1982-05-05May 5, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on May 5, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher,
Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
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 Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M., by
Agenda Item No. 2~ Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Miss Nash, to approve the consent agenda, which contained the following two lottery permit
applications:
1. Scottsville Elementary School for a raffle on May 15, 1982;
Incarnation Catholic Church for games to be held on Monday evenings from 6:30
P.M. to 10:30 P.M.
These lottery permits were approved in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for
issuance of such permits.
Roll Was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-81-28. William A. Lynch, Jr. (Deferred from March 3, 1982.)
Mr. Tucker said the applicant has again requested deferral in a letter dated April
29, 1982, which was mailed with the Board's material for this meeting. Mr. St. John
suggested this item be readvertised.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to drop ZMA-81-28 from
the agenda and readvertise same if it is brought back to the Board. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-82-3. Dennis Ownby and Charles D. Kincannon. Request to
rezone 6.532 acres zoned R-15 to C-1. Located on north side of Route 250 East approxi-
mately 3,600 feet east of the intersection of Route 250 East and Route 20 North. County
Tax Map 78, Parcel 12-A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21
and April 28, 1982.)
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on this
matter because his law firm is representing the applicant.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the staff report and Planning
Commission recommendations as follows:
Requested Zoning: C-1 Commercial (Proffer)
Acreage: 6.532 acres
Existing Zoning: R-15 Residential
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 12-A, is located on
the north side of Route 250 East approximately 3,600 feet east of
Route 20 North.
History: In July, 1978, the Commission conditionally approved a site plan
for office usage of this property. The applicant requested and
received from the Director of Planning an extension of site plan
expiration until May 25, 1981. In December, 1980, zoning of the
property was changed from B-1 Business to R-15 Residential by adoption
of the new zoning map. In March, 1981, the applicant appeared before
the Commission requesting rezoning from R-15 to HC Highway Commercial.
(Staff had recommended CO Commercial Office.) After discussion, the
petition was deferred in order to pursue questions regarding access to
the property and to have Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation representatives present for comment. In April, 1981, the
applicant withdrew his petition· The site plan expired on May 25,
1981.
Applicant's Proffer: The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
has recommended improvements to the existing entrance including a
deceleration lane for westbound traffic. The applicant proposes to
make all improvements except the decel lane and to limit office usage
of the property to a total of 2,400 square feet in existing buildings·
(The original site plan was approved for 1,723 square feet of offices.)
190
M~ay 5~ 1982 (Regular Ni__g_ht Meeti~_i~_g~)
Staff Comment: Based on the 1978 Commission approval of the site plan, the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended a
modified commercial entrance for this property. That is to say, with
all recommended improvements, including the decel lane, the entrance
would not meet current standards since existing sight distance to the
west is inadequate. Staff finds no change of circumstances in the
area since July, 1978, which would warrant a further reduction in
entrance improvements. To the contrary, traffic has increased in the
area due to the opening of the State Farm building and other uses in
the area.*
Regarding zoning of the property, staff opinion is that there has been
no change of circumstance in the area to warrant a change from the
staff's prior recommendation of Commercial Office zoning for this
property (See Minute Book 20, Page 147.)
*NOTE: The recommended modified entrance is based on current usage of the
property. Staff would emphasize that any additional usage of the property
would be treated as new business and entrance facilities would be evaluated
accordingly. Staff is not endorsing the modified entrance as adequate for
future usage of the property.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 6, 1982,
recommended denial of this request for C-1 zoning and recommended instead Commercial
Office zoning, provided that the proffer dated March 23, 1982, contained in a letter
addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker from the applicant's attorney, Edward H. Bain, Jr., be
made to apply to CO zoning. Mr. Tucker presented the revised proffer, dated May 3, 1982,
which read as follows:
"I am writing you on behalf of the owners of the property, Dennis Ownby and
Charles D. Kincannon, to make a proffer on the proposal now before the
County, ZMA-82-3.
They agree to reduce the rezoning request to a request for CO zoning under
the present Albemarle County zoning ordinance.
The applicants will proffer with the rezoning petition for commercial
office as stated above the following:
Ail improvements to the entrance to the property shall be performed as
shown on the site plan of B. Aubrey Huffman and Association, Ltd., dated 12
April 1978 with the latest revision of 23 March 1982, less and except the
deceleration lane as shown on said plan. This entrance requirement will
preclude vehicles leaving the property from turning left and heading east
on U.S. Route 250; further, applicants shall limit the space now in use on
the property to a total of 2400 square feet and will not expand the exterior
walls of either the garage or the main building in the use of the property.
Sincerely,
(signed) Edward H. Bain, Jr.,
Attorney for Dennis 0wnby and Charles D. Kincannon"
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Ed Bain,
representing the applicant. Mr. Bain said originally the applicants felt the C-1 zoning
was more in conformity with the surrounding properties as they presently exist, but have
since determined that CO would meet their requirements. Mr. Bain said the proffer as
submitted will meet all the requirements of the applicant and that the applicant is
agreeable to make all the necessary improvements with the exception of the deceleration
lane. Mr. Bain said the deceleration lane would be extremely costly and that the appli-
cant could not construct it at this time. Lastly, Mr. Bain said the size of the present
structure would not be expanded.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, was
present and said the original zoning request, before this proffered request, would have
allowed expansion which would have greatly increased the traffic over what is presently
there. Mr. RoOsevelt added that the sight distance to the west is poor, but that he could
not require improvements because the entrance has existed for many years. Mr. Roosevelt
said since the present amount of traffic is very limited, he would not recommend the
deceleration lane at this time, however if there is any expansion of the use in any way,
he would recommend that the County require the deceleration lane.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt about signs restricting turns into this entrance. Mr.
Roosevelt said the entrance is angled in such a way as to make it very difficult to turn
left to this property, but that restrictive signs would not be necessary.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Miss Nash said She was concerned that this proffer was only a temporary thing and
that future expansion of this property is inevitable. Mr. Fisher said that possibly could
happen, but that any expansion of this use would have to come back before the Board of
Supervisors.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve ZMA-82-3
with the proffer of May 3, 1982, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom.
May 5, 19~2 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-82-4. Higgins Engineering, Inc. Request to rezone 10+ acres
zoned RA to HI. Located in northeast corner of intersection of Route 800 and Route--602
near Schuyler. County Tax Map 126, part of Parcels 31C and 31D. Scottsville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 1982.)
(NOTE: Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff
report and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows:
Requested Zoning: HI Heavy Industry (Proffer)
Acreage: 6.21 acres
Existing Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 126, Parcels 31C (part)' and 31D
(part) is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of
Routes 800 and 602 near Schuyler.
Character of the Area: There are no dwellings in the immediate vicinity.
This relatively flat property is in scrub oak. Several old quarry
pits exist along Route 800 north of Schuyler.
Comprehensive Plan: Map IV Potential Industrial Development Areas of the
Comprehensive Plan does not recommend any industrial sites in this
area. The closest industrial sites are recommended at Scottsville and
along Route 29 South, where industrial uses are already located.
The closest Type I Village in the Plan is Scottsville, which is about
twelve miles from this site. While the Comprehensive Plan does not
restrict industrial uses to growth areas, it does recommend that
employment centers should have convenient access to designated growth
areas.
This site does not receive a ranking under the Comprehensive Plan's
priority factors for potential industrial land. The Plan recommends
this area as "other rural land", indicating no particular conservation
considerations (i.e., agricultural conservation; reservoir watershed,
etc.).
Staff Comment: Higgins Engineering, Inc., currently located in Schuyler,
is involved in machining flanged pipe joints and other fittings,
primarily on cast iron water and sewer pipe. Pipe deliveries of
40,000 pounds are by truck. Application for HI zoning was required
since the 40 h.p. machinery involved exceeds the horsepower restrictions
of the LI district.
Staff Opinion is that the site does not satisfy the Comprehensive Plan
criteria for industrial designation or the statement of intent of~the
Heavy Industry district, and staff therefore recommends denial of this
rezoning petition.
Proffer
"April 1, 1982
Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning
Department of Planning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: ZMA-82-4, Higgins Engineering, Inc.
Conditions of property use
Dear Mr. Keeler:
(NOTE: First seven paragraphs of this letter which are related only to
history of the Higgins business, are deleted for brevity.)
Building Plan:
Higgins is proposing to construct a Butler LRFIR pre-engineered building
150 feet x 70 feet x 20 eave height. This building would occupy appro-
ximately 1/2 of an acre and its approximate location is shown on the
aforesaid plat. The south and eastern section of the property would be
used for storage of pipe inventory. Ail machinery would be operated in the
building and noise pollution will be minimal to non-existent. Higgins is
willing to erect a chainlink fence around the entire boundary perimeter.
Higgins does have in its possession a bid proposal for construction of this
building.
CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS:
Higgins Engineering, Inc. is requesting this rezoning to basically relocate
its present operation. Its plan within the near future projects an increase
in employees but does not project a change in its operation. Higgins
Engineering is willing to restrict use of this property to its present
style of operation, i.e. machine shop. Higgins does not foresee its operation
as creating any burden on the County of Albemarle with respect to services.
Higgins is offering its operation as an additional revenue source for
Albemarle County.
Sincerely, FARRAR & SERKES
(signed) Joseph M. Serkes, Attorneys for Higgins Engineering, Inc."
May 5, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 6, 1982, voted
to recommend approval of the referenced application for rezoning with the proffer, subject
to the terms of the proffer outlined in the letter of Joseph M. Serkes, Attorney, dated
April 1, 1982, and addressed to Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, which limits use to the machine shop
and 6.21 acres.
Miss Nash asked if the rezoning would be of the entire two parcels (31C and 31D) or
just a portion. Mr. Tucker said the rezoning would be for only a portion of the two
present parcels, thereby creating a Heavy Industrial district in the middle of the RA.
Mr. Lindstrom asked who owns the parcel at the present time. Mr. Tucker said it is
owned by the Nelson County Industrial Authority, but that this business expansion is not
being sponsored by Nelson County.
Mr. Fisher asked about water and septic facilities. Mr. Tucker said since the staff
recommended against approval of this request, no information was gathered in those areas.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that a letter dated April 1, 1982 from Mr. Edwin S. Roseberry of the
Thomas Jefferson Health District (NOTE: Mr. Roseberry's letter is on file in the Office
of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors) notes the "very slow perc rate--plant personnel
will be limited to 15--system will be oversized to offset slow absorption rate." Mr.
Fisher said he would assume from that statement that the septic system is being .designed
for personnel wastes only and not industrial wastes of any kind.
Mr. Joseph Serkes summarized his proffer letter of April 1, 1982. Mr. Serkes said
the firm wishes to remain in the close vicinity of Schuyler because of its working re-
lationship with the Alberene Stone Company. Mr. Serkes said this property was formerly
owned by the Georgia Marble Company, and when sold, the land was transferred by the new
owner to the Nelson County Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Serkes said there will
be no industrial use of water or the septic system. Mr. Serkes said regarding traffic, he
did not anticipate any additional traffic volume, above that at the present site nor
additional stress to the road. Mr. Serkes said Alberene Stone has leases for additional
quarry sites, which will allow for the future expansion of Higgins Engineering, Inc.
Miss Nash asked Mr. Serkes if there was any quarry activity on Route 602. Mr. Kenneth
Carroll, of Higgins Engineering, said there were mixing sites 1,500 and 2,000 feet from
this proposed site, but nothing which fronted directly on Route 602.
No one else from the public was present who wished to speak either for or against
this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher stated the
importance of following recommendations set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher
said on the surface it seems like a small matter to accommodate Higgins Engineering, but
in fact to rezone six acres heavy industrial for machine shop use in an area that has no
water, sewer, transportation and is in a rural areas district, is against every aspect of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Miss Nash said the area around Schuyler is extremely rural with large forests owned
by West Virginia Paper and Pulp.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was most concerned about the fact that this petition is for
rezoning a small portion of a larger tract. Approval would establish a precedent of
rezoning contrary to the Comprehensive Plan, particularly with the absence of utilities.
Mr. Lindstrom said if this request was approved, he would not be able to separate this
request from other future applications.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to accept the recommendation of the staff and
deny ZMA-82-4. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following re-
corded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda ITem No. 6. Discussion: 1982-83 Secondary Road Improvement Budget. Mr. Dan
Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation was present and
referred to his letter of April 21, 1982, as follows:
"I have been advised that $1,326,413 will be available to Albemarle County
for secondary road improvements in the 1982-83 fiscal year. Attached you
will find a proposed budget for the use of these funds recommended by the
County Planning Commission. The Board of Supervisors' action of April 14,
1982, authorizing funding of the Hatton Ferry from secondary improvement
funds will require that $20,000 be set aside for this purpose. I request
that the Board of Supervisors consider the Planning Commission's recom-
mendation and advise which of these proposed allocations should be ch~ged
to finance, the ferry.
PROJECT COST
0717-001-196,N501 (Sand Road)
~{~i~.~i:06Qt-002-176,N501 (Mission Home Road)
New Additions
New Pipe
New Signs
0631-002-186,C501/B643 (Park Street Bridge)
Guardrail, Route 631 (Rio Road)
0743-002-153,C501 (Hydraulic Road)
$ 200,000
13,000
20,000
5,000
4,000
269'000
40,000
725,413
$1,326,413"
May 5, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked the status of the Hydraulic Road project. Mr. Roosevelt said with
tlhe allocation listed in his letter and the fact that all right-of-way has been purchased,
he hopes to go to bid in possibly late summer 1982, with construction as early as the fall
of 1982. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Hydraulic Road project includes new signals anywhere.
Mr. Roosevelt said a signal is in the plans at the inter~ection of Rio Road and Hydraulic
Road at the Rock Store. ~
Miss Nash asked about Route 717. Mr. Roosevelt sai~ the $200,000 shown in the budget
has already partially been spent, and that hopefully co~Jletion of the project will occur
by June. Mr. Roosevelt said he has revised the budget presented to the Board to include
one additional project, designated 0618-002-153,C501 which is the improvement of Route 618
from a gravel road to hard surface from Route 729 to the Fluvanna County line. Mr.
Roosevelt noted that this project has been ready for over a year with right-of-way and
preliminary engineering and was only awaiting Federal matching funds in order to begin.
Mr, Roosevelt said he has just been advised to proceed with the Route 618 project using
purely State funds since no Federal funds will be available. Mr. Roosevelt said in order
to accomplish this funding, he would recommend reducing the Hydraulic Road allocation by
$193,000 and applying that amount to Route 618. Mr. Roosevelt assured the Board that this
transfer of allocations from Hydraulic Road would not delay the project. Mr. Fisher asked
how this would affect the Meadow Creek Parkway (McIntire Road Extension) project. Mr.
Roosevelt said due to inflation, he could not see being able to construct the Meadow Creek
Parkway project within the next four or five years.
Mr. Fisher asked where funding for the Hatton Ferry could be obtained. Mr. Lindstrom
asked about the guardrail for Route 631 and whether or ~ot funds from this category could
be used to finance the Hatton Ferry. .Mr. Roosevelt sai~ the funding of a guardrail on
Route 631 was approved against his recommendation by thie Planning Commission. Mr. Roosevelt
elaborated by stating that it was his opinion that although a guardrail woutd prevent a
car from crashing over the side of the road, a guardrail on such a narrow road, more than
likely, would cause drivers to hug the centerline and possibly cause head-on accidents.
Mr. Roosevelt said at the present time there is not much truck traffic on Rio Road because
of the poor condition of the Park Street Bridge, but once that bridge is improved, truck
traffic most likely will increase causing additional hazards. Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs.
Cooke agreed that anyone going off the side of the road would only involve themselves, but
to create a "squeeze" situation would then involve automobiles coming in the opposite
direction as well. Mr. Lindstrom suggested possibly using the $40,000 from the guardrail
project toward financing the Hatton Ferry and possibly additional funding for the Hydraulic
Road project.
Mr. Butler asked if there were any alternative to the hazardous Rio Road situation.
Mr. Roosevelt said the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway, which is estimated to cost 3.5
million dollars. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt some allocation should be made toward the
Meadow Creek Parkway project now, since it is such a costly endeavor. Mr. Roosevelt said
once this secondary budget is adopted, he intends to meet With Mr. Tucker to revise the
Six-Year Highway Plan, at which time, allocations for the Meadow Creek project Can be
recommended.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to set a public hearing for June 2, 1982,.at
7:30 P.M. and to advertise the 1982-83 Secondary Road Budget eliminating the $40,000 for
tlhe Guardrail on Route 631, and adding $20,000 for the Hatton Ferry and $20,000 to Project
0743-002-153, C501 (Hydraulic Road), bringing the total for the Hydraulic Road project to
$552,413. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
At 8:55 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess.
P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 9:07
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: STA-82-1, Amendment to SubdiVision Ordinance tO
Provide for Expiration of Final Plats. (Deferred from April 14, 1982.)
Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission as follows:
"At its meeting of March 2, 1982, at staff request, the Albemarle County
Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the Subdivision
Ordinance to provide for'expiration of final plats. Currently final Plats
expire if not recorded within six months of County signature; however,
there is no limitation on the time period between Commission approval and
comPliance with conditions for presentation of the plat for signature. The
proposed amendment would limit the time period between Planning Commission
approval and signing of the plat to eighteen months. A holder of a Planning
Commission approved plat would have eighteen months from the adoption date
of this provision to obtain plat signature. Staff has taken a sampling of
seventy of the 1,900 ~ubdivision files in the office and estimates that
about 300 plats (1,100 lots) are~unsigned at this time."
The st~aff recommends addition of the following section as 18-54(c) of the
Subdivision Ordinance:
18-54 Cc) Any final plat which shall fail to be approved by the Board of
Supervisors or its agent in accordance with this section within
18 months after approval by the Commission shall be void; provided,
however, that any final plat which was approved by the Commission
on or before (date of adoption of amendment) shall be valid if it
shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors or its agent as
herein provided on or before (18 months from date of adoption).
May 5, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 15, 1982, recom-
mended approval of the amendment as set out above.
Mr. Fisher asked if this amendment would encourage developers to put plats to record
even if there was no intention to develop the land, in order to meet the deadline. Mr.
Tucker said that is possible, but any plats which are old and which are allowed to expire
under this ordinance would have to come back before the Planning Commission and meet all
new conditions and standards in order to be approved. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt this
would discourage developers from putting plats to record unless they are serious about
developing the property.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to
speak either for or against this proposed ordinance, Mr. Fisher declared the public
hearing closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following ordinance, as recom-
mended by the Planning Commission, but adding in the correct dates:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code, Subdivision of
Land, be amended by the addition of Section 18-54(c) reading as follows:
18-54(c)
Any final plat which shall fail to be approved by the Board
of Supervisors or its agent in accordance with this section
within 18 months after approval by the Commission shall be
void; provided, however, that any final plat which was
approved by the Commission on or before May 5, 1982, shall
be valid if it shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors
or its agent as herein provided on or before November 5,
1983.
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Board members were concerned about notifi-
cation of property owners involved in plats which are currently on file in the Planning
Office. Mr. Tucker noted that it would be difficult to notify each plat holder by mail
because in many cases the plats are very old and the property may have changed owners.
Mr. St. John said no direct mailing is required legally to notify plat holders of this
change. Mr. Lindstrom suggested an advertisement in the newspaper. It was the concensus
of the Board that two display advertisements in two newspapers of general circulation
would give sufficient notification. Roll was then called on the motion to adopt the
ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and the motion carried by the fol-
lowing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, that two display
advertisements be taken out in two newspapers of general circulation advising the citizens
of Albemarle County of this Subdivision Ordinance change. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Fees.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing:
(Deferred from April 14, 1982.)
ZTA-82-4, Amendment to Zoning Ordinance regarding
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report and Planning Commission recommendation:
"At its meeting of March 2, 1982, at staff request, the Albemarle County
Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend various sections
of the Zoning Ordinance related to fees. Currently, fees are listed in
several sections of the Ordinance. The proposed amendments would locate
all fees in one section (35.0 FEES).
In addition, the amendments would allow for additional payment by the
applicant if the costs of notice exceed the base fee, which is consistent
with the requirements of the Code of Virginia. (NOTE: Hyphens strike
previous wording; underscore indicates new wording.)
31.2.4.2 APPLICATION
Application for a special use permit shall be made by the filing
thereof by the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property
with the zoning administrator, together with a fee ~-~e-ame~
e~-~&~-~e~a~-~$~~-e~ee~-~-~e-ea~e-e~-a-~e~m~-~e~-~e
~eea~&e~-e¢-a~-&~&~&~a~-me~&~e-Aeme-w~&e~-¢ee-e~a&~-~e-~e~
Ge&~ame-($2~?QQ~ as set forth in Section 35.0 of this ordinance
~e-eeve~-%~e-eee~-e¢-~e-e~De~eee-&~e&Ge~-~e-~e-D~eeeee&~
%~e~ee¢. No such permit shall be issued unless ....
(Remainder of paragraph is unchanged.)
32.6.6
The developer shall pay to the county a fee for the
examination and approval or disapproval of site
development plans submitted pursuant to this section, such
fees to be paid one-half at the time of filing of the plan
and the remainder prior to final approval. Such fees shall
be calculated as ~e~ewe? set forth in Section 35.0.
May 5, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
33.2.1
34.5
35.0
~=---Me~e-~-$e~-(~9~-&e~ee-~99=99-g&~e-~=99-¢e~
e&e~-&e~e-&~-e~eeee-e¢-~e~-(~9~-&e~ee=
(paragraphs b and c are unchanged)
PROPERTY OWNER PETITION
By the filing with the board of supervisors of a petition of
any owner or owners of land proposed to be rezoned, which
petition shall be addressed to the board and shall be on a
standard form and accompanied by a fee &~-aeee~a~ee-w~-~e
~e~ew&~-ee~e~e+ as set forth in Section 35.0.
e~---~e~-~e.e~&~-eg-me~e-~Aa~-~e~-~$~-ae~ee-~e~
~&~e-$~e~-~e~-ae~e-~e~-eae~-ae~e-&~-e~eeee-e¢-~e~-~
PROCEDURE
Appeals and applications for variances shall be filed with the
zoning administrator, together with a fee
apg~&,a$&,m~ as set forth in Section 35.0.
The board of zoning appeals shall fix a reasonable time .... ·
(remainder of paragraph remains the same)
FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to
the administrator, the commission, or the board of supervisors
~A&e~-~e~e~-~e~&ee-a~-Aea~-&~-aeee~a~ee-~&~A-*ee~e~
~-~8~-e¢-~e-~e~e~-e~-&~-aeee~a~ee-w&~-~Ae-~e&&e~-e¢-~e
~e~-e~-e~e~&ee~8? shall be accompanied by a fee e¢-$~e~$~
6e&&~e-(~2e~ee~ as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost
of ~&e~&e~-&~-~-~ewe~&~e~-e¢-~e~e~-e&~e~&e~-&~-~e
ee~ processing such appl±cation.
a. For a special use permit:
1. For uses other than individual mobile homes - $50.00.
2. For individual mobile homes - $20.00.
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $20.00.
c. For amendment to zoning map:
1. For parcels totaling less than five (5) acres - $50.00.
2. For parcels totaling more than five (5) but less than
ten (10) acres - $75.00.
For parcels totaling more than ten (10) acres -
$100.00 plus $1.00 per acre or part thereof over
ten (10) acres.
de
For appeals or other applications to the board of zoning
appeals - $20.00.
For site development plan review:
1. For parcels totaling less than five (5) acres - $50.00.
2. For parcels totaling more than five (5) but less than
ten (10) acres - $75.00.
For parcels totaling more than ten (10) acres -
$100.00 plus $1.00 per acre or part thereof over
ten (10) acres.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice
required under Chapter 11~ Title 15.1 of the Code shall be
taxed to the applicant¢ to the extent that the same shall
exceed'the applicable fee set forth in this section. Failure
to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the
~'enial of any application.
May 5, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 15, 1982,
recommended approval of the above amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said
this is basically a "housekeeping" measure. Mr, Fisher questioned the use of the word
"taxed" used in the descriptiOn of section 35.0. Mr. St. John said that word is correct,
and is taken directly from wording given in the State Code.
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 offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
in Sections 31.2.4.2, 32.6.6, 33.2.1, 34.5.and 35.0 as advertised. The motion was seconded
by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 9. Metropolitan Planning Organization Agreement. Mr. Agnor noted
that on March 10, 1982, the Board of Supervisors approved the forming of the Metropolitan
Planning Organization and that his request today is for the signing of the MPO agreement.
Mr. Agnor said the agreement, drawn up by the Highway Department, has been reviewed by Mr.
St. John, Mr. Tucker and the County Executive. Mr. Agnor noted that there are five voting
members of ~his organization and six nonvoting members.
Mr. Fisher commented that he felt the University of Virginia Transit Service should
be a party in this agreement. Mr. Fisher noted that although the University Transit
Service does not receive federal funding, it is a vital link in mass transportation planning.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, authorizing the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to sign this agreement with the condition that the
University of Virginia Transit Service be added as a sixth nonvoting member. The agree-
ment as signed, reads as follows (NOTE: When the original of this agreement was received
from the City of Charlottesville for signing, the University of Virginia Transit Service
had already been added as the sixth nonvoting member.)
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR A
CONTINUZNG, COOPERATIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING
PROCESS FOR THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE URBANIZED AREA
THIS AGREEMENT, made and~entered into as of this (fifth) day of (May),
1982, by and between the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Highways and
Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT; the city of Charlot-
tesville, acting as a local unit of government and as one of the local transit
operators, hereinafter referred to as the CITY; the county of Albemarle, acting
as a local unit of government, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY; the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission, acting as the r~gional clearinghouse
responsible for carrying out the Federal office of Management and Budget's
Circular A-95, hereinafter referred to as the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY; and the
Jefferson Area United Transportation as one of the local transit operators,
hereinafter referred to as JAUNT.
The DEPARTMENT, the CITY, and the COUNTY, the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY and JAUNT
shall cooperate in a continuing comPrehensive transportation planning and pro-
gramming process, hereinafter referred to as the "3-C" process, as defined in
Section 134 of Title 23, United States Code; Section 3, 4(A) and 5 of the Urban
Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (49 U.S.C., Section 1602, 1603(A) and 1604) and
23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 450, 49 CFR, Chapter VI, Part 613; and in accordance
with the constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia to form the
Metropolitan Planning Organization, hereinafter referred to as the MPO.
Ail activities in the process shall be the responsibility of the MPO, a
policy making body acting at the designation of and on behalf of the Governor of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, in cooperation with the DEPARTMENT, the CITY, the
COUNTY, the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY, and the JAUNT.
The A-95 REVIEW AGENCY, as a signatory to this Memorandum of Understanding,
agrees to coordinate its review responsibilities under Part IV of the OMB Cir-
cular A-95 with the DEPARTMENT, and the MP0. This coordination shall be accom-
plished through the MPO, on which the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY has one nonvoting
representative. The A-95 REVIEW~AGENCY shall keep the MP0 apprised of projects
which have an impact on transportation planning. The MPO shall also coordinate
its responsibilities with those of the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY and shall consider
other comprehensive plans for the area. The Unified Work Program and the Annual
Element of the Transportation Improvement Program and amendments will be for-
warded to the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY following endorsement by the MPO.
The CITY and JAUNT, as signatories to this Memorandum of Understanding,
agree as operators of publicly owned local mass transportation services to
coordinate their urbanized transportation responsibilities with those of the
MPO. This coordination shall be prominent on all activities involving public
transportation.
The DEPARTMENT shall coordinate its responsibilities for transportation
planning, programming and implementation within the study area (as defined in
ARTICLE I herein) with those of the M?O as a function of its voting represen-
tation on the MPO and its involvement in technical staff activities in cooper-
ation with the MPO, the CITY, the COUNTY, the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY, and the JAUNT.
NOW, THEREFORE, the DEPARTMENT, the CITY, the COUNTY, the A-95 REVIEW
AGENCY, and the JAUNT agree as follows:
May 5, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
ARTICLE I - GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE PROCESS
The transportation planning process shall, as a minimum, cover the urbanized
area and the area likely to be urbanized by the period covered by the long-
range element of the current transportation plan ~escribed herein. The
area shall hereinafter be called the STUDY AREA. ~The STUDY AREA shall
include the city of Charlottesville and portions of Albemarle County. The
boundaries may be adjusted by agreement between the DEPARTMENT and the MPO.
If said new boundary extends into a jurisdiction not included in the STUDY
AREA, the jurisdiction shall automatically be included in the STUDY AREA.
ARTICLE II - TIME FRAME OF THE PROCESS
The continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning and
programming process shall be established on a continuing basis~ effective
the date of the execution of this AGREEMENT by all participants. The
AGREEMENT shall terminate when:
Section 134, Title 23 U.S. Code, or the Urban Mass Transportation Act
of 1964, as amended, previously cited herein, are repealed or amended
by the Congress of the United States to no longer require the con-
tinuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning and
programming process, or
e
The CITY, the COUNTY, the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY, JAUNT, or the DEPARTMENT
withdraws from the continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transpor-
tation planning and programming process with not less than ninety (90)
days written notice to the other parties, or
e
The redesignation of the MPO by the Governor of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, or
The redesignation of the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY by the Governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
ARTICLE III - FINANCING THE PROCESS
The responsibilities and work activities performed by the MPO shall be
supported by planning funds authorized by Section 104 (e) of Title 23,
United States Code (PL Funds), by Section 1067(a) of Title 49, United
States Code (Transit Funds) and by Section 13 Funds provided by the Federal
Aviation Administration. PL Funds and Transit Funds shall be allocated in
accordance with the direction of the MPO. The use of PL Funds and Transit
Funds and other funding sources shall continue as additional monies are
appropriated. Should such funds be discontinued, this AGREEMENT shall be
renegotiated.
ARTICLE IV - AMENDMENTS
Amendments to this AGREEMENT may be made by written agreement among all
parties to this AGREEMENT.
ARTICLE V - METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
The MPO shall be composed of the following voting representatives designated
by and representing their respective agencies.
1. City of Charlottesville - two (2) representatives
2. Albemarle County - two (2) representatives
3. DEPARTMENT - one (1) representative
There shall also be one nonvoting representative designated by and repre-
senting each of the following agencies:
1. A-95 Review Agency
2. JAUNT
3. Federal Highway Administration
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
5. Federal Aviation Administration
6. University of Virginia Transit Service
Any other agencies as may be agreed upon by all voting representatives
to the MPO.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
The MPO shall elect a chairman and other officers as deemed appropriate.
The MPO shall establish rules of order. The MP0 constituted herein shall
remain in effect until such time the Governor of the Commonwealth of
Virginia designates another MPO.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
May 5, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 10. Appointments. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter of resigna-
tion from Mr. Carl V. Williams, dated April 23, 1982. (NOTE: Copy of this letter is on
file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Fisher noted that Mr.
Williams held the "At-Large" position On the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher then asked
if there were any nominations by Board members to fill this vacancy on the Planning
Commission.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to nominate Mr. Timothy M. Michel for the At-
Large position on the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Carl V.
Williams, scheduled to end on December 31, 1983. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Fisher said he wished to
inform the Board of a meeting to be conducted by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority,
tentatively scheduled for Thursday, May 13, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Rooms 5 and 6 of
the Albemarle County Office Building, for the purpose of making a presentation on findings
concerning a reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek as a future water source for Albemarle
County and the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Fisher said it it extremely important that
all Board of Supervisor members be present. Mr. Fisher said if the Buck Mountain Creek
area is selected as the future reservoir site, other actions will have to be taken by both
the City and the County to either purchase or protect the land in order to assure a pure
water source. Mr. Fisher said there is a time element involved since the moratorium
restricting development in the Buck Mountain Creek watershed is scheduled to expire on
August 14, 1982.
Mr. Fisher requested Board members to reserve May 20, 1982, at 3:00 P.M. in the
Albemarle County Office Building, Meeting Room #11, as the date to meet with the City of
Charlottesville's negotiating team in order to discuss the outcome of the referendum
scheduled for May 18, 1982, on the Annexation and Revenue Sharing Agreement. Mr. Fisher
said the Mayor of Charlottesville has agreed to this time and place.
Miss Nash asked when the Board would be able to discuss disposition of the 01d Scotts-
ville School property. Miss Nash reported that a meeting was held in Scottsville, chaired
by Mr. Agnor, with Miss Nash and Mr. Henley attending, representing the Board. Miss Nash
said that approximately 150 residents of the area were present and brought forward a
number of ideas for use of the building. Mr. Fisher felt this should wait until after the
results of the referendum are known.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of an invitation from the Veterans of Foreign Wars to attend
Memorial Day Ceremonies at 10:30 A.M. on May 31, 1982, on the Downtown Mall.
Mr. Butler said he'has received a request for reduced senior citizen rates for
entrance to the County's park facilities. Mr. Fisher said he has also received similar
requests and has asked that this be scheduled for the May 12, 1982, Board meeting.
Mr. St. John reported that the Garlick Tract Site Plan suit has been decided in
Court. Mr. St. John said the County's position has been sustained. Mr. St. John said
this decision has a broad impact because it affects the County's actions in defining the
urban area to exclude the South Fork Rivanna watershed; theCounty's treatment of the
watershed area in general has been tested in the Federal Courts and has been sustained.
Mr. St. John said he would discuss the ramifications of this case at a future executive
meeting, but he is waiting to see if this case will be appealed. Mr. Lindstrom said this
is one of the best decisions in the favor 'of the County in a long time, and he offered Mr.
St. John his congratulations for winning the case.
Mr. Fisher noted that the regular day meeting of May 12, 1982, is Youth in Government
Day.
Agenda Item No. 12.
At 9:55 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned.
Chairman