1980-06-18June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on June 18, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: M~ssrs. Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom,
and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. William S. Roudabush.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant; and Messrs. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; and Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P.M., by
the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-80-17. Kendrick Dure. For a polo facility and related acti-
vities under Section 2-1-25(10) of the Zoning Ordinance. (Deferred from May 7, 1980.)
Mr. Robert W~ Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented the Planning Staff report
and the recommendation of the Planning Commission:
Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Polo and related activities (Section 2-1-25(10))
50+ acres
A-~ Agriculture
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 90, Parcel 6, part thereof, is a
part of the Forest Lodge tract located at the east side of Route 631
approximately 1 3/4 miles south of the Route 631/781 intersection.
Character of the Area: This site is located about 1200 feet east of Route
631. Eight two-acre lots are located between the site and Route 631.
About three-quarters of the property is open.
Applicant's Proposal: This property is proposed to be dedicated to the
University off,Virginia Alumnae Association to provide a permanent location
for the Polo Club. Development of the property would consist Of stabling
facilities; t~wo outdoor regulation fields consisting of 12 acres each; and
a 36,000 square foot indoor riding arena with a 300-seat spectator capacity
(development of the property dependent primarily on donations. Indoor
arena is maximum size envisioned). About 25-30 polo ponies would be kept
at the site (numbers will vary due to culling/training programs).
The University of Virginia Polo Club, organized in 1954, has been housed at
the Farmington Hunt Club for the last 12 years on a year-to-year basis.
The Polo Club has reviewed sites recently for a permanent location in-
cluding University-owned property. Approval of this petition would provide
the Polo Club a permanent location at which facilities could be constructed
to improve the club's intercollegiate competitiveness (now, all activities
are outdoors and dependent upon weather conditions). Currently, the polo
season is restricted to September through November. With improved facilities
the season could be~expanded to mid-February through November, potentially
increasing the club's competence through the increased training and in-
creasing income through expanding the gaming calendar to about 20 weekend
matches per season.
Staff Comment: The condition of Route 631 has been a concern discussed in
other applications in this area. The segment of Route 631 between Routes
781 and 706 is currently listed as non-tolerable with 1200 vehicle trips
per day in July, 1978. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation has developed plans to realign and improve this road, however, given
dwindling road'improvement capabilities with current funds, particularly in
regard to major ~construction projects of this nature, the ¥irginia Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation does not expect this project to receive
a high priority or to become a reality in the foreseeable future. The
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is concerned about
additional traffic on Route 631 and has recommended this petition be
denied. Staff would recommend that the applicant pursue access from Route
20 South over an existing farm road.
Another area of concern is fire protection for the proposed indoor arena.
The BOCA Code would permit use of the indoor field without a fire suppres-
sion system, however, the spectator seating area, offices, restrooms, etc.
would require a sprinkler system. Therefore, without fire protection, the
structure could be used for polo activities by ~club members only, but no
public would be permitted in the structure. Staff is concerned about this
approach due to obvious problems of insuring compliance. As staff has
indicated in the recent Whittington RPN petition, there are currently three
petitions pending in this immediate area, all of which appear to require
fire protection facilities. Staff would recommend that consideration be
given to extension of public water into this area on a cooperative basis,
should the petitions be approved.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting of June 3, 1980, by a vote of
6-1, recommended to the Board of Supervisors that SP-80-17 be approved subject to the
following conditions. Condition #1 recommended by the Staff to limit access to Route 20
South, with no access to Route 631 was reworded.
June 18, 1980 (Regular~Night Meeting]
Access to the site shall be restricted to Route 631, with commercial
entrance as required by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
and sight distance to be corrected at the bridges, to the extent
possible by removal of vegetation only;
Fire Official approval of fire'Suppression system for indoor arena in
accordance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code and approval of
outdoor hydrant system;
3. Site plan approval;
Riding surfaces shall be maintained in adequate cover to minimize dust
and erosion;
Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall be maintainedat
all times;
This permit is issued to the University of Virginia Polo Club for
conduct of polo activities only. Any additional use, other than uses
permitted by right in the agricultural district, shall require~amend-
ment of this permit.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of letters from Messrs. Magruder Dent, Jr., Milton T. Edgerton,
Gilbert J. Sullivan, and Eugene F. Corrigan in support of this application. In addition,
a letter from I. J. Breeden and Hilda M. Breeden, Trustees, authorizing Mr. Kendrick Dure,
attorney, to represent the Trust in all matters pertaining to this Special Use Permit.
Mr. Fisher said three letters regarding this request have been received from the Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation as follows:
"March 2?,
"SP-80-17, Request for a polo facility and related activities on 15+ acres,
east side of Route 631, 1 3/4 miles south of Int. of Route 631 and 781:
(existing entrance-Forest Lodge) Depending upon the generation potential
of this site, the existing condition of Route 631 could be a major factor
in the access. A commercial entrance will be required. It appears that
sight distance can be obtained through the clearing of vegetation, however
it is not known if the applicant controls the right of way needed for the
clearing. Again, depending upon traffic flow, a right and/or left turn
lane may be required. If this is the case, sufficient right of way along
Route 631 does not exist at this time."
"April 15, 1980
In response to your request for additional information on the above Special
Permit; based on the additional data provided 400-600 spectators at 20
events during ~he year including one indoor polo arena containing 36,000
feet and seating for 300 persons, and two outdoor polo arenas and stables
for 25-30 horses. We feel that during events, traffic generations in the
range of 1,000 vehicles per day can be expected. Due to training and
practice and care of the horses and facilities, approximately 50 trips per
day would be normal for non-event days.
Based on this information, and with our knowledge of the condition of Route
631 south of 1-64, we would recommend that the application be denied. If,
however, the County approves a Special Permit, we would recommend that a
site plan be developed showing adequate ingress, egress and channelization
of traffic into the site from Route 631. A left turn lane would be needed
into the site. Accordingly, additional right of way would be required
along the existing northbound lane to the east allowing for construction of
a left turn lane from southbound 631. Accordingly, we would recommend that
this additional right of way be made available prior to approval of any
permit."
"May 30, 1980
In reference to my letters on the above subject of March 27 and April 15,
and my comments at the Planning Commission meeting of April 29, as well as
conversations with Kendrick Dure concerning the need to update your file, I
am submitting the following information.
As indicated at the Planning Commission meeting we have received several
additional esti'mates of how much traffic will be generated by the Polo
Facility. It appears all are estimates, since they all are varied. We
would have no objection to the Polo Facility if its access is to Route 20.
We would recommend however, that if access is permitted to Route 631,
traffic be limited if possible to that which could practically be generated
by right on the same property. I continue to have severe reservations with
access to Route 631.
In reviewing the existing condition of Route 631, as you are aware, it is a
narrow and winding road. There are however, two narrow bridges between 1-
64 and this site, which have severely limited sight distance. This will of
course, cause potential problems depending upon ones familiarity with the
area. We would recommend very strongly that if access is allowed to Route
631 that sight distance be improved at these two narrow structures."
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Kendrick
~Dm~epresenting F~orest Lodge Land Trust, the applicant. He said in an~agreement
between Forest Lodge Land Trust and the University of Virginia Alumni Association that if
the Board of Supervisors grants this special permit, the Land Trust will donate 50 acres
to the Alumni Association to be used for polo only, and that one sixty foot right of way
must be constructed and maintained; and that traffic management be conducted if requested.
Mr. Dure presented photographs to indicate the topography and the proposed entrance to the
property. He said development of the site will be done in phases, first of which will be
improvement of the road onto the site. The next phase would be construction of the
outdoor polo ring and parking facilities for spectators. Mr.~ Dure said he would like two
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission changed. First the requirement by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for a commercial entrance. He said the
Alumni Association would like to see that entrance deferred until traffic at the site
warrants its construction. He noted that attendance this past year at polo games averaged
100 to 125 people which would average out to approximately 30 to 50 cars. He said a
traffic count taken by his client showed an average of 332 cars between the hours of 12:00
to 5:00 P.M. on a Sunday afternoon. He noted that mid-week traffic figures show that
possibly 20 to 30 vehicle trips per day would be made to the polo facility.
Mr. Dure said the second condition he wished to discuss was condition number six
relating to the issuance of the permit. He said that it is part of the contract between
Forest Lodge Land Trust and the University Alumni Association that the property is to be
used by the University of Virginia Polo Club only. He requested a rewording of that
condition as written by the Planning Commission to read as follows: "This permit is
issued to the University of Virginia Alumni Association or its successors in interest for
conduct of polo activities only. Any additional use, other than uses permitted by right
in the agricultural district, shall require amendment of this permit."
Next to speak was Mr. Angus McCauley of the University of Virginia Alumni Association
who said the Alumni Association has long supported the Polo Club, as well as many generous
donators within t~he A~umni Association. He said the Association has agreed to accept the
gift of this property if this special permit is approved. Mr. Fisher asked if the don-
ation of this property would cause it to be taken off the tax rolls for the County. Mr.
Dure said that although the Alumni Association is a tax exempt organization, he did not
think this would effect the tax status of the property.
Mr. Roger Rinehart said taxes would be paid on this property. He said the Club has
been student run for the past 25 years, and they have done an excellent job in all fields,
not only the polo tournaments, but also finances, crowd control, etc. He said the Club
cannot go back to Farmington this year, and unless they are granted this special permit,.
they will not receive the donation of this 50 acres.
Mr. Rob Rinehart, the coach of the Polo Club, said the Sunday traffic will be almost
exclusively cars. The horses will live on the grounds, so there will be no horse trailers,
vans or trucks related to this event.
Mr. Jim West said he has been associated with the Polo Club for the past twenty
years. He said the~club members are very dedicated young men and women, they are hard
workers and well organized. He felt the addition of this facility would add a very
favorable dimension to the University, the City and the County.
Beagle ~ said he was strongly-in favor of this polo facility, but stated his concern
about possible ingress and egress onto Route 20. He said at this point on Route 20 is a
very dangerous curve, and he would prefer to see the entrance on Route 631.
Mr. Malcolm Woodward said he also was in favor of this request. He said he has an
interest in land-near the proposed location, and feels it would prove beneficial to the
community.
Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, representing Dr. Charles Beegle, said he knew of no one who was
opposed to the proposed use by the Polo Club, but felt there was considerable opposition
to access onto Route 20. He said the fact that Route 20 is a Scenic Highway, has speed
limits of 55 miles per hour, and that this facility would be located at a very dangerous
curve on the road, should prove that the only entrance should be allowed on Route 631. He
added that Route 631 is closer to the proposed location of the indoor ring, and most
likely the Polo Club could not afford to run a road from the indoor ring all the way to
Route 20 for their entrance. Mr. Rasmussen said a proposed new development called Forest
Lodge is planning to run a new major access road parallel with Route 20 to help alleviate
some of the dangers of traveling on the present Route 20. He said if the Polo Club is
forced to run a road across the width' of their property to Route 20, it will block the
construction of the Forest Lodge road and cause major problems for approval of that
proposed development.
Mr. Fisher said he wondered how people would travel Route 631 following an afternoon
of picnicking at the polo grounds. Mr. Rasmussen said probably more safely than Route 20,
because of the speeds involved.
Mr. Dure spoke again saying that the Highway Department initially discouraged access
to Route 631, but in .later letters agreed to Route 631 access, if vehicle trips per day
were limited to trips equal to those if the property were developed residentially. Mr.
Dure said this adde~ up to approximately 1200 vehicle trips per day, which would more than
exceed anything the Polo Club would create. He also noted that an estimate was obtained
indicating that it would cost $48,000 to construct a road from~Route 631 to the indoor
ring. He felt it would be at least three times that cost to construct a road to Route 20.
Mr. Rey Barry, said he has lived on Route 631 for ten years, and felt the proposed
entrance is probably the only area on Route 631 with good sight distance. He said even
the area called "twin bridges" has no accident record, and he felt it was more than
capable of handling additional traffic safely.
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this special permit,
and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Miss Nash asked what the distance
would be from the proposed building to Route 20. Mr. Dure estimated about 1-2/3 miles.
Mr. Fisher said he had nothing against the proposed use, but was concerned about the
traffic and road problem. Miss Nash then asked about improvements which would be neces-
sary to Route 20. Mr. Tucker said he did not feel major improvements would be necessary
to Route 20, and that the only reason the Highway Department was opposed to the use of
Route 631 was because it is already listed as being non-tolerable. Mr. Lindstrom asked
about turn lanes. Mr. Tucker said a left turn lane is suggested, because the major source
of traffic will be from Charlottesville. Mr. Fisher said he felt if this property~were
being developed for either residential or commercial use, a commercial entrance would be
required. He felt this use should not be exempt. He then asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation about sight distance on Route 631 at
the bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said 150 feet beyond the bridge on either side the sight
distance is as much as 500 feet, but as the road curves at the bridge it drops to about
150 feet. He felt the clearing of vegetation would help slightly, but noted he felt
grading would be necessary to substantially improve the sight distance. The area re-
quiring the grading is not within the right of way of Rout~e 631. Miss Nash asked about
the use of signs. Mr. Roosevelt said there are already signs indicating a narrow bridge,
but larger signs could be placed or warning signs near the curve to help warn drivers of
the upcoming hazard.
Miss Nash then offered motion to approve this special permit with the six conditions
as recommended by the Planning Commission with a change of wording in condition six
issuing the permit to the University of Virginia Alumni Association or its successors in
interest. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not vote for the motion, since the Planning Com-
mission's recommendation for improvements to Route 631 allowed for only the clearing of
vegetation to improve sight distance, and he felt the Highway Department's request for
grading at the bridge site should be followed. Dr. Iachetta said he did not share Mr.
Lindstrom's concern about the traffic and road problems. The motion was then seconded by
Mr. Roudabush. The applicant asked if this motion required a commercial entrance. Mr.
Fisher said a commercial entrance would be required. Roll was then called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Roudabush said his firm was involved with some of the work that took place at
Four Seasons in 1970, and he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on the next three
agenda items.
Mr. Fisher said the Board would discuss the next three agenda items simultan-
eously, since they were all interrelated. Mr. Tucker presented staff reports as follows:
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-80-23. American Federal Savings & Loan. Amend the Four
Seasons PUD to permit day care center in the existing recreational clubhouse on 11+ acres
zoned A-i/PUD. Located on the northeast side of Four Seasons Drive. Tax Map 61-X~2),
Parcel 4. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June
1i, 1980.)
Present Zoning: PUD Planned Unit Development
Acreage: .5.12 acres
Location: The property is located in Four Seasons, off Four Seasons Drive
adjacent to the Patio and Townhouse Associations. The property is described
as Tax Map 61-X(2), Parcel 4 in the Charlottesville District and in Neigh-
borhood One of the Urban Area.
Request: The applicant is seeking to establish a Day Care Center operation
in the FourSeasons development on Parcels B and C as shown on the plat File
3200 of W. S. Roudabush, Incorporated. The day care center would be
located in the existing two story clubhouse using the bubble structure as
indoor recreation and the land comprising parcels B and C as outdoor recrea-
tion.
Character of the Area: Parcels B and C are surrounded by residential and
recreational development. To the immediate north recreational land abuts
parcels B and C; further north are patio houses. To the immediate west are
patio houses~and then to the immediate east townhouses abut parcels B and
C. To the immediate south recreational land abuts parcels B and C and
further south are rental apartments.
Staff Comment: The applicant intends to operate a day care center for
children between, the ages of two and twelve in the existing two story
clubhouse. Enrollment will not be limited to residents of Four Seasons.
The center will operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., five
days a week. The center will employ twelve to fourteen persons. The
applicant has estimated that the center will care for 140 to 175 children;
however, this will be controlled by the State square footage requirements
for different children's activities. There will be approximately eight
classrooms with space for both sleeping and playing activities. Presently,
there is a Montessori School operating on a half day basis for children
between the ages of two and six in the Four Seasons development.
Staff has received letters from the condominium townhouse and patio house
associations expressing approval of the applicant's request for a special
use permit for a day care center.
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
It is the opinion of the staff that the day care use on parcels B and C
will be compatible with the Four Seasons development. A major asset of the
PUD concept is the flexibility given to land uses which can be incorporated
within the planned development, provided the intensity of the uses can be
controlled. Staff recommends
e
Administrative approval of the site plan;
Fire Official approval of fire flow (1500 gpm) and fire safety fac-
ilities for the club house and bubble structure;
Permit is £ssued to applicant and is non-transferrable;
Approval of appropriate state and local agencies. Conditions stated
are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to pre-
clude application of requirements and regulations by the Virginia
Department of Welfare-or any other agency;
Licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care
center. In the event of license expiration, suspension, or revoca-
tion, ~e Z~ning Administrator shall refer this petition to the Board
of Supervisors for public hearing after notice pursuant to Section
15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. It shall be the res-
ponsibility of the applicant to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a
copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter. Failure to
do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of
this specia~ use permit;
Limit of one sign on property with a maximum area of four square feet;
Administrative site plan approval to include location of children's
play area with equipment and play area to be fenced in from other
activities;
Hours in use shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 20, 1980, recommended
unanimous approval of SP-80-23, with conditions 2 through 8 of the staff.
Agenda Item!No. 4. Public Hearing to vacate a plat of a portion of Four Seasons
shown on a recorded plat as 11.81 acres; this property is shown on a plat recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 486, page 542. This plat, dated March
31, 1971 drawn by William S. Roudabush, Jr., Certified Land Surveyor. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 1980.)
Mr. Fisher noted that this vacation was requested by Mr . W. Clyde Gouldman, II, and
entered the following letter for the record:
"May 20, 1980
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re:
Petition to vacate subdivision
plat originally approved 3/31/71
Dear Miss Neher:
Pursuant to Section 15.1-482 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, in behalf of
American Federal Savings & Loan Association and First Federal Savings &
Loan Association of Lynchburg, we hereby respectfully petition the Board of
Supervisors to vacate a plat of William S. Roudabush, Jr. showing 11.81
acres of property located in Four Seasons dated April 1970, and revised
March 30, 1971~' of record in County deed Book 486, page 342 (copy of said
plat enclosed~Y
No lots have been sold within the 11.81 acre parcel originally shown on
said subdivision plat but the County Attorney's office has ruled that such
a vacation is necessary in order to proceed with plans to subdivide the
parcel now. The-new proposed subdivision is presently shown on a sub-
division plat of parcels A, B, C, D and E (a division of 11.94 acres)
located in Four Seasons, said proposed new subdivision plat being that of
William S. Roudabush, Inc., a professional corporation, dated April 15,
1980, and revised April 18, 1980, and revised again May 8, 1980.
The present proposal for vacation of the 1971 plat is related to a special
use permit application (sp-80-23) scheduled to come before the Board of
Supervisors on June 18, 1980. By this letter, we are respectfully re-
questing that publication for the proposed vacation be such that both
vacation of the plat and granting of the special use permit can be~co-
nsidered by the Board at the same time during its June 18th meeting. It
will save time for all concerned to have Board action on such matters
simultaneously.
If there are any questions, please let us know.
Sincerely yours,
(signed) W. Clyde Gouldman, II
For the Firm"
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PLAT OF A PORTION OF "FOUR SEASONS"
SHOWN ON A RECORDED PLAT AS 11.81 ACRES: THIS PROPERTY IS
SHOWN
ON A PLAT RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
IN DEED BOOK 486, PAGE 542.
WHEREAS, a certain tract or parcel of land, lying in Albemarle County,
Virginia, has been heretofore subdivided as a part of Four Seasons, the
original plat of which is of record in the Office of the Clerk-of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 486, page 542;
and
WHEREAS, the owners of the 11.81 acre lot shown on the said plat now
desire to vacate the original plat so as to resubdivide the said lot; and
WHEREAS, the said owners have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County that the said plat be vacated insofar as it is inconsis-
tent with the proposed resubdivision;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albe-
marle County, Virginia, as follows:
Section 1. That the subdivision of that portion of Four Seasons shown
on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia, in Deed Book 496, page 542 be, and it hereby is, vacated
insofar as the Same shall be inconsistent with the resubd~vision of the
11.81 acre lot shown on the said plat.
Section 2. The vacation set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance
shall in no way vacate any other street, road, right-of-way or lot duly
platted and reco?ded on the aforementioned plat.
Section 3. Pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia, shall write in plain legible letters across the vacated portion
of the aforesaid plat the word "VACATED", and shall also make reference to
the same on the'same to the volume and page in which the instrument of
vacation is recorded.
Section 4. Such vacation of the aforesaid plat shall be effective
upon the recordation of a plat of resubdivision as approved in accordance
with the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: Four Seasons Final Plat. (Subdivision plat of Parcels
A, B, C, D and E, a division of 11.94 acres as shown on plats in Deed Book 486, page 542
and Deed Book 532, page 232, located in Four Seasons PUD, Charlottesville District, drawn
by William S. Roudabush, Inc., dated April 15, 1980, revised May 8, 1980.)
Mr. Fisher noted that this plat had been appealed to the Board by the applicant, and
entered the following letter for the record:
"May 21, 1980
Mr. Robert Tucker, Planning Director
414 E. Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re:
A proposed ~ubdivision plat for 11.94 acres located within Four Seasons
(Tax Map 61X(1), Parcel 4 dated April 15, 1980, revised April 18, 1980
and May 8, 1980)
Dear Bob:
Pursuant to Section 18-4 of the Albemarle COunty Code, we are hereby appealing
the decision of the Planning Commission made on May 20, 1980, with regard
to the above described Subdivision plat; Accordingly, we are respectfully
requesting that this letter be treated as the formal written notice re-
quired by this last cited provision of the County Code. This appeal is
being noted in behalf of the applicant.
The applicant, of course, agrees with the basic decision to approve the
plat. The problem and the sole issue which is being appealed is the Planning
Commission's requirement that the existing entrance on Route 1456 be
upgraded'to a standard commercial entrance (30 foot width with a 100 foot
long, 12 foot wide deceleration lane, and a 100 foot taper utilizing a 25
foot radius at the entrance).
The applioant's reasons for opposing such condition are not complicated.
This intersection has been in operation for approximately nine years.
During most of this time, swimming meets have been held, dances have been
held,, and either the Four Seasons Swim & Racquet Club or the YMCA have been
operating. The clubhouse has been the site of YMCA dance lessons and
gymnastics, club functions and parties, and a babysitting service. We are
not aware of any traffic data in existence that shows the happening of any
serious accident at this entrance. Indeed, we are not aware that there
have even been any minor accidents at this entrance. The Highway Depart-
ment concedes that it cannot require the commercial entrance because it has
no such data.
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
The applicant's position is that the proposed day care center will not
bring a more intense traffic use than has been in existence over the years.
Attached is a capy of a letter from the Four Seasons Patio House Associa-
tion dated May 20, 1980, which indicates that the entire owners association
prefers that. the ~entrance be left as it presently exists in order to
preserve the neighborhood atmosphere in Four Seasons and to avoid (as much
as possible) any commercial flavor. We suspect that the Townhouse Assoc-
iation and the Condominium Association will take identical positions as
soon as they meet on the issue.
By copy of this letter to Miss Neher, we are respectfully requesting that
this appeal be placed on the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for the
June 18, 1980, meeting, the same time and date in which a related special
use permit and plat vacation are going to be considered by the Board of
Supervisors.
Please call me if there are any questions.
Sincerely yours,
(signed) W. Clyde Couldmann, II, for the firm."
Mr. Tucker gave~the staff's report as follows:
Location: On the north side of Four Seasons Drive, the tract of land that
contains the clubhouse, two lakes and swimming pool. Property described as
Tax Map 61X(1), Parcel 4, in the Charlottesville District.
Total Acreage: 11.94 acres.
Zoning: PUD - Planned Unit Development.
History: A plat showing the boundaries of this property was surveyed by
William S. Roudabush, Jr., dated April, 1970 and was signed by John L.
Humphrey, December 16, 1970.
Proposal: Applic'ant is requesting a division of five lots with an average
size of 2.3 acres.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: From the 1978 traffic count, Four
Seasons Drive accommodated 3,736 vehicle trips per day.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation:
dwelling units per acre).
Medium density residential (5-10
Staff Comment: The Highway Department recommends limiting access to the
subdivision parcels to the existing entrance on Route 1456. Also,-they
recommend upgrading the entrance to a standard commercial entrance with
current standards (30 foot width with a 100 foot long, 12 foot wide decel-
eration lane, and a 100 foot taper utilizing a 25 foot radius at the
entrance).
The applicant has informed staff that Parcel A will be conveyed to the Four
Seasons Patio Home Association, who will be responsible for its care and
maintenance. Parcels B and C will be conveyed to American Pre-school
Centers, Inc., who will operate a child care center. The Child Care
operations will be carried out primarily on Parcel C with the tennis courts
to possibly be sold at a later date, if a buyer can be found. Parcels D
and E will be leased to the YMCA for this summer with the probability of
selling the lots to them.
It is staff concern that Parcels A, D and E remain as open space and as
recreational purposes. To change the use of these parcels, an amendment
through a Special Use Permit would have to be applied for. Also, it is
staff concern that the lakes on Parcels A and D should never be drained or
abandoned since they do in some capacity serve as detention ponds. (The
lakes were not designed to serve as detention ponds since the Four Seasons
development occurred before the Stormwater Detention Ordinance was ad-
opted).
Staff has received an adjacent property owner's letter expressing dis-
approval of this proposed division because of the traffic and noise that
such an establishment would induce. In addition, staff has received
letters from the Condominium Townhouse and Patio House Associations,
expressing approval and understanding of the five lot division. This plat
will meet the Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance requirements and
staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Ail title owners' signatures notarized;
b. Compliance with the private road provision, including; _~ ~
1. County Engineer approval of the road;
2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement;
c. Comply with Section 15.1-482 of the Virginia Code;
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 20, 1980, approved
,,
this plat with the conditions recommended by the staff, but added l(d) reading: Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation commercial entrance with deceleration lane appro-
val''; and l(e) reading: "Note on the plat that all parcels shall use the internal road
only."
June 18, 1980 (R~gular Night Meeting)
Dr. Iachetta noted that Parcels A and E are both lakes, and that in order to use
them, they would have to be drained. Mr. Tucker said the YMCA presently leases those two
parcels, and it has been discussed that if the YMCA purchases that land, possibly one lake
would be drained for use as a ball field. Mr. Tucker noted that this would require an
amendment to the PUD plan. Dr. Iachetta next asked how the pool facility will function
properly if the pool' house (which includes dressing and toilet facilities) becomes part of
the day care center. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Steve O'Neill of the YMCA was present and could
answer t~hat question.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened on SP-80-23, and first to speak was Mr.
W. Clyde Gouldman, II, attorney representing the two landowners, American Federal Savings
and Loan, and First Federal Savings and Loan of Lynchburg, Virginia. He noted that there
is an agreement in principle to sell parcel A to the Patio House Association, which has
not yet been signed. Parcels B and E are presently being leased to the YMCA with the
option to purchase. Mr. Gouldman noted a meeting was held with the three homeowners'
associations in Four Seasons, which resulted in three letters of recommendation supporting
the proposed use. He said there will be no major changes to the exterior of the struc-
ture, with the possible exception of exits to meet fire prevention requirements.
Next to speak was Mr. Richard Johnson of Southern Title Insurance Corporation, who
said he was working with the two savings and loan associations to attempt to find a
suitable use for this property. He said the proposed day care center will cater to mostly
young children, and that the use of the center will vary depending upon whether the child
is in the morning, all day, or afternoon session. He said the school runs a very con-
trolled program, and that all involved have done their best to keep in touch with the Four
Seasons community to make this proposed use totally compatible.
Mr. Gouldman introduced the representatives of American Pre-School, and then asked if
the Board wished to hear their information about traffic. Mr. Fisher said yes, and Mr.
Johnson said he would present the information as he had done the research. He said a
figure of 150 children per day was used plus fifteen staff. Mr. Johnson said that one
half of the enrollment would be all day, 25% would car pool to the school, 10% would be
picked up by van, the remainder would arrive in individual cars. He estimated a total of
175 vehicle trips per day, including additional trips for part day students. He said this
would calculate to a 5% increase in traffic. Mr. Johnson indicated that Highway Depart-
ment statistics report only three minor accidents on this road during the past three
years.
Mr. Ronald Ringer said he was an adjacent property owner, and that he had received
nonotification about this proposed use. He said he felt this would be a nuisance. He
said he just purchased this property, and did not like the idea of 175 children running
around outside all day long.
Mr. Herbert De Geragosi, president of American Pre-School, said the tennis courts
will remain tennis courts, and not be used as a playground facility. He indicated that
the playground will be located between the building and the pool, and will never be used
bye the entire enrollment of the school at one time. Mr. Gouldman offered one last point,
that the road to the day-care center is a loop, and does not dead-end and create traffic
problems.
There was no one else present to speak regarding SP-80-23, and Mr. Fisher declared
the public hearing on SP-80-23 closed. Mr. Fisher asked the applicant if the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission were acceptable. Mr. Gouldman replied that they
were. Dr. Iachetta asked if the fire prevention systems recommended are available. Mr.
Tom Gale, of the firm of William S. Roudabush, Inc., said there is a hydrant 400 feet from
the building with sufficient flow to meet the requirements of condition one. Dr. Iachetta
asked if a sprinkler system would be required within the structure. Mr. Tucker said Mr.
Ira Cortez indicated that such a sprinkler may be required, but that approval by the Fire
Official must be received before occupancy is granted.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-80-23
with the seven conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. There was no further
comment, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing of an Ordinance to Vacate a plat of a portion of
Four Seasons. Mr. Tucker said he had nothing additional to add since the ordinance itself
has already been read into the record. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and
first to speak was Mr. Gouldman who said that although he felt this plat vacation was not
necessary, it was being done to conform with an Attorney General'S opinion on the subject.
There was no one else to speak either for or against t'he adoption of this ordinance, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the ordinance as prepared by the County Attorney,
advertised and set out above. Dr. Iachetta said the creation of this "chunk" in the
middle of the housing area suggests that the Board should guard against all of the sur-
rounding properties becoming individually owned, and the homeowner associations loosing
control of the designated recreation area~ He said the main function of any planned
community is the intent that the buyers have some assurance that no drastic change will
occur because of a failure.
There was no further discussion by Board members, roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush.
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: Four Seasons Final Plat. Mr. Fisher requested
comments from Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
who said that the widening of an entrance to 30 feet is required by the Department as all
new commercial sites are constructed. He said the turn lane is recommended because of the
volume of traffic using Four Seasons Drive, and the volumes anticipated using the day care
center. Mr. Roosevelt took exception to the traffic count figures presented by Mr.
Johnson for the applicant. He said possibly it may be a different interpretation of
vehicle trips per day, but he said the Highway Department counts all cars which pass over
a road, no matter how often. He said his figures indicate 450 vehicle trips per day,
allowing for car pooling, staff and individual child trips. He noted that this does not
include the additional use of the pool facility, which is not part of the day care center
use. -~ '.~'
Mr. Gouldman presented a petition to the Board of Supervisors containing 83 signa-
tures representing the Patio, Condominium and Townhouse Owners' Associations as follows:
"On May 20, 1980, the County Planning Commission recommended approval of a
final Plat for subdivision of 11.94 acres of land within Four Seasons but
conditioned its recommendation upon a requirement that the entrance to Four
Seasons Drive be 'upgraded To a commercial entrance.'
The undersigned, as evidenced by their signatures below, request that the
Board of Supervisors do away with such requirement for a commercial entrance.
The entrance on Four Seasons Drive should be left as it is in order to
preserve the residential atmosphere of Four Seasons."
Mr. Johnson said an explanation of exactly what a commercial entrance consisted of,
was presented to the property owners at the time the petition was requested.
Mr. Page Beverly, President of the Patio House Association was present, and said his
association unanimously felt such a commercial entrance would destroy the present land-
scaping. He added that the present entrance has proven safe with former uses no more
intense than the proposed day care center. He also added that such an entrance might
bring speeding to Four Seasons Drive,. He said he would hate to see asphalt replace grass
in his neighborhood.
Mr. Gouldman said he would dispute traffic figures with Mr. Roosevelt, as the day
care facility will not truly be adding 450 vehicle trips per day on top of the present
count, because the trips generated biy the pool and clubhouse will no longer be there once
the day care center goes into operat~ion. Mr. Gouldman next noted the Hylton vs. the Board
of Supervisors of Prince William County case, whereby road improvements required by that
Board were overruled by the Courts. Mr. Fisher said the Albemarle County Board of Super-
visors was well aware of that court case. Mr. Gouldman said he felt this would not be a
good test case for the county to take on, since the road in question and the required
taper and decel lane are 98% within ithe public right of way, and that there is no traffic
data to support the requirement.
Next to speak was Mrs. Tracy Williams, who asked if the requirement for a commercial
entrance is dropped at this time, and then later in the future it is felt by the home-
owners in the area that it would be !beneficial, if the homeowners have any recourse. Mr.
Fisher said probably not, that this would be the best time to ensure this entrance as a
matter of public safety. Dr. Iachetta noted that with the shortage of secondary road
improvement funds, the chances of upgrading~this entrance in the future with State Highway
funds is probably zero. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department is only recommending
this entrance, it cannot be required, because it serves an already existing commercial
enterprise. He said the only way h~ could require such an improvement would be if the
entrance was proven to be accident prone and unsafe.
No one else from the public was present to speak about this appeal, and Mr. Fisher
declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher commented he felt the requirement by the
Highway Department for a 100 foot deceleration lane and a 100 foot taper was arelatively
short distance. He added that if this was a new application before the Board the re-
quirements by the Highway Departmen~ would be the same. Mr. Fisher said perhaps this
should have been included as a condition of the special use permit, which could even be
reconsidered tonight.
Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Tucker if deceleration lanes have been required for other day
care facilities in the County. Mr. Tucker said the last such facility approved was
located on Georgetown Road and a deceleration lane and taper was required. Mr. Tucker
noted that the traffic count on Georgetown Road is higher than on Four Seasons Drive. Mr.
Roosevelt said that the vehicle trips per day on Georgetown Road are between 6700 to 7000
with a speed limit of 35 m.p.h.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was a motion by ~oard members to change any of the conditions
as set by the Planning Commission. There was no motion, and Mr. Fisher said the conditions
as approved by the Planning Commission including l(d) requiring the commercial entrance
with deceleration lane stand.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the condition for the commercial entrance should be made a
part of the Special Permit, and that it be reconsidered at this time. Mr. Fisher noted
that under the rules of procedure, a motion to reconsider can be adopted at the same
meeting or any continuation thereof. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded
by Dr. Iachetta, to reconsider SP-80-23. Mr. Gouldman said he wished to object to this
procedure; stating there is something wrong when the Board can close the public hearing,
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
take a vote, have everyone go home, then reopen the hearing later in the meeting.
was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabu'sh.
Roll
Mr. Fisher Noted that SP-80-23 was again before the Board for further consideration,
and requested a motion. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve this special
permit with the seven'conditions previously recommended and add condition #8 to read
"Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commercial entrance with deceleration
lane approval." The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta.
Mr. Richard Johnson said on behalf of the two savings and loan associations, it is
felt that the Highway Department cannot prove a need for this requirement. He said the 83
signatures on the petition circulated among the three homeowners' associations prove that
it is not wanted.
Mr. Fisher said the requirement for a commercial entrance has already been imposed as
part of the subdivision plat, and that the Board seeks only to reinforce this requirement
by making it a condition of the special permit. He said the Department of Highways and
Transportation is th8 County's only source of highway safety recommendations, and that the
County does not substitute its judgment for the Highway Departments. Mr. Fisher said also
that the attorney for the applicant implied that this case would be brought to court if
this requirement were imposed under subdivision regulations, therefore the Board seeks to
enforce this requirement under the special permit regulations.
Dr. Iachetta said he felt the people of Four Seasons would be making a big mistake if
they did not take this road improvement at this time. He said there is no way he can see
in the future of obtaining this improvement without paying for it themselves. He added that
you can never be too safe. Mr. Gouldman said the Board should consider this case on
an individual basis and not compare this to other situations around the county. He said
he was not threatening the Board with a law suit only pointing out possible options. Mr.
Lindstrom said he felt this was a matter of good planning, and that it makes sense to
require it as part of the special permit. There was no further discussion, roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush.
At 10:07 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:17 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-80-11. R. E. Lee, Jr. Rezone 72 acres from A-1 and R-1 to
Residential Planned Neighborhood with a gross density of 1.75 dwellings per acre. Located
on the west side of Route 656 and on the south, borders Hessian Hills. Tax Map 60, Parcel
70; Tax Map 60B, Parcel lC. Jack Jouett District (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
June 4 and June 11, 1980.-)
Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report:
Requested Zoning: RPN/R-1
Existing Zoning: A-1 Agriculture and R-1 Residential
Acreage: 72.06 acres
Location: The property is described as parcel 70 on tax map 60 and parcel
lC on tax map 60B, in the Jack Jouett District. It is located on the west
side of Georget.own Road (Route 656), north of Old Forge Road.
Character and Existing Zoning in the Area: Hessian Hills (Old Forge Road)
to the south of the site and Montvue to the west are zoned R-1 Residential.
Parcels on the east side of Georgetown Road are zoned R-1 and R-3 (George-
~town Court Subdivision). Parcels to the north and northwest of this
site are zoned A-1 Agriculture.
History: A preliminary subdivision plat for thirty 2+ acre lots was
approved by the Planning Commission on May 20, 1980, with conditions.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: This site is within the area of the
watershed which was removed from the Urban Area and is currently considered
a Rural Area.
Condition of the Roads Serving the Site: This section of GeorgetOwn Road
(Route 656), from Old Forge Road (Route 1472) to Hydraulic Road (Route 743)
carries 6,628 vehicle trips per day and is considered non-tolerable.
Currently, Georgetown Road should be improved with 24 feet of pavement to
accommodate.the present traffic. This figure will not change with the
increase from this development.
June 18, 1980 (Regular NighttMeeting)
Comparative Impact Statistics:
Existing A-1 (58+ acres
Less 4 acres for roads
Existing R-1
(9+ acres)*
RPN/R-1
Dwellings approx. 27 lots approx. 48 lots 120 lots
Population 83.7 148.8 372
VTPD 189 336 840
Projected School 15 27 64
Enrollment
* Total acreage of the R-1 property is 13 acres. The nine acre figure is the
approximate area of land suitable for development outside of the steeper slopes.
Proposed RPN Land Use Data:
Townhouses
Single Family
Total Units
98 units (average size:
22 units (average size:
120
2,900 square feet)
63,000 square feet)
Total Acres
Townhouse lots
Single Family lots
Open Space
Rights-of-way
Proposed Gross Density
Proposed Net Density
Permitted Gross density
72.08 acres
7.9 acres
35.1 acres
24.7 acres
5.56 acres
1.66 du's/acre
3.0 du's/acre
5.3 du's/acre
RPN Proposal: The applicant is proposing a total of 120 units, 98 to be
townhouses and 22 single family units. The major roads are proposed to be
accePted by the state for maintenance. The townhouse units would be served
by private roads from the state road. Public water and sewer are proposed
to serve the development.
Staff Comment: The plan as proposed does not comply with the detailed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan recently adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. These amendments removed the section within the South Fork
Riv~nna Watershed from the urban area. Therefore, staff cannot support the
RPN as proposed.
However, in the past, staff has supported RPN's where the density is com-
parable to that of existing zoning but the unit types can only be accom-
plished through rezoning. Townhouse units as proposed appear to protect
the steeper areas and the more sensitive areas around the stream. The
single-family lots are compatible with the surrounding Hessian Hills and
Montvue subdivisions.
As shown in the comparative impact statistics, approximately nine acres of
the R-1 property could potentially be developed with about 48 units. The
remaining A-1 property could be developed for 27 units. Staff could
support a plan for 22 single family units (as proposed by the applicant)
and the remaining 53 units in townhouse units. The gross density would'be
1.04 du/acre as opposed to the 1.66 du/acre as proposed.
'Sh0~ld the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve
this rezoning application, staff recommends the following condition-s:
~..Approval is for a maximum of 22 single family lots and 5townhouse
units for a total of 75 dwelling units. Location and acreages shall
comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision and/or site
plan process, open space shall be dedicated in accordance with the
number of units approved;
.~. - No grading shall occur until final subdivision and/or site plan
approval;
Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances;
4. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements prior to final
approval, to include maintenance of open space, private roads, and
parking areas;
5. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow of 1250 gpm
for townhouse units and 750 gpm for single family units prior to final
approval;
6. Only those areas where structures, utilities, roads, or other features
approved in a final plan are to be located, shall be disturbed; all
other land shall remain in its natural state;
Ail units shall be served by a public water and sewer supply system
-..and approved by appropriate agencies prior to final approval;
County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans for acceptance into the state highway system
for maintenance, including a sidewalk on one side of the road serving
the townhouses;
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
11.
County Engineer approval of private road plans;
Provide for an easement into the parcel to the North (Tax Map 60,
Parcel 76);
Sidewalks shall be constructed along Georgetown Road to be approved by
the County Engineer;
12.
Pathway system shall be provided within the site and approved by the
staff;
13.
14.
V±rg±nia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance to include the left and right tUrn lanes;
Staff approval of a recreation area to serve the townhouse development.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 3, 1980, by unanimous
vote, recommended approval of ZMA-80-11, with conditions 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1'0, 12 and 13
as recommended by the staff: Condition #1 was reworded to read: "Approval is for a
maximum of 22 single family lots and 77 townhouse units for a total of 99 dwelling units.
Location and acreages shall substantially comply with the aPproved plan. In the final
subdivision and/or site plan process, open space'shall be dedicated in accordance with the
number of units approved~"o Condition #4: add the words "runoff control facilities"
between "of" and "open space." Condition i#5: Strike the last word "approval" and replace
with "Planning Commission review." Strike Condition #10 in its entirety. Condition #11,
add "and shown on the site plan" at the end of that sentence. Renumber all conditions and
add a new condition #14 reading: "Open space adjacent to Montvue and Hessian Hills
Subdivisions shall be incorporated into adjacent single family lots, with additional open
space to be provided elsewhere on the site such that total open space provided shall
consist of not less than 25% of the grass site area."
Mr. Fisher asked about the entrance to the property. Mr. Tucker said the present
entrance will be closed, and a new entrance located farther to the north which will have
adequate sight distance and room for turn±ng lanes. Mr. Fisher asked how the Planning
Commission had arrived at their recommendation for 99 dwelling units, Mr. Tucker said the
staff had deducted from the R-1 portion of the property, the land which had 25% slopes
since a unit cannot be built on those slopes in the watershed area. The Planning Commission
disagreed'with that analysis. Mr. Fisher recapped by saying the Planning Commission
recommendation is based on dwelling units per gross acre and the staff's recommendation is
based on'dwelling units per usable acr~e. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. He then made
note of receipt of a memorandum from Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer,
dated June 3, 1980, that a preliminary runoff control study of the property was conducted.
The study included a field trip to the site. The preliminary study indicates the property
can comply with the provisions of the Runoff Control Ordinance by the use of procedures
which are normal to the ordinance. There were no other questions of Mr. Tucker, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Mr. Robin Lee.
Mr. Lee introduced his associates, and Mr. Fred Landess made the presentation. Mr.
Landess said this property is located very close to the developing area around the City of
Charlottesville. He saidJpublic water and sewer are available. There is and good access
to schools. The property is surrounded by R-1 and R-3 zoning. He said the only problem
is that the property is located in the watershed area. He said the applicant is asking
for a density of 1.~3 units per acre, or less than most of tha developed surrounding
properties. Mr. Landess said development that ~is to be controlled must also be economically
feasible. He said in order to accomplish this, a total of 98 units mUst be built, and if
the Board of Supervisors feels the plan cannot be approved as presented, then the applicant
would prefer denial. ~
Mr. Lee said this property has belonged to his family for over 40 years. When it
became obvious last year that his mother could no longer live in the house, something had
to be done with the land, so it was decided to develop the property. He had several basic
concerns. The land should be protected, particularly the woods and plantings that had
been put in over the years. In order to maximize the areas that would be totally undisturbe~
protect the reservoir, and protect the neighboring properties~ it was decided to have
large lots on the sout.hern and western portions of the property, with quality townhouses
for sale on the other half. This scheme allowed for the economics needed to do quality
planning. This plan also preserves most of the woods, can limit the run-off and protect
the neighborhood be~ter than two-acre lots.
Next to speak ~for the applicant was Miss Sydney Nielson who said the plan preserves
the character of the neighborhood by keeping large lots around existing single-family
homes and it also preserves the integrity and value of the existing family home. This
plan restricts development on steep slopes, protects wet lands, stream bank, and flood
plains. The plan has 39 acres in single-family lots which are approximately one and one~
half acres in size each, with deed restrictions, rather than common open space which was
mentioned previously, on about seven acres of this land'so that a homeowner would not be
able to tear down trees or construct anything along the steep slopes which are adjacent to
the stream which would produce more sedimentation. By clustering units, it reduces the
amount of land.cleared for roads,'utilities and yards, which in turn reduces the quantity
of run-off and sedimentation. Lot sizes of the townhouses run about 3500 square feet,
which will allow control over all of the land which remains undeveloped, preserving the
character of the land and again reducing sedimentation to its lowest possible level. She
noted the applicant is completely in favor of~everything the Highway ~Department recommended,
including improvement of the road frontage along Georgetown Road by providing left and
right turn lanes and the appropriate tapers and sight distance. Miss Nielson continued by
saying any other possible plans designed for this area would make less efficient use of
the property., and would develop much more of the land thereby creating more runoff and
sedimentation. Miss Nielson then noted a memorandum from Assistant County Engineer, J.
Ashley Williams, to Miss Mason Caperton, Planner, dated June 3, 1980 as follows:
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
"The Engineering Department has made a preliminary runoff control study of
the Terrell R.P.N. property situated on State Route 656 for the purpose of
determining whether or not its proposed development is feasible. This
study included a field trip to the site in order that the land features and
ground cover could be known. A copy of our computations is attached to
this memo.
This preliminary~study indicates the property can comply with the provi-
sions of the Runoff Control Ordinance by the use of procedures which are
normal to the Ordinance."
Next to speak was Mr. Whit Krumm, representing Mr. Dan Robinson, an adjoining pro-
perty owner. He said his client is interested in assuring access from Mr. Lee's property
to Mr. Robinson's property and then to the property owned by the School Board. He noted
that in Mr. Lee's plan, there are two proposed roads which end in cul-de-sacs. He said a
logical extension of these roads would be to provide access into these properties. He
cited County Code Sections 18.37(a) and 18.37(e), which encourage development of "planned,
existing or platted streets, into adjoining areas" and "the street arrangement shall
provide adequate access to adjoining parcels where necessary to provide for the orderly
development of the county". Mr. Krumm requested that if the Board decides this evening to
approve Mr. Lee's plan~, that they condition the approval upon Mr. Lee making provision for
access both to Mr. Robinson's property and the School Board property.
Next to speak was Mr. Max Evans, land planner, also representing Mr. Robinson. He
noted on maps that Mr. Robinson's land is a logical extension of the Lee property and that
roads should be provided so development of Mr. Robinson's land can occhr smoothly.
Mr. Donald Holden, a resident of Montvue, said he felt Mr. Lee's proposal was very
good, and compatible with the land.
Mrs. Babs Huckle, representing the League of Women Voters, said the League has always
taken a stand against high intensity development in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna
River reservoir. She noted that according to recent scientific research, multi-family
density results in four times more biological oxygen demand, and almost fourteen times
more suspended solids and surface water run-off than does detached, single-family density.
She said it is known that sedimentation pools cannot always be depended upon and their
maintenance is often a problem. She said the watershed area has been removed from the
Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan in an effort to protect the reservoir, and that
studies are underway to identify methods which can be used to prolong the life of the
reservoir. Mrs. Huckle said it would be irresponsible to endanger this vital water supply
and the health and safety of residents by intensive development in this area. She then
urged the Board not to weaken the Comprehensive Plan by approving this density.
Mr. Ed Dooley, an adjoining property owner, said he has known the Lee family a long
time, and felt they ~ould do the most credible job of preserving the property and pro-
tecting the buffer zone between the neighborhoods.
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, said he wished to repeat
comments which this organization made a few months ago that this area should be removed
from the growth area of the urban ring. He said an exception now may lead to further
complications from other people who may not present a plan as good as Mr. Lee's plan. He ~?t'~
requested the Board to consider that even with the Runoff Control Ordinance, further
growth should be prevented this near to the reservoir.
Mrs. Kay Peasley said she was a resident of the City, and felt it appalling that the
Board would even consider further development in the watershed. She noted that all of the
people in the City also need the water. Mr. Fisher noted that Mayor Brunton appeared
before the Board at the afternoon session on behalf of the City. At that time, the Mayor
requested the cooperation of the County in protecting the City's water source and to call
on the City for help.as it was needed.
Mrs. Gay Johnson Blair said the property adjoins Mr. Lee's property, and although she
is against the further urbanization of this neighborhood, she feels Mr. Lee's proposal is
the best use of his ~roperty. She said she concurs with the Planning Staff's recommendation
to the Planning Commission to permit a total of 75 dwelling units on the Lee property.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of Mrs. Blair's letter to the same affect.
Mr. Bob Brugh, a resident of Old Forge Road, said he hoped the Board would approve
the plan, because he thought it to be a plan that the people want and because it has been
prepared by a person who is mindful of the environment.
Mr. Fred Lan~eS~s spoke again, this time in response to Mr. Krumm's request that roads
be extended through to Mr. Robinson's property. Mr. Landess said the main objective of
Mr. Lee's plan is to protect the steep areas which lie primarily in the back toward Mr.
Robinson's property~ and that any extension of the roads on through to other properties
would destroy much of what was hoped to be accomplished in this plan- and found to be
fitting for the area being developed. Mr. Landess said the plan presented to the Board
tonight is a good plan that is compatible with the area and he felt it should be approved.
Mr. Lee said he felt some people misunderstood his statement earlier, and r~iterated
that this plan is not for high density development. He said 1.36 dwelling units per acre
is low density, much lower than the surrounding area. He said figures presented to the
Board show that run-off would be far less from this development than it would be from two-
acre lots.
Mr. Evans said contrary to Mr. Landess' statement, if right-of-way were granted into
Mr. Robinson's 10 acre parcel, it would preserve the steep lands as the dwellings would be
constructed on the very gently rolling slopes.
No one else wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher
declared the public hearing closed.
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom asked Deputy County Attorney, Frederick W. Payne, about the legal
aspects of this application~ Mr. Payne'said-two ~legal aspects had been raised, one being
that raised by Mr. Krumm and the other is the density issue~ Mr. Payne said, at the
meeting of the Planning Commission, he had advised the Planning Commission to seriously
consider the recommendation of the Pl~anning Staff. He said it is his belief that it 'is
becoming more important to follow the Comprehensive Plan, if~possible, in terms of zoning.
He said he felt there is some discretion~ in determining the existing density. Mr. Payne
said he mentioned this because when this application was before the Planning Commission,
the application was for 120 units 'and 120 units is not in compliance with the existing
density on these properties. He noted further that although the applicant and the Planning
Commission feel that 99 dwelling units is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in
this case, the Planning Staff disagrees. Mr. Fisher said it seemed to him that in this
case the applicant is' seeking a transfer of density from one parcel that has serious
terrain problems onto another piece of property that has less terrain problems and up-
zoning the A-1 parcel. Mr. Payne said in terms of the legal issue, that is particularly
significant. He said he felt it reasonabl~e to consider the land subject to this appli-
cation as a unit, since it is under one ownership and would be subject to a single plan.
He added that ideally the Board should decrease the density to what the Comprehensive Plan
calls for.
Mr. Roudabush said he saw no fault'With allowing the density to apply to the total
area of the tract. He said the Board has never.applied any sort of rule in other RPN's
that land not used for lots could not~be counted-in producing the density. Miss Nash said
this land is in the area deleted from the Urban. Area in order to provide protection of the
reservoir. She did not think any actual density had been assigned to this area at this
time~ (Note: The Board is in the process of' adopting a new Zoning Map.) Miss Nash said
that actually, if this area were a part of the Urban Area, she felt there would be no
question about approving this plan, since roads, water and sewer are available. Miss Nash
said the question at this time' is how this Plan wilt~protect the reservoir. The applicant
has submitted data which shows that this plan will protect, the reservoir as if there were
the normal rural density on this property, but she said she feels the plan is better for
the reservoir than the two-acre density which is allowed under existing zoning. Miss Nash
also mentioned that she had questioned the CoUnty Engineer, at this afternoons meeting,
concerning run-off control measures. Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Bailey had indicated that it
would be best to leave the land in a wooded 'condition, and this plan seems to do just
that. Mr. Lindstrom said it was his impression that Mr. Bailey had said that even using
the run-off devices required by the Run-off Ordinance, it would be advantageous to have
the lower density. Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Bailey had indicated that he could~ give nothing
other than a general .statement of such requirements without looking at a site specific.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed that that was probably true, but said if he were to support this
RPN, he would perso,naliy be affirming something that he had voted against about a month
ago. To achieve the de~nsity that the applicant has requested on the R-1 portion of this
land, requires an RPN plan. Mr. Lindstrom said to approve this density for this appli~
cant, might give tacit approval, in the eyes of the c0urt] to other such requests. The
legal precedent that might be set by affirming the requested density on this land, when he
voted t0 disaffirm that density when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, is something~
which he cannot overcome.
Mr. Roudabush said he thought there was a difference since part of this property
already has zoning which allows a higher density. Also, he did not think the Board should
consider in these deliberations, what may or may not happen in the future.
Mr, Fisher said he could not justify the rezoning of 58 acres or 81% of the parcel
which is presently A-1 to a higher density without feeling this is an invitation to the
adjoining property owners to request the same treatment. Dr. Iachetta said he was very
uncomfortable with taking the gross acreage and dividing it by the number of units to
figure the density. He said that although the report says there is a density of 1.3 units
per acre, there are really 39 acres of very low density and the remaining acreage is a
very high density. Mr. Fisher said although the applicant is willing to install sedi-
mentation devices to control pollution, many times severe storms cause those devices to
fail and all the sediment which has been collected goes directly into the streams. He
said he has concluded that he will not support an increased density anywhere in the
Watershed. Miss Nash asked Mr. Fisher how the county can justify the building of a
vehicular garage for school buses directly overlooking the reservoir using those same
sedimentation devices to control the pollution from the buses. Mr. Fisher said that
worried him at the time of the vote, but at that time the Board had not yet taken action
to define the urban area. Miss Nash said she still contends that the Board has never
definitely decided ~xactly what the watershed area will contain.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve ZMA-80-11 with the conditions as
recommended bY the Planning Commission for 99 dwelling Units. The motion was seconded by
Miss Nash.
Dr. Iachetta said he would not suPport the motion although he could have supported
the staff's recommendations. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not support the request for the
School Bus Garage, and regrets it's construction one, the site, but feels to approve this
request would only make matters worse, and therefore will not support the motion. Mr.
Fisher said he will not support the motion basically because of the increase in density.
He felt the Board must be consistent in its decisions regarding development in this area
in order to successfully protect the reservoir. There being no further discussion, roll
was called, and the motion failed by the roilowing recorded vote:
AYES' Miss Nash and Mr.'Roudabush.
NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-80-25 Lee Caplin. Locate a country store on 0.35+_ acres
zoned A-1. Located at the intersection of Routes 609 and 601 at Free Union. Tax Map 29,
Parcel 41E. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June
11, 1980.)
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff report:
Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Country store with accessory residential use
0.35 acres
A-1 Agriculture
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 29, Parcel 41E, is located at the
intersection of Routes 601 and 665 at Free Union.
History: In 1975, Shelter Associates obtained a special use permit for a
woodworking shop in this structure, and therefore, the non-conforming use
as a country store/ apartment was abandoned. The special use permit was
subsequently abandoned and the property currently enjoys by-right uses
only.
Character of the.~Area: Maupin's grocery and a post office exist in the
area. Most development in the immediate vicinity of this site is small lot
residential usage.
Staff Comment: The applicant is seeking to re-establish country store/
apartment usage in this building. Staff's main concern is the inadequacy
of site area for well/septic usage and parking. The site is 17,562 square
feet of which about 12,650 square feet is outside of road right-of-way.
With dedication of 25 feet from the centerline of Routes 601 and 665, the
lot area would be about 9,300 square feet or 0.2 acres. (For individual
well and septic system, 1.38 acres is normally required).
If a country store usage were restricted to the ground floor only (about
3,300 square feet), 17 parking spaces would be required (about 6,900 square
feet). Since the building is centrally located, staff does not believe
adequate parking could be provided. Assuming minimal food processing,
septic usage would likely be less as a store than as a dwelling (a use by
right).
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff
recommends the following conditions:
1. Limitation of usage as a country store including storage to ground
level only. No other uses shall be permitted;
2. Site plan approval including Health Department approval of well and
septic system prior to Commission review;
3. If a variance from parking regulations is required, the same shall be
obtained prior to site plan submittal.
Note: Dedication of 25 feet from the centerline of Routes 601 and 665 will
be recommended in site plan review.
Mr. Tucker noted that, at its meeting of June 3, 1980, the Planning Commission unani-
mously voted to recommend approval subject to the following conditions:
Limitation of usage as a country store including storage to ground
level only~ together with not more than one dwelling unit to be
occupied only by operator of store and his immediate family. No other
uses shall be permitted;
Current Health Department approval of well and septic system
Dedication ~6f 25 feet from the centerline of Routes 601 and 665;
Staff approval of parking.
Mr. Tucker added that no letters of opposition to this request have been received.
Mr. Lee Caplin was present and said the apartment is very small, and suitable for a
maximum of two occupants. He added that the septic system and well are less than four
years old, and have received health department approval. He said there is more than
adequate parking available on the site for approximately 17 cars, plus a three car garage
which is not mentioned in the staff report.
Next to speak was Mr. Post who said as long as he could remember, this structure has
been used as a country store. He said it was designed that way, and would not make any
other suitable use.
No one else was present who wished to speak either for or against this petition, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve this special permit with the conditions as set by
the Planning Commission with the following changes in wording in conditions one and two:
Limitation of usage as a country store including storage to ground level only,
together with not more than one dwelling unit. No other uses shall be per-
mitted;
Health D~a~tment approval of well and septic system;
Mr. Tucker commented that regarding the staff approval of parking, the staff only
wished to advise on making the ingress and egress safer. There being no other discussion,
roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
June 18~ 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 8. S?-80-29. Albemarle County Service Authority· Expand the Camelot
Sewage Treatment Plant located on 1·23 acres zoned M-1. Located on north side of the
North Fork of the Rivanna River approximately 1,000 feet east of Route 29 North. Tax Map
32, Parcel 5D. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June
11, 1980..)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning staff report:
r~]
Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Expansion of Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant
1.23 acres
M-1 Light Industrial
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5D, is located on the
east side of Route 29 North behind Badger Powhatan.
Staff Comment: The Albemarle County Service~Authority has submitted this
petition on behalf of Wendell Wood (referred to as the develoPer). The
initial request was for a 0.30 MGD plant expansion to provide service to
Briarwood RPN, the Airport PID, and approximately 40 acres of commercially-
zoned land own~ 'by the developer. Condition 3 of Briarwood RPN requests
that "special use permit approval of sewer capacity adequate to serve the
entire development shall be obtained'prior to any final site plan or subdivision
approval."
Four alternatives presented in the developer's feasibility study have been
analyzed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Albemarle County Service.
Authority and County Engineer. Alternatives 1 (transport to AWT) and 2
(expand Camelot STP) received serious consideration. A summary statement
is as follows:
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would prefer to have the wastes
from the Route 29 North area conveyed to the regional facility for
treatment. This is in keeping with the capital improvement program
currently underway and the concept of~regional wastewater management.
The wastes can be treated more effectively, more conveniently, and I
believe, at a lower cost to the community as a whole at the regional
facility. Extension of the existing interceptor system beyond Hollymead
is not planned or budgeted at this time. In recognition of this it is
recommended that further expansion of the Camelot facility be .limited
to the Phase I increment of 100,000 gallons per day and that the
broader question of waste treatment for the entire area be re-eval-
uated once that capacity has been committed. A realistic flow contri-
bution of 250 gallons per residential connection would allow for-the
development of 400 units with this expanded capacity.
As recommended by the review committee, the 0.10 MGD expansion would be a
temporary solhtion to immediate demand for sewer capacity in the Camelot
area.· The developer originally estimated a development schedule of about
75 dwellings pe? year; plant expansion as recommended would be adequate for
about five years of construction within Briarwood. In the interim, a
transport syste~' to the AWT plant could be further evaluated.
Briarwood RPN was approved for a maximum of 661 dwellings. As more detailed·
engineering is completed, this number may be reduced due to considerations
of topography and access. Approval of this petition as recommended would
provide service for about 400 .dwellings. While strict adherence to Condition
3 would require capacity for the entire development, staff opinion is that
the intent of the condition as recommended has been satisfied:
The agencies involved, after review of the feasibility study, have
presented recommendations for both short and lOng-term ~solutions to
sewer service for the Piney Mountain area;
The developer is aware of the positions of these agencies in regard to
provision of additional capacity and can evaluate the economics of the
project prior to initiation of construction;
The County is aware that extent of development of the Piney Mountain
Village and northern portion of the Hollymead Community, as recom-
mended in the Comprehensive Plan, is dependent on selection of an
alternative for provision of sewer service. The review committee has
recommended further study of this issue.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Expansion of the Camelot STP shall be for One additional package unit.
Recommendation for expansion of the Camelot STP has been made in view
of accommodating short-term demand. At this time,~ the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority does not endorse any further expansion.
j
The capacity allotted the developer shall be the difference in state
certified plant capacity after expansion as compared to state certified
plant capacity prior to construction;
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority review and approval of plans for and
construction of plant addition;
The developer shall be responsible for the costs of materials, labor,
permits and all other costs related to acquiring, Placing, and inte-
grating the package unit into the existing system, including land
acquisition, if necessary;
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
Immediately following certification by the State Water Control Board
and approval of other appropriate state and local agencies, the
developer shall dedicate the plant addition and all appurtenances to
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Dedication shall be irrevo-
cable on:the part of the developer and his successors in interest.
Mr. Tucker said, at its meeting on June 17, 1980, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval with the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Tucker noted
receipt of letters from Mr. George W. Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority; Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service
Authority; and Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, concerning this project.
Mr. Fisher asked what the present capacity of the plant is. Mr. Gene Potter of the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority said the present capacity is 65,000 gallons per day.
Mr. Wendell Wood said the approval given on September 20, 1978 will bring the capacity to
115,000 gpd, but construction has not yet begun on that phase. Mr. Fisher asked what the
desired capacity is through this application. Mr. George Williams of the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority said the request is for one additional unit. Mr. Fisher asked what.
capacity that one unit would .have. Mr. Williams said the.request is for one package unit,
no capacity is stated.
Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing opened. Mr. Wendell Wood said this
request for an additional package unit was a much less expensive method than the alter-
native of installing his own temporary package treatment plant. Discussion followed
between the Board and the applicant regarding the exact number of additional gallons per
day being requested. Mr. Brent of the Service Authority said only one additional unit was
being requested, no specific number of gallons per day was set for the capacity of that
one additional unit. Board members were in agreement that a specific capacity should be
stated in the conditions set by the Board. Mr. Wood said he requested the Service Authority
to install a total of 350,000 gallons per day capacity in increments; 100,000 now and in
the future two 125~000 units. Mr'. Fisher said in a letter dated June 16, 1980, Mr. John
Brent states "Afte? review, of the feasibility study for sewerage treatment for Briarwood
and discussion with the County Engineer and the staff of the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority, it is my recommendation that approval be granted for the expansion of the
Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant by .100 MGD (Phase I Addition, Alternative 2). This will
allow the developer to proceed with the major portion of his planned development while a
broader question is addressed - how to most effectively handle sewage from the Piney
Mountain Village and the Hollymead Community." Mr. Wood said that would not be sufficient
capacity to service the entire Briarwood RPN as approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr.
Williams said the Camelot Treatment Plant is only capable of expanding with one more unit,
no matter what the size of the unit. Dr. Iachetta. said under those circumstances, the
capacity does not matter, as the size of the unit installed will only be what Mr. Wood can
afford to purchase; and if additional expansion beyond that point is necessary, large
capacity units will have to be installed in place, of currently used small capacity units
at the Plant.
Mr. Lindstrom said to incorporate that idea into a condition would be too cumbersome.
He then offered motion to approve SP-80-29 with the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission but amending to condition number 1 by adding the words "such that. the total
capacity of that plant should not exceed 365,000 gallons per day" at the end of the first
sentence. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta.
Mr. Wood objected to the motion and noted that he would require 264,40~ gallons per
day for the residential section of Briarwood, 66,000 gallons per day for the Industrial
Park, and 37,000 gallons per day for the commercial area, totalling 36.7,400 gallons per
day. Mr. Lindstrom said the Service Authority's experience is far less than 400 gallons
per day per residential unit, which would allow room for expansion beyond what is pre-
sently affordable and for some time into the future. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker if
this would stimulat.e additional growth in that area of the. ~County due to an excess capacity
of the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Tucker said he felt the motion would allow expansion
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Fisher said he would not support the motion, because the request by the Service
Authority was for an expansion of 100,000 gallons per day. He said this makes the appli-
cation appear to be a permanent solution to sewage treatment for the entire Briarwood
development, not accommodating a short-term demand as recommended. Mr. Roudabush commented
that he felt t. he long term plans of that plant are up to the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority, not the Board of Supervisors. Dr. Iachetta said he felt the Board should allow
the Service Authority to add one more unit no matter what the size, as the Service Authority
must operate the plant. There being no further discussion, roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-80-03. VEPC0. Amend Section 16 - Definitions - with respect
to 16-21.2, to read as follows: "Contractor's office and equipment storage yards for
contractors who have been awarded contracts by the Virginia Department of Highways or
contractors who have been awarded contracts by any public utility as defined in Section
16-70.1 of this Ordinance, or for construction work by such utility itself. The above use
shall not be construed to mean the storage or manufacture or processing of explosives or
explosive components." (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 1980.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning 'St.aff report:
Vepco is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to amend Section 16-21.2 of
the Zoning Ordinance to expand the de£inition of "temporary construction
facilities" to include construction facilities of public utilities.
Apparently, this provision of the ordinance was originally included for the
sole purpose of accommodating the construction of 1-64 and permits only
Highway Department construction uses.
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting!
Generally speaking, these temporary uses are of two types: those located
at the construction site and those located in proximity to a construction
site. In the case where construction uses are located at the site, such as
in the development of a subdivision, the Zoning Administrator has deter-
mined the use to be accessory. In other cases such as the construction of
a sewer interceptor, electrical transmission line or roadway, the construc-
tion headquarters cannot be located on-site and would come under Section
16-21.
Vepco has requested amendment of only Section 16-21.2 as follows:
16-21.2 Contractor's office and equipment storage yards for contractors
who_have been awarded contracts by the virginia D~partment of
Highways or contractors Who haVe~'been aWarded contracts by any
public utility as defined in Section 16-70.1 of this Ordinances.
or for construction work by such utility itself. The above use
shall not be construed to mean the storage or manufacture or
processing of explosives or explosive components.
Staff would recommend a complete reworking of this definition for the
following reasons:
1. As currently written, this is not a definition but a listing of requirements
and restrictions;
2. The restriction of no explosives is unrealistic;
3. Since this is a use by special permit only, each application can be
reviewed individually.
Staff recommends the following amendment to replace 16-21 and its subsections
entirely: ._
16-21
Construction Facilities, Temporary: Temporary uses, including
but not limited to field offices, equipment and material storage
yards, and portable asphalt and concrete mixing plants, which for
purposes of practicality and efficiency, require location at or
in proximity to a particular construction project for which such
uses are intended. Unless otherwise specifically permitted in a
particular case, the storage, manufacture, or processing of
explosive materials shall be expressly prohibited.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 3, 1980, unanimously
recommended that Sections 16-21.1, 16-21.2, and 16-21.3 of the Zoning Ordinance be re-
pealed, and that Section 16-21 be amended to read as recommended by the staff.
Board members had no questions of Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Fisher declared the public
hearing opened. Mr. Phil Lucas, representing VEPC0, was present and said he would gladly
answer any Board of Supervisor questions. No one else from the public was present either
for or against this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker the definition of "temporary construction facilities".
Mr. Tucker said this ordinance really does not give a definition and this would have to be
set as each special permit is issued, as it would vary depending upon the construction
project. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to accept the
recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Miss Nash sa. id she felt the Board was taking a hasty vote on this matter due to the
lateness of the homr~ and felt the matter should either be deferred or flagged in the new
zoning ordinance to allow for a more in-depth discussion. Mr. Frederick Payne said this
is not the first time this Zoning Ordinance section has been discussed, and the staff and
Planning Commission have felt for a long time that this section has been in need of
revision. 'Mr. Fisher said authorization under this section would only be by special
permit, not by right, which would always allow for Board review. No other Board members
expressed a desire to defer this request. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES-
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No'.. 10. SP-80-31. VEPCO. For temporary storage of construction materials
on 4.249 acres zoned A-1. Located at Lindsay, northwest of the C & O Railroad and on the
northwest side of Route 639. Tax Map 51, Parcel 14C. Rivanna District. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 1980.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows:
Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Temporary storage of construction facilities (Section 2-1-25(33))
4.249 acres
A-t Agriculture
Location: Property described as Tax Map 51, Parcel 14C, is located in the
northeast quadrant of the intersection of Routes 615 and 639 at Lindsay.
Character of the Area: This property is vacant and open. Properties to
the southwest and northeast contain vacant dwellings. The property to the
northwest is wooded. The C & 0 Railroad borders this property on the
southeast with a shed and equipment storage area. An occupied dwelling is
across the tracks from this property.
Staff Comment: Vepco intends to use th.is site for the storage of new
materials during the Remington-Charlottesville transmission line rebuild
project. Wooden poles and crated insulators, nuts and bolts, and other
hardware would be stored on the site.
June 18, 1980 (Regular Night'~eeting)
Staff opinion is that this proposal would not be detrimental to the area
and recommends approval subject to:
Maintain a 75 foot setback from Routes 615 and 6B9 for materials storage~
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance;
This permit shall expire on May B1, 198B.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of June B, 1980, unanimously
voted to recommend approval with the above three conditions.
..... ~Mr. Phil Lucas, representing VEPCO, stated~-~at although the transmission line has
not yet been approved by the State Corporation Commission, the materials for the trans-
mission line project are starting to arrive, and there is some urgency for this approval
in order to store those materials. No one else fr~m the public wished to speak either for
or against this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Miss Nash offered motion to defer approval of this special Permit until the trans-
mission line project is approved by the State Corporation Commission. Mr. Lindstrom said
he would second the motion in order to discuss the matter further. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr.
Lucas if the materials were ordered in anticipation of the project receiving approval.
Mr. Lucas said that was the case, but the materials are arriving faster than the approval
for the project. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any other construction sites in
Albemarle County presently being used by VEPCOo Mr. Lucas said no major construction has
taken place in Albemarle County since the late 1920's, therefore no construction site has
been necessary for years. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not know if it were legitimate to
decide the issue of thee construction site based on feelings about the transmission line;
and felt it Should be looked at strictly as a land use decision. Dr. Iachetta said he
felt further discussion about this was ridiculous because no matter what, people need the
electricity. Miss Nash said she would still rather defer this item than make a hasty
decision at l:00 A.M.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for a description of the proposed site. Mr. Lucas said there is
only one occupied dwelling in the area, the rest of the area is open land. Mr. Roudabush
asked how the materials would arrive at the site. Mr. Lucas said by rail, as the site was
in direct proximity to the C & 0 Railroad. Mr. Fisher said he would support a motion to
defer only to the next Board meeting, not until the question of the transmission project
itself is decided. Miss Nash then offered a substitute motion to defer until June 25,
1980, at which time additional information regarding the proposed site and project should
be submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, again for the purpose of dis-
cussion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt enough information was presented tonight tQ make a decision.
Dr. Iachetta said he felt the special permit had all the essential requirements. Roll was
then called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash.
NAYS:T Messrs. Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
ABSEN : Mr. Henley.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve SP-80-B1
with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 12. At l:10 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by
Dr. Iachetta, to adjourn to June 25, 1980, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County
Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley