1981-05-20May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
228
Agenda Ztem No. 23. Set public hearing to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
jurisdictional map (Candiewyck Subdivision).
Mr. Agnor said recently the Albemarle County Service Authority has discovered that
the Candiewyck Subdivision (formerly called Westview) was left out of the Service Authority's
jurisdictional area for water. The subdivision was constructed and the water was there
when the jurisdictional area map was revised. Therefore, the Service Authority has
requested a public hearing to consider the above omission. Motion was offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise for public hearing on June i0, 1981, at
1:30 P.M., an amendment to the project area map of the Albemarle County Service Authority
in order to correct an omission of the Candlewyck Subdivision on Old Ba!lard Road from the
Service Authority's water utility system. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said action needs to be taken to change the June 3, 1981 meeting from 7:30
P.M. to 8:00 P.M. since the Board will be attending the Jack Jouett celebration at Castle
Hill. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta~ seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to change the time
of the June 3, 1981 meeting from 7:30 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher then noted letter from the County Attorney regarding the County's liability
insurance and requested that the Board review the correspondence.
Mr. Fisher then asked if Dr. Iachetta had'read the minutes of May 21, 1980.
Iachetta said no, but would attempt to have them finished by next week.
Dr.
Agenda Item No. 26. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
At 3:26 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn
into executive session in the County Executive's Conference Room-to discuss legal matters.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 4:32 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 27.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
- ' ~HAIRMAN -
May 20, 19~ (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on May 20, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, CharlOttesville, Virginia.
Present: Mes.srs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, Layton R.
McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.
Officers Present: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George
R. St. John; and County Planner, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Coldspring Hill Preliminary Plat Appeal. (Plat showing Coldspring
Hills, Rivanna Magisterial District, owner and developer Richard Muller, land planning and
engineering by Cox, McKee and Harrover, dated November, 1980.)
Mr. Fisher noted that the plat was appealed by the applicant's attorney, Mr. J. Benjamin
Dick and deferral was requested by Mr. Dick on March 18, 1981. (See minutes of March 18,
1981)
227
May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, then presented the following synopsis
of the sequence of .events leading to this meeting:
"November 18, 1980 -- Coldspring Hills Preliminary Plat submitted to the
Albemarle County Planning Department for processing.
December 10, 1980 -- New Zoning Ordinance adopted by Albemarle County.
December 16, 1980 -- Planning Commission reviews Coldspring Hills
Preliminary Plat and defers plat until the applicant can apply for
a special use permit. (Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission did
not feel the plat was properly before then due to the recent
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.)
March 10, 1981 -- Planning Commission reviews SP-8!-2 Richard E. Muller,
relating to Coldspring Hills Subdivision and recommends denial.
Planning Commission inadvertently overlooks taking action on
preliminary plat deferral from December 16, 1980.
March 17, 1981 -- Planning Commission takes action to deny Coldspring
Hills Preliminary Plat based on special use permit denial.
March 18, 1981 -- Board of Supervisors defers, at request of applicant's
counsel, special use permit and plat appeal to May 20, 1981."
Mr. Fisher said the plat appeal and the special use permit will be heard as separate
items and the plat appeal will be dealt with on the legal issue of whether or not there are
vested rights which is the appl.icant's primary case'.
Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report for Coldspring Hills Preliminary
Plat:
"Location: Parcel 16 on Tax Map 47, Rivanna District; located on the
east side of Route 20 North, across from Route 649.
Acreage: 70.65 acres.
Zoning: A-1 Agricultural (RA)
Proposal: To divide 70.65 acres into 27 lots with an average size
Of 2.61 acres.
Topography of Area: Gently rolling to moderately steep along the streams.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route 20 North currently
carries 1,845 vehicle trips per day.
Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that the soils in this area
consist of a heavy clay soil with hard rock at 40 to 60 inches and a
loam located along the streams which is subject to overland flow.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural conservation with a
recommended density of one dwelling unit per five acres.
School Impact: There is a total projected enrollment of approximately 12
students with a slight impact.
Type Utilities: No public facilities are available.
Staff Comment: The County Engineer has commented that the preliminary road
plan for the private road into Coldspring Hills appears to be feasible.
There are some grades which exceed 10% and these will require some
method to control ditch line erosion. County Engineer has approved
the road specifications.
The plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and
the staff recommends approval subject to:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
Compliance with the private road provisions will be
required for final approval and includes County Attorney
approval of maintenance agreement;
Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of private street commercial entrance; ........ · -~
Add note: 'Ail lots shall have access only onto Coldspring
Lane.'
Written Health Department approval and a copy of the soil
scientist's report for our files;
County Attorney approval of conservation easement provision."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on March 17, 1981, recommended denial of the
Coldspring Hills Preliminary Plat. Mr. Tucker noted letter of opposition dated December 13,
1980, from Mr. Robert W. Barr, adjacent property owner:
"This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1980, reference the
Coldspring Hills Preliminary Plat.
I understand that the property can be subdivided into 2 acre lots,
however, there is pending a proposal to increase this to 5 acre lots.
In as much as I have seen what amounts to spot zoning in the Northern
Virginia area over the last twenty-five years, I believe that in the
long run it is not appropriate and in some cases detrimental.
I strongly object to this Coldspring Hills Preliminary Plat.
If in fact it is divided into 2 acres, it will mean that our adjacent
property will be automatically open for 2 acres also!"
228
Mr. Robert B. McKee, land planning consultant, was present and reviewed the history of
the Coldspring Hills Subdivision. He said the applicant, Mr. Muller, has a vested interest
in the property and felt the plat had been denied on the soil issue. Mr. McKee said the
plat complied with the regulations and criteria set forth in the old Zoning Ordinance and
the existing Subdivision Ordinance and said all the conditions have been met, such as the
soil report and written health department approval for the septic field locations. Mr.
McKee noted that the conservation easement will be handled through a property owners agreement
as will the private roads, both of which he feels are an asset to the property. Mr. McKee
concluded by stating that he did not feel the slopes and soil issues were germane to the
issue tonight.
Mr. Fisher said the issue before the Board tonight is the letter of appeal from the
applicant's attorney which basically questioned the applicant's vested interests under the
old Zoning Ordinance. He did not feel the plat appeal is one based on the merits of the
plan itself.
Mr. Benjamin Dick, attorney for the applicant, was present. He felt the application
should be approved because procedurally under the new Zoning Ordinance, the applicant had
to go back and get a special use permit. Mr. Dick also said the applicant does not want to
waive the possibility that this plan can be approved under the old Zoning Ordinance. He
had examined Virginia cases and could not find any which placed a municipality in this kind
of situation. Vested interest is a statutory item which the legislature passed. Mr. Dick
said the applicant requests that this plat be approved under the old Zoning Ordinance since
the plat was submitted prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance ~n December~
Mr. Gale Pickfor~, attorney representing Mr. Huffman, an adjacent property owner, was
present. He noted that the primary objection of Mr. Huffman is the proposed density. The
general feeling is that the subdivision is not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan nor
with the adjacent agricultural land.
With no one else present to speak for or against the plat appeal, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John for his opinion of this appeal. Mr. St. John did
not feel that the applicant has a vested right and did not feel the Planning Commiss±on
could have rightfully approved this subdivision plat. Mr. St. John did not feel this
applicant had a vested right because the preliminary plat was submitted on November 18,
1980, but was not acted on by the Planning Commission until December 16, 1980 which was
after the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. In other words, Mr. St. John said the mere
filing of a plat does not mean an applicant has a vested interest and plat approval is not
a discretionary issue as is issuance of a special use permit. Miss Nash then asked what
constitutes a vested right. Mr. St. John said the feeling is that in order to have a
vested right actual construction (breaking of the ground) must have occurred.
Mr. McKee then requested a brief moment to state that he feels the difference between
a preliminary and £inal plan is the metes and bounds of the lots would have to be surveyed,
platted and recorded. For all practical purposes, the plan is designed the way the plat
will be recorded. Therefore, he felt the final plat approval is technicality. Mr. Fisher
then restated the opinion of the County Attorney.
Mr. Dick said he would like to have the special use permit report entered into this
appeal in the event that this matter goes to a higher authority.
Mr. Fisher said that decision is up to an attorney but the question tonight is the
subdivision plat appeal. As it stands, the preliminary plat has been denied by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Fisher then asked if there was any motion to reverse the action of the
Planning Commission. Mr. St. John said the record should show that the plat will not
comply with the present Zoning Ordinance except under a special use permit. Mr. Fisher
then said hearing no motion, the action of the Planning Commission stands.
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-81-2. Richard E. Muller. Request to subdivide 70.65 acres
into 27 lots with an average lot size of 2.6 acres zoned RA. Located east side of Rt. 20
North at intersection with Rt. 649. County Tax Maps 47 and 36, Parcel 16. Rivanna District.
(Deferred from March 18, 1981)
Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report:
"Request: Division of 70.65 acres into 27 lots with an average lot
size of 2.61 acres (Section 10.5)
Zoning: RA
Location: Property described as Tax Map 47, Parcel 16, is located on
the east side of Route 20 North at its intersection with Rt. 649.
Character of the Area: This property is open, rolling pastureland, as
are adjoining properties on the east of Rt. 20 North. Generally
speaking, other properties in the area are large tracts in
agricultural or forestal usage. A church adjoins this property
on the south.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area as best agricultural soils with a maximum density of one dwelling per
10 acres. In regard to a development of this scale, the Comprehensive
Plan recommends as follows:
Conventional Developments - Conventional developments, generally
involving construction of new roads, are recommended at a scale
between 20-75 units, with larger projects recommended to be
Planned Unit Developments. Developments of this type are to be.
discouraged in areas of the County where desired average densities
are lower than one dwelling per acre. tn addition to traditional
design improvement standards, developments of this size should
incorporate the following two features:
May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
--Mini-neighborhood identity, including recognizable
boundaries and focal point for resident gatherings/
activities.
--Logical connecting features with adjoining parcels of
land.
The Comprehensive Plan also recommends that the village scale of development
begin with a population of 100 persons. This development would have
an estimated population of 75 persons.
Route 20 North is recommended for scenic designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
Special Use Permit Criteria: The following is a review of the proposed
Coldspring Hills Subdivision for appropriateness of development as set
forth in the eight criteria of the RA District:
The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property
in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production
as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry.
The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal
production as the same shall be shown on the most recent published
maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the
Soil Conservation Service.
Because of the topography of Albemarle County, only a small percentage of
soils would be classified as prime agricultural lands, though the soil
quality may be identical to prime soils. SCS classifications are based
on suitability for crop land; therefore, steeper lands would not be classified
as prime. Prime soils range in slope from 0 to 7%. Beyond 7% these same soils
are classified as important agricultural lands indicating a high suitability
for grazing, pasture, and forestry use.
On this property, the Starr Loam is listed as prime agricultural land. The
remaining soils are important agricultural lands/important forestry lands
(slope less than 15%) and important forestry lands (slopes greater than 15%).
While these soil types are not listed as prime soils, SCS does consider them
important soils.
The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property
since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available.
This property has enjoyed preferential land use taxation based on
agricultural use since 1975. Therefore, the property owner has demonstrated
to the satisfaction of the County Real Estate Department that legitimate,
continuous agricultural use has been maintained.
If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect
of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the
purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an
agricultural or foresta! area if fifty percent or more of the
land within one mile of the border of such property has been in
commercial agricultural or forestal use within five years of the
date of the application for special use permit. In making this
determination, mountain ridges, major streams, and other physical
barriers which detract from cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
The majority of land within a mile of this property enjoys preferential land
use taxation for either agricultural or forestal usage. (Of the 1,650 acres
in the area, 1,200 acres or 73% are under land use tax; 740 acres agriculture;
460 acres forestry.) Therefore, staff opinion is that this property is an
active agricultural area.
In regard to the effect of development on the character of the area, staff offers
the following:
(1)
As discussed during the development of the Zoning Ordinance,
development in an agricultural area has direct and indirect
effects. Among direct effects are: the vandalism of crops
and equipment and the destruction of livestock by children
and pets; the desire to regulate routine farm activities by
residents of the development (i.e., spraying of pesticides/
herbicides, spreading of lime and manure; proximity of livestock
to residential areas. The Zoning Department has often received
complaints of this nature); and high land prices which make
it difficult for existing farmers to expand and new farmers to
locate in the area. Indirect effects are generally related
to the expectation of continued development in the area,
resulting in the impression that agricultural land is in
transition. Indirect effects include: reduced or marginal
production; disinvestment in equipment, livestock and other
aspects of farming requiring large and/or long-term investment;
and idling of farmland (a study of two rapidly urbanizing areas
in the Philadelphia and Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan areas
estimated that one-half to one acre of crop land was idled
(for every acre converted to urban uses).
May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Staff is not suggesting that the proposed Coldspring Hills Subdivision
would generate all of these negative effects. However, the subdivision
would introduce the casual elements of these effects to an area which
has not previously experienced such development.
(2)
Where residential development occurs in agricultural areas, the
Comprehensive Plan recommends that development be restricted to
wooded areas. Where wooded areas do not exist, the Plan recommends
buffering through the provision of trees, earth berming, and other
landscaping features.
Because of the topography and lack of vegetation of Coldspring Hills,
the proposed development would be clearly prominent in the area.
Buffering as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, in staff opinion,
would have to be extensive in order to be effective. Therefore,
staff opinion is that development as proposed would be incongruous
to the visual character of the area and Route 29 North.
The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas.
For the purpose of this section, a property shall be deemed to be
located in a developed rural area if fifty percent or more of the
land within one mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels
of record of five acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance.
In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams, and
other physical barr±ers which detract from the cohesiveness of an
area shall be considered.
0nly about 5-10% of the land area within a mile of this property is in lots
of five acres or less. Most of these lots are in two small concentrations
about 3/4 of a mile north on Route 20 North. In addition, Redbud, a
twenty lot subdivision about a mile to the south, was recently approved by
the Commission. Therefore, subdivision development in the area has been
limited and has been remote 'from this property. This property is not
considered to be within a developed rural area.
6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed
population centers, services, and employment centers.
This propery is located five miles northeast of the Pantops/250 East area
and 2.8 miles southwest of the Stony Point village. .The closest commercial area
and school are at Stony Point. Therefore, this property is remote from proposed
growth areas and supporting services.
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements
programming in regard to increased provision of services.
Impact on schools would be slight with a total projected enrollment of 12
students. Busing of students would be required at all level's. ElementarY ~
students would be bused three miles to Stony Point school, while middle and
secondary students would be bused to the Charlottesville area, to Burley~and
Albemarle.
Response time for the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company would be about
ten to twenty minutes.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the
opinion of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
a) occasion the need for road improvement; b) cause a tolerable road
to become a nontolerable road; c) increase traffic on an existing
nontolerable road.
Traffic generated from the development would be about 200 vehicle trips
per day. While this traffic increase would be slight in terms of current volumes
on Route 20 North, the need for safety improvements would be aggravated.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended dedication
for a box culvert improvement. The access as proposed would be inadequate
without improvement to Route 20 North.
Staff Comment: Staff opinion is that Coldspring Hills Subdivision as proposed
does not satisfy the RA criteria for granting a special use permit. Therefore,
staff recommends denial of this petition..
This property is in an area mapped in the Comprehensive Plan as best
agricultural soils. In work on the zoning map, staff identified an area
of about 3,000 acres as best soils with this property near the center of the
area. By-right development of the property could yield a maximum of eight
lots which is comparable to the recommended one dwelling per ten acre density
of the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 10, 1981, recommended
denial of SP-81-2. He also noted that the letter as set out in the plat appeal, from Mr.
Robert W. Barr was received in opposition to this request as well.
Mr. McCann felt more information was needed on criteria No. 3 ab'ore other than the
fact that land use taxation has been enjoyed. Mr. Tucker said the staff 'did not comment on
whether or not a farming operation was profitable because the criteria does not speak to
such. He also noted that the staff was not able to obtain any information regarding the
historic viability of an actual agricultural use on the property.
231
May 20, 1981 [Regular Night Meeting)
The public hearing was then opened. Speaking first was Mr. Robert McKee, land planner.
He noted that this property does not meet all of the eight criteria in the RA District and
he did not know how any property in the County could meet all the criteria. He noted that
Mr. Muller raises sixteen head of cattle on his 70+ acres and Mr. McKee did not feel such
could support a farm. Mr. McKee noted that a moderate review of the soils has been conducted
and some of the slopes on the property are in excess of seven percent. Mr. McKe'e said
there are no trees on the property. Therefore, the property cannot be used for forestry.
Mr. McKee pointed out that adjacent properties are not extensively farmed but used only for
some grazing. Mr. McKee said the applicant recognizes that the development would be
prominent because it would be on a couple of ridges. Therefore, the applicant is willing
to provide buffering necessary to prevent visual impact. The staff report suggests that
the buffering would have to be extensive. He assumed that statement meant not only extensive
but unfeasible and the project would show some visual impact and he took exception to that
statement. Mr. McKee said the first four criteria revolve around agricultural aspects of
the property and he felt the applicant should comment on that.
Mr. Richard Muller, applicant, was present and said that there was not a farm in the
immediate area which could be considered as commercial agriculture if that means growing
anything for money or profit. Mr. Muller then noted properties in close proximity to his
property on which farming is conducted on a very small scale. Only twenty-five of his
seventy acres is capable of being farmed because of the slopes. Mr. Muller said a lot of
equipment would be necessary for him to farm and since this is only seventy acres, such
would not be economical. Mr. Muller said a lot of time and effort has been put into the
landscaping plan. Mr. Muller said he is attempting to produce a reasonable subdivision and
some of the property will be given to his children. If the intent of the Board is to
prevent all development, then the criteria in the ordinance will prevent all development.
Mr. Muller concluded by stating that a great deal of work has been done on the proposed
subdivision and he felt the plan should be approved.
Mr. Benjamin Dick, attorney for Mr. Muller, said the Highway Department has given a
favorable report on the subdivision. He did not feel there would be aggravated safety
standards other than the usage of the road and the road is already well planned in the
sense of its serving other subdivisions. Mr. Dick then read the "intent'! paragraph of the
rural areas district and noted that it states a noble purpose and the applicant does not
disagree with that purpose. However, the applicant does disagree that this particular
piece of land contains best agricultural soil and is an active farm. He then noted~an
attempt by Mr. Muller to lease the property for grazing of cattle, but this has not been
profitable. Mr. Dick did not feel the visual argument is accurate because the subdivision
will not be visible except in the higher elevations and any hill would be visible at such
an elevation. Mr. Dick said the criteria set out in the RA zone are for the Board to use
as a guideline but he does not feel that an application has to meet all the criteria. He
felt the property would be more productive with two acre lots than as a farm. Therefore,
Mr. Dick felt the best use of the land is residential. Mr. Dick said the Planning Commission
took the position that this is farm land and that is all there is to it. If that is the
criteria, then Mr. Dick felt the RA zone is arbitrary and unreasonable and would eliminate
any development in. the RA zone. Mr. Dick felt Mr. Muller has demonstrated that the proposal
under this special use permit is the best use and is not contrary to the RA District.
Owner of property across the street who is objecting to the request, lives in New York and
Mr. Dick did not feel that just because that property owner desires to see pasturelands and
green hills that that is a valid objection. Mr. Dick felt the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance have been met. The applicant would like to work with the Board and hear any
comments, changes or whatever is felt to be better for the plan but to deny the request
would be unreasonable and perhaps arbitrary under the laws of a special use permit. Mr.
Dick was uncertain if a special use permit is the proper procedure for subdivision approval.
Therefore, Mr. Dick urged that the special use permit be approved and requested that this
information be incorporated into the record of the previous matter.
Mr. Gale Pickford, attorney representing Mr. Huffman, adjacent property owner, was
present. The basic concern is the suggested density and the incompatibility of this proposal
with the uses in the surrounding area. Mr. Pickford urged denial of this request.
With no one else to speak on the request, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher then read the intent section of the RA District. He said the intent is
clearly not to maximize development of the land but to preserve the land for future generation:
Mr. Fisher said when he was reading the staff report, he thought this was a classic case of
a subdivision that should never be approved because of the loss of agricultural land.
A discussion followed on the criteria involved for approval of 'a special permit in the
RA District. Mr. McCan~ agreed with Mr. Muller that there is not a lot of active farming
in the area. He felt the intent of the ordinance is'to preserve open space and not allow
development in the rural area. Mr. McCann concluded by stating that this request could not
be approved because the criteria cannot be met and such will be true for all subdivisions
in the rural areas.
Mr. Fisher then asked if there were any soils better than class 6 in the county. Mr.
Tucker said the incorrect class of soil was given in the staff report. This soil falls in
class 5. Class 6 soils are on the southwestern mountains and on steeper terrains. Class 5
soils are noted as being very productive but limited for intensive use on slopes. The
majority of this land is in excess of seven percent slopes and prime agricultural land
diminishes when beyond seven percent.
Mr. Henley did not feel the request met :enough of the criteria and he said he would
not support the request. Dr. Iachetta felt the subdivis'±on proposed is designed with the
old approach in mind and does not take into account the new criteria of the RA zone. Dr.
Iachetta also noted that the intent of the RA zone is to avoid the multiplicity of two acre
subdivisions. Mr. McCann said he was not arguing that the Board should approve this request
but rather against the criteria for the RA zone in the Zon~ Ordinance. Mr. Henley agreed
with Mr. McCann that the criteria will prevent growth in the rural areas. Mr. Henley then
offered motion to deny SP-81-12. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Mr. McCann said he would
support the motion but did not agree w~th the criteria because he felt the criteria are too
May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) .
broad and too vague. However, action has to be taken on what the Zoning Ordinance requires
and th±s does not meet all the criteria of the RA District. Miss Nash felt the request
should be denied because this proPerty is too far away from the urban area and another
urban area would begin if this was approved. Roll was then called on the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-81-11. Edward A. Anderson. Petition to locate a public
garage on 0.561 acre zoned RA. Located on Route 649 approximately five miles east of the
intersection of Route 649 with Route 29 North. County Tax Map 46, Parcel 67. Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6 and May 13~ 1981.)
Mr. Fisher said members of his family are property owners close to the subject property
a.nd even though he has no legal conflict of interest, he will abstain in order to avoid any
appearance of conflict. He then turned the gavel over to Mr. Henley.
Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report:
"Request: Public Garage
Acreage: 0.561 acre
Zoning:~ RA Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcel 67, is located on the
west side of Rt. 649 south and adjacent to the Southern Railroad at
Proffit.
Character of the Area: This property, known as the Proffit Exchange, is
developed with an older commercial building which has been used for
various commercial uses in the past. Given the size and development
of the property, staff opinion is that the property has severe
limitations for intensive usage. The building does not appear
to'be located far enough from Route 649 to permit safe maneuvering
of vehicles in the parking area. In the opinion of the Health
Department, a septic system of the site could support only limited
uses such as a one-bedroom dwelling, garage or shop use. The
Health Department has also indicated severe limitations on a
potential well location.
Many other properties in the area are small lots (all or portions
of 15 properties are within 500 feet of this site). Therefore,
particular attention should be given to potentially objectionable
aspects such as noise.
Comprehensive Plan: The Proffit area is recommended in the Comprehensive
Plan as Other Rural Lands (not exhibiting a distinctive environmental
characteristic). Staff would recommend that commercial use of the
property be evaluated in terms of appropriateness to the rural areas.
That is to say, a determination should be made as to whether or not .
this garage would provide service to the area.
Staff Comment: While one purpose of zoning is to protect established uses
in an area from intrusion by incompatible uses, zoning should also
afford a property owner 'reasonable use' of his property. Staff has
reviewed this property in regard to the statement of intent and uses
permitted in the RA district. Staff opinion is that:
1) This property is not suited to agricultural or foresta! use ~
and does not otherwise satisfy the statement of intent of the RA
district;
2) This property is severely limited as to RA uses which could
practically be established due to physical constraints;
3) Staff opinion is that a public garage, with appropriate
restrictions on intensity of use, is a use which could reasonably
be made of the property.
During review of this petition, staff recommended to the applicant
and the attorney of those concerned about the petition that consideration
be given to measures directed toward making the use acceptable to the
area should the petition be approved. The applicant has proposed
the following improvements and limitations:
1)
Install a privacy barrier between Proffit Exchange boundary
and the Graves' residence (adjacent to the south);
Limiting the working hours of the garage;
Park no cars on the grass sections of Proffit Exchange;
Keep all parts indoors except those scheduled for trash
pick-up.
Because of the physical limitations of this site, staff recommends
that site plan review may be appropriate coterminous with special
permit review. However, should the Commission and Board choose to
act on this petition without a site plan, staff recommends the
following conditions (conditions recommended by the staff are~generaliy
intended to limit the intensity of usage of the property and to
protect adjoining properties from objectionable aspects of such
use):
233
May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
7)
8)
The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and
equipping of vehicles. No body work or spray painting of veh±cles
shall be permitted. No gasoline sales or sale or rental of vehicles
shall be permitted;
Ail work shall be conducted within the garage;
No outside storage of parts including junk parts. Refuse awaiting
disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers;
Not more than four (4) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked
on the property outdoors at any time;
Fire and Building Official approvals;
Health Department approval;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance;
Site plan approval to include buffering/screening as deemed
appropriate by the Planning Commission. Conditions #5, #6 and #7
shall be met prior to Commission review of the site plan.
The Commission and Board may also wish to address hours of operation."
~ Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 5, 1981, unanimously
recommended denial of SP-81-I1. Mr. Tucker also noted a petition containing sixty signatures
has been received in opposition to this request. Miss Nash asked if the Planning Commission
had considered placing a restriction on the number of junk cars sitting at the garage. Mr.
Tucker said the Planning Commission did not get into the specifics of the conditions. Dr.
Iachetta asked the rationale for the limitation on spray painting. Mr. Tucker said the
limitation was due to the close proximity of this garage to other houses.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Eric Anderson was present representing himself,
his brother, Mr. Edward Anderson,.and Mr. Rick Mayo; all three are owners of the Proffit
Exchange. He then presented a photograph of the building and described the location of
same. Mr. Anderson also noted that the lot has been cleared and bushhogged on the side and
the rear. He noted that the building itself is located seventy-five feet from the Graves'
property and it is one hundred and twenty feet from the Graves residence to the garage door.
Mr. Anderson then listed the inspections and work done since owning the property. He said
that Mr. Jack Collins, Environmental Health Division of the Health Department has visited
the site and feels that there is enough room for a well and septic system to support a shop
or garage on the lot. Mr. Anderson said some well drillers have examined the site and
indicated that a well could be put on the site. The electrical system has been upgraded to
commercial code standards by replacing an exterior corroded wire which was exposed. Mr.
Anderson then summarized the past history of the Proffit Exchange and noted that this building
has never been a residence in its entire history but rather has been used for commercial
activities. Mr. Anderson said the limitations and improvements outlined in the staff report
have been offered by his partners and himself in an attempt to be reasonable and to protect
adjoining property owners from the objectionable aspects of a garage. In conclusion, Mr.
Anderson felt a garage is a reasonable use for the property and the conditions should eliminate
the objections.
Mr. McCann asked what the operating hours would be. Mr. Anderson said night hours are
not anticipated and closing should be around 5 or 6:00 P.M.
Mr. Craig Redinger, homeowner within one hundred and fifty yards of the Proffit Exchange,
spoke next. He also reviewed the history of the Proffit Exchange and noted the gradual
decline in commercial activity in the area up to the present date. The proposed use of this
building as a public garage has absolutely no service relationship to the community. Mr.
Redinger said as indicated on the petition, the proposed use will substantially impair the
character and quality of the neighborhood. He felt it is important to remember that the
homeowners purchased their properties because of the peace and serenity in the area. Mr.
Redinger also noted that this business is not for the owners but rather an absentee landowner
who will lease the property. Mr. Redinger said the opposition is not that the owners not be
permitted to engage in a wage earning activity but rather that the Board reserve the quality
of life of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Mary Ann Lolly Graves, adjacent pr0pert~ owner, spoke next and noted that she and
her husband bought their property two years ago because of a desire to live in the country
and they would be very upset with a garage next door. She then summarized her past discussions
with the owners and the fact that the building has been used without permission for a garage.
In conclusion, Mrs. Graves said the neighborhood is quaint and she would be upset to see
that quality destroyed.
Mr. Theodore Graves, adjacent property owner, then distributed some photographs of the
building. He noted his objections are primarily because the building is ugly, the proposed
use would be noisy and he did not see how any arrangement could be made for safe ingress and
egress to the highway. In summary, Mr. Graves objected to his property being devalued by
the presence of a garage next door.
Speaking next was Reverend T. R. Hanner, resident in close proximity to the subject
property. He purchased his property because of the quiet aspects of the community and did
not feel there was any way to operate a garage without testing a motor occasionally. He
also noted that an adjacent property owner, Mrs. Banks, would have the run-off from this
operation onto her property. In conclusion, Reverend Hanner, expressed his desire that the
Board realize the inconvenience this proposal would have on all the adjacent properties and
he requested denial.
With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed.
May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Miss Nash then asked if any other use could be made of the building besides a garage,
specifically could it be an apartment. Mr. Tucker said the zoning permits a single-family
residence. Dr. Iachetta said the building could not be used for a residence because it is
not designed for such conversion. Mr. McCann sympathized with the adjacent property owners
but this property has never been anything but commercial a. nd the people buying in this area
should have been aware of that. He did not know what other use could be made of the building
other than a storage area and that would not be good due to the limited road space. Public
garages are allowed by special permit in the RA District and he felt such are needed in the
rural areas. Mr. Henley felt with the proper conditions the building could be used without
creating problems and felt the staff conditions were good but felt the hours should be
limited to 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
Mr. McCann then offered motion to approve SP-81-1! with the conditions of the planning
staff and the addition of the following: "Hours of operation limited from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00
P.M." Miss Nash then asked if condition 3 could include "and junk cars" after "junk parts".
Mr. McCann accepted the inclusion of junk cars to condition 3. Dr. Iachetta then asked if
Sunday operations would be prohibited. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. McCann said he would not
really object to that but did not feel it was appropriate for the Board to get into religious
points of view. Dr. Iachetta said he would support the motion if operation on Sunday was
prohibited. Mr. McCann accepted such to condition #9. Mr. St. John asked the applicant if
he accepted the conditions. Mr. Anderson said yes. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Fisher.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
(Note: The conditions for SP-81-11 as approved are set out below:
1. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and equipping
of vehicles. No body work or spray painting of vehicles shall be
permitted. No gasoline sales or sale or rental of vehicles shall be
permitted.
2. Ail work shall be conducted within the garage.
No outside storage of parts including junk parts and junk cars.
Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers.
Not more than four (4) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked
on the property outdoors at any time.
5 Fire and Building Official approval.
6. Health Department approval.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance.
Site plan approval to include buffering/screening as deemed
appropriate by the Planning Commission. Conditions #5, #6, and #7
shall be met prior to Commission review of the site plan.
Hours of operation shall be limited from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
and no operation of the garage on Sunday.
At 9:25 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:32 P.M.
the meeting at 9:33 P.M.)
(Mr. Fisher returned to
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-81-13. Adial Full Gospel Church. Petition to locate a 3,584
square foot church on a 1.95 acre parcel zoned RA. Located in the Critzers Shop area,
approximately 2,000 feet south of the intersection of Routes 637 and 758 on the eastern side
of Route 758. County Tax Map 69, Parcel 37. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily~
Progress on May 6 and May 13, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report:
"Request: Church
Acreage: 1.95 acres
Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 69, Parcel 37, is located on the
east side of'Route 758 about 1,500 feet south of Route 637.
Character of the Area: This property is vacant. The closest.dwelling is
about 300 feet to the north. This area is rural in character with
sparse residential development.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to construct a church with a seating
capacity of 96 and possible future expansion to aboUt 140 persons. Route
758 is currently listed as nontolerable with 136 vehicle trips per day.
However, Route 758 is a 1.25 mile dead end road with the church located
about a quarter of a mile from Route 637. Staff opinion is that the
church would not be incompatible to the area. Staff recommends approval."
Ma2~ 1~1~.~ R~lar Ni~ht Meetin~gJ
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its May 5, 1981, meeting unanimously recommende
approval of SP-81-13. Mr. Fisher asked if the parcel was large enough to have a parking
facility for one hundred and forty persons. Mr. Tucker said future expansion was not
examined but the parking facility is adequate for the first phase. The applicant, however,
would be limited by the constraints of the property for future expansion. Mr. Fisher felt
the parcel may be marginal for expansion and that should be explored before building a new
church building. Mr. Tucker said it is difficult to prepare a site plan when rooms and
other layout of the church itself are unknown.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. James McQuarry, representing the church, was
present. He said the property was purchased two and one-half years ago and an old school
building was on the property. The feeling then was that perhaps the school could be used
for church services until it was determined what could be built and when. However, this
was not permitted by County laws. Mr. McQuarry said the idea of purchasing more land has
not been considered but he did feel additional land could be purchased if needed. Mr.
Fisher emphasized that some thought should be given to the fact that the present acreage is
not large enough for expansion.
Mrs. Linda Atkins, trustee for the Adial Full Gospel Church, was present to answer
questions.
With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to approve SP-81-13
as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-81-10. James P. Reilly. Petition to rezone 2.88 acres from
RA to C-1 with proffer. Located on Route 22 in Cismont, at fork of Routes 22 and 231.
County Tax Map 65, part of Parcel 12C. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on May 6 and May 13, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Requested Zoning: C-1 Commercial (proffer)
Acreage: 2.88 acres
Existing Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 65, Parcel 12C, is located at the
intersection of Routes 22 and 231 at Cismont.
History and CommenT: ZMA-80-25 was a conventional rezoning request for C-t on this
property. The Planning Commission and staff recommended approval of the petition,
which was denied by the Board on February 11, 1981. Subsequently, the
applicant filed this proffered petition, which would limit hours of any
restaurant operation from !0 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Note: The applicant has modified the entrance to the property and installed
additional gas pumps. Both of these actions require site plan approval.
Staff felt that the purpose of a site plan in this case could be satisfied
by approvals from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
and the Fire Official and suggested the applicant seek relief from the
site plan requirement. Intensification of the use of the property by
addition of a restaurant use is, in staff opinion, a separate issue for
which a site plan should be required."
Mr. Tucker said the following proffer is the one the Planning Commission had on May 5,
1981:
"To Whom It May Concern:
Please find attached proffer to my zoning petition requesting re-zoning of
2.88 acres of 7.22 acres. Restaurant hours will be restrained to 11 p.m.
Also requested is relief from a site plan.
Sincerely,
(Signed by)
James P. Reilly
ETAL"
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 5, 1981, recommended
denial of ZMA-81-10 with proffer. However, the Planning Commission did waive the site plan
requirements for the gas pumps but required that the applicant obtain a commercial entrance
permit and install such within six months of May 5, 1981.
Mr. Tucker noted the following proffer which was received yesterday, May 19, 1981:
"TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
RE: Application No. ZMA-81-10
The undersigned appIicant, as a condition of his rezoning petition, hereby
proffers the following:
1. The operation of any restaurant upon the property shall
be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M.
2. Only two commercial uses shall be permitted within the existing
structure, whose exterior walls shall not be enlarged beyond
its present s±ze.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed by)
James P. Reilly, Jr., Et Als"
May220, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
236
Dr. Iachetta said the proffer does not exclude any other uses in the C-1 District.
Mr. Tucker said there would be no limitations other than in the existing building as stated
in the proffer.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. George Coles, attorney representing Mr. James
Reilly and family members, was present. He noted that the property is family owned and the
business, family oPerated. Mr. Coles said the controversy about this petition has grown
since a rezoning was first heard by this Board on February I1, 1981. He noted that at the
public hearing on ZMA-80-25 in February, one person was present in opposition and the
concern at that time was about the hours of operation. Therefore, a proffer was submitted
limiting the hours of operation to 11:00 P.M. Mr. Coles said the applicant does not intend
to operate a beer joint; this is proposed only to be a legitimate restaurant. Mr. Coles
said over three hundred signatures have been obtained supporting the request. Mr. Coles
said almost everyone living within one-half mile of the property supports the request. The
objections are basically from those opposing growth generally and the possibility of other
C-1 requests in the surrounding area. Another concern is the variety of uses which C-1
zoning allows and the possibility that this property will change owners. Mr. Coles then
cited Section 33.9 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding requirements in reviewing zoning
amendments. Mr. Coles said the planning staff has taken these matters into consideration
and stated that the proposal does not vary or conflict in any way with the Zoning Ordinance
and that the C-1 use is reasonable given the history of this building. Mr. Coles then
noted that the building is cinderblock and has been used for commercial purposes for thirty
years. Mr. Coles said the difficulty with the building is its size which is 4,000 square
feet. Mr. Coles said economics do not allow the building to be limited to just a grocery
store. Mr. Coles then discussed the relationship of this request to the Comprehensive Plan
and the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Coles felt the Comprehensive Plan provides development in
the county to be centered around village clusters (Cismont noted as a Type II village) and
within appropriate locations within these areas. Mr. Coles also noted the goals of the
plan provide promotion of small scale commercial areas to reduce automobile dependency and
dependency on large commerical centers. In conclusion, Mr. Coles felt the rezoning request
fits every requirement and consideration of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. James Reilty, Jr., applicant, was present and said he would reserve comments until
the opposition had spoken.
Next to speak was Mr. Bill Barkley, attorney retained by Mr. and Mrs. Prewitt Semmes
and Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Horween, property owner in Cismont. He said both of the parties
oppose the request. Mr. Barkley said Section 33.6 of the Zoning Ordinance states that when
a petition is denied, an individual cannot resubmit substantially the same petition for
twelve months. Mr. Barkley did not feel that the mere filing of a proffer with the applicatior
is a substantial change. Mr. Barkley said his second objection is directed toward the
proffer itself. Virginia Code Section 15.1-491.2 provides what information a proffer
should contain. Mr. Barkley said there is nothing in the C-1 district that states the
hours of operation must be limited for a restaurant nor does the C-1 of the Zoning Ordinance
state that there can only be two uses in a building. Therefore, the proffer has not followed
the Virginia Code, is improper and should not be considered. Mr. Barkley said the basic
concern is the uncertainty of what the applicant proposes to do. As for enlarging the
~~.~s~a~..~c~h.b~..done under the RA district by special use permit up to 4,000 square
feet. Mr. Barkley then reviewed the uses by right and special use permit in the RA and C-!
districts. Mr. Barkley felt the Board should require the applicant to state what he wants
to do with this property. He then noted letters in opposition from the Garden Club dated
May 18, 1981, Mrs. Linton R. Massey dated May 20, 1981, Mr. Stuart Henderson, rector of
Grace Episopal Church, dated May 20, 1981, and telegram dated May 18, 1981, from Dr. and
Mrs. Joseph Capizzi.. (Letters on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Barkley then presented
a petition from landowners at Cismont and owners of property within one to one and one-half
miles from the site, urging denial of the petition due to commercial development being
incompatible with present land use and altering the character of what is a rural neighborhood
(Copy on file in the Clerk's Office). He then noted that the petition submitted by the
applicant contains signatures of people from areas other than Cismont. In conclusion, Mr.
Barkley requested that the Board consider if the applicant has been candid in stating his
intentions.
Mr. Fisher said a statement of intent for the use of the property is not for the Board
to request. Mr. Barkley felt if the intent is known, perhaps some in opposition would
change their minds.
Mr. Thomas Salmon, resident of Kinloch, which is approximately one mile from the
store, spoke next. He did not object to the store but rather the C-1 designation and
supported the statements of Mr. Barkley.
Dr. Joseph W. May, resident within five hundred feet of the store, was present. He
was opposed to the rezoning because of traffic control and the precedent that approval of
this request would establish.
Mr. Scott Goss, resident in close proximity to the store, was present in opposition.
The farms in the area have been intact for decades and the intention of the community is
not to have such disturbed by restaurants or anything of that nature. He felt it was
ridiculous to assume that 11:00 P.M. would be a restraint time. The back driveway to his
property is beside this property and he was concerned that such would be used for vehicular
parking.
Mrs. Janet Broan, owner of property beside the store and re~sident for twenty~e
years, spoke next in opposition. She said the store has existed since she lived there
and during that time persons have lived in the back of the sotre. She felt this was spot
zoning and objected. Mrs. Broan felt commercial zoning would be disruptive to the community
and she did not understand why Cismont was designated a village in the Comprehensive Plan.
237
May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. R. A. Broan, resident next door to the subject property, spoke next. He said the
soil in the area is Davidson Clay and ideal for raising grapes. Therefore, he was disturbed
for this type of land to be zoned C-1. Although, Mr. Broan did not object to the Reilly's
he was opposed to this rezoning request.
Mr. Jim Carswell, resident close to the Reilty's, spoke next. He was concerned that
rezoning this property would lead to an alcoholic beverage license and did not feel the
road, which is already hazardous, could handle anything of that nature.
Mr. John Car!e, resident within one mile of the store, spoke next in opposition. He
said his objection is not to the Reilly's or the restaurant but rather the requested C-1
zoning which is inconsistent with the area.
Mr. Coles then submitted the applicant's petition and noted that the petition was on
the store counter and signatures were solicited as such. He then noted that over two
hundred of the signatur~s~!i~nf~he~pe~i~n are from persons either from Cismont or Keswick.
(Copy of this petition~on file in the Clerk's Office.)
Mr. James Reiily, Jr., said the issue of CZ1 ~oning and the restaurant is ~ot a separate
issue. His intention is to have a restaurant if the C-1 zoning is approved. Mr. Reilly
said he does not desire the other uses allowed in the C-1 District because they are incompatibl
to Ci~smont. Mr. Reilly said the building is only 4,000 square feet and-the best thing to
put in the building is a small scale restaurant.
Mr. Christian Gehman, resident of Cismont, spoke next. He did not feel C-1 zoning or·
a restaurant are appropriate for Cismont and would cause a disturbance to the quiet community.
With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher then asked if the application is properly before the Board. Mr. St. John
said the February rezoning did not have a proffer and therefore, there is a substantial
change. Mr. Fisher asked if the contents of the proffer were proper under State Code and
County ordinances. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Fisher said based on the opinion of the
County Attorney, the application then is properly before the Board. Dr. Iachetta noted
that the second item in the proffer is to allow any two uses currently in the C-! district
but does not exclude any use. Mr. St. John said the proffer as written gives that impression
but he was unsure if that was the actual intent.
Mr. McCann said at the hearing in February, the Planning Commission recommended approval
and he had supported denial because of the late night noise which was a concern of the
residents at that particular time. The concern, since filing of this application, is that
a restaurant and possible beer joint in Cismont was not desired. He felt the main concern
is alcoholic beverage usage. In discussing this request with residents in Cismont, the
consensus is that another use in the building is not opposed but a restaurant is not desired.
Mr. M¢Cann said he had supported Mr. Reilly's idea because he felt he had a right to use
the property. However, this request does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and he
felt the applicant's use for a restaurant is premature and he could not support the request.
Dr. Iachetta did not feel the proffer was limited to any one C-1 use but rather states
any two C-1 uses in the building at one time. Therefore, he did not feel the proffer made
any substantial change to the request in February and he then offered motion to accept the
Planning Commission's recommendation to deny ZMA-81-10. Miss Nash seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AY-ES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher~ Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-81-15. Woodbriar Associates. Petition to rezone 2.6 acres
from C-1 to PRD - Open Space Use. Located on western side of Route 29 North between Camelot
Subdivision and General Electric. County Tax Map 32E, part of Parcel 1. Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6 and May 13, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report and noted that the Planning Commission recommended
approval on May 5, 1981, subject to amendment to the preliminary plan for Briarwood PRD to
show appropriate metes and bounds of pertinent parcels prior to final action on this petition
by the Board.
Mr. Fisher then asked if the applicant or anyone representing the applicant was present.
No one was present. Mr. Fisher then requested motion to defer ZMA-81-15 to June 3, 1981,
and that the applicant be renotified. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. L±ndstrom.
Agenda Item No. 8. Annual 1981-82 Highway Hearing.
on May 8 and May 14, 1981.)
(Advertised in the Daily Progress
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. He distributed to the
Board a sheet entitled "Proposed Budget Reflecting Actual Allocation--Albemarle County
Proposed Improvement Budget Secondary System 1981-82." Mr. Roosevelt then quoted Virginia
Code Section 33.1-70.01 pertaining to the requirement that a public hearing be held once a
year on the budget for the secondary system of state highways in the county. Mr. Roosevelt
said based on the requirement of the above code section, an estimate of funds was submitted
by the Highway Department to the Board. A priority list taken from the six-year plan was
then jointly complied by the Board and the Highway Department. This list is being presented
this evening. Mr. Roosevelt then explained the six-year planning map which was adopted in
May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
238
1980 and said that superimposed over that map are the items proposed for this year's budget.
Mr. Roosevelt then explained the following list entitled "Revised Proposed Budget--Albemarle
County, Proposed Improvement Budget, Secondary SYstem, 1981-82" dated May 20, 1981:
Priority Route Description Proposed Allocation
1 --~ Mint Springs Park Access $ 52,000
2 729 Widen/H.S. from 728 to 618 62,500
3 County Wide New pipe 5,000
4 County Wide New signs 5,000
5 County Wide Seeding & Fertilizing 9,000
6 601 Mechum River Bridge 267,000
7 717 Widen/H.S. From 719 to 712 165,000
8 601 Widen/H.S. From 810 to Greene Co. Line 100,000
9 631 Park Street Bridge 101,820
Anticipated Allocation
$767,320
Mr. Roosevelt said the anticipated allocation for the 1981-82 year is $767,320 whereas
for 1980-81 the amount was $1,255,517; said allocation for 1981 is sixty-one percent of the
amount received in 1980. Mr. Roosevelt said priorities 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 have either been
completed or under construction. Hydraulic Road in the amount of $101,820, was shown on
the first proposal and was a continuing allocation to the project. Mr. Roosevelt noted
that there is no allocation for rural additions as has been proposed in the past. Mr.
Roosevelt said priorities 1 through 8 are to cover costs which have either been incurred or
definitely will be incurred during the coming fiscal year. Priority 9 for Park Street
Bridge is an allocation for a project that has no~ yet started construction. (Note: At
the May 13, 1981 meeting, Mr. Roosevelt suggested that priority #9 be changed from Hydraulic
Road to the Park Street Bridge for reasons set out in those minutes.)
Mr. Fisher noted that when this public hearing was first discussed in March, the total
anticipated allocation was for $1,117,500. Between that time and tonight, information has
been received that the allocation will only be $76Z,320. He was concerned that another
communication may be received showing even a lesser allocation. He then recognized Delegate
Mitchell Van Yahres and Senator Thomas Michie, Jr. who had been invited to this meeting in
order to hear the Board's perspective of the problems the reduced funding creates.
Dr. Iachetta asked if figures were available for the allocations prior to 1980-81.
Mr. Roosevelt said the allocation for 1980-81 was $1,255,517 and $1,600,000 for 1979-80.
Dr. IaChetta said this points out that allocations have dropped sharply in a very short
time. Mr. Fisher said the amount of $101,820 anticipated for the Hydraulic Road project in
the original budget, will not complete the allocation for the project even though the
County has been setting aside funds for five or six years. Mr. Roosevelt noted that if
this amount were to be allocated to Hydraulic Road, that project would only be sixty-four
percent financed even with prior year allocations. Therefore, such cannot be let to bid
because a recent change requires that seventy percent of necessary funding must first be
available. Mr. Roosevelt said the money is not available. Park Street Bridge currently
has thirty-eight percent of its financing and Mr. Roosevelt said he had anticipated that by
putting some extra funds on the Park Street project, there would be enough funds for advertisin
the project this year. Senator Michie asked if the sixty-four percent financing reflected
a current estimate. Mr. Roosevelt said yes. -A brief discussion then followed on Hydraulic
Road and how the project had been reduced in size due to shrinking funds. Senator Michie
asked the type of improvement now anticipated. Mr. Fisher said it is to be improved from
Route 29 to just past Albemarle High School at Whitewood Road.
Mr. Roosevelt said since $101,820 will not be enough to bring the Hydraulic Road
project to a favorable position for advertisement, he would recommend the funds be transferred
to the Park Street bridge project. Therefore, instead of thirty-eight percent~financing
available on the Park Street bridge, there would be fifty-five percent.. Since the required
percentage is seventy percent, he felt he could get the add±tional $90,000 necessary for
the Park Street Bridge by taking that amount from financed allocations for Hydraulic Road.
Park Street Bridge has federal funds and the highway department is trying to match federal
funds since cash flow problems exist.- Mr. McCann asked where the allocated funds for
Hydraulic Road are. Mr. Fisher said the State has those funds in the bank drawing interest.
The public hearing was then opened. Speaking first was Mr. Chuck Rotgin. He asked if
the Highway Department will delay acquisition of right-of-way for Hydraulic Road. Mr-.
Roosevelt said the right-of-way acquisition would be continued. The best wasy to get Hydraulic
Road to construction is to have it all applied for under federal aid. Mr. RoOsevelt said
if this works out in the manner he visualizes, the County will be able to qualify for
federal aid for the Hydraulic Road project next year. Mr. Roosevelt said according to
recent correspondence, the secondary budget for the 1982-83 year may be a few hundred
thousand dollars more than for this year, but the year after that it will decrease until
four years from now there may be no allocation at all. Therefore, it is possible that
Hydraulic Road will not be built at all.
Mr. Fisher felt the problem with the State System is that none of the interest on
funds is returned to the localities to cover inflation and costs of highway construction.
Interest on these dollars goes back into the ~tate's General Fund. Senator Michie was not
aware that the interest goes into the State's General Fund and said the law could be changed,
but it would make the general fund harder to balance.
With no one else present to speak on the budget, the public hearing was closed.
Dr. Iachetta said 1the situation on funds has gotten worse. He supported the deletion
of Hydraulic Road and the insertion of the Park Street Bridge project. He then offered
motion to approve the 1981-82 Budget for the Secondary System of State Highways in Albemarle
County as recommended by 'Mr. Roosevelt and set out in the ~minutes of this meeting. Miss
Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor noted that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to show
realignment and improvement of Route 631 from 1-64 to Route 706 was deferred by the Board
at its April 15, 1981 meeting, until tonight in order to obtain comments from the Highway
Department on the need for such improvement.
Mr. Bryon Coburn, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, was present and said several
years ago, the need for improvement of Route 631 South was recognized. The Highway Department
worked up a functional alignment from the end of Fifth Street Extended to 1-64 to tie back
into the area at the entrance to Southwood Mobile Home Park at Route 631. While the CATS
Study was being developed, the need was recognized to extend that improvement to Route 631
through the area of Biscuit Run, Forest Lodge and various other developments in the area.
Mr. Coburn then pointed out on a map the Whittington RPN which has been approved as well as
Biscuit Run and Forest Lodge. The plan was then submitted to the County Planning Department
for comment. Mr. Coburn said the feeling is that the subject route should be extended
through the urban growth area.
~g~ Th~re.wasconf~sionamongtheBoardand so
\~/-T-ht~~oard-~-~Orrf~sed.- Mr. Tucker explained that the Planning Commission on
March 3, 1981, unanimously recommended approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
to show realignment and improvement of Route 631 from 1-64 to Route 706; this is an amendment
to the neighborhood 5 map on page 15 of the Detailed Land Use amendments to show same as a
"Proposed Roadway (CATS)" and an amendment to the text of neighborhood 5. The discussion
at the April 15, 1981, public hearing was why a four lane divided highway was necessary
down to Route 706. Mr. Tucker said he could not answer the questions and the amendment was
deferred until tonight. Miss Nash said this puts a road parallel to Route 20 and she did
not feel there should be two separate four-lane highways going south. However, if that is
the desire, then the extension should be to Route 708 rather than stopping at Route 706.
Mr. Fisher said what is being discussed is a long range planning tool and not the actual
building of a road. Dr. Iachetta said this idea came from the CATS study. The idea behind
the recommendation is that the need is based on an analysis of the number of cars anticipated
in this area by the year 2000. Miss Nash was concerned about growth occurring in the area
being discussed. Mr. Fisher said the projections for population growth were based on old
zoning categories. (Mr. McCann left the meeting at 11:35 P.M.) After a discussion, Mr.
Fisher said he' felt that if the amendment is adopted, the road improvement should stop at
the limits of the urban area. He did not feel the road should be extended to areas not
stipulated for growth. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to
adopt the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to show realignment and improvement of Route
631 from 1-64 to the southern boundary of neighborhood 5; the remaining text of this amendment
is as set out in the minutes of April 15, 1981. Roll was called on the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash.
None.
Messrs. Lindstrom and McCann.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: Amend the Comprehensive Plan by including as an
element to that Plan the Airport Master Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6
and May 13, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report:
"Introduction and Purpose--The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport described as
Tax Map 32, Parcel 10, is located west of Route 606 adjacent to the Hollymead
Community. The airport facility has seen dramatic increases in all phases
of activity since its initial operation began some twenty-six years ago.
Increased use has resulted in a continuous need to upgrade the facility.
A Master Plan was developed in 1972 by the Airport Board to guide the future
direction and growth of the airport. Since the development of this plan,
several changes, such as-the advent of airline deregulation, importance of
third level carriers (commuters) and increased usage and demands placed on
associated facilities, have evolved which were not anticipated in the 1972
Master Plan. Recognizing the importance of these impacts on the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, the Airport Board prepared a Master Plan
Update in 1980.
This report has two purposes: first, to briefly summarize the rocommendations
of the Master Plan Update and secondly, to discuss possible impacts of the
development plan upon Albemarle County. A recommendation for action by the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors is provided in the concluding
section.
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan Update--The Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport first began its operations in 1955 with a single paved
runway, a general administration building and one hangar. Continuous demand
in the operational activities of the facility led to improvements in 1966
and 1973, such as lengthening of the runway, construction of north parallel
taxiway, installation of the precision landing system, dedication of the FAA
control tower, and construction of a turn around taxiway at the south runway
end. Additional improvements to the facility have been made during the last
couple of years. They include: expansion of aviation apron and auto parking
lot, construction of south parallel taxiway and installation of edge lighting
on new taxiway.
The Master Plan Update suggests that recent and substantial aviation changes
(previously discussed in the introduction) as well as continued economic
growth projected for the Charlottesville-Albemarle County area will require
the need to improve further the capability of the air transportation facilities.
Projections in the Update indicate increases in the following operational
activities:
-Air passenger enplanements (from 70,000 in 1980 to 140,000 annual
enplanements by the year 2000);
Ma~ 20, 198_ 1 _(Reg~ular Night Meeting)
, 40
-Commuter operations (from 6158 in 1980 to 7500 annual operations
by the year 2000);
-General aviation operations (from 70,800 in 1980 to 152,535 annual
operations by the year 2000);
-Aviation based aircraft (from 63 in 1980 to 105 based aircraft by
the year 2000);
-Air taxi/charter aircraft operations (from 2125 in 1980 to 3050
annual operations by the year 2000);
-Air cargo and mail volume (from 715 in 1980 to 1860 annual tons
by the year 2000);
-Airport related ground traffic (from 1030 in 1980 to 1865 average
daily traffic volumes by the year 2000);
Two operational activities which may show declines during the planning period
include air carrier operations and military operations. Piedmont Airlines,
the single air carrier service at the airport, plans to replace all the turbo-prop
aircraft with the larger fan jet aircraft by 1985. (Piedmont already uses some
large fan jet aircraft at the airport.) Based on this information and assuming
the continuation of one air carrier service, the Update predicts the actual
number of annual flight operations required to handle the demand will decrease
from 6780 in 1980 to 5110 operations by the year 2000. The number of daily
flights will decrease from ten in 1980 to seven by the year 2000.
Military operations at the airport are expected to decline from 1500 annual
operations in 1980 to 1300 in 1985. Beyond 1985, the number of annual operations
is expected to remain unchanged.
A thorough analysis of the terminal, parking and general aviation facilities
was prepared based on the projected operational activities for 1980-2000. Many
of the airport facilities were found to be inadequate and unable to provide
efficient service throughout the planning period.
A twenty-year development plan, scheduled to occur in three phases, was
recommended for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. A discussion of the
development plan follows. Terminal area facility improvements, presented first,
are shown in Figure 1. (Copy on file in the Clerk's Office) General aviation
facility improvements are then discussed. These development plans are taken
directly from the Master Plan Update.
Terminal Area Facility Development
Phase I, 1981-1985
Initial construction will include the grading and paving required to complete
the revised internal roadway system and the new short term and rental car
parking areas. The major portion of the long term parking area and the access
structure will also be constructed at this time. The enlarged rental car ready
and return parking facilities will be of adequate size to accommodate forecast
rental car requirements. Additional auto storage areas will be available at the
rental car maintenance facility that will be constructed near the planned air
cargo site. The most recently built parking area located to the east of the
present Crash, Fire and Rescue (CFR) Building will be used for employee parking
and as an interim general aviation parking area.
The terminal area apron pavement section and north parallel taxiway is not
designed to accommodate the expected air carrier aircraft and should therefore
be programmed for a pavement strengthening project during the Phase I development
of the terminal area. In accordance with the 1978 runway strengthening project,
the terminal apron and north parallel taxiway should be strengthened to
accommodate aircraft with gross weights up to 150,000 lbs. - dual gear (B727-100)
as a minimum.
Phase II, 1986-1990
During this period, terminal additions to the north and south of the existing
building will be constructed. Careful planning of the phasing of the south
terminal addition will permit the interim building to remain in use until
substantial portions of the new structure are operational. The plan for the
new secure lobby should include provisions for the second level area to be
constructed in the next phase. The south Fixed Base Operation (FBO) maintenance
hangar is scheduled to be demolished in 1990, allowing expansion of the south
rental car parking area for additional auto storage capability.
Phase III, 1991-2000
The final construction will include the second level secure lobby and
loading bridge. Although the restaurant/lounge is shown as being constructed
in this stage because of increased passenger activity, it could be built
earlier depending on desirability by prospective concessionaires. Additional
long term parking is also scheduled for this time.
Even though it is not required during the forecast period, provision for the
possible construction of a structural parking deck is shown on the lower level
long term lot. The design of the vertical access tower should accommodate
this eventual parking area expansion feature.
24i
May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
I
The ultimate development of the Terminal Area Access Plan included provisions
for the eventual relocation of the State Route 649/606 intersection situated at
the airport entrance. This improvement will be coordinated with the State
Highway Department. The proposed relocation plan for State Route 606 would
totally abandon the existing intersection and provide a new airport entrance
directly in front of the terminal area. By relocating the airport entrance,
overall safety would be improved and the visual aesthetic appearance of the
terminal area greatly enhanced. To accomplish the ultimate relocation of
the Airport entrance, two alternative alignments for State Route 606 north of
State Route 649 are shown on the development plans. Although preferred from the
viewpoint of highway geometrics, the alternative requiring property acquisition
appears not feasible due to the difficulty and expense in acquiring the required
right-of-way. The less desirable alternative requiring a double reverse (14R)
curve is feasible and could be designed to comply with all road standards.
The abandoned section of State Route 606 in front of the terminal area would be
converted to an internal service road connecting the FBO operations, air
cargo facilities and corporate hangar development areas.
General Aviation Facility Development
Phase I, 1981-1985
The Phase I facility development items include the construction of a new CFR
building simultaneously with the construction of the first phase air cargo
complex. These developments are both high priority items and should be
constructed in the first half (1981-1982) of the period. The staging program
also recommends the first phase construction.of a new corporate hangar facility
in the area between the existing T-hangars and the FBO maintenance hangar
(south FBO area) during the early part of the period. The area in front of the
proposed corporate hangar facility should be regarded and paved to provide
additional based aircraft tie-down space.
A new FBO lease to be negotiated in late 1980 for the south general aviation
area should provide for the relocation of the FBO service hangar to the
recommended location at the southernmost end of the complex during the Phase I
development period. The rehabilitation of the fuel farm entrance road and
parking area to serve as access to the FBO service area must be coordinated
with the shift in FBO operations to the south apron area. The access road
rehabilitation should be coupled with the installation of the new jet fuel
underground storage tank (10,000 gallons) at the fuel farm and the con-
struction of the access loop around the fueling area for the tender/tanker
service operations.
It is also recommended that with the development of the new FBO complex
and the shift of general aviation transient operations further south on the
apron, there will be the need to strengthen the (12,500 lb. design) apron
pavement to accommodate aircraft weighing up to 60,000 lbs.
Other general aviation development items in Phase Z include the expansion of
the apron at the north FBO complex (United Air Services) to provide the
increased tie-down space needed by 1985. The Phase I development of the
north general aviation complex also includes the construction of ten
T-hangar units needed to satisfy the aircraft storage demands which exceed
the airfield capacity even in 1980.
With the development of the new areas on the airfield, there will be the need
to provide the associated construction items such as fencing, lighting,
utilities, tie-downs, marking and seal coat.
The completion of the extended runway safety area for both runway ends and the
acquisition of the parcel (four acres) of property adjacent to the northeast
airport property line is expected by 1981.
Phase Ii, 1986-1990
The Phase II facility developments will include a continued expansion of
the general aviation facilities providing aircraft storage. Additional T-hangar
units (10), conventional hangar space and the demolition of the former FBO
service hangar (south complex) are major items of development during the period.
Phase III, 1991-2000
The major item of development shoWn in the Phase III development plan for the
general aviation facilities is the expansion of the air cargo complex in an
effort to accommodate additional cargo operations. Further expansion of
the general aviation area to provide more tie-down space is available in the
area adjacent to the Phase II and Phase III T-hangar units. Space for expansion
of the hangar facilities at the north FBO complex and at the corporate hangar
complex is available for Phase III development as demands warrant.
Utility Requirements--Sewer service for the terminal is provided by a 3000 gallon
'septic tank and approximately 1500 linear feet of drainfield located near the
terminal building. According to the 1972 Airport Master Plan, the system is
operating at capacity. Based on the projected increase of passenger enplanements
and the development of terminal facilities, the Master Plan Update recommends
that county sewer service be extended to the facility prior to terminal
development.
May 20, 1981 (Regu&~r Night Meeting)
242
Water service is supplied to the airport from a twelve-inch main located along
State Route 606. The Albemarle County Service Authority states that the existing
water main should be adequate for the expansion of airport facilities even with
the provision of additional fire hydrants.
Financing--The recommended airport development plan for the next twenty years includes
several major capital improvement projects.
According to the update, most of the planned improvements will be eligible for
funding from Federal and State governments. The airport may also expect increased
revenues due to current growth trends and the expansion of facilities recommended
by the development plan.
The financial analysis presented in the Master Plan Update suggests that all
operating income generated during the Phase I period is saved and accrues interest
between the end of the year generated and the end of Phase I. This income and
interest could then be utilized to reduce the airport share of the costs. Short
term financing with interest payments being made by contributions from
Charlottesville and Albemarle County would pay for Phase I improvements. Permanent
financing for the airport share is then suggested to be secured from the issuance
of tax exempt bonds. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board is restricted
from issuing bonds; therefore, issuance of bonds would have to originate from the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council.
Albemarle County has committed financial support for the airport in its 1980-1985
Capital Improvements Program. A total of $44,875 was recommended for funding in
the C.I.P. for the period. An additional request of $62,500 for terminal expansion
was deleted from the recommendation until the Master Plan Update had been
reviewed by county and city planning staffs.
(Staff comments dated February 20, 1981, relating to land use, noise, stormwater
runoff, utilities, transportation and data base were also presented by Mr.
Tucker and are on permanent file in the Clerk's Office.)
Conclusion and Recommendations-'This report has attempted to provide both a summary
of the basic points and a discussion of expected impacts of the recommended
development plan of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Staff recommends:
1. Approval of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan Update
as a guide relating to future land use decisions in the airport area."
(Mr. McCann returned to the meeting at 11:38 P.M.) Mr. Tucker then noted that the
Planning Commission recommended at its meeting on April 7, 1981, approval of the Charlot
Albemarle Airport Master Plan Update as a guide relating to future land use decisions in
the airport area.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Agnor, speaking on behalf of the Airport Board,
said a great deal of work has gone into this proposal. Mr. Agnor recommended the Master
Plan be approved as a guide and as to the financial aspects of same, these will be a part
of the Five Year Capital Improvement program review. Mr. Agnor said an effort is being
made to make the Airport a self-sufficient facility from the standpoint of capital costs.
Therefore, Mr. Agnor said it is not anticipated that tax funds will be required to pay the
debt of the Airport.
Mr. Mike Boggs, manager of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, was present. He
said federal regulations require that such a plan be approved by the local governing bodies.
With no one else to speak for or against the amendment, the public'hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to incorporate the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan Update into the Comprehensive Plan as a guide
relating to future land use decisions in the airport area. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, MCCann and Miss Nash.
Messrs.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Ordinance to amend Chapter 7 of the Albemarle
County Code by the addition of a Section 7-5(cl) concerning the withholding of certain soil
erosion permits pending subdivision and site plan review. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on May 6 and May 13, 1981.) ~
Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission at its March 31, 1981, meeting recommended that
the Board include a provision in the Soil Erosion Ordinance to require that site plan or
subdivision plat approval be granted prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Mr. Agnor
said the language prepared by the County Attorney's office accomplishes-the recommendation.
Mr. Agnor noted request dated May 18, 1981 from Mr. Jim Hill for this matter to be deferred
until a committee could be appointed to review same.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Chuck Rotgin was present and noted his concern
about the ordinance. Even though the amendment appears to be a minor change, Mr. Rotgin
noted that in the present economic environment any change is critical. He noted that
timing of development in today's market is very important due to interest rates. Mr.
Rotgin said his company has for many years operated under the philosophy that a site plan
be prepared and submitted for a piece of land to be developed, and if the zoning is known
to be proper and with a few minor changes such as setback, then the plan will be approved.
This flexibility is very important. Mr. Rotgin suggested a committee be appointed to work
with the planning staff to see where the problems are and to determine if there is a solution
other than the proposed ordinance.
243
M ~ 20 ]'l 81 Re ulg~Night Meetin___g)
Mr. Sandy Lambert was present and noted that he was not aware that the Board would be
considering this matter. He felt an oversight had been made to not communicate with the
people who deal with these provisions on a daily basis to see what reaction these people
might have. He then cited a particular case involving himself where the ordinance would
have hindered him greatly.~ Mr. Lambert then asked what triggered this action.
Mr. Tucker said several things triggered the Planning Commission to recommend this
amendment. One particular case was in the Briarwood area where grading was of concern to
the Commission. Mr. Tucker said often property is graded extensively before a site plan is
submitted and then a site plan is brought in. The plan will then show that had the property
been left in its natural state, a lot of the natural vegetation would not have had to be
graded at all. Also, during work on the new Zoning Ordinance, these same concerns were
expressed by Board members several times.
Mr. Lambert then noted agreement with the suggestion of Mr. Rotgin to defer acting on
this ordinance and instead to examine ways and methods in which to handle these situations
better.
A general discussion followed on the problems with this ordinance and other ordinances.
Mr. Fisher felt the concerns have been heard and asked if the Board was willing to continue
this public hearing to the July 8, 1981 meeting in order to establish a committee composed
of persons from the Planning Commission, Planning Staff, Board of Supervisors, Home Builders
and one or two other people that the Home Builders would select from related industries.
This committee could perhaps study the matter further and determine if there is a better
solution to the problem. Mr. Fisher then requested authorization for him to also establish
the committee in order to see what can be done. Mo~ion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Miss Nash, to continue this public hearing to July 8, 1981, and authorize Mr.
Fisher to set up the Committee as requested. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 11. Set public hearing to amend Section 14-11 of the Albemarle County
Code concerning the fees charged for the use of parks, recreational areas and swimming
facilities.
Mr. Fisher noted that a copy of the proposed amendment had been distributed to the
Board and asked the date suggested for the public hearing. Mr. Agnor suggested June 17,
1981. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to advertise for
public hearing on June 17, 1981, an amendment to Section 14-11 of the Albemarle County Code
concerning the fees charged for the use of parks, recreational areas and swimming facilities.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Agnor then requested that the Board adopt the ordinance this evening as an emergency
measure in order that the new fees can be in effect for the Memorial Day Weekend opening of
the parks. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the
following ordinance effective this date as an emergency measure. Roll was called on the
foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 14-11 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
CONCERNING THE FEES CHARGED FOR THE USE OF
PARKS, RECREATIONAL AREAS AND SWIMMING FACILITIES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the County Code be, and it hereby is, amended in Section 14-11 thereof,
as follows:
Section 14-11. Same--Fees.
(a) Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 15.1-526 of the Code of
Virginia, as amended, there is hereby imposed by the County the following rates
and charges for the use of parks, recreational areas and swimming facilities under
the county's jurisdiction:
(1) Daily rates, swimming:
a. Adults (13 years and older) one dollar and seventy-five cents
per day county residents; two dollars per day noncounty residents.
b. Children (4-12 years of age) one dollar per day county residents;
one dollar and twenty-five cents per day noncounty residents.
c. Children (under 4 years of age), free.
(2) Season rates, swimming:
a. Adults (13 years and older) twenty-five dollars county residents;
thirty dollars noncounty residents.
May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
b. Children (4-12 years of age) fifteen dollars county residents;
twenty dollars noncounty residents.
c. Family (parents and ~hildren residing in the same household)
fifty dollars county residents; sixty dollars noncounty residents.
d. After July 15, these rates are reduced by one-half.
(3) Picnic Shelter Reservation Fees:
a. Groups under 50, $10 per event.
b. Groups 50 - 100, $20 per event.
c. Groups 100 - 150, $30 per event.
d. Reservations will not be made for groups in excess of 150.
(b) The foregoing rates may be changed from time to time by the board of
supervisors. A copy of rates shall be posted at points where such fees are to
be collected. Fees for rental of county-owned boats, and recreation programs or
activities, shall be determined by order of the County Executive.
(c) No person shall be permitted to use facilities for which fees are charged
as aforementioned without first having paid the same; however, the foregoing charges
may be suspended by order of a county official so designated by the County Executive.
No fees paid under this section shall be refunded. Passes issued on payment of
such fees shall not be transferable.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: May 21, 1980.
Dr. Iachetta had read the minutes and noted on page 46, s~cond paragraph, seventh
sentence the words "sixty-eight percent of $5,000" was incorrect and suggested the mathematics
on such be checked. (Mr. Agnor examined the mathematics and corrected the wording to
"$68,000 to $75,000".) He also noted the third paragraph on page 46, sixth sentence, the
word "it" should be "there" Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss
Nash, to approve the minutes of May 21, 1980, with the above corrections. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
letter dated May 11, 1981, from Mr. St. John regarding liabil~
Mr. F~sher noted receipt of
insuranc'e~overeign immunity as set out below:
"Dear Miss Nash and Gentlemen:
As you may be aware, the General Assembly has abolished sovereign immunity
in Virginia. This abolition takes effect July 1, 1981, as to attorney's fees
only, and as to all other claims July 1, 1982. By its words, the act applies
only to the state but we believe that because the County's immunity is
derivative from the states, our immunity is also abolished.
This will expose the county to unlimited liability which cannot be
budgeted, nor even estimated. It is an open-ended risk which will and can
result in radical wrenching effects on our fiscal process unless it is
insured against, and although this kind of insurance will be very expensive,
I recommend you study this step and perhaps consult the appropriate state
agency which handles state insurance, as well as other localities, as to
how they intend to deal with this matter.
A copy of a recent National Institute of Municipal Law Officials (NIMLO)
release is attached which will inform you of the magnitude of this
situation even before the state act; the state act will simply add to
the already existing federal exposure.
Mr. Fisher felt it appropriate to request the staff to examine the options available
to cover the changes in liability which will occur on July 1, 1981. If a recommendation is
received from the staff to take some action between today and that time to cover that
liability, then Mr. Fisher felt the Board should be prepared to do so. Mr. St. John said
he received yesterday an opinion from the Attorney General stating that this legislation
only applies to state agencies but he still feels some federal court will state that the
immunity is derivative from the state immunity. Therefore, he felt a study should be done.
Agenda Item No. 14. At 12:04 A.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. McCann, to adjourn to June 3, 1981, at 2:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference
Room. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
¢
CHAI A~N~