1975-04-23N 4-22-75 (Night)
4-23-75
Mr. Wood seconded the motion, and added he approved of the budget with the exception of the
fact that the Committee chose to delete the six new deputies for the Sheriff's Department.
Mr. Thacker commented that he did not fully agree with the salary increase presented in the
budget for county employees, but felt it was necessary to maintain the aaliber of personnel that the
county presently employes. He added he intended to support the proposed budget.
Mr. Henley stated he would not support salary increases of more than 5~ for county or school
employees, He also felt money for overtime pay for firemen should be removed, and that the con-
vention bureau of the Chamber of Commerce should be deleted.
Mr. Fisher said the economy is bad enough, and the county should not grant salary increases
this great. He added there were people in the County who probably would' not be able to pay their
taxes because of the high tax base, and said he would not support the motion.
Role was called, and motion to adopt the above referenced resolution was carried by the fol-
lowing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
Mr. Wheeler asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments on the Board's decision
to adopt the above noted ta~ base.
Mr. Robert Humphris asked if the Board had considered a split tax rate. Mr. Wood answered that
it was considered but decided against because the automobile has become a necessity and the man who
needs his car to go back and forth to work is least able to afford the higher personal property tax
rate.
At 8:20 P.M., Mr. St. John requested the Board hold an executive session to discuss three
items; two pending court cases (Service Authority and Fleming-Evergreen suits), and the matter of
purchasing from the City utilities located in the County. Mr. Carwile offered motion to adjourn
into executive session to discuss the three items requested by Mr. St. John. Motion was seconded by
Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
The Board reconvened at 8:45 P.M., and upon proper motion the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April
23, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and
~[oyd F. Wood, Jr.
ABSENT: Stuart F. Carwile.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. T.M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St.John, County Attorney;
and Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
No. 1. SP450, Southern Capital Fund (deferred from March 26, 1975).
Assistant County Planner read from the Staff report:
Mr. Robert Tucker,
"Character of Area
The area in question is a part of the northwest portion of Albemarle County. The
area is rural and mountainous in character. There are approximately twenty dwelling
units located in the immediate area of this property, four of which are located on
the property in question. There is a country store (presently vacant) located on the
property at the intersection of Routes 671 and 667.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that these parcels of Buck Mountain lie within
both the conservation and agricultural areas of northwest Albemarle. The Plan sug-
gests residential densities of one dwelling unit per (5) acres in the conservation
area and one dwelling unit per two acres in the agricultural area.
~roposed Impact Statistics
Impact under Existing Zoning: 297 units x 3.2 persons/unit= 950 population and
approximately 291 children. Impact under Applicant's Proposal: 130 units x 3.2
persons/unit= 416 population and approximately 127 children. The applicant proposes
48 clustered lots in five (5) separate areas with lots which range in size from 1.38
acres to 1.52 acres. In addition to these lots, the plan indicates that there will
be 82 conventional lots ranging in size from 2.83 acres to 11.22 acres. Acres to
remain in open space include 154.97 acres which would be associated with a particular
section of development and 94.21 acres which would be common open space for the
entire development. The only proposed commercial area is located on an existing 0.78
acre lot at the northwest corner of the development. A vacant country store is
located on this property which is intended to be used as a convenience store for the
development and surrounding area.
Schools
The Department of Education indicates that there will be a possible redistricting
of Meriwether Lewis School in September, 1975, which would handle the projected
enrollment from Buck Mountain. Henley Intermediate School anticipates no problems in
the handling of the projected enrollment. Jack Jouett and Albemarle High are scheduled
for redistricting in September, 1977; once this is accomplished, students from Buck
Mountain would then enter Westside High School.
4-23-75 (night)
10!
Transportation Facilities
Access into Buck Mountain Planned Community would be from Route 601 and Route
671. Traffic counts taken in August, 1972, indicate that the segment of Route 601
from Route 667 to Route 671 had a vehicle count of 297 over a 24 hour period. Route
671 had a vehicular count of 47 over a 24 hour period from Route 601 to Route 664.
The main arterials into the planned community are proposed to have 50 foot rights-of-
way and to be built to State Highway specifications for their inclusion into the
State Highway System. Streets serving the clustered lots are proposed to be privately
maintained.
Water and Sewer Facilities
The applicant proposes that individual lots outside of the clustered areas will
have individual wells and septic systems. The clustered areas are proposed to have
central wells with individual septic systems, however, the clustered lots have been
given sufficient area to meet the subdivision requirements for individual well and
septic systems. A letter from K.R. Hinkle, Regional Geologist, State Water Control
Board, indicates that because of the underlying bedrock on Buck Mountain, well sites
should "be selected on the basis of favorable topography, i.e., recharge potential.
Mr. Hinkle suggests that central wells, serving around five dwelling units per well,
be used because of the potential low groundwater supply. These wells should be
drilled at low elevations in order to maximize the recharge potential. He goes
further to suggest that ~ groundwater study with recommended well sites be considered.
Soil and Slope Analysis
The soils limitations, according to the Soil Conservation Service, range from
moderate to severe. The soil limitations follow primarily the slope limitations,
i.e. the severe soils are basically found in the'severe slopes. The moderate soils
are located generally along State Routes 667, 601 and 671 where slopes are slight to
moderate (5-25%). Those soils with severe limitations are found primarily in those
areas of steep slopes (26% and greater) and along natural drainage swales. The plans
for Buck Mountain Planned Community indicate that development is to take place in
those areas where the soils and slope limitations are not severe. The mountaintop
and natural drainage areas are to remain in common open space or open space assoc-
iated with a particular section of the development.
Staff Comment
The plans and density proposed for Buck Mountain Planned Community are in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the lot layout basically follows the
moderate soil and slope limitations. While there are steep slopes and severe soil
limitations on the lots nearest to the mountaintop, these lots appear to have suff-
icient area to afford an adequate building site and septic field. The staff does
feel, however, that precaution should~ be taken to assure that each lot does, in fact,
have an approved site for a drainfield prior to subdivision approval."
Mr. Tucker reported on a groundwater study conducted on the site by North American Exploration,
Inc., indicating two test wells were drillsd showing 10 sites with better than average potential.
Prior to actual drilling, a member of the County staff should inspect each site and make a precise
location. Staff recommends all wells having a moderate to high yield be drilled with the largest
practical bore, but not less than s~x inches in diameter and to a maximum depth of 450 feet.
Mr. Tucker then proceeded to read memorandum of J.H. Bailey, County Engineer dated April 10,
1975 regarding the well study: '
"We have read the North American Exploration, Inc. report on the Buck
Mountain Area Groundwater Potential and the Water Well Completion Report of
C.R. Moore Well Drilling Company. We offer the following comments:
Since the well driller's report shows a test period of ten hours, we
must withhold judgement on the capacity of the well until such time as a
standard pump test has been conducted. Such a test should give yield and
drawdown data over a minimum 48 hour period. The geologic conditions reported i:~-.i~?~
indicate to us that care must be taken in the location of septic systems,
relative to the recharge area of a well. The geologist should be consulted on
the location of a septic system which will serve a number of dwellings. This
area drains into the South Rivanna above the existing reservoir. It is
located approximately two miles above a dam-site on Buck Mountain Creek, which has
been proposed by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. as a major reservoir, which will be
needed around the year 2000 A.D. We, therefore, urge the Planning Commission
to exercise every discretion allowable to them in providing controls to
safeguard the watershed."
Mr. Tucker added that Mr. Bailey felt the applicant could submit additional well water capacity
tests at the time they submitted their site plan for the special use permit for a central well.
The staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of SP-450 with the following conditions:
1) Any changes in the plans, as may be warranted as result of the water studies, be made
prior to final approval;
2) Concept, densities, and open space acreage shown on the plan entitled "Buck Mountain -
Preliminary Subdivision Layout" and marked "Received February 24 1975" shall be adhered
to; ·
3) All roads to be built to State Highway Specifications with the exception of the access
roads into the clustered areas, which are to be privately maintained and so stated in the
homeowners agreements (limited to no more than 10 lots or structures);
4) Ail homeowners agreements to be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office;
5) Only those areas where roads-, driveways, lakes, pedestrian and horse trails, and struc-
tures are to be located shall be disturbed with grading operations;
6) Each lot shall have Health Department final approval for septic systems prior to any
subdivision approval;
?) All wells, whether central or individual, shall have final Health Department and County
approval, where applicable, prior to any subdivision approval, and;
8) Maximum density of one dwelling unit/5 acres not be exceeded and no additional lots be
placed on the plan.
Mr. Wheeler asked if any thought had been given to the cluster area roads being constructed tc
~~ ~t of the state system. Mr. Tucker stated the roads were being constructed as private
~ ....... ~~ ~n~ea~e Der lot.
4-23-75 (Night)
Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, pointed out features on a series of maps, showing
types of soil, topographic conditions, well sites, and cluster locations of the proposed development.
Mr. Fisher asked if private road signs were to be installed at the entrance of each cluster
group. Mr. Evans stated no, but the public road would have a turn-around at the point where it
meets the private road. He also added that the private roads as well as the central well for each
cluster would be part of the Homeowners Agreement and would be written into the propertydeed
Mr. Fred Landess stated all the cluster home owners would be members of the same Homeowners
Association, but owners would only be responsible for the road and well in his particular cluster.
Mr. St. John said these were not considered restricted roads. He defined restricted roads as those
which are dedicated to public use, but which are maintained privately. In the case of the roads in
the clusters, the property owners own to the center of the right-of-way and have a common right-of-
way over the road to their own lot. '
Mr. Fisher asked what provisions there were in case a central well for a cluster ra~ dry. Mr.
Evans said they would only accept wells that had at least 20 gallons per minute flow, and that the
wells were not located on privately owned property, but on the open space areas.
After very considerable discussion as to the pros and cons of the private road compared to
restricted roads, Mr. Thacker offered motion to approve SP~50 in accordance with the conditions
approved by the Planning Commission with the exception of Item #3 which was changed to read "Ail
roads to be built to State Highway Specifications, and Albemarle County road specifications."
Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood. Role was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile
The Board continued with four public hearings as advert'ised in the Daily Progress on April 2
and April 9, 1975.
No. 2. ZMP320, James and Alice Browning, request to rezone 2.7 acres from A-1
Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated.on the west side of Route 729
at its intersection with Route 53 at Nix.
Mr. Robert Tucker read from the staff report:
"The area is rural in nature, however, there are 18 single-family dwellings in
the immediate area. A church is located across from this property on Rt. 729. A
country store is located further to the east on Rt. 53. This property is located
within the village of Nix as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan suggests a
population of 5,000 for Nix. The property to the north of subject property is
presently zoned RS-1 and has been developed. The applicant presently lives in a
single-family dwelling on this property and wishes to locate another dwelling unit on
the property. The staff feels the zoning requested for this property is in keeping
with the Comprehensive Plan and existing zoning in the area and therefore, recommends
approval. The staff noted, however, that if the applicant wishes to subdivide this
property, it must be divided into two equal parcels in order to meet subdivision
regulations."
No one from the public spoke for or against this request, and Mr. Wheeler declared the public
hearing closed. Mr. Thacker noted that if the property is subdivided, neither parcel will meet the
required 60,000 sq. feet as required by the'Subdivision Ordinance. Both the Planning Commission and
the applicant were aware of this fact, and were prepared to bring the subdivision request back to
the Board of Supervisors at a future date.
Mr. Thacker then offered motion to approve ZMP-320.
~arried by the following recorded vote:
Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and
~YES:
fAYS:
[BSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Messrs. Carwile and Wood.
No. 3. SP-454, G. Jaeger, W. Jaeger, D. Damon, M. Buckley, and P. Philhour
request to locate a craft shop--woodworking on 24.5 acres zoned A-1 Agricul-
tural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 641 at Burnleys, County
Tax Map 22, Parcel 18, Rivanna District.
Mr. Robert Tucker read from the staff report.
"This area maintains a rural atmosphere with five single-family dwellings in the
immediate area. The majority of the property in question is rolling pasture land.
There exists on the property one occupied single-family dwelling and one unoccupied
two-story structure that was used at one time as a general store. There are two
riding stables in the immediate vicinity. One is located across from subject pro-
perty on the north side of Route 641. The other is located on the east Side of the
Southern Railroad, across from subject property.
The applicant proposes to use the unoccupied structure on the property as a
woodworking shop. He intends to build custom-made hardwood furniture. He expects
production to be very slow, one to two items per month. Employment will be limited
to the applicant himself, however, an apprentice may be hired if the work load warrants
it.
The staff is of the opinion that this use would not change the character and
established pattern of development in the area and it is felt that the proposed use
would be compatible with surrounding land uses. The Staff and Planning Commission
therefore, recommend approval provided the following conditions are adhered to:
Any renovations of the existing structure shall have County Building Official
approval;
4-23-75 (Night)
5.
6.
7.
Production be limited to custom-made items, i.e., no assembly line production to
be permitted;
Employment to be limited to a maximum of three persons, any additional employment
Will require an additional special use permit;
Signing be Limited to one free standing sign, not to exceed six square feet.
Ail woodworking equipment shall be located within an enclosed area.
Sales be limited to only products of the applicant.
Permit is non-transferable.
i0
Mr. Thacker asked the applicant, Mr. Walter O. Jaeger, if a great deal of renovation of the
building needed to be done. Mr. Jaeger stated no, it was fairly well suited to his purpose. Mr.
Thacker felt the seventh condition was not necessary, as the other conditions prevented the sale of
the business to someone who may intend to use it in a different manner.
A property owner to the east of the applicants property, requested the Board to approve the
special permit, as they had no objections to this type of use. His only worry was that in the
future someone may buy the property from the present owner and want to change the use.
Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant had any objections to condition #7 remaining. He stated he
had no objections. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to approve Special Permit #454 with conditions #1
through #7 as stated above. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Mr. Carwile.
No. 4'~. SP-456. Charles W. Weakley, request to locate a general store on 0.74 acres
zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Rt. 29 North at the
Greene County line, County tax Map 21, Parcel 61, Rivanna District.
Mr. Robert Tucker read from the staff report:
"The area is rural in character with eight conventional single-family dwellings
and one mobile home in the immediate vicinity. The land to the east of this pro-
perty, across U.S. 29, is vacant with pasture and woodland.
There exists on the property a structure which once was used as a restaurant and
later as an antique shop. It is presently unoccupied but is being proposed for use
as a general store. The structure is conducive for the proposed use and has good
access and sight visibility from U.S. 29 North. Landscaping exists on the site
already and the parking area is paved.
The staff is of the opinion that the existing site and structure should be
improved from its present state and recommend approval of the general store on the
basis of its location and access from 29 North. The Planning Commission recommends
approval of the petition with the following conditions:
1. Building Official approval of any renovations; ~-_ \!'~ U~.~.~ ~.~uZ
2. Site Plan approval by Planning Staff to insure adequate parking and circulation;
3. Health Dept. approval of water and sewer facilities;
4. Signing be limited to one wall sign in conformance with the County Si~n Regulations.
5. Parking spaces 9-11 be used for employee parking.
No one from the public spoke for or against this petition. Mr. Thacker pointed out that condit
#4 was unnecessary because the Sign Ordinance pertaining to an agricultural zone allows one 100
square foot sign on the building and one free standing 100 square foot sign·
Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed· Mr. Wood made motion for approval of special
permit #456 eliminating condition #4. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the followd
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Mr. Carwile.
No. 5. SP-464, Vernard C. and Ruth S. Blick, request to locate a Country General
Store and Gift, Craft and Antique Shop on 13.52 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural.
Property is situated on the southeast side of Route 626 near Howardsville.
County Tax Map 139, Parcel 30E, part thereof, Scottsville.
Mr. Robert Tucker read from Staff report:
"The area maintains a rural atomosphere with a few dwellings located in the
nearby vicinity. The countryside is primarily wooded and gently rolling. The
general store, etc., is proposed to be located in an already renovated two-story
structure. The parking area is graveled and is of sufficient area to accommodate
the required parking. Some landscaping has already been accomplished. The staff
and Planning Commission are of the opinion that the proposed use of this pro-
perty will not change the character or established pattern of development in the
area and on that basis recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. County Building Official approval of any further renovations;
2. Delineate a minimum of six parking spaces (staff suggests using railroad
ties);
3. Entrance width expanded to a minimum of 30 feet and maximum of 35 feet and
delineated (staff suggests wood posts, one on each side of entrance two
feet above ground level with reflectors on both sides of posts);
4. Landscaping to be expanded, as shown an attached plat;
5. Signing to be limited to wall signs not to exceed an aggregate area of
thirty (30) square feet.
6. Use limited to plat on file.
7. Permit issued to applicant, and is non-~ransferable.
i04
4-23-75 (Night)
Mr. Wheeler asked the applicant if he had any objections to the non-transferability clause
imposed by the staff. He responded there were no objections. Mr. Thacker then proceeded to
explain the possible ramifications of this clause, and the applicant reconsidered his answer,
stating he did object.
Mr. Thacker then offered motion for approval of~special permit #464, deleting condition
Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Mr. Carwile.
No. 6. Report from Juvenile Court Facilities Committee. Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Thacker
abstained from discussion and vote on this matter. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Fisher to chair this
discussion.
Mr. Wood stated the Juvenile Court Facilities Committee met on Tuesday and have come to a
final plan for purchase of the Elk's Lodge for the Juvenile Court. Mr. Fisher added that Judge
Zehler is satisfied with the preliminary plans as drawn. Ail changes in the exterior must be
brought before the Architectural Review Committee which controls the appearance of buildings on
court square. He further stated the County Attorney has completed the title search. Mr.
Fisher said it was agreed between the Judge and the architect that the total cost will not
exceed $400,000, which includes option monies that have been spent, preliminary drawings and
structural investigations. If all bids received are over the $400,000 figure, plans will be
revised to bring the figure down to $400,000. Mr. Fisher pointed out that the plans do not
include holding facilities for prisoners because the Elk's Lodge retains use of the basement
level for one year after sale of the building. The Committee unanimously recommended the
option be exercised at the end of the present 60 day period, and that notice, be given to the
Elk's Club to vacate within one year. The agreement with ~the architect must be signed and an
appropriation from Revenue Sharing funds be made for the purchase price.
Mr. Wood stated that Judge Zehler intends to apply under the L.E.A.A. Federal funding
program for security equipment for the courtroom, and that if received, will be the only equipment
not covered in the $400,000 price. Mr. Wood then offered motion to accept the committee's
report, and exercise the option at the end of the 60 day option period, and begin all legal
work, surveys etc., immediately to expedite closure on the building, and give notification to
the Elk's club. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Messrs. Thacker and Wheeler.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
Mr. Wood then made motion giving the County Executive the authority to sign the agreement
with the Architect, Thomas Wyant, in carrying out the proposed plan. Motion was seconded by
Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote:
&YES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Wood.
~AYS: None.
~BSTAiN: Messrs. Thacker and Wheeler.
kBSENT: Mr. Carwile.
Mr. St. John ruled 'that due to the lack of a majority of Board members being present, no
~ppropriation of funds could be made at this time. Mr. Fisher added it was decided that the
~ity would administer the funds for the Juvenile Court facilities.
Claims against the County in the amount of $1,703,957.27 were presented, examined, and allowed
ad certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged to the following funds:
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
General Operating
School Fund
Cafeteria
General Fund
School Construction, Capital Outlay
General Operating Capital Outlay
Textbook
Joint Security Complex
Town of Scottsville
$ 26,688.71
478,465,89
1,116~252.72
30,661.04
163.09
4,478.25
2,269.03
328.52
44,473.72
176.30
$1,703,957.27
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
Chairman