1979-10-17N/
October 17, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting was held by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, on
October 17, 1979, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Court House, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 7:55 P.M.), Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Rbudabush.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Call to Order. At 7:35 P.M., the meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher, who requested a moment of silence.
Agenda Item No. 1. ZMA-?9-31. Twin Group petition to rezone 16 acres from A-! to
RPN/RS-1. Property located on southwest side of Route 654, approximately two miles north-
west of the Barracks Road Shopping Center. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 68, part thereof,
Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 11 and
September 18, 1979.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the Planning Staff Report which
follows:
Requested Zoning: RPN/RS-1
Existing Zoning: A-1 Agriculture
Acreage: 16.0 acres
Location: Property is described as Parcel $8 (Portion of) on Tax Map 60, and is
located on the southwest side of Route 654, approximately two miles northwest of the
Barracks Road Shopping Center.
Character of the Area: The site is bordered to the north by the Montvue Subdivision,
to the southeast by the Colthurst Subdivision and the Old Salem Apartments are to the
east of this parcel. The topography of the site ranges from 5% to 50% slopes with
the majority being in rolling to moderate slopes (10% to 24.9%).
Existing Zoning in the Area: Montvue and Colthurst Farm are zoned R-1 and other
parcels surrounding the site are zoned A-i~ Agricultural. The Old Salem Apartment
site is zoned R-3.
Qomprehensive Plan Recommendation: The site is located in the urban area and is
recommended for low density residential, with a recommended density of one to four
units per acre.
Condition of Roads Serving the Proposal: The 1978 traffic count on this section of
Route 65'4' is 4,579 vehicle trips per day and is currently listed as tolerable.
Cqmparative Impact Statistics:
Existing A-1
RPN/RS-t
Dwellings
Population
Vehicle Trips Per Day
School Impact
~_-;~-.aDpr~x. 7 tJ l0 10
21 ~31
49 70
3.99 4.7
History: The Board of Supervisors denied ZMA-79-13 on July 18, 1979.
Land Use Data
Number of Lots
Total Area
Estimated Total Lot Area
Estimated Total Open Space
Range in Lot Size
Proposed Gross Density
Gross Density Permitted
Proposed Net Density
10
16.0 acres
9.43 acres
6.12 acres (38%)
0.9t8 acres to 1.00 acre
1.6 acresZunit
1 du/gross acre
0.943 acres/unit
RPN Proposal: The applicant proposes 10 single family lots with a gross density of
1.6' acres/unit with 6.12 or 38% of the land in open space. The site is proposed to
have access on private roads. Public water is available and is proposed to be utilized
for this proposal.
Staff Comment: The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended
that the road be widened along the development side of the road to accommodate a left
turn lane for vehicles headed northwest out of Charlottesville. Site distance can be
obtained for a commercial entrance. The staff has some concern about the steep
slopes as they relate to the building sites shown on the plan. Mr. Gordon Yager, the
Site Review Committee's representative from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service com-
mented that the steep slopes would create "excessive erosion when disturbed" without
proper soil erosion preventive measures. Staff recommends approval subject to the
following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval
3.
4.
5.
Approval is for a maximum of 10 lots· Location and acreages of land uses shall
comply with the approved plan· Open space shall be dedicated in accordance with
the number of lots approved in the final subdivision process;
No grading shall occur until the final subdivision process;
~Compliance with the Runoff Control and Soil Erosion Ordinances;
Health Department approval of two septic field locations for each lot;
County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Agreements prior to final subdivision
approval;
Fire Official approval of hydrant locations, prior to final subdivision approval;
All lots shall have a~n~s~ nnl~ ~ ~ ~*~ ~o~'
October 17, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
10.
11.
¸12.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance
and improvements to Route 654 prior to final subdivision approval;
No buildings shall be constructed on slopes of 25% or greater;
Only those areas where a structure, utilities, road or other improvement approved
in a final plan are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall
remain in its natural state;
Ail units shall be served by a public water supply system and approved by
appropriate agencies prior to final subdivision approval.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if there were laws against placing drainfields on slopes
of 25% or greater. Mr. Tucker said the Health Department discourages this practice, but
there are no laws forbidding it. Mr. Lindstrom said this proposal had been denied 'by the
Board on July 18, 1979, and asked if this plan was significantly different from the original
Mr. Tucker said two lots were removed from the plan, but layout of the roads and lots was
basically the same.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, said the plan is different with the number
of lots, .the amount of open space, and the basic arrangement of lots, which has been
adjusted to place more lots in th~ moderate slope area. He noted that there was good
separation from adjoining developments. Mr. Evans said Mr. Gordon Yager, of S.C.S. viewed
the property and stated his opinion that there would be no problem with drainfields,
because no lot was~basically made up of 25% slopes or greater. Mr. Evans said the com-
munity would have private roads, which would meet the private road standards and be part
of a Homeowners Agreement, as well as the maintenance of the open space. (At 7:55 P.M.,
Mr. Dorrier arrived.) Mr. Evans said the density of this proposed development is com-
patible with the adjacent communities of Colthurst and Montvue, and that the proposed
density suits the area relative to its closeness to the city.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Tom McEachern
a resident of Colthurst. Mr. McEachern suggested this application be deferred until the
overall zoning map and ordinance is finalized and the'question of zoning for the watershed
a~ea is established.
Next to speak was Dr. F. G. Lankford, who asked if the average density was more than
one dwelling unit per acre. Mr. Fisher said it was 1.6 dwelling units per acre, and this
acreage was due to the open space area. Mr. Tucker added that the density must 5e a
minimum of one dwelling unit per acre, not an average of one dwelling unit per acre.
Mr. Donald A. Holden, a resident of Montvue, said this application was a misuse of
the RPN category, as the "open space" was not usable to the residents of the development.
He again suggested the Board hold any decision on this rezoning until a decision .is reached
regarding zoning of the watershed area.
No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public
hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom said it was his opinion that this application was not
significantly different from ZMA-79-13, and that it would not be proper for the Board to
act on it at this time. Mr. St. John said he believed the ordinance wording was "sub-
stantially the same" not "significantly different". He said it was his opinion that this
application is different in that the plan contains fewer lots than the original appli-
cation. Mr. Roudabush said he agreed with Mr.~St. John, and added that he felt the
proposed RPN makes better use of the land than if the land were developed into eight fee
simple lots. The RPN allows better control over development, which will aid in the pro-
tection of the watershed. Mr. Roudabush said if the application is approved, he would
like to add another condition, stating that the applicant should submit engineering cal-
culations whether the Runoff Control Ordinance exempts this land from the 5% rule or not,
and that the runoff control calculations be submitted to the runoff control official to
guarantee that this site is truly exempt from the ordinance. Mr. Dorrier said he agreed
with Mr. Roudabush, and asked.if any type holding pond was planned for this development.
Mr. Evans ~said no pond was planned because his preliminary figures indicate that they will
be well below the 5% impervious surface figure set by the County which would require
control devices. Mr. Roudabush said he would like the County to be able to 10ok at the
actua! ~calculations related to impervious surface, because the straight 5% figure does not
guarantee that the phosphorus and suspended solids runoff will be less than the permitted
amount. Mr. Fisher and Dr. iachetta felt this 13th condition would violate the applicants
rights under the runoff control ordinance, as he would be exempt if his figures proved
there was less than a 5% impervious surface coverage. Mr. Roudabush said he just wanted
those calculations to prove that the development would be exempt. Mr. St. John said it
could be added as a .condition only if the applicant agreed to it. Mr. Henley said he
would support Mr. Roudabush's condition and the application. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt
the gross density was compatible, with the area but he was most concerned about the topo-
graphy of the property and its effect on the watershed. He was also concerned that this
was only a small portion of a large tract of land owned by a single person, and that
additional developments would be brought before the Board in a piecemeal fashion, which
would not do justice to the area.
Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve ZMA, 79-31 with the 12 conditions recom-
mended by the Planning Commission, but with condition three amended to read "Compliance
with Soil Erosion Ordinance and Runoff Control Ordinance"; and condition ten amended to
read "No building or drainfield shall be constructed on slopes of 25% or greater". Mr.
Dorrier said a thirteenth condition should be added rather than rewording condition #3,
stating "The five percent exemption for impervious surfaces under the Runoff Control
Ordinance shall not apply to this RPN". Mr. Dorrier then seconded Mr. Roudahush's motion.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Dorrier emphasized that due to the steepness of the site, there may be
a runoff and erosion problem even if less than 5% of the land is covered. Mr. Evans said
he would be glad to have erosion control devices installed no matter what percentage of
impervious surface is determined by his engineering figures, if the Board feels this will
help control erosion and aid approval of the application. Mr. Fisher said he does favor
this type of development, and that he would support approval. Roll was then called, 'and
ZMA-79-31 was approved with~the following conditions by the recorded vote which follows:
Approval is for.a maximum of 10 lots. Location and acreages of land uses shall
comply with the approved plan. Open space shall be dedicated in accordance with
October 17, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
AYES:
NAYS:
e)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
lo)
!1)
No grading shall occur until the final subdivision process.
Compliance with the Runoff Control and Soil Erosion Ordinances.
Health Department approval of two septic field locations on each lot.
County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Agreements prior to final subdivision
approval.
Fire Official approval of hydrant locations prior to final subdivision approval.
Ail lots shall have access only on the interior road.
County Engineer approval of road plans prior to subdivision approval.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrance and improvements to Route 654 prior to final subdivision approval.
No building or drainfield shall be constructed on slopes of 25% of greater.
0nly those areas where a structure, utilities, road or other improvement approved
in a final plan are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall
remain in its natural state.
Ail units shall be served by a public water supply system and approved by
appropriate agencies prior to final subdivision approval.
The five percent exemption for impervious surfaces under the Runoff Control
Ordinance shall not apply to this RPN.
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom.
At 9:00 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a short recess. Meeting reconvened at 9:03 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-79-61. Bradford S. Howard. Petition for a Home Occupation-
Class B on 5.944 acres zoned A-1. Located on the southeast side of Route 743, approximately
600 feet northeast of the intersection of Routes 743 and 844. County Tax Map 45, Parcel
59K1. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 3 and
October 10, 1979)
Mr. Tucker read the following planning staff report:
"Request: Home Occupation: Class B
Acreage: 5.944 acres
Zoning: A-I Agriculture
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 59K(1), is located on the
east side of Route 743 about 400 feet north of its intersection with Route 844.
Character of the Area: This property, served by a pipestem, is located about 400
feet from Route 743. The property, lower than Route 743, has wooded areas which
screen it from adjoining residences.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to operate a landscaping service using this
site as a base of operation. Equipment would consist of a truck, tiller, mower,
tractor, and other such machinery. The applicant would maintain some stock on the
site as well as a mulch pile. No greenhouses or other structures are proposed. The
applicant may have two employees. The applicant has emphasized that he intends only
temporary use of his homesite for his landscaping service. An adjoining property
owner has expressed concern that the pipestem may be used to store equipment. While
outdoor storage of equipment, stock and mulch is proposed, staff opinion is that such
use is compatible to the Agriculture zone and that this application substantially
complies with the intent of the home occupation provisions.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
Staff approval of area for outdoor storage;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the entrance onto
Route 743;
Compliance with Section 16-44.1 Home Occupation: Class B except as noted in
Condition 1.
Mr. Howard was present, and said he had no intention of using the pipestem for
storage of his equipment. He noted that when he was constructing his home, a tractor was
parked in the pipestem overnight, but this would not occur again. Mr. Howard said five
acres was more than adequate space for his proposed business. No one from the public
wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public
hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve
this special permit with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorr±er, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-79-59. Dr. and Mrs. Reynolds Cowles, Jr. Petition for an
animal hospital on 65 acres zoned A-1. Located on the north side of Route 667, two miles
north of Free Union. County Tax Map 17, Parcels 35E and 35F, portion of. White Hall
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 3 and October 10, 1979)
October 17, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
"Request
Amend SP-78-73 to permit on-site treatment of horses
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to raze an existing barn and construct a
treatment/ia~"oratory facility in its place in order to provide on-site treatment for
horses only. In the staff report for SP-78-73, the~staff recommended amendment in
the case of on-site treatment in order to permit re-evaluation of the entrance by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Staff opinion is that existing
improvements to the site are adequate for this use and that no site plan is required.
Staff recommends approval subject to:
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation re-evaluation and approval of
entrance facilities.
Dr. Cowles was present and stated that he wished to tear down the existing building
and construct a new building approximately four feet longer than the old. It would be a
one story structure compatible with other buildings on the property. Dr. Cowles said he
spoke to the Highway Department, and an agreement has been reached as to improvements to
the entrance. He reiterated that the facility would be for horses only and not for
treatment of small animals. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant would object to a condition
limiting the structure size to 2400 square feet. Dr. Cowles Said he would have no objection.
Mr. Fisher asked what provisions would be made to dispose of wastes. Dr. Cowles said
most is used for compost and fertilizer, dead animals are used for dog food' and the rest
is buried on the property. Dr. Cowles said the County should look into establishing a
rendering plant, to process the carcasses of large dead animals.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve SP-79-59 with the condition recommend
by the Planning Commission and with the addition of condition #2 reading: Building size
be limited to 2400 square feet". The Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-79-58. William R. Reid and Rehoboth Mennonite Church. Petition
for a cemetery on 1.037 acres zoned A-1. Located on the north side of Route 6 appro-
ximately 1/3 mile east of the Nelson County line. County Tax Map 126, Parcel 28K.
Scottsville District. ~Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 3 and October 10,
1979)
Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report:
"Request: Public cemetery (Section 2-1-25(8)
Acreage: 1.037 acres
Zoning: A-1 Agriculture
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 126, Parcel 28K, is located on the
north side of Route 6 approximately 1/2 mile west of Route 630.
Character of the Area: This property currently has one gravesite. Properties in the
immediate area are heavily wooded. The church is located about four miles away in
Nelson County.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes a cemetery of' about 200 plots. No structures
or other improvements are proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to:
Staff approval of circulation and parking;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance.
Mr. Tucker sa~d on October 2, 1979, the Planning Commission recommended approval but
condition #3: "Deed of record to insure cemetery be held in perpetuity.
Mr. Tucker noted that a letter from an adjoining property owner was received in
opposition to the proposed cemetery. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any required setback
relative to cemeteries. Mr. Tucker said no, that it would be up to the Board's descretion.
Mr. Fisher said he felt it would be wise to place a setback requirement on this request,
so that in the future, grave sites within the cemetary will not conflict with possible
widening of the road.
Mr. William Reid was present, and said the cemetery was set up under the direction of
the planning staff. Mr. Fisher voiced concern about the traffic circulation within the
cemetery, and about funeral processions backing up onto Route 6. Mr. Reid said there was
room within the cemetery to accommodate about 30 cars, but he doubted that any procession
would require room for that many cars.
Mr. Ernest L. Swartzentruber said he was the donor of the land and minister of the
Rehoboth Mennonite Church of Schuyler, and he read the following letter from Reverend
Eugene J. Parrish, Pastor of the Schuyler-Green Mountain Charge, United Methodist Church:
"As minister and pastor of the Schuyler-Green Mountain Charge, United Methodist
Church, and living in Schuyler, I wish to go on record in favor of the proposed
establishment of a cemetery by Rehoboth Mennonite Church of Schuyler. I understand
the location is to be on Route 6 adjoining the property of Ernest L. Swartzentruber
about 1,000 feet east of his outlet on the same side of the highway, and the cemetery
will be open to the general community of Schuyler for the purchase of family burial
plots. Plans are to put this proposed cemetery under perpetual care to assure its
lasting beauty and sacredness. There is definite need for this in Schuyler as
neither of the four denominational churches here offer cemeteries to the area.
urge expedition of the necessary steps to make these plans a reality for the people
of this area."
October 17, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. John Miller~ald he was present to support the proposed cemetery. No one else
from the public wished to speak either for or against this special permit request, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Board discussion centered around grave site closeness to the road right-of-way-.
Board members were in agreement that the cemetery should not go directly to the road edge.
Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Lindstrom suggested a 10 foot setback from the road, and Mr. Lindstrom
offered motion for approval, adding the 10 foot setback from the existing highway right-
of-way, as a fourth condition. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush.
Mr. Roudabush questioned the wording of ~condition three. Mr. St. John said he felt
it was unnecessary to state that the deed of record specifically note that the cemetery be
held in perpetuity. Mr. Lindstrom said concern was expressed at the Planning Commission
hearing that unless it is noted on the deed that the land is in fact a cemetery, it could
possibly affect adjoining properties in future land sales. Mr. Reid said it was in the
church minutes that the land was set aside and deeded for use as a cemetery. Mr. Lindstrom
said he wished to amend his motion to delete condition three, stating that the County
Attorney was confident there were sufficient laws on record which would prevent misinter-
pretation of the deed. Mr. Roudabush accepted the amended motion. Roll was then called
and SP-79-58 was approved with the following three conditions:
Staff approval of circulation and parking.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance.
Ten foot setback from existing highway right-of-way.
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-79-34. Charles W. Hurt petition to rezone 17.33 acres from
M-t Industrial to M-2 Industrial. Property bounded on the north by the C and O Railway
and the City limits in the Woolen Mills area. County Tax Map 77, Parcels 40C and 40D.
Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 18 and September 25,
1979.)
Mr. Tucker said a letter was received from the applicant requesting this Zoning Map
Amendment be deferred to December 5, 1979. No one from the public was present who wished
to speak regarding this petition. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr.
Iachetta, to defer this request to December 5, 1979. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. -Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Zachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-Z9-33. Albemarle Land Corporation petition to rezone 86.3
acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-1 Residential. Property is east of Route 29 North and
south of Route 649. Property has a small amount of frontage on Route 649 and touches the
southwestern corner of Jefferson Village. County Tax Map 46, Parcel 29, part thereof.
Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 18 and 25,
1979.)
Mr. Tucker read the following planning staff report:
"Requested Zoning: R-1 RSsidential Limited
Acreage: 86.3 acres
Existing Zoning: A-1 Agriculture
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcel 29 (part thereof) is
located north and adjacent to Hollymead Planned Community.
Character of the Area: This property ranges from flat to gently rolling topography.
Tree cover is primarily coniferous. Some open areas exist. Holly Memorial Gardens
is located between this property and Route 29 North, and this property is bounded by
the main Hollymead Lake on the south. Other properties in the immediate vicinity are
undeveloped. Subdivision roads have been rough graded in this area indicating
possible subdivision layout.
Comprehensive Plan: Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan recommend low
density residential (1-4 du/acre) in this area bordered on the west by high density
residential and institutional uses.
CgmParative Impact Statistics
Dwellings
Population
Vehicle trips/day
School Children
Water/Sewer (gpd)
Existing A-1
Proposed R-1
43 390
130 1,170
310 2,850
25 230
13,000 117,000
Staff Comment: The applicant desires to continue the development of the Hollymead
area under conventional zoning rather than the Planned Community approach. Rough-
graded subdivision roads in the area reflect a similar layout to the developed
portion of Hollymead on the south side of the lake.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that an access to a
public road in addition to the road across the dam would be required. If such access
is to Route 29 North, the existing crossover north of Holly Memorial Gardens should
be closed and relocated to the north.
If this property develops in excess of four dwelling units per acre, staff would
recommend compensatory reduction in density elsewhere in the vicinity (staff does not
expect development to exceed 3-4 du/acre). Staff recommends approval of this petition.
= ~ Octob_ _ _ er 17~ 1979 (Re.. ~ Meetin.' ' ,~ _
Mr. Tucker said the conditions of approval for Phase One of Hollymead did require the
acceptance by the Highway Department of the.road across the dam. The survey studies of
the dam itself have been completed by E.O. Gooch & Associates and have been submitted to
the Highway Department. Hydrological studies are being undertaken by Mr. Charles Echols.
Both studies are required bY the Highway Department before a decision on accepting the dam
into the State system can be reached. At their meeting of October 2, 1979, the Planning.
Commission unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-79-33.
Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, was present and said he has been working
with the Highway Department regarding acceptance of the road across the dam into the State
system. He said the applicant has decided to switch from the P.U.D. concept because it
has proven too costly for the developer.
No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this request:, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he felt this item should be
~eferred until the road and dam are accepted by the Highway Department. Mr. Henley said
he would like to see the dam approved by the Highway Department before the property is
rezoned, and also suggested this item be deferred. Following a brief discussion regarding
the proposed density for the property, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to defer in-
definitely this request until a report is received by the Highway Department, and the road
and dam are accepted into the State Highway System. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution of Intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to provide
for "Family Division" -deferred from September 19, 1979.
Mr. Robert Tucker gave the planning staff report as follows:
"Resolution of Intent: Amend Subdivision Ordinance to Provide for "Family Division".
The Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to recommend amendment of
the subdivision ordinance to include provisions for "family divisions." This action
was prompted by amendment of the Code of Virginia which requires counties to make
"reasonable" provisions for this purpose.
Staff is concerned about this Code provision for the following reasons:
The code provides that such divisions shall be "subject only to any express
requirement contained in the Code of Virginia." Staff can find no Code pro-
visions related to the basic health and safety concerns (i.e. - adequacy for
septic system useage; safe access to public roads, etc.). Staff maintains that
the concerns of public welfare are as valid for "family" divisions as for
"commercial" divisions.
Staff would review family divisions to insure compliance with Code provisions
and County applicable provisions. This would be primarily a checklist process
of diminished public benefit from a planning viewpoint. A fee should be required.
The Code provision applies to counties only.
this reasoning.
Staff can determine no basis for
The Code states that family division "shall not be for the purpose of circum-
venting this subsection" (i.e. - subdivision ordinance). Staff has no strategy
for effective enforcement at this time.
Because of these concerns, staff opinion is that the family division provisions
should be repealed from the Code of Virginia.
Proposed Amendments: The proposed amendments define family division and exempt such
divisions from all subdivision ordinance requirements except those requirements of
Section 18-57."
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 18 OF THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY CODE KNOWN AS THE "SUBDIVISION OF LAND" BY ADDING
ARTICLE V, SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN DIVISIONS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
Article 18 of the Albemarle County Code, Subdivision of Land, be amended by the
addition of an Article V entitled "Special Provisions Applicable to Certain Divisions"
reading as follows:
Sec. 18-56. Definitions.
For purposes of this article, the following terms shall be defined as follows:
(a) The term "member of the immediate family" shall mean the natural or legally
defined off-spring, spouse or parent of the owner of a lot or parcel of land.
(b) The term "family division" shall mean the single division of a lot or parcel for
the purpose of sale or gift to a member of the immediate family of the owner of such
lot or parcel.
Sec. 18,57. Exemption of certain divisions; qualifications.
Subject to the following qualifications, any family division shall be exempt
from the requirements of this chapter and shall be subject only to any express re-
~"~ ..... + ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~f V~r~inia. The foltowin~ ~ualifications are
October 17, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
welfare, and of preventing the circumvention of this section, which circumvention if
hereby prohibited.
(a) There shall be only one such division per family member.
(b) No such parcel shall be further divided except in accordance with the provisions
of this chapter.
(c) No such parcel shall be transferred, except by devise, descent or operation of
law, to a person other than member of the immediate family of the transferor, for a
period of one year, except for purposes of securing any purchase money and/or con-
struction loan, including bona fide refinancing.
(d) Any such parcel which is transferred to the owner of any adjacent parcel shall
be deemed to become an integral part of such adjacent parcel.
(e) Any other parcel resulting from such division shall conform to the provisions of
this chapter.
(f) Any such parcel shall conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance appli-
cable to such lot.
(g) The entrance of the principal means of access for such parcel onto any public
road shall comply with the applicable requirements of the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation.
Sec. 18-58. Procedure.
Each such division shall be registered by the filing of the plat of such division
with the director of planning, who shall make a determination as to whether such
division is in accord with the provisions of Section 18-57 of thiS chapter. In the
event that he shall determine that such division is so in accord he shall issue a
certification of exemption which shall be recorded with the plat of such division.
No such plat shall be recorded without the attachment of such certificate. In the
event that he shall determine that such division is not so in accord, he shall deny
such certificate, giving, in writing, his reasons for such determination. The
director of planning shall act either to issue or deny such certificate within five
days of such filing. The provisions of Section 18-43(b) shall apply, mutatis
mutandis, to any such division.
Mr. Tucker said that the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
October 2, t979, by a vote of 4-3 recommended that the Board of Supervisor~s amend the
Subdivision Ordinance to provide for "Family Division"
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mrs. Edna
Anderson, who asked how this affected inherited property. Mr. Roudabus~ and Mr. St. John
said it was not covered in this amendment; that inherited property would have to be sub-
divided under the normal subdivision ordinance provisions. No one else from the public
wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Henley asked
why Section 18-57(g) was necessary, as he felt it was adequately covered in Section 18-
57(a). Mr. Dorrier agreed that this section seemed redundant. Dr. Iachetta then offered
motion to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 18 of the Albemarle County Code
known as the "Subdivision Of Land" by adding Article V, Spe'cial Provision Applicable to
Certain Division, omitting Section 18-57(g) and renumbering Section 18-57(h) as Section
18-57(g). The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Mr. Roudabush asked what course of action would be taken to appeal a Planning staff
decision. Mr. Tucker said there was no provision for this in the proposed ordinance
amendment, but it was his thought that it would go to the Planning Commission first, then
to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. St. John said an applicant could go straight to court
for a decision. There being no further discussion, roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following re-corded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Request from Airport Board: Temporary Expansion of Airport
Terminal Building. Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum of October 12, 1979, stating that
the current problems at the Airport are three-fold:
Passenger Hold Area - the secured area where passengers are held after passing security
inspection - existing 625 square feet, seating 45 passengers, handling 100 passengers
enplaning on three connecting aircraft.
Baggage Handling Area - inbound and outbound baggage handled in same area, with
inbound passengers having to cross through ticket lines, causing cross flow of pas-
sengers; existing 400 square feet inadequate for volume of baggage.
Lobby Area - existing area inadequate to accommodate non-passengers meeting or dropping
off passengers.
Mr. Agnor noted that the Airport Master Plan is currently undergoing a five year revision,
which makes major expansion/renovation of the terminal impracticable from a planning or
financial standpoint. He then recommended a pre-engineered steel structure be purchased
to provide the needed space for at least the~immediate future. Mr. Agnor said Piedmont
Airlines will participate in 64% of the cost of the structure, and the remaining costs
will be borne by Airport revenues generated from other users of the airport. Mr. Agnor
suggested construction via a lease/purchase arrangement be considered, as he has found it
to be feasible as well as economical for projects which are interim in nature. He said it
would not require-borrowing by the Airport Board or by the County and City, would dis-
tribute the monthly lease costs to monthly revenues from the terminal building, and is
cost effective· Mr. A~nor ~n~ ~ *~+~ ~+ ~ ~ ~'
October 17, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
conventional construction and financing was estimated at $214,773, or $20,773 higher than
the lease/purchase method. Mr. Agnor then presented a copy of the following proposed
lease agreement and a draft resolution authorizing its execution, for the Board's review:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT BOARD
TO ENTER INTO A LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR EXPANSI'0N OF THE AIRPORT TERMINAL
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board "The Board" has determined
that there is a need to enlarge the passenger terminal facilities at the Airport, and
that such facilities can be obtained without any initial capital expenditures, and in
the most economical manner, by entering into a lease/purchase agreement with Amvest
Leasing and Capital Corporation; and
WHEREAS, the joint exercise of powers agreement between the City of Charlot-
tesville and the County of Albemarle dated July 15, 1974, which created the Board and
delegates certain powers to it, does not specifically address the authority of the
Board to enter into such an agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Board has therefore requested that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County and the City Council of Charlottesville authorize it to execute the
proposed agreement; and
WHEREAS, the proposed agreement has been reviewed by the Board of Supervisors
and found to be in the publ'ic interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board is hereby authorized,
pursuant to the aforesaid joint exercise of powers agreement dated July 15, 1974, to
enter into such agreement with Amvest Leasing and Capital Corporation, in form
approved by the County Attorney for the lease/purchase of expanded passenger terminal
facilities as described therein.
Mr. Mike Boggs, Airport Manager, was present and said this structure would provide
3,220 square feet of extra space. Mr. Fisher said he did not like the idea of a temporary
structure, when the Airport Board is in the process of updating the master plan, which
will surely recommend a permanent enlargement of the terminal structure. He said it was
like throwing away $200,000. Mr. Henley said he felt it was a reasonable solution to the
problem, but felt the structure might become more permanent than planned. Mr. Roudabush
said it would be meeting a very real need. Mr. Dorrier said he would support the request,
as the Airport Board seemed to adequately study the matter, and it appears to be the most
inexpensive way to handle the problem. Dr. Iachetta said he would also support the motion,
as it would probably take at least ten years to work out a plan and construct a permanent
building. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the resolution presented
authorizing the Airport Board to enter into a lease/purchase agreement for expansion of
the airport. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 9. 'Request for Appropriation. Mr. St. John said a bill had been
received from the legal firm of Woods, Rogers, Muse, Walker & Thornton for services
rendered in the case of James N. Fleming, et al. versus the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County. The bill is in the amount of $464.44, and Mr. St. John recommended
payment, stating the amount was more than reasonable. Motion was then offered by Dr.
Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$464.44 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and trans-
ferred to Code l-A-103, Legal Fees under the Board of Supervisor's budget.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Lottery Permits. Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit appli-
cation for the Stony Point P.T.O..for a lottery to be held on Friday, October 26, 1979.
Mr. Fisher asked if this weren't covered by the blanket permit issued to the school
system. Mr. Agnor said the blanket permit was not renewed for this calendar year. Motion
was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve this application in accordance with the
Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. The motion was seconded by'Mr.
Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabusb.
None.
Mr. Agnor presented the second lottery permit request from the American Legion Post
74, Inc. for the calendar Year 1980. Motion for approval in accordance with the Board's
adopted rules for issuance of such permits was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Adjourn. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Dorrier, to adjourn to October 24, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the County Office Building Board
Room to conduct a work session on the Com~reh'ensive Plan -- Urban Area and the LibrarY's
~u~at for the Crozet Branch. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the followin~