1976-05-24NMay 24,1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 19)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on May 24, 1976, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesvi
Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from May 19, 1976.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St.
John; and County Planner, Robert Tucker.
~ The~meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. (Note: This meeting will
be set out in condensed transcript form; the full transcript being on file in the Clerk's
Office.)
Fisher: This meeting is continued from May 19 for the purpose of continuing the discus-
sion of conditions for Evergreen planned community. Mr. Henley will not be present today.
Mr. Roudabush has been present and has left the meeting because he is abstaining from discus-
sion and vote on this matter. When we finished the meeting last Wednesday, there had been
considerable discussion about Condition #12 concerning a 100-foot tree buffer of common open
space to be maintained along the property line of Shack Mountain, with no development to take
place within that buffer. The question was not resolved at that time. The possibility of a
mutually agreeable settlement being reached between the applicant and the owners of Shack
Mountain was discussed. I would like to. ask if any agreement has been reached.
Fleming: We met in my office for two and one-half hours Saturday. We did not reach any
agreement. We made a written proposal and I gave each of you a copy. That's ~.~e~ the stale-
mate was.
Fisher: This proposal that you have handed us is a proposed Condition #12.?
Fleming: That's right.
Fisher: I believe it is proper to read this into the record for purposes of discussion:
SP-537 Evergreen Planned Community
PROPOSED CONDITION #12
Along the line between Evergreen and the property knowmas "Shack Mountain"
no main structure on any lot in Evergreen shall be closer than 50 feet to the
line between "Shack Mountain" and Evergreen.
An area of the Evergreen property 40 feet in width adjacent to the property
known as "Shack Mountain" shall be subject to a condition that no trees shall
be cut on said 40-foot strip, whether included in common areas or lots, except
such trees as may be necessary or desirable to remove as part of good forestry
practice, and subject to any rights of the Home Owners Association of Evergreen
in common areas.
As part of this condition, the owners of the "Shack Mountain" property may go
upon said 40-foot strip for the purpose of such tree cutting, trimming, cleaning
underbrush, removing dead trees and debris, planting trees and any other good
forestry practictes as the owners of "Shack Mountain" may deem desirable for
a period of one year after such date, at which time all rights of the owners
of "Shack Mountain" to go upon said land shall cease, the cost of any such
forestry practice to be borne by the owners of the "Shack Mountain" tract.
Developer consents to such entry.
Fleming.: Mr. Phillips is here to show it to you on the map.
Phillips: I have blocked out the proposition in red and green pen. Let me put this up
~nsth~"wali. The ~.0-foot undisturbed area subject to forestry practices is that area between
the property line and the red line I have drawn. The 50-foot setback and the 50-foot minimum
setback is shown in green.
Fisher: What you have proposed would permit those properties to be privately owned all
the way to the Shack Mountain property line, but just have a setback. Is that correct?
Poindexter: The deed would have some sort of covenant.
Fleming.: It would be, but this 40 feet would not be disturbed except for forestry
purposes. The 50-foot setback would still be applied to that line.
Fisher: This would be a deed restriction which would run with each lot owner along that
line from the time the lot was purchased?
Fleming: No. Once the homeowners association comes into effect ....
B. B. Woodson: On this site plan, there's 20 feet here which is common area. The rear
lot lines go to the line 20 feet from the line with Shack Mountian. In other places, the lot
lines would go to the property line.
Jim Murray: There is 20 feet of common area along the southern property line, but no
common area along other parts of the boundary.
Fisher: So the ultimate enforcement of such a deed restriction might fall on the home-
owners association or against any property owner who decides to go in and start cutting
trees. Is that correct?
May 24, 1976 (Adjourned from May 19)
_Fleming:
Fisher:
We would make as part of the conditions that no trees shall be cut.
Do I understand that the owners of Shack Mountain did not agree to this?
Fleming: That was the impression that I got.
Fisher: Since you have made this proposal,
opportunity to react. Mr. Murray?
think it appropriate t° allow them an
Jim.Murray: I am sure Mr. Fleming's powers of recall are a bit better than mine, but
this does not look exactly like what we looked at on Saturday. We were unable to reach any
sort of understanding. The principle involved here is not simply trying to resolve a
dispute between two property owners.~ The principle I think the~Planning Staff is looking to
in it's recommendation for a 100-foot buffer is the principle of separating~two completely
incompatible land use zones by some sort of positi~e~physical barrier~ not by 20 feet of open
space that is subject to whatever the homeowners association would do with it. We were
trying to do what is really the County's business by separating dense development from an
historic landmark and with the sort of buffering that is proposed by the master plan. If the
objective is the protection of the landmark, then the line should not be arbitrarily drawn.
We attempted to make this line a bit more flexible, since a flexible line is actually far
less in terms of amounts of developable property than what the County staff has proposed. In
the spirit of compromise, we offered to draw a flexible line and then come back on Mr. Moore'
side of the property and put in a buffer at his expense and put to record deed restrictions
which, when combined with the flexible line on the other side, would provide for a uniform
buffer zone. Unfortunately, we could not arrive at anything that seemed logical in terms of
flexibility which would create a buffer between the two incompatible zones. I think our only
alternative is to fall back on your staff's recommendation.
Dorrier: Where is this line?
Murray: We drew a number bf them. I think the key points are that the entrance to the
landmark is within about 50 feet of this line. Visitors, architectural students, and so
forth, who enter off of Lamb's Road would go down within 50 feet or less of this line. At
that point, it seems that 100 feet is in order. This is a very deep inner road by the Shack
Mountain property and at this point, buffering on Mr. Fleming's side did not seem necessary.
IR is not necessary in terms of topography or in terms of encroaching on the landmark. As
you know, the house is located about 300 feet off of this line. When you get over here it
again becomes necessary to draw a wider buffer. We just could not reach a compromise.
Dorrier: Under your plan, how many houses would he have to move?
Murray: This is the subject of great debate. This is a preliminary plan. There is not
a single house on here that is necessarily going to be built in the shape or in the location
in which it is placed right now. It is contingent upon the final site plan on which ~r.
Phillips tells me there is an error of 10°~plus or minus on the location of roads and in the-
metes and bounds of the final lots.
David: Does "main structur'e" mean garages or other buildings could be put within this
area?
Fleming: No, but we wouldn't want to deprive people of putting a barbecue pit or some-
thing like that in their backyard.
Tucker: I think that should be spelled out because under the Zoning Ordinance that is
an accessory use.
Iachetta: Do you have a topo of this parcel?
Phillips: Just the old City topo which was flown as part of the original City survey
for the Reservoir ten to 14 years ago.
Fisher: It seems that the proposal Mr. Fleming has made is considerably different than
the 100-foot tree buffer of common open space which the Planning Commission has recommended.
I believe the Board is going to have to set something it feels is acceptable. If we impose a
!00-foot natural buffer, then several of the buildings shown on this preliminary plan would
have to be relocated because this would be common owned lands and not privately owned lands~
Iachetta: I could see that as a problem if you already had this laid out on the ground,
but this is still in the talking stage.
David: At the last meeting. Mr. Murray made a valid point. Previously Hydraulic Road
was, in effect, a buffer between high density and low density. What is being proposed now is
another buffer to make the same kind of provision. It seems to me that the proposal made
for a flexible line is reasonable, particularly in view of the uncertainties that exist about
how the land lies and where the houses will be located. However, it seems we can't do anythi~
better than accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff.
Iachetta: Is the buffer to ultimately provide for a delineation between the residential
areas and what has now been listed as an architectural landmark?
Tucker:
Iachetta:
Tucker:
Iachetta:
That's right.
And there is no other justification?
That is our basis for making the recommendation.
was
If at some future time the Shack Mountain property/developed as Evergreen,
there would be no reason for a buffer at all except as a party line between the two.
Tucker: When this first came up, Shack Mountain had not been designated by the State as
a Virginia Landmark of architectural significance. This was not a condition a year ago.
~g
Ma¥_~4, 1976 (Adjourned from May 19 - Afternoon)
227
Dorrier:
buffer?
What is the possibility of having 50 feet on either side as a common area or
Tucker: That would have to be an agreement between the two parties.
Murray: I think that points up the inadequacies of a rigid buffer zone. If there is a
secondary purpose to the buffer which requires~that you make a uniform buffer between the two
zones all the way along, Mr. Moore is still willing to contribute some of his property to
create that, but there are points where the landmark is too close to the property line to
protect the vista that the house was designed around. There are places where less than 50
feet would accomplish that purpose. There are places where zero feet would accomplish it and
there are places where as much as 130 feet are necessary to accomplish it. That is why a
flexible line seemed to us to make more sense, but it has been very difficult to get any
concession.
Fisher: You say flexible line. That's a confusing term. What you really mean is a
line as a buffer zone which varies in width from part of the property to another.
Murray: Yes.
Poindexter: I would like to note that Mr. Moore owns the Shack Mountain property and it
appears to be his plan to use it as an historical landmark, his home, but no one is bound to
continue that use. Mr. Moore is not bound to continue it. He could come to the Board two
months from now and move to have his area zoned for a planned community. Mr. Tucker has
indicated that the only interest has been the continued preservation of Shack Mountain for
its aesthetic function.
David: It is on the register.
Poindexter: I don't think it is permanently on the register. I think a person who buys
it could in fact destroy it, although I would hope it wouldn't happen.
David: If somebody came in and wanted to develop everything around it, I think we would
be in a position of saying "let's maintain a buffer around it."
Murray: Mr. Moore has written to the County requesting that the conservation zone (five
units per acre) be placed on his property. That is the first guarantee. If you were to take
Mr. Moore up on his offer to make use of any of his property to create a buffer zone of
uniform width, the creation of that buffer zone would in effect drop the number of acres in
Shack Mountain available for development below 100 and preclude his application for any
special use permit at any time in the future. So, the only way there could be any more dense
d~velopment on that property greater than five units per acre would be by an outright rezonin
Fisher: What does the Board want to do? We have what amounts to irreconcilable differe
David: We haven't been making motions or taking votes on these conditions as we go alon
so I suggest that we move on to the next condition, but I willI make one minor change. We
discussed the desirability of taking out the word "tree". It ~oesn't have to be a tree
buffer, just a 100-foot area of common open space.
Iachetta: Better leave tree in.
Fisher: That's what it is now.
David: No. There are areas where there are not 100 feet of trees.
Fisher: We don't~ want him to cut down the trees that are there.
Iachetta: No.
David:
agreements.
That is taken care of in these other provisions, but that's in the homeowners
Dorrier: Does it refer to the common open space and not cutting down trees?
Poindexter: Has there been any perceptible change in the Planning Staff's
as a result of this discussion?
Tucker: No. We would be amenable to any sort of a buffer that could be agreed upon.
Bedford Moore: It is all in trees now except for the bottom of the meadow right below
the house. That is the only place where it runs down to a single fence line.
David: Better leave the word "trees" in.
Dorrier: I don't think Mr. Fleming was planning on cutting down any trees anyway.
Fleming: I agree to No. 13. It's covered under 13.
Fisher: We haven't gotten to 13 yet.
Dorrier: He may have a point about 13.
Iachetta:
extensive?
Were the discussions by the Planning Commission that led to this recommendati(
Tucker: Mainly, they were concerned about the setback. Some felt it should be even
more since it is adjacent to a Virginia Historical Landmark. Finally, it was passed over for
the staff's recommendation. No agreement was ever reached on a buffer.
Fisher: I have a feeling that whatever the Board decides to do, it is not going to be
satisfactory to somebody. I think the Board is going to have to come to some consensus on
22.8
May 24, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 19)
Agnor: Where is the impasse on the variant width line?
Fisher: I feel that if there is no agreement between the two conflicting parties, we ha
the recommendation of the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission. Both of them recom-
mended approval of this planned unit development and spent a good deal more time working on
it then we have. If they can't agree to something else, I feel we ought to go with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission at this point.
Agno~: I thought that if the so-called flexible line were delineated so that both
parties could see it, then it might resolve this matter.
Fisher: I think it is clear that the applicant does not feel that is the appropriate
way to resolve the question.
Dorrier: If the 100-foot buffer is adhered to, would Mr. Fleming have to come back
before the Planning Commission and show the relocation of the houses that would be affected?
Tucker: The final site plan stage of the subdivision would have to meet these condition
Dorrier: Is he going to have to come before them anyway?
Tucker: Yes.
Dorrier: So right now the houses could be shifted without a great deal of expense?
Iachetta: Unless it has been laid out on the ground.
same number of units?
Are there still going to be the
Fisher: It is my understanding that the density that is given is a gross density.
Poindexter: -The 100-foot buffer would make those lots more difficult to market. Since
we were forced from 6.7 units per acre to 2.5 units per acre, it has changed the type of-
houses that are going to be built. It is increasingly difficult to sell property if it has
covenants, easements and all kinds of restrictions attached to it.
Fisher: The proposal that was made would reduce the number of parcels sold with covenan
and restrictions by making the buffer area commonly owned. Is that not true?
Poindexter: Yes.
Fisher: So that would free up the indiwidual parcels from any consideration of this.
They would not be tied down at all except through the homeowners as~sociation which agrees to
maintain all Of the common open space.
Poindexter: Yes. We are back to taking roughly 7.2 acres which increases congestion on
other parts of the 128.6 acres. I thought one of the real considerations was density.
Fisher: We are not talking about changing any number of units on this parcel of propert
In fact, the concept of the planned unit development is to cluster units so there is commonly
owned open space. I am at a loss to figure why the proposal from the Shack Mountain owners
putting less land in common open space is not acceptable. If it is not, I am inclined to go
with the recommendation of the staff and Planning Commission.
Iachetta: That is my feeling. It seems to me that the Planning Commission spent more
time than we have trying to resolve this question. In the absence of a penalty in the number
of units, I am inclined to go along With the recommendation of the staff and the Planning
Commission.
David: I hope the applicant will give some second thoughts to what seems to me a better
proposal than the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Dorrier: I believe it would be wise for this Board to go with the Planning Commission's
recommendation in the absence of an agreement.
Fisher: It is unanimous that we stay with the-100-foot tree buffer of common open space
to be maintained along the property line of Shack Mountain with no development to take place
in that buffer.
Phillips: May I take a minute to indicate'what the consequences of this might be in
terms of the general subdivision plan?
Fisher: We asked you about that last week and you told us that certain units would have
to be moved and certain property lines would have to be relocated. We are aware of that. We
have made a decision and I think we should move on.
Fisher: Condition #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 permits
disturbing soil for all normal things and also four recreation areas which include the tot
lots, the areas to be shown for turf recreation and activities for older children and adults,
that we talked about in #6. This seems to be a statement of intent and is not specific. Mr.
Fleming do you disagree with No. 137
Fleming: ~ng In the homeowners association, I was going to put a 15-inch circumference
on the trees so t to confuse the property owners.
Fisher: If there is no disagreement, we will accept No. 13 as it stands.
re
s
May 24, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 19)
229
Fisher: Condition #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 5000 persons or 1600 families and would not serve the
intent of the planned unit development concept.)" Is there a disagreement on this?
Fleming.: Yes. I would like to have 3.15 hundredths of an acre, but I could live with
an acre and a half, but I couldn't live with an acre.
Fisher:
Tucker:
Fisher:
Mr. Tucker, what is the proposed population of the total planned unit develo
Almost 1000 people.
How much land is needed to serve 1000 people?
Tucker: We use planning design criteria and those standards call for 6/10ths of an
acre, so we rounded it up to one acre.
David: It is my impression that we do mean to have facilities within these planned unit
developments for the people who live there. This is one where I am with Mr. Fleming. I see
no reason why that commercial area should not be the one and one-half acres that he is asking
for.
Fisher: You are proposing that we grant two and one-half, times as much commercial area
as the staff recommends for this population. You will be faced with similar requests from
other planned unit developments in the future. You would be setting a precedent for this
case. This commercial property is designed for internal use.
Dorrier: Does this cover parking too?
Tucker: No. This one acre is exclusive of internal access roads and parking.
Fisher: You are proposing one acre of buildings?
Tucker: That's right.
Fisher: An acre of buildings is an awful lot of buildings.
about a gross commercial area, including parking spaces.
iachetta:
Dorrier:
I thought you were talking
I did too.
How much land could you use for parking, exclusive of this acre?
Tucker: It really depends on the type of commercial uses you are going to have in
there. Each use has different standards for parking. For instance, a convenience store has
one parking space for each 200 square feet of retail floor area.
Fisher: What you are actually proposing is an acre of buildings and an acre of parking
plus internal circulation streets.
Tucker:
lation.
According to the plans, they are not going to have that much internal circu-
Fisher: I t~ink you should talk about total gross land area to include the parking and
everything. I disagree with this way of defining it.
Iachetta: I had interpretated this original statement of one acre to include the
but not the streets. It seems to me that what is needed is a realistic statement of what the
total area of parking, plus commercial, would be including the streets as well.
Mr. Fleming, in your proposal of 3.15 acres, were you including parking?
Yes, we were.
In the one and one-half acres, are you willing to include parking, but not
Dorrier:
Fleming:
Iachetta:
streets?
Fleming:
Dorrier:
Fisher:
The one and one-half acres would include the parking.
I could accept that.
That is reasonable to me. This would be "the commercial areas to be no greater
than 1.5 acres of land including parking areas but exclusive of internal access roads."
David: And strike the explanatory statement.
Iachetta: Right, we don't need that.
Fisher:
Tucker:
excluded.
Fisher:
Fleming.:
Why are the internal access roads excluded?
This is part of the area that is going to be used in common and it is normally
Are you in agreement, Mr. Fleming?
Yes.
May 24, 1976 (Afternoon-adjourned from May 19)
Fisher: Condition #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 subdivsiion plats shall
be generally in compliance with the approved Master Plan."
Iachetta: Why is this condition necessary when the applicant has to come back with the
site plan for approval?
Tucker: This is the preliminary master plan. We would like to have something so that
when you approve it, we would have something to use as a guide for final site plan approval.
We can use it for street systems, location of structures, recreation areas and things of this
nature.
Fisher:
Tucker:
Iachetta:
As amended by these conditions?
Yes.
So it is a matter of reference and not a rigid requirement.
Tucker: Yes.
David:
Tucker:
David:
What is "subject meeting"? Is that a previous meeting?
This meeting.
You are talking about this action today and not action of a previous board?
St. John: This is an identifying clause that identifies the meeting and shows you where
you can go to find the minutes.
Tucker: Yes. I don't know whether we were really saying any particular meeting, but
any amendment to the master plan. This is all for reference.
Iachetta: But the reference to "meeting" in this statement is to the meeting where the
plan was approved by the Planning Commission. Are we agreed to that?
Tucker: Yes, and as amended by the Board of Supervisors.
Iachetta: I realize that.
St. John: It is a matter of law that when there is an amendment by the Board of Superv~
that amendment takes precedence over the Planning Commission.
Tucker:
plan.
This just gives us something to go by if you amend anything on this master
Fisher: Does anybody have any further questions about number 157
Phillips: I have a question about "all parties concerned." In attaining a two and one-
half unit per acre density, which we are bound to do within the limits of the ~mit~.~I~Wonde
if the Board will be surprised when we add one or two more townhouse units~to the plan as it
presently appears. I can envision the loss of enough lots on that western boundary to force
the developer to replace such things as patio houses and sing!efamily houses with a townhouse
or a condominium complex on that western section.
Fisher: I don't think we can give you the right to convert all of the single-family
units to others without that being against the original intent of the original site plan.
Phillips.: We may be forced to shift the road network in that area considerably. The
developer does not want this to become a Four Seasons sort of development, but will be forced
to concentrate the housing units in one fashion or another to make up for the loss of single-
family units, occasioned by the 100-foot buffer.
Tucker: We realize that relocation of some of the units will cause them to be clustered
in some fashion. If it is major, the Board or the Commission may want to take another look.
However, after relocation, if the plan is still basically in compliance, I don't see any
problems.
Fisher: I think we all are aware that there might have to be some changes, but if there
are any questions, this is the-time to ask them.
Tucker:
Fisher:
Tucker:
Iachetta:
Tucker:
Fisher:
I don't have any questions.
The density will have to go up some.
Net density.
I take it this is an administrative matter.
We usually handle it that way.
Any further questions on No. 157 By consensus, #15 stands.
Fisher: Condition #16: "Dedicate, as recommended by the 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 shall be located, after approval by the Planning Staff
and School Board, between Laurel Drive and Spruce Court. Density credit for the 2.6~ acres
shall be given, but that density shall not exceed 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Dedication of
t. his property shall be made in conjunction with the subdivision approval of subject property.
ors,
May 24, 1976 (Afternoon - Adjourned from May 19) '23~
Fleming: That specific area I cannot speak to at this point.
National and United Virginia Banks have property ....
As you know, Central
Fisher: This leads to the question that was brought up last week as to whether all
parties were notified. Mr. Woodson do you represent United Virginia Bank?
Woodson: No. Senator Michael represents them. He undertook today to get in touch with
the four banks, but I haven't had word back from him. I would suggest that you make it a
condition and leave it open. I feel sure they will unite.
St. John: They are the owners of what?
Woodson: It's the 13 acres in there.
St. John: They haven't become involved with any of the property formerly owned by
Flamenco Corporation or Mr. Fleming, individually?
Woodson: No, it belonged to Daley Craig and he sold it all.
St. John: Alright, there are four different banks who now have joint ownership. They
know their application is before the Board. This parcel is part of this plan and if they
wanted to be here they could be.
Fleming: I took a copy of the decree to the Central National and United Virginia
Banks. They said they were happy their land was 2.5 units per acre instead of one unit per
acre.
St. John: They are aware that this action is being taken by the Board and that their
land is involved. They could be here if they wanted to, so I would recommend that the Board
go on as Mr. Woodson recommended and act on this application. If they have some objection,
they can respond.
Iachetta: I don't see how you can include 13 acres of land you don't own.
Woodson: I agree. What I suggested was that you approve it, put a condition in there
that if they do not like it, it is not approved.
St. John: This whole plan was submitted with the understanding, and under the as~
that it includes this land and the owners of this land have acquiesced. The owners of this
land were plaintiffs in this suit to begin with. They are fully aware of the proceedings and
the nature of the proceedings and that the conditions with respect to this development are
likely to apply to this land as well as the other land on this map, if it is approved. I
don't see any legal problems. They have acquiesced in your placing conditions. I think you
are perfectly free to place any conditions on that land as well as the other lands and if
they don't agree to it then the whole approval ....
Iachetta: Subject to their becoming involved with this applicant?
St. John: They are already involved with this applicant. They have acquiesced in his
coming in and presenting the application. Is that right, Mr. Fleming?
Fleming: You are right. They are aware of it.
St. John: If it comes to pass that they did not know anything about this, or don't
agree to the rezoning, that is between them and Mr. Fleming.
Poindexter: Between them and the Board.
St. John: Well, it is going to nullify this entire rezoning if that takes place.
Iachetta:
their banks.
They are not represented here before this Board.
We are not talking for
Fleming: I asked Mr. Woodson to make a follow up on that. I have carried the decree to
the United Virginia Bank. I have carried the plans to the Central National Bank in Richmond.
I don't know what-else I could do at this point.
St. John: I recommend that the Board go ahead and place whatever conditions it feels
are reasonable on this entire tract of land. This is the tract of land that has been the
subject of the suit and the subject of these hearings. If one of the landowners later says
it is all a mistake and that Mr. Fleming and his attorney had no authority to place this land
before the Board or before the Court, then you are back to where you were before this suit
ever took place.
Iachetta: I must admit that I have never understood the legality of that 13 acres being
included with the plan.
Poindexter: Let me say something for the record. The first day of the trial I repres
to the Court and everybody concerned that the ownership of the land had changed and that i no
longer represented one of the three plaintiffs, Four Seasons, Ltd., but because our plans and
presentations concerned the 13 acres, the 13 acres were-all included as a part of Evergreen.
That is the way it went for the course of the presentation before the Court. The Court fully
understood that when it approved the order.
Fisher: Alright. We are back to #16. Mr. Tucker indicated last week that this would
be a portion of a much larger parcel of land that would be required for a school site. What
is the size of the property needed?
Tucker: The standards used by the School Board call for a 13 acre tract for an etement~
school. This would be Evergreen's pro rata share; roughly 20% of the school population that
would ultimately attend an elementary school. It would have a capacity of around 800 students
The remainder of that 13 acre tract would be located in GeorgetoWn Woods.
232
May 24, 1976 (Afternoon - Adjourned from May 19)
Tucker: Yes.
Fleming: I went on record before and I am going on record again to say that Albemarle
County owns over 200 acres of land across the road where Albemarle High School is located.
This is less than a quarter of a mile according to the County walking code for the kids
across the road from the property.
.IaChetta: I think the key word in your comment is "across" the road. I wouldn't want
my kids crossing that road on foot. I envision having a neighborhood school on the west side
of Route 743 and this item 16 is only defensible on that basis.
Poindexter: We don't have any objections to dedicating a reasonable amount Of land for
public school purposes, but our first objection was based on what Mr. Fleming just told you.
We .knew there were some 200 acres of land, about 90% of which was going unused. We would not
want little elementary school children to have to cross some kind of heavily traveled thoroug!
fare.
David: I would think you would like to have a school there.
Poindexter: I was bristled initially by the whole procedure.
Fisher: What if this property is not used for a number of years for a school site?
What other uses might be made of the property for the benefit of.the people who live there?
Tucker: Once the land is dedicated, I don't think it could be used in conjunction with
their open space.
Poindexter: Can our dedication be conditioned in any way?
St. John: Usually they are dedicated and if not used for a school within a certain
number of years, the land reverts. I don't see any reason why it could not be dedicated with
an agreement that until the use for which it is dedicated comes in, that the members of the
planned unit development could not use it as part of the open space.
Fisher: Under the circumstances, it might be well to permit the property to be used by
the homeowners association; let them maintain and have the responsibility for it until such
time as they are notified by the School Board that the land is needed. It would have to be
some reasonable due notice.
Phillips: In that 2.5 or 2.6 acres are about 16 residences. Coupled with the seven
to ten that we might lose from the buffer, we are talking about the loss of 20 residences.
This is a loss of desirable home sites for what I consider substandard housing in terms of
the type of development that was intended. I Just want to indicate what the impact of that
will be.
Tucker: I think there are several alternatives available.
Fisher: What is the specific area proposed for the school Site?
Tucker: These lots here called town lots.
Fisher: This location has been recommended by the School Board?
Tucker: Yes.
Poindexter: We are coming to a place where~it~.~o0ks like there is some sort of effort
to remove all of the prime land from use. We will be left with some land that can't be
replaced, in other words, there is an economic consideration~ Some of the land you are
asking to be given up includes a 100-foot strip and now the 2.6 acres. The 100-foot strip
means 7.2 acres. In actuality, it is the best land on the whole plat. There are certain
slopes that are impractical to build on. I am just wondering if Mr. Tucker was aware of thi~
when he selected these particular sites.
Fisher: Let me ask on what basis the suggestion was made that this site be located
between Laurel Drive and Spruce Court?
Tucker: We have no firm recommendation as far as its location. The reason seems to be
because it is adjacent to Georgetown Woods and the additional acreage must be contiguous.
David:
located?
But is it necessary to be that specific about where those 2.6 acres should be
Tucker: It may not be. I think that everyone is aware of the basis for it, but we just
made that recommendation as a possible location.
Phillips: The pro rata allocation for this subdivision is only 20%, so it must be
adjacent to that property which almost forces us to be on that southerly boundary line.
Fisher: We are all in. agreement that the specific l~cation listed here might not
necessarily be the one that would have to be chosen.
Iachetta: Why don't we just strike "between Laurel Drive and Spruce Court" in #16'? You
have a requirement here that it has to be approved by the Planning Staff and the School
Board. It would be helpful to Mr. Phillips if it were less restrictive in terms of those two
streets.
Ph~!lips: Yes.
toward the west.
It may increase the flexibility 100%, but the topography gets bad
May 24, 1~76 (Afternoon - Adjourned from May 19) 233
Fisher: I am willing to take out the phrase "between Laurel Drive and Spruce Court" and
leave it 't'o the Planning Staff and the School Board and the applicant to work this out. Does
the rest of the Board agree?
Iachetta: I agree.
David: Yes.
Fisher: Condition #17. "Submit two copies of revised Evergreen plan indicating the
conditions of approval outlined in item numbers 2, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 16 listed above."
Iachetta: Why do we need condition #17 when the applicant~has to submit a site plan
upon approval?
Tucker: I don't know when they will start bringing in their final plans, but it is
often difficult to compare plans if these conditions are not shown on a plan.
Iachetta: Does this require the applicant to do extra work he might not otherwise do?
Tucker: It does.
Iachetta: In fairness to the applicant, he should not have to do any more than is
actually necessary for the intelligent use of his plan once the conditions are established.
Fisher: In any event, Mr. Phillips, or someone for the applicant, would have to lay
this all out anyway.
Phillips: Yes. It would have to be a revised plan.
St. John: What you are saying is they you want one massive plan with all of these
conditions on it before you start reviewing sections. If you omit that step, it really
complicates the review of the site plan.
David: It does seem to me that with as many potential changes as are involved, that it
is desirable.
Fisher: Any further discussion of #177 Then it stands.
Fisher:
pipeline easement." Do you have any property lot lines within the easement?
St. John: No reason not to have.
Fisher: What we need to strike out is property line. Is that right?
Poindexter: That's right.
Fleming: Some property lines will be in the easement.
Fisher: Just say no dwelling unit to be located within the pipeline 'easement.
there any further questions from anyone? (None).
Fleming: Yes.
Condition #18. "No property line or dwelling unit to be located within the
Are
Mr. Fleming, do you agree to that?
Fisher: Are there further conditions that need to be considered at this point by the
Board? Number 8 was never finished at our meeting last week.
Tucker: I have the wording for that. I have discussed it with the County Engineer, as
well as Mr. Phillips, and there are three areas that they will be reviewing. The condition
should read: "Approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's final approval of: water
and sewer facilities, sedimentation basins and dams, all public parking areas specifications
(primarily for the parking areas for the townhouses in the commercial areas)."
Phillips: How about the drainage plan?
Tucker: Storm drainage plans?
Fisher: Alright, do you want to read that complete condition again?
Tucker: No 8 should read: "Approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's final
approval of: water and sewer facilities, sedimentation basins and dams, all public parking
areas specifications; and overall storm drainage plan."
Fisher: Do Board members have any questions? (None.)
Phillips: I concur with that.
Fisher: Then No. 8 has been resolved. Is there anything further that needs to be
stated at this point? I think we have been through all 18 of the conditions and presumably
should take action to formally adopt these conditions for approval of SP-537. What is the
desire of the Board?
Dorrier: I MOVE the acceptance of the conditions as amended by the Board of Supervisors
Iachetta: SECOND.
David: Has action already been taken on the issuance of the permit itself?
Fisher: Yes. We took action to endorse the Court order.
234
May 24, 1976~ (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 19)
St. John: I think the Court decree entered pursuant to your authority to have your
attorney consent to this decree took the place of the issuance of this permit. The language
in the decree covers that in my judgment. It says that the plaintiff's request to the County
of Albemarle for rezoning of 128.06 acres on the west side of Hydraulic Road and Rio Road in
the County of Albemarle and the plaintiff's proposed planned unit development "Evergreen"
be, and it is hereby, approved On the basis of the density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
There was a meeting on that day this was entered, at which the Board ratified what it had
done in executive session authorizing me to endorse this decree.
Fisher: Call the roll:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Roudabush.
(Note: Ail of the conditions imposed on issuance of RP-537 a~ both the meetings of
May 19 and May 24, 1976, are-set out below:
1. Maintain the proposed density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre (gross).
!0.
11.
12.
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 during
or after construction.
i3.
~pproval is contingent upon the recertification for'increased capacity
to Meadowcreek Sewage Treatment Plant.
i4.
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.
i5.
Comply with the following conditions submitted by the City of Charlottes-
ville concerning the gas pipeline easement:
(a)
The contours on the plan indicate some grading and excavation on the
easement, the plans for which have not been completed. These grading
plans must be available for review and approval by the City of
Charlottesville prior to commencement of the work.
(b)
Reasonable ingress and egress of equipment to the full length of the
forty foot easa~ent~for~maintenance and repair of the lines must
be assured.
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 recreational facilities such as: swings, see-saws, etc. An
additional area of 1.5 acres, in the aggregate, to be shown for various
turf recreation and activities for older children and adults.
Dedication of water~and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service
~uthority and the Authority's acceptance of responsibility for maintenance
and operation of ~ewage pump stations.
Approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's final approval of: water
and sewer facilities; sedimentation basins and dams; all public parking
specifications; and overall storm drainage plan.
Sidewalk along Route 743 to be constructed according to location and
standards developed by the Virginia Department of Highways. Sidewalks to
be constru~te~in conjunction with~the internal road system at four feet
minimum width.
County Attorney's approval of any deed restrictions or homeowners' associ-
ation agreements.
No site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading
plan for this property has been approved.
A 100-foot tree buffer of common open space shall be maintained along the
property line of Shack Mountain. No development is to take place within
that buffer.
Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation
areas, pedestrian trails, parking areas, and debris basins are to be located
shall be distmrbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state.
The commer~ia~ area is to be no greater than one and one-half (1.5) acres
of land, including parking areas,~but exclusive of internal access roads.
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 these conditions recorded in the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors for meetings held on May 19 and May 24, 1976, shall
be adhrered to by all parties involved. Follow-up final site plans and
subdivision plats shall be generally in compliance with the approved
Master Plan.
May 24, 1976 ~Afternoon - Adjourned from May 19)
235
18.
Dedicate, as recommended by the Albemarle County~School Board, 2.6 acres
to the Albemarle County School Board to be used in conjmnction with property
to be acquired in Georgetown Woods. This property should be located after
approval by the Planning Staff and School Board. Density credit for the
2.6 acres will be given, but that density ~llZnot exceed 2.5 dwelling
units per acre. Dedication of this property is to be made in conjunction
wi~h the subdivision of subject property.
Submit two copies of a revised Evergreen plan indicating the conditions of
approval ~mtlined in Item Numbers 2, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 16 li~ted above.
No dwelling unit is to be located within the pipeline easement.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter from Mr. William Perkins request
that the public hearing on "Ednam" be rescheduled for June 2, 1976, at 3:00 P.M. Since this
public hearing was officially deferred to May 26, 1976, and the budget hearing is to be held
that night, he requested that Mr. Dorrier appear at 3:00 P.M. on May 26, 1976, and in accorda~
with Virginia Code Section 15.1-536 adjourn the meeting for lack of a quorum.
Dr. Iachetta said he had received calls from four people in Woodbrook Subdivision who
were upset because of a malfunctioning aerator on the Woodbrook Lagoon. Mr. George Williams
of the Rivanna Authority had his people put a boat in the water immediately to break~up
the growth ~f~a!gae and duck wee~ and they will treat the Lagoon with copper sulphate to
counteract the odor problems. This just sh~ws how delicate the control is and ~r. Iachetta
said he is not convin~d~t~at~he~ add,need paC~age~tr~a~me.nt plantar, armor'not similar. They
are fine as long as they work. Mr. Agnor said that is one reason dual op~at~on!~s required.
Dr. Iachetta said he learned in this process that while Woodbrook Subdivision could be taken
off of the Lagoon and put on the Meadowcreek Treatment Plant, this would substantially
curtail capacity~in that plant. It is therefore imperative that the Woodbrook Lagoon be kept
in operation until the advanced wastewater treatment plant goes into operation four or five
years from now.
At 5:30 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn
~his meeting until May 26, 1976, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building
The motion carried:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Roudabush.
~airman