1976-07-07NJuly 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
July 7, 1976, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr. (Arriving at 7:38 P.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, Robert Tucker.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMP-04-76. Double C Corporation. (This public hearing was deferred
from both the meetings of May 19 and June 16, 1976. Notice had been ~.advertised in The Daily
Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1976.)
Mr. Fisher said the applicant was present and had requested that this public hearing be
deferred. He asked Mr. Carter to make his request. Mr. Carter said he would like to have
this hearing postponed in order to resolve questions of water availability for fire protectior
and to make it clearer about the type of housing proposed. Mr. Fisher said he feels that
once a hearing is advertised in the news media and the adjacent property owners are given
notice of that meeting, same should not be deferred unless notice~is given at least a week in
advance so that notices of postponement may be given. He said the hearing would proceed and
if the Board wanted to defer a decision, that will be for the Board to decide later in the
me.eting.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report: "Double C Corporation has applied
for a rezoning of 25.91 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RPN/R-1 Residential
Planned Neighborhood for a development to be known as Westmoreland Manor.
The property is located between Woodbrook and Westmoreland Subdivisions
at the end of Route 652 in the urban area.
Character of Area
Properties to the immediate south of the site are undeveloped. Other properties
in the vicinity are primarily in subdivisions developed in densities as follows:
Subdivision
Number of Lots
Woodbrook 142
Westmoreland 124
Northfields 205
Carrsbrook 150
Average
Dwelling Units/Acre
2.44 du/ac
2.02 du/ac
1.32 du/ac
0.64 du/ac
1.22 du/ac
Existing Zoning in the Area
Properties to the south along Route 652 are zoned A-1 Agriculture.
divisions cited above are zoned R-1 Residential.
The sub-
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan indicates this property for low-density residential
(up to 1 unit/acre) and for stream valley pa~k use. The Comprehensive Plan
also indicates an Albemarle County Bikeway through this property. The
Westmoreland Manor proposal indicates a residential density of 3.075 units,/
acre as compared to one unit/acre in the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed zoning
for this property is R-2 Residential with a density of 2.2 units/acre, in
staff opinion, the proposed site plan respects the stream valley and
conservation objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Development is generally
proposed on the flat hilltops maintaining the swales and stream valley in open
space (65.7% of the site). Upon request of the staff, the applicant agreed
to realign a portion of the proposed bikeway to the location indicated in the
Comprehensive Plan and to continue the bikeway the full width of the property.
In staff opinion, the Westmoreland Manor proposal: 1) Is not in compliance
with the residential density of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) Is in compliance
with conservation and stream valley objectives; and 3) Is in compliance with
the Bikeway Plan of the Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use Summary Acres Percent of Site
Townhouse lots 3.94 15.2%
Parking Areas 1.43 5.5%
Streets 0.92 3.6%
Recreation Areas 2.60 10.0%
Subtotal 8488 34.3%
Open Space 17.03 65.7% .
Total 25.91 100.0%
The site plan indicates 30 two-story townhouse units with crawl space and
66 two-story units with walk-in basement. The small acreage of the townhouse
lots (end units - 0.06 acres; center units - 0.03 acres) permits retention of
over 75% of the site in recreation a~d open space areas, which is three times
the requirement of the RPN designations. Recreation facilities include a
swimming pool and bathhouse, two tennis courts,..a partial basketball court,
bicycle path and two tot lots. The pool and tennis courts are proposed to be
operated in club fashion with a membership of 250 people. None of the
recreation facilites will be lighted as they are intended for day use.
July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Comparative Impact Statistics (Estimates)
Dwelling Units
Population
School-aged Children
Vehicles
Vehicle Trips/Day
Impact Under Existing Impact Under Proposed
Zoning (A-i) Zoning (RPN/R-1)
13 96
42 307
9 66
20 144
140 672
Impact on Schools
The following is a summary of the comments made by the Albemarle County Depart-
m~nt2O~l~Edu~tion concerning the impact this proposed development would have
on the school system: "1) This development may cause serious overcrowding at
Woodbrook even assuming inhabitation will not occur before September, 1977.
2) The middle and secondary schools will experience increased overcrowded-
ness as inhabitation occurs before September, 1977."
Sewer Facilities
The Albemarle County Service Authority indicates that Westmoreland Manor would
be permitted connection to the Woodbrook interceptor line provided "at the time
of connection: 1) The capacity of the main is adequate to handle the total
effluent; 2) That capacity is available to treat the total discharge at the
Meadow Creek Sewage Treatment Plant; and 3) That prevailing sewer connection
charges have been paid to the Al'bemarle County Service Authority."
Water Facilities
The Albemarle County Service Authority has stated that "connection to the
existing 6" water line in Westmoreland can be permitted and should be adequate
for domestic use. Should an 8" water line be required for fire protection,
Rio Road would be the closest location of a line sized adequately to serve
this need. There is an 18" line in Rio Road. It would be the complete
responsibility of the developer to have this line installed with the exception
of the actual tap made to the 18" line. This would be made by the Albemarle
County Service Authority."
Fire Protection
The Albemarle County Fire Marshal requires a minimum flow of 1,000 gallons
per minute for two hours at a pressure of 20 pounds per square inch for fire
protection. This flow requirement is equivalent to service by an 8" water main.
The applicant proposes to connect to the existing 6" main in Westmoreland Road.
In this event~ to provide adequate fire protection, a 90,600 gallon pump storage
tank would be required. This tank would be elevated so that the bottom of the
effective storage area would be approximately 70 feet above ground. As an
example, a cylindrical tank of 50 feet diameter would have an effective
storage height of 46 feet bringing the total height of the structure to 116
feet. The Albemarle County Service Authority would not accept the storage
tank and pump into its system, therefore maintenance of these facilities would
be by the developer or residents of the development. The fire marshal has
indicated that such a maintenance arrangement would not be acceptable. An
alternative source for the required fire flow would require the extension of an
8" main from the existing 18" main in Rio Road to the site, a distance of
0.8 mile. Based on information provided by the Engineering Department, the
staff estimates the cost of this alternative would be in excess of $63,000,
however, in the opinion of the Engineer Department, this cost would be much
less than the cost of a pump storage system.
Transportation Facilities
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation reviewed the preliminary
Westmoreland Manor plan and made the following comments: "It appears the
developer is proposing to build a section of road between Westmoreland Road
(Route 1438) and Route 652. The physical alignment which he is proposing for
this section of road should be changed to provide better alignment. Route 652
has approximately ten feet of gravel surface. This existing condition of Route
652 does not lend itself to additional traffic which would be generated not only
by this development, but from Westmoreland Road. Therefore, I strongly recommend
that the County do one of the following: (a) have Route 652 upgraded to a facility
in keeping with the expected traffic which, of course, would be generated by tying
Route 652 and Route 1438 together; or (b) require the development road to be
cul-de-saced just short of Route 652 thereby not allowing the traffic from this
development to utilize Route 652. In either case, the alignment of this develop-
ment road should be in accordance with my first comment. Right of way should be
dedicated along Route 652 with this property."
Subsequent to these comments, the applicant had proposed not to connect Route
652 and Route 1438 (Westmoreland Road), but to extend Westmoreland Road through
the site and to cul-de-sac the road short of intersection with Route 652. The
Highway Department has indicated that the Westmore!and-Carrsbrook Road network
can accommodate the increased traffic. The Highway Department recommends
alignment of the proposed road in such fashion to provide for future connection
to Route 652 without an intersection or hazardous curves.
Staff Comment
In staff opinion, the Westmoreland Manor proposal generally reflects the spirit
of the Comprehensive Plan and the Residential Planned Neighborhood provision of
the Zoning Ordinance in terms of good design and orderly development. The RPN
provision has afforded the applicant flexibility to design for a difficult site,
which has resulted in a proposal superior to a "standard subdivision" type of
approach. The staff recommends that the applicant pursue an RPN/RS-1 designation
which ~ould be in compliance with the residential density indicated in the Compre-
hensive Plan and would provide for a maximum of 26 dwelling units; removal of
units from the steep slopes, particularly at the head of the main swale; and
realignment of the road in compliance with the recommendations of the Highway
~uly 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Department. Impact statistics under the staff's recommendation would be:
dwelling units, 26; population, 84; school-aged children, 18; vehicles, 39; and
vehicle trips per day, 273.
Following the public hearing on June 8, 1976, the Planning Commission deferred
action on the proposed Westmoreland Manor RPN/R-1 rezoning, suggesting to the
applicant that: 1) gross residential density be reduced to a maximum of two
dwelling units per acre in compliance with other densities in the immediate
area; 2) the recreation area be located in an area more agreeable to adjacent
property owners; and 3) fire hydrants and 8" water mains be provided within
the development.
The staff was directed to provide a more detailed report concerning run-off from
the site. Other main topics of discussion were impact on Woodbrook Elementary
and compatibility with surrounding development.
Westmoreland Manor Revised Preliminary Plan
The revised plan shows 65 townhouse units at a gross density of 2.5 units per
acre as compared to 3.7 units per acre in the original plan. While most of the
units have been relocated, some units remain on slopes in excess of 25%.
Recreation Facilities
The mai~ recreation facilities have been relocated to an area removed from
adjacent development because of the heavily wooded nature of the site. The staff
feels these facilities will not be visible from adjacent properties. Acreage
devoted to recreation has been reduced from 2.6 acres to 0.92 acres.
Roads
The proposed road alignment is not in compliance with Highway Department recom-
mendations, however, the staff feels either general alignment method is acceptable.
Fire Protection
Fire hydrants and 8" water service within the development have been indicated.
The Fire Marshal furnished the following memo dated July 7, 1976:
"Due to a recent change in the fire grading system, I submitted the
site plan for Westmoreland Manor to Insurance Services Office (formerly
Virginia Fire Rating Bureau) for their comments. The attached letter
states that a minimum fire flow of 2000 g.p.m, at 20 p.s.i, residual
pressure is required due to the type of construction and exposures
of the proposed projection.
At the request of Double "C" Corporation, I conducted hydrant flow
tests at Northfields, Carrsbrook and Woodbrook, using the hydrants
closest to the proposed project with a possibility of connecting
to the existing system for the project's water supply.
Northfields-Carrsbrook: Tests indicated that the current
system has 1038 g.p.m, at 20 p.s.i, residual pressure
sufficient for the density and type of construction, requir-
ing a minimum of 1000 g.p.m.
Woodbrook: Tests indicated 550 g.p.m, at 20 p.s.i, residual
pressure and is considered insufficient for the existing area
due to 4" water main restricting the flow at the entrance to
the subdivision. Connecting to the existing Woodbrook water
lines would involve constructing a new water main under an
existing creek, subjecting it to damage from a possible wash-
out. Also, the interceptor sewer lines and forced main are
installed parallel with the creek.
Due to the lack of sufficient water from one subdivision and the danger
of depleting the supply in another, it is still the recommendation of
this office that Westmoreland Manor connect to the existing 18" water
main on Rio Road for sufficient fire flow needed for the proposed
project."
"Ju~.e 22, 1976
Mr. Kelly P. Reynolds, Fire Marshal
In regards to the recommended fire flow for the Westmoreland Manor
development, this office recommends that no less than 2000 gallons
per minute be available for fire protection in this area at a residual
pressure of not less than 20 pounds per square inch. This fire flow
is based upon proposed frame construction and conditions as shown on
the site plan submitted to this office.
Sincerely,
(Signed) J. D. Smith, Jr.
Engineering Representative
Public Protection
Insurance Services Office"
Woodbrook Elementary
Under the revised proposal, school enrollment impact at Woodbrook Elementary
would be reduced from 30 students to 20 students. The question of collective
impact on enrollment of approved developments in the Woodbrook District arose
at the June-8, 1976, meeting. Projected school enrollment increases from
developments approved since January, 1975, are as follows: Pine Haven, 8.64
students; Hedgerow, 1.21 students; Stonehenge II, 46.90 students; for a total
July 7, 1976 (Regular -Night Meeting)
293
Storm Drainage
The Engineering Department has calculated a run-off increase of 1.3% to the
entire basin as compared to 1.8% in the original proposal. -~Channelization
of the stream is not advised since flow is limited by the culvert under
Carrsbrook Drive. Increasing the size of the culvert would increase flow to
the north of Carrsbrook Drive and could flood the existing ponds in Carrsbrooko
Upon consultation with the Engineering Department, the Planning Department
recommends multiple outfalls terminating parallel to the stream channel. Such
an arrangement would mitigate run-off impact south of Carrsbrook Drive. (See
memos dated May 28 and June 22, 1976 from the Engineering Department.)
Staff Comment
The staff has no additional recommendations concerning this rezoning appli-
cation. Staff would take this opportunity to notify the applicant of the
following recommendations and areas of concern for the final site plan, if
approved: 1) multiple outfalls terminating parallel to the stream channel;
2) drainage easement of 20 foot width along stream to run fUll width of property;
and 3) removal of dwellings from slopes in excess of
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission by a 6/1/1 vote, at their meeting of June 22,
19767 voted to approve ZMP-04-76, with the following conditions:
1.Gross residential density be reduced to a maximum of two (2.0)-dwelling
units per acre in compliance with other densities in the immediate area;
2.There be no dwelling units placed on slopes in excess of 25 percent;
3.The recreation facilities be allowed to serve only the residents of the
planned develoPment;
4. The runoff be dispersed by routing to multiple outfalls parallel to the
stream channel in order to mitigate the impact on the culvert under
Carrsbrook Drive.
5. A drainage easement of 20-foot width along stream to run full length of
property.
6. Fire hydrants and 8" water mains be provided by developer within the
development, and an 8" water ma~n be constructed from Rio Road a distance
of .8 mile to the development· The Planning Commission recommends that
the .8 mile connecting line be funded through a cost-sharing agreement
between the developer and the Albemarle County Service Authority. If
the developer is unable to negotiate such financing with the Service
Authority, he must determine an alternative means of constructing the
connector; and this proposal must be approved in turn by the Planning
Commission.
7. Road alignment to be kept as shown on the site plan marked "Received
6/16/76."
Mr. Fisher asked if the original application was for 3.7 dwelling units per acres; the
Comprehensive Plan and the staff recommend one dwelling unit per acre; the second application
is for 2.5. dwelling units per acre; and the Planning Commission has recommended two dwelling
units per acre~ but basically they are all the same plan. Mr. Tucker said yes.
Mr. Roudabush said he thought the County Engineer had worked on the water line problem
and asked if there was a report on that work. Mr. Bailey was present and presented the
following:
"The following flows are computed for certain combinations of pipelines which
are proposed for the servicing of Westmoreland Manor, based on data resulting
from test flows of hydrants which were conducted by Kelly P. Reynolds, Fire
Marshal, Albemarle County:
Combined flow through Woodbrook system with approximately
1000 feet of 6" connecting main between Woodbrook and the
high points in Westmoreland Manor: 370 g.p.m. This cal-
culation is based on flow and pressure data obtained from
flowing fire hydrants No. 10342 and 10343 located on
Eastbrook Drive, Woodbrook.
Combined flow through Carrsbrook, Northfields and West-
moreland systems with approximately 500 feet of 6"
connecting main between Westmoreland and the high point
in Westmoreland Manor: 610 g.p.m. This calculation is
based on flow and pressure data obtained from flowing
fire hydrants No. 10335 and 10334 located on State Route
854 in the Northfields-Carrsbrook Subdivisions.
Proposed 8" water main to connect Westmoreland Manor with
existing 18" water main located in Rio Road (State Route
631): 1400 g.p.m. Based on calculation of flow from
difference in elevation of the South Rivanna storage tank
and the high point in Westmoreland Manor.
The combined flow through No. 1 and No. 2 is 980 g.p.m, which approaches the
1000 g.p.m, recommended for residential areas. The combined Slow through
No. 1 and No. 3 is 1770 g.p.m. The combined flow through No. 2 and No. 3
is 2010 g.p.m, which meets the 2000 g.p.m, recommended for apartments, etc.
The estimated cost of No. 3 greatly exceeds the combined costs of No. 1 and
No. 2."
Mr. Tucker then handed to the Board a number of petitions presented to the Planning
Commission in opposition to this request from residents of Woodbrook, Carrsbrook and Westmore-
land subdivisions.
At this time, the Chairman called on the applicant for comments. Mr. Ron Carter said
Double C is owned by his brother Richard Carter and himself. They are general contractors.
294
July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
This is a difficult piece of land on which to build. Much of the land is not suitable to R-1
or any type of development, but is ideally suited to the RPN zone. On the original plan, an
overlay of single-family residential units was made, but after the topographical survey was
completed, it became obvious that this type of development was impossible on this site. The
roads leading to this property are sufficient to handle the traffic that will be generated.
Water seems to be the key issue and is one of the reasons why a delay was requested. There
is sufficient water for domestic usage. The ordinance says the developer must provide fire
protection if the water is available. Mr. Carter said he has talked with members of the
Planning Commission and many agreed that water really is not available when it would cost
$63,000 to run the lines to this property and absorb all of that cost in this one development
Their proposal is to build Williamsburg style townhouses. By building on the economical
portions of the land, and by joining the buildings together, there is an economical advant~ge~l
which can be passed on to the buyer. The impact study made by the Planning Staff is~scary~
This development will probably be built over a four-year period, with no building at all
during the first year. Mr. Carter said he feels the plan presented is compatible with the ~~
area. The land is in a geographic location that puts it under increasing pressure for
development. The development probably will not be seen from Woodbrook, Carrsbrook or Northfi~lds
Subdivisions. There are only four or five families on Berwick Court in Westmoreland who
will feel any impact.
At this time the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Thomas Wallace,
President, Westmoreland Civic Association. He said:
"We support the Comprehensive Plan developed and approved for Albemarle County
in 1971. The basic purpose of this plan is to provide for the orderly develop-
ment of.Albemarle County. We believe that the proposed change in zoning is in
violation of the Plan both in word and in spirit. Therefore, we petition the
Board to deny the request, of the Double "C" Corporation for a change in zoning.
The Comprehensive Plan speaks to the development of lands adjacent to
established developments. It requires new development to be "compatible and
in harmony with" these older communities. We believe that the erection of
townhouses in the price range proposed by the developer is not "compatible
and in harmony with" existing dwellings ranging in cost from $60,000 to
$120,000.
We believe that the Board would be in error to address itself and its attention
solely to the 25.91 acres in question. Examination of the enclosed area
will clearly illustrate the potential problem that will face the Board, and
the taxpayers, if the rezoning of this site is permitted. This site is, in
our opinion, the opening wedge for the rezoning of the entire tract of land
comprising about 200 acres of undeveloped land and bounded by Rio Road,
Woodbrook, Carrsbrook, Westmoreland and Northfields. Furthermore, it will
set a precedent for the development of the Wetzel property (136 acres)
immediately to the north of Westmoreland.
Approval .of the proposed changes would leave the Board in an untenable
position in the future. The Board would have no reasonable rationale for
denying other applications for rezoning to a higher density once it has
breached the Comprehensive Plan in this tract. The resulting effect would
be to open the door to a density of 5.5 units per acre which might place
as many as 1100 units in this area. The services required would have to
be borne by all of the taxpayers in the County.
This logically leads us to examine the Wetzel property (136A). The Board
could not, in good faith, deny a zoning change to a higher density for
this property once it has approved the above proposal. This could lead
to the development of an additional 748 units. Where does it stop?
The impact of high density housing not originally included in the Compre-
hensive Plan could have a dev~st'~t~g effect on our existing services and
resources. The problems in this particular area of the county will affect
the taxpayers across the board. Future water supplies, sewerage disposal,
increased traffic problems, additional fire protection, police protection
and the possibility of a new school costing the taxpayers millions of dollars
must be considered before making any deviations from the Plan.
We believe that intelligent planning for the future is our only salvation if
we desire orderly growth in keeping with our resources. The Comprehensive
Plan is the only sound guide that we have at this time and we must use it
until such time as a re-evaluation of the problems of the county indicate
a change.
The Westmoreland Civic Association, with the support of the residents of
Carrsbrook, Northfields and Woodbrook, stands in opposition to any change in
the zoning of the above noted lands which, in fact, would be contrary to
the present Comprehensive Plan.
Residents of the subdivisions of Westmoreland, Carrsbrook and Northfields
and Woodbrook have petitions signed by over 693 residents and owners of
the above areas. These petitions call upon the Board to deny the request
for a change in the zoning of the 25.91 acres owned by Mr. Via from A-1
to RPN/R-1. This is to demonstrate to the Board the almost unanimous will
of the residents of the adjacent properties to the proposal of the Double
"C" Corporation.
The petitions are broken down as follows:
Subdivision Lots Signatures % of residents
Westmoreland 12~ 162 95.15%
Carrsbrook 150 132 85.7%
Woodbrook 142 1~5 86.3%
July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Mr. William H. Muller, also representing the Westmoreland Community Association, said
this would set a precedent for the way land would be zoned in the future. By putting R-1
zoning on this tract of land, it would be difficult to put more restrictive uses on the
adjacent tracts. By varying from the Comprehensive Plan, the Board would put themselves into
a legal box that would be difficult to extricate themselves from. There must be overriding
reasons to vary from the Comprehensive Plan. This developer has no vested interest in the
property. There is not adequate fire protection available. The creek under Carrsbrook Road
is not-adequate to carry the additional runoff. The developer should have more than self-
serving reasons to request R,1 zoning on property that is shown in the Comprehensi~e Plan
with RS-1 zoning.
Mr. Harold I. Taylor was present representing the Northfields Community.
following statement for the residents:
He read the
"The Zoning Ordinance states: 'This ordinance has been designed (a)---,
(b)---, (c) to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive, and
harmonious community.' The Northfields Community maintains that townhouses
are not attractive and/or harmonious to the community areas of Northfields,
Westmoreland, Carrsbrook and Woodbrook. These subdivisions are composed
exclusively of detached single unit dwellings on comparatively large
individual lots. Approval of the Double C Corporation's request will
increase congestion in the public streets and will tend to diminish or
impair established property values in these surrounding areas.
In view of the foregoing, I hereby respectfully submit a copy of a
petition, requesting denial of this proposed rezoning, that was
presented to the Planning Commission from the Northfields Community.
This petition bears 250 signatures representing 139 families out of
a potential total of 171. The large majority of the difference of 32
is attributable to vacations and vacant houses that are for sale. In
fact, I have personally talked with a great many of the families in
Northfields and not a single family concurred with rezoning to permit
townhouses in the area."
Mr. Taylor then'read the following personal statement:
"It is requested that the proposed rezoning of the 25.91 acres on County
Tax Map 46, Parcel 20, Charlottesville Magisterial District from A-1
(Agricultural) to RPN/R-1 (Residential Planned Neighborhood) for proposed
townhouse use be denied. The Zoning Ordinance Article 19 Residential
Planned Neighborhood, RPN* states, under Section 19-1 Purpose and Intent:
'The Residential Planned Neighborhood District is intended to encourage
and provide for a variety and flexibility in land development for resi-
dential purposes, and uses ancillary thereto, that are necessary to meet
changes in technology and demands which will be consistent with the best
interest of the county and the area in which it is located. It is also
the intent of this district to promote economical and efficient land use,
an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical
development, creative design and a better environment.'
Double C Corporation's request fails to meet this purpose and intent in
the following specifics: ' ~
There has been no demonstration of a~necessity2'for an RPN
designation to meet changes in technology and demand.
It has not been established that the rezoning will be
consistent with the best interest of the county and the
area. To the contrary, in no way will it be consistent
with the best interest of the Woodbrook-Carrsbrook-
Westmoreland-Northfields area. It will increase congestion
on public streets and will diminish or impair property values
in the established area.
The requested rezoning will not improve the level of amenities
in the area. There is nothing pleasant about or agreeable
to townhouses in this area nor is there a feature of
such development that is conducive to pleasantness
or smoothness of social intercourse. These are elements
of 'amenities' as defined in Webster's Dictionary.
Townhouses are not appropriate and harmonious physical
developments in this area of single unit detached
dwellings.
There has been no demonstration that townhouses will
promote a better environment in this area.
Therefore this request for rezoning fails tO'meet' the Purpose and Intent,
as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, and there is no justification for
approving same. To the contrary, approval of this request for rezoning
will make the existing communities less attractive thereby devaluing the
property and will negate the desires of any future development of
adjacent property, zoned Agricultural (A-I), for detached single family
dwellings in keeping with the established subdivision. It is again
respectfully requested that the requested rezoning be denied."
Mr. Charles Dunkl said he lives on Berwick Court in Westmoreland. There is no sewerage
available at this time, and if this application is approved, it will be in competition with
residents of Westmoreland who are now awaiting sewerage facilities. There is no water
available for fire protection. The creek mentioned earlier does flood each time there is a
downpour. The development would not be in harmony with the adjacent properties. Mr. Dunki
296
July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
An unidentified gentlemen said the development would be visible to surrounding propertie~
It would not in harmony with the area as it is now. It might be hard for the Board to turn
down similar proposals on adjacent lands if this request were approved. The people in
Westmoreland who are in need of sewerage facilities might never get them since any available
capacity might be taken by this development. If the Comprehensive Plan is to have any
meaning, he would request that this rezoning be denied.
Mr. Michael Ryan, a resident of Berwick Court, said the 2.5 dwelling units per acre is
geographical fiction. The development will be placed on only 10 or 12 acres of the 25+
acres. This will actually be 5+ dwelling units per acre and the remainder of the area will
remain in its present state. He did not feel that the land that is not used should be
considered as part of the application.
Ms. Emily Goodwin, 503 Berwick Court, said she is concerned about runoff on her side of
Berwick Court. (She showed a number of pictures to the Board which were taken after a heavy
rain in March, 1976.) Ms. Goodwin said after this particular flooding spell, she had contact
John Humphrey, then Director of Planning, who had advised her to contact an expert in grading
She consulted with both the Health Department and Soil Conservation Service. The repre-
sentative from Soil Conservation Service, after viewing the site, said if the Via property
was ever developed, a culvert should be installed from 503 Berwick Court to Nottingham Road
to act as a buffer between the Via property and the Westmoreland properties. Ms. Goodwin
said she had listened to the Planning Commission hearing and feels strongly that the Planning
Commission has passed the buck to the Board. If they had heeded the advice of their own
staff, the Fire Marshal and the County Engineer, they would have denied this application and
would not have put the burden on the Board.
Mr. Bill Tilman, 5.08 Berwick Court, said he is opposed to any development at that end of
Westmoreland.
Mr. William Blucher, a resident of Berwick Court, said the Westmoreland Community
Association opposes this rezoning and firmly supports the Comprehensive Plan. If the Board
should approve this change from A-1 to R-I, what rationale would they use to deny a similar
request on adjacent properties. The residents of Westmoreland believe in planning and
orderly growth and feel the plan should be followed unless there is a real hardship. They
are concerned about flooding. The only way to correct this problem would be to fix the
culvert under Carrsbrook Road and this would then become the responsibility of all of the
citizens of the County. There is also the question of water availability. If the developer
does not have $63,000 to put in water lines, how will he support a $5,000,000 project?
Serious planning should be done on Route 652 which comes out opposite Squire Hill on Rio
Road. There are already traffic problems at this exit. Mr. Blucher made the following
points:
l)
2)
3)
4)
Has Double C proposed a logical form of development? No. They
are asking for a zoning change that will lead to a lot of trouble.
It is not logical to develop property from'the back to the front.
Is the proposed change a test case for future rezonings? He did
not see how the Board could legally defend themselves if-they
break the pattern.
Can the Board defend agair~st future rezonings? He felt that spot
zoning and irrational planning will get the Board into trouble.
Do we need this development? Mr. Blucher said there are now between
2,000 and 10,000 registered lots in Albemarle County that are not
developed.
Mr. Blucher said there are 693 persons in the general neighborhood who signed petitions
in opposition to the request. They know that someday the vacant lands in the area will be
developed, but this proposed development is not compatible. If the Comprehensive Plan is not
binding, and if it is not to be used as a guideline, what will be used. The residents of
Westmoreland do not have fire protection or sewerage facilities. Water resources are also a
concern of County residents in general. Mr. Blucher said he has found that -'~-_ this board
has not voted in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan since taking office, and he asked that
they follow the recommendations in the Plan in this instance and deny the request.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said he knows about the problems with septic systems in Westmoreland and has
also seen the problems with water run-off. He said it would be difficult for him to support
a rezoning to a higher density than what is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. He
realizes that the Comprehensive Plan now in effect is designed for the year 2000 and for a
population of 250,000, however the questions of fire protection and layout of the houses is
secondary to the question of density.
Dr. Iachetta said the Board should have an overall plan for the total vacant acreages in
this area before attempting to place an RPN in the area. He said Route 652 will not be
improved except by the efforts of the residents. Westmoreland has had a problem with waste-
water disposal since the day it was built even though built to the best standards of the
Health Department at that time. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to go on record as being
against any development getting a sewer connection until the existing problems are solved.
McNair and Associate~ is working on a design to solve the Westmoreland problem. This design
work should be completed by September and Hessian Hills will be included. Dr. Iachetta said
the proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, incompatible with the area, pre-
mature, inappropriate and not in harmony with the surrounding properties.
Mr. Dorrier said one of his main concerns is the sewer problem. Until there is better
evidence of how this will be handled, it would be a mistake to approve the petition at this
time. The single road leading into the development causes problems. He is in favor of low-
cost housing, but does not think $50,000 townhouses will satisfy that need. He does not
oppose the townhouse concept, but with the sewer and road problems and the overwhelming
opposition of the residents, he could not support the request at this time.
July- 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Mr. Henley said in order to be fair to every applicant, he felt the developer should
have a chance to check his information and not have the discussion cut off this short.
Mrs. David said she was concerned about the potential density. The R-1 zoning will mean
five dwelling units per acre even though the application is for 2 du/acre. If a precedent is
set, there is a whole area that could develop at that density. She was willing to let the
applicant withdraw his petition rather than denying same, so he could bring the application
back sooner than~a year, if he so desires. She agreed with Mr. Henley that this was being
cut off rather short.
Mr. Roudabush said he had heard no one say tonight that this property will not be develop
residentially. He is not too concerned with the density, feeling that it is compatible with
the surrounding neighborhoods. The various subdivisions adjoining this property contain many
different lot sizes. He said the applicant must realize that most people feel townhouses are
a different type of housing and it is hard to break that thought. Mr. Roudabush said he
would be willing to let the applicant have time to consider the comments made tonight and to
allow the applicant time to reconsider his potential use of the property. His main concern
is not with the sewer or road problems, but with the type of development being proposed.
Mr. Fisher said the applicant has already submitted an original request and a revised
request and if deferred further this gives the applicant an opportunity to make a third
request under the same permit procedure. He did not want to give the applicant the idea that
if certain changes are made that the Board will approve the request. There is a significant
question of density and land planning. If this application is denied, there is nothing to
prevent the applicant from filing a substantially different plan immediately.
Mr. Roudabush said the Board had passed a resolution of intent to the Planning Commission
to consider clustering of single-family homes in all residential districts of the County.
Under such a regulation, the applicant could change h~s plan from townhouses to some type of
clustered houses that would be more compatible.
Mrs. David said the Board should not tell the applicant what type of plan to come back
with. She was in favor of denying the application as being premature and not in accord with
density requirements. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board should deal with the application
they have before them at this time.
Mr. Carter said if he were going to build on the property next month, he would ask for a
decision tonight. However, he is more interested in trying to work out a plan that will
satisfy the surrounding property owners. After further study, he may decide that the present
proposed plan cannot be accomplished. He feels that his plan is in compliance with the
"proposed" zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher noted that the "proposed"
zoning ordinance has not yet been adopted.
Dr. Iachetta said he does not feel every area in the County should have attached housing,
but there should be some single-family detached homes. However, he could not support the
rezoning at this time and offered motion to deny ZMP-76r04 for the following reasons: 1) it
is not consistent with the present Comprehensive Plan; ~) it is not compatible with the area
in which the development is proposed; and 3) there are too many technical problems with
trying to put this subdivision down at this time in this place. The motion was seconded by
Mrs. David.
Mr. Henley asked Mr. Carter what he wanted the Board to do. Mr. Carter said he would
prefer that the matter be deferred. Mr. Fisher asked how long a deferral would be needed.
Mr. Carter said about four weeks. Mr. Roudabush said the Planning Commission had deferred
this question two or three times and felt if the applicant needed additional time, the Board
should defer action with no promises being made as to what type of action will be taken on
the question. Mr. Dorrier said the Board should either defer the matter or allow the applican
to withdraw the petition. Mr. St. John said if the applican~ comes back at the next meeting
with a substantially different plan that has not been to the Planning Commission, or subject
to a public hearing, he did not feel the Board would be able to take any action. Mr. Fisher
said he would suggest that it be referred to the Planning Commission.
At this time, roll was called on the motion to deny ZMP-76-04, and the vote was as
follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Dr. Iachetta.
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to defer this matter to August 4, 1976; making it ~tear
that there are no commitments from the Board and that the deferral is at the applicant's
request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
Dr. Iachetta.
At 9:53 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:00 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing. SP-3!-76. Patricia Ann's Country Store.
(Deferred from June 16, 1976). Mr. Tucker began by reviewing the staff's report and --
recommendedf~lanning Commission conditions as set out on Page 279, Minute Book 14.
The applicant, Ms. Doris Shumaker, was present. She said she had presented her case
three weeks ago. For the success of the business, a location sign is needed on Route 250
West. They will keep the sign within the regulations of the scenic highway designation for
Route 250. She proposed a sign to be erected on each side of a wagon that would be elevated
about 10 feet in order~to be seen over the banks on each side of the entrance road.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Peggy Hancher, represent~
the Scenic Roads Committee of Citizens for Albemarle. She said they support the Planning
Commission's recommendation that the sign be limited to 12 square feet and be on a traditional
July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
people~ and therefore constitutes part of the sign area. They feel any other interpretation
could have repercussions for future signs in Albemarle County.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr.~.Fisher~.said he feels that~if the wagon is.legitimate as a sign post, almoSt anything
else that would attract attention would be allowed. The question before the Board is whether
or not to let the sign be enlarged as requested by the applicant. Mr. Henley said he would
support the request because it will meet scenic highway standards. Motion was then offered
by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve SP-31-76 with the conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and-Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. Designation of Route 250 West from the corporate limits of the City
of Charlottesville to the Nelson County line as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway. Provided
for by Article 18-1-1(B) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in The Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker said on April 21, 1976, the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a
resolution of intent to designate U.S. Route 250 West as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway.
This action resulted from years of dedication by many Albemarle County residents. Article 18
of the Albemar~le County Zoning Ordinance states that the "Board of Supervisors may designate
as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway, any public road in the County which meets state scenic
de'sign~a.tion standards except with regard to signs." In correspondence addressed to the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors (April 19, 1976), Rob R. Blackmore, Director of the
Commission of Outdoor Recreation, states that Route 250 West from the By-pass to the County
line "would qualify for a Virginia Byway if it were not for the large number of outdoor
advertising signs along the corridor." Mr. Derral Jones of COR provided the staff with his
field notes evaluating the highway under the seven criteria for scenic byway designation.
Mr. Tucker said the staff feels the land use plan of the Comprehensive Plan is basically
supportive of scenic highway designation for Route 250 West. Designated land'uses along
Route 250 West are primarily agriculture and conservation. Proposed land uses in the Crozet
and Ivy community clusters could prove detrimental to the scenic quality of Route 250 West.
If the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors designate Route 250 West as an
Albemarle County Scenic Highway, the staff recommends reevaluation of proposed uses along the
highway in the Ivy and Crozet clusters in the pending Comprehensive Plan review. In the
Transportation Objectives, the Comprehensive Plan states that "the County should establish a
system of 'Scenic Roads' under the provisions and proposals of the 1966 Acts of the Virginia
Assembly. Such a scenic highway should be designed to give access to historic sites in the
County." U.S. Route 250 West is an east/west arterial providing access to the Shenandoah
National Park, Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive from Charlottesville. Combined with the
other points of interest outlined, staff is of the opinion that U.S. Route 250 West satisfies
the scenic highway criteria of the Comprehensive Plan which indicates six scenic vistas along
Route 250 West. The plan identifies the following historic landmarks and historic landmarks
in the vicinity of Route 250 West: Bloomfield, Farmington, Spring Hill, Temple Hill, The
Cedars, Long House, Seven Oaks and Mirador. The following historic areas are also indicated:
Wood's Crossing, Ednam, Black Tavern and Scott's Castle. In addition, the following historic
landmarks and historic areas are easily accessible from Route 250 West: Old Tilman Road,
Malvern, Old Buffalo Trail, Miller School of Albemarle, Crozet Railroad Station, Claudius
Crozet.-Railroad Tunnel, Westbury, Mt. Ed Church, Lebanon Church and Mountain View.
Zoning along Route 250 West is basically supportive of scenic highway protection as the
majority of the properties are zoned A-1 Agricultural or low~dens~y~'resldential. Potential
detractive zoning exists in the vicinity of Farmington (B-1 and M-i) and in the Yancey's Mill
area (B-1 and M-I). B-1 and M-! zoning also exists along Route 250 between the By-pass and
the City limits of Charlottesville~ The properties on the north side of the highway will
develop toward Route 754 (Old Ivy Road) due to the railroad as a barrier from Route 250.
The staff recommends designation of U.S. Route 250 West from the City Limits of Charlottesvil
to the Nelson County line as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway. As a continued planning
effort in this respect, the staff also recommends, subsequent to scenic highway designation:
This scenic highway designation be considered in the revision of the
Comprehensive Plan and particularly that potential detractive uses
currently proposed in the Ivy and Crozet Community Clusters be evaluated
in terms of their impact on the highway.
Future rezoning requests along Route 250 West be evaluated in the
context of scenic highway protection.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of this ges~ignat~
with the two conditions listed by the staff.
Mr. Fisher asked if all of the property owners along this entire stretch of road were
notified of this hearing by mail. Mr. Tucker said no, this was advertised in the newspaper.
Mr. Henley asked what effect adoption of this ordinance will have on present uses and present
zoning. Mr. Tucker said it will not affect anything that is existing. If a new sign is
required, etc., it will have to meet these new requirements. Dr. Iachetta asked if a sign is
destroyed, if the new sign would have to conform to these regulations. Mr. Tucker said
if this ordinance is adopted, the sign will become nonconforming and any new sign will have to
meet the requirements of the ordinance or a variance will have to be obtained. Mr. Roudabush
asked ~if expansion of an existing business or industry will have to meet scenic highway
requirements. Mr. Tucker said if it is expanded within the limits of the parcel, it will be a
nonconforming-use and can be expanded as long as setbacks are observed.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Ms. Martha Selden,
Citizens for Albemarle. She asked for approval of the designation, of Route 250 West as an
Albemarle County Scenic Highway. She gave the following two reasons: Those who live on or
near Route 250 West feel designation as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway will protect the
scenic qualities and prevent Route 250 West from deteriorating into another Route 29 North,
n
July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
2E)9
also in this age of environmental concern, more careful development practices in the County
will have lasting, economic benefits for all of its citizens. Route 250 West has just been
turned back into a primary federally aided route and therefore will be a part of the Federal
Highway Beautification Act and will be eligible for some sort of purchase of billboards as
was Route 29 North.
Ms. Beth Ogilvie handed to the Board a list of persons in support of this designation.
(Not signatures, but only a listing.)
Mr. W. J. Kirtley said he owns property on Route 250 West and wished to speak in oppositi
There is very little M-1 zoning in the County. His property has a building on the rear
premises which is served by a railroad. It occupies 300 feet of a 600 foot siding. He
understands this ordinance would require that any building built on the front part of the
property would have to be setback 150 feet from Route 250 and that employees would not be
allowed-to park in front of the building. This would render part of his property useless
because part of the property also contains a 12-15% grade. He bought the property because it
was zoned M-1 and he felt it is confiscatory to deny him the reasonable use of his property
on the front of the parcel. He asked that the Board exclude the B~i and M-1 zoned lands in
this area from designation as a scenic highway.
Ms. Monica Fox, Greenwood Citizens Council, said this group supports scenic designation
of Route 250 West.
Ms. Helen Mi!ius, a property owner on Route 250 West, said her property would be subject
to the same question of confiscatory effect, however she welcomes this designation for
residental purposes. She felt variance procedures were set up for this type of problem.
At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Board of Zoning
Appeals can grant variances to the terms of this section of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. St. Joh
said simple economic hardship is not grounds for a variance. Mr. Henley said he felt this
piece of property is unusual and if a variance would apply anywhere it would apply here. He
said he would rather see the Board include the whole route, rather than leave that area out
of the ordinance~
After a short discussion about the question of variances, motion was offered by Mrs.
David, seconded by Mr. Henley to designate Route 250 West from the corporate limits of the
City of Charlottesville to the Nelson County line as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway. The
motion carried by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES:
NAYS-:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution: Waiver of public hearing on inclusion of Route 20 and
Route 6 into the Virginia Scenic Highway System. Mr. St. John said the County's ZOning
Ordinance requires that the Board of Supervisors enact a resolution to waive the requirement
that the Virginia State Highway Commission hold public hearings on establishment of scenic
byways. He understands the Board did not think it is necessary to hold public hearings on
these roads since they had adopted a resolution on November 20, 1975, endorsing Route 20 and
Route 6 as Albemarle County Scenic Byways. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded
by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Highway Commission is presently considering the
inclusion of a portion of State Route 20 and State Route 6 in Albemarle
County into the Virginia Scenic Highway System; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has heretofore determined that such
inclusion is in the interest of the people of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, it appears to the Board that public interest would best be
served by such inclusion at the earliest possible opportunity; and
WHEREAS, it further appears to the Board that the holding of public
hearings by the State Highway Commission will tend to delay such inclusion;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County that the right of the Board to request a public hearing as to the
advisability of the inclusion of portions of State Route 20 and State
Route 6 in Albemarle County into the Virginia Scenic Highway System be,
and it hereby is, waived in accordance with Section 18-2 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board be, and she
hereby is, instructed to send a certified copy hereof to the Virginia
Highway Commission.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Resolution of Intent: To amend Section 18-2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
following resolution was offered for adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
that the Board intends to amend Section 18-2 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Section 18-2: Public Hearings by State Highway Commission
The Board of Supervisors may, from time toftime, request
that the Virginia State Highway Commission hold public
300'
July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
prior to the designation of any scenic highway or Virginia
Byway in the County, whether or not such designation be
at the request of the Board of Supervisors.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk be, and she hereby is,
instructed to forward a copy hereof to the Albemarle County Planning
Commission for its recommendation in accordance with law.
Mr. Fisher asked the meaning of the words "whether or not such designation be at the
request of the Board of Supervisors.~ Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, said the State
statute which allows the State Highway Commission to designate a scenic highway requires no
County input. The County's ordinance provides that if the Board requests a scenic highway,
the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing. However, if
the State Highway Commission wanted to make such a designation and the County did not want
the designation, holding such public hearings by the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors would not be available. With this change in the ordinance, the Board would
request a public hearing to be held by the State Highway Commission. Motion was then offered
by Mrs, Dawid.~ seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the resolution of intent as read. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. To amend Section 8-1-25 of the Zoning Ordinance to repeal that
section which provides for veterinary or dog or cat hospitals, kennels, as a use by right in
the M-1 Industrial Limited Zone. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30,
1976.)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its regular meeting on May 4., 1976, upon
staff recommendation, adopted a resolution of intent to review, with the intent of repealer,
Section 8-1-25, which p~ovides for veterinary or dog or cat hospitals, kennels as a use by
right in the M-1 Industrial Limited zone. The staff feels that Section 8-1-25 is not in
keeping with the "Statement of Intent" of the M-1 zone "to permit certain industries, which
do nov in any way detract from residential desirability, to locate in any area adjacent to
residential uses." The staff recognizes that veterinary or dog or cat hospitals for reasons
of convenience may desire to locate near areas of intense residential development~,and the
staff feels this is adequately provided for by inclusion of these uses in the B-1 Business
zone by special permit. Furthermore, kennels are appropriate only in the A-1 zone as they
are operations of breeding, boarding and selling animals. Kennels are permitted in the A-1
Agricultural zone by special permit. In summary, the staff finds the uses under consideratior
to be inappropriate to the intent of the M-1 zone and to be provided for adequately in other
zones; therefore, the staff recommends that the ~Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
repeal Section 8-1-25 from the M-1 zone.
~'~-~. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends, by a 5/3 vote, to amend the A!bemarlc
CounTy Zoning Ordinance to provide for veterinary or dog or cat hospitals, kennels as a use
by special permit in the M-1 zone, to be known as Section 8-1-27(14).
At this point, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Ed McDonald owner of
the property on Berkmar Drive where the Pampered Pet Motel is located. He said he had bought
this property because it was zoned M-1 and commercial kennels were a permitted use in that
zone. He asked that the Board not pass the recommended amendment as this would make this
operation non-conforming and there are plans for expansion.
Ms. Sally Conte said she lives on Williamsburg Road adjacent to Berkmar Drive. She
cannot live with the noise. She must keep the windows closed and run the air-conditioner in
order to alleviate some of the nuisance. She has a neighbor who has a special bed for a back
condition and she cannot use the bedroom because of the noise and has been sleeping on the
couch in the living room. Ms. Conte said she has lived in Berkeley for three years. The
Pampered Pet Motel began operations about one year ago and the situation has been getting
worse.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he has
heard a number of complaints about the operation of Pampered Pet from its neighbors. If it
is intruding, as has been indicated, the Zoning Administrator should take some steps to
resolve the matter. Dr. Iachetta said he had received letters and telephone calls about
Pampered Pet and had asked Mr. Agnor to check and see what can be done to resolve the situatic
Mr. Agnor said the operator of Pampered Pet has offered to make some improvements of the
sound situation. The Zoning Administrator is dubious that they will be effective, but has
granted a test period of about 30 days.
Dr. Iachetta said it is unfortunate that this situation exists. If this kind of an
operation is to be compatible to a residential neighborhood, the owner must ~eep the operatio~
from being a nuisance. Mr. McDonald said he and the operator have worked closely with the
Zoning Administrator for the past two months on the problem. There was a condition on the
Certificate of Occupancy that between the hours of 6 P.M. and 8 A.M. the noise would be kept
down to a non-nuisance level for a maximum of 153 feet which is the nearest residence.
Steps have been taken to close in some areas of the building. With M-1 zoning backing up to
residential zoning, an error might have been made originally.
Mr. Roudabush said he feels the Board is trying to address a specific problem by changin~
general regulations. He feels the "M" zones in the County were generally set up to take care
of most nuisance operations. It may be the wrong approach to say it is more acceptable in A-i
when A-1 contains the most intensive residential areas in the County. Mr. Fisher asked if
the Planning Commission was concerned with general problems or a specific problem. Mr.
Tucker said there was another request for a kennel operation on M-1 zoned lands which was
near a residential area but that request was withdrawn before it got to the Planning Commissi¢
They knew of this problem which exists in Berkeley. The staff felt that to allow kennels by
right in the M-1 zone was not proper because they are not alloWed by right in any other zone.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to repeal Section 8-1-25 of the Zoning Ordinance and
to adopt Section 8-1-27(14)~ Veterinar~ or do~ or cat hosDitals~ kennels, as a use by special
J~ly 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
30!
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMP-178. Wendell W. Wood. To rezone 1.5 acres from R-2 Residential
to B-1 Business and 9.25 acres from R-2 Residential to R-3 Residential. Property located on
south side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) near its intersection with Route 631. County Tax
Map 61, Parcel 12, Charlottesville Magisterial District. This public hearing is held by
order of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County remanding this rezoning for reconsideration.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission heard this petition to rezone 1.5 acres from R-2
Ho B-1 and 9.25 acres from R-2 to R-3 on September 13, 1971, and recommended approval to the
Board of Supervisors. On September 16, ~1971, the Board of Supervisors denied this petition.
This de~eision was litigated and remanded to the Board by Circuit Court decision of April 11,
1972. The applicant recently resubmitted this remanded petition and at the same time,
applied for rezoning of an adjacent tract of 8.74 acres from R-2 to R-3 Residential. Approxi-
mately five years have passed since the original petition was heard by the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors. Some of the conditions under which the original staff report
was developed have changed since that time. Due to the time span, change of conditions, and
application for rezoning of additional acreage, the staff recommends that the Board of Supervi
refer this matter to the Planning Commission so they can review this application simultaneousl
with the recent application~and make recommendations in terms of current conditions. However,
if the Board of Supervisors chooses to act on ZMP-178, the staff recommends denial based on
existing zoning in the area. Currently there exists approximately 129 undeveloped acres of
R-3 Residential and approximately 93 undeveloped acres of R-2 Residential (excluding the
applicant's property) in the area bounded by U.S Route 29 North, Rio Road and Hydraulic Road.
If developed, this area would provide over 4,400 dwelling units and house over 11,900 persons.
Mr~ Tucker said the matter was really on the Board's agenda for a decision as to whether
or not to refer this to the Planning Commission. Mr. Roudabush asked if the public hearing
must be held tonight since it has been advertised. Mr. Payne said if the Board desires to
have the Planning Commission consider this petition, it is proper to send this to the Planning
Commission with the petition being readvertised for a public hearing before both the Planning
Commission and the Board. Anyone who-has an interest in the matter would have been present
tonight and be aware of the Board's action.
Mr. Fisher said he would permit the applicant to make his presentation, but feels the
Board will take no action without the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wood said he did not disagree with the matter being sent to the Planning Commission.
He said after he won the Court decision, he was requested by the County Attorney not to have
the case reheard because the land was to be rezoned in accordance with the Court's decision.
That did not happen. The seller died and the heirs decided not to sell. He had to litigate
th~s and just won that decision two weeks ago. This is the reason for the reapplication at
this time. He has ~ilyd~a~py~ication on the piece of property in the Court case, but has
also filed a separate application for another piece of land in the same area. Mr. St. John
asked that the record show that he was not the County Attorney at that time. Motion was then
offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush,~ to refer this petition to the Planning
Commission for recommendation and public hearing. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9.
July 14.
Revisions:
County Pay/Classification Plan.
Ordered carried over to
Agenda Item No. 10. Appropriation: Fire Damage at McIntire School. Memorandum was
received from Clarence McClure, stating that the insurance company has agreed on a settlement
for fire damage at McIntire School in the amount of $28,610.68. He requested that this
amount be appropriated to Code 17K-603 in the School budget. The contract for repairs has
been awarded to the low bidder and in the interest of getting the project completed so the
building can be used this fall, the contractor has been permitted to proceed with the work.
Mr. Fisher asked who had given permission for the contractor to proceed with the work.
Mr. Agnor said he had. The contractor said he could, not get the building ready by this fall
dnless he started immediately. Since the insurance company had paid, he had told Mr. McClure
he did not feel there would be any problems. Motion was then offered by Mrs. David, seconded
by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the following resolution:
~BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $28,$10.~8 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School
Operating Fund and coded to 17K-603 for repairs to McIntire School occasioned
by fire damage.
The motion carried by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roduabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Appropriation: Monticello Area Community Action Agency. Mr. Agnor
said a request was received at the Revenue Sharing Hearing for funds to operate a summer food
and recreation program. There was a question as to whether this ~rogram qualifed for use of
Revenue Sharing funds. An opinion was obtained from Mr. Fred Williams, Regional Coordinator,
saying that the use "represents a supplement to a federally funded program and not a payment
of the local share of a federal grant." Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution:
~/BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $3,324.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from Revenue Sharing
Funds and coded to 47-18B.11 for a summer food service program for children
and summer youth recreation program administered through the Monticello
Area Community Action Agency.
302
July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
AYES:
NAYS:
The motion carried by the recorded vote which follows:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
c?
Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation:
Ordered carried over to July 14.
Shop & Office Building, Sanitary Landfill #!.
Agenda. Item No. 13. Hessian Hills: Lift Building Permit Moratorium. Motion was offerec
by Mrs. David., seconded by Dr. Iachetta to lift the building permit moratoriums~i~mposed on
March 20, 1975, and August 21, 1975, ~n~.l~ts in Hessian Hills. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None. ..
'Agenda Item No. 14. Authorize reply to united States Postal Service re: purchase of
Downtown Post office Building. Mr. Agnor said the CountY had 30 days in which to reply to
the letter offering saleof the Downtown Post Office Building to the County. The City has
agreed to participate in a feasibility Study of the building. The letter will sta~e that
Albemarle County is' interested in obtaining access to the property ,in order to conduct a
feasibility study of potential use of the building as a library. The study will be made by
an architectural_firm and will involve investigation of structural aspects of the building,
plans and an estimate for remodeling. An important Oonsiderion will be the availability of
the entire building and flexibility, if any, of GSA relocating in less than the three years
stated in the letter. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta~ ....
authorizing the County Executive to send such a letter. An appropriation for the study will
be made at a later date. The motion then carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None. ·
Agenda ~tem No. 15. Revisions: Central Shenandoah Criminal Justi-ce Training Center By-
Laws~ .:Ordered Carried over to July 14.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments. Carried over to July 14.
Agenda Item No. 17. Contract: Consultant for review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Fisher sa~ he had asked that each member of the Planning Commission and Board be furnished
with a copy of the contract before it is signed so that everyone will know what is being
required of the consultants. Mrs. David said there are still some ,minor suggestions which
the Planning CommiSsion made last night to be incorporated into the contract. If the Board
endorses the contract in general terms, it can be completed by Mr. Agnor. There is also
another meeting of the Steering Committee tomorrow.
Mr. Dorrier asked the total cost to the County for the revised Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Tucker said it is~$47,000;~with $2.3,000 coming from a HUD grant. Motion was then offered by
Dr. Iachetta to endorse the dOcument presented and to authorize the County Executive to sign
same when completed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Zachetta and Roudabush.
Nane.
Agenda Item No. 18 Other m~tters not on the agenda from Board members.
Mr. Agn0r.~said Mr. Hartwell Clarke submitted his resignation as Zoning Administrator
effective July 1, 1976 and Mr. Benjamin Dick was appointed to that position. In order to
make t~e record clear he would like for the Board to accept Mr. Clarke's. resignation effectiv
July ~, 1976. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, and
carried by the following~recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher said the Board had received a letter from the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation stating their willingness to hold a public hearing for scheduled improveme]
on Mint Spring Road (Route 684) if the Board so requests. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley,
seconded by Dr. I~chetta, to send a letter to the Highway Department stating that the Board
does not feel a public hearing is necessary in this instance. The motion carried by the
recorded vote which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier,~Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
At 11:38 P.M.s, the meeting was adjourned.
ts