1983-12-21December 21, 1983 (Reg.ular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on December 21, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. ~
Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr. and C. Timothy Lindstrom.
Absent: Miss Ellen V. Nash.
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 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman.
Agenda item No. 2. ZMA-83-18. HCFM Development Corporation[ Request to amend Brai
PUD conditions to allow density of 130 units on 8.626 acres, Area A, average density of 15
units per acre. Located on the east side of Rt. 29 North on a proposed public road through
Branchlands PUD. County Tax Map 61Z, Parcel 03-1 (part of). Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in Daily Progress on December 6 and DeCember 13, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker noted that the applicant has requested deferral of this public hearing and
the staff would recommend that a new date be set for February 1, 1984. Motion to defer this
petition to February 1, 1984, was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-83-19. Hollymead Land Trust and Albemarle Bank & Trust Company
with Proffer. Request to rezone 90.681 acres out of 303.355 from R-1 to R-4 with two and
one-halfunits per acre proffered. Located in Hollymead Subdivision off of Powell Drive,
north and adjacent to lake. County Tax Map 46, Parcel 29 (part of). Rivanna District.
(Advertised in Daily Progress on December 6 and December 13, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not yet taken action on this request and he
suggested that the public hearing be deferred until February 1, 1984. Motion to this effect
was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: Nohe.
ABSENT: Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-83-78. Bradford I. White Estate (Minnie White, applicant), to
locate a mobile home-on 23 acres, zoned Rural Areas, Tax Map 26, Parcel 54. Property is
located on the northwest side of Rt. 674, about 4/10 mile west of intersection with Route
673, White Hall District. (Advertised in Daily Progress on November 8, 1983.)
Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. White had written a letter today stating that he would not
not be able to be present tonight, and requesting that this petition be deferred to January 18,
1984. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any member of the public present to speak on this
petition. There was no reply. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler,
to defer this petition to January 18 as requested. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs.~Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Miss Nash.
ZMA-83-15.
Agenda Item No. 4. /Gleco Mills, Inc. with Proffer (Deferred from November 16, 1983).
Mr. Lindstrom said he would abstain from discussion of this petition since his law firm
represents the applicant. He immediately left the room.
Mr. Tucker began by giving the following staff report dated November 3, 1983:
"Requested Zoning:
'kc're'age:
'E'xi's't'ing ZOning:
Locat'ion:
LI Light Industrial
1.8 acres
RA Rural Areas
Property, described as Tax Map 88, Parcel~26A, is located
on the southeast side of Route 29 South, approximately
two miles north of Route 708.
'Character of the Area
This property is developed with a grain mill and related buildings (building
coverage is about 12,000 square feet). The property is at a lower elevation
than Route 29 South and dwellings located to the southeast. A siding of the
Southern Railroad serves this site.
488
December 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Staff Comment
Use of the site as a grain mill was discontinued several years ago, the use
therefore cannot be reestablished. Additionally, though warehousing and office
use have continued intermittently over the years, the Zoning Administrator has
indicated that warehouse and office use were accessory to the original mill
use and have also lost their non-conforming status. Therefore, the only uses
available to the site and buildings are uses specified in the Rural Areas (RA)
zoning district.
Staff has reviewed permitted uses of the RA district and recommends that consid-
eration be to the extent to which rural areas uses could reasonably be anti-
cipated to be established on this site. Staff opinion is that zoning should
provide a reasonable use of land and recommends that the Commission and Board
consider appropriateness of the Rural Areas District in this particular case.
Likewise, Staff has reviewed permitted uses in the Light Industrial (LI) District
and appear comparably constraining in terms of appropriate usage. While zoning
should permit reasonable use of land, such use should not be established
contrary to public interest. At t~is time, the applicant has not chosen to
proffer any conditions of the rezoning intended to be reflective of the public
interest. The remainder of this report will analyze the proposal as a conven-
tional rezoning petition with emphasis on areas of concern as outlined in various
sections of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Though Staff is aware
of a possible use for the property, this analysis should not be viewed as
endorsement of any use permitted in the LI District, since specific concerns
may arise in a particular case.
Comprehensive Plan
While the Comprehensive Plan does not restrict industrial development to desig-
nated growth areas, the Plan does state that 'industrial uses should seek
locations adjacent to compatible uses as opposed to residential, agriculture,
or other sensitive areas'. While the Railroad does provide a buffer to residences
to the southeast, consideration should be given to this issue. Other relevant
Comprehensive Plan standards for industrial land use are as follows:
Industrial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and
facilities are adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension
of roads, water, sewer, electrical, telephone and natural gas systems
should be considered in review of an industrial application.
Extension of high-voltage power lines to this site could disrupt the rural agri-
cultural environment; therefore, a high-energy user should be avoided. Due to
the lack of public water and sewer and limited site area, uses involving large
numbers of employees, water processing or other operational aspects involving
high water and sewage demand should likewise be discouraged. The number of uses
to be established should be limited by the physical capabilities of the site and
Health Department written approval should be a prerequisite to approval of any use.
Industrial uses should locate within a half-mile of highway~ air or rail
transportation facilities not only for convenience of the industry,....b~t
also to avoid industrial traffic through residential and agricultural areas
and on roads not designed for such traffic.
Industrial access should be to major collector, state primary or arterial
highways. Industrial intersections should be planned to minimize 'traffic
conflicts with other land use activities and with road functions.
While the number of railroad sidings in the County is limited and ideally existing
sidings should be utilized, extensive use in this particular area of the County
may conflict with nearby residential uses. Because there is direct access to
Route 29 South, truck traffic should pose few problems in terms of residential
and agricultural traffic conflicts (some conflict may occur at Route 745). The
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended certain access
and circulation improvements.
Objectionable aspects of an industrial use should be addressed through a
combination approach including realistic performance standards~ bMffer~g
and special setback regulations. This approach should be flexible so as
to accomplish the objective without creating burdensome and arbitrary
regulations. At time of rezoning, the applicant should submit p.?~posals
to mitigate objectionable aspects.
Currently, the applicant has not addressed these particular issues.
Sections 1.4, PURPOSE AND INTENT, and 1.5, RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT, of the
Zoning Ordinance outline other matters to be considered in zoning deliber-
ations. While some of these issues have been mentioned under the discussion
of the Comprehensive Plan, one concern should be emphasized: Section 1.4.1
states that zoning regulations should provide for safety from fire. The
Fire Official has stated that:
'It is my concern, as well as the North Garden Volunteer Fire
Department Chief, that the existing building represents a real
problem for fire suppression due to a lack of water anywhere near
the site.
I am also concerned that allowing this site to be rezoned LI might
set a precedent for allowing other sites to develop without adequate
fire protection.'
December 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Summary
In this report, Staff has attempted to outline areas of public concern related
to Light Industrial (LI) zoning of this property. Staff opinion is that unre-
stricted LI zoning is inappropriate and contrary to the public interest and
therefore recommends denial of this petition. Five variances from zoning
regulations regarding industrial development were required in order to present
this petition to the Commission and Board, indicative that industrial use of the
property would be inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff has raised the question of 'reasonable use' under the existing Rural Areas
District, which to a large extent, is a matter of legislative discretion and
determination. Staff would recommend that this issue be approached cautiously
so as not to mislead or be construed as indicative of some future action. Therefore,
such deliberation should occur only when an acceptable usage of the property
is proposed. Deliberation of this nature should be of narrow scope as not to
establish precedent, and the applicant should be required to present convincing,
evidence, including demonstration that alternative use or zoning is consistent
with the public interest."
Mr. Tucker noted that the following proffer was submitted after the staff report was
written:
"3 November 1983
Mr. Robert W. Tucker
Director of Planning
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Gleco Mills, Inc.: ZMA-83-15
Dear Mr. Tucker:
As attorney for Gleco Mills, Inc., I hereby proffer the following conditions to
be incorporated into Gleco Mills' application for rezoning, ZMA-83-15, to light
industrial use:
1. The property is currently served by a 440 volt transmission line, the
applicant proffers that it will not increase the size of the transmission
lines serving the property beyond this amount.
2. The applicant proffers that it will provide a septic system and drain-
field(s) to Health Department standards adequate to meet the needs of those
employees actually using the premises on a full-time basis, and it further
proffers that there will be no more than twenty full-time employees using the
premises.
3. The property currently has approximately 300 gallons of water storage
on premises and one operating well--applicant proffers that it will not increase
number of operating wells nor water storage capacity beyond that currently on
property.
4. The applicant proffers that it will permit the use of the northern-most
entrance of its access road onto U. S. Route 29 South for exiting traffic only.
5. The applicant proffers reasonable vegetative screening to the satisfaction
of the County Planning Department.
6. The applicant proffers deletion of the following 'by right' uses set
forth in Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 27.2.1: delete numbers four,
five, ten, and eleven.
GLECO MILLS, INC.
By: Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Counsel"
Mr. Tucker said that after hearing this petition on November 3, 1983, the Planning
Commission deferred acting on this petition to provide an opportunity for further study and
gathering of information as follows:
'"1'. writ't'en comment from the Health Department:
Written comment has not been received at this time (November 15, 1983); however,
the Health Department has made on-site inspection. It is Staff's understanding
that installation of a new septic disposal system will be required and that the
applicant has amended Item 2 of the proffer in accordance with Health Department
comment.
2.' ~dditional access study by the Virginia Department of Highways an~
Trans~p~o~rtat~ion:
Additional study and written comment has been provided by the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation (see letter from D. S. Roosevelt dated November 14,
1983). Sight distance to the east of the entrance on Route 745 is identified as
a problem. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has also sug-
gested that the Route 29/Route 745 intersection be given consideration in zoning
deliberations.
December 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meet~
3. Comment from the Fire Official regarding appropriateness of potential uses
in relation to fire protection concerns:
In a subsequent meeting with the applicant's representative, the Fire Official
identified uses which would be of particular concern in terms of fire protection.
Rather than deleting these uses, the applicant has proffered that these uses may
not be established without written Fire Official approval. This essentially
authorizes exercise of discretion by the Fire Official and is an acceptable
approach to the Fire Official.
These uses are as follows:
Prohibited Uses (Item 5 of Amended Proffer which follows):
27.2.1.4 Publishing, printing, lithography, and engraving, including but not
limited to newspapers, periodicals and books.
27.2.1.5 Preparation of printing plates including typesetting, etching and
engraving.
27.2.1.10
Engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrication of machinery
and components, including such on-site accessory uses as machining,
babbitting, welding and sheet metal work employing machinery not
exceeding fifteen (15) horsepower per unit and excluding such uses
as drop hammering and foundry.
27.2.1.11
Electric, gas, oil, and communication facilities excluding multi-
legged tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers,
pipes, meters, and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distri-
bution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations, and appur-
tenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the
Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law.
Uses at discretion of Fire Official (Item 5 of amended Proffer which follows):
27.2.1.1
Compounding of drugs, including biological products, medical and
chemical as well as pharmaceutical.
27.2.1.3
(Note: only certain uses listed/not entire section.)
Manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, distribution of
products such as, but not limited to (reference 5.1.24)
-Artists' supplies and equipment.
-Business, office mancines and equipment.
-Cosmetics, including perfumes, perfumed toiletries and perfumed
toilet soap.
-Drafting supplies and equipment.
-Food products, such as bakery goods, dairy products, candy, beverages,
including bottling plants.
-Musical instruments.
-Paper products such as die-cut paperboard and cardboard, sanitary
paper products, bags and containers.
-Photographic equipment and supplies including processing and
developing plant.
-Rubber, metal stamps.
-Toys, ~porting and athletic equipment, except firearms, ammunition,
or fireworks.
-Watches, clocks and similar timing devices.
-Wood cabinets and furniture, upholstery.
27.2.1.6 Research and development activities including experimental testing.
27.2.1.12
Public uses and buildings such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds,
and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal
agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission,
main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the
like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
(reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12).
27.2.1.13 Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1'.18).
Other Uses:
27.2.1.2 Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9).
27.2.1.3
(Note: only certain uses listed/not entire section.)
Manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, distribution of
products such as, but not limited to (reference 5.1.24):
-Electrical lighting and wiring equipment.
-Electrical and electronic equipment and components including radio,
telephone, computer, communication equipment, TV receiving sets,
phonographs.
-Gifts, novelties including pottery, figurines, and similar ceramic
products.
-Glass products made of purchased glass.
-Industrial controls.
-Jewelry, silverware.
-Light machinery and machine parts, including electrical household
appliances but not including such things as clothes washers, dryers
and refrigerators.
-Small electrical parts such as coils, condensers, transformers,
crystal holders.
-Surgical, medical and dental instruments and supplies.
Decembe~ 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
27.2.1.7
27.2.1.8
27.2.1.9
27.2.1.14
Scientific or technical education facilities.
Assembly and fabrication of light aircraft from component parts
manufactured off-site.
Contractor's office and equipment storage yard.
Business and professional office buildings.
'4'. 'In '~ddit'io'n to other concerns, the applicant has added Item 3 to the
proffer.
'5'. In regard to Item 5 of the revised proffer~ Staff would recommend that
Sec't~ion ~27.2.1 (11) not be deleted from available uses."
The following amended proffer dated November 15, 1983, was then filed:
"November 15, 1983
Mr. Robert W. Tucker
Director of Planning
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Gleco Mills, Inc.-LZMA-83-15
Dear Mr. Tucker:
As attorney for Gleco Mills, Inc., I hereby proffer the following conditions
to be incorporated into Gleco Mills' application for rezoning, ZMA-83-15 to
light industrial use:
1. The property is currently served by a 440 volt transmission line, and
the applicant proffers that it will not increase the size of the transmission
lines serving the property beyond this amount.
2. The applicant proffers that it will provide a 750 gallon storage tank
and 600 feet of drainfield to health department standards sufficient to meet
the needs of those employees actually using the premises and it further proffers
that there will be no more than 20 employees using the premises.
3. The applicant proffers that it will not expand the existing buildings on
the property but reserves for itself the right to erect a garage/shed for
vehicular storage.
4. The property currently has approximately 300 gallons of water storage on
premises and one operating well, and applicant proffers that it will not increase
the number of operating wells nor water storage capacity beyond that currently
on the property.
5. Applicant proffers deletion of the following "by right" uses set forth in
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 27.2.1: delete numbers 4, 5, t0,
and 11. In addition, applicant proffers that the uses by right delineated by
the Albemarle County Fire Marshal as creating a potential problem because of
fire danger, cannot be utilized without the written approval of the appropriate
Albemarle County Fire Marshal and/or Fire Official (marked on the attached
copy of the permitted uses for the light industrial district with the language
"need FOA" meaning Fire Official Approval).
6. The applicant proffers that it will permit the use of the northern-most
entrance of its access road onto U. S. Route 29 South for exiting traffic only.
7, The applicant proffers reasonable vegetative screening to the satisfaction
of the County Planning Department. ~
Sincerely,
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Attorney for Gleco Mills, Inc."
Mr. Tucker said when the Planning Commission again reviewed this petitiOn on November 15,
1983, it recommended approval by a 5/2 vote sUbject to the proffer dated November 15, but
accepted the fOllowing verbal amendment to the proffer:
"Under Item 5 of the proffer, the uses contained in Section 27.2.1.11 were
daIeted from the proffer, thereby making them permitted uses."
Mr. Tucker said that since the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. EdWard Bain, counsel
for Gleco Mills, Inc. has submitted yet another amended proffer; this proffer dated December 1
1983, is as follows:
December 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
"15 December 1983
Mr. Robert W. Tucker
Director of Planning
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Gleco Mills, Inc.--ZMA-83-15
Dear Mr. Tucker:
As attorney for Gleco Mills, Inc., I hereby proffer the following conditions
to be incorporated into Gleco Mills' application for rezoning, ZMA-83-15 to
light industrial use:
1. The property is currently served by a 400 volt transmission line, and the
applicant proffers that it will not increase the size of the'transmission lines
serving the property beyond this amount.
2. The applicant proffers that it will provide a 750 gallon storage tank and
600 feet of drainfield to health department standards sufficient to meet the
needs of those employees actua]_ly using the premises and it further proffers
that there will be no more than 20 employees using the premises.
2a. Applicant proffers that it Will be subject to annual Charlottesville-Albemarle
Health Department review of the sewage disposal system and will make all improve-
ments to system as required by said health department and will provide Zoning
Department with annual report by Charlottesville-Albemarle Health Department
and it further proffers that no uses by right or by special permit in the light
industrial zone can be utilized without the specific written approval of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Health Department.
3. The applicant proffers that it will not expand the existing bUildings on
the property but reserves for itself the right to erect a garage/shed for
vehicular storage.
4. The property currently has approximately 300 gallons of water storage on
premises and one operating well, and applicant proffers that it will not increase
the number of operating wells nor water storage capacity beyond that currently
on the property.
5. Applicant proffers deletion of the following 'by right' uses set forth in
Albemarle County~Zoning Ordinance Section 27.2.1: delete numbers 4, 5, and 10.
In addition, applicant proffers that the uses by right delineated by the Albemarle
CountY Fire Marshal as creating a potential problem because of fire danger, cannot
be utilized without the written approval of the appropriate Albemarle County Fire
Marshal and/or Fire Official (marked on the attached copy of the permitted uses
for the light industrial district with the-language 'need FOA' meaning Fire
Official Approval).
6. The applicant proffers that it will permit the use of the northern-most
entrance of its access road onto U. S. Route 29 South for exiting traffic only.
7. The applicant proffers reasonable vegetative screening to the satisfaction
of the County Planning Department.
Sincerely,
Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Attorney for Gleco Mills, Inc."
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Bain, Attorney for the applicant,
spoke first. He noted that Mr. Lacy Paulett and Mr. Marshall from H. M. Gleason & Company
(the owners); the realtor, Mr. Jim McVey of Hasbrouck & Graham; and Mr. Doug Birckhead, the
contract purchaser, were all present in support of the request.
Mr. Paulett said that Gleco Mills was organized in the late 1940's and started operating
as a mill in 1950. It took a few years before the operation came to a break even situation
financially, and some years even made a profit. By that time, the machinery began to wear
out and in early 1975, the mill manager said many thousands of dollars in new machinery
would be needed in order to operate on a competitive basis. The owners did not feel it was
advisable to invest that much money, the mill manager found other employment, and by the end
of 1975, the mill closed down. The owners began to seek ways to dispose of the property..
During the first part of 1982 representatives from a milling company in Richmond looked at
the property and were very interested in buying same. The owners found at this time that
another mill could not be operated on the property because the original mill had been out of
operation for a number of years so the property had lost its non conforming status. The
Richmond firm needed property immediately, so this sale was lost. Another person has now
offered to buy the property if it can be rezoned so the mill and buildings can be put to
some use rather than deteriorating further. This person has even promised to put plantings
along the highway to eventually hide the building from view.
Mr. Fisher asked for a description of the mill building at present. Mr. Paulett said
the building is wooden and steel framing with the exterior being aluminum siding. Most of~
the building is one story, but in the miiling area there are three stories. There are also
three grain tanks which would be of no use to the prospective purchaser. Mr. Fisher asked
if the building has insulation, wiring, or elevators which would make the upper floors
useful as office space. Mr. Paulett said no; there is only a narrow stairway leading up to
493
.December 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
those floors. Also, the grain tanks and storage tanks are built in and would have to be
dismantled; the complete interior of the building would have to be redone at considerable
expense to make it useful for any purpose. Mr. Fisher asked if the building is heated.
Mr. ?aulett said no. Mrs. Cooke asked if the zoning requested is so the property can be
used to' operate the mill again. Mr. Paulett said no; the prospective buyer owns a landscape
and lawn care business. Mrs. Cooke asked if the buildings which are not used will be torn
down. Mr. Paulett said no; the buildings are all together.
Mr. Bain said the building itself is an eyesore. The building has been on this property
for thirty or more years, was used for some twenty years as a grainery, but has been unused
for about eight years. The owners have a piece of ~roperty which essentially has no value.
The prpperty contains 1.8 acres but is not a nice rectangular shape in a nice setting. It
is wedEe shaped and lies between Route 29 South and the Railroad track. The owners did try
to buy property from the railroad which it is not using, but the Railroad people are not
interested in selling. The rezoning request is LI (Light Industrial) because that district
seems to contain the uses contemplated by the prospective buyer. Mr. Bain said he knows the
neighbors have concerns about pollution, smokestacks, and other things which can occur in a
heavy industrial zone, so the proffers are an attempt to put some performance standards on
the property. There are some uses included in the LI district that might cause a nuisance,
but the proffers restrict these uses through the limitation on the number of people who can
work on the property, the water supply, etc. The owners looked at the Rural Areas District,
but the only use allowed in that district which would fit on the property is a veterinary
facility.
Mr. Bain said this petition is the classic chicken and egg case. The-applicant went
ahead and applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances, which have been granted.
The first group of variances sought relief from area and setback requirements in the LI
District. A variance was sought so that landscaping could be only ten percent instead of
the thirty percent required because there are numerous trees on the property although they
are not located around the building. Variances 3, 4, and 5 were all for setbacks for the
existing building. The Railroad actually owns to within three feet of the existing building,
and the setback is supposed to be fifty feet. A final variance was sought on December 13
from Sections 2.1 and 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which require that every commercial or
industrial establishment have a minimum of 60,000 square feet when there is no public water
or sewer services available. Mr. Birckhead, in his contract option, states that he has
three separate businesses that all do the same thing; they constitute the one business, but
he needs to have another business operate with him. A pottery maker has expressed an interest
another person is interested in an office, and someone else may be interested in warehousing
which requires a special use permit, so any such request would come back before this Board.
The owners also requested the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve one extra establishment
over and above the 60,000 square foot requirement. That request was granted, so the pro
buyer has the right to one extra business.
Mr. Bain then referred to the proffer dated December 15, 1983. He said that the proffer
was amended to take care of some of the concerns mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting.
Proffer #2 sets out those requirements of the Health Department for a two or three-bedroom
house. This was felt to be sufficient since the building now has two bathrooms. The ap~
also agreed to limit the number of employees. Proffer #2a was added because of concern
expressed about ruining wells and ground water in the area through disposal of hazardous
wastes, etc. Mr. Bain said he discussed this condition with the Planning Office, and he
understands that the State Water Control Board could shut down the operation if a problem
arises. Although this condition does not offer a lot, it does try to address the issue. It
puts the owner on notice that there will be an annual review and certification by the State
Health Department and that the use of the property cannot be changed without approval of the
Health Department. As to Proffer #3, there is no intention to expand the building, however,
Mr. Birckhead does not feel the existing building can be used for his vehicles and trucks,
so he wants to reserve the right to erect a garage/shed for vehicle storage. Mr. Fisher
said that the erection of such a storage facility without any limitation as to the number or
size of vehicles to be stored concerns him since the property is so small and all setback
requirements have been waived. Mr. Bain said he feels that some of the setback requirements
still apply because the waivers were granted on the existing building and he did not feel
the waivers would apply to any new building.
Mr. Bain said that he knows Proffer #5 does not satisfy the adjoining property owners
because this request does not restrict the rezoning to a specific use. The owners reason
for doing this is that the property was rezoned without their knowledge during adoption of
the 1980 Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The owners cannot sell the property
without first requesting this rezoning, and the prospective purchaser does not want to be so
restricted that he will not be able to sell the property if the need should arise, without
obtaining yet another approval. Mr. Bain said the owners have tried to address the concerns
of the fire official by eliminating some of the uses allowed in the ordinance. As to Proffer
#7, the southbound lanes on Route 29 are higher in elevation than the northbound lanes, but
Mr. Birckhead believes that he can plant some trees that in ten or more years will shield
the top part of the building from view. Mr~ Bain said the comments of the Highway Department
about the entrance into the property is actually a matter which will be handled through site
plan. review. When Route 29 was widened to four lanes a few years ago, the Highway Department
condemned the land that is now the entrance to the Gleco Mills property and build the entrance
that the Highway Department felt was appropriate for the heavy industrial use at that time.
The uses being proposed now will not be using the heavy trucks that were used at that time.
In summary, Mr. Bain said the applicant has attempted to address the concerns expressed, but
has not said the property will be limited to a specific use. Mr. Bain asked the Board's
favorable consideration of the petition.
Mr. Fisher asked the proposed use of the building. Mr. Bain said there are essentially
three separate business owned by Mr. Birckhead - Town & Country Services, ChemLawn, and
grass cutting and lawn mower repairs. The Board of Zoning Appeals found these to constitute
one use because Mr. Birckhead is involved with all of them. Mr. Birckhead needs to have one
more use in order to carry on with this project. At this time, no decision has been made as
to what that one additional use will be. This property was valued in excess of $100,000 by
the County last year, but was reduced in value because there seemed to be no use for the
property. Mr. Birckhead has an option for purchase of the property for his business and
December 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
storage of his equipment. There may be some gravel stored, railroad ties, different types
of mulch, etc., and bags of fertilize, etc. being stored inside. Mrs. Cooke asked if there
will be any retail sales from this property. Mr. Bain said if a customer pulls in and asks
to buy a pickup load of mulch, Mr. Birckhead would not turn that person away, but he does
not advertise retail sales; his business is basically landscaping and planting. Mr. Fisher
said retail sales are allowed under the LI District, and the next owner might have different
ideas. Mr. Fisher then mentioned that the parcel is just a little over 60,000 square feet,
which is the minimum size lot for a use where public water and sewer are not available. The
last variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals would permit an additional use on this
same parcel.
Mr. Fisher asked who will operate the business. Mr. Jim McVey, Realtor, was present
to represent Mr. Doug Birckhead. Mr. Fisher noted that when the Board considers a rezoning,
it must also consider what might happen years from now since the person requesting the
rezoning at this time may sell the property to others. Mr. Fisher said he does not believe
the existing building on this property can be used for anything without a substantial investmen~
being made. Mr. McVey said that for most uses that would be the case, but Mr. Birckhead's
business does not require such an investment because storage of inert materials does not
require climate control. There will be almost no people on the lot during the day. Concerns
were raised by the fire official as to other uses and fire suppression and those improvements
will be made right away. Mr. Fisher said that does not answer his question and asked again
how many dollars will be spent in wiring, insulation, steps, heating, bathrooms-, etc. for the
upper part of the building. Mr. McVey said the bathrooms and plumbing are already in the
building, so no improvements will be needed in that respect. The wiring is functional for
Mr. Birckhead's purposes. As for heating, there are no improvements planned. In fact, there
are no major projects planned for the building. Mr. Fisher said it will be a pretty hostile
environment.
Mrs. Cooke said she was confused about the three businesses. Mr. McVey said the County.
requires Mr. Birckhead to purchase three separate business licenses, but Mr. Birckhead owns
and runs all three businesses together. One is landscape contracting, there is the ChemLawn
operation where lawns are fertilized in conjuction with the landscaping, and Mr. Birckhead
also furnishes lawn cutting services so has lawn mowers and repairs same.
Mr. Butler said he understands there is a concern about an additional business in that
building. He surmised that there will be no expansion of facilities to accommodate this
additional use. Mr. McVey said that was correct.
Next to speak was Mr. David van Roijen.
dated December 20, 1983, as follows:
He referred to a letter addressed to the Board
"As owner of the property directly across Rts. 29 from Gleco Mills, I am
extremely concerned by the action taken by the Board of Zoning Appeals in
granting six variances to make the parcel in question a Light Industrial
District.
I appreciate the unique character of the property and the need to re-zone
it in order that Mr. Birckhead might locate his business there. I had and
have no objection to this as was originally indicated. However, it soon
became clear that the re-zoning would not be restricted to his business. At
the latest meeting of the B.Z.A. we were told that Mr. Birckhead wished to
locate his three businesses there in addition to one other, but no indication
of this intended use was given. Instead, a negative proffer stating what
would not be located there was presented.
I ask the Board to approve the ~re-zoning, but restrict such to the businesses
now controlled by Mr. Birckhead. I believe that interpretation of the law
considering his three firms as one is more than liberal. Furthermore, because
of the very small size of the property in question (1.8 acres) along with the
extreme visibility of the site, the inability to properly landscape due to
the location of the building with respect to the property lines, and the scenic
and rural character of the area, the establishment of a fourth business as yet
undefined would in no way enhance the situation.
In addition, since this parcel requires re-zoning with respect to the minimum
of five acres needed for such a district, I would like the Board to consider
and address (reference 27.3) of the zoning ordinance and prohibit any further
additions to this district as I believe that such action would preserve the
character of the neighborhood and the integrity of the comprehensive plan.
I believe that the owners of Gleco Mills have shown that there was sufficient
case of hardship to merit the re-zoning to allow a business such as Mr.
Birckhead's. I do not believe that any hardship has been shown that necessi-
tates the allowance for four firms to locate on the site. In addition, I
believe that when so many variances are needed to be within the law, it is in
the public interest that the intended uses be strictly outlined and adhered to."
Mr. Lewis Johnson said his home is one mile from Gleco Mills. He said he speaks for
some of the people living in the valley, and asked what type of chemicals might be used or
stored on the property, particularly from the standpoint of objectionable odors because any
noxious odors turned loose under the inversion layer will simply spread out over the valley
and stay there until the inversion dissipates. Also, another item which has not been addressed
has to do with the possible contamination of the stream and groundwater in the area. Actually
this stream is the headwaters of Meadow Creek. Mr. Johnson said the people in the valley
are not against Mr. Birckhead's proposed use, but would like to know the nature of the
fourth business. Mr. McVey said the materials to be stored on the property by Mr. Birckhead
will not have any odors. Mr. Birckhead presently stores these materials in other locations
in the County, and also in the City, and there have been no complaints about odors at these
locations.
495
December 21~ 1983 (Reg_ular N__~ht Meeti~n~__
~r, Kyger Maupi~ said he lives in the valley. The stream mentioned goes through his
property, so he would like to know what kind of chemicals will be used that might wash down
throUgh the creek because children play in that stream and cattle also drink from same. Mr.
Fisher said the question about chemicals is hard to answer since the other use is not known
at this~time. Mr. Bain said that is correct. Although he.has discussed .varying uses with
several people, no agreements have been formalized. Mr. Bain said he feels that the State
Water Control Board may have jurisdiction as to this type of runoff, but certainly the
applicant does not intend to put his business on this property, and then begin to break the
law. Mr. van Roijen asked what chemicals are now usedby the business. Mr. Birckhead said
there are pre-emergent and post-emergent herbicides and fertilizers.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher then noted
receipt of a letter dated December 20, 1983, from the League of Women Voters, stating their
belief that the building at Gleco Mills should be put to a use, but expressing concern at
the six variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The League feels the rezoning
should be denied ~ntil the nUmber and type of uses can be restricted to those uses compatible
with the sewer, water and space limitations and regulations. Mr. Fisher asked for the exact
wording of the sixth variance granted. Mr. Tucker read the motion made by Mr. Carl Van Fossen-
~We accept the three firms - lawn mower service, ChemLawn, and the landscape service to be
considered as one as it was presented to this Board (of Zoning Appeals) under the ownership
of one individual, as being all related businesses under one occupancy." Mr. Tucker said
the BZA made a finding that the three businesses owned by Mr. Birckhead would be considered
as one use, and the variance was actually given for one additional use. Mr. Fisher said he
had read the verbatim transcript furnished the Board on VA-83-87, and it is hard to figure
out the intent of the BZA. Mr. Tucker said he feels the BZA actually granted the right to
have two uses on the property.
Mr. Fisher said he has viewed the property and knows the building and the property in
general are difficult to use and sell. It appears that a lot of work has been done to make
this a useful operation, but he is concerned about the unknown use that exceeds the density
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board would certainly not double the denisty on a
new piece of property that had nothing d~eveloped on it. Public water and sewer is not
feasible on this piece of property so the Board has to deal the question of what the land
can actually absorb. Mr. Fisher said that while he might consider the property for one use
on 60',000 square feet, he would have trouble dealing with a second use on the property.
Mr. Cooke said the second use on this property also is of concern to her. Although she
would like to help H. M. Gleason Company dispose of the property and help Mr. Birckhead to
utilize the property, one of the proposed uses mentioned is ChemLawn. Mrs. Cooke said she
is concerned about the type of weedkillers that might be used by this company, and what
would happen if some of the chemicals spilled. Mr. Marshall said the chemicals mentioned by
Mr. Birckhead are the same types of things that a person can pick up at a grocery or a
hardware store.
Mr. Butler asked if the Zoning Ordinance does not have some control over future uses on
the property. Mr. Tucker said there are quite a few uses that would be allowed by right
under the proffer, and three additional uses if the fire official gave approval on those
specific uses. Mr. Tucker said it is not a very restrictive proffer. Mr. Fisher said the
applicant is right in one sense; the uses should not be so narrowly drawn that there can be
no other use of the property.
Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Birckhead has a state permit for the use of pesticides. Mr.
Birckhead said no, but the person who operates ChemLawn for him has a permit and two of his
employees also have permits. Mrs. Cooke asked where the pesticides are now stored. Mr.
Birckhead said they are stored in a rented facility on East Market Street in the City; but
will be moved to this property. Mr. Henley said he does not think there will be a problem
because most farmers store more pesticides on their individual properties than Mr. Birckhead
does. Mr. Henley said he also believes that a commercial operation has a stricter pesticide
permit than does the average farmer. What Mr. Birckhead wants to do with the property seems
to be a good use of the building. Mr. Henley said he does not have any particular problem
with there being a second use.
Mr. Butler said if there is a specific list of uses which can be put in that building
without public water and sewer service, he does feel there is a problem with the req. uest.
Mr. Henley asked if the second use will be required to submit a site plan. Mr. Tucker said
not unless additional parking is required on the site. Mr. Henley asked if the Board approved
this request for only one use, if the applicant could return with another request when the
second use is known. Mr. Fisher said the applicant has applied for two uses, and he thinks
that is the request the Board must either approve or disapprove. Mr. Tucker said the Board
of Zoning Appeals gave a variance for two uses on this property. He was not sure that the
applicant might not be required to wait a year before reapplying unless the applications
were substantially different. Mr. St. John said the Board of Zoning Appeals found that Mr.
Birckhead has one business which is divided into three corporate entities. The Board of
Zoning Appeals gave a variance for another business entity which may or may not have any
likeness to the one that exists. If the Board approves this rezoning, Mr. Birckhead has a
variance which will immediately spring into effect and that is not something the Board can
cut off at this point. Mr. Birckhead could voluntarily abandon the variance and amend the
proffer to include such a statement.
Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Tucker will review a site plan for Mr. Birckhead's three
businesses. Mr. Tucker said a site plan will be required. Mr. Henley said he feels it
would have to be an awfully insignificant business not to require a site plan. Mr. Tucker
said that is correct. Mr. Henley said there are not many uses that could do much with the
existing building, and the proffer restricts the uses on the property to the existing building~
Mr. Fisher said he would have had no problem with the three related uses that are under
one ownership, but he feels it was a mistake to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for an
unknown use whet there can be no provisions made for public sewer, Mr. Fisher said he does
not want this to be used as a precedent for other places in the County. He.suggested that
the petition not be approved.
496
December 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
At this point, motion was offered by Mr. Butler to approve ZMA-83-15 with the proffer
dated December 15, 1983. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley who said that he has some
reservations about the second use being unknown, but there, are many limitations in the
building itself. Mr. Henley said he feels everything will work out all right although the
Board is kind of "bending ove~ backwards". Mr. Henley said he does feel it is up to the
Board to help the owners get a use for that property. Mr. Fisher said he agrees for one
use, but n~t for the second use. Mr. Henley said there are unusual circumstances here.
Mrs. Cooke said she will support the motion, but is concerned about the additional use.
Since this is a landscaping operation, she hopes the applicant will adhere to Proffer #7
regarding beautification of the area.
Mr. Butler said although he understands the concerns expressed this evening, he feels
that there are controls to protect the citizens living in the area. Mr. Butler said there
comes a time when a decision must be made that does not suit everybody, but he is trying to
be fair about everything.
Mr. Fisher said he is.concerned because the Board of Zoning Appeals doubled the density
on this property. If he voted to approve this request, he would b_~ approving their action,
and he seriously questions that action.
Roll was called at this point, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Miss Nash.
At 9:12 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:17 P.M. with Mr. Lindstrom returning t
the meeting at this time.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-83-7. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding "farm winery"
provisions. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 6 and December 13, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker said that the Board had adopted a resolution of intent to amend Section
5.1.25 of the Zoning Ordinance re: "Farm Winery", at the request of a citizen to read as
follows:
5.1.25 FARM WINERY
a. Facilities for fermenting and/or bottling of wine shall not be established
until the vineyard, orchard or other growing area has been established and is
in production;
b. On-premise sale of wine and wine comsumption may be established in accor-
dance with section 5.1.19 WAYSIDE STAND: no more than one wayside stand shall
be permitted by right for each farm winery.
c. 9~-~em&ee-ee~e~m~&e~-~-~e-~e~e~a~-~e-e~a~-~e~-~e-~e~m~e~ Tours
shall be permitted. Festivals and the like open to the public shall not be
permitted.
d. Wine shall be produced from fresh fruits or other agricultural products
predominantly grown or produced on such farm;
e. The foregoing notwithstanding, the board of supervisors, in accordance with
section B1.2.~ may authorize through issuance of a special use permit any or all
of the following:
~= Ee~a~&&ekme~-e~-~e~me~&~-a~e~-~e~&~-~ae&~&~&ee-~&e~-~e-ee~a~-
~&e~me~-e¢-a-~&~eya~-e~eAa~-e~-e~e~-~ew&~-a~eaw
I ~. A floor area for on-premise sale of wine greater than permitted under
section 5.1.19 WAYSIDE STAND:
2 8. e~-~em&ee-ee~e~m~&e~-e¢-w&~e-b~-~e-¢e~e~a&-~a~&&e~ Festivals and
the like which are open to the general public;
3 4. Production of wine from fresh fruits or other agricultural products
predominantly grown or produced elsewhere than on such farm."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission reviewed this amendment on December 6, 1983,~
and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment as resolved by the Board, but modified
b~the Planning Staff in the following sections:
5.1.25(e)1 ~.
5.1.25(e)2 3.
A floor area for on-premise sale and/or consumption of wine
greater than permitted under section 5.1.29 Wayside Stand;
On-premise consumption of wine by the general public in a
location other tha~ Wayside Stand. Festivals and the like
which are open to the general public;
Mr. Fisher said that the second sentence of Section 5.1.25(e)2 does not seem to hav~
anything to do with the first sentence of that section. He asked if any consideration had
been given to making that a separate section. Mr. Tucker said that could be done, but it ~
was expected that on-premise consumption by the general public at a location other than a
wayside stand would only occur during festivals and the like.
Mr. Lindstrom said this wording is essentially the same. as that in the resolution
intent adopted by the Board. Mr. Fisher asked if citizens~will be able to buy and taste
wine in a wayside stand, by right, if the wayside stand is small. Mr. Tucker said yes; 600
square feet is the maximum size permitted for a wayside stand. Mrs. Cooke asked if that
size eliminates sitting and serving of drinks. Mr. Tucker said that there could possibly be
a few tables if the owner wanted to do that, but the staff understood from those requesting
the amendment that the consumption would primarilY be for tasting. Mr. Fisher said Mr.
Lindstrom had~noted at an ~arlier meeting that it is very hard to distinguish between
consumption and tasting.-
f 7~
De~ember 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
The public hearing was opened at this time. With no one present to speak for or against
this ordinance amendment, the public hearing was closed. Motion was immediately offered by
Mr. Lindstrom to adopt ZTA-83-7, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher suggested that the amendment be made effective as of
January 1, 1984. Mr. Lindstrom accepted that as a part of the motion. This also was seconded
by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the following ordinance was adopted by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Miss Nash.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Section 5.1.25, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, is hereby
amended and reenacted to read as follows:
5.I.25
a.
FARM WINERY
Facilities for fermenting and/or bottling of wine shall not be
established until the vineyard, orchard or other growing area has
been established and is in production;
On-premise sale of wine and wine consumption may be established in
accordance with section 5.1.19 Wayside Stand: no more than one
wayside stand shall be permitted by :~ight for each farm winery.
Tours shall be permitted.
shall not be permitted.
Festivals and the like open to the public
Wine shall be produced from fresh fruits or other agricultural
products predominantly grown or produced on such farm;
The foregoing notwithstand~.ng; the board of supervisors in accordance
with section 31.2.4 may authorize through issuance of a special use
permit any or all of the following:
A greater floor area for on-premise sale and/or consumption
of wine than permitted under section 5.1.19 Wayside Stand;
'2.
On-premise consumption of wine by the general public in a
location other than wayside stand. Festivals and the like
which are open to the general public;
Production of wine from fresh fruits or other agricultural
products predominantly grown or produced elsewhere than on
such farm.
AND FURTHER ORDAINED that this amendment shall be effective on and after
January 1, 1984.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2-49 to
provide the Industrial Development Authority the power to finance airports and office and
support facilities relating to airports, and to amend and reenact Section 2-52 to increase
the number of bond issuances of the Authority; said sections in Article IX-of the Albemarle
County Code. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 9 and December 16, 1983.)
Agenda Item No. 8.
Revenue Bonds·
Public Hearing:
Applicaton by JBC Limited Partnership for Industrial
Mr.. Fisher said that these two items would be considered concurrently.
Mr. Craig Redinger, Attorney and General Partner of JBC Limited Partnership, was present
to speak about the applications. Mr. Redinger said an Airport Master Plan was developed by
the Airport Board and Airport Commission in conjunction with the Federal Aviation Admini
That plan was submitted to, and approved by, FAA in December, -1980. One of the projects
listed therein as being needed immediately is the one under consideration tonight; a hangar
and office space. Waring Aviation, Inc. was the fixed-base -perator and as part of its
lease was to build a 12,000 "quare foot hangar, and 3,000 feet of office space. In May, 1983
Waring Aviation filed for bankruptcy. At that time, Mr. Bill Dittmar, one of Mr. Redinger's
partners, contacted the Airport Board with a proposal for building this facility. Because
of that interest, the proposal was put out to bid. JBC Limited Partnership and Great Eastern
Management were the only two sponsors responding to that proposal. The JBC Limited proposal
was chosen, it seems on financial grounds. JBC will lease the building back to the Airport
Board for about $25,000 a year less than what was proposed by Great Eastern. Also rent is
estimated at about $63,000 per year as opposed to $90,000. Mr. Redinger said his group had
made their projections based on the market interest rate payable on IDA bonds since they
felt this is the type of project contemplated by Congress under the Federal law. When the
proposals were sent out, the request stated that the hangar facility should be completed by
December, 1983 and the office facility by June, 1984. In order to comply with these dates,
an existing site plan was used so that changes could be -ade administratively. Changes are
primarily being made in the facade, screening, and things of that nature rather than structural
aspects of the building. Mr. Redinger said, as a technical matter, JBC has asked its bond
counsel, McGuire, Woods and Battle to proceed and Ms. Nancy Little has provided pertinent
information for this meeting. Mr. Redinger noted that the proposed change in County Code
Section 2-49 simply adds paragraph (g) which is language extracted from Federal legislation.
Mr. Redinger said he believes this type of facility should be exempt because it fits well
within the concept of a public use according to the legislation. The facility will'se a
"498
December 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting.)
12,000 sq. ft. clear span hangar. There also will be 7,500 square feet of office space.
The Airport Board has not yet decided whether it will run the fixed-base operation, or _
whether this will be leased to a third party. The fixed-base operation (private airplane
instruction, sales, fueling of aircraft, provision of space for the fire crews, etc.) Will
all be in the facility to be Constructed. The additional amount of'office space is proposed
because it is felt there is a need and high interest in such space at the Airport by such
bUsinesses as General Electric, Sperry, and Comdial for storage. The office space will rent
for about $50.00 per square foot and $4.00 per square foot for hangar sPace. A contract for
construction of the building has been let, but has not yet been reviewed and approved by all
parties. Cost of construction is $570,000, but the amount af the bond issue has been requested
at $650,000. None of the so-called soft costs - legal, developer fees - will be paid from
the bond monies. Equity in the amount of $100,000 has been raised to pay those soft costs.
I~ the lease with the Airport Board will be a clause to allow the Airport Board to repurchase
the building for a percentage of its value at given times. Ultimately the facility will
belong to the Airport Board. Mr. Redin~ier said the facility cannot be constructed with'more
expensive financing; the Airport Board has expressed some urgency in getting the facility
constructed in order to avoid any further detrimental effects on the growth of the Airport.
Mr. Redinger then read a letter from Mr. Jim Murray, Jr., Chairman of the Albemarle
County Industrial Development Authority:
November 29, 1983
Chairman Gerald E. Fisher
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
County Office Buidling
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Inducement Resolution for JBC Limited Partnership
Dear Chairman Fisher and Members of the Board of SuperVisorS:
On Thursday, November 17, the Industrial Development'Authority approved an inducement
resolution for JBC Limited. Partnership for financing the construction of an office/
hangar complex at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. The Authority's Vote in
favor of this project was unanimous.
The Authority approved financing of this project based upon a number of factors
among which were the following. Primarily, the Authority was impressed that this
is a public facility which is being'built following a request for bids from the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board. It is our understanding that the majority
of the space in the building will be occupied by the Fixed Base Operator. We were
impressed that the facility could not be constructed with any more expensive form
of financing and that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board has expressed
some urgency that it be constructed immediately in order to avoid any further
detrimental effects to the growth of the Airport. Finally, we were impressed by
the applicant's presentation that this facility will assist in the growth and
development of the Airport and in the growth of travel and tourism in the County.
I presently do not plan to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting at which this
issue will be considered. I understand that the applicant, his counsel and others,
will be present and that you will receive a statement of our proceedings and a
copy of the inducement resolution we adopted prior to your hearing. Should you
need any further information or should you like to hear from me or a member of the
Authority at the public meeting, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
James B. Murray, Jr.,
Chairman"
Mr. Lindstrom asked the current differential between interest on a conventional loan
and revenue bonds. Mr. Redinger said that on commercial loans, the interest if not fixed'
for any length of time and is probably about fourteen percent at this time. He and his
partners have a preliminary commitment from United Virginia Bank for ten ~percent for fifteen
years. Mr. Redinger said he really has not done much checking on conventional financing
since it is difficult to obtain and normally at a variable rate. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr.
Redinger could present the Board with evidence that conventional financing is not avail~ble~
Mr. Redinger said the project really is not feasible with conventional financing. Mr. Fisher
asked if the proposal from Great Eastern was based on conventional financing. Mr. Redinger
said he had no access to anything other than their proposal.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to explain the whole process concerning this facility and
who will ultimately be the owners. Mr. Agnor said this is the only mechanism the Airport
Board believes can be used at this time to get this facility constructed without using City
and County tax funds. The contract with the fixed-base operator required that this facility
be provided over a twenty-year contract. The north hangar (United Health Services Building)
was built on airport land and the lease provided that the building would ultimately belong
to the Airport Board. The interest rates at that time were such that the building could be
converted to Airport property in twenty years, but the interest rates are such now that the
project simply cannot be written off in twenty years. Therefore, negotiations are still in
the process to spread this project out over thirty or forty years. There are risks involved,
and JBC Partnership has assumed those risks.
Mr. Lindstrom said this facility is needed to serve the public. Mr. Fisher asked who
will use the facility. Mr. Agnor said it will be used by existing aircraft owners, some Who
are now storing their aircraft at other airports. The idea in trying to have this faciI~ty
completed by December 1 was not only to accommodate the winter weather, but also t'o get some
airplanes back into the Airport in order that these plans could be assessed in Albemarle for
the tax year beginning January 1, 1984. Mr. Lindstrom said there did not seem to be a great
deal of competition to build this facility. Mr. Agnor said there are several entities who
9-9
December 21, 1983 (Reg_ular Night Meeting)
would be interested if they could purchase the land, but the developer must build on land
that does not belong to him. Mr. Fisher asked if the building will be taxable. Mr. Agnor
said he was not certain, but since the facility is revenue-producing to the owners, that
revenue is taxable. Mr. Fisher asked if these are the kind of facilities the Airport Board
is interested in funding through creation of an Airport Authority. Mr. Agnor said yes;
projects could also be done in a more timely manner and would be the property of the Airport
Board from initial construction, rather than having same be Owned by a private enterprise
for a period of time.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this
time.
Mr. Lindstrom said he usually is not excited about industrial revenue bond projects,
but this seems to be a different situation. Although bhese are private planes, these owners
do not have too many options as to where they will land and most have to use public facilities.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that if this project is ~not paid for through industrial revenue
bonds, it will have to be funded more directly by the taxpayers. Mr. Lindstrom said he is
inclined to approve this issue because it is different from most applications the Board has
seen.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem in approving this issue, since it fits most of the
qualifications for this type of bond issue.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 2-49
AND 2-52, ARTICLE IX OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
CODE ENTITLED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
THE AMENDED SECTIONS RELATING TO THE TYPE AND
NUMBER OF FACILITIES WHICH MAY BE FINANCED BY
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Sections 2-49 and 2-52 of the Albemarle County Code be amended and
reenacted to read as follows:
Section 2-49. Powers and duties generally.
The public and corporate powers of the industrial development authority
of the county are soley and exclusively limited to the power to finance:
(a) industrial pollution control facilities for industries presently located
in the county; (b) industrial plant expansion for industries presently located
in the county, requiring minimum local public utilities and providing new Jobs,
the substantial majority of which ~hall be filled by prior residents and
domiciles of the county; (c) new industrial facilities in the county which
new industrial'facilities shall be exclusively limited to light manufacturing
industries and research-oriented industries requiring minimum local public
utilities and providing new jobs, the sUbstantial majority of which shall be
filled by prior residents and domiciles of the county; (d) medical facilities
and facilities for the residence of care of the aged and handicapped in the
county; (e) multi-state, regional or national headquarters offices or operations
centers for research-oriented businesses, requiring minimum local public
utilities and providing new jobs, the sUbstantial majority of whic~ shall be
filled by prior residents and domiciles of the county; .(f) shopping or service
facilities which the Industrial Development Authority of the county finds are
for the convenience of any of the aforementioned facilities or the employees
thereof and the current residents and domiciles of the surrounding area, provided
such shopping or service facilities are compatible with the current comprehensive
plan of the county; and (g) airports and office and support facilities relating
to airports.
Section 2-52. Limitation on number of bond issues.
There shall be no more than eleven bond issuances of the industrial
development authority of the county in existence at any one time.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Miss Nash.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution authorizing
issuance of industrial revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $650,000 by JBC Limited
Partnership:
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia
(the "Authority"), has considered the application of JBC Limited Partnership
(the "Company") requesting the issuance of the Authority's industrial development
revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $650,000 (the ,Bonds") to assist in the
financing of the Company's construction and equipping of an airplane hangar and
office facility, consisting of approximately 12,000 square feet of hangar space and
approximately 11,500 square feet of office space (the "Project") to be located
at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, State Route 606, in the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on November 17,
1983; and
500
December 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended,
provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of
industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed
with the proceeds of industrial development bonds is located must approve the
issuance of the bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia (the "County"); the Project is to be located in the County and the
Board constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority ~as recommended that the Board approve the issuance
of Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of
Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public
hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for
the benefit of the Company, as required by Section 103(k) and Section 15.1-1378.1
of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of
the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an
endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness
of the Project or the Company.
3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 9. STA-83-1. Ordinance to amend private road provisions in the Subdivisi
Ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 6 and December 13, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker presented the staff's report as follows:
Private road provisions were adopted into the subdivision regulations in 1978.
In the following years minor amendments were made to these provisions as
specific problems arose. In the spring of 1983, with a background of five years
of experience with private roads, the Planning Commission undertook re-evaluation
of the entire issue including possible discontinuance of private road usage in
the development process. In June of 1983 a committee of the Commission reported
that problems encountered with private roads were more extensive than previously
anticipated (See report of Private Roads Committee which follows). In lieu of
repeal of private roads provisions, substantial amendments were recommended.
Private Roads: Other Localities
Orange and Fauquier Counties do not permit private roads in subdivision development.
Culpeper County requires public roads except for "farm lanes" which serve tracts
of ten acres or greater.
In Loudoun County private easements are permitted to serve only two lots. Other
subdivisions are served by public roads or "Class III" roads. A "Class III"
road is a public right-of-way which is privately maintained (Minimum stardards
call for a fifty-foot right-of-way improved with a twenty-four foot graded
width and sixteen-foot travelway with six inches of stone and a minimum CBR
of ten.)
As can be seen, compared to these localities, Albemarle CoUnty's road policies
are liberal. Even with these liberal provisions, requests for waivers from
minimum standards have arisen with increasing frequency. The Commission has
likely entertained more requests for waivers of private road provisions than
for waivers of any other subdivision or site plan requirements. One purpose
of the proposed amendments is to emphasize that private roads ~are intended
as the minimum provision for access in subdividing property.
o Section 18-36(a) has been expanded to include a statement of intent
that private roads are intended as the exception to public road construction
in subdivision development. Since private roads are intended as the minimum
means of access, most waivers, modifications and variations would be prohibited.
o Section 18-36(b) outlines cases in which mrivate roads would generally
be acceptable.
Section 18-36(b)(1) - No lot of such subdivision shall be less than five
acres in area: This is consistent with the.recommendation of the Comprehensive
Plan in 'Residential Streets'. ~ This provision would most often be applicable
in areas zoned Rural Areas. No limit is set due to limitation of development
by right. For special use permit subdivisions, the issue of public versus
private roads could be addressed during special use permit review.
December 212 1983 (Regular Night Meetin~__
Section 18-36(b)(2) - Such subdivision contains only two lots and such private
S~e'rv'e~s O'nly the lots in such sub'diV~iSiOn and is the sole and direct means
Of 'acC'ess ~t'o a road in the State Highway System:Permits two lots with direct
access to a state road regardless of lot size. Public roads must serve three
or more lots; therefore, there appears to be no alternative to this provision.
Proposed section 18-13 permits administrative approval except in Villages,
Communities and the Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 18-36(b)(3) - Such subdivision is intended for nonresidential or
nonagricultural purposes: This section would permit usage of private roads for
commercial and industrial development under certain circumstances like the
Fashion Square Mall.
Section 18-36(b)(4) - Such subdivision is not located within a rural area of
~t'~e'~Co~p'r'e'~e'ns'ive Plan and such subdivision sh~all be into lots and/or units to
b'e''o'c'c'u'pied' exclusively by residential structures other than sin~e-family.
~de't'~c~h~e~ dwell'ings (includin8 appurtenant recreational uses and open space):
This provision would be applicable to higher density developments like townhouses
where parking is provided in bays. This provision is also necessary for most
condominium conversions.
Section 18-36(b)(5) - Such subdivision constitutes a 'family division'
as defined by 18-56 of this chapter: The Commission has indicated a desire
to distinguish between a property owner selling one or two lots and the
commercial-type subdivision. Staff can determine no authority in the Code
of Virginia for such approach, except in regard to family divisions, which
the Code requires to be treated differently.
Under the proposal, there are no restrictions ........... on lot Size or lot number~' Proposed
amendments to Section 18-13 would permit administrative approval of any family
division. Amendments to Section ~-8-57 would require that -rivate roads for
family divisions meet only the requirements of 18-36(a) and 18-36(d).
o Section 18-36(c) provides for special cases where private roads may be
appropriate. The applicant would be required to provide reasons and justification
in writing prior to Commission consideration.
o Section 18-36(d) contains ~equirements which must be satisfied to permit
private roads under any circumstance. Added to existing provisions are restric-
tions on "through-traffic" private roads since public roads are deemed more
appropriate. ~
o Section 18-36(e) outlines construction standards and specifications for
private roads as developed by the CountY Engineer and Planning Commission. Road
requirements would vary by type of development: single-family detached resi-
dential; commercial and industrial; and semi-attached, attached and multi-
family residential developments. Minimum sight distance requirements would be
specified as well as more detailed materials specifications. No specific
requirements of 18-36(e) would apply to one- and two-lot subdivisions or family
divisions except as may be required under 18-36(d). The basic intent of changes
in these provisions is to provide for a more serviceable road initially in an
effort to reduce future maintenance costs.
o Section 18-36(f) is an existing provision requiring lots to access only
on a private road. Staff has proposed language which would permit the Commission
to allow alternative access based on physical considerations only and not the
desires or convenience of the subdivider (i.e., wants to maintain private access;
wants to avoid cost of a commercial entrance).
o Section 18-36(g) is a new provision intended to address problems of an
existing easement of limited width. This is not intended to permit reduction
in travel width or paving specification requirements.
o Section 18-36(h) is a new provision to establish formal procedures for
Commission action under 18-36(c), 18-36(f) and 18-36(g). Staff would make
recommendation in each case, after evaluation of the applicant's written
justification. Hopefully, this provision will provide for more orderly and
consistent deliberation of development proposals.
Related Provisions
o Section 18-7 has added language permitting the Commission to require posting
of signs on private roads.
o Section 18-13 has added language permitting Staff approval of many two-lot
divisions involving private roads and Staff approval of all family divisions.
o Section 18-57 has been changed to broaden the 'family division' exemption,
primarily related to private roads."
"~HePo~rt of the Private Roads Committee
Private roads under certain circumstances provide a reasonable and~viable
alternative to requirement of public roads. As originally envisioned, private
roads would have been permitted as the exception rather than the rule. Over
the years, usage of private roads has greatly been expanded. Private roads
have been permitted to serve:
.502
December 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
o Retirement villages
o Industrial, commercial uses
o Residential developments of varying lot size
o Commercial uses in residential areas
o Multi-family residential
o Condominium conversions.
Currently, most subdivision proposals involve private road usage.
originally represented the need for private roads:
Developers
o To serve large-lot rural development
o In areas of environmental sensitivity, where construction of public
roads would be comparatively detrimental.
It is recommended that private roads be restricted to these circumstances.
Some additional consideration should be afforded to family divisions.
Commercial divisions, intended for profit, ~hould meet all County standards.
Relaxation of County requirements should be minimized.
Additional Comment
The Private Roads Committee met on May 26, 1983, with Messrs. Bryon Coburn,
Maynard Elrod and Ronald Keeler. Messrs. Coburn and Elrod outlined numerous
problems experienced with private roads. Problems appear more extensive than
previously anticipated:
- Private roads are a problem statewide to the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation.
- Inquiries to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County
Engineer about snow removal, maintenance, etc., arise almost immediately.
- Gravel roads appear to be greatest problem initially in terms of calls~to
the County Engineer and Highway Department.
- For the Highway Department, most private roads become serious problems after
fifteen years.
- Some misrepresentation or improper representation in sales have occurred.
Sometimes referred to as 'County-approved roads' or 'built to Highway
Department standards,' indicating some public responsibility.
- Some problems in construction certification have occurred. Some roads are
not built to plan specifications but were certified as properly built.
- Absentee owners and maintenance fees a problem.
- Maintenance a problem when developer controls vote in homeowners' association."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 6, 1983, voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the private road ordinance amendments contained in the
Staff's Report, specifically pages one through fourteen, beginning with DIVISION 6. Streets.
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak about these ordinance
amendments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher explained problems.he personally has encountered while living in West Leigh
Subdivision which has all private roads constructed many years ago, and when there was no
requirement for a homeowner's association. Mr. Lindstrom said there will always be problems
(similar to the appeals the Board heard earlier in the month) where someone is adding
"just" one more lot to an existing road, and then there are extreme situations like that in
West Leigh. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think there can be any ordinance written which
will take the responsibility out of the hands of the Board for approval of roads. If the
Board required that all roads be built to State standards, that would create a tough situation
for some people. Mr. Lindstrom said it is the attorneys and realtors who should be making
it clear when a person is buying in where there are roads which must be privately maintained.
Mr. Lindstrom felt that what the Board allowed in Flordon is a prime example of what can be
done privately. Mr. St. John said roads such as those in Ednam Forest could not be built
under this ordinance. Mr. Henley asked what would happen if he wanted to give one of his
children a lot. Mr. Tucker said that type of division has always been exempt and is still
exempt.
Mr. Henley said he was willing to give these regulations a try. Mr. Henley said he is
sometimes bothered when there is an old county road that is not as good as a private road,
and the Highway Department is requiring a very expensive state standard road to hook onto
that road. Mr. Lindstrom said in this situation, he feels he will have to rely on the
recommendations of the Planning Commission. He said he does not see how these regulations
differ that much from the existing ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the most significant change
is in the lot size. Many times developers came in and said they could not build state roads
because of mountainous land, or that roads were too expensive for large lot developments,
and requested a waiver from the Planning Commission. Eventually every two-acre subdivision
in the County was applying for private roads, so that it became the norm. These changes
would prohibit that practice.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following ordinance.
was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote:
The motion
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Miss Nash.
'$03
? ?
December 21, I983 (Regular Night Meeting)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTIONS 18-7, 18-13(a), 18-36, 18-57,
ALL CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 18 OF THE
CODE OF ALBEMARLE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
'Sec't~ion 18-7.' Relation of chapter to private contracts.
This chapter bears no relation to any private easement, covenant,
agreement or restriction; nor is the responsibility of enforcing a
private easement, covenant, agreement or restriction implied herein
to any public official. When this chapter calls for more restrictive
standards than are required by private contract, the provisions of
this chapter shall control. In the case of any plat on which is shown
any road, sewerage or water supply system, or other feature, improvement,
facility or element not to be maintained by any public agnecy, which
is designed to serve or to be used by more than one lot on such plat,
the commission may require, as a prerequisite to approval of such plat,
that provision be made for the payment of the costs of construction,
maintenance, upkeep or replacement of such facilities to be borne
ratably by the owners of lots to be served by or to use the same. Such
provision shall be made by instrument of record in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county and shall plainly state on
its face that the costs of construction, maintenance, upkeep or replace-
ment of such facilities will not be borne by the county, the state or
any other public agency.
In addition, the commission may require the posting and maintenance
of signs within a subdivision stating that such facilities shall be
private and shall not be maintained with public funds. Wording, size
of lettering, and location of such signs shall be subject to approval
by the agent.
ARTICLE II. ADMINISTRATION OF CHAPTER
'Se~c'.' '18'-1'3'.' A'dmi'nistrative approval of certain subdivision plats.
(a) In the case of any subdivision involving lots, all fronting
on an existing public road, or any subdivision satisfying the
requirements of section 18-36(b)(2) or section 18-36(b)(5) of this
chapter, the director of planning is hereby constituted the agent
of the commission for the purposes of reviewing and approving sub-
division plat applications; provided, that (1) nothing contained
in this section shall be constrUed to limit the right of the commission
to review any such application nor to restrict the right of any party
to appeal pursuant to section 18-4; (2) except in the case of a "family
division" as defined by section 18-56 of this chapter, the director of
planning shall not approve any such plat which he determines to be in
the urban area, communities and villages as set forth in the compre-
hensive plan; and (3) nothing herein shall be construed as a delegation
of the legislative authority of the board of supervisors reserved
pursuant to section 10.5.2 or any other section of the Zoning Ordinance.
(b) Same.
ARTICLE III. DESIGN STANDARDS
DIVISION 6. STREETS
Se'c'.''1'8-36'. Private Roads
(a) Any subdivision, any lot of which is served'by a private
road shall be subject to approval by the commission in accordance
with this chapter. Any further subdivision of land-involving addi-
tional use of such road shall be deemed a~subdivision subject to
the provisions of this chapter~ In-order to insure~adequ~te capacity
of such road and equitable maintenance costs to property owners,
except as the commission nay provide in a particular case, not more
than one dwelling unit shall be located on any parcel served bY such
road.
Private roads are intended to be permitted as the exception to
construction and dedication of public roads in the subdivision approval
process. Granting of private road usage shall be discretionary by
the commission and shall be based on the circumstances and requirements
contained herein. Private roads are intended to promote sensitivity
December 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
toward the natural characteristics of the site and to encourage sub-
division consistent and harmonious with surrounding development.
Except as Otherwise expressly provided herein and permitted in accordance
with procedures of sectiOn 18-36(h), no waiver, modification or vari-
ation of standards, and no exceptions to the application of these
regulations shall be permitted.
(b) The commission may approve any subdivision served by one
or more private roads under the following circumstances:
(1) No lot of sUch Subdivision to be served bY such road
shall be less than five acres in land area; or
(2) Such subdivision contains only two lots and such
private road serves only the lots in such subdivision; and is the
sole and direct means of access to a road in the State highway system;
or
(3) S~ch subdivision is intended for nonresidential or
nonagricultural purposes; or
(4) Such subdivision is not located within a rural area
of the comprehensive plan and such subdivision shall be into lots
and/or units to be occupied exclusively by residential structures
other than single-family detached dwellings including appurtenant
recreational uses and open space; or
(5) Such subdivisions constitute a "family division" as
defined by section 18-56 of this chapter.
(c) In addition to the provisions of section 18-36(b), the
commission may approve a subdivision served by one or more private
roads in any case in which the subdivider, in accordance with section
18-36(h) of this. chapter, demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction
of the commission that:
(1) Approval of such roads will alleviate a clearly
demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the environment of
the site or adjacent properties which would be occasioned by the
construction of public roads; or
(2) For a specific, identifable reason, the general public
interest, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider,
would be better served by the construction of such roads than by the
construction of public roads. In the case of any such approval,
the commission may require such assurances from the subdivider in a
form acceptable to the county attorney as it may determine to be
necessary to protect the public interest with respect to such roads.
(d) NO subdivision shall be approved pursuant t° sectiOn 18-36(b)
or section 18-36(c), unless and until the commission shall determine
that:
(1) Any such private road will be adequate to carry the
traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be generated by
such subdivision; and
(2) The comprehensive plan does not provide for a public
road in the approximate location of such prOposed private road; and
(3) The fee of such road is to be owned by the owners of
lots abutting the right-of-way thereof or by an association composed
of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case
to any easement for the benefit of all lots served by such road; and
(4) Except where required by the commission to serve a
specific public purpose, such private road shall not be designed to
serve through traffic nor to intersect the State highway system in
more than one location.
(e) Ail private roads approved pursuant to this section shall
be constructed in accordance with the following:
(1) Private roads permitted under section 18-36(b)(1) shall
conform to the requirements of Table I. Private roads permitted under
section 18-36(b)(3).shall conform to the requirements of Table I except
that a minimum CBR of subgrade of 10 shall be required and the depth
of base, width of travelway, minimum sight distance and surface treat-
ment may be increased in accordance with the standards of the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation for the most~ traffic-intensive
uses to which such land may lawfully~be devoted. Private roads permitted
under section 18-36(b)(4) shall conform to the requirements of Table II.
Except as may be required under section 18-36(d), there shall be no
minimum standards for private roads permitted pursuant to section
18-36(b)(2) or section 18-36(b)(5).
50 5
De~'mber 21, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Single-Family Detached (Residential/Agricultural/Commercial/Industrial)
Number of Lots Width of Depth of Surface Minimum
Served by Road Travelway Base Treatment Sight Distance
Segment
SEE NOTE ONE
In addition (VDH&T (Except as (In accordance
to 4 foot Aggregate otherwise with VDH&T
shoulders and Base expressly methodology for
ditch provided) stopping sight
requirements) distance)
14 feet
6" - #25 or Not required 100 feet
#26 SEE NOTE TWO
6 - 10
ll- 20
NOTE ONE:
14 feet
6" - #21 or Prime & Double 100 feet
#2lA Seal or Approved
Equivalent
18 feet
6" - #21 or
#2lA
Prime.~° Double 120 feet
Seal or Approved
Equivalent
Number of lots served shall mean the aggregate of all lots served by such
road segment and all lots having access over such segment to a public road.
Road segment shall mean each portion of a private road between its inter-
section with other private or public roads (See illustration).
NOTE TWO: When slope of road is seven percent or less. If slope exceeds seven
percent, six inches of number 21 or number 2lA and prime and double seal.
ILLUSTRATION TO ACCOMPANY NOTE ONE/TABLE I OF SECTION 18-36(e)
A B
C D
PUBLIC ROAD
'NUMBER 'OF LOTS SERVED:
Segment A = Lots on Segment A
Segment C = Lots on Segments A, B and C
Segment E = Lots on Segments A, B, C, D and E
NOTE:
Any lot with frontage on more than one road segment shall
be counted on each road segment on which such lot fronts,
unless access is specifically restricted by notation on
the final plat.
December 21, 1983 (Regular Night.Meeting)
TABLE II
Residential Uses other than Single-Family Detached Dwellings
1. Right-of-Way Width Travelway
Depth of Base
Surface Treatment
30 feet 24 feet
6 inches VDH&T
Aggregate Base
#21 or #2lA
1 1/2 inches S-5
Bituminous concrete
or Approved
Equivalent
2. Horizontal and vertical curvature shall be subject to approval by County
engineer in accordance with appropriate VDH&T standards.
3. The commission may require concrete curb and gutter and sidewalks or other
pedestrian ways in accordance with section 18-39(n).
4. The commission may require increased travelway width to provide for on-street
parking upon a determination that provisions for off-street parking may be
inadequate to reasonably preclude unauthorized on-street parking.
5. Minimum ight distance shall be provided in accordance with Table I.
$. Where vehicular traffic on ~such road is projected to exceed 250 vtpd, depth
of base and surface treatment shall be in accordance with Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation standards.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in Table II, any such road
serving more than five, but not more than twenty, lots shall have a
right-of-way width of thirty feet and a maximum grade of not more than
fifteen percent, provided, however, that the '*-aximum grade of such road
may be increased to not more than eighteen percent for distance of not
more than three hundred feet where in the opinion of the county engineer,
topographic features justify such increase and such increase will not
result in a safety hazard.
Intersections of private roads shall have an approach grade
not exceeding four percent for a distance of not less than forty feet
in all directions. Intersections of private and public roads shall
have an approach grade not exceeding two percent for a distance of not
less than forty feet in all directions. Approach grade distance shall
be measured from the edge of travelway of the road being intersected.
(3) Specifications for crowning, ditching, and other
provisions for drainage shall be subject to approval of the county
engineer.
(4) Except as otherwise provided in Table II and section
18-36(e)(3), any such road serving more than twenty lots shall be
constructed in accordance with the applicable secondary road standards
of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, including,
but not limited to~ horizontal alignment, minimum right-of-way width
and maximum grade.
(5) The developer shall submit to the county engineer a map
of the proposed subdivision having contour intervals of not greater
than twenty feet showing the horizontal alignment together with field-run
profiles and typical cross-section of such road. The county engineer
may waive requirement of the field-run profile in the case of an existing
road or where deemed appropriate due to topography.
(f) Every such road shall be maintained in-accordance with the
provisions of section 18-7 of this chapter. Any lot fronting on any
such road shall enter only onto such road and shall have no immediate
access onto any public street, except in such case in which the sub-
divider in accordance with section 18-36(h) of this chapter demonstrates
to the reasonable satisfaction of the commission that due to existing
development, topography, or other physical consideration as distinguished
from a special privilege or convenience, alternative access would
alleviate a clearly domonstrable danger of significant degradation
to the environment of the site or adjacent properties.
(g) The minimum right-of-way width requirements of section
18-36(e) notwithstanding, in the case of a subdivision served by an
existing easement of fixed width, which easement cannot be widened by
the subdivider after documented good faith effort by the subdivider
to acquire additional right-of-way width, the commission may approve
such subdivision in accordance with section 18-36(h) upon demonstration
by the applicant that such easement is*of adequate width to accommodate
such travelway as required by section 18-36(e) together with area
adequate for maintenance of the same.
December 21~ular Night Meetin_ff~
(h) A subdivider requesting commission approval pursuant to
section 18-36(c), section 18-36(f), or section 18-36(g) of this
chapter shall file with the agent a written request which shall
state reasons and justifications for such request together with such
alternatives as may be proposed by the subdivider. Such request shall
be submitted prior to commission consideration by such date as may be
specified by the agent. No such request shall be considered by the
commission until the commission has considered the recommendation of
the agent. The agent may recommend approval, approval with conditions,
or denial. A recommendation of approval or conditional approval shall
be accompanied by a statement from the agent as to public purpose
served by such recommendation, particularly in regard to the purpose
and intent of this chapter, the Zoning Ordinance, and the comprehensive
plan.
ARTICLE V. SPECIAL PROVISIONS
APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN DIVISIONS
'Sec. 1'8-57. 'Exemption of certain division; qualifications.
Subject to the following qualifications, any family division
shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter and shall be
subject only to any express requirement contained in the Code of
Virginia. The following qualifications are expressly declared to
be for the purposes of protecting the public health, safety and
welfare and of preventing the circumvention of this section, which
circumvention is hereby prohibited.
(a) There shall be only one such division per family member.
(b) No such parcel shall be further divided except in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter.
(c) No such parcel shall be transferred, except by devise,
descent or operation of law, to a person other than a member of the
immediate family of the transferor, for a period of one year, except
for purposes of securing any purchare money and/or construction loan,
including bona fide refinancing.
(d) Any such-~arcel which is transferred to the owner of any
adjacent parcel shall be deemed to become an integral part of such
adjacent parcel.
(e) The requirements of section 18-36(a) and section 18-36(d)
shall apply to any plat submitted pursuant to section 18-36(b)(5) of
this chapter.
(f) All parcels created by such division shall conform to the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance applicable to such lot.
(g) The entrance of the principal means of access for such
parcel onto any public road shall comply with the applicable require-
ments of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
FURTHER ORDAINED that these amendments shall be effective on and
after January l, 1984.
Agenda Item No. 10. Legislative Request. Mr. Fisher said this had to do with the
proposed legislation for an Airport Authority. Since nothing new has been presented since
the last discussion, he suggested that this be put on the January 3, 1984, agenda.
Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mrs. Cooke said the Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on the new sewer line
to serve the Hilton Hotel on Route 29 North at the South Fork Rivanna River. A question has
arisen as to whether to notify affected landowners. She feels they should be notified.
Mr. Fisher asked if there are a lot of landowners involved. Mr. Tucker said no; notification
should be no problem.
Mr. Fisher said Miss Nash had called him tonight and said she would not be able to
attend her last meeting of the Board because of the weather (sleet and ice storm). (A
Certificate of Appreciation which had been prepared for presentation this evening, was hand-
delivered at a later date.)
Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Butler for his service on the Board and then presented him with
a Certificate of Appreciation from the Board. Mr. Butler said he appreciated working with
the other Board members, and he is proud of the things the Board has accomplished the last
couple of years. He thanked the Board members for the relationship and consideration shown
him. He said he will remember this great experience all his life.
5:08
December 21, 1~83 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mrs. Cooke said it had been & pleasure working with Mr. Butler and she would miss him.
However, Mrs. Cooke ~Said she Would be looking forward to'seeing the prize hogs and piglets
at the next County fair. Mr. Butler said in anticipation of what will happen and having
some extra time, he has hogs and cattle to deal with now. He has purchased a small herd of
registered Angus cattle and has pure-bred Yorkshire hogs.
Agenda Item No. 12. At 10:43 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn until January 3, 1984, at 1:00 P.M. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Miss Nash.