1978-01-18NJanuary 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on January 18, 1978, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta,
C. Timothy Lindstrom, and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
Officers present: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M., by
the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-77-81. Viola Irene Turner. To locate a mobile home on 4.98
acres zoned A-1. Property located on access road off the west side of Route 627 approximate-
ly 0.4 mile north of the intersection of Routes 6 and 62?. County Tax Map 128~(1),
Parcel 33, Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 6, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission meeting was cancelled last night due to the
weather, and this petition therefore was not heard. He recommended that the Board of
Supervisors reschedule this hearing to February 1, 1978. No one from the public was
present, and Mr. Fisher requested this item be deferred. Motion was offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to defer the public hearing to the February 1, 1978,
meeting. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-77-24. Charles W. Hurt. Public hearing on a petition to
rezone 92 acres from A-1 to A-I/RPN. Property on southeast side of Route 729 with a portion
on the north side of Route 729 about 1/4 mile from the intersection of Routes 729 and
250 East. County Tax Map 79, Parcel 23 (part thereof), and County Tax Map 79C, Parcel 1.
Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4 and January 11, 1978.)
Mr. Robert Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report:
"Location: On the southeast side of Route 729 at Shadwell, as well as on
the west side of Shadwell Road ( Route 709 ).
Acreage: 92+ acres
Existing Zoning: A-1 Agriculture
Requested Zoning: RPN/A-1 Residential Planned Neighborhood
Existing Zoning and General Character of the Surrounding Area
The property is to a great extent bounded by A-1 zoned property which is
presently residential in nature. To the west is ~tone-Robinson School
zoned A-1. To the northeast is Shadwel! Estates subdivision part of
which is zoned RS-I; the remainder is A-1. The average si~e of the lots
in Shadwell Estates Subdivision is 1 acre. To the north, on the opposite
site of the existing lake, is a 26+ acre property presently rural in
character but zoned R-3 Residential.
Histor~
Special Permit 308 was applied for on this property in 1973 calling for
the development of Collina Planned Community. This application was concurrent
with a site plan application submitted for the 27~ acre R-3 parcel which was
to be developed in townhouse clusters served by both central water and sewer.
The total plan called for 90 single family lots, 120 townhouse condominium
units, and approximately 1.5 acres of small shop~ on 130+ acres. On
November 19, 1973, the Planning Commission approved the special permit. On
November 28, 1973, the application was denied by the Board of Supervisors.
ZMA-77-17 was a request to rezone the subject property from A-1 to RPN/A-1
with 46 single family dwelling units on 92+ acres. This application was
approved by the Planning Commission on September 27, 1977, but later denied
by the Board of Supervisors on November 2, 1977.
Applicant's P. roposal
This proposal calls for the development of 42 residential lots on 91.9+
acres. This proposed development has two (2) parts. Thirty (30) of the
proposed units will be located on the east side of the existing lake and
will have access exclusively by way of Route 709 (Shadwell Road). The
remaining twelve (12) lots will be located on the west side of the lake
and will have access from Route 729. A state road is proposed to serve
25 of the 30 ~S on the east side of the lake, the remainder (5) will be
served by private roads (Association roads). On the west side of the lake
ten (10) of the 12 lots will be served by a private road, the~ other two (2)
will be served directly., from Route 729. The project is proposed to have a
central water system with the exception of two lots which front on Route 729,
which are proposed to have individual wells. Ail lots served by central
water will be a minimum of 40,000+ square feet in area. This plan calls for
the 11+ acre lake to remain and be used as a recreational facility with boat-
ing and fishing facilities. The lake and dam are to be in common, ownership
January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
and maintained by a homeowner's association. This proposal calls for common
open space to amount to 35% of the gross acreage; this figure includes the
lake (12~), pedestrian trails, a picnic area near the dam, a small beach and
boat launch facility, and common open area which ia generally steep in slope
and serves as a buffer between the development and adjacent properties.
Comprehensive Plan Conformance
The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to remain agricultural in nature.
Comparative Impact Statistics
Zoning
Gross Density
Net Density
Common Open Space
Total Dwelling Units
Population
Additional Vehicle
Trips/Day
Route 709
Route 729
School EnroIlment
Existing
A-1
0.5 du/acre
0.5 du/acre
0 acres (0%)
45* (34 excluding lake and
assuming state roads)
144+
N/A
329±v
Applicant's Proposal
RPN/A-1
0.45 du/acre (0.52 ex-
0.75 du/acre cluding lake)
32.3 acres (35%)
42 (61%)
134+
219+
88¥
30?+_vpd
K-5 13.5 12.6
6-8 7.47 6.972
9-12 8.91 8.316
29. ~-~+ 27.888+
THEREFORE 30~ 2,8+
*Assumes all lots are pipestems and includes lake
Summary of Proposed Land Uses
ACRES
% OF SITE
Residential Lots 55.~ 60.7%
Streets 3.8 4.1%
Common area (includes 32.3 35.2%
lake)
Lake 11 + 12.0%
STAFF COMMENT
Tentatively, the water will come from two (2) wells. The development will have
open space amounting to 10% over the required minimum of 25%.
Favorable:
Considering the severe topography of the site, the lot layout does
a good job of preserving the steeper wooded slopes. The use of
private drives reduces the amount of land-disturbing activity.
The smaller lot sizes allow that a greater amount of virgin wood
remain undisturbed. The common ownership of the lake and dam will
help insure that they remain amenities for the area. The plan
allows for emergency fire access to the lake for pumping purposes.
Unfavorable:
As noted by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
the additional traffic from this development would more than double
the existing traffic count on Route 709 (Shadwell Road). This is
an important point because the intersection of Routes 709 and 250
East has inadequate sight distance and can be considered a hazard.
There was some public concern regarding the safety of the existing
dam which is found within the proposed development. Staff opinion
is that the dam should be reviewed and determined safe prior to
any final subdivision approval. There was also public concern re-
garding the effect the steep slopes will have on pollution from
septic facilities. In response to this question, the County Engineer
has noted that the effect due to sloPe should be minimal. Zn addition,
as requested during the previous application, the Virginia Department
of Health reviewed the site and noted that all but perhaps two of the
originally proposed lots were adequate for individual septic~facilitie~.
In the present proposal, the lots have been rearranged to better address
the concern of pollutants from septic tank failure. There was also
concern from residents of Shadwell Estates that their wells would be
polluted by septic runoff. This problem has been addressed by creating
an open area buffer between the subdivisions. The staff's under-
standing is that a part of this buffer is being purchased by adjacent
residents of Shadwell Estates. There was also concern that undesirable
motor boats would be used on the lake. A portion of the lake falls out-
side the subject property. This has caused.concern among some of the
adjacent owners. However, staff opinion is that the uses permitted on
the lake will largely remain the same, and in effect there could be
more control on permitted uses due to enforcement by the Homeowner's
Association. Though the aPplicant has reduced the number of dwelling
units requested in this appl±cation from 46 to 42, staff opinion is
that a desirable number of dwelling units (based on the review of the
previous application by the Board of Supervisors) would be 39. However,
the density should be determined by the Planning Commission~and ~Board
of Supervisors."
January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker noted that on January 10, 1978, the Planning Commission unanimously re-
commended approval of this petition with.the following conditions:
"1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance
facilities;'~
3. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of all internal roads
and private drives with adequate turnaround space at. the end of each;
4. Virginia Department Of Highways and Transportation approval of internal
state roads;
5. No dwelling units nor septic fields to be built on slopes in excess of 25%;
6. No dwelling units nor septic fields to be built within 50 feet of the
lake water's edge at mean level to be determined by the Virginia Department
of Health;
7. The applicant will have a certified engineer test the existing dam and
certify that it is safe to the satisfaction of the County Engineer;
8. A maintenance agreement for the maintenance of all common area, recreational
facilities, private drives, and the dam is to be approved by the County
Attorney's Office and recorded;
9. Final subdivision approval will be subject to the County Engineer's Office
approval of central water systems;
10. A grading permit will be required prior to subdivision approval;
11. Ail lots are to have access to common open space;
12. An approved secondary drainfield location must be provided for each lot;
13. That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation review the
intersection of Route 250 East and Route 709 in order to determine whet~er
signs or warning lights are necessary; if it is determined that controls
are warranted, they shall be installed at the developer's expense;
14. County Engineering Department approval of right-of-way widths."
M~[ Fisher asked how many dwelling units the previous application was for. Mr. Tucker
answered 46, and said this application is for 42. Dr. Iachetta asked the County Attorney's
opinion as to whether this reduction in density constituted a substantial enough change to
warrant a reapplication of this request within a one-year period of time. Mr. St. John
said he agre~with the opinion previously given by Deputy County Attorney, Frederick W.
Payne, at the Planning Commission meeting, that it did cmnstitute a substantial change, and
was allowable for reapplication within the one-year period of time.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Roy Parks,
representing the applicant. He presented maps and descriptions of the property. Mr.
Fisher asked Mr. Parks if any of the internal roads would be built to state standards. Mr.
Parks said no that all the internal roads would be private and maintained by the homeowners
association. Mr. Fisher noted that with only a 20 foot right-of-way, these roads would
never be able to be taken into the State Secondary Road System. Mr. Parks said if the
Board felt strongly in favor of State approved roads only, the necessary changes could be
made. Mr. Parks also noted that the fire department would have access to the lake for fire
protection purposes. Mr. Roudabush questioned the setback distance of homes from the
proposed roadway. Mr. Parks said it was shown at about 70 feet, but that it could easily
be changed to conform to the requirements of the RPN zone which is 75 feet. Mr. Lindstrom
requested assurance that there would be no septic systems placed on areas of 25% or greater
slopes. Mr. Parks said there is no need to place septic systems in areas of steep slopes,
but said the Board was free to make that a condition of approval.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated January 17, 1978, addressed to all the
members of the Board of Supervisors from Mr. James C. Pyles, however the letter was not
read, and no copy was given to the clerk for the file.
Mr. Jack Taggart said he represented two brothers who were adjacent property owners,
by the name of Pyles. He referred to the 'letter dated January 17, 1978. He said his
clients, felt there was no appreciable change in density, for although the number of homes
requested is less (from 46 to 40), the percentage of land requi~d for open space, septic
systems and dam improvements wmuld still make it impossible to approve 40 homes in this
zone. He noted the increase of traffic at the intersection onto Route 250 and felt the
proposed fire protection methods were inadequate.
Mr. Jim ?yles said access to this property should be from State Route 729 where sight
distance is adequate, and less hazardous than that proposed in the applicant's plan. Mr.
Pyles said he was also opposed to the proposed density in this plan.
Mr. Parks said he wished to clarify statements made by Mr. Taggart. He said they
would be grading the area at the intersection to Route 250, which would improve the sight
distance. Also, RPN zoning does not require fire protection, and although it comes from
the lake, the protection proposed is more than required.
Mr. Taggart reiterated the concern of his clients about use of the lake and the density
with regards to septic system capabilities.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Fisher said the question of whether or not this plan is substantially different
from the first application needsto be answered before any further discussion on the merits
of the petition. Mr. St. John said it was his opinion that if this case were brought
before a Judge, the ruling would be that this application was substantially different and
warranted separate consideration. Mr. Fisher felt it should be the decision of the Board
of Supervisors After considerable discussion as to whether the Board wished to vote on
this application on it's own merit, it was the consensus that they would hear and vote on
the application tonight.
January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting.)
At 9:03 P.M., Mr. Fisher called for a three minute recess.
9:11 P.M.
Meeting was reconvened at
Discussion among Board members indicated their concern that the density was still too
great, and that the dam should be upgraded to allow additional accass to the property other
than the dangerous intersection at Route 250. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve
this application with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and the addition
of the following conditions:
1) The number of lots in the development be limited to 39.
2) The developer is to install a road across the dam (non-dedicated) to provide
access to Route 729.
3) Setback from Route Z29 shall be 100 feet from the centerline of the road.
Mr. Roudabush offered a second to Mr. Lindstrom's motion. Dr. Iachetta asked that the
condition limiting the number of~?units be made even tighter by using the following phrasing:
The number of lots in the development is limited to 39; with the reduction from the number
of lots shown on plan presented at the Board of Supervisors meeting of January 18, 1978, to
be made along Route ~29 on the west side of the lake. Dr. Iachetta's recommended amendment
to the motion was accepted by Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Roudabush. Mr. St. John reminded the
Board that since it would be a private road over the dam, if it should wash out,' the Board
could not require property owners to rebuild it; it would be strictly up to the property
owners by a vote of the homeowners association.
Mr. Parks asked if a temporary road could be installed over the dam, and Mr. Fisher
said it was the intention of the Board that a permanent non-dedicated, private road be
installed over the dam for use by all of the residents in this development, to be maintained
by the homeowners association. There was no further discussion, and motion for approval
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 4. Resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, Article 17, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, to provide for preliminary site plans.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4 and January 11, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker said this item has not been acted on by the Planning Commission, and re-
commended that the Board defer action until February 1st. Motion was offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Zachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-77-10. Arthur Wyler. To amend Section 6-1-23 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance to read: ~'Residential uses having a maximum gross residential
density of 24 units per acre." (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4 and January 11
1978).
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had not acted, and recommended the Board defer
action until their February 1st meeting. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconde~ by
Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, Article 19, Residential Planned Neighborhood, Section 19-3, USES PERMITTED.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4, and January 1!, 1978).
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had not acted, and recommended the Board defer
action until their February 1st meeting. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan as it relates
to the water a~d sewer jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4 and January 11, 1978).
Mr. Tucker read the County ~lanning Staff's report, which included a brief history of
this matter, and a letter from Mr. E. E. Thompson, Jr., Executive Director of the Albemarl~
County Service Authority stating their opposition in reduction of the jurisdictional areas.
"History
October 6, 1977:
Board of Supervisors requested Planning Commission to review
jurisdictional areas for conformance to Comprehensive Plan.
January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
O49
November 1, 1977:
Planning Commission recommended amendments to jurisdic-
tional areas to comply with Comprehensive Plan, provided
no area receiving service should be abandoned; Comprehen-
sive Plan also needs amendment
November 16, 1977: Board of Super¥±sors accepted recommendations of Planning
Commission. Public hearings required to: (1) Amend Com-
prehensive Plan; (2) Establish new jurisdictional area
boundaries
December 13, 1977: Planning Commission adopts resolution of intent to amend
Comprehensive Plan
January 10, 1978:
Public hearing by Planning Commission to amend the Com-
prehensive Plan as it relates to jurisdictional areas of
Albemarle County Service Authority
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be to Map 20 (which recommends
future service areas) in order to:
Correct the map for~Crozet;
Incorporate areas of existing and proposed development requiring such
facilities;
Incorporate areas currently receiving service;
Provide for enhancement of the existing systems.
The Albemarle County Service Authority remains opposed to any reduction in the
current jurisdictional areas. Staff opinion is that the proposed jurisdictional
areas substantively comply with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan
and are supportive of the goals of containing development within the designated
growth centers and discouraging sprawl-type development of the rural areas.
NOTE: The proposed jurisdictional areas to be presented by map have been amended
since last reviewed by the Commission and Board to include those areas currently
receiving service. There are two areas added to the map where no service is
currently provided:
e
That area between Route 29 North and Route 606 and the general airport area
has been included to provide service to the airport properties and Teledyne
(if necessary) and to improve general water service by a looped system;
That area bounded by Route 250 West and Route 751 to make water available
to an existing subdivision."
"November 16, 1977
To:
From:
Gerald Fisher, Chairman
E. E. Thompson, Jr.
Executive Director
Jurisdictional Areas
The Albemarle County Service Authority Board unanimously requeststhat
existing jurisdictional areas not be reduced in size. In fact we request
that area seven in the area adjacent to Biscuit Run be expanded to the ridge
lines on both slopes as requested in our last meeting. There are other areas
that according to the County Planning Department aDpear to be ready for
development in the near future and lay just outside our operating areas.
A joint effort should be undertaken by our staff and the planning staff
to see where orderly expansion of jurisdictional areas should take place.
This would be presented to our Board sometime after the first of the year
followed by a formal report from tkem.~t
Mr. Tucker presented a map showing present jurisdictional areas being served, areas
with partial service, and areas recommended for future total or partial service. Mr.
Thompson reviewed the map again for the Board. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
opened, and the only person to speak was Mr. Max Evans, who asked if there was water service
in the Biscuit Run area. Mr. Thompson said no. No one else from the public wished to speak
either for or against this petition.
After considerable discussion of present and future plans of the Service Authority, it
was suggested that this matter be deferred until the meeting of February 8, 1978, and that
the following information be prepared for presentation at that time:
1. A map showing the jurisdictional boundaries as recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. A mBp showing the jurisdictional boundaries as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
3. A map showing those areas in which the Service Author£ty now has
customers.
4. Developments presently in existence in the "pink" areas are to be
shown.
5. Developments that have already been approved contingent upon their
being served by public water and/or s~wer are to be shown.
6. These maps are to be of a large enough scale that distinguishable
landmarks, road-numbers, etc. are easily found.
7. The Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors is to be
invited to meet with the Board on this date to discuss controversial
areas.
050
January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Motion to defer was off~red by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Windsor Plat. Mr. Lindstrom explained his reasons for
calling this matter before the Board. He stated the Planning Commission has adopted a policy
for land effected by the Runoff Control Ordinance. That policy being any lot effected by
the 200 foot setback requirement, must meet a 40,000 or 60,000 square foot requirement,
depending on number of utilities serving the property. Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning
Commission heard two plat requests for waivers of the 40,000 square foot requirement, and
granted one and refused the other even though they were substantially the same.
Mr. Tucker said the Windsor Plat received its waiver of the 40,000 square foot require-
ment by having two septic systems on each lot (17 or 30 lots received this waiver in the
Windsor development), subject to approval of the State Health Department, and it must be
noted on the plat and deed for each of those lots, that those two septic systems do exist.
Following some discussion by Board members as to what purpose the 40,000-60,000 square foot
requirement serves, Mr. Fisher requested representatives of the plats in question make brief
statements.
Mr. Frank Kessler, representing the Windsor Plat, said he felt the regulations were
very restrictive, but they were able to meet all of them except those imposed by the policy
of the Planning Commission. He then quoted a statement made by Mr. Gloeckner of the
Planning Commission regarding this policy.
"The policy requiring 40,000 square feet outside the 200 foot setback from the
stream...I think that's an excessive requirement. I think we can get by with
12,000 square feet or two sites. I agree with Max (Evans), I think we've
superimposed apples over oranges, and the ordinance is getting so restrictive
that we're forcing people to do a bad job rather than a good job. When this
came in it was highly received ~nd I still think it's one of the best sub-
divisions that's been brought in here in a long time, from the use of the
land. The major question though, I think, is the 40,000 square feet outside
of the 200 foot setback. I don't think that was intended by either juris-
diction. The Health Department initially in setting up the area considered
40,000 square feet for a garage, a house, a driveway, God knows what else,
maybe a swimming pool, some other amenities, even leaving some trees. You
would still only disturb 6,000 square feet for a septic field. Now we're
starting off with 60,000 square foot lots and we're asking for another
40,000 on behalf of each lot over and above the 60,000. I think our policy
should be that each lot should have two alternate sites and not limit it to
the square footage of the lot."
In addition, he made reference to a memorandum from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey to Mr. Robert
Tucker, dated January 3, 1978 regarding the Planning Commission policy.
"Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
January 3, 1978
Robert Tucker
J. Harvey Bailey
Windsor Residential Planned Neighborhood
Reference is made to our conversation relative to the subject development,
particularly to the location of septic fields.
This development is within a reservoir watershed and therefore subject to
the provisions of the Soil Loss Ordinance. Because less than five percent of
the area after development will be impervious surface, no permit is required.
However, the provision of the ordinance which requires that septic systems
be located 200 ' minimum distance from any stream, perennial or intermittant,
applies.
The Planning Commission on December 13, 1977 adopted a policy that requires
a m~nimum of 40,000 sq. ft. outside of the 200' setback where wells are utilized
provided the well is located within the 200' setback and meets Virginia Depart-
ment of Health requirements and setbacks from septic facilities; otherwise, a
minimum of 60,000 sq. ft. outside the 200' setback will be required. This is
in conformity with the earlier policy of 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size where
one utility is public or 60,000 sq. ft. where both water' supply and sewage
disposal are on the lot.
The Runoff Control Official's opinion was asked on this policy. It is
his opinion that an alternative should be offered the owner which would allow
the approval of a lot which has less than 40,000 sq. ft. of area outside the
200' setback, provided that there was sufficient area outside such setback to
establish two septic fields, either of which would be sufficient to the needs
of the lot. This means that the owner must prove to the satisfaction of the
Planning Commission that (a) he has sufficient area outside of the 200' set-
back; (b) the area is fit for use as a septic field; (c) it will serve the
dwelling that is to be constructed, and (d) whichever site is used initially
for a septic field, the alternate site will be reserved and not encumbered with
any use that would prevent its use as a septic field site. It would be nec-
essary for these sites to be clearly defined on the plat of record together
with a statement that nothing shall be done which would prevent either site
from being used as a septic field.
January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
051
Such an alternative will probably require some additional work on the
part of the staff as well as on the part of the developer. However, in our
opinion this alternative is in the spirit of the earlier policy, since it
will provide a backup unit to the septic system. It provides a way for the
planner to be more fleXible in making a layout and it reduces the use of land
for no concrete purpose.
I have discussed the above with Mr. Homer Cheavacci of the Health Depart-
ment. Mr. Cheavacci does not think he should recommend the above since he has
previously recommended the 40,000 sq. ft. provision.
There is a spring shown on Lot 20. This spring is to be enclosed and
drained through an mnderdrain for a distance of 240' to discharge in the
common open space. The existing stream channel will be filled. The 200'
setback line'.as shown on the Windsor plat will then be valid."
Mr. Max Evans presented diagrams showing how Windsor meets the Ordinance, ~b~ how the
Planning Commission's policy creates the difficulties which made the waiver necessary.
Mr. Fisher asked if anyone Was present representing Langford Subdivision, which was
denied a waiver by the Planning Commission, and noted that no one was present. Mr. Tucker
then said the major difference between Langford and Windsor was the characteri.stic of the
land, Windsor being gently rolling and Langford being hilly and having steep slopes which
caused further reduction in usable land areas.
Mr. St. John said his opinion was that you cannot require two drainfields outside the
200 foot setback where you have a subdivision as a matter of right as in the case of
Langford. This would have to be placed in an ordinance and have a public hearing held on
the subject.
Motion Was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, that the Planning
Commission's policy be reviewed by the Commission, staff and County Attorney's office to be
certain that the policy concurs with the ordinances on the books, and is not' more stringent
than those ordinances. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
At 11:08 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess. Meeting reconvened at 11:13 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 8. Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Agnor recommended that this mattel
be deferred to February 8, 1978, due to lack of time at tonight's meeting. Motion to defer
was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 10. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor read the application by Mr. James P.
Towe requesting a lottery permit for the 1~78 calendar year for the Seminole Trail Volunteer
Fire Company. Motion for approval was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudsbush,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
MEssrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 11. Appointments. Motion ~as o.f~ra~ed ~' Dr~ ~acheltta to appoint Mr.
E. Shannon Shirley of 1290 Seminole Trail~ Cha~lot~s.¥'~21'e~i.to ~ha"iEqual~z~tion'Board for
the calendar year 1978; and that a letter of appreciation be sent to Mrs. Marilyn Edmunds
for her service on that Board. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindst~om and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Not Docketed: Mr. Dorrier requested time on a future agenda to interview persons for
the Mental~Health Board. Mr. Fisher said lunch time during the February 8th meeting would
be appropriate.
Messrs. Fred Landess, Kenneth Fox and James Niblet, representing the General Electric
Company, requested the Board to hear G.E.'s requested appeal of their site plan prior to
receiving the decision regarding the availability of Industrial Access Funds. They noted
that this decision is not due until sometime in mid-February, and that General Electric's
schedule is critically behind, i
Mr. Fisher said the site plan hearing could be set for the next meeting of the Board
of Supervisors, and he could request the staf£'s opinion as to how not receiving state funds
'for road improvements would effect the proposed plan. Mr. Fox agreed wit~ Mr. Fisher's
suggestion. Mr. Fisher continued that it was the i~tent that at least on~ member of the
Board of Supervisors would be present at the Highway Department's meeting the Industrial
Access Fund request is heard.
O52
January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
February 1, 1978 (Special Called A~ternoon Meeting)
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. R0Udabush, to set the site plan ~'~
appeal for the meeting of February 1st, and obtain staff opinions on how not receiving in-
dustrial access funds would effect approYal of this site plan. Roll was called, and motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Agnor distributed to Board members a memo noting the policy of the School Board
regarding the destruction of old school books.
Claims against the County for the month of January, 1978, are set out below:
Commonwealth of Virginia - Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction - Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville - 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
General Operating - Capital Outlay Fund
$ 18,795.32
603,691.31
2,123,802.21
41,547.30
30,212.98
782.92
50,443.92
117.67
18,680.68
16,506.00
Total - $2,904,580.31
At 11:25 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned.
Chairman
February 1, 1978 (Afternoon -
Special Called Meeting)
Pursuant to the following notice which was mailed on January 23, 1978, the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, met in special session at 3:00 P.M. on February
1, 1978, in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
"Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. and Mr. W. S. Roudabush have requested a
special meeting of the Board of Supervisors for 3:00 P.M. on Wednesday,
February 1, 1978, in order to discuss legal matters in executive session.
The meeting is to be held ~in the Board Room."
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers present:
St. John.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R.
The meeting was called to order at 3:12 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher who noted
that although the letter calling this meeting requested same for discussion of only legal
matters, property acquisition also needs to be discussed and this can be done because all
members are present. Motion to adjourn into executive session with the above named Board
and staff members and Mrs. Opal David and Mr. William Poff, was offered by Dr. Iachetta
and seconded by Mr. Dorrier. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs..Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned.
man ' -