1976-05-19AMay 19, !976 (Afternoon meeting-adjourned from May I2, 1976)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
May 19, 1976, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from May 12, 1976.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr. and William S. Roudabush.
Absent: Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta.
Officers present:
St. J6h~. _~
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R.
(1) To set conditions on Special Hse Permit 537, James N. Fleming. Special use
permit for a planned unit development on 128.06 acres on the west side of Hydraulic Road
and Rio Road. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 2 and May 8, 1976. Meeting occasione~
by settlement of a suit in the United States District Court, Western District of Virginia
on April 26, 1976.)
At 3:05 P.M., the meeving was called to order by the Chairman.
Fisher: I will make an announcement. It is now after three o'clock. Mr. Fleming
has requested that we delay this meeting until his court reporter shows up and gets equipment
set up. I will wait another five minutes and if he is still not ready, we will continue.
(Recess)
Fisher: It is now about 13 minutes after three. I am going to call the meeting to
order and we will proceed. If the court reporter shows up, we will stop the meeting and
aZlow time to set up equipment, but the meeting is scheduled for three o'clock and I think
we should proceed. We are here to discuss SP-537 dealing with the second application of
Mr. Fleming on his Evergreen project. The question of the application's approval has been
ordered by the Federal Court. We are here today to discuss, not the question of the
development, but the conditions under which that development should be permitted to occur.
This is in line with the order of the Court. The Board of Supervisors is free to set
conditions which are reasonable on such a development. If the applicant does not agree
with the reasonableness of such conditions, the conditions themselves may be reviewed by
the Court. As you know, Mr. Roudabush has disqualified himself from participating in
dicussion and voting on this matter every time it has come before the Board. He has asked
that I announce that he is continuing to abstain from discussion or vote. Dr. Iachetta is
out of town on a business trip that has been scheduled for some time. He has left a
memorandum for the Board of Supervisors which he asked that I read into the record.
"May 17, 1976
Memo To:
Fellow Members
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
From:
F. A. Iachetta
I regret a long-standing contractual obligation with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency requires me to be in Chicago at this time. My thoughts
on the matter at hand are offered here with the hope of assisting you in
the decision.
It is difficult to address the question of Mr. Fleming's spgcial permit and
the attendant conditions since the action of the Federal court has created
an interesting anomaly. The judge has chosen, in effect, to rezone the land
in question but to hold it subject to all ordinances. Presumably, this
includes the moratorium ordinance. Mr. Fleming's property is sufficien~
close to the reservoir to have its stream valley covered by the exclusio~
zone so, as a a practical matter, the high density subdivision cannot
proceed as planned.
Perhaps even more important is the question of what the judge-ordered rezoning
will mean if the Betz study indicates this area should not have 2.5 units
per acre. We clearly will have to come face to face with this question
together with the other downzoning questions we have managed to sidestep to
date. ~
As a practical matter, what conditions can we now impose or choose not to
impose that have not received very careful study by the planning staff and
planning commissimn? After all, they had this matter before them for a
considerable time. Many of the conditions are routin~, a few are not.
Were I present, I would move adoption of the conditions recommended by the
planning commission except that we should strengthen thehholding pond
requirements as to future responsibility, if at all possible.
The so-called buffer zone is nothing more than a "green belt" or "natural
belt" Due credit for the land area has been allowed in computing the
2.5 unit per acre density.
Play areas should be required to be large enough to be really useful play-
grounds. We~ave too many subdivisions in which the developer was not
required to provide adequate playground space. Let us not continue to
commit the same errors.
The question of land for a school is somewhat more difficult. If we are
addressing a future elementary school site, the request is justifiable
since the possible future development will generate the need for such a
school as a neighborhood school. A school site west of Rt. 743 would be
desirable since it would mean more buses would be kept out of the jampu~y
in the Greer-Jouett-High School complex. It ~hould be possible, in fact,
206
May 19, 1976 (Afternoon meeting-
adjourned from May 12, 1976)~
to design the community in a manner which would allow children to redis¢~over
their legs as a prime means of locomotion, that is, they could walk to school.
Finally, the question ~f commercial zone is in my mind resolved by this recom-
mendation having been statistically arrived at by the planning staff as being
large enough to provide the "~eighborhood" type store.
I see no reason not to impose the conditions recommended by the planning
commission and suggest that is a proper action for this board to take."
Fisher: As a ~rQ~edure from this point, we will take the conditions the Planning)Commis~
recommended to us and go through these one at a time, dis~mss these with the Board and
applicant and try to come to an agreement. If other property owners are affected and wish
to make a statement that will be permitted. This Board of Supervisors has never dealthwith
the question of conditions on this permit because the development itself was denied by the
Board. At this time, I will ask Mr. Tucker to present the staff report and the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Tucker: This property is located on the west side of Rt. 743 between Hydraulic Road,
the Rio Road intersection and the Reservoir. The property in question is presently zoned A-1
agricultural as well as the~property to the north and west. To the southwest of the property
is R-2 residential zoning which permits single-family, duplexes and townhouses. Th~e are
75.66 acres zoned R-3 residential located directly to the south of this property, Georgetown
Woods. Across Rt. 743 is 25.1 acres zoned R-3 and 20.34 acres zoned R-2. The majority of
both parcels are vacant except for one small mobile home park. If~this property were
developed as a conventional subdivision under A-1 zoning,.it would permit 54 dwelling units,
one dwelling unit per two acres. This would yield, under Planning Staff~projections, a
population of 173 persons, 81 vehicles, 378 vehi~te trips and 53 school children. Under the
applicant,s proposal, the number of dwelling units would be 312, w~th a population projection
of 998 persons, 468 vehicles, 2184 vehicle trips per day and ~06 students.
Fisher: You said 306 students and not 307 as listed in the staff report?
Tucker: Yes. When the plan was originally submitted to us, the figure~was 307. Since
that time, the applicant has redesigned the plan to come into compliance with what the
Planning Commission requested. Howewer, in shifting housing off of the 25% slopes, they
gained some dwelling units and therefore there is an increase in the number of dwelling
units.
Fisher: Do you mean that by reserving the steep slope land they ~ave added units?
Tucker: This was not as a result of the shifting, but simply that they added some
additional units. The density was about 2.4 units per acre. After adding the additional
units, it comes to 2.498, or almost 2.5.
~a~id'~:~ Is this more multiple units?
Tucker~ I think t~y added some patio houses and townhouses. (Continuing with the
staff's report.) Under the schools, t~eo~bemarle County Department of Education has
indicated that some redistricting of a portion of Greer Elementary to McIntire Elementary
should handle the projected enrollment. However, it has now been decided that McIntire will
not be reopened. Only minor impact is expected in the middle school level. The secondary
schools are becoming more overcrowded each year, and no relief from this is expected until
the fall of 1977 when the n~w high school is completed. At the request of the Planning
Commission the School Board reviewed this application and does request ~ed~AO~mf a future
school site in the area. Evergreen's pro-rata share of a 13-acre school site computes to
2.6 acres. The additional acreage of the 13 acres requested would be obtained from Ge~rge-
town Woods if, and when, that property is developed. There are some 75 acres in Georgetown
Woods which ~as R~3T~zoning. Evergreen and Georgetown Woods combined could ~l~an.
elementary school with students.
Fisher:
school?
You mean there would be enough youngsters there to f~ll an entire elementary
Tucker: Yes. An elementary school is projected to have about 800 students. Evergreen'
pro-rata share of that is about 20%. (Continuing with staff report). The Virginia
Department of Highways submitted their recommendations concerning the rights of way,for all
of the streets~in this development, plus dedication along Route 743. ~These recommendations
were made a part of the Planning Commission's~conditi~ns. Rega~ing.recreation, the
applicant has provided for active recreation in a central locatio~ However, an area removed
from the immediate residential area for turf activities such as softball, soccer, baseball,
football, is missing. There are several areas indicated on the plan for play areas, but
they are not S'ufficient to accommodate turf related activities. Tot lots are placed in
appropriate areas but there are not a sufficient number in close proximity to the 168
residential uses. The staff has s~ggested t~a~ad~t~O~a~ara~s~e applicant has complied~
with this request and located th~se on a subsequent plan..
Fisher: Is~i~this the latest plan? (Indicating site plan posted on wall..)
Tucker: 'No. T~is is one I have colored because I thought you could see it better.
Fisher: Then this is not the way Evergreen is planned.
Tucker: FOr all practical p. urposes, it is. This is, the plan that was approved by
the Planning Commission, so i~ is the approved preliminary site plan.
Fisher: What is the difference between this plan and the approved preliminary plan?
Tucker: This plan does not show the water and sewer lines, hydrants, or things of
this nature.
David: .What about the highsr density? Is that reflected on this plan?
ion
May 19, 1976 (Afternaon meeting-adjourned from May 12, 1976)
Henle.y: If the school land is dedicated, do you still feel that you need the
turf related sports in the plan since they will be available at the schools?
Tucker: If the adjoining property were developed at the same time, I would say no.
There is no guarantee that that property is going to be developed. This would supplement
any recreational area since there would be a playground, etc. on the school site. In the
meantime, I think we need to provide for turf related sports.
Fisher: There will be about 1,000 people on this site with two acres reserved for a
school site. The adjoining property may not not be developed for many years. There will
be no recreation area at all if that is all that is reserved.
Tucker: (Continuing with staff report). The applicant proposes to use public water
from the County Service Authority from an existing water line located along Hydraulic
Road. This project will be served by the Meadow Creek Sewage Treatment Plant which was
recertified for an additional 500,000 gallons just a month or so ago. I talked to John
Pollock at the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority today and he said they have applied for
an additional 500,000 gallons, but this has not been recertified as yet. As stated in the
original planned unit submittal, the only density the staff is receptive to is the density
recommended by the Comprehensive Plan of 2.5 units per acre. The applicant currently
proposed 2.498 dwelling units per acre. While the density is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan, there are other areas that should be addressed. First, there are
several lots and structures which are located on 25% and greater slopes. This was discussed
at the Planning Commission meeting when this matter was deferred, and the applicant has
since that time shifted those houses out of the 25% slopes. Second, the staff questioned
the amount of commercial area designed to serve this development. Due to the proximity of
other commercial areas in the vicinity, the staff feels that this commercial is excessive.
The applicant proposes 3.15 acres for commercial. That acreage, according to standards
used by the Planning Department, would serve approximately 5,000 persons. The staff
recommends that this be kept to only one acre which fits more into this type of development
and would be a neighborhood type commercial area. Third, Shack Mountain, which is located
adjacent to the west of this proposed planned community has recently been declared a State
Historic Landmark and site by the Virginia Landmarks Register. It is presently being
considered for the National Register. The staff feels that a buffer along Evergreen's
west property line should be maintained in order to aid in the preservation of Shack
Mountain. There are two other areas where a similar type buffer has been employed. One is th
Albemarle Square Shopping Center adjacent to Woodbrook. There was a 150-foot buffer located
~t~een'~Wood~roak~and the Shopping Center. The other area is Branchlands planned community.
While there was not a condition of a specific setback, the preliminary site plan for Branch!an~
indicated one area where the units are set back 85 feet and it increases up to around 125
feet from adjacent properties to the west of Branchlands. The conditions the Planning
Commission recommended to the Board for approval of SP-537 are as follows:
(1)
Maintain the proposed density of 2.498 dwelling units per acre (gross~.
That would be the maximum density recommended by the staff for development
of this property.
(2)
Compliance with Virginia Department. of Highways and Transportation's
recommendations for internal street standards; dedicate land along
Route 743 for future widening and no entrance onto Route 657; Lamb's
Road. No automobile access.
(3)
This approval is contingent upon the recertif±cation for increased
capacity to Meadow Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. As stated, that has
subsequently beenobtained.
(4)
Submit to the Albemarle County Service Authority an estimate, by
stages, of the capacities that will be expected on an annual basis; _;
dual sewage pumping stations will be required. The Service Authority
likes to have these figures so they can make projections ahead of
time, if, in fact the treatment plant will have adequate capacity to
serve these dwel'lings. This is one of our standard conditions.
(5)
Comply with the following conditions submitted by the City of Char-
lottesville concerning tlhe gas pipeline easement:
(a)
The contours on the map indicate some grading and excavation
on the easement, the ~lans for which have not been completed.
These grading plans must be available for review and approval
by the City of Charlottesville prior to commencement of the work;
(b)
Ingress and egress of equipment along the full length of the
forty-foot easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must
be assured. The site plan shows building property lines within
the easement which, if fenced or landscaped, could obstruct this
access. I think this is self-explanatory. Before any development
can take place, they must get approval from the City concerning
any encroachment in the easement.
(6)
Areas designated for tot lots including Planning Staff additional
lots, as shown on the master plan marked "Received 12/12/75", to be
equipped with recreation facilities such as: s~g~, s~-saws, etc.
An area of 1.5 acres to be shown for turf recreation and activity.
Again, this is based on the same book of standards that the staff uses
for planning design criteria and it gives standards for almost every-
thing. Under the recreational section, it states that one and
one-~alf acres per 1,000 population is a recommended standard for any
development as far as athletic recreation is concerned. Of course,
the applicant has provided for tot lots and he meets that standard.
That is the reason for the additional requirement for larger
playground areas.
?
May 19, 1976 (Afternoon meeting-
adjourned from May 12, 1976)
(7)
(8)
Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service
Authority and the Authority's approval on maintenance and operation
of sewage pump station.
This approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's final approval.
He is primarly concerned with the dam for the sedimentation basin and
the lake and for the water and sewer lines. Since only preliminary
engineering drawings have been done, and the County Engineer w~ll need
final plans for water and sewer and profiles, that is the reason for
this condition.
(9)
S~dewalk)'along Route 743 to be constructed according to location and
standards developed by the Virginia Department of Highways. Sidewalks
to be constructed in conjunction with the internal road system at
four-foot minimum width.
(10) County Attorney's review of any deed restrictions or homeowners'
association agreements. !'This is primarily for the maintenance and upkeep
of the dam for-the sedimentation basin. This was one of the areas which
most concerned the Planning Commission and they wanted to insure that
it was provided for in the homeowners' agreements.
(11) No site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the
grading plan for this property has been approved. This may be redundant
since the subdivision regulations were recently amended to state that
no plat can be approved until a grading plan, or erosion control plan
has been approved by the Soil Erosion Committee.
Fisher: This is redundant, but not conflicting?
Tucker: No, not at all. (12) A 100-foot tree buffer of common open space
to be maintained along the property line of Shack Mountain and no
development to take place within that buffer. I stated to you earlier
our reasons for this condition citing the Albemarle Square Shopping
Center and Branchlands Planned Community.
(13) Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks,
recreation areas, pedestrian trails, parking areas, and debris basins
are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in
a natural state. This condition is made to keep~nmuch land-disturbing
activity as possible.
(14) The commercial area is to be no greater than one acre of land,
exclusive of internal access roads. The area originally proposed
by the applicant~, 3.15 acres, has the capability of serving 5,000
persons or 1,600 families and would not serve the intent of the Planned
Unit Development Concept.
(15) The land uses, rights of way, pedestrian ways, and general lot layout
as indicated on the Master Plan of "Evergreen" dated "Received 12/12/75,"
by the Planning Department and prepared by William S. Roudabush, Inc.,
under file #4340, as amended by the Board of Supervisors action, ?
recorded in the minutes of subject meeting, shall be adhered to by
all parties involved. Follow-up final site plans and subdivision
plats shall be generally in compliance with the approved Master Plan.
(16) Dedicate, as recommended by County School Board, 2.6 acres to the
Albemarle County School Board to be used in conjunction with property
to be acquired in Georgetown Woods. This property should be located,
after approval by the Planning Staff and School Board, between Laurel'
Drive and Spruce Court. Density credit for the 2.6 acres shall be
given but that density sha!l not exceed 2.Sdwelling units per acre.
Dedication of this property shall be made in conjunction with the
subdivision approval of subject property.
~r~n
(17) Submit two copies of revised Ever_.~,?~i~ plan indicating the conditions
of approval outlined in Item Numbers 2, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 16 listed
above;~ This is to help the Planning Office have an up-to-date site
plan which shows those conditions which can be indicated on the plan.
We:~w~i~ ~e an up-to-date master plan once subdivision plats and
final site plans are submitted.~ ~
~8) No property line or dwelling unit to be located within the pipeline
easement. The?applicant has complied with that condition.
Fisher: Is that the end of the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission?
Tucker: Yes.
Fisher: Mr. Poindexter, ~o you wish to have the court reporter set up her machine?
Poindexter: Yes, I do.
Fisher: We will take a break at this time for that purpose. (3:54 P.M.)
Fisher: I will calI the meeting back to order. N~t~at we have had some background
on the 'reCommendations of the Planning Commission, we will take up each condition~one at
a time, have the applicant comment on the condition and also any other directly affected
person who wishes to speak. Th~s Board has never yet gone over these conditions in a
public hearing so we will permit public comments. The first condition recommended by the
Planning Commission is to maintain the proposed density of 2.498 dwelling units per acre,
gross. Does the applicant have any comment on that condition?
May 19, 1976 (Afternoon meeting - adjourned from May 12, 1976)
Fisher: If we change that, the site plan that you have filed will be the controlling
factor. To change this will only mean that we are rounding off the number. Do Board
members have any questions about changing that to 2.5?
Henley: If that is what the judge said to do, I reckon we better do it.
Dorrier: I have a question about the over all conditions. The judge did not give us
much leeway did he in setting conditions? Is that your understanding, George (St. John),
or did he actually say that we could change these conditions or modify them?
St. John: Do you have a copy of the order there?
Dorrier: Yes. In your estimation then, we have as much leeway as we normally have
in changing or making modifications?
St. John: I think you do.
Fisher: Further questions about condition number one? Alright, condition number one
is changed to 2.5 dwelling units per acre and that is consistent with the court order.
Fisher: Condition #2 is "compliance with Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation's recommendations for internal street standards and dedicate land along Route
743 for future widening and no entrance off of Route 657."
David: I agree that there should be no entrance onto Route 657. Does this also mean
that there will not be any use of Lamb's Road during construction? I ask this because I
have recently heard complaints about the use of Lamb's Road for construction purposes by
another developer and I want to be sure that this problem does not occur during construction
of this development. I think it should be understood that Lamb's Road is not going to be
used for transportation of equipment, etc. during construction.
Tucker: The Highway Department is requiring that on Lamb's Road, Route 657, that 25
feet measured from the centerline of the road be dedicated in order to ultimately have a
50-foot right of way along Lamb's Road. That is part of their recommendation.
David: Was the use of the road during construction mentioned?
Tucker: No.
David: Does that need to be spelled out as part of the understanding of this condition?
Fisher: If that is the intent of the Board, it should be spelled out.
applicant comment on this recommendation.
Let the
Flemin$: I wonder if we are getting off to a good start or a bad start. I question
the legality of being denied the right to use the road when my property abuts the road.
Fisher: Are you questioning the legality of it or are you questioning the advisability
of it? You have said the construction phase of this project may last for many years. If
that is the case, it could cause considerable traffic congestion in an area which the
Planning Commission has already recommended that there not be any additional traffic
because the road cannot handle the traffic.
Fleming: I want to be as cooperative as possible. I have another question. If
these conditions were made a part of the court order and made a part of the court's minutes
or records, I wonder what we are doing here.
Fisher: I can read that portion of the comrt order. It says "the plaintiff's develop-
ment known as Evergreen shall be subject to the existing laws and ordinances currently in
effect in Albemarle County, Virginia, and to the conditions recommended by the Albemarle
County Planning Commission as set out in the minutes of that Commission under date of
January 13, 1976, subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors as it shall deem
appropriate." That is the reason we are discussing the conditions.
David: I would have raised this point before but this is the first time that we have
considered the conditions.
it.
Fleming: We had decided against use of Lamb's Road even before the Highway recommended
We realize the condition of Lamb's Road.
David: I realize that you are not going to use it as a permanent entrance. I ask
that an understanding be~included that Lamb~'s Road not be used for construction, esPecially
if the construction is going on for a number o~ several years.
Fleming: I will not give a definite answer at this time.
Fisher: Are there other users of Lamb's Road who wish to comment on the question of
entrance during or after construction? (None) I think it is the feeling of the Board
that if the road is not to be used after construction, it should not be used for several
years during the construction phase activity. The condition might be stated as: "no
entrance onto Route 657 during or after construction." Is that satisfactory to therBoard?
Fisher: Alright, we will go to No. 3. "This approval is contingent upon the recerti-
fication for increased capacity to the Meadow Creek Sewage Treatment Plant." Mr. Tucker
you have indicated that that has been accomplished already?
Tucker: Yes, although we cannot guarantee how long that capacity will last.
May 19, 1976 (Afternoon meeting-
adjourned from May 12, 1976)
Fisher: I presume' the applicant has no concern over this condition since it has been
at least temporarily satisfied. !iil.<~,~
Fisher: NS, 4 is "submit to the Albemarle County Service Authority an estimate, by
stages, of the capacity that will be expected on an annual basis and that dual sewage
pumping stations will be required." Any concern about any part of that condition? Hearing
none we will accept that condition.
Fisher: No. 5, "comply with the following conditions submitted by'the City of Charlotte
ville concerning the gas pipeline easement: (a) the contours on the plan indicate some
grading and excavation on the easement, the plans for which have not been cOmpleted. These
grading plans must be available for review and approval, by the City of Charlottesville
prior to commencement of the work; and (b) ingress and egress of equipment along the full
length of the forty-foot easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must be assured.
The site plan shows building property lines within the easement which, if fenced or landscape
could obstruct this access." Are there comments from the applicant on this condition?
Fleming..:
in my deed.
In reference to part (b) of No. 5, I am going to comply with the conditions
Fisher: I don't know what that statement means.
complies with the conditions of your deed or not?
Does that mean that this condition
Fleming: It is impossible to have ingress and egress along the whole length of the
line. The right of way will be kept in all respects just like my deed requires it to be
kept.
Henlqy.: Deed from whom?
Fleming:
across there.
From the City of Charlottesville when I gave a deed to put the pipe line
My deed covers the restr~ictions on the land and all th~at.
Henley: I feel like that is between him and the City of Charlottesville.
Poindexter:
he is satisifed.
on that.
That is what this condition is all about, Charlottesville. So he said
He dedicated the land to Charlottesville and requirements were imposed
Fisher: Then he has no disagreement with this condition?
Fleming: The forty-foot easement will be carried out according to my deed. The
easement will not be blocked accordihg to my deed. But, not for the whole length of the
easement. Once on the easement you can go anywhere on the easement you want to.
Henle.~: He means as long as you stay on the forty-foot easement, you can go anywhere
you want to, but he does not want you running through somebody's yard to get to it.
Fleming: That's right.
Fisher: That's what it says, ingress and egress of equipment along the full length
of the forty-foot easement must be assured.
Fleming: Full length.
Henley: I would be raising more cain than he is if that's the sase.
Fleming: Full length is the point.
Fisher: Do you object to this condition as stated?
Poindexter: Yes.
Fisher: How do you think it should be written?
Poindexter: Strike "full length".
Fisher: You mean they can get to part of it, but they can't get to the rest of it?
Poindexter: It is all academic. I don't think this is going to be a matter of any
practical consideration at any future point, but we should clean it up as best we can.
What he is concerned about is what Mr. Henley just expressed concern about.
Henley:
want to.
I don't think they should have the right to go to the line anywhere they
Dorrier: Come in from one end or the other.
Fisher: I don't believe that is what this says.
Henley.: It says right of ingress and egress along the full length.
St. John: If I understand correctly, Mr. Fleming would rather have this condition
changed to read "ingress and egress of equipment, or reasonable ingress and egress of
equipment to the full length," rather than along the full length or some language of this
nature. Ai-~ they are entitled to is a reasonable way to get to the easement and to get to
any point on the easement. It is just a matter of wording.
Tucker: I think you have to read the second sentence also. "The site plan shows
building property lines within the easement which, if fenced or landscaped, could obstruct
this access." This means that if you have buildings or fences along that length you would
obstruct the access.
May 19, 1976 (Afternoon meeting - adjourned from May 12, 1976)
211
foot easement from Hydraulic Road.
easement.
That's the way they enter to go over the forty-foot
Fisher: Alright. What has been suggested is "reasonable ingress and egress of
equipment to the forty-foot easement."
Agnor: May I speak to this matter briefly? It is not a matter of topography or
ravines as it is several points of access which would be not along the length of it but
for the length of the easement. A vehicle can go in off of a public road and get access
to the easement, but can be blocked by somebody's fence or back yard. They can go down to
the next public road access and come in and be blocked on the other end. They can't get
through there in terms of "along" the length because of landscaping or fencing or anything
that ~a private property owner does unless it is included in that deed restriction that they
cannot block that connection or right of way. Whether they enter the easement from the end
or not ~hey will come to the middle in two or three different points and
backyards to get along the length of that pipe line to get equipment to a certain point to
make repairs.
~ Fisher: The purpose of this condition is to prevent the construction of buildings or
fences which would prohibit their being able to get along the full length, is that correct?
Agnor: Yes. Mr. Fleming said the City has a deed for their right of way, but they
will end up dealing now with a number of individual, privately owned lots. It should be in
that deed that they cannot block that right of way.
Fleming:
exist.
The buyer will get a~Plat showing the easements and encroachments as they
Fisher: Is this condition worded in such a way as to pass along to the individual
property owners this prohibition against building fences or outbuildings in that forty-
foot easement?
St. John: They can build shrubs in this easement and they can build fences within
this easement so long as they are aware that if something happens to that pipe line and
needs repair, the City can remove the fences and go along this easement. What this ~slit~'a~
intended to mean is access within the full length of the forty-foot easement. What Mr.
Fleming is against is the right of the City or anybody else, simply arbitrarily to enter
this easement from any point.
Fisher: What about the second sentence of part B?
St. John:
leave it.
Let's get the first sentence so it is satisfactory to everybody before we
Fisher: Reasonable ingress and egress of equipment to the full length of the forty-foot
easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must be assured. We have got the first
sentence. Mr. Poindexter agrees with that. NOW, the second sentence.
Poindexter: Is it necessary? I think it has been corrected.
Henley: I don't think that is necessary. You know the thing already~crosses a
number of fences going through farm land. If they need to go through there, they are
going through. They have the right to do that.
St. John: That condition is to prevent the building inspector from giving anybody a
building per~it to build a house within this easement.
Dorrier: I think we should s~rike it out. I dont' feel it is necessary.
Fisher: Mr. St. John do you see any real reason that that second sentence in. Part B
serves at this point?
St. John: No.
Fisher: It is the con~ensus of this Board that that be deleted. Now, No. 5 as
amended in part B reads Reasonable ingress and egress of equipment to the full length of
the forty-foot easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must be assured." Period.
Is that agreeable to the applicant?. ~leming indicates agreement.
David: What about 5a? ' ,~_~/ ~,~].Zy ~
Poindexter: It is kind of Strange for th~. conduct in one, subdivision t6'be scrutinized
by another. Since we are in.the County, it seems kind of odd that the City would have to
approve our activity in the County.
Fisher: This is quite often the case. S~b~ivisions that are done in the County
within a certain distance of the City's boundary line must also be approved by the City of
Charlottesville. We do have cooperative agreements. This is under state law. I think
that part (a)~should-stand. I think it is for the protection of people who use the gas,
the County residents who live nearby and people doing the construction work that the
grading plans be approved by the City of Charlottesville before somebody starts in there
with a bulldozer.
Henley:
Fisher-
I think it protects the fellow whO is doing the grading too.
I hear no serious disagreement to No. 5 (a) and (b) as now amended.
212
May 19, 1976 (Afternoon meeting-
adjourned from May 12, 1976)
Fisher: No. 6. "Areas designated for tot lots including Planning Staff additional
lots, as shown on the master plan marked "Received 12/12Z75", to be equipped with recreation
facilities such as: swings, see-saws, etc. An area of 1.5 acres to be shown for turf
recreation and activity." Any comments on this condition?
Fleming: Is that one and one-half total or one and one-half in one spot?
Tucker: The main thing is to insure that -there is ~rge enough area for sand-
lot football, or basketball, or things of this ~ature. Not necessarily a large area. ~nt
area~fo~ older kids to play because the tot~lots are not enough.
Fleming: If you look at No. 13, that means more bulldozing of trees.
Tucker: There is a lot of area where there aren't ~ees that could be utilized.
Fleming: I don't want to bulldoze the trees. I want to keep the trees up there.
Fisher: Are the tot lots included in that one and one-half acres?
Tucker: No. This is in addition to the tot lots. They already show the tot lots.
Fisher: So, it means an additional area of one and one-half acres to be shown for
turf recreation and activities?
Tucker: Yes.
Fisher: That is what has been suggested and recommended by the Planning Commission?
Tucker: Yes.
Fleming: That is 300 by 200 feet. That's the equivalent of a football field.
~enley: Does it all have to be in one spot?
Tucker: No, an aggregate area of one and one-half acres.
Henley: Just so it is large enough for the kids?
Tucker: That's right. Maybe you want to spell that out. Mr. Fleming would rather
have that spelled out. We are talking about an aggregate area, but areas large enough for
recreation for older children, young adults.
Poindexter: We wouldn't quarrel a whole lot with that if it could be specified an
aggregate of 1.5 acres in addition to the tot lots large enough for turf type recreation.
Of course, we would want credit for tennis courts, outdoor hand bali, squash, etc.
You already have that.
Is this the only condition that speaks to the provision of recreational
£
Tucker:
Fisher:
facilities?
Tucker:
Fleming:
Tucker:
Fisher:
Yes.
Does~hat include the tennis courts shown on my plan, that 1.57
That could be considered part of this aggregate area.
I have some suggested language. ~he~m~cond sentence might read "additional
area of 1.5 acres in the aggregate, to be shown for various turf recreation and activites
for older children and adults."
Poindexter: That's fine, Mr. Chairman.
Fisher: Alright. Board members have any further questions on No. 6? The applicant
have any further questions about No. 6?
Fisher: No. 7. "Dedication of water and sewer lines to Albemarle County Service
Authority and the Authority's apprOval on maintenance and operation of sewage pump station."
That probably should be sewage pump stations, should it not?
Tucker: Yes.
Fisher: Applicant have any comment on this?
Fleming: I think that is normal. Everybody has to do that. Does that include the
Service Authority maintaining from that dedication?
Tucker: They have to approve that. They don't normally maintain or operate dual
pumping~stations.
Fleming:
T~cker:
Fleming:
Tucker:
Once I dedicate the water and sewer lines, I don't maintain them, do I?
No, not the water and sewer iines.
But, that's a separate issue, maintaining the pumping stations.
That's right, the pumping station is a separate issue.
Fisher: No. 8. "This approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's final approval
Did you have some other statement when you read that?
May 19, 1976 (Afternoon meeting - adjourned from May 12, 1976)
Fisher: On water, sewer ~facilities, and what else?
Tucker: Sedimentation basins, also.
Fisher: Sedimentation basins for both the lake and dams?
Tucker: Yes.
Fleming: Could my engineer speak to that?
Phillips: I would like to go back, just for clarification, to Item 7. As I understand
it, the Service Authority maintains a fee schedule for water and sewer service. Is that
correct?
Fisher: Yes.
Phillips: I am not altogether clear on the operating policy for the Service Authority,
but.was it spelled out definitely that they are not responsible for the maintenance and
operation of the pump station? I raise this because of the electrical costs. For my benefit
I would like to have someone point out where it is specifically stated that the Service
Authority does not operate and maintain lift stations.
Fisher: I don't believe I have ever gotten into this before.
the Service Authority to get their policy..
This may have to go to
Phillips: That's the reason I raised the question.
of the record without some clarification.
I don't want Item 7 to be a part
Tucker: It was intended that the Service Authority would have to give their approval
of the ma±ntenance of the pump stations.
Phillips: What I am suggesting is that the conveyance of the sewer and the water
system include conveyance of all parts of that service and that they in turn become respon-
sible for its operation.
Fisher: Let's make a note then to check with the Albemarle County Service Authority as
to whether it will assume the operation and maintenance of the pump station upon dedication
by the applicant.
St. John: Paragraph 7 means this approval is contingent upon the Albemarle County
Service Authority accepting the dedication of the water and sewer-lines and the pump station
and agreeing to be responsible for maintenance of this pump station. I don't think the
Board can influence them one way or the other. The one question in my mind is whether a
pump station of this kind will be maintained by the Albemarle County Service Authority or
the parent authority, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. I don't think you can have a
pumping station maintained privately within the public sewer system. One or the other of
these two authorities is going to maintain it. Simply making your approval of this develop-
ment contingent upon that taking place discharges the Board's duty and function in it.
David: I think that should state "the Authority's approval of maintenance and operation
off-sewage pump stations.
Fisher: So what you are suggesting here is the language "acceptance of responsibility
for~maintenance of operation"?
St. John: If for any reason they would not do that, that would be between the applicant
and the Authority. If the sewer lines are going to come into being, I don't think they want
privately maintained pumping stations within the public sewer system.
Fisher: I agree with that.
A.gnor: This would be the responsibility of the Albemarle Service Authority and not the
Rivanna Authority since this is the collector system.
Fisher: The language now suggested for No. 7 is: "DedicatiOn of water and sewer lines
to Albemarle County Service Authority and the Authority's acceptance of responsibility for
maintenance and operation of sewage pump stations." Is that acceptable? That seems to
straighten that one out.
Fisher: Let's go back to No. 8. No. 8 has to do with a number of things such as water
and sewer lines which is a standard sort of oondition that is included. The lakes and dams
are a more complex issue. This has to do with design and construction of the dam and the
2a-ke itself~ which is perhaps a simpler matter than the long term maintenance and repair of
the dam and lake. It is suggested th~at the County Engineer approve the initial design of
the dams, sediment basins and lake prior to construction. This whole condition should be
rewritten. The way this is written the County Engineer would be free to do any number of
things before the plans would b~-finalized. It does not specifically include design of the
dam. It should be Clarified as~hat items will be subject to the County's Engineer approval.
David: This is a routine condition that is included. In this case, you may want' to
make it more specific.
Fisher: I t~hink Mr. St. John has suggested that the term "this approval,' lends itself
to a number of interpretations. What this condition means is approval of the design of the
water system, the sewer system, the dam structure and the lakes associated with those dams.
Is there anything else?
Tucker: Those are the major items that will be reviewed.
Fisher: We will defer the final wording on Condition #8 for awhile.
May 19, i~6~(Afternoon meeting -
adjourned from May 12, 1976)
Fisher:. No. 9. "Sidewalk along Route 743 to be constructed according to location and
standards developed by the Virginia Department of Highways. Sidewalks to be constructed in
conjunction with the internal road system at four-foot minimum width." Does the applicant
have any comments about this?
Fleming: 'No comments.
Fisher: No. 10. "County Attorney's review of any deed restrictions or homeowners'
association agreements." The use of the word "review" does not necessarily mean any power
to disapprove or approve, does it? It just says to review. This gets into a serious problem
of what kind of homeowners' association is going to be set up to maintain the dam structures
and the replacement of these in the event they are washed out.
Fleming: You know there are different types of financing and all have different
requirements for homeowners associations. I am working on the homeowners association
agreements and have made a tentative copy. I am putting a clause in my homeowner's associati¢
that as each property is developed, the homeowners association will assume control of that
property. I want no control over it once I leave there. There will be $300 per unit given
to the homeowners' association so they will have operating capital to be reserved for
maintenance and upkeep of common areas as the association determines. If there are 300
houses, there will be $90,000 in escrow.
Poindexter: We have given this serious thought and are trying to draft something to be
submitted. Maintenance of the common areas is deserving of serious consideration.
Fleming: I repeat, I am boxed in by financing. Financial institutions have a lot to
say about homeowners' associations. I am adding to my agreements such things as "only trees
will be cut under 15 inches in circumference and anything over 15 inches will be approved by
the homeowners" But, the basic homeowners' agreements that the lending institutions will
accept have to be set.
Fisher: You are attempting to have some provision that if the dam washes out that
there will be some capital and presumably you are trying to work out some way of protecting
that capital so it will not be used for routine maintenance of the common space and so on?
Fleming: I said reserve for necessary emergencies. I can't bind them.
Poindexter: We can always provide the casualty insurance. We can always provide for a
trustee relationship to care for the money that is collected to insure that there is no
squandering of the assets of the homeowners' association in frivolities.
Fisher: The part of this which has concerned me most is the requirement that if either
of the dams is damaged or destroyed for any reason, that the homeowners themselves or
whoever owns the property will be required to rebuild the structures for the protection of
the reservoir and protection of downstream properties. Th~s must be done. Mr. St. John I
know that you have looked into homeowners' agreements on other developments that have been
approved. Do you have any comments about any concerns or difficulties or have you already
discussed this with Mr. Fleming?
St. John: No, I have not discussed this with Mr. Fleming, but I do have some comments.
It is not the function of the County Attorney to review and maintain any veto power over
these homeowners' agreements in general; only those parts of them that affect the public at
large. I think the language of the condition as it is now is adequate for the County if the
applicant accepts it. If Mr. Fleming and I should disagree on this at a later day or I
should try to impose some condition that he does not agree to, we can come back to the Board
and have that reviewed.
Fleming: I accept that.
Fisher: If the Board is going-to be bound by this particular language, it says that
you shall review it and not approve it.
St. John: That's the way the language has always read in other conditions and it has
carried the implication that it meant approval. But, you can say Subject to the County
Attorney's approval if the applicant agrees to that. If I disapprove something that he
thinks should be approved, it is still subject to adjudication.
Fleming: Subject to his approval is alright.
Fisher: No 15 is now "County Attorney's approval of any deed restrictions or homeowners
association agreements." Any further comments on that?
Dorrier: Let's hope that we are not going to put the County in the posture that ever
the homeowners want to amend their agreement they have to get Mr. St. John's approval.
Fisher: I don't think that is what we are talking about. The amendment procedure
itself has to be built into the homeowners agreements. That will be part of the initial
approval.
St. John: They will have to come to the County Attorney to get them amended if you put
in the homeowners' agreements that they are going to be responsible for these dams and then
a year from now they want to repeal that section and have an amendment which says they are
no longer responsible for these dams. That should not be possible without the County's
concurrence.
Fisher: Can we move on to No. 117 "No site plan-or subdivision plat approval shall be
given until the grading plan for this property has been approved."
Phillips: Often there is not sufficient data developed for a grading-plan to be develop~
prior to the actual development of the site plan. Are we talking only of the approval of
the site plan or the subdivision plat which must come about after the road network is
May 19, 1976 (Afternoon meeting ~ adjourned from May 12, 1976)
of earth etc. is dictated from the final design and that has to be defined before the grading
plan can be developed. I don't see where that is cause for any concern at this point.
Fisher: Alright, move on to No. 12. "A 100-foot tree buffer of common open space to
be maintained along the property line of Shack Mountain and no development to take place
within that buffer." Mr. Fleming, I believe you do have some comments.
Fleming: Yes. I do not believe in the theory of taking private property for private
use. I have tried to be as democratic as possible in my whole planned unit development. I
put in my homeowners' tentative agreement that no tree shall be cut without the homeowners
approval. Look ahead to Condition No. 13. This is being democratic, non-discriminatory, it
gives everybody a tree buffer.
Dorrier: Do you mean that every lot is going to have trees on it?
Fleming: The trees that exist there now if they are over 15 inches. Condition #13
says "no unnecessary removal of trees." The new thing now is to stick the houses in the
trees by just cutting for the house site, cutting for a driveway, and sticking the houses in
the trees. This gives everybody a tree buffer.
Henley: Is your problem maintaining a tree buffer or is it the 100-foot strip?
Fleming: In the first-place, it ~s hard for me to try to explain. I want everybody to
be in the same category. I don't want the man who lives here to be able to cut down trees
when the man over there will not be able to cut down trees. Ail I am saying is that Conditio~
No. 13 has good language. I want a tree buffer and I want to be cooperative in my homeowners
agreement. I don't want to put any restriction on the 100-foot buffer because I am not
doing it for all of the other people and I want it non-discriminatory.
Henley: I don't see how you can be expected to maintain a 100-foot tree zone there.
can see a 100-foot zone. As far as making him grow trees on that 100 feet, I don't think
that sounds right.
I
Fisher: What is meant by this condition, Mr. Tucker?
Tucker: A buffer of existing trees. There are already existing trees there. This is
just to maintain that area and not to go in and cut down the trees that are already existing.
David: What if we leave out the word trees?
Fleming: If you will read No. 13, you'll understand what I am talking about. If I
can't put a house in the 100-foot buffer it destroys all of those houses. I can go over and
put~a house now and leave the trees around the house.
Phillips: This buffer would ~ffect between 12 and 15 houses that would have to be
shifted forcing, possibly, a relocation of some of the roads. The actual final plan will
accommQdate a house site relative to the road network and still consider the 25% slope.
David: Is part of the problem maintaining the 100 feet in a straight line or is there
a ~possibility of some give and take?
Phillips: Our interpretation of a 100-foot buffer is that nothing can be done to any
portion of that land within 100 feet of the present boundary.
David: I am wondering if the topography would lend itself to some variation.
Phillips: That is certainly possible although I concur with Mr. Fleming that Item 13
on that list where it says specifically that there shall be no land disturbance other than
for structures, driveways, etc.~covers the subject.
Poindexter: Could we pause for one moment to find out the planning logic that went
into this condition? Then maybe we could better discuss it.
Fisher: I can talk about that. On Branchlands property on Route 29 North, not in this
watershed, the Board of Supervisors was quite concerned about the high density development
that was occurring on that proposed development and the low density, two-acre lots that were
on the properties immediately adjacent to it. There was a considerable amount of Board
discussion about the separation of those two. It turned out that there was an area on the
borderline that was reserved in open space by the site plan. The Board agreed to that as
the separation.
Fleming': If you approve the site plan now, that means the houses would be 70 feet away
and- I want it strongly said that I want everybody to be treated alike. I don't believe in
discrimination.
Fisher: We have heard your comments. The adjacent property owner has some interest in
this and I will give him the opportunity to speak if you are through.
Poindexter: We don't have a high density situation.
don't think that is high density.
We have 2.5 units per acre. I
Fisher: It is considerably different from one unit per two acres.
Poindexter: It is different. But it is not a situation where there is agriculture
land abutting R-3 or R-2 or a situation where commercially zoned land abutts agricultural or
residential land. That has always been the situation most often when buffers have been
required by government. We don't have this situation here and that is the reason we are
concerned by the suggestion that it should be included.
Fisher: There is a density difference of five times one piece of property to the next
on that line.
21G
May 19, 1976 (Afternoon meeting -
adjourned from May 12, 1976)
Fisher: That is a matter of personal interpretation.
this is high density.
I understand you don't think
Poindexter: I want to remind the Board that the requirement as it stands would involve
roughly seven acres of lando being taken out and that as. you know is a rather costly require-
ment.
Fisher: If he weren't given density credit for it, I would see that that would be a
considerable problem. The same number of units can be built whether this condition exists
or not. [~Very little of that land is presently slated for development the way it is presently
proposed, so I really don't see that point.
Phillips: If you subtract the 30 acres of land which includes the townhouse~secti~n~
ahd you have 125 individual residences on the remainder of that property, the density amounts
to something under one residence per acre. I just wanted to point out that the density in
that area is not 2.5 units per acre.
Fisher: Well, the density on the other side of the line is not really one unit per two
acres, but that ~s the way it is zoned.
Murray: My name is Jim Murray. I represent Mr. & Mrs. Bedford Moore. The reason I am
speaking today is to urge you to reaffirm the County's earlier position in placing this 100
foot buffer. I don't quite understand the purport of Mr. Fleming's remarks. The key issue
involved here is the separation of two irreconcilably incompatible land uses. On one side
we have Evergreen at 2.5 dwelling units per acre. On the other side we have a whole huge
area of land both to the west and north that is presently zoned A-1 which allows one unit
per two acres. But under the proposed zoning ordinance that land would be zoned one unit
per five acres. Mr. Moore has asked that his property be placed in the one unit per five
acre category. The next parcel to the west is Dr. Hurt's development which is five and eight
acre lots. Dr. H~rt Has, by virtue of the development he has platted and put to record,
agreed to zoning greater than one unit per five acres, so everything to the west is very low
density. To the north is property owned by the City of Charlottesville and property owned
by the Nature Conservancy. On the other side, of the reservoir to the north there is all A-
1, slated to be one unit per five acres. Mr. Moore's 100 acres, Dr. Hurt's 700 acres, and
the property to the north almost totally surround this development with-low density property.
If the new zoning ordinance is passed, the difference from one side of this line to the
other will be 12 and 1/2 times the density. This will, in effect, be the new line between
densely developed property and sparsely developed property. I understand that this new line
has in fact been drawn by the Federal Court. Before April 26, the line separating dense
development from A-1 went down the middle of Hydraulic Road. As I understand it, this is an
excellent planning principle. The Planning Staff in making recommendations for adopting the
original zoning map chose a natural boundary to separate dense development from rural
development. They chose Hydraulic Road. There was logic behind it. There were good
planning principles behind it. This Board and the Federal Court,~or whoever was responsible,
has chosen to ignore the natural boundary and has taken the property on the west side of
the natural boundary and zoned it for more dense development. We are asking that~you put
in another dividing line. Shack Mountain is a Virginia Historic Landmark. The last time I
appeared before this Board, I talked for 10 or 15 minutes about the architectural significanc
of this property. Dean Bosserman from the Architectural School is here and he may want to
address it for a minute. I simply want to point out that it is a Virginia Historic Landmark
and it exacerbates the problem of having a dense development next to this property.
David: Can you show us on that map the boundaries of Shack Mountain?
Murray: It is approximately right here. As long as you have raised the issue, I think
we~ought to point out that there is a drop in the elevation of approximately 225 feet,
within 300 and some feet to the nearest house, so that in effect the distance as the crow
flies may be a good deal less. The apparent diStance standing at the site of the Landmark
is made to seem much shorter because of the tremendously steep slope right in this area.
Dorrier: Is that slope covered with trees?
Murray: Yes, partially. But, the trees are pine trees. They were severely damaged by
the ice storm and are .~nadequate without some sort of buffer. I would like to point out
that there is not only precedent which has been cited by the Planning Staff for a buffer to
separate incompatible land uses but there is specific precedent for separating and protecting
an historic landmark. It is found in the Comprehensive Plan. Even back when these developer
were adamant that they were going to accept nothing less than 6.7 units per acre, certain
members of the previous Board of Supervisors, in public hearings, said they would make ~
approval conditioned upon some sort of a buffer. This is nothing new. It has been part
and parcel of this development from the very beginning. You have precedent, you have a
commitment to a 100-foot buffer by your staff, by members of the previous Board and by your
Planning Commission. We ask that you respect that commitment. We ask that you abide
exactly by the condition as stated here for a 100-foot buffer to separate such incompatible
uses of-the land with an open space zone that would, through the years, operate to buffer
these two irreconcilably, incompatible uses.
Dorrier: Mr. Murray, you had done this earlier, but would you show me the boundaries
of Shack Mountain?
Murray.: The entire northern line is all Nature Conservancy property. The entire
western line is the boundary of S~ack Mountain. On the other side of Shack Mountain is 700
acres going all the way to Garth Road, which will be de~eloped in five and eight acre lots.
Bosserman: I won't speak to the historic nature. Shack Mountain is situated on a
piece of property in a way that is unique to the whole scheme. The building itself can be
protected. It is to be declared a national monument. It seems to me that much of its
character and much of its charm, of its value, is the site. I would think that anything
that can be done to protect the site also protects the building. A buffer seems a reasonable
solution to protecting the building. It is unique and that is part of its character.
May 19, 1976 (Afternoon me'eting - adjourned from May 12, 1976)
,?.17
Fisher: Have you have finished your presentation?
Murray: Yes.
Fleming: I just want to ask Mr. Murray a question~. Using a boundary line of Hydraulic
Road, Four Seasons West adjoins my property right here and is zoned for 30 units an acre~
I'm not asking them for a buffer. Mrs. Vickie Burton's property touches my property and is
zoned for 6 units per acre. I'm not asking her for a buffer. I cannot help God's work of
ice breaking the limbs off of his trees.
Poindexter: I would like to try and clear up some misconceptions. Dean Bosserman
r~ferred to Shack Mountain as being historic. It may be beautiful and it may be architectural
significant, but, as far as I know, it is not historic. Dean Bosserman, when was it built?
Bosserman: In the thirties.
Poindexter: Does that make it architecturally historic?
Bosserman: I believe it is historic. It was built by one of the most distinguished
American architects and is a very significant example of his work. Most anybody would
consider Fiske Kimball as one of America's most distinguished people.
Poindexter: Is it generally open for the public to enjoy?
Bosserman: I know it has been open at various times.
it has been open.
It is not a public building, but
Poindexter: Mr. Murray said it is a national monument. Is that true?
Bosserman: I believe it up for the National Register.
Murray: The important thing is that it was named a Virginia Historic Landmark. At
that point it was nominated for the National~Register. If it has been accepted as a Virginia
Historic Landmark, it's acceptance in the National Register of Historic Landmarks is almost
assured. The designation has not come from Washington yet.
Poindexter: As I see it, the County is trying to do administratively what it should
have done legislatively. The Comprehensive Plan does recommend that the County make an
attempt to preserve certain historic buildings, architecturally significant buildings, but
the County did not follow through on a mandate of the plan and create historic zoning. You
do not have that in Albemarle County and that is in effect what you are trying to do now.
We see this as being to Mr. Fteming's detriment. We are not crude, we appreciate fine
things also. But, we don't appreciate what appears to be an attempt to confiscate privately
owned property for private use. That is our principal objection.
David: Zoning is one tool of the comprehensive plan. The staff reports that come to
us as the Board, start out with this phrase "this appears to be in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan". The Comprehensive Plan is the overall framework in which we operate
whether we do it through zoning or whether we do it through other decisions. I agree we
would have been better off if we had gone ahead and created the zoning.
Poindexter: In your efforts to try to abide by the mandate of the Comprehensive Plan,
you cannot, or at least the law should not allow you to, discriminate or act arbitrarily or
capriciously.
David: It does not seem to see that it is necessarily arbitrary or capricious to try
to maintain the general principle of the plan. There is a real break there between high
density development and between a whole area that is low density. It seems to me that there
should be an attempt to keep a buffer in there.
Dorrier: I have a question. I would like to ask Mr. Tucker. It says a 100-foot tree
buffer. Is this 100 feet of open space with trees at one end of it?
Tucker:
Dorrier:
We are speaking of existing trees.
Okay. Not plant further trees.
Tucker: That is not our intent.
David: Mr. Murray, is there any possibility of not making that just a straight 100
foot buffer? Would it be possible to make it an uneven line?
Murray: I think anything is possible. I think that the point is not simply this
historic or architectural landmark. We are trying to separate two incompatible land use
zones. I think Mr. Moore would be willing to add some of his property to balance out the
buffer to create a zone so that regardless of what happens to this land over here under the
zoning ordinance it would in effect buffer the two incompatible land uses. Ail I am saying
is the two land uses are being made more incompatible by the existence of Shack Mountain as
a historic and architectural landmark. I think Mr. Moore is willing to set down and work
something out. But, it seems to me that in order to follow the staff recommendation and the
Planning Commission recommendation and the general principle of trying to separate two
incompatible zones dictates that you stick to the 100 feet.
Fisher: It is late and this Board has another meeting beginning at 7:30. It is
obvious that with seven conditions still to be resolived we will have to set another time to
continue this discussion. (Monday, May 24, 1976, 2:00 P.M. was agreed upon as the next
date).
218
/
May 19, 1976 (Afternoon meeting-
adjourned from May 12, 1976)
Dorrier: Is there any way ~b~r~we~l~a~$ ~hata~e~ean~g~ some possible resolution to
this 100 foot buffer? Are we going to have to start from scratch on Monday?
Fisher: No, it is my intention, since this is a matter of some controversy, to give
the Board members time to think about it and figure out what they want to do. This is the
most controversial of all the conditions that we have before us.
David: I am under the impression that efforts have been made to work out something by
sale. Has there been any effort to work this out by. an exchange of property? Is there any
kind of area for negotiation is all I am asking?
Fleming: If he would put a 50-foot buffer on his property, by deed, then maybe I would
agree to put a 50-foot buffer on my property, by deed. I am not going to lose-~ the building
sites.
Fisher: Is there anything else to come before this Board?
St. John: I would like to ask one more question. Is United Virginia Bank and their
interests represented here or do Mr. Fleming and Mr. Poindexter have the authority to
represent the strip of land that belongs to them?
Fleming: We have discussed this verbally with United Virginia Bank and made it clear
that the property changed hands. We do not have a Written agreement.
St. John: Mr. Chairman did you ask if there was anybody here?
Fisher: No, I did not. Is there anyone here representing the interests of United
Virginia Bank? There is not.
Moore: Mr. Chairman, I would be more than happy to work with Mr. Fleming in any way
that is possible to resolve this problem.
Fisher: It is my sincere hope that the two of you can work out something between now
and Monday. If you cannot, I think it is going to be up to this Board to set some conditions.
At 5:45 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.
Chair~a~