1983-07-06July 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
5':5
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on July 6, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: Mr. James R. Butler.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher, who announced that Mr. Butler will not be present for the Board meeting this
evening due to out-of-town business.
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-83-4. Barry G. Dofflemyer. Request to rezone 18,884 square
feet from C-1 to Highway Commercial. Located on west side of Berkmar Drive, 200 feet
northwest of its intersection with Route 29 North. County Tax Map 61U, Parcel 01-14.
Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 21 and June 28,
1983.)
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-83-30. Barry G. Dofflemyer. Request to locate indoor dog
kennels on 18,884 square feet currently zoned C-I, requested to be rezoned HC. Located
on west side of Berkmar Drive, 200 feet northwest of its intersection with Route 29
North. County Tax Map 61U, Parcel 01-14. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 21 and June 28, 1983.)
Mr. Fisher said the staff presentation and public hearing will be jointly held on
these two petitions with separate action after the hearing.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, was present and presented the following
staff report:
"Request: Rezone approximately .44 acre from C-1 to HC, Highway Commercial,
in order to establish an indoor commercial kennel in accordance
with 24.2.2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Location: Property described as Tax Map 61U-01, Parcel 4, is located on
the west side of Berkmar Drive, approximately 200 feet from
Route 29 North.
Character of the Area: This site is located about 300 feet from the closest
residential area, which is Berkeley. All adjoining properties
are zoned with commercial designations (C-l, HC, PD-SC). In
developing the 1980 zoning map, properties on the west side
of Berkmar Drive were designated C-1 instead of Highway Commercial
to provide more compatible development to Berkeley. Since this
property is not adjacent to Berkeley, staff does not feel rezoning
would set precedent regarding other properties in the area.
Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed this rezoning request under 1.4, Purpose and
Intent; 1.5 Relation to Environment; 1.6, Relation to Comprehensive
Plan; 5.1.11, Supplementary Regulations for Commercial Kennels; and
24.1, Intent of the Highway Commercial district.
Staff observation and comment is as follows:
- While the Highway Commercial district is intended to be located
on major highways, staff opinion is that Highway Commercial
designation is a reasonable extension of other zoning in the
area· and that such designation, properly controlled would not be
inconsistent with the criteria for zoning review (i.e., 1.4,
1.5 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance).
- Regarding development of the property, the applicant proposes
to locate a 48 indoor run kennel consisting of 6,250 square
feet. This building area represents 33 percent site coverage.
The applicant is seeking a variance of three parking spaces (Mr.
Tucker noted that the applicant has already obtained the variance) to
permit 16 spaces rather than the 19 required spaces. Staff
is concerned about endorsing development which cannot be
adequately accommodated under County requirements. To amplify
this concern, other subsequent Highway Commercial uses of this
building could require more than 80 parking spaces. An
uncontrolled Highway Commercial designation would not seem
appropriate in this regard.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve conventional
resorting for this property, staff offers the following comments
regarding the special use permit petition:
July 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
After review under 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and with
appropriate conditions of approval, staff opinion is that an
indoor kennel in this location:
a)
would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property
or the character of the area;
b)
would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance; and
c)
would not be contrary to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
Staff recommends approval' of SP-83-30 subject to the following
conditions:
1. Building limited to 48 indoor runs;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 14, 1983, unanimously
recommended approval of ZMA-83-4 and SP-83-30 with the staff conditions. Mr. Tucker then
noted receipt of letter dated June 27, 1983, from Mr. and Mrs. Joel Hartling, residents
of Commonwealth Drive, stating opposition to the petitions because of noise and requesting
that the special permit contain a condition that the windows be closed at all times.
Another letter dated June 14, 1983, was received from Mr. William A. Manson, Sr., an
adjacent property owner, stating opposition to the requests. (Copies of these letters
are on file in the Clerk's Office.) Mr. Tucker also noted that Mr. Dofflemyer has met
with the Berkeley Homeowners Association and a consensus has been reached on the opening
of the windows. Mr. Tucker said a call was received today from the President of the
Berkeley Homeowners Association indicating that the Association is agreeable to these
petitions.
Mr.~Lindstrom asked the reason for granting a variance on the number of parking
spaces. Mr. Robert Vaughan, Zoning Administrator, was present. He said the experience
of kennels in the county has been that fifteen parking spaces is a reasonable number for
the amount of persons that use the kennel at one time. Therefore, he felt that was the
reason the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the variance.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Barry Dofflemyer, applicant, was present.
He said that the variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals is limited to a commercial
kennel on this property. If a commercial kennel ceased to exist, so would the variance.
Of the twenty parcels on Berkmar Drive, six are zoned C-l, and fourteen are zoned Highway
Commercial. Therefore, Mr. Dofflemyer felt the request is harmonious with the other
zoning designations in the area. He also noted that this property is 300 feet from the
nearest residential dwelling which is within requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr.
Dofflemyer said this property is one of the few parcels that he has been able to find in
the County which can be zoned Highway Commercial and which fits in with his economic
plans. Mr. Dofflemyer said he started operating the Pampered Pet Kennel in 1978 and
there have always been a lot of problems in the community with the noise from the kennel.
When he moved into the building, he had installed an accoustical ceiling and a central
ventilation system as an attempt to control the sound problems. He said it is very
important to have a good rapport with the neighborhood since a lot of his clientele lives
in the Berkeley community. In order to have a good relationship with the neighborhood,
he had discussed his current plans with the Berkeley Homeowners Association. After
meeting with the residents of that community, he did feel that those having negative
attitudes about the kennel had been changed to more positive attitudes. Mr. Dofflemyer
said he is also concerned about noise. He requested some information on the percentage
of sound that can be controlled at certain frequencies. The noise reduction capabilities
of the exterior of the building will be designed for between 99 percent and 65 percent
noise reduction. Another structure will be built on the inside of that building where
the dogs will be housed at night. Mr. Dofflemyer said his business closes at 5:30 P.M.
The dogs will be housed in an air-conditioned masonry building, eighteen feet wide, eight
feet tall and 100 feet long; all of that will be confined within a metal building. In
Section 5ol.ll(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the hours that animals must be confined in an
enclosed building are from l0 p.m. to 6 a.m. Since his business closes at 5:30 P.M., 6 P.M.
i~a reasonable hour for his operation. As to the closing of windows, he is agreeable to
having the windows closed at night, but is not agreeable to that being a requirement
because of a possible mechanical breakdown or other ventilation problems. The ordinance
limits noise level at 40 decibels from the nearest residential line, and that is 25
decibels under the ambient noise allowed for highway commercial. Therefore, he did not
feel another condition was necessary for the control of noise. In conclusion, Mr. Dofflemyer
said he is attempting to move out of a structure that has been a thorn in the Berkeley
community for years. Even though he cannot guarantee that someone else will not move
into the existing building, he did not feel that is likely to occur since the rent on
that building is so expensive. In conclusion, Mr. Dofflemyer asked for favorable response
to his requests.
July 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
257
Next to speak was Mrs. Joan Graves, resident of Berkeley. She heard the presentation
to the Berkeley Homeowners Association. She felt that indications by Mr. Dofflemyer that
the windows of the building would be closed at night, except in cases of emergency, is
what sold the request to the people present. She said the whole idea may be moot because
she is not sure if there can be an indoor kennel with windows open at all times. She
also noted that there is some concern that if someone else ran the kennel, there could be
problems if this were not a condition. Mrs. Graves said Mr. Dofflemyer has made efforts
to keep the noise to a minimum at the Pampered Pet Kennel and the only thing that the
Berkeley homeowers are asking is that the windows be closed at night. Mrs. Graves also
noted that although the homeowners do not particularly want to support these requests,
neither do they want to oppose same because this is a chance to have something better
than the current operation. In conclusion, Mrs. Graves said the homeowners are putting
their reliance on the Supplementary Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and asking that
same be applied to this request.
With no one else rising to speak for or against the petitions, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what uses are permitted by right in the Highway Commercial district.
Mr. Tucker summarized the uses contained in Section 24.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and
noted that HC is the most intensive commercial district. Mr. Lindstrom asked the recommenda-
tion of the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Mr. Tucker 'said the recommendation is for
commercial uses. Miss Nash asked if most of the existing zoning is Highway Commercial.
Mr. TUcker said across the street from Berkmar Drive is Highway Commercial; to the north is
C-l; and Shopper's World is PD-SC. Mr. Fisher asked if anything to the west is zoned
Highway Commercial. Mr. Tucker said no.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the building could be described in more detail. Mr. Dofflemyer
presented a sketch and noted that the metal fabricated building will have four inches of
insulation on the 'sides and nine inches in the ceiling. The interior of the building will
house the commercial operation and he pointed out the masonry block wall and the ceiling
which will be over same. Mr. Fisher said there appear to be two walls to attenuate the
sound. Mr. Dofflemyer said yes.
Mr. Fisher asked if the windows can be open for an indoor kennel. Mr. Tucker sa~d
once the windows are opened, the applicant will be faced with the possibility of violating
the supplementary regulations which call for a 40 decibel limitation to the nearest residential
property. Mr. Fisher said controlling the sound level is the factor and not whether the
windows are opened. Therefore, the applicant could still be in compliance with the regulations
if he stayed below the 40 decibels which as he recalls is rather quiet. Mr. Tucker said
yes.
Mr. Lindstrom said his major concern is not the request for an indoor kennel, but the
rezoning of the property to Highway Commercial. Mr. Tucker said he can understand the
concern, but this property can only contain a certain size operation particularly with
limited parking. Also, this property does not abut any residential property. Therefore,
he did not feel a precedent would be set in approving the request.
Mr. Lindstrom felt the HC designation is valid and the new operation could improve a
situation that has created numerous problems. Therefore, he offered motion to approve ZMA-
83-4 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs~ Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher said he is concerned about starting HC on the west side of Berkmar Drive.
He felt the Board's previous actions had been to have less intensive zoning to the west
with the more intensive zoning to the east. He felt approval of this request would set a
precedent. He was concerned about the property next to Berkeley. Mr. Lindstrom shared the
concern but felt there is a fairly substantial amount of property between this parcel and
Berkeley Subdivision. Mr. St. John said he did not feel a precedent would be set by approval
of this petition.
Mr. Henley said according to the zoning and uses which surround this property, he did
not feel there was any problem. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve SP-83-30
with the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt
the limitation of 40 decibels in Section 5.1.11 would be easier to enforce than having a
condition to only open the windows under emergency situations. Mr. Henley said the windows
would have to be opened in any event if an emergency existed. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
July 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 4.. SP-83-18. Dr. and Mrs. ~W. D. Buxton. Request to convert a concrete
ford to a low-water culvert bridge in floodway of Moormans River, designated County Scenic
Stream on 80.10 acres zoned Rural Areas. Located in Sugar Hollow on north side of Route
614, 6/10 mile'west of its intersection with Route 674. County Tax Map 25, Parcel 18.
White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 21 and June 28, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"R.~uest: Convert a concrete ford to a low-water culvert bridge in
floodway of the Moormans River in accordance with
Sections 30.3.5.2.1 of the Flood Hazard Overlay District
and 30.5.5.2.6 of'the Scenic Areas Overlay District.
Location: Property to be served by this bridge consists of 80.10
acres, zoned Rural Areas RA, described as County Tax
Map 25, Parcel 18. Property is north of Route 614 about
4,000 feet west of Route 674 in the Sugar Hollow area.
Character of the Area: The Moormans River is the only stream in the County
to receive scenic designation to date. Public use of the
Moormans River in this area includes fishing and swimming.
The river is passable at times of high flow by kayak and
canoe. This property is currently served by a concrete ford rising
slightly above the river bottom. A suspension foot bridge
is upstream and cable and fence are downstream of the bridge
site.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes conversion of the existing
concrete ford to a low-water bridge. As currently designed
the bridge would contain eleven 20 inch diameter culverts,
however, it appears that additional culverts may be
necessary to traverse the channel. The bridge would rise
2 1/2 to 3 1/2 feet above the river bed, and would be ll 1/2
feet in width and approximately 60 feet in length.
Intent of Scenic Areas and Flood Hazard Overlay Districts: The Scenic Areas
district is intended to 'conserve elements of the County's scenic beauty
as are contained along scenic waterways and scenic highways!. Obviously,
much of the experience of a scenic stream is its usage for boating, fishing
and the like. It should be noted that many properties in the area are
posted against trespass.
The bridge would be briefly visible to travelers on the public road, and
would be visible to stream users when not overtopped. The aesthetics of the
structure, in staff opinion, are a subjective matter for consideration by
the Board. Should redesign of the bridge be necessary for other purposes,
the applicant may wish to consider a more rustic treatment in keeping with
the natural setting (i.e. - facing bridge sides with river stone as opposed
to finished concrete; use of half culverts to provide arched design).
The Flood Hazard District is intended 'for the purpose of providing safety
and protection from flooding'. This zoning district is designed to prevent
unwise encroachment into flood prone areas and does not directly address
access of property at time of flooding. From discussion with the County
Engineer, it appears that engineering determination as to the effects of
the bridge in regard to the stream are complicated by the characteristics
of the Moormans in this area. Thorough evaluation may require additional
field work and information (i.e. - stream channel cross sections and profile).
Comprehensive Plan: Since the Moormans River is both on a scenic stream and
water supply tributary, the Comprehensive Plan contains a number of
applicable standards in Chapter 10, Comprehensive Plan Standards. Complete
text for 'Water Supply Watershed' and 'Rivers and Streams' standards are
attached to this report. (Copy of this information is on file in the Clerk's
Office.) A recommended condition of approval of this petition is County
Engineer and Watershed Management Official approval of plans and programs
of construction reflective of Comprehensive Plan standards for 'Rivers and
Streams' and 'Water Supply Watersheds'. Due to the relative small scale
of this project, the Watershed Management Official had indicated willingness
to provide guidelines to the applicant as opposed to requiring the applicant
to submit proposals.
Relevant Provisions of the Code of Virginia:
The Scenic Areas district cites
five chapters of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia specifically and also
refers to all other applicable State and Federal law. Sections 62.1-1
and 62.1-3 of the Code state in part that the beds of all watercourses
'not conveyed by special grant or compact according to law, shall continue
and remain the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia' and that to
'build, dump, or trespass' onto state-owned beds is unlawful unless
permitted 'pursuant to statutory authority or a permit by the Marine
Resources Commission'. In the case of SP-??-45, Dr. Charles W. Hurt,
the Marine Resources Commission required the applicant to provide
verification of ownership. Planning Department files show that at
one time or another, the following agencies were involved and/or
consulted in review of SP-77-45, Dr. Charles W. Hurt, and SP-82-?, C. H.
and Josephine Atkins:
Ju~y ~ 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
- Virginia State Water Control Board
- Virginia Marine Resources Commission
- United States Army Corps of Engineers
- Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries
- Virginia Department of Health
- Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission
- Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation
- Federal Fish and Wildlife Service
- National Marine Fisheries Service
The extent of involvement, if any, of these agencies in this current
request is unknown, however, as can be seen from this history, the
State and Federal review and approval process may prove time consuming
and expensive. From past applications, it appears that ~the State Water
Control Board and Virginia Marine Resources Commission are key contact
agencies which function in a 'clearinghouse' manner for other agencies.
A recommended condition of approval of this petition is 'review and
approval of all appropriate local, state and federal agencies', before
issuance of the special use permit and bridge construction. The
Board may wish to consider substitution of 'favorable comment' for
'approval' in this condition to avoid extensive delay to the applicant.
The appl.icant has been provided with application materials to the State
Water Control Board.
Staff Recommendation:
Section B0.5.5.2(d)6 contains seven criteria for review of this petition.
Following the Planning Commission public hearing on this petition,
members of the Engineering and Planning staffs met with the applicant
on-site in an effort to provide more detailed information regarding
these criteria. Comment by the Engineering Department is provided
in a memo to Ron Keeler from Maynard Elrod and Tom Muncaster, dated
~une~29, 1983. (Copy of this memorandum is on file in the Clerk's
Office.) Other comment is as follows:
30.5.5.2(d)6) Bridges, causeways and other similar structures
designed for pedestrian and/or vehicular access; provided that the
Board of Supervisors shall find, by clear and convincing evidence, in
addition to the findings required by Section 31.2.4.1 that:
(a)
such bridge. . .located at the site of an existing bridge,
ford. . .;
(Finding) The proposed bridge would be located on the existing concrete ford.
such existing crossing is regularly used. . . as to the
sole means of access to one or more existing, lawfully
occupied dwellings;
(Finding) The property was purchased by the applicant in 1961. The property
received occasional residential usage until 1982 when it became the
applicant's permanent residence. A second dwelling has recently
been constructed,
no alternative means of access to such dwellings is
physically practicable;
(Finding) The applicant has stated that unsuccessful attempts have been-made to
obtain alternative access. The County Engineer has recommended that
the only practical access is at the existing ford. (Copy of the
memorandum regarding this recommendation is on file in the Clerk's Office.)
(d)
no such alternative . . . access has been abandoned.
by . . . omission of owner . . such dwellings are located
since December 10, 1980;
(Finding) The applicants have stated that they have never enjoyed other access
to the property.
(e)
such bridge. . . is necessary to prevent . . . a hazard to
the life or property of any resident of the County;
(Finding) The applicants in a recent letter to the Planning Department stated that:
'Our own observations over the twenty-odd years we have been here,
would indicate that a 24 inch to 30 inch raise above the present
ford would make it possible for us as well as safety vehicles to
cross the river most of the year. There would be times when
Route 614, etc. is under water, but I cannot estimate that in
days per year. Perhaps four or five times in 20 years?'
(f)
such bridge. . . designed . . . minimum practical
disruption . . . of the stream consistent with other
provisions hereof; and
260
July 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Finding) As stated earlier, recommended Condition I addresses this issue requiring
'County Engineer and Watershed Management Official approval of plans
and program of construction reflective of Comprehensive Plan
standards for rivers and streams and watersupply watersheds.'
(g) such bridge.. . comDly with all appliCable State and
Federal law . . .
(Finding) Section 62.1-194.2 of the Code of Virginia states in part that it
shall be unlawful for any person to 'make or cause to be made any
obstruction which exists for more than a week (excepting a lawfully
constructed dam) in, under, over or across any river, creek, stream,
or swamp so as to obstruct the free passage of boats, canoes, or
other floating vessels, or fish in such waters.' Recommended
condition 2 addresses this Issue by reqUiring 'County Engineer
approval of bridge modification consistent with 62.1-194.2 of the
Code of Virginia, if necessary'. Extensive discussion of the
relationship of canoeing and the proposed bridge is provided in the
County Engineer's memo. (Copy of the memo is on file in the
Clerk's Office.)"
Mr. Tucker said the Engineering Department reviewed the canoeability of the stream and
indications are that the stream is only canoeable three or four days a year; not at all
during dry years and not more than a maximum of ten days during wet years. Mr. Tucker then
noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 21, 1983, recommended approval of
SP-83-13 by a 4/1 vote with the following conditions:
County Engineer and WaterShed Management Official approval of plans
and program ~of construction reflective of the Comprehensive Plan
standards for "Rivers and Streams" and "Water Supply Watersheds";
County Engineer approval of bridge modification consistent with
62.1-194.2 of the Code of Virginia; if necessary;
County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in
flood plain in accordance with 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay District-,
of the Zoning Ordinance;
Approval of this petition shall not create liability on the part
of Albemarle County or any officer, agency, or employee thereof,
for any flood damage that results from reliance on this approval
or any administrative decision lawfUlly made hereunder;
Upstream signage warning of obstruction to be posted and maintained
to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning;
6. Review and approval of all appropriate local, state, and federal agencies;
7. Flagging.on fence to reasonable satisfaction of Director of Planning.
Mr. Tucker then noted letter dated June 17, 1983, from Mrs. Ruby H. Abell, property
owner across from~the subject property in support of the petition, and letter dated June 9,
1983, from Messrs. J. T. and Kenneth Wood stating no opposition to the petition. (Copies
of these letters are on file in the Clerk's Office.)
Mr. Fisher asked how this proposal differs, other than size and location, from Dr.
Charles W. Hurt's bridge. Mr. Tucker said the Hurt bridge on the Rivanna River was identical
in design to this in terms of using culverts and concrete slabs. However, the size of the
culverts and the amount of flow that this particular bridge can handle before being overtoppe~
is quite different.
Mr. St. John said there are other differences. One is that this stream, according to
the Engineer's report, is not canoeable except for three to ten days a year, and the River
around the Hurt bridge is canoeable practically all the time. Also, Section 30.5.5.2(d)(6)
in the Zoning Ordinance was not in effect when the Hurt bridge was a matter of discussion.
Also the Hurt bridge was not built as a safety element which is the reason this structure
is proposed. He concluded by stating that this element is very important and is evident in
this case·
Miss Nash agreed with Mr. St. John and noted that the topography on this property is
quite different since one Side of the river is mountainous. Therefore, access to this
property is physically difficult and the Hurt situation involved flat land. Mr. St. John
also noted that even though this request is different from the Hurt bridge, it may not be
different from other situations in this same area, and the Board will be setting a precedent
if this petition is approved.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Elrod how his proposed bridge modification will make this
bridge consistent with the Code of Virginia (see condition #2). Mr. Elrod said other than
erosion control, he was not aware of any other laws that need to be addressed. Mr. Lindstrom
read Section 62.1-19~.2 from the Code of Virginia. He asked if this bridge was in violation
of this section. Mr. Tucker said since the Engineering Department was able to determine at
which height the bridge would be overtopped, the bridge can be designed so that during
times of adequate flow for canoeing, the water will overtop the bridge. Mr. Lindstrom said
if that is the case, then what is the need for a bridge. Mr. Tucker said the Buxtons have
stated that the worst time is the winter season when the brakes on their vehicles freeze
from going through the water. The river is not deep to canoe during that time of the year.
July 6, 198~ (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Elrod said this is an unusual situation from the standpoint of evaluating the
natural environment. He noted that the Sugar Hollow Reservoir is a short distance upstream
from this area and there could be times when it had not rained in several weeks and yet the
gates at the dam could be opened and the river would then be canoeable. On the other hand,
the water level could be low in the reservoir, and even though there had been a great deal
of rain, if the gates at the dam were not opened, not enough water would come through to
this section of river to make it canoeable.
Mr. Henley said during the winter when the water is high enough for the brakes on
vehicles to get wet or frozen, that is a safety hazard. He said this situation is different
from the Hurt bridge in that this is a bridge for access to the Buxton's home and would be
used daily for that purpose. The Hurt bridge was a farm road and was being used to ford
the river from one parcel to another.
The public hearing was then opened. Dr. W. D. Buxton, applicant, was present and said
he was surprised at the concern expressed for canoeists. Since the discussion has been
focused on canoeistS, he maintains that the proposed elevation of the ford will not obstruct
boats, canoes, kayaks, etc., because when the river can be used for that purpose, the water
will be above the ford. When the river is low, boats cannot use this part of the river
because of the many obstructions such as rock formations which are higher than the ford.
Therefore, the water has to be high for a canoe to even get to the ford. Dr~ Buxton said
he did not feel he was obstructing the free passage of canoes and similar conveyances from
using the river. The other item he stressed was that he lives on this property permanently
and will be using the bridge daily. Therefore, Dr. Buxton felt it is important to have a
safe access to his home and it is also necessary for safety vehicles to have access to his
residence; that is not the existing situation. Dr. Buxton said he is not an engineer, but
in his opinion this proposed structure will not alter the flooding of the Moormans River.
Dr. Buxton also said the comment about the Watershed Management Official providing guide-
lines rather than requiring him to submit plans indicates the relatively minor aspect of
this request. Without intending to be critical of public officials, Dr. Buxton said he
wanted to express a citizen's view to the Board and that is the staff report should have
been more considerate and helpful to him; a citizen. He felt the original staff report
sent to the Planning Commission contained nothing but roadblocks and the modified staff
report is more favorable. Dr. Buxton said this is a disservice since there was no mention
of personal safety or any mention of anything related to him personally in the staff report.
With no one else present to speak for or against the Petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Henley said he owns some wooded property which crosses the Moormans River and he
is aware of the problems with crossing the river, particularly in the winter. He also
noted that with the heavy rains in the spring, dirt washed out and exposed large rocks. He
did feel the Buxtons needed a more convenient and safer means of access and such can be
provided in a reasonable manner to protect the existing environment. Mr. Henley said he
had supported the Scenic Rivers Ordinance, but he felt the County should be reasonable in
applying the ordinance to citizens involved.
Mr. Fisher said he was disappointed to hear Dr. Buxton's statements that he did not
feel the staff had been very helpful. However, he would note that when the Board and staff
receive petitions, it has to be assumed that the property could be sold and a future owner
may desire a totally different use of the property and of this proposed bridge. He also
felt that this is a situation similar to people building on a two'lane dirt road and then
complaining in later years about the condition of the road. Mr. Fisher felt this is a
private problem caused by private action. With the proposed structure, some public access
will be limited on the river. Mr. Fisher felt there is a valid question to the public's
use and access of the stream and whether or not the stream is navigable. He did feel from
looking at the list of Federal and State agencies that it could be years before this
proposal is finally approved. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that another request that
could be made for property further down stream. Mr. Fisher said he was not convinced that
the public does not have a valid claim to use of this part of the river.
Mr. Henley said the home on this property has existed for over one hundred years. He
did not feel it would be setting a precedent for further requests because there are not
many people in this area that can afford to build this type of structure.
Miss Nash said one of the Planning Commission' members lives very close to this property
and commented at the meeting that no one is using this as a river and that this section is
indeed dangerous. Miss Nash said access from Route 614 is very difficult and due to the
geography of the area, access from another way is impossible.
Mr. Henley said he would not. be in support of a number of bridges in this area but
felt this request is legitimate and could be distinguished from other requests received.
He then offered motion to approve SP-83-18 with the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission. Miss Nash seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher said the staff report indicated that a second dwelling has recently been
constructed on the property and asked how many more structures could be built. Mr. Tucker
said the property contains eighty acres and the applicant is entitled to five divisions by
right. Mr. Henley did not feel that was a problem because this property is on the side of
a mountain. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many fords exist in this immediate area. Mr. Tucker
~a~i~d about three. Mr. Henley said there are none like this one. Mr. Tucker said from
Route 810 to White Hall, this is the only one which has a concrete base slab because most
of them have a natural rock base.
282
July 6, 1983 (Regular N~ght Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not enjoy voting against requests, but would like to explain
his feeling in this matter. He does feel that this stream is canoeable. A number of guide
books covering canoeable areas in the State note this stream, therefore, he feels this
stream has been canoed by a handful of good canoeists. He agrees with Mr. Fisher that this
situation existed when the property was purchased. Mr. Lindstrom said he.was a member of
the Scenic Rivers Committee, the intent of the ordinance provisions was that nothing new be
added to the stream. Mr. Lindstrom said there are not many natural resources such as this
left and there are plenty of places for building houses. Mr. Lindstrom said he has viewed
the site so is not speaking in complete ignorance. He accepts the statement that there is
a realistic possibility that canoeists will not be impeded by this obstruction because the
bridge will nOt be an obstruction when the river is canoeable. However, he is concerned
about the precedent that this approval may create. In conclusion, Mr. Lindstrom stated
that whitewater streams are few and far between and he is very reluctant to eliminate use
of this resource.
Mrs. Cooke said she could understand Mr. Lindstrom's statements, but the Buxtons home
is an existing structure and they need a safe access to this home. If this was to provide
access to a new dwelling, she would feel differently. Mrs. Cooke felt providing a safe
means of access for the Buxtons should take precedent in this matter and supported the
motion.
Mr. Fisher mentioned condition #4 and asked what would happen if someone got hurt
coming down the stream. Mr. St. John said as a matter of law, the County is not libel nor
is any officer or employee of the County libel for property damage or injury. He also
noted that condition #5 is a requirement for proper signs to be posted warning of the
obstruction, but that does not mean the County is assuming responsibility if someone gets
hurt. Mr. Henley felt that condition #5 will give canoeists a false sense of security and
he did not feel signs are necessary.
Miss Nash said she supported the motion because this is needed by the Buxtons, and
also due to the topography of the area she did not feel there would be any more dwellings
built. Also, Mr. Lindstrom has pointed out that canoeists will use this only during times
of flooding and the obstruction will not be any problem then.
A brief discussion then followed on the height of the bridge and the times during
which this river would be canoeable. Mr. Elrod said when the river is canoeable, the canoe
will go over the structure. Mr. Fisher asked if that is true even though this is two and
one-half to three feet above the riverbed, which is a lot of water. Mr. Tucker said that
is the reason for modifications such as the half culverts. Mr. Fisher said he would feel a
lot better if he really thought someone could go over the structure. Mr. Elrod noted that
the stream is rather flat for a river in this region. About 100 feet downstream, the river
takes a sharp bend and there is a restriction which a violent storm will probably take out.
He has not done a hydrologic analysis but felt that this restriction will cause the water
to back over this proposed bridge. Mr. Fisher said he will support the motion but hopes
this can be built in a manner so that no one will get killed.
Roll was then called on the motion to approve the petition and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None._~ . -~ ~
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
At 9:03 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:16 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: 1983-88 Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Agnor said the Board held a work session on the Capital Improvements Program on
June l, 1983, but the Education projects had not been reviewed by the Planning Commission
at that time. Therefore, the public hearing was rescheduled until after the Planning
Commission had completed its review. The review has now been completed. Mr. Keith Mabe,
Principal Planner, is present to explain the Planning Commission's recommendations to the
Board.
Mr. Mabe summarized the fourteen school projects and noted the following changes
recommended by the Planning Commission. The School Board had requested $75,000 in planning
funds for 1983-84 and the Planning Commission recommends that the amount be placed in the
1984-85 year. The funds are for the hiring of a consultant to study equalizing space in
school facilities and telephone systems in various schools. The Planning Commission Felt
that private telephone companies and the County staff should be able to do this without
hiring a consultant. The School Board recommended reroofing the Red Hill School and the
Albemarle High School Cafeteria wing during 1983,84, but the Planning Commission felt both
could be delayed until 1985-86 and 1986-87. The School Board had recommended the Hollymead
roof repair and the Hollymead walls for 1984-85, but the Planning Commission did not feel
either were very necessary and could be deferred to 1986-87. Mr. Fisher asked if the roofs
have been examined for leaks. Mr. Mabe said the School Board felt that basically the
projects are for safety needs and are not urgent. Mr. Fisher asked why Red Hill School
needs a new roof. Mr. Mabe said the request is not for the POD, but the older part of the
school. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Hollymead walls project would be a change in the education
concept of the school. Mr. Mabe said this would not be a change in concept but rather an ~
aid in teaching and to shield students some distractions in the corridors.
July 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
263
Mr. Agnor said at the work session of the Board on June l, 1983, there were various
questions raised and he will attempt to answer them. In the Educational section, the Board
asked for implications of the proposed redistricting. He felt those questions had been
answered in this afternoon's meeting with the School Board. The second question of the
Board was the Advance Allocation for the VolUnteer Fire Departments (IV.12) which was
listed as $1,200,000. He has researched this and found that the total amount should show
as $1,000,000. The last two items which were questioned were the Whitewood Road Park and
Regional Southern Park projects. The staff was instructed at the June l, 1983, meeting to
examine the property on Whitewood Road for passive recreational use. Mr. Pat Mullaney,
Director of Parks and Recreation, has examined same with the assistance of Mr. Mabe.
Mr. Mabe presented a cost estimate for the Whitewood Road Park project which was
prepared with the assistance of the Engineering Department. The cost estimate includes the
construction of the park in four phases. (Copies of the estimate are on file in the Clerk's
Office.) Mr. Mabe said a Jogging path was developed around the perimeter of the property
for about one mile in length. There are three alternatives for the path which are grass
surface, gravel and wood chips and prime and double seal. Also, included in the estimate
is $6,500 for twenty exercise stations. Mr. Mabe then continued explaining the various
phases for the park which ranged from softball fields to a swimming pool.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if grading and clearing are necessary for a parking lot and
restroom. Mr. Mabe said yes and noted that there is a lot of field which will require
grading just for the construction of a jogging path. Mrs. Cooke noted concern about a
jogging path possibly being hard surfaced. Mr. Lindstrom said he preferred a grass surface
for the Jogging path in the amount of $1,500 and the twenty exercise stations for $6,500.
Miss Nash asked if the grass surface on the jogging paths would require maintenance.
Mr. Mabe said yes and noted that there is some concern that with the grass surface there
could be runoff which would require that the slopes have chip or gravel installed.
Miss Nash said she has received a lot of complaints about the complete lack of swimming
pools in the County. She asked if the Board members feel there is a need for pools. Mr.
Lindstrom said he was only suggesting for Whitewood Road property what he felt the entire
Board would accept for one year. Mrs. Cooke said she would suggest switching the softball
fields in Phase III with Phase II since there is a demand for softball fields. Mr. Fisher
said there are softball fields on-the Albemarle High School property which is right across
the road from this property. Mr. Henley preferred softball fields being on school property.
Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that this property still remains that of the School Board and
he did not feel the School Board is ready to relinquish same for recreational needs.
Therefore, he did not feel anything permanent should be planned at this time. Mr. Henley
said he would only support a jogging path on this property.
Mr. Agnor said during the Board's work session, it was noted that the Regional Southern
Park has been in the Capital Program for a number of years and always seems to be in the
fourth or fifth year of the plan. In order to move the Regional Southern Park forward in
the program, some assets must be sold with the proceeds being set aside for this program.
Two possibilities for sale are the McIntire School property, which has been recently
declared surplus by the School Board, and the Priddy Creek property. Another source of
funding is the split collection of real estate taxes. If that occurred in 1984-85 or 1985-
86, that would also generate some funds which could be set aside for parks use.
Mr. Agnor then summarized the following memorandum dated July 6, 1983:
"The following is a summary of resources available to the Capital Improvement
Program as of July l, 1983, for the period 1983-88 (stated in thousands of
dollars):
SOURCE 83-84 8-4-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 TOTAL
Revenues:
General Fund Appropriation
Federal Revenue Sharing
Literary Fund Recovery
Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority Payment
Fire Insurance Recovery
Federal Energy Grant
Fire/Rescue Repayment
$ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 2,500
161 - 640 640 640 2,081
250 1,000. 1,000. ? ? 2,250
8O4 .... 8O4
42 - - - 42
34 .... 34
95 123 153 170 200 741
Sub Total Revenues
$1,886 $1,623 $2,293 $1,310 $1,340 $ 8,452
Fund Balances:
Federal Revenue Sharing
Capital Improvement
TOTAL RESOURCES
$ 328** .... $ 328
2,099 .... $ 2,099
$4,3 3 TS, 310 $10,87 '
*$2 Million Literary Fund Loan - Broadus Wood School Project, estimated to
be available in 1984-86.
**Fund Balance July 1, 1983, is $732,000. Resource of $328,000 to Capital Program
is calculated after subtracting $~04,000 appropriation to School Fund for fixed
charges accrual scheduled for Board approval July 13.
July 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
The revenues assume continuation of the General Fund appropriation at the current
level, plus the renewal of the Federal Revenue Sharing program in October 1983.
The Fiscal Years 1983-84 and 1984-85 Federal Revenue Sharing estimates reflect
the first 18 months of the renewed program revenues being allocated to the June 30,
1982, School Fund deficit, as previously approved.
The total of $10,879,000 in resources over the five years compares favorably
with the total of $10,767,000 in project requests recommended by the Planning
Commission. (The Planning Commission recommended projects total $11,078,760.
This updated report takes into account that $311,583 has been appropriated from
the Capital Fund balance since the Planning Commission report, leaving $10,767,000
remaining in requests.)
The following comparison of revised project requests with resources is summarized
for your information (stated in thousands of dollars):
83-84 84-85 85-86 86L87 87-88 TOTAL
Requests $3,309 $3,825 $1,407 $1,270 $ ~56 $10,767
Resources 4,313 1,623 2,293 1,310 1,340 10,879
DIFFERENCE $1',bb $ 4o $ 112
TWO YEARS THREE YEARS FOUR YEARS FIVE YEARS
83-85 83-86 83-87 83-88
Requests $7,134 $8,541 $9,811 $10,767
Resources 5,936 8,229 9,539 10,879
DIFFERENCE ($1,198) ($ 312) ($ 272) $ 112
This comparison indicates that the flow of resources does not meet requests until
the fifth year of the program. The sale of assets (i.e. McIntire School and
Priddy Creek land) or the split collection of real estate taxes could alter this
comparison. The inclusion of any major school projects in the next update of
the Capital improvements Program (1984-89) could also alter these comparisons.
As you realize, the Capital Improvements Program does not have to be
exactly balanced when adopted. It is a planning document with funds required
to be available when a project is authorized to commence. It is recommended
that the program be approved with the following revisions:
1. Project 1.1 - County Office Building Phase II, change prior
allocation to $1,718,736, change request to $172,569, and change 1983-84
funding to $172,569 to recognize June appropriation for parking lot construction.
2. Project IV.12 - Volunteer Fire Department Advance Allocation - change
total project cost to $1,000,000.
3. Project III.2 - Planning Funds - move from 84-85 funding to 83-84 funding
in accordance with School Board's original request.
4. Project VII.1 - Central Library Roof - remove project from program and
fund in operating budget.
5. Project IX,'12 - Ivy Creek Natural Area Parking Lot Surfacing - move from
84-85 funding to 83-84 funding, and change from $4,250 to $5,000. The increase
reflects drainage improvements which are needed in addition to resurfacing.
6. Project IX.13 - Old Scottsville School Improvements -.move from 84-85
funding to 83-84 funding. This is for roof repairs over the gymnasium and for the
heating system. If the heating system is not repaired this year, the building
will not be usuable during another winter.
7. Project IX.16 - Greenwood Center Site Improvements - remove project from
program. Work was funded from operating budget. (Mr. Agnor then summarized the
history of this item and the decision which was made when the County took
over the Center to not restore the abandoned swimming pool. Originally,
this was to be part of the Capital Improvements Budget, but Mr. Mullaney
found that he had sufficient revenues to operate this Center in his
operating budget.)
8. Project IX.21 - Whitewood Road Park - list the costs of developing
a passive recreation facility in accordance with the Board's decision on the
project.
9. Project IX.22 - Regional Southern Park - allocate $30,000 in planning
funds in 1983-84 with the development costs divided between 1984-85 and 1985-86.
10. Project X.1 - Ivy Landfill Road Improvements - add the remaining
balance of $125,000 to the program in 1983-84."
July 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
265
Mr. Henley did not feel the $75,000 in planning funds should be granted unless the
School Board could provide some information on the specific use of the funds. Mr. Agnor
said he understands that the Redistricting Committee decided after examining the various
schools that all schools need to be studied to determine if they provide equal facilities.
He also understands that the $75,000 will to be used for continuing some architectural
studies that have been ongoing for several years. Specifically, some of the older buildings
are being examined regarding electrical and mechanical systems which need to be upgraded to
meet current Code requirements. Another use of the $75,000 is to examine a change in
telephone and communication systems. The Planning Commission felt that private telephone
companies offer that service so did not recommend hiring a consultant.
Mr. Henley said when the closing of Greenwood School was discussed, he told several
School Board members that he would not be receptive to receiving another request for funds
to build a new school, particularly since Greenwood school is well-liked by the pupils,
parents and teachers. Mr. Henley said at this afternoon's meeting with the School Board,
mention was made of a new school possibly being requested between Ivy and Crozet. Mr.
Agnor said that need will be contingent on patterns of residential development taking place
in that portion of the County in future years.
The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. David Papenfuse was present. He took
exception with several recommendations of the Planning Commission. The category entitled
"Miscellaneous repairs" is a top priority of the School Board. Placing this as a last
priority shows a serious lack of responsibility in meeting safety needs especially for
ventilation hoods and chemical valves in some school science labs. Mr. Papenfuse said he
would strongly urge the Board to consider the original request of the School Board for the
Planning Funds of $75,000 to be placed in 1983-84. These are not funds for building any
new school, but rather hiring an architect to examine facilities at existing schools. The
School administration has no information available at the present time regarding such items
as space and lighting. Also, Mr. Papenfuse noted a small portion of the funds are to be
used to examine telecommunications in schools. He agreed that a private telephone company
might provide that service but that company would be providing the study from a different
viewpoint since they are the supplier. Mr. Papenfuse said another item of concern is the
emergency generator for the Western Albemarle High School. If the Board allows this to
remain in the 1984-85 year of the program, there will be no problem. Mr. Ira Cortez,
County Fire Official, has given the School System only until 1984-85 to provide some
method for closing the stage curtains in the event of a power failure.
Speaking next was William Washington. During the June i work session, he learned that
the abandoned swimming pool at the Greenwood Community Center was to be filled with dirt.
He said this pool did mean a great deal to the neighborhood since it was in use for twenty
years. The working class people in Greenwood and Newtown do not have the transportation
necessary to get to Mint Springs Park. Mr. Washington said he is aware that the Comprehensive
Plan is to designate growth only in designated areas. However, the Plan does not contain
any provision which would deliberately eliminate certain existing items from a small community
He felt this is being done in the subject area since the swimming pool has been destroyed
and Greenwood School is to be closed as well.
Mr. Fisher asked if the pool had been filled in and covered with dirt. Mr. Agnor said
yes, it was done in June. He also noted that a paved playground for basketball and volleyball
use will be created in the subject area. Mr. Agnor noted that even though the abandoned
pool had a fence around it, the whole area around the pool was a safety hazard. Mr. Agnor
said the State Health Department had told the County that the pool could not be operated
unless it was done as a public facility. Then the Board authorized a bus to transport
people to either Mint Springs or to Claudius Crozet Park. During that same time period,
there were discussions held with the owners of Claudius Crozet Park about the County taking
over the operation of that Park. However, the operation of Claudius Crozet Park has been
reorganized, so it is still operating as a park. Mr. Agnor noted that transportation is
still being provided to Mint Springs Park and the Crozet pool. Mrs. Cooke asked the co,st
for getting the pool into a usable condition. Mr. Henley said an estimate two years ago
was for $20,000 to fix the walls and filter and that was more than the Board desired to
spend.
Speaking next was Mr. Rick Bowie, resident of the Rivanna District. He feels the
County has sufficient staff to allow a member of that staff to examine the needs of the
schools without spending $75,000 for a consultant.
Next to speak was Mrs. Joan Graves who reiterated her past interest in the Whitewood
Road Park. She said this was a prime goal for Neighborhood i when she was working on the
neighborhood plans for the Comprehensive Plan. Although there are facilities at Albemarle
High School, the group was aware that Hydraulic Road would eventually be four lanes.
Therefore, the area that would be using the park would have to cross Hydraulic Road to get
to Albemarle High School. With the park located on Whitewood Road, there would be sidewalks
for the people to use. She realizes that the School Board does own the property, but the
only desire is to have a passive recreational area. Mrs. Graves also noted that a lot of
people in the neighborhood would be available to help clear the area for use as a park.
With no one else present to speak for or against the Capital Improvement program, the
public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to take $8,000 from Fiscal Year 1986-87 and put same
in Fiscal Year 1983-8~ for the Whitewood Road Park project for the purposes of installing a
grass Jogging path with passive recreational stations, and with only a minimal amount of
grading to eliminate erosion problems. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked
if the intent is to eliminate the remaining figures in the following fiscal years of the
program. Mr. Lindstrom said no, he does not recommend moving the amounts at all. He
agreed that there may be other needs in the County, but he said there are not many more
areas with as much intensive development as this area. He felt there is a need for this
park now.
266
July 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Roll was called on Mr. Lindstrom's motion which carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and~Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Mr. Henley felt the Parks Department should work with the Education-Department t0
consider the possibility of more softball fields on school~property. Mr. Pat Mullaney said
softball fields are currently at their limit at schools in the City and outlying areas.
There are some fields in the western part of the County but people do not care to drive
that far. Mr. Fisher agreed-with the suggestion of Mr. Henley. Mr. Mullaney reiterated
that existing school softball fields are heavily used. Mr. Lindstrom said there is some
land around the Albemarle and Jouett schools that perhaps could be used for this purpose.
Mr. Fisher said doing something considered temporary disturbs him because once it is built,
it will be very difficult to take away.
Discussion then followed on the recommendations from Mr. Agnor. Mr. Lindstrom asked
if planning for which the School Board is requesting funds is something that can be done by
existing County staff. Mr. Agnor said he does not believe there is any one on the staff
capable of doing the type of study proposed. He also noted that the staff has a very heavy~
work load at this time of year. If the Board is considering asking that someone on the
staff do this work, perhaps it could be done~during the winter months. Mr. Fisher said the
request is vague. He suggested that the School Board justify the request with more speeific
information on the use of the funds. Mrs. Cooke felt an inventory of the schools is needed
in order to determine whether space is usable for classrooms or not. Mr. Papenfuse said
the intent of the study is to have some plans available to show lighting, ventilation and
access capabilities in facilities.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to place the $75,000 requested for Planning Funds
for the Education Department to 1984-85 as recommended by the Planning Commission. In the
interim, when time allows, the engineering department and any other county staff that can
help provide the information should examine the demands on school facilities in order that
something more definitive can be presented. 'Mrs. Cooke felt an adequate inventory of
facilities is necessary. She understands the School Board's request. She would hate to
see students short changed and placed in cramped facilities. Miss Nash asked if someone
could be hired on an annual basis such as an engineer for this study without getting someone
with architectural capabilities. Mr. LindStrom preferred that existing staff attempt to
provide the information first. Mr. Henley agreed. Mrs. Cooke said she understands this
information is needed from someone with expertise in the field of architecture and the
staff does not have such a person. Miss Nash did not feel that was necessary. Mr. Agnor
said there is no one on staff who is familiar with school designs, lighting and space
requirements, which is the type of information being requested. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel
this job should be given to an architectural firm because that usually brings up a lot of
items that are not essential. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mrs. Cooke.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Miss Nash then offered motion to approve the remainder of the items in the memorandum
from Mr. Agnor with the exception of #3 and #8. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Mr. Agnor said he had. overlooked the Western Albemarle~Auxiliary Power System and
recalled that a question had been asked at the work session about its use and need. As
Mr. Papenfuse as indicated, Without the funds, an alternative route of a battery to operate
the stage curtains will be necessary. He was not certain what the costs of that would be,
but will discuss this further with Mr. Cortez and give more information to the Board at a
later date.
Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Motion was then offered to approve the following 1983-88 Capital Improvements Program
as amended. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. 'Butler.
PAGE 1
Pro~ect
Total
Project County Prior
Cost Share Allocations Request 1983-1984
Proposed Funding by Fiscal Year
1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987
1987-1988
Agency
Priority
I. ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
1. County office Building -
Phase II
2. Court Square Complex
SUB-TOTAL
1,891,305 1,891,305 1,718,736 172,569 172,569
2,000,000 2,000,000 97,000 1,903,000 1,903,000
3,891,305 3,891,305 1,815,736 2,075,569 2,075,569
-0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
-0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
-0- -0- -0- -0- -
II. AIRPORT
1. Improvements-Route 649
2. Terminal Development (Total
a. Phase I-Terminal Bldg
b. Phase I-Parking Lot
c. Phase I-Site Preparation
d. Phase II-Terminal Bldg
e. Phase II-Access Road
and Short Term Parking
f. Phase II-Parking
Expansion
3~ SOuth General Aviation
Complex
4. Airport Naintenance Bldg
5. Property Acquisition/
Obstruction Removal
6. Crash, Fire, Rescue Bldg
7. Fuel Farm Complex
8. Air Carrier Apron and
North Taxiway
9. Auto Weather System
10. Computer Acquisition
ll. South Taxiway Repairs
12. Runway Joint Seal
13. South General Aviation Site
Work and T-Hanger
14. Sand Spreader and
Sweeper Equipment
i5. Quick Dash Vehicle
SUB-TOTAL
120,200 5,000 -0- 5,000 '0- 5,000
project cost 1,628,000. County and City share 663,000 each)
200,000 75,000 75,000 -0- -O- -0-
300,000 150,000 -0- 150,000 -O- 150,000
350,000 131,250 -O- 131,250 -O- 131,250
308,000 115,500 -0- 115,500 -0' -0-
350,000 131,250 -0- 131,250 -0-
120,000 60,000 -0- 60,000 -0-
115,
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0,
500 -O'
-0- 131,250
-0- 60,000
594,193 4,150 -0- 4,150 -0- 4,150 -0-
5,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
-O- Necessary
--0-- --
-0- NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
-O- NECESSARY
10, O00 250 -O- 250 250 -0-
152,000 3,800 ~O- 3,800 -0~ 3,800
83,600 41,800 -0- 41,800 -0- -0-
-0- -0- Necessary
800,000 20,000 -0- 20,000 20,000 -0-
130,000 3,250 -O- 3,250 3,250 -O-
15,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
2,500 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
10,000 -O- -0- -0- -0- -0-
-O- -0-~ Necessary
41,
-0- -0- -0- URGENT
-0- -0- -0- Desirable
800 -O- -0- Deferrable
-0- -0- -0- URGENT
-0- -O- -O- NECESSARY
-0- -0- 'O- -
-O- -0- -0- -
-0- -0- -O- -
-0- -0- NECESSARY
-0- -0- -
350,000 8,750 -0- 8,750 -0- 8,750 -O- -O- -0- DESIRABLE
14,000 350 -O- 350 350 -0- -0- -O- -0- NECESSARY
120,000 3,000 -O- 3,000 3,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- NECESSARY
4,034,493 753,350 75,000 678,350 26,850 302,950 348,550 -0- -0- -
Project
III,
1.
2.
3.
4.
e
e
Planning Funds
Energy Conservation
Henley Re-roofing and
Masonry Repairs
Western Albemarle Roof
Drain Repair
Broadus Wood Addition
and Remodeling
8. Brownsville Re-roofing
and Masor~ry Repairs
9. Western Albemarle
12. A~bemarte
Re-roofing
13~ Hollymead Roof Repair
14. t Hollymead Walls
SUB-TOTAL
IV SAFETY
Rescue Squad-Land and Bldg
2. Scottsville Rescue
Squad Ambulance
3. Joint Dispatch
Center-gll
4. Dry Hydrants-East Rivanna
5. Dry Hydrant-North Garden
6. Dry Hydrant-Earlysville
7. Dry Hydrant-Crozet
8. Dry Hydrant-Stony Point
9. Dry Hydrant,Scottsville
Total
Project
COst
146,000
75,000
98,000
270,000
10,000
2,343,800
1,058,000
230,000
40~O00
36,000
230,000
22,000
90, O00
40~O00
4,688,800
207,326
40,000
210,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8, 000
County Prior
~Share Allocations Request
146,000 -0- 146,000
75,000 -0- 75,000
98,000 8,475 89,525
270,000 77,528 192,472
10,000 -0- 10,000
2,343,800 103,800 2,240,000
1,058,000 58,000 1,000,000
230,000 -0- 230,000
40,000 -0- 40,000
36,000 7,300 28,700
230,000 -0- 230,000
22,000 -0- 22,000
90,000 -0- 90,000
40,000 -0- 40,000
4,688,800 255,103 4,433,697
184,160 -0- 184,1160
15,500 15,500 -0-
75,000 -0- 75,000
8,000 -0- 8,000
8,000 -0- 8,000
8,000 -0- 8,000
8,000 -0- 8,000
8,000 -0- 8,000
8,000 -0- 8,000
1983-1984
146,000
-0--
89,525
192,472
10,000
107,000
15,000
--0--
-0-
-0--
-0-
~0-
--0--
559,997
-0-
PAGE 2
Proposed Funding by Fiscal Year Agency
1984-1985 1985-,~986 1986-1987. 1987-1988, PrioritM
-0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
75,000 -0- -0- -0- URGENT
-0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
-0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
-0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
1,890,000 350,000 -0- -0- ~GENT
893'~000 -0- -0- -0- URGENT
215,000 -0- -0- -0- NECESSARY
40,000 -0- -0- -0- Necessary
-0- 3,000 25,700 -0- DESIRABLE
15,000 215,000 -0- -0- Necessary
-0- ' 1,500 20,500 -0- DESI~LE
-0- -0- 90,000 -0- Desirable
-0- -0- 40,000 -0- ~ Desirable
3,128,000 569,500 176,200 -0- -
14,160 170,000 -O- -0- URGENT
-0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
75,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
-0- -O- -0- -0- NECESSARY
4,000 -O- -0- -0- UR~GENT
4,000 -0- -0- -O- URGENT
4,000 -0- -0- -0- · URGENT
4,000 -0- -0- -0- URGENT
4,000 -0- -0- -0- URGENT
4,000 -0- -0- -0- URGENT
Total
Project County
Project Cost Share
10. County Fire Engine
1I. Fire Service Training Ctr
12. Volunteer Fire Dept
Advance Allocation
SUB-TOTAL
V. HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
1. Hydraulic Rd Improvements
2. Georgetown Rd Walkway
3. Secondary Road Six Year
Plan 1983-1988
SUB-TOTAL
VI. HOUSING
1~ CDBG~Housing Rehab Program
SUB-TOTAL
1. Library
2. ~McIntire Bldg Basement
3. Central Library Elevator
4. Librar~.-
5. Library
Furnishings
SUB-TOTAL
VII
1.
2.
IX.
1.
2.
e
(
County Finance
Security System
SUB-TOTAL
Chris Greene Comfort
Springs Swimming
Improvements
~S
Prior Proposed Funding by Fiscal Year
Allocations Request 1983-1984 1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987
150,000 150,000 -0- 150,000 150,OO0 -0- -0- -0-
250,000 125,000 25,000 lO0, O00 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
1,000,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
1,905,326 1,597,660 240,500 1,557,160 474,000 263,160 395,000 225,000
97,253 97,253 -O- 97,253 97,253 -0- -0- -0-
64,645 64,645 64,645 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
5,877,772 -0- -O- -0- -0- -O- _-O- -0-
6,039,670 161,898 64,645 97,253 97,253 -0- -0- -0-
921,000 199,000 199,000 -0- -0- -O- -0- -0-
921,000 199,000 199,OO0 -0- -0- -O- -0- -0-
200, 000 t0,780 -O- 10,780 10,780 -O- -0- -O-
110, O00 55,000 -0- 55,000 -O- -0- 5, 000 50,000
36,238 18,119 -O- 18,119 -0- -0- 18,119 -O-
358,000 356,000 -0- 356,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
10,000 10,000 8,500 1,500 1,500 -O- -0- -0-
714,238 449., 899 8,500 441,399 12,280 -0- 23,119 50,000
177,400 177,400 -0- 177,400 26,600 5,800 5,000 140,000
27,500 27,500 -0- 27,500 27,500 -0- -0- -0-
204,900 204,900 -0- 204,900 54,100 5,800 5,000 t40,000
5,000 5~000 5,000 -O- -0- -O- -O- -0-
20,000 20,000 20,000 -O- -0- -0- -0- -O-
6,000 6,000 6~O00 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
PAGE 3
1987-1988
Agency
Priority
-0-
200,000
200,000
URGENT
URGENT
URGENT
-0- NECESSARY
-0- URGENT
--0-- --
--0-- --
-0-
356,000'
--0--
356,000
NECESSARY
DESIRABLE
DESIRABLE
Desirable
NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
-0- URGENT
-0-
PAGE 4
~ro~ect~
Total
P. oject
Cost
4. Mint Springs Maintenance
Facility Improvements
5. PVCC Field Lighting
and Fencing
6. Jouett Tennis Court
Development
7. NcIntire Softball and
Baseball Facilities
8. Stony Point Recreation
Improvements
9. Totier Creek RoadI Paving
10. Crozet School Field
Stop Replacement
ll. Greenwood Comm Center
Heating Improvements
12. Ivy Creek Natural Area
Lot Paving
13. Old Scottsville School
Improvements
14. Western Albemarle
Track Paving
15. ~2bemarle/Jouett Field
Development
16. Henley Court Resurfacing
17. Stone Robinson Court
Resurfacing
18. Walton Court Resurfacing
19. Hardware Rapids Park
20. Whitewood Road Park
21. Regional Southern Park
SUB-TOTAL
2,500
76,000
31,000
10,000
4,000
16,000
3,000
2,000
10,000
40,000
12,000
10,O00
3,500
6~ 000
4, 500
160,000
385,000
600,000
1,409,500
Xe
t. ImproVements
County Prior
Share Allocations
2,500 2,500
38,000 38,000
31,000 -0-
iO,000 -0-
4,000 -0-
16,O00 16,000
3,000 -0-
2,000 -0-
5,000 -0-
40,000 -0-
12,000 -0-
10,000 -0-
3,500 -0-
6,000 -0-
4,500 -0-
160,000 -0-
385,000 -0-
600,000 -0-
1,366,500 87,500
Request
-0-
31,000
10,000
4,000
--0--
3, O00
2,000
5,000
40,000
12, O00
10,000
3,500
6, O00
4,500
160,000
385, O00
60-0,000
1,276,000
1983-1984
-0-
3,000
2,000
5,000
40,000
--0--
--0--
-0-
-0--
-0-
8, O00
30,000
88,000
Proposed
1984-1985
1,905,011 952,505 827,505 125,000 125,000
-0-
-0-
31,000
10,000
4,000
--0--
--0--
--O--
--0--
--0--
12,000
10,000
3,500
6,000
4,500
--0--
-0-
285,000
366,000
Funding by Fiscal Year
1985-1986 1986-1987
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
31,000 129,000
35,000 342,000
285,000 -0-
351,000 471,000
1987-1988
Agency
Priority
-0- -0- -0-
-0- NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
-O- URGENT
-0- URGENT
-0- URGENT
-0- NECESSARY
-O- URGENT
-O- URGENT
-0- Necessa~r~rYj~
-O- Necessary
-0- Necessary
-0- Necessary
-0- Deferrable
-0- Desirable
-O- Desirable
-0- URGENT
Project
Total
Project County
Cost Share
XI. UTILITIES
Albemarle County Service Authority Projects.
1. Hydraulic Road
Improvements
2. Water. Supply-Schools 200,000
3. Fire Hydrant Progrmm 116,776
4. Water Supply-Free
State Road (651) 20,000
5. Water Supply-Four
Seasons 34~000
6. Water Supply-Proffit
Road (647) 12,000
7. ~ater Supply-Airport 12,000
8. Water Supply-Stoney
Point SubdiviSion 16~.,200
9. WaterSupply-S¢ottsville
Shopping Center ?0,000
10. Water Supply-Lambs Rd
(69?) 20,000
-O-
--0--
--0--
Prior
· Allocations
Request
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Projects.
Il. Buck Mountain Water
Supply Study 277,000 -0-
12. Pantops Water Storage 1,768,000 -0-
13. Urban Water Study 80,197 -0-
14. Observatory Water
Study 75,000 -0-
15. Crozet Water
Improvements _
16. ~oores Creek Wastewater-
Treatment Plant 28,~,551 -0-
17. Crozet Interceptor:
Phase 2 2,900,250 -O-
Phase 3 2,519,250 -~-
18. South Rivanna Water
Plant Expansion 600,000 -0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
1983-1984
-0-
Proposed Funding by Fiscal Year
1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987
1987-1988
-0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- ~ -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -O- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0-
-O- -0- -O- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0-
-O- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0-
-O- -0- -0- -O- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -O- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -O- -O- -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -O- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -O- -0- -O- -0- -O-
PAGE 5
Agency
Priority
PAGE 6
19. South Rivanna and
Observatory Water
Plant Solids Handling
20. South Rivanna
Hydroelectric
SUB-TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Total
Project
County Prior
Share Allocatig~s
380,000 -0- -0-
1,200,000 -0- -0-
39,060,224 -O- -0-
64,774,467 14,265,817 3,573,489
Proposed Funding by Fiscal Year
Re nest 1983-1984 1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987
ues~ ~o~-~ · -- . ~
1987-1988
Agency
Priori_~
-0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
~0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
10,889,328 3,513,049 4,065,910 1,692,169 1,062,200 556,000
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 1983-84 - 1987-88
1983-'84' Capital Budget
~NKING' ~PROJECT,. PROGRAM_ ARA, AND N~BER AMOUNT .......... · .......... CO S .... [ ' '
1. -County 0fficeBuilding--Phase II (I.1) $ 172,569 Partially completed project which has been in the CIP for several
years.
2.~ Co~t Square Complex (I.2) $1,903,000
Project is a safety need and has been in the CIP for several years.
3. $ 97,253
County share of total costs. Project is a'safety need and has'been
in theCI~P-.for'several years.
4. Fire Department Advance Allocation (IV.I2) $ 200,000
Henley Re-roofing and~sonry Repairs (!II;4)
392,472
6.. Bro~sville Re-roofing and Ma~so~y'Repairs $ 15,000
(Plmming) (1II.S)
Project is a continued commitment from the County as a safety need.
County contribution shouId decreaseas loans are repaid.
Project is a safety need and is needed'to keep project, from further
damage. Project has received Literary Funds for 1984.
Plaoming fundS to start a safety project.
7.~ Western Albemarle Roof Drain Repair (Iit.5) $ 10,000 To prevent further damage to project.
8. - Crozet Branch. Library-Sewer: (VII.l) ' _ '_$ _ !0~7801 CountrY'S pa_rtiCipati0n with perry Foundation, Project is expected
- -. - ~ -- . ' to begin sh°r~l~ _ . _ ........... ~ ....... ~ ......
9, Albemarle High Renovation--Phase IV (III.7) $ 107,000 To complete remodeling of school building; monies are for
' mechanical systems.
10.
11-16. Rivanna, North Garden,
Crozet, Stony point and
17.
( Ix. 31 )
$ 175,.000 .~Monies are. CountY!s pro-rated_sha=e.' Project is asa~£etyneed.
$ 24,000 Projects are a safety need. JCFFA has begun site selection
process.
$ 2,000
Correct existing faci3ity deficiency.
18.
Energy Conservation (111.3)
$ 89.,525
Project would complete energy conservation study by reviewing and
implementing recommendations..
RANKING
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
~0.
~1.
32.
34.
35.
PROJECT, PROGRAM AREA, AND NUMBER
Property Acquisition/Obstruction Removal (II.5)
Sand Spreader/Sweeper Equipment (II.14)
Quick Dash Vehicle (II.15)
Automated Weather System (II.9)
Crozet Branch Library - Furnishings (VII.5)
Air Carrier Apron and North Taxiway (Ii.8)
Crozet School Field Stop Replacement (IX.lC)
County Finance Security System (VIII.2)
Fire Service Training Center (iV.ii)
County Computer Upgrade (VIII.l)
County Fire Engine (IV. lC)
Miscellaneous Repairs in Education (III.l)
Ivy Creek Natural Area Lot Paving (IX.12)
01d Scottsville School Improvements (IX.13)
Whitewood Road Park ( IX. 20)
Regional Southern Park ( IX. 21 )
Route 637 Improvements (X.1)
TOTAL
AMOUNT
250
35O
3,000
3.,250
t, 500
20,000
3,000
27,500
25,000
$ 26,600
150.,000
146,000
$ 5,000
$ 40,000
$ 8,000
$ 30,000
$ 125,000
$3,513,049
Project is a safety need.
Project is a safety need.
Project is a safety need.
Project is a safety need.
COMMENTS
Replacement of deteriorated equipment.
Actual construction is expected to begin shortly.
Monies are needed to keep a project from further damage.
Monies are needed to keep a project from further damage.
Monies are needed to correct existing facility deficiency.
Project can be considered a safety need. Commitment from County is
not known at this time.
Project needed to provide adequate resources for data processing
applications.
Replacement of deteriorated fire engine'.
Projects are needed to upgrade various facilities and make repairs;
some are safety hazards; some corrections to prevent further damage.
To correct drainage problem and resurfacing.
To replace heating system.
Jogging path, passive recreation station.
Planning funds.
Balance due on project.
July 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-83-2. Resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance, Sections
10.0 Rural Areas, 5.0 Supplementary Regulations, 3.0 Definitions, 30.4 Natural Resource
Overlay District, as related to soil borrow and fill areas. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 21 and June 28, 198B.)
Mr. Tucker said these amendments are the result of an interpretation by the Zoning
Administrator concerning the borrow area needed to construct the Scottsville levee; he
ruled that if a great deal of soil was to be removed from the borrow area, then the area
should be designated as the Natural Resource Overlay district. Mr. Tucker said these
amendments will alleviate the necessity of a person having to apply for a rezoning application
for a Natural Resource Overlay District when there is to be more than 10,000 cubic yards of
soil removed. Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Staff has attempted to develop a complete package of amendments related to
borrow, fill and waste areas. Majo~ aspects of these amendments are as
follows:
Fill and waste areas would be permitted in all zoning districts, subject
to supplementary regulations for activities of 10,000 cubic yards or
greater. This would be similar to amendments of the Soil Erosion
Ordinance which restrict grading in some cases, but permit filling.
Borrow activity of less than 10,000 cubic yards would require a
grading permit. From 10,0O0 to 50,000 cubic yards, a grading permit
and compliance with supplementary regulations would be required.
Activity greater than 50,000 cubic yards would require special
use~permit approval.
Borrow activity would be allowed only in the RA Rural Areas district
and NR Natural Resource Overlay district.
Supplementary regulations would include certain NR Natural Resource
district requirements, some of which are intended to provide protection
to other properties in the area.
During the last discussion of permitting a 50,000 cubic yard borrow
activity by right, the major concern appeared to be in regard to intensity
of the activity, particularly truck traffic. Staff opinion is that such
activity would be comparable to a logging operation or seasonal orchard
trucking. Additionally, since most larger projects are anticipated to
be road projects, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation could
exercise control over truck routing. Reference is made to a letter from
Michael T. Boggs of Haley, Chisholm and Morris, dated June 16, 1982, staff
is unaware of any problems caused by the borrow activities for the Airport
or General Electric projects.
Major changes of circumstance since this issue arose more than a year ago
have been the enactment of new soil erosion regulations and the reorganization
of review, administration and enforcement related to grading. The State's
new ordinance and regulations are sustantially more sophisticated than prior
provisions. The Soil Erosion Ordinance is currently administered through the
County Engineering Department rather than authority being split between
two departments. A full-time inspector, whose sole responsibility is soil
erosion matters, is an improvement in terms of monitoring and consistency of inspection.
Borrow activities do not appear to have been problematic in the past. Improvements
have been made in review, administration and enforcement of grading activities.
A more sophisticated ordinance and regulations are in effect. Combined with
the proposed borrow, fill and waste area amendments, staff opinion is that the public
interest would be adequately protected."
Mr. Tucker proceeded by summarizing the proposed amendments which are as follows:
Adding a new definition to Section 3.0 for Borrow Area, Borrow Pit; adding Section 4.3.01
Fill Areas, Waste Areas to Section 4.0 General Regulations; adding Section 5.1.28 Borrow,
Fill or Waste Areas to Section 5.0 Supplementary Regulations; adding to Section 10.2.1 By
Right uses in the Rural Areas District, #18 reading "Borrow area, borrow pit not exceeding
50,000 cublic yards"; adding to Section 10.2.2 Uses By Special Use Permit in the Rural
Areas District, #40 reading "Borrow area, borrow pit not permitted under Section 10.2.1.18";
amending the definition of Natural Resource Extraction in Section 3.0; amending Section
30.4.2.1(1) uses by right in the Natural Resource Overlay District.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 14, 1983, approved the
zoning text amendments as recommended by the planning staff with the following two changes:
In Section 5.1.28(a)(5) the hours of operation of power equipment of an industrial type to
be changed from "7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M." to "7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.", and in Section 5.1.28(a
delete the second sentence and modify the last sentence to read "Such reclamation shall
commence within fifteen days of completion of borrow, fill, or waste activity, provided
reclamation activities of a seasonal nature shall be completed by a date to be established
by the County Engineer."
275
J~ly 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker then read the following letter dated July 5, 1983, from Mr. D. So Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer:
"The Department has reviewed the above captioned zoning text amendments to be
heard by the Board of Supervisors at their July 6, 198B, meeting. We support
the amendments as proposed.
The purpose of this letter is to request that, if the Board approves this
amendment, they implement this change immediately. The Department's contractor
on the North Fork Rivanna bridge project has incurred considerable pr.oblems
obtaining borrow material for this project. Immediate implementation of this
zoning text amendment will improve the contractor's ability to obtain borrow
material and should allow this project to proceed forward at a more rapid pace.
In the interest of this project and other highway projects scheduled to begin in
the near future, I request that you consider immediate implementation of the zoning
text amendments."
Mr. Tucker then noted letter dated June 14, 198~, from Mr. Michael T. Boggs,~ Vice-
President of Haley, Chisholm and Morris, Inc., stating concerns about the proposed amendments.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission took these concerns into consideration during its
meeting. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Boggs does not feel there is need for the amendments feeling
that if the Zoning Administrator determined that there was a need for a Natural Resource
Overlay district, then the borrow activity could be permitted as a matter of right in the
Rural Areas district. The reason Mr. Boggs has suggested this is because when his firm did
the improvements to the runway at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and also grading
and filling for the General Electric Company site and there were no problems. Some other
specific concerns expressed by Mr. Boggs were topsoil removal, hours of operation, and
topdressing.
A brief discussion followed on Section 5.1.28(a)(2) relating to activity within any
floodplain area having to meet the approval of the Watershed Management Official. Mr.
Fisher expressed concern because he did not feel the Watershed Management Official had been
given that type of authority. Mr. Tucker related that the Watershed Management Official
has been involved in approvals where projects are adjacent to water supply impoundments.
Mr. Fisher said approval is different from a review which this would be. Mr. Agnor said
the WaterShed Management Official has been given authority to approve conditions on a site
plan or related matters, but has not been given any authority to implement ordinances.
Mr. Lindstrom said since the firm of Haley, Chisholm and Morris has been actively
involved in these amendments and since his firm represents Haley, Chisholm and Morris, he
would abstain from any discussion of these amendments. He left the room at this time.
The public hearing was then opened. There was no one present to speak for or against
the proposed amendments and the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said during the discussion of the proposed Buck Mountain Creek impoundment,
a great deal of discussion took place about the setback from the edge of any water supply
impoundment or tributary. After a oonsiderable amount of discussion, the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority recommended a ~three hundred foot setback which is accepted as a setback for
most ground disturbing activities. Therefore, Mr. Fisher suggested that the setback in the
proposed amendment for Section 5.1.28(a)(2) be changed from one hundred horizontal feet to
three hundred horizontal f. eet. He said this would certainly be a ground disturbing activity,
and the Board should be consistent with past policies. Mr. Tucker agreed.
Miss Nash asked Who will enforce these ordinance proVisions. Mr. Tucker said all soil
erosion activities have been assigned to the County Engineer's office. Since this activity
is so related, he assumed that the County Engineer and his assistant would be responsible
for the enforcement.
Mr. Fisher asked if any other contractors had commented on the proposed amendments.
Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Fisher stated disappointment about the lack of public comments
and noted being torn between the immediate attention to the amendments requested by the
Highway Department and the lack of comments from contractors. Mr. Tucker then noted that
on June 16, 1983, the Board referred ZTA-82-9 and ZTA-82-10 relating to borrow activity
back to the Planning Commission for further review and Comment from the public since
contractors and the Highway Department felt that the proposed amendments were too restrictlive
Mr. Tucker said these proposed amendments are now less restrictive than they were at that
time. He also noted that most projects involve about 10,000 cubic yards and referred to _
the Scottsville levee which in the first phase involves 45,000 cubic yards which will not
require issuance of a special use permit, but which will have to meet supplementary
regulations. Mr. Tucker said the amendments refer to an activity on any one parcel of
land. Therefore, he felt a loophole still remains because a person could remove 10,000
cubic yards of fill from five different parcels and not have to obtain a permit.
Miss Nash then offered motion to approve ZTA-83-2 as set out below with the suggestion
by Mr. Fisher to change one hundred horizontal feet to three hundred horizontal feet in
Section 5.1.28(a)(2). Mr. Henley seconded the motion'. Mr. Fisher asked if the intent is
for the amendments to be effective immediately as requested by the Highway Department.
Miss Nash said yes, and also, the motion includes the two changes recommended by the
Planning Commission. Mr. Henley accepted that to his second. Roll was then called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom.
July 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
277
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Sections 10.0 Rural Areas, 5.0 Supplementary Regulations, 3.0 Definitions,
and 30.4 Natural Resource Overlay District of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance are hereby amended as relating to soil borrow and fill areas as follows;
Amend .Se~.tion 3.0~ Definitions~ by adding the following:
Borrow area, borroW pit: A location at which soil and other related material
is removed from the site for transportation to another site. Removal of soil
and other related material as necessary to establish another permitted use
upon the same site shall not be considered as the establishment of a borrow
area or borrow pit.
Amend the definition of Natural Resource Extraction in Section 3.0 (underscored is
new language and the deleted material is hyphenated):
Natural Resource Extraction: The process by which coal, petroleum, natural
gas, ~ sand, gravel, ore, or other minerals is removed from any open
pit, borings or any other underground workings and produced for sale, exchange
or commercial use or otherwise removed from the site, and all shafts, slopes,
drifts or inclines leading thereto and including all buildings, structures
and equipment above and below the surface of the ground used in connection
with such process. Natural resource extraction as defined herein shall not
be deemed to include: exploratory activities designed to determine the presence
of coal, petroleum, natural gas, soil~ sand, gravel, ore, or other minerals,
including but not limited to, excavation, drilling, boring or core boring;
~e~-~-~e-~e~m-~~-~ee~ee-e~e~e~-~e-~eeme~-~e-~e~e the drilling,
or boring of wells for the purpose of obtaining water; nor the removal of soil
and other related material as necessary to establish another permitted use upoD
the same site.
Add the following to Section 4.0~ General Regulations:
Section ~.3.01 Fill Areas, Waste Areas
Fill and waste areas shall be permitted in all zoning districts. Fill and
waste activities shall be permitted only in accordance with Section 5.1.28
of this ordinance.
Add the following to Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations:
Section 5.1.28 Borrow, Fill or Waste Areas
No grading permit shall be issued for any borrow, fill, or waste area
activity exceeding an aggregate volume of ten thousand (10,000)
cubic yards on any one parcel of record on the adoption date
of this provision until, in addition to approval of a grading
plan, the county engineer has approved a plan and/or narrative
for such activity in accordance with the following requirements:
1. The site, both during and after such activity, shall be shaped
and sloped for proper drainage in accordance with sections 4.3 and
30.~.13 of this ordinance;
2. No such activity shall occur in any flood plain area except in
accordance with section 30.3 of this ordinance nor within three
hundred (300) horizontal feet of the edge of any water supply
impoundment or tributary thereof without approval of the watershed
manag~en~o£~c~aI~ Provision shall be made for the minimization
of ground and surface water contamination;
3. All vehicles used to transport excavated or waste materials
shall be loaded in such manner that the material cannot be unintentionally
discharged from the vehicle. All such vehicles shall be cleaned of all
material not in the load-bed prior to entering onto any public road;
4. The area of such activity and access roads thereto shall be treated
or maintained in such a manner as to prevent dust or debris from blowing
or spreading onto adjacent properties or public streets. Deped~a~t~mn
the anticipated intensity and duration of the activity and the character
of development of adjoining properties, the zoning administrator may require,
for the protection of adjoining properties, public roads, and public
safety, such setback, fencing and/or landscaping requirements as
deemed appropriate; provided that the same shall not exceed the require-
ments of sections 30.4.6, 30.4.7 and 30.4.9 of this ordinance;
5. Operations involving power equipment of an industrial type shall
be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. except in cases of
a public emergency as determined by the director of emergency services
for the county. Blasting operations shall be restricted to Monday
through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.;
6. Regarding lateral support, all operations shall be conducted in
a safe manner with respect to the likelihood of hazard to persons,
physical damage to adjacent land and improvements, and damage to any
public street by reason of slides, sinking or collapse;
278
July 6, 198B (Regular Night Meeting)
7. Fill and-waste areas shall only be for the disposal of natural
materials such as soil, rock, stumpage and the like. Disposal of
trash and garbage, as defined in section 16-1 of the Code of Albemarle,
shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of Chapter
16 of the Code of Albemarle;
8. Provision shall be made for site reclamation including but not
limited to restoration approximating natural contours and establishment
of permanent vegetative ground cover. Such reclamation shall commence
within fifteen (15) days of completion of borrow, fill or waste
activity, provided reclamation activities of a seasonal nature shall
be completed by a date to be established by the county engineer.
In the case of fill or waste activity, the county engineer may refer such
plan to the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management of the Virginia
Department of Health for comment and recommendation. The county engineer
may require additional information and plans from the applicant to
facilitate such review.
In lieu of a plan and narrative as required by this section, the county
engineer may.accept a contractual agreement between the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation and its contractor for a public road project~
provided that the county engineer shall determine that such agreement
satisfies at least'to an equivalent extent the requirements and intent
of this section.
The zoning administrator may require posting of a bond in an amount adequate
to insure compliance with the requirements of this section prior to
commencement of such activity.
Amend Section 10.0~ Rural Areas District~ by addin~ the followin~ as a use by right
under Section 10.2.1:
18.
Borrow area, borrow pit not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty
thousand (50,000) cubic yards including all borrow pits and borrow
areas on any one parcel of record on the adoption date of this
provision (reference 5.1.28).
Amend. Section 10.0~ Rural Areas District~ by adding the followin~ as a use
special use permit under Section 10.2.2:
40. Borrow area, borrow pit not permitted under section 10.2.1.18.
Amend.. Section B0~4.2.1~ Uses by right in the Natural Resource Overlay District~.
as follows' (new language is underscored):
(1). Except as otherwise provided in sections 10.2.1.18~ 10.2.2.40 or
B0.4.2.2, removal of soil, sand, gravel, stone or other minerals
by excavating, stripping, quarrying or other mining operation.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at this time.)
Agenda Item No. 6a.
Plan.
Clarification of rezoning of lands for compliance wi~h Comprehensive
Mr. Tucker said the staff was directed by the Board on June 8,. 1983, to prepare
amendments to the Zoning Map to reflect recently adopted amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan. When the staff reviewed the properties that could be affected by the amendments,
there were more properties than originally envisioned to be impacted by the amendments.
Mr. Tucker said since the Code of Virginia now requires that when more than twenty-five
properties are effected, all property owners must receive individual notices of possible
changes in the zoning designation, he felt the Board and Commission may wish to look at
options available in the event ~hat strict recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for
zoning are not followed before these notices are mailed. Mr. Tucker said the earliest
date that the Planning Commission can consider these rezonings is on August 2, 1983, and
the public hearing for the Board was ordered for August 3, 198B. Therefore, Mr. Tucker
said the Board may desire to hold a work session on this in order to determine if the
public hearing should still be scheduled on that date. Mr. Fisher suggested scheduling a
work session on July lB, 198B to examine the staff alternatives regarding the communitieS
and villages. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Board was to review the
alternatives on July lB, 198B, in order to determine if the Board still desires for the
public hearing to be held on August 3, 1983, as originally scheduled.
Agenda Item No. 6B. Appropriation: Summer School Program.
Mr. Agnor said on June 8, 198B, the Board endorsed the concept of the self-sustaining
Summer School Program with the understanding that the appropriation for this program would
be made after July l, 1983. He then noted memorandum dated July l, 1983, from Mr. Ray
Jones, Director of Finance, requesting an appropriation in the amount of $60,600 to this
program and a memorandum dated June 29, 1983, from Mrs. Charlotte Self, Clerk of the
School Board, noting that the School Board took action on June 28, 1983, to request the
Board to approve this appropriation. (Copies of these memorandums are on file in the
Clerk's Office.) Mr. Agnor then recommended approval of the appropriation. Mr. Fisher
asked if a public hearing is necessary. Mr. Agnor said no. He noted that on July l, 198B,
the law changed again whereby public hearings will not be required for budget amendments.
July 6, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
279
Mr. Papenfuse said the program has been an overwhelming success and after the second
session begins, another appropriation may be needed. This is the first year that Albemarle
County has undertaken a summer school program and he feels that the success speaks well
for the staff.
Motion to adopt the following resolution was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote:~
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $60,600 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund Balance
and coded to 62000--Summer School Program; said appropriation for the self-sustaining
Summer School Program.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to amend
the Revenues section of the 1983-84 County Budget by adding $50,600 to Code
2200016000161205 -- Tuition Receipts, and by adding $10,000 to Code 2200024000240213 --
State Summer School Funds; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval is effective July 6, 1983.
Agenda Item No. 6C. Request - Re: Hearing Date for Special Permit Petitions.
Mr. Agnor noted memorandum dated July 6, 1983, from Miss Lettie E.' Neher, Clerk,
regarding hearing dates for two special permit petitions which would have been heard on
August 17, 1983, if that meeting had not been cancelled for Board vacation. The petitions
to be heard on August 17 have now been scheduled for September 7, 1983. The two special
permit petitions are SP-83-48 for Charles and Sharon Jones, and SP-83-49 for David and
Glenda Pack, both being applications for nursery schools. The petition for Mr. and Mrs.
Jones is the Old Dominion Day School and the change will be from the existing nursery
school to a private school. Therefore, the problem is one of a time factor. If her
petition is approved, there will be students going to her school and not to public schools
in September. Therefore, Miss Neher is requesting the Board to alloW the staff to advertise
these two petitions for a public hearing for the afternoon session of the August 10th
meeting.
Mr. Fisher said he did not have any problems with the request, but would advise the
staff to allow enough time on the agenda for both petitions.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to authorize the staff
to advertise SP-83-48 and SP-83-49 for the afternoon session of the August 10, 1983 meeting.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes:
May ll and May 18, 1983.
December 15, 1982 (Afternoon) and May 4,
Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of December 15, 1982 (Afternoon) and noted the following
correction on page 545: seventh paragraph, third line, insert the word "Creek" between
"Mink" and "watershed".
The remaining minutes had not been read and were deferred.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke to approve the minutes of December 15, 1982,
(Afternoon) as corrected. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 8. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no other matters presented.
Agenda Item No. 9.
11:17 P.M.
With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at