1976-12-01ADecember 1, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from November 17, 1976]
477
An adjourned meeting of the Board of S~ervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
heid on December 1, 1976, beginning at 3:00'~.M. in the Board Room of the County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from November 17, 1976.
PRESENT: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned about an article which appeared in the newspaper
this week. This article states that the proposed Albemarle County School budget for 1977-
78 shows an increase of $1 million dollars over the present year's budget. He asked if
the other Board members would like to ask the School Board for any-information available
on this increase at this time.
Dr. Iachetta said he was also concerned and offered motion to request that the School
Board provide this Board with background information on potential costs that will add this
amount to the 1977-78 budget. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Mr. Agnor said he had talked with a member of the School Board's staff who said the
SUperintendent of Schools had presented to the School Board a list of requests received by
him and was asking for their guidance before preparing an official budget. This is most
likely a "wish list" and the press picked up this list. Dr. Iachetta said while the press
may have reported on a "wish list", it is the telephone of the Board members that rings
with questions a-s to why taxes are being raised. If it is expected that a short fall in
State revenues will cause this increase, the Board needs to be aware of it while the
General Assembly is in session. Mr. Fisher said if this motion passes, he will personally
talk with the Chairman of the School Board and express the Board's concerns.
Roll was called at this time and 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. 2. Public Hearing: A resolution of intent to amend Section 6-1-13
of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance and Section 17-5-19 of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as each of these pertain to sidewalks, curb and
gutter. (Continued from November 3, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had never had a written policy regarding
sidewalks, curb and gutter. A policy was drafted, and accepted, by the Planning Commission
back in the early summer. After that, it was requested that amendments be prepared to these
ordinances so this policy will be readily available to everyone. These amendments would
provide that sidewalks, curb and gutter which are to be accepted and maintained by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation will conform to highway standards.
Sidewalks would also be required in areas where the density is two dwelling units per
acre, or greater. It also gives the Planning Commission the authority to require sidewalks
in commercial and industrial developments when same are needed to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the citizenry or where there is a lot of pedestrian traffic. ~
waiver of requirements is also provided __ if the Planning Commission thinks the area,
because of topography or other physical features, will not accommodate sidewalks.
At 3:20 P.M., the public hearing was opened. Mr. Chuck Rotgin spoke in opposition.
He apologized for not appearing at the hearing on November 3, but said he had evidently
overlooked notice of this public hearing in the newspaper. Mr. Rotgin said that for the
first time in three years, the building industry is beginning to open up again. The
ordinance under consideration today would probably affect builders more than anything the
County has done in the past. He supports the Board in wanting slow, controlled growth,
but he cannot support zero growth. If this ordinance is passed, it will add ano~h~ ........
$3,000 to the cost of each building lot and prices will skyrocket. He felt there should
be some coordination between the Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, the Board, the
Chamber~of Commerce, builders, bankers add citizens; all those people who are ~ffected by
this type of decision. He asked that this amendment be tabled until the impact on the
building industry can be considered.
Mr. Randy ~Rinehart said he is a member of the Blue Ridge Home Builders~.Association.
His organization has supported the Connty's Subdivision Ordinance and the Soil Erosion
Ordinance. He can see the need for sidewalks, etc. When the density reaches 15 or 30
units per acre, but does not see the necessity for these with only two dwelling units per
acre. It will add costs and he was~concerned about the poorer people in F.H.A. developments
Mr. Rinehart said he was speaking in opposition to the amendment as proposed, but is not
opposed to the concept.
Mr. Jim Hill said he has never seen the Planning Commission Waive any requirement.
This ordinance will accelerate the ripping off of two acre lots along highways. He said
the density should be raised and there should be more input from builders.
Mr. Rotgin said he feels the Comprehensive Plan tries to encourage developments in
the urban area where utilities are available. If these costs are added onto the price of
a lot in the urban area, people will move farther out into the County on two-acre minimum
lots where it will be cheaper to build, but not be as attractive for the County.
With no one else rising to speak, t~e public hearing was closed.
Mr. R°udabush said he had spoken with several builders who had indicated they would
not come to this meeting, feeling this amendment would be adopted anyway. They said this
478
December'l, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from November 17, 1976)
'but the ordinance would tend to eliminate competition among smaller developers. Mr.
Roudabush said he worked up some figures to see what the costs would be if these amendments
are adopted. If curb and gutter are installed, the Highway Department requires a wider
distance between curbs than if pavement is installed without curb and gutter. A twenty-
foot wide pavement would handle traffic from 75 to 80 lots in a development. If curb and
gutter are installed and parking is allowed, there must be 36 feet between curbs. That
makes pavement costs 1.8 times what they would have been without curb and gutter. The
additional grading needed for a 36-foot surface with five-foot sidewalks and two-feet of
level space behind the sidewalks would increase excavation costs 2.2 times the original
costs. Clearing'and grubbing for the street and distmnbed area would add 1.58 times what
it would cost without curb and gutter. The stone would cost 1.8 times the original cost.
Additional drainage for a storm sewer system would be a 100% addition to the cost. Sidewalks
would be a 100% addition to the cost~ The curb and gutter would be a 100% addition to
the cost. If you take the base cost for a normal' 20-foot roadway and multiply same by all
of these added factors, this will be a tremendous increase in road costs. Mr. Roudabush
said he agrees that sidewalks should be required in certain areas of the County where
there are small lots, but to adopt this amendment and make it applicable to the entire
County and leave it at the discretion of ~the Planning Commision without knowing what the
actual costs may be, could be a disaster.
Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board should give the Home Builders Association an
opportunity to make recommendations to the Board on this amendment. He did not feel the
Board can just drop the amendment because the County has committed itself to paying for the
installation of sidewalks on Hydraulic Road because the density is such that they are now
needed and they were not required in the past.
Dr. Iachetta offered motion to defer action on these amendments until January 192 1977.
He felt the building business could make recommendations as to when sidewalks are absolutely
needed. The staff might check into the experience of other communities for requiring
sidewalks.
Mr. Rotgin asked if the Board would be interested in appointing a small committee --
who could collect information from interested people. Mr. Fisher said he would prefer not
to get involved with a committee that might take six months to make a report.
Mr. Roudabush then seconded Dr. Iachetta's motion for deferral.
Mrs. David said this matter had been deferred until today because she had thought the
language was not clear and had requested deferral. Even though this has been on the
Planning Commission's agenda for several months, it began in August when a lot of people
were away. Mrs. David said she knew Mr. Fisher did not want to appoint a committee, but
felt the Board should not put itself into a position of having citizens say they had asked
the builders what to do. Since Mr. Rotgin has recommended that this committee obtain
citizen input, she felt thi~ might be a good idea. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board wanted
to appoint a committee. Ail agreed and Mr. Roudabush agreed to form the committee. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing: To amend Section 11-9 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance. (Continued from November 3, 1976.)
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: To amend Section 11-14 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance to provide for placement of individual mobile homes only as a means of
interim housing during construction of conventional single-family dwellings. (Continued
from November 3, 1976.)
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
to provide for mobile home subdivisions in all residential zones. (Continued from November 3
1976.)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has been concerned about the mobile home
situation in the County for some time. They did consider allowing mobile homes only in
mobile home parks, but after several public hearings, they decided against this approach
and instead decided to improve provisions in the present ordinance. The mobile home park
section has been modernized to bring sp~ce requirements into line with existing residential
densities of the ordinance. An open space requirement has been included in this section
for the first time. Setbacks are spelled out. Requirements for utilities are spelled
out. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, with only one dissenting vote on temporary
mobile home permits, recommends approval of these amendments unanimously.
The public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 was opened.
public hearing was closed.
With no one rising to speak the
Mr. St. John noted that the title of Section 11-9-2 should read:
Mobile Home Lots" not "Parks".
"Minimum Size of
Mrs. David suggested that the last sentence of Section 11-9-7 be moved and made the
first sentence of that paragraph.
Mr. Roudabush recommended that a new section called "Minimum Standards for Internal
Streets" with the words: "Internal streets shall have a minimum right of way of 25 feet
with a minimum improved width of 16 feet and a minimum five-inch gravel base" be added.
Mr. Agnor noted that Section 11-9-4(c) requires a minimum setback of 15 feet from
interior streets and does not specify whether this is the edge of the pavement or the
right of way line. It was agreed that this should be the right of way line.
December 1, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from November 17, 1996)
479
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt ana
ordinance to amend and reenact Sections 11-9 through 11-9-7 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance and to add Section 11-9-8, With changes as mentioned above in Sections
11-9-2, 11-9-4, 11-9-7 and with the addition of Section 11-9-8:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 11-9 THROUGH 11-9-7 OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AND TO ADD SECTION 11-9-8
11-9
MOBILE HOME PARKS
This provision is designed to accommodate mobile homes in a
planned neighborhood setting with open space and recreation
requirements in order to encourage a suitable living environment
where rental lots are provided for mobile home habitation. A
mobile home park may be established by the commission and governing
body by special use permit obtained pursuant to section 11-13 of
this ordinance.
11-9-1 Minimum Size of Mobile Home Parks
A mobile home park shall consist of ten acres or more.
11-9-2 Minimum Size of Mobile Home Lots
Each mobile home lot shall comply with the following area and
width requirements:
a)
Mobile home lots served by both a central water supply and
a central sewer system shall consist of four thousand square
feet or more, exclusive of off-street parking requirements,
and shall have a width of forty feet or more;
b)
c)
Mobile home lots served by either a central water supply or
a central sewer system shall consist of forty thousand
square feet or more and shall have a width of one hundred
thirty feet or more;
Mobile home lots served by neither a central water supply
nor a central sewer system shall consist of sixty thousand
square feet or more and shall have a width of one hundred
fifty feet or more.
11-9-3 Location of Mobile Homes
a)
b)
Each mobile home shall be located on a mobile home lot;
The minimum distances between mobile homes shall be:
l)
2)
3)
twenty feet end-to-end;
twenty feet side-to-side or side-to-end;
the Albemarle County fire marshal may require additional
space between mobile homes or between mobile homes and
other structures in any area in which he shall determine
the same to be reasonably necessary to prevent unreason-
able danger of fire or to provide adequate protection
therefrom.
c)
No mobile home shall be located within fifty feet of any
central service or recreational structure;
d) Each mobile home lot shall front on an internal street;
ei No mobile home or other structure shall be located closer
than five feet from any mobile home space lot line.
Setbacks
a)
b)
c)
Mobile homes and other structures shall be setback seventy-
five feet or more from the right of way of any public street;
Mobile homes and other structures shall be setback fifty feet
or more from the mobile home park property line;
Mobile homes and other structures shall be setback fifteen feet
or more from the right of way of interior streets, common
walkways, and open space areas.
11-9-5
Utility Connections
a)
Each mobile home lot shall be provided with an individual
connection to a public sewer system or other approved sanitary
sewage disposal system;
b)
Each mobile home lot shall be provided with an individual
connection to a public water supply or other approved potable
water supply;
c)
Each mobile home lot shall be provided with electrical
service installed in accordance with the National Electrical
Code.
4'80-
December 1, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from
November 17, 1976)
11-9-6
~Off-Street Parking
Each mobile home lot shall be provided with two off-street
parking spaces in accordance with section !!-7 of this ordinance.
11-9-7 Open Space
11-9-8
Open space requirements shall apply when the net density is four
units per acre or greater. For each mobile home lot in a mobile
home park, there shall be a minimum of four hundred square feet
of open space. Within the total required open space, there~shall
be no less than two hundred square feet ~per mobile home lot of
developed play and recreation area. Each mobile home park shall
provide not less than one playground of an area of no less than
two thousand five hundred square feet.
Minimum Standards for Internal Streets
Internal streets shall have a minimum right of way of twenty-five
feet with a minimum improved width of sixteen feet and a minimum
five-inch gravel base.
The foregoing motion carried by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iach~tta and RoudabuSh.
NAYS: None.
Discussion followed on Agenda Item No. 4, Special Mobile Home Permits. Mr. Tucker
said there have been some minor changes made to clarify the procedure now being used by
the County. The Zoning Administrator will be able to require a bond for installation of
the sewer system, screening, etc. There is a termination date of 18 months for the permit
if the mobile home is not located Within that time. Ail requirements for obtaining a
temporary home permit, which must be'met by the applicant, are spelled out. Requirements
for screening and skirting have been deleted from the temporary mob±le!~home permit section.
The Planning Commission felt that by eliminating this expense, it would encourage a person
to use that money on building a permanent house. A temporary mobile home permit would be
good for three years, but the zoning administrator could extend that time for two additional
years. The Board must also amend Section 2-1-23 by adding Item (c) to provide for temporary
mobile home permits.
Mrs. David disagreed with placing 2-1-23(c), a use by special permit, under the uses
by right section of the A-1 zone. She said this is confusing.
Dr. Iachetta said he does not believe anyone will ever~iibe put off of his lot because
he does not finish his house during the time period stated. He felt it is not proper to
adopt a regulation that will never be enforced. M~oFisher said he has been struggling
with this problem for five years. He feels that when a person states that he wants a
temporary mobile home permit to use while building a permanent dwelling, that is a statement
in good faith and the County needs some mechanism by which to approve such requests.
At this time, the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 4 was opened. Ms, Rosa Hudson
asked who would put these people off of their land at the end of five years. Mr. Fisher
said a temporary mobile home permit is for those people who say they are going to build a
permanent house.
Mr. Ormelia Orza said with the rising costs of housing, the Board must decide if
Albemarle County is going to have mobile homes or not; period.
Ms. Virginia Buckram said she understood that the temporary mobile home permit would
not have to come before the Planning Commission or the Board. Mr. Fisher said that was
correct. Mr. Roudabush said it should be easier to get a temporary mobile home permit
under these regulations. ~i~When the permit expires in five years, if the applicant has not
finished construction, he wilt probably have to apply for a special permit and have a
hearing held at that time.
Mr. St. John said he has told the Board from time to time that he does not believe
the five year regulation~;.will be enforceable in the future. As the law stands now, he
does believe the Board can add this as a condition~but discrimination against mobile
homes is becoming a stepchild 'of the law.
Mrs. David said by providing mobile home subdivisions in all residential districts,
this ordinance goes a long way toward treating mobile homes as conventional dwellings.
Mr. St. John said although the ordinance ~goes a long way to accommodate mobile homes, it
also has built-in restrictions that are discriminatory against mobile homes. The ordinance
does not say that a conventional home can be built in a mobile home subdivision and the
ordinance should be changed to state that this can occur.
Mr. Fisher said this is proposed to the Board as a way to make it easier for people
to obtain a temporary mobile home permit without going through the whole permit procedure.
It is a definite improvement over the present procedure. There is no way to satisfy
people on both sides of the question.
Dr. Iachetta felt the provisions for temporary mobile homes should be put in with
special permits so in the event it takes longer than five years to build a home, there
could be screening, etc. required.
Mr. Henley said he was concerned that these mobile homes must be hidden from public
highways. Mr. Dorrier felt the "no rent" Provision was too restrictive. Dr. Iachetta
said he does not disagree with the "no rent" provision, but does not feel the provision that
a mobile home must be hmdden from~'~~mghbor is defensible. Dr. Iachetta suggested
December 1, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from November 17, 1976)
Mr~ Henley did not like the 100 foot setback required under Section 11-14-2(a)(2).
Mr. Agnor noted that the setback in the A-1 zone is now 75 feet. It was the consensus of
the Board that this section should be changed to 75 feet. It was the consensus on Section
11-14~4(a)(4) that it should read only: "Landscaping to be provided to the reasonable
satisfaction of the zoning administrator."
Mr. Dorrier again suggested that Section 11-14-2(a)(6) concerning rental of property
be stricken. Mr. Henley said he would rather see 1!-14-2(b) regarding bonding stricken
since this provision leaves it at'~.the discretion of the zoning administrator as to who
will have to post bond. Mr. Fisher said the concept of bonding as adopted by the Board
was to let an applicant obtain a certificate of occupancy and occupy the premises even
though there might be items on a site plan that were not completed. In that case, the
applicant could post a bond for completion. Mrs. David said in this instance she did not
feel this is of major importance and same could be deleted. It was the consensus of the
Board that Section 11-14-2(b) should be deleted; Section 11-14-2(c) will become t1-14-2(b);
and I1-i4-2(d) will become ili4-2(c). At this point Mrs. David offered motion to adopt
an ordinance to amend and reenact Sections 11-14 through 11-13-3 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance wish the changes in Section 11-14-2(a)(2), Section 11-14-4(a)(4) mentioned
above, deletion of 11-14-2(b) and with remaining sections being renumbered. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE-ENACT SECTIONS 11-14 THROUGH 11-14-3 OF THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, AS FOLLOWS:
ii-J4
SPECIAL MOBILE HOME PERMIT
11-14-1 Procedure
a)
This section provides for administrative approval of individual
mobile homes in certain cases as hereinafter provided. In
all other cases, individual mobile homes may be authorized
in accordance with section 11-13 or section 2-1-23 of this
ordinance, as the case may be. Permits for the location of
individual mobile homes may be issued by the zoning admini-
strator upon a determination that the proposed location of
the mobile home will be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this ordinance and that the same will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Prior to making any such determination, and for purposes
thereof, the zoning administrator shall cause to'be made an
on-site inspection of the property in question.
b)
No such permit shall be issued unless and until the zoning
administrator shall have caused all parties concerned to be
notified of his intent to issue such permit. Such notification
shall consist of the following:
i)
by the sending of a certified letter to the last known
address of each adjacent property owner; and
2)
by sending notification of such intent in writing to
each member of the commission and the governing body;
and
3)
by the posting of signs of a size and design approved
by the zoning administrator upon the subject property
and adjacent to the nearest state highway at the point
of access to the subject property; and
4)
by publication on at least one occasion in a newspaper
of general circulation in the county not less than
thirty nor more than sixty days prior to the proposed
date of issuance of such permit.
c)
In the event that no person so notified shall object to the
proposed location of the mobile home as hereinafter provided~
the zoning administrator may issue the permit sought. In
the event of any such objection, or if the applicant disagrees
with any proposed condition of approval, the application
shall be referred to the commission and the governing body
for their approval and shall thereafter be processed in
accordance with the provisions of section 11-13 of this
ordinance. Any such objection shall be in writing and shall
be delivered to the zoning administrator not later than the
proposed date of issuance of such permit.
11-14-2 Conditions of Approval
a)
The issuance of a permit under this section shall be subject
to the following conditions which shall be met by the applicant
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy and
which shall thereafter be complied with:
i)
2)
3)
Albemarle County building official approval;
setback of a minimum of seventy-five feet from the
right of way of any public highway;
minimum side and rear yards and lot area to be established
and maintained in conformity with the provisions of the
December 1, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned fr~om
November 17, !976.)
4)
5)
6)
7)
landscaping to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction
of the zoning administrator;
skirting around mobile home from ground level to base
of the mobile home;
no rental to be .made of the mobile home, the same to be
occupied by the owner of the land on which it is located
or by his lineal relative or bona fide agricultural
employee;
provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities
to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator
and the local office of the Virginia Department of
Health.
b)
Any permit issued pursuant to this section may be revoked by
the zoning administrator, after hearing, for willful noncom-
pliance with this ordinance or any condition imposed under
the authority of this section. Prior to holding any such
hearing, the zoning administrator shall notify the permit
holder of his intent to hold the same at least twenty-one
days prior to the date thereof.
c)
In the event that no mobile home shall be located pursuant
to the permit within eighteen months of the date of issuance
thereof, the same shall be deemed abandoned and the authority
granted thereby shall thereupon terminate.
11-14-3 TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME PERMIT
Temporary mobile home permits may be authorized by the zoning
administrator provided the mobile home is used only as an interim
means of housing during construction of a permanent dwelling.
The mobile home shall be removed within thirty days of issuance
of a certificate of occupancy for the permanent dwelling. Temporary
mobile home permits shall be subject to the following conditions:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Albemarle County building official approval;
the applicant and/or owner of the subject property shall
certify as to the intent for locating the mobile home at the
time of application;
minimum frontage setback and side and rear yard setbacks
shall be determined by the zoning administrator;
provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities
to the reasonabl~ satisfaction of the zoning administrator
and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health.
11-14-3.1 Any permit issued pursuant to section 11-14-3, shall expire
eighteen months after the date of issuance unless construction
shall have commenced and is thereafter prosecuted in good faith.
The zoning administrator may revoke any such permit, after ten
days written notice, at any time upon a finding that construction
activities have been suspended for an unreasonable time or in bad
faith. In any event, any such permit shall expire three years
from the date of issuance; provided, however, that the zoning
administrator may, for good cause shown, extend the time of such
expiration for not more than two successive periods of one year
each.
Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to a~op2 an~ordinaneei~to amend and reenact Section
2-1-23 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; said ordinance set out below:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2-1-23 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2-1-23 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
be amended and re-enacted by the addition of subsection (c) reading:
Temporary mobile home permit issued pursuant to section 11-14
of this ordinance.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iaehetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Mobile Home Subdivision: Mr. Tucker said these amendments
were drafted to update provisions for mobile home subdivisions and to provide for
mobile home subdivisions in all zones which provide for single-family residential use.
Amendments must also be made to various articles of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for
mobile home subdivisions as a use by special use permit and amendments must be made to the
definition section in order to accomplish these changes. The Planning Commission, unanimous]
recommends approval of these amendments.
Mr. St. John said the last sentence, of paragraph 1 of Section 11-12 should read: "It is
intended that conventional homes may be built in mobile home subdivisions and that owners of
mobile homes in these subdivisions may improve, convert, or change their residences from
mobile homes to conventional dwellings." In the second paragraph, strike the last word
"hereto" and add the words "to mobile homes". Mr. St. John said unless this change is made,
~ a~v~n~] ~om~ ao~d not be built in a mobile home subdivision and that is discriminator
December 1, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from November 17, 1976)
483
After a short briefing on these changes, motion was offered by Mrs. David to adopt the
following ordinances with changes discussed in Section 11-12, first and second paragraphs:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 11-12 THROUGH 11-12-2 OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, AS FOLLOWS:
11-12
MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
This provision is designed primarily to benefi6 those who wish
to acquire ownership or equity in a lot and occupy the premises
themselves, but who may find it undesirable or difficult to
construct a conventional single-family dwelling. It is intended
that conventional homes may be built in mobile home subdivisions
and that owners of mobile homes in these subdivisions may improve,
convert, or change their residences from mobile homes to conven-
tional dwellings.
These regulations shall supplement and be in addition to the
regulations of the district in which any such subdivision shall
be located.; except, that no regulation which is by its nature
inapplicable to mobile homes shall apply to mobile homes.
A mobile home subdivision may be established by the commission
and the governing body by special use permit obtained pursuant to
section 11-13 of this ordinance.
11-12-1 Minimum Size of Mobile Home Subdivisions
A mobile home subdivision shall consist of ten lots or more.
11-12-2
Subdivision Control
Ail mobile home subdivisions shall adhere to the requirements of
the Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance of Albemarle
County, Virginia; Chapter 7, Code of Albemarle, Erosion and
Sedimentation Control; and all other applicable law.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND, REENACT AND ADD CERTAIN SECTIONS TO THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AS SET OUT BELOW:
Add the following sections as uses by special use permit:
Under Article 1.1. Conservation District, CVN: Add Section 1.1-1-2(4)
Mobile home subdivision in accordance with section 11-12 of this ordinance.
Under Article 3. Residential Suburban District (RS-i): Add Section
3-1-12(8) Mobile home subdivision in accordance with section 11-12 of
this ordinance.
Under Article 4. Residential, Limited, District (R-i): Add Section
4-1-12(7) Mobile home subdivision in accordance with section 11-12 of
this ordinance.
Under Article 5. Residential, Limited, District (R-2): Add Section
5-1-15(6) Mobile home subdivision in accordance with section 11-12 of
this ordinance.
Under Article 6. Residential, General, District (R-3): Add Section
6-1-21(11) Mobile home subdivision in accordance with section 11-12 of
this ordinance.
Add Section 16-60.1 MOBILE HOME LOT: An area of land for the
placement of a single mobile Home and for the exclusive use of its occupants.
Add Section 16-65.1 OPEN SPACE: Water or land left in undisturbed
open condition or developed as landscaped area, unoccupied by structures,
streets, or parking lots, or occupied by recreational facilities in
accordance with all applicable law and as approved by the commission,
the governing body, and/or their respective designated agents.
Amend and reenact the following sections:
Section 16-59 MOBILE HOME: An industralized building unit constructed
on a chassis for towing to the point of use and designed to be used,
without a permanent foundation for continuous year-round occupancy as a
dwelling; or two or more such units separately towable, but designed to be
joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which
is designed for removal to, and installation or erection on other sites.
Section 16-60 MOBILE HOME PARK: One or more parcels of land_in
which rental units are provided for mobile homes.
Section 16-61 MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION: A subdivision of land for
the purpose of providing salable lots for mobile homes as provided in
Section 11-12 of this ordinance.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
484
December 1, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from
November 17, 1976)
Agenda Item No. 6. Request for Christmas Holiday for County Employees. Mr. Agnor said
that Christmas Day and New Year's Day both fall on a Saturday this year, therefore County
employees will automatically get the preceding Friday off each of these two weeks. In past
years, the Board has granted County employees an extra holiday during the Christmas season.
Mr. Agnor then recommended that the Board grant one additional leave day, to be taken either
on the Thursday before Christmas or the Thursday before New Year's Day, but with County
offices being open on these days with a skeleton crew in a~i~endance. If this is not satis-
factory to the Board, he would then recommend that an additional half day be granted with
County offices closing at noon on Thursday. He also suggested that before the next Christma~
season, the Board consider granting a floating holiday instead of one of the holidays now
being taken so the Board will not be faced with this decision each year. Mr. Fisher Said he
felt this floating holiday should be incorporated into the employee's benefit package and
agreed with Mr~ Agnor's recommendation for this year. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachett
seconded by Mrs. David to accept Mr. Agnor's recommendation. The. motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ResignatiOn of County ExtenSion Agent. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of
letter from Mr James J. Dunford tendering his resignation as an extension agent effective
December 23, 1976. Mr. Dunford said he has been recruited by Texas Tech for a graduate
program which includes teaching and research responsibilities as well as a doctoral program.
Although he is sorry to leave Albemarle County,this opportunity affords him a chan2e to grow
professionally while at the same time being a minimum personal and financial strain on his
family. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to accept Mr. Dunford's resignation and
ordering that a letter of appreciation for services rendered be sent. The motion was seconde
by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Order advertisement of change in certain precinct lines.~
Mr. Tucker said this request comes about because the 1976 session of the General Assembl
adopted Virginia Code Sections 24.1-40.1 which ordered that each election district or precinc
should be composed as nearly as practicable of contiguous and compact areas having clearly
defined and clearly observable boundaries. Changes pursuant to this order were to have been
made before July 1, 1976, however, information on this matter was late being received from
the Office of Legislative Services in Richmond. Whe~f~m~tion was received on August 11,
1976, from Paul W. Manns, Chairman, Privileges and Elections Subcommittee on 1980 Special
Census, he stated that "although the July 1,1976, deadline for changing boundaries has
passed, it is the feeling of our legislative Subcommittee that the governing bodies of all
counties and cities, who have any election districts or precincts that do not meet the legal
requirements of ~clearly defined and clearly observable boundaries' act with all deliberate
speed to change suchi~boundaried so that they do meet these legal requirements as quickly
as possible" On SePtember 8, 1976, the Board authorized the signing of a questionnaire
which stated that the County had special problems regarding election districts and asking for
assistance. (This comes about because the report of the Commissioner's of the Circuit Court
dated February:lg, 1971~ cannot be found the Circuit Court Clerk's Office.) Also, the
Division of Legislative Services did not agree that the County has clearly defined election
district and precinct boundaries. Legislation is being prepared and witlli~.~e'~introduced
into the 1977 session of the' General Assembly to validate such changes made after the
July 1, 1976, deadline legal.
Mr. Tucker said he has met wit~ the Electoral Board and discussed the proposed changes.
~They objected to only one line; that being the one between the Scottsvi!le and Covesville
precincts. The Planning Staff does not feel the line proposed by the Electoral Board will~
meet the intent of the General Assembly in asking that precinct lines follow clearly defined
boundaries as far as possible, but the Electoral Board is interested in getting people to the
closest voting Poll. A change is also recommended between the Free Union and Crozet Precinct
Mr. Tucker said, on November 10, 1976, the Board ordered these precinct lines advertised for
a public hearing, but since there is disagreement between the Planning Staff and the E!ector~
Board, he is now asking which lines ShoUld be advertised.
Mr. Fisher recommended that the recommendations of the Electoral Board be advertised,
with such changes to become effective at whatever time the State Legislature enacts legis-
lation to make t~is Change legal and the Governor signs the biI1 into law.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to advertise the Board's intent to amend precinct line:
in the Scottsville and White Hall Magisterial Districts; to reaffirm other precinct lines;
and to amend and reenact Sections 6-2, 6-3, 6-4,~6-5, 6-6 and 6-7 of the Albemarle County
Code; such public hearing to be held on December 15, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle
County Courthouse. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Roudabush offered motion to appoint Mr. Montie Pace, a farmer who is
also in the lumber business and who knows land values and land use capabilities, as~a member
of the Land Use Classification Appeals Board, to serve out the term of Mr. Harlan F. Manweil!
said term expiring on September 1, 1977. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, %achetta and Roudabush.
None.
r;
December 1, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from November 17, 1976)
December 1, 1976 (Night-Regular Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 9 Adjournment. Mr. Fisher said a Board member has asked for an
executive session to discuss personnel matters. Motion to adjourn into executive session was
offered by Dr. Iachetta at 6:02 P.M., seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the recorded vote
which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned the meeting which had begun
at 3:00 P.M.
December 1, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on December 1, 1976, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albem~rle County Courthouse, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., 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, ~obert W. Tucker,~'~r-.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. la. ZMA~l.7-76. Edward C. Dudley, Sr. To rezone 3.84 acres and 0.6
acres from A-1 Agricultural to M-1 Industrial Limited. Property on east side of Avon Street
Extended, just north of Hall Brothers. County Tax Map 90, Parcels 35B and 35E. Charlottes-
ville Magisterial District. (Advertised only on November 17, 1976.)
Agenda Item No. lb. SP-85-76. Edward C. Dudley, Sr. To locate a warehouse for
stomage on 3.84 acres and 0.6 acres, proposed for M-1 zoning - currently zoned A-1 Agricultu~
Property on east side of Avon Street Extended, just north of Hall Brothers. County Tax Map 9
Parcels 35B and 35E. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised only on November ~17,
1976.)
The applicant was not present. Mr. Fisher said he understands that these app!ication~
may not be properly bffore the Board because Mr. Dudley~is not the sol~ owner of the property
Mr.~St.~John said since this question was raised~ his office had tried to search the title
to the property. As far as they can ascertain, the property stands in the name of Eva W.
Dudley. If ~rs. Dudley is dead and ther~is more than one heir, the application is not
proper~y before the Board. Mr. Dudley has been requested to fur~ish this information, but
has not responded to correspondence. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not he~rd
these requests yet. Motion was then offered by Dr.~Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to
defer these applications until January 5, 1977. The motion carried by the fo]lowing
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, lachetta and Roudabush.
None. .
Agenda Item No. 3. Public H~aring SP-84-76. Charles R. Baber. To locate a turkey
shoot on 161.70 acres. Property on east side of Route 626 about 200 feet south of Route 735
Property zoned A-1 Agricultural. County Tkx Map 133, parcels 75 and 75A~ County Tax Map 134
Parcel 10A. Scottsville Magisterial District. (Advertised on November 17 and November 24,
1976.)
Mr. Tucker said this area is rural, characterized by large parcels. Property across
Route 626 has been cleared. The C & 0 Railroad bounds the property to the south. One
residence is visibla from the proposed site; this dwelling is approximately one-quarter of
a mile from the site. Adjacent to the proposed shooting range on th~ subject property are.~
two mobile homes and an abandoned grocery. The applicant's dwelling is located at the end
of the driveway which runs next to the proposed shooting range. The appliCant proposes to
operate the turkey shoot for profit each year from November 1 through the Christmas holidays
on FridayLnights. The shooting range is proposed in a newly-cleared area adjacent to the
abandoned Payne's store. As the aatual shooting matches would ben, conducted at night,
lighting would be required. While the staff was hesitant to recommend any shooting range for
approval that is not enclosed, the Planning Commission on November 23, 1976, unanimously
recommended approval with the fo!~owing conditions:
(1) The location and design-~of the shooting range be approved by the Albemarle
County Sheriff to include specification of safety devices.
(2) Annual review by the~ zoning administrator to insure the range is maintained
as approved.
(3) Firearms limited to shotguns with loadings approved by the Sheriff.
(4) This shall be a seasonal use limited to the months of September through
December. The shoot may be held during daylight hours (specified) on
Saturdays only, provided in,no case shall a shoot be held on Christmas
Eve or Christmas Day.
(5) No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on the premises during shooting
matches.
(6) This approval shall be limited specifically as described in Conditions