1976-02-25February 25, 1976 -- Regular Meeting
081
5 . CONSTRUCTION
This ordinance is declared to be remedial in nature and pro-
tective of a paramount public interest and shall be liberally construed
to effectuate its purposes.
6. SEVERABILITY
Should any section or any provision of this ordinance be held
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or otherwise
invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of this ordinance
as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so held to be invalid.
7. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect upon enactment and shall remain
in effect until repealed by the Board of Supervisors; provided, however,
that this ordinance shall terminate and be of no further effect on and
after January 1, 1977, unless the same shall theretofore have been
reenacted in accordance with law.
Fisher: The next question has to do with possible amendments to the Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
Iachetta: I MOVE the adoption of the proposed amendment (25(5)), Section 1 with Appendix
A of the Albemarle County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance which was read earlier.
Bailey: This ordinance says you can build roads on 15% slopes and the ordinance you
just passed says you cannot.
Fisher: There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Iachetta: I will WITHDRAW the motion.
Fisher: Am I to understand that it is the intention of the Board to let the Soil
Erosion Ordinance stand?
Henley: Unless we take action to the contrary, it stands anyway.
Roudabush: We have not changed the Soil Erosion Ordinance at all.
the total watershed.
It still applies to
Fisher: Any further action to come before the Board on protection of the South Rivanna
River Reservoir? I will ask the County Attorney where we stand now.
St. John: The ordinance which you just enacted prohibits development, except for the
listed exemptions, within 500 feet of the reservoir and its tributaries and does not allow
roads to be built there or on any contiguous 15% slopes. The exemptions ~ in that area you
a~e aware of, but outside of that area, the same ordinance you enacted back in the fall
applies and is still in effect on 25% slopes. This moratorium has now been removed from all
the area except the 500 foot 15% contiguous slopes within the five mile radius.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter from the Resource Recovery Study
Commission. The Environmental Protection Agency has selected their implementation grant
application for matching funds as a preliminary finalist. They have been invited to submit a
formal application by April 16, 1976.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said the Board had received a letter from the County Executive
about discussions held with representati~s of Television Station WVPT in Harrisonburg. They
have r~ested aid ~n continuing public television transmission to Albemarle County. Mr.
Bailey has talked with Mr. Charles Simmons of the Albemarle Education Office. Mr. Simmons
said Albemarle County is not adequately covered by any public television station. Mr.
Fisher then suggested that the Board discuss this matter on March 10.
Not Docketed. Claims against the County presented, examined, allowed, and certified to
the Director of Finance for payment and charged to the following funds:
General Fund $
General Operating Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
Textbook Fund
General Operating - Capital Outlay Fund
School Construction Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Commonwealth of Virginia - Current Credit Account
Town Of Scottsville - 1% Local Sales Tax
15,960.35
424,726.12
912,191.99
29,813.04
2,719.06
11,974.68
275,493.94
54,531.54
766.20
4,.040.77
92.20
$ 1,732,309.89
At 11:00 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn
this meeting until March 3, 1976, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Buildinc
for the first work session on the 1976-77 County Budget. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
O82
March 3, 1976 (Afternoon and
Night-Adjourned from February 25)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on March 3, 1976, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 25, 1976.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. L±ndsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J.
T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officer present: J. Harvey Bailey, County Executive.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman and immediately the Board began a work
session on the proposed 1976-77 County Budget. Items discussed are listed ~elow.
2)
3)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
Planning Department (Code 10E) Robert Tucker
Zoning Department & Soil Erosion (Code 10E.!) Hartwell Clarke
Engineering Department (Code 10A) Ashley Williams
Ivy Landfill (Code 10J.1) Ashley Williams
Keene Landfill (Code 10J.2) Ashley Williams
Elections (Code 13) Mary Lou Matthews & Marilyn Roper
Purchasing Department (Code 1G) Calvin Jones
Maintenance of Buildings & Grounds (Code 14) Calvin Jones
Xeroxing (Code 18A.!0) Calvin Jones
Dues-Virginia Association of Counties (Code 1SA.l) Robert Sampson
DuesThomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (Code 18A.2) Robert Abbott
Chamber of Commerce (Code !8A.3) Fred Ferguson & Paul Holdren
Economic Development Commission (Code 18A.4) Louis Scribner
Soil Survey (Code 18A.!l) Robert Sampson
Unidentified Telephone Calls (Code 18A.11) Robert Sampson
At the conclusion of the work session (4:45 P.M.), motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mrs. David, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters and
acquisition of property. The motion carried by the vote which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse to continue the
meeting which had begun at 2:00 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 1. Approval of Minutes for December 10, 1975, Night Meeting. Mrs.
David suggested that the first line on Page 406 be changed to read: "this type of thing
could be handled with the conditions". Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Henley, to approve these minutes with the correction noted. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 2. Continuation of hearing on an Industrial Development Bonding Author:
(Deferred from December 30, 1975 and February 11, 1976.)
Mr. Fisher said the committee appointed to work with representatives of City Council on
a recommendation for an industrial bonding authority has not met and is not ready to make a
report. 'Mr. Roudabush, a member of the committee, said there is a joint meeting scheduled
for March 11 at 3:00 P.M. at Piedmont College. There are to be representatives of various
groups familiar with this type of authority present to speak to the committee and the public
Mr. Fisher then suggested that this matter be deferred to a definite date as he wished to
keep the advertised hearing open for public comments. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer any further discussion of this item until April 7, 1976,
at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Motion carried by the vote which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. To consider adoption of a Bikeway Plan as an element of %he Compre-
hensive Plan. (Deferred from February 25, 1976)
Mrs. David asked if there is a way to support the idea of including bikeways in future
deveiopments without making this a requirement. She was concerned that developers may be
required to put bikeways on a plat, changes will occur in the development pattern and the
bikeway will no~tl~2ger be in correct locations.
Ms. Rubinoff said the recommendation contained in the report was not intended to require
that every developer include a bikeway system. It is reco=mended that only those develop-
ments which fall within the scope of this Bikeway Master Plan would be required to have
bikeways included.
Mr. Roudabush said he had reservations about the recommendation that all future site
developments be included. He said if all small site plans are required to implement this
Bikeway Plan, there would be no continuity to the plan. Mr. Tucker said while the Plan does
envision some piecemeal development, the staff did not intend to suggest that small develop-
ments be required to have bikeways. They were primarily talking about PUD'S and subdivisions
of such a size and nature that bikeways would be warranted. Where developments falls within
the scope of the planned area for bikeways, these would be a requirement of that development.
It would be piecemeal, but when future development occurs there would be a plan to guide the
County in linking, up these various trails in the future. Ms. Rubinoff said if these bikeways
are handled through plans F:or PUD's, etc. the County would not have to purchase any rights of
way. There are few small lots over which bikeways are proposed.
069
February 24, 1976 (Adjourned from ~a~a~y219,1976)
February 25, 1976 -- Regular Meetinq
Holmes Withers: I used to live in Ivy not too far from Lickinghole Creek. If you
have visited there, you know what it is like. If you ever go up the Rivanna on Route 662
you see the bottom. Each time there is a big rain, it runs down in there. It is being
fertilized. N~th~n~has<~_b~en~said~about fertilizer. Maybe fertilizer does not hurt the
reservoir; maybe it helps. Why get on the builders and not say anything about fertilizer
or Morton's? I heard one person say you cannot do anything about Morton's.
Fisher: I attended a meeting yesterday at which proposals were presented to the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for construction of a sewer line that costs more than
$5,000,000. This has been designed to take in all of Morton's, all of the raw sewage at
Crozet, all of the treated effluent from Brownsville and the Yancey Mills School area,
from Farmington, from the Boar's Head (which is not in this drainage basin) and probably a
development in the Ivy area. This will be built as soon as the AWT plant is completed in
1979. I believe the State Water Control Board is going to require that Morton's put their
treated effluent into that pipeline.
Withers: But, at the present time Morton's can dump into Lickinghole Creek?
Fisher: I have been told that Morton's has spent more than $1,000,000 to build and
upgrade their treatment facilities and this is still not adequate. This is the problem we
get into with any type of industrial or urban storm water problems. The amount of treatment
required becomes expensive and complex.
<Withers: It becomes complex for the building industry also.
think about that.
You all do not seem to
Fisher: I want to state that a number of people have spoken to the Board in the past
and have said that this is a way to stop development in the County. The land zoned for R-2
and R-3 uses in Albemarle County that is presently vacant and not in this watershed is
estimated to be: R-2 land, 1,111 acres and R-3 land, 834 acres. So, I think that while
we are talking about the problems of the reservoir, we should not make the mistake of
saying that this is going to stop all development in the County. There is no way with
that much land zoned for high density development that this is going to stop everything.
Wood: That is totally erroneous. You know that land you are speaking of is not
served with utilities. The land around the reservoir has water and sewer available.
is no good unless it has the utilities.
Land
Fisher: The public hearing is closed. Is the Board ready to set this matter on an
agenda for action? (Consensus - yes.) I will ask the Clerk to place this on the agenda
for F~bruary 25.
At 3:55 P.M. motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn
this meeting until 6:00 P.M. in Rickmond for the purpose of discussing legislative matters
with the local representatives to the General Assembly. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
At the completion of this meeting in Richmond, and upon proper motion, the meeting
which began at 2:30 P.M. in Charlottesville, was adjourned.
(February 25, 1976--Regular meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on February 25, 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.
Absent: None..
Officers present: County Executive, J. Harvey Bailey; County Attorney, George R. St.
John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker.
The meeting was called to order by 'the Chairman who began with Agenda Item No. 4.
SP-539, George Cason, deferred from January 28, 1976. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the
following letter:
"February 24, 1976
To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Re: George A. Cason - SpeCial Use Pemit for a Landfill
I hereby withdraw without prejudice my application for a Special Use Permit for a
Landfill presently pending before the Board of Supervisors.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) George A. Cason"
070
February 25, 1976 -- Regular Meeting
Motion was then offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush allowing ~{r. Cason to
withdraw application for SP-539 without prejudice.
Dr. Iachetta asked if this were the/action~which could be taken by the Board. Mr. St.
John said the applicant was not present. In order for the Board to deny the application with
prejudice, the applicant would need to be notified that he could not withdraw the petition
and would have to appear and put on his case. Mr. St. John said he did not feel the Board
could allow Mr. Cason to withdraw the application and say it is with prejudice. The roll was
called at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 1. SP-546. Ann Alexander (Deferred from February 11, 1976). Mr.
Kenrick Dure was present representing the applicant and presented the following letter:
"February 25, 1976
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Re: SP-546
On behalf of Ann M. Alexander, the applicant for Special Permit 546 now before the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, we hereby request that the applicant be
permitted to withdraw said application for Special Permit 546 as of this date
without prejudice.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Kenrick Dure"
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, allowing the applicant to
withdraw this request without prejudice. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-547, L. Louise Marshall (Deferred from February 11, 1976).
Mr. Tucker said the property is located on'the southside of Route 637 approximately 2000
feet from its intersection with Route 708. This area is rural in nature with rolling topogra~
and foothills. There is primarily pasture land and forest in the area with several single-
family dwellings nearby. This mobile home is already located on the property, being placed
there on January 27, 1975, under an emergency mobile home permit because the applicant's
single-family dwelling had burned. (Emergency mobile home permits are valid for only one
year). The lot is wooded, but the mobile home is visible. It is set~b~ck approximately 100
feet from the road and cannnot be set back further because the lot drops off steeply in the
back to a small pond. There is trash and rubbish piled in back of the mobile home and near
the front which should be disposed of properly. The realignment of Route 637 Will have
minimum affect on the mobile home. According to the road plans for realignment, the mobile
home is located approximately 75 feet from the proposed right-of-way.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions
1 - This special permit is non-transferable.
2 - The mobile home cannot be rented under any circumstances.
3 - Approval by all State and local agencies.
4 - This permit is valid for only one year.
5 - Rubble pile to be removed in thirty days.
6 - To be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to. end of one year
if premises are not kept up.
Mr. Tucker said he had received letters from Palmer Webber, John O. Higginson and
Katherine M. Johnson, adjoining property owners, all objecting to approval of this petition.
Mr. Kendrick Dure was present to represent the applicant. He said there are now five
mobile homes in this area. The applicant's home burned in 1974. She has spent $1,000
installing a septic tank and well which are connected to the present trailer. She does plan
to build a home in the future.
Mr. James Murray, Jr. was present to represent Mrs. Katherine F. Michie and Mr. & Mrs.
James Johnson, neighboring landowners. He said the emergency mobile home permit has expired
and this is the proper time for the Board to place conditions. This property has been
littered with trash and debris for over a year. The majoritY of the debris, until about two
or three weeks ago, was from the house that burned. When this petition came to the Planning
Commission and adjoining owners objected to the trashy appearance of same, clean up suddenly
began. If this permit had been issued for a five year period, the lot would still not be
cleaned up. The applicant does not own the property. It is owned by her family and she does
not always live in the trailer. There are five trailers in the area but some are as much as
two miles away. Mr. Murray asked that the permit be denied or that all of the Planning
Commission's conditions be accepted, in particular that the permit be for only a one year
duration and that steps be taken to rebuild a home.
Mrs. David asked if any plans have 'been made to rebuild the house. Mr. Dure said the
land is owned by Mr. Alexander who lives on the adjoining property. He let his daughter,
Mrs. Marshall, have a home until such time as she can build a-new home on part of the land.
There is a three acre pond on the land and she carries liability insurance to assure that she
is protected if someone is hurt while fishing, therefore she must have someone live in this
trailer at all times. The conditions recommended by the Planning Commission are acceptable
to Mrs. Marshall.
Present representing several adjacent owners was I. Besse. He said the area around the
trailer was dirty but was somehow cleaned up between the first and second Planning Commission
February 25, 1976 -- Regular Meeting
07-
No one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. David said she had
driven by this site today and could see little objection to the trailer. There is evidence
that this is a hardship. The Board must accept the applicant's statement that she will build
a home in the future. She felt the Planning Commission's recommendation for a one year
permit was reasonable.
Mr. Fisher said emergency mobile home permits are issued so the applicant can have a
reasonable time to find a place to live. In this case the applicant has said that plans are
being drawn for a permanent home. Mr. Fisher said with that assurance he would recommend
that the Board approve the request.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve SP-547 with
the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
(The Board then continued with zoning petitions as advertised in The Daily Progress on
~ebruary 4 and February 11, 1976.)
Agenda Item No. 3. (Not to be heard) Mr. Fisher noted that ZMP-345, Roy S. Clarke,
Jr., had been listed for this item on the agenda. The application was withdrawn before the
Planning Commission and no action is needed by the Board.
Agenda Item No. 4. (Heard at the beginning of this meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 5. UP-75-13. The TrOs-Dale Home for Boys. To amend the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance to permit by right "Boys Home" in the A-1 Agricultural Zone; and to
include a definition for "Boys Home."
Mr. Tucker said Tros-Dale Home for Boys petitioned to amend the A-1 Agricultural
to permit a "group home" which is a classification between a foster home and an institution.
The term "group home" is defined by the State Welfare Department. The Tros-Dale Home for
Boys is a non-profit corporation chartered in the State of Virginia and licensed by the
Department of Welfare and Institutions. The Planning Staff recommended that the Zoning
Ordinance be amended to permit "group home" with a special use permit in the A-1 Agricultural
District (Section 2-1-25(12.1)) and that Section 16-40.1 be added to Article 16, reading:
Gro_~ Home: "A single family dwelling occupied by an adult and his family and not more than
eight boys and/or girl unrelated to the adult under the supervis.io~ of that adult."
Mr. Tucker said after a lengthy discussion at the Planning Commission hearing o~ this
matter, the County Attorney's Office had written a new definition more in accordance with
the Planning Commission's wishes. That definition now reads~
A single-family dwelling occupied by an adult and his family and not more than
eight boys and/or girls unrelated to the adult under the supervision of that
adult. All such children shall have been previously placed in such home by
order of a court or by agreement with their respective legal guardians. For
purposes of this section, the term "family" shall include the parents, parents-
in-law, and children of such supervising adult.
Mr. St. John recommended that the word "spouse" be inserted in the next to last line of
the definition between the words "the" and "parents."
Rev. Peter Way was present in support of the request. He said he had requested this
amendment so they would have an opportunity to expand the facility in the future. They had
received approval of a similar request before the Board of Zoning Appeals, but understand
this ruling could be overturned in Court. He feels this is a legitimate operation to have
within an A-1 zone.
Mr. Dorrier said he had attended the Planning Commission meeting and there was a lengthy
discussion as to which persons should be included in the definition of a family. He asked if
this definition is too restrictive. Rev. Way said he was satisfied with the definition.
No one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by
Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by
including a new section 2-1-25(12.1) and a new section 16-40.1 as set out above, including
the word spouse in Section 16-40.1. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES':
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-543. Halsey K. Scott. To locate a radio station (FM) and
antenna on 20 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the northeast side of
Route 817. Property is further described as County Tax Map 19, Parcel 47, part thereof.
White Hall District.
Mr. Scott said he had no one present to represent him and requested that the public
hearing be deferred. Mr. Fisher said it was too late to defer the public hearing. Mr.
George McCallum, representing an adjoining landowner, was present, He said he is negotiating
an agreement betWeen his client and Mr. Scott. This agreement will result in a request to
withdraw this application. Mr. McCallum said he had contacted %he other neighbors in opposit~
and none are present tonight. Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing, but no one was
present to speak. Mr. Fred Landess said he thinks this matter will be resolved by agreement
and it will not have to be~_heard~L'~Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr.
Iachetta to defer this public hearing until March t0, 1976. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
O72
February 25, 1976 -- Regular Meeting
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-544. Double C. Corporation. To locate a central well on 2.039
acres zoned A-1 Agricultural, Property on the south side of ROute 677. County Tax Map 58,
Parcel 74 (part thereof-Lot 3), Samuel Miller District. ~
Mr. Tucker said this property is~rural in character with rolling terrain. There are
several single-family dwellings close by. There is a dwelling being constructed on the-lot
where the well is to be located. This central well is to serve 14 units within West Woods
Subdivision. At the present time, there are only four approved lots in this subdivision and
all front on Route 677. The well has an output of 15 gallons per minute. The Planning
Commission recommends approval with the following conditions:
1 - County Engineer's approval of location and size of water lines.
2 - Certification of the 48-hour testing from the County Engineer.
3 - Limit of 14 units to be served by this well.
Mr. Tucker then read the following letter into the record:
"February 25, 1976
To: Robert Tucker
From'~ J. Ashley Williams
Subject: West Woods - Central Well
Dennis Friedrich and I observed the well testing for West Wo~ds on December 16
through 18, 1975. The well was pumped for 48 hours. Measurements were taken
from the flow at two ends of the system through 3/4 inch hoses. This was not
a true test of the well output, but it did ~how that the total of the two flows
was 15 gallons per ~inute. A~.a~eme~t ~as received from the well driller that
indicated the well was producing 30 gallons per minute when it was drilled~ This,
however, was not a 48-hour test. Iffeel the tests that were made by this office
are sufficient to say this well will have an output of at least 15 gallons per
minute."
Mr. Fisher asked if these lots were part of a request for a larger subdivision whiCh
came to the Board a couple of years ago. Mr. Tucker said yes. The four lots all fronting
Route 677 were part of plan given preliminary approval last year by the Planning Commission,
but because of the water situation in that area ~the Planning Commission would not give final
approval until testing of the well had been completed. Mr. Fisher said there is public wa~
available some distance away and he thought that was the main item considered by the
Commission. Mr. Tucker said the applicant had been told he could furnish sufficient data
through either geological testing or well drilling.
Mr. Bailey said the County Engineer's Office had studied connecting this subdivision to
the Stillhouse Mountain line. The cost of this was prohibitive to the developer, so a well
had been drilled and is recommended for only 14 lots; Preferably contiguous lots. Mr.
said there was nothing in the Conditions to say that these must be contiguous lots.
Mr. Roudabush said each of the lots on this tract are over two acres sO can be develo
without a central well permit, therefore it is almost a moot question. This. is ~manda~Or
Mr. Ron Carter, the applicant, was present~ Mr. Fisher asked if the Other 10 lots will
be contiguous. Mr. Carter said he does not yet own that property, but intends the lots to
contiguous.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. A Mrs. Baker asked if this property is on
Old Hill Farm Road. Mr. Fisher said it is on Ballard Road. No one else speaking, the
hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve this request for .a central well to
serve Lots 1, 2, 3, and 49~as shown on plat attached to application (prepared by Wm. Morris
FOster, dated August 6, 1974, for Subdivision Plat showing Lots 1, 2, 3,~8, & 49 of West~
Woods) and 10 other contiguous lots and also subject to the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Bailey said the well.lot
itself will have to be defined. There should be a minimum lot of 100' by 100' designated~
It can be part of Lot 3, but has to be isolated from other uses. Mr. Roudabush then added
condition 9 4: A plat designating the well lot is to be submitted along with other data to
the County Engineer. This addition was accepted by Dr. Iachetta. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8.
body shop on two acres zoned M-2 Industrial. Property on the west Side of Route 29 North.
County Tax Map 32, Parcel 22C. Rivanna District.
SP-76-01. Larry B. Hall & Douglas M. Taylor. To locate an automobJ .e
1 - Site plan approval by the Planning Commission; screening approval must
be given at the site plan review level.
2 - Road Standards to handle the proposed development of this traCt to be
Mr. Tucker said this area is rural in character with a substantial amount of residentia
uses in the immediate area. Cedar Hill~Mobile Home Park is located adjacent to the north of
subject property. The property to the west is wooded with deciduous trees. The property in
question is primarily open with very little tree cover. The staff feels that a mistake in
zoning of this property was made in 1968 when the property was zoned M-2. Further- they feel
the uses permitted by special use permit in the M-2 District would not be compatible with
surrounding land uses and would change %he character of the surrounding area. The staff als(
felt the developer or owner'of this parcel should prepare a plan for development of the
entire industrial tract rather than attempting to develop the tract in a piece-meal fashion.
Mr. Tucker said the staff had since withdrawn this last sentence since the applicant did
present a schematic to the Site Review Committee. The Planning Commission recommends approw
with the following conditions:
February 25, 1976 -- Regular Meeting
073
3 - Signing to be limited to one 18 square foot free-standing sign located on
Route 29 North bearing the name of the industrial park only, and one wall
sign not to exceed 35 square feet and not to project above the eave line of
the building.
4 - Limited to 10 cars, no one of which shall remain outside longer than 90 days.
Mr. Roudabush noted that the plat attached to the application was prepared by his office.
but was prepared to show a previous division of certain lots. He has not participated in the
preparation of this application and has done no work on the site plan for Messrs. Hall and
Taylor.
Mrs. David asked why the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this ap~
in opposition to the staff's recommendation. Mr. Tucker said there is little development
in this area and the Planning Commission did not feel that this proposal will be detrimental
or incompatible with the surrounding area.
Mr. Gale Pickford was present to represent the applicants. He said this will be an
automobile body repair shop and not a mechanical repair shop. The applicants are agreeable
with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Roudabush asked about a pond which shows on the site plan. Mr. S. Gellet~3~ said
is trying to develop land already zoned M-2 as an industrial park. The pond will be left on
the property. He has purchased the northwestern corner of the property and will provide a
buffer between this shop and the trailer court. There have been no objections from adjoining
property owners.
No one else from the public spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dorrier said there are few industrial areas in the County. He felt that if the
property is screened and the building set back as shown on the map that it will be compatible
with the area and he stated favor for the petition.
Motion to approve UP-76-01, with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission,
was offered by Dr. Iachetta and seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Roudabush recommended that
Mr. Gellet~Y~? give consideration to providing access to Lot "K" parallel to Route 29 from the
center access road across the pond lot so there will not have to be another entrance onto
Route 29. He said this recommendation had nothing to do with the question being discussed,
but he felt that in the overall plan for this site it should be considered. 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.
Agenda Item No. 9. To consider amending Section 3-12, Erosion Control, of the Albemarle
County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said the Board adopted a resolution of intent on this matter on January 14.
The proposed amendment reads:
Section 3-12 EROSION CONTROL: No final subdivision plat shall be approved by the
governing body, or its agent, unless and until the subdivider shall have obtained
an erosion control permit pursuant to the Albemarle County Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance or shall present satisfactory evidence that no such permit is
required.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of this amendmen
Mr. Hartwell Clarke, Zoning Administrator, said he has been worried about the time when
a grading permit ahQuld be issued. He feels that after preliminary approval is given, w~ld
be the proper time to issue the pe~m~t. ~ny work done during the interim would be at the
owner's risk. Mr. Fisher asked if this were a question which must be resolved before enactin~
this amendment. Mr. St. John said it is a separate question, but one which has plagued the
staff. People can now get a grading permit, grade and cause erosion before making applicatiol
for site plan or subdivision approval. Mr. Clarke is asking that there be some amendment so
a grading permit cannot be issued until ~. ~a development plan has been filed. Mr. Roi
said it would be difficult to obtain a grading permit before obtaining site plan approval,
because it would not be known exactly what is required in the way of facilities and drainage
until that plan is drawn. Mr. St. John said that is true, but under the Erosion Control
Ordinance, a long-term farm is exempted, so a network of roads could be built without a
permit if it only involved that farm. Dr. Iachetta said that loop-hole had recently been
amended.
Mr. Fisher said this matter should be addressed in more detail and suggested that this
discussion be deferred.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Henley, to amend and reenact
Section 3-12 of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance as set out
above. The motion carried by the following recorded vote.:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. To consider adoption of a BIKEWAY PLAN as an element and part of
the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. (Advertised on February 11 and February 18, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker said this plan was prepared by two summer interns, Ms. Donna Rubinoff and Ms
Ann Paul. It deals primarily with the urban area of the County, however, it is an overall
county-Wide plan. On Pages 34 - 39 of the report are the estimated costs for implementation
of such a plan and it would be quite expensive. There is funding that can be obtained for
such a plan although it would not be easily obtained. The staff feels this plan can be used
074
February 25, 1976 -- Regular Meeting
Ms. Rubinoff said this bikeway study provides a general framework for the planning of
bike routes in Albemarle County. While the general intent has been to consider bikeway
planning throughout the County, specific attention has been given to an analysis of the urban
area and its relationship to the bikeway proposals of the City of Charlottesville. A further
intent of this study is to increase both public and governmental awareness of the need for
adequate bikeway facilities within the County. The limitation of specific study to the urban
area is a result of the developmental and economic conditions of the early and mid-1970's.
Because development decisions are currently in a state of flux, it is not only difficult, but
unwise to make bikeway plans which are overly specific. In addition, general energy and
economic problems in the country have caused revenue for highway funding to drop drastically.
Because much of the funding for bikeway development may come from the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, plans for both highway and bikeway projects in the near future
are severly limited, thus reducing the extent to which specific bikeway recommendations can
be made. The goals of such a plan are: To encourage the use of the bicycle as an alternate
means of daily transpof~tion as well as for recreational use; to provide a regional bikeway
system that is continuous between neighboring jurisdictions; to plan a bikeway system that is
feasible and low cost in order that implemenation will occur; and to maintain an awareness of
possible funding sources.
Ms. Paul said they analyzed over 4,000 user survey questionnaires which were distributed
last summer. They were basically interested in getting citizen input and stimulating public
awareness. They found that there are relatively few cyclists coming into Charlottesville
because of safety factors on commuter routes. Recommendations were made for a county-wide
system based on recreational, historic, and scenic routes. The Trans-American Bicentennial
Bikeway has a route through the County. This route is part of the proposed National Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation-Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation bicycle corridors in Virginia.
The route follows existing roads and should be incorporated into the County Bikeway Plan
where safety permits. The Virginia COR suggests that bikeway planning in the State, especial]
within the immediate region, be a continuous system. The Albemarle network of bicycle routes
will tie in with the City routes in order to provide for a continuous regional bikeway
system.
Mr. Tucker said if the County wants to obtain funding from the State Highway Department
they must meet two conditions: 1) the plan must be regional (the City could not obtain this
funding without the County and vice versa) and 2) the route must be for commuter use. There
are some routes proposed for purely recreational use. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commissior
reviewed this plan last year in a work session. A couple of weeks ago, they held a public
hearing on same and recommend by a 7/1 vote approval of the plan as presented. The one
dissenting vote was cast because that member felt it is a luxury item.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Ms. Sally Thomas. She
said she was glad to hear that the plan connects the County and City plans and urged that at
some time in the near future the plan be expanded.
An unidentified gentlemen asked if bicycles could not be restricted to the bicycle
paths. Ms. Paul said if there are proper facilities, they can be.
Ms. Kathy Gilman asked if the Board is considering the concept of a bike plan or actuall,
voting on the routes. Mr. Fisher said the Board is considering the plan and it ~lud~s
~er~in~routes.
At this_~ime, the public hearing was closed.
Dr. Iachetta said he had only received his copy of the proPosal this date. His neighbor~
have commented that if bikeways follow non-road paths, this breaks down Security within the
neighborhoods. This emphasized the growing concern for security in the semi-rural areas and
will have to be considered in this type of planning.
Mr. Henley said he felt the interns had done a good job and commended them on same.
Mr. Dorrier said he can appreciate the problems and pleasures associated with bicycle
riding. It is dangerous on most roads.
Mr. Fisher said as a practical matter there will be no bikeways designated unless th~ co~
to the Board on plans for subdivision, etc. unless funds become available. Any type of
funding request will have to be initiated by the Board. He said since all Board members did
have their copies of this plan in advance of this meeting, the matter should be deferred to
allow time for study. Motion to defer any action on this matter until March 3, 1976, was
offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion:
(Deferred from February 24, 1976.)
South Rivanna River Reservoir Moratorium Ordinance.
Fisher: The discussion held yesterday afternoon seemed to be leading to some consensus
of the Board. The question of how to implement that consensus in the ordinance is one that
has concerned me. I met with the County Attorney and his staff. Two ordinances have been
drafted which deal with the question of the moratorium and the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance. For purposes of discussion, it might be well that each of these be read
at this time so the Board members will know what is being discussed.
Dorrier: I am abstaining from discussion and vote on this matter.
February 25, 1976 -- Regular Meeting
075
Roudabush: PROPOSAL NO. 1. ORDINANCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE QUALITY OF WATER IN THE
SOUTH RIVANNA RIVER RESERVOIR
WHEREAS, the South Rivanna River Reservoir is a resource of great value
to the people of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County is concerned about
the continued viability of the said reservoir; and
WHEREAS, a study of the said Reservoir is now being made by Betz
Environmental Engineers, Inc. at the instance of the Board of Supervisors,
the Council of the City of 'Charlottesville, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority and at a cost of approximately $140,000.00, which study is to be
completed on or about December 31, 1976, and the Board is concerned lest
development in the drainage basin of the said reservoir during the pendency
of the said study should result in irreparable damage to the reservoir; and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 1975, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County enacted an ordinance designed to protect the quality of water in the
South Rivanna River Reservoir, which ordinance was originally enacted as an
emergency measure and was thereafter, on October 22, 1975, after proper notice
and public hearing, reenacted as a permanent measure; and
WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with substantial evidence that
development in the drainage basin of the said reservoir is likely to result
in the pollution of the water therein and the destruction thereof as a
practical water supply source despite the enactment of the aforementioned
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Board is of the opinion that further measures are necessary
to ensure the continued viability of the said reservoir and, in particular,
to ensure that the aforementioned study will not be prejudiced by pollution
occasioned by continued development in the watershed of the said revervoir;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County as follows:
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this ordinance is to protect against and minimize
the pollution and eutrophication of the South Rivanna RiVer Reservoir resulting
from development in the drainage basin thereof on an interim basis pending
the completion of studies designed to determine the effect of such development
upon the reservoir. It is hereby found by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County as a' matter of legislative determination that this ordinance is necessary
to prevent pollution of the reservoir and to protect health, safety and welfare
of the people of Albemarle County.
2. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this ordinance, the following terms shall be defined
as follows:
a. Permit: The term "permit" shall be construed to include any
building permit, erosion control permit, or flood plain permit which is required
to be issued by any board, committee, officer, employee or other agency of
Albemarle County as a prerequisite to any development.
b. Immediate Drainage Area: The term "immediate drainage area"
shall be construed to mean that portion of Albemarle County lying within the
watershed of the South Rivanna River (1) bounded by an arc having a radius
of five miles as measured from the water supply intake pipe of the said reservoir
and (2) lying within 500 horizontal feet of the edge of the reservoir at normal
pool or within 500 horizontal feet of the centerline of any perennial or
intermittent stream flowing directly into the reservoir. A map labeled "South
Rivanna River Reservoir Immediate Drainage Area", shoWing the boundaries as
herein described, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
c. Development: The term "development" shall mean any construction,
external repair, land-disturbing activity, grading, road building, or other
activity resulting in a change of the physical character of any parcel of
land, except as herein otherwise expressly provided.
3. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS
No permit shall be issued for any development in the immediate
drainage area of the South Rivanna River Reservoir until such time as the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County shall have determined that such
development will have no substantial adverse effect on the said reservoir or
on the quality of the water therein.
4. EXEMPTIONS
Nothwithstanding any other provision of law, the following shall be
exempt from the effect of this ordinance:
a. the construction, repair, enlargement, or other activity other
than road building, relating to any single-family detached dwelling located
upon a lot having a minimum area of one acre; provided that no such activity
shall be permitted within 200 horizontal feet of the edge of the reservoir at
normal pool nor within 200 feet of the centerline of any perennial or inter-
mittent stream flowing directly into the reservoir;
076
February 25, 1976 -- Regular Meeting
b. the repair and/or reconstruction of any structure which repair
and/or reconstruction is necessitated by forces beyond the control of the owner
of such structure, which repair and/or reconstruction shall be necessary to
prevent a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation or a situation
dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare, and which repair and/or
reconstruction will, in the opinion of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors,
have no significant impact on the quality of water in the South Rivanna River
Reservoir;
c. the tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural
or forest crops or products or engineering operations under Section 21-2(c) of
the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended;
d. Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the issuance
of any permit for any land-disturbing activity as defined in the Albemarle County
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; provided, that, notwithstanding
any provision of law to the contrary, any activity necessary for the limitation
of any condition which constitutes a danger to the public health, safety, and
welfare may be carried out as otherwise provided by law.
5. CONSTRUCTION
This ordinance is declared to be remedial in nature and protective of
a paramount public interest and shall be liberally construed to effectuate
its purposes.
6. SEVERABILITY
Should any section or any provision of this ordinance be held by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole
or any part thereof other than the part so held to be invalid.
7. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect upon enactment and shall remain in
effect until repealed by the Board of Supervisors; provided, however, that
this ordinance shall terminate and be of no further effect on and after January 1,
1977, unless the same 'shall theretofore have been reenacted in accordance with
law.
Fisher: PROPOSAL NO. 2 - AN ORDINANCE TO PROTECT THE QUALITY OF WATER IN THE SOUTH
RIVANNA RIVER RESERVOIR:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that Section I
of Appendix A to_the Albemarle County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance be, and it hereby is, amended as follows:
RESTRICTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT IN THE WATERSHED OF THE SOUTH RIVANNA
RIVER RESERVOIR
A. Land in the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir may be
developed as provided by law except as otherwise restricted in this section.
B. No building, grading or excavative activity except such activity as
shall be necessary for the construction and/or installation of utilities and/or
roads shall be permitted under the.following conditions:
1. on slopes of 15% or greater within the proximate drainage area
of the reservoir as hereinafter defined; or
2. on slopes of 25% or greater anywhere else in the watershed.
C. For purposes of this section, the term "proximate drainage area"
shall be deemed to include that portion of the watershed of the South Rivanna
River Reservoir bounded by an arc having a radius of five miles as measured
from the water supply intake pipe of the said reservoir. A map showing the
boundaries as herein described is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference as Exhibit II.
D. The location and design of roads shall follow topography wherever
possible in order to minimize excavation and embankment.
An emergency being found to exist, this ordinance shall take effect
immediately. The Clerk is hereby ordered to give notice as required by
Section 15.1-504 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, that the Board
of Supervisors intends to enact the foregoing as a permanent measure in
accordance with law.
Iachetta: The documentation we have at this point from the experts indicates that the
15% slope is a fairly critical item. It seems to me that Item 2b in the ordinance just read
by Mr. Roudabush should include a statement with respect to the 15% or greater slopes. The
500 feet that is written in now was decided on primarly because the map we have behind us
includes a high percentage of 15% slopes that lie. along the edges of the pool and both the
permanent and intermittent streams that we are trying to include. From an engineering point
of view, I regard the 15% slope is the only hard technical data that we have received. I do
not think the 500 feet alone is sufficient to define the region.
February 25, 1976 -- Regular Meeting
077
Fisher: For purposes of reference, let us label the ordinance Mr. Roudabush just read
as 25(4) and the amendment to the Soil Erosion Ordinance as 25(5).
Roudabush: The first proposal, 25(4), is in the form of a moratorium similar to the
existing moratorium, but limited to those areas within 500 feet of the reservoir. The
question of the 15% slopes within the entire five-mile area is addressed in the amendment to
the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
~Iachetta: I am aware of that. I think the 15% belongs in the moratorium ordinance if
the moratorium is to be continued. Looking at our map, we exclude a high percentage of the
15% slopes if we only use the 500 foot boundary.
Fisher: I do not believe that is true. I believe the Soil Erosion Ordinance applies to
all slopes in the whole five-mile radius that exceed 15%, whether within 500 feet of the
reservoir or somewhere else within that area.
Roudabush: Fred Payne said the other day that if the moratorium on the five-mile area
is defensible, any portion of it is just as defensible as the whole, therefore, there would
be no need to support the 500 feet with the 15% slopes since the 500 feet can be just as well
defended and supported as the entire area. Erosion control requirements would be more specifi
in nature on the 15% slopes.
Henley:
boundary.
I did not intend to tie up the 15% slopes that are not adjacent to the 500 foot
Fisher: I thought that was your intention yesterday.
David: As far as the amendment to the Soil Erosion Ordinance, we only need to change
from 25% to 15% in the five mile area. Is that correct?
Fisher: That is what was originally recommended by the Blue Ribbon Committee for the
entire watershed. It was not adopted that way. It was adopted as 25% or greater in the
entire watershed. I thought yesterday the Board was moving in the direction of going back to
the original recommendation of the committee for 15% in the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
Iachetta: If we are not going to adjust the slope as it is now in the ordinance, there
is no need for proposal numbered 25(5), but this then makes it necessary to think about what
we are going to do with proposal numbered 25(4) in Item 2b.
Roudabush: We can expand Item 2b to include the slopes of 15% immediately adjacent
to the reservoir.
Iachetta: That is what I thought we agreed on yesterday.
David: Under Item 2b we need the words: "lying within 500 feet of the edge of the
reservoir at normal pool or within 500 feet of the centerline of any perennial or intermitt~
streams flowing directly into the reservoir. In addition any areas having a slope in excess
of 15% which is immediately adjacent to the 500 foot boundary lines shall be deemed to be
included within the immediate drainage area."
Roudabush: If we do that, I do not think 25(5) is necessary.
David: I would like to hear from the attorney on that.
Fisher: I would like to say that everybody has pointed to the recommendation of the
"Blue Ribbon Committee" as being important. One thing that has been said over and over is
that the 15% slope is a point beyond which considerable erosion would take place under most
soil-disturbing activities. I feel that if any significant action is taken to protect the
reservoir, we will have to look at the steep slopes in this immediate area. I do not feel we
can do that with just the lands that are adjacent to the pooling area.
Henley: A lot of development is going on in the County on 15% slopes.
Roudabush: But 25(5) would not prohibit the use of that land. Item lb provides that
utilities and/or roads could be built across those 15% slopes on,side of the 500 foot limit
under the guidelines of the Erosion Control Ordinance.
Iachetta: Both Mr. Chewning and Mr. Conner who served on the committee recanted on the
slope and said they felt it was a mistake to have gone from 15% to 25%. I have walked some
of these lands and they are now predominately woodlands. Woodlands have a relatively minimal
effect on water supplies. Any change in those lands of a major type, either going to agricul'
(which is very unlikely) or to a more intensive use would represent a relatively steep
pollution change and would make the slope criteria more serious than areas closer to the
water supply. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Fisher that within the area defined, the 15%
is still the proper conclusion.
Roudabush: I think 25(5) recognizes that.
Iachetta: I think 25(5) is fine, but my concern is that we need to include in 25(4) the
same 15% we had in the original proposal.
Fisher: The question of trying to decide which slopes are contiguous is in itself a
difficult one. Whether they can be easily defined is a question. It is obviously a problem.
Roudabush: This would not prohibit the use of that land. It could be used to build
roads to go across to other areas that are not on steeper slopes.
Henley: How close to the reservoir could you build a road?
O78
F~bruary 25, 1976 -- Regular Meeting
Roudabush: No closer than 500 feet. The moratorium would continue within 500 feet of
the reservoir and the streams. Outside of that area, the only thing that could be done
(under the Soil Erosion Ordinance) on 15% slopes would be to build roads and install utilitiel
Henley:
watershed.
If the 15% is good for five miles, we might want to try it for the whole
Fisher: In a proposal given to us the other day was a sentence which read: In addition
any area having a slope in excess of 15% which is immediately adjacent to the 500 foot bounda~
line as herein defined shall be deemed to be included within the immediate drainage area."
Would reinserting that sentence into Item 2b of 25(4) make an appreciable difference?
St. John: It would make a difference in that you could not carry on a~y earth-disturbin(
activity either within 500 feet of the reservoir or on any 15% slope adjacent or contiguous
to that area.
Fisher: It would have the effect of further restricting development on the 15% slopes
adjacent to the 500 foot buffer?
St. John: Yes.
Tucker: It would cause some problems in administration.
impossible, but it would be very difficult.
I am not saying it would be
Fisher: For administrative purposes, a buffer zone is one thing and the slopes are
another. To try and relate the two as suggested creates some difficulty.
David: Roads are certainly one of the major sources of erosion.
under 25(4) a road could be built anywhere back of the 500 foot line.
I understand that
Roudabush: Only roads and utilities.
Henley: You would have to have that provision because after you get away from the
reservoir on a 15% slope you cannot build a road.
Roudabush: You would be building twice as much road to get around the 15% slope.
St. John: There are some sections in engineering language which I do not understand.
What does it mean when it says roads shall follow the topography?
Roudabush: There is no question in my mind that it means that rather than bucking a
grade, you try to work around and follow the contours.
St. John:
the road?
Does not the Soil Erosion Review Committee have control over the design of
Roudabush: Certainly.
St. John: If you say "shall follow topography" and they cannot figure out what it
means, it does not accomplish anything.
Roudabush: It says "wherever possible in order to minimize excavation and embankments."
If following the topography minimizes the grading, it has met the language.
Iachetta: What that does is minimize excavation of embankment.
St. John: Every word in this ordinance is important. If it can be construed to avoid
what you are trying to accomplish here or if it can be used to muddy the waters, it will be
used in that way.
Bailey: It means building a road like Rio and not like 1-64. 1-64 tries to get where
it is going in the shortest distance and pays no attention whatever to topography. If there
is a hill, puncture it and if there is a valley, fill it.
Iachetta: Despite the fact that this thing with the 15% slope inclusion in 2b would be
a little more difficult to administer, it seems to me that our intent is to provide protectiol
We are agreed that the slope criteria is a significant one. I think the contiguous slope
requirement as originally written in the ordinance should be retained. We will have to live
with the difficulty of definition for a 10-month period. There are an awful lot of 15%
slopes out in the watershed.
Fisher: I am concerned that if we go to adjacent areas there will be considerable
problems in implementation. I feel that these two ordinances, as they are drafted, are much
clearer and simpler and probably can be implemented.
Henley: I would like to say again that I do not think we should limit all of the 15%
slopes in the watershed area.
Fisher: Where do we go from here?
Roudabush: I would like to MOVE for adoption of the ordinance as set out above and
designated by the Board as 25(4).
David: I will SECOND.
Iachetta: Is that without the 15% slopes?
Roudabush: Yes, just as written.
February 25, 1976 -- Regular Meeting
079
David: Do I understand that under this ordinance, someone on a property outside of the
500 foot boundary could go and put in a lot of roads in anticipation of development?
St. John: Only if he complies with the other erosion control ordinances. There is
no prohibition against that. That is what Mr. Clarke brought up earlier on the agenda
tonight.
David: That does not seem like very good protection to me.
Fisher: We can always go back to the ordinance which we have adopted and which is
on the books and which was advertised for a public hearing. The motion on the floor
the building moratorium area to a 500 foot area around the reservoir and the perennial and
intermittent streams-within the five mile arc from the water pipe.
Iachetta: No. There is another alternative.
Would you accept that as an amendment?
Reinsert the 15% slopes in Item 2b.
Henley: If we do that, there would be no need~.for.~25~5)i.li ~
Fisher: If you are considering doing that and not adopting the change in the Soil
Erosion Ordinance, you have a lot of steep land in the area that would be subject to
up to 25%. Further discussion on the motion?
Iachetta: I will offer an AMENDMENT. I would like to amend the motion to allow us to
reinsert the language in Item 2b identified here immediately following the words "flowing
directly into the reservoir." by inserting "In addition, any area having a slope in excess of
15% which is immediately adjacent to the 500 foot boundary line as herein defined shall be
deemed to be included within the immediate drainage area."
Roudabush: I will ACCEPT that amendment.
David: I will ACCEPT the amendment.
Fisher: Is it clear that the motion now on the floor is to adopt 25(4) read by Mr.
Roudabush, with the inclusion of the sentence just read by Dr. Iachetta in Item 2b before the
last sentence of that paragraph? Further discussion? Call the roll.
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier.
-~ St. John:
enacted?
For clarification, could we have a reading of that p~ragraph as it has been
Fisher: Yes. Item 2b. Immediate Drainage Area: The term "immediate drainage area"
shall be construed to mean that portion of-Albemarle County lying within the watershed of the
South Rivanna River (1) bounded by an arc having a radius of five miles as measured from the
water supply intake'pipe of the said reservoir and (2) lying within 500 horizontal feet of
the edge of the reservoir at normal pool or within 500 horizontal feet of the centerline of
any perennial or intermittent stream flowing directly into the reservoir. In addition, any
area having a slope in excess of 15% which is immediately adjacent to the 500 foot boundary
line as herein defined, shall be deemed to be included within the immediate drainage area. A
map labeled "South Rivanna River Reservoir Immediate Drainage Area", showing the boundaries
as herein described, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
St. John: May I ask that the map be identified? (Mr. Roudabush signs the large map
presented by the Planning Office and not incorporated into the minutes because of size. Map
is on display in the Planning Department.)
St. John: I would like to make a legal point for this record. In enacting the ordinanc~
in its present form, it has been made less restrictive then it was in its advertised form.
(The ordinance, as adopted by the Board, is set out below.)
ORDINANCE
FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE QUALITY OF WATER IN
THE SOUTH RIVANNA RIVER RESERVOIR
WHEREAS, the South Rivanna River Reservoir is a resource of great
value to the people of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County is concerned
about the continued viability of the said reservoir; and
WHEREAS, a study of the said Reservoir is now being made, by Betz
Environmental Engineers, Inc., at the instance of the Board of Supervisors,
the Council of the City of Charlottesville, and the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority and at a cost of approximately $140,000.00, which study
is to be completed on or about December 31, 1976, and the Board is
concerned lest development in the drainage basin of the said reservoir
during the pendency of the said study should result in irreparable damage
to the reservoir; and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 1975, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County enacted an ordinance designed to protect the quality of water
in the South Rivanna River Reservoir, which ordinance was originally
enacted as an emergency measure and was thereafter, on October 22, 1975,
after proper notice and public hearing, reenacted as a permanent measure;
and
WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with substantial evidence that
development in the drainage basin of the said reservoir is l~ke]v ko