1977-07-20NJuly 20, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
~ regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was~held
on July 20, 1977, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia
Present: Mrs. 0pal D. David and Mess~s. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., J. T. Henley, Jr.,
Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-77-06. Daniel A. and Lorene L. Robinson. (Deferred from June
1, 1977.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and noted the applicant
has requestem the Planning ComMission to d~fer this matter until August 2, 1977. Mr.
Fisher felt the matter should be deferred ~ntil the Planning Commission has acted and be
readvertised for a public hearing at that time. Dr. Iachetta then offered motian,_to~fhat~
effect. Mr. Dottier seconded the motion a~d same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 3. Resolution of intent to amend Section 18-2 of the Code of Albemarle
regarding general language and the definition of "subdivision". (Deferred from June 1, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker said this has been deferre
Board. He recommended it be readvertised
David then offered motion to defer this ma
by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier s
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fis
None.
d several times by the Ptanni~g ~C~ommis~&mn~and~;D~he
once the Planning Commission has acted. Mrs.
tter and readvertise same upon completion of work
~conded the motion and same carried by the
~er, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-77-10. Biscuit Run, Inc. To rezone 201.0 acres from A-I to
RPN/RS-1. Property is located on the westl side of Route 631, approximately 2 miles south
of Charlottesville, Virginia. County Tax,ap 89, Parcels 95 and 95A; County Tax Map 90,
Parcels 3 and 5, part thereof. Samuel Milller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on July 6 and 13, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker noted this item was not pr
has been dismissed by them; therefore, no
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-77-09. Walte
This item was deferred from June 15,
Mr. Roudabush asked if the applicant
Mr. Walter Young was present and said ther
At the present time, he has one septic sys
asked if one well serving two units and o~
operly brought before the Planning Commission and
action is needed.
r and Lucy Young. (Deferred from June 15, 1977.)
1977 so the Board members could visit the site.
intended to use both central water and sewer.
e would be a central septic system and a well.
tem and one well serving two houses. Mr. Fisher
e well serving three units would qualify as a
central water system. Mr. Tucker said he Iwould have to obtain a central well permit for
the well serving three units. Mr. Young ~aid there is plenty of water in.the area and the
soil is good. Mr. Roudabush supported th~ request since the railroad provides a reasonable
buffer between residential property and tee land to the north. Mr. Dorrier did not feel
this 'rezoning changed the character of th~ area and asked why the Planning Commission was
opposed. Mr. Tucker said it is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and a precedent
would be set. Mr. Fisher understood the ~oncerns of the staff and commission since a lot
of large parcels exist to the south and e~st of the railroad which would be subject to
subdivision if the railroad is used as a oundary line. Mr. Henley said a lot of that land
is steep and has terrain problems. Mrs.
which is needed in the County and offered
acres~from A-1 to RS-1. Mr. Henley second
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fi~
NAYS:' None.
Mr. Roudabush cautioned Mr. Young to
subdividing the land into lots since it wi
,avid said the community consists of modest housing
motion to approve the request to rezone 5.189
ed the motion and same carried by the following
her, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
find out about the well before platting and
11 be a factor in determining the number of lots.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: ZMA-77-12. James Maupin. To rezone 32.34 acres
from A-1 Agriculture to RPN/RS-1. Property is located on the northeast side of Route 684
at the intersection of Routes 684 and 691~ County Tax Map 55, Parcel 64. White Hall
M~gisteria~ District. (Advertised in the/Daily Progress on July 6 and 13, 1977.)
Mr% Tucker read the following staff ~eport into the record: "Ail the properties
surrounming the subject property are presently zoned A-1 Agriculture. The site is largely
wooded, rising as one proceeds northward ~rom Route 691. The surrounding area is generally
open agricultural land with light residential development. On the north side there are
large acreage residential lots; to the west a farm; to the south a combination of farming
and large acreage residential lots; and to the east, vacant and wooded land. At present,
July 20~ 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
three more off of Route 684. Previous to that, in March 1972, ZMA-196, requesting a rezoning
of the property from A-1 to R-1 was denied by the Board of Supervisors. The effective
a Plan calls for this site to be developed at a medium density (2.5 du/acre).
, the proposed Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to remain agricultural in
: The residential objectives of medium density areas note that these areas include
y single family units or cluster communities, townhouses or patio houses, with open
allowances. This development proposal calls for 22 lots, average size about 40,000+
uare feet to be served by public water. Mr. Tucker then read the following Comparative
Statistics:
of dwelling units
per acre
vehicle trips/day
of students
Existing Plat Existing Comprehensive Proposal
Plan
14.0 7 .0 22.o
0.5 2.5 0.74
102.2 540.2 160.6
91~3 49.1 14.6
Land Use Data
22 lots on 29.61~ acres, average and minimum_ size lot - 40,000 square feet
The staff is concerned over the low visibility available on Route 691 due to an almost
)linding sun in the late afternoon. With this in mind, the applicant has been advised by
staff that a preferable access layout may involve the use of only three main drives,
from Route 691, serving all 22 lots. This alternative would reduce the number of curb
on Routes 684 and 691 from six to three." Mr. Tucker said the applicant went back
amended the site plan so there would be only three entrances on Route 691 after the
~g Commission reviewed the request. It calls for the same number of driveways to
from Route 691, one of which is more dangerous in terms of its distance from Route
than any in the previous plat. It also calls for one joint entrance off Route 684
this being a reduction from the three entrances in the previous plat) which eliminates a
.ore dangerous entrance shown on the previous plat. This proposal also calls for two fire
to be installed in the central common area. Staff recommends approval of this
for the following reasons: a) The staff feels that this plan would reduce the
stripping which can occur under the presently approved subdivision; b) The Comprehensive
calls for a higher density for this area than the one being applied for; c) Although
proposed plan increases the intensity of the land usage as compared to the approved
~ubdivision plat, the staff feels that the plan has merit.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on July 12, 1977, recommended approval with
~he following conditions:
3.
4.
5.
Fire Marshal approval of fire fighting facilities including the water
source, hydrant locations, access facilities and the installation and
dedication to Albemarle County Service Authority of an 8" water line
having its source at the nearest hydrant on Route 684;
Engineering Department approval of private drive specifications;
Highway Department approval of entrance locations and commercial entrances;
Albemarle County Service authority approval of water lines;
Ail proposed common areas are to remain undisturbed with the exception of
the recreation areas and driveways as noted on the plan;
Written Health Department approval~
Only three driveways are to be used in serving all lots in the development;
County Attorney's Office approval of Maintenance Agreement for the maintenance
of all common areas and driveways;
No dwelling unit may be closer than 150 feet from their adjacent dwelling units;
The three entrances are to each have a 12 foot wide deceleration lane, 25 feet
in length, with a 25 foot taper.
Mr. Tucker recommended the addition of condition I1 which follows: Location of trees
be'~as ~hown on the plan marked "Received, July 20, 1977, Robert W. Tucker."
Mr. Tucker recommended the trees which have been cut be replaced and Mr. Maupin has
agreed. The Highway Department has reviewed the entrances and all requirements have been
met. Mr. Tucker then noted two letters requesting denial of this request from Ms. Carolyn
Wilcox and Mr. David Charters who felt the zoning should remain A-1.
At this time', the public hearing was opened. Mr. Max Evans, representing Mr. Maupin,
was present. He said the request is for an RPN because the land is subdivided into two acre
parcels and the existing subdivision has lots with joint drives for eight entrances. The
site also falls within the Crozet cluster in the existing Comprehensive Plan. The applicant
proposes to bring in an eight-inch water line for 1,600 feet along Route 684 which would
provide a hydrant at this location on Route 684 and three hydrants within the development.
The plan reduces the number of entrances to three and these three would have stacking space.
Mr. Evans then summarized the advantages of the plan and the reason the rezoning should be
approved: 1) The RPN designation is allowed in agricultural zones where it can meet the
number requirements and common open space to be shared by the residents. 2) Provides fire
protection by bringing water to the site. 3) Additional safety in terms of access and
egress from the site onto the existing highway. 4) A permanent buffer provided along the
highways and with the common open land which can be left in its natural condition or planted.
5) Configuration of the lots fits better with the land.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the applicant would be receptive to having less than three roads
entering onto the main road since Route 691 is narrow and unsafe. Mr. Evans said the entrance
could be reduced to one with an extremely long private road. Mr. St. John noted the policy
of the Board is not to permit more than ten lots on a private road.
Mr. Charles Mott, property owner in the immediate vicinity, was present. He was opposed
the plan as submitted. He discussed the visibility problems~and urged~the Board to
request the developer, the County Engineer, and the Highway Department, to seriously consider
the proposal of bringing one state approved public road off the highway into the subdivision.
He felt this was safer and the homes would be worth more. He noted one hundred and six
July 20, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Speaking next was Mr. Holmes Withers owner of property west of the subject property.
He was not opposed to the subdivision but requested some consideration be given to the
number of entrances since he owns a considerable amount of frontage next to this property.
With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Dr. Iachetta asked the distance from the first entrance to the property entrance on
the boundary near Route 691. Mr. Tucker said 150 feet which is enough room to have a longer
than twenty-five foot stacking lane. Dr. Iachetta felt the stacking lane should be at least
seventy-five feet in length. At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve ZMA-77-12
with the conditions of the Planning Commission but changing condition #10 to read: "The
three entrances are each to have a 12-foot wide deceleration lane, 75 feet in length, with a
25-foot taper." and adding condition #11: "Location of trees to be as shown on the plan
marked "Received, July 20, 1977, Robert W. Tucker." Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion. Mr.
Evans said the three entrances are privately maintained drives which have to be built to
commercial standards with a thirty-foot width and radius. He felt the twenty-five feet~
plus the twenty-five foot taper~ plus the thirty-foot in width and radius would be sufficient
on which to pull a bus. He felt regular deceleration lanes for the lots would be excessive.
Mr. Roudabush noted the highway department would require a standard deceleration lane if
this was a State-maintained road. Mrs. David felt in terms of having a pleasant place to
live, private roads are preferable than a state highway running through a subdivision.
Roll was then called on the foregoing 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. 7. Public Hearing: SP-77~35. John C. Cockrill. To locate an electric
wholesale supply on 55,160 square feet (approximately 1.3+ acres) zoned B-1 General Business.
Property is located on Route 20 North, just off Route 250 East, behind Audi-Porsche. County
Tax Map 78, Parcels 5C and 5D. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on July 6 and 13, 1977a)
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report into the record:
"This site and building are currently occupied by Cavalier Camping Trailer
Sales. Berlin Porsche-Audi is adjacent to the south and Ra'el Body Shop
is adjacent to the north. The applicant proposes to operate a wholesale
electrical supply company and maintain a residential and commercial lighting
showroom on this site. A small outside storage area would be maintained
at the back of the building. A special use permit was granted for this
property for a travel trailer sales. A condition of this special use permit
was compliance with the site plan prepared by M. Cox and dated October 3,
1972. Upon review of the site, staff opinion is that this site plan has
not been complied with adequately. As the site has been developed, compliance
with the plan at this time would be difficult. (The property owner is the
same as at the time of the previous permit.) The current applicant is anxious
to occupy the site, therefore, conditions have been developed by the staff
which permit occupancy soon and at the same time, provide opportunity to
determine if the site, as developed, is adequate. Staff recommends approval
with the following conditions: 1) The applicant or property owner shall
post bond for certain improvements shown on the plan by M. Cox and dated
October 3, 1972. For the purposes of this condition~ the site shall be
considered to be undeveloped and graded as shown on the plan. Specific
items to be bonded for landscaping are as follows: Trees indicated shall be considered
eleven white pines 10' in height. Shrubs shall be considered to be eleven
Burford Holly 2' in height. (Staff did not have the recommendation from
the County Engineer or the Highway Department at the time the staff report
was written, but now a and b of the staff report are not needed since the
facilities are deemed adequate.) 2) Approval of revised site plan to include
landscaping plan with provisions for seeding of bare slopes. This shall not
be required prior to occupany; 3) Abandonment of SP-214. This can be accomplished
through written request to the Planning Department by the property owner;
4) Approval of appropriate staff and local agencies."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP-77-35 on July 5~
1977, with the following conditions:
Staff approval of landscape plan. Landscape plan to be executed or
bonded prior to occupancy;
Approval of the application constitutes repealer of SP-214, effective
August 1, 1977;
Approval of appropriate state and local agencies.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
was present and urged approval.
Mr. Dave Wood, representing the applicant
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve SP-77-35 with the conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the followi
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda item No. 8. Public Hearing: Shelter Associates. SP-77-36. To amend SP-100-76
(a special use permit for a craft shop) to add 0.467 acres to the site~ for a total of 0.909
July 20, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report:
"Character of the Area--Though designated as a village cluster in the
Comprehensive Plan with a year 2000 population of 1,000 persons, Free
Union remains a "crossroads" community. There are several single-family
dwellings in the vicinity of this site.
Staff Co~ent--The applicant is requesting amendment of SP-100-76 (craft
Shop) to add acreage to the site. The original application was for 0.88 acres
(Tax Map 29, Parcel 43), however, when the property was'surveyed, the applicant
discovered the parcel contained only 0.442 acres. At this time, the applicant
wishes to add 0.467 acres to this parcel for a total of 0.909 acres. Approval
of this petition would permit expansion of the craft shop activity on this
new property. Public comment received during~hearings of SP-100-76 was
favorable to that application~ Staff recommends approval subject to conditions
of SP-100-76."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended on July 12, 1977,
approval of SP-77-36 with the following conditions recommended previously on S?-100-76:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Approval of appropriate state and local agencies, including the
Building Official and Fire Marshal;
Ail woodworking is to take place within the existing warehouse or
replacement building;
No outside storage of materials;
Employees working in the building shall be limited to five full-time
employees;
No retail sales from the premises;
A written statement requesting abandonment of SP-536 by both the
applicant and property owners;
Site plan approval;
In the event the Zoning Administrator determines this use to be a
nuisance to the surrounding residential uses, he shall refer this
petition to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for
further review;
Removal of inoperative autos and debris to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator.
The public hearing was opened. Ms. Ann Christhilf, the applicant, was present. With
one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Roudabush offered motion to approve SP-77-36 with the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded~vo~e?~
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
F~ieda Agee
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: ZTA-77-04.? To amend the A-1 Agricultural Zone of
the Zoning Ordinance, Section 2-1-25(28), which reads as follows: "Restaurants located on
or adjacent to motel premises." The request is to delete the language "Located on or adjacent
to motel premises." (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 6 and 13, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report:
"The staff is opposed to further commercialization of the Agricultural
zone and therefore, recommends denial of this petition. The staff
recognizes that as energy and transportation costs become prohibitive,
certain commercial and service uses should be decentralized to serve
the rural population, however, staff opinion is that these uses
should be restricted to community and village clusters. Should
the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff
recommends the following amendments:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN A-1 ZONE
Section 2-1-25(28) Restaurants, Sit-down
DEFINITION
Section 16-73.1
RESTAURANT, SIT-DOWN: Any building in which
for compensation, food or food and beverages are
dispensed for consumption on the premises. This shall
not include such establishments where food is served
over the counter in disposable containers designed to
be carried from the premises."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on July 5, 1977, recommended denial.
The public hearing was opened. The applicant was not present. No one else was present
to speak for or against the petition. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said the normal procedure is to defer an item when the applicant is not~
present. Mrs. David felt the applicant should have a chance to appear before this Board.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to defer ZTA-77-04 to August 3, 1977. Mr. Dorrier
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
July 20, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: SP-77~37. Preston A. Coiner. To expand an existing
recycling plant for outside storage of flat bed trailer trucks for a trucking transfer
terminal, on 3 acres zoned M-1 Industrial. Property is located on Broadway Street~ in the
Woolen Mills area, near the C and 0 Railway, and north of 1-64. County Tax Map 77, Parcels
40E and 40F. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on Jul-y 6 and
13, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report:
"Character of Area--Cardinal Recycling Center~ Inc. exists on this site.
Two rental dwellings exist to the southeast. Other properties are vacant
and open. Properties in the immediate vicinity are zoned M-1 Industrial
Limited.
Staff Comment--The applicant has a trucking company client interested in
testing the market potential of the Charlottesville area and activity
proposed at this time is limited. Transfer of goods from one truck to
another would occur on the site. One full-time employee would be housed
in the existing warehouse. No site development or building is proposed.
Staff recommends approval of this petition with the following conditions:
Activity limited to area shown on plat (W.S. Roudabush 12/3/74);
Approval of truck parking scheme by Planning staff and Fire Marshal;
Staff review of any building permit application to determine if site
plan is required."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval on July 5,
1977~ with the conditions of the staff.
Mr. Roudabush noted for the record that the plat was done by him in 1974 but he does
not have anything to do with this application.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Preston Coiner~ the applicant was present. With no
one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. David to approve SP-77-37 with the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded
vote.:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
The Board recessed at 9:07 P.M. and reconvened at 9:12 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 1t. SP-77-38. George W. Clark. To locate a custom slaughterhouse on
100 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is located on the east side of Route 712, apt
maSely one-third mile from the intersection of Routes 721 and 29 South. County Tax Map 87,
Parcels 57 and 57C. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on July 6 and 13, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report:
"Character of the Area--This site is open, rolling pasture, currently grazed.
From Route 712, the property slopes downward to the North Fork of the Hardware
River and then upward to a ridge which is approximately the east property
'line. Pines between Route 712 and the stream have been recently cut; the
remaining grove is the proposed location of the slaughterhouse· A few groves
of hardwoods are to the east of the stream. Properties to the north and west
are generally small parcels while properties to the east and south are generally
large. Most land in the area is open and rolling in nature.
Staff Comment--The applicant proposes to locate a custom slaughterhouse 60
feet from Route 712. Cattle and hogs would be slaughtered at an average of
60-70 head per week with the maximum expected slaughter of 100 head per week.
The applicant proposes a five-day work week with a maximum of six employees.
Staff recommends denial of this petition for the following reasons:
Location: The applicant has stated that the proposed location on the
property is the only location acceptable to him. During public hearings
for the custom slaughterhouse amendment, both the staff and members of
the Planning Commission indicated that, due to the nature of such use,
a minimum setback of 200-300 feet from roadways and property lines
would generally be required (As proposed, a variance from the A-1
setback would be required);
Character of the Area: Due to the open~ rolling nature of the land
in this area, this use would be visible from unexpected distances. This
site is visible from Red Hill Elementary School approximately 3,000 feet
away. Due to the open character of the area, noise would be a problem
at a greater distance than it would if the site were densely wooded;
Roads: Access to the site for cattle trucks is due to the narrowness
and alignment of the roads in the area. Route 712 from U.S. 29 to the
site is curvy and has a width of approximately 12 feet. Route 712
in front of the property is about 19 feet wide, however, it is constricted
to the south by a one-lane bridge about 12 1/2 feet wide. Travel width of
Route 760 varies from about 13 to 18 feet. Staff is concerned about
safety due to the narrowness of these roads; especially school bus safety~
July 20,1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Hardware River: This property is about 300 feet wide between Route 712 and
the Hardware River. While the staff has no flood data, staff is concerned
about flood problems especially since a distance of 50 feet to the stream
from the septic drainfields is acceptable to the Health Department. (The
staff has requested a detailed flood plain study of the Hardware River
by the Army Corps of Engineers as a part of the on-going Flood Insurance
Rate Study). Septic~.iI~tias would c0nsist of two-l,500 gallon septic
tanks and 1,400 lineal feet of drainfield. The two drainfields would
cover about 1/3 acre."
Mr. TucMer said the Planning Commission on July 5, 1977, recommended denial. He noted
a number of letters received in opposition to this request which are attached to the staff
report, which is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Gale Pickford, representing Mr. Clark, was present.
Mr. Pickford said the applicant is willing to locate the facility anywhere on the site that
the Board approves, but the Health Department has indicated this location because of the
stream. The trees which have been cut would have been cut anyway because of the septicfield
locations approved by the Health Department. With the fifty-foot setback required by the
Health Department and the seventy-five foot setback required by the Zoning Ordinance, the
area suggested by the applicant is the only reasonable location because if Mr. Clark had to
build a bridge to get across the stream the project would be economically unfeasible. Mr.
Clark is offering the entire one hundred acres for whatever requirements might be put on the
facility. He said the facility will be modern and he could not understand the objections
because the operation is contained within the building and cannot be seen. Mr. Pickford
said the staff recommends denial because of the roads in the area. There are five different
routes leading to this site. The business would have to be run on a set schedule to be
effective and efficient. Mr. Pickford said the facility will be governed in operation and
conStruction by the Code of Virginia as well as having sanitary regulations imposed through
the Virginia Meat and Poultry Inspections Act which is regulated by the Virginia Department
of Agriculture. Mr. ?ickford said a site plan must first be approved by the Virginia Departm.
of Agriculture.
Speaking next was Mr. David Baldock from VPI Food Service and Technology Service. Mr.
Baldock said he assisted people all over the state with this type of operation. He then
showed some slides of a plant in Russell County which is located in the rural area of the
County.
Mr. Pickford noted the slaughterhouse located in Staunton which is in a residential/comm~
area and is closer to Route 250 than seventy-five feet.
Mr. James Murray, Jr., representing the ad-hoc homeowners in the Crossroads community,
spoke next. He felt the policy of the Board and the Planning Commission has always been to
consider the effect of a change in land use by the comprehensive plan. He pointed out that
the 1971 and 1977 comprehensive plans recommend this area be a village community. The
proposed location of the slaugherhouse is on the edge of the boundary of the proposed village
He then noted some trends set out in the comprehensive plan where a dozen or more residential
subdivisions of five lots were developing in the immediate vicinity of the slaughterhouse.
Mr. Murray said both plans called for a scenic vista or a overlook on 29 south just above
where the slaughterhouse is to be located. He felt the Board should follow the recommendatio~
of the plan as well as the advice of the Planning Commission and deny this request.
Speaking next in opposition was Mr. Larned Randolph. He was not present to speak
against the slaughterhouse; only to its location in the North Garden area. He did not feel
this type of business should be located within half a mile of fifty-three houses, a church
and a school. Even though a quarry and an asphalt plant has been there for thirty years~ he
was against this type of business. He then showed some photos of a flood at Route 712 where
it crosses the Hardware River and emphasized that the area does flood.
Speaking next in opposition were Messrs. Charles Hunt, Russell Block, Ralph O!iver~
Robert Smith, George Green, Mort Sutherland, Ken Spisso, and Mesdames John Mays, Ann Farrish,
Robert W. Smith and Betty Powell. The above speakers owned property close or adjacent to
the proposed site. These property owners requested denial for the following reasons:
noise, odor, insects, flies, pollution of the stream, depreciation of their properties,
dangers of the road and this type of building in a residential community.
Mr. Murray said two septic system experts spoke before the Planning Commission. One
said the majority of these facilities are on a municipal sewer system with large volume
capacities. He said if this permit was approved, one hundred animals could be slaughtered a
week and with about ninety-four vehicle trips per day, counting the trips to the plant, not
counting the additional trips to pump out the sewer system.
Dr. Baldock said the septic system is the only method for disposal in certain rural
areas. He said the reason for two septic systems is the waste from this plant is much
stronger than from a house and pumping may have to be done. If such is the case, a buffer
'system would be available. He noted a similar one in Floyd County which has been a success
and had no problems with flooding. With this system, there would be presettling before it
is distributed into the drainfield.
Mr. Pickford said the real physical problem is the requirement to set the building
back further than seventy-five feet. Due to the stream, the Health Department will not
~ss~e?~p~mit~o bm~dLw~in the flood plain. He r~minded the Board that this is in the
A-1 district and the purpose of the district is to preserve and promote farming. He did not
feel Mr. Clark would invest $150,000 to $200,000 if it would depreciate the value of the
other properties because it would have the same effect on his. He noted that the Department
of Agriculture and the State Code govern this type of facility and Mr. Clark would obey all
such regulations.
at
rciat
July 20, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Mr. Sam Spangler, owner of Spangler's Farm Supply, was present. He supported the
request because such an operation is needed in the County. He had been down the roads in
question and never had any problems. He noted the s!augherhouse located on the VPI campus
and the fact that no noise or smell is generated from that facility. He felt the Board
~Hould visit the site and see the terrain before making a decision.
Mr. Henry Page from North Garden spoke next supporting the request because of its
convenience. He stressed the fact that no problems exist with smell or noise from the
Staunton plant which is located within the city limits.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher felt the recommendations of the staff and Planning Commission should be
adhered to. He agreed that the roads are inadequate for any type of commercial operation
and was concerned that this use was incompatible with the rest of the existing neighborhood.
He noted his concerns when the application was received to change the zoning ordinance to
ailow this type of operation as to whether or not the agricultural zone should be opened to
allow these facilities. He is now convinced that this use is incompatiable with the true
agricultural area. if there were several hundred acres that this could be located interior
and protect the residents from any sight or other kinds of problems discussed, he would have
less trouble in supporting the application. He felt the area in question is a mixture of
agricultural and residentia~ uses and too many citizens would be affected for him to support
the request.
Mrs. David felt it should be remembered that this is a special permit being considered
and the background is that abbatoirs are generally only allowed in industrial districts.
When the Zoning Ordinance was amended to permit custom slaughterhouses in the A-! district,
it was done with a great deal of reservation. Several members of the Planning Commission
f~lt a minimum setback of two to three hundred feet from roadways and property lines should
be required and it should be located on large parcels well away from residences. Based on
those feelings, she did not belive the limitations were met in this request.
Mr. Roudabush said he recognized the need and supported the amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow custom slaughterhouses in the A-1 district but he does not feel this
location is correct for the facility. His greatest concern is the disposal of waste material
and the disposal method being by septic tanks. Zn the d~scussi~n, this facility has been
compared to ones in Floyd County and Staunton. He felt they were hooked onto a public sewer
and~no single family residential uses are located nearby. The consumption of water would be
2,000 gallons per day which is equivalent to six residential homes on one septic system
which is not permitted by the County. The capacity of the septic tanks would be a total of
3,000 gallons with a total of 2,000 gallons of water each day, he felt that was pretty
marginal if there was any malfunction with the percolation of the soil. Therefore, he could
not support the~request.
Dr Iachetta felt an A-1 zone is being created in the County which has nothing to do
with agriculture. He felt the trend of the area in question is more residential and it is
completely inconsistent to put a s~aughterhouse in the middle of such a section. He felt if
this type of use is permitted, it should be in a truly agricultural area.
Mr. Dorrier 'agreed~ with Mr. Roudabush. He sympathized with the farmers that a slaugherh¢
was needed in Albemarle County, but he felt this location was improper for such a use. He
felt there were too many objections for him to support the request.
Mr. Henley felt the idea should be better accepted by the community and could not
support the request. However, he did not feel the business would be obnoxious because there
would be no outside pens. He did not know how one would ever put it on 100 acres and still
have public sewer. He felt it could be put somewhere else and accepted by the citizens.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and deny the request. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
The Board recessed at 10:37 P.M. and reconvened at 10:47 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Resolution of intent to amend Chapter 18 of the
Albemarle County Code as it relates to fees for subdivision approval in order to require a
fee for the inspection of roadway construction. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 6
and 13, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department in Richmond needs some background about how the
County arrived at the flat fee oS $500.00 for roadway inspection. They feel there will be
legal problems if the actual cost is less than $500.00. They have suggested a maximum of
$500.00 or actual cost of the inspection. Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department requested
deferral until some new wording could be composed.
The public hearing was opened. No one was present to speak for or against the amendment
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to ~efer this matter to September 7, 1977. Mr.
Roudabush 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. 13. Application for a dance hall permit: Nordico's.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of an application for a dance hall permit under Section 3-14(b)
J~l[_20, 1977 (R~ular-Ni~ht Meetin~___
Dr. Iachetta asked how to distinguish a dance hall from a restaurant. Mr. St. John
said the State and County Codes state a dance hall can be any place open to the general
public for dancing. Even if the County did not have a Zoning Ordinance, the statute would
still apply that a permit.has to be obtained from the Board. Mr. Fisher asked if the permit~
runs with the property. Mr. St. John said it is issued to the person operating the dance
hall. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the dance hall permit. Mr. Roudabush
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. 14. Resignation from'Sign Committee.
Mr. Fisher noted letter dated July t, 1977 from Mr. Paul Holdren, submitting his resigna~
from the Sign Committee. Mr. Fisher asked that a letter be sent tb Mr. Holdren thanking him
for his service and a letter be sent to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Restaurant Association
asking for two nominees for this vacancy. Motion to accept Mr. Holdren's resignation was
offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
NOT DOCKETED.
Mr. Fisher noted the Albemarle County Farm Bureau's annual meeting to be held August 9
at Walker School.
Mr. Fisher said that several times during discussions of the Reservoir Ordinance,
members of the Board had discussed appointing a committee to work on a Watershed Management
Plan. He felt the purpose of such a committee should be submitted in writing.
Mr. Fisher noted letter received from Mr-. Robert Stroh, Chairman of the Library Board.
He said the Library will have a.$4,000 surplus from last year's contribution from the County
and they request permission to use that money to balance their current budget. He suggested
discussing this matter at the August 10 meeting.
Mrs. David said the pianning Commission on July 18 approved the Comprehensive Plan and
has forwarded it to the Board for their adoption. She did not feel any more work sessions
or public meetings were needed and urged the Board to have a work session consisting only of
the Board. Mr. Fisher suggested August 3, 1977, at 1:00 P.M. in the Board Room as a work
session on the Comprehensive Plan with a work shop on Housing for the Elderly at 3:00 P.M.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to advertise the Comprehensive Plan for a public
hearing on September 8, 1977, at 7:30 P.M., in the'Albemarle County Courthouse. Mr. Dorrier
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Motion was offered by Mrs. David to 'advertise an ordinance increasing the penalty for
failure to pay taxes in time from five to ten percent and setting forth date, manner of
payment, and interest provided by State law, for public hearing on August !0, 1977. 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.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of letter from Ms. Melinda. Wampler, Extension Agent, submitting
her resignation effective July 13, 1976. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to accept
the resignation of Ms. Wampler. seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, !achetta and Roudabush.
None.
Claims against the County for the month of July, 1977, were Examined, certified and
directed to the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds:
Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville-l% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
TOTAL:
$ 1,141.24
506,775.28
812,880.57
62,649.21
168,282.53
56,821.15
119.42
40,254.49
$1,648,923.89
July 20, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn the meeting to August 3, 1977, at
1:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
CHA!R~rAN
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on August 3, 1§77, beginning at 1:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from July 20, 1977.
Present: Mrs. 0pal D. David (arriving at 1:13 P.M.) and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier,
Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. Jo~n, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher, who announced that he had received a letter from J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer,
saying that well number three of the Meriwether Hills system had been connected.
Mr. Fisher also said that at a meeting in Scottsville recently, Mayor Thacker had a~ked
if the County's Soil Erosion Ordinance could be put into effect within the town limits. The
County Attorney has said it is possible for the County to enforce its ordinance within the
town limits if the town adopts its own program; adopts j6intly with the County an erosion
and sediment control program; or authorizes the County to adopt such a program for the town.
Mr. Fisher said during Mr. Agnor's absence, the option agreement for purchase of the
Post Office was received. He, therefore, signed on behalf of the County and now akks for
ratification of his action by the Board. Motion to authorize the Chairman to sign on behalf
of the County was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. David.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of application of the Potomac Edison Company for an increase in
rates; Virginia State Corporation Commission case number 19810. A public hearing on this
request will be held on 0etober 4, 1977, at 10:00 A.M. in the Commissioner's Courthouse,
B!anton Building, Richmond, Virginia.
Mr. Fisher noted that he had received a resolution from City Council with regard to the
financing of the new library facility. They noted that it is their hope to finance this
project without a referendum.
Mr. Dorrier said he had asked Dr. Vivian Gordon, County representative to the Monticello
Area Community Action Agency Board to be present today to report on a change in one of
MACAA's programs. Dr. Gordon noted that a proposal from the Monticello Area Community Action
Agency for a senior ci±~zen's progmam was rejected by the Jefferson Area Board on Aging.
JABA intends to award the contract to a new group called Jefferson Area Senior Citizens.
MACAA is appealing that decision. Dr. Gordon said a copy of the appeal would be presented to
the Board. She mentioned the following points.
The new Jefferson Area Senior Citizens group plans to serve more meals
than outlined in MACAA's proposal. MACAA did not know and was not
informed that Title III funds could be diverted to this program. Now
that this is a known fact, they can increase the total number of meals
served by $14,300.
MACAA's program has been the only ~rogram in the state that used USDA
commodities entirely. Their projections for the next year were based
on past experience and the MACAA Board feels that the projections of
the new group are overly optimistic. Dr. Gordon said there were many
factors involved in the competitive bidding. For one thing, the group
against whom there were bidding (for all practical purposes) represents
JABA. That is one of the things that MACAA wants to clarify. This
group has no advisory board and it also has no staff. It ms a three
member unincorporated group. MACAA therefore would like to know if