1980-11-20 adjNovember 20, 1980 Night Meeting (Adjourned from November 19, 1980)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on November 20, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from November 19, 1980.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton
R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. 'St.
John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-80-19 and SP-80-62. Holkham Associates. Rezone 33.704 acres
from RPN/R-2 to RPN/R-1 for 140 dwelling units and 1.73 acres from RPN/R-2 to R-3, with a
special use permit to use the existing dwelling for professional offices and clubhouse.
The RPN/R-1 application includes 9.91 acres in open space and 19.5 acres for residential
uses for mixed type dwellings. Located on south side of Route 250 West across from Farmington
and known as "Ednam". County Tax Map 60, Parcel 28. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on November 4 and November 11, 1980.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, presented the following staff report:
"ZMA-80-19 Holkham Associates
Requested Zoning: 33.704 acres to RPN/R-1
1.73 acres to R-3 (Proffered)
Acreage: 35.434 acres
Current Zoning: RPN/R-2
LoCation: Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A, is located on the
south side of Route 250 West across from Farmington.
History: Property was rezoned from R-1 to RPN/R-1 in 1976 (132 dwellings).
In 1979, the property was rezoned to RPN/R-2 to permit a retirement
village consisting of 255 dwellings and a 100-bed hospital with ancillary
uses.
Character of the Area: This property, known as Ednam, is bordered on the east by the Real Estate III Office Complex, on the southeast by
Ednam Villages residences (primarily duplex), and the Boar's Head Inn
complex on the southwest and west. Farmington and the Institute of
Textile Technology are across Route 250 West from this property.
Existing Zoning in the Area:
Real Estate III - CO Commercial Office
Ednam Village - R-2 Residential
Boar's Head Inn - B-1 Business
Farmington - R-2 Residential
Institute of Textile Technology - B-1 Business
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends low density residential
(1-4 du/ac) for this property.
Applicant's Proposal: After discussion with the staff as to alternative approaches,
the applicant is proposing a combination RPN and conventional zoning
designation on this property in order to accommodate the desired uses.
Under the RPN designation, the applicant proposes 140 dwelling units
on 33.73 acres, a gross density of 4.15 dwellings/acre. The existing
main house (Site H - 1.73 acres) is proposed for an R-3 designation in
order to house clubhouse, office and service uses. (A land use summary
and preliminary plan are attached. Copy on file in the Clerk's Office.)
At this time, the applicant is preparing proffers for the R-3 designation
to control the usage of the main house.
Staff Comment: In the previous petition for this property, staff review was
primarily based on the anticipated traffic impact of the proposal. Under
the current petition, the applicant has provided Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation information which indicates that anticipated
traffic impact would be comparable to that of the previously approved
petition (i.e. - 910 vtpd under current petition compared to 840-1130
vtpd under previous petition. The figure for the current petition is
provided by the staff as a maximum which assumes unrestricted office
usage of the main house).
In staff opinion, assuming appropriate proffers for the R-3 designation,
this proposal would be of comparable or less impact than the previously
approved petition in terms of traffic generation, building coverage
and visual impact."
The following is a copy of the letter and proffer from the applicant dated October 23,
1980:
"Gentlemen:
As a prologue to the attached proffer for the subject Zoning Map
Amendment 80-19, you should be aware of the intent for "Ednam" and
thus the intent of the rezm~ing request.
"Ednam" is a remaining 35.43 acre portion of a sizeable estate
which in part included Ednam Forest, the Boar's Head Inn and Ednam
Village. Tucked in among a variety of mature trees and obscured from
view is the Edwardian late Victorian manor house, built in 1906. As
one of ahvanishing architectural breed, it is the chosen focal point
434
November 20: 1980 '~Ni~ht Meetfm~'.(Ad.~o~]rmed from November 19.~ 1980)
for a planned residential community of 140 dwellings. That density of 3.95
dwellings per acre is consistent with the proposed zoning ord&nance as
well as the previously aPProved RPN-R1 (ZMA-~6-02).
What may appear as an unusual element in a residential community is upon
examination the application of an acceptable use in residential planned
developments toward the objective of economical and architectural preservation
of the manor house. While it is true that the planned development does not
include a fifty acre minimum and the manor house exceeds 1~.I/2% of the total
acreage as allowable commercial use, it is a rare occasion when a residential
planned neighborhood contains a prime candidate for national historical
landmark designation as now recommended for consideration by the Virginia
Historic Landmarks Commission at the applicant's request.
Thus the combined request for the residential planned neighborhood and
R-3 residential rezoning, and the special permit, are upon examination integral,
essential elements of a series of econ:mmic and architectural strategies to
preserve the manor house as the asset it should be to the "Ednam" community
and the community at la~ge.
The preservation of the house and the numerous mature trees are woven into
the fabric of what will be a unique, specialized community of condominiums
and cluster homes. Likewise, the surrounding residences require the careful
consideration of their impact on the total product.
To this end, the attached proffer, submittals, and pending preservation
are intended to assure the community that the extensive planning and engineering,
and the ongoing architectural design is proper planning for this unusual site, its
surrounding neighbors, and the community as a whole.
Sincerely,
(S~NED ~Y)
Sandy H. Lambert III, Architect
Vice President
Ednam Corporation~
PROFFER
"WHEREAS Holkham Associates Ltd., as a corporate member of the Ednam Corporation,
has submitted 35.43 acres, known as Parcel 28A Tax Map 60, located on U.S. 250
West of Charlottesville, for rezoning as 33.70 acres RPN-R1, and 1.73 acres R-3 with
a special permit for clubhouse use and,
WHEREAS Article 19, Residential PlannRd Neighborhood, RPN (19-4-3) restricts
commercial uses to developments greater t~mn fifty acres and further limits such
use to l~5~percent of the gross area and
WHEREAS the intended usecDf the existing Edwardian late Victorian house is
contingent upon economic considerations including, though not limited to, its
commercial and clubhouse use, thereby requiring R-3 Residential, G~neral District
zoning as the least intense land use to achieve the intendeduuse and preservation
of the house and,
WHEREAS the intent of the proposed development, as submitted in compliance
to Article 19, Residential Planned Neighborhood, RPN, is a planned development
of a maximum of 140 dwelling units wherein the existing Edwardian late Victorian
residence, consisting of approximately 11,085 square feet gross enclosed area in
twenty-seven rooms, is to function in relationship to the planned residential
development as~a clubhouse, professional offices, and for~e administration
and provision of services related to the residents and their guests, and,
WHEREAS the applicant has submitted the existing Edwardian late Victorian
house for consideration as a national historicglandmark, with the favorable
endorsement of the Vigginia Historic Landmarks Commission, therefore preserving
the architectural character of the existing structure and assuring a similar
architectural character of any future alterations or additions,
NOW THEREFORE, the Ednam Corporation and Holkham Associates, Ltd., as the
applicant, proffers to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, hhe 'following reasonable and acceptable conditions of approval for
the required re~oning:
I. The clubhouse use of the existing Edwardian late Victorian house
shall be limited in membership to the members of the Ednam Homeowners
Association, and in use to its membership and their guests.
II. The professional office use of the existing Edwardian late
Victorian house shall be limited in use to residents of the Ednam
development and is consistent with the def~tion of homeowner
occupation, class B, as regards employees, floor area, traffic and
equipment or process, per resident; limited in total area to available
existing space on the second and third floors.
November 20, 1980 Night Meeting (Adjourned from November 19, 1980)
435
III. The service use of the existing Edwardian late Vic~0~i~n
house shall be limited to services exclusively for the residents
of the Ednam development and their guests, except that such
services available to the residents may be extended to non-residents
upon the provision that no traffic shall be generated in greater
volumes than would normally be expected in a residential
neighborhood·
IV. The use of the existing Edwardian late Victorian house
and the 1.73 acres of R-3 Residential General District shall
be limited to the above uses in I, II, and III, excluding, without
amendment~in compliance with Article 14, Am~ddm~nts of the Zoning
Ordinance of the County of Albemarle, all other permitted uses
or special permitted uses in the R-3 ~istrict other than off-street
parking.
HOLKHAM ASSOCIATES,ii!i.~LTD.
(SIGNED BY)
by Caleb Stowe, Secretary
THE EDNAM CORPORATION
(SIGNED BY)
Caleb Stowe, president"
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on October 28, 1980 recommended approval of
ZMA-80-19 with the following conditions:
Approval is for a maximum of 140 dwelling units in locations and types £? ?~d~%~a
in accordance with the land use summary of the approved plan. (Commission
approved the amended land use summary as set out herein.)
SITE
ACREAdE
TYPE OF UNIT
MAXIMUM BLDG. HT.
NUMBER UNITS
DENSITY RANGE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
A~- G
3.4+ Condominiums--Multi-
story 65 feet 40-60 11.7 - 12'.6
4.5+ Attached semi-attached 35 feet 20-30 4.4 - 6.6
3.7~ Attached semi-attached 35 feet 16-28 4.3 - 7.5
1.4~ At~ached semi-attached 35 feet 10-12 7.1~- 8.5
2.7~ Condominiums low rise 50 feet 12-20 4.4 - 7.~
.1.7~ Attached semi-attached 35 feet 8-12 4.7 - 7.0
2.1~ Condominiums-low rise 50 feet 11-18 5.2 - 8.6
19.~+ 140 du. max.
Open Space 9.91+
Roads 4.29~
Total 33.73-+- 140 DU
H 1.73+ MAIN HOUSE (EXISTING)
Total 35.43-+-- 140 DU
. $~Deifically, multi-storied residential structures shall be restricted
~to Sites A, E and G;
~. ~irginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrances and road improvements as shown on the approved plan;
3. Countp!Engineer approval of internal roads and parking, drainage, grading
plans and impoundment dam;
4] .....A~hemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans
including booster station and other appurtenances;
5f Fire Official approval of fire hydrant locations and fire flow require-
ments, emergency access provisions and handicapped parking;
6. County Attorney's approval of Homeowners' maintenance agreements·
R-3 designation: 1.73 acres--The Planning Commission approved the R-3 designation,
subject to the proffers of the applicant in a letter dated October 23, 1980.
Mr. Tucker said an amended proffer dated November 19, 1980 has been received and
differs from the proffer submitted to the Planning Commission by restrictions added to
clarify questions raised by members of this Board. He then read the proffer.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Ednam Corporation and Holkham Associates, Ltd., as the
applicant, proffers to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, the following reasonable and acceptable conditions of approval
for the required rezoning:
The clubhouse use of the existing manor house shall be limited
in membership to the members of the Ednam Homeowners Association
and in use to its membership and their guests.
II.
The professional office use of the existing manor house shall be
limited in use to residents of the Ednam development, consistent
with the definition of homeowners occupation, Class B, as regards
employees, floor area, traffic and equipment or process, per
resident; limited in total area to available existing space
on the second and third floors.
III.
The service use of the existing manor house shall be limited to
services for the residents of the Ednam development and their
guests.
' 436
November 20: ]980 N~ht Meetin.m..(Ad.~our~ed from Movemb~.~ ]9.. ]980)
IV.
The use of the existing manor house and the 1.73 acres of R-3
Residential General District shall be limited to the above uses
in I, II, and III, excluding all other permitted uses or special
permitted uses in the R-3 District other than off-street parking,
and any additions or new construction for professional office
use without amendment in compliance with Article 14, Amendment
of the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Albemarle.
HOLKHAM ASSOCIATES~ LTD.
(SIGNED BY)
Caleb Stowe, Secretary
THE EDNAM CORPORATION
(SIGNED BY)
Caleb Stowe, President"
Mr. Tucker then preSented the following staff report for SP-80-62:
"Request: Clubhouse Facility (Section ~6-1-21(1))
Acreage: 1.73 acres
Zoning: R-3 Residential General
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A, is located on the south
side of Route 250 West across from Farmington.
Staff Comment: The Ednam house, consisting of about 11,000 square feet is proposed
to be used in conjunction with the Ednam RPN to house a clubhouse,
offices, and service uses for the development. Proffers governing the usage
of this structure are being prepared at this time.
Staff opinion is that the proposed clubhouse use under this special use permit
is appropriate to the Ednam development. Staff recommends approval."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on October 28, 1980, unanimously recommended
approval of SP-80-62. Mr. Tucker said the plan lies very well on the site the natural
areas have been protected and vast improvements made on the south side of Route 250 West.
Mr. Tucker noted that R-3 was the only logical zone which could allow the uses requested by
the applicant.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Sandy Lambert, architect for Ednam Corporation,
was present. He introduced the following persons involved in working on the project: Mr.
and Mrs. Caleb Stowe, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Petty, Mr..and Mrs. Marion Kellogg--present owners
of the property, Mr. Stuart Carwile--attorney for the Ednam Corporation, Mr. Bill Roudabush
and Mr. John Greene--engineers and Mr. Lynn Critzer--corporate officer in the Ednam C0rporatiom
He also noted that he and Mr. Critzer will work on the ~development of the project. Mr.
Lambert then reviewed the proposal. He said this plan is very similar to the Kellogg's
original proposal in that it has a peripheral loop road. There is one difference in the
alignment of the road to allow a stacking lane between Route 250 and the interior road.
Mr. Lambert said discussions have been held with the adjacent property owners, the Albemarle
County Service Authority, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the University about
the sewage. Mr. Lambert said several alternatives are available and the one being pursued
is, with the cooperation of the.adjacent landowners to cross with an easement through
Birdwood and to have such line in place before the Birdwood golf course is finished in the
spring. Mr. Lambert then pointed out the existing buildings on the property and noted that
the barn cannot be saved due to structural factors. Mr. Lambert said'Areas B, C, D and F
will have attached and semi-detached dwellings of thirty-five feet in height. Areas E and
G will have fifty-foot low rise condominiums. Area A, which is in the back of the property
and of a higher elevation, will have sixty-five foot multi-story condominiums. Mr. Lambert
said the reason for the 'ranges in densities is to allow flexibility and also due to the
uncertainity of what the market will be when .the buildings are built.
Mr. W. S. Roudabush, eng~n~er fro~ the firm of Roudabush, Incorporated, was present.
He said the first assignment to his firm was to examine the issue of traffic flow generated
within the project to be used for the design of the internal road network and to determine
the impact of the project on Route 250. Mr. Roudabush then presented the following Updated
traffic generation based on a rate of 5.1 vehicle trips per day for the condominiums and
townhouses and 3.3 vehicle trips per day for the retirement community. Probably more than
sixty percent of the project will be occupied by persons considered to be in the retirement
community and will generate 3.3 vehicle trips per day for a total of 277 vehicle trips per
day. Forty percent of the project will be developed in condominiums or townhouses which
will generate 5.1 vehicle trips per day for a total of 286 vehicle trips per day. Therefore,
the total traffic generation for the entire project is 563 vehicle trips per day or four
vehicles per day per unit on the average. This data was Compared to.Georgetown Green which
is a similar community and has a generation of 4.28 vehicle trips per day per unit. Mr.
Roudabush said this information was submitted to the Highway DePartment and the Department
feels such is an acceptable traffic fiow..The next item examined was the requirement for
f~ntag~ti~Prmvema~a~ ~he High~a~D~D~rtme~h~s~ggested the most reasonable point of
ingress would be directly opposite from the Farmington entrance to avoid any off-set connectior
The Highway Department also recommended several improvements be made to Route 250 and the
developers have agreed. One improvement is the widening of Route 250 from the western
boundary to the eastern boundary with an additional twelve foot lane of pavement across the
entire frontage. Curb and gutter from one boundary to the other has also been included.
The complete storm sewer system has been included as a .storm water system along the front
of the property. Mr. RoUdabush said the improvements along the frontage will extend the
pavement width from thirty feet to forty-two feet in most instances and in one area there
is an additional twelve foot turning lane into Farmington. Mr. Roudabush said a loop road
is included for internal circulation for the project. The internal road has been approved
by the County Engineer as being in accordance with County standards for private~roads.
Ingress to the property will be by a divided entrance road which will link Route 250 to
the loop road. In addition to the internal circulation, there will be paths and trails
which will provide minor internal circulation and accommodate pedestrian traffic. Mr.
Roudabush said all the improvements necessary will be outside of the setback line.
November 20, 1980 Night Meeting (Adjourned from November 19, 1980)
Speaking next was Mr. John Greene, from the firm of Roudabush, Inc. The water is
presently supplied from the Observatory Mountain Treatment Plant through a booster pump on
Alderman Road. Tests have been made by the Albemarle County Service Authority and indicate
that 11,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch is available. A twelve-inch
line is planned for this development which will go around the development and be picked up
by the booster pump which will pump water to the 300,000 gallon storage tank in Ednam.
However, the booster pump will be in a temporary location. The twelve-inch line will feed
into the booster pump and a ten-inch extension will be connected to the point where the
booster pump is now located. When that is accomplished, the water storage in the 300,000
gallon tank can be used for fire flow in this area. Fire flow tests conducted by the
Albemarle County Service Authority indicated that 2,300 gallons per minute at twenty pounds
per square inch is available from the Ednam Forest Tank. Mr. Greene then pointed out the
part of the drainage shed which goes into the South Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Greene said by
suggestion of the County Engineer, calculations have been done on the impact to the reservoir
and the County Engineer has determined that a runoff permit is not required. Mr. Greene
said the remainder of the property is within the stormwater detention area and the detention
requirements will be satisfied by ponds. The erosion control plans have been prepared,
submitted and approved and the only conditions were that along one of the borders, rather
than having a continuous silt barrier, an earth berm should be placed with rock stone
fillers.~ Mr. Greene then noted that the drainage, fire and water flow requirements have
all been satisfied.
Mr. Sandy Lambert then noted the row of white pine trees located on the property that
will serve as a screen to Route 250. He said parking will be beneath the buildings both to
preserve open space and for security purposes. Mr. Lambert said the area of the former
gardens will be one of the recreational areas and is adjacent to the condominiums as well
as the clubhouse. Mr. Lambert said the green strips adjacent to the residential areas
will be preserved. Mr. Lambert then described the type of housing that will be available.
He also' noted that a requirement of the Highway Department was dedication of forty-eight
feet right-of-way f~om the centerline of the existing highway. Mr. Fisher asked if that
put the existing retaining wall in the rights, r-way. Mr. Lambert said yes and in some
places the wall already is in the right-of-way but generally speaking the wall follows the
right-of-way. The wall was built by the Highway Department when the road was widened. Mr.
Lambert said low density development will be kept to the back of the site. He also pointed
out that the the stormwater detention pond has been built for a 100-year storm. Mr. Lambert
then noted the different elevations of the buildings. He noted the average grade in the
area is a be 710 elevation and the existing structure is at 717.2 elevation.
Speaking next was Mrs. Elizabeth Peters, on behalf of some of the residents in Bellair,
Ednam, Farmington and for the Institute of Textile Technology. She felt two or three units
exceeded the thirty-five foot height requirement in Section 19-7.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
since they are sixty-five foot high. She also did not feel the project is compatible to the
character and development of historic landmarks along Route 250 West. Mrs. Peters noted
opposition to the request until there is substantial relief of the traffic pressure on the
scenic highway. She also felt more sight distance was needed to the project. Mrs. Peters
urged the Board to take whatever measures possible for the safety of the community by
requiring that the curve, where Route 250 approaches Ednam at the top of the rise, is
straightened so as to provide adequate sight distance which does not now exist. Mrs.
Peters also felt that a traffic light should be installed at the Farmington entrance
together with a blinking traffic light in order to provide more protection.
Mr. Frank Kessler, spoke next on behalf of Real Estate III, the adjacent property
owners. He supported the proposal both as an adjacent property owner and as a citizen
living in Farmington.
Mr. Caleb Stowe, member of the partnership that will be responsible for the execution
of the plan, spoke next. He felt the best people possible had worked on this project and
noted appreciation to the county staff members and Board members who had personally visited
the site. Mr. Stowe also noted that his group is very much committed to doing the project
and if the Board approves the request, the program will be implemented.
Mr. Roudabush said the sight distance aspect has not been overlooked. He then noted
the different types of sight distance involved at an intersection. The present horizontal
sight distance will be increased to 625 feet with the proposed improvements. The required
sight distance on this highway is 450 feet and such has been exceeded by 175 feet for a
total of 625 feet. In conclusion, Mr. Roudabush said the proposed improvements will
improve the existing sight distance problems.
Dr. Iachetta asked the actual finished pavement width. Mr. Roudabush said the present
pavement is thirty-feet wide and has been increased by twelve feet for a total of forty-two
feet in the vicinity of the turning lane into Farmington.
Mr. Lambert then noted for the record that this project has not been advertised and
there is already a list off'Sixty perspective buyers from Albemarle County.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Fisher said the concerns of Mrs. Peters have been his as well particularly the
height of the buildings and their visiblity and the traffic conditions on Route 250 West.
He ~said when this property was last considered by the Board, additional information had
been requested from the Highway Department on whether a traffic signal could be placed at
the entrance to Farmington. Indications at that time were that there was not a chance for
such but perhaps it would be in the future. He then asked Mr. Bryon Coburn, Assistant
Resident Highway Engineer, if that indication had changed. Mr. Coburn said established
warrants are used for the intallation of traffic signals and a proven need has to be made
before a signal can be installed. At this time, only speculation is known about the traffic
generation from the site. Therefore, a need does not exist. He felt several hours during
the day now warrant a light but the requirement is for at least eight hours a day.
438
November 20, 1980 Night Meeting (Adjourned from November 19, 1980)
Mr. Fisher felt the proposed traffic improvements will benefit all users along Route
250 West. If this request is approved, he hoped every attempt would be made to minimize
the heights of the buildings particularly on Area E and along Route 250 West. Mr. Fisher
then commended the applicant for the good presentation and felt the request should be
approved.
Mr. McCann then offered motion to approve ZMA-80-19 with the Planning Commission
conditions and the R-3 designation for the 1.73 acres be approved with the proffer dated
November 19, 1980 and SP-80-62 be approved for the use of the Manor House as a clubhouse.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Dr. Iachetta said he had shared the concerns of Mrs.
Peters and Mr. Fisher about the height until Lhe toured the property with Mr. Lambert. The
trees ±n Area E are taller than the height specified for the buildings as fifty feet. He
did not think the buildings are going to be nearly as visible as the height alone suggests.
Dr. Iachetta felt the effort to preserve the trees is commendable and the plan is good and
he supported the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant understood that only public
sewerage would be allowed without any interim measures such as package treatment plants.
Mr. Lambert said yes. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None. -' ~ ~
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
At 8:57 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:08 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-80-63. Charles W. Hurt. Petition to amend the Branchlands
Planned Unit Development, consisting of 86.2 acres with the following: 22.7 acres in net
residential area for 345 dwelling units; 16.7 acres in net commercial area; 32.7 acres in
open space, recreation and buffer zones; and 11.2 acres in major street right-of-way. The
property is located on the east side of Route 29 North, south of Charlottesville Fashion
Square. Tax Map 6lA, Parcels 3-1 and IA. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on November 4 and November 11, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has'deferred SP-80-63 indefinitely and he
requested the Board to do the same. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. Lindstrom to this effect. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has been discussing for some time the question of exempting
the division of certain size parcels from requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, particularly
in the Rural Areas district. This question was again raised at last night's hearing on the
proposed Zoning Ordinance. The Board needs to make some decision on this question so that
a public hearing can be scheduled on amending Section 18~2~Of~eCC~u~y Code.
The Board then launched into a discussion of exempt size parcels, division rights,
recordkeeping problems of the by right divisions, and how these division rights would be
assigned. Mr. Fisher said he felt it would be best if a committee composed of Mr. Lindstrom,
Dr. Iachetta, Mr. Tucker and Mr. St. John meet and make a recommendation to the other Board
members on these questions. It was decided that the report should be made at a meeting to
be held on December 3 at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that a new Flood Hazard Ordinance must be adopted by
December 16 or the County's eligibility for flood insurance will expire. He said that the
Board could amend the existing Zoning Ordinance to include this new section, if that becomes
necessary. Mr. Fisher said he thinks the Board will take some action on the Zoning Ordinance
on December 10, and if not, then this can be adopted as an emergency measure.
Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion: Milkey Tract.
Mr. Lindstrom said he requested that this item be placed on the agenda due to a call
from Mr. William Edgerton. A plat for the Milkey Tract was before the Board several months
ago and a requirement was that all entrances would be onto Ivy Farm Drive and not Route
658. Mr. Lindstrom said the developer has now cut a road through onto Route 658 contrary
to the condition of the Board~
Mr. William Edgerton, property owner in Ivy Farms, was present and noted that over the
past five months he has been engaged in a sincere effort to prevent an inappropriate developme
of a forty-acre parcel of land adjoining his home. The parcel of land is owned by four
doctors from New York and he felt his concerns have been ignored. In July, he was informed
by Dr. Hurt that the property was going to be developed. Dr. Hurt had asked Mr. Edgerton
if he wanted to buy some protection and Dr. Edgerton said he could not afford to buy a~y
land and hoped nothing was being planned that he had to protect himself from. Mr. Edgerton
said Dr. Hurt assured him that the only plan was to develop four to six acre lots. The
next thing was a notification from the Planning Department that there was to be a review of
5 two-acre lots along the frontage of this Piece of property. Mr. Edgerton was outraged
with this change of plans. The plat was approved by the Planning Commission because all
the minimum requirements had been met. Mr. Edgerton and several of his neighbors then
appealed the decision and the matter came before the Board on September 10. The request
was denied and the applicant was requested to redraw the plan with only one entrance onto
Ivy Farm Drive. A meeting between the Ivy Farm Homeowner's Association and the developer's
~t
November 20, 1986~ Night Meeting (Adjourned from November 19, 1980)
representatives was then held. A sketch was presented at that meeting which showed seventeen
lots all accessing onto an internal street with one access onto Ivy Farm Drive. The sketch
showed the same 5 two-acre lots along the road frontage and easements across the interior
lots for lots not fronting on the internal street to provide for the access onto the single
entrance of Ivy Farms Drive. The Homeowner's Association did not find this plat acceptable
and indicated that as a group they would challenge the plat. The developer did not want
this type of opposition so the sketch was revised to fifteen lots all accessing onto an
interior street with only three lots fronting onto Ivy Farm Drive. The Homeowners then
decided"that the reduction in lots was an act in good faith on the developers part and
agreed not to oppose the plan. A final plat was then prepared and in compliance with the
sketch in every way but did not show any access to the interior road for the lot bordering
Route 658. Mr. Edgerton also noted that the soil study does not line up with the lots
anymore because the study was done when the proposal was for a seventeen acre lot subdivision.
Mr. Edgerton said he also discovered that some of the areas were within the one hundred
foot septic setback which is required in the Runoff Control Ordinance for streams which
flow into the reservoir. He also discovered that the developer had not included the location
of one of the two major streams which traverses the site. This was called to the attention
of the planning staff and the plat was revised to include the stream and the soil studies
on several lots were revised. The soil study done by Mr. Earl Brunger reported slopes of
seventeen to eighteen percent in areas that the topography map showed in excess of twenty-
five percent. Therefore, Mr. Edgerton challenged the reliability of both the topography
map and the soil study. His observation is that the location of the streams do not agree
with the streams shown on the plat and a great portion of one of the streams appears to be
intermittent and therefore affected by the Runoff Control Ordinance. The plat was then
deferred to November 18 so that an accurate topography map showing intermittent streams,
etc., and areas of twenty-five percent or greater slopes and health department approval of
two septic drainfield sites could be submitted. An aerial survey was then submitted along
with the same soil study report concerning suitable septic sites which had been submitted
earlier. The topography map still shows slopes greater than twenty-five percent in areas
designated as suitable for septic sites. After a considerable debate, the plat was deferred
and the applicant was again requested to provide additional information. Mr, Edgerton said
unknown to him at that time was that two building permits had been requested for a house to
be located on the corner lot. On Wednesday morning, he found contractors on the site,
excavating and building a driveway exiting directly onto Route 658. No approval had been
granted by the County for this and no entrance permit had been issued by the Highway Departmen
Mr. Edgerton said he has since discovered that the plan is to develop the corner lot as a
separate five acre parcel. Mr. Edgerton urged the Board to use whatever power it has t~
put an end to this sort of disregard for all processes for protection. He also noted
information received today that the 2.78 acre parcel of land being excavated has been a lot
of record since 1922 and this has never been mentioned before.
Mr'~ Fisher asked if a subdivision plat had been filed with the County. Mr. Tucker
said yes and it was his understanding that it was for one parcel.
Speaking next was Dr. Wenzel, property, owner in Ivy Farms. He noted statement from
Dr. Michael Johns, representing the Ivy Farms Homeowners Association, opposing the access
road placed on November 19, 1980 from Route 65~ onto the property known as the Milkey Tract
by the Virginia Land Company. Dr. Johns further stated that the driveway leads to a plot
of land which was not approved by the Planning Commission on November 18,~1980, and it is
his understanding that there was to be no access road from Route 685 onto the Milkey
Tract. The understanding also that the Building Inspections Department had not given
approval for the use of such a drive. The feeling of the Homeowner's Association is that
Virginia Land Company has acted in bad faith and as such the proposed plans for the entire
Milkey Tract should be renegotiated. In addition, the Homeowners Association feels that
access to'the Milkey Tract for development should be denied immediately until such has been
reviewed by appropriate county legal advisers.
Next to speak was Mr. Frank Kessler. the contractor for the parcel in question. Mr.
and Mrs. Steven O'Neill, persons interested in the property, came to see him. He then
called Dr. Hurt about the property located on the front portion of the Milkey Tract. Dr.
Hurt had stated that there was no problem in building a house on the property but the
subdivision plat was before the County. However, Dr. Hurt said to go ahead and plan the
house because he was going back to the County for a second time and felt the request would
be approved. Mr. Kessler had asked Dr. Hurt what would happen if the subdivision plat was
not approved. Dr. Hurt said that the property of interest was a separately recorded piece
of property and could be cut off in the form of a five acre parcel. The subdivision plat
was not approved. This property which is 2.78 acres was recorded many years ago and had
the right to be developed all the time. Mr. Kessler said this afternoon he received a call
from the State Highway Department informing him that the building permit for the property
had been issued, but there was not a highway entrance permit. He then talked to the Resident
Highway Engineer, Mr. Roosevelt, and explained that this was a separate five-acre parcel.
Due to a timing problem for the O'Neills, a representative from the Highway Department came
out this afternoon and issued an entrance permit application.
Mr. Tucker said a building permit had not been issued but rather a footing permit
until it was determined if the lot was of record. Mr. Tucker said the confusion about
whether the lot was of record came about because the lot does not show on County tax maps.
It is a 2.78 acre parcel, with a residue of 39+ acres. The two tracts are shown as one
tract on tax maps since the real estate department combines continguous parcels owned by
the same people into one parcel. Mr. Fisher felt that problem should be resolved. Mr.
Lindstrom asked under what condition ~ooting permits are issued. Mr. Agnor said they are
issued when the contractor or the property owner at his-own risk, will proceed with the
digging of the footings in advance of the building Permit being issued. If it is proven
then that a building permit cannot be issued, the work has to stop. He also noted that a
footage permit is not issued on anything less than two acres.
0
November 20~ 1980 N~ht Meeting (Adjourned from November 19~ 1980)
Mr, Fisher then asked about the issuance of an entrance permit. Mr. Coburn said the
work was begun without a permit and such is not unusual since there is no real penalty
assessed when it is a private entrance. He understood that a highway~permit inspector went
out this afternoon and issued a permit application to Mr. Kessler to get all the various
approvals and commitments so that the entrance would be installed properly once the matter
of the~lot is resolved. Mr. Coburn said the Highway cannot deny a permit for an existing
lot when it is a private entrance. He also added that by request of the Highway Department
eighteen months ago, the Zoning Office established a procedure that they would not issue
the formal building permit until the applicant has either had his entrance permit approved,
in hand or acknowledgement from the Highway Department that there is an existing entrance
at that point.
Mr, Fisher asked if the entrance put on the road is in direct conflict with the denial
of the subdivision, what recourse the Commission would have. Mr. Tucker said since the
parcel in question has an entrance, it would just be divided off and the other lots would
have one access onto an internal road from Ivy Farm Drive.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked what authority the Board has in this matter. Mr. St. John
felt what has been done on the 2.78 acre parcel is a matter of right and could have been
done without permission from anyone except for requiring a building permit.
Mrl.~ Kessler said his workers may have been incorrect in requesting a footing permit
instead of a building permit. He said that on a voluntary basis, he would not put the
footings in tomorrow until this matter is resolved. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Kessler was
aware that the requirement of the subdivision plat was for access only onto an internal
road. Mr. Kessler said no. Mr. St. John asked who holds title to the lot. Mr. Kessler
said the O'Neills are the contract purchasers and have a contract with Dr. Hurt in writing
for the~purchase of the land.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Kessler has volunteered to not go forward with any more work until
the matter is resolved. He felt the Zoning Administrator and other staff members could
review the status of the plat and either decide that a building permit may not be issued or
that everything is in compliance and can be issued. He suggested Mr. Kessler and Mr.
Edgerton be notified as soon as possible.
Mr. Lindstrom said the County cannot act as a referree but he had asked that this be
placed on the agenda because he did not understand the matter. He felt the fact that this
lot exists of record allows Dr. Hurt rights regardless of the County's feelings. He said
maybe'the property owners attorneys can do something about the matter but the County cannot.
Mr. Agnor noted the deed book references for the 2.78 acre tract which has been in
existence since 1922~were found late today and he would try to resolve the matter tomorrow.
Agenda Item No. 6.
Request to vacate a plat of Hollymead.
Mr. Agnor noted letter dated November 17, 1980, from Mr. James M. Hill, agent for Dr.
Charles Hurt:
"We would like to request that ordinance to vacate a plat of a portion of "Hollymead"
shown on a recorded plat as Parcel D. This property is shown on a plat recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 531, page 313."
Mr. Agnor said an old farm house is located on Parcel D and is being renovated. In
order for clear title to be obtained to the property, a division of the lot which is part
of the Hollymead PUD has to be done in order to show it as a separate lot.
Dr. I&chetta asked if the PUD would have to be amended since the lot is shown in the
original PUD as multi-family. Mr. Tucker said in discussing this with.the Deputy County
Attorney, Mr. Frederick Payne, this house has always been used for single-family and he did
not see any reason in the future that the house could not divided off if the person living
in the house wanted to put apartments there.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to advertise an ordinance to vacate a plat of a
portion of Hollymead shown on a recorded plat as Parcel D for public hearing on December
10, 1980. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 5. Agreement: Nuclear Consultant.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the agreement
between the City and County for the employment of a nuclear consultant and to authorize the
Chairman to execute same. (The County was the first party to sign the agreement and the
agreement still has-to be ratified by the City.) Roll was called on the foregoing motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
1980 Night Meetin~ (Adjourned from November 19, 1980)
This Agreement made and entered into this day of 1980, by and
among PETER G. MONTAGUE, Ph.D., party of the first part, and the CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE, party of the second part, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
party of the third part.
WITNESSETH:
Whereas, the parties desire to enter into a contractual arrangement for
Dr. Montague to perform certain personal services in objectively evaluating the
program for incinerating low-level radioactive wastes proposed by the University
of Virginia; now, therefore, the parties agree that:
Dr. Montague will review the University of Virginia's application
to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated March 17, 1980,
to amend its By-product Material, License No. 45-0034-26 to permit
the disposal of low-level radioactive waste by incineration.
Dr. Montague will review and evaluate the University of Virginia
program with regard to the type and adequacy of incinerator(s)
to be used in the disposal of said waste, the transportation
system used for radioactive materials coming to and leaving the
incinerator site, the storage of radioactive materials before
and after incineration in all locations, as well as the amounts
and chemical composition of wastes to be incinerated.
Dr. Montague will review the University of Virginia protocol
for the incineration of low-level radioactive waste (accepted
September 19, 1980 by the University's Radiation Safety Committee)
to determine if any improvements are merited.
Dr. Montague will review the County of Albemarle's nuclear waste
disposal ordinance, the intent of which is to limit the types
of waste to be incinerated.
Dr. Montague agrees to travel to Charlottesville for the purpose
of examining the incineration site and facility and meeting with
any City, County or University officials in order 'to gather
additional information that may be necessary to his analysis.
Dr. Montague agrees to travel to Charlottesville in order to
present his analysis and findings at a joint meeting of the
Albemarle Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City
Council.
Any and all materials pertinent to and required for Dr.
Montague's analysis shall be obtained and provided, to the
best of its ability, by the City of Charlottesville.
For his services the City of Charlottesville and County of
Albemarle agree to reimburse Dr. Montague at the rate of
$100.00 per diem, not to exceed seven (7) days, plus travel
and lodging expenses.
Agenda Item No. 8a. Appropriation: Central Police Dispatch Facility.
Mr. Agnor presented his memorandum dated November 14, 1980:
"You will recall that the County, the City and the University agreed to study
the feasibility of a central police dispatch center which would also serve as
an emergency operations center and as a dispatch center for a 911 emergency
telephone system. When the concept was approved, it was agreed that the
remodeling of the second phase of the Lane building offered an opportunity
to develop such a center.
Mr. Sample of Stainback and Scribner has determined that a basement area of
City Hall, which originally housed a police firing range, now abandoned,
cffers a better location for the center than does the Lane building.
His analysis is from a space available basis, and from a financial basis
for converting the area to an operations center.
The law enforcement heads of the three jurisdictions agree with this
analysis, and recommend that a report on the specific cost of converting
the space, installing the communications equipment, and determining a fair
division of the costs be prepared for review by the governing bodies. I have
discussed the matter with Messrs. Catlin and Hendrix, and have agreed to
request from the three jurisdictions a total allocation of $5,000 to employ
an architect and communications consultant to prepare such a report. The
cost of the report is proposed to be divided equally, thereby committing
the County up to $1,667 for the study. Since the study would be of
City Hall space, the City would employ the architect. The communications
consultant would be agreed upon by the law enforcement heads, and also
employed by the City.
Ap.proval of the continued study of this project and appropriation of the
$1,667 is requested."
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $1,667.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General
Fund to Code ll01-3002.06--Board of County Supervisors-Consultants, to
November 20~ 1980 Night Meeting (Adjourned from November
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 8b. Appropriation: Project II, Energy Conservation.
Mr. Agnor said the School Board approved a Planning Budget of $36,000 for technical
assistance on Project II of the Energy Conservation Program on October 25, 1980. Project II
involves work on mechanical and air-conditioning equipment at the following seven schools:
Hollymead, Crozet, Jack Jouett, Walton, Brownsville, Woodbrook and Henley. Implementation
of the measures to be taken on reducing energy consumption will be funded on a fifty-fifty
grant. Mr. Agnor requested approval of an appropriation in the amount of $36,000.00 frOm
the General Fund. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Suprvisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,~
that $36,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General
Fund to Code 19.34 Technical Assistance - Project II, Energy Program.
Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 9. Lottery Permits.
Mr. Agnor then presented a lottery permit application request from the Western Albemarle
High School Booster Club for a raffle to be held on February 20, 1981. Mr. Lindstrom
offered motion to approve the lottery permit in accordance with the Board's adopted rules
for the issuance of same. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Agnor then presented lottery permit request for the Black Student Alliance, University
of Virginia, for a raffle to be held on December 10, 1980. Motion was then offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the lottery permit for the Black Student
Alliance, University of Virginia, in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for the
issuance of same. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher noted information received from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that an
amendment is being planned for the standards of incinerating animals containing tritium and
carbon 14. The amendment will essentially lower concentrations that can be incinerated.
Mr. Fisher said he met with members of the National Association of Counties staff and a
formal comment to the Secretary of Commission has been filed requesting particular attention
to the County's situation where no public notice was made, no monitoring is carried out and
changes were suggested in their procedures. The proposed change also includes placing into
the sanitary sewer systems higher levels of radioactive materials. Those changes would
increase the amount of radioactive materials going into the sewer system without regard to
the size of the system so every user would be permitted to put in five curies of materials
per year without any regard to the size. Mr. Fisher said he understood that there is no
monitoring of what now goes into or out of the sewer system. Therefore, Mr. Fisher said
copies of this information will be distributed to the Rivanna Authority and to City Council
for comments.
Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session.
At 10:55 P.M., Mr. Agnor requested an eXecutive session to discuss matters of land
acquisition. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to this effect. Mr. McCann seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 12. At 11:40 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session and motion
was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn to November 24, 1980, at 3:00 P.M..~in the County
Mr. McCann
Executive's Conference Room to discuss the City's Proposal on Annexation.
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded ¥ote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley. ~ ~ ~