1977-05-04NMay 4, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on May 4, 1977, at 7:30 P. M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and
W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. and Gerald E. Fisher.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Planner, Robert W.
Tucker, Jr.; and County Attorney, George R. St. John.
Agenda Item 1. Call to order. Meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman, J. T.
Henley at 7:35 P. M. He first made an announcement that the League of Women Voters was
h61ding a meeting on June 2, 1977 at 8:00 P. M. in the University of Virginia Law School for
the purpose of discussing City/County relations.
Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Application of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Jaycees to hold a circus on property on Pantops Mountain. (Advertised in The Daily Progress
on April 20 and April 27, 1977.)
Mr. Agnor read the following letter of request:
April 1977
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees wish to apply for a permit to
sponsor the Hagan-Wallace, Sells and Gray Combined Circus on Pantops
Mountain on parcel number 17D, E, and F, Tax Map 78, on Saturday,
May 14, 1977. There will be two performances--4:30 and 8:00 p.m.
We have made arrangements with Dr. Charles W. Hurt to hold the circus
on his property. The funds raised will be used in the many Jaycee
projects in the Charlottesville-Albemarle community.
Public hearing was opened, and first to speak was Mr. Dan Parks, representing the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Jayeees. He said they would be receiving cooperation from the
local police department in aiding the flow of traffic and parking of vehicles.
No one else spoke either for or against the petition, and motion was offered by Mrs.
David to approve the request. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Messrs. Dottier and Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing: SP-77-13. Anderson Thurman Rea. To locate a
mobile home on 2.5 acres zoned A-1. Property is located just off Route 635 near the Hi,h-
way Department property. County Tax Map 85, Parcel 25, Samuel Miller District. (Advertised
in The Daily Progress on March 22, 1977.)
Mr. Robert Tucker, read the Planning Staff report:
Character of the Area
This property is heavily wooded. An old house foundation exists at the end
of the driveway approximately 100 feet from Route 689. This property is
bordered on the east by a Highway Department equipment yard. Properties to
the north and west are heavily wooded. Three dwellings exist on the south
side of Route 689. Three mobile homes exist approximately ~/4 mile to the
north.
Staff Comment
Because of topography, this property is limited as to potential sites for
the proposed mobile home. In staff opinion, the prime location would be in
the area of the old foundation. Existing evergreen trees and vegetation
would substantially screen the mobile home from residences in the area.
If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this
petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance, except that
..... ~ -~obile home is to be located on or in proximity to the existing foundation
behind the existing screening.
2. Removal of rubble and trash to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator,
Mr. Tucker noted receipt of letters from Victoria Dibbern and R. J. Lawton, adjoining
property owners, objecting to the location of a mobile home. (Letters on file in the
Clerk's office.)
He then noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 5/2 with
the addition of a third condition to read as follows:
Well and septic system to reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator and State Health Department.
Mr. Rea was present, but had nothing to say to the Board regarding his request.
Ms. Carol Davis said she was a joint owner of some property which had road frontage
adjoining the Rea property. She noted some bad experiences with other mobile home owners
near her home, and wished not to see any additional mobile homes located in the area.
May 4, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Next to speak was Mr. Robert Thompson who said he felt the locating of mobile homes in
the area decreased property values. He also questioned the rules by which the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors approve the location of trailers through a Special
Permit when there is direct opposition. Mr. Henley noted that had there not been direct
opposition to the placement of the mobile home on the property, the request would have been
granted by the Planning Commission, and appearance before the Board of Supervisors would not
have been necessary.
Mr. William E. Smith said he lives across from the land in question. He said he was
not opposed to the location of a mobile home on the property in question, but asked for
clarification as to the number of feet a mobile home must be placed from the property lines.
Mr. Tucker read section 11-14-2 of the County Zoning Ordinance to him, which listed the
specific conditions aS to where and how the mobile home is to be set up.
Next to speak was Mrs. Victoria Dibbern who said it was not made clear at the Planning
Commission hearing, how old a home Mr. Rea's mobile home was. She also noted that the
approximate values of surrounding homes in the area are $70,000 and up, and that a mobile
home did not fit the character of the area. She also stated that people in the outer areas
of the County were not getting the same protection under the Zoning Ordinance as those
living closer to the City.
Mrs. Cash said she was a friend of Mr. Rea. She felt he should be allowed to use the
property for the location of the mobile home, and vouched for him as a clean, neat person
who would be very considerate of his neighbors.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and
Mr. Henley closed the public hearing.
Mrs. David said she attended the Planning Commission hearing, and visited the property
in question during the day. She described the area to the Board, and then stated she could
not see how the location of a mobile home would lower property values in any way. Mr.
Roudabush said the approval of mobile homes is not necessarily the philosophy of the Board,
but the law according to the Zoning Ordinance. If the mobile home meets the stated require-
ments it wilt be approved. He also felt it was a form of housing that the County could not
afford to eliminate as it was one which many poorer people could afford. Dr. Iachetta
said he agreed in that you could not deny a person a place to live as long as all the re-
quired conditions for installing the home were met.
Mrs. David said she wished to offer a motion for approval, but wished to reinforce the
third condition as set forth by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker suggested adding the
wording ~prior to occupancy of the mobile home" to the end of the third condition. Motion
was seconded by Mr. Roudabush.
Dr. Iache%ta asked for clarification of the word "reasonable" used in the third
cnndition. Mr. St. John said he felt it was alright to use this word. Mr. St. John then
asked what part the Zoning Administrator had regarding condition three. Mr. Tucker answered
that the Health Department will allow occupancy ff there is an existing privy, and the
administration wanted to specifically require that an individual well and septic system be
placed on the property.
There being no further discussion, roll was called, and motion to approve was carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier and Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing ZMA-77-03. Richard H. deButts, etal. To rezone
15.6 acres from B-1 Commercial and R-2 Residential to B-! Commercial. Property located on
the west side of Route 29 North about 1500 feet north of Rio Road. County Tax Map 45,
Parcel 108. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on April 20 and
April 27, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker~reads the Planning staff report:
Previous Applicatinn:~In ZMP-341, the applicant requested rezoning to B-I A
Business as in this application. On January 6, 1976, the Planning Commission
recommended denial and on January 28, 1976, the Board of Supervisors denied
ZMP-341.
Character of the Area
This property is in the Urban Area with residential, commercial, and in-
'dustrial uses located in the area. This property is located across from
Woodbrook Subdivision; an animal hospital and mobile home sales are located
to the north; two single-family dwellings are located to the south.
Zohing in the Area
The majority of the properties in the area are zoned B-1 Business or R-2
Residential. The parcel adjacent to the north of the subject property is
zoned B-1 Business. The parcel to the south is zoned B-1 Business and R-2
Residential (Zoning map to be presented at public hearing).
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium density residential use (2.5 du/acre)
for this property. Commercial uses are recommended at the intersection of Rio
Road and Route 29 North.
May 4, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
STAFF COMMENT
The staff recommends denial of this petition for the following reasons:
1. The request is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
2. S~aff opinion is that the Route 29 North corridor is commereiallycoverzoned;
3. There are currently over 1100 vacant acres of B-1 Business property in the
Urban Area. Staff opinion is that the Urban Area as a whole ms commercially
over-zoned;
4. The Route 29 North corridor is currently under study in terms of traffic
congestion. Staff is reluctant to support any increase in traffic-intensive
zoning at this time;
5. Staff can determine no change of circumstances since ZMP-341 which would
cause the staff to change its recommendation for denial.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission on April 12, 1977, by a vote of 4-2-1
recommended denial of the petition.
Mr. Henley opened the public hearing, and first to speak was Mr. Edward Bain, represent-
ing Mr. deButts and Mr. Hibbs applicants for the rezoning. Mr. Bain presented a map show-
ing a detail of the surrounding properties. He noted that if the small portion of the
property that is already zoned B-1 were used by itself, it could possibly be developed;
but to allow the entire parcel to be zoned B-1 and be developed that way, a very presentable
business eo~id be established, which was properly set back and screened. He also noted that
the majority of the adjoining property was already zoned B-1.
Mr. Steve Helvin said the most likely place for business to develop, is on major
highways because it is most accessible.
Mr. Bill deButts said negotiations are being held with a prospective user of the
property but since contracts are not finalized, he wished not to reveal their name. Mr.
Helvin concluded by saying that they intended the land for a good and proper use, and that
it was up to the Board of Supervisors to allow it.
No one else from the public spoke either for or against the petition, and Mr. Henley
declared the public hearing closed. Mrs. David asked why this parcel was split into two
different zones. Mr. Tucker said he thought it occurred in 1968 when the zoning law was
adopted giving properties on both sides of Route 29 commercial zoning of a 300 foot depth.
Dr. Iachetta said if the Board followed the argument that it was logical for business to
locate on main road ways, then most residential zoning would eventually be granted business
rezonings. He concluded by saying that he could not support the request.
Mr. Roudabush said the fact that the front of the property is narrow, and the back is
wide causes him to be critical of its potential uses. The properties only access is
Route 29 North through the narrow portion of the property, and he felt it could not ae-
eommmd~e~ the prospective number of vehicles as suggested by the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation.
Mrs. David said she hated to see any increase in commercial traffic on Route 29 North.
After some discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve the request. No
second was received to his motion. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to deny the
petition; no second was received to this motion, and at 9:00 P. M. Mr. Henley requested a
ten minute recess.
Meeting reconvened at 9:10 P. M., and Mr. Roudabush again offered motinn to approve the
rezoning r~quest. Motion was seconded by Mrs. David. Roll was called, and the motion was
approved by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Henley and Roudabush.
Dr. Iachetta.
Messrs. Dorrier and Fisher.
Not Docketed. Mr. Roudabush said he attended the Thomas Jefferson Planning Distric~
Commission meeting last evening, and was informed of an A-95 review for reconstruction of
Route 631 from Route 29 North to Route 743, Hydraulic Road. He was also ~old that the High-
way Department had noCcomment on the proposed reconstruction, because they had not received
the County's six-year highway plan. He then offered a motion to inform the Highway Depart-
ment and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission that the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors is in favor of the project. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iaehetta and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Dottier and Fisher.
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor announced that an open house was planned at the District Home
on May 22 from 2:00 P. M. until 4:00 P. M.
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor stated that two pieces of printing equipment had been tested
by the county to judge efficiency and possible cost savings to the County. After completion
of the tests, the company presented the County with a lease agreement providing for a lease
of five years with locked zn costs, renewable every year (to allow for budget appropriations
it will cost $824 per month, saving the County approximately $4,500 per year. Motion was
offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to approve the signing of the lease by
Mr. Agnor-for copying equipment. Motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Messrs. Dottier and Fisher.
May 4, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Not Docketed. Dr. Iachetta noted the opening of the new Seminole Trail Volunteer
Fire Company some time in June, and that it will be located at a temporary location until
it has a building completed on Berkmar Drive.
Dr. Iachetta noted that he would be meeting with the School Board tomorrow evening
regarding the budget, and that he planned to specifically discuss salaries for teachers.
There being no further business, Mr. Henley declared the meeting adjnurned at 9:12
P. M.
May 11, 1977 (Regular-Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on May 11, 1977, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building~
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present:
County Attorney.
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John,
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:07 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Mr. Fisher briefed the Board on the trip to Italy he and Mr. Dorrier recently took
and noted a pact of friendship signed between Poggio A Caiano and Prato, Italy.
At 9:15 A.M., Mr. Agnor left the meeting to greet the Youth in Government Day students.
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: June 2, 1976 (Night).
Motion was offered by Mrs. David to approve the minutes of June 2, 1976 (Night) as
presented. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Agreement for Subdivision Street Inspection.
Mr. St. John said the subdivision street inspection agreement has been approved by
the Department of Highways; therefore, he recommended approval of same and execution as
soon as possible.
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer felt the agreement was a necessary step to cure
problems the County had suffered since enactment of the Subdivision Ordinance. He felt
construction of subdivision streets depended upon a day to day inspection to assure that
upon completion there are no defects built into the street.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and expressed his support
of the agreement.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following agreement and authorizin
the County Executive to execute same:
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle~ Virginia, is responsible for the control
of subdivision and land development within the County, including inspection of
subdivision streets during construction; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Develop-
ment Ordinance, it is intended that subdivision streets be constructed for acceptance
into the Virginia Secondary Highway System; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has neither the financial resources nor the
manpower to undertake a full time subdivision street inspection program at this
time; and
~WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has personnel
currently available who are trained in carrying out such inspections and is
willing to aid the County in carrying out such inspections as aforesaid;
NOW, THEREFORE, this agreement by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
a political subdivision of the Commonwealth (hereinafter referred to as "the
County"), of the first part, ~nd the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, an agency of the Commonwealth (hereinafter known as "the Department")~
of the second part,