1976-01-28NJanuary 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
001.
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on January 28, 1976 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.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. J. H. Bailey, County Executive; George R. St. John, County_
Attorney; Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Robert Tucker, Director of Planning.
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman.
No. 1. ZMP-342, John W. Gibbs, et al. Public hearing to rezone 5.29 acres from R-2
Residential to B-1 Business and R-3 Residential. Property is situated on the south side
of Route 631 (Rio Road) near Route 659. Property is further described as County Tax Map
45, Parcel 26C. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on January 7 and January 14, 1976.)
Mr. Fisher presented a letter to the Board from Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., of the law
firm of Boyle & Wood, representing Mr. John W. Gibbs, et al, dated January 15, 1976,
requesting the applicant's petition be withdrawn without prejudice. Motion to withdraw ZMP-34
without prejudice was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mrs. David, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 2. SP-537, James N. Fleming. Deferred from December 10, 1975. (NOTE: At the
request of the County Attorney, a verbatim transcript of this discussion is being kept as
a permanent part of the record in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.)
Mr. W. S. Roudabush stated he wished to abstain as he felt he had a possible conflict of~
interest regarding this matter.
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, read the staff's report: "This property
is located on the west side of Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743), approximately 0.5 mile
north of the intersection of Hydraulic Road and Rio Road and is within the immediate
watershed of the Rivanna Reservoir. The property lies within the urban area of
Albemarle County as outlined by the Comprehensive Plan. The area in question is
wooded and open land, with the terrain's slopes ranging from 5 to 25%. There are
five single-family dwellings, 13 two-story duplexes, and a small mobile home park
within close proximity to the proper~y. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that
the proposed planned community lies within the designated urban area of the county.
The ~lan suggests that the property in question maintain a medium density resi-
dential use not exceeding 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
The property in question, as well as the properties to the north and west, are zoned
A-!. The property to the southwest is zoned R-2 and is developed in duplexes. ~
There are 75.66 acres, located to the south of the proposed planned community which
are zoned R-3. Georgetown Woods is to be located on the R-3 property and two site
plans for apartments and townhouses have been approved. Across Rt. 743 from the
property in question is 25.1 acres zoned R-3 and 20.34 acres zoned R-2. The
majority of both parcels are vacant with the exception of a small mobile home park.
The proposed impact statistics under existing zoning for this parcel would be:
108.85 acres or 55 dwelling units at one dwelling unit per two acres; 19.21 acres
or 15% of that total would be for streets. If it were developed in a two-acre
density, that would yield 173 persons projected, 81 vehicles projected, 378 vehicle
trips per day, and 53 school children. The applicant is requesting to locate 312
dwelling units with a variety of housing types. This plan would have a p~p~t~d~_~
population of 998 persons, 468 vehicles, 2184 vehicle trips per day, and 3~0 school
children. Under th~aapplicant's original proposal submitted a year or mora ago at
6.7 dwelling units per acre, that would yield 804 dwelling units, and under th~s
proposal, 312. The population comparison between these three under the existing
zoning developed two-acre density, projected population would be 173, under the
applicant's original proposal, 2,339 and under the proposal that is before you
tonight, 988.
The Albemarle County Department of Education indicates that the r~edistricting
of a portion of Greer Elementary to McIntire should handle the projected enrollment
from Evergreen once it is completely inhabited. Only minor impact is expected
at the middle school level. Overcrowdedness at the secondary school leYel is
increasing and relief from this will not be realized until the fall of 1977 when
the new western high school is completed. It should be noted that this development
is expected to be a ten year project. If the project started in early 1976,
it would be late 1977 before any school contribution could be felt in the system.
The Highway Department has submitted its recommendations for street widths and
right-of-way widths. The staff has reviewed these recommendations and suggests
they be complied with as a condition of~ approval.
The applicant has provided for recreation in a central location. However, an area
removed from the immediate residential areas for turf activities such as softball,
etc. is missing. There are several areas shown as "play area" which are not
sufficient in size to accommodate "turf" related recreation. Tot lots are placed
in appropriate areas, however there is not a sufficient number in close proximit~
to the 168 residential areas. The s~a~f~-'suggests two additional areas: 1) in
the open common area bounded by Midwood Lane and Cedar Drive, and 2) in the
vicinity of Cedar Lane and Cypress Lane.
The applicant proposes to use public water from the Albemarle Comnty Ser¥ice AuthOrity.
An existing water line is located along Hydraulic Road. This project will be served
002
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
creek is 3.16 million gallons per day while the present flow is 3.69 MGD. There is
a request to the State Water Control Board for recertification to 4.16 MGD, however,
the State Water Control Board has not yet given their approval of the recertification.
For water and sewer systems, Mr. J. Ashley Williams states "I have reviewed the
preliminary design for the sanitary sewer and water systems for Evergreen as shown
on plans by S.A. Phillips dated November 24, 1975. This preliminary design layout
for both systems appears to serve all lots with water and sewer and approval is
given for only the basic design layouts. The next step for approval is to submit
constructio~ plans for review by this office."
As stated in the original planned community submittal, the only density that the
.staff would be receptive to would be that density recommended by the Comprehensive
Plan which is 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The applicant's current proposal is
2.46 dwelling units per acre. While the density is in conformance with the Compre~
hensive Plan, there are other areas that should be addressed. First, there are
several lots and structures which are located on slopes of 25% and greater. The
applicant has corrected that and shifted all the units so they are located on slopes
o~f less than 25%. Second, the staff questions ~he amount of commercial area designed
to serve this development. Due to the proximity of other commercial areas in the
vicinity, we feel that this commercial area is excessive. Third, Shack Mountain,
which is located adjacent to the west of this proposed planned community, has
recently been declared a State Historic Landmark and placed on the Virginia Landmarks
Register. It is presently being considered for the National Register. We feel that
a buffer along Evergreen's west property line should be maintained in order to aid
in the preservation of Shack Mountain.
The staff follows its original recommendation for approval for a planned community
in this area with the following conditions:
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Maintain the proposed density of 2.498 dwelling units per acre (gross);
Compliance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's
recommendations for internal street standards, dedicated land along Rt. 743
for future widening and no entrance onto Rt. 657;
This approval be contingent upon recertification for increased capacity
of the Meadowcreek Sewage Treatment Plant;
Submit to the Albemarle County Service Authority an estimate, by stages,
of the capacities that will be expected on an annual basis; dual sewage
pumping stations will be required;
Comply with the following conditions submitted by the City of Charlottes-
ville concerning the gas pipeline easement:
(a) The contours on the plan indicate some grading and excavation on the
easement, the plans for which have not been completed. These grading
plans must be available for review and approval by the City of
Charlottesville prior to commencement of the work;
(b) Ingress and egress of equipment along the full length of the forty
foot easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must be assured.
The site plan shows building property lines within the easement which,
if fenced or landscaped, could obstruct this access;
Areas designated for tot lots including Planning Staff additional lots,
as shown on the master plan marked "Received 12/12/75", to be equipped with
recreation facilities such as swings, see-saws, etc. An area of 1'.5 acres
to be shown for turf recreation and activity;
Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service Authority
and the Authority's approval on maintenance and operation of sewage pump
station;
This approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's final approval;
Sidewalk along Rt. 743 to be constructed according to location and standards
developed by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Side-
walks to be constructed in conjunction with the internal road system at
four-foot minimum width;
County Attorney's review of any deed restrictions or homeowners' association
agreements;
No site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading
plan for this property has been approved;
A 100 foot tree buffer of common open space to be maintained along the
property line of Shack Mountain and no development to take place within
that buffer;
Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks,
recreation areas, pedestrian trails, parking areas, and debris basins
shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in a natural state;
The commercial area is to be no greater than one acre of land, exclusive of
internal access roads (the area originally proposed by the applicant, 3.15
acres~ ~as the capability of serving 5000 persons or 1600 families and
would not serve the intent of the planned unit develOpment concept);
The land uses, rights-of-way, pedestrian ways, and general lot layout as
indicated on the master plan of "Evergreen" dated received 12/12/75," by
the Planning Department and prepared by William S. Roudabush, Inc., under
file #4340, and as amended by any action of the Board of Supervisors, and
recorded in the minutes of the subject meeting, shall be adhered to by all
parties involved. Follow up final site plans and subdivision plats shall
be generally in compliance with the approved Master Plan;
Dedicate, as recommended by County School Board, 2~6 acres to the Albemarle
County School Board to be used in conjunction with property to be acquired
in Georgetown Woods. This property should be located, after approval by the
Planning Staff and School Board, between Laurel Drive and Spruce Court.
Density credit for the 2.6 acres shall be given, but that density shall not
exceed 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Dedication of this property should be
made in conjunction with the subdivision approval of subject property;
Submit two copies of revised Evergreen plan indicating the conditions
of approval outlined in item numbers 2, 6, 9, 12, 14 and 16 listed above;
No property line or dwelling unit to be located within the pipeline
easement.
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
OO3
~ Mr. Tucker said the planning staff had one item which it would recommend adding to the
list h~ ~n~itions, that of bicycle trails. The staff feels they would be used because of an
elementary school being located in the proximity. These are recommended for construction
along Hemlock Drive, Evergreen Drive, Midwood Lane and Holly Drive.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the school population overflow could be absorbed at McIntire. Mr.
Clarence McClure, Superintendent of Schools, said the School Board took action to delay plans
t-o use McIntire School as an elementary school. Mr. Fisher asked what was meant by condition
#8. Mr. Tucker said this meant approval of water and sewer system layout and sedimentation
control measures. Mr. Tucker added that it would be the homeowners association who would own
the common areas which would include recreation areas.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Fleming's engineer, Mr. Phillips to speak about the sedimentation
basin proposed for Evergreen. Mr. Phillips said the principal sedimentation basin occupies
2.62 acres. The maximum depth of the dam site would be about 17 feet and with the approved
empirical equation the combined storage capacity of that basin would amount to 17.8 acre feet
or roughly 130% of the requirement. There is also a smaller basin of 7/10 of an acre with a
design capacity to retain 32 acres of development upstream of that basin.
Mr. Edgar Puryear, attorney for Mr. Fleming, said there were two conditions to which Mr.
Fleming objected; first was condition number I~, restricting the commercial area to one acre.
Mr. Puryear said the applicant had asked for 2.15 acres and still feels this figure is appro-
priate although he is willing to compromise and accept two acres. Mr. Fleming's second
objection is to the 100 foot buffer zone. He said this will take approximately 7.2 acres
away from the usable building area. Mr. Fleming is willing to compromise with a 20-foot
b~uffer zone with the preservation of trees, etc. Mr. Puryear concluded by saying the applican
is agreeable to the remainding conditions set by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Phillips if he could predict how much sediment would run into the
reservoir even with the planned sedimentation basins. Mr. Phillips said the Code of Virginia
requires that a basin have capacity for sedimentation of a half-inch per acre for the entire
drainage area which is approximately 328 acres. He added that ~he sedimentation problem is
mostly encbuntered during construction and to forestall that problem the developer would have
to build a dam for the first phase of the project. This dam would have to be designed on the
basis of a 100 year flood and the spillway would have to be established in some stable sub-
stratum rock. Because of its size, the dam might as well be a permanent structure. Mr.
Fisher asked who would own the dam and be responsible for replacement if washed out. Mr.
Puryear said it would be the responsibility of the property owners and this will be written
into the deed of dedication.
Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing open. The first to speak was Mr. Richard
Collins. Mr. Collins reminded the Board that this request for a planned community is not
something which the petitioner can demand, but a discretionary decision of the Board. He said
it appeared that the amount of public opinion against this planned community should indicate
to the Board that the p~ople of the area do not want this community, and therefore, the Board
should use their discretionary power to deny the request.
Mr. Robert Tucker read an excerpt of a letter from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Director of Public
Works for the City of Charlottesville, regarding this petition. "The City has the following
concerns with the site plan for this project as presently drawn: 1) The contours on the plan
indicate some grading' and excavation on the easement, the plans for which have not been
completed. These grading plans must be available for review and approval by the City prior to
~commencement of the work. 2) Ingress and egress of equipment along the full length of the
forty-foot easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must be assured. The site plan
shows building property lines within the easement which, if fenced or landscaped, could
obstruct this access. Additionally, there are other concerns relative to high pressure gas
lines which are not easily resolved ~ut which are passed to you for your consideration in the
review of this project: 1) Buildings constructed on fill material in the vicinity of high
pressure gas lines such as the ones located in this easement are exposed to a potential of gas
saturation of the soil in the event of a leak or rupture of the gas line. Such saturation
offers the potential of damages to buildings and injury to their occupants if the gas concen-
tration is intense or confined. 2) The easement for these two high pressure lines allows for
cultivation of the soil and construction of buildings within fifteen feet of either line.
Since the lines carry-gas at high pressure, it is obvious that concentrated development of
buildings or signigicant excavation and disturbance of the soil was not expected when the
easements were written. The easements do not address these matters, but the City is desirous
of being on record with concern for t~e safety aspects of concentrated development on and near
this easement, changing it from an agricultural environment to an urban development. Wh~le
the proper safety precautions which the City utilizes reduces the risks, concentrating numbers
Of people within a few feet of these lines, which operate at pressures in excess of 300 lbs.,
is not desirable. 3) The easements do not specifically prohibit the location of other
underground utility lines within the easement, but other such lines, requiring maintenance and
repair, expose the high pressure gas lines to the inherent dangers of breaks caused ~ digging
or excavating. Again the easements were written for sn agricultural environment and there was
no expectation of other utilities within the easement. The gas lines are visually marked
above ground, ~ut this does not guarantee compliance ~y others with safety rules or the need
for contacting ~the City Gas Division prior to repairing other underground facilities. The
City will continue to do everything possible to present any accidents from occurring, but
avoidance of the potential danger by locating undergrcund facilities outside of easements
involving high pressure gas lines is a more positive ~rotection in an urban development.
~4) Another potential danger in a concentrated development of buildings with land being divide
into lots and boundary lines crossing or encroaching on the utility easement is a property
owner desiring to erect a fence and driving metal fence posts into underground pipelines.~
It would be more desiraa~eff~r lot lines to be located ~n a manner that would minimize
potential danger, but the easement does not require this. In summary, the two gas lines
cross this property supply the entire gas supply to the City and surrounding County area.
These two lines operate at the highest pressure of the City's system. Since they are the onl~
supply lines and are the highest pressure in the City's system, their protection against
hazards from outside forces over which the City has little or no control are paramount in the
concerns expressed in this letter."
Next to speak was Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., representing Mr. and Mrs. Bedford Moore. Mr.
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
requirements: 1) ~he proposal is in conformity with the comprehensive plan; 2) compatibility
with adjoining land uses; and 3) conformity with the spirit and intent of the planned unit.
development concept. He said the developer has failed to show any of the three. Mr. Murray
said the developer and Planning Commission laid great stress on the master plan and its pro~
posed density around the reservoir for the year 2000 of 2.5 units per acre. He said the
master plan does call for 2.5 units per acre, but that plan also calls for the Rivanna Reservo
to be phased out (Page 106 of the Comprehensive Plan). This master ~plan was drawn as a brief
against City/County Consolidation so this is obviously the reason for this statement. He,said
the~ondition set by the Planning Commission establishing a buffer zone of 100 feet between
the planned community and Shack Mountain is not enough. Also, it is not e~mugh of~a buffer
between the development and the land just purchased for use by the Nature Conservancy.
Dr. Clinton Parker, a resident of Albemarle County, said he has twenty years of experienc~
in water quality control. He handed to the Board a copy of "Characterization and Treatment
of Land of Urban Land Runoff", an Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Series, dated ~.
December, 1974. He said this is one of the most thorough investigations that have been made
on the subject. He suggested that if the Board is going to permit urban development around
the reservoir, storm water runoff should be routed ar~umd the edge of the reservoir and not
allowed to enter it directly. This storm water would be detrimental, not only from a nutrient
standpoint, but there ~ould also be heavy metals in this water. Urban runoff is the same
whether there are 6.7 people per acre or only 2.5 people per acre.
Mr. Kenneth Haviland, representing Citizens for Albemarle, said the major problem?results
because the area in question drains directly into a major tributary of the South Fork Riva~na
River and then into the Reservoir. Runoff pollution of the water supply is unavoidable what-
-ever strenuous efforts might be made by the County and the developer. Because of this unavoid
able problem, he said Citizens for Albemarle urges the Board to deny the special permit for
the planned community "Evergreen"
Mrs. Jefferson Baker, speaking for the Citizens of Ivy Association, said her organization
supports the Board's stand to protect the Reservoir.
Ms. Gay Blair, presented a statement for the Piedmont Environmental Counci~l, requesting
the Board to defer making any rezoning decisions in the Reservoir area until the current study
of the reservoir is concluded.
Ms. Kathy Gilman, speaking for the League of Women Voters, said the Comprehensive Plan
states that there shall be a conservation zone around water impoundments~ The League, there-
fore, opposes any increase in density of land use so near the Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. John Long!y, an Albemarle County-property owner, presented a copy of a petition
containing approximately 1,800 signatures (originally~es~d at the Albemarle County Planni
Commission meeting of January 6, 1975), and requesting the Board "To halt immediately approvin
any further development around the reservoir until the current study of the reservoir can be
completed; and as soon as possible, to create a special consarvation district around the
entire reservoir for its protection, with whatever down-zoning and compensation might be
necessary for the general good."
Ms. Elizabeth Conant~spoke representing the Nature Conservancy~ She said the best
interests of the Nature Conservancy have been fulfilled in the past by dealing with develop-
ments of limited densities. The Conservancy owns property on Ivy Creek and shares almost
-3000 feet of frontage with the planned Evergreen community. In purchasing the property, the
Conservancy hopes to preserve that acreage in its natural state as a wild preserve for animals
and plants native to the watershed, They hop~, by gifts of easements and land, both public
and private, to enlarge the Rann Preserve to protect even more of Ivy Creek.
Mr. Pat Janssen, representing the Albemarle County Taxpayer's Association, read from a
letter written by Mr. John Crowe of the State Water Control Board dated November 21, 1974.
"The issue of the pollution problems assoc±ated with medium and high density development
around the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir has recently come to my attention. It appears that
your situation is extremely similar to the difficulties which the Occoquan Reservoir has and
is experiencing. I suggest that before any major decisions concerning this problem are made
that the decision makers make use of the large amount of data and experience gathered over th~
past three years in the Occoquan Watershed. There is enough information available to assist
the Supervisors in arriving at an intelligent conclusion. Our data suggests that the long
term pollution problems associated with development adjacent to a water supply reservoir are
~'~severe enough to warrant down-zoning to a more acceptable level of development. ~I therefore~.
suggest, that your county utilize hindsight and learn from the mistakes that we have made in
the Occoquan Reservoir. If Z can be of assistance, do not hesitate to contact me." Mr.
Janssen also noted tha~ V.P.I. had made a study entitled "The Impact of Urban Runoff on Water
Quality in the Occoquan Reservoir" and said it contains facts which are pertinent to develop,
ments around reservoir. ·
Ms. Sally Thomas said anything that damages the reservoir effects water rates. G~wth
in the county depends on a usable public water supply because there can be~no clustered
development, urban or surburban, without water. Concern for the reservoir is not a no-growth
stand, but a hope for growth in the County.
Mr. Kenneth White, professor of Architecture and Architectural history at ~the University
of Virginia, said this planned community does not meet basic requirements for low income
housing. He also was concerned about the Planned community infringing upon the national
historic site of Shack Mountain. ~-
Mr. Puryear said the petition presented by Mr. John Longly was more'than a year old and
concerned a rezoning request for a totally different number of units, and people. He said the
plan was reviewed and approved by the County's Planning Commission~ With the conditions~set,
all the "frightening aspects" of this community can be controlled. ·
Mr. Fleming said he had only one question of the BOard~
white people don't pollute?"
"Why black people pollute and ·
Mrs. Poindexter, attorney for Mr, Fleming, said the dedications suggested by the county's
r
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
· .,- 005
~he ~lanning Commission, but there are things being required of Mr. Fleming that have never
been required of anyone else requesting a similar petition.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed at this time. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. St. Jo~
if approval of this rezoning request would affect the moratorium issue. Mr. St. John said in
his judgment approval of this application would be inconsistent with the Board's recent acts
and their present position with respect to the future of the reservoir. It was his judgment
that if the application should be approved, this inconsistency would be brought to the attenti~
of any court before whom the validity of th~ moratorium ordinance was brought in litigation.
That inconsistency would be prejudicial to the position of the Board with respect to the
present moratorium or any future action taken with respect to the reservoir area. He added
that denial of the request is not the only alternative. ~Th~ Board could delay a decision
until the reservoir study is complete, unless Mr. Fleming demanded a decision be made immediat~
Mr. Puryear said the applicant had asked for a decision from the Planning Commission in
December, but had been refused this decision. In his opinion, this was purposely put off unt~
January.
Mr. Fleming then said he wished the Board to vote on his request, and not defer to a
future date.
Dr. Iachetta denied the inference that the Board's decision wi~ldb~tbased on the applican~
race. He Said he would vote consistent with his public stand to protect the reservoir. He
then offered motion to deny the request for SP-537. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David who
said that her decision to vote for denial was based on what she considers~lto be reliable facts
indicating that the Reservoir should be protected from development. Mr. Henley said he is
against high density development around the reservoir until the study is completed. Mr.
Dorrier said he could not vote for approval of this special permit and remain consistent with
the action taken by the Board to protect the reservoir via the moratorium ordinance. He
reiterated that he felt there was no racial prejudice involved in the Board's decision. Mr.
Fisher said he has seen no compelling reason to change the zoning on the property in question,
but has found many reasons not to rezone. Mr. Fisher then called for a vote on the motion to
deny SP-537. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following rec~orded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush.
At 10:00 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a short reccess. Meeting reconvened at 10:10 P.M.
No. 3. ZMP-340. Dr. Charles W. Hurt. R~es~'~to rezone 1.25 acres from R-2 Residential
to B-1 Business. Property situated on the east side of Route 743 and the south side of
Whitewood Road. Property is further described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 25. Charlottes-
ville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 7 and January 14,
1976).
Mr. Robert Tucker read the staff report: "This property is located on the
southeast corner of Hydraulic Road and Whitewood Road, near Albemarle High
School. The area contains urban characteristics with residential, commercial
and public use located nearby. Property to the north of subject property is
zoned B-1 and has site plan approval for a retail florist shop. Property to the
east of subject property is zoned B-1 and vacant. Adjacent to the south is B-1
property with site plan approval for a doctor's office. To the west and across
Hydraulic Road is Albemarle High which is zoned A-1 and also there is M-1 property
which is ~acant. This property, being located in the urban area, is recommended
by the Comprehensive Plan for medium and high density residential.'
It has been and will continue to be the staff's opinion that there is a more
than adequate amount of B-1 zoned property within the county to fulfill the
County's needs for commercial land for many years to come, ~ut unfortunately, most
of that commercial land is not proper~y located from a planning point of view.
While we maintain that opinion, we feel that this particular parcel is logical
for commercial property in view of its location and the fact that it is now
surrounded by commercial and light industrial property, of which two of these
parcels already have site plan approval. In addition, we do not feel that the
existing R-2 Residential zone is appropriate for this parcel in view of
surrounding zoning. In recommending approval of this rezoning, the staff would
note for future reference that we would not be receptive to any entrance onto
Hydraulic Road from this property. We feel that the safest entrance would be
from Whitewood Road."
Mr. Tucker ended by saying that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of SMP-~
Mr. ~im]~H~l~k~p~esenting the applicant, said there was no way to'build an entrance onto
this property from Hydraulic Road so they have no choice but to build the entrance from
Whitewood Road.
Mr. Clarence McClure, representing the Albemarle County School Board, said the School
Board was not opposed to this particular rezoning, but was requesting the Board to seriously
consider the impact on the schools (i.e., traffic hazards) before making their decisions.
No one from th~ public spoke for or against the petition. The public hearing was closed
and mO~mn was then offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve ZMP-340. Dr.
Iachetta commented that this area has been a "traffic disaster" for the last five years and
this one additional B-1 lot would not alter this condition. Roll was then called, and motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
No. 4. ZMP-341. Richard H. deButts, etal. Request to rezone 15.6 acres from R-2
Residential to B-1 Business. Property situated on the west side of Route 29 North, about 1500
feet north of Rio Road. Property is further described as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 108.
Charlottesville Magisterial District. _(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 7 and
January 14, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker read the County staff's report: "This property is located on the west
side of Route 29 North approximately 1,500 feet north of Rio Road. The area can be
considered urban in nature with residential, commercial, and industrial uses
being located in the area. This property is located across from Woodbrook; an
animal hospital and mobile home sales lot~is located to the north. There are
two single-family dwellings located to the south. The majority of the land in
the area is presently zoned either B-1 Commercial or R-2 Residential. The
entire parcel adjacent to the north of the subject parcel is zoned commercial,
the parcels adjacent to the west and south are zoned R-2. Commercial zoning
ranging in depths of 500 feet and greater is found on both sides of Route 29 North
from Rio Road northward for approximately 2.5 miles, the majority of which is
undeveloped. Within one-half mile of subject property there are approximately 36
acres zoned commercially, but undeveloped and also approximately 22 acres
zoned B-1 but non-conforming, i.e., being used for purposes other than business.
The comprehensive plan recommends medium density residential uses (2.5 dwelling
units per acre) in the area with commercial usage being clustered around the
intersection of U.S. 29 North and Rio Road.
It is the staff's opinion that the 300 foot depth of commercial zoning on
subject property is in keeping~with the existing commercial zoning along U.S. 29 Nort~
but to grant additional commercial zoning at this time would be overzoning in
view of the existing amount of vacant commercial land in the area. Again, the
staff feels that additional commercial zoning in this area of U.S. 29 North is
not warranted at this time, and therefore recommends denial."
Mr. Tucker ended by stating that the Planning Commission recommends denial of ZMP-341.
Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., representing the applicant, pointed out on the zoning map the
fact that the applicant's property is almost completely surrounded by B-1 zoning. Also,
because of the limited access, he felt the property could not be used strictly for residentis
or business. He reiterated that he did not feel this is ~emature~because there is already
considerable amount of commercial zoning in the immediate vicinity.
No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
closed. Mr. Roudabush said that due to the unusual shape of the property and limited access,
he could see no problem with rezoning to B-1 Business°and offered motion to approve ZMP-34t.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Discussion insued amongst Board members as to the
~mount~Ofr~Commercial zoning that should be allowed in this area. Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and
Roudabush were of the opinion that since this lot already adjoins B-1 and R-2, it made no
difference as to how the lot should be rezoned, and that they could not undo the heavy ~
commercial buildup already present in this area. Mrs. David felt this was a poor time to
consider such a rezoning, with the Comprehensive Plan under review. Dr. Iachetta agreed.
Roll was then called, and motion to approve ZMP-341 failed by the following recorded ¥ote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush.
Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher and Iachetta.
No. 5. ZMP-343. Double C Corporation. Request to rezone a lot from R-2 Residential to
B-1 Business. Property is situated on the north side of Route 631 (Rio Road) in Greenfield
Subdivision. Property is further described as County Tax Map 45H, Parcel 14. Charlottesvi
Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress 'on January 7 and January 14, 1976).
Mr. Robert Tucker read the County staff's report: "This property is located off
Greenfield Court near Rio Road. The area is being developed commercially and
residentially. There is a commercial office and electronics and radio repair
shop located along Rio Road and adjacent to subject property. An apartment
building is located to the east and a mobile home park to the north. Single-family
development is located nearby along the SPCA (Route 659) Road. The comprehensive
plan suggests high density residential in this part of the urban area.
The property adjacent to the west of subject property was rezoned by the
applicant on August 14, 1974. It has recently been developed for office use.
The lot (15) directly south of this property at the corner of Rio Road and
Greenfield Court is an electronics and radio repair shop. The applicant
states that the rezoning of lot 14 is needed in order to provide additional
parking for the recently built office building. It is the staff's opinion that
in view of the existing zoning and development in the area, this rezoning would
be appropriate. It is not likely that this lot will ever be developed residentially."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends approval ~f ZMP-343.
Mr. Ron Clarke, representing the applicant, said the original site plan was for approx±-
mately one and one-half acres. The site plan for the first building, along with parking,
has been completed~ They are presently doing the site planning work on the remainder of the
acreage. This remaining land would not allow for sufficient parking, so an adjoining parcel'
was purchased, and must now be rezoned.
No one from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing close
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to approve ZMP-343. Roll was
called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta gnd Roudabush.
None.
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
"007
No. 6. ZMP-344~ T.E. Wood. Request to rezone 10.84 acres from A-1 Agricultural to B-1
Business. Property situated on the southeast side of Route 29 South near Route 745. Property
is further described as County Tax Map 75, Parcel 8. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 7 and January 14, 1976.)
Mr. Robert Tucker read the Staff report: "This property is located on the
southside of Route 29 South approximately two miles south of Interstate 64. The
area is rural with single-family development located along 29 South. This area
is rolling terrain and wooded primarily with field pine. The C & 0 Railway
traverses this property. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this property
falls within the conservation area and recommends a density of one dwelling unit
per five acres.
On July 12, 1972, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit to
located a temporary garage for junk cars. The cars were crushed and then hauled
away. The permit was approved for only six months. Ali evidence of this
operation has been removed. The applicant is requesting commercial zoning in
order to locate a flea market on the subject property. T~a~e over 50 acres
of vacant land zoned B-1 Commercial at the intersection of Interstate 64. This
property is located approximately two miles north of subject property. To rezone
this property would be obvious spot zoning and would in our opinion set a
precedent for commercial zoning along 29 SoUth. To date there is very little
commercial zoning along 29 South except at major intersections, e.g. 1-64 and
U.S. 29. Due to the recommendation of the comprehensive plan, the proximity of
vacant existing commercial zoning in the area and the precedent setting effect,
spot zoning would have on this area, the staff recommends denial."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended .denial of the application.
~rr ~-I~-~-~.~,
Mr. T. E. Wood said he has owned the property for years~ It is zoned for ag
use although it is not suitable for farming. He is now trying to find a logical use for this
land.
Mrs. Frances R. Joseph presented a petition to the Board containing 42 signatures of
persons living in the immediate vicinity who are opposed to the granting of the requested
rezoning. She added that there were other property owners present earlier who wished to speak
against the request, but who were forced to leave due to the lateness of the hour.
No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, to deny ZMP-334, based on the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and opposition of the neighboring property owners.
Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 7. SP-538, A.P. Williams Building Co. Request to locate a central well system on
12 acres zoned R-1 Residential. Property situated on northeast side of Route 743 at Earlys-
ville. Property is described as County Tax Map 3lA, Parcel 1. Rivanna Magisterial District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 7 and January 14, 1976).
Mr. Robert Tucker read the staff report: "The property on which the well is to
be located is within Earlysville Heights Section Four, on Viewmont Road. This
area is semi-rural in character. The subdivision of Earlysville Heights contains
lots averaging 0.6 acres.
The applicant's request is to locate a central well to serve Section 4 of
Earlysville Heights. A central utility system (either water or sewer) is needed
before plat approval can be given. The well completion report indicates that
after a 48-hour testing, the well yielded 15 gallons per minute. This water
system will include a 6 000 gallon storage facility and a 2 000~-pressure
tank. The applicant intends to serve 14 units with this well "~//~ '~
·
Mr. Tucker s&id thh Planning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions
County Engineering Department approval of well system and utility plan;
Health Department approval of bacteriological testing;
Service of well shall be limited to 14 units only in Section 4 of
Earlysville Heights Subdivision.
If the central well is turned over to home owners, the County Planning
Staff shall review these agreements with the assistance of the County
Attorney's Office.
Mr. Tucker then read a letter from the Acting County Engineer, Mr. J. Ashley Williams,
stating that he had reviewed the data submitted by Mr. William Morris Foster and found the
well being pumped at 15 gallons per minute over a required 48-hour test period. The water
system, which includes the storage and pressure tanks and water lines, appears to be adequate
for the lots shown.
The applicant was present, and said he hoped the Board would approve his request as he
felt a central well system would help make this a nicer subdivision. 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 Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachett~a, to approve ~538 with
the conditions as stated by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
0O8
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)`
No..8. SP-540~ Junior Lee and Doris M. Morris~ Request to locate a sawmill on 21
acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 668. Property
is further described as County Tax Map 15, Parcel 32, part thereof. White Hall Magisterial
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 7 and January 14, 1976).'
Mr. Robert Tucker read the staff report: "This property is located on the south~
side of Route 668 in the northwest section of Albemarle County. The area is
completely r~ral in character. It is heavily forested and mountainous. There
are three single-family dwellings in the immediate area. A mobile home is
located on the subject property.
The applicant is requesting a special permit to locate a permanent sawmill on subject
property. The applicant intends to contract the cutting of timber, and haul the
logs to his property to be sawed for sale. Due to the remoteness of this property,
the staff is of the opinion that this sawmill would have little effect on the
surrounding area, if properly located within the 21-acre tract. Route 668, which
is the only access, is gravelled and approximately 20 to 22 feet in width.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning ~ecommended approval with the following conditions:
Approval by all state and !ocal agencies; ~
Sawmill to be located in an area of least visibility with only those
trees to be removed which are necessary for the location of the sawmi!l;~
Planning staff approval of site plan;
Limited to one free-standing sign not to exceed eight square feet;
Special permit approval for three years with annual approval thereafter
and to be brought back to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors-
if deemed necessary.
Mr. Dorrier asked if condition number two was necessary~since as it seemed to be.
covered by condition number three. Mr, Fisher questioned condition number five, as to who
shall deem it necessary for the spe,cial permit approval~to be brought back to-the Planning i
Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tucker said it would be up to the Planning
Staff to recommend review by the Commission and Board.
Mr. Junior Lee Morris was present .and said that the sawmill would only be a small part~~
time business~operating one or two days a week. He said it would not become a junk-¥ard~ He
is only planning to cut stacks of wood on order and not accumulate large stacks.
Mr. Bill Perkins, representing several adjacent property owners, said their original
objections have since been clarified, and they no longer object to Mr. Morris' sawmill.
Mr. Earl Davis, an adjoining property owner, said he also had n° objection to the
erection of a sawmill by Mr. Morris.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition~and
Mr~J Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered by Mrs. David to
approve SP-540 with the five conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was
seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta said he saw no necessity for condition number 2 a~i
for the requirement of annual inspection after the first three yearS. Mrs. David withdrew her
motion, and Dr. Iachetta offered the following substitute motion: APprove-SP-540 with con-
ditions 1, 3 and 4~as recommended by the Planning Commission and reword condition 5 to read
Special permi~ approval for three years, subject to annual administrative approval thereafter.
Substitute motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Mr. St. John said any condition where the applicant has to come baak each year and get
administrative'approval will be declared completely unreasonable by any court. AlSo, there ar
no standards set out as to what constitutes his receiving reapproval each year and from whom
this approval is ~to be received. Mr. St ~John then suggested the following wording for Condit
five in the motion: "Special Permit to be issued for. three years with review at the end of th
three years to assure cOmplianCe with conditions,". Ail Board members were in agreement with
this wording, Roll was then called and the motion was adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier~ Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 9. SP-541. Page J. Flinn~ Request to locate an antique shop on 748.22'acrea zoned~
A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 601 near Free Union. Proper
is further described as County Tax Map 29, Parcels 7, 8, 13 and 14. White Hall Magisterial
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 7 and January 14, 1976.)
Mr. Robert Tucker read the staff report: "This property is located on the
west side of State Route ~01 approximately one mile south of Free Union.
The area is completely rural with varying topography ranging from gently
rolling farmland and pasture to deep ravines. There are very few dwellings
in the immediate area.
A road into the property is presently being improved. The applicant proposes
to locate an antique shop in the garage adjacent to her home. The staff feels
this antique shop would have little effect on the surrounding area since the
shop is located approximately 0.8 of a mile from Route. 601."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission ~ecommend~d approval with the following condition
Approval by appropriate state and local agencies;
Signing to be limited to two free-standing signs and one wall sign, each sign shall
not exceed eight square feet;it is the intent of the staff to permit one free
standing sign at the entrance to Route 601 and one free standing sign at the drivewa
to the shop, and one wall sign on the garage;
Any addition to this antique shop will require an additional special use.permit; ~
Staff approval of a site plan.
.on
Y
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
No one else from the public wished to speak either ~for or against this petition, and Mr.
Fisher closed the public hearing. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr.
Dorrier, to approve SP-541 with the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
ROi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 10. SP-539. George A. Cason. Request to locate a sanitary landfill on 126.374 acre
zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 20 North about one
mile from Route 250 East. Property is further described as County Tax Map 62, Parcels 24, 24C,
28, 28B and 28D, part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progrei
on January 7 and January 14, 1976.)
Mr. Roudabush said he had been engaged in survey work for Mr. Cason, but was not involved
in any capacity regarding landfill plans, or conducting any type of engineering work related t¢
landfill activities. He. said he had no material financial interest in the property or intere~
in the matter before the Board at present.
Mr. Robert Tucker read the Planning staff report: "The property is located on
the east side of Route 20 North approximately one mile north of Route 20's
intersection with Route 250. The area is classified as semi-rural at present
by virtue of scattered single-family dwellings, agriculture active with a major
residential subdivision being located just north of the site and west of Route
20. The area has scenic and historical amenities such as Franklin and Buena
Vista (see page 11 of the Comprehensive Plan for scenic attributes). A-1 zoning
abuts the property to the north and east. RS-1 zoning exists across Route 20
from the entrance to the subject property. R-3 zoning abuts the property to
~he~s~hthaa%~ng~with some A-1 zoning. The topograPhy is rolling hilly (mountain-
ous). There is commercial zoning along Route 250 east down from this property
and at the entrance of Route 20 and Route 250 east. The Comprehensive Plan
indicates this parcel is situated in an area conducive to large lot development
adjacent to an area designated for conservation. The area is considered to be
on the fringe of the "Urban Area" as defined~!within the Comprehensive Plan.
In 1972, an amended Senate Bill #436 was enacted regarding critical environmental
areas. This bill directed the Division of State Planning and Community Affairs
to develop criteria to be used in the identific~ation and delineation of the
State's Critical Environmental Are~ ~'~a~nvironmental Areas were
legislatively defined as "areas of natural, scenic and historic value, including,
but not limited to wet lands, marshlands, shore lands and flood plains of rivers,
lakes, and streams, wilderness and~dl~e habitats, historic buildings and
areas" In addition to identifying and delineating such "critical" areas,
the Division was directed to define and delineate protective zones around each
area, develop and recommend standards for the use and development of land
within each protective zone, and finally, to develop and recommend means by
which the standards shall be applied and development in this area shall be
controlled. Although the follow up on this Senate bill has slowed down, it
still warrants local consideration in review of new land use in defined areas.
The staff has noted the previous statement indicating attempts to preserve the
amenities of the State and this County because we feel this area qualifies as
a potential critical area based on several criteria and is in fact in the
Rivanna Area as noted by the report of the State: 11) a major facility which
would significantly alter the natural or~h~Stor~environment; 2) a scenic
area; and 3) severe topography.
Approximately fifty acres of the subject property was analyzed in a report
submitted by the Soil Conservation Service on July 18, 1973. This report
(on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors)
~ndicates that all of the soils analyzed within the fifty-acre area have
severe limitation for landfill operations. These limitations include soils
with high water table, problems of workability when wet and steep slopes with
shallow soils.
The vehicle count along Route 20 North for a 24-hour period was 2932 (September,
1973). This count was taken near the intersection of Route 20 and Route 250
East. The average daily vehicle count on Route 250 east between Route 20
North and the Rivanna River was 13,030.
On May 24, 1973, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution
which stated their intent to permit only the governing bodies of the County of
Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville, or both, to operate a sanitary landfill.
It was further their intent to prohibit the operation of sanitary landfills by
an individual or entity other than the governing bodies specified above. It is
the staff's opinion that this property is not conducive to a landfill operation
in view of the soil capabilities and topography of the land in question. To
permit such a use in this area would be in direct conflict with the County's
adopted Comprehensive Plan relative to protection of Historical Sites and
anticipated residential development, protection of the environment and existing
development. Due to the above comments and the fact that additional acreage
for a landfill operation is not warranted at this time, the staff recommends
denial."
Mr. Tucker said the ~anning Commission also unanimously recommends denial.
Mr. Robert M. Huff, attorney representing the applicant, said there was an obvious need
for another landfill in the county for people who travel the roads in the area of the Rivanna
River. He presented to the Board an editorial comment and photograph appearing in the Charlot
v~lle Daily Progress on January 28, 1976, showing the problem and the area under discussion.
Mr. Huff said Mr. Cason's landfill would offer those county citizens who do not presently have
~rash pickup, a place to dump other than the Ivy Landfill. He then presented ~hotographs take~
bv the ao~l~eant ~bow~n~ t~h ~n~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. +~ a~~
Oi.O
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
the location of the landfill and noted that the actual dumping site could not be seen by any
the adjoining landowners. He presented two aerial photographs of the proposed landfill site.
Mr. Huff said Mr. Cason was not going to operate a burning dump. He noted a study prepared by
the State Water C~ntrol Board on the effect of drainage from the Cason landfill site on un-d-er-
ground water in the area and on runoff into streams and other land. He presented a letter
dated July 20, 1973, written by Mr. D. C. Preager stating that with the proper precautions and
proper maintenance of the site, it could be satisfactorily developed for a landfill. The
letter was summarized as follows "while the proposed site is not ideal for a landfill operatio
not many sites are. With proper preparation, and Operation, this site could'be developed
~satisfactorily for a landfill operation." He then read portions of a letter from the ~Bureau
Solid Waste and Vector Control stating that Mr. Cason's area could possibly be made suitable~
for a sanitary landfill with proper, extensive engineering. He concluded by saying that the
~condition of Route 20 is excellent and wili hold up well to extensive truck travel.
Mr. Ralph E. Main, Jr., attorney for Mr. Cason, presented to the Board copies of a letter
-to Mr. Cason from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, dated March 22, 1973, regarding the
retainment of E.O. Gooch & Associates to do boring work on the Cason Landfill site. He also
~presented copies of the Gooch report, dated September, 1973, along with a boring plan map date
September 4, 1973. It was Mr. Cason's interpretation from the Gooch Report, that the Cason
site was clearly suitable for a landfill operation. Mr. Main then read the following quotes
from the Gooch report: "The entire site is underlain by the Catoctin greenstone..." ~With
proper engineering design and controlled construction of the fill, the danger of ground water
contamination will be quite remote." "Thus with proper management there should be p~nty of
on-site soil available for landfill, road and holding pond construction." "Our tests show th~
when properly compacted this soil is essentially impervious (water tight)." "If properly
engineered, controlled and compacted most soil at the site will be suitable for sanitary land-
fill cover, road subgrades and earth-dam holding Ponds for example. In fact this type soil
receives a rating of good to excellent as a sanitary landfill coyer material on all important
points according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 1972 manual for Sanitary Land-
fill Design and Operation." Concerning the geology, "no known faults or other geological
features which might be detrimental to the project are present at the referenced site." "If
this soil is compacted to, at least, 95% of AASHO T99 maximum dry density (this should not be
too difficult to accomplish with the earth moving equipment normally employed on a sanitary
landfill site), calculations show that it will take at least 10 days for water standing in a
pool two feet deep to penetrate a six inch thick layer of this soil. Normal good operation o~
a sanitary landfill should prevent the ponding of water on the surface for this length of tim~
thus the penetration of surface water into the landfill should be quite small and tolerable.
Since several feet (at least four feet) of both natural and compacted soil will be present
between the solid waste of the landfill and the water table there should be little if any
leachate escape the landfill soil." "We see no reason why soils at the Cason site cannot be
employed in earth dam holding ponds, the sanitary landfill, and as a subgrade material for a
roadway into the site. As further confirmation of this fact, we have reproduced below Table ]
p. 14, of the "Sanitary Landfill Design & Operation" report published by the U.S. Environment~
Protection Agency 1972. They rate these soils as good to excellent for sanitary landfills."
"Since a buffer zone of at least three to four feet of either natural soil and/or compacted
soil will be provided between any solid waste layer and the water table the danger of groundw~
contamination appears quite remote at this site." "Sound emanating from the landfill and
access road will be dampened by the surrounding forest and brush cover and should be no greatc
than existing truck traffic on Route 20 for example. The site is remote and well-screened by
forest and brush. Little, if any, expenditure will be required for screening. Since burning
will not be practiced, smoke will be no problem. Dust should not be a problem since roads wi]
be all-weather. Dust prevention practices will be practiced and the surrounding forest will
act as a dust filter." "If good sanitary landfill practices are employed', as they must, this
land, which is currently suitable only for forest and very limited agriculture usage, could b~
enhanced for future residential development. Landfill areas would create larger level areas
the site upon which playgrounds, tennis courts, picnic areas and parking facilities could be
constructed leaving the untouched areas for residential development for example." Mr. Main
then quoted sections 2-1-25(29) and 11-13-1 of the Zoning Ordinance. He then proceeded to
describe the area of the proposed landfill to demonstrate that it conformed with these code
sections.
At this time, the Chairman ~pened the hearing to the Public.
Mr. James J. Barne asked who was to see to the management and running of the landfill.
Mr. Lawrence M. Rogers said that even though the landfill itself may be out of sight, yo~
can usually locate a dump just by following the trash along the side of the road.
Mr. John C. Vermillion~said he wished to speak for Mr. John Haskell who was out of the
country and could not be present to voice his opposition. He then read a letter dated Januar~
27, 1976, from the Stony Point Road Association, signed by Cynthia Alling, Secretary, request~
denial of Mr. Cason's special permit. Mr. Vermillion then reviewed discussions from previous
Board of Supervisor meetings (September 12, 1973). He said some of the studies presented to
the Board were incomplete, quickly made, and since their presentation, additional~da~'.~ga~
pollution has come to light. ~ ~ ~
Mrs. John Dorrier said she lived almost directly across from the proposed site and asked
the Board members to come out and inspect the area after a heavy rain storm so they could see
the amount of rock etc., that is washed off the steep slopes of the Cason Landfill area. She
said if rock washed down, imagine how the heavy rains would wash down trash and garbage.
Mr. Montague McMurdo said the land_proposed for the landfill is very steep and very pron~
to washout and would prove unsuitable for a landfill.
Mrs. Mary Wheeler said this area of Route 20 is on the Chamber of Commerce's historical
tour guide~ She could not see how Mr. Cason could control the p~roblem of trash along the
roadside leading toward the landfill if the City and County cannot control a similar problem
their landfill.
Mr. Clinton E. Parker asked the Board to consider reports of landfill material not decom
posing even after periods as long as twenty years and reports of gas seepage from landfill
sites.
~er
.ag
~g
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
fill and could not see a need for another landfill in the county; only better enforcement of
local litter laws.
Mrs. Muriel McMurdo said people who are prone to litter will not pay to use a private
landfill~. If the landfill should close its gates at 4:30 P.M., people are more than likely tc
just leave their trash outside the fence.
Mr. John Dorrier said he felt the presence of a landfill would affect the value of his
home and asked the Board to please vote on this matter this evening as_'i~'~_h~d~_cost h~._a~good
deal of money and sleep.
Ms. Angeli~ca Miller asked only that the Board deny the request for the landfill, as it wl
not only her sentiment, but that of the entire community.
No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
closed.
Mrs. David asked about the May 24, 1973, resolution adopted by the Board regarding only
governmental ownership of landfills. Mr. St. John said the Board should only consider this
special permit on its own merits, and disregard a resolution of "policy" set up and adopted
by a former Board. He reiterated that it was only an adopted resolution, not an ordinance
of law.
Dr. Iachetta said there are over 12,000 landfills in the United States and that 94% of
those are not sanitary. He said many contribute a great deal to air pollution from fires
they are not supposed to have. He added that there are already two landfills in the county
and he cannot see the need for a third. He felt it would be another public nuisance that
would have to be inspected, and conditions enforced, and that the county was having enough
trouble now enforcing their !i~ter laws. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to deny special
permit #539. No second to the motion was received~ Mr. Fisher asked for a motion to defer
action on the request until the Board meeting of February 25, 1976. Motion to this effect
was made by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
Dr. Iachetta.
At 1:00 A.M., a ten minute recess was called. Meeting reconvened at 1:10 A.M.
No. 11. Public Hearing of an amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to be
known as Article 18, Scenic Highway Designation (continued from December 10, 1975).2
Mr. Robert Tucker said the Planning Commission had not acted on this amendment and
suggested the Board also defer action. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs.
David to defer this public hearing until February 11, 1976. Roll was called and the motion.
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 12 (a). UP-?5-11.r Request to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to
permit fire stations and rescue squad stations with a special use permit within all zoning
districts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 7 and January 14, 1976).
Mr. Robert Tucker read the staff report: "At the present time volunteer fire
stations are provided for only in the A-1 Agricultural District with a special
use permit. It is the Staff's opinion that fire stations and rescue squad
stations should be afforded the opportunity to locate in all districts with a
special use permit. These are facilities which provide important services to
the county and could be compatible in all districts with certain conditions
attached."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends approval of this amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance.
No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr~
Fisher closed the public hearing.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
by including the following new sections: under the A-1 zone a new section numbered 2-1-25(11
under the RS-1 zone, a new section numbered 3-1-12(421); under the R-1 zone, a new section
numbered 4-1-12(411); under the R-2 zone, a new section numbered 5-1-15(3.1); under the R-3
zone, a new section numbered 6-1-21(3.1); under the B-1 zone, a new section numbered 7-1-42(2
under'the M-1 zone, a new section numbered 8-1-27(3.1);and under the M-2 zone, a new section
numbered 9-1-23(10.1). The 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.
No. 12 (b). UP-75-12. Request to amend Article 17 (Site Development Plan) of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to require site plan approval for all development involving
the installation of gasoline pumps or tanks for retail sale; and to amend Section 16-35 of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (Definition of General Store, Country) to include gaso-
line pumps in the definition only when given specific approval by special permit. (Advertise,
in the Daily Progress on January 7 and January 14, 1976).
Mr. Robert Tucker read the staff report: "This amendment is before you to
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting~
insure that proper noti-fication shall be given to adjacent property owners
anytime the sale of gasoline is involved in a development. The staff
recommends the following amendment to Section 17-2-1(d) to read as follows:
A change in any use involving an existing building or the
construction of a new accessory or storage building neither of
which involves a new entrance way or additional parking area,
except in those cases where the sale of gasoline is involved;
all development of this type shall be subject to all of the
requirements of this ordinance.
The staff also recommends the following amendment to Section 16-35 General
Store, Country to read as follows:
A single store, the ground floor area of which is four
thousand (4,000) square feet or less and which offers for sale
primarily, most of the following articles: bread, milk, cheese,
canned and bottled foods and drinks, tobacco products, candy,
papers and magazines, and general hardware articles. With specific
approval through the special use permit process, gasoline may also
be offered for sale but only as a secondary activity of a country
general store and no more th~n three (3) gasoline pumps shall be
permitted."
Mr. Bailey asked if this section was being amended to prevent fire hazards. Mr. Tucker
said it would help, but the main reason was so the adjoining property owners would be notifie~
before the fact that gasoline would be for sale at the proposed country store. Motion was
then offered by Mrs. David to approve UP-75-12, the amendment of Sections 17-2-1(d) and
16-35 as set out above. 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.
No. 13. Public Hearing to consider amending the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and
Development ordinance to provide for a maintenance/performance bond in lieu of a construction
bond and its administration after construction of a road for public use has been built to a
Virginia Department of Highways Standard and verified by the Virginia Department of Highways.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 13 and January 20, 1976).
~M~.~!~db~t~[.Tucker read the staff report: "The Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors approved a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County
Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance to provide for the reduction
of construction bonds and the provision for a maintenance bond unvil the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation h~s accepted a road
into the State Highway System. (Additions and changes in wording to
Section 3-8-1 are underlined.)
SECTION 3-8-1: Ail required improvements shall be installed at the cost of the
subdivider. Where cost sharing or reimbursement agreements between the County
of Albemarle and the subdivider are appropriate, the same shall be entered
into by formal agreement prior to final plat approval and shall be subject
to Virginia Highway Department inspection and acceptance. Easements and
lines for water and sewer services shall be subject to approval by the
Albemarle County Service Authority and drainage easements shall be subject
to approval by the Albemarle County Engineer. In cases where specifications
have be~n established, either by the Virginia Department of Highways for
streets, etc., or by this ordinance, such specifications shall be followed.
Portions of the subdivider's performance bond may be released~ by the Agent_
for the governing body~ .after the completed construction or improvements
have been inspected and accepted as being in compliance with approved
plans by the County Engineer~ the agent for the Board of Supervisors, and/or
by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation~ as required by
law. After final completion of a road constructed for inclusion into the
State Highway System~ the Agent for the governing body may release the
total construction bond provided the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation has apProved final construction of such
road and provided further that bond in favor of the County of A~bemarle with
security sufficient to ensure that such road shall be maintained to the
Standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation until such
road shall have been accepted into the State Highway System. The amount of the
maintenance bond shall be determined by the following criteria:
For two lanes:
0 to 0.25 mile - $ 2~500
0.25 to 0.5 mile - $ 5,000
0.5 mile and above - $10,000 per mile
For four lanes:
0 to 0.25 mile
0 25 to 0.5 mile~
0.5 mile and above
$ 5~000
$10,000
$20,000 per mile
Ail improvements shall be in accordance with the requirements set forth in this
ordinance."
Dr~. John B. Lange said his road in Brennington Subdivision is 1,700 feet long and is
scheduled to serve ten lots. This road has been completed to State standards, but no homes
are schedul~ed to be built until about three years from this date. He concluded by saying he
could see no reason to tie his $5,000 up for an indefinite period of time,since the road did
meet all other specifications.
Mr. St. John said the reason road bonds are retained until accepted into the State _
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
013.
System is because years ago, upon completion of the road, the entire bond would be refunded
to the developer, even if no homes were constructed on the road. When home construction
began, trucks etc~, caused the road to deteriorate and there was no one to pay for the
repair of the road. This law was therefore changed to require three homes per mile of road
before a performance bond would be released. He added that the proposed amendment would
hopefully strike a happy medium.
Dr. Iachetta asked if there would be any problem in applying this amendment retroactivel
Mr. St. John said no, because you were enlarging the rights of the developer who posted the
bond. Mr. St. John then asked Mr. Tucker if the proposed bond amounts were for a period of
one year. Mr. Tucker was not sure that it represented any specific length of time. Mr.
Bailey stated that $2500 would not be a sufficient amount of money to repair a quarter mile
of road at today's prices, and would be even less likely to cover expenses in the future.
Mr. Roudabush said the developer was being penalized by having to post double the bond
if his road is one foot more than a quarter or half mile. He suggested possibly using a
per foot basis. Dr. Iachetta, Mr. Henley and Mr. Fisher were in agreement, and suggested
the planning staff possibly recontact the State Highway Department to establish a better
way of setting the amount of bond to be held versus footage of road. Motion was then
offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to defer this item until February 19,
1976, at which time a new schedule of bond dollars to be held for each foot of road should
be presented. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. DoTTier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed. Legislative Matters. Mr. Fisher said he wished to discuss proposed
Senate Bills #37 and #38, which would amend the Code of Virginia by
adding Section 22-83.3 and repeal Section 22-57.1 relating to elected school boards in
counties having the county executive form of county government and elected school boards in
general; and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding Section 22-63.1 and repeal Section 22-
57.1 relating to elected county or city school boards. Mr. Fisher said he did not know if
the elected school board would have the power of taxation to raise funds to support the
school system. Mr. St. John said they would not have any power of taxation.
It was the consensus of the Board members that they would not be in favor of converting
the presently appointed school board system over to an elected type of system. Mr. DoTTier
then offered the following resolution for adoption:
WHEREAS there is now before the Committee on Privileges and Elections
two bills (Senate Bill 37 and Senate Bill 38) which would require that school
boards be elected instead of that method presently utilized;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby go on record as being opposed to
the passage of these bills.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs..~ David and Messrs. DoTTier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Bailey presented a Deed of Lease for office space in the Tarleton
Square Building. He said the Lease was prepared by Mr. George R. St. John for space already
occupied by the Department of Social Services with 537 square feet more than presently
occupied. The annual rate per square foot is $4.00; the term is for 18 ~months; effective
date is March 1, 1976. If at the end of 18 months, costs rise, there is an escalation
c~lause. Also included in the rental are 38 parking spaces and janitorial services.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, that the'Chairman of the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors be authorized to sign the following lease on behalf of the Board and the
County of Albemarle:
DEED OF LEASE
THIS DEED OF LEASE, made and executed this 28th day of January, 1976, by and between
TARLETON SQUARE, INCORPORATED, hereinafter called and referred to as "Landlord," and THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called and referred to
as "Tenant".
WHEREAS:
1. Landlord is the absolute owner of an apartment building at 701 East High Street,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
2. Tenant wishes to lease approximately 6,075 square feet of office space on the
ground level of the above building belonging to Landlord together with access thereto by~
the stairways which afford such access, with the terms and provisions as hereinafter follow
for the purpose of using said office space as offices for the Department of Social Services;
and the Landlord equally wishes to rent said office to Tenant under the said terms and
provisions as hereinafter follow:
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations as stated
Landlord does hereby lease to Tenant, and Tenant hereby leases from Landlord, the above
described office to contain approximately 6,075 square feet, under the following terms and
conditions, which the parties~hereby agree to:
A. CONSTRUCTION
(1) The Landlord amrees to Rnstall new commercial carnet or tile reasonably saris-
January 28, 1976 (~ight Meeting)
(2) The approximately 537 square feet of unfinished area which is being leased will be
finished at the expense of the Landlord, including the installation of heating and air-condi-
tioning, finished partitions, in other words, a turn-key job. The work to be done is specified
on an estimate which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The work so
specified shall be performed to the satisfaction of the Tenant or its designated'agent.
B. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Tenant shall have peaceful possession and quiet enjoyment of the premises for the term of
this lease and for any extension hereof.
C. TERM
The term of this lease shall commence on March 1, 1976, and shall continue for a period
of eighteen (18) months from that date.
D. RENEWAL AND TERMINATION OF LEASE
Tenant shall have the right to renew this lease for an additional eighteen (18) months
period by giving Landlord ninety (90) days written notice, prior to the expiration of the
original term hereof, and thereupon this lease shall be extended in all its terms and con-
ditions. Tenant must exercise option to renew this lease pursuant to the conditions herein
stated within ninety (90) days prior to the termination of the present leasehold term.
E. RENT
(1) The rent for the 6,075 square feet of office space presently leased by the Tenant on
the ground floor of the building shall be at an annual rental of $4.00 per square foot or
$2,025.00 per month from March 1, 1976, through September 30, 1977, payable in advance on the
first day of each and every month during the term herein, or a total of $36,450.00 over the
eighteen (18) month period.
(2) Ail of the aforesaid rent shall be paid without deduction or demand, in advance, on
the first day of each and every month throughout the entire term of this lease, to the Landlor~
at 701 East High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia, or to the Landlord3s designated agent, or
at any such other place as the Landlord may hereinafter designate in writing.
F. ESCALATION OF RENT
If Tenant exercises its option to renew its lease at the expiration of the original
leasehold term the rent shall escalate, and thereby be adjusted at the beginning of the renewal
period. The means of arriving at such rent adjustment will be by taking the increase of the
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Cost of Living Index at the beginning of the first
month of the renewal period, over the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Cost of Living
Index as of March 1, 1976, or that date which the original leasehold herein commences, and
then by multiplying the original annual rent by the increase in said cost of living index.
This new adjusted rent for the renewal term shall be the rent throughout said renewal term.
In no event shall rent be decreased by virtue of a decrease in the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Cost of Living Index. In the event publication of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistic
Cost of Living Index is discontinued, the parties shall accept comparable statistics on the
purchasing power of the consumer dollar, published by a r.esponsib~e financial periodical of
recognized authority, or other United States Government Agent or Department publishing like or
similar Consumer Index statistics, as was published by the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
G. USE OF PREMISES
Tenant shall use and occupy the premises for business offices for the Department of
Social Services and for no other purpose. Tenant will not use or permit upon said premises
anything inconsistent with the use allowed that will invalidate any policies of insurance now
or hereafter carried on said building or which will increase the rate of insurance of said
-demised premises, or on the building of which said demised~premises are a part. Tenant will
comply with all government health and policy requirements and regulations respecting said
premises and will not use said premises for lodging or sleeping purposes. Tenant shall obtain
at its own cost and expense all necessary licenses and permits that may be required and Landlo~
agrees to sign promptly and without costs to Tenant any applications for licenses or permits
for which Landlord's signature is required.
H. SUBLETTING AND ASSIGNMENT
~, ~The~Tenaht wi!l~not~transfer or assign this lease, nor let, nor sublet the whole or any
part of said premises without the written consent of Landlord first had and obtained, nor
shall any subletting or assignment be effected by operation of law or otherwise than by writte~
consent of Landlord first had and obtained, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
I. CONDITION OF PREMISES AND ALTERATIONS
(1) The Tenant will keep said premises in good repair and condition and render same at
the .expiration of this term in the same good order in which they were received, usual wear and
tear and damage by fire and storm only excepted. Tenant shall have the right to place or
install on said premises such fixtures and equipment as it deems desirable upon obtaining
Landlord's written consent; said consent will not be unreasonably withheld. Tenant shall have
the right at the expiration of this lease to'remove such fixtures at its expense provided it
repair any damage resulting from such removal~
J. LIABILITY AND INSURANCE
(1) The Tenant agrees that all personal proPerty in said premises shall be and remain at
its sole risk, and Landlord shall not be liable for any damage to, or loss of such personal
property arising from any acts of negligence of any other persons, nor from theft, nor from
the leaking of the roof, or from the bursting, leaking or overflowing of water, sewer or steam
pipes, or from heating or plumbing fixtures, or from the handling of electric wires or from
any other cause whatsoever, nor shall the Landlord be liable for any injury to the person of
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
the Tenant or other person in or about the premises, the Tenant expressly agreeing to save the
Landlord~harmless in all such cases; provided that in no event shall any provision hereof be
deemed to exempt the Landlord from liability for any damage and/or injury to any person or
thing which shall be the result, in whole or in part, of the negligence or other culpable act
or omission of Landlord or its agents.
(2) The Tenant agrees to repair or replace any damages cause to the demised premises by
its negligence, or the negligence of its employees, or any other damage to the premises or
fixtures therein caused by improper use of or caused by failing to give the premises proper
service and care. The Tenant agrees to maintain the premises in good repair during the term
of the lease, or any extention or renewal thereof, including the floors, walls, ceiling, and
other equipment and fixtures, and shall make all interior repairs, excluding structural defect
replacements at its own cost and expense; provided that the Tenant shall in no event be liable
for any repair or replacement occasioned by any fault in or failure of in any portion of the
exterior or the structure of the building in which the premises are located or by the negligen
or other culpable act or omission of Landlord.
(3) Landlord shall be responsible for the structural and exterior maintenance of said
premises except to the extent that the same shall be the result of the negligence of Tenant,
in which event Tenant shall be responsible for the repair of same.
(4) The Tenant shall not keep gasoline or other inflammable material or any other
explosive in the building which will increase the rate of fire insurance on the building
beyond the ordinary risk established for the type of business hereinafter provided to be
conducted therein. Tenant shall nov do any act or thing upon the premises or in or about the
building which may make void or voidable any insurance on the said premises or building, and
the Tenant expressly agrees to conform to all rules and regulations from time to time estab~
li~h~d by the Virginia Insurance Rating Bureau.
(5) The Landlord maintains its own fire and extended coverage insurance on the building
in question and that such insurance does not accrue to the benefit of the Tenant. In the
event the leased premises are destroyed by fire or other casualty, such that they are not
tenantable, then the rental obligations hereunder of Tenant shall be tolled during such period
and Tenant~shall have the right to terminate this lease. If Tenant shall elect not to ter-
minate, Landlord shall repair the demised premises. If such repair has not been effected
within ninety days, then Tenant shall have the option to terminate this lease.
K. UTILITIES
Landlord shall furnish heat and air-conditioning sufficient to maintain normal office
temperature during working hours. Landlord will furnish electric current for purposes of
illumination and in reasonable amount for the operation of usual office machines. Landlord
will also pay all water and sewer bills.
L. PARKING
Landlord will provide adequate parking area for the 14 County automobiles and/or clients
of Tenant on adjacent lot and 25 spaces for Tenant's employees on the Presbyterian Church
parking lot located in the adjoining block. Tenant hereby agrees to direct employees to use
the 25 off-site spaces and Tenants agree to be responsible to see that those spaces are used
so as to provide adequate parking for other tenants.
M. FAILURE TO ACT NOT A WAIVER
No waiver of any condition expressed in this lease shall be implied by any neglect of
Landlord to take any action on account of the violation of such condition if such violation be
continued or repeated subsequently, and no express waiver shall affect any condition other
than the one specified within such waiver, and that one only for the time and in the manner
specifically stated; if the Landlord shall not take action of any kind upon failure of the
Tenant to pay any installment of rent when due, such forebearance or failure or neglect to
take prompt action shall not be construed as a waiver by the Landlord to any right reserved
the Landlord herein, but the Landlord shall have the right to any and all times thereafter to
enforce a prompt and strict compliance with the terms of this lease, regardless of any and all
former acts or forebearance or failure to insist upon a prompt or strict compliance with any
of the terms, covenants and conditions of this lease.
N. HEIRS AND ASSIGNS
Each of the provisions of this lease shall extend to and shall bind or inure to the
benefit of not only the Landlord and the Tenant, but also of their respective heirs, legal
representatives and assigns.
O. ABATEMENT OF RENT
If the demised premises or any part thereof shall be rendered untenantable for use and
occupation by reason of-damage ar destruction, except damage or destruction caused by the
negligence or other culpable act or omission of the Tenant, rent shall be abated in proportion
to the part rendered untenantable, such abatement to continue until the premises are restored
to substantially their former condition. If the premises shall be rendered wholly untenantabl
paragraph J(5) shall apply.
P. JANITORIAL MAINTENANCE AND TRASH REMOVAL
r_ ~andlord shall be responsible for once a week janitorial service and the Tenant is
~a~±~le~or replacement of light bulbs and window panes which may be in need of replace-
ment during the term of this lease. Landlord shall be responsible for ~~ing adequate
cmntainers for Tenant to place trash in, and Landlord will be responsible for the removal of
said trash from said containers.
January 28, 1976 (Night Meeting)
Q. INSPECTION
For a period of six (6) months pr±or to the termination of this lease, Landlord shall
have reasonable access to the demised premises, consistent with Tenant's business operations,
for the purpose of exhibiting them to prospective tenants, and shall have the right to post
advertisements indicating that such premises are for rent. Tenant agrees that it will permit
Landlord, or Landlord's agent, to enter said premises at all reasonable times as aforesaid for
~the purpose of inspecting the same.
R. SIGNS
Tenant may place a sign on the exterior of the demised premises where designated by the
Landlord, provided that said sign is uniform in size and style with others on the building and
in keeping with the appearance,' dignity, and ethical image presente-d by the building. Landtor(
shall have the sole discretion to determine whether any particular sign presented by the
Tenant shall meet the requirements of this paragraph.
S. APPROPRIATIONS FOR RENT
This lease shall be subject to the annual appropriation by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle~County of funds sufficient to satisfy the financial obligations of the Tenant with
respect hereto. In the event that no such appropriation be made in any year during the term
of this lease or any extension hereof, either party shall haYe the right to terminate this
lease; provided that-no such failure to appropriate funds shall be construed as a breach of
the terms hereof for which damages may be recovered.
T. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This lease contains all of the agreements and conditions made between the parties hereto
and may not be modified orally or in any other manner than by agreement in writing signed by
all parties hereto. ThiS lease shall be governed by the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia
and shall be construed in accordance therewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this 28th day of
January, 1976.
ATTEST:
(signed) Guy O. Farley~ Sr.~ Treasurer
TARLETON SQUARE, INCORPORATED] Landlord
[Byi:~.~.s~gned) Guy O. Farley, Jr., President
ATTEST:
(signed) Barbara J. Flammia, Deputy Clerk
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, Tenant
By: (signed)' Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman
Motion~ authorizing the Chairman to.sign said lease was seconded by Dr. Iachetta.
was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed. Claims against the County were presented, examined, allowed, and certified
to the Director of'Finance for payment and charged against the following funds:
General Fund
General Operating Fund
School Operating Fund
~en~a~.~O~erating Capital Outlay F~nd
~ohe~[~O~n~r~ion Capital Outlay Fund
Oafeteria Fund
· extboOk Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville -- 1% Local Sales Tax
Commonwealth of Virginia -- Current Credit Account
$ 448.69
~ 373,821.16
1,22'2,755.23
4,883.50
282,829.20
31,784.81
3,522.35
46,771.30
83.37
15,263.10
$1,982,162..71
At 2:00 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adjourn to 4
P.M. on Wednesday, February 4, 1976, in the Board Room of the County Office Bui-lding, for the
purpose of continuing the discussion of personnel matters. Roll was Called, and motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, !achetta and Roudabush.
None.
00