1976-10-06NOctober 6, 1976 (Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on October 6,
1976 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J.
T. Henle~.J~,~F~An~ho~y Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Mr. Robert Tucker, County Planner.
The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman.
Agenda Item No. 1. Public Hearing: A resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance and the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance
to provide for development of clustered residential subdivisions, by right, in all resident
districts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and 30, 1976.)
Mr. Robert Tucker, County Planner, said the Planning Commission unanimously requests
2~hemBo~rd to withdraw the resolution to amend these ordinances. One reason for requesting
this action is the concern the Commission has about lots being clustered in existing
where land now exists. The second reasons, is that stripping along existing state roads
could increase. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission was not dropping the issue
but needed more time for the staff to review the proposals and investigate other areas that
are using the clustered approach for subdivisions. The~staff will report back to the Board
at a later date with these findings.
-The-public hearing was opened.
cl~osed.
With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was
Motion was offered by Mrs. David to withdraw the resolution of intent in accordance
with the request from the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: At its meeting of June 16, 1976, the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, by resolution, requested the Albemarle County Planning
to consider rezoning that area shown on Exhibit "B", and noted as being received by the
Board of Supervisors at their meeting of June 16, 1976, from A-1 Agriculture to CVN Col
as provided by Article 1.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The general description
of the boundaries of that area as delineated on the exhibit~ are as follows: "Bounded on
the south side by Meriwether Hills Subdivision, Route 250 West, Route 676, and Glenaire
Subdivision; western boundary generally follows and traverses the Mechum River in a northeast~
fashion to a point approximately 5400 feet southeast of Decca, Virginia; from that point
proceeds erratically in a southeasterly fashion to Route 676 just south of the intersection
of Route 676 and Route 678; from there the boundary proceeds in a southerly fashion along
Route 678 to Route 250 at Ivy, Virginia." (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September
22 and 30, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker said pursuant to the Board's request, the staff did a study of this area
which is to be referred to as the Tilman Road study area. The purpose of the study was to
determine the appropriateness of the area to the Conservation (Clq~) District. The staff
compared the study area to the County in general and recommended the comparisons to be
viewed as indicators only due to the size differential of the area to the entire County.
The statements concerning physiographic features are general and should not be considered
specific to any particular parcel. This study area consists of 131 parcels which represents
2%00.? acres for an average parcel size of 15.3 acres. There are 60 parcels with less than
5 acres and 71 with over 5 acres. There are 74 dwelling units in the area which house an
estimated 237 persons. This represents a population density of 75.6 persons per square
mile compared to 63.7 persons per square mile for the County. There are no commercial or
industrial uses existing in this area. Approximately 1,500 acres are forestlands and 500
acres are grasslands or pasture. Fifteen new parcels were created in the study area
between 1970 and 1975. This is an average rate of 2.5 parcels per year. A comparative
table of the Tiiman Road area and the County is as follows:
Parcels created per 1000 acres
Tilman Road
County
1970-1976 7.47 7.23
1975 1.99 1.86
Approximately 80% of the area is in the Lovingston Formation and 20% is in the
Mechum River Formation, which is situated in a graben (fault trough or depression). A
high angle fault, dormant 200 million years, separates the Lovingston and Mechum River
Formations. The Lovingston Formation is primarily metamorphized with some igneous intrusions
though none occur in the study area. Wells drilled in Lovingsto~ Gneiss are often dry or
average only a few gallons per minute. Though mapped as a unit, the Mechum River Formation
is co.mposed of the Swift Run, Charlottesville, Lynchburg, and Rockfish Formations. The
uppermost portion of this formation is characterized as primarily silty composition. The
graben valley is approximately 3,600 feet wide in the vicinity of the study area and is
bordered by a wide shear zone in the rocks on both sides. Wells drilled in the Mechum
Ri~er Slate Belt average from eight to 15 gallons per minute. Elevations range from a low
of 460 feet at the northern point of the study area on the Mechum River to a high of
1,000 feet at Turner's Mountain. With the exceptions of the Mechum River area, Turner's
Mountain and Clark Mountain, elevations range from 500 to 700 feet. Steeper slopes occur
in the area of Turner's Mountain and Clarke Mountain and in stream valleys in the western
portion of the study area. The eastern portion of the study area is less steep, however stee
slopes do occur along streams. The Tilman Road area is drained by both the Mechum River
and Ivy Creek. That portion-~of the area east 0f Turner's Mountaint'and south of Route 676
drains to Ivy Creek and~ the remainder of the study area drains to the Mechum River. An
analysis of stope characteristics in the study area is as follows:
Slope Acreage
Percent of Total Area
0-15% 883.1 acres 44.0%
15-25% 331.2 16.5
25+% 672.3 33.5
Floiod¥!P~n 120,.~ 6.0
TOTAL ~i~i~!?.~!i~:~ ~2007~0 acres 100.0%
Soils~in the study area are generally clays, clay loams, loams, and sandy loams. Silt
loams, sandy loams, and sands generally occur as alluvial soils in areas subject to periodic
inundation. Soils were analyzed as to suitability for dwellings with basements and suit-
ability for septic tanks and drainfields. Sands and silt loams exhibit severe limitations.
Other loams exhibit severe limitations in the case of steep slopes. Clays and clay loams
exhibit moderate limitations to development. Ail soils in the study area exhibit moderate or
severe restrictions for dwellings with basements and' for septic 'tanks and drainfields.
Approximat-ety 60% of the soils in the study area have moderate limitations to development,
while the remaining 40%, primarily in the vicinity of streams, have severe limitations to
development~
Existing development, parcel sizes, and land uses are generally reflective of the
provisions of the Conservation District. Though population density exceeds that of the
County in general, the study area is rural in character. Staff has observed that physio-
logical characteristics vary as to drainage area. The soil and slope characteristics are
generally more restrictive to development in the Mechum~River drainage area reflecting under-
lying geologic formations and geologic history. In evaluating appropriateness for the Conser-
vation District, the staff employed the following criteria: 1) the 100-year flood plain as
determined by the Army Corps of Engineers; 2) land areas contiguous-to the flood plain in
slopes of 15 percent or greater; 3) areas dominated by soils of severe restrictions to
development; and 4) areas dominated by slopes of 25 percent or more. Upon evaluation, the
staff recommends the area so indicated on the map entitled "Staff Proposal" is appropriate to
the Conservation District. Staff recommends the following actions: 1) the Planning Commissi¢
and Board of Supervisors direct the staff to forward this report to Kamstra, Dickerson, and
Associates and to Betz Environmental Engineers for review as to their respective studies.
The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors should clarify that this referral is for
informational purposes only and not as a recommendation as to the disposition of this area in
either firms study; 2) the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors make no statement as
to the appropriateness of this area to the Conservation District and take no initiative
action to rezone this area at t~is time: (a) The rate of development in this area approximat
that' of the County in general. The staff finds no extraordinary activity in this area to
warrant special consideration at this time; (b) In staff opinion, the boundaries of the
Tilman Road study area are arbitrary. Staff can determine no physical aspect which would
characterize this area as unique from surrounding areas; (c) For the County to initiate
rezoning in any area at this time may predispose that area to such designation in the revised
Comprehensive Plan. Such preferential and premature consideration is polar to the term
"comprehensive" and could result in a patch-work, illogical, and ineffective Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Map.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended by a vote of 7-2 that the area
described in the description with the exception of the below listed parcels be rezoned to
the ~enservation District:
Tax Map 42, Parcel 12D; Tax Map 58, Parcel 55; Tax Map 58, Parcel 47;
Tax Map 58, Parcel 79A; Tax Map 58, Parcel 79C; Tax Map 58, Parcel 82B;
Tax Map 58, Parcel 44; Tax Map 58, Parcel 82; and Tax Map 58, Parcel 82C.
Mr. Tucker said requests for three parcels desiring to be excluded from the rezoning have
been received since the Planning Commission's action. They were from Mr. Garrad W. Glenn and
Mr. John F. C. Glenn., owners of Tax Map 58, Parcel 79, and the estate of Alice Gertrude Small,
~ax Map 58, Parcel 84, He had also received a call from Mrs. Evelyn Wood, owner of Tax Map
58, Pparcel 35 requesting that her land be excluded from the five-acre conservation zoning.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
First to speak was Mrs. Peggy Hancock. She said the County had sent notices a year ago,
durint work on the proposed zoning ordinance, saying this area would be rezoned for five acres
This anticipated rezoning did not take place, thus the residents are present now to request
s~ch action. She stated that this was not an attempt to rezone a neighbor's property. She
presented a petition to the Board sig~ed on August 24, 1976. This petition shows 61% of 77
property owners in favor of this rezoning. (This petition is on permanent file in the Office
of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.)
Mr. Herbert Tull was next to speak. He said the residents are informing the Board what~
they feel, giving the public input needed and showing the support of those who live in the are
He felt the area fits the criteria of the CVN zoning and did not feel spot zoning would do
anything but destroy the whole principle the property owners are trying to accomplish.
~Dr,~ E. D. V. Nicoll spoke next supporting the proposal and presented a survey that had
been taken to the northeast of the subject area between Garth Road and Free Union bordered by
Route 601 on the south and Route 665 on the north. He had interviewed 40 landowners who
supported the rezoning to five acres or more. Mr. Fisher asked if the property owners
surveyed desired to have their own property rezoned to the conservation zoning or if a blanket
change in zoning was desired. Dr. Nicoll said he could not answer that, but felt the owners
want to preserve the open land.
Next to speak was Mr. Larry Meem supporting the CVN zoning.
follow the will of the people.
He asked the Board to
Ms. Susan Harrison was next to speak. She said the desire of the people Is.~to have the
October 6, 1976 (Night Meeting)
397
development and the land is not suited for two-acre development.
Mrs.' Frederick Richardson was next to speak in support of the conservation zoning. He
said one criticism before the Planning Commission had been that this could be considered spot
zoning. He felt with the amount of acreage requested, about 10,000 acres, this could hardly
be considered spot zoning. Even though these areas are not the same in topography and geolo~
one common trend is that most residents want the five-acres or more zoning. He said when a
petition was submitted to property owners having one and two acre lots, the consensus was to
be surrounded by five acres or more.
Mr. Cornelius Means was next to speak. He said even though he and his wife had signed
the petition supporting this rezoning, they would like-to be excluded if the Board reached a
conclusion to exclude those requesting not to be rezoned.
Mr. Collin Thach was next to speak. He said the main request is to protect the quality
of the resources of the land and the residents need the Board's support for this.
Mr. David Lewis was next to speak in support of the rezoning. In summary, he felt the
majority of the residents would like to have the five-acre zoning and if there is
government, this should be reason enough for granting this request. Because M~¥Tucker had
stated that there is a geologic fault in the area he Heals it would benefit the County to
have five-acre zoning so there would be fewer problems with water and also sewage disposal.
Also t~he Planning Commission has promoted the idea of conservation zoning for the last three
years.
Mrs. Nancy Manson expressed her concern about developments in Ivy.
increase, public water lines will have to be brought into the area.
If these continue to
Next to speak was Mr. Richard Selden, resident of Gtenaire. He was in support of the
rezoning and felt favorable action should be taken by the Board.
Mrs. Larry Meem said she hoped the Board would apply the tools they had and ydopt
vation zoning for this area as requested.
~t 8:25 P.M., the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher asked wha~ is recommended in the comprehensive plan for the area in question.
Mr. Tucker said ~ortions of the area are proposed for conservation. Part is proposed for
agricultural. Mr. Fisher asked if this was the basis for the staff's recommendation. Mr.
Tucker said it was one of the basic reasons.
Mr. Roudabush said many people have alluded to the differences between two acres and
five acres.. There are many differences. In the agricultural Zone there are 23 categories
permitted by right and only 12 permitted in the conservation zone. By special use permit, 37
uses are. allowed in agricultural and only three in conservation. The differencesin setback
requirements would make many parcels of land non-conforming in use if conservation setbacks
are imposed.
Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney what powers the Board has to make zoning changes of
this nature, when not part of a county wide rezoning. Mr. St. John knew of no legal barriers
to the Board rezoning on it's own motion or on the Planning Commission's motion. The P!annin
Commission 'can make a recommendation to the Board or the Board can announce interest in
rezoning property :and~then ask the Planning Commission to make a recommendation. This can
be done without any application from a landowner; just at the interest of citizens. He did~d
not see any problem zoning from a high density use to a low density use. This is different
from rezoning from A-1 to M-1 or M-2 which would have an effect on surrounding land. If
there a~e~compelling reasons from the standpoint of public health, safety and weifare, he saw
no legal barrier f6r~?rezoning la~d ~rom A-1 to CVN against the owner's desire. He did feel
it is against the law to rezone/~use a majority of the citizens wants!the rezoning.
Mr. Fisher asked if before a rezoning of property can take place, it should have physical
circumstances which make the rezoning of concern to the general public and landowners also
have to be willing to have their property rezoned. Mr. St. John said these two concerns may~
coincide. In his judgment, rezoning cannot be legally imposed on any owner until it has been
shown that physical circumstances such as slopes and soil types make the land difficult to
develop.
Dr.2Iachetta said the topography in this area appears to be very steep. He asked if all
the parcels met the same criteria, and if the owner objected, if this is a serious legal
problem. Mr. St. John said not if all the necessary ~bjective criteria exists. He noted
the Planning Staff said that some of the necessary criteria exist, but they feel the rezoning
should be done as part of the readoption of the County-~ide master plan.
Mr. Dorrier asked if one parcel did not meet the objective criteria, if that parcel
can be left out of the rezoning request. Mr. St. John said no.
Mrs. Henley felt it would be a mistake to approve this request now. A consultant was hir~
to make recommendations on revision of the entire comprehensive plan and he said this case
should be referred to the consultant to study as part of the plan. He feels people should hav
their land zoned the way they want it zoned unless this creates problems. Mr. Henley said
he would support those requesting rezoning of their own land, but did not support rezoning som
one else's property.
~ .~ ~Mrs~David felt som~.hing should have been done years ago. She did feel it would be ille
to take action at this time. The comprehensive plan will be completed next year and this has
to be resolved in that pro~ess. She said maps, plans and ordinances are needed.
Mr. Roudabush said he would support the request of the petitioners to rezone ~heir
property, but he could not support the down-zoning of property of landowners who did not want
their zoning changed. Down-zoning is a serious matter. He understands that for down-zoning
to take place, it should be shown to have been a mistake in the first place. He does not
feel this is the case in this area. The other reason for down-zoning is a change in condition
This does not a~v to tb~ ~ h~~ ~ ~f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~~. ~
398
October 6, 1976 (Night Meeting)
down-zone when in the process of having a comprehensive plan revised.
Mr. Fisher said it is too late.if you wait for extraordinary activity to take place first
ThE petitioners are saying there has be:eh a tremendous amount of activity and they do not want
it to accelerat~
Dr. Iachetta said zoning in the County has not accomplished anything and has not prevent,
strip zoning. The question before the Board is whether this proposed zoning is proper%~or~th~
land i~l~ed and should not be judged on what a group of ~ners want. Zoning should be
consistent with proper land use~ H~sa~ no problems in changing the~zoning if the land is
impro~er~ zoned in relation to approved knowledge. Dr. Iachetta said he would support this
change for those parcels where the conditions are evident.
Mr. Henley said he did not see how the Board could do something like this. The consultar
is not needed if the Board approves this request. Mr. Dorrier agreed with Mr. Henley that th~
consultant should do the work.
~ M~ .... Fisher said'the future of the reservoir will depend on. the land uses in the watershe(
If no action is take~ to reduce the intensity of ~and use in the watershed areas, it will'be
difficult to protect 'the reservoir.
At this time, Dr. ~achetta offered motion to accept the recommendations of the Planning
Commission to include ~majority of the land within the limits of the original resolution of
intent of the Board. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mrs. David offered motion to authorize the Director of Planning to approve administratiw
any application for conservation zoning of any individual in this area who applies for such
within the next-thirty days. Mr. St. John said this was a legislative act and could not be
delegated administratively. (Motion was ruled out of order.)
At this time, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to defer action on the request for rezoning
from A-1 to CVN for the areas covered in the Planning staff recommendation and outlined in
the staff report read by Mr. Tucker~ ~ction'~ this matter to be deferred until ~his matter
goes back to the Planning Commission and is forwarded to the consultants and Betz Environment~
Engineers for their review; including proposals one and two of the staff report excluding a,
b, and c of same. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following record~
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush.
Messrs. Fisher and Iachetta.
At 9:20 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:27 P.M.
A~en~a Item No. 3. Public Hearing: A resolution of intent 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 to time, request that~ the Virginia State
Highway Commission hold public hearings in accordance with Section 33.1-62 of the
Code 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.
(Note: This public hearing was advertised in The Daily Progress on September 22 & 30, 1!
Mr. Tucker said the purpose of this amendment is to clarify areas of authority and
provide flexibility in the public hearing process concerning-scenic highway or byway designat
He noted that the proposed amendment was adopted on the Board's motion for resolution of
intent. The existing section gives the State Highway Commission the authority to hold public
hearings unless the Board requests otherwise. Now, the Board would have to request the
Highway Commission to hold a public hearing. The Planning Commission recommends, unanimously
approvai of this amendment.
~he public hearing was opened' and with no one desiring to comment, the public hearing
was closed.
Dr. Iachetta offered motion to amend and re-enact Section 18-2 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance as set out above. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: SP-58-76. Linda Rheuby. To locate a dog kennel on
206.7 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture. Property located on east side of Route 20 South, approxi-
mately three miles south of Keene. County Tax Map 122, Parcel 7. Scottsville Magisterial
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress of S~tember 22 and September 30, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker read the staff report into the record: "This area is basically in large
farms; ~i:Most of the adjacent parcels are in excess of 100 acres. Scottsville Recreation
Incorporated is located opposite the subject property on Route 20 South. The kennel site is
more than 1/4 mile from the nearest residence. The Comprehensive Plan indicates agricultural
use for this area. The applicant proposes a commercial boarding kennel of 30 runs. In the
sketch plan, the office, grooming, and supply areas are an existing structure located in the
proximity of the main residence. The runs will be constructed under roof in such a way that
the dogs can be enclosed at night. Because of the extreme low density of this area and
compliance with.the Comprehensive Plan, the staff recommended approval of this petition.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions:
Staff approval of sketch plan showing adequate parking;
ly
1
d
76)
¸on.
October 6, 1976 (Night Meeting)
Approval by appropriate state and local agencies.
Mr. Tucker noted one letter of opposition from Mr. M. A. Wilson. The public hearing was
opened. The applicant, Ms. Linda Rheuby, was present. She felt the person in opposition
would be far enough away that it would not infringe on him in anyway. She did agree with the
conditions. With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve SP-58-76 with the recommendations of the Planning
Commission. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: .None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: SP-60-76. Adolph O. Krisch & Eldercare Limited
Partnership. To locate a nursing home on 4.65 acres zoned R-3. Property on north side of
Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) approximately one mile southeast of Albemarle High School. County
Tax Map 61, Parcel 45, part thereof. Charlottesville and Jack Jouett Magisterial Districts.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and September 30, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker read the staff report into the record: "This portion of the highly developed
area bounded by Hydraulic/Rio Roads and Route 29 North is currently undeveloped. Northwest
Limited Partnership proposes to complete extension of Commonwealth Drive to Hydraulic Road.
The subject ~property would have access to this extension of Commonwealth Drive from the
proposed cul-de-sac on Northwest Drive. Parcel 45 is currently undeveloped and heavily
wooded. A portion of the parcel has been reserved for the relocation of the Division of
Motor Vehicles offices. To the west of Parcel 45 are several single-family residences. The
Comprehensive Plan indicates a mixture of medium and high density residential uses in this
area. The applicant is proposing a nursing home facility of 150 intermediate-care beds and
30 skilled-care beds· Originally, the applicant proposed a total of 120 beds with a staff of
92 persons including consulting physicians. With the proposal raised to 180 total beds, the
applicant has said his staff will probably increase proportionately to approximately 135
persons. Emergency and intensive care situations would be accommodated by the University of
Virginia Hospital and Martha Jefferson Hospital. The applicant stated tenative cooperative
agreements have also been made with these institutions for these services. The applicant has
researched the need for such a facility in Planning District 10. A summation of this
and a more extensive description of the proposed facility is attached to the staff's report·
In staff opinion, the overall impact of the nursing care facility will be comparable to the
R-3 residential potential of this property (population, traffic generation, water and sewer
demands)· As outlined by the applicant, the Virginia Department of Health has estimated
demand currently exists for 126 nursing care beds in Ptan~inE D±s~trict 10. This request
will amply supply that demand and create 135 jobs of varying qualifications in the local job
market." ~/ -, .~-~
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends approval w~th the following .conditions
Site plan approval;
Approvals of appropriate state and local agencies;
Nursing home facility shall be limited to 180 beds, plus 30 day care
beds. Future expansion shall require amendment to this special use
permit;
Access for this proposal shall be through Northwest Drive to Common-
wealth Drive to Hydraulic Road as shown on a preliminary site plan
by Thomas R. Wyant, Jr., Number 7609.
Mr. Tucker said it is his understanding that the Planning Commission wants to have
Northwest and Commonwealth Drives constructed to state.standards and taken into the State
System.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Tom Hancock, counsel for Eldercare was-
present and presented a brief background. He said this facility is planned for the following
six reasons:
1. Nursing home beds are needed in Planning District 10. Nursing homes are
stringently regulated by the State. Department of Health through license
laws and through a certificate of public need law.
2. Population concentration in the Albemarle-Charlottesville areas.
3. Both of the Planning District 10 hospitals are located in Charlottesville.
4. Approximately 83% of the physicians for' the district are located in this area.
5. According to a survey conducted by the State Department of Health in February
1975, 121 residents of the Planning District were located in nursing homes
outside of the Planning District.
6. Support of the Albemarle County Nursing Home Incorporated. As a result of
meeting with the corporation, Eldercare Gardens Community Advisory Council
was created. This will incorporate the Board of Directors through the
bylaws representing the entire coF~unity.
Mr. Hancock then read a letter from Dr. W. F. Tompkins, Director of the Albemarle Communi
Nursing Home which supportsd~the endeavor of Eldercare to establish a nursing home facility.
Mr. Hancock said the residents in the strip of R-2 property surrounding the subject area are
concerned about ingress and egress. The residents, however, do not oppose the nursing home
and. feel it is the most beneficial use of the property. [~ islnnfortunate that nursing homes
are categorized as hospitals in the County's Zoning Ordinance. He saidnursing homes reflect
more of a residential character.
With no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Dr. Iachetta asked about the disposal of solid waste. Mr. Hancock said all the utilities
are available to the site. Ail laws relating to requirements for solid waste will be abided
byes well as complying with State and Federal regulations.
Mr. Fisher asked if there would be any difficulty if the access road to Hydraulic
October 6, 1976 (Night Meeting)
At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve S?-60-76 as recommended by the
Planning Commission with the addition of a fifth .condition to read as follows: That
Drive and Commonwealth Drive be built to State standards and accepted into the Hlg~Way~
system as soon as possible. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-63-76. Dock B. & Mary S. Mills. To locate a two-family dwellin
on 0.61 acre zoned A-1 Agriculture. Property located on north side of ROute 53 approximatel
3/4 mile from Simeon. County Tax Map 92, Parcel 51, Rivanna and Scottsville Magisterial
Districts. ~Advertis~d in the Daily Progress on September 22 and September 30, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker read the staff report into the record: "This area is heavily developed
in single-family dwellings on small acreages. Properties to the north and east are wooded.
Properties on the south side of Route 53 are developed i~ single-family dwellings. Residen-
tially-developed small parcels are to the west of the subject property. The applicant owns
two of these parcels - a single-family dwelling on one and a mobile home on the other parcel.
These parcels are approximately 0.6 acres each. The Comprehensive Plan indicates agricul-
tural use in this area. On February 5, 1976, the applicant obtained a building permit to
relocate a single-family dwelling from Monticello to the subject property. The applicant
proceeded to convert the. basement into an apartment without the proper county permits. On
August 5, 1976, the Building Inspections Department issued a~.stop work order, and subse-
quently, the applicant applied for a special use permit for a two-family dwelling. Staff
recommends denial of the petition for the following reasons:
1. Upon recommendation of the Health Department, the Planning Commission established a
minimum lot size of 60,000 square feet for a single-family dwelling where public water and
sewer are not available. This request is for two units on a parcel of land approximately
4/5 the recommended density;
2, The Zoning Ordinance explicitly requires a minimum of 2-acres for a two-family
dwelling;
3. On February 4, 1976, the Health Department approved this site for a single-family
dwelling and required a subsurface field of 1,000 square feet. Inspection of August 4, 1976
indicates a drainfield of 600 square feet in area;
4. It has been the policy of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors,
to permit two-family dwellings only in cluster areas. This property is not in an area
designed as a cluster in the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Tucker said the ~Planning Commission~recommended denial of the petition. He noted
that the Planning Commission had requested Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, to
address a letter to the Board concerning problems encountered between Mr. Mill's petition ant
the Health Department. A letter was received on October 4, 1976 from Mr. Payne in reference
to this:
"October 4, 1976
RE: Health Department approval of septic systems
Dear Madam and Gentlemen:
At their meeting of September 7, 1976, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission instructed the undersigned to communicate to the Board their
concern with the current practice of the local Health Department in
approving plans for septic systems. The Commission is concerned that
the Health Department apparently does not consider all relevant planning
and zoning considerations in giving approval for septic systems, such
approvals sometimes resulting in useless expenditures of money by
county citizens.
The particular case whichhas raised this question is the application
of Dock Mills (SP-63-76) for a two-family dwelling on 0.61 acres in the
A-1 Agricultural zone on Route 53 near Simeon. In this case, a citizen
located a singie=fami!y dwelling on the parcel in question, with the
intent of modifying the dwelling to accommodate two families. He obtained
Health Department approval for two septic systems, one to serve each
dwelling unit. Then, before obtaining County zoning approval, he proceeded
to install both systems at a substantial cost. Because of the small size
of the lot, the Commission has recommended that the special permit be
denied. The Commission beliewes that this recommendation was consistent
with good planning practice and the only proper course for the County.
However, the Commission was disturbed that Mr. Mills was apparently misled
by the Health Department's approval into making substantial expenditures
which may now prove worthless to him. The Commission requests that the Board
communicate with the Health Department tO attempt to solve this problem so
that it will not arise again.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed)
Frederick W. Payne
Deputy County Attorney"
Mr. Fisher asked if a single-family dwelling was converted to a two-family dwelling on
o.61 acre. Mr. Tucker said the applicant had moved the existing dwelling to the subject
property and then proceeded to convert the basement into an apartment. Mr. Mills had not
applied for any building permits and the I~spections Department was notified when Mr. Mills
applied for an electric meter.
October 6,J~976 (Night Meeting)
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Dock Mills, the applicant was present. He said he
rented the house to a large family and then decided to rent the basement. Thus, he decided
to have two electric meters. He went to the Health Department and got the permit for the
septic tank and was not informed of any zoning requirements.
After a brief discussion, it was decided that Mr. Mills had the right to use the lot for
single-family housing providing the density was maintained for two acres.
At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to deny the request as recommended by the
Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: SP-77-76. Edward Jackson. To locate a public
garage on 1.83 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture. Property on east side of Route 29 South approxi-
mately 0.5 mile south of 1-64. County Tax Map 75, Parcel 25A, Charlottesville and Samuel
Miller Magisterial Districts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and September
1976.)
Mr. Tucker read the staff report into the record: "The property is situated between
Route 29 South and the Southern Railway. The Hickory Ridge Service Station is located north
of the property. Remaining properties in the vicinity are undeveloped. There~is an existing
dwelling on the property. The Comprehensive Plan does not indicate definitive land use
proposals for this area. This property is in the u~banr:~area. The applicant proposes to
locate a public garage which would: (!) provide sales of autos; (2) provide mechanic servic
and (3) provide wrecker service. In staff opinion, the provisions of a mechanic and wrecker
would be appropriate to the area because this type of service is not available for some
distance along Route 29 South. As was outlined in ZMA-08-76, which was heard on June 16,
the staff remains concerned about the physical capabilities for development of this property.
The presence of Moore's Creek, grade differential to Route 29 South and narrowness of the
site present difficulties which may make development impossible. The staff ~omld like to not
that a site plan was requested for review in conjunction with this application (application
was originally made on August 9, 1976, and numbered SP-64-76) but any approval of a special
permit does not indicate approval of that site plan. Since this property is in a cluster and
the proposed use would provide service to the area, the staff recommends approval of the ~_
petition with c~nditions attached thereto."
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission had directed the staff to prepare a study
of the land along Route 29 South roughly between the Southern Railway and 29 South to det
the land use capabilities of the area. This was done and most of the land, if not all, has
some physical limiting factors as far as development is concerned. It was determined that
any request for development along this strip of land should be accompanied by a site plan.
The Planning Commission recommends denial of the petition.~ Mr. Tucker noted two letters of
opposition. The letters were from Mr. Charles H. Whitebread and the other from Mr. Fred
Diehl. (These letters are on file in the Clerk's office.)
The public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. David Wood, representing Mr.
Jackson. He said Mr. Jackson has used the property in the past for signs but the Scenic
Highway Act has deprived him of that right. He said the northern end of the property is
approximately six feet above the level of highway 29 South and Si~f~et below on the southern
end of the property. Moore's Creek has been relocated adjacent to the railroad track by Mr.
Jackson so the useful land would be between the track and the highway. He felt the dwelling
could hardly be referred to as such. It is more of a shack. The property has no use under
the uses permitted in the A-1 zon~The property to the north is presently zoned business
but is not being used as such because of its topography. There is a demand in this area for
commercial uses. T.he railroad.acts as a barrier between this property and the Sherwood Farm
Subdivision because it is at a higher elevation. He was unaware of a site plan being :
in conjunction with the application and noted ~hat the present zoning denies Mr. Jackson any
use for this property.
Mr. L. E. Wood, property owner in Sherwood Farms, spoke in opposition. He did not feel
the railroad is enough of a buffer to separate him from an automobile graveyard.
With no one else desiring to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher noted several statements had been made. One was that no other use can be
of the subject property. He saw no compelling public need for rezoning of this property.
Also, felt that a precedent would be set if rezoning was approved and this would make it
difficult to deny any business use in the i~ediate area north or south of Route 29.
Dr. Iachetta offered motion to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission to
deny this request. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following -
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-67-76. Mariann S. de Tejeda. To locate a permanent horse show
grounds on 178.592 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture. Property located on south side of Route 601
near Owensville. County Tax Map ~3, Parc.els 21 and 21~, Samuel Miller and Jack Jouett
Magisterial Districts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and September 30,
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report into the record: "This property is bordered
on the west by the Farmington-Hunt Club. Reynard Woods Subdivision is on the north side of
Route 601 on which the subject property has approximately ~800 feet of frontage. Properties
to the south and east are forested. Single-family development is scattered throughout the
area. On' the subject property is an old airplane hanger and office, single-family dwelling,
and barn and various outbuildings. The property is largely open pasture. The Comprehensive
402
October 6, 1976 (Night Meeting)
Plan indicates agricultural use for this area. The applicant is proposing a permanent horse
show grounds basically for showing and training°horses. A~-~mile-long steeplechase is proposed
along with renovation and construction of stables and other ancilliary structures. The
applicant proposes an annual steeplechase event designed to accommodate approximately 15,000
visitors. Proceeds from this event are to be donated to charity. In staff opinion, this
proposal is appropriate in this area and would benefit the County's horse industry in general
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends approval of this petition conditioned
on the following:
1. Site Plan approval;
2. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
3. Major steeplechase event to be held not more than once a calendar year;
4. Ninety (90~ days prior to steeplechase event, applicant shall notify the
Albemarle County Sheriff so that appropriate traffic measures may be arranged;
5. Ninety (90) days prior to steeplechase event, applicant shall notify
Charlottesville-A!bemarle Health Department for approval of temporary
restroom facilities.
6. No billboards, grandstands, or lighting;
7~ ~Signing to follow the scenic highway designation regulations for the
A-1 zone.
Mr. Tucker suggested amending con~it~0~#6 to read "no billboards, grandstands, or
lighting on the track. He then read a memo from Mr. Ben Dick, Zoning Administrator, out~
lining the intended use. The memo is as follows:
"July 8, 1976
Mr. Robert Ashcom arrived~at 4 p.m. today to discuss a proposed permanent
horse show ground. This use is permitted by Special Use Permit in an A-1 zone.
I inquired as to the nature of the planned use. Mr. Ashcom informed me that
a Mrs. De Tejeda was funding a permanent horse show ground to memorialize a
Mr. Vandevend~r?~ho~hadZ~been a highly regarded equestrian in Albemarle County
and in the nation. Mrs. de Tejeda bought the Va~devender land with the idea
of erecting a permanent training center for horses, show grounds for the same,
and a steeplechase course that would allow for local hunt clubs to use. The
steeplechase course would be also used to host a yearly all-comers steeplechase
race along the line of the Montpelier races.
The present public riding stables constitute a non-conforming use in that
they existed prior to the 1968 zoning ordinance and are considered a business
in an A-1 zone-. These stable.s, Mr. Ashcom informed me, would be removed and new
stables built. However, the commercial aspect of the old stables would be
discontinued and the new stables would be available only to house horses which
are to be used on hunts, for training and for the yearly steeplechase event. The
new stables would largely be used for trainers a~d private riders who would appear
at the permanent horse show grounds occasionally or daily. I inquired if he
envisioned a commercial profit making enterprise. Mr. Ashcom replied that Mrs.
de Tejeda's intent was charitable and th~ funds for operating these grounds
would more than likely flow from a charitable trust or a non-profit private
corporation. No commercial profit making enterprise is envisioned, but rather
occasional stall and entrance fees to obtain operating expenses to guarantee
the continuation' of the permanent' hor~se show grounds. The goal of Mrs. de Tejeda,
he said, was to establish a first-rate national caliber horse show ground that
would be compatible with~.th~ horse country of Albemarle County and used for
equestrian activity.
I asked if the steeplechase race would be of the sort which has occurred
at Montpelier each year and whether or not they would have more than one
race a year. He replied the steeplechase event would be similar to Montpelier
and that no plans existed to expand the race to more than omce a year. It could
be feasible to have two races a year, but the general practice was only to have
one since such races are held throughout other geographical areas of Virginia. A
prize for the winner of the. race would be given.
I asked what sort of crowds would be expected. Mr. Ash~om replied that the
training area and stalls would attract a varied crowd but not a heavy crowd
on a daily basis. Weekend activity-such as horse shows, hunts or team
activity would attract some traffic. The steeplechase event once a year,
however, would, he envisioned, attract a very large crowd once the event
became Widely known. I asked if health facilities and parking would be
planned in that situation and he replied that such were envisioned pursuant
to their final plans.
I then informed Mr. Ashcom that a special use permit would be required
to erect a permanent horse show grounds. (See 2-1-25(18)."
Mr. Tucker read a letter supporting the request from Mr. Thomas Craven, an adjacent
property owner. Mr. Tucker said the plan shown tonight is basically the plan but will have
to come back to the Commission for final approval.
Dr. Iachetta was confused as to why a steeplechase would be allowed and at the same time
grandstands or lights not allowed, and a limit set on the number of events that could be
held. Mr. Tucker said the main reason for the limit of one a year is due to the impact ~t
would have ~ transportation facilities. As to the. grandstands, this was an issue raised by
the public. They are not opposed to this special permit being issued, but are concerned that
that billboards and grandstands not be permanently erected on the site.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Ash¢om, representing Ms. de Tejeda was presen'
He said the lie of the land does not require grandstands. As to only one event being held
each year, the reason ~asbecause this is such hu~<~ndertaking. He noted there is no
commercial intent involved. As stated in the memorandum from Mr. Dick, the intent is mainly
October 6, 1976 (Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said he was concerned about the impact of weekend training sessions on traffic
He asked if any new buildings will be built. Mr'. Ashcom said they only intend to renovate
existing buildings. Mr. Tucker said this would be tied to site plan approval. As to the
traffic, he felt it sh~ml~zbe left to the zoning administrator to interpret the conditions.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to have included a condition as follows: "Any request for
new buildings, or expansion of existing buildings will bring this premit back to the Board."
This would give the Board direct control on how much expansion occurs. Mr. Dorrier felt this
would be a burden, especially for an addition of something small like a tack room.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve SP-67-76 with the conditions recom-
mended by the Planning Commission and the addition of "lighting on the track" in condition #6.
Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES'
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-65-76. Thelma L. Madison. To locate a mobile home on 12.62
acres zoned A-1 Agriculture. Property near Mt. Chapel Church, off Route 641. County Tax Map
21, Parcel 22, Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 2
and September 30, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker read the staff report into the record: "The property, located on an old
access, is wooded as are properties in the immediate vicinity. A single-family residence and
a microwave tower are to the northwest of the property. To the east of the property is Sandy
Branch Subdivision. This petition comes before the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors due to written objection from two adjacent property owners. The applicant is the
property owner and has stated that she will reside in the mobile home. The applicant owns a
mobile home and currently resides in a mobile home park."
Mr. Tucker said the ~lanning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions
1. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
2. Location of mobile home so as not to be visible from adjacent residences;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile home;
4. Removal of trees to locate mobile home and drainfield to be minimal.
5. Any subdivision of this property shall void the special permit.
Mr. Tucker also noted two letters of opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Russell D. Mooney, Jr.
and Mr. and Mrs. Jinks McDaniel.
The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Thelma Madison, the applicant was present. She
stated her intentions of meeting the' conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission.
She had talked with Mrs. Mooney and Mr. McDaniel and both had informed her of having no
intention to do anything with their property.
Next to speak was Mr. Russell Mooney, property owner of land bordering on the south and
west side of the subject property. He noted that all of his property was wooded. He felt if
this special permit was approved a precedence would be set.
With no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Roudabush said two mobile home permits have been issued in this area. Now, there
are two dwellings on the property which-are very nice homes. Dr. Iachetta said one aspect
which becomes more serious with the passing of time is the fact that some people cannot
afford to build a permanent dwelling. Mr. Roudabush felt it is discriminatory to grant
permits on those petitions which have no objections and then to deny those which have objectio
He was concerned that no standards have been set with respect to mobile homes.
At this time, Mr. Roudabush offered motion to approve SP-65-76 subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission and with an additional condition to read as follows:
"The mobile home to be removed from the subject property when a permanent residence is
available and occupied." Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush'.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: A resolution of intent to recommend to the Board of
Supervisors that Article 18 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Scenic Highway Desig-
nation, be amended to provide for signs in the CVN Conservation District and the CO Commercial
Office District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and September 30, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker read the staff report into the record: "The purpose of this proposed amendmen'
is tOlm, proWi~de for signing for the newly adopted Commercial Office (CO) and Conservation (CVN)
Districts. Along scenic highways or byways signs in' the Conservation District would have the
same provisions as signs for the Agricultural and residential districts. Commercial Office
signing would have the same provisions as the B-1 Business District.. The proposed amendments
would add/~e following sections: Section 18-3-5(A). Conservation (CVN) District; Agricultural
(A-l) District; and Residential (RS-l, R-l, R-2, and R~13) Districts. Section 18-3-5(B).
Commercial Office (CO) District; and General Business (B-l) District."
Mr. Tucker noted that these were provisions for Scenic Highway special sign provisions
that are required for these two districts. These were overlooked when those sections
adopted.
The public hearing was opened.
the public hearing was closed.
With no one present to speak for or against the matter,
404
October 6, 1976 (Night Meet/ing)
Mr. Roudabush offered motion to amend and reenact Sections 18-3-5(a) and 18-3-5(b) of
the Albemarle County Zoning ordinance as set out above. D~Iachetta seconded the motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Fisher noted a letter which was received from Delegate Thomas Michie
in reference to a request for legislation to allow that a $10.00 penalty be charged for bad
checks. This was discussed at the meeting of the Board on September 22, 1976, regarding
legislative changes. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, had requested this unaware that it
had been previously passed. Delegate Michie has informed the Board that action was taken
and authority for this is in Section 15.1-29.4 of the Code of Virginia.
Dr. Iachetta offered motion to remove this request from the legislative package.
Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr.
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Lottery Permit for Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to
approve the lottery permit for the 1976 calendar year in accordance with the rules and
regulations as set by the Board for the issuance of such permits. Mr. Dorrier seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
For information, Mr. St. John informed the~that the ~QB~ng Administrator has decided
to~apPeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals relative to petition from W. F. Paulett
& Son.
Mr. Agnor brought to the Board's attention the dedication of Totier Creek Park which
has been set for Ontober 17, 1976 at 2:00 P.M. He also noted that Congressman J. Kenneth
Robinson, Mayor Raymon Thacker and members of the Town Council of Scottsville will be
present.
At 11:40 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn the meeting.
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Dorrier
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. DorrSer, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
--C~A~RMAN