Loading...
1978-12-20NDeCember 20, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) O95 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 20, 1978, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virgini~ Board Members Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Ron Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Gerald'E. Fisher. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M., by Chairma~ Agenda Item No. 2. 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 facil- itiesl. (Deferred from December 6, 1978.) Dr. Iachetta said ~he reviewed the proposed ordinance with the draft of the new state handbook. He said he hoped the County was not being premature in adopting their ordinance first, as when the state adopts theirs, it may make changes at the County level necessary. He did add that he would make Dne change in the proposed ordinance as it presently stands, that being the limitation in Section (a) of these amendments of 5,000 feet or greater, the stream length which this ordinance covers. He said it is mo~t likely too long, due to water volume and velocity. Following a very lengthy discussion amon¢ Board members, and Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer; it was decided that the wording "5,000 feet or greater in length" in Section 17-5-13(a) and Section 18-22 be deleted. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the ordinances as presented, with the dele- tion of the phrase "5,000 feet o2 greater in length" from Section 17-5-13 and Section 18-22. Motion for adoption was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. % (The ordinan~ as adopted, are set out below.) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 18-22, ARTICLE III OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE RELATING TO FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the County Code be, and it hereby is, amended in Section 18-22 as follows: Sec. 18-22. Flood control and drainage structures. The subdivider shall provide all information needed to determine what improvements are necessary to provide adequate drainage, including contour maps, drainages.plans, and flood control devices. Contour intervals shall be not greater than five feet and shall b~ at such lesser intervals as specified by the agent. Provisions shall be .made' for the disposition of surface water runoff from the site, including such on-site and off-site drainage facilities as the Commission, upon the recommendation~of the County Engineer, may deem adequate. Except as the Commission may otherwise require in a particular case, or as expressly provided herein, such facilities shall be so designed~and installed that the rate of surface water runoff from the site due to a rainfall of a 10-year return period intensity as shown on the Frequency Analysis Curve for Charlottesville, Virginia, shall be no greater after the proposed development than before; provided that the same may be accomplished without unreasonable adverse impact on the environment of the site. The fourth sentence of this section shall apply only within the geographic limits as h~r~inafter described: the drainage basins of Moores Creek, Meadow Creek, Powell Creek, Redbud Creek, Town Branch and those un-named branches, whether perennial or intermittent~ which flow directly into the Rivanna River from either side, beginning at the crossing oJ U. S. Route 29 over the South Fork of the Rivanna and thence downstream With the Rivanna River to its confluence with Moores Creek; all as shown on maps published by the United States Geological Survey entitled "Charlottesville East, Virginia," "Charlottesville Wesi Virginia," "Earlysville, Virginia," "Simeon, Virginia," and "Alberen~ Virginia." With- in the geographic area hereinabove described, the fourth sentence of this section shall not apply to the following: (1) Lands which are designated as lying within the flood plain of any stream in accordance with Article 9A of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; (2) The development of any lot of parcel which results in a total impervious sur- face coverage of not greater than 20,000 square feet; (3) Any development, the final site plan and/or subdivision plat of whi~h.~has been approved.by the Commission prior to the adoption of this section, as amended; and (4) In any ~ase where the subdivider shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfac- tion of the County Engineer and the Commission that off-site improvements or other pro- visions for the dispgsition of surface water run-o~f would equally or better serve the public interest and safety; and that such method of disposition would not adversely affe¢ downstream properties. · n addit~on, provisions shall be made for the minimization of pollution of all downstream water courses due to surface water runoff. The subdivider shall also provide any other information required by the Board of Supervisors, its agent, or the Highway Engineer. O96 December 20, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT ARTICLE 17 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that Article 17 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it hereby is amended, as follows: 17-5-13 (a) Provisions shall be made for the disposition of surface water runoff from the site, including such on-site and off-site drainage facilities as the Commission, upon the recommendation of the County Engineer, may deem ade- quate. Except as the Commission may otherwise require in a particular case or as expressly provided herein, such facilities shall be so designed and installed that the rate of surface water runoff from the site, due to a rainfall of a 10-sear return period intensity as shown on the Frequency Analysis Curve for Charlottesville, Virginia, shall be no greater after the proposed development than before; provided that the same may be accomplishe without unreasonable ~dverse impact on the environment of the site. The second sentence of this sub-section shall apply ~nly within the geographic limits as hereinafter described: the drainage basins of Moores Creek, Powell Creek, Redbud Creek, Town Branch and those un-named branches, whethe perennial or inter~i%te'ht, which flow directly into the Rivanna River from either side, beginning at the crossing of U. S. Route 29 over the South Fork of the Rivanna River, thence with the South Fork fo its confluence wit the North Fork of the Rivanna and thence downstream with the Rivanna River .Charlottesvillk to its confluence with Moores Creek; all as shown on maps published by the.. West, Virginia,,, ~United~ States Geological Survey entitled "Charlottesville E.a~t, Virqinia,~ "Earlysville, "Simeon, Virginia," and "Alberene, Virginia." Within the geographic area Virginia," hereinabove described, the second sentence of this sub-section shall not apply to the following: (1) Lands which are designated as lying within the flood plain of any stream in accordance with Article 9A of this ordinance; (2) The.development of any lot or parcel which results in a total imper- vious surface coverage of not greater than 20,000 square feet; (3) Any development, the final site plan and/or subdivision plat of which has been approVed by the Commission prior to the adoption of this section, as amended; and (4) In any case where the developer shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Engineer and the Commission that off-site im- provements or other provisions for the disposition of surface water run-off would qqually or better serve the public interest and safety; and that such method of disposition ~ould not adversely affect downstream properties. (b)~ In addition, provisions shall be made for the minimizatiOn of pollution of all downstream water courses due to surface water runoff. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-78-~2. Billy F. and Carol B. Bratton. To locate a mobile home on 2.001 acres zoned A-1. Property located on south side of Route 618, approximately one-four mile east of intersection of Route 620 and 618. County Tax Map 115, Parcel 22A1, Scottsville Magisterial District. (Advertised on November 7, 1978.) Mr. Tucker reported this requsst was withdrawn before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher noted this would require no further Board action. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-78-~9~.~ Joice G. Payne. Locate an antique store on 3.79 acres zoned A-1 on so~th side of intersection of Routes 231 and 600 at Cismont. County Tax Map 65, Parcel 3lA, Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised on December 6 and December 13, 1978.) M~. Keeler read the County Planning Staff's report. Character of~the Area The building on this property is currently a gasoline service station with the remainder used for storage. The applicant would occupy the storage area and the service station would remain. Access to the property is uncontrolled from both Routes 231 and 600 The area is rural in character with some small lot development near the crossroads. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends Route 231 for scenic highway designation in this area. Mr. Keeler noted the Planning Commission, on December 5, 1978, unanimously rggommehded approval with the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of controlled access to the site; 2. Staff approval of parking layout and landscaping; 3. No outdoor diSplay of merchandise; 4. No auctions; 5. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies~ 6. Sign sizes to comply with Article 18 Scenic Highways. ~h December 20, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Keeler also said there was no discussion of possible new construction at the site. Ms. Joice Payne was present, said she did not own the building, and therefore would not be adding on to it. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion ~o~ approval was offered with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commissi~ by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5~ SP-78-68. Joe Price and Jefferson Cable Corporation. Petition for public utilities and crossing the river in the area of Kaskaskia Court in Key West Subdivisio~ The 110.107 acres involved is zoned A-1 and~is identified as County Tax Map~/62, Parcel 17; and County Tax Map 62B(1), Parcel 1, Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 6 and December 13, 1978.) Mr. Keeler read the County Planning Staff's report. Character of the Area Lands immediately~adjacent to both sides of the river are wooded in this a~ea. The appli cant has indicated the cable easement would be about 10 feet wide, therefore, in staff opinion, minimal clearing would be necessary. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Rivanna River should be given consideration for scenic river designation. Under the Virginia Scenic Rivers Act of 1970, all state and local units of government must give consideration to the scenic, historic, and water quality of scenic rivers in, any planning activity which would impact the river. The Rivanna River in Fluvanna County has been designated a Scenic River by the General Assembly. The plan recommends the following guidelines for protection of scenic streams --Scenic streams, either state or locally designated, should be~preserved by prohibiting or discouraging activities disruptive of the visual quality. --No structure will be permitted within the 100-Year Flood Plain or 100 feet whichever i: greater. --Alterations of the natural channel will be discouraged.--Roads and bridges encroaching on or crossing the flood plain or channel will be discouraged. Staff Comment JeffersOn Cable proposes to serve F~y West subdivision with this above-ground crossing. Cable would be underground in other locations. The only structures to be located within the flood plain would be two utility poles required to maintain the cable at heig~ of 45 feet above the river. These two poles would be located 87 and 98 feet from the river The staff favors multi-use of existing river crossings as opposed to a proliferation of crossings. The nearest available crossing is a VEPCO easement about a mile south of thi: location. An alternative to use of an existing crossing, which the staff would also favor, would be a crossing beneath the river bed. Clearing of the easement would~still be necessary, but there would be no visual infringement of poles and wires. Mr. Keeler noted the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following five conditions: Cleared width of easement not to exceed 10 feet. Where cable is to be located below ground, immediate reseeding of disturbed areas is required; County Engineer approval of location of utility poles in flood plain. I~ this revie~ the ~ounty Engineer_may require such construction as he may deem appropriate to ~easo~ab~p~e~ent~.~ama~e~.to~do~nstream.~properties as a result of flooding; In the event of damage, which in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, may be hazardous to downstream property owners o~ to the public in g~neral, the Zoning Administrator shall require immediate correction or removal of the damaged structure Signed statement by the applicant and property owners that they have read and are in agreement with Section 9A-5-7 and 9A-7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Utilities that in the future may wish to cross the Rivanna River would be limited to use of the Jefferson Cable poles. Mr. Price was present. He s~id the ~cost of laying the cable under the bed of the river is cost prohibitive and too disturbing to the river bed. He said through many studies it was determined that using poles and lines elevated above the river, it would be much less dis- turbing and more obtainable cost wise. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this application, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Debate ensued between Board members as to exactly what would damage the scenic view of the river. Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom both felt there was not sufficient demand for the service being offered, and that it would harm th~ 098 December 20, 197~ (R~ular Night Meeting) scenic view of the river, and said theY would vote against approval. Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush all spoke in favor of approval, saying they would rather see a 3/4 inch chbte across the river than the pollution which is presently going on in the river. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve this request as recommended by the Plannin Commission, with fift~.~dondi~o~'-.~an~ed· ~.~-"' .... ~ ~ Paa~A: "This applicant shall make available the use of the poles for this crossing to any future applicants for special permits,© subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors." Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called and motion failed by the fo!~owing tie vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, and Roudabush. Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-78-19. W. W. Stevenson and Alton F. Martin. Rezone 32.6 acres; 19.0 acres to B-1 Business and the remainder to R-2P~sidential. Located on West side of Route 29 North just north of the Rio Road and Route 29 inter~ection. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 94, Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 6 and December 13, 1978.) Mr. Lindstrom said his firm represents Mr. Martin, and wished to abstain from discussion and vote on this agenda item. Mr. Keeler read the County Planning Staff's report: Requested Zoninq: 19.0 acres of B-1 General Business 13.6 acres of R-2 Limited Residential Acreage: 32.6 acres Current Zoning: 5.85 acres of B-1 General Business 20.55 acres of R-2 Limited Residential 6.20 acres of A-1 Agricultural This request is similar to ZMA-78-14 which was recently reviewed by the Commission and Board. Under this petition, the requested zoning would be in a more useable layout than under the previous application. Estimated traffic impact is as follows: TRAFFIC GENERATION Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning 844 11 00 A-1 22 R-2 1,'275 B-1 3,510 TOTAL 4,807 vtpd 12,244 vtpd While the potential 12,000+ vtpd under2this petition is a sizeable reduction from the previous request, the impact would be about two and one-half times that under existing zoning. Therefore, staff comment from the previous application remains applicable: 1. In staff opinion, the Route 29 North corridor is commercially overzoned; e e There are currently about 1,100 vacant acres of B-1 property in the Urban A~ea. opinion is that the Urban Area as a whole is commercially overzoned; Staf T~at portion of Route 29 North between the South Fork ef the Rivanna and the city limits has been the subject of study in terms of traffic congestion. In staff opin- ion, this segment is particularly sensitive and staff is reluctant to support any substantial increase in traffic-intensive zohing ~ntil some action has been taken on the 29 North transportation studies which are presently underway. Based on the reasons cited above, though the request complies with the Comprehensive Plan staff recommends denial of the requested increase Of B-1 zoning. Note: Staff would not object to a more ~sa~_e~. configuration of the existing B-1 acreage (i.e. - a rectangular configuration of abOut 500 feet 'by 525 feet, reducing the "stripping" effort along the frontage.) As to the request to rezone 6.2 acres from A~i AgricultureLto R-2 Residential Limited (8.5 units/acre), the Comprehensive Plan recommends low density residential (2.5 units/ acre) in this area. The applicant rezoned this property from R-2 to A-1 in 1972 to permi expansion of a mobile home park, however, no use of this property was made for that pur- pose. In respect to traffic impact, an increase of about 360 vtpd could be realized. All residential zoning in the area is R-2, therefore, though this density does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends that R-2 zoning would be consistent with residential zoning in the area. Staff recommends that the 6.2 acres be rezoned from A-1 to R-2. Mr. Keeler noted the Planning Commission voted 6 to 3 to recommend approval of the rezoning to the Board. Mr. Ed Bain was present representing the applicants, and he described the property and th. owners plans for development. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this application, :~n~ Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher noted a conflict in opinion by the planning staff in that they recommend denia of~ the application, but feel it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler said the 099 December 20, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) ~use area is not suitable for residential/since the highway has grown so massive, but hhe property in question is 'of a design that the planning staff does not agree with. Discussion among Board members followed as to~.3whether to make the change requested or to dRcrease the amount of acreage under the request. They were in agreement that there is already sufficient B-1 zoning in the area. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to deny the request as presented. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Following continued discussion, Dr. Iachetta amended his motion to rezone the requested 6.2 acres from A-1 to R-2 limited residential. The amended motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. At 9:20 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess. Meeting reconvened at 9:25 P.M. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-78-73. R. Reynolds Cowles, Jr. for a professional office on 65 acres zoned A-1. Property on the northeast side of Route 667, about 2.5 miles from Route 665. County Tax Map 17, Parcel 35E, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 6 and December 13, 1978.) Mr. Keeler r~a~d~th~'County ~lanh.ing'staff-!~eport: Request: Professional office - veterinary (Section 2-1-25(24)) Acreage: 65 acres Zoning: A-1 Agricultural Location: Property, described as Tax Map 17, Parcel 35E, is located on the northeast side of Route 667 about one mile north of its intersection with Route 665 and approximately 2.5 miles northeast of Free Union. Character of the Area This property is developed as a horse farm as are some other properties in the area. Mos properties are larger parcels in pasture and li~stock grazing usage. Staff Comment The applicant proposes to operate an equine veterinary on an on-call basis only. part-time secretarial employees are expected for both farm and practice matters. may occasionally visit the site to pick up medicines. Two Clien~ Staff reconunends approval subject to: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance; Amendment of this permit shall be required for on-site treatment and/or on-site treatment facilities. Mr. Keeler noted that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval with the staff's conditions. Mr. Cowles was present and he described the operation planned for the building, and that there would be little or no increase in traffic on the access road due to his business. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion for approval as recommended by the Planning Commission, was offered by Mr. seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Do~rier,:Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-78-70~. Janet Schuyler Broan. Locate a commercial kennel on 22.38 acres zoned A-1 on the northwest side of Route 231 at Saddle Po~d Farm in Cismont. County Tax Map 65, Parcel 12A, Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 6 and December 13, 1978.) Mr. Keeler read the ~ounty Blanning staff's report: Character of the Area This property is developed with two single-family dwellings. The are.a is rural in character with some small lot development near the crossroads. Comprehensive Plan Route 231 is recommended as a scenic highway in this area. Staff Comment The applicant is keeping four personal dogs at this time. As a boarding kennel, the applicant would expect 20 to 30 dogs and possibly have one paid employee. The kennel would be located towards the rear of the property more than 1000 feet from the nearest adjoining residence. 100 December 20, 1978 (R~gular Night Meeting) Mr. Keeler noted the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval with the following six conditions: 1. Hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Dogs~'shall be kept in soundproof building at all times; 2. Limited to not more than 30 dogs, including dogs owned by the applicant; 3. Soundproofing of the kennel so that sound emitted between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. shall not exceed 40 decibels at the nearest property line (40dB is the average noise level of a residential area at night); 4. Approval of other appropriate state and local agencies; 5. Site plan approval; 6. Sign sizes shall be in accordance with Article 18 of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Janet Broan was present. She said the Planning staff very adequately presented her application to the Board. Mr. Bob Broan said the topographical map presented is reasonably accurate, and that the building site is subject to shifting around as the land is further surveyed. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition and Mr. Fisher declared'~he public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve as-recommended b~.-.the Plan~ing Commission and that the word "other" be added to condition number one"'..llbUilding at all other times;" Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NA~S: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Resolution of intent to amend Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for administrati~a approval of certain site plans; and a resolution of intent to amend Chapter 18 (Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance) of the Albemarle County Code to provide for administrative approval of certain subdivision plats. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 6 and December 13, 1978.) Mr. Keeler noted that by a vote of 8 to 1, the Planning commission withdrew their reso- lution of intent for administrative approval of some subdivisions, and recommended adminis- trative approval of site plans by a vote of 7 to 2. He then proceeded to review all the changes which would occur in the present ordinance. ao Add section 17-4-36 under Specific Items To Be Shown, to read as follows% Signature panel ~h~ll be provided for the Secretary of the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Amend Section 17-3-2 to read as follows: "Notice of site plan submission shall be sent by first class mail to the Planning Commission, Board of S~pervisors, and the last known adress of all owners of property adjacent to the development. In any case in which the property so adjacent is owned by the applicant, notice shall be given to the owners of the next adjoining property not owned by the applicant. Mailing to the address shown on the current real estate tax assessment books of the County shall be deemed adequate compliance with this requirement, provided that a representative of the Planning Department shall make affidavit that such mailings have been made and file such affidavit with the papers in the case. No site develop- ment plan shall be approved within 10 calendar days of the date of the mailing of such notice. The notice shall state the type of use proposed, ~pecific location of development, appropriate county office where the site plan may be viewed, and date of site plan review meeting. C. Amend Section 17-7 PROCEDURE to read as follows: 17-7 P ROCED~RE 17-7-1 There is ~reby created a site plan review committee composed of a represen- tative of the Albemarle County Planning D~.partment, the Albemarle County Engineer's Office, the Albemarle County Service Authority, the Albemarle County Fire Marshal's Office, the Virginia Department of Health, and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, and the United States Department of Agriculture2. Soil Conservation Service. In addition, two members of the Albemarle~County Planning Commission, to be designated by the Chairman thereof, shall serve as ex-officio members of this committee. The ~ommittee shall have the power to make rules for the regulation of its business, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 17-7-2 Applications for site development p~&n approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Public notification signs, describing the proposa~ and stating dates, locations, and times of subsequent review meetings~ shall be issued to the applicant at the time of application. The applicant shall pos~ such signs in locations determined by the Director of Planning within 48 hours of time of ~pplication. No application shall be considered complete ~til such signs have been posse. 17-7-3 The Planning Department shall transmit all applicatio~for site development plan approval to the site plan review committee for its review. The committ~ shall review all such applicatio~for technical compliance with the provision hereof. Upon completion of its review, the committee shall make recommendati to the Director of Planning. 101 December 20, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) 17-7-4 Upon receipt 'of th'e 'final site plan and the Committee's recommendations, the Director 'of Pl'ann'~g shall determine if the plan is in cpmpliance with this article. In' making such determination, the. Director of Planning shall be deemed to be the a~'ent for the Commission for all purposes, subject to the rights of review as h~reinafter provided and subject to the provisions of S~ction~17-4-36 of this article. If the Director of Planning determines that the plan is not so in compliance, he shall notify the applicant of his reasons for such determination and request that the plan be made to comply. If the applicant ~hall fail to comply with such request, the Director of Planning shall disapprove the 9pplication. If the Director of Planning... determines that the plan is in compliance with this article, he shall approve the application~ Such approval or disapproval shall be ~ma~e not less than'10 nor more than 15 days after the meeting of the Committee at which such application is considered and shall be made in writing. In the case of'disapprova]~the reason for such disapproval shall be entered into the record in writing. Notice ~f such approval or disapproval shall be mai'i'ed to all perso~required to be notified by Section 17-3-2. 17-7-5 Any person aggrieved by any decision of the~Director of Planning in the approval or disapproval of any such application may demand~.a review of such application'by the Commission by filing a request therefor, in writinq~.~with the,Planning DePartment within 10 days of the date of such decision. 17-7-6 If the site plan is transmitted to the commission for review, the Commissio] ~h~ approve or disapprove the application within 60 calendar days from the date of th~ application. In so doing, the Commission shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the site plan review committee and the Director of Planning. In addition, it may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the apPlication. A~y other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, nothing in this Article shall be construed to prevent the Commission from deferring consideration of any application on the ground that the applicant shall have failed to comply with the provisions of this Article, or ~o attend any meeting of the Commission .whereas such application is to be considered. D. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE a. Next to last Tuesday of each month - deadline for site plan submittal (day 0) b. F~llowing Thursday - deadline for signs posted on-site ~day 2) Following-Friday - Notices sent to adjacent owner, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors members (day 3) d. Thursday following first Tuesday of each Month - site plan review meeting (day 9-15) e. Wednesday folloWing second Tuesday - deadline for submittal of revised plans sent to Director of Planning (day 15-21) f. Day 19-30 - Director of Planning approves or denies site plan and sends notice of such action to all persons required to be notified under Section 17-3-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. ge Day 29-40 - deadline for objections (Assuming 3 working days for postal deliver~ this would be 22 to 33 days after receipt of original notice.) Day following receipt of written objection - Notices sent of Planning review; Planning Commission review could be less than 10 days from mailing of notice; scheduling of appealed site plans dependent on available time on Commission agenda; Planning Commission must approve or disapprove site plan within 30 days of date of app~ Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Ms. Margaret representing the League of Women Voters. She presented and read the f~llowing statement to Board: "December 20, 1978 To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Re: Resolution of intent to amend Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for administrati~ approvaI of certain site plans; and a resolution of intent to amend Chapter 18 (Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance) of the Albemarle County to provide for administratiue approval of certain subdivision plats. The League of Women Voters believes that this is not an appropriate time to eonsider such major cha~ges in procedure. If they are to be considered at all, they should be studied in the context of the new zoning ordinance which is currently under c¢ In r~iew of the pressures of rapid growth in the county, the League considers it essentJ that all subdivision plats should continue to come before the Planning Commission and public ~r,~{t~n~y. The Planning Commission has been carefully appointed to represent the views of a b~o~d spectrum of county residents, and the viewpoints~of the Commissioners often provide valuable additions to those of the technical experts and the adjacent property owners. As to administrative approval of site plans, the Board of Supervisors rejected this when it was last proposed in November, 1976. The League opposed the change at that time. We continue to believe that the site plan review function should be' retained by the Planning Commission.~ 102 December 20, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) One of our major concerns is that the Site Plan R~view Committee would undoubtedly hold its meetings during working hours when most citizens would find it difficult to attend, whereas the Planning Commission meets in the evening, making public input more feasible. Another of our concerns is that an "aggrieved person" is too narrowly defined, restrictin¢ the rTght to call a site plan up for review to adjacent property owners. However, in the event that the Board does choose to approve administrative site plan re- view, we commend: (1) that adequate public notice be given by adding notification of Site Plan Review Committee meetings and their agendas to the monthly advertisement in the Daily Progress, (2) that provision for public input at site plan review meetings be included in the amended text, and (3) that the ~ext be~'~amended to address the question of how a decision is made as to what site plans have a significant enough impact on the community to require review by the Planning Commission." No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Roudabush and Dr. Iachetta both said they were not in favor of approval because this would not speed up the paperwork, and would only plaQe an additional burden on the staff. Mr. Lindstrom said he received a lot of public sentiment against this proposal. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to defer action and consider this entire matter when the new Zoning Ordinance is presented. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindskrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10. into the record: Westover Hills Subdivision Plat. Mr. Fisher read the following lette "December 4, 1978 Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Director of Planning Albemarle County Planning Department 414 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Westover Hills/Lots 39~& 40 Final Plat Dear Mr. Tucker: I would like to bring to your attention once again the following facts. Num~.rOus~complaints against Messrs. H. C. Easter and A. R. Kennon from landowners in ~e~tover Hills Subdivision, which over the years you may have collected in your files, on their deficiency and failure as developers. Among one is your letter dated March 2, 1978 to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. - County Executive concerning the cul-de-sac at the end of Westover ~rl~e (Route 1701). Quote as follows~ "It appears that when this route was accepted into the system (March 1, 1975), the temporary cul-de-sac provided for on the approved plat (approved May 14, 1973) was never constructed and therefore not takRn into the system. This as you know is not the normal procedure followed by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. It is the staff's opinion that the only alternative which can be followed at this time is for the Board of Supervisors to declare a moratorium on building permits in SeCtiOTsl and 2 of Westover Hills until such time as this temporary cul-de-sac has been constructed and accepted into the State Highway System or a bond in the proper amount has been submitted to the County to ensure such construction. After the Board of Supervisors meeting in July, 1978, the Chairman gave another chance to Messrs. H. C. Easter and A. R. Kennon to rectify their deficiency and failure as developer and quote "hoped that this time they would not disappoint and fail them again." unquote. Needless to say ONLY FOUR MONTHS have been added again to the several years of landowners in Westover Hills Subdivision, waiting NOT ONLY FOR A CHANCE but what supposedly should have been constructed and taken into the State System in the first place~. How long, in a residential area do we have to wait, plead and suffer anguish each year- hoping that no Rescue Squad, Fire Department or other assistance would not be needed, because: The ~epartment of Highways and Transportation refuses to maintain and clear the snow ih~front of our property which is 130 feet, because the ~a~has not been brouQht up to State Standards by the developers and therefore not ab~epted into the Syste~. Continuous excuses and delays submitted by Messrs H. C. Easter and A. R. Kennon over the years to bring up to State Sta.ndards the 130 feet of road, which is the frontage of two adjoining properties and continuation of Route 1701. December 20, 1978 (R~gular Night Meeting) Continuous lack of concern on the part of Messrs H. C. Easter and ~. R. Kennon, even though numerous chances have been given to them by the Staff of the Board of Supervisors to prove their good faith and willingness to finish what ever promises made in the past to landowners in Westover Hills Subdivision. Because of failure again by Messrs. H. C. Easter and A. R. Kennon we oppose and respect- fully request a moratorium on Building permits in Westover Hills until such time as the temporary cul-de-sac has been constructed and Westover Drive is extended for its entire length, and accepted into the State Highway System or a bond in the proper amount has been submitted to the County ~o ensure such construction with an approximate date of completion. Yours t~ly, (Signed) Zdzislaw A. Wojtowicz (Signed) Aline Wojtowicz" Mr. Keeler read the staff's report and noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval with the staff's conditions: Location: Acreage: Zoning: History: At the end of Westover D~ige west of Route 675 2.75 acres RS-1 On August 2, -1978, the Board of Supervisors approved this rezoning of 120,000 square feet for 2 lots from A-1 to RS-1 (ZMA-78-10). A letter of complaint is registered. Proposal: Division of two lots from a larger parcel; each lot contains 60,000 square fez and coincides with the rezoned area for this purpose. Staff Comment: This division is consistent with the intent of the rezoning. Staff therefore recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. Health Department approval; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of rQad plans~ 3. No building permits issued until the roadway and cul-de-sac are completed and officially accepted by the Virginia Department of Highways. Mr. Harley Easter, owner of the property, was present and said he hoped this would help expedite matters. He further noted that Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Highway Department has seen the proposal. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. Set date for first public hearing on Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher reviewed the status of the new Zoning Ordinance, and noted that the Planning Commission most likely would not be ready for public hearings until some time in Mar~h.. He further noted input from the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, asking that their comments be heard. Mr. Fisher said he could not see putting this on the shelf until somet~ in April following Planning Commission review, an~ suggested a public discussion some-time in January. The consensus of the Board was that it probably would be best to handle work sessio] hearings on this document in a piecemeal way, rather than leave it untouched by the Board unt~ sometime in April. Mr. Agnor noted that the date of January 24th was ~acant as a hearing night, due to word received from Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and ~ransportation thai ~he public hearing on the six-year Highway Plan could not be held that night. The Highway Department in Richmond said the changes made by the Board at their meeting on November 29, 19 were so drastic that they would require public hearing on the six-year plan instead of just on the 1979-80 budget. Mr. Roosevelt is reworking figures which will be presented later. Mr. Agnor suggested the Board rescind action to a~vertise the six-year HighwaY Plan public hearing for this night, and instead set this date for the Zoning Ordinance ~earing. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to rescind action adver- tising January 24, 1979, for the six-year Highway P~ipublic hearing. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: N~ne. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to set January 24, 1979, as the night for a public hearing on the new Zoning Ordinance. No location or time for the meeting was decided on at this time. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. 104 December 20, 197'R~_a__~r_Nicht Meetina) Mr. Fisher suggested the scheduled work session set for January 24th during the afternoor be cancelled. NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Fisher reported that on January 18, 1979, the Board had been scheduled to meet with the Charlottesville City Council. He suggested that this be changed to January 1979, at 5:00 P.M. Due to a conflict in other Board members private schedules, it was decided to leave the meeting date set for January 18th. Agenda Item No. 12. Appointments. Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority. ment was deferred. No names Were placed in nomination, and the appoint Welfare Board. Mr. Roudabush offered the name of Mrs. Josephine M.B!ue of Stony Point Road to serve out the unexpired term of Mrs. Jane Biltonen; said term expiring on June 30, 1979. There were no other names placed in nomination. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Planning District Commission. Mr. Dorrier placed the name of Mrs. Edna T. Anderson in nomination for this position to serve out the unexpired term of Mrs. Jane Biltoner said term expiring on June 1, 1981. Nomination was 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. 13. Approval of Minutes. 1. AuguSt:~9, 1978~ Mr. Roudabush reported he did not complete his review. September 6, 1978: necessary. Mr. Dorrier ~eported reading and finding no errors or corrections September 13, 1978: M~. Lindstrom reported having read and found no errors or corrections necessary. Motion for approval of the minutes of September 6 and September 13, 1978., was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iache~ta, Lindstrom and RoUdabush. NAYS: None- NOT DOCKETED: Mr. Fisher reported meeting wi th Mr. Agnor, and reviewing some of the many jobs and services performed by the County Staff during the calendar year of 1978. He said he was astounded by the tremendous volume of work completed, and the many fine jobs per- formed by the entire staff. Mr. Lindstrom said this should be pl~ced into the form of a formal resolution, and offered a motion to express the Board's thanks formally. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and roll was called adopting the following resolution: WHEREAS, this Board .is very aware of the fine assistance it has rece~ged from the County's staff in rendering service to the citizens and wishes to make its appreciation known for a job we~il done: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that thi Board, on behalf of the citizenry, does hereby convey to the staff of Albemarle County its sincere appreciations<and congratulations for the excellent job they have done this year. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 10:55~:P.M., the meeting was declared adjourned by the Chairman.