1976-06-02NJune 2, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 27)
Mr. Roudabush suggested continuing the sentence at the end of the ordinance to say
"and, further, provided that the final approval shall be conditioned upon the establishment
of a unified water system designed to serve the property of the applicant and Ednam Forest."
Mr. Perkins sa~d if this wording is added to the ordinance, they will not be able to obtain
financing to proceed, because the whole rezoning will be conditioned on the joint water
system.
Mr. Roudabush then suggested: "and, further, provided that final approval shall be
based upon the establishment of a unified water system designed to serve property of the
applicant and Ednam Forest." Mr. Perkins again protested. Dr. Iachetta suggested that the
Board base its final approval on the water system being approved by the Board. Mr. Perkins
said they could proceed with that condition.
Mr. Fisher said it appears the ordinance should be left as originally presented with the
following added at the end: "With the proposed sewage treatment facility to be operated and
maintained by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority pursuant to its "Statement of Policy"
received by the Board of Supervisors on June 2, 1976, and with the height of the two-multiple-
family dwellings not to exceed 45 feet, and further provided that the water system shall
be subject to final approval by this Board."
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt An Ordinance to Amend the Albemarle County
Zonin~Ma~a~o Provide for Residential Planned Ne~h~or~o-od Designation, with changes agreed
to by the Board (and just stated by Mr. Fisher) incorporated therein. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Mr~ Fisher.
Mr. Dorrier.
At 5:57 P.M., the meeting that began at 3:00 P.M. was adjourned.
Chairman
June 2, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 2, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David, and Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, 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 at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman.
Agenda Item No. 1. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Section 7-5 of the Albemarle
County Code concerning certain procedures of the Albemarle County Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on May
20 and May 26, 1976.)
The public hearing was opened. No one rose to speak. Motion was then offered by Mr.
Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote to adopt the
ordinance as advertised.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Dorrier.
(The ordinance as adopted is set out below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 7-5 OF THE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING CERTAIN
PROCEDURES OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that
there are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Code of the County of
Albemarle Sections 7-5(d), 7-5(e) and 7-5(f) as follows:
(d) In the event that the plans and specifications so submitted shall be
approved, the zoning administrator shall require, prior to the issuance of an
erosion control permit, a performance bond with surety or other security of a
type satisfactory to the zoning administrator in an amount determined by the
zoning administrator to be sufficient for completion of the control~ specified
in the plans and specifications should the person receiving the permit not
complete the controls as required.
(e) When a plan submitted for approval pursuant to this chapter is found
to be inadequate, the zoning administrator, in accordance with recommendations
of the advisory committee, shall specify such modifications, terms and conditions
as will permit approval of the plan and shall communicate these requirements to
the applicant. The applicant may then resubmit a revised plan showing such
corrections as may be necessary to comply with the standards of the handbook.
250
June 2, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
(f) The zoning administrator may~require the submission of amended plans
and specifications in any case in which inspection reveals that the controls
set forth in the plan are inadequate tm accomplish the erosion and sediment control
objectives of this chapter; or where the permit holder finds that because of
changed circumstances as for other reasons the approved plan cannot'be
effectively carried out.
Agenda Item No. 2. Discussed later.
Agenda Item No. 3. Review: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Land Use Plan. Present was Ms. Wayne Harbaugh. Ms. Harbaugh said the State mandated that
planning within the Planning District be coordinated. The Federal Government also mandated a
similar function in relation to a number of Federal programs. Most representatives on the
Planning District Commission feel the Commission should strengthen and reinforce local govern-
ment, therefore the Planning District staff felt the most reasonable approach to a regional
plan was to take all the local plans and policies and put them together. This created a
problem because all of the local plans are not consistent. Also the local plans are intended
to serve as a zoning guide and do not address all of the problems a regional plan addresses.
Eventually the regional land use plan will be used as a guide by the Planning District Commiss~
when reviewing requests for Federal funds for capital improvements. Therefore, the regional
plans need to address areas where growth will and will not occur. The~Planning District
Commission in making environmental impact assessments uses various things such as historical
areas, scenic rivers, Virginia byways~ preservation of agriculture, water quality management,
When the Planning District staff looked at Albemarle County's comprehensive plan,
they found that the cluster developments were designed to take care of a population twice the
size of the State's projections. This was also true of the water quality management plan. A
regional plan can solve this inconsistency by reducing the size of the clusters, the overall
densities or by downgrading some of the clusters to villages. Since there are no plans for
providing either water or sewer to the Keswick cluster, it should be downgraded to a village;
likewise, the Ivy cluster. The Planning District staff dropped the population projections to
correspond more closely with the recent State projection of 87,000 for the year 2000, although
in its highway planning the County, has projected a population of 95,000. Although the'Planninl
District staff will support this figure, it does not resolve the problem of too much intensive
development for a population of that size. The regional plan, therefore, shows clusters only
for North Rivanna, Crozet and Scottsville. These clusters will provide centers where empioyme~
commercial, public services and residential development, including medium and higher density,
can be provided in an area easily served with water, sewer and transportation. Three large
historic areas have been included for Albemarle because they contain collections of historic
sites, agricultural use and scenic beauty; these are Scottsville, Keswic~ismont and Stony
Point.
Concerning the clusters, the Planning District needs to know if each cluster will have the
intensity and size of development which will require water and sewer and a large Federal
investment in roads. The Albemarle County plan does not address the scenic river aspect of the
Rivanna River. The Planning District staff feels there are a lot of conflicting uses of the
Rivanna and recommends the scenic river approach. Ail local jurisdications are now in differe~
stages of planning and this regional plan is not meant to be static. The Planning District
Commission is not asking the local governments to adopt the regional plan under the terms of
the Virginia Area Development Act which puts certain restrictions on local government. The
Planning District Commission assumes the good faith of local officials and feels that once the
plan is approved, the local officials will act in conformity with the plan and when it is not
in their interest to do so, will amend the plan through the processes available.
Mr. Robert Tucker, County Planner, said the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed
and approved the plan by a 5/3 vote on March 23, 1976, by taking the following action: "To
adopt as a Thomas J~fferson Planning District Commission guide with no legal effect but with
some usefulness for informational purposes; ~hese purposes to be as follows:
(a) Approval by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission as
a guide for its actions only.
(b) Submission to local governments for approval as Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission guide only, with a disclaimer as to
legal effect on local government.
(c) Acceptance by Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission as a
guide depending on extent to which local governments have responded."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission did recommend some minor textu~a~l~ changes and rea~
the following into the record:
"May 7, 1976
To: Wayne Harbaugh
From: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Subject: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Regional Plan
At its meeting of April 27, 1976, the Albemarle County Planning Commission
addressed the textua~i content of the proposed Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission Land Use Plan and makes the following recommendations:
e
The year 2000 population is projected by the Highway Department and
County Planning staff to be 95,000 persons. The Planning Commission
recommends replacement of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission figure of 85,200 with the above projection.
Keswick and Ivy have been omitted as community clusters in the
proposed Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission plan. The
Planning Commission recommends inclusion of Keswick and Ivy as
community clusters as indicated in the Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan.
on
to.
t~
.t
June 2, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
251
2.300 General Land Use Goal: Objective 2.
recommends this read as follows:
The Planning Commission
The role of Charlottesville~-Albemarle urban area as the regional
center should be continued; however, economic growth should be
encouraged in other growth centers in every County in the Planning
District·
2.512 Medium Density Residential Use.
recommends this read as follows:
The Planning Commission
Medium density residential uses will be accommodated in the above tWo
clusters and in the following clusters:
Albemarle County.: Crozet, North Rivanna, Scottsville, Keswick, Ivy.
Mr. Tucker said suggestion No. 4 was added because the regional plan carries townhouses
and low rise apartment structures. The Planning Commission felt medium density would cover
those uses and felt that by setting these out, it might encourage this type of development in
areas where there are not adequate facilities.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission was recommending that the Keswick and Ivy
clusters be put back in the regional plan. Mr. Tucker said since the Comprehensive Plan
will be reviewed later this year, they felt it might be premature to accept this change.
Ms. Harbaugh said this is inconsistent since the County had asked that Keswick be eliminated
from the water quality management plan.
Mr. Roudabush said the regional plan shows a residential cluster in the farthest
corner of Albemarle County right at the Greene County line. This residential cluster is
not recognized in the Albemarle County plan or in the County Zoning ordinance. He asked if
this was the only instance of a border conflict. Ms. Harbaugh said this is a developed area
in Greene County and the Planning District staff felt it might spill over into Albemarle.
Since it is low density, they did not feel there will be an impact. Mr. Roudabush said
Albemarle County has no provisions for serving that area with water, but Greene County has a
water line almost to the boundary line. He asked what potential conflicts there would be if
Albemarle recognized that cluster. Ms. Harbaugh said Albemarle County has not made any
differentiation between zoning in village clusters and zoning outside of village clusters.
It is expected that the fringes of all village clusters will be very low density. Mr.
Roudabush said this is an unusual situation where at some point the County may have to
recognize an influence from outside of the County's jurisdiction. Ms. Harbaugh said a
similar situation occurs in Keswick where the Fluvanna County plan speaks of the suburbs in
Keswick and the Scottsville cluster actually extends into Fluvanna County.
Dr. Iachetta said he could not see anything to take issue with at this time other than
the cluster conQept which will be addressed in reviewing the County's Comprehensive Plan.
This attempt to plan on a regional basis is probably overly ambitious at this point since
all counties in the district are currently trying to develop their own internal comprehensive
plans.
Ms. Harbaugh said there is a Federal commitment of funds for sewage facilities for the
North Rivanna and Crozet clusters. The Planning District Commission has committed itself to
supporting water facilities for those clusters. Dr. Iachetta said there is no question that
growth will occur in the band around the City, but the rate of that growth will depend on
when the AWT (advanced wastewater treatment) plant is completed.
Ms. Sally Thomas said this regional plan takes Albemarle County seriously.
the decisions which the Board has already made.
It shows
At this point, Mrs. David offered motion to endorse the recommendations of the Albemarle
County Planning Commission and to approve the Regional Land Use Plan as a guide. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Iachetta.
Mr. Roudabush asked what the Planning Commission did with respect to the Keswick and
Ivy clusters. Mr. Tucker said they have recommended that these be put back into the plan to
be more in conformity with the County's existing comprehensive~ plan. Mr. Fisher asked if
the Planning Commission wants to be consistent with the presently adopted comprehensive
plan. Dr. Iachetta said with an area as large as Albemarle County, it~does not seem reason~
able to attempt to plan beyond its immediate boundaries.
At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYRES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Dorrier.
Ms. Harbaugh suggested that the recommended changes be submitted to the Planning
District Commission and then an amended plan be resubmitted to the Board. Mr. St. John said
the Board must either approve or disapprove the plan as submitted. Mr. Fisher asked that
Mr. St. John reword ihe moIion. ~Mr. St. John said he was not sure what the Board intended.
Mr. Fisher said the Board wants to amend the plan in accordance with the Planning Commission'
recommendations. Mr. St. John said the Board can only approve the plan as submitted or
reject it with certain suggestions. Ms. Harbaugh Said it would be helpful if the Board
would indicate their willingness to approve the plan if the suggested changes are made.
Mr. St. John said he would like to warn the Board that Virginia Code Section 15.1-456
says that when a comprehensive plan, or any completed part thereof, shall become effective
in any governmental subdivision, such governmental subdivision shall not proceed with the
construction of any public improvement or public institution, .... Unless it is in accord
with the plan.
Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission has recommended that this be used as a guide
only. Mr. St. John said he did not think the Board can do that. Dr. Iachetta said he
thought the Board meant not to commit itself. Mr. St. John said the motion could be made
252
June 2, 1976 (Regular -Night Meeting)
to the Planning District Commission the changes recommended by the Albemarle County Planning
Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the' following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 2. Review: Application for 'FHA funding, Hollymead Townhouses. Mr.
Fisher said this matter was on the agenda because this application had come before the
Planning District Commission and the County members of that Commission did not know what to
recommend on this application. ~
Mr. Stuart Carwile was present representing Dr. Charles W. Hurt. Mr. Carwile said this
is a proposed project at Holiymead for 57 two-story, two-bedroom townhouse apartments to be
financed by FHA. Occupancy will be limited to those citizens having a family income of less
than $12,900 a year. This is an attempt to get a housing mix at Hollymead by providing
rental housing. Mr. Fisher noted t-hat the initial market rents shown are $250.00 per month,
while the basic rent is shown at $150.00 a month. Mr. Carwile said this is basically the
difference between what the project would rent for if financed conventionally and what it
will rent for if financed under FHA. The rental structure will be negotiated with FHA but
before that can be done an A-95 review must be held. Dr. Iachetta said there is no question
that this p.rice range in rental units is needed in the County, other than that he saw no
reason for the Board to be involved.
Ms. Wayne Harbaugh said the Planning District Commission does not want to subsidize
housing units that the locality does not favor. That is the reason the Board is asked to
comment on this application. Dr. Iachetta said since the Board has already approved the PUD
plan for Hollymead, the County has essentially committed itself. Mr. Fisher noted that when
the Board approved the PUD plan for Hollymead, they had encouraged Dr. Hurt to include
moderate and low income housing.
Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt~
the following resolution:
WHEREAS localities depend on revenue sharing dollars to supplement
local funds with minimal red tape and Federal restrictions; and
WHEREAS local governments in many states prepare their budgets on a
fiscal year basis which begins July 1 and all localities must make long-
t. erm budget commitments to efficiently meet citizen needs; and
WHEREAS responsive local government allows ample time for citizen
participation in budget planning and preparation to assure that these
locally determined needs are met thus making it vital to know about revenue
sharing funds well in advance of the budget adoption date which is normally
in April; and
WHEREAS monies from revenue sharing have funded needed local programs
and projects since~1972 thereby preventing an increase of approximately ....
forty cents in the local property tax rate for Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS with a population of approximately 45,000 persons, Albemarle
County has received since 1972 $2,201,186 in revenue sharing funds which have
been used to provide additional local government services in solid waste
disposal, recreation, fire protection, law enforcement, libraries and
court facilities.
FURTHER, if the current revenue sharing program expires on December 31,
1976, as proposed, the loss of these funds will force Albemarle County to
curtail plans for:
! - an access road to an existing sanitary landfill;
2 - an additional fire station in the urban area;
3 - renovating facilities purchased for a Juvenile court;
4 - a low-income housing program;
5 - a new regional library facility;
6 - a driver education range.
AND, Albemarle County will also be forced to:
1 - abandon plans to solve the present space problems within the
County government office building; OR
2 - abandon plans for a county-wide trash collection system; OR
3 - abandoh plans to acquire an office building for the Mental
Health Center; OR
4 - raise property taxes to provide for these needed projects.
NOW, THEREFORE BE iT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby respectfully requests and urges that the
General Revenue Sharing Program be reenacted by Congress to allow Albemarle
County, as well as other localities, sufficient time to make the best
possible plans for the use of these funds.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded
immediately to the Honorable Harry F. Byrd, Jr., the Honorable William L.
Scott and the Honorable J. Kenneth Robinson.
The foregoing motion carried, by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
June 2, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
June 9, ~976 (Regular - Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a communication from C&P Telephone Company showing their
request to the State Corporation Comm_ission for an increase in tariffs in restructuring
intra-state toll charges.
Dr. Iachetta asked the status of roads in Woodbrook Subdivision, Section 10. Mr. St.
John said he did not know, but that the building permit moratorium is still in effect.
Agenda Item No. 4. At 8:53 P.M. motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Roudabush, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. The motion
carried by the vote which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudbuah.
None.
Mr. Dorrier.
The Board reconvened at 9:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned.
Chairman
~U'ne 9, 1976 (Regular - Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on June 9, 1976, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Officers present:
St. John.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
Agenda Item No. 2.'-Highway Matters.
Mr. Robert W. Warner, Resident Highway Engineer, announced that he had been transferred
to another locality with that transfer being effective June 1, 1976. Mr. Warner said he has
enjoyed the time he spent in Albemarle and appreciate3d the Board's cooperation and spirit in
.working to resolve some of the highway problems in Albemarle. Mr. Fisher noted the Board's
appreciation of Mr. Warner's work within a very limited highway budget.
Mr. Agnor presented the following letters from the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation:
"May 27, 1976
As requested in resolution of your Board on February 19, 1976, the following
sections of road are hereby discontinued as a part of the Secondary System of
Albemarle County. This was confirmed by the Highway Commission at its meeting
on May 20, 1976.
DISCONTINUANCE
LENGTH
Sections 3 and 4 of old location Route 745 at left of
Station 1009+10 and at right of Station 1011+00,
Project 6029-002-11t,C-501.
0.07 Mi."
June 3, 1976
As requested in resolution by your Board on January 15, 1976, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved,
effective July 1, 1976.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
Old Forge Road - From: Route 656 West
1,714.74' to cul-de-sac.
0.32 Mi.
Sturbridge Road - From: Old Forge Road to cul-de-sac.
0.15 M±.
Cannon Place - From: Sturbridge Road to cul-de-sac.
0.08 Mi.
Whetstone Place - From: Sturbridge Road to cul-de-sac.
0.06 Mi."
Mr. Agnor asked the status of negotiations on Route 637 South.
are incomplete.
Mr. Fisher said they