to obtain an inducement resolution. Mr. Fisher said this would be even better than
the six month period the Board named. The Board members then agreed to this change. Mr.
Murray said that considering the limited amount of funds, this is more fair to the public.
The Board agreed to the "housekeeping" guidelines under items seven and eight~
Mr. Fisher said that items four and five may take too much discussion to be considered at
this time. Mr. Murray said it is important that the guidelines be in place soon, because the
IDA needs some definition of "h~gh priority" before it starts to hold quarterly hearings. Mr.
Murray illustrated his point by saying that a heavy-duty industrial application is currently
before the city, requesting expansion of an existing manufacturing firm employing blue collar
workers. At the same time, the County has an application from a white collar firm that will
add more to the community. If the guidelines remain as they now are, the bonds would have to
go to the first applicant. Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs. Cooke both agreed with the assignment of
bonds to the b~ue-collar industry. Mrs. Cooke said one of the community,s needs'~s~amployment
for blue-collar workers. Mr. Murray said if that is the need the Board perceives, this stipu-
lation is what is needed. Mr. Bowie said that in addition, studies he has read say the best
use of the money is in expanding businesses that are already in place. Mr. Lindstrom said the
bonds should be given to people who need them, not just to industries that can get funding from
other places. Mr. Murray said an existing business is less likely to need capital than the new
start-up business.
Mr. Bowie said existing businesses might need less money, so $100,000 may provide four or
five new jobs.
Mr. Murray said the IDA felt it was tied to a specific guideline and its hands were tied
as far as approving new businesses.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board could take this under advisement until the January 9, 1985
day meeting. The Board agreed by consensus.
Agenda Item No. 13b. Resolution: H.C.M.F. Partnership, readoption of resolution.
Mr. Murray said the inducement resolution to build a nursing home (Heritage Hall) had been
approved by the Board of Supervisors in September for a location off of Fifth Street. He said
the new resolution would be essentially the same as the first, but without the location, since
H.C.M.F. XV Partnership is now looking at a location just off Rio Road. Mr. Murray said the
zoning for the property, as well as the site plans and any conditions that might be imposed,
must be in place before the issuance of the $6.5 million in bonds. He said the Industrial
Development Authority had taken pains to make it clear to the applicant that he is not being
encouraged to move. Mr. Murray said he understands that the zoning on the property will not
need to be changed.
In January, Mr. Murray said, the new state regulation of Industrial Development Bonds will
go into effect, and if this project is delayed until then, Albemarle County will not have
enough money in its cap to fund the project. In that case, the business would have a claim on
the money allocated to Albemarle County for part of another year. If, however, the project is
approved with a new resolution tonight, he said the money would be available from the state's
excess funds.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks construction of the project on the property being investigated
will require approval of a special use permit.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following resolution author-
izing the issuance of $6.5 million in bonds for H.C.M.F. XV Partnership. The motion, which
follows passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None
December 19, 1984~ (Regular Night Meeting)
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development AuthoriSy of Albemarle County, Virginia
(the Authority) has considered the application of H~.C.M.F. XV Partnership
(the Partnership) for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development
revenue bond in the amount not to exceed $6,500,000 (the Bond) to assist in
the financing of the Partnership's construction, development and equipping
of an intermediate and skilled nursing home facility (the Facility) in Albe-
marle County, Virginia, and has held a publio hearing thereon on December 19,
1984; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has passed a resolution agreeing to assist the
Partnership in financing the Facility; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the plan of finan-
cing, subject to terms agreed upon, and a record of the public hearing have
been filed with the Board of Supervisors.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Board of Supervisors approves the plan of financing and the
issuance of the Bond by the Authority for the benefit of the Partnership,
to the extent required by Section 103(k), to permit the Authority to
assist in the financing of the Facility.
2. The approval of the plan of financing and the issuance of the Bond,
as required by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the
Bond, the financing viability of the Facility or the creditworthiness
of the Partnership. Further, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code
of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bond shall provide that neither the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the County nor the Authority shall be obli-
gated to pay the principal or premium;-if any, the interest or supplemental
interest thereon, or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues
and monies pledged therefor and other application security, and~neither
the faith, credit, nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County or
the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. The issuance of these bonds is subject to all approvals necessary
under all applicable local ordinances and regulations being duly obtained.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Agenda Item No. 14.
1984).
Land Use Values for 1985 (discussion continued from December 12,
Mr. Jones presented the staff report:
"Background:
The County received the recommended values from SLEAC which were submitted
to you by the Director of Finance by memo dated November 28, 1984. The
memorandum was included for information in your packet of the December 5,
1984 night meeting. This memo was placed back on the regular agenda for
December 12, 1984. Action was deferred until further information could
be obtained by the County Attorney. Also, there was a meeting proposed
for the staff and several members of the Board of Supervisors.
Additional Findi.ngs.:
There was a meeting on December 14, 1984, with Dr. Paxton Marshall in the
County Office Building. Present were Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom, staff
members (Ray Jones, Melvin Breeden, Bruce Woodzell and Glenn Branham), and
a citizens' group composed of Bruce Hogue, Henry Chiles and Dominick
Stillfried. These three citizens represented a general farmer, an orchardist
and a dairyman.
Dr. Marshall went through the procedures and sources of data that were used
for establishing the recommended Land Use Values. Even though the system
was rather complex, there were no fallacies detected in the data or the
procedures. Pertinent facts he pointed out are:
The data is all published data from the Virginia State Crop
Reporting service.
The data was a five-year collection in which the data for
1977 and 1978 had been deleted and theyyears 1982 and 1983
added.
For each of the 65 localities and 12 cities, they established
an average farm in the Class III soil designation. For Albe-
marle, the land use value designation for that average farm has
increased from $380 in 1983 to $460 per acre for 1985.
Farm products such a~ beef, milk, etc. are not used. Only those
products coming directly from the land, such as corn, soybeans,
hay, apples, peaches, etc. are used to determine the values.
608
December 19, !984
(Regular Nighs Meeting]
For horticulture, the proposed use for 1985 value included the
Class~ZII~S~il class value of $460 per acre plus the value of
~he trees ($710 per acre) to arrive at the total value of $1~170.
The land use values as done by the VIP Extension Service are
an attempt to measure the value of land to the Agriculture
Industry and not an attempt to measure whether or not there
has been a profit or loss in the Agriculture Industry.
The County Attorney has provided his opinion which is supported by an
Attorney General's opinion that a locality cannot impose a change in
the land use value except during the years when it imposes a reas-
sessment. Also, the County Attorney has advised the Board of Super-
visors that the Code of Virginia delegates the responsibility of
establishing values on land use as well as market Yalue on real
estate for the purposes of taxation to the assessing officer.
This week the Director of Finance, utilizing a microcomputer and
extraccting information from the main frame after the data on the 1985
reassessment had been entered, provided some rather significant information.
This information provides a comparison of 1984 values to the proposed 1985
values utilizing the recommended SLEAC value. Some signigicant facts are
(from 1984 to 1985):
The fair market value of all acreages (land) in the County
increased 13.q7 percent.
Even though the range of increase for land use ranged from
-17.66 percent (forestry) to 64.5 Percent (horticulture) the
net change was only 5.65 percent.
Building and improvement values increased 10.8 percent.
The net change in the real estate tax base was 11.69 percent.
Summary and Reccommendation:
In view of the fact that no fallacies were found in the SLEAC values or
procedures and due to the County Attorney's findings plus the fact that
many property owners not under land use will be faced with property
value changes for tax purposes in excess of those under the land use
program, it is recommended that the Director of Finance proceed with the
reassessment utilizing fair market value and the recommended SLEAC values
for the tax year 1985.
The curren~ schedule is for the staff of the Data Processing Department
to prepare the ~eassessment notices on December 20 or 21, the staff b~he~
Department ~f Finance will stuff the notices on December 26 through 29 and
the notices will go in the mail on December 31. Any other delays will jeo-
pardize the C~unty's ability to mail the assessment notices on December 31
aa~required by state law."
Mr. Jones also presented the following report, comparing current values for land with
~he proposed SLEAC values for each division and each soil class:
AGRICULTURE - Total Acres 108,518
Class I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Current 570 510 380 300 230 190 110 40
Proposed 680 620 460 360 270 230 140 50
Acres/class 268 37,132 29,552 20,266 276 13,074 7,929 18
Percent change 19.2 21.6 21.1 20.0 14.8 21.1 27.3 25.0
Tax Change $8.85 $0.85 $0.62 $0.46 $0.31 $0~1 $0.23 $0..08
(per acre)
HORTICULTURE - APPLES,-GRAPES - Total Acres 1,502
Class I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Current 840 850 720 640 480 390 250 40
Proposed 1250 1330 1170 1070 800 660 420 50
Acres/class - 336 370 304 - 280 210 -
Percent Change 48.8 56.5 62.5 67.2 66.7 69.2 68.0 25
Tax Change $3.16 $3.70 $3.47 $3.31 $2.46 $2.08 $1.31 $0.08
(per acre)
HORTICULTURE - PEACHES, CHERRY, PEAR, PLUM - Total Acres 416
Class I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Current 800 790 660 580 440 360 220 40
Proposed 1170 1230 1070 970 730 590 380 50
Acres/Class 1 106 68 53 - 92 94 -
Percent Change 46.25 56.7 62.12 67.2 65.5 63.9 72.72 25
Tax Change $2.85 $3.39 $3.16 $3.00 $2.23 $1.77 $1.23 $0.08
D~cember 19, 1984 .(Regular Night Meeting)
FOREST~ - Total Acres 207,243
Class EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR NON-PRODUCTIVE
Current 205 140 90 50
Proposed 170 120 70 50
Acres 72,362 30,251 104,628 -
Percent Change -17.1 -14.2 -22.2 -
Tax Change $-0~2~ $-0.15 $~0.15 $0
(per acre)
Mr. Henley said he felt Mr. Jones was a little bit off in his calculations of the net
increase because the average change per acre would be weighed in favor of the forestry class,
which actually went down, because it has more acres than any other division. Horticulture, on
the other hand, went up over sixty percent in most cases, but the averages would not show that
because only about 2,000 acres of Albemarle County land are used for horticultural purposes.
Mr. Henley added that he still does not agree with the derivation of t.hese figures and
their application to this area, but he feels the Board will have to use them.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with Mr. Henley that the County is in a bind and will pr~
bably have to use these figures. He added that he is not at all happy with having to do that.
He said he thought the SLEAC values ought to take into consideration that the majority of the
farmland in Albemarle County is used for pasture. He said Fr. Marshall pointed out that the
SLEAC values must please sixty-five localities and twelve cities, and that made Mr. Lindstrom
feel that no one is pleased. In the future he feels the County should determine its own land
use assessment values on a case-specific basis.
Mr. Henley said ~r. Marshall told him that the orchard assessments are going up because
the cost of fruit is going up. Mr. Henley said he is certainly not getting any of the extra
money. He also mentioned that the SLEAC figures are based in part on the interest the Land
Bank pays, but the farmers themselves are paying a higher rate than that when they borrow money
from the Land Bank.
Mr. Bowie asked when the higher values will go into effect, if the SLEAC values are used.
Mr. Jones said the higher rate will be effective on the 1985 tax bills. Mr. Bowie said the
County still has the option of keeping the tax the same by lowering the actual tax rate at
which the property is assessed to compensate for the higher assessment. Mr. Lindstrom said the
Board could not lower the rate for land use land only, but would have to include all property.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has received a letter from the Albemarle County Farm Bureau request-
ing that ~hiS~assassment h~delayed.
Mr. St. John said the reassessment cannot be delayed because the Attorney General has
ruled that a County cannot reassess property out of its continuing ro~ation cycle. The County
cannot reassess just part of its ~roperty and not all other parts. Mr. Fisher asked if these
new land use values could be put off for two years. Mr. St. John said that could be done, but
the SLEAC values would have changed twice by then, because the values change yearly.
Mr. Fisher noted that several people have waited for several hours to address the Board on
this issue, and he felt inclined to let them speak. He called first on a Mr. Page, who said
the farmers are resentful because they did not know about the change in SLEAC values until so
late in the year. He asked Mr. Fisher how long the Board has known about the increase in
values. Mr. Fisher said the Board found out two weeks ago. Mr. Page told the Board that
Albemarle is primarily a ca~tle-raising county. He said that during Animal Industry Day at
Virginia Tech, farmers learned that feeder cattle would have a market parity of about thirteen
cents per pound. That, he said, was not exactly a land of milk and honey.
Another farmer told the. Board that, because most of his land is in forestry., his taxes
would decrease under the new values. He nonetheless opposes the SLEAC values because the
taxes of rural landowners in the County will be increased. He said he understood Mr. St. John
to say that reassessment is not mandatory at this time, and he feels the Board ought not
reassess the property.
A second Mr. Page told the Board that taxing real estate to support the government is not
right for the times. He said the current situation on an average farm is that it is a nice
place to live, but he would hate to run a business there.
Mr. Morris Sullivan said the situation for the modern farmer is such that it is.nearly ....
impossible to start a farm from scratch. The cost is too prohibitive and the return too
small. Parity for the farmer becomes harder and harder to attain. The farmers, therefore, do
not need higher taxes.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is not very happy with the tax system as it stands, but he feels
that most of the county's assessments have some basis in reality. He said he does not feel
this increase in farm land values reflects what is actually going on in Albemarle County.
While he is~acutely aware of the restrictions placed on the Board in this matter, he feels the
Board has a responsibilty to protect its farmers and farmland from the encroaching of sub-
divisions. He said he cannot support the change.
Recognizing that all the Board of Supervisors can actually do is.advise, the Director_of
Finance, Mr. Lindstrom said he would make a motion to ask Mr. Breeden to consider retaining the
present values being used.to assess properties far!land use ~evaluation until he can come up
with a substitute, even if it takes two years. He said it makes sense to wait before imple,
menting values that do not accurately reflect what the acutal land use values are in Albemarle
County. Restating his motion, Mr. Lindstrom said he would move to ask Mr. Breeden to defer
indefinitely the implementation of the new SLEAC values for two years, at which time he would
like to,see a staff study of the matter. Mr. Bowie.seconded the motion.
6'10
December 19,. 1984
(Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Agnor asked Mr. Lindstrom if the intent of his motion was that the Board and County
abandon the SLEAC values and not return to them. He reminded the BQard that the SLEAC numbers
are the only values recognized by the state. Mr. Lindstrom said that was the intent of his
motion. He feels the County could use the SLEAC system and plug in local values based on local
farm products, including pastureland. He said he did 'not want to take the heat off who ever
would be in charge of the actions contained in his motion by saying that the staff could come
back in two years and say the SLEAC values are okay. Mr. Agnor said the staff has been told
by the Department of Taxation that several counties have attempted to establish their own
systems, and they have all been thrown out in court, with the end result that they wind up
returning to ~he SLEAC values.
Mr. Fisher reminded the Board that the case of Perkins vs. Albemarle was very costly for
the Board and it needs now to exercise caution when working with tax values.
Mr. Breeden asked the Board what it would su.ggest he do when, if he chooses not to use the
c~rrent SLEAC values but to stay with last year's values, and someone with land in forestry,
which would have received a decrease in taxes, asks him how he can support using old values.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would have no objection to the implementation of the SLEAC values for
forestry. The method of assessment for forestry is different, and more simple. He said he
supports the status quo for agriculture and horticulture.
Mr. Henley said he feels the Board is going about this in the wrong way. Instead of
changing values for Albemarle, he suggested the County work to get SLEAC to change its methods
of evaluation.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to help the farmers, but~would be hesitant to medd!~ with
this assessment procedure.
Mr. Jones reminded the Board that the SLEAC Committee is made up of five individuals, and
to be effective in getting the SLEAC values to more accurately reflect the County's needs, it
needs to contact and influence those people. Mr. Fisher asked if what Mr. Jones is suggesting
is that the Board go ahead and adopt~the values and then try to get SLEAC to change? If that
is the case, he asked, then if the values change, will the County have to wait two years to re-
adjust the rates. Mr. Jones said the rates may be adjusted downward at any time.
Mr. Henley said he feels it is important to work with the source, because the County will
have the same problem with land use values year after year if it does not get SLEAC to change
its method of evaluation.
Mr. Fisher called for a vote. Mrs. Cooke said she is not sure she understands the motion.
Is the Board saying it recommends the old values? Mr. Lindstrom said he is suggesging that the
Board try to develop values that can be used instead of SLEAC.
Mr. Fisher asked for the roll call. Mr. St. John interrupted and told the Board he had
been debating whether or not to speak and had decided that, since he had never yet allowed the
Board to take an action that he knew to be illegal, he would not start now. He said he felt
Mr. Lindstrom's motion is dangerously illegal, because it places unlawful duress upon an
employee by asking him to do something contrary to what he would otherwise do. The statute in
the Code excludes direction to the Board. If a taxpayer challenges the figures, the only
result Mr. St. John said he could see in court would be that the County would lose, and the
case would be a miniature of the Perkins case, without the financial impact, but with an across
the board effect on land use in the County. He said any court would interpret the word "recom-
mendation'' in the motion, to be a veiled directive to the employee.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels like the County is being lazy. It can do better than the
SLEAC values, but since Mr. St. John has said that what the Board is about to do is illegal, he
felt he had no choice but to take the advice and withdraw the motion.
Mr. Henley reiterated that the Oounty, if it wants the SLEAC values to be more reflective
of what Albemarle County's agriculture is, will have to go to the SLEAC board itself and reques'
changes.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered a substitute motion that the Board direct the staff.to develop
a system to reflect local values that can be used instead of SLEAC when the next reassessment
is due, or, in the event that new values are obtained sooner, the rates may be adjusted down-
ward. In the meantime, a delegation should present the County's position to the SLEAC Board.
While this process goes on, the new SLEAC values will be used for reassessment. Mr. Bowie
seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher told the Board that the State Water Control Board has amended the conditions of
issuance for a permit to Del Monte/Mortons for discharge of effluent, into the watershed area,
so that the permit requires that Del Monte/Mortons tie into the Crozet sewer interceptor as
soon as it is available.
Mr. Fisher further noted that legislation has been introduced into the General Assembly
for consideration in its 1985 session, tha~ would forbid counties from discriminating between
site-built and mobile homes in rural areas. . He asked that Mr. St. John look at the proposal
and report to the Board early in January.
December 19, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom told the Board that the city of Charlottesville is delaying making a decis-
ion on whether or not to oppose the l~ca~mne.~f~he~Piedmont Corridor~highway. He said he had
been told by a member of the City Council that the Council's opinion is not necessarily that of
the staff. He presented a short letter for the chairman's signature to City Council, if the
Board agrees.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion that the letter be sent to City Council, with Mr. Fisher's
signature. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16.
Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m.
CHAIRMAN
January 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting-of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
January 2, 1985, at 7:30 p.m., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401~
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke. Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley,
Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:34 p.m.) and Peter T. Way.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr..,
Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief
of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mr. Agnor, County
Executive, who noted-for the record that he would act as temporary chairman during the org
zational meeting until the Chairman should be elected under Agenda Item NO. 4.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No.. 4. Election of Chairman.
Mr, Agnor asked for nominations for the office of Chairman of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Lindstrom nominated Mr. Fisher and Mrs. Cooke seconded the nomination. Mr Agnor asked if
there were other nominations. Hearing none, Mr. Bowie made motion that the nominations be
closed and Mr. Fisher be elected chairman by acclamation. Mr. Henley seconded the motion,
which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Fisher told the Board members he considers it a pleasure to serve on a Board with so
many members who have the ability to be leaders themselves. He said he appreciates the Board's
confidence and will do his best to assist the Board members in the leadership of Albemarle'
County.
Agenda Item No. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman.
Mrs. Cooke, 1984 Vice-chairman of the Board, said she wished to make some comments before
a new vice-chairman is elected. She said the job carries with it few responsibilities and
little authority, so while the extra stipend received by the vice-chairman is nice, the office
really does not warrant it. She said she has been able to accept the stipend 0~ly because she
has been serving as liason to the Planning Commission for the Board. Therefore, she suggested
that the Board list the job of liason to the Planning Commission with the office itself, so
that the vice-chairman would always have this responsibil±tyl. In the event that the vice-
chairman should have to assume the duties of chairman, other arrangements could be made for the
liason position. She reminded the Board that the Planning Commission meets each Tuesday night
and attending those meetings is a big responsibility.
Mr. Lindstrom made m~tion to elect Mrs. Cooke to be vice-chairman of the ~Board and also to
be the Board's liason to the Planning Commission. Mr. Way seconded the nomination. Hearing no
further nominations, Mr. Fisher ruled that nominations cease and called for a vote. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke.