Loading...
1976-05-05NMay 5, 1976 (Night Meeting) 175 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 5, 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., and F. Anthony Iachetta. Absent: Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Officers Present: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert Tucker, County Planner. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:33 P.M. No. 1. Discussed at the end of the meeting. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier read into the record the following letter placing Scottsville District on the Virginia Landmarks Register: "April 29, 1976 Honorable A. Raymon Thacker, Mayor Town of Scottsville Municipal Building Scottsville, Virginia 24590 Dear Mr. Thacker: Re: Scottsville Historic District, Albemarle/Fluvanna Counties On behalf of the Commonwealth it gives us great pleasure to notify you that the Historic Landmarks Commission has placed Scottsville Historic District on the Virginia Landmarks Register and has nominated it to the National Register of Historic Places. Because reporters attended our Commission meetings, some notice of this designation may have already appeared in the newspapers. The Virginia Landmarks Register, established by an act of the General Assembly in 1966, is to include "the buildings, structures, and sites which are of a state-wide or national significance." It is our feeling that Scottsville Historic District richly deserves this recognition. The protection of these significant landmarks is of immediate concern to this Commission. It is our hope that you will let us know if we can be of ~ny assistance in the preservation of your historic property. Many times members of our staff can offer advice to owners Who contemplate alterations or renovations on their property, and we welcome the opportunity to serve you. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Junius R. Fishburne, Jr. Executive Director" ~ N6J 2. SP-09-76. Carol Birckhead to locate a mobile home on 12.7 acres zoned A-1. Property located south side of 720 about ¼ mile from Route 20 near Carter's Bridge. County Tax Map 112, Parcel 32, Scottsville Magisterial District. (Advertised on April 21 and April 28, 1976.) Mr. E. H. Moore, owner of the property, stated he wished to withdraw this application without prejudice due to objections and all the controversy from the Health Department and Wilson Cropp, Jr., adjacent property owner. Mr. Dorrier offered motion to allow withdrawal of SP-09-76 without pre3udice. Iach'etta seconded the motion and vote was recorded as follows: Dr. AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. No. 2A. Other Matters from the Public. Mr. Fisher read the following request from the Charlottesville~Albem~rle~Jaycees into the record: "May 5, 1976 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher Chairman, ~Board of Supervisors Albemarle County, Virginia Dear Mr. Fisher: On behalf of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees, I am requesting permission for the Jaycees to sponsor a circus (Clyde Beatty-Cole Brothers) on a parcel of land designated as Parcel 17D of Section 78 of the Albemarle County Tax Maps. This location, known as Pantops Showgrounds, is at the intersection of Route 250E and Rt. 20 just past Free Bridge. (This event to be held on May 1!, 197~.) Your approval of this request would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, 176 May 5, 1976 (Night Meeting) Mr~Fisher noted that in the past this request was approved with the condition that the Jaycees work with the Sheriff's office on traffic and crowd control. Mrs. David offered motion to approve? this request with the condition that was imposed in the past. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and it carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Next to speak was Mrs. Martha Selden urging the Board to consider adoption of a resolutJ of intent to the zoning ordinance to provide for clustering of houses within subdivisions. Mr. Tucker stated he had spoken with Mrs. Selden on this matter. This is concerned primarily with the cluster alternate in the propassd~ zoning ordinance and would allow Ct.ustering of units in all residential zones. Mr. Tucker noted that he is amenable to th~s. He said that Fred Payne, whom Mrs. Selden contacted on this, did not have time today to draft a resolution. Mr. Tucker said this was recommended in the zoning ordinance last year. This is essentially as proposed except for one item which would be an amendment to the sub- division regulations allowing the Planning Commission where they deem necessary in respect to health, safety and welfare to require clustering of units. At this time, Mr. Fisher asked the Board if they desired to take action tonight or to have the resolution of intent first. The Board concurred in having a resolution on this matter first and to place this on the agenda for consideration on May 12, 1976. No. 3. 21, 1976.) ZMP-76-02. Virginia Dryden Kellogg. (Deferred from March 24, 1976 and April Mr. Fisher stated the reason for deferral of this matter was because Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority informed the Board they would not be able to provide sewage service for this portion of the county until about 1979 or 1980. The proposal requires public sewerage of one type or another. The Board has several questions about sewers, water supply and traffic patterns. At this time, Mr. William A. Perkins, Jr., representing the applicant, stated John McNair of McNair and Associates, who had prepared the report which was before the Board tonight, Mr. McQuate of McNai~'s office, Peter Brown, the architect, Tom Dolan and Mr. and ~s. Kellogg were present tonight. He stated there were three documents to be presented. First, a letter of agreement from Mrs. Kellogg as owner of Ednam addressed to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the County of Albemarle dated April 30, 1976. Second, an engineer's report from John McNair and Associates relative to sewer and water at Ednam. Third, a letter from the State Water Control Board dated April 6 relative to the proposed tertiary treatment plant for Ednam. (These documents are on permanent file in the Clerk's Office.) Mr. Perkins stated that in the letter of agreement from Mrs. Kellogg the tertiary sewage treatment facility will be terminated when the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is ready to furnish service. Mrs. Kellogg also included in the agreement that she or her successors in title will be responsible to pay whatever hook-on charges might be'necessary at that time. The State Water Control Board has indicated that they will approve a tertiary treatment plant when and if their requirements were met. Mr. Perkins said an agreement had been reached with Mr. John Rogan, owner of the adjacent property, by Which there is a sewer right of way going across the land over to the point of discharge and inter- secting the proposed sewer line. At this time, Mr. McQuate explained to the Board that his report covers three areas. First is the water supply system, second is the sewage treatment plant and third is the intersection of the proposed Ednam entrance road with U. S. 250~West. There was a question at the April 21 meeting about the adequacy of water pressure inflow. One of the objectives of the report is to develop a water system concept that will not have any detrimental effect on the existing water system. The proposed water system will take off of the t~;~ne on Route 250 and flow into a storage tank onto the Ednam property. The connection between the 12" line and the storage tank will be ~glv~ed~.~so the system for Ednam will be completely independen~'~ The storage tank will fill from the 12" line between midnight and 6:00 A.M. and then cut off. During the day whennheavy demand develops, water will be drawn only from the storage tank. Another consideration is the development of fire protection for Ednam. Adequate storage (a 150,000 gallon storage tank) has been provided in the plan for this purpose. Mr. Agnor said he had no objection to the water system as presented. The proposal indicates that there will be a separated system for Ednam which can be used as a supplementa~ supply for Ednam Forest and the Boar~s Head Complex. Although it cannot be made a part of the ~onditions on this permit, a storage tank with gravity feed for the entire area would be better. Mr. Perkins has indicated that he is discussing with Mr. Rogan a compatible system for the whole area. Mr. McQuate said the water tank is proposed to be built on the highest elevation.behind the existing house at a height of about sixty-five feet but hhis can be varied. Mr. McQuate then spoke about the sewer treatment plant. He said the Ednam project can not be connected to the regional interceptor system until 1979 or 1980. This is a temporary treatment plant. He has discussed with the State Water Control Board their policy for approval of such a plant. Th~re~-.are~essentially three conditions; 1) the plant must meet effluent standards. of the State Water Control Board; 2) the Board of Supervisors must approve a plant at this location;? and 3) it must be a temporary or interim plant. The State Water Control Board will not' commit themselves until a proposal from the developer has been received. He feels the ~fluent standards will be somewhere between five and ten milligrams per liter. The proto type plah~ was worked up on that ~sis. The plan is for aap~¢~age, secondary treatment plant followed bva packaqe, water treatment plant which produces effluent with DR May 5, 1976 (Night Meeting) less than the above. The estimated cost for installation of the plant is about $150,000.00. On the basis of the cost, and other considerations, the cost per unit will be $1,700.00. This cost will resolve proliferation of such package treatment plants. Also,shown in the report is the proposed easement for the sewage treatment plant outflow line across the Boa~s Head Inn property which initially will be connected into the Boar's Head lake overflow and eventually connected to the Crozet or Morey Creek interceptor. Mr. Fisher asked about the statement "the temporary treatment plant will serve only the single-famil~y,-very low density portion of the Ednam project.", contained in the report. He asked if this meant no apartment units will be built until after the regional interceptor system is operational. Mr. McQuate said this plant is designed to serve 90 units. This is the number of units which will be built before the interceptor goes through. The remaining units would be the multi-family units. Mr. Fisher then asked who will operate the plant. Mr. Perkins said he had understood the developer will have to be responsibIe for operation, but the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority felt they should maintain and operate~the system. This is satisfactory to the developer~ Mr. Fisher asked if the system will have to be set up as a public service cor Mr. St. John said yes. He did not feel the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will be able to operate this plant and it will have to be a privately-owned public service corporatiOn. Mr. Dorrier asked if any bond is required for the temporary sewage system. Mr. St. John said existing rules do not require a bond. The State Corporation Commission will see that the public service corporation is assessed. If they do not have adequate funds, the individual owners would then be assessed. Mr~ McQuate said there were two questions as to channelization and signalization of the intersection of the road with 250. The highway department has agreed to his channelization diagram. The diagram consists of placing the Ednam road directly across from the Farmington entrance. The two existing entranceS will be closed. A deceleration lane is to be added coming from the west and left turns will be provided for both directions. As for the ~ignalization, the Highway Department could not justify a signal at this time. Mr. Charles Perry~iAssistant Resident Engineer, Highway Department, spoke next. He said the sight distance will be lengthened to six hundred feet. He did not feel a ~ignal is justified at this time, but the highway department will be responsive if a signal is demanded by a study. This location was selected for the road because it will eliminate cross-overs on Route 250 West. At this time, the public hearing was reopened. First to speak was Harry Muller, represe] ing the Ednam Village Homeowner's Association. He asked if an open lagoon is envisioned for the sewage 'system. Mr. MC~~--said no. He asked next if an. operator for the plant will be at the plant at all times. Mr. Fisher said the proposal presented to the Board stated that there will be a qualified operator present during all hours the plant is in operation. That is the assumption on which the proposal was brought to the Board. Mr. Muller urged the Board to consider some form of bond to insure that adequate operation of the plant is main- tained throughout its existence. Mr. Bob Rutland, resident of Ednam Forest spoke next. He said it is curious to him that real estate people are mainly behind this movement. He said the present residents of Ednam Forest have low water pressure. A water storage tower talked about in 1974 has not yet been installed. He has been told that fire protection is inadequate. The citizens were told last month that the lagoon ~hown on the plan for Ednam is for the tertiary plant. Tonight the developer has said the lagoon is not for the plant. Ednam Forest has an open laggon. At one time, it was very obnoxious. ~erators have been installed and this has helped the situation. The residents object to the addition of more taffic on the roads in Ednam Forest. T~e Ednam Village Homeowner's ~Association opposes anything that would change the density village of the from one acre per ~.~;~They a seven-story building feel ~tha{ on a high hill will change the character of the &~e~ He concluded by saying he feels this concept is for wealthy people and urged the Board to reject the petition. Mr. McQuate said there will be no lagoon for ~his sewage treatment plant. storm water retenti~n~pond. it is a Next to speak was Mrs. Dorothy Spiedel representing Citizens for Albemarle. She said while the clustering and mixing of housing is an excellent planning concept, the Citizens for Albemarle feels the height limitation in the RPN should be consistent with those in the existing zones. In theiR-1 and R-2 zones, the height limitation is thirty-five feet which the Citizens for Albemarle recommends for the RPN zone. Mrs. Martha Selden asked if the effluent from this treatment plant will go into the lagoon at Ednam Forest. Mr. McQuate said it will not, but will go into the same stream system into which the Boar's Head Inn system discharges. Mr. John McNair said he would like to make it clear that this sewage treatment plant will serve 95 units regardless of t.he type of unit. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said if this proposal is approved by this Board, and all regulatory agencies it could conceivably operate to handle the sewage system for this development. The Board should be careful of any approval of such a facility since the Board has had little experienc~ in this type of approval. It will be a number of years before there will be any sewage capacity available from Moore's Creek. Approval of this application will probably set a precedent for consideration of other such applications. The County Attorney has advised that the Board can reduce the height of the buildings, as a conditi~noof this approval, to something less than the maximum allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. All of the roads in the development will be built to state standards and taken over by the State Highway Department. He then asked Mr. Agnor to comment on the proposed water system and its impact on the residents in the surrounding area~ Mr. Agnor said the proposed design ~s~he system operating from midnight to 6-00 A.M. with adequate storage to take care of not only the maximum domestic use but also fire 178 May 5, 1976 (Night Meetin~ Forest, Ednam Village and the Boar's Head Inn facility rather than having automatic, pressur~ regulated tie-in valve. Mr. Perkins said that Mr. John Rogan, as part of the consideration for Obtaining a sewage line across Ednam and Boar's Head property, had required that ML Kellogg agree that before any water or sewer treatment plant is built to serve Ednam alone, that there will be negotiations to find an equitable solution for the wh61e area. However, there is no starting place for negotiations ~ntil after this application is approved. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if he has had any experience with package treatment faciliti~ such as those proposed. Mr. Agnor said no. He recommended that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board consider entering into a contract to operate this plant at the expense of the developer and/or the property owners of that development. He recommended this~_fo~'the following reasons: 1) Class 3 operators are not easily found; 2) lab testing is required to insure that the plant is operating efficiently; 3) the private corporation will be required to meet state certification limits. Dr. Iachetta noted that he had not received this new proposal until 6:00 P.M. tonight and had not had an opportunity to study same. The discussion tonight has not resolved the question he had about fire~p~ote~on. Mr. Dorrier said he felt approval of a tertiary treatment plant may set a precedent but if the State Water Control Board and the Health Department monitor the plant it will be safe. He agreed with Mr. Agnor that a condition of approval Should be a contract with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for operation of the plant. His major concern has been the height of the buildings and the number of units. Under existing zoning, 160 units would be allowed, and this application is for only 132. He felt this development is a first class development. He recommended approving the application subject to the Planning.CommissJ conditions, approval by all authorities and a stipulation that a contract be entered into with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Henley said he still is not satisfied that the density is compatible with the surrou properties. Installation of a temporary sewer treatment plant also bothers him. Mrs. David said the Board was dealing with two new ideas tonight. The RPN zone~was introduced as a way to allow clustering in smaller areas. The second new item is the package treatment plant. The onIy real difficulty is approval of the height of the buildings but she felt this could be handled on the site plans. Mrs. David then stated that she was prepared to support the request for RPN zoning. Dr. Iachetta Said if this application is approved with a tertiary treatment plant, ther~ should be some assurance given that the facilities will be operated and maintained properly between the time that the plant is initially built and the time it is~taken over by either the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority or a public service corporation in the event of failure by the developer. Mr. Perkins said a bo~d will be given to the County if that is the desire of the Board. At 9:35 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:43 P.M. Mr. Fisher noted that there are two problems the Board should resolve before voting on this request. The Board needs to know if the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will operate th~s plant or similar plants in the County. Seco~$~he new information was receive~ late. He asked the Board to defer action again on this request. ~ Dr. Iachetta offered motion to defer action on this petition until May 26, 1976, at 3:00 P.M. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Mr'. St. John said if the Board~ i-s conside~ring approving a height limitation lower than that allowed in the zoning ordinance, this should be made clear to the applicant at this time rather than waiting until his plans are finished. Mr. Perkins said the developer had indicated at the last meeting that~he-~;'~as willing to lower the h~ght from 65 fee% to 50 feet and had shown plans to indicate what the buildings will look like. The applicant would like to speak further about this question at the next meeting. No. 4. Public Hearing: To consider an amendment to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan relating to that portion of the County lying in the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir and bounded by an arc having a radius of five miles as measured from the water supply intake pipe of the South Rivanna River Reservoir. (Advertised on April 21 and April 28, 1976.) No. 5. Public Hearing: To consider amending the Albemarle County Zoning Map to provid~ that only uses permitted in the A-1 Agricultural District shall be permitted in that portion of the County lying in the watershed of the~South Rivanna River bounded by an arc having a radius of five miles as measured from the water supply intake pipe of the South Rivanna River Reservoir. (Advertised on April 21..and April 28, 1976.) These two items were considered together. Mr. Tucker then read into the record the following staff report: "The issues of review of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan for the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area came to the Planning Commission due to action by two resolutions of the Board of Supervisors on January 14, 1976. The first of these resolutions directed the Planning Commission ~review the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan and to prepare an amendment thereto relating to that portion of the County lying in the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir bounded by an arc having a radius of five miles as mea~sured from the water supply intake pipe of the South Rivanna River Reservoir. The second of these Dn's ~ding May 5, 1976 (Night Meeting)' 17@ the resolution referred this matter to the Planning Co~mission fo'r its recommendation. On February 10, 1976, the Staff presented to the Planning Commission three alternative zoning proposals for the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area. These alternative proposals were: Existing zoning Proposed zoning adapted to th~ existing zoning ordinance Preliminary map based on resource protection guidelines as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan The third proposal, based on the first ~ stream valley concept in the Comprehensive Plan, received further development and refinement follQwing this initial presentation and was Presented a second time'on February 24, 1976. On February 25, 1976, the Board of Supervisors, in public hearing, adopted the current Ordinance for the Protection of the Quality of Water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir. CT~eCO-C~J3c~ P;~'~-Z3*~O~~o) ~/~/?~ In the Staff's opinion, the Planning Department has not received sufficient information to date from which the staff could determihe appropriate measures which would insure the palatability and potability of the South Rivanna River Reservoir as a drinking supply. The Staff therefore recommended to the Planning Commission that revision of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan for the Reservoir Study Area not be made at this time. The Staff proposed that the appropriate time for revision is after sufficient information has been received from Betz Environmental Engineers Study of the Reservoir. The Albemarle County Planning Department has consistently supported the principle of a County zoning ordinance and map compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Since the current staff recommendation concerning zoning in the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area represents a divergence from this policy, the reasons for this divergence will be discussed in detail by topic as follows: Moratorium Ordinance The current moratorium ordinance is effective for 7,400 acres in the study area while the Comprehensive Plan measures translate to about 5,300 acres designated for conservation. Additionally, the moratorium ordinance protects intermittent and perennial streams not protected by the staff's interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. Combined with more stringent building regulations, the staff concluded that the moratorium ordinance would provide greater protection than the ComPrehensive Plan interpretation. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan. revision is scheduled for completion within the calendar _year. The revised plan may or may not be compatible with the existing plan in the study area, and therefore, the staff's opinion is that revising zoning to the existing plan at this time may prove unwise in light of the pending revision. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has retained the firm of Betz Environmental Enqineers, Incorporated, to study the eutrophication and siltation problems of the-Rivanna Reservoir and to make recommendations concerning methods for correcting these problems. Staff opinion is that the Betz Study will provide additional information upon which appropriate measures may be based. These measures may or may not be compatible with the measures called for in the existing Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Ordinance ~ zoning ordinance is, by concept, intended to provide stability and to be enduring in order to accomplish the statements of intent of its various zones. Frequent revision of the zoning ordinance would be counterproductive to this stabilizing process. If the zoning ordinance and map were revised now for the study area, and revised again following the revision of the Comprehensive Plan and the completion of the Betz study, public confidence in the zoning ordinance would be reduced and land values could be negatively affected. While rezoning would have its advantages at this time, the staff's opinion is that the zoning ordinance should not be subjected to what may prove tO be interim measures. App~lication~ t6 sntire-:"South Ri~'anna Re*serlvoir The staff's opinion is 'that the entire South Rivanna Watershed must be addressed as a unit in planning for reservoir protection. A piecemeal approach in this matter could result in a piecemeal and ineffective effort. Additionally, a piecemeal approach could add to public confusion as to the County's policies and intent in the planning process. This confusion could be manifested as lack of receptiveness to and confidence in future planning efforts, both for the reservoir and in general. As conclusion to the presentation above, the staff recommends that existing zoning in the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area be maintained at this time. The staff proposes that the proper time for consideration of a~y zoning change in this area is after sufficient information has been received from the Betz Study and after the revision of the Comprehensive Plan has sufficiently progressed so that the staff may determine appropriate zoning measures for the protection of the reservoir as outl.ined in the revised Compare.h-enSUre P~-ll~[ 1-80 May 5, 1976 (Night Meeting) If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors determine that a zoning change for the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area is necessary at this time, the staff recommends zoning in compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan." Mr.~Tucker then noted that on March 30, 1976, the Planning Commission took action con- cerning these two resolutions. The action was~recommended, by a vote of 6-3, not to amend the Albemarle County Zoning map at this time as set forth in the resolution of the Board of Supervisors to the Planning Commission on January 14, 1976; recommended by a vote of 8-1, not to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan at this time as set forth in the resolu of the Board of Supervisors to the Planning Commmission on January 14, 1976. At this time, the public hearing was opened on the questiJ-o'n~- of the revision of the comprehensive plan. First to speak from the public was Mrs. Bowers. She stated she was in favor of the most amount of conservation zoning. She had in mind reservoirs surrounded by watersheds and all controlled at the same time. Mrs. Frances Martin, Citizens for Albemarle, was next to speak. "A zoning ordinance is supposed to be permanent and stabilize the community. The present moratorium ordinance~ gives~more protection to the reservoir than a conservation zone set out on a map would do. The main difference is that the present moratorium allows building in the area at the~densit of one unit per two acres, where this conservation zone would be more restrictive in the area of the reservoir itself. Citizens~for'~ Albemarle feels that action should be taken at the earliest opportunity to create an adequate protection zone around the ~ county's water supply impoundments. Further, indefinite delay until the Betz study is completed or absolute scientific data to prove the necessary extent and nature of such a zone becomes available would in fact make such a protective zone difficult if not impossible to achieve. Citizens for Albemarle believes there is already sufficient data available in the Occoquan studies to support this action. When a nine to twelve month time has elapsed, the Betz study may have provided data justifying a low density zone adjacent to water supply reservoi But the greatly increased number of nonconforming uses that have been established in the interim will make such a zone ineffective or even more productive of lawsuits and political opposition~'.- You have been read a list of those uses which would be nonconforming already. You can imagine how these would multiply in another twelve months. You know that a number of subdivisions adjacent to the reser, voir with lots smaller than five acres have recently been approved and are now under construction. You know from last year's hearing on the revised zoning ordinance, the homeowners frequently refused to accept nonconforming status in a new zone. Each lot sold in one of these new subdivisions and in others if rezoning is delayed, will produce another potential opponent to the protective zone. Each house built on one of those lots will place a septic tank adjacent to the water supply. In additi others who unwittingly purchased larger tracts intending them for uses prohibited in a protective zone will be unfairly confused or misled about the county's intentions. Their resentment in such cases will again create a political climate unfavorable to adoption twelve months hence should the Betz study recommend such land use restrictions. Thus, by further delay in rezoning the reservoir areas, the county will tie its own hands. If the Betz study recommends only low density uses but delay has made such uses impossible to establish, those who delay will be responsible for the enoromous public liabili~y~o~ a~7 rapidly growing reservoir. If past experience is repeated, those now in office will be retired when the bill comes due, but the citizens and taxpayers will have to pay it anyway. There have been many harsh words in the last year for those who neglected to purchase a buffer zone when the reservoir was built, but we have not yet learned a lesson. Prevention is easier than cure. In the unlikely event that a protective zone is deemed unnecessary at some future date, it can always be removed. But, if we wait until we have absolute proof that it is necessary, we may find that that is impossible. Please consider the plight of moderate and low income families in the county whose taxes and water bills will reflect the costs of replacing reservoirs if you delay until it is too late." Next to speak was Kathy Gilman representing the League of Women Voters. following into the record: She read the "May 5, 1976 TO: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Recommendations regarding the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Moratorium Area The Comprehensive Plan states that there shall be conservation zoning around pub. lic water supply impoundments to protect our drinking water from the effects of commercial, industrial, and intensive residential development. -This policy was not reflected for the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir on the land' use map, and for the past several years, we have become increasingly aware that this was a mistake and that the emphasis must be on preserving this invaluable wa~er supply'3as evidenced by the Betz study now underway. Therefore, the League of Women Voters urges you to begin an assessment of the problems that exist in the watersheds of all our drinking water impoUndments and take firm and consistent action to p~otect our water supply. We believe that one essential element of such a plan is long overdue: the addition of a conwervation or resource protection zone to our zoning ordinance. It should be placed around all water supply impoundments in the County, and intensive agricultural, cOmmercial, and residential uses should be prohibited. This action would be an important step in the effort to protect our water supply." Mrl ~at'Janssen~Albemarle County Taxpayers, was next to speak. He read to the Board results of a poll taken on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir which were presented to the Board on October 1, 1975. (A copy is on file in the office of Clerk to the Board.J Next was Mr. Edward Bain speaking for Mr. Frank Patterson, who owns property in this area. He felt that if th~ Board is g~ing to consider down zoning in this area, the Board ~ion Se nt May 5, 1976 (Night Meeting) 181 has to consider the source~of the eutrophication. He questioned how the Board can downzone this area, when there/~is information available Showing that development is not the problem. Rezoning~is a legislative act and the Board has no legal basis, in his opinion, f~r this downzoning.3 since no one knows what is causing the problem. DoWnzoning of this area would amount to confiscation of property without compensation. Based on these reasons, he felt the zoning should be left as it is until information is received from the Betz Study. Mr. Wendell Wood was next to speak. He did not feel the Board had any factual evidence to support down-zoning ar6und the reservoir. Some of this ar~a~was zoned for hi-density development and the county followed that zoning by installing water and sewer lines and school locations. By considering down-zoning, the Board is acting contrary to their own action of installing these utilities. Indecision on the part of the Board has put Mr. Wood in jeopardy with his lending institutions and he asked that a decision be made soon, one way or their'other, on the question of zoning of properties around the reservoir. Mr. Bedford Moore said the proposed zoning is in accord with what is best for the public interest overall. The question of vested interests by zoning is erroneous. Ms. Sally Thomas was next to speak. She said one of the main confusions about the comprehensive plan has been that the plan does not state that one of its main objectives was to protect the county from annexation. This is still a revelant goal. As for the suggestion that the Board wait until the comprehensive plan is reviewed; the Board needs to take all steps available to protect the Reservoir if the Board is to move against any plans for development in that area in the future. If the Board does not change the zoning at this time, the Board's statement should not sound like the zoning is being ratified forever. She stated that this is ~the only reservoir that has this density zoning around it. Mr. Alexander L. Scott spoke next. He stated he had three questions which he would like to have answered as an interested citiz~n?~ One, how many units already built fall within this prohibited cateqory~.'-~Secondly, has the s~ian~fic study Of pos~ib~e~l~ution reached any stage where a valid conclusion present or future can be determined. And, thirdly~ can the Board pass this amendment in view of fact that there are many businesses and residenc~ already in existence in the area. ~e asked if the county would buy these residences and tear them down to make this equitable. Mr. Fisher said a change in the a~Qning would not require that existing uses be removed. Mrs. Flora Patterson spoke next. She and her husband own property on the reservoir zoned R-2. She urged the Board to wait until the Betz study is completed before they confiscate her property. No,one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time. Mr. Fisher stated that a number of hours had been spent in public hearing on this matter Any action should be considered from the standpoint of existing litigation. At this time, Mr. St. John spoke. He said that without some basis downzoning this property now would be subject to leqal attack and be difficult to defend. According~to testimony given by people at the meeting held on February 4, which included representatives from the State Water Control Board and the Health Department they seemed to think that the existing ordinances are adequate to protect the reservoir during the interim period until the Betz Study is returned. One of the things Betz is to report on is the recommended land use for this area. It should be conveyed to Betz to make the report as specific as possible. The present moratorium is a "holding opera~ion" until the return of the Betz-study. If the Board downzones-on the basis of the study, then declaratory judgment can be filed by the county, a developer or a landowner to ask the court if compensation is required for such downzoning. In that sequence, it is more legally defensible than this proposed downzoning. Mr. Fisher asked if even with the background of concern by many parties and the increased difficulties with the Reservoir if Mr. St. John still did not feel there is adequat~ evidence to down-zone at this time. Mr. St. John said it would be very difficult to defend on the basis of the facts and opinions the Board received thus far. Dr. Iachetta asked if Mr. St. John's opinion was based on the events surrounding the Betz Study or if he considered the time when this property was not zoned. The present plan is manifestly inconsistent with the zoning enacted, if the first stream valley concept of the Plan is valid. There is not one, but several inconsistencies depending on how far back in history you go. Dr. Iachetta said he does not drink from the reservoir and would like for the record to show this. He said the questions are more complex than just what the Betz Study involves. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority study will probably require that the Board hire an expert to interpret the study for the County since the study is not directe( toward land uses and the watershed but toward point sources and identification of same. Mr. St. John said it does not make any difference that there was no reasoning behind the original zoning. People have spent money based on that zoning and they will lose money if it is downzoned. In order to justify down-zoning in the public interest, the Board has to show: 1) that there was a big mistake in the original zoning~ or 2) there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the original zoning. Aroused public interest is not a change in circumstance under the law, no more than a change in composition of the Board of Supervisors can be considered. Unless the Board has clear and convincing evidence, down- zoning would be indefensible. The Betz Study may provide evidence that the original zoning is incorrect. Mr. Henley said when the Board decided to have the Planning Commission look at these two items, he had stated he was not going to vote for downzoning until after the Betz study is completed and he has not changed his mind. Mr. Dorrier said he felt voting on these matters at this time would be irresponsible whi the study is still out. He said he was in agreement with Mr. St. John that legally speaking would be difficult to defend action to downzone based on incomplete information. He said he would vote to defer this until the Betz Study is completed. May 5, 1976 (Night Meeting) Dr. Iachetta said in response to comments m~de earlier about the building of schools, he felt it was a mistake to regard the building of schools to provide for densities that do not now exist as an erroneous concept. The schools which have been built were done so after the previous schools became overcrowded. The history of the last ~en!y~ars is a reverse of what has been presented tonight. First there is a crisis and then a response. He said there is no more important matter before the Board if growth is to be continued than protection of the water supply. Mr. George Williams of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has said there is no other viable water supply in the County; the only solution would be to go to~ the James River for water and that is 16 miles away. He concluded by stating he is willing to take on the courts again if the public interest would be properly served. He was not sure if that was the best course of action to take at this time. Mrs. David said she had difficulty accepting the restrictions of law. She felt the governing body would should b~J.ab~e to)!~ake action in response to a clearly expressed vote of its Citizens but by law she guessed the Board could not do this. She said she did not understand arguments presented~that:the~e.is/no scientific evidence that high density develo' ment around the reservoir is a hazard and that the Betz Study will not tell the Board anythirg. She does not see how anything can be scientifically proved about high density development since none now exists on the reservoir. 'She did not. know how this will ever be proven on this reservoir. However, when there is another reservoir near by in a similar situation, it seems to be reasonable to take the facts presented on that reservoir into consideration. Mr. Agnor said the Betz people are working ~'N~{ the-reservoir in several high density areas in Albemarle County. At this time, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to defer action on the questi6n of downzoning and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan until the Betz Study is presented to the Board, but to reconsider as soon as possible after receipt of the information,- after input from the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Dr. Iachetta asked if the current moratorium could be extended after its expiration date if the study is not completed by that time. Mr. St. John said yes. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Agnor if a decision will be available from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Environmental Protection Agency with ~d ~to th~ Crozet ' , ,' · nterceptor line by that t~me. Mr. Agnor said yes. The in terms of having the Rivanna Water and Sewer A~thority approving it and having it ~~b~ regulatory agencies, was projected to be three or four months fro~ the hearing held~ last month.' Mr. Stuart Carwile requested the Board to take some action on the question of down-zoni~ tonight. He said if the Betz study comes back with tentative conclusions that the Board feels justifies downzoning that the Board would probably take action whether it was on the table or not. He also imagined that if that happened the Board would hold further public hearings. To not~ take any action imposes substantial penalties on property owners in the watershed area, particularly, in financial matters. Dr. Iachetta said he was willing to take the "plunge" tonight but from a legal stand- point realized this cannot be done unt~il more facts are available. At 11:10 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:18 P.M. Upon reconvening,-Mr. Fisher stated there was a motion on the floor to defer action on both the matters concerning the comprehensive plan and the zoning map. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. St. John if the Board voted down rezoning if that action would jeopardize the County in any way in the Board's decision on another proposal to downzone after the Betz Study is received. M~ St. John said from a legal position, ha~ing the mattel deferred zs more realistic than having it voted down. He did not feel the Board has sufficient information before them to vote one way or another. At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Mrs. David said it should be stated that by deferring action on this matter, the Board is not ratifying the present zoning. No. 6. Request .for Federal Housing Administration loan for the construction of rental units (Hollymead Square). Comments requested by the Thomas Jefferson Planning Commission. (Deferred from April 14, 1976.) Mr. Stuart Carwile was present to represent Dr. Charles Hurt. He stated that this project is not intended Rs'low~ COSt housing. It is to be financed through the HUD 221D(4) program which is designed for moderate income housing. There will be plans later to furnish lower income housing at Hollymead through FHA. Basically, the proposed plan is designed for people with incomes of $13,000 and up while FHA is for people with incomes of $12,800 and down. FHA would have a 1% subsidized rate and the rents would be low. The final rent figures for this project are subject to HUD's approval. Mr. Fisher said he would recommend that ~he Board pass a resolution recommending this to the Planning District Commission for favorable comment. Mrs. David offered the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby recommend to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for favorable comment a request from Charles W. Hurt, sponsor, for a $2,147,700 Federal Housing Administration insured loan for the construction of 100 rental May 5, 1976 (Night Meeting) 183 Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. No. 7. Request from Department of Pediatrics (Comprehensive Care for Children and Youth) relating to a program for improving medical resources in health underserved rural area s. Dr. Joseph R. Zanga, Director of Comprehensive Care for Children and Youth, was present. He said the Children and Youth Project has be~n in operation in this area for eight years. The project has provided medical care to indigent children in Charlottesville and the surrounding Albemarle County area. The program has provided transportation in ths. form of eight vans to bring children from ~ ~u~a~ a~ ~n~ ~ne--- ,._' ~'. , ~. ~n an e~or~ to bring medical care directly to the people, a mobile van has been traveling one day per week to Crozet, Esmont and Ke'swick where it hooks up to permanent facilities. Recently, there has been anin~reased demand for these services, but the~e have been no additional resources available. The program has received many requests from parents of the children being served for medical care for themselves, their relatives and friends. The Children and Youth Project cannot serve the needs of an adult population. The transportation system is being taxed to its limits in order to constantly bring patients from the farthest ....... ¢~lrl~ l~. , , reaches of the County ~nto tne~M±~n~c. .Last year, the Depar~ent of Health, Education and Welfare advised them of a program designed for medidally underserved rural areas that was being developed. A preliminary proposal was submitted and was accepted. The Children and Youth Program was given until May 10 to submit a final application. In the final application, some statement of support from people in the co--unity is needed. Mrs. David having reviewed the proposal felt it was desirable for the Board to support. She asked at what point support would be requested from the Board. Dr. Zanga said he hoped they would never have to ask for funding. The !program is funded now by Title V money through the State of Virginia. The Health Underserved Rural Areas proposal will meet the costs of the children and youth program for three years of operation. At this time, Mrs. David offered motion that a letter be forwarded saying the Board has read the proposal and approves of the statements contained therein. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. No. 8. Request for Special Appropriation: Parks Committee. Mrs. Kathleen Burney was present from the Parks Committee. She said the committee would like to place lifeguards at Chris Greene and Mint Springs Parks on days of unusually hot weather prior to the opening of the parks on May 29. Mr. Robert Sampson, Parks Director, said a maximu~ appropriation of $2,000.00, would be.needed-¥to cover this expense~ ':He:.feets lifeguards are needed when there are large crowds at the parks. Lifeguards wOul~ not be provided on days of low volume usage. Discussion followed as to the need for lifeguards and when to open the parks. Mrs. BurneY said ~ince the county put ~he parks there fo~ the people to enjoy, they should provide services ~o ~nsure the safety of persons using the facilities. At this time, Mrs. David offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,'does hereby appropriate $2,000.00 to Code 10L-123.1; said funds.to be ~ran~fe~red from the General Fund to the General Operating Fund; and BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED· is to made only in accordanc, memorandum dated May 5, 1976 of Parks and Recreation with Opening of Swimming Faciliti~ Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion a~ AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dor~ NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. 2hat expenditure of ithese funds with provisions set out in fro~ Robert P. Sampson, Director subject line of "Off-Season ~Sn . ~d vote was as follows: 3ier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. Mr. St. John disagreed with there are large crowds present. before the parks are officially o he felt such an~erratic policy mi NO. 9,~ SP-28~76. Michie Ta~ shop on 3.34 acres zoned A-1 Agri, T~vern. County Tax Map 77, Parcel ~he policy of having lifeguards at the parks only when {e felt if the county provides lifeguards on any day )en, they shoutd provide lifeguards at all times since Iht waive the County's immunity from liability. 'em Corporation. To locate a gift, craft and antique ~ultu~al. Property located on Route 53 adjoining Michie Is 28 and 29. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised on April 21 and April 28, 1976.) 184 Ma.y_~_, 1976 (Night Meeting_ Mr. Tucker read the following staff report: "On February 28, 1973, the Board of Supervisors approved a special permit with conditions for Michie Tavern Corp. to locate craft shops, a country store and appurtenant parking area adjacent to the existing Tavern. The craft shops are proposed to house a silversmith, tinsmith, soap and candle work, pottery, leatherwork, weaving and other craft work of the colonial period. The items being crafted will be sold at the country store. A site plan for the shops, country store and parking was also approved in 1973." The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this petition with following conditions: 1. Health Department approval of proper sanitary facilities; 2. All structures are to be of 18th century appearance; 3. No sale of any product within the individual craft shops. Sales restricted to the building housing the country store; 4. No overhead utilities to be installed; 5. Approval by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; 6. All proposed exterior lighting to be directed away from adjacent properties; 7. Signs to be limited to one free-standing sign not to exceed twelve square feet in area nor exceed ten feet in height. Only wall signs shall be permitted on the proposed craft shops and existing country store and shall be limited in area to one square foot for each one foot of linear frontage of the structure on which the sign is to be located; 8. Fifty percent of the inventory value in the store to be handcrafted items. If and when the craft shops are complete, fifty percent of the inventory value in the store is to be handcrafted in the craft shops on site; 9. Relocation of sign located near eastern entrance to location determined by staff to provide improved site distance at entrance. the Mr. Fisher questioned condition 8 reading "if and when the craft shops are complete" He felt the wording of this condition makes a considerable shift in the basic intent of the original application. Dr. Iachetta asked how the Board had a right to tell a businessman what he can do with his business. Mr. Fisher responded by stating the applicant made the original application with a primary purpose of having craft shops that would sell articles produced in the shops. Mr. Max Evans was present to represent the applicant. He said this presented technical problems which c©uld not be met by Mr. Conte at this time. Fifty percent of the items sold in the store cannot be produced on the site. It is their intent to build such craft houses, probably by 1978 or 1979. Also, review and approval of the permit e.very three years was eliminated by the Planning Commission. He has prepared a revised parking plan that is different from the original approval, and the Planning Commission has recommended one year for final completion of the parking lot. Mr. Conte said a considerable amount of money has been spent on the Tavern. In 1973 he wrote a letter to the Planning Director stating that they would train people in their homes and have crafts made so as to not deviate 'from the original intent. They have done this and have no junk or souvenirs in the store. Intentions are still for completion of the project by 1978 or 1979. Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Conte was in agreement with conditions proposed by the Plannin. Commission. Mr. Conte said yes. Mrs. David asked Mr. Fisher if he wanted to leave out "if and" in condition 8? Mr. Fisher said yes. At this time, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve SP-28-76 allowing the gift, craft, antique shop subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission on May 4, 1976, but striking "if and" in condition 8. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and it carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. No. 1. Order the advertisement of the 1976~77~/Albemarle County Budget and set tax levy to be advertised. Mr. Agnor said he had researched the question of equal rates on all property assess- ments versus split rates on property according to its classification. Inquiries were made of several local government associations, research agencies and local governments using split rates in an effort to determine the rationale for such rates and found no one with any research on the subject. Local governments using split rates have no rationale for the spread in the rates. The question Of split tax rates was raised for the following reasons: 1) In 1977, by law, real estate assessments change to 100% of market value; 2) With Albemarle County's real estate assessment currently at 15% of market value, the change will require a significant adjustment in the tax rate on real estate; 3) This will cause a significant adjustment in the tax rate and will force a split tax rate between real and personal properties;' 4) At the same time, a reassessment of real estate will go into effect, thus changing the real estate assessment base; 5) Revenues from public service corporations, assessed at a 40% ratio, will be reduced as a result of a real estate rate being establishe~ May 5, 1976 (Night Meeting) 185 this year and conceivably left alone next year, some of the confusion over the adjustments for personal and real property can be possibly diminished next year. Mr. Agnor then read from three tables which were included on a memo addressed to the Board of Supervisors dated May 5, 1976, showing current and recent tax rates in Albemarle County, assessment ratios (assessed value/appraised value), and true tax rates on classes of properties based on current and recent rates. He said it is apparent that real estate carries .the lightest burden on approximate true tax rates, followed by machinery and tools public.: ~ervlce corporation property, mobile homes, and vehicles, in that order. He then drew the following conclusions. Real estate as a class of property is favored in the true tax sense. Its percentage share of the total tax base has increased 17% since 1973 in spite of tax relief for the elderly and land use assessments, while all other classe~ have decreased in their percentage of the total base in the face of increasing bases for each class. Public service corporations is on a depreciating base and increases only from expansion or improvements. In spite of an increasing base, it is carrying a decreasing percentage of total revenues. In 1977 it will carry a marked decrease in the total tax revenue burden. The public service corporation percentage of the base in 1977 may change from 8.4% to 7.2% while their percentage of revenues may fall from 8.4% to as much as 5.9%j a loss of about $200,000. Personal property carries the heaviest burden in approximate true tax rates because of its assessment at loan value which is 75-80% of retail value, a ratio considered to be 77½% of market value. It is on a depreciating base, does not increa from improvements-but expands or increases through trades by owners ahd additional units. Mobile homes carry the next highest burden in approximate true tax rate. It is on a deprecia base and upon reaching an age of five years e~uate~ on a square footage basis to standard residences. MaChinery and tools carries the most ~avorable burden in approximate true tax rates because of its assessment at 25% of original cost. Mr. Agnor said without a basis or rationale for splitting tax rates available, he offered the following alternatives for consideration. 1) 2) 3) 4) A $5.18 rate on all classes. Real estate ~$4..98), public service corporations ($4.98). Personal property.(S5.90), machinery and tools ($5.90)--the same rates used from 1970 to 1973. Personal property, machinery and tools carry the same percentage of base as 1973 (24% personal; 3% machinery and tools). Retain present rate on real estate ($4.70) and increase on all other classes.to $6.29. Mr. Agnor recommended a split tax rate as proposed under alternate number two for the following reasons: 1) True tax rates carry too great a disparity to be compared, equated or adjusted. 2) Real estate is carrying an increasing burden of property tax needs 3) A $5.90 rate on personal property, and machinery and tools will restore these classes of property to 1970-73 levels and partially restore their share of revenue needs, and at least reverse their diminishing trend. 4) Public service corporation assessments are beyond the control of county authority. 5) Alternate ~2 provides a half million dollar increase in revenues over 1975 levels. This will be repeated next year to offset the $250,000 needed in debt service for the Western Albemarle High School. 6) With a $5.90 rate established this year:~on personal proplerty and machinery and tools it may be possible to leave the rate' alone next year and fund additional needs from an expanding base realized from vehicle sales and from real estate reassessments. 7) If the Board chooses a. $5~90 rate and restoreS personal property at the 1973 level that would require a $4.98 real estate rate in the budget to be advertised. If $300,000 can be cut from the budget, the real estate rate would be $4.70. Mr. Fisher sa£d the BDard must now decide either on a straight uniform rate as is traditional or consider reducing the burden on real estate property and going to a $5.90 rate on personal property. Dr. Iachetta asked the Board's legal position if a split tax rate is advertised and the Board wants to go back to a uniform rate. Mr, Agnor said the rates cannot be raised after advertisement. At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to advertise the 1976/77 County budget for a public hearing on May 26, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. with the following tax levies, $4.98 on real property and public service corporations and $5.90 on personal property and machinery and tools. Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and it carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. No. 10. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. At 12:47 A.M. M~; Henley offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and it carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs, Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. The Board reconvened at 1:00 A.M. and then adjourned.