1979-10-03NOctober 3, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors Of Albemarle County, ¥irginia, was
held on October 3, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier,~ Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthon
Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner.
Agenda Item No. 1~ The meeting was Salled ~o Srder at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing: 1980 Community Development Block Grant Program.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 30, 1979.)
Mr. Agnor said this is a continuation of the United States Housing and Urban Development
funding for the housing rehabilitation program which was initiated several years ago.
Two public hearings are required annually to discuss the program and its continuation.
Mr. Russell Otis, County Housing Coordinator, was present. He said the private non-profi
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, Inc. currently operates a housing rehabilitation
program.which serves approximately thirty to forty families per year. The program assists
low-income and elderly homeowners with emergency repairs. This work ranges from porch
repairs to installation of wells and bathroom facilities. These ongoing activities are
made possible by the County's annual appropriation to AHIP in conjunction with a CETA
contract for labor. In the spring of 1979, the Board of Supervisors approved a proposal
to make application for Community Development Bloc grant funds to expand the service AHIP
renders to Comnty residents. Funds in the amount of $150,210.00 were made available from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the installation of wells, septic
systems and indoor plumbing facilities. These funds are currently being utilized by AHIP
with much success.
This application is a request for funds which will enable AHIP to continue with a
modified program. This request is for $2i1,140.00 to be budgeted as follows.
Grants to Families (approximately 16)
For well, septic and bath
$88,000.00
Grants to Families (approximately 12)
.For well and septic only
$46,8OO.OO
Grants to Families (approximately 16)
For Electrical and Framing
$21,000.00
Salaries and Fringe benefits for three persons
(Rehabilitation crew and supervisor)
$51,040.00
Administrative/operating
$ 4,3o0.oo
WHO BE ELIGIBLE FOR GRANTS FOR PLUMBZNG?
All families must own their homes, need plumbing and have no'~ other means of
acquiring the plumbing are eligible for plumbing grants. In addition, they
must meet the following income guidelines.
Fami%y Size
Well + Septic
Complete Plumbing
1 $ 5,900 $ 4,250
2 lO,900 5,625
3 12,250 7,000
4 13,600 8,375
5 14,450 9,750
6 15,300 11,125
~Mr. Fisher asked how income guidelines are set to determine eligibility of recipients.
Mr. Otis said the guidelines are. set by the Department of Labor.
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for/against this applicat%on,
the public hearing was closed.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to authorize submission of an application for funding.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. Agnor said it is mandatory to have two public
hearings and the second one is scheduled for October 10, 1979. The motion and second
were then Withdrawn.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-79-53. Ernestine B. Witherspoon. Locate a mobile home on
13.084 acres zoned A-1. Located on southwest side of the intersection of Routes 664 and
743. County Tax Map 19, Parcel 27. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented the following staff report:
"Request: Mobile Home
Acreage: 13.084 acres
Zoning: A-1 Agricultural
Location: Tax Map 19, Parcel 27, approximately two miles north of Earlysville
at the intersection of Routes 743 and 664.
Character of the Area: The applicant's Drooertv is ]~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~~
family houses. The applicant's property itself is directly across Route 743
from an existing residence. Route 664, behind the applicant's land, is
somewhat more densely developed with five single family houses directly across
from applicant's property.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to locate a mobile home on a wooded site
facing Route 743 where a dilapidated structure presently stands. The present
structure will be removed to provide space for the mobile home. The proposed
site for the mobile home is visible from Route 743 and the property directly
south and east across the roadway. The site is not visible from any other
direction as it is surrounded by trees on the remaining three sides. This
grove is comprised of both deciduous and evergreen trees. The applicant
will occupy the mobile home herself. Should .the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends
the following conditions:
1. Removal of the existing, dilapidated residence before occupancy of the
site;
~ 2. Maintenance of existing vegetation surrounding the proposed location; and
3. Compliance with Section 11'4-2 of the Zoning Ordinance."
M~ Tucker said on October 2, 1979, ~he Planning~Commission unanimously recommended
approval subject to the above conditions.
Mr. Fisher noted letters in opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Amon Williams, Sr., Mr. and
Mrs. Robert Brow~i~g, III and Mr. and Mrs. Nell Borden, Jr.
The public hearing was Opened. Mrs. Ernestine Witherspoon, applicant, was present
and stated her desire to live on the subject property and the existing structure is too
dilapidated~to live in. Mr. Fisher asked if she objected to removing the old structure.
Mrs. Witherspoon said no. Mr. Roudabush asked if the proposed mobile home will be new.
Mrs. Witherspoon said no. It will be used and be 50 feet by 12 feet.
Speaking next in opposition was Mr. Robert Browning, property owner across the road
from ~he subject property. Although, he did not object to anyone having a suitable home,
he was opposed to the mobile home. The area is a pleasing mixture of residential homes
and farmland and is absent of any mobile homes at the present time. Therefore, Mr. Browning
felt the area should remain such and a mobile home would be detrimental to property values.
Mr. Browning also felt he had been deprived of his rights since he was not notified of the
Planning Commission meeting.
Discussion then followed on the procedures used for notifying adjoining property owners
of zoning matters. Mr. Agnor said two events affect recording property changes. One is the
annual publication of the land book which occurs as of January 1 and all the deeds recorded
in the Clerk's Office through December 31 are recorded in that land boom publication. The
second event is the reassessment cycle which occurs every two years which has a cutoff date
of August 30. The major problem is that information needed by the Planning Department is not
always current and will fluctuate anywhere from January through August or August through
December. Mr. Fisher felt the procedure needed to be examined.
Speaking next in opposition was Mr. Neil H. Borden, Jr. He also noted that he had not
received a notice of the Planning Commission meeting. Originally, he thought it was to be a
small parcel and is now under the impression that it is 13 acres. Mr. Borden concluded by
stating that he and his wife, being adjacent owners, would be directly and adversely affected
by allowing a mobile home in the immediate area.
Mr. Amon P. Williams, Sr. spoke next in opposition. He voiced his opposition, and was
even more against it when finding out that it will be a used mobile home.
Mr. Tucker said the plat presented to the Planning Department showed the parcel as 13+
acres. Mrs. Witherspoon then presented a plat. In viewing the plat, Mr. Roudabush said it
appears there are 8.003 acres on the west side and Ernestine Witherspoon owns property on the
east side. The plat is dated April 1979 and shows eight acres which is a portion of the
Witherspoon property being severed from a larger tract. The eight acres on the west side
have been sold to Mr. and Mrs. Miller who also own land to the rear of the subject property
llwhich means t'hat the tax map is not correct either. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that the
lta~ maps are only updated annually. Mr. Roudabush felt the information was very confusing
lan~ offered mo~ion to defer this to October 10, 1979 to allow the staff to determine the
amount of acreage where the mobile home is to be located and whether the woods are actually
on the tract that Mrs. Witherspoon owns. Mr. Fisher felt someone should visit the site to
determine.what will remain after this division and describe the terrain. Mr. St. John said
he would get the information from the records in the Clerk's office and turn them over to Mr.
Tucker. Mr. Roudabush suggested that all the property owners involved be renotified. Mr.
Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
No~e.
The Board felt the length of time needed to make information on land transfers available
should be examined and perhaps some changes suggested. Mr. Agnor said he woUld check into
the matter.
The Board recessed at 8:25 P.M. and reconvened at 8:30 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 6.
3enter.
Resolution Relating to the Future Use of the Western Virginia Bicenten
Mr. Fisher noted that he had received a copy of the following letter:
ial
Octobe_ ~3, 1979 (Regu_ ~ _$~r--NightM_ eeti~g~ _ . .....
!'22
"October 1, 1979
Mr. Guy B. Agnor
County Executive
County of Albemarle
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
22902
Dear Mr. Agnor:
As you probably know, Piedmont Virginia Community College has received money
for planning an urgently needed building expansion. The architectural firm of
Johnson, Craven, and Gibson is.currently working on building plans. We hope
very much that the General Assembly will appropriate construction funds for the
PVCC expansion at the session in early 1980.
Unfortunately, our construction priority rating has been affected adversely
by the existence of the Western Virginia Bicentennial Center and a temporary
PVCC maintenance building on our property, which lessens our apparent immediate
need for more space. The temporary building lies where the new wing at PVCC
will logically go, and must be sacrificed.
The Bicentennial Center is currently scheduled to revert to use by PVCC at the
end of 1983, by an agreement reached before the Center was built. But we now clearly
recognize that the Center is not suitably located with respect' to our existing
building, nor does it have the right kind of space (without extensive modification)
nor is it anywhere near large enough to take care of our need for additional space.
At our regular meeting on 12 September 1979 the P~CC Board passed by a
UnanimouS'vote of the nine (of 1!) members present a resolution asking that the
Bicentennial Center not be considered any longer for use by the College, and
requesting the State Board to approve the continued use of the Center as a
loCally-operated tourist information.facility beyond 1983.
At a meeting on 20 September 1979, the State Board of Community Colleges
passed a similar resolution requesting the Governor to approve continued operation
of the Center by an appropriate local jurisdiction, and that the Center not be
considered for use by the College. However, after the fourth "whereas" you will
note the phrase "the City and Counties have expressed by resolution unanimous
approval to have the Center continue to function as a tourist information center."
As indicated in a letter of 25 September 1979 to me from State Board Chairman
Bernard J. Haggerty, "the Fourth Paragraph of the Resolution requests the unanimous
approval of the governing bodies of the City of Charlottesville and the Counties
of Albemarle, Nelson, Greene and Fluvanna." The Resolution is in effect "pending"
until such unanimous approval is obtained.
I am writing to seek your help. Our prospects for obtaining construction
funds at the next session of the General Assembly will be greatly enhanced if the
Bicentennial Center is no longer considered for eventual use by P¥CC. The sooner
we get additional space, the sooner we can relieve our crowded situation and the
sooner we can better serve students from Albemarle County and elsewhere.
I-would greatly appreciate it if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
would consider the State Board resolution at its next meeting, which I understand
is scheduled for Wednesday, October 3, 1979. If the Board approves the proposed
action, I respectfully .request that: (a) the Albemarle Board pass a resolution
endorsing the resolution of the State Board for Community Colleges, and (b) we
be notified promptly of the action taken by the Albemarle Board.
SinCerely,
(SIGNED)
Harold S. Morton, Jr., Chairman
PVCC Board"
Mr. Fisher supported the resolution and requested motion to adopt same, whereupon Dr.
Iachetta offered motion to adopt the resolution which was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and
carried~by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
WHEREAS, the original lease for the building occupied by the Western
Virginia Bicentennial Center called for that building to revert to academic use
by Pfedmont Virginia Community College at the expiration of the term of that
lease; and
WHEREAS, tourism is a significant contributor to the economy of central
Virginia and the entire Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to have the center continue to function as a tourist
information center after the end of the official Bicentennial Celebration; and
WHEREAS, the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board, and the State Board
for Community Colleges have both determined that the Western ¥irginia Bicentennial
Center building is not appropriate for use by the Community College at this time
and have requested the Governor to approve the leasing of the building for use as
a tourist information facility for an additional five years and to exclude the
4900 square feet of space available in the building from calculations of the future
space needs of Piedmont Virginia Community College; now, therefore, be it
October 3, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting)
RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the County
hereby endorses the request of Piedmont ¥irginia Community College and the
State Board for Community Colleges for approval of an extended lease of the
Western Virginia Bicentennial Center property for use as a tourist information
center and request the other local Jurisdictions served by Piedmont Virginia
Community College to join in such request; and be it further
RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board be directed to send certified copies
of this resolution to Governor John Dalton; Mr. Bernard J. Haggerty, Chairman,
State Board for Community College,s; Dr. Richard J. -Ernst, Interim Chancellor
for the Community College System; Dr. George B. Vaughan, President, Piedmont
Virginia Community College; and to the governing bodies of the City of
Charlottesville and the Counties of Nelson, Greene and Fluvanna.
Agenda Item No. 7. Lottery Permit.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the lottery
permit for the NROTC Honor Guard for calendar year 1979 in accordance with the Board's
adopted rules and regulations. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Legislative Matters.
Mr. George St. John presented the following resolutions which had been prepared at the
Board's request for inclusion in the VACO legislative package for the 1980 Session of the
General Assembly. An amendment to Section 18.2-340.5(B) to authorize local governing bodies
to set the percentage of an organization's bingo operation received from "instant bingo."
At present this section reads: "The gross receipts in the course of a reporting year from
the playing of ~instant bingo~ shall not exceed thirty-three and one-third per centum of the
gross receipts of an organization's bingo operation;" and it is suggested that the following
words be added: "provided, however, that the governing body of any county, city or town is
hereby authorized to adopt a local ordinance allowing gross receipts in the course of a
reporting year for the playing of 'instant bingo' to be that percentage of the total gross
receipts of an organization's bingo operation that the local governing body considers appropri
Mr. St. John said the present section gives no guidelines as to how to determine gross
receipts. Mr. Fisher asked which organizations use instant bingo. Mr. St. John said the
rescue ~nd fire departments do. Mr. Fisher asked if this section creates a problem. Mr.
Roudabus~.said yes. People from the fire departments have sta~ed that if this section is
not changed they will loose a large percentage of their income.
An amendment to Section 18.2-340.9(H) to authorize the governing body of any County,
City or town to adopt a local ordinance controlling the placing of signs advertising any
bingo game. This section is recommended to be changed so that signs would have to comply
with the-local sign ordinance.
An amendment to Section 18.2-340.7 to make the requirement of audit of reports for
bingo games and raffles optional. This change was recommended by the Director of Finance.
An amendment to Section 18.'.2-340.4 to authorize the local governing body to set the hours
per day and the days per week that bingo games will be conducted. Mr. St. John said the
present section does not specifically grant the governing body authority to set hours of
operation..
An amendment to Section 18.2-340.6(D) to simplify record-keeping requirements. Mr. St.
John said this section presently requires that a record be maintained of the dates on which
bingo is played, the number of people in attendance on each date and the amount of the
receipts and prizes paid on each such day. The organization shall also maintain a record of
the name and address of each individual to whom a door prize, regular or special bingo game
prize or jackpot from the playing of bingo is awarded, as well as the amount of such award.
The organization playing bingo shall also maintain an itemized record of all receipts and
disbursements; including operating costs and use of proceeds incurred in operating bingo
games. He said the recommended change would allow the governing body the option of adopting
an ordinance requiring that this information be kept.
A request to add a section to the Code of Virginia relating to property of Jefferson
Area United Transportation, Inc.., being exempt from taxation. This would designate JAUNT as
a non-profit charitable organization under Section 6(a)(6) of Article X of the Constitution
of Virginia and make them immune from paying property taxes to the City.
Dr. Iachetta suggested the City be asked to Join in this request.
An amendment to repeal Section 15.1-466(k) which nows requires that only counties adopt
special subdivision.~ regulations for "family divisions.'~'~.Mr. Tucker said this provision was
passed by the General Assembly and became~.effective in June. It is a mandatory requirement
that all counties amend their subdivision ordinances to allow for family divisions. Mr.
Tucker felt state regulations as well as county regulations would be exempted under these
provisions. This concerns his staff technically because highway department, approval is
needed in order to obtain an entrance permit and health department approval is needed for a
septic sy. stem. The Planning Commission has .reviewed this and propose some changes. Mr. St.
John disagreed with this interpretation feeling it only exempts the subdivision process not
highway, health department or zoning regulations. After a brief discussion between the
Board members and the County Attorney, it was felt further study was needed.
Mr. St..John noted that the Board, on September 12, had discussed disaster aid regulations
He said there was some talk that the present, regulations are. arbitrary since one-half of the
~ounty's citizens might ~e in need of aid and the other half might not, but aid can only be
obtained i.f the entire county is declared a~disaster area. Mr. St. John said the Emergency
Services and Disaster Law, Chapter 3.2 of Title q4 of the Code of Virginia, now requires in
certain circumstances that the Governor declare a particular county or city a disaster area
~~ ~ ~.~.~ ~f t~t ao~t~ or cit~ are eligible for certain disaster aid; however,
lc, '!
October 3, 1979 (RegUlar--Night Meeting)
12,4
number of county citizens may be affected by a particular disaster, but these citizens may
have suffered total losses. At that point, the Governor can declare the county in which the
disaster oocured a~disaster area. However, only those citizens who can prove they have
suffered as a result of the disaster are eligible for the various kinds of disaster aid.
Mr. St. John said, as he understands, the statutory framework of the Emergency Services and
Disaster Law, the Governor's decision to declare a disaster and certify the need for federal
disaster assistance is based not only on the number of people affected by the disaster, but
also on the amount of destruction. Further, the remedy for insuring that the citizens of
Albemarle County are eligible to receive federal disaster aid is to promptly and fully
inform the Governor of the magnitude of the disaster, its effects on the citizens of Albemarle
County, and promptly request the Governor to take such action as will enable those citizens
affected by the disaster to qualify for assistance.
None. of the above resolutions were adopted and were to be placed on a future agenda.
Agenda Item No. 4.
S~ite Plan Appeal:
Thomas Rental Cabins.
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Location: On the south side of Route 708 between Routes 29 South and 20
South; Tax Map 101, Parcel 58E in Scottsville DistriCt.
Acreage: 38.237 acres
Zoning: A-1 Agricultural
History: On November 19, 1970, the Board of Supervisors denied a request for a
Special Permit to locate a mobile home park (SP-79 MHP) on this property.
P~op~sal: Request to add 16 rental cabins to three existing dwellings on a 38-acre
parcel.
Topography of Area: No severe slopes.
CHndition of Roads Serving Proposal: Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation recommends frontage improvements. Sight distance is not
adequate for a commercial entrance. Between Route 717 and Route 631,
Route 708 accommodates 369 vehicle trips per day and is currently
considered non-tolerable.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural conservation with a recommended
"~ density of one unit per five acres.
School Impact: Slight impact with nine students projected.
Type Utilities: No public facilities are available.
· St~ff Comment: An adjacent owner (Mr. Barnett) sent a letter to the office
expressing concern over no fire protection, low rent residences (i.e. students)
and noise.
This Site plan meets Article 17 requirements and staff recommends approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. No Building Permit will be issued until the following conditions
are met:
a.
b.
C.
Health Department approval;
Central well shall be approved by all appropriate authorities;
Compliance with private roa~ provisions including:
1. County Engineer approval of the road;
2. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the
commercial entrance including turn lane with taper, frontage
improvements and sight distance as recommended in their letter
of September 7, 1979."
Mr.~Tucker'sa.id the Planning Commission approved the site plan on September 18, 1979
with the conditions of the staff but adding "of septic and stream" to condition l(a) and
deleting condition 1(c)(2). Mr. Fisher qu'estioned what the words "septic and stream" meant.
Mr. Tucker said the stream runs very close to the spring and assumed the stream was created
from the spring itself but was unsure of the purpose of the condition. Mr. Roudabush asked
if there was a setback from a stream for a septic system. Mr. Tucker did not know. Mr.
Fisher said it appears the Planning Commission is concerned about how close the septic
system is to the stream but he felt the condition of health department approval of the
septic sys~tem would take care of the problem.
Mr. Roudabush expressed his concern that the siting of this number of units could not
be done under regular zoning regulations (1 du/2 ac) but by building rental units it would
be allowed.' He felt that guidelines in the subdivision ordinance for lot widths and separation
of houses has been totally ignored in situations where rental units are constructed. Dr.
Iachetta said clustering is alloWed in this situation and it is not in an R~N. Mr. Dorrier
asked~ if th~ density was the same as for RPN's. Dr. Iachetta said the petition adheres to
the two acre density in an A-1 zone.
Mr. Fisher said this site plan was appealed to the Board b~ the Chairman of the Planning
Commission, Colonel William Washington, and he read the letter of appeal:
"September 19, 1979
Dear Mr. Tucker,
On 18 September 79 the Planning Commission approved a site plan for ~6
rental cabins in addition to three existing dwellings on a 38 acre parcel
(Tax Map 101, parcel E in Scottsville Dist.) The vote was 7-2.
Inasmuch as the Board of Supervisors have previously denied a mobile home
park on this parcel and since the quality of the cabins is ill defined, I
request that the Board of Supervisors undertake a review of this action."
Mr. Tucker said Colonel Washington was concerned about the type of units to be constructed
~nd the spring. Mr. Dorrier asked the nature of the existing dwellings. Mr. Tucker said
they are ~single family attached, rental units. Mr. Roudabush did not feel this site plan
neets the technical requirements of the Zoning ordinance. He then requested the County
October 3,'~1979 (Regular--Night Meeting)
Attorney to read the section on area requirements. Mr. St. John read section 2-1-26 of the
Zoning Ordinance: "Single-family rental units, two or less, by right; and single-family
rental units, three or more with site plan approval provided density is maintained as provided
for in article 2-2; area requirements." and Section 2-2 Area Regulations: "The minimum lot
area for single family dwellings sahll be two acres, except in the case of unusual soil
conditions or other physical factors which may impair the health and safety of the neighborhoo(
in which ~ase,. upon recommendation of the City-County Health Officer, the Planning Commission
may increase.the lot area requirements." Mr. St. John said that could be interpretated to
mean that each one of these houses has to be sited on two acres, but there is no line, not
eve.n an imaginary line, delineated to show what land goes with which house. Therefore, the
onlY ~ossible interpretation of this section would be to divide the number of houses into
the total acreage of the land. The setback regulations still have to be complied with since
there is no exemption from any setback regulations, yard area, etc. Mr. St. John noted that
there is no~way to assign a given two acres to any of the houses the way they are sited on
this parcel. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any way of requiring that the land be retained
in undivided ownership after this plan is approved. Mr. St. John said a number of large
provisions in the subdivision ordinance would have to be waived in order to divide the land.
Mr. L. M. Hackenberg was present and noted that the site is beautiful and has a central
ridge down the middle to which this plan responds. On one side there is a natural stream
which flows clear and steady and-is ~fully protected from pollution and could be used as a
water supply. Mr. Hackenberg said the cabins will be built out of wood locally cut by
people working in the town. He said the cabins will be separated by a minimum of fifty foot
and each will have little visibility from the other with 86,000 square feet of land for each
unit. Mr. Hackenberg said this type of housing is needed in the County.
Mr.~.Lloyd Wood, representing Mrs. Virginia Estes, resident on Route 708, was present in
opposition. He noted that Mrs. Estes has forty acres adjacent to this property and 109
acres immediately across the road. He did not see that much difference between the mobile
home park proposed several years ago and rental units. The nature and character of Route
708 is one of large acreage and old estates. This thirty-acre tract is probably one of the
smallest in the area. Although the project sounds good, Mr. Wood felt it will drastically
change the character of Route 708.
Mr. Cameron Thomas, applicant, was present and felt it was erroneous to state the facts
about the size of parcels in the area because about one-half mile from this property there
are about twelve houses on two acre lots.
Dr. Iachetta felt Mr. Roudabush had pointed out the problem. If this plan is approved
it will be something that is not allowed when subdividing for an RPN or apartments. Mr.
Dorrier agreed with Mr. Wood that this is basically a residential area. Although there is a
need for rental houses in the community, he was unsure if this was the correct way to go
about it. Mr. Roudabush said this is the simplest way to build with no bonds~to post, no
soil tests to be done for the septic tanks. He expressed his hope that a soil erosion bond
would be required. Mr. Henley said the number of units bothered him.
Mr. Fisher felt the units shown on this site plan would have a difficult time being
subdivided according to subdivision ordinance regulations. He ~felt if the site plan is
approved, it should be on the grounds that the property will remain as one piece of land.
Therefore, Mr. Fisher suggested a condition w~th strict assurances ~from the owner that the
land will never be subdivided and that any sale of the land will be to an undivided interest.
Mr. St. John said that resiting of the houses can be required. Mr. Dorrier felt more
information was needed particularly showing where the slopes are and the best building
sites. Mr. St. John said that can be required.
Mr. Fisher shared the concern of Mr. Roudabush but did not feel the application was
bad. Mr. St. John said the Board has the power ~to analyze this as a subdivision and if a
better use was considered for the land, such could be ordered. Mr. Henley said there should
be latitude on the location of the buildings since the parcel is not being subdivided. Mr.
St. John said when only one owner is involved, he is stuck with his mistakes. Mr. Henley
was not particularly in favor of this many rental units on one piece of land but felt the
restrictibns placed by the Planning Commission will take care of most of the problems. Mr.
Fisher felt the land should neYer be subdivided. Mr. Roudabush was not as concerned about
the plan as' the concept being used. He felt the people in this neighborhood would get the
impression that they are not being protected. Dr. !achetta felt the Board has the authority
through the site plan process to require 40,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Mr. Lindstrom
saw no.lJustification to treat this plan any different from a normal subdivision. Dr. Iachetta
felt this~site plan should be adjusted to conform to the same area requirements used in an
RBN. ~e also suggested that the staff prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to make
area raquirements a part of site plan approval. Mr. Roudabush said if the site plan is
approved then~that is where the houses will be built. Mr. Hackenberg said it is conditional
to health department approval. Mr. Dorrier felt the applicant should site the drainfields
on the plan and then the site plan go back to the staff and Planning Commission for approval
of the locations. Mr. Roudabush~asked if the Health Department had looked at this plan.
~r. Hackenberg said they have looked at the parcel and approved the individual septicfields
which will serve the first two units. He did not feel such should be an issue because when
a building permit is requested for the next five units the health department will have to
approve the septic tank locations before a permit will be issued. If approval is not given
for the sixteen units, then the plan will have to be changed or dropped.
At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to send this site plan back to the Planning
0ommission and request that the applicant redraw the site plan to show an area of 40,000
square feet per dwelling unit with appropriate septic fields by siting it in the same manner
that would be requested for an RPN and that no final plat be required. Mr. Henley did not
see any problem with having two units on one septic field. Mr. Fisher said location of
septic systems will be the decision of the health department. Mrs. Dorrier seconded the
notion. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board could require that the parcel not be subdivided. Mr.
~t. John said future board of supervisors would not be bound by such a condition. Mr.
Dorrie~ said if each unit is to be sited on 40,000 square feet then, in effect~ the parcel
~ould be subdivided at some future date. Mr. St. John said no, the parcel would have to be
October 3, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting)
designated as an RPN or rezoned. Mr. Roudabush said when the Planning Commission looks at
this plan under the RPN concept, then the shape of each lot assigned to each unit will be
taken into account. Roll was then called on the motion motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom felt better guidance than the Board presently has is needed; if not an
ordinance perhaps some policy and he expressed his desire that Mr. Agnor and Mr. Tucker
consider such in the next few months. Dr. Iachetta felt the policy route was the way to go
and Mr. Roudabush felt the RPN concept was better.
Agenda Item No. 8.
presented.
Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
There were no other matters
Agenda Item No. 9. At 10:27 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Dorrier, to adjourn to October 8, 1979, at 5:30 P.M. at the Sheraton Inn. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following-recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
October 8, 1979 (Adjourned--Night Meeting)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on October 8, 1979 at 5:30 P.M., at the Sheraton Inn, Route 250 East-, Charlottesville,
Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 3, 1979.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley,
Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
County Attorney.
Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; and George R. St. John,
CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Nancy O'Brien and Messrs. Laurence A.
Brunton, Edwin Gatewood, Francis Buck and Thomas Albro.
CITY OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Cole Hendrix, Robert Stripling, Roger Wiley, William
Mitchell and Sidney Rush.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M.,
immediately after dinner, by Board Chairman, Gerald Fisher, who announced that after
reviewing the agenda for tonight, he and Mayor Brunton have decided that agenda item
(Joint Parks & Recreation Operation) will also be discussed in executive session.
Agenda Item No. 2. Economic Development Commission. Mr. Fisher gave a brief history
of discussions regarding a joint economic development commission. Mr. Fisher said if the
City does not think it is feasible to join with the County in such a venture, the County
will most likel~ create an economic development c.ommission on their own. Mayor Laurence
Brunton said theCity already has an Economic Development Group working and the Chamber of
Commerce is establishing a separate economic development group. Mrs. O'Brien and Messrs.
Gatewood and Albro all felt the commission should be an active organization which solicits
business to come to the area, and that the local governing bodies should be involved in
that solicitation. Mr. Fisher said that is not the Board's general view of such an organ-
ization.~ is his opinion that the Board should be more passive, not aggressively seek
business to the area, but only give interested organizations information about the area.
Mr. Roudabush said he did nov feel a government official could make an unbiased decision
on a rezoning request if that official had worked to recruit the business requesting the
rezoning. Mr. Lindstrom and Dr. Zachetta said they agreed with Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Dorrier
said he would like to see a joint commission, but with government officials in a passive
role~ Mr. Buck said with the obvious difference in opinions between the City and County
as to the role of the government official in such a commission, if the County and Cityww~e
to go into a joint commission, it would be sure to flounder. Mr. Henley said he felt
the County should do away with the 'idea of an economic development commission completely,
as he felt development of this type would "take care of itself". Mr. Fisher summarized
the discussion by saying there seemed to be too many philosophical differences between the
City Council and the County Board to establish a joint economic development commission at
this time.
Agenda Item No. 3. McIntire/Rio Road Extension. Mr. Fisher said the County is
interested in proceeding with the project as fast as it can be achieved. The Coun5y is
prepared to spend $4 Million plus to renovate the Lane building. When the building was
purchased the County agreed to dedicate right of way to the State Highway Department for
the widening of McIntire Road into a four lane highway so all the damage would take place
on the County's side and none occur to the private properties on the other side. Mayor
Brunton said this is the number one road priority in the City. The County will hold a
work session on the design of the road so when the public hearing is held nexv year, the
design will fit the needs of the City. Dr. Iachetta said the CATS Study that this roadway
is the only alternative to the present traffic problems in the Route 29 North areaand on
Rio Road. Mr. Fisher said the road will be four-lane, divided, with limited access. He
hopes it will have a grass median strip. The County will also consider a bicycle strip
with the design. Mrs. O'Brien asked if the County planned to pursue an eastern-by-pass