1975-06-18N0 6-18-75 (Night)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,'~Virginia, was held
on June 18, 1975' at 7:30 P.M. in the County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting
being adjourned from June 11, 1975.
PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwi!e, Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker,
Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, T.M. Batchelor, Jr., County Attorney, George R. St. John,
Deputy County Attorney, Frederick Payne; and County Planner, John. L. Humphrey.
Mr. Wheeler called the meeting to order.
No. 1. Samuel A. Birckhead (SP-479) deferred from June 11, 1975. Neither the applicant
nor a representative were present at the public hearing. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner,
stated the applicant had been officially notified of the time and place of the public hearing,
and that the staff and Planning Commission had recommended denial. Mr. Henley offered motion
to deny the special permit request. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES.:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
No. 2. ZMP-316 & SP-446, Holy Comforter (deferrred from April 9, 1975) Mr. Wheeler
stated he received a letter from the applicant requesting these matters be deferred again. Mr.
Carwile stated he wished to abstain from any action on this item, and from the next item on the
agenda. Mr. ~Wheeler recommended this item be placed on the agenda for July 23, 1975. Motion
was then made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher to defer these requests until July 23,
1975. Motion was carried b~ the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Carwile.
No. 3. SP-466, Charles W. Hurt (deferred from May 28, 1975). Mr. Carwi!e abstained from
discussion and action. Mr. John Humphrey reviewed for the Board, 14 conditions recommended by
the staff and Planning Commission:
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Basic land use concept and densities shown on the Hitlcrest Development Plan,
marked "Received" 4-23-75 be adhered to;
No development of this project to take place until sewerage service is available
for this project;
No development to take place until street plans, subdivision plats, and site
plans have been approved by the appropriate state and local agencies;
A detailed master plan showing trunk/collector and lateral water and sewer lines
as well as storm water facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the
County Engineering Department prior to any construction;
The gross density of 2.57 units per acre shall not be exceeded; ~ ~
Homeowners' agreements and deed restrictions shall be approved by the County
Attorney?'s Office prior to construction; Homeowners' agreement should cover the
maintenance of the dam;
Minimum of 0.5 acres in tot lots and equipment and a 3.0 acre area shown for a
play field to be located appropriately in the development and shown on the site
plans when submitted for approval;
Ail development shall be served by public water and sewer facilities;
Any approval of this plan or subsequent plans or plats does not constitute a
guarantee of water or sewer service by the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority;
Ail necessary easements for utilities, as approved by the County Engineer, shall
be deeded to the Albemarle County Service Authority;
No further construction of streets shall take place until the street plans have
been approved by the appropriate state or county officials and the proper
bonding for such streets has been accomplished or the streets are built;
No excavation of buffer areas or open space, with exception of utilities and
roads, without planning staff approval;
Water impoundment (dam) shall be approved by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water
Conservation District;
Maximum of eight (8) single-family lots located nearest Route 20 may use septic
drainfields.
Mr. Thacker asked if the capacity of the Moore's Creek Treatment Plant has changed since
this request was before the Board in June, 1974 (SP-373). Mr. Batchelor stated a study was done
one year ago to determine what the treatment capacity would be upon completion of improvements
to the Moore's Creek Plant. Mr. Batchelor said although the additional capacity is slated to
handle new construction in that area~ all new hook-ups are on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Mr. Wheeler felt Mr. Batchelor was not the right person to answer Mr. Thacker's questions, that
the Rivanna and Albemarle Sewer Authorities were the only agencies which could give accurate
answers.
Mr. Jim Hill, representing Dr. Hurt, stated the community would be at least 1% years in
the preliminary, stages, and that water and sewer would not be a problem. He said the community
was geared for persons with incomes of $12,000 or less, but that the longer the delay, the
higher the construction costs were getting and that soon this income bracket would be out of
reach.
Kathy Gilman of the Charlottesville-Albemarle League of Women Voters read a statement
requesting the Board to add the following conditions to this special permit request.
"1. A sufficiently large parcel of the section should be developed at one time.
Piece-meal development at different times by different people would lead to many
complications and should be avoided.
2. The development of a structure for the homeowner's association which would provide
for adequate management and maintenance of open space, lake, and recreational areas,
specifying the responsibility of the developer to provide minimal recreational facil-
ities for the community such as ball fields, basketball courts, picnic areas.
3. With the likelihood of mu.ltiple development and ownership the'responsibilities of
the developers and owners need to be appropriately designated.
4. Before each parcel is developed, the County should know that water and sewer
hook-ons are available. Clarification of the availability of hook-ons at the Moore's
Creek Plant in the near future should be sought so as 'to allow the developer to plan
his development accordingly.
5. Another concern is roads, both present and future. The developer should be
responsible for the safest entrances and exits from the planned community as well as
for adequate internal roads.
6. Adequate provisions for pathways connecting the educational, residential, recrea-
tional, and commercial areas should be addressed in the permit.
7. Finally, there is a parcel 'of land label~led "Institutions". We feel there should
be further clarificatio'n of exactly what is allowed in this area."
Mr. John Smart, formerly of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District,
said the proposed site of this community lies partially in an established flood plain, and that
a good portion of the land is composed of "plastic" soils not suitable for building.
Mr. John Humphrey stated although no flood sbudy has been done on the site, it is general
knowledge that approximately 150 to 200 feet of land back from the right-of-way of Route 20 is
in the flood plain. Mr. Humphrey then pointed out on the map acreage composed of the "plastic"
or "pipe clay" soil, and added the developer knows of its existence and intends to use this
area for open space and recreational facilities.
Mr. Wheeler said he was not going to close the public hearing on this special permit, as
he wished to remain open to all information; then suggested it b~e deferred to July 9, 1975.
Mr. Thacker requested the planning' department prepare and present more detailed information on
the flood plain and soil capabilities on the proposed site, Mr. Fisher requested a precise
definition be obtained for the .term "other institutions" as listed on the site plan. Mr.
Fisher then asked if the 3.5 acres shown on the map for open and recreational space was suf-
ficient for the community's proposed popu'lation of 1,100 people. Mr. Humphrey answered it was
above the average usually approved by~Jounty Board.
Mr. Thacker asked Mr. Hlll if the entire P.U.D. is geared to families of $12,000/year
income. Mr. Hill replied only the townhouses are~not the single family homes. Mr. Batche!or
stated his desire to see an elementary school placed near this development. Mr. Wheeler con-
curred, and suggested Mr.-Humphrey contact Mr. McClure, Superintendent of Schools, and obtain
his opinion as to the necessity of a school in this area in the near future.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Thacker, to continue the public
hearing on this item to the July 9, 1975, meeting. Motion was carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Carwile.
No. 4. P~lic 'Hearing - Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance as advertised in
the Daily Progress on May 24 and May 30, 1975.
Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing open. Mr. Randy Rinehart of the Blue Ridge Home
Builders Association stated they endorse the proposed ordinance, and suggest that a person with
experience in land developing from the community or the Home Builders Association be placed on
the Advisory Board.
Mrs. Frances Martin of the Citizens for Albemarle organization read the following state-
ment to the Board:
"Since its organization in 1971, Citizens for Albemarle has supported the passage and
effective enforcement of an erosion control ordinance in Albemarle County. Experi-
ence has shown the need for strengthening the original measure passed four years ago,
and in several respects, such as the bonding requirement, the proposal now before you
answers that need.
However, we view with apprehension the removal of the plan-approving authority from
the Thomas Jefferson Soil.and Water Conservation Distr±ct, In its many years of
experience with the soils and topography of Albemarle County, the District has
demonstrated the value of the field study approach, with emphasis on careful in-
spection of the individual site. We do not feel that the selection of erosion
control measures from a written set of standards, however authoritatively prepared,
can hope to produce an effective erosion control plan.
We have been told that applicants have complained of delay under the former approach,
but we do not feel that such complaints are a sufficient reason to abandon careful
site inspection.
Therefore, we would like to recommend that the second-to-last sentence of Section 7-2
be changed to read, "The committee, accompanied by the applicant, shall make an
inspection of the site in question as part of a proper review of the plans and
specifications."
Finally, our Board of Directors wishes to restate the urgency of protecting our
watersheds from destructive erosion in the period of rapid development that lies
ahead. Specifically we are concerned about the protection of the Rivanna Reservoir
and the enormous public costs that woul~ ~~ ~ ~
42
6-18-75 (Night)
'No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this ordinance, and Mr..
Wheeler declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker, to adopt the ordinance as adver-
tised, based on changes made during the Board's work-session of May 14, 1975.
Mr. Fisher agreed with comments made by Mrs. Martin, requiring on-site inspections by the
Advisory Committee. Mr. Batchelor felt it would not only be unnecessary, but almost impossible.
Mr. St. John stated that the present ordinance does not require on-site inspections, and because of
this it has been impossible to enforce the ordinance in a court of law. He then recommended on-site
inspections be required and added to this proposed ordinance.
Mr. Carwile asked if Mr. St. John felt it necessary for all members of the Advisory Committee
to visit the site. Mr-. St. John felt one member of the Advisory Board would be sufficient to
constitute legal visitation.
Mr. Hartwell Clarke, Zoning Administrator, said he feels the State Code is specific in re
quiring plans being put down on paper.
At this point in the meeting, Mr. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. arrived (8:45 P.M.)
Mr. Wheeler felt it would be foolish to require all threeTmembers of the Advisory Committee to
visit the site. He recommended one member go and only if problems result, the other two remaining
members follow-up.
At this point, Mr. Carwile offered to amend his earlier motion, to adopt the ordinance as
amended during work-session, by further~ amending Section 7-2 to read "A member of the Advisory
Committee, accompanied by the applicant shall mak~ an inspection of the site in question, as part of
the proper review of the plans and specifications. Mr. Thacker accepted Mr. Carwile's amendment to
the motion'. Role was called and'the ordinance was adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
(The full text of the ordinance, as adopted, is set Out below.)
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCE OF
Albemarle'.Count~,pVirginia
Section !
Title
This ordinance shall be known as the "Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of
Albemarle County Virginia".
Section 2
Purpose
The purpose of this ordinance is to conserve the land, water, air and other natural
resources of Albemarle County and promote the 'public health and welfare of the people
in Albemarle County by' establishing requirements for the con trol of erosion and
sedimentation, and by establishing procedures whereby these requirements shall be
administered and enforced.
Section 3
Au%horization
This ordinance is authorized by the Code of Virginia, Title 21, Chapter 1, Article
6.1, known as the "Erosion and Sediment~C0n~rotlLaw''.
Section 4
Definitions
4-1
Land disturbing activity: Means any activity so defined by the Code of Virginia in
Title 21, Chapter 1, Article 6.1, Section 21-89.3(a).
4-2
Person: Means any individual, partnership, firm, association, Joint venture, public
or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private insti-
tution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town or other political subdivision of
this State, any interstate body, or any other legal entity.
4-3 Code shall mean the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
4-4
Handbook shall mean the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook as the same
shall be amended from time to time.
4-5
Conservation standard or'standards: Means the criteria, guidelines, techniques, and
methods for the control of erosion and sedimentation.
4-6
Conservation p.~%n, .erosion and sediment control~plan or plans and specifications:
Means a document containing material for the conservation of soil and water resources
of a unit or group of units of land. It may include appropriate maps, an appropriate
soil and water plan inventory and management information with needed interpretations,
and a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment. The plan shall
contain all major conservation decisions to assure that the entire unit or units of
land will be so treated to achieve'the conservation objectives.
4-7
Erosion Control Permit:
ordinance.
Means a permit issued by Albemarle County pursuant to this
Zoning Administrator shall mean the Zoning Administrator of Albemarle County, Virginia,
or his designated agent.
4-9
Advisory Committee shall mean the body charged with the duty of reviewing plans and
specifications submitted pursuant to this ordinance and making recommendations to the
Zoning Administrator with regard thereto. The Committee shall consist of the following
members:
a) a representative of Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District
6-18-75 (Night)
Section 5
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
Section 6
6-1
6-2
SectiOn 7
7-1
7-2
b) the County Engineer or his designated agent
c)
a person qualified by experience and expertise in the fields of construc-
tion and engineering to serve on the Committee, such person to be appointed
by the Board of Supervisors to serve successive terms of one year.
The Committee shall formulate rules of procedure for its own operation. The Albe-
marle County Board of Supervisors may, by resolution from time to time, fix the
compensation of members of the Committee.
Approval Required for Certain Activities and Conditions
Except as provided in subsections 5-3 and 5-4 it shall be unlawful for any person to
engage in any land disturbing activity until he has submitted to the Zoning Adminis-
trator an~ erosion and sediment control plan for such land disturbing activity and
until that plan has been reviewed and approved and an'erosion control permit issued
to the person by the Zoning Administrator. It shall also be unlawful for any person
willfully ~to fail to conform to plans and specifications so approved in performing
such activities.
~t shall be unlawful for any person who owns land in Albemarle County willfully to
suffer or permit any~portion of his'land to remain such condition'that soil erosion
and sedimentation causes reasonable avoidable damage or harm to adjacent or down-
stream property, roads, streams, lakes or ponds. The Zoning Administrator, on his
own initiative or upon complaint of any citizen, shall notify the owner of any such
land that such condition exists, and shall require such owner to submit an erosion
and sediment control plan to control such erosion and sedimentation. If such owner
fails or refuses to submit such plan to.the Zoning Administrator within ~ da~after
such notice, or if he fails or refuses to provide the controls required by the plan
approved by the Zoning Administrator within the specified time periods after notice
of said approval, he shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this section
and shall be subject to the provisions of Section 10 hereof for such violations; pro-
vided that the Zoning Administrator may, for good cause shown, extend the period of
such compliance for a reasonable time.
Any person-owning, occupying, or operating private agricultural, horticultural or
forest lands shall not be deemed to be in violation of this ordinance for land dis-
turbing activities from the tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horti-
cultural or forest crops or products or engineering operations under Section 21-2(c)
of the Code; provided that such person shall comply with the provisions of this
ordinance when grading, excavating, or filling and further profided that in no case
shall the construction of any roads be exempted from the requirements of this ordin-
ance.
Any person whose land disturbing activities involve lands which exten'd into the
jurisdiction of another'local erosion-and sediment control program and who chooses to
have a conservation plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Com-
mission shall notify the Albemarle County Zoning Administrator of such plan approval
by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
Whenever a land disturbing activity is proposed to be conducted by a contractor
performing construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation,
submission and approval of the required erosion and sediment control plan shall be
the responsibility of the owner of the land.
No permit shall be issued by any administrative officer of Albemarle County for the
construction of any building or other development requiring a permit, nor shall any
subdivision plat be approved, relating to land subject to this ordinance unless and
until the requirements of this ordinance have been complied with.
Except provided in Section 5-2 hereof, nothing in this ordinance shall affect any
project commenced prior to the adoption of .this ordinance.
Submission of Plans and~.Specifications
Any person who applies for approval of an erosion and sediment control plan and
issuance of an erosion control permit pursuant~to Section 5 hereof~ shall submit ~with
his application to'the Zoning Administrator an erosion and sediment control plan with
specifications for temporary and permanent controls of soil erosion and ~edimentation
in such detail as the Zoning Administrator shall deem reasonably adequate, considering
the nature and extent of the proposed land'disturbing activity. Unless otherwise
specified by the Zoning Administrator, five (5) copies of all plans and specifica-
tions shall be required.
Ail plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this ordinance shall be in accor-
dance with provisions of the Handbook; provided that the Zoning Administrator may
require such additional information as may be necessary for a complete review of the
project.
Review of Plans and Specifications
At the time of their submission, all plans and specifications required hereby shall
be reviewed by the~Zoning-Administrator in order to-ascsrtain-~-whether the require-
ments of Section 6-2 hereof have been satisfied. If possible this review shall
take place in the presence of the applicant at the time of submission of the
plans and specifications; and in no event shall this review take place more than
two full working days after such submission. Ail plans and specifications shall
be in compliance with Section 6-2 hereof prior to submission to the Advisory
Committee.
Upon certification that the plans and specifications are in compliance with
Section 6-2, the Zoning Administrator shall submit them to the Advisory Com-
mittee. The Advisory Committee shall then proceed to review the plans and spec-
ifications to ascertain whether they are in compliance with the conservation
standards of the Handbook. The review shall take place at the next regular
meeting of the Committee following the-submission of the plans, except that this
review shall take
6.-18-75 (Night)
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
Section 8
8-1
8-2
Section 9
Section 10
10-1
10-2
Section 11
Section 12
Advisory Committee may request such information as it may deem necessary for a
proper review of the plans and specifications. A member of the Advisory Com-
mittee, accompanied by the applicant 'shall make an inspection of the site in question
as part of the review of plans and specifications. After its review, the Committee
shall return its recommendation to the Zoning. Administrator as to whether or not the
plans and specifications as submitted are in accordance with standards of the Hand-
book.
The Zoning Administrator shall, in accordance with the' recommendation of the Advisory
Committee, approve or disapprove the plans and specifications as submitted within 45
calendar days after application is made.
In the event that the plans and specifications so submitted shall be approved, the
Zoning Administrator shall require, prior to the issuance of an erosion control
.permit, a performance bond with surety or other security of a type satisfactory to
the Zoning Administrator in an amount determined by the Zoning Administrator to be
sufficient for completion of the controls specified in the plans and specifications
should the person receiving the permit not complete the controls as required.
When a plan submitted for approval pursuant to this ordinance is found to be in-
adequate, the Zoning Administrator in accor.dance with recommendations of the Advisory
Committee shall specify such modifications, terms, and conditions as will permit
approval of the plan and'shall communicate these requirements to the applicant. The
applicant may then resubmit a revised plan showing such corrections as may be nec-
essary to comply with the standards Of the Handbook.
The Zoning Administrator may require the submission of amended planS and specif-
ications in any case in which inspection reveals that the controls set forth in the
plan are inadequate to accomplish the erosion and sediment control objectives of this
ordinance; or where the permit holder finds that because of changed circumstances as
for other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out.
Inspections
The Zoning Administrator, the Advisory Commiteee and their respective designated
agents shall have the right to enter upon property at all reasonable times for the
purpose of making investigation and inspection relating to compliance with the
provisions of this ordinance.
If it is determined under sub-Section 8-1 that the permit holder has failed to comply
with the plan, the Zoning Administrator shall immediately serve upon the permit-
holder by registered or certified mail to the address specified by the permit-holder
in his permit application a notice to comply Such notice shall set forth specifica-
lly the measures needed to come into compliance with such plan and shall specify the
time within which such measures shall be completed. If-the permit-holder fails to
comply with the'time specified, he may be subject to revocation of the permit.
Review by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the Zoning Administrator in disapproving
plans and specifications submitted pursuant to this ordinance, or in the interpre-
tation of the regulations of this ordinance, shall have the right to apply for and
receive a review of such action by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. In
reviewing the Zoning Administrator"s action, the Board shall consider evidence and
opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the Zoning Administrator, the Advisory
Committee and such other persons as shall ~be deemed by the Board to be necessary for
a complete review of the matter. The Board may affirm, reverse or modify the Zoning
Administrator's action and the Board's decision shall be final, subject only to
review by the Circuit Court of Albemarle County by appeal taken pursuant to Section
21-89.10 of the Code. For purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved"
shall be limited to the applicant., owners of adjacent and downstream property, and
any interested governmental agency or officer thereof.
Penalties and Other Enforcement
Any person violating any provision o'f this ordinance shall~be guilty of a misdemeanor
and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or
thirty days imprisonment for each v±olation~or both.
tn addition to any other remedy, the Zoning Administrator. may institute any appro-
priate proceeding, either at law or in equity, to prevent violation or attempted
violation of this chapter, to restrain, correct or abate such violation, or to pre-
vent any act which would constitute such violation; provided that, in order for the
Zoning Administrator to obtain injunctive relief to prevent or restrain violations,
hereof, it shall not be necessary to show that there does not exist an adequate
remedy at law.
Severability
Should any section or any provision of this ordinance be held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the
part so held to be invalid.
Effective Date
The effective date of this ordinance shall be June 30, 1975.
No. 5. ZMP-322 Don & Esther Burch, request to rezone 1.39 acres from A1 Agricultural to M-1
Industrial. Property is situated on the southside of East Market Street in the Woolen Mills area.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 77-A, Parcel C. Rivanna Magisterial District, as
advertised in the Daily Progress on May 28 and June 4, 1975. Mr. Don Burch was present.
6-18-75 (Night)
Mr. John Humphrey read from the staff report:
"This property is within the urban cluster, adjacent to the corporate limits of Charlottes-
ville which is formed by the C&O RailWay. The Cardinal Recycling Center is located to th~
west of subject property and a garage is located to the east. Single-family residences
are located across the railroad to the north.
The Comprehensive Plan suggests that this area be developed as light industry and researck
This particular parcel is presently surrounded by M-1 Light Manufacturing zoning. It is
the opinion of the staff that a mistake in zoning was made on the original zoning map for
this parcel. The staff and Planning Commission ~ecommend-approval on the basis that a
mistake in zoning was made and the fact that the comprehensive plan suggests light in-
dustrial land use in this area."
No one from the public spoke for or against the request for rezoning, and Mr. Wheeler declared
the public hearing closed.
Mr. Wood objected to the claim that an error was made in the original zoning map. He felt that
at the time of the original maps creation, the classification of A-1 was the best classification for
that particular parcel. He felt if this request were granted on the grounds of an error in the
zoning map, it would set a dangerous precident.
Upon motian from Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile, motion to approve was carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 6. SP-474, Claude J. Bailey, Jr. request to locate a central welt on 26+ acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is situated on the east'side of State Route 824. Propert~ ±s~further des-
cribed as County Tax Map 71, Parcels 43A and 34A, part thereof. Samuel Miller Magisterial District,
as advertised in the Daily Progress on May 28, and June 4, 1975. Mr. Claude J. Bailey, Jr., was
present.
Mr. John Humphrey read from the st-aff report:
"This area is completely rural with some steep topography.
dwellings and two mobile homes in the immediate area.
There are six single-family
There are presently three rental units on th~s property being served by an existing well
which is located several hundred feet from the rental units. The applicant proposes to
serve the existing three units plus one additional unit (to be built) by the new central
well which is located nearby. The well completion report indicates that the output of the
new well is between 5 and 6 GPM~ The staff and Planning 'Commission r~commends approval of
the central well with the following conditions:
1. Only four dwelling units shall be served by this proposed central well;
2. Health Department approval of the well and water;
3. County Engineering Department approval of pipe sizing to serve these four
units."
Mr. Wheeler said he would not support this ~request if the most recent test for water is more
than three years old, and it showed only 5-6 gallons per minute after, only a one hour test. He
stated he would reconsider if a new test were done showing at least the minimum requirements for the
standard 48 hour period of time.
:Mr. Thacker disagreed with Mr. Wheeler, and sta'ted as long as they are rental, units and not
privately owned homes, the tenants had the option to move out if they had problems with water supply.
Mr. Thacker then offered motion to approve SP-474 as recommended by the Planning Commission, with
the added condition that this special permit remain valid only as long as the four rental units
belong to the present applicant. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Henley questioned condition #3 requiring County Engineering Department approval of pipe
sizing to serve the four units. Mr. St. John said the present well does meet the Health Department
standards, and sees no reason for additional approval from the County Engineer.
Mr.. Thacker amended his motion eliminating condition #3, and ad'ding the condition that the
permit is only valid as long as the four rental units belong to the present applicant. Motion was
seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwi!e, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
Mr. Wheeler.
No. 7. SP-481, American Pre-School Centers, request to locate a private educational insti-
tution on 2 acres zoned B-1 Business. Property is situated on the west side of Route 29 North.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 112-C, part thereof. Charlottesville
Magisterial District, as advertised in the Daily Progress on May 28 and June 4, 1975.
~either the applicant nor his representative were present for the public hearing. Mr. Humphrey
stated that no one was present at the-Planning Commission hearing either, but that the Planning
Commission did recommend approval. Mr. Henley suggested the item be deferred to July 9, 1975, and
that the applicant be renotified.
Mr. Thacker noted that on the form letter from the Planning Department notifying the applicant
of the Board of Supervisors meeting date, there is no statement indicating the applicant or his
representative must be present, and requested such a phrase be added.
MOtion was then made by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Fisher, to defer action on this request
until July 9, 1975. Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
6-18-75 (Night)
No. 8. SP-482, Dr. & Mrs. Milton Edgerton request to locate stabling facilities for light
horses and ponies on 4.57 acres zoned R-1 Residential. Property is situated on the west side of
Dogwood Lane in Farmington. Property is further described as County Tax Map 60E-3, Parcel 4.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District, as advertised in the Daily Progress on May 28 and June 4, 1975.
Mr. John Humphrey read the staff report:
"The area maintains a semi-rural residential character of large lot development. There are
approximately twenty single-family dwellings in the immediate area. The applicant pro-
poses to locate a stable which will accommodate three horses in the center of the property
along the edge of the wooded area. The stable area is not visible from Dogwood Lane. The
staff and Planning Commission recommend approval with the following conditions:
Limit number of horses to three on this property at any one time;
This permit to be approved for the private use and enjoyment of the
present property owners only; and
If this use becomes a nuisance, as determined by the zoning
administrator or Health Department, it shall be brought back to the
Board of Supervisors for review immediately.
An attorney representing Dr. Edgerton, stated only Mr. Wallace A. Barker, one of the
immediate neighbors objected to the stable. He stated he felt the request was consistant with the
area, and that the stable structure would be consistent with the appearance of the home.
Dr. Milton Edgerton said he would be more than happy to put additional screening around the
stable to prevent the Barker residence from seeing same. He also stated that being a doctor, he is
not interested in having any health hazzard on his property, and had all intentions of' keeping the
stable immaculate.
Mr. William Edgerton~ son of the applicant, presented to the Board letters from Mrs. Theodore
Caplow, Mr. & Mrs· Dick Brandt, and Mrs. Pat Kennedy, stating they, as neighbors, had no objections
to the stable.
Mr. William Perkins, representing Mr. Wallace A. Barker of Farmington, presented a petition
which he stated convained signatures of approximately 95% of all Farmington residents, showing their
objections to the proposed stable.
Dr. R. G. Magruder, a neighbor of the Edgertons, stated former neighbors had horses, and he
found them very objectionable as they produced flies, odors, and invaded his property from time-to-
time.
Mr. W.F. O'Dell, President of the Farmington Property Owners Association, stated that upon
realizing there was opposition to the stable, he sent around a petition. Approximately 70-80% of
the Farmington population signed the petition, requesting denial.
Mr. Wallace A. Barker, said when he received notice of the stable request, he retained the
services of Mr. Perkins to present his objections to the Planning Commission and Board of Super-
visors. Mr. Barker said the petition is the result of the total opposition felt by Mr. Barker and
the entire Farmington community.
Dr. Edgerton's attorney stated the petition was almost meaningless, as not one of the people
who signed the petition can visually see the stable, and many live as far as a mile from the Edgerton
property.
Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed, then stated his concern that if the Board
approved this stable, many other property owners would also request stables. He added he felt resi-
dential areas are no place for horses.
Mr. Fisher said he visited the property twice and wished to note for the Board that the entire
4% acre property is not cleared, only about % acre is cleared and part of this area is lawn. He
added he had supported horses in the past only when there was no opposition. He felt the density in
Farmington was high enough and the opposition great enough to deny this petition. Mr. Fisher then
made motion to deny SP-482.
Mr. Wood said he was at the Planning Commission hearing and felt the acreage was sufficient to
support three horses, and concluded by saying he could not support the motion.
Mr. Henley seconded Mr. Fisher's motion to deny. Mr. Wheeler reiterated he felt the stable was
not in the best interest of the neighborhood. Role was called, and petition was denied with the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
Mr. Wood.
No. 9. $P-467, Tom Forloines, request to locate a central well on 43.7 acres zoned RS-!
Residential. Property is situated on the weSt side of State Route 616 at its intersection with
State Route 623 near Boyd's Tavern. Property is further described as County Tax Map 94, Parcel 25B.
Rivanna Magisterial District, as advertised in the Daily Progress on May 7 and May 14, 1975.
Mr. John Humphrey proceeded to read the staff report:
"This area is rural in character with forest and pasture land dominating the rolling terrain.
There are only a few single-family dwellings located in the area. The property in question
is primarily wooded in deciduous trees. The applicant is requesting a central well approval
in order to develop this property in one ache lots, as it is zoned. The Planning Commission
recommends approval of the central well with the following conditions:
Out flow of central well(s) shall provide one gallon per minute per unit after a 48
hour testing;
County Engineering Department to approve well testing results and water pipe sizes to
serve the subdivision; and
County Health Department approval of well location.
Owner to obtain proper incorporation papers from the State Corporation Commission,
and same must be submitted to the County.
6-18-75 (Night)
Mr. Humphrey also quoted from a report dated May 14, 1975, from the C.R. Moore Well Drilling
Company stating the well is 630 feet deep, and does meet state health department regulations. The
well was test-pumped June 13 to 15 for a continuous 48 hour period, at a rate of 41 gallons per
minute.
Mr. Tom Forioines was present, and stated that in addition to the central well, he is also
planning to construct a storage tank capable of holding several days supply of water. He also added
the water flow rate is greater now than reported by C.R. Moore, because the depth of their test was
at 230 feet, not 630 feet as reported by Mr. Humphrey. No one from the public spoke either for or
against this petition, and Mr. Wheeler then declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Humphrey stated a waiver was required and granted by the Planning Commission during prelimi~
plat approval for lots #13, 14, 21, 25, 26, 28, and 29. At this point, Mr. Thacker made motion to
approve with the four conditions as presented by the Planning Commission. Second to the motion was
made by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
The following five items, listed as numbers 10 through 14 on the agenda, and advertised on May
28, 1975 and June 4, 1975, were all requested to be deferred because the Planning Commission had not
acted.
No. 10) UP-75-07, Cole E. Digges, III, request to amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to allow the sale of horse trailers in the A-! Agricultural zone with a special use
permit.
No. !1) SP-478, Cole E. Digges, III, request to allow the sale of horse trailers on 10.0
acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the northeast side of State Route 648,
about one mile east of Route 22. Property is further described as County Tax Map 81, Parcel
8A. Rivanna Magisterial District.
No. 12) ZMP-323, Draft Building Company, request to rezone 1.82 acres from A-1 Agricul-
tural to R-1 Residential. Property is situated on the east side of State Route 690, near
Newtown. White Hall Magisterial District. Tax Map 70, Parcel 1, part thereof.
No. 13) $P-489, Public Service Company of Virginia, Inc., request to locate a central
sewer and well system on 331.066 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the
north side of State Routes 696 and 250 West, and the east side of State Route 690, near New-
town. Property is further described as County Tax 70, Parcel 1. White Hall Magisterial
District.
No. 14) SP-475, David H. Turner, request to locate a Planned Community on 106.72 acres
zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of State Route 620, and the
.south side Of State Route 618 near Woodridge. Property is further described as County Tax Map
115, Parcels 22 and 23. Scottsvilte Magisterial District.
Motion to defer items Nos. 10, 11, and 14 to July 9, 1975, was made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by
Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Motion was made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwile, to defer items #12 and #13 indef-
initely. Motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 15. Peacock Hill section two, Preliminary Plat. Mr. Humphrey described the preliminary
plat to Board members, pointing out access roads, type of homes and their locations. Mr. Humphrey
stated the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to: 1) approval of special permit for
sewer and water for section two; 2) review by Planning Commission of common land, including recrea-
tion areas; and 3) review by the County Attorney of the Homeowners Association agreement taking
particular note of the easements as discussed. Mr. Humphrey added Board approval of the utility
easements would be required.
Mr. Frank F. Smith, the applicant, presented a map indicating lot locations and easements. He
stated the main roads through the development would be state maintained, but the "service easements"
would be maintained by the lot owners they serve, and written into the Homeowners Agreement. He
then pointed out the water supply system, which included three central wells, and a reservoir holding
approximately 15-20 million gallons. Pump and clorination stations would be set up at the central
well locations, and the reservoir would hold an approximate seven month supply in addition to the
wells.
Mr. Fisher questioned the adequacy of the water supply system for the total development. Mr.
Wheeler stated this preliminary approval was not for the water system, but only for the easements.
Mr. Carwile then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission on this
preliminary plat, subject to the same conditions that the Planning Commission set forth. M0~ion was
seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P.M.
Chairman