1978-11-30064,
November 29, 1978 (Adjourned from November 15, 1978)
November 30, 1978 (Adjourned from November 29, 1978)
WHEREAS the proposed ordinance provides for an Original and replacement
drainfield, whose location and size shall be approved by the local Health
Department, provided that the local Health Department may increase the lot
size due to soils or other conditions directly related to public health;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, requests a recommendation from the State Department of
Health, in writing, concerning this proposed reduction in lot size and
requirements outlined above.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Rouda~ush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Mr. Fisher said he had been presented with a petition signed by citizens in the southern
part of the County complaining about the lack of game wardens during the hunting season. This
has been turned over to the Sheriff and Mr. Agnor for review.
Mr. Fisher said the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties
are sponsoring their annual legislative conferences in December. They request that the
individual counties bring their representatives to the General Assembly to these meetings.
The closest meeting is scheduled for December 14th in Richmond. Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher and
Roudabush agreed to attend.
Agenda Item No. 4. At 5:28 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.
Dorrier, to adjourn this meeting until November 30, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. in the Greer School
Cafetorium for a public presentation of the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
~ _ _ _ Ch~a~n-- .
November 30, 1978 (Adjourned from November 2~
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on November 30, 1978, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Greer Elementary School Cafetorium, Lamb's
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from November 29, 1978.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 7:40 P.M.) and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St.Jok
and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, for a public
presentation of the proposed revisions to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. (Notice
of this change in meeting place was advertisied in the Daily Progress on November 15
and November 22, 1978.)
Mr. Fisher said that after the ~r~7~omprehensive Plan was adopted in 1971, a proposed
revised zoning ordinance was drafted~- T~'Zoning Ordinance was drafted to try and implement
the '71 Comprehensive Plan. It was not enacted, but sections of that proposed revision have
been adopted into the current ordinance over the past few years. This meeting tonight has
been scheduled for a joint presentation of the proposed revisions to the Board and Planning
Commission by the consultants, Kamstra, Dickerson and Associates. A citizens advisory committ
has been working with the consultants on these revisions and have not yet given their recom-
mendations. Mr. Fisher said a formal public hearing on these revisions will be held in the
near future, however, time will be given at the end of this presentation for comments from
those present. He then introduced Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning.
Mr. Tucker made some very brief opening remarks and then introduced Mr. Bruce Drenning.
Mr. Drenning introduced Mr. Beckham Dickerson and then proceeded with the presentation. He
said this is a draft for discussion only and is not ready for adoption. There are 13 sections
in the ordinance; nine basically similar to material in the present ordinance. However, four
sections have substantial revisions. Most changes were geared to implement the '77 Comprehens
Plan. When the consultants were working on the revised Comprehensive Plan, they realized that
the County had seen a low level of achievement under the '71 Comprehensive Plan and it was
felt that the major reason was lack of implementation tools probably caused by the need for a
revised zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance was adopted in 1968 and since that time many
changes have been made, making parts of that ordinance inconsistent. The General Assembly, in
1977, changed the law to state that a Comprehensive Plan must be considered in the zoning
ordinance and since these two are not well-meshed in Albemarle County, the County could
possibly have some legal jeopardy. Mr. Drenning then listed objectives of the revised ordinan.
Encourage growth in the urban area, communities and villages.
Limit growth in the rural areas.
Conserve natural resources.
Better locations for industrial growth.
Improve commercial development.
Higher quality residential development in neighborhood settings.
1978)
~e
.ye
e:
November 30, 1978 (Adjourned from November 29, 1978)
065
7)
8)
9)
10)
ll)
16)
Greater coordination between private land use decisions and public
improvements for a more efficient expenditure of tax dollars and
better services.
Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
Hi-density development be allowed only in the urban areas,
communitites and villages.
Commercial development be allowed only in the urban areas, communities
and villages.
Increase density differentials. (i.e.. if allowed the same density of
development in the rural area as in the urban or suburban area, there
is no incentive to locate in the urban area, so a larger lot size is
recommended for the rural area.)
Environmental protection tools. (These are contained in the overlay zones
to provide incentives for quality development and to provide methods for
development to be clustered.
Industrial development will be planned-type only. Will refer to the
Comprehensive Plan for map locations of best places for industrial
development.
Commercial Districts will have functional areas for special kinds of
commercial uses.
Provide for a wide variety in types of housing. ' Expand~ on the types
of units allowed in different residential zones.
Have a more rational review of rezoning decisions with better timing.
Mr. Drenning said in relating the Comprehensive Plan to the zoning ordinance, the follow-
ing residential zones were created:
For the rural area: Village Residential (VR) which is one dwelling unit per acre,.
For the urban area and two communities (Crozet and Hollymead) a variety of districts were
created:
Residential Suburban (RS-I) similar to the present ordinance provisions
of one dwelling unit per acre.
Two other single-family zones: Residential R-2 which is two dwelling units
per acre and Residential R-4 which is four dwelling units per acre.
Also there will be three Planned Development Reesidential Districts (PDR)
with densities from four to 20 units per acre. This also allows
development from single-family to apartments.
To implement the woodlands and conservation concerns of the Comprehensive Plan, it is
recommended that there be specific restictions on the amount of woodlands that are
cleared during residential development.
For protection of steep hillside areas, an overlay district that requires a lower
density as the slope of the land becomes steeper, is proposed.
For flood hazard areas, a Flood Hazard Overlay District is proposed. This has been
brought up to date and is coordinated with HUD regulations on the Federal flood
insurance program.
For agricultural land use, there is a Best Agricultural Soils Overlay Distrist (BAS).
For other rural lands, a Rural Residential District (RR), which has a range from one
and three-quarters acre to two and one-half acres lot size.
For visual quality concerns, there is Scenic Areas Overlay which has a scenic
highway component and a scenic stream provision.
Mr. Drenning said the heart of the new ordinance is contained in Section III, which is
the schedule of district regulations. In the existing ordinance there are two concepts for
planned development, or the RPN and PUD regulations. The purpose of the PUD regulations were
to provide flexibility not found in the typical zoning or subdivision ordinance; to allow and
encourage better design; to provide higher levels of amenities; to require protection of the
natural environment during and after construction; to improve coordination with utilities,
public facilities and transportation; and to allow a mixture of land uses. Ail of these
applied to residential development. The PUD concept has been expanded so that it may be
applied to commercial, industrial, and special activity type zoning districts as well as to
residential. For purposes of distinction, the approach is now generally referred to as
Planned Development Zoning and is proposed to also include Industrial, Commercial, and Resi-
dential zoning districts. Planned development regulations provide flexibility in terms of
location, land ownership, permitted mixtures of land uses, and provision for open space. Some
of the important provisions of planned development regulations in the proposed ordinance
include:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
provision and flexibility for properties under multiple ownership to
be developed as a unified project.
provision of development programs, including timing.
requirements for detailed plans.
provision of defined options for providing and maintaining open space.
location of planned development districts in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and with detailed locational standards in particular
planned development districts.
066
November 30, 1978 (Adjourned from November 29, 1978)
f)
requirements that planned development districts be related to public and
private facilities existing or to be available.
g)
procedures for processing and approving applications including prehearing
conference, content of planning commission report on application, optional
imposition of time limits for submission of site plans and other developer
actions.
h) flexible content of site plan, including changes.
i) specific provisions for bonds and guarantees.
J)
optional review by planning commission and recommendation to supervisors
concerning continuation or change in zoning granted where time limits or
other requirements are not fulfilled by owner.
Mr. Drenning said in numerous instances, zoning districts existing under the present
ordinance will be converted to pl.anned development districts upon enactment of the new ordinan
and they will be so designated on the zoning map. For example, all land to be zoned industria
will be zoned for either Planned Development-Light Industry or Planned Development-Heavy
Industry (converted from M-I, M-2, or RTM)~ some lands zoned B-1 may be converted to Planned
Development-Highway Commercial, Planned Development-Shopping Center, or Planned Development-
Commercial Office; and some lands now zoned RPN, R-2 or R-3 may be zoned for Planned Deve!opme
Housing. Following enactment of the new ordinance, such converted lands will be subject to
the new requirements, however, no concept or site plan will be required until an owner is
ready to develop.
Mr. Drenning said it is proposed that the three existing industrial districts (M-i, M-2,
RTM) be replaced by two planned development industrial districts: one for light industrial
uses and one for heavier industrial uses. This parallels the existing ordinance structure
where M-1 and RTM are predominantly light industry, and M-2 provides for heavier industry.
The new regulations are designed to give more control over the planning and development of
industrial lands and to implement the Comprehensive Plan for industrial growth in terms of
both location and amounts of land.
In the Planned Development-Industrial Districts, limitations on building coverage have
been reduced from 70% to 50%, and a maximum floor area regulation (70%) has been added, off-
street parking requirements have been changed so that they are now geared directly to levels
of employment for industrial uses. Performance standards for industrial uses are proposed to
be expanded to apply to all industrial districts instead of to just one of the industrial
districts as is the case in the present ordinance. The proposed regulations add specific site
plan requirements which deal with the protection of surrounding areas as well as provisions
for handling traffic to be generated by new developments.
The proposed Planned Development-Light Industry District corresponds generally to the M-1
and RTM districts in the present ordinance. Locational criteria have been added in the
proposed regulations which includes major highways, public water and sewer, and the suitabili
and relationship of the development to surrounding land use. The recommended permitted uses
reflect an intent to limit uses to industry, and to switch previously permitted commercial
uses to commercial districts. Within that framework, appropriate uses now permitted in M-Z
and RTM are permitted in the new Planned Development-Light Industry District. The proposed
ordinance provides a minimum area of five acres for a new Planned Development-Light Industry
District and a minimum lot size of one acre; the existing ordinance simply requires 40,000
square feet for a lot. The proposed regulations require landscaped open space, screening, and
specific distance separations from residential areas.
The Planned Development-Heavy Industry District parallels the existing M-2 zone in terms
of permitted uses. Locational standards are not as limited as those for the Light Industry
District. Requirements for landscaped open space, screening, and distance separation from
residential areas are included.
Mr. Drenning said the commercial districts provide for retail, wholesale, and service
uses and restrict those uses in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan to the urban area,
communities, and villages. The commercial regulations emphasize coordination of new develop-
ment with transportation facilities. The proposed regulations recommend the creation of four
commercial districts which are organized along functional lines and would replace the present
B-1 and CO districts,:
Business District -- for locations in the urban area and communities which
have central business concentration characteristics including pedestrian
orientation.
Planned Development-Highway Commercial -- for a wide variety of businesses
which are primarily automobile-oriented.
Planned Development-Commercial Office -- for professional and general
business office concentrations.
Planned Development-Shopping Centers -- for shopping center concentrations
of commercial development.
New regulations for business districts provide a more limited list of permitted uses thai
are provided in existing B-1 regulations; the dual purpose of such limitation is to identify
those retail and service uses which are primarily oriented to central business concentration
locations and to create an i'ncentive/rationale for conversion of existing undeveloped B-1
lands in highway locations to be established as Planned Development-Highway Commercial Distri¢
A maximum building coverage requirement of 40% has been added to fill a void that exists in
the current ordinance. The new regulations propose that the lot sizes currently required for
business uses be increased by 10,000 square feet in the business district.
e
~y
ts.
h~o~ember 30, 1978 (Adjourned from November 29, 1978)
The Planned Development-Highway Commercial district is intended to accomplish the
purposes of planned development in general, and further, to encourage concentration of
commercial uses and control strip commercial development in a manner superior to existing
controls. The permitted uses in this district incorporate all commercial uses from the
present B-1 zone and add commercial uses now permitted in the M-1 zone of the existing
ordinance. A minimum area of from two to three acres, depending on utilities, is recommended
to encourage districts large enough to accommodate concentrated groupings of commercial uses.
A frontage require-ment (150 feet) is recommended for the same purpose. Minimum area require-
ments for individual lots correspond to those presently permitted in the B-1 district of the
existing ordinance. Planned Development-Highway Commercial regulations also include site
planning standards which emphasize traffic, parking convenience, and relationships to sur-
rounding areas.
The Planned Development-Shopping Center district is created expressly to recognize and
regulate shopping centers as a distinct type of commercial use area. The district contains
specific reference to standards in the Comprehensive Plan and establishes locational criteria
for neighborhood, community, and regional shopping centers.
The Planned Development-Commercial Office district parallels the CO (Commercial Office)
zone in the current ordinance. As in other planned development districts, additional control
in the area of site planning with emphasis on traffic and relationships to surrounding areas
are included.
The proposed regulations for Residential Districts include eight residential districts
which are as follows:
VR-Village Residential. This district is created to implement the villages portion
of the Comprehensive Plan. This entails encouraging residential and supporting
development in designated village locations. To accomplish this purpose, a
special district is created which permits compact development in accord with
local health requirements. A mixture of residential and supporting non-residential
uses are permitted. This zoning designation is intended to replace existing R-i,
RS-I, and R-2 classifications in appropriate village locations. Lot sizes will
range from one acre to one and four-tenths acre.
RR-Rural Residential. This district is proposed to replace most of the County's
A-i zoning. Criteria are established in the proposed regulations to encourage
conservation of the natural and scenic environment. Lot sizes will range from
one and three-quarters acre to two and one-half acres.
RS-l-Residential Suburban. This district is proposed to accommodate residential
development in the urban area and in communities at suburban densities in locations
where public water and sewer facilities are not available or expected to be
available for a considerable p~riod of time. Lot sizes will range from one acre
to one and four-tenths acre.
Residential R-2 and Residential R-4. These districts are provided to permit single
family development in the urban area and communities at suburban residential densities
approximating two dwelling units per acre and four dwelling units per acre respec-
tively. These districts are to be located oa~~ where sewer and water facilities
are now available or are to be available within the near future.
Mr. Drenning said the proposed ordinance contains three Planned Development-Residential
districts which are intended to replace the RPN, PUD, R-2 and R-3 districts. The three
districts are called: PDR-17 (Planned Development-Residential-17); PDR-27 (Planned Develop-
ment-Residential-27) with densities from eight to twelve units per acre; and PDR-41 (Planned
Development-Residential-41) with densities from eight to 22 units per acre. The number is a
reference to the maximum permitted floor area ratio which can be applied in the district.
The use of'floor area ratio in residential districts is different from the traditional
concept of regulating density by limiting the number of dwelling units per acre. Regulation
on a dwelling unit per acre basis does not tell you whether a developer is going to build all
one-bedroom units or all five-bedroom units, or something in between. Provision in the new
ordinance might dictate that a 100-acre tract have a floor area ratio of 10% yielding 430,650
square feet of residential floor area. The developer could then build either 215 dwelling
units at 2,000 square feet each or he could build 430 dwelling units at 1000 square feet
each, or something in between. The total population, and the overall population density for
the development, would be approximately equal in either case. This knowledge is extremely
valuable to the County in that it provides an accurate basis to plan for public facilities,
and to project possible economic impact of developments.
The Planned Development-Residential districts permit mixtures oF uses including indus-
trial and commercial, under certain specified and closely controlled conditions. Mixing of
types of residential units within these districts is also permitted. Although design regu-
lations are flexible, standards are provided for both internal and external consideration for
site planning. Specific guidelines for management of open space and common facilities are
provided within the "Guides and Standards" section of the planned development regulations.
The PDR-17 district provides an overall density which corresponds to approximately
four dwelling units per acre if a development contains all single family dwellings.
The PDR-27 district corresponds to the townhouse density currently permitted
under provisions of the R--2 zone of the current ordinance.
The PDR-41 district provides a density corresponding to approximately 20 dwellings
per acre and allows a maximum practical density (at an average of 700 square feet
per unit) of 25.7 dwelling units per acre. It is felt that this density is suffi-
ciently high for apartment type dwelling in Albemarle County. This does not
preclude high rise building types; it just limits the overall density.
:068-
November 30, 1978 (Adjourned from November 29, 19~8)
Mr. Drenning next discussed cluster development which changes the lot size for a parti-
cular development, but does not change the density and which can be used either under standar¢
development or where bonuses are granted to increase densitY, Cluster development is optional
except in the Best Agricultural Soils district. A full yield is allowed under cluster
development. For example, under present A-1 zoning which calls for two acre lots, if a new
road must be developed, only four lots could be put on a 10-acre parcel. Under cluster
development provisions, five lots could be obtained. Under clustering, 25% of the land must
be in open space and only 30% of that open space can be unusable. Also provided are pro-
visions that the County must approve the legal arrangements for maintenance and ownership of
common open land.
Mr. Drenning said State enabling legislation does not specifically empower the locality
to address quality issues; only health, safety and welfare issues. It is felt this can be
encouraged by use of incentives and that is the reason for incentives (Bonus levels for
Residential Districts). These are incentives for an owner or developer~to create a resi-
dential development which is superior to a traditional subdivision in terms of accomplishing
specific goals, objectives, and standards of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Bonus levels
permit an increase in dSnsity of development together with corresponding sma%ler required lot
sizes and smaller dimensions of frontage and yards. Bonus levels less than the maximum
allowable can be granted to an owner or developer depending on the number of incentive
factors which are incorporated in the development plan'and upon the degree to which the
development plan fully accomplishes the purposes specified for-each of the bonus level
incentive factors. Bonus .levels are handled administratively in the proposed ordinance and
will be granted or denied during the regular subdivision process.
In Residential Districts both a minimum and a maximum lot stze have been suggested. It
is felt that the use of large lots is uneconomical and not an efficient use of land. .Also,
there is no public advantage to large lots and the market may be corrected through the use of
smaller lots.
Overlay districts are environmental regulations and supercede the districts they lay
over. There are ways to handle these concerns other than through the overlay districts, such
as repeating a set of regulations in each section of ~he zoning ordinance. The overlay
district is. proposed to avoid that. There are six overlay districts: flood hazard, ai.rport
impact, best agricultural soils, scenic areas, hillside, and natural resource extraction.
The Airport Impact Zone is geared to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport and is for the
purpose of minimizing hazards and obstructions to aircraft. Most uses in. this zone will be
by special permit and there will be no cluster development allowed.
The'Best Agricultural Soils Overlay is designed to conserve the County's best agri-
cultural soils. It is aPplied only over the Rural Residential District. A bonus would be
given for developing wooded areas first. If open, or cleared areas, are developed first,
there is a penalty. Where a property does not have any woodlands and there is a hardship, it
could'be developed at the basic rural residential density except, it would have to be develop~
as cluster development. There would also have to be a permanent agricultural easement placed
over a portion of the land. Densities for this district would be the same as those for Rural
Residential, or one dwelling unit per two and one-half acres. Under a penalty situation, one
dwelling unit for each five acres of open land or one dwelling unit for each two and one-half
acres of wooded land, would be allowed.~ Basically, a higher yield can be obtained in terms
of the number of lots thaN would be allowed udder existing ordinance provisions for A-1
zoning. This is accomplished while still preserVing open land.
A Scenic Areas Overlay District has been created. This is for year-round streams which
are not already protected. There will be 50 feet on each side of the Stream where no buildin
would be allowed, but the area could be counted as part of the lot or the yard. There is no
development penalty and if a permanent c~asement is put over that 50 feet, up to a 20% densit
bonus is provided. Scenic Highway provisions are similar to present regulations. 150 feet
on each side of the right-of-way is put in the scenic highway zone, but the area can be
counted as part of lots and yards, while also providing up to a 20% bonus for residential
land in this zone. Off-street parking will not be allowed closer than 50 feet unless it is
two spaces or less. Exceptions have been added. In many areas where nothing can be seen
because of topography, thick tree cover or existing b~ildings, building will be allowed in
that strip. Sign regulations have been simplified to allow a sign one-half the size of the
sign normally allowed in the particular district through which the scenic highway runs. The
sign face has'also been decreased to standard levels which are smaller than in most districts
A Hillside Development District is recommended to prevent environmental damage and
applies only where slopes are over 14%. Bonuses have been limited by stating that the bonuse:
for the underlying zone are only applied to the suggested densities proposed for this zone.
Run-off control is required to prevent erosion and other environmental effects. Construction
standards are provided and cluster development will be allowed.
The Natural Resources Extraction Overlay zone provides basically for mining'and requires
a permit, a plan, a 20-acre minimum site, fencing, landscaping, and regulations on hours of
operations, keeping roads clean, and controlling the amount of noise.
Mr. Drenning said the general regulations section of the present ordinance is not very
extensive. It has been expanded to include all basic sign regulations. The amendments
sections has several significant changes. There are specific guidelines included for things
the Planning Commission and Board should consider on a rezoning request. Also recommended,
is that the Board only act on rezoning requests four times a year. This was recommended
because when dealing with rezonitg~ requests on a month-to-month basis, it is easy to lose
sight of the impact of individual actions. A number of Virginia jurisdictions have gone to
this concept because the governing body has a better idea of the impact of approving such
requests.
'Mr. Tucker then gave a brief summary of how the zoning map was drawn. Criteria used
were: 1) the Comprehensive Plan was used as the basic guide. 2) the 1932 soils map. 3) the
community, neighborhood and village plans which are complete at this time. 4) lands under
the land use taxation program. 5) the summary of proposed district regulations prepared by
the consultants.
Novembe~ 30, 1978 (Adjourned from November 29, 1978)
December 6, 1978 (Regular-Night MeetSng)
Mr. Fisher said guidance to this point has been furnished by the Steering Committee and
the Citizens Advisory Committee. He asked that groups with comments to make on the proposed
draft, put them in writing so the comments can be studied by the staff. He said it is his
hope that the Board can hold its first public hearing on the ordinance on January !1, 1979.
Mr. Fisher then called on the public for comments. After a short question and answer session
during which several members of the public complained about the short time schedule for
adoption of the ordinance, Mr. Fisher noted that he had scheduled a work session on the
ordinance for the Board in January and that was the reason he wanted to get the ordinance
before the public tonight. He asked the Planning Commission's schedule. Uol. William
Washington, Vice-Chairman of the Commission, said they have a work session scheduled for
December 4th with a public hearing set for December llth.
At 9:35 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.
~Sgfairman
December ~, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on December 6, 1978, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arriving at 7:35 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fishe~ with a moment of silence.
Agenda Item No. 2. Request for Central Well. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of letter from
Joseph C. Hearn, Jr. requesting permission to install a central well system to serve six
one-bedroom cottages to be constructed on 12+ acres on Old Lynchburg Road. The property
is known as Tax Map 89, Parcel 53. In his letter, Mr. Hearn noted that the site plan for
these cottages has been approved by the Planning Commission and the owner of the property
is H - W Associates. Mr. Agnor said the property is located within the Service Authority's
jurisdictional boundaries, but is more than a mile from the end of the line, therefore it
is not feasible to connect this property to public water.
Mr. Hearn was present and said it is a matter of drilling one well to serve these
dwellings, or drilling several wells. The parcel is undivided and there will be six rental
cottages constructed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve in
concept the drilling of a central well as proposed by Mr. Hearn. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. Amend Section 18-22 of the County Code and Section 17-5-13 of
the Zoning Ordinance to establish performance standards for off-site and on-site drainage
facilities. (Deferred from November 1, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker said these amendments will serve to clarify that on-site and off-site
drainage facilities are the developer's responsibility. Generally the rate of post-develop-
ment runoff will not exceed that which existed prior to development. Increased runoff due
to development is a concern often expressed by adjoining property owners at Planning
Commission meetings. These provisions will be applicable to areas outside of the South
Fork Rivanna River Watershed. The County Engineering Department prepared a study of the
proposed storm water detention ordinance in which it is stated that, "for several years,
the attention of the County Staff has been called to the incipient drainage problem which
is inherent in the change of large areas of land from natural cover to impervious s~,~rfaces.
The consideration of plans for the development of a large shopping mall on-the Meadow
Creek Watershed persuades the County Staff that it is time to propose an ordinance for the
purpose of controlling storm water discharge to the extent necessary to prevent excessive
and unnecessary flooding." Mr. Tucker said the staff of the Engineering Department and
the staff of the Planning Department met with representatives from the Blue Ridge Home
Builder's Association. The Home Builder's had two primary concerns: one dealt with the
~quare footage of impervious cover that would be exempted under the provisions which were
originally recommended, or 10,000 square feet. The Blue Ridge Home Builder's asked that
this be increased to 40,000 square feet. Mr. Bailey, County Engineer, at a Planning
CommissiOn meeting, said he felt that without any detrimental effect to the environment,
this square footage could be increased to 20,000 square feet, and that change was made and
is recommended to the Board. Mr. Tucker said other changes were made by the Planning
Commission at their hearing, (shown in italics in the following recommendations), and the~
recommended approval of these ordinances with changes by a 7-1-1 vote.
17-5-13
a~-e~¢-e~e-eh~-~e-~e~&~e~
(a) Provisions shall be made for the disposition of surface water ~unoff
from the site, inclUding such on-site and off-site drainage faciIities
as the Commi.ssion, upon the recommendation of the County~2Engineer, may