1977-10-19NOCtober 19~ 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on October 19, 1977, beginning at 7:30 P. M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse,
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 Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R,
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P, M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher made a few opening
remarks relating the history of the revised Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the Planning
Commission had recommended that the village of Lower Afton be removed from the plan./' Mr.
Tucker said, in his opinion, Lower Afton is not'an area designated as a Type II ~!~iage.
It is simply shown as an existing area on the maps, but it is not shown anywhere i'n the
plan as a village. -~"
Mrs. David said she felt the~staff had done a good job in deleting all references to
the Fashion Center Mall. However, the language beginning "and the impact study of the
proposed Charlottesville Fashion Center Regional Mall being prepared by the Department of
Highways and Transportation. Each of these should make a major contribution to area
transportation planning efforts." should be deleted from page 40, column 3, fourth
paragraph.
Mrs. David said as the author of the Scottsvi!le compromise, she did no~ feel that the
staff's work was exactly what she had in mind. She then suggested the following: On
page 34, column 3, a new paragraph be added with the heading "Town of Scottsville" to read
as follows: "The only population center in Albemarle County which is incorporated under
the provisions of Article VII of the Constitution of Virginia, is the Town of Scottsville~
It elects its own governing body; may have its own planning commission; and must have a
comprehensive plan for land use ~within its corporate limits by 1980. Planning for the area
outside the corporate limits will be a responsibility of the County Planning Department, in
consultation with the residents and the town planning commission. Because Scottsvitle has
some aspects of a regional center, providing shopping and various other services to
residents of nearby Fluvanna, Buckingham and Nelson coUnties, it may also be desirable to
involve ~ha Thomas Jefferson Planning District in developing the land use plan for areas
adjacent to the Town". Mr. Dorrier said he felt this was an excellent proposal and was in
keeping with the discussions held at the work session. Mrs. David then offered motion to
adopt this language and include same in the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mrs. David then recommended that, instead of the~ staff's correction number 108 for
Hollymead, that the following wording be included: "Map 15 outlines a preliminary,
generalized land use plan for the Hollymead community. A more detailed plan, to be
developed in consultation with the residents of the area, will supersede this preliminary
plan.~ Also' ±n place 'of cor~ec'ti~on numbe~ i0~ on Cr0.z~t ~the. lfollowing w~rding be added:
"Map 14 outlines a preliminary, generalized land use plan for the Crozet community. A more
detailed plan, to be developed in consultation with the residents of the area, will
supersede this preliminary plan." Mrs. David then offered motion to adopt the above wording.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:~
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and ROudabush.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Roudabush suggested that on Map number i on page 4 of the plan, the Charlottesville
Courthouse, be changed to Albemarle County Courthouse.
Dr. Iachetta noted that on Page 34, Table 38, it was not.changed to reflect the fact
that the Board had removed 20 acres of industrial land. Industrial acreage should be shown
at 1~5'
Motion was then offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the follow-
ing resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED pursuant to Article IV of Chapter ~, Title 15.1,
Code of Virginia, as amended:
THAT, WHEREAS, the governing body of Albemarle C~unty, Virginia,
adopted on September 16, 1971, a Comprehensive Plan for the physical
development of territory within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive revision of this Plan has been prepared
by Kamstra Dickerson & Associates, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, this revision has been reviewed by the Planning Commission
of Albemarle C~unty after duly conducted public hearings; and
October 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that this revised
Comprehensive Plan be approved and adopted by the Board of Supervisors;
and ~
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has reviewed
said revis, ed Comprehensive Plan and held duly conducted public hearings
thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Super~visors of Albemarle County approves
the said revised Plan as Presented with certain amendments and errata
as shown on the list attached to these minutes as Exhibit "B";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Beard of
Supervisors hereby adopts the document captioned "Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan - April 1977 - KDA - First Printing, April 14,
1977" which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, as amended by the items
set out on the list attached hereto as Exhibit B, and as further
amended by the minutes of this meeting, as the revised Comprehensive
Plan for the physical development of Albemarle County.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
(Clerk's Note: Exhibits A and B are on permanent file in the Office of the Clerk ~o the
Board of Supervisors. A copy of the Comprehensive Plan, as adopted, is bound under
separate cover and filed fn the back binder of Minute Book 15.)
Not Docketed: Mrs. David said, at the time the Board adopted the new runoff control
ordinance (September 29, 1977), she indicated that the Board should consider, at the earlies'
possible time, additional actions to deal with other aspects of the reservoir problem which
the Betz Report brought to light. With the adoption of this revised Comprehensive Plan,
the Board is in a position to take several steps which would not have been profitable to
pursue before the Plan was adopted.. She then made two proposals:
That the Board direct the Planning Staff to move immediately to
implement the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to drinking water
supply impoundments by identifying and presenting to the Planning
Commissibn, for review and.recommendation to the Board of Supervisors,
an area around the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to be designated as
a conservation district. Much of the necessary staff work to accomplish
this has already been done in connection with the so-called moratorium
ordinance, so it should be possible to comply with this request fairly
soon.
2. That the Board of Supervisors request the County Executive and the
Director of Planning to consider together what can be done to expedite
the revision of the Zoning Ordinance in order to make it an effective
tool for implementation of the new Comprehensive Plan and that this
recommendation be presented to the Board for action at the day meeting
on November 9th ~
Mrs. David said neither of these recommendations commits the Board to any action; both
are simply intended to get the machinery in motion.. She also had one additional recommenda~
tion on which she was not asking for approval tonight. This recommendation deals with what
she considers to be a basic flaw in the present Zoning Ordinance -- the use of "district."
and "zone" as synonymous. Mrs. David said this is needlessly confusing to the average
citizen and more importantly i~ cuts out of the zoning process a desirable degree of
flexibility which can and should be possible without threatening the basic guidelines of the
planning process for the orderly control of growth. She recommends that the Zoning
Ordinance be changed to reflect the distinction between "districts" (which are large areas
characterized by generally similar land use capacities) and "zoning" designations (which
indicate a range of densities and/or intensity of use within a given district). Mrs. David
then offered motion that the Board approve the two recommendations just given. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Mr. Fisher said he was not sure about the differences between the word zone and
district, or what the staff would do when designating a conservation district. Mrs. David
said she would read one paragraph from a memo she had handed to the Board that night.
"Assuming a conservation district is established around the reservoir -- no parcel of land
in that district would be zoned conservation. Some, if characterized by steep slopes and/or
proximity to the shoreline or primary streams, would probably be zoned RS-! with an allow-
able density of something between one dwelling unit per three acres and one dwelling unit
per ten acres. Existing homes on one acre would be zoned R-1 and Would not become noncon-
forming. Existing business properties would be zoned B-1 Or M-1 and would not become
nonconforming, but might have special conditions attached to their zoning approval to insure
protection against pollution of the reservoir. Some undeveloped parcels or portions of
undeveloped parcels might be approved for residential densities as high as R-3, provided
they meet the standards in the Comprehensive Plan and revised ordinance, and accept condi~
tions imposed to insure against pollution of the reservoir." Mrs. David said the
identification of the district simply indicates the boundaries of an area in which special
protective measures need to be taken whenever an application for zoning comes before the
Beard in the future. Mrs. David said the staff had already done some of this work while
working on the moratorium ordinance. They took an area and went back to the first ridge
line, but if parcels went outside of that ridge line, they extended the line to include the
whole parcel. Mr. Tucker said the staff could establish the area recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan by using the standards recommended in the plan. This would be no problem.
however, he did not know where the staff would draw the line in densities and land uses
recommended by the Plan. Mrs. David said the staff would not have to worry about densities
October 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
and intensities in her recommendation. She is trying to make a distinction between a
district, which is an area in which most of the land does not have special characteristics
that require special protection and zoning. In terms of establishing a district, you do not
have to consider zoning. Then when the zoning ordinance is revised, people will get the
zoning designation tha~. relates to the densities or intensities of use that the Board is
prepared to support.
Dr. Iachetta said Mrs. David's proposal has one serious flaw. He has always felt that
the County needs more control than just the Runoff Control Ordinance. This proposal would
leave everything hanging in an area where valuable time could be lost. If the Board is
serious about doing anything in the Way of downzoning any appreciable area around any water
supply impoundment in Albemarle County, they should give such notice now. If they are not
willing to do this, then matters should be allowed to take their natural course. The
Comprehensive Plan, just adopted, says that in areas of impoundments and in areas with
steep terrain, densities should be limited. If the Board is ser~us about implementing the
Plan, they should move ahead to put into place whatever restrictions are needed. If the
Board waits too long, they will have lost the opportunity to do anything construa~ive in
this area.
Mrs. David said she does not feel the area around the reservoir can have five acre
zoning applied overall. She feels there are a variety of land types in the area and there
are already things in place that the Board would want to leave in place. From that point
of view, it is wiser to start by defi~ing the area and then going to the question of which
properties need to be downzoned, what should be accepted as it exists, and which parcels
should be permitted to develop under controls the Board puts in place.
At 8:20 P. M., Mr. Fisher requested a recess. The Board reconvened at 8:23 P. M. and
continued with Mr. Fisher restating the motion and the second on the floor at this time. Dr.
Iachetta said he felt the motion is loose and undefined. Items number 1 and 2 recommended
could be separated since instructionally, number 1 is easy to do. The redefinition of how
to define parcels on the zoning map is a d~ferent issue. Mrs. David said she had no
objection to separating the motions and then withdrew her first motion and offered another
motion to adopt suggestion number 1 listed above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Mr. Fisher asked how long it would take the Planning Staff to identify the areas
proposed in Mrs. David's recommendation number 1. Mr. Tucker said it can be done in the
time it takes to advertise this for hearing before the Planning Commission. The staff will
take topographic maps and outline the slopes and the general boundaries of the conservation
district. At the same time, the staff will prepare an amendment to the text of the conserva~
tion district in the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Fisher said he was confused and asked if it was. Mrs. David's intent to move
toward downzoning around the reservoir so as to conform with the new Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. David said yes, if it is land that under the standards in the new Comprehensive Plan
would require downzoning. Dr. Iachetta said what the Board is faced with is the proposition
of downzoning a substantial number of acres around the South Fork Rivanna~Reservoir. His
original question to the Board was, are you really ready to do this? Dr. Iachetta said he
is. He feels the public is entitled to know the Board's exact intentions. The time has
come to make a decision on the questimn of downzoning. Mr. Fisher said he also feels that
it is important not to play games with words. Roll was called on the motion at this time
and said motion carried by the following recorded Vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Do~rier, Fisher, Henley.~.and Roudabush.
D~. Iachetta. ~
Mrs. David then offered motion to request the County Executive and the Director of
Planning to consider together what can be done to expedite the revision of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to make it an effective tool for implementation of the new Comprehensive
Plan, with their recommendation to be presented at the Board's m~eting on Novembe~ 9th.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs.~Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher then expressed the Board's gratitude to the large number of citizens who
.have' worked on the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, to members of the staff, and to Mrs.
David and Mr. Roudabush who worked on the~ steering committee.
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-77-57. Mr. and Mrs. Larry Fitzgerald. To locate a mobile home
on 37.5 acres zoned A-1. Property approximately 2.7 miles north of 1-64, in the northeast
quadrant of Route ~82 and I-6~. County Tax Map 73, Parcel 10, Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. (Advertised on September 6, 1977.) Mr. Tucker noted that this petition had been
withdrawn before the Planning Commission.
Agenda Item No. ~. SP-77-56 Mary V. Harlow. To locate a mobile home park for 10 lots
on ten acres zoned A-1. Property on southeast side of Route 729. County Tax Map 105,
Parcel 29, part thereof, Scottsville District. (Advertised on October 5 and October 12,
1977.)
Mr. Tucker gave the following, staff report:
"Character of the Area
The site for the mobile home park has recently been cleared (approximately
one acre)and all surrounding property is heavily wooded. A single-family
dwelling and two mobile homes exist on the property. The mobile:home park
would not be visible from dwellings in the area from the state'road. Numer-
ous mobile hom~s are located in this area of the County.
October 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Comprehensive Plan
The Land Use Plan recomma~nds conservation uses in this area with a residential
density of one dwelling per five acres° Under residential goals and objectives
the plan recognizes mobile homes as a method of meeting low and moderate housing
needs and encourages provisions for mobile homes.
Staff Comment
The applicant initially desires approval for four mobile home~spaces with later
expansion.to 10 spaces. The a~plicant has met with Planning, Zoning, and Engineer-
ing in review of the Zoning Ordinance requirements for mobile home parks and in
review of central water/central sewer procedures and requirements.
While this request does not comply with density recommendations of the Compre-
hensive Plan, staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
!. The request reflects housing provision policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
2 The site is secluded ~and unobtrusive;
3. Staff opinion is that the mobile home park would be compatible in this area
since numerous mobile homes have been located in the vicinity.."
Mr. Tucker said that on October 4, 1977, by a vote of 6/0/1 the Planning Commission re-
commended approval of SP-77-56 with the following conditions:
T'l.
Approval is for a maximum of 10 mobile home spaces~ however, the number of
spaces finally approved shall be governed by conditions set forth in this
petition.
e
Compliance with requirements of Section 11-9, Mobile Home Parks of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. Site plan approval."
Mr. and Mrs. 'Harlow were present in support of the petition. The public hearing was
opened. With no one risi~E~fto speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered
by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to approve SP-77-56 with the conditions recommended
by th~ Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-77-60 Peacock Hill Limited Partnership. To amend the Open Space
Plan of SP-253, a special permit for a planned unit development. The 332+ acres involved
zoned A-i/PUD are located in northwest quadrant of I-6~ and Route 708. County Tax Map 73,
Parcels 29, 29D and 29F, Samuel Miller District. (Advertised on October 5 and October 12,
!977.)'
Mr. Tucker gave~the following staff report:
"character of the Area
Peacock Hill is a Planned Community located in a rural area. Approved gross
density is for one dwelling per two acres ( 195 units ) which co~olies with
recommendations of the. Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment
The applicant is requesting two changes in the open space plan as approved
in October, 1975.
1. Subdivide a 40,000 square-foot lot on which the manager's house is
located (which is currently shown as open space); and
2. Subdivide nine, five-acre+ lots along the upper ridge of the property,
rather than clustering the units along that ridge as originally proposed.
The density of the planned community will remain the same with well over 100
acres in dedicated common open space or approximately one-third of the site.
The units originally proposed on the upper ridge will be relocated to the
southern portion of the property, south of the main entrance road."
Mr. Tucker said that on October 4, 1977, by unanimous vote the Planning CoF~ission re-
commended approval with the following conditions:
"1. Conditions of approval of SP-253.
2. No construction on slopes of 25% or greater.
Open Space Plan dated September 16, 1977, to become the open space plan
of Peacock Hill."
Mr. Frank Folsom Smith was present in support of the petition. The public hearing was
opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered
by Dr. Iachetta to approve SP-77-60 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Com~issio~
Motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
October 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-77-63 Town of Scottsville. To amend SP-77-i0, a special permit
for a flood control impoundment, to provide recreational facilities on Mink Creek impoundment
Property located in Mink Creek Valley adjacent and northeast of the Town of Scottsvi!le.
County Tax Map 130A(2), Parcels 3F, 3G, 3H and 6; and County Tax Map 131, Parcels 72, 73A
and 77; Scottsville District. (Advertised on October 5 and October 12, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"Character of the Area
The area is rural in nature with most properties in the vicinity heavily
wooded. This site has been selectively timbered. The flood control dam
and impoundment approved under SP-77-!0 is currently under construction.
Comprehensive Plan
While the plan does not sp!ecifically recommend an impoundment, this area
is shown for stream valley park and conservation uses. A community park
is proposed northwest of tihe shopping center on Route 6.
Local Parks and Recreatioln Plan
The Parks Plan recognizes the area of the County south of Carter's Bridge
as having above average re~creational needs. This area is characterized
in the needs matrix by low income, welfare, and juvenile delinquency.
Low income and welfare ind~icate a need for park location which maximizes
pedestria~ access. A high rate of juvenile delinquency indicates a need
for supervision and control of park facilities to prevent vandalism.
Even with supervision, par'k furniture and improvements should be in-
expensive and sturdy.
Staff Comment-
Mink Creek Park would be a! major water-oriented facility serving the
southern portion of Albemarle County and also western Fluvanna and
northern Buckingham Counties. While boating and fishing are provided
at Totier Creek Park, there are no public swimming facilities serving
the southern portion of thle County. Mink Creek Park would initially
provide for boating, fishing, swimming, and picnicking, with softball,
basketball, and other court and field sports in a later phase of develop-
ment. The park, situated adjacent to ScoStsville, would serve a target
population of about 4900 alccording to the Parks Plan.
Staff concerns with respect to this petition are as follows:
1. Under SP-77-10~ staff recommended restriction of the use of this
site to a flood impoundment because the issue of watershed protection
was not addressed at that time. As with the Rivanna Reservoir, the
County will bear the institutional responsibility for the protection
of this 650-acre watershed, about 10% of which is in Fluvanna County.
2. The main attraction of! this park is to be the provision of swimming
facilities. At the ti~e this staff report was written, no investi-
gation of Mink Creek has been made in terms of flow/stagnation,
bacteria count, or genleral water quality for suitability of swimming.
Since the flood control impoundment is currently under construction,
lower development costs can be realized by including park improve-
ments at this time. Staff opinion is that these basic studies should
be made prior to capital expenditure for the park.
While the staff remains concerned over issues of watershed protection
and suitability for s~imming, staff opinion is that these issues can be
resolved through attention in future planning and through appropriate
conditioning of this s~ecial use permit."
Mr. Tucker said that on October 4, 1977, by a vote of 6/2 the Planning Commission re-
commended approva~ of this petition with the following conditions:
'?1. Health Department ana%~sis of water quality to determine if Mink Creek
is suitable for swimmm~g. This study should also address potential for
stagnation so the County may evaluate the appropriateness of capital
expenditure versus ayah!able user-days per season;
2. Site plan approval;
3. Should the results of the water quality analysis prove the water in-
appropriate for swimming, boating and fishing will be permitted;
Screening of the entrance road off Hardware Street from Union Baptist
Church." ~
Present to speak for this petition were Mr. Tim Michel from the Piedmont Environmental
Council; Mr. Phil Burdett~ a student at the University of Virginia who had dra~n the Parks
Plan; and Mayor~Raymon Thacker.! Mayor Thacker said the Albemarle County parks Department
had looked at this site after i~ was reported in the Daily Progress that a park was needed
in the southern part of the CountY. They felt this might be a desirable place for a park
and would save the County money on acquisition of land and by the fact that the water is
already there. The Town itself is only asking for permission for f~hi~gC and boating. If
the County is interested in having this area as a County park, then the County will probably
want to have swimming. A question had come up earlier about whether the flow of this stream
was strong enough to provide s~mmming. In a letter'from Richard L. Williams, Consultant
Engineer, dated April 8, 1977, ~r. Williams had said "stream flow records from Mink Creek
October 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
and other comparable nearby streams are not available. Data obtained at the dam site in
February 1976 indicated that the flow rate was approximately 2.7 cubic feet per second (1215
gallons per~i.~minute) but this would vary with the seasons. The slope of the stream is
approximately two percent and the length of travel of Mink Creek above the dam site is
approximately 6,000 feet. Mink Creek is feed by several smaller creeks flowing from small ~
hollows within the watershed." Mayor Thacker reiterated the fact that the Town is only
requesting permission for fishing and boating. He said that if the County does not care to
use the property, they will probably put out picnic tables later.
Mr. Dorrier said the Town plans to start filling the lake in November and it will
probably be full in April or May. He had hoped, acting as liaison between the County and
the Town as Board Member, that the grading could be done while the machinery is there and
before'the water goes into the lake. The park~is envisioned to be built in phases. Phase
one would be the grading for the beach, installation of public water and sewer lines, a road
and construction of a bathhouse. This would be the most cost-effective way. for the County to
provide swimming for the southern part of the County and that is why the petition is being
brought at this time instead of in the future. Mr. Fisher said the applicant for this permit
is the Town of Scottsvi!le, but they will not be putting any money into the swimming portion
of the facility. Mr. Dorrier said the Town owns the land but they are willing to work with
'the County and he then offered for the record a letter from James M. Bowling, IV, dated
September 6, 1977.
"You have asked us to examine what legal authority the Department off Parks
and Recreation has to develop the recreational potential of the Mink Creek Flood
Control Impoundman2 Project. You have also asked us to propose alternative means
to carry out the recreational development, assuming it is legal.
Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-271 states in part that:
Any ~ity, town, or county may establish and conduct a system of public
recreation and playground; may set apart for such use any land or build-
ings owned or leased by it; may acquire land, buildings, and other re-
creational facilities by gift, purchase, lease, condemnation, or otherwise
and equip and conduct the same; and may expend funds for the aforesaid
purposes.
Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-273 authorizes a town and county to jointly
establish and conduct such a system of recreationfand exercise all the powers
given by Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-271.
Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-526 authorizes the governing body of any
county, in addition to the other powers and duties granted under other laws,
to (1) construct, maintain, and operate recreational areas; (2) acquire by
gift, condemnation, purchase, lease, or otherwise and maintain and operate
recreational areas; and (3) contract with any person, firm, corporation, or
~flnicipality to construct, establish, maintain and operate recreational areas.~
Thus, the County does have the authority to develop the recreational
potential of the Mink Creek Flood Control Impoundment.
There are numerous ways in which this can be done. I will not discuss
alternatives not involving development through the County's Department of
Parks and Recreation. (These alternatives include a joint recreational board
of the County and Town established pursuant to Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-272
and Section 15.1-273 and establishment of a Mink Creek Park Authority pursuant to
the Park Authorities Act, Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-1228, ~t 'seq.).
First,the County Can acquire the property needed for a recreational area
from the Town of ScoStsville, either by purchase, gift, or lease. The County
would then constrUct, maintain and operate the recreational area. See Code of
Virginia, Section 15.1-271 and Section 15.1,526 (1), (3).
The County also has the option of con2racting with the Town of Scottsvi!le
to construct, establish, maintain and operate a recreational area. See Code of
Virginia, Section 15.1-526 (3).
A contract or lease arrangement will allow more flexibility if the parties
desire the Town of Scottsville to be involved directly with the operation of the
recreational area."
Mr. Roudabush said one of the concerns of the staff was that the County would have to
bear the burden of protecting the watershed and ten percent of it lies in Fluvanna County.
Mayor Thacker said the watershed is not to be used for potable water. Mr. Roudabush said it
would still need to be protected if there is to be swimming. He noted letter dated
September 23, 1977!~from Mr. Edwin S. Roseberry of the Health Department.
"On September 22nd, you and I made a visit to Mink Creek dam and the
pr~p.~s~d lake above the City of Scottsville. We surveyed the headwaters
of Mink Creek and its tributaries to determine the watershed and the
sources of possible contamination.
There are not too many houses near the watershed area, and most of
those that are have properly installed septic tank systems. Five houses
along a private extension'of Road #864 north of Scottsville have pit privies,
but none are closer than 500 feet to Mink Creek.
A problem of much more significance is the small size of Mink Creek which
will be used to fill the proposed lake. In periods of drought and normal summer
dry weather, I don't feel that there will be enough water flowing through this
lake to safely sustain recreational swimming.
October 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting~)~
The recommended minimum decided upon by the American Public Health
Association and the conference of State Sanitary Engineers is that at
least 500 gallon~ per day per swimmer be maintained for proper diluting
volumn.
I don't think that this water source and watershed will supply this
volumn in the summer dry months, when the swimming load is at its heaviest."
Mr. Dorrier said he had visited the site with Mr. Roseberry, Mr. Chevaeei, Mr. Eaton of
the Parks Department and Mr. 0sbomne of the Engineering Staff. They looked at the flow of
the water, discussed the situation and Mr. Roseberry has written an update on his previous
letter.
"October 19, 1977
Mr. Lind~ay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Attorney at Law
224 Court Square
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Dorrier:
On September 22nd, ~m Eaton and I made a survey of the watershed serving
the new lake site above Scottsville on Mink Creek. At that time, we could find
no human contamination entering the watershed area. There are no pasture lands,
and most of the area is wooded and is surrounded by steep slopes which is ideal
for a recreational facility.
At the time of our visit, we were concerned about the flow rate of Mink
Creek realizing', of course, that we have had an unusually dry su~mmer.
On October 18th, Mr. Homer Cheavacci and I met with you, Mr. Ed Mahoney
and Mr. Mark Osborne, ~ha County Engineer. After discussions concerning a
previously calculated and very acceptable flow rate made in only one month
(February, 1976), we made a suggestion that a flow rate be ~un on Mink Creek
starting about January lst~ 1978 and continuing on no less than a weekly basis
through September 30~, 1978.
This will give us a fairly predictable figure on average flow to base our
determinations for recommendations for the allowable swimming load per day to
maintain good swimming quality water.
Sincerely yours,
Edwin S. Roseberry
Sanitarian
Thomas Jefferson Dist. Heaith~Dept."
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Osborne of the Engineering Staff, is an expert in the area of
hydrology and he has made studies on the amount of water running through the stream based
on precipitation. He then offered for the record a letter dated October 19, 1977.
"Dar e:~ Oc ~ ohe ~ :.i~ ~ 9' 1977
To: Cirri LindsaY:: Dorrier ~:0~:' Mark F. OsbOrne
Subject: Mink Creek Park Basin Yield Study
In regard to the expected stream flow of Mink Creek, I have discovered
through preliminary analysis the following: 1) Based on precipitation re-
cords from the "LeanSer McCormick Observatory," as of August, 1977, the
collected precipitation beginning in November, 1976, has accumulated to
18.65 inches. The normal amount over this period iS 36.71 inches. The
worst drought of record occurring in 1930 had 23.37 inches for this time
period. The ratio of the 1977 accumulation/normal accumulation is 0.51.
The summer accumulations averaged 4.48 inches normally and 1.82 inches in
1977 for the months of June, July and August. The precipitation ratio is
roughly the same as that for the entire year.
2) Based on theories in Principles of Hydrology, by Donald M. Gray, I have
made assumptions which are ball-p~rkish that indicate two expected stream flow
conditions:
a) .60 gpm under present normal rainfall for the month of AuEust with
a charging aquifer, that is, after a drought period when the ground-
water table is lower than usual.
b) 290 gpm under the same circumstances as a); however the aquifer
is Stable.
3) A comparison of stream basins is perhaps the best way of determining
the basin yield for Mink Creek. A section of the Hardware River has been
chosen for this purpose and is listed in the Surface Water Supply of Virginia,
James River Basin, 1927-42, prepared by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia
Conservation Commission, Division of Water Resources and Power. I have
arbitrarily se!ected 70 gpm as the permissible low flow which will allow 300
bathers based on the Health Department recommendations. During the period of
record 1927-1~42 flow less than this was recorded only 3 months in 1930 and
2 months in 1941. Assuming ~ months per each summer for swimming, there are
60 potential usable months - 5 were determined to be less than desirable. This
represents 8%.
October 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
4) By direct comparison with the existing Mint Springs Park, I find the drainage
areas to be 145 acres, more or less, at Mint Springs Park and 600 acres, more or
less, at the proposed Mink Creek Park. If~the runoff is assumed to be directly
proportional to the drainage basin area, I find 4.15 times more streamflow at
the proposed park.
5) In the event that flow ceases in Mink Creek, which it has not done in re-
corded history, a floating pump could be located in the lake to produce a
fountain and, thereby, aerate the water. This I feel would be an effective
measure to prevent the growth of harmfu~~ bacteria and thereby protect the public
health.
To summarize the hydrologic conditions, I believe the following to be true:
1) The drought we are now experiencing is the worst one of recorded history (at
least _50 years) and so the present streamflows at Mink Creek are the lowest ever.
(about 20 gpm - 60 bathers)
2) Under normal conditions, in summer, the flow should be 290 gpm - 835 bathers.
3) EaCh summer there is an 8% chance of flowing less than 70 gpm - 200 bathers.
4) The proposed Mink Creek Park has 4.15 times more flow than that at Mint
Springs Park.
5) If low flow is experienced, a pump or other mechanical means may be employed
cheaply which will maintain safe swimming health conditions."
Mr. Fisher noted a letter received from the Parks and Recreation Commissimn,dated
October 14, 1977.
"At its meeting of August 24 the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed with
Supervisor Dorrier and Mayor Thacker a proposal to construct a lake-oriented
recreation area in conjunction with the Mink Creek Flodd Control Project current-
ly under way at Scottsvil~e.
The Commission gave preliminary support of the proposal on the grounds that the
southern portion of the County is in need of a park facility, especially a park,
providing swimming, and that some costs could be reduced if beach grading were
done while equipment was still on site.
The Commission qualified its support, however, in ~iew of the fact that the land
in question is owned by the Town of Scottsville, not by the County, and was un-
certain of the possibilities of making capital improvements on land not held by the
County. The Commission was also anxious to insure the administrative rights and
responsibilities be properly allotted so as to safeguard the interests of both the
Flood Control Project and the Parks Department of the County. The Commission's
support of the project was made contingent on a satisfactory resolution of these
questions.
It was also noted that any construction should be undertaken only in stages, and
that the first stage should include no more than beach area~ access road, parking
area and bathhmuse. The Commission had a rough estimate that these improvements
alone would cost $100,000.
Subsequent to the Commissimn's consideration of the matter, a routine review of
the site by the Health Department has suggested that Mink Creek and its tributaries
will likely not provide sufficient water flow during the summer months to maintain
healthful conditions for swimming. This is a matter of the greatest concern to
the Commission, especially since similar problems have been encountered at Mint
Springs Park, which was closed for the better part of the summer of 1977 on account
of unhealthy water conditions.
In light of this development, the Commission would not continue to support the
construction of the proposed park unless and until the Health Department can
provide reasonably strong assurances that water flow will be adequate for
swimming."
Mr. Fisher said he felt the concept of allowing the Town to make their own improvements
and use this land as a park while allowing the County time to study the question is a possi-
bility. However, there is no possibility whatsoever of the County committing itself to fund-
ing of work to be done between now and next spring. Mr. Fisher said he is not convinced that
this is the highest priority area in the County for recreational services.
Mr. Dorrier said this park would not be just for the Town of Scottsville, but for the
southern part of the County. It is true that Esmont needs a park, but there is no lake exist-
ing there. In the Parks and Recreation Five-Year Master Plan, on page 117, the Parks
Commission listed the urban area, the Crozet area, and the Esmont/Scottsville area as their
first priority areas for recreation. This was based on surveys that they made. This area
has the largest number of welfare recipients and juvenile delinquents in the County. The
northern part of the County has Chris Greene and the westerm part has Mint Springs, but as far
as swimming is concerned, no other area of the County has a greater need. Mr. Fisher said he
would support the petition if the conditions are changed so th~e will be no implication that
the County will commit itself to making capital expenditures on this property.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. David to approve SP-77-63 with the following conditions:
Health Department analysis of water quality to determine if Mink Creek
is suitable for swimming.
Site plan approval.
Boating, fishing and picnicking is permitted.~
Screening of the entrance road off Hardware Street from Union Baptist
Church."
OCtober 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
The m!otion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded~vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
At 9:48 P.M. the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:56 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution of Intent to amend Article 19, Residential Planned Neigh-
borhood section of the Zoning Ordinance by defining life-care centers and including same as
a use by right under the RPN zone. (Advertised on October 5 and October 12, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker said the staff had attempted to accomplish defining life-care ~enters and
including s~e as a use by right in the RPN Zone by amending the section for retail stores
and shops and also by defining "institution". However, the Planning Commission did not
like the staff's amendments to the ordinance. Mr. Forbes Reback, who represented some
citizens interested in the matter, was present at the Planning Commission meeting and pre-
sented a definition which was favorably received. This being an amendment to Section 19-3-1
(L) with wording as follows:
Life-care centers or geriatric health care facilities which may include varied
types of dwelling units for the residents; housekeeping and laundry services;
nursing and hospital facilities reasonably necessary to serve the residents;
retail stores and shops, professional offices, restaurants, cafeterias and
other food services, all of which are designed and intended to serve the
residents of the RPN district subject to Section 19-4-3 of this ordinance;
and common areas where residents may engage in recreationai, educationa~, and
cultural activities.
Mr. Tucker said that on September 27, 1977, the Planning Commission, by unanimous vote,
recommended adoption of the above amendment. It is their intention to address, at a !~ter
date, the definitions of institution and commercial convenience store, rather than acting
on the recommendations of the staff. The Planning Commission did note for the record that
this definition of life-care center was recommended so the current application of University
Village could go forward.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or
against the amendment, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr.
Roudabush to adopt the following ordinance adding the word "primarily" between the words
"intended" and "to serve".
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BY DEFINING LIFE-CARE CENTERS. AND INCLUDING SAME
AS A USE BY RIGHT UNDER THE RPN ZONE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Albemarle County Zon&ng Ordinance be, and it hereby is, amended by the
addition therein of a Section 19-3-1(L) as follows:
19-3-1(L)
Life-care centers or geriatric health care facilities which may in-
clude varied types of dwelling units for the residents; housekeeping
and laundry services; nursing and hospital facilities reasonably
necessary to serve the residents~ retail stores and shops, professional
offices~ restaurants, cafeterias and other food services, all of which
are designed and intended primarily to serve the residents of the RPN
district subject to Section 19-4-3 of this ordinance; and common areas
where residents may engage in recreational, educational, and cultural
activities.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley~ Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No 8. ZMA-77-19. Rivanna Estates Limited Partnership. To rezone 91.7
acres to RPN/R-3; of which about five acres is presently B-1 Business and the remainder is
A-1 Agricultural. Property on the east side of Route 29 North near Piney Mountain. County
Tax Map 33, Parcels 1 and ID, parts thereof. Rivanna District. (Advertised on October 5
and October 12, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report.
"Characfer of the Area
This site is a portion of a 900 acre farm owned by the applicant. The property
is both open and wooded and generally rolling topography. Badger-Powhatan and
Camelot are major developmentslin the area, the remainder being rural in character.
Existin~ Zoning in the Area
As described in a recent staff study for the~ Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority,
zoning in the area is as follows:
Zoning
A-1 Agriculture
R-1 Residential
R-3 Residential
B-1 Business
M-1 Industrial
Total Vacant
Area Area
500 ac~es ~scattered development)
142 121
29 29
62 60
16~ ll4
October 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan proposes agricultural use for this area. BadEer-Powhatan,
Camelot, and the zoning described above (except A-1)~ are not recognized in the Plan.
Comparative Impact Statistics
Existing
Proposed
Zoning Zoning
Dwellings 37 350
Population 118 416 **
Vehicle trips/day 2,250 520 **
Water consumption* 11,800 41,600
Students
K-5 11 0
6-8 6 0
9-12 ?~ 0
Total 2~ 0
Residential only
Interpolated from information supplied in ZMA-77-06
Land Use Summary
Use
Central Building Site
Residential Cluster Sites.
Developed Recreation
Buffer/Landscape
Entry Road ( 60 foot right-of-way )
Drives and Parking
Total (excludes reserve area)
Acreage % of Total
3.80 ~.7
23.20 28~8
21.80 27.0
25.00 31.0
3.oo 3.7
3.80 4.7
80.60 acres 100.0%
Gross Density - 4.3 units/acre
Net Density - 4.7 units/acre
Residential Uses
Intermediate Care
Intensive Care
Residential Units
Units
5o
3O
270
TOTAL 350
Applicant's Proposal
University Vilgage is proposed as a retirement village to consist of 270 single-
family attached units in clusters and an 80 bed health care facility. This central
building would also house administra$ive offices, indoor recreation, entertainment
and convenience retail uses, and a cafeteria designed to serve the development.
Approximately 58% of the site would be in open space and recreation. The developmeht
would employ an estimated 100 persons full-time and 100 persons on a part-time basis.
The applicant has stated that University Village would operate on a non-profit basis
under single ownership and would be self-governing.
Staff Comment
Roads - Sight distance at the access to U.S. 29 North is adequate. The Highway
Department will require a commercial entrance with a 200 foot taper and a 200 feet
deceleration lane. Crossovers on U.S. 29 North are about 500 feet to the south ahd
2000 feet to the north. No additional crossover at the entrance to this development
will be permitted bY the Highway Department. The applicant should womk with the
Highway Department on the development of the entry road in the event of possible
future acceptance into the State Secondary system. (This is of particular importance
with respect to the roadway over the impoundment dam~) The applicant proposes in-
ternal road widths of 16-18 feet. The Fire Marshal has indicated that an 18-foot
width would be acceptable for emergency access.
Water and Sewer - Adequate water is available from a 12-inch main on the east side
of U.S. 29 North. The Camelot package sewage treatment plant does not have adequate
capacity to serve this development. The Service Authority has recommended that the
applicant be responsible for the cost of enlargement of the plant to accommodate this
development.
Site Development - While the topography of the site is rolling, only a small per-
centage of the property is in slopes of 25% or greater. Two smaller residential
clusters are located~on these steeper slopes and staff opinion is that these can
be relocated without adversely affecting the plan.
Parking - As outlined in previous applications, strict application of Zoning
Ordinance parking requirements may be inappropriate to a development oft!his nature.
The plan currently shows 3.8 acres devoted to parking and drives which would be in-
creased to 7.2 acres if the ordinance is strictly applied.
Generally, staff has not supported higherJdensities than recommended by the Compre-
hensive Plan outside of designated growth Centers unless such request reflects goals
and objectives of the County and is compatible to the area. After evaluation of
University Village in this context, staff has the following comments:
Favorable:
Pr~visions for adequate housing of the elderly is recommended by the Comprehensive
Plan:
Since a major portion of the residents of this development are not expected to be
Oc'tob'er 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
(dollar importing) and would, in turn, generate jobs in th~ supporting sector
(dollar circulating) of the local economy;
3. Traffic generating from this proposed development would be less than one-quarter
the volume possible under existing zoning;
5. No student enrollment impact is projected from this development compared to 24
students under existing zoning;
5. Staff opinion is that the RPN approach to development better re~lects the land use
policies of the County than does the traditional subdivision and is generally more
compatible to the land;
6. Staff has previously indicated that a retirement type of development is more
appropriate in a low-density rural setting than in proximity to high density or
commercial/industrial development. This site is well-buffered from U.S. 29 North
and from incompatible uses in the area. Since the applicant owns the surrounding
properties, intrusion from incompatible uses i~ not likely.
UnfavOrable:
The only unfavorable co~ent about this petition is that approval may set a precedent
for other requests for increased density in the rural areas of the County outside of
designated growth areas. However, staf~ opinion is that most requests could not be
justified in terms of impact and public interest as is the case with University Village,
therefore, staff opinion is that"setting a precedent" is not a major factor in this case.'~
Mr. Tucker said that on September 27, 1977, by unanimous ¥o~e, the Planning Commission
recommended ZMA-77-19 be approved subject to the following conditions:
"1. Approval is for a designation of RPN/R-1 on 80.6 acres with a maximum of 350
residential units (including 50 intermediate and 30 intensive care units).
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of deceleration lane
and entrance.
3. County Engineer approval of internal roads and parking, drainage and grading
plans, and impoundment dams.
4. Water and sewer service is to be obtained from the Albemarle County Service
AuthOrity~ Sewer lines shall remain the property of the developer. The Camelot
package sewage treatment plant shall be enlarged by the developer to facilitate
the additional Wastewater discharge.
5. Compliance with the comments of the Fire Marshal including location of hydrants
and dry standpipes; provision of adequate fire flow and fire lanes.
6. If the applicant seeks variance from the required parking, this shall be
accomplished prior to submittal of final plans (as the plan is proposed, 780
parking spaces - one' space/employee; one space/~o beds; two spaces/dwelling unit
are required to comply with Section 11-7 of the Zoning Ordinance).
7. County Engineer approval of site work for any grading or construction on slopes
of 25% or greater.
8. Two revised copies of the plan are to be submitted reflecting conditions outlined
in this report prior to approvals of fina~ plans.
9. Approval of all appropriate state, local, federal agencies prior to issuance of
any certificate of occupancy.
10. Occupancy shall be limited to persons aged 62 years and older. For the' purposes
of th~s condition, if one spouse is aged ~2 years or older, the other spouse shall
~ be considered 62 years of age."
At this time,the public hearing was ppened. Present to represent the applicant were Mr.
Max Evans and Mr. Fred Russell. With no one from the public rising to speak for or against
this petition, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to
approve ZMA-77-19 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-77-19A. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. To rezone 5.0 acres from R-I
Residential to A-1 Agricultural. Property on State Route 726 one-quarter mile northwest of
S¢ottsville. County Tax ~ap 1~0, Parcel 37, Scottsville District. (Advertised on October 5
and October 12, 1977.)
Mr. Dorrier said he would abstain from discussion on this matter and left the ta~e.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report:
"Character 0f the Area
This area is generally rural though some small lot development exists on the
east side of Route 726. Property to the west and south are undeveloped. A
dwelling is immediately to the north and four dwellings are to the east.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends this property for medium density residential
use ( 2.5 du/acre ). Property to the south is proposed for low density residential
use (one du/acre ).
Staff Comment
The applicant does not intend to develop this property as currently zoned
(5.3 units/acre). He desires to establish a basement apartment w~hi~saa
use by right in the A-1 zone on four acres. Staff recommends approval of this
petition.~
October 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker said, on October 4, 1977, by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission re-
commended approval of ZMA-77-19A.
The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak for or against the petition,
the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve
ZMA-77-19A. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, !achetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 10. Resolution of Intent to amend Section 11-1-2 and Section 15-3 of
the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to the duties of the Zoning Administrator. (Advertised
on October 5 and October 12, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker said these amendments are basically housekeeping amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance. After reading the proposed wording of the amendments, Mr. Tucker said,~on
October 4, 1977, by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission, recommended approval of the
amendments he had just read.
At this tim~the public hearing was opened With no one rising to speak for or against
the proposed amendments~ the public hearing was closed. ~Motion was then offered by MrS.
David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following ordinances:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 11-1-2
ARTICLE 11, General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of SuperviSors of Albemarle Co~unty, Virginia,
that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it hereby is, amended in
Section 11-1-2 to read as follows:
The zoning admin±strator shall review each application for
a building permit to insure that the building or structure
proposed is in accordance with the te'rms of this ordinance.
No~permit shall be issued for any construction for which a
site plan is required to be approved by the commission in
accordance with article 17 of this ordinance unless and
until such plan shall have been so approved. Thereafter,
any item shown on such plan as approved shall be deemed
prima facie in accordance With the terms of this ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 15-3
ARTICLE 15, ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it hereby is, amended in
Section 15-3 to read as follows:
The administrator shall have all necessary authority on behalf
of the governing body to administer and enforce this ordinance, including
the ordering in writing of the remedying of any condition found in
violation of the ordinance, and the bringing of legal action to ensure
compliance with the ordinance, including injunction, abatement or other
appropriate action or proceeding. In addition, the administrator shall
maintain the official zoning map, and such map shall be kept current and
shall reflect amendments as soon as Practicable after adoption by the
governing body.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and MeSsrs. ~Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Resolution of Intent to amend Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance
and Section 18-39 of the County Code ~ require off-site road improvements when such improve-
ments are deemed necessary due to proposed development. (Advertised ~n October 5 and
October 12, 1977.) 3
Mr. Tucker said these amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and the County Code will permit
the Planning Commission, upon their finding, to require off-site road improvements when such
improvements are deemed necessary due to the proposed development. He then read into the
record a letter from Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, as follows:
"The purpose of this letter is to express the Department's support for
changes in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and the Albemarle County
Code now before the Board of Supervisors, concerning the improvement of
existing public roads. More specifically, I speak to proposed addition of
Section 17-5-8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and Sub-section (0) of
Section 18-39 of the County Code.
"The Department supports the County's desire ~xpressed in these two
sections. We believe the development along existing County roads has long
since outstripped the Department's financial ability to keep up, with improve-
ments made necessary by this development. It is our opinion that such
development must be made to bear some of the cost for~the road improvements
made necessary by the development. The current practice of strip development
along existing secondary roads has placed a financial burden on the secondary
road allocation for Albemarle County. It has also led~to nUmerous and
OCtober 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
the need for road improvements.~ ~
"In the current fiscal year, the depa~?tment is expending over $40,000
along Route 623. Less than two years ago, this route carried 19 vehicles
per day. Strip development along this deal-end road has increased the
traffic, maintenance problems, and citizen complaints, to a point where
improvement of the road to hard-surface stage was the only feasible
alternative. Unfortunately the cost for such improvement must be borne
entirely by the department. Route 727 from Route 627 to Route 795 is
another route where strip development has greatly increased the traffic
over the past few years. The Department is attempting to obtain right-of-way
along this route and we estimate the cost to improve only the first mile at
approximately $100,000. To date, over $38,000 has been allocated to this
project. Route 717 between Route 71'9 and Route 712 has recently been a
source of complaint concerning the volume of traffic using this section.
One of the primary sources of this traffic has been from the strip
development along Route 719 and Route 717 south of this area. The
problems encountered along the gravel surface of Route 717 will not be
improved until the road has been widened and hard-surfaced. ! estimate
the cost for this work at over $!00,000.
"The three locations listed abo~e are current problems caused by
strip development which has been financed, or will need to be financed~
in the near future. I believe these examples give emphasis to the need for
additional control over requirements on development along roads not currently
constructed to support development.
"I would appreciate your bringing this letter to the attention to the
Board of Supervisors at the time they consider the amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance and County Code."
Mr. Tucker said that on October 4, 1977, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-2,
recommended adoption of these amendments. Mr. Roudabush said he has heard some concerns
about the amendments. There was no real objection if the requirement was only for the
road abutting the land to be developed. However, this amendment could be used to stymie
development if applied for one-half mile or further down the road where it would be im-
possible for a developer to obtain right-of-way.~ If that were the case, there would be no
way to make the improvements required, thus barring development of the land. Mr. Tucker
said this possibility was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and that was the
reason for the two opposing votes. However, the Planning Commission has been requiring
such improvements even though they did not havelthe authority to do so. This amendment wOuld
give them that authority. Mr. Tucker said he feels the Planning Commission has to be
reasonable and any request to improve a road where the developer has no control over the
right-of-way would be unreasonable. Mr. Roudabush said he felt it should be spe~ted out in
the amendments that the developer would only be~responsib!e for those public roads abutting
his development. Dr. Iachetta said he did not feel the amendment should be that restrictive
since there may be some relatively short distances where, rather than having to pay the
total cost, the developer would contribute a pro-rata share to cost of the improvement.
Mr. Henley said he felt the amendment was open-ended. Mr. St. John said he also had a lot
of concerns about the amendment and felt it was ~a little open-ended, but it is hard to
predict every circumstance that might arise, and this was the best language that cmuld be
arrived at at this time.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the recommendation
of the Planning Commi~sion and adopt the following ordinances:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS OF PUBLIC ROADS IN CONNECTION
WITH SITE PLAN REVIEN
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance !be, and it hereby is, amended by
the addition' therein of a .Section 17-5-8.1 ~as follows:
The commission shall consider whether ~existing public roads that
will serve the proposed development are adequate to accommodate
the increase in traffic which may reasonably be expected to result
therefrom. In the event that, in the opinion of the commission,
such roads will be inadequate therefor, the commission may require
that such roads be improved so as to accommodate such resulting
traffic as a condition precedent to approval of such plan.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
CODE REGARDING IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC ROADS
IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Section 18-39 of the Albemarle County Code be, and it hereby is, amended
by the addition therein of a subsection (o) as follows:
(o) Improvement of public stree2~ prior to the approval of any
subdivision plat. The commission shall consider whether
existing public roads that will serve the proposed subdivision
are adequate to accommodate the increase in traffic which may
reasonably be expected to result from the development of such
subdivision. In the event that, in the opinion of the commission,
such roads will be inadequate the~refor, the commission may require
that such roads be improved so as to accommodate such resulting
traffic as a condition precedent to approval of such plat.
October 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley (Mr. Henley said he was voting fo~ the
amendment only because the conditions can be appealed to this Board and the courts. He hopes
that between the Board and the Planning Commission, someone will be reasonable.) and
Iachetta.
NAYS: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 12. Revisions-Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. St. John aaid these amend-
ments were proposed by the County Attorney's office and recommended to be adopted as an
~mrergency measure. These amendments will relieve certain inequities and administrative
complications caused by the existing ordinance.. It will also avoid confiscation of property
in situations where it is felt there is a vested right. He said if the Board does not adopt
the amendments, he does not feel the ordinance will withstand any legal attack.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt as an emergency measure, and advertise
for a public hearing at a later date, the following amendments to the runoff control
ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
Section 1, Article 11, of the Run-off Control Ordinance
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Section 1, Permit required for development, subsection (a), Article II,
RUNOFF CONTROL PERMITS, is hereby amended and reenacted by the addition there-
to of the following wording:
system~ provided, however, that in the event that the runoff control official
shall determine that it would be impracticable to construct a lawful sewage
disposal system on any parcel of land of record at the time of the adoption of
this ordinance except within 200 horizontal feet of such impoundment and/or
stream, the runoff control official may authorize the construction of such a
system upon such terms as he may determine to be necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare and upon the approval of the Virginia
Department of Health. For purposes of this section, the construction of a
sewage disposal system shall be deemed impracticable in any case in which to
construct such a system not less than 200 horizontal feet from any such
impoundment and/or stream would (1) be physically impossible within the
geometric limits of such 10t or parcel, (2) require the pumping of effluent,
or (3) require the construction of such system on soils found to be unacceptable
by the Virginia Department of Health for such construction.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMENS AND REENACT
Article II of the Runoff Control Ordinance
Section 1, by the addition of subsection (6)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Section 1, Permit required for development, Article II, RUNOFF CONTROL
PERMITS, is hereby amended and reenacted by the addition thereto of subsection (6)
to read as follows:
(6) Any development for which all necessary permits had been
issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
AYES:
NAYS:
The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Consideration of Resolution authorizing purchase of property.
Fisher read into the record a letter dated October 18, 1977.
"RE: Senior Citizens Rental Project - Crozet, Virginia
Enclosed is a copy of Form FmHA 440-16, Environmental Impact Assessment, and
attachments on the above project. After reviewing all of the information
available, it is the decision of this agency not to require an Environmental
Impact Statement on this project.
This agency will proceed to complete the processing of the loan application
in accordance with FmHA Instruction 444.5. It is our understanding that once
the loan is approved, HUD will release the community development grant funds
for the purchase of the site. It must be clearly understood by all parties that
even though PmHA may approve the loan, FmHA is still under no obligation to close
the loan until all of the approval and closing conditions have been met. That is
to say, if Albemarle County buys the land with the RUJD Community Development Grant
and something happens so as to prevent the loan from being closed, the County could
end up owning a piece of land and with no funds to develop the project.
If you have any questions, Mr. Claude S. Stowers, Jr., our Multiple Housing
Coordinator, will be pleased to discuss them with you. His number in Richmond
is (804) 782-2615.
Sincerely,
E. A RAGLAND
State Director"
Mr.
October 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then remarked that.a second letter had been received bY the Jordan Corporatiol
and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission; said letter reading.
"After reviewing all the information available, it is the decision of
this Agency not to require an environmental impact statement. This
Agency will proceed to complete the processing of the loan application."
Mr. Fisher said it appears that the Board is now in a position to ~eet the conditions
of the HUD Grant. The opiion on the property will expire on October 31st. He felt it was
proper for the Board to consider tonight the question of exercising the option for purchase
of the property.
Mr. St. John offered the following resolution for the Board's consideration:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
as follows:
Pursuant to the terms of the contract of sale, dated December 31, 1976,
as extended, between Jane C. Ganeshan and the Charlottesville Housing Foundation,
inc., or assigns, and pursuant to the terms of an assignment agreement between
the Charlottesville Housing Foundation, Inc., and the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby authorizes the
purchase of a tract of land approximately one mile south of Crozet fronting on
the west side of State Route 240, known as the Ganeshan Property, containing
27.847 acres, as shown on plat of R. O. Snow and Associates, dated June 9~ 1976.
The property will be used to provide housing for elderly and elderly deaf persons.
Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, is hereby authorized,
on behalf of the Board of SUpervisors of Albemarle County, to enter into such
agreements as may be necessary to consummate the purchase. Purchase of the
Ganeshan Property is dependent upon approval of the title thereto in writing by
a competent and discreet attorney at law and to a written commitment from HUD that
the County will be reimbursed if County fund~ are used for this purchase."
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier~ to adopt the fore-
going resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vo~e:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated October 18, 1977, from Mr.
Bragdon R. Bowling, Jr., Staff Attorney for the Division of Legislative Services, in Which
Mr. Bowling stated that the drought subcommittee of the Agricultural Committee, plans to
hold a public hearing on Thursday, October 27, 1977, beginning at 7:00 P.M. in the Orange
County Circuit Courthouse. The purpose of the hearing is to receive public testimony
concerning the effects of this summer's drought and to entertain recommendations as to
possible courses of action for the State to take in alleviating the effects of such disasters
both now and in the future.
Mr. Fisher said an invitation had been received from the University of Virginia Student
Council for a University/Community get-together, co-sponsored by the Student Council and the
University Union. The meeting will be held on October 31st from 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. in
the Commonwealth Room, third floor of Newcomb Hall.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Carrington Williams, Co-Chairman of
Virginians for Bonds, urging the Board's Support for the state-wide bond referendum on
November 8th.
Mr. Fisher showed to the Board an example of a notification which has been placed in all
hotel/motel rooms in the area to notify tourists of the water shortage.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated October 4, 1977, from the Director of the
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library concerning Workmen's compensation and unemployment
insurance.
Mr. Fisher then noted receipt of a memorandum dated October 13, 1977,~from Mr. Clarence
McClure, Superintendent of School.
"At its work session on September 19, 1977, the Albemarle County School
Board passed a resolution requesting that the Board of Supervisors appropriate
funds for the reconstruction of the Albemarle High School tennis courts. Since
that date I have received an estimate from a contractor for taking down the
existing fence, reconstructing courts by the specifications of the; Western Albemarle
High School tennis courts and installing the existing fence. The cost of this
project, according to this estimate, would be $25,000.
I realize that we have had a great deal of discussion about this project, and
I have been optimistic that it would be approved. If the funds are available for
the project, it would be beneficial for us to get this work done immediately
before severely co~d weather begins. This would enable us to avoid interfering
with the spring tennis season with construction."
Dr. Iachetta asked if there were not money allocated in the Capital Improvements Budget
for this project. Mr. Agnor said yes, but because of' delay in adoption of the Park~!.s
Master Plan, the allocation for recreation is in a lump sum without this particular item
being approved. Mr. Agnor said there was a meeting last night of the Parks Commission and
the School Board. They both agreed that tennis courts should be built at the middle schools
October 19, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
and high schools for use by both the children at the schools and members of the public.
this agreement, there is no problem in the Board considering this project tonight.
With
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $25,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Operat-
ing Capital Outlay Fund and Coded to !9.10L for expenditures incurred in
reconstruction of the tennis courts at Albemarle High School.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Agnor said he had received an invitation from the Shenandoah County Board of Super-
visors to attend a regional meeting on November 1, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. in Woodstock, Virginia,
to discuss the regional effect 0f the Beverage Container Ordinance being adopted by Fairfax
County. The invitation was sent to eleven Counties including Albemarle, Greene, Madison,
Augusta, Rockingham, Rockbridge, Paige, Rappahannock, Warren, Frederick and Clarke. Mr.
Fisher said he did not think the Board could do anything without the concurrence of the City
of Charlottesville. Mr. Dorrier indicated that he might like to attend this meeting for the
Board.
Mr. Agnor said that on Friday, Downtown Charlottesville Incorporated will sponsor a
craft festival. Part of the festivities will be held on Court Square and i~ Jackson Park.
Arrangements have been made so the activities do not interfere with Judge Berry's court.
Mr. Agnor said that the City Council will meet tomorrow to discuss the water conserva-
tion ordinance recently adopted. He noted that the ordinance now prohibits washing of cars,
except in car wash businesses that have an approved recycling system. City CounCil will
consider taking out the words "system" and adding the word "commercial" so that cars could be
washed only in commercial car washing operations between Wednesday and Sunday, 8:00 A.M. to
5:00 P.M. Mr. Fisher said he could understand the problems that car washes, with no other
source of income, are having. There are no such car wash systems in the County. Mr. Agnor
noted that two innovative County businesses have made other provisions. One is using well
water, which is being hauled in, and the other is using creek water, which is being hauled
in. Both continue to wash cars with a sign showing the source of water. Mr. Fisher said he
felt it would be a mistake to change the ordinance at this time and asked if the Board
members wanted to send a statement to City Council asking that they maintain the current
ordinance. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta authorizing that a letter be written ask-
ing City Council not to make any changes in their Water Conservation Ordinance. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, lachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
[~y/~Claims against the County for the month of October 1977 wer~ examined, allowed, and
'2ertified_~?_the Director of Finance for payment~a~r charged against the following funds:
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Cash in hands - Director of Planning
Cash in hands - County Engineer
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Commonwealth of Virginia -Current Credit Account
Town of Scottsville - 1% Local Sales Tax
430,060.15
1,226,361.78
7,439.77
39,093.76
62,110.62
10.00
15.00
132,867.66
520.59
116.19
Total - $1,898',595.52
Agenda Item No. 14. At 11:28 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr.
Iachetta, to adjourn into executive session t° discuss a legal matter. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened at 12:25 A.M. and immediately adjourned.
Chairman