1979-11-07November 7, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
on November 7, 1979 at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Court-house~ Charlottesvi
Virginia.~
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr,, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. H
Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, and W. S. Roudabush.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
~genda Item No. 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 7:36 P
Chairman Gerald Fisher, who requested a moment of silence.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-79'31. A. L. Kyser, Sr. Locate retail stores and sho·
1.0 acre zoned R-3. Located on the south side of Route 631. (,Deferred from Septel
1979.)
Mr. Tucker read the following planning staff report, and noted that the Plann
Commission unanimously recommended denial of this special permit request.
Request: Retail Stores and shops (Section 6-1-21(5)
Acreage: 1.0 acre
Existing Zoning: R-3 Residential General
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 52L(1), is loca'
the south side of Route 631 approximately 300 feet east of its intersection
Route 780.
Character of the Area: A convenience grocery and barber shop are to the west
mobile home park to the south of this property. Other properties in the immel
vicinity on the south side of Route 631 are developed residentially. About 2.
of vacant B-1 zoning exists on the north side of Route 631 across from this pz
A vacant convenience store is to the east on the north side of Route 631.
Comprehensive Plan: The neighborhood committee for this area and the Compreh~
Plan have recognized the commercial convenience adjacent to this property.
Staff Comment: Aspects which are favorable to this application are as follow~
1. Neighborhood commercial in this area is recommended by the Comprehensive
and neighborhood committee;
2. This property is adjacent to existing commercial development (Note: Bott
the barber/grocery and mobile home park were previously owned by the
applicant.)
Staff is concerned about this application for the following reasons:
1. Th~s ~roperty, consisting of one acre, is currently developed with a
single-family dwelling and mobile home and therefore does not comply wit~
the minimum area requirements since no public water or sewer is employed.
While the Zoning Ordinance addresses only area requirements for residentJ
uses in the R-3 district, staff is concerned about intensification of us~
of this property;
2. The ~acant B-1 acreage on the north side of Route 631 is more than
adequate to satisfy neighborhood needs.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff recomm~
limitation on the number and types of commercial uses permitted in view of th~
to speak was Mr. Charles Walker, an adjoining property owner. Mr. Walker said
zed on his property for twenty years. He said although Mr. Kyser lives next
~oes not now own the property, and Mr. Walker feared the property owners would
~ke control of the property and the store as well. Mr. Walker said there are two
not one as stated by the applicant; a house, a garage, a junk automobile, a
~nd woodyard. Mr. Walker felt there was no way to construct a decelerati'on lane
)roperty. He was also opposed to the placement of a hedge along the property
~use it would obstruct his view of the road ~hen exiting his property.
~. H. Walker spoke as a character reference for Mr. Kyser, saying he was a very
man with the best of intentions in this instance.
L. Kyser, Sr. spoke next, saying he did not want to hurt his neighbors, but
would allow him this request for a store. He said the mobile homes are on
could be moved from the property if necessary.
~e else wished to speak either for or against this application, and Mr. Fisher
;he public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he could not support the application,
felt the land was already too intensly occupied for use with a well and septic
~r. Dottier said he was sympathetic to the applicant, but felt the additional
on the property would overload the well and septic system. He also felt to
~he commercial use in the'neighborhood, would cause problems and he would not
he request. Dr. Iachetta said he could not see how the Board could reverse the
~ommission's recommendation in this case. Mr. Roudabush said to approve this
~uld be going outside of the range of the special use permit procedure. Mr.
agreed with the sentiments of the other Board members.
~n was offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the r'ecommendation of the Planning
and deny the application. At this time, Mr.~Dick said the applicant wished to
ais application. Mr. Dorrier s~id he had no objection to this. Motion was then
Dr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to allow withdrawal of this application
~ejudice. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
ssrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
~e.
~a Item No. 2. SP-79-48. Willoughby Corporation. Amend SP-534 (Willoughby
~cated on northwest side of Fifth Street Extended north of the 1-64 interchange.
from September 19, 1979.)
Lindstrom said at one time he was involved with the Bondholders Committee which
lloughby Corporation. He has not had any contact in the last four years, but
ould abstain from this request if the Board felt it would be in the best interest
~licant. No one had objections to Mr. Lindstrom taking part in this discussion
~ucker proceeded and read the planning staff report which follows:
est: Amendment of PUD, SP-534
ag~: 48 acres
tion: Property is described as Tax Map 76M(2), portions of parcels 5A, 5B,
B~, 7, and 8. The site is located northwest of Fifth Street Extended, north of
1-64 interchange.
November 7, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
6.
7.
8.
Ail streets shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and
portation for inclusion into the State Highway System, except for the pr
road serving duplex lots 93-102;
Compliance with private road requirements (serving lots 93-102);
Take old access locations off the plan;
Connect the pedestrian trail to the duplex lots;
The generalized land use plan, showing the location and types of single-
and duplex development and access on the internal roads shall be adhered
The maximum number of lots approved is 175;
Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and specifications;
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approva
this amendment. Mr. Roudabush asked if it would cause any maintenance problems si
roads in this phase of development are to be located in the County, but access is
City of Charlottesville roads only. Mr. Tucker said he did not know if it would c
problem. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation wa
and stated there is no problem taking these roads into the State system if access
are also publicly maintained (in this case by the City of Charlottesville).
Dr. Iachetta stated his concern about the access road to the duplex house com
being a private road. He said owners of such homes would most likely be of a lowe
and tess likely able to afford maintenance of a private road.
Mr. Roy G. Parks, representing the applicant, said there is a need for this p
range" home near the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Parks said the sewage would be h
by a 40,~00 gallon per day package treatment plant, which is a temporary unit unti
Moores Creek Plant is opened in 1981._ Mr. Fisher asked if the new construction at
Willoughby site could also be connected to the Meadowcreek sewage treatment plant
the first phase of Willoughby. Mr. Agnor said the County discussed this possibilit
City Council. The City is not willing to allot any of their allowed capacity in t
Meadowcreek Plant for this project.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this applic
and at 8:21 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Dr. Iachetta said it would be a disservice to future residents of the duplex
of this subdivision if the road in the duplex area is allowed to be constructed as
private road. He said people purchasing a duplex type home most likely would not
to afford maintenance of the road, and once it is constructed, it will never be ab
accepted into the State System. Dr. Iachetta said this would prove to be a seriou
error.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to accept the recommendations of the
Commission, but changing conditions: #4, by deleting language "except for the pri'
road serving duplex lots 93-102" at the end of the sentence; delete condition #5.
motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Parks commented that it is difficult to
struct homes at the price range intended for this area and he felt the added costs
State maintained roads might cause the project to be abandoned. Roll was then cal
the motion to approve this application with the nine conditions, as revised, carrit
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
'Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: Six Year Highway Plan. CAdv~rt~s~ ~ 6]
Nov.ember_7, !97~9 (R_egular~Ni~ght Meetin~~
e 671 at Moorman's River. Replace and relocate the bridge at this location. A
ract project. Survey has been authorized, but no design work has been completed.
$410,000.
e 729 from Route 728 to Route 618 - length 1.60 miles. ImProve an existing
el road to a 20 foot wide hard surface on a 36 foot wide roadway along existing
nment. A state force project. Right of way has been donated and recorded. Cost
,000.
e 618 from Route 72~ to the Fluvanna County line - length 2.00 milesj. Improve an
ting gravel road to a 20 foot wide hard surface on a 36 foot wide roadway along
ting alignment. A state force project. Right of way has been donated and
rded. Cost $200,000.
e 808 from Route 250 to 0.58 miles south - length 0.58 miles. Improve an existing
el road to a 20 foot wide hard surface on a 36 foot wide roadway along existing
nment. State force project. Right of way has been donated and recorded. Cost
000.
e 717 from Route 719 to Route 712 - length 2.10 miles. Improve an existing
el road to a 20 foot wide hard surface on a 36 foot wide roadway along existing
nment. State force project. Right of way has been donated and recorded. Cost
,000.
e 702 from 0.2 mile south of Route 250 to 2.20 miles west - length 2.20 miles.
ore an existing gravel road to a 20 foot wide hard surface road on a 36 foot wide
way along existing alignment. State force project to be done in phases. Right
~ay to be obtained by donation. Cost $400,000.
e 711 from Route 29 to Route 712 - length 0.55 mile. Improve an existing gravel
to a 20 foot wide hard surface road on a 36 foot wide roadway along existing
nment. A state force project. Right of way to be obtained by donation. Cost
500.
e 600 from Route 20 to 1.0 mile east - length 1.0 mile. Improve an existing
· el road to a 20 foot wide hard surface road on a 36 foot wide roadway along
ting alignment. A state force project. Right of way to be obtained by donation.
$182,000.
e 764 from Route 663 to 0.09 mile W~st~ - length 0.09 mile. Improve an existing
'el road to a 20 foot wide hard surface road on a 36 foot wide roadway along
ting alignment. State force project. Right of way to be obtained by donation.
$11,500.
e 712 from Route 29 to Route 692 - length 0.87 mile. Improve an existing gravel
to a 20 foot wide hard surface road on a 36 foot wide roadway along existing
~nment. State force project. Right of way to be obtained by donation. Cost
,500.
~e 769 from Route 20 to Route 1485 - length 0.25 mile. Improve an existing gravel
to a 20 foot wide hard surface road on a 36 foot wide roadway along existing
~nment. State force project. Right of way to be obtained by donation. Cost
000.
~e 785 from 0.2 mile north of Route 649 to a dead end - length 1.20 mile. Improve
~xisting gravel road to a 20 foot wide hard surface road on a 36 foot wide roadway
November 7, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Bill Harman, a resident of Route 618 also spoke regarding the paving of R
729 and 618. He said he is concerned for children riding school buses as these ro
unsafe. Two other residents of Route 618, namely Mr. E. B. Snoddy and Mr. Minor C
~oth gave their support for improVements to Route 618 and 729.
No one else from the public wished to speak regarding any project, and Mr. Fi
declared the'public hearing closed at 9:05 P.M.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of two letters from county residents supporting impr
to Routes 618 and 729. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the six
plan as presented to the Board by Mr. Dan Roosevelt. Motion was seconded by Mr. L
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Dorrier said he was glad to see that Route 717 will finally be paved.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt what action should be taken to get improvement
to "Free Bridge" on Route 250 East at the City Limits. Mr. Roosevelt said the Boa
petition the Highway Commission to make the necessary improvements to help elimina'
increasing traffic congestion. Mr. Fisher asked if this meant for the Board to ad
resolution requesting this project be given some priority on the State's list for
ments to primary roads and possibly have the City Council adopt a similar resotuti
then appear before the Highway Commission. Mr. Roosevelt said this would be the b
course of action.
Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Roosevelt when funds will be available for the initia
improvements to Route 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt said $50,000 has been allocated as
money to review the crossovers. He said he has reviewed existing crossovers and h,
that some of this money could be used to close and reconstruct some of the crossow
north of the South Fork Rivanna River within a year or two. Mr. Roosevelt noted tl
additional allocations for the Route 29 North project will depend a great deal on 1
influence the Commissioner for this district has over the Highway Commission.
At 9:15 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a five minute recess.
P.M.
Meeting reconvened ~
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-79-32. S-V Associates and North Rivanna Fifth Land
(Briarwood). Rezone 173.4 acres to RPN/R-i: 37.42 acres are currently zoned
acres currently zoned R-3; 95.98 acres currently zoned R-I; and 3.96 acres current[
M-1. This property is located on the north and south sides of Route 606and northw~
both Camelot and Route 29 North. County Tax Map 32E, parcel 1, portion of; and Co~
Map 20, Parcels 45, and 19, portion of Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
on October 24 and October 31, 1979)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., read the County Planning staff's report:
Requested Zoning:
Existing Zoning:
RPN/R-1
37.42 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural
36.04 acres zoned R-3 Residential
95.98 acres zoned R-1 Residential
November 7, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
~rative Impact Statistics:
~ing
lng.
Total Acreages
95.98 acres
36.04 acres
37.42 acres
3.96 acres
173.40. acres
Units Allowed
With
Existing Zoning
Acres In
Floodplain
(approx.)
Units Allowed With
Existing Zoning
Excluding Floodplain
510 lots
720 units
18 units
1248 units
18.95 acres
12.63 acres
1.28 acres
32.86 acres
409 lots
720 units
18 units
1147 units
for roadways not included in the calculations for the number of units.
would not significantly change the number of achievable units.
However,
Existing Zoning
RPN/R-1
_ings 1147 units 901 units
Lation 3356 2846
~le Trips Per Day 8029 vtpd 6426 vtpd
)1 Children 654 532
)sed Land Use Data:
~r of lots
L area
hated Total Lot Area
~ated Total Open Space
~ge Lot Area
)sed Gross Density
)sed Net Density
in right-of-way
918 lots
173.40 acres
72.24+ acres
80.48-acres (46.4%)
0.08 acre (3,600 square feet)
5.3 duZacre
12.7 du/Acre
20.68 acres
[ability of Utilities:
]: Adequate water exists to serve this development. Connections are proposed to
~ in Camelot, at the General Electric site, and to a 12-inch line at Route 29
' The current Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant does not have adequate capacity
~his development. Three alternatives for provision of adequate capacity have
[ved preliminary discussion: expansion of the existing package treatment plant;
~cement of the package treatment plant with a conventional plant; and pumping of
~ent to the AWT plant which is under construction. It appears that selection of
~ternative will require that an engineering feasibility study be completed and
~ated prior to any application for a special use permit for expansion of sewerage
[ities in this area.
previous application (SP-79-50) for the expansion of the Camelot STP, staff
~ that the Comprehensive Plan recommended reduction of the existing Albemarle
~y Service Authority jurisdictional area to an area which apparently includes
Camelot subdivision. In review of jurisdictional areas for compliance with the
?ehensive Plan, the Planning Commission recommended the portion of this site
~en Route 29 North and Route 606 be included in the jurisdictional area.
ition of the Roads Serving The Proposal: The 1978 traffic count on Camelot Drive
~e 1510) is 798 vtpd and 578 vtpd on St. Ives Road (Route 1511). Both streets
~urrently listed as tolerable. The traffic count on Route 606 from Route 649 (at
~~ ~ ~ 76~ ~ ]~4Q v~n~ ~.nd'is currenttv listed as tolerable. The
November 7, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
Staff CommenT: Staff comment on this proposal addresses three major topics:
tionship to the Comprehensive Plan; planned development concepts, and physica
design.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan does not recognize the Camelot ar
growth area and does not recognize existing zoning in the area. As noted ear
reduction in the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area is re
mended in the Plan. Briarwood alone approaches the "community scale". Briar
(918 lots) combined with Camelot (127 Lots) and the applicant's proposed Nort
subdivision (124 lots) would have a potential population of 3,500 which appro
the existing Crozet community (4,000). Therefore, this area as proposed for
opment should be viewed in terms of the "community" scale as recommended in t
C6mprehensive Plan:
Villages
Communities
Neighborhoods
Urban Area
100-3,000 population
3,000-10,000 population
up to 7,000 population
90,000-110,000 population
General comments in regard to the community scale of development from the Com
hensive Plan are as follows:
Communities: The recommended range in size for communities is from 3,00
10,000 population. The lower scale of 3,000 population approximates the
compact development where a public water system and, in some cases, a pU
sewerage system can be economically developed and supported. The higher
(i.e. suggested limit) of 10,000 population is recommended for the follo'
reasons: 1) A community of 10,000 can efficiently support a variety of
vices (in addition to those cited for neighborhoods) including a middle
community center, health clinic, small branch library, sheriff substatio
community park, bank, active volunteer fire and rescue squad (if local e~
ment is there), and a small office-retail-services business district. 2
During the time frame of the Comprehensive Plan (1975-1995) the County's
cipated population increase is in the range of 43,000 to 54,000. Recogn
pressures for development in the Charlottesville Urban Area and promotio~
balance of growth between the Urban Area, communities, villages, and som
inevitable countryside development leads to the conclusion that populati
for communities could not be larger unless an unusually large portion of
County's new development could be forced or channelled exclusively into
community.
The Commission and Board may want to give consideration to the Camelot area a
third community under a separate, formal review by both bodies prior to actiol
this application since the review period for a rezoning application does not t
adequate opportunity for such consideration.
Planned Development Concepts: As submitted, Briarwood RPN is basically a clu~
subdivision with recreation areas. Because of his stated intent to provide 1~
/moderate cost housing, the applicant has not been receptive to provision of
suggested amenities and public/semi-public uses. In short, a community-scale
is proposed without appropriate supporting commercial and public uses (commer~
zoning exists adjacent to this property). A major aspect of the planned deve]
approach in planning is that the project should provide adequate support uses
residents (i.e. - be self-sustaining). Based on standards from the Comprehen~
Plan and other sources, this a~ea could support or require the following:
Br~rwoo~
November 7, 1979 (Regular Night Meetin~g~__~
graphic analysis, a mix of dwelling types was recommended to the applicant. The
slopes map reinforces staff's recommendation in this regard.
While staff endorses a mix of dwelling types in residential areas, staff would
recommend that dwellings along Camelot Drive and St. Ives Road be single-family
detached dwellings;
Staff would emphasize Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's
recommendation that Camelot Drive not be the major access and that the road
network be redesigned accordingly.
As stated under Planned Development Concepts, a broader range of support uses is
recommended.
Recommendation: While the existing zoning on this property would permit
Lties proposed under this RPN, the magnitude of development, whether developed
~ntiona!ly or through a planned district approach, would necessitate support
[ities which have not been proposed. Given this concern, along with the lack of
~nition by the Comprehensive Plan, lack of adequate data provided to Virginia
?tment of Highways and Transportation for proper evaluation of the street net-
and the physical design problems outlined earlier, staff cannot support the
~sal at this time. If the concerns outlined above can be resolved, the staff
the RPN approach would be more desirable than a conventional development under
~ing zoning.
~MENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Approval is for a maximum of 918 dwellings subject to conditions contained
herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses shall comply with the
Approved Plan. In the final site plan and subdivision process, open space shall
be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved.
No grading permit or building permit shall be issued in any area until final
site plan and subdivision approval for that area has been obtained;
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;
Ail road plan and entrance plan approvals shall be obtained prior to any final
site plan or subdivision approval. Ail roads shall be designed and constructed
to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications and dedi-
cated for acceptance into the State Secondary Road System. In review of road
plans, the County Engineer, guided by Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation's letter of September 6, 1979, and such further consultation with
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation as he deems desirable, shall
discourage alignment and design which would result in excessive grading.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access to Route
29 North and Route 606. In review of such entrance plans, Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation is requested to be mindful of its letter of
September. 6, 1979;.
No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as is necessary
for road construction as approved by the County Engineer. Any lot which is
unbuildabte due to slope shall be combined with a buildab!e lot and/or added to
common open space subject to Planning Commission approval;
~Fire Official approval of fire protection system including but not limited to:
fire flow rates, hydrant locations, and emergency access provisions. Such
system shall be provided prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy in
November 7, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
"September 6, 1979
Re: Briarwood RPN Site Plan West of Route 29 North
We have reviewed the preliminary plan for the Briarwood Residential Planned C
located on the westerly side of Route 29 between the Camelot Subdivision and
~_General Electric site. The following comments and/or recommendations are pre
1) The County Board of Supervisors has approved the Route 29 Corridor Study
keeping with the intent of the study, we feel two existing crossovers on Rout
should be utilized, thereby creating a traffic split. The northern most conn
road would also serve the G. E. site.
2) The topography of the entire site is very steep, and we feel the roadway
as shown would require excessive grading to meet State standards. We have ta
liberty to prepare profiles of the existing and suggested roadway alignments
out to the County the magnitude of the grade problems of the internal roadway
existing Route 29.
3) The property adjacent to Route 29 and zoned B-1 is also very steep. Goo
to this property would enhance its value for commercial development. We enco
the County to require a design of this property to insure compatibility with
conditions on Route 29 and compatibility with design of the residential area.
4) The donut type cul-de-sac will not be allowed because of traffic circula
safety problems that they would create.
5) We have shown a suggested street pattern far the portion of property loc
west of Route 606. We feel the second access is desirable for emergency cond
and the proposed offset intersection should be eliminated.
6) It is recommended that a sixty foot right of way should be dedicated alo
entire frontage of Route 606 for future roadway improvements.
In summation, we feel the plan as presented does not provide the County with
detailed information to insure that the development could be built without a
dous impact upon the environment and also create an unsafe internal street sy
We recommend that the necessary data to adequately evaluate the development b
secured before approving the development.
I am returning the marked-up plan with our recommendations delineated thereon
attached are the aforementioned profiles. We would be most happy to attempt
answer any future questions you may have regarding this review.
Very truly yours,
(signed) W. B. Coburn, Jr., Assistant Resident Engineer"
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 30, 1979,
mended approval of ZMA-?9-32, by an 8/1 vote, with the conditions recommended by t
staff, but making several changes:
Condition #1: Change 918 to 901 dwelling units and delete the last sentence
"Primary recreation areas to be dedicated to public use."
Condition #8: Change to read only: "Staff approval of recreational faciliti
Condition #9: Change to read only: "Sidewalks shall be provided alon~ roads
November 7, 1979 (Regular Night Meeti~
obert Silcott, a resident of Camelot subdiHision, said he did not th±nk the
~uplex development was in keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods. He said
ed recreational center would cause traffic and parking problems on St. Ives
added that he had checked the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan before buying his
melot Subdivision, and could not understand why a developer could be allowed to
t zoning to suit his needs. Mr. Silcott said at the meetings Mr. Wood held with
sidents, that Mr. Wood "intimidated the residents" by saying "the Camelot houses
andard and would be a detriment to the current community he is proposing". Mr.
id Mr. Wood also threatened if Camelot residents "didn't support this community,
uild apartments in the R-3 area". Mr. Robert Jordan said he also was opposed to
ed RPN, as it would unfavorably affect his subdivision (Camelot) by bringing in
1 and low income homes. Mr. Pete Hamm also of Camelot said he would prefer to
of equal value constructed beside Camelot.
at Tate, said a low to moderate priced home such as is proposed for Briarwood is
y needed in Albemarle County, because it is the only way many young people can
purchase their first home. Mr. Bill Howard said communities like Orangedale are
sold out and have waiting lists as new construction begins. This type of
what is needed in Albemarle County.
Judy Warren, a resident of Camelot said she also was opposed to Mr. Woodts plan
he was most concerned about traffic on Camelot Drive caused by the recreational
Cindy Frazier asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the recrea-
as proposed. Mr. McKee said it was hoped that Albemarle County would accept
of the two major recreational areas, but if they did not, the homeowners
n of Briarwood and Camelot combined would maintain them. Mr. Mike Radcliff
he County would be able to develop the recreational areas if dedication was
He asked if those recreational areas flooded out, would the County or home-
ociation be able to afford to repair them.
oyce Barton said that since the Comprehensive Plan does not indicate this amount
ment for this area of the County, would approval at this time violate the Compre-
an. Mr. Fisher said that was one question the Board would have to discuss
s hearing. Mr. Steve Carter said he could not see how this proposed development
armonious with Camelot. He also said he would prefer to see variation in struc-
rather than what is proposed, that being one type structure throughout the
posed community.
endell Wood responded to some of the public comments by saying that he would try
p single family unattached homes on Camelot Drive. He also said he did not
he residents of Camelot by saying if they did not agree to the duplex type
he would have to build apartment Units on the land. Mr. Wood said he was in
aneial position that the land had to be sold and used, but he would not want to
velopment on the land which would be detrimental to the residents involved. He
it he had the support of Camelot residents when he offered changes in his plan
d add a road directly to Route 29 thereby decreasing traffic on Camelot Drive,
ce single family unattached homes directly next to Camelot Subdivision; but
ust have misinterpreted their statements since so many residents of Camelot were
itterly opposed. Mr. Wood concluded by saying that it was his opinion that the
eing discussed was the only location left in Albemarle County on whioh a developer
rd to build low to moderate income housing today.
an Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation said he
oad network prepared by the developer for Briarwood would not be obtainable. He
der to construct roads which would meet State standards, excessive grading would
d. He also said he would like the developer to consider making allowances for
rances to adjacent B-1 ~ro~erties. Mr. Roosevelt said he would mot ~k~ to ~e~