Loading...
1981-07-01July 1, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held ~n,!~gu~tY~t~l~981, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V.' Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. Jo~ and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by'the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-81-25. Richard Freedman. Petition to locate a veterinary office and hospital on 0.840 acre zoned C-1. Located south side of Westfield Road approximate[ 500 feet west of the intersection of Westfield and Route 29 North. County Tax Map 61W, Parcel 01-Al. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 17 and June 24, 1981.) Mr. McCann said he would abstain since he is an adjacent property owner and left the room. Mr. Robert~W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented the following staff report: "Request: Veterinary office and hospital Acreage: 0.84 acre Zoning: C-1 Commercial Location: Property, described as 061W-01-A-1, is located on Westfield Road adjacent to the Cosmopolitan Spa. Character of~the Area: This property is located internally in the Westfield commercial subdivision. Several businesses exist in the area. The closest residential district is about 600 feet northeast of the site. Staff Comment: The applicant has stated in his written description of the proposal that he is confident the building design will satisfy the noise requirements of Section 5.1.11 (Supplementary Regulations for Kennels, Veterinary and Animal Hospitals). The Building Official would expect a noise attenuation of 35-40 decibels from the description of the building construction. Combined with other limitations proposed by the applicant and distance to residential areas, staff would not expect this use to be detrimental to the area. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 3. 4. 5. Compliance with Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance; No boarding or grooming except as necessary for medical treatment; No outdoor runs or other outdoor animal confinements; Site plan approval; Building Official review of building plans for adequacy of sound-proofing provisions prior to site plan review by the Planning Commission." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 9, 1981, unanimously recommended approval of SP-81-25 with conditions 1 through 4 of the staff recommendations. Mr. Tucker said condition 5 as recommended by the staff has been satisfied by the following letter dated June 5, 1981, from Mr. Hartwell P. Clarke, Building Official: "Dr. Richard Freedman Box 49 Free Union, Virginia 22940 Re: Albemarle Veterinary Clinic Building Dear Sir: I have determined that the exterior shell of your proposed building will attenuate sound approximately thirty (30) decibels with windows and doors closed. The air conditioning fresh air intake and exhaust should be oriented to the east to reduce the sound transmission toward residential areas. Five or six dogs barking would create a decibel level between 60 and 70. With the attenuation provided by the building and the reduction gained by the distance to the property line, the decibel level should not exceed 40. Very truly yours, (Signed by) Hartwell P. Clarke Building Official" Dr. Iachetta asked if there will be any on-site incineration. The public hearing was opened. Dr. Richard Freedman, applicant, was present and said no because the SPCA disposes of carcasses. He also noted that the only boarding on the site will be for medical purposes. Dr. Freedman said the interior of the building will be soundproofed by insulating the interior walls and using acoustic tile. He also noted that there will be no outdoor runs. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the publfc hearing was closed. 293 Jul~ 1, 1981 (Regular Night Me.eting) Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-81-25 Nith the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann. At 7:40 P.M., Mr. McCann returned to the meeting. Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-81-19. William and Alvin Breit. Petition to rezone 6.87 acres currently zoned RA to LI. Located on eastern side of Route 29 North opposite Camelot Subdivision, approximately 1,200 feet north of North Fork Rivanna bridge crossing. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 5F. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 17 and June 24, 1981.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: Light Industrial Acreage: 6.87 acres Existing Zoning: Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5F, is located on the east side of Route 29 North, north and adjacent to Ward's Mobile Home Sales. Character of the Area: Ward's Mobile Home Sales, Badger-Powhatan and the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant are to the south. Other properties in the immediate vicinity are undeveloped. Camelot Subdivision, Briarwood PRD and General Electric are across Route 29 North. This property has been graded to the elevation of Route 29 North in anticipation of development. Comprehensive Plan: This property is across Route 29 North from the Piney Mountain village as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. As opposed to other development zoning, the Plan does not recommend industrial location to be restricted exclusively to growth areas. To the contrary, 'Map IV Potential Industrial Development Areas' indicates a number of potential locations outside of designated growth areas. This property is recommended as a top priority site when evaluated under the Comprehensive Plan's standards for industrial location. Staff Comment: Staff recommends approval of this petition for the following reasons: The site receives top ranking under Comprehensive Plan standards; Considering commerciaZ/industrial uses in the area, adjacent to Route 29 North, size of the property, and past site preparation (and resultant lack of top soil), the property appears better suited to Light Industrial zoning than to Rural Areas zoning; The Comprehensive Plan recommends identification of 2,000 acres of industrial land by 1995." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 9, 1981, unanimously recommended approval of this petition. Mr. Tucker noted that the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant is adjacent to this property but the plant is reaching capacity and will probably have to be expanded before development continues in this area. Dr. Iachetta asked if the east side of Route 29 North is served by water only. Mr. Tucker said yes, therefore, an amendment to the Service Authority's jurisdictional areas would be necessary. Mr. Lindstrom asked what impact the lack of sewer would have on this rezoning. Mr. Tucker said due to the size of the property, there are many uses the applicant could have on this property with water only. Mr. Lindstrom asked why this area was not included for public sewage disposal. Mr. Tucker said this area is outside of the growth area. Dr. Iachetta asked the depth of the property. Mr. Tucker said approximately eight hundred and fifty feet. Dr. Iachetta asked if that was adequate for a leechfield. Mr. Tucker said yes. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Breit, the applicant, was present and noted that he does not have ~ny present plans for the property. Mr. Roger Davis, Jr., representing the applicant, was present and noted that Ward's Mobile Home the existing use on the property does not require sewage disposal. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve ZMA-81-19 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and noted that this action does not guarantee the future availability of sewer in the subject area. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs~ Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Jul~_~1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 29.4 Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-81-21. E. Morris Chisholm. Petition to rezone 10 acres out of 548.001 currently zoned RA to LI. Located on Route 743 near Earlysvilie approximately 9/10 of a mile south of the intersection of Routes 743 and 660. County Tax Map 31, Parcel 23. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 17 and June 24, 1981.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: Light Industrial (Proffered) Acreage: 10 acres of a 548 acre tract Existing Zoning: Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 23 (part), is located on the southeast side of Route 743 about 1000 feet west of Route 606. Character of the Area: A portion of this property is developed with the Haley, Chisholm and Morris Inc. contractor's office and equipment storage yard. The closest dwelling to this industrial use is about 2000 feet southeast on Route 743. Teledyne and Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport properties are across Route 743. Because of forecasted noise levels, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan does not recommend residential land uses in this area. This property is located within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed. Existing impoundments on the property aid in control of run-off to the Reservoir. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan is unclear as to recommendations for industrial use in reservoir watersheds. Since this property is not within an Albemarle County Service Authority project area and since it is more than a half mile from a major transportation facility, the property does not receive a priority ranking under Comprehensive Plan criteria for industrial location. Staff Comment: This rezoning request is being made in order to permit expansion of an existing contractor's office and related uses. The applicant has proffered exclusion of certain LI uses, including most manufacturing uses. The petition for rezoning is limited to 10 acres surrounding the existing uses. Considering proximity to Teledyne and the Airport and remoteness from existing residential uses in the area, staff opinion is that continuation and expansion of uses on this property would not be obtrusive or detrimental to other uses in the area. A matter the Commission and the Board may wish to discuss, in view of the Reservoir, is the amount of impervious coverage anticipated due to the expansion of the use." Mr. Tucker then noted the following proffer dated May 1, 1981, received from Mr. E. Morris Chisholm, applicant: " . . I hereby proffer, as a condition to this application for Light Industry Zoning, to restrict this property from the following permitted uses, as described in Article III, Section 27.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance: Compounding of drugs . . . Fire stations .... Manufacture . · (Except wood and metal fabrication, welding operations) Assembly and fabrication .... T! Public uses · · Mr. Tucker then read the uses allowed by right in the Light Industry Zone which the applicant is requesting to use. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its June 9, 1981 meeting unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-81-21 with the proffer as set out above. Mr. Tucker then read the following letter received from Mr. C. M. Boggs, Charlottesvil Albemarle Airport manager, dated June 5, 1981: "Reference Mr. Chisholm's request to rezone 10 acres from RA to LI, there appears to be no problems related to noise exposure. The area in question is located within the 70 Ldn contour and the LI use is permitted with this level of noise exposure. Another area of concern related to this particular piece of property is covered in Section 30.2.4.1 of the County Zoning Ordinance. This~ section addresses the protection of the airport's imaginary surfaces from various kinds of uses that would limit or endanger airport operations. Keeping this section in mind, LI uses should be carefully controlled." Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of the operat±on under the RA District. Mr. Tucker said theoperation is nonconforming in the RA and the applicant would like to expand the operation but cannot because of its nonconforming status. Mr. Tucker said a concern of the Planning Commission was the possibility of run-off. He then presented some aerials photos the impoundments. Mr. Tucker pointed out the area which drains down to a larger lake and pointed out a smaller pond on the property. He noted that there are several large lakes and a small pond which will drain the area before any run-off ever reaches the reservoir. Mr. Tucker said one of the lakes is on adjacent property. Mr. Fisher said another property owner cannot be expected to take care of run-off from another property. Mr. Lindstrom asked the amount of area currently nonconforming.. Mr. Tucker said about four to five acres· The public hearing was opened. Mr. Mike Boggs, an employee of Haley, Chisholm and Morris, was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Boggs said the expansion is not for personnel, but rather for office space. July 1, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Discussion then followed on the application of the Runoff Control Ordinance to the request. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if only new structures determined whether the runoff control ordinance actually applied or whether existing structures would be incorporated as well. Mr. St. John only new structures would trigger the runoff control or applying those things existing before the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Therefore, the conclusion that any addition of impervious surfaces lesS than one-half acre .would be exempt from the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr~ Lindstrom said in a letter from Mr. Chisholm dated May 1, 1981, Mr. ChishoZm noted that the present use of the property includes storage of waste oil and gasoline. He then asked what sort of regulations pertained to the way in which those materials are stored. Mr. Tucker was unsure if this operation is reviewed by the Health Department or not'but noted that service stations and garages are reviewed for such storage facilities. Mr. Boggs said the storage facilities have never been examined as far as he knew and noted that the storage of those materials is in movable tanks. Mr. Boggs said the operation is scattered throughout the property and in the woods over the ten acre area. Mr. Lindstrom asked the immediate need for expanding the office space. Mr. Boggs said for consolidation. With no one else present to speak for or against the matter, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher was inclined to recognize the existing uses and permit the expansion. However, he said the operation will be a totally isolated spot of light industry that is surrounded by rural areas, is in the watershed, and the runoff control ordinance will not apply until there is one-half acre of new buildings or new impervious surfaces. Also, nothing can be requested by the Board of the applicant to protect the reservoir. Therefore, Mr. Fisher was curious about the ordinances. A brief discussion followed on the portion of property now developed. Dr..Iachetta said this particular situation has always raised the question in his mind about the five percent exclusion in the Runoff'' Control Ordinance, but he did not know how such could apply retroactively to this type of development. Mr. Lindstrom shared the feelings of Mr. Fisher and asked if the Board could consider rezoning only a portion of what has been requested. He felt ten acres is enough for a substantial expansion in the future. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel the use is compatible to the area and the Comprehensive Plan does not recognize this area for any priority of industrial use. Therefore, he felt the only argument in favor of the request is the fact that it presently exists and should be treated as an industry in order for the operation to continue. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be willing to consider rezoning a portion of the property but not the entire ten acres. Mr. Henley did not feel ten acres wa~smexcessive amount of property for this operation. Mr. McCann said most of the property is currently used and the two ponds should aid in control of the runoff. He felt that even if the operation is concentrated in one area there will still be the same problem with runoff. Mr. Boggs requested an opportunity to comment. The public hearing was then reopened. Mr. Boggs said the uses will b~ scattered over the entire ten acres and the operation can hardly be seen from the air. He also noted that if any amount of acreage less than the requested amount is rezoned, then the operation will still be nonconforming. With no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked if a site plan for building a road to the site was submitted and if there would be a review of the storage of gasoline, etc. Mr. Tucker said not unless there is some change .'~ ~ in the storage. Dr. Iachetta asked if there are any Environmental Protection Agency regulations about storage tanks. Mr. Tucker was not sure. He did note that the State Water Control Board has controls that regulates this kind of operation and the health department inspects for service stations, etc., but was unsure of the specifics for something like this. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZMA-81-21 by rezoning the portion of the property running parallel to the front property line on the road, and running approxima~ three hundred and seventy-five feet from the front property line oh the north side. Mr. Fisher said the request has been presented to the Board with a proffer and asked if the motion was proper. Mr. St. John said the motion would be within the constraints of the proffer statute if the applicant accepts such. Mr. Henley suggested the site be viewed by the Board before action on Mr. Lindstrom's motion because he felt there must be a tremendous amount of material which has to be stored somewhere. Mr. McCann said based on the current use of the property and Mr. Chisholm, one of the owners of the operation being the adjacent property owner, he is in favor of the raqu~st because there is a lot of equipment and a lot of space is necessary to store same. He preferred recognizing the use rather than rezoning bits and pieces of the property. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Mr. Tucker then noted that if the existing office space is expanded and no additional parking or a new entrance is necessary, then the expansion would be exempt from a site plan. Mr. Fisher said he has problems with surveyors drawing lines and in the motion it is assumed that the road is straight and a line can be drawn that will be parallel to such at all points. Mr. Lindstrom said it would be a line that at all points would be equidistant from the front property line by three hundred and seventy-five feet. Mr. Henley did not agree with the applicant being limited to the portion of property stated in the motion. He felt such was too small but could agree to a boundary line being imposed on the front in order to retain the trees. Mr. Fisher said Mr. St. John has stated that the applicant has to agree with this proposal and he felt the applicant should be asked for a reponse. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not remember how approval of rezonings less than the amount requested had been handled in the past. Mr. St. John said this situation is different due to the proffer because the applicant has offered something which he will be bound by and if the applicant only gets one-half of what he is asking for, he may not be willing to offer the proffer at the same time. Mr. Boggs said in the interest of the owner he would object to the proposal. Mr. St. John said based on that comment, the rezoning would have to be granted as requested Or denied. Mr. Lindstrom then withdrew his motion. July 1, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 296 Mr. Henley supported the request because otherwise one-half of the property would be conforming and the other one-half would be nonconforming.~ Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern that even with the proffer, the existing use and other uses allowed in the Light Industry zone, the expansion could occur all over the ten acres and therefore would be exempt from the runoff control ordinance. Mr. Henley felt the Board would have some control even if the applicant tried to change the use and did a lot of construction. Miss Nash noted interest in seeing the property. Mr. iMcCann then offered motion to approve ZMA-81-21 with the proffer dated May 1, 1981, from the iapplicant. He felt the use was proper and allows the applicant to continue his operation which he felt should be recognized for what it is. Mr. Fisher asked if the motion included anotation on the zoning map that this rezoning is approved because of the existing use. Mr. McCann said yes. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Dr. Iachetta felt the property imay be a little deeper than it needs to be but if it were not at least back to the seven hundred and fifty foot point, then it would be difficult to continue the operation. He then noted support of the motion because of the existing operation. However, Dr. Iachetta did feel that the Runoff Control Ordinance should be examined from the standpoint of what runoff can come off of property when dealing with nonresidential areas. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 5. Set public hearing date to amend Chapter 6 of the Albemarle County Code. Mr. St. John said approval from the Department of Justice has been received of the redistricting resolution adopted by the Board on April 8, 1981. Therefore, a public hearing needs to be set in order for resolution to be put in ordinance form. Mr. St. John said the law does not require an ordinance but the Board elected to do this by ordinance. Most counties adopt an ordinance setting out metes and bounds so there is a permanent record. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise for public hearing on July 15, 1981, an ordinance to amend Chapter 6 of the Albemarle County Code. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: NOne. Agenda Item No. 6. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor said memora~m~..dated June 24, 1981, from Dr. Clarence McClure, Superintendent of Education, has been received requesting an appropriation for Tuition--SED Students in the amount of $264,000. The School Board at its work session on June 23, 1981, approved the operation of a residential program for middle and secondary school seriously emotionally disturbed students to be located at Camp Holiday Trails. The requested appropriation is to be funded totally by tuition fees from the school divisions that place students in this residentlial facility. Therefore, the operation will be self-sustaining. Mr. Agnor said this prolgram is subject to contracting with other school divisions to provide a sufficient amount olf revenue added to the funds that the Albemarle School System already has in their operatiHg budget. He noted that Albemarle County plans to contract with Augusta County for the program. Subject to those contracts, the program is to begin this fall. Mr. Agnor said his recommendation is to approve the request and to authorize the Finance Director to include the appropriation in the 1981-82 budget. Dr. Iachetta asked if this is a new program. Mr. Agnor said this is a continuing program but the administration has changed. Augusta County has been handling the program at Camp Holiday Trails but has decided to move its program to Fishersville. The Albemarle School System desires the program to continue here and to be under their administration. Assurances from other school systems such as Chesterfield County have been received which makes the program feasible to continue at Camp Holiday Trails. A brief discussion then followed on the number of teaching positions that may be involved in this program. Mr. Ray Clark, Director of Albemarle County Special Services, was present and said contracts are expected for twenty-five positions. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not opposed to the idea but was curious about what would happen if there was not twenty-five positions. Mr. Clark said the program will not be operational if the positions are not filled. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $264,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund and transferred to Code 17Q--Residential Program for SED Students; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1981-82 School Budget be amended by the addition of Revenue Code 216.12.030 entitled Tuition--SED Students for $264,000. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES' NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. 297 July 1, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 7. Amend Certain Sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (Deferred from June 3, 1981). Mr. Tucker said the Board at its meeting on June 3, 1981, was not completely satisfied with amendments proposed and he had worked with Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash on the wording of certain sections and the following are the revised proposed changes and additions: "Amend Section 4.6.13.1 as follows: Front yards of the depth required in the district shall be provided e~ ~he-~e~e~-e~-$~e-~e~ across the full width of the lot adjacent to the street. Depth of a required front yard shall be measured from the right-of-way line of the street in such a fashion that the building line of such yard shall be equidistant from the street right-of-way at all points. Areas in parking bays shall not be considered as part of the street or access easement for purposes of determining front yard depth. Add Subsections 5 and 6 under Section 30.3.5.1.1, BY RIGHT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY, as follows: j Eleotri0, gas, oil, and communications facilities, including poles, !.i~es, .pipes, meters and related facilities, for distribution ~f local service and owned and operated by a public utility, but excluding multi-legged tower structures. Water distribution and sewage collection lines and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority, but excluding pumping stations and holding ponds. Amend Definition of 'Setback' in Section 3.0 as follows: Setback: The distance by which any building or structure is separated from any street, road or access easement. ~aee~-~e-~he-~e~-~e-e~ ~he-~e~-~a~ee~-e~-~e~&e~-~he~ee~-e~-wh&e~-e~eh-~&~&~-e~-e~e~e ~e-~eea~e~ Amend Section 4.6.3.3 as follows: Street line for measurement of required yards adjacent to streets. Required yards and setbacks shall be measured from a line ~a~a~e~-$e equidistant from the street lot line(s) at all points. Add Section 4.6.3.3.4 as follows: As to any yard ad.jacent to a street, road or access easement, the yard requirements of this ordinance shall be deemed to have been complied with if the setback shall be not less than the minimum yard dimensions required thereby." Mr. Fisher said since the public hearing has been held on these amendments, a motion is in order. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the amendments in the sections of the Zoning Ordinance as set out above. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor said with the retirement of Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, effective June 30, 1981, the Assistant County Engineer can serve as County Engineer until the position is filled. However, the position of the Runoff Control Official is not as clear, so Mr. Agnor requested that the Assistant County Engineer, Mr. J. Ashley Williams, be appointed the interim Runoff Control Official. Motion to t~is effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 8. At 8:45 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 9:45 P.M. Agenda Item No. 9. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.