1976-02-11NFebruary 11, 1976 (Regular, Night Meeting)
71
A r~gular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on February 11, 1976,at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
~i~inia.
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. Harvey Bailey, County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; Robert Tucker, County Planner; Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance; and Hartwell
Clarke, Zoning Administrator.
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher.
No. 1. SP-546, Ann Alexander, request to locate a mobile home on 12 acres zoned A-1.
Property located on west side of Route 708, approximately 1800 feet from intersection of
Routes 708 and 637. County Tax Map 73, Parcel 36B, Samuel Miller and Ivy Districts.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 6 and January 13, 1976).
Mr. Robert Tucker stated the Planning Commission had deferred action on this request
in order to allow time for Commission members to view the property site. Motion to defer
action until February 25, 1976, was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 2. SP-547, Louise Marshall request to locate a mobile home on 15 acres zoned A-
l. Property located on south side of Route 637 west of intersection of Routes 708 and
637. County Tax Map 73, Parcel 36C, Samuel Miller and Ivy Districts. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on January 6 and January 13, 1976).
Mr. Robert Tucker stated the Planning Commission had deferred action on this request
in order to allow time for Commission members to view the property site. Motion to defer
action until February 25, 1976, was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 3. Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County (Public Hearing deferred
from December 30, 1975). Mr. Fisher stated that a committee of City and County officials
had been appointed, members being: Messrs. F. 'A. Iachetta, W. S. Roudabush and Ray B.
Jones for Albemarle County, and Messrs. George Gilliam, Francis Fife, and Roger W±~ley for
the City of Charlottesville.
Dr. Iachetta reported on the Committee discussions to date. He said one of the
decisions made at the initial meeting was to possibly hold a joint public meeting and
invite officials from municipalities who presently have such an authority to report on the
effectiveness of their operation. He added that no'date for the public meeting has been
set. Mr~-~Roudahush~id the committee hoped to move forward rapidly. Mr. Jones said
they are also trying to have investment and bond counsel available for the proposed public
meeting. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing.
Mrs. Frances Martin of Citizens for Albemarle, read the following statement:
"At first glance, we felt that an Industrial Bonding Authority would be a
useful tool to implement the Master Plan by encouraging industrial development
in the right location at the right time. If a bonding authority, in granting
loans, could be required to follow certain guidelines relating to minority
hiring, the County Land Use Plan, pollution control, and provision of
employment for those now resident but unemployed, we would favor the
establishment of such an authority. However, further investigation has brought
to lightJbhe following considerations:
The Supervisors can set up guidelines, but they will not be binding on
the authority.
The authority can set up its own guidelines, but they will not
necessarily support the plans or goals of the community as a whole. In fact,
the authority would have the power to nullify community planning by the
impact of its decisions on economics and land use.
Unless the guidelines are clear cut and specific, denial of bonding of any
industry that applies could be overturned in court as discriminatory.
There is no existing data to provide a profile of the local unemployed.
We do not know how many there are nor what skills they possess nor what
type of industry would be willing to employ them.
Because these bonds are tax-exempt, the Federal Government loses a
significant amount of revenue by such means nation-wide. What will
the individual taxpayers of Albemarle County gain to compensate them for
the increase in their share of federal taxes? Industry has often been
proposed as a means of enlarging the local tax base, but we have heard
one tax expert suggest that industry in Albemarle County is lightly
assessed, thus shifting a heavier burden on landowners. Industrial
expansion generally does require expansion of public facilities, and
before the Board sets up a bonding authority, we would like to see a
study made to determine how assessment of industrial property in Albemarle
County compares with that in other areas of the Commonwealth.
In view of the above considerations, Citizens for Albemarle cannot endorse
the establishment of an industrial bonding authority. However, if the
Supervisors decide that the public interest would be best served by the
establishment of an authority, we urge the following procedures:
F~b~U&~ 11, 1976 (Regular, Night Meeting)
~economic, social and environmental goals of the County.
The Board should make every effort to appoint to the authority individuals
representing a balanced cross section of the community so that industrial
promotion will.not serve special interests at the expense of the County
as a whole.
The Board should require the authority to determine the composition of the
local unemployed population, including their willingness and capacity to
be employed by ne-w industry, before any bonds are issued.
At this point no one can foresee what impact such an authority would have
On Albemarle County, whether large or small. It is just this uncertainty which
causes us to question whether we want another independent agency of such
unknown potential largely beyond public control."
No one else from the public wished to speak at this time. Mr. Fisher asked for a-
to continue the public hearing ~o? the earilest possible date to coincide with the
.gs of the City/County Committee. Motio~ was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded
Mr. Roudabush, to continue the PUblic hearing until 7:30 P.M., on March 3, 1976. Roll
called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs.' Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 4. SP-468, James Armstrong (deferred from January 14, 1976). Mr. Dottier stated
he planned to abstain from discussion and action on this request, as in the past he had
acted as counsel for Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Fisher said that on. January 14, 1976, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Robert
Tucker said that on a site plan submitted by the applicant (as requested at the February
10, 1976, meeting), it[indicates'~3~.~automobiles being located on the property. Upon staff
review, no provisions for ingress and egress or screening were provided. L r~The staff
suggests screening in the form of trees or shrubbery at least £our feet in height, two
entrances of 20 foot width with railroad ties on sides to mark entrances, and no more than
20 on-site parking spaces.
Mr. Roudabush said he felt the Planning Staff's recommendations were much more realistic
than those submitted by the applicant, especially as far as number of parking spaces on
the property. He then asked for approximate completion of p~.esent~construction on the
building.
Mr. Jack Camblos, attorney for Mr. Armstrong, said Mr. Armstrong was doing the constructi~
himself and hoped to have the work completed within a few months. Mr. Armstrong then
ind.icated the septic tank and drainfie!d were located in the extreme southwest corner of
the property.
Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to amend the conditions on this Special Permit to
include the following:
Parking spaces to be limited to spaces numbered 1,2,3,11,12,13,14,18,19 and
20 as shown on site plan (copy on permanent record in file of Clerk to
the Board of Supervisors).
A board fence be erected to provide screening, excluding the triangular
piece of land located to the north of the rectangular area. The fence
to commence at a point 58 feet from the northernmost, rear portion of
'the property, extending to the front line of the property; across the
front of the property except for those 20 foot spaces indicated as entrance
and exit points. Minimum fence height to be eight feet.
Ail vehicles left in Mr. Armstrong's care, be limited to the site itself~
none to be located on abutting railroad or public right-of-way.
Hours of operation be limited to 7:30 A.M. to 7:30 P.M., six days a week,
except during a period of emergency.
Ail other previously imposed conditions remain in effect.
Mr. St. John asked Mr. Roudabush for a more specific description of a board fence.
· Camblos said he felt Mr. Roudabush meant a screening fence. Mr. Roudabush agreed, not
necessarily made of wood, but some type fencing to screen the area from site without
blocking air flow. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fishe~ asked the applicant if he was satisfied with these new conditions, and if
approved by the Board, would he accept them as the permanent conditions for his use of
tha'~property. Mr. Armstrong said the conditions proposed are arbitrary, ~:napricious, and
unacceptable. His main objection was the number and location of parking spaces allowed.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if it were within the powers of the Board to set as a condition
the location and number of parking spaces allowed as part of a special permit. Mr. St.
John said the court order did not preclude setting conditions on anything reasonable such
as screening or a reasonable number of cars. Mr. Roudabush then offered to amend his
motion to provide for screening on lines designated on plat as running south 6° east,
172.2 feet; the front boundary of the property which is shown ~as 6°, 34 minutes, 47
seconds northeast, 167.63 feet; land running northeast 8~ 17 minutes, 50 seconds east,
140.72 feet; that those three forces be screened by the type of fencing previously mentioned.
That two openings of 20 feet each be allowed in the front of that screening, and that
parking be limited to the site itself, consisting of .39~ acres, with no specific parking
locations required.
~ ~fter considerable discussion as to the acceptability of this amended condition, Dr.
Iachetta said he did not feel the applicant was willing to accept any conditions set by
the Board, and added that he could not himself support the motion presently before the
Board as he had no evidence it would be adhered~.[[~o. Mr. Roudabush said he was willing to
offer another substitute motion to defer action for a maximum of thirty days, until such
time as the applicant submits a site~plan outlining his objectives of what he would like
to have approved and that this site plan be reviewed by the Planning staff and the Fire
Marshal. and an~ other departments involved in the ~ublic safety aspects of the site plan.
FebrUary 11, 1976 (Regular, Night Meeting)
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Dorrier.
No. 5. Public Hearing to consider amending Sections 5-2, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-7, 8-2 and
8-3 of the Albemarle County Soil Erosion and Sed~nentation Control Ordinance concerning
Approval required for certain activities and conditions$ Review of plans and specifications~
and Inspections. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 28, and February 4, 1976).
Mr. Hartwell Clarke reviewed the proposed amendments, as previously discussed at the
Board of Supervisors' meeting of January 15, 1976. (The proposed amendments are shown in
full in the minutes of the January 15, 1976 meeting.) Dr. Iachetta asked if the broad
powers given the Zoning Administrator in proposed Section 8-3 were legal. Mr. St. John
said he felt the powers were legally those of the Zoning Administrator, and that the
wording used in Section 8-3 is standard language used when it is not possible to lay out
objective standards. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Zoning Administrator could use a bond~.~
which had been posted by a~property owner, to bring this property owner into compliance
with the~ordinance. Mr. St. John said it would require proper notice to the property
owner, but using the bond would be within his powers.
Mrs. Francis Martin, representing Citizens for Albemarle, said the organization was
in favor of the proposed amendments. ,Pr~sently~ enforcement is much too time consuming.~t~
N~ one else from the public wished to speak either for or against the proposed amendments,
and Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to amen~ the Albemarle
County Soil Erosion and Sed~nentation Control Ordinance in sections mentioned above and as
set out in full on pages 470-471 of Minute Board 13, for meeting held on January 15, 1976.
Rol'l was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 6. Restricted Road, Mary White Estate (deferred from December 18, 1975). Mr.
Robert Tucker reviewed previous conditions and discussions regarding this restricted road,
and then read the following memorandum to the Board:
"January 7, 1976
Memo to:Miss Lettie E. Neher
From: Mr. J. Ashley Williams
Re: Mary White Estate - Broom!ey Road Improvements
On January 6, 1976, Aubrey Huffman and I met to discuss some improvements to
Broomley Road to make it safer for traffic due to the increased usage from the
White Estate development. In looking at this road on site, Mr. Huffman and I
felt that widening of the road surface would be the most reasonable improvement
rather than making any attempt to bring the road up to State Highway Standards.
The road surface widening'is suggested to be 20 feet to conform with the
typical section for Class "A" roads in the county that would be acceptable to
Highway Standards for Albemarle County Subdivision Roads. With all the widening
proposed on the west side of Broomley Road, the estimated costs of improvements
are as follows:
Engineer's Estimate - Improvements To Broomley Road
$ 500.00
Clearing and Grubbing
Excavation - Embankment & final grading approximately
25OO C.Y. ~ $1.50/C.Y.
3. Surface - 6" base with prime and double seal
2700' length X 8' wide (Ave.) = 2400 S.Y. ~ $3.50/S.Y. 8,400.00
4. Misc. - Seeding and drainage items 350.00
TOTAL
3,750.00
$13,000.00
There is an additional expense of relocating the power poles on the road that
has not been figured into the improvement costs."
Mr. James C. Murray, Jr., representing the Mary White Estate, reviewed for the new
members of the Board the history of Broomley Road. He then discussed the memorandum
written by Mr. J. Ashley Williams, indicating cost estimates to bring ~Broomley Road up to
an acceptable safety standard. He said that $13,000 was a large burden on the property
owners, but they are willing to spend that sum if the Board approves the proposed
subdivision. Mr. Murray then said a homeowners association agreement was being readied
for submission to the County Attorney's office which would provide for maintenance of the
internal road system. He noted, however, that it would be impossible to expect a 13'lot
subdivision to maintain all of Broomley Road, which extends for .8 mile through another
subdivision (benefiting almost ~800 acres of that other subdivision). He said it was
legally impossible to enter into an agreement with residents of R~rdon Subdivision, as
they had no homeowners association. He did note, however, that Broomley Road is presently
very well maintained by funds collected through an Ad Hoc Committee made up of Flordon
property owners. Mr. Murray said there would be a provision in the Statement of Subdivision
for White Estate property owners, authorizing assessment of the members of the homeowners
association for the expenses of maintaining Broomley Road in conjunction with the Flordon
lot owners; however, they would not be bound to this legally.
Mr. Fisher said he had one concern. ~he existing road does not lie wholly within the
existing right-of-way as platted. Mr. Murray said there has been a great deal of confusion
regarding the exact location of the right-of-way, and he felt the only way to finally
clarify this would be to conduct a thorough survey. Mr. Aubrey Huffman, engineer for the
White Estate, reviewed the situation, and felt the road as it now lies, is either on the
old right-of-way or on ~ ~ ~h~-nf-w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ ~ ?n~ ~ ~ ~ ,~
February 11, 1976 (Regular, Night Meeting)
sufficient area to bring Broomley Road up to State Standards some day. Mr. Fisher asked
if Mr. Murray was sure the new road, if approved, would not be infringing on any private
property. Mr. Murray said it would not, and concluded by stating that the $13,000 figure
estimated by the County Engineer was accepted by the applicant as an estimate only.
If the required repairs come to more of less than the estimate, the required repairs are
guaranteed.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. David to approve the restricted road for the Mary
White Estate with the following conditions:
1)
2)
3)
5)
Homeowners association established to provide for maintenance of internal
roads, and empowered to assess members for expense of maintaining Broomley
Road in conjunction with all surrounding property owners. Document' to be
approved by the County Attorney.
Internal roads to be constructed to County Standards for restricted roads.
Right-of-way for the extension of Broomley Road across the frontage of this
property to be dedicated to provide for 50 foot width. This extension of
Broomley Road to be constructed to State Standards.
Utilities will receive final approval when final plat is submitted.
Improve Broomley Road to safety standards as specified in memorandum from
Mr. J. Ashley Williams to Miss Lettie E. Neher dated January 7, 1976.
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. 7. Public Hearing to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by including a
new Article 18, known as "Scenic Highway Designation" (deferred from January 28, 1976).
Mr. Robert Tucker presented the proposed Article 18 as follows:
18-1
18-1-1
18-1-2
18_2
18-3
18-3-1
18-3-2
18-3-3
ARTICLE 18: SCENIC HIGHWAY DESIGNATION
Request for Designation
(a)
(b)
The board of supervisors may, from time to time, request the Virginia
State Highway Commission to designate any public road in the county
as a scenic highway or a Virginia byway in accordance with Section
33.1-62 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
In addition, the board of supervisors may designate as an Albemarle
County scenic highway any public road in the county which meets state
scenic designation standards except with regard to signs. Application
shall be made to the Virginia State Highway Commission for scenic
designation in accordance with subsection (a) of this section at such
time as any Albemarle County scenic highway shall meet all
state scenic design standards.
Prior to making any such request of the State Highway Commission, or any
such designation, the board shall refer the matter to the planning ~
commission for its recommendation. The commission and the board shall
hold public hearings on the advisability of making any such request
or designation in accordance with Section 15.1-431 of the Code.
Public Hearings by State Highway Commission
Except as otherwise specifically provided by resolution of the board of
supervisors from time to time, the Virginia State Highway Commission
shall hold public, hearings in accordance with Section 33.1-62 of
the Code .prior to the designation of any scenic highway or Virginia
byway in the county, whether or not such designation be at the request
of the board of supervisors.
RestriCtions Along Designated Scenic Highways and Virginia Byways
In addition to and notwithstanding any other provision of this
ordinance to the contrary, the following regulations shall be
effective along any designated scenic highway or Virginia byway.
No structure, except as hereinafter provided in the case of certain
signs, shall be constructed within 150 feet of the right-of-way of any
designated scenic highway or Virginia byway having a right-of-way width
of fifty (50) or more, nor within 175 feet of the right-of-way of any
such highway or byway having a right-of-way width of less than fifty
(50) feet.
For purposes of this article, no sign except those signs defined in
sections 16-80-6, 16-80-7, 16-80-10, 16-80-11, 16-80-12, 16-80-16,
16-80-17, 16-80-18, .and 16-80-19 of this ordinance shall be located
within fifty (50) feet of the right-of-way of any designated scenic
highway or Virginia byway having a right-of-way width of fifty (50)
feet or more, nor within 75 feet of the right-of-way of any such
highway or byway having a right-of-way width of less than fifty (50)
feet.
Subject to the provisions of section 18-3-1 of this ordinance, signs~
visible from any designated scenic highway or Virginia byway shall be
permitted in accordance with article 18 of this ordinance; provided,
however, that the design of any sign, other than those signs defined in
sections 16-80w10, 16-80-12, 16-80-17, and 16-80-18, proposed to be
erected within 500 feet of and visible from any such highway 5r byway
February 11, 1976 (Regular, Night Meeting)
18-3-4
18-3-5
shall be encouraged to be in character with the historical and
environmental setting of Albemarle County.
No sign shall visually dominate the structure to which it is
attached and shall be architecturally harmonious with the surrounding
structures. Sign materials should be predominately wood or utilize
open lettering and indirect lighting shall be encouraged. Ail signs
subject to review hereunder shall be processed as follows:
(a) The applicant shall submit two copies of sign drawings at a scale
not smaller than one inch equals two feet, to the zoning
administrator for Albemarle County;
(b)
The zoning administrator shall transmit one copy to the director of
planning for review and shall retain one copy. The director of
planning shall review the drawings within ten (10) calendar days
from the date of application; provided, that nothing herein shall
be construed to limit the right of the director of planning to refer
any application to the planning commission for its review in any
case in which he shall deem the same to be in the public interest.
(c)
Any person aggrieved by any decision of the director of planning in
the review of such signs may demand a review of the signs by the
Albemarle County Planning Commission by filing a request therefor
in writing with-the Albemarle County Planning Department within
ten (10) days of the date of such decision. The commission may
affirm, reverse, or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of
the director of planning. For purposes of this section, the term
"person aggrieved" shall include the applicant, any adjacent landowner,
and any public agency or officer thereof.
(d)
The governing body reserves unto itself the right to review all
decisions of the Commission made in the administration of this
article which, in its discretion, it shall deem necessary to a
proper administration hereof.
All signs subject to the provisions in article 18 of this ordinance shall
conform to the regulations of article 15A of this ordinance except where
specifically provided for as follows:
Agricultural (A-I) district and residential (RS-I, R-i, R-2, R-3)
districts
(i)
Business signs .(free standing or projecting): One free
standing sign or one projecting sign per establishment per
road frontage. Each sign shall not exceed twelve (12) square
feet in area nor exceed ten (10) feet in height above ground
level.
(2)
Business Signs (wall): One wall sign shall be permitted in place
of the signs permitted in number one above. Area of sign
Shall not exceed one square foot for each one foot of linear
frontage of the main structure, with a maximum area of twenty (20)
square feet. No portion of the wall sign shall exceed twenty
(20) feet in height above ground level or project above the
eave of the roof of the main structure.
(3)
Location Signs: TWO location signs per establishment to be
located on a scenic highway not to exceed six (6) square feet
in area nor exceed ten (10) feet in height above ground
level. The signs Shall be permitted only when deemed necessary,
by the zoning administrator, for public safety.
Subdivision Signs: One sign 'per subdivision entrance not to
exceed twelve (12) square feet in area nor ten (10) feet in
height above ground level, with only the name of the
subdivision displayed on the sign.
(B) Commercial (B-l) District
(i)
Business Signs (Free Standing or Projecting): One free
standing sign or one projecting sign per establishment per
road frontage. Each sign shall nOt exceed eighteen (18)
square feet in area nor exceed ten (10) feet in height above
ground level, with lesser heights being encouraged.
(2)
Business Signs (Wall): One wall sign in place of the signs
Permitted in number one above. Area of sign shall not
exceed one square foot for each two feet of linear frontage
of the main structure, with a maXimum area of thirty-five
(35) square feet. No portion of the wall sign shall exceed twenty
(20) feet in height above ground level or project above the
eave of the roof of the main structure.
(3)
Location Signs: Two location signs per establishment to be
located on a scenic highway not to exceed six (6) square feet
in area nor exceed ten (I0) feet in height above ground level.
The signs shall be permitted only where deemed necessary, by the
'zoning administrator, for Public safety.
Sale or Rental Signs:
(a) One free standin~ si~n Der road frontage not to exceed
February 11, 1976 (Regular~ Night Meeting)
(b)
One wall sign per parcel of land not to exceed twelve (12)
square feet in area with no portion of said sign to exceed
twenty (20) feet in height from ground level or project
above the eave of the roof of the main structure.
(5) Shopping Center Signs:
(a)
One free standing entrance sign per road frontage, except one
additional sign shall be permitted when road frontage exceeds
600 linear feet. Such sign shall not exceed eighteen
(18) square feet and shall display only the name of the
shopping center. The height of this sign shall not exceed
ten (10) feet;
(b)
One wall sign for each individual establishment within the
shopping center. The area of this sign shall not exceed
one square foot per two front linear feet of said ,establishmenl
with a maximum area not to exceed thirty-five (35) square
feet. No portion of this sign shall exceed twenty (20)
feet above ground level or project above the eave of said
establishment;
(c)
One projecting sign per establishment, except an additional
projecting sign shall be permitted when the establishment
has an entrance on another pedestrian walkway. Projecting
signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet and no portion
of said sign shall exceed ten (10) feet above ground level;
(d)
Two or more establishments which are designed as a single
commercial group, whether on the same parcel or not, or
under common ownership or management, or having common
maintenance or parking, or the appearance of one continuous
commercial area shall be governed by the above shopping
center provisions;
(e)
Ail signs governed by the above shopping center provisions
shall be designed in such manner as to create continuity
and a harmonious appearance with the architecture of the
shopping center and the intent of this ordinance.
(C) Industrial (RTM, M-l, M-2) Districts
(1)
Business Signs (Free standing and projecting): One free
standing sign or one projecting sign per establishment per road
frontage. No sign shall exceed eighteen (18) square feet in area
nor ten (10) feet in height.
(2)
Business Signs (Wall): One wall sign shall be permitted in
place of the signs permitted in number one above. The
area of such sign shall not exceed one square foot for each
two feet of linear frontage of the main building, with the
maximum area being thirty-five (35) square feet and no
portion of the wall sign shall exceed twenty (20) feet in
height from ground level or project above the eave line of
the roof of the main building.
(3)
Location Signs: Two location signs per establishment to ,be
located on a scenic highway not to exceed six (6) square
feet in area~$~n (10) feet in height above ground level. The
signs shall be permitted only where deemed necessary, by the
zoning administrator, for public safety.
(4) Sale or Rental Signs:
(a)
One free standing sign per road frontage not to exceed
twelve (12) square feet in area nor ten (10) feet in
height above ground level; or
(b)
One wall sign per parcel of land not to exceed twelve
(12) square feet in area with no portion of,said sign to
exceed twenty (20) feet in height from ground level
or project above the eave line of the roof of the main
building.
(D) Industrial Park
(i)
Business Signs (Free Standing): One free standing sign per
industrial park per road frontage not to exceed eighteen
(18) square feet in area nor ten (10) feet in height from
ground level and shall display only the name of the industrial
park.
(2) Business Signs (Wall): One wall sign shall be permitted for
each enterprise within the industrial park not to exceed
one (1) square foot per'two (2) front linear feet with a
maximum area not to exceed thirty-five (35) square feet and no
portion of the sign shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height
from ground level or project above the eave line of the roof
of the main building.
February 11, 1976 (Regular, Night Meeting)
(E) Multi-Tenant Buildings
(1)
Business Signs (Free standing): One free standing sign per
building per road frontage not to exceed 18 square feet in area
nor ten (10) square feet in height which shall display only the
name of the building or the names of enterprises.
(2)
Business Signs (Wall): A commercial enterprise with a separate
entrance shall be permitted one wall sign not to exceed one (1)
square foot per two (2) front linear feet of said establishment
with a maximum of thirty-five square feet in area and no
portion of the sign shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height from
ground level or project above the eave line of the roof of the
main building.
(3)
A professional office with a separate entrance shall be permitted
one identifying wall sign not to exceed four square feet in
area and no portion of the sign shall exceed twenty (20)
feet in height from ground level or project above the eave
line of the roof of the main building.
18-3-6
Any development undertaken adjacent to any designated scenic highway
or Virginia byway which is subject to review by any officer or employee
of the county shall be reviewed in accordance with the objectives
of such designation as provided by law.
At the end of Mr. Tucker's presentation, he commended Ms. Martha S~dan~~ and her
committee for providing valuable information to the Planning Staff which helped expedite
this hearing. He also stated that there was no controversy at the public hearing held by
the Planning Commission.
At this time the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Ms. Beth Ogilvie, a
member of the Scenic Highway Committee, Citizens f6r~Albem~e. She~&id~h~yi_h~e supported
detailed provisions for business and manufacturing signs because of the present existence
of some industrial zoning on roads which are being considered for scenic designation. She
suggested that Section 18-3-6 be changed to read as follows: "Any development undertaken,
rezoning request, or new use adjacent to any designated Scenic Highway or Virginia byway
which is subject to review by any officer or employee of the County shall be reviewed in
accordance with the objectives of such designation as provided by law."
Ms. Helen Williams said she owns property on Route 250 West and has many times asked
that this road be protected. She asked if there were a definition of a sign in the ordinance
since literally taken she feels this would mean a sign board with names and numbers.
However, there are non-literal signs such as barber poles or the pennants which fly on car
lots.
Ms. Dorothy Spiedel, another member of Citizens for Albemarle, said they feel that
roads Which have received scenic designation should have screening and l~n~.s~a~g.~adjacent
to that road where properties are zoned for commercial or industrial use. She suggested
the following addition to Section 18-3-1. "In order to permit adequate screening, no
parking shall be allowed within 50 feet of the right of way of any designated scenic
highway or Virginia byway on land that is zoned B-1. On land zoned industrial, no parking
shall be allowed any closer to the right of way of any designated scenic highway or Virginia
byway than the front face of the building." She said they realize that certain businesses
might find it desirable to have visible parking in front of their establishments, thus the
reason for the two different recommendations. This is a new idea and has not been considere(
by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Skip Tewksbury, another member of Citizens for Albemarle, asked if there is
a~y way to notify adjoining property owners at the time signs are requested so those
owners could review the appearance of the sign. She recommended that a notice of such
requests be run in the Daily Progress.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had discussed this idea, however they did not
feel that it should be implemented until this new section of the ordinance has been in
effect for a period of time to see if this becomes a problem. This type of amendment
would require a much longer waiting period for the applicant. It is difficult to arrive
at an equitable solution.
Mr. Henley did not feel there will be that many problems if the signs fall within the
guidelines established by the ordinance.
Ms. Martha Selden said other citizens may be interested in knowing about the proposals
and would like to have some input.
Ms. Helen Williams said this question had come up from a specific case discussed by
the Scenic Roads Committee. There is one merchant on Route 250 West who is voluntarily
restricting his advertising, however across the street from this establishment there is a
used car lot that is using an existing sign and also using yards of streamers.
At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. $orr~mr s~.id h~ s~ppbr$ed'the
proposal as presented by the Planning Commission and would reserve comments on Ms. Speidel's
proposal. Dr. Iachetta said this is an excellent example of the efforts that can be
put forth by people in the community. He supports the proposal. Mr. Roudabush and
Mrs. David also supported,the proposal. Mr. Fisher said he did not think the recommendation~
made by Citizens for Albemarle should be adopted until there has been a change in the
wording. Mr. Roudabush recommended that the Board adopt the ordinance as presented by the
Planning Commission and consider these changes at a later date.
February !1, 1976 (Regular, Night Meeting)
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by
the inclusion of a new Article 18, entitled "Scenic Highway Designation" and set out
above, but amending the wording in Section 18-3-6 to read:
Section 18-3-6: Any development undertaken, rezoning request, or new
use adjacent to any designated scenic highway or Virginia byway 'which
is subject to review by any officer or employee of the county shall be
reviewed in accordance with the objectives of such designation as
provided by law.
The foregoing 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
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resolution of intent:
By resolution, this Board requests the Albemarle County Planning
Commission to study the feasibility of incorporating the following
wording into the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 18-3-1:
In order to permit adequate screening, no parking
shall be allowed within 50 feet of the right-of-way
of any designated scenic highway or Virginia byway
on land that is zoned B-1. On land zoned Industrial,
no parking shall be allowed any closer to the right-of-
way of any designated scenic highway or Virginia byway
than the front face of the building.
The Board further requests the Planning Commission to report back
to this Board at the earliest possible date.
Dr. Iachetta also recommended that the question of notification be referred back to
the Planning Commission for discussion. The motion was then seconded by Mrs. David.
Mr. Dorrier said he questions whether property owners around commercial establishments
who are putting up a sign should be notified. He asked how much extra expense this would
be to the County. Mr. St. John asked if the Board's instruction to the Planning Commission
was to reconsider their previous decision or if the Board was instructing them to change
their position. Dr. Iachetta said it was his intent only to have the Planning Commission
spell out their reasons for recommendation as opposed to going through this procedure
again. Mrs. David said she felt the explanation given by Mr. Tucker was sufficient and
the Planning Commission had adequate reasons for not acting on this request. Mr. Henley
said he felt this would be just another problem for the staff to handle. Mrs. David asked
if Dr. Iachetta would consider withdrawing that part of his motion.
Dr. Iachetta then restated the motion to include only adoption of a resolution of
intent as set out above. 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. 8. 911-Emergency Telephone System. Mr. Fisher noted that he had received a
revised proposal from Drs. Sage and Yorke for the study to be conducted through the Central
Piedmont Urban observatory. It is noted in this proposal that the project will from its
inception involve close association and interaction between the researchers and officials
in Charlottesville and Albemarle County especially in the areas of fire protection, health
care delivery, police services and rescue operations. Questions relating to access points,
special equipment dedicated to "911" service, answering stations, responding agencies,
jurisdictional considerations and institutional and financial arrangements will be addressed
The study will utilize the experiences of other communities which have implemented such
systems in the past. The study will meet specific criteria established by Federal and
State agencies in order that funds from these agencies may be secured for implementation.
Mr. Fisher then read two paragraphs from a letter dated February 3, 1976, from Cole
Hendrix, City Manager:
"This letter is to inform you that the City Council has noted to join
the County in a study of the "911 Proposition" using the $15,000 available
through the University. I understand that Marcia Mashaw has discussed this
matter with you and is currently securing a proposal for the study from
certain personnel at the Engineering School at the University.
Wi look forward to working jointly with you on this project and hope
the Urban Observatory can be used as the vehicle to get the necessary
research accomplished."
Mr. Fisher said he had read the preliminary draft and talked to Sheriff Bailey who
agrees that the problem should be studied. Chief Bowen of the City Police Department has
also agreed to work with the Central Piedmont Observatory on this problem. Motion was
then offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the proposal as presented. The motion was seconded
by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, !achetta and Roudabush.
None.
--. F~b~uary 11, 1976 (Regular, Night Meeting)
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher requested that members of the Space Committee meet with
Sheriff Bailey to work out some interim changes to accommodate his space needs.
Mr. Fisher noted that "Title XX Funding" will be of concern to the County over the
next 25 years, This is Federal funding which requires a 25% local match and will affect
such items as ~ocial Services, Mental Health, Workshop V and the Community Detention Home.
He said a meeting has been scheduled in Charlottesville for Wednesday, February 18 to
discuss this program and he asked that Mr. Dorrier attend this meeting on behalf of the
Board.
Mr. Fisher brought to the Board's attention that they have an appointment with
Messrs. J. Harry Michael and Thomas Michie in Richmond on February 23 to discuss matters
now before the General Assembly.
Mr. Dorrier noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Hank Browne dated January 26, 1976,
concerning the litter problem in Albemarle. Mr. Fisher said he had acknowledged this
letter. Dr. Iachetta said he agrees that there is a need to solve the problem. He suggested
that~this be treated as part of the total solid waste matter.
Dr. Iachetta noted that citizens in the Hessian Hills area have asked if the County
can render any assistance in the renovation of their street signs. Mr. Bailey said the
State Highway Department maintains such signs if they are on an existing State Highways.
This should be brought to the attention of representatives of the Highway Department.
Mr. Roudabush said that the area between the City Limits and Route 29 North on Rio
Road is heavily populated. Citizens in this area are concerned that there is a water line
installed on Rio Road but there are no fire hydrants for fire protection. Mr. Fisher said
there are a lot of places in the County where there are water lines available and yet there
are no fire hydrants. He said the question needs to be reviewed and a policy established
on-whether the County will participate in the cost of installing such fire hydrants.
Mr. Bailey brought to the attention of the Board a memo which had been distributed
this night on the resignation of the employee filling the p~ition~o~ersonnel Director.
He said this employee is leaving because he feels he has no future with the County since
the position has never formally been accepted and graded into the County's pay plan. Mr.
Bailey said this is a worthwhile position, however to replace this person the job will have tI
be included in the pay plan. Mr. Fisher said the Board would hav~Ja~discussion of personnel
matters in the near future and he thanked Mr. Bailey for bringing this matter to the
Board's attention.
At 10:45 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, adjourning
!
this meeting until February 12, 1976, at 5:00 P.M. in the County Executive s Conference
Room. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Chairman