1977-11-16NNovember 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
46,1.
Mr. Tucker said the Albemarle County Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday,
November 1, 1977, recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the Albemarle County Service
Anthority's jurisdictional area be made to comply with the Comprehensive Plan with adjust-
ments as outlined in the staff's recommendations, provided no area or property which is
currently receiving service shall be abandoned.
Mr. E. E. Thompson of the Albemarle County Service Authority read into the record the
following memorandums:
DATE: November 16, 1977
Jurisdictional Areas
The Albemarle County Service Authority Board unanimously requested
that existing jurisdictional areas not be reduced in size. In fac~,we
request that area seven in the area adjacent to Biscuit Run be expanded
to the ridge lines on both sides as requested in our last meeting. There
are other areas that according to the County Planning Department appear
to be ready for development in the near future and lay just outside our
operating areas.
A joint effort should be undertaken by our staff and the planning
staff to see where orderly expansion of jurisdictional areas should take
place. This would be presented to our Board sometime after the first of
the year followed by a formal report from them.
Well System Within Jurisdictional Areas
of the Albemarle County Service Authority
T~e Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors request
that central well systems installed within the jurisdictional areas of
the Albemarle County Service Authority conform with the regulations of
the Authority. This will require that line size~, construction methods
and fire protection devices, etc. be compatible with the Authority system.
When' water is available through the Authority and connection takes place,
the well system will be compatible and alteration ~o the well system to
give full service should not be necessary.
T~e number of connections to a well system that would require that
system to fall under this regulation is debatable. I, therefore, request
that the County Engineering staff work with the Albemarle County SeFvice
Authority staff to develop a recommendation.
Liberia Corporation
After careful consideration of the request by Liberia Corporation,
it is my opinio~ that subject to the new policy, Liberia Corporation
should be required to connect to the system of the Albemarle County
Service Authority.
Proposal - Off-Site Water Line Extension Policy
Mr. Ray Jones and myself did meet as requested by your Board to dis-
cuss the off-site water line extension policy. The attached is a rough
unfinished draft of the joint proposal which has been reviewed by the
Albemarle County Service Authority Board and tentatively approved subject
to being formally written by Coun 1 and approved by Bond Coun [1.
Assuming that there is no objection by Bond Coun 1, the new policy
will be placed on the December 8 agenda for formal action.
Off-Site Water Line Extension P~llSy~(Rough Draft)
Off-Bite extensions of water lines shall be negotiated with the
Authority. If an off-site water line extension is required by the
Authority to be greater than 8 inches, the Authority will:
pay the difference between the needs of the
developer and the required line size,or
pay the difference between the required line
size and 8 inches whichever is the lesser cost
to the Authority.
If Authority participation is requested for off-site extension,
the Authority will become the contracting agent. The developer will
provide at no expense to the Authority a complete set of documents
ready for bidding previously approved by all approving agencies includ-
ing the Authority· A letter of credit must be placed with the Authority
with draw-down provisions prior to the a~arding of the contract to the
acceptable bidder. The Authority will then grant by contract credit
against future water connection charges equal to 25% of the off-site
construction cos~ (not inclusive of engineering and legal fees or
additional line size required)· The:se credits can only be used for
the property for which the off-site line extension was intended and is
not transferable or owned by an individual. The developer must use the
credits f'i~s~ befo~e~onnea~i~n charg~s~a~e~m~d~by the Authority but in
no case will the credit be available longer than ten (10) years after
completion of the off-site water line extension.
462
NoVember 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Mr. Thompson stated that any reduction in the jurisdictional area of the Service
Authority would adversely effect bonds, both present and future.
After considerable debate between Board members as to how far the jurisdictional
boundaries of the Service Authority should be extended, and/or if they should indeed be
condensed, Mr. St. John recommended that whatever the Board does, it should be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
At 8:42 P.M., Mr. Fisher called a five minute recess. Meeting reconvened at 8:52 P.M.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the following
motion: To accept the recommendations of the Planning Staff and Planning Commission that the
Albemarle County Service Auth~rity's jurisdictional areas be made to comply with the Compre-
hensive Plan .with adjustments as outlined in the staff,s recommendations (and set out above)
provided no area or property which is currently receiving service shall be abandoned. Mr.
Dorrier said he would insist upon public comment before final changes to the Plan are made
by the Board. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NA~: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 2. (PART II) ZMA-77-18. Liberia Development Corporation. (Deferred
from October 5, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report and recommenda-
tions. (Set out ~on pages 374-375 of Minute Book 15) Mr. Fisher stated concerns about the
private road system proposed, and the proposed water system. He also noted that some of
the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission would have to be revised du~ ~o the
policy decision just voted on by the Board.
Mr. Fisher read a memorandum written to Mr. Thompson from Mr. L. R. Graham, Professional
Engineer for the Albemarle County Service Authority, giving the estimates for Whittington
to connect to public water:
"Please be advised of the following requested estimate for Whittington.
This estimate is based upon the memorandum to Robert Tucker from Ashley
Williams dated September 28, 1977o Mr. Williams estimated a fire flow of
500 g.p.m, for one hour~ I have changed that flow to 500 g.p.m, for two
hours.
(1) 12" D.I. pipe providing 1,560+ g.p.m.
6,000 linear feet x $18.00 per foot
8 each fire ~ydrants ~ $800.00
Rock (anticipated)
Engineering
Cont. Inc..~and (easements)
~.?'~'~' Total - using 12" pipe
(2) 8" D.I. pipe providing 1,050+ g.p.m.
6,000 linear feet ~ $12.00 per foot
8 each fire hydrant ~ $800.00
Rock (anticipated)
Engineering
Cont. Inc. Land (easements)
Total - using 8" pipe
$108,000.00
6,400.00
11,440.00
25,168.00
15,100.00
$166,108.00
72,000.00
6,400.00
11,440.0~
25,168.00
11,500.00
$126,508.00
YOU also asked me for an estimated cost for a well and tank system to
provide the aforementioned flows and domestic needs for this development.
received a Guess-Di-mate from Moore Well Drilling of $35,000 - $40,000."
I
Mr. Thompson said the two estimates were given because the Service Authority participates
in the difference between the 8" line and the 12" line to allow for fire protection. Mr.
Tucker noted that if a central well system were to provide two hours of fire protection
capacity, approximately 83,000 gallons of water would have to be stored on the property. It
was noted that including the storage system~it would still be considerably less expensive to
operate and install a central well system than to extend the Service Authority into that
area. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve ZMA-77-18 with conditio~ recommended by
the Planning Commission, but amending condition number eiEht to read: "Fire Marshal approval
of water line sizes and locations, emergency access provisions, location of dwellings and
provision of fire protection facilities and fire hydrants, including storage tank with a
minimum capacity of 82,200 gallons;" and change condition nine to read: "Ail lots are to be
served by a central water supply (as defined by Section 16-18.02 of the Albemarle County
Zoning 0rdance) and approved in accordance with the Code of Albemarle, the Code of Virginia,
and all other applicable law. No further approvals or reviews, including grading plan, drain-
age, and road plan reviews, by any department of Albemarle County shall ~e given until said
central water system shall have been approved as setforth in this condition."
Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, with the addition that condition number one be
changed to read as follows: "Approval is for a maximum potential of 100 single-family
residential lots, however the number of lots finally approved shall he governed by conditions
of approval established in this petition. Open space is to be dedicated in pmoportion to the
number of lots platted. In the event a!~proposed lot shall not be approved for building
development, such lot may be combined with another lot or may be added to common open space
upon a finding by the Planning Commission that such action is compatible with the overall
development plan." Amendment to the motion was accePted by Mr. Dorrier, and motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David~:and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: 'Mr. RoUdabush.
(NOTE: Conditions No. 2-7 and 10-12 are set out on Page 375 of Minute Book !5.)
4-83
November 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Agenda It~m No. 3. Runoff Control Ordinance: Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend
the ordinance known as "An Ordinance for the Protection of Water in Public Drinking Water
Impoundments" relating to permits required for development. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on October 12, and October 19, 1977.)
Mr. Agnor read the proposed amendments to the ordinance which were adopted as an
emergency measure on October 19, 1977. (See page 434 of Minute Book 15.)
No one from the public wished to speak either for or against these proposed amendments,
and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the following°
ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE KNOWN AS
"AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF WATER IN
PUBLIC DRINKING WATER IMPOUNDMENTS" RELATING
TO PERMITS REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUBERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
that the ordinance known as "An Ordinance For the Protection of Water in Public
Drinking Water Impoundments" be, and it hereby is, amended, in Article II,
Section 1, by the addition of a proviso at the end of sub-section (a) and the
addition of a new sub-section (e) (6), as follows:
Article II, RUNOFF CONTROL PERMITS.
Section 1. Permit Required For Development.
(a) ......... 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 adoptimn of this ordinance except within 200 hortizontal 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 such impoundment and/or stream would (1)
be physically impossible within the geometric limits of such lot or
parcel, (2) require the pumping of effluent, or (3) require the con-
struction of such system on soils found to be unacceptable by the
Virginia Department of Health for such construction ....... ....
(6) Any development for which all necessary permits had been issued
prior to the effective date of this ordinance."
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-77-Z0. Dr. Charles W. Hurt. Public hearing on a request to amend
SP-156 (Hollymead Planned Community) to include 14.6 acres zoned PUD for residential,
commercial and open space. Property is located in the Hollymead Community on Route 29 North;
County Tax Map 46, Parcels 27, 27A; 27B1; 29 part thereof; and 26B, part thereof. Charlottes-
ville Magistrial District.
Mr. Tucker read the Count~ Planning Staff's report, as follows:
"Request:
SP-77-10 to amend SP-156 "Hollymead Planned Community".
Existing Zoning:
A-1 with SP-156
Acreage:
LocatiQn:
14.6+ acres to be amended
Amendments are proposed along Hollymead Road, Woodburn
Road, and Poe's Lane in the Hollymead Community
Character of Area:
The areas to be amended are generally surrounded by
single-family residential development. The Hollymead
Inn is generally surrounded by proposed commercial
development with the exception of the south side which
is residential in nature.
History:
The request for SP-156 for the development of Hollymead
Planned Community was approved subject to 14 conditions.
The approval was for 740 dwelling units.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing a general reduction in the
density of the development. The reductions involve
sections A,D,E, and F of the approved plan.
This amendment also involves a redistribution of open
space as follows: 2~029-acres cont§ining the swimming
pool and tennis courts adjacent to the Hollymead Inn are
to become a part of the Commercial area of the Planned
Community. In return, 2.496-acres containing a proposed
swimming pool, tennis courts and a day care center are to
become part of the Ho!lymead Open Space.
464
November 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting~
Conformance with Propose.d Comprehensive Plan:
The proposed reductions in density and general
residential concept are in compliance with the re-
commendations set forth by the proposed Comprehensive
Plan.
Comp~arative Statistics:
School Enrollment:
Elementary (K-5)
Middle (6-8)
Secondary (3'-12)
TOTAL
Approved SP-156
Proposed SP-77-70
192 160
104 87
121 101
~17 348
Site Date:
Gross Acreage 270.59-acres
Gross Residential Acreage 245.74-acres
Net Residential Acreage 137.60-acres
Proposed Total Dwelling Units - 650. dwelling units
Proposed Gross Re.~idential Density - 2.645 dwelling units/acre
Proposed Net Residential Density - 4.724 dwelling units/acre
Approved Total Dwelling Units - 740 dwelling units
Approved Gross Residential Density - 3.01 dwelling units/acre
Approved Net Residential Density - 5.38 dwelling units/acre
Staff Comment:
Staff has no problem with the redistribution of recreation
facilities as long as the new facilities are completed and
dedicated to the homeowner's association prior to the plata
ting of the new proposed lots. An open space buffer has been
maintained between the residential lots and the Ho!lymead
Inn facilities.
Staff has no problem with proposed changes in density along
Hollymead Road as long as the number of curb cuts along the
road are minimized. Therefore, the staff recommends approval
of the proposed amendment."
Mr. Tucker noted the Planning Commission voted unanimously at their meeting of
October 26, 1977, to approve the request with the following three conditions:
"1. All lots along Hollymead Road are to have joint entrances;
2. The recreation facilities adjacent to the Hollymead Inn shall remain open
to the members of the Hollymead Homeowner's Association until the new
facilities are completed and dedicated to the Hollymead Homeowner' Association;
3. This approval is for a total of 650 dwelling units in Phase I.'t
Mr. Jim Hill~ representing the applicant, said in a meeting with the Homeowners Associa-
tion of Hollymead, it was decided that it would be a better arrangement to keep 1the high
density housing away from the entrance and near and in the Phase II portion of Hol!ymead.
Mr. Aubrey Huffman said he helped in preparing the new plans for this application, and
he noted that the density was~not being changed, only the density was being repositioned.
Mr. Fisher asked if he understood correctly that the applicant wanted "credit" for
density removed from Phase I to be applied to Phase II when approved at some future date.
Mr. Hill agreed that this is what he hoped for. Mr. Fisher said he could not see how the-
Board could make any commitment for density~ cr'edit 'or' otherwise, on' an appll'cati~o~ t~eBoard
had not yet even received.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconde~ by
Mrs. David, to approve SP-77-70 with the conditions ~ecommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was then called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier and Roudabush.
later
(~erk's Note: It was/found that this petition had not been advertised for a public hearing
and so was rescheduled.)
Agenda Item No. 5. Subdivision Ordinance: Public hearing on a resolution of intent to
amend Section 18-2 of the Albemarle County Code regarding the general language and the de-
finition of "Subdivision".
Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report.
"Definition of Subdivision
~0n October 18, 1977, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent
to amend Section 18-2 of the.Code of Albemarle (Land Subdivision and Develop-
ment Ordinance) as it relates to the definition of "subdivision" and general
language. When this topic was before the Commission earlier this year, the
Commission determined the amendments proposed by the staff were too far-reac~g
to be considered without considering private roads.
The amendments as now proposed are more limited and intended to remove "loopholes"
in the ordinance.
Under the existing "sale or exchange of parcels" exemption, 2-acre lots
could be created and put to record without County approval. Under the propos-
~ ~!j any creation of a parcel of less than 5-acres is claarly a subdivision;
November 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
485
(2)
The purpose of repealing the "release of deed of trust" is to prevent
subdivision for transfer of ownership or building purposes whether
under this guise or subsequently. Once a plat is put to record, the
County has little control as to whether such property can be sold.
The p~aposed amendments are as follows:
18-2.
Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, terms umed herein shall
be interpreted and defined as follows: The word "approve" shall be
considered to be followed by the words "or disapprove" The word
"current" shall mean the point in time at which a matter is under
consideration and shall not mean the date of adoption of the ordinance
from which this chapter is derived. Any reference to this chapter
includes all ordinances amending or supplementing the same and the
date of their addit±ons or deletions. Ail distances and areas refer
to measurement in a horizontal plane. Except as otherwise herein
expressly p. rovided~ any term contained herein which has an established
meaning at common law shall be deemed to have its common law meaning
a~d any definition thereof shall be deemed declarative of the common
law and shall be construed in accordance therewith.
Subdivision. The division, including resubdivision and the establish-
ment of any condominium regime, of e~ ~ a parce!~of l~nd into two or
more lots, parcels or units, any one of which is less than five (~)
acres, for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development;
or, if a ~e~ ~ee~ e~ aeee~ ea.e~e~ an access easement or new street
is involved in such division, any division of a parcel of land. But
the following shall not be deemed a subdivision:
(1) The sale a~ and/or exchange of ~aPee$s property between adjoining
landowners where ~e~ ~a~e e~ e~eha~ge ~ee~ ~e~ e~ea~e a~e~a~
~~a~ s~e. provided that no resulting parcel is less than five
(5) acres in area.
(~) The division of any parcel occasioned by an exercise of eminent
domain by any public agency."
Mr. Tucker said on November i, 1977, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
these amendments, but adding the following words to 18-2,i~Subdivision (I):
"and provided further that the land so sold and/or exchanged shall be added
to and become part of an existing adjacent parcel as evidenced by the plat
of division and/or the instrument of conveyance thereof; and"
Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing, and no one w~shed to speak either for or against
these amendments. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and adopt the amendments set out above. Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
later
(Clerk's Note: It was/found that this petition had not been advertised for a public hearing
and so was rescheduled.)
Agenda Item No. 2. (Continued)
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to reopen the public hearing and reconsider the vote
on ZMA-77-18, Liberia Corporation. Mr. Dorrier noted he felt certain pertinent matters were
not discussed, and that the public was not given adequate opportunity to speak. Motion was
seconded by Mrs. David, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Mr. Dorrier said the problem is the location of the central well system with regard to
how it will affect the drainage basin in that location. Mr. Fisher noted that the representa-
tives of the applicant were still present at the meeting (Mr. Parks and Mr. Kudravetz). Mr.
Dorrier said farmers (represented by Mr. Bruce Rasmussen) who live on the east side of
Route 631 have already complained about the draining off of the water table in that area by
the Biscuit Run development. Mr. Dorrier requested additional input from Mr. E. E. Thompson
of the Albemarle County Service Authority, the public who live in that area, and Mr. Rasmussen,
representing the farmers in that water basin area.
Mr. Rasmussen requested the proposed central well system of the Liberia Development
Corporation be located on the western or northern side of Route 631.
Mr. Parks said placing the central well system on the northwest side of Route 631 was a
~package deal" which included them having a density of 5.~ du/acre, or approximately 108 units
Dr. Iachetta said he agreed that the well should be on the northwest side of the road,
and assumed that it was to be placed there without it being made a condition. He added that
if the farmers wanted that kind of assurance, he would go along with making it a condition
of approval.
466
November 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Mr. Kudravetz sa~d it was not fair for the Board to drop the number of proposed units
just because they were requiring the central well system with a storage tank. Mr. Fisher
suggested that condition #9 be amended by including a second sentence which would read
"The central well system shall be located on the parcels contained in the application for
ZMA-77-18 and such system shall serve only the single-family residential units constructed
on said parcels."
Mr. Henley said he would be willing to compromise and maybe give the applicant five
more units; for a total of 105. Mr. Dorrier said he felt a 15% increase in density would be
alright as long as the water problem has been solved. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to
further amend condition #1 to allow 104 dwelling u~its and to amend condition #9 to include
the wording stated by Mr. Fisher above. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley~ Mr. Fisher said
he would not support this motion because it was inconsistent with policy by allowing too great
an increase in density. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
A~E~ Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 6. Zoning Ordinance: Public hearing to repeal Section ll-8-A thereof
entitled Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control.
Mr. Tucke~ said it was an oversight that this section was not repealed several years
ago. No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this amendment, and the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David~ to adopt the following
ordinance:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Section ll-8-A of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, consisting of
subsections ll-8-A-1 through il-8-A-8, be, and it hereby is, repealed.
Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
later
(Clerk's Note-. It was/found that this petition had not been advertised for a public hearing
and so was rescheduled.)
Agenda ~tem No. 7. Zoning Ordinance: Public hearing to amend Article 3, Article 4,
Article 5, Article 7, Article 7.1, Article 8 and Article 9 thereof as they relate to minimum
area requirements.
Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report as follows:
"Upon staff request, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent
on July 5, 1977, to amend various area requirements in the Zoning Ordinance
in order to bring these requirements in line with provisions of the subdivision
ordinance. Upon recommendation of the Health Department minimum area require-
ments in the subdivision ordinance were established."
Mr. St. John said these amendments had been reviewed thoroughly by his staff, and he was
in agreement with same.
No one from the public wished to speak either for or against these amendments, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion to adopt the following amendments was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr.
Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote:
?
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
"ARTICLE 3, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN RS-1
3-2
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
3-2-1
Area. Residential developments shall have a maximum density of one
unit per acre; provided, however, that in approved subdivisions,
lots may have a minimum area of 40,000 square feet provided that
the average lot area of all lots in such subdivision is not less
than one acre; and provided further that any residential develop-
ment served by neither a central sewer system nor a central water
supply shall provide a minimum area of 60,000 square feet per dwell-
ing unit; and provided further that, in case of unusual soil conditions
or other physical factors which may impair the health and safety of
the neighborhood, upon recommendation of the Virginia Department of
Health, the Planning Commission may increase the area requirements speci-
fied hereinabove for uses utilizing other than a public sewer system.
467
NoV~rn~er 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
ARTICLE 4, RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED, DISTRICT R-!
4-2
AREA REGULATIONS
The minimum lot area shall conform to the following requirements:
4-2-1
Category 1: residential developments served by a central sewer
system and a central water supply shall provide a minimum area of
eight thousand two hundred square feet per dwelling unit.
4-2-2
Category 2: residential developments served by either a central
sewer system or a central water supply shall provide a minimum
area of forty thousand square feet per dwelling unit.
4-2-3
Category 3: residential developments served by neither a central
sewer system nor a central water supply shall provide a minimum
area of sixty thousand square feet per dwelling unit.
4-2-4
In case of unusual soil conditions or other physical factors which
may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood, upon
recommendation of the Virginia Department of Health, the planning
commission may increase the area requirements specified hereinabove for
uses utilizing other than public sewer system.
ARTICLE 5, RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED, DISTRICT R-2
5-2
AREA REGULATIONS
Category 1: residential developments served by a central sewer
system and a central water supply shall have a maximum net
residential density of 8.5 units per acre.
5-2-2
Category 2: residential developments served by either a central
sewer system or a central water supply shall provide a minimum
area of forty thousand square feet per dwelling unit.
5-2-3
Category 3: residential developments served by neither a central
sewer system nor a central water supply shall provide a minimum
area of sixty thousand square feet per dwelling unit.
5-2-4
Repealed.
5-2-5
Repealed.
5-2-6
Repealed.
5-2-7
In case of unusual soil conditions or other physical factors which
may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood, upon recommenda-
tion of the Virginia Department of Health, the planning commission
may increase the area requirements specified hereinabove for uses
utilizing other than a public sewer system.
ARTICLE 7, BUSINESS, GENERAL, DISTRICT B-1
7-2
AREA REGULATIONS
There shall be no minimum area requirements for permitted uses,
except as herein other wise expressly provided. In the case of any
parcel served by either? a central sewer system or a central water
supply, there shall be provided a minimum area of forty thousand
square feet per commercial or industrial establishment or per dwell-
ing unit, as the case may be. In the case of any parcel served by
neither a central sewer system nor a central water supply, the
minimum area shall be sixty thousand square feet; and provided further
that, in the case of unusual soil conditions or other physical factors
which may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood, upon the
recommendation of the Virginia Department of Health, the planning
commission kay increase the area requirements for uses utilizing other
than a public sewer system.
ARTICLE 7.1, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, DISTRICT CO.
7.1-4
AREA REQUIREMENTS
(a)
There shall be no minimum area requirements for permitted uses,
except as herein otherwise expressly provided. In the case of any
parcel served by either a central sewer system or a central water
supply, there shall be provided a minimum area of forty thousand
square feet per commercial or industrial establishment or per dwell-
ing unit, as the case may be. In the case of any parcel served by
neither a central sewer system nor a central water supply, the minimum
area shall be sixty thousand square feet; and provided further that, in
the case of unusual soil conditions or other physical factors which
may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood, upon the re-
commendation of the Virginia Department of Health, the planning commiss-
ion may increase the area requirements for uses utilizing other than
a public sewer system.
4B8
November 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
ARTICLE 8, INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED, DISTRICT M-1
8-3
AREA REGULATIONS
There shall be no minimum area requirements for permitted uses, except
as herein otherwise expressly provided. In the case of any parcel served
by either a central sewer system or a central water supply, there shall
be provided a minimum area of forty thousand square feet per commercial
or industrial establishment or per dwelling unit, as the case may be.
In the case of any parcel served by neither a central sewer system nor
a central water supply, the minimum area shall be sixty thousand square
feet; and provided further that, in the case of unusual soil conditions
or other physical factors which may impair the health and safety of the
neighborhood, upon the recommendation of the Virginia Department of
Health, the planning commission may increase the area requirements for
uses utilizing other than a public sewer system.
ARTICLE 9, INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL, DISTRICT M-2
9-3
AREA REGULATIONS
There shall be no minimum area requirements for permitted uses, e~ept
as herein otherwise expressly p~ovided. In the case of any parcel
served by either a central sewer system or a central water supply, there
shall be provided a minimum area of forty thousand square feet per
commercial or industrial establishment or per dwelling unit, as the case
may be. In the case of any parcel served by neither a central sewer
system nor a central water supply, the minimum area shall be sixty
thousand square feet; and provided further that, in the case of unusual
soil conditions or other physical factors which may impair the health
and safety of the neighborhood, upon the recommendation of the Virginia
Department of Health, the planning commission may increase the area re-
quirements for uses utilizing other than a public sewer system."
later
(Clerk's Note: It was/found that this petition had not been adYertised for a public hearing
and so was rescheduled.)
Agenda Item No. 8. A?PO~NTMENTS
A) Housing Coordinator: Mr. Agnor recommended the name of Mr. Russell B. Otis of 13 Oak-
ridge Road, Charlottesville. Mr. Agnor presented Mr. Otis' credentials, and suggested the
effective date of employment be worked out between Mr. Otis and Mr. McClure, Superintendent
of Schools~ Mr. Otis to be employed at the "A" step of the salary range (S20) for the Housing
Coordinator.
MOtion was offered by Dr Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve the appointment
of Mr. Otis as Housing Coordinator. Roll was called and motion carried ~y!i~the following re-
corded vote:
AYES: Mrs. DaVid and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley~a~d iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
B) Parks & Recreation Director: Mr. Agnor presented the name of Mr. Earl D. SuddUth of
204 Burton Court, Charlottesville, for consideration of this post. He presented Mr. Sudduth's
credentials and recommended the effective date of employment be November 22, 1977; beginning
salary to be on the S-!6-1 range.
MOtion to approve Mr. Sudduth's appointment was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr.
Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and ~a~hetta.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
C) Jefferson Area Board on Aging: Mr. Henley offered the name of Mrs. A~elaide J. Spainhour
of White Gate Farm, Route 2, Box 315, ~Charlottesville, to replace Mr. JoeT~arbour; said
term expiring on March 31, 1979. :i!~ .--
Motion to appoint Mrs. Adelaide J. Spainhour was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs.
David and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
D) Attorney:
resolution.
Fleming Suit:
Mr. St. John recommended that the Board adopt the following
BE IT RESOLVED that William B. Poff, Esquire, of the law firm of Woods,
Rogers, Muse, Walker and Thornton in Roanoke, Virginia, be and he is hereby
engaged as chief c~unsel for the Board of Supervisors and the members thereof
in their official and individual capacities, and for the County of A!~emarle,
in the case now pending in U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Virginia under the style of James N. Fleming, et al. v.s. Albemarle County,
Virginia~ and the Board ~Fi~.~Supervisors of Albemarle County, et al., at a rate
of compensation of $75.00 per attorney hour plus incidental costs and expenses.~!
November 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
November 2~1, 197_ 7~ (Afternoon-Adjourned from November 16, 1977)
489
Motion to adopt the resolution as presented was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Me§srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Not Docketed:
Claims against the County for the month of November, 1977, were examined, allowed and
certified to the Director of Finance and charged against the following funds:
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fu~.d
Textbook Rental Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account
Town of Scottsville - 1% Local Sales Tax
Total
$ 354,404.58
!,237,049.91
50,450.09
4,097.09
52,573.65
5,301.29
222,176.15
653.71
~8.52
$1,926,824.99
Agenda Item No. 9. Adjourn. At 11:00 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to
adjourn thi2 meeting to November 21, 1977, at the Holiday Inn South at 5:00 P.M. to meet
with the Charlottesville City Council in executive session for the purpose of discussing
legal matters. Motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
Cgh&irman
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on November 21, 1977, beginning at 5:00 P.M. at the Holiday Inn South, Charlottesville,
Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from November 16, 1977.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
Officers present:
George R.?~S2. John.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney,
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who requested a motion to
adjourn into executive session with members of the Charlottesville City Council to discuss
legal matters and property acquisition. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
The Board reconvened into open session at 7:23 P.M. and immediately adjourned.
Chairman