1981-12-16December 16,!1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on December i0, 1981, at 3:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 11, Fourth Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from
December 9, 1981.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. *James R. Butler, Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta,
C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
The following certification was received from Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk, Circuit
Court:
"This is to certify that Mr. James R. Butler, elected at a Special Election held on
November 3, 1981, the representative on the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
from the Riv&nna Magisterial District duly qualified before me, Shelby J. Marshall,
Clerk, on the 10th day of December, 1981."
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
OFFICER PRESENT: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive.
The meeting was called to order at 3:10 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Motion was
immediately offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive
session to discuss legal matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
At 5:15 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session and immediately adjourned to
3:00 P.M. on December 16, 1981, in Meeting Room 11, Fourth Floor, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Chairman
December 16, 1981 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from December 10, 1981)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on December 16, 1981, at 3:15 P.M., in Meeting Room 11, Fourth Floor, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from December 10, 1981.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. James R. Butler~ Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
OFFICER PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive.
The meeting was called to order at 3:15 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Motion was
immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn into executive
session to discuss legal matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
At 7:40 P.M., the Board reconvened back into open session and immediately adjourned.
December 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on December
16, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #7, Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. James R. Butler, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F.
Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order.
the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher.~
The meeting was called to order at 7:43 P.M., by
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-81-28, William A. Lynch, Jr., (deferred from November 18, 1981)
Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board of Supervisors have this petition readvertised,
because the applicant has requested an indefinite deferral. Motion to this effect was
offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
December 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-81-58. Frank Milton Miles, Jr. Petition to subdivide 40.8
acres zoned RA into eight lots with an average lot size of 5.1 acres, in accordance with
Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property is located at the intersection of
Routes 660 and 662 adjacent to the South Rivanna Reservoir. County Tax Map 30, Parcels
16F and 16C. White Hall District. (Advertised on December 2 and December 9, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the Planning Commission recommendation
as follows:
Request: Division of 40.8 acres into 8 parcels (10.5.2)
Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 30, Parcels 16C and 16F, is
located on the south 'side of'Route 662 at its intersection with Route
660.
Character of the Area: This property is steep, wooded land, as are other
properties in the area. The Rivanna Reservoir is across Route 660.
tributary to the Reservoir is in the western portion of the property.
A
Comprehensive Plan: Since this property is in the watershed of the Rivanna
Reservoir, the Comprehensive Plan recommends one dwelling unit per ten
acres.
Land Use Summary:
Acreage Percentage Total
Agricultural Land Use Tax
Forestal Land Use Tax
Undeveloped (5+ acres)
Developed (under 5 acres)
TOTAL
536 30%
517 29%
369 21%
375 21%
1,797
While this property is within an agricultural area as defined by the
RA criteria, those areas under preferential tax are more remote from
the property than much of the developed land.
Staff Comment: Development of the property "by-right" could yield eight
parcels (seven parcels less than 21 acres; one parcel of 21+ acres).
The applicant is proposing to divide the property into eight parcels,
all of which would be less than 21 acres. Therefore, staff has not
addressed RA criteria dealing with the scale of development (Criteria
#6, #7, #8). The applicant has addressed Criteria #1, #2, #3 and #9.
In staff opinion, the main issue under the RA criteria is the appro-
priateness of maintaining one larger tract under by-right development
(i.e., 21 acres) for future agricultural or forestal use. Staff
observations in this regard are as follows:
1) Soil Conservation Service has stated that "soils in this area
consist of Hayesville loam, Chester loam, Cullen loam, Cullen clay
loam, Hiwassee clay loam, Hiwassee loam and Ashe loam. The Hayesville,
Chester, Cullen and Hiwassee are deep, well-drained, clay soils found
on gentle slopes and ridges. These are all important agricultural
soil~. The Ashe loam is a shallow soil found on steep slopes."
2) The average slope of this property exceeds 15%. Agricultural
uses are generally unacceptable on steeper slopes. In terms of
forestat use, Chester and Hayesville soils have moderate to severe
restrictions due to erodability and equipment limitations. Likewise,
these soils are listed as having severe limitations for building sites
due to erodability.
3) In terms of environmental concerns, the County has virtually no
control of agricultural and forestal practices, while residential
development is controlled by several ordinances. Additional safe-
guards on residential development can be imposed through the special
use permit process.
Staff opinion is that the proposed subdivision is an improvement over
that which could be accomplished by right. Because of topography, the
property is not well suited for agricultural or forestal use. Since
no increase in the number of lots is requested, agricultural activity
in the area would not be affected any more than would-be the case with
by-right development. Because this approach permits larger lots in
the more sensitive area of the property (i.e., the western portion
where the stream is located), staff would expect lesser affect on the
Reservoir.
Staff Recommendations:
conditions:
Staff recommends approval, subject t6 the following
1) Subdivision shall be limited to eight parcels and shall be in
general accord with the plat by William Morris Foster, File Number
638, dated September 15, 1981;
2) County Attorney approval of deed restrictions limiting tree
removal to the following areas:
a) designated building sites as required by 4.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
December 16~ 1981 (Regular Night Meeting~_ m
b) access easements as shown on the Plat. This condition shall
not apply t0 selective cutting intended to promote the welfare of
remaining trees, nor tree-cutting for firewood or other on-site
usage.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of December 1, 1981,
unanimously voted to recommend approval of S?-81-58 with the conditions recommended by the
staff, but adding 2(¢) reading: Any area that is graded or disturbed is to be stabilized
and seeded as soon as work is completed; and condition 2(d) reading: Grading to be done
pursuant to a plan approved by the Watershed Management Official with respect to the
grading and removal of vegetation.
Mr. Tucker said a problem has developed regarding condition 2(c) because the easement
designed to serve lots 2, 3 and 4 would have to meet the standards of a commercial entrance
(according to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation regulations) and there is
inadequate sight distance to meet that requirement. The applicant has suggested that lot
2 be served by a private drive.
Mr. George B. McCallum, III was present representing Mr. Miles. Mr. McCallum described
the location of the property, as well as the physical appearance. Mr. McCallum stated
that the County will be better able to manage and control this property with the proposed
residential use then if the property were to be used for forestry or agricultural purposes.
Mr. McCallum said the larger lots have been placed nearer the Reservoir in order to lessen
the possibility of runoff. Lastly, Mr. McCallum noted the problem of sight distance for
lots 2, 3 and 4 and hoped that the Board would choose to approve this plat with lot 2
having a private drive.
No one else wished to speak either for or against this petition and Mr. Fisher declared
the public hearing closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned about the impact of this subdivision on the
Reservoir mainly because of a memorandum addressed to Mr. Ron Keeler, Assistant Director
of Planning, dated November 25, 1981, from William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official,
which reads as follows:
"The above mentioned parcels of land are located within the watershed area
of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Due to its close proximity to the
Reservoir, precautions should be taken to prevent any additional runoff
produced as a result of the development of the property from entering the
Reservoir.
During the grading and clearing activities, it would be preferable to keep
as much of the existing vegetation in place as possible. Efforts should be
taken to preserve as many of the existing trees on the site as possible to
help maintain the integrity of the site. Any area disturbed by grading or
clearing activities should be stabilized at the earliest possible date
following the completion of that state of the work.
Every effort should be undertaken to preserve the integrity of the site and
to maintain the quality of the water in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir."
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel that condition "2(c)" as recommended by the Planning
Commission was adequate to prevent runoff into the Reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom recommended
that an additional condition be placed on this special permit to read "grading be done
pursuant to a plan approved by the Watershed Management Official, with respect to the
grading and vegetation removal".
Dr. Iachetta said this property is a good example of the reason he is opposed to the
5% exemption in the Runoff Control Prdinance. Dr. Iachetta said that even minimal land
disturbance will create runoff problems, and that the land will be very difficult to
develop.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-81-58 with the following conditions:
1. Subdivision shall be limited to eight parcels and shall be in general
accord with the plat by William Morris Foster, File Number 638, date~
September 15, 1981;
2. County Attorney approval of deed restrictions limiting tree removal to
the following areas:
a. designated building sites as required by 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
b. access easements as shown on referenced plat dated 12-16-81;
c. any area that is graded or disturbed is to be stabilized and
seeded as soon as work is completed;
d. grading to be done pursuant to a plan approved by the Watershed
Management Official with respect to the grading and removal of
vegetation.
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Miss Nash said she opposed the statement in
the staff report which said "because of topography, the property is not well suited for
agricultural or forestal use." Miss Nash said some of the steepest slopes are best suited
for forestal use and she felt such a statement sets a precedent. Mr. Tucker clarified
that the soil is of very poor quality and would not support a regular harvesting of trees.
Roll was then called. Mr. Butler said although he has been involved, with the protection
of the watershed for quite some time, he wished to abstain from vote on this matter. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Dr. Iachetta.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Butler.
December 162 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-81-29. North American Exploration, Inc. Petition to rezone
4.513 acres currently zoned RA to Li, Light Industrial. Property is located approximately
1,000 feet southeast of the intersection of Routes 743 and 606, off of Route 606 near the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 57A. Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 2 and December 9, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the Planning COmmission recommendation
as follows:
Requested Zoning: LI Light Industrial
Acreage:
4.513 acres
Existing Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 57A, is located off
Route 606, approximately 0.6 miles south of the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport terminal.
History: North American Exploration obtained approval of a special use
permit in 1976 for professional offices on this site. This rezoning
request has been made because the special use permit has expired.
Character of the Area: This site is wooded. A mobile home is to the
south. Other properties in the area are vacant. While this site has
deeded access to Route 743, physical access is to Route 606 across
airport property. The applicant is currently negotiating with the
airport for deeded access to Route 606.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is within the Hollymead community in an area
recommended for possible industrial development in the Comprehensive
Plan. Because public utilities are not readily available or programmed,
this site does not receive a priority ranking under Comprehensive Plan
standards for industrial location.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan forecasts this site
to be in an area of "significant" to "severe exposure" on the 1990
Day-Night Average Sound Level Map. HUD noise assessment guidelineS
recommend that the area would be "normally" to "clearly Unacceptable"
for residential development. The Plan recommends industrial, heavier
commercial uses, agriculture, and forestry as appropriate. The
Airport Impact Area overlay district limits maximum interior noise
levels for office usage to Ldn ( 55 [dB] (a); the noise forecast for
this area is Ldn 70-75+ (Normal construction would likely accOmpliSh
the required noise attentuation.)
Staff Comment: North American ExplOration, a firm of consulting geologists,
proposes to establish its offices on this site. The primary reason
for locating on this site is to be near the airport, since much of
their work involves air transportation. No laboratory or use of
electronic equipment which could interfere with airport operations is
proposed. (Note: Since this is a conventional rezoning request,
representations of the applicant are not binding. Staff opinion is
that zoning requirements in this area provide adequate safeguard and
that a proferred rezoning is not necessitated.)
Staff opinion is that industrial zoning in this area is appropriate,
even though public utilities are not currently available. Staff
recommends approval.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval
of this rezoning on December 1, 1981.
Mr. Fisher stated his concern that this rezoning was for Light Industrial. Mr.
Fisher referred to the Henry Javor Site Plan which was presented to the Board in September,
1981, and the problem which was discussed about water supply and available septic system
capacity. Mr. Tucker said this applicant applied for Light Industrial Zoning because that
is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said the Light Industrial zone
allows uses by right, whic'h require great amounts of water; he feels that the Light Industrial
zone should have access to both public water and public sewer. Mr. Tucker said he cannot
require an applicant to submit a proffer when applying for a rezoning, and since this is
the same use as that previously approved under a special use permit, he felt no proffer
was necessary.
Dr. Iachetta asked ig the site was "self-limiting" to possible uses. Mr, Tucker said
the size of the site, in conjunction with the fact that any business would have limited
water and sewer facilities., would certainly limit the number of light industrial uses
which could locate on this site.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and present representing the applicant
was Mr. Forbes R. Reback. Mr. Reback said this site is within the airport impact overlay
district and that the property is subject to Federal Aeronautics Administration regulations
as well as those of the County. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or
against this proposed rezoning and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Dr. Iachetta said this site has one major difference from the Henry Javor Site which
Mr. Fisher referred to, that being that this property does not drain into the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir as does the Javor property. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve
ZMA-81-29 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Henley.
December 16~1___1~ (Regl~l~~~~
Mr. Lin~st~rom referred to Section 27.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, and said this property
does not meet all those requirements for water, sewer, highway/rail/air, and physical
characteristics, ocation. Dr. Iachetta said Murray Manufacturing is located in this area
and is mUch larger than anything that could locate on the site being discussed, yet Murray
Manufacturing is having no problems with water or sewer.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdictional areas
take in this proposed site. Mr. Tucker said those boundaries takes in a portion of the
airport property, but do not include this property. Mr. Lindstrom asked if North American
Exploration sold the property to a large pharmaceutical company which requires large
amounts of water, if the Planning Staff felt such use could be denied at the site plan
level due to inadequate water and sewer. Mr. Tucker said it was his opinion that such a
site plan could be denied. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John his opinion on the ability of
the County to require utilities. Mr. St. John said if the use is listed as a matter of
right, and the Health Department indicates there is no health danger, the Board would have
difficulty in requiring public utilities for the site. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board
could approve a less intensive zone, such as CO Commercial Office. Mr. St. John said it
would be allowable under the rules of procedure.
Mr. Fisher said he agrees with the use requested by the applicant, but is fearful of
the LI zone. Mr. St. John said if the Board were to approve Commercial Office, that zone
would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Dr. Iachetta said he made the motion to approve this rezoning to Light Industrial
because it was recommended by the Planning Commission and he cannot see any other use for
the site. Roll was then called and the motion to approve ZMA-81-29 was approved by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Butler, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-80-55. Central Virginia Electric Coop. Petition for a trans-
mission right-of-way on 41.3 acres zoned RA. The proposed right-of-way is adjacent to the
existing transmission line starting at Midway, going south and southwest and leaving
Albemarle County just north of Route 631 at the Nelson County line. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on December 2 and December 9, 1981.)
Mr. Fisher said this hearing was requested by the law firm of Hunton & Williams,
representing Sunburst Yarns and Wintergreen. Mr. Fisher said the County of Albemarle had
agreed to this hearing only if all parties had agreed to a settlement. Mr. Fisher said it
is his understanding that no settlement has yet occurred. Mr. Fisher said he would recognize
Mrs. Patricia Schwarzschild of Hunton & Williams, representing Sunburst Yarns and Winter-
green, but added that he does not know how this matter can possibly be resolved at this
time.
Mr. St. John said he would like to state for the record that all parties agree, in
appearing at this hearing in an effort to achieve a compromise, that no parties in the
litigation will waive any rights or be prejudiced in its position in the pending litiga-
tion. For the record, Mr. Charles Haugh and Mrs. Patricia Schwarzschild agreed to that
statement, as representatives for their clients, Central Virginia Electric Coop. and
Sunburst Yarns/Wintergreen, respectively. The attorney for the affected property owners
is not present, and Mr. Robert Merrill said as a spokesman for the property owners, he
would agree to Mr. St. John's statement. Mr. Fisher noted that Mrs. Deborah Wyatt,
attorney representing the affected property owners, did not wish this hearing to take
place.
Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. St. John to review the legal situation which exists regarding
this request by Central Virginia Electric Cooperative. Mr. St. John said if a new proposal
is made, it must be shown how this new proposal differs from the proposal which was approved
by the court (see Chancery No. 3386, signed by David F. Berry, September 10, 1981). Mr.
St. John noted that the proposal which was approved by the court has been appealed by both
the County of Albemarle and the affected property owners. Mr. Fisher said no compromise
has been reached among the interested parties to this date. Mr. St. John said efforts
have been made to reach a compromise, but no conclusion can be reached without the agre.e-
ment of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, if the staff had a
report to present to the Board. Mr. Tucker noted that a report dated December 11, 1981,
entitled "Staff Comment - Reconsideration of SP-80-55, Central Virginia Electric Cooper-
ative'', was mailed to each member of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Charles R. Haugh,
attorney representing Central Virginia Electric Cooperative; Mrs. Patricia M. Schwarzschild,
attorney representing Sunburst Yarns/Wintergreen; and Mr. George R. St. John, attorney
representing the County of Albemarle. Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant~-Director of Planning,
noted that Mrs. Deborah Wyatt, attorney representing the affected property owners picked
up a copy of this report at the Planning Office. (NOTE: A copy of the staff comments on
the reconsideration of SP-80-55 is on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board of Supervisors.)
Mrs. Schwarzschild said she had come before the Board of Supervisors to discuss a new
proposal and to allow the Board to hear expert testimony as requested by County represen-
tatives. Mrs. Schwarzschild stated she was surprised and confused by the comment made by
Mr. Fisher that the Board is not prepared to "take this up this evening". Mr. Fisher said
he had stated to Mrs. Schwarzschild that he wanted a settlement agreed to by all parties
before this hearing was held. Mrs. Schwarzschild said she asked specifically if it was
necessary for all the property owners to agree. She added that Mr. Fisher's response was
"that certainly is preferable"
December 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mrs. Schwarzschild asked if all present had received a copy of a resolution dated
December 10, 1981. Mr. St. John noted that that document, stamped received in the Planning
Department on December 14, 1981, was handed to the Board of Supervisors at the beginning
of this meeting. The resolution and covering letters read as follows:
"December 10, 1981
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Assistant Director of Planning
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Ron:
Based on our conversation today, I enclose a revised proposed resolution
which incorporates the following underscored language:
1. The last sentence in paragraph 3 should be amended to read:
"In addition, the applicant shall preserve to the maximum extent
practicable allowing for the safe operation and maintenance of the
line ornamental landscaping around dwellings, which includes all trees
and shrubbery associated with the dwelling as part of the residential
usage of the property."
2. Paragraph 6 should be amended to read:
"If the applicant determines that herbicides or other chemicals for
the control of foliage is required, it shall submit for approval a
list of proposed herbicides or other chemicals and the proposed method
of application to the run-off control officer for Albemarle County."
Very truly yours,
(signed) Patricia M. Schwarzschild"
"12/10/81
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that
the application for a special use permit to construct an additional ll5kv
capacity electric transmission line between the existing substation at
Midway and the Nelson County line, generally paralleling the existing 46ky
capacity electric transmission line (SP80-55) be, and it hereby is, granted,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) The line, and all appurtenances thereto, shall be constructed
entirely within a 120-foot right-of-way; except that, as to particular
locations along such line, if the applicant shall establish to the rea-
sonable satisfaction of the County Engineer that it is impracticable to
construct the same within such right-of-way, for specific, identifiable
reasons, including, but not limited to, outside guying rights and greatly
increased costs relative to the cost of the entire line, the County Engineer.
may allow the use of such additional right-of-way, not to exceed ~30 feet,
as shall be the minimum necessary to make such construction practicable.
In allowing such additional right-of-way, the County Engineer shall be
mindful to minimize the impact of such construction on adjacent properties.
(2) The said line shall be constructed using single pole support
structures generally abreast of existing single pole structures except
where the County Engineer may otherwise allow, using the criteria set forth
~in condition No. (1).
(3) Outside of the right-of-way the applicant shall have the right to
cut danger trees only. A danger tree is defined as any tree which, if
felled, would fall within ten feet of a conductor.
Within the right-of-way, the applicant shall preserve vegetation and
trees within 15 feet of stream crossings and public roads to the maximum
extent practicable allowing for the safe operation and maintenance of the
line. In addition, the applicant shall preserve to the maximum extent
practicable allowing for the safe operation and maintenance of the line
ornamental landscaping around dwellings, which includes all trees and
shrubbery associated with the dwelling as part of the residential usage of
the property.
(4) To the extent the County Ordinance so requires, the applicant
Shall provide and maintain such measures for the control of soil erosion as
the County Engineer may require, using the substantive standards applicable
under the Albemarle County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance,
including, but not limited to, the posting of appropriate bonds.
(5) The applicant shall take all reasonable measures to minimize the
adverse impact of such line on adjacent properties, on the neighborhood and
on the County, consistent with good engineering practice.
(6) If the applicant determines that herbicides or other chemicals
for the control of foliage is required, it shall submit for approval a list
of proposed herbicides or other chemicals and the proposed method of appli-
cation to the run-off control officer for Albemarle County.
Decem~ 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting~)
0?
(7) The granting of this permit does not guarantee the a, vailability
of electric power to the applicant and shall n°t be construed ias approving
thespecifically modification, approved construction herein, or reconstruction of any facility not
(8) The granting of this permit shall not be deemed to m~pair or
otherwise affect the rights of the applicant or any other pers~on concerning
the acquisition of any right-of-way or other interest in property for such
line or the compensation to be paid therefor.
(9) The applicant may maintain, remove, modify and/or reconstruct the
existing 46ky capacity transmission line, including upgrading to a llSkv
capacity, subject to the foregoing conditions (1) through (8)."
Mrs. Schwarzschild said in paragraph (4) the words "To the extent the County Ordinance
so requires," should be stricken.
Mrs. Schwarzschild said during the negotiations which brought about this resolution,
many attempts were made at trying to include Mrs. Wyatt in the discussions. None of those
attempts were successful. Mrs. Schwarzschild said the only issue which still remains
unresolved is item number one in the resolution, which pertains to the right-of-way width.
She stated that concessions in this agreement are 1) the original right-of-way width
requested by CVEC was 150 feet and they are now willing to accept 120 feet; 2) the "H"
frame design for the poles has been reduced to a single-pole design as requested by the
County; and 3) CVEC will submit both a soil erosion plan and list of herbicides used.
Mr. Fisher said it is his opinion that the need for the transmission line has been
established, but it is his feeling that the proposal just presented by Mrs. Schwarzschild
is still inadequate and unacceptable to the County. Mr. Fisher said he would not agree to
a dual transmission line anywhere in Albemarle County, and the dual transmission line is
what the propertY owners are most opposed to. Mrs. Schwarzschild asked if Mr. L. F.
Payne, President of Wintergreen, and Mr. B. L. Parker, President of Sunburst Yarns, could
briefly speak to the Board. Mr. Fisher said yes.
First to speak was Mr. B. L. Parker, President of Sunburst Yarns. Mr. Parker said
since Sunburst Yarns'has been purchased by Amoco Fabrics, there have been plans to expand
the present size of the operation from three million pounds to six million pounds by
March, 1982. A Phase II expansion is hoped to be completed by December, 1982, which will
increase production to fourteen million pounds. A five year forecast is to have production
reach fifty million pounds. Mr. Parker said this will increase employment in the area
from the present 25 to approximately 300, and that a great deal of economic benefit will
be derived from all of the surrounding communities because of this .expansion. Mr. Parker
said the only thing standing in the way of this expansion is electrical power. Mr. Parker
said if no commitment for power is received by his firm to insure the timetables stated
for expansion, his company will have no choice but to relocate in some other area where
power is more readily available. Mr. Fisher said it is not the fault of the Albemarle~,
County Board of Supervisors that power is not available to his firm. Mr. Fisher said the
Board approved the special permit to construct the additional power line months ago, but
the Cooperative chose to go to-court.
Mr. L. F. Payne, President of Wintergreen, said that Wintergreen is the largest
employer in Nelson County. Mr. Payne said his company doey not have the option of moving,
and therefore will only suffocate if no power becomes available. Mr. Payne next presented
a letter from Mr. Charles P. Ancona, President of the Ivy Construction Company, indicating
the economic and employment impact a reduction in growth at Wintergreen would have on his
firm as well as associated businesses located in Albemarle County.
Next to speak was Mr. Charles Sherry, Chief Electrical Engineer with Virginia Electric
and Power Company in Richmond. Mr. Sherry began by stating the basic design requirements
of CVEC for installing the new 115 kv line. Mr. Fisher noted to Mr. Sherry that the Board
never placed structure ~design requirements on CVEC, but did feel it necessary to have the
existing line removed once the new transmission line is in place. Mr. Sherry stated that
in order to maintain reliability, two lines as well as the "H" frame structure are necessary,
which will cause the environmental impact to be more substantial. Mr. Sherry next presented
a design drawing which he prepared to illustrate a possible alternative to the current
proposal as offered by CVEC. Mr. Sherry said one of the main factors for increased cost
with the single-pole structure is the high maintenance cost due to the continuous annual
cost of cutting "danger trees". Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Sherry for his presentation,~ and
then asked why when VEPC0 constructed a major transmission line through Albemarle County
several years ago, it built mainly single-pole lines next to the existing lower voltage
lines, and when the new poles were completed, VEPCO went back and removed all the original
poles. Mr. Fisher asked why CVEC could not also work this way. Mr. Sherry said most
likely the main difference between the line proposed by CVEC and that installed by VEPCO
several years ago is that CVEC has a radial line where VEPC0 has a network line. Mr
Fisher asked if one line could provide all the power required if repairs were being done
on the second line. Mr. Sherry said yes, one line could handle the load unless it were
during peak usage hours, then a section of the line could be shut down in order to reduce
that load requirement. Mr. Fisher asked why other possible sources of power were con-
sidered by CVEC and rejected in preference of receiving the power source from VEPCO. Mr.
Sherry said he was not involved with that decision and could not answer Mr. Fisher's
question.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Sherry was present speaking on behalf of CVEC. Mrs. Schwarzschil~
said Mr. Sherry is present at the request of her client and at the request of the Albemarle
County Planning Staff. Mr. Fisher said he asked because Mr. Sherry is employed by VEPCO
which will supply the power for CVEC to operate this proposed line.
December 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Sherry if CVEC built the 115 ky power line in the present
right-of-way and then removed the old line and poles, how it would affect the right-of-way
requirements. Mr. Sherry said the easiest method would be to construct new poles with the
new line directly adjacent to the present line location and upon completion of the new
line, remove the old structures and "quit claim" the old right-of-way back to the property
owners. Mr. Sherry said he would have to agree with his planning engineer that the
proposal made by CVEC to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is prudent and a practical
engineering project.
Mrs. Schwarzschild said the questions being posed to Mr. Sherry about removing the
existing line once the new line is constructed were directly addressed by the Court and
determined to be unreasonable. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board has any latitude in this
situation. Mr. St. John said that any settlement would be a departure from the court
order. Mrs. Schwarzschiid said the court ruled that the conditions placed on CVEC that
the old line must be removed and that the new line must be constructed within the existing
100 foot right of way are arbitrary and capricious. Mr. Lindstrom said Mrs. Schwarzschild's
clients are anxious to have the power line plans proceed and that is the reason for this
hearing tonight; but that the Board would be giving up their right of appeal before the
Supreme Court if action is taken tonight. Mr. Lindstrom continued by stating that the
Board is here to represent the public, especially since the property owners involved in
this case are not represented by their attorney, and that he recalled this meeting was
only to be held if all parties were in agreement to the compromise; and since all parties
are not in agreement with the compromise being presented, he would not be willing to give
up the County's right of appeal at this time.
Next to speak was Mr. Walter Tucker, General Manager of Central Virginia Electric
Cooperative. Mr. Tucker said the design proposed to the Board tonight is not what he
would prefer to see approved, because it is too restrictive and cuts down on the flexi-
bility of the system. He said he would, however, accept it because he is presently
eighteen months behind schedule and to wait possibly two more years for this court battle
to be completed would be far too costly. Mr. Fisher told Mr. Tucker that it was the
choice of CVEC to take this matter to court. Mr. Tucker said the proposal approved by the
Board was one that could not be accepted by CVEC. Dr. Iachetta said, just as CVEC cannot
live with the conditions placed on this power line by the Board of Supervisors, the
citizens who reside in that area cannot live with the double power lines running through
their properties.
Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that the property owners have no~ had proper time to
study the proposal offered by Mrs. Schwarzschild and suggested this hearing be deferred
until early in January so that proper review can be made. Mr. Fisher said he would also
recommend that the court appeal not be dropped. Mr. Lindstrom said he is ready to vote on
this new proposal tonight. Mr. Lindstrom said as far as he is concerned, there have been
no new facts presented, that increased pressure from CVEC, Wintergreen and Sunburst Yarns
does not change the facts as originally presented to the Board, that the design with
conditions as originally approved by the Board of Supervisors is feasible even though more
expensive to implement, and he can see no reason to continue these proceedings further.
Mr. Robert Merrill said as an affected property owner he would like to see drawings
brought before the Board if a hearing is held in January. Mr. Merrill said the property
owners have no idea of the location of the proposed poles in relation to their homes and
he felt it would be easier to make a decision if actual locations were known. Mr. Merrill
said a hearing had been scheduled for December 8, 1981, for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to decide if Appalachian Power Company could be forced to supply CVEC with
power for this proposed transmission line. Mr. Merrill said that meeting was postponed,
but if power can be supplied by Appalachian rather than VEPCO, no line would be necessary
between Midway and Nelson County through his property; Wintergreen and Sunburst Yarns
would have the additional power they require and possibly at a less expensive rate. Mr.
Merrill concluded that he and his neighbors are still unanimously opposed to having two
power lines and the 150 foot right-of-way through their properties.
Dr. Sy Rabinowitz said that CVEC no longer has any credibility because of the way
CVEC initiated dealings with the property owners.
Mr. Fisher said earlier he made the proposal to defer this matter in order that the
property owners have ample time to study the plan. Mr. Fisher said he now feels that even
if the property owners did agree to this plan, he could not and now sees no reason to
defer this matter. Mr. Henley said he would support the resolution presented if #5 were
strengthened to insure protection of citizens properties.
Miss Nash said this is not really a compromise, that there are still two lines being
presented and only a minor reduction in the right-of-way width.
Mr. Fisher asked the Board for some course of action. Mr. Lindstrom said if a motion
must be made, he would offer motion to pursue such course as the County Attorney feels is
necessary to strengthen 'the County's appeal, that it is not appropriate to negotiate this
matter, that he would not adopt the resolution as presented and therefore take no action
in regard to this matter.
Mr. Henley said he could not understand Mr. Lindstrom's unwillingness to compromise.
Dr. Iachetta said he would not like to see this matter deferred, and hoped that all the
parties involved would work to find a way to settle this situation without the court
becoming a battleground.
Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Walter Tucker if his company was locked in to retaining the
46kv line. Mr. Tucker said the 46ky line in question only has one power source, that
being the Midway Station; it is a radial feed line and CVEC does not have the option of
removing it. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if his firm was actively pursuing another route
for power to Wintergreen and Sunburst Yarns. Mr. Tucker said it was his opinion that
there is no other source, and that this is the only route to be considered.
December 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. St. John said this hearing was requested not only by attorneys for Wintergreen
and Sunburst Yarns, but by CVEC and the staff of Albemarle County. Mr. St. John said it
was put to.the Board for consideration as an alternative, not to pressure the Board. He
added that Mr. Sherry was asked to speak only as an expert on electrical engineering, not
strictly on behalf or in support of CVEC. Mr. St. John said if the Board would check the
records, it will be found where authorization was given the County Attorney's office and
the Planning staff to enver into negotiations on behalf of the County of Albemarle in
order to attempt to work out a compromise.
An unidentified lady said she is a property owner affected by this proposed line, and
that she was informed by letter from her attorney, Mrs. Deborah Wyatt, that no decision
would be made at this meeting, but that she should be present in order to listen to the
proceedings. Mr. St. John said many attempts were made to include Mrs. Wyatt in the
negotiations, but those attempts were unsuccessful. Mr. Fisher noted that a letter was
received from Mrs. Wyatt, dated December 9, 1981 (NOTE: Marked Item C, received December
11, 1981, 10:00 A.M., R.S.K., and on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board of Supervisors.) in which Mrs. Wyatt strenuously objects to this hearing being held
tonight.
There being no second to the motion offered by Mr. Lindstrom, a new motion was offered
by Mr. Henley to reschedule this hearing to an indefinite time in the future and that it
be brought back to the Board at the request of the landowners or their representative, or
the power company or their representative, in order to give them a chance to work out a
settlement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler.
Mr. Lindstrom said he disagreed with Mr. Henley's opinion and felt since the Board
represents all of the public that the entire public must live with the precedents which
are set by this Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he has not heard any new information tonight
which has substantially changed the facts in this matter.
Mr. Henley said he remembered how the Board held VEPCO plans up when a line was
proposed across the mountain. Mr. Henley said because of that, the Legislature took away
the Board's rights to even hear those type of cases. Mr. Henley said if this Board is not
careful, these rights will also be taken away from the Board.
Roll was then called and the motion to defer this hearing indefinitely carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Butler, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
At 10:45 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess.
P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 11:00
Agenda Item No. 6. Resolution of intent to amend Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow farm wineries by special use permit in the RA district. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on December 2 and December 9, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report and the Planning Commission recommendation
as follows:
On October 14, 1981, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of
Intent to amend the Rural Areas district to provide for "farm
winery" by special use permit. The County Attorney's office has
prepared language, including a definition, which would accomplish
the Board's Resolution.
Staff Comment: The Planning staff met with Mr. Michael Bowles, a
local grower, at his request, to discuss the Board's Resolution
and to get a better understanding of the winery process. The
following is a staff summation of the discussion with Mr. Bowles:
In an established vineyard, one acre of grapes would produce
about 3,000 bottles of wine annually. In this region, the
maximum vineyard size would be about 30 acres, which could
support a winery of about 5,000 - 6,000 square feet (exclusive of
crusher, storage sheds, and other accessoary structures). Such
an operation would have about eight - 10 full-time employees.
Seasonal employment would be brief, since harvesting must be
accomplished in a few days.
In the wine-making process, water usage is limited to washing the
grapes and cleansing the wine vats. The pulp from the crusher is
generally used as mulch. Mr. Bowles considered the crusher to be
less noisy than a farm tractor. He characterized fermentation
odors to be pleasing rather than objectionable. Staff opinion is
that truck traffic, whether hauling grapes or bottled wine, would
not be greater than traffic for many other agricultural activities,
i.e. apple or peach orchard, dairy, poultry, hay.
Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that "farm winery" be
permitted as a use by right with certain controls on-related
activities such as on-premise sales/consumption, tours, festivals
and the like. Staff reasoning is as follows:
1) A farm winery as a process is akin to cider-making, cheese-
making, egg-cleaning/sorting/candling, and other such activities
which are permitted by right in the RA district. Such activities
are located at the source of "raw materials" for reasons of
convenience, manpower and economy;
December 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
2) The intent of the RA district states that "the continuation
and establishment of agriculture and agriculturally-related uses
will be encouraged." Staff has viewed "farm winery" as an
agriculturally-related use;
3) Staff opinion is that, unlike most other agricultural
operations, a vineyard/winery has the proven potential of attracting
the public. In this regard, a farm winery could be inconsistent
with other uses in the RA district, and aspects of the operation
which could draw large numbers of people should not be permitted
by right.
Staff recommends the following amendments which would permit
"farm winery" by right in the RA district, while controlling
those aspects of the operation which could be objectionable,
detrimental and inharmonious to the Rural Areas:
1) In Section 3.0, DEFINITIONS, add the following definition:
Farm Winery: An establishment located on a farm with a producing
vineyard, orchard or similar growing area and with facilities for
fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or
lessee manufactures wine predominantly from fresh fruits or other
agricultural products grown or produced on such farm or from
fruits, fruit juices or other agricultural products grown or
produced elsewhere.
2) In the RA District, under Section 10.2.1, BY RIGHT, add:
17. Farm Winery (reference 5.1.25)
3)
In Section 5.0, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, add the following
section:
SECTION 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 ms in production;
b)
On-premise sale of wine may be established in accordance with
Section 5.1.19 WAYSIDE STAND;
c)
On-premise consumption, including wine tasting by the general
public~ shall not be permitted. Tours, festivals~ and the like,
open to the public shall not be permitted;
The foregoing notwithstanding~ the Board of Supervisors~ in
accordance with Sectiion 31.2.4 may authorize through issuance
of a special use permit any or all of the following:
1) Establishment of fermenting and/or bottling facilities
prior to establishment of a wineyard~ orchard~ or other
.~rowing area;
2) A floor area for on-premise sale of wine greater than
permitted under Section 5.1.19 WAYSIDE STAND;
3) On-premise consumption of wine by the general public.
Tours~ festivals~ and the like which are open to the general
public.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 1, 1981, un-
animously voted to recommend these amendments to the Zoning Ordinanc, but made the following
changes:
Recommended the following wording as (d):
Wine shall be produced predominantly from fresh fruits or other agricultural
products grown or produced on such farm;
Changed (d) to (3) and added (e-4) reading:
Production of wine from fresh fruits or other agricultural products grown or
produced elsewhere than on such farm.
Mr. Fisher said that the use of the word "predominantly" in the definition and in
other sections should be moved from "owner or lessee manufactures wine
from fresh fruits .... "to "other agricultural products predominantly produced on such farm
or from fruits .... " Mr. Fisher said he felt the intent in this sentence was not that the
wine be made primarily from fresh fruit, but that the wine be produced in the most part
from fruit grown on the farm winery location. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any problem
with the county's definition being less restrictive that the definition provided in the
State Code. Mr. St. John said there is no problem if the laws are less restrictive at the
local level.
Mr. Henley said he saw no reason to disallow tours of farm wineries. Mr. Henley said
that decision should be left up to the owner, that he felt there was nothing wrong with
tour groups viewing a facility. Dr. Iachetta said he agreed that tours should be allowed,
although festivals were a different situation.
December 16,~ 1981 (Reg~ular Night Meetin~g~
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Michael
Bowles who stated he is presently operating the only farm winery in Albemarle County. Mr.
Bowles said farm o~erators can police themselves when it comes to tours and wine tasting.
Mr.~a~z sai~ if any problems were ever to arise from farm wineries, he would hope
that problems could be worked out between the County and the winery owners. He noted that
there are some very talented wine makers in this area, which hopefully will develop into a
prosperous industry in Albemarle County.
Mr. Sherman said he is presently licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the
federal government to bottle wine, and questioned the wording in "5.1.25(c)" restricting
wine tasting by the general public. Mr. Sherman said it would be difficult to sell his
product without first allowing potential customers to taste the product. Mr. Fisher s~id
he is not worried about the small winery, but the potential for large commercial wineries
which create traffic problems and large, gatherings of people similar to a "theme park".
No one else was present to speak either for or against this amendment, and Mr. Fisher
declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Henley said with regard to 5.1.25(c), people
should be allowed to taste wines on the premises, but not allowed to consume wines in'
large quantities. Mr. Butler said he felt this industry should be encouraged, that there
is potential for high income on very small acreage.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to amend and reenact Sections 3.0, 5.1.25
and 10.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS
Farm Winery: An establishment located on a farm with a producing
vineyard, orchard or similar growing area and with facilities for
fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or
lessee manufactures wine from fresh fruits or other agricultural
products predominantly grown or produced on such farm or from
fruits, fruit juices or other agricultural products grown or
produced elsewhere.
Section 5.1.25 FARM WINERY
ao
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 may be established in accordance
with section 5.1.19 WAYSIDE STAND;
On-premise consumption by the general public shall not be
permitted. Festivals and the like open to the public shall
not be permitted;
Wine shall be produced from fresh fruits or other agri-
cultural products predominantly grown or produced on such
farm;
ee
The foregoing notwithstanding, 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:
Establishment of fermenting and/or bottling facilities
prior to establishment of a vineyard, orchard or other
growing area;
A floor area for on-premise sale of wine greater than
permitted under section 5.1.19 WAYSIDE STAND;
On-premise consumption of wine by the general public,
Festivals and the like which are open to the general
public;
Production of wine from fresh fruits or other agri-
cultural products predominantly grown or produced
elsewhere than on such farm.
Section 10 RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA
Section 10.2.1 BY RIGHT
17. Farm winery (reference 5.1.25)
The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
December 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing to amend Section 4.10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance
with regard to height of parapet walls. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 2
and December 9, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission as follows:
"On November 10, 1981, the request of the Deputy Director of Inspections,
the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend zoning
provisions related to parapet walls. A conflict exists between 4.10.3.3
and other Ordinance provisions related to parapet walls. Since the BOCA
code requires a minimum height of thirty inches for any parapet wall, it
would seem that a four-foot maximum height would be a more workable and
reasonable limit. Staff recommends the following amendment, which would
bring 4.10.3.3 into conformity with other Zoning Ordinance provisions:
4.10.3.3 PARAPET WALLS, CORNICES~ ETC.
A parapet wall, cornice or similar projection may exceed the height
limit established for the district by no more than $~ee-~ four (4)
feet, but shall not extend more than ~ee-~$ four (4) feet above the
roof level of any building.
Mr. Tucker noted that~ the Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of
this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance at its meeting of December 1, 1981.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to
speak either for or against this amendment, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to amend and
reenact Section 4.10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing to amend language in the Comprehensive Plan
concerning development of rural interstate interchanges. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
On December 2 and December 9, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report (Note: Words to be added are underlined,
words to be deleted are struck out.) and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as
follows:
DEVELOPMENT AT INTERSTATE INTERCHANGES, to be inserted on Page 19, following
the Development section and before the Community Facilities & Utilities
section:
DEVELOPMENT AT INTERSTATE INTERCHANGES
POLICY
TO ACCOMMODATE APPROPRIATE LAND USES IN THE VICINITY OF CERTAIN INTERSTATE
INTERCHANGES WHILE MAINTAINING THE SAFETY AND FUNCTIONAL AND AESTHETIC
INTEGRITY OF SUCH INTERCHANGES.
STANDARDS
® Land in the vicinity of interstate interchanges should be developed in
a manner consistent with the area in which it is located. It is recom-
mended that the following interchanges be developed in accordance with
the standards set forth below: Route 250 East (Shadwell); Route 20;
Route 631 (Fifth Street); and Route 29 South. Other interchanges:
Route 250 West (Yancey Mill)~ Route 637 (Ivy); and Route 616 (Black Cat
Road)- are not recommended for development except as provided generally
in the Plan.
Permitted land uses should be related to and supportive of the inter-
state highway function. More specifically, two categories of land
uses are recommended:
Regional Uses which rely on a regional or larger scale market
(sales, labor, service) and consequently would depend on the
interstate highway's function as a non-local mover of people and
goods. This category would include such uses as: regional
shopping centers; major office/business/industrial employment1
centers; regional governmental/institutional centers; convention
centers; and large-scale recreational facilities. Light indus-
trial, warehousing, and wholesaling businesses dependent on
trucking of goods also favor such locations. Provided the
interstate is not intended as a major local-traffic carrier,
high-density residential development may be appropriate.
Re~&e~a~-~ee-e~e~-~e-~ee~&e~e~-~e-~e~e~a~e-a~eae-~ea~
Highway Service Businesses which primarily rely on the interstate
traveller as a market, including: hotels, motels; restaurants;
service stations; truck stops; convenience stores; and gift/
craft/antique Shops.
~e.~e~-~e~e~a~e~e~-~e~-~ee~e~a~-&e~e~e~e~-~a~.~e
December 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting~
Areas suitable for regional uses or highway service businesses should
nov be developed in inappropriate uses which are locally oriented
(i.e., neighborhood shopping centers, automobile sales, theaters, low-
density residential development). In addition to preempting more
appropriate uses, such development would generate unnecessary local
traffic on the interstate highway.
Site area requirements for a regional use will generally be determined
by the specific needs of the use. A regional use need not be located
adjacent to an interchange but should have direct access to an inter-
change over a road segment of adequate capacity and non-local function.
Orientation of such uses to the interstate system provides access
appropriate to the needs of the use while minimizing non-local traffic
on local roads.
The random, individual location of highway service businesses should
be discouraged. Such uses should be located exclusively in clusters
with common access points on sites ranging from three to five acres in
area. Where the cluster approach is not practical, businesses should
utilize service road or reverse frontage access shared by three or
more establishments to minimize the number of accesses in the area of
the interchange.
Maintenance of functional and aesthetic integrity should be emphasized
in review of applications for development. Such review should occur
in the early stages of the development process (i.e., rezoning petition,
special use permit application) and should address such matters as:
control of access, use of service road or reverse frontage development,
separation of access from interchange ramps and other transportation
planning concerns; landscaping/buffering, setback, signage, and
building mass, height, and orientation in regard to aesthetic concerns.
Subdivision of land within one-quarter mile of an interstate ramp
should not be permitted unless access is provided by a single entrance
and the entrance location complies with the following standards:
The following distances are recommended as the minimum separation from
interstate ramps to commercial entrances on the road crossing the
interstate:
ROUTE
MINIMUM DISTANCE TO ENTRANCE
250 East (Shadwell)
2O
631 (Fifth Street)
29 South
1,000 feet
1,000 feet
800 feet
1,000 feet
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 1, 1981, unani-
mously recommended adoption of this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to
speak either for or against this proposed amendment, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
closed. Motion was immediately offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt
this amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Annual Report, Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau. Ms. Betty
McLemore, Director, and Mr. Charles Grandquist, Chairman of the Board of Directors, were
present representing the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau and presented the final report
for fiscal year 1980-81 to the Board of Supervisors for their information (NOTE: This
final report is on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors).
Mr. Fisher made note of new directional signs placed along the major highways by the
Visitors Bureau. Mr. Fisher said he felt they were large in comparison to most highway
signs. Mr. Grandquist said these signs were designed in cooperation with the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation and are in total conformance with all regulations.
Mr. Grandquist noted that a substantial increase of visitors to the Center has been
visible since the installation of the signs.
Agenda Item No. 10. Scottsville Library: Final Cost Estimate. Mr. John B. Farmer,
Jr., Architect for this project, was present. Mr. Farmer said on October 7, 1981, the
Board of Supervisors approved the preliminary design and authorized him to advance his
work to a final design with cost estimation. Mr. Farmer said on December 15, 1981, the
Planning Commission approved the final design with the condition that the fire marshal
approve fire suppression methods to be used. Mr. Farmer then presented final plans and
requested Board approval of these drawings in order to put this project out to bid. Mr.
Farmer estimated that all costs involved at this time are estimated at $255,000.
Mr. Fisher noted that the costs quoted by Mr. Farmer are about 40% higher than
originally estimated. Mr. Agnor said $83,000 was received from the insurance company
which will be used for this project, and that there is approximately $100,000 additional
money available for use in this project. Mr. Agnor further noted that Mr. Ray B. Jones,
Director of Finance has found that there is $40,000 in the Capital Outlay Fund which was
appropriated for construction of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Main Branch, which
was not expended, which could be reappropriated to help fund the Scottsville Library
project. Mr. Fisher said if Mr. Farmer's estimate of $255,000 is accurate, funds will
still be short of the necessary amount required to fund the Scottsville Library project.
December 1~, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Miss Nash asked if the size of the building could be reduced to better fit the
available funds. Mr. Farmer said the building was designed to fit the service area needs
and any reduction in size would be unwise. Mr. Farmer said in the bidding proce.ss two
bids could be taken, one for the entire project and an alternate bid eliminating the wing
containing the "activity room". Mr. Farmer said further cost reductions could possibly be
realized if certain building materials are reduced. Dr. Iachetta said you never save
money by using inexpensive materials, that you pay for those "chaep" materials in the long
run through higher maintenance costs.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash that drawings be prepared for receipt of con-
struction bids, and that bid figures be submitted first for a structure without the
"Activities Wing" and second for the entire facility as submitted.
Miss Nash asked who is the present owner of the library building site. Mrs. Helen L.
Wieneke, representing the Board of Trustees of the Jefferson-Madison Library, said the
Albemarle County School system is the owner of the property.
Mr. Fisher said there is approximately $100,000 of Capital Improvement Funds invested
in the "Vinegar Hill" site, which at one time had been considered for the Jefferson-
Madison Regional Library main branch. Mr. Fisher said the Library Board should be urged
to recover those funds as soon as possible in order to meet the construction cost figures
presented on the Scottsville project.
A new motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to authorize the
architect to prepare drawings for receipt of construction bids, and that bid figures be
submitted for the entire facility as well as an alternate structure without the "Activities
Wing"; also that the Library Board take whatever steps are necessary to recover the large
sum of money invested in the Vinegar Hill property. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Not Docket~e~d. Mr. Lindstrom noted that this is the last meeting for Dr. F. Anthony
Iachetta, Board member representing the Charlotte~sville District. Mr. Lindstrom said he
feels Dr. Iachetta will be greatly missed. Mr. Lindstrom acknowledged that Dr. Iachetta
served on the Board for six very difficult years and that his time and efforts given to
the Board of Supervisors and the community have been a real asset. Mr. Lindstrom then
offered motion that a resolution of thanks and appreciation be drawn for presentation to
Dr. Iachetta for his six years of service. Mr. Lindstrom said a similar resolution of
appreciation should be drawn up for Mr. Layton R. McCann, who served on the Board of
Supervisors for sixteen months. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Dr. Iachetta.
Dr. Iachetta thanked the other members of the Board for their many kindnesses. Dr.
Iachetta said he felt the County has some of the hardest working people both on the Board
and as employees and that he will miss them all.
Mr. Fisher welcomed Mr. James R. Butler to his first meeting as a member of the Board
of Supervisors, representing the Rivanna District.
Mr. Fisher said there will be an organizational meeting of the Board on January 6,
1982, at 1:30 P.M., and that there will be no regular night meeting on that date.
Agenda Item No. 11. Adjournment. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to December 17, 1981, at 3:00 p.m. in the County Executive's
Conference room for a meeting regarding negotiations on annexation. Roll was called and
at 12:15 A.M., the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Chairman