1975-09-03N272
8-27-7~ (Night)
9-3-75
saying he felt he could handle the transition period better, that he had more experience handling
matters for the County, had a better financial background, and a larger staff presently under him to
assume his duties. '
Mr. Wood said he wished to nominate Mr. Robert Sampson for the position, because it is only for
an interim period of time. He added that Mr. Ray Jones possibly has one of the most important
position in the County office and he should be left in this capacity to carry out this function.
Mr. Sampson's duties, however, could be handed over to someone else with much less difficulty, and
cause the least amount of disruption within the county.
Mr. Henley said he would prefer appointing Mr. Jones to the position, adding that Mr. Sampson's
work with the budget has been invaluable in the past and he would not be able to perform these
duties if made County Executive. He added Mr. Jone~s has had a great deal more experience with
County and supervisory work.
Mr. Thacker said he equally respected both candidates, but agreed with Mr. Wood in that Mr.
Jones' main responsibility should remain Dire'ctor of Finance. He also added that Mr. Sampson has
been working closely with the County Executive for three years and probably would require less of a
training period.
Mr. Carwile felt the County was fortunate to have two such highly qualified individuals, and
said he would support the nomination of Mr. Sampson.
Mr. Wheeler said there are approximately 45,000 citizens in the County, and his first con-
sideration was those citizens. He felt the person most capable of dealing directly with these
citizens would be Mr. Jones. He added that Mr. Jones has worked in almost every department in the
County office except Planning and Zoning, and felt this experience qualified him over and above Mr.
Sampson.
There were no other comments, and Mr. Wheeler called for a vote, recorded as follows:
Mr. Robert Sampson: Messrs. Carwi!e, Thacker and Wood.
Mr. Ray Jones: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Wheeler.
(CLERKS NOTE:
date was set.)
Following this vote, subject was dropped from further discussion, no future discussion
Claims against the County in the amount of $1,376,407.76 were presented, examined, allowed and
certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds:
Commonwealth of Virginia, Current credit account
General Operating Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
General Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fmnd
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville (1% Local Sales Tax)
905.01
454,506.21
491,451.a0
17,439.99
1,579.20
328,190.43
32,720.61
49,530.95
83.96
$Z,376,407.76
At 10:15 P.M. Mr. Wheeler requested the Board adjourn to September 3, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. at
Albemarle County High School for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on the proposed Zoning
Ordinance.
Motion to this effect was made by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the fol-
lowing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Chairman
9-3-75
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 3, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle High School Auditorium, said meeting being adjourned
from August 27, 1975.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thac.ker, Jr.,
Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Absent~ ~one.
Officers present: Messrs. T. M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney, Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; John Humphrey, County Planner; Robert Tucker,
Assistant County Planner; and David Carr, Chairman, Albemarle County Planning Commission.
The purpose of this meeting was to hold a public hearing on the proposed, amended Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance and Map; notice of such public hearing being advertised in the Daily Progress on
August 13 and August 20, 1975.
Wheeler: This meeting is to conduct a public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance which has been
presented to the Board of Supervisors by the Planning Commission. The Board already has on file
numerous letters and comments from the public, however, if you would like to repeat what is in those
letters, this is your opportunity. We want to give everyone a chance to speak, so we ask that you be
as brief as possible. Before we begin, I will ask Mr. Humphrey to list the different zones and explain
the chan~es which have been made since the Drinted cody of the ordinance was released.
9-3-75
273
Humphrey: Both the ordinance and map have been somewhat revised since the Planning Commission
held their public hearings in January. Further revisions to the text will be necessary because of the
numerous amendments to the existing ordinance. These revisions will need to be incorporated into the
text of the proposed ordinance, copy dated June 13, 1975. If necessary, ~he Planning Commission and
staff will make themselves available for work sessions with the Board i~ the~£utu~e. Basically, the
proposed ordinance consists of the following zones:
Agricultural 10 - This provides for agricultural endeavors and permits single-family residences on
lots with a 10-acre minimum size. This zone contains 9,490 acres put into this category by request of
various property owners.
Agricultural 5 - This zone provides for some agricultural endeavors, also consists of elements of
the "conservation zone" which was proposed before the January public hearings, and allows for single-
family residences on lot sizes of five acres minimum. Acreage in this zone is 275,515.
Agric~dral~ - This zone is similar to the existing A-1 zone. It permits agricultural endeavors
with a minimum lot size of two acres for single-family development and contains 142,555 acres.
Rural Residential - This zone also allows single-family residences on minimum lot sizes of two
acres~bm~ db~ ~ot permit any agricultural activity. Acreage in this zone is 5~673.
R-1 - This zone is comparable to the existing RS-1 zone and has a one-acre minimum lot size.
zone is for single-family only. Acreage involved is 5,019.
This
R-2 - Single-family zoning containing 2,282 acres.
R-3 - Single-family zoning containing 528 acres.
Residential Townhouse (RT) - Maximum density to be six dwelling units per acre and it
contains 1,138 acres.
Residental Townhouse Multi-Family (RTM) - Density of 12 units per acre; single-family duplex,
townhouse, patio and multi-family structures. Acreage indicated is 27.
Residential Multi-family (RM) - Maximum density of 20 units per acre. Acreage, 1,231.
Residential, Multi-family, High Rise (RMH) - Maximum density of 30 units per acre.
involved, 115.
Acreage
A zone for mobile home parks containing certain standards and guidelines.
be six per acre and the zone contains 162 acres.
Maximum density will
Commercial Office (CO) - 122 acres. This is the most limited, containing primarily office use.
- Commercial Limited (CL) - 878 acres. This zone provides for retail stores, excluding most
highly-oriented types of uses with some exceptions under special permits.
Commercial General (CG) - 1,282 acres.
Industrial Restricted (IR) -222 acres.
Heavy commercial activity.
Industrial Limited (IL) - 1,581 acres.
Industrial General (IG) - 129 acres.
Total acreage in Albemarle CoUnty is 472,895, broken down as follows: 14,000 acres, National
Parks; 3,000 acres, water; 6,600 acres, roads; 72 acres, Town of Scottsvi!!e; leaving 447,949 acres
zoned for development. At present there is a zone in the existing ordinance known as R-1. This
zone permits a sliding scale type of lot size depending on the availability of public utilities.
This has created problems in the past in decision making both on the part of staff and applicants.
The Planning Commission has separated that slidingsca!e approach into the proposed R-i, R-2 and R-3
zones thus giving more flexibility.
Mr. Wheeler then opened the floor for comments from the public.
James Murray: During the last session of the General Assembly some important amendments were
made to the planning and zoning chapter of the Code of Virginia. Every political subdivision must
have a planning commission by 1976 and all governing bodies must adopt a comprehensive plan by 1980.
It is significant that although thes~ amendments mandate planning they do not mandate zoning. It is
therefore the planning element that is important. The Code states: "The comprehensive plan shall
control the general or approximate location, character and extent of each feature shown on the
plan." Features such as residential, business, industrial, recreational ~evelopment, transporation
facilities, community service facilities, sewer and water, and so forth.
One of the reasons the General Assembly concerned itself with planning is that with the rapid
rate of growth in the State, the State must develop a plan for things such as arterial highways,
off-shore oil drilling, seaports, power plant sites, and it can do this best if it knows the character
and extend of development which will occur in the various political subdivisions. There is a more
important reason why the State is expressing interest in the planning process and that~i~s public
funds and taxes. Some citizens are of the opinion that adoption of the ordinance on which this
public hearing is· being conducted will change the County's 1970 Comprehensive Plan to the extent
that the COunty will, in effect, have a new plan. Call the existing plan, Plan A and the new plan,
Plan B. This new Plan B should be more fully developed so its costs would be available to the
taxpayer. This would not be wasted effort since the Code requires that a plan be reviewed every
five years for possible amendments. With the anticipated shortage of State funds and with the
uncertain future fiscal outlook, I believe this would be a prudent step toward fiscal responsibility.
In conclusion, I would like to comment on the Rivanna River downstream from the dam at this
time. The Board of Supervisors of Fluvanna County unanimously requested scenic river designation
for the part of the Rivanna River which flows through Fluvanna County. This legislation passe~. I
would like to read the last paragraph from a letter I received some time ago from CoI. Richard St.
Sauver, a public-spirited citizen. "There remains one other serious problem from your stated
interest in conservation. I am sure that you are as concerned as we are over the condition of the
Rivanna River in Albemarle County. It is mandatory that action be initiated immediately to eliminate
ively clean up the upstream portion of the Rivanna River will merely make a mockery of the Virginia
Scenic Rivers Act of 1970." In the interest of governmental cooperation, why do we have to zone the
banks of this outstanding resource for high density and commercial development? Why cannot this
beautiful stream be allowed to flow in a natural setting and remain a recreational resource for
future generations? With all the room we have in Albemarle County, why crowd into the river and
mess it up with high density development? Other states seem to cherish their rivers. Look at North
Carolina where the Governor is fighting desperately with the United States Department of Interior to
preserve the New River as a national scenic river. Why do the Federal and State governments have to
be concerned with such matters? It may be that local governments do not appreciate their natural
treasures. This proposed zoning is like taking a priceless heirloom in the house and sticking it in
the kitchen.
George Barkley: I have come to ask that you reconsider zoning five lots in Airport Acres from
residential back to business. In 1960, the late Mr. B. B. Clover developed Airport Acres with the
philosophy that lots fronting on a Federal highway are best suited to business on a limited basis.
He provided this protection in the restrictions and deeds to these lots. In 1960, I purchased
Lot No. 1 at the far west corner of Airport Acres and built a Texaco Service Station, a gift shop
and snack bar. Every one who has bought in Airport Acres has known that these lots were zoned for
limited business and since no one has objected, I assume that no one objects. To the west of
Airport Acres, adjoining the service station, is a motorcycle show room and a garage, a group of
small retail stores and on the corner of Route 29 and Airport Road there is an automobile garage.
Across Route 29 is a large tract of land zoned for business. I hope you will consider this request
and see if any real benefit will be achieved by down-zoning and down-valuing the property on Route
29 which is not usable or acceptable for residential use due to the price residents would have to
pay for the lots.
Betty Scott, League of Women Voters of Charlottesville-Albemarle County: "We support the
adoption of a zoning ordinance in Albemarle County that conforms with the principles established by
the Comprehensive Plan of 1970. Surely, this is a simple, reasonable requirement. However, as it
stands, this zoning ordinance does not meet that requirement.
"Our League has studied and discussed many ordinances - Erosion Control, Flood Plain, Revised
Subdivision, Site Development - all adopted by you, the Board of Supervisors, to implement the
Comprehensive Plan. We have followed the deliberations of the Albemarle Planning Commission, and
have studied and discussed current and past land uses in relation to the proposed revisions now
before you. We believe that we can comment with some authority on several serious unresolved
problems of this ordinance.
Conservation Zone. First, the conservation zone was deleted from the ordinance, and we believe
that a conservation zone with restricted uses should be a vital part of the ordinance, used especially
for "acres of rugged terrain, those prone to flooding, and the watersheds of public water supply
impoundments" as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. We urge that you study the conservation
objectives which were amended to the Plan by the Board of Supervisors when they adopted it in 1971.
Commercial Zoning. Secondly, the flexibility provided by the three commercial zones is admirable.
The Commercial Limited and Commercial Office zones can appropriately be used as buffers adjacent to
residential neighborhoods. However, Commercial General zoning is placed next to residential areas
on the proposed map. This is especially intensive in the Route 29 North area. We urge you to study
this situation carefully. To quote from the Comprehensive Plan, "The commercial stripping of road
frontages should be considered as unsafe, unattmactive, and inefficient, and should not be permitted."
We find that wording quite explicit.
A final word on Commercial zoning is also provided by the Comprehensive Plan, which indicated
that the amount of land zoned commercial in 1968 was already excessive for the population and poorly
located as well. What will happen with parcels of land zoned and taxed commercial which are never
used be'cause of excessive commercial zoning?
Hydraulic Road Area. A third violation of the Comprehensive Plan has occurred in the Hydraulic
Road area. If the land should be developed as shown on the current proposed map, we would see
nearly solid blocks of high density residential and commercial development lining both sides of
Hydraulic Road, beginning at Route 29 North, continuing down Hydraulic through Rio Road, and ending
back at Route 29 North. The problems of services for this large a population in such a small area
could be a nightmare for the County, and with three schools located in the area, traffic problems
could be a safety hazard for our children as well.
We urge that the Board of Supervisors obtain full information about the projected size of this
population, the roads, utilities, and facilities needed to serve it, and the sociological implications
of a large population with little open space or recreational area. We also would like to remind you
to look at your Comprehensive Plan for this same area, where a mixture of high and low densities ware
suggested.
Floating Zones. Fourth, we support the floating zones for Planned Unit Development and Planned
Residential Development, but we feel ~hat more careful consideration must be given to these.zones.
In the PUDS, intensive land uses such as Commercial General and Industrial General should not be
included as permitted uses. These uses require special controls and buffering and should be handled
under a rezone or a special use permit.
Clusters. Fifth, we strongly suggest that greater emphasis be placed on cluster communities,
especially where water and sewer lines are being built, such as Crozet and North Rivanna. There
should be large amounts of open space and low density zoning between the clusters. Not only is the
concept of clustering basic to the Comprehensive Plan, it has become essentially the answer for
providing low and moderate income housing in the county.
Rights of Property Owners. During the course of the work sessions and hearings held by the
Planning Commission on this revised ordinance, property owners or their representatives were allowed
to speak concerning their individual proposed zoning designations, but surrounding property owners
could not make their views known. Does this not violate the spirit of the law? We urge your
careful attention to the rights of ali property owners.
~,: .... This ordinance will have a far-reaching effect on Albemarle citizens for many years. Again, we
would like to emphasize the relevance of the Comprehensive Plan and encourage you to re-read it in
the light of the current proposed ordinance. We believe you will find that changes are necessary in
order to implement the objectives stated in that master plan. Within the next few days, we will
~,~ ~~*~ ~ ~mm~'~ n~ ~m~ of the above ~oints. We hope
9-3-?5
John Embree: "This proposed zoning ordinance would place every landowner in the county under
the control of an administrative hierarchy consisting of a zoning administrator, planning staff,
director of. planning', and a planning commission which, according to its oWn request to the Board of
Supervisors, perpetually wants to review every single decision involving development in the county.
Before we commit all our land and property transactions to the control of this ordinance and
these peo~ple, giving them great economic power over us, I think it is very important to know how
they will act in given circumstances. As a case in point, I would like to ~direct a question to Mr.
David Carr, Chairman of the Planning Commission. I'd like to introduce my question with some back-
ground information:
When Mr. Avery Catlin was Chairman of the Planning Commission, a farm tract consisting of 404
acres on Rt. 658, four miles west of Charlottesville, belonging to the Barrackside Farm Corporation
of which David Carr is Secretary-Treasurer, was scheduled for 10-acre Agricultural zoning. We all
should know by now that small lots are more likely to sell than large lots, and that the Planning
Commission has taken the position that 5-acre Agricultural zoning is needed to preserve local
agricultural industries. My question is this:
Why, since Mr. Carr became chairman of the Planning Commission, was the proposed zoning for the
404-acre working farm tract belonging to the Barrackside Farm Corporation, (of which Mr. Carr is the
Secretary-treasurer,) changed'to '2-acre Agricultural-Residential, ~although the land surrounding this
tract on three sides, having the same soil types, is scheduled for 5-acre Agricultural zoning?"
Wheeler: This ordinance has been before the Planning Commission for two years. You have had
plenty of opportunities to appear before the Planning Commission and I am not going to allow Mr.
Carr to answer that The Board is here tonight to receive comments. If you have finished your
comments, We thank you.
Clyde Gouldman: I represent Martin Marietta Company which has been located in Albemarle County
for thirty years. As concerns my client, this is the most eXtreme case of down-zoning that you have
in the ordinance. Martin Marietta owns approximately 700 acres of land which is presently zoned M-2
Industrial. Under the new ordinance, these 700 acres will be changed to Agr-5 and Agr-2. If you
understand the economic impact of this, it will cause a loss of between $1,000 and $5,000 per acre.
Just on the Rivanna Quarry alone the~e will be a loss of between $100,000 and $500,000. The Rivanna
Quarry is also in the approach zone to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. This ordinance will
be creating a zoning on 100 acres of this property that will make the land practically useless
because residential development is not compatible with~ the approach zone. Your ordinances normally
discourage any kind of significant residential development in the airport approach zone. During the
Planning Commission hearings and work sessions on this ordinance, almost everybody who faced a
substantial down-zoning was given a chance to explain their problem and they were heard. Martin
Marietta was given a chance to make'a plea but no change in the proposed ordiance was made. I have
nothing further to add, but I would request that we be allowed to submit our remarks very briefly in
written form. We would ask that you take your time before adopting this ordinance. It has been
before the Planning Commission for two years and we submit that a few more months will not make tha~
much of a difference.
Collin E. 0strander: "In representation of the owners of 109 homes in the Four Seasons patio
home area, I would like to direct your attention to the proposed zoning for the property described
as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 26 -- in short, C45-26. T~is is 11.64 acres of land lying between Four
Seasons and Berkeley, currently zoned R-2 (6 townhouse units per acre). The proposed zoning for
this parcel is RTM (12 multi-family units per acre) -- with building heights up to 60 feet. Gentlemen,
this is an error you will surely want to rectify. Briefly, these are some of the reasons it is
inappropriate.
One: RTM zoning on this parcel will make for a development that is completely out of harmony
with its neighbors. On one side are the Four Seasons patio homes, 133 separate homes when the
project is fully developed, on 32 acres -- a density of 4.16 units per acre. Berkeley, on the other
side, is also an area of separate homes, with an even lower density of about 3 units per acre. It
is simply inconceivable that the Planning Commission would plunk down in their midst multi-family
units of up to six stories in height.
Two: The RTM designation for this parcel is contrary to the recommendation of the Planning
Staff. As you know, the staff is comprised of full-time salaried professionals in urban development.
Their recommendation for Parcel C45-26 was from the beginning -- and still is today -- RT (resi-
dential townhouses, 6 units per acre). The advise of these professionals should surely be heeded.
Three: RTM zoning as proposed for this parcel is completely at variance with the purposes for
which the new zoning study was undertaken. The precepts call for a study that will enhance the
orderly growth of the county with the best interests of the general public in mind. There is more
to the precepts than that, but there is hardly any need to quote them back to you. The point is
that nowhere does it say, it seems to us with regard to C45-26, that the project should serve as a
vehicle for changing a zoning designation in a manner that would not be available through ordinary
channels. If this is how it has been used, the RTM designation does not fit the purposes and has no
place in the proposal.
Four: Here we come to public input. On January 10 of this year, a resolution was formulated
stating that the owners of Four Seasons patio homes are unanimously opposed to any increase in
density in any adjoining property. This resolution was not only sent to the Planning Commission but
it was read aloud, with supporting comments, at the Commission's open hearings at Jack Jouett School
a short time later.
To follow that up, a representative of our association made two visits to the Planning Staff.
He was told that the Staff recommended RT for Parcel C45-26 and was given a copy of a letter stating
that, as of that date -- March 24 -- the Commission itself was of the opinion to maintain this
property at the comparable RT residential townhouse zoning. Thus satisfied that we had done our
best to inform the Commission of our interest, and indeed that RT was a foregone conclusion among
the Commission itself, we allowed our case to rest.
You can well imagine our consternation upon suddenly learning that the Commission on April 22
voved 5 to 3 for RTM. We were not informed that the issue was coming up, were nov invited to the
meeting, and would not have been allowed to present our view even if, by some divination, we knew
about the meeting. We are told that the Commission heard one person, speaking for the onwers, and
gave him exactly what he asked for -- RTM. Whoever that person was, he must have been a spellbinder.
'276
9-3-75
Since we seem to have been remiss somewhat in trying to get our point across, we could only
redouble our efforts at public input. As members of the Board of Supervisors, each one of you has
now received a letter dated July 9 explaining our case. It is signed by the President of our Board
of Directors.
Also on August 20 each one of you received copies of a petition signed by 135 homeowners of
Four Seasons patio homes, protesting the RTM designation. In addition, many letters from individual
homeowners, all adjacent property owners protesting the RTM designation, are o.n file in'the Planning
Staff office. This is extensive public input, gentlemen. Together with what you will hear from
Berkeley residents, I doubt if any parcel of eleven and a half acres has merited the attention of so
many people in the current proposal.
Let me summarize our position. If cohesiveness and harmony between the various building
developments is a goal, then you should change the designation for Parcel C45-26 to R-3, single unit
residential, to agree with the zoning of its neighbors, Four Seasons patio homes and Berkeley.
Indeed, many of our homeowners, upon buying their property, were told that this undeveloped parcel,
C45-26, would have single unit houses such as what they were buying.
However, we realize that C45-26 under current zoning is classified as R-2. The comparable
category in the proposed ordinance is RT (six townhouse units per acre). Since this comparable
designation was also recommended by the Planning Staff, we are prepared to accept this as a compromise.
But as to RTM as proposed -- this is completely and inalterably unacceptable to us. We will do
everything in our power to fight it. We urge you to change the designation to R-3, which we prefer,
or to RT, which we can at least accept.
One last request: When the time comes to vote on the zoning for this parcel, we hope it is not
too much to ask that we be notified in advance and invited to attend. We would very much like to be
present. After all, our well-being is at stake."
Matt Ritberg: I have come to speak in generalities. Basica'lly I ask that you junk the whole
idea. Since the Board came up with the idea of a new zoning ordinance, numerous things have happened.
Number one is financial. I do not think enough time has been put in to study the economic impact of
this ordinance. I think it should go back to the Planning Commission for this study. The middle
class people are being forced out of Albemarle County with the ordinance as presently proposed. The
proposed Agr-5 and Agr-10 are forcing more and more people into the hands of the developers. The
only people who will benefit from this ordinance, are the developers. I feel there should be a tax
on developers. Many counties throughout the United States are going to this. Basically, I ask
that there be a complete hold off until all questions have been answered.
John Ewald: My speach concerns the four quadrants of the Ivy interchange at I-.64. We bought
the first quadrant and the next day General Electric announced they were going to build a plant
across the road from us. As things have worked out over the years, we eventually bought all four
quadrants. We asked Rosser Payne to do a survey. We want to preserve this interchange. We'want to
control what happens on the other three quadrants. On the southwest quadrant, some 44 acres, with
taxes, etc., it costs $10.00 an ear to grow corn. Therefore, because of the taxes and the study we
had commissioned, we feel the highest and best use of this land is commercial general. That is the
zoning we would like to see rather than Agr-5. That is my first point. Secondly, I obviously do
not agree with a lot of what the Planning Commission has done, although I believe they are a group
of dedicated people who have put in countless hours. Thirdly, there are about eight of us who are
either right on or adjoining 1-64. We have been down-zoned from two acres to five acres. This
involves about 5,000 acres. We all border on two acre zoning and we feel it is confiscatory to
force us to accept Agr-5. We ask that the zoning be returned to it original category.
Shannon Shirley: I am present to speak in reference to the Fairview Swim Club. Part of the
property is zoned MT under the proposed zoning oridnance. We request that the entire piece of
property have the same uniform zoning. We had to get a rezoning in order to build on the property
and we request that we be allowed to continue as we are~c
Col. Carroll B. Smith: "The Albemarle Farm Bureau recommends the following changes in the
proposed Zoning Ordinance:
1. That Conservation Zoning be restored in areas too steep for farming, in areas where develop-
ment would be undesirable because 0f its adverse impact on public drinking water sources, e.'g., the
Rivanna Reservoir, or an area of major historical significance, e.g., Monticello and Ash Lawn, or in
an area subject to flooding in a 10-year frequency storm.
2. That a new Zoning category be included to be known as D.W. (Development Waiting) or I.D.
(Interim Development) or P.D. (Preliminary Development) or some similar code name, to prevent land
speculators from using Agricultural Zoning categories as a cover for preliminary grading, road
building and dam building connected with the future development of a residential subdivision or
commercial enterprise on a parcel of land presently zoned Agriculture. It is our view that this new
Zoning category should be automatically~ applied by County authorities at the time the landowner'
applied for a permit to grade, build a farm road or dam or to perform other land disturbing activities
in excess of 10,000 square feet; if, upon questioning, his intent appears to be preparation of the
land for resale as a subdivision site or to develop it himself as a subdivision or commercial
enterprise.
We feel this would have three primary advantages: a) It would alert the County authorities
early that a subdivision was being planned in a certain area which might not be feasible or desirable.
b) It would prevent the developer from spending large amounts of money preparing an area for a
subdivision which would not be approved, c) It would clarify the present confusion between Agri-
cultural Zoned land being held by land speculators or developers and that owned by producing farmers
or other rural residents.
3. That wherever possible the text of the whole proposed Zoning Ordinance be simplified so
everyone can understand it thoroughly and so that it can be easily enforced."
Our goal is to see that the maximum amount of agricultural land is used for food production.
Bob Merrill: I have sent to each member of the Board a letter requesting that the proposed
zoning ordinance be returned to the Planning Commission with instructions to consider an additional
zoning classification designated as "holding for development". This classification would force
developers to carry their own weight by causing land in this classification to be appraised for
taxes at market value. It would also make developers meet soil erosion and sedimentation ordinance
requirements. I am not saying that this ordinance should be adopted by the Board of Supervisors, on
the contrary, I feel that any ordinance which so vitally affects everyone in the county should be
adopted only after a vote (referendum) of the citizens.
Bill Ray: "The proposed Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance has no index. Without an index, it
is virtually impossible, even for a well-trained lawyer, to make sense of the act. The reason for
this is that in construing it, if anything is anywhere permitted, it is everywhere else prohibited.
In order to make sense of the zoning ordinance on any question, it must be read from the beginning
to end.
(Following are remarks from Mr. Ray's prepared statement which contained some 18 pages and is
in the permanent file of the Board of Supervisors, the reading of w~ich was taken up by Nora Haines
and William Reid.)
The definition of agriculture on page 14, "Agriculture. The cultivation of the soil, production
of crops and horticulture including the keeping and raising of animals and fowl, and including such
agricultural industries or businesses as reasonably complement on-site agricultural production."
There is no definition of animals in the ordinance. We find there is no definition of fowl. The
definitio~--of livestock (page 22) is a real sleeper.
The definition of kennel on page 22 is: "Kennel. A place designed or prepared to house,
board, breed, handle or otherwise keep or care for dogs or cats for sale or in return for compensation."-
This means that anyone who casually sells a kitten or a puppy is a kennel. The horse definition is
concealed in the definition of livestock. Looking through districts Agriculture-10 through R-3, we
find there is no commercial horse operation permitted in the county except by special use permit.
There is no kennel operation permitted except by special use permit and then only in three districts.
This must have been a mistake on the part of the Planning Commission.
The definition of hog farm on page 20 reads: "Hog Farm. A farm where hogs are kept and fed
primarily on garbage or industrial waste." This defintiion is at least 20 years old. Federal and
State laws prohibit the feeding of garbage.
Nora Haines: I recognize the need for a new zoning ordinance, however, I would like to point
out a few areas that could be misconstrued due to the looseness and inaccuracy of the wording in the
currently proposed ordinance.
The definition of structure appears on page 30. "Structure. Anything constructed or erected,
the use of which requires permanent location on the ground, or attachment to something having a
permanent location on the ground." This includes, among other things, dwellings, buildings, signs~
etc. Obviously it also includes gates, fences, mailboxes, bus sheds, railroads, etc.
There is in every district a setback for the district in its normal use and a setback for the
district in its cluster alternative. In each case, the cluster alternative has a narrower setback
than the normal use. In Agriculture-5, it is t75 feet; in Agriculture-2, it is 175 feet; in Rural
Residential-2, it is 175 feet; and in R-i, it is 60 feet. Given the side and rear yard setbacks
contained in the ordinance, anyone having a fence on the line has a non-conforming use. Everyone of
these non-conforming uses will have to obtain a certificate of occupancy.
On page 23 are the definitions of non-conforming activity and non-conforming lot and on page 24
the definition of non-conforming structure. The words "non-conforming use" appear throughout the
ordinance, yet there is no definition of "non-conforming use" contained in the ordinance. Many
important terms are not defined. The rule is that when no definition is included in the ordinance,
the dictionary definition is used. The definitions should be set out in the text.
On page 39 is Section 2-3: Buildings and structures to comply with ordinance. "Ail buildings
or structures hereafter erected, converted, enlarged, reconstructed, or structurally altered, and
all buildings, structures and land hereafter used or changed in use shall comply with all~ the
district regulations established by this ordinance for the district in which the building, structure
or land is located." This means that we must carefully read the ordinance before making the slightest
change in the use of our property or before making any alteration whatever, or reconstruction, or
repair. There is no exclusion to protect the present use of the property. Almost every major
property in the County will have some non-conforming uses and in other sections of the ordinance,
they are protected. This section does not protect them and any change in use of land or building
will require you to conform to present provisions regardless of past history. This could lead to
litigation and confusion.
On page 40, Section 2-5: Certificate of occupancy has a long definition. The most important
part is under 2-5(a) "band may be used or occupied and buildings structurally altered or erected may
be used-or changed in use only after a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the administrator.
SUch a certificate shall state that the building or the proposed use, or the use of the land, complies
with the provisions of this ordinance. A similar certificate shall be issued for the purpose of
maintaining, re-newing, changing, or extending a non-conforming use. A certificate of occupancy
either for the Whole or a part of a building shall be applied for simultaneously with the appli-
cation for a building permit." This section requires that every change of use of land requires a
new certificate of occupany. This section would require a farmer changing from corn to soybeans to
obtain a new certificate of occupancy to be in compliance with the district in .which he is located.
In other words, the definitions, or lack of them, in the proposed ordinance are in question. Orig-
inally, it seemed the intent of the Planning Commission was to zone the County in such a way as to
preserve the agricultural aspects, with industry and housing located in suitable areas. With the
June revisions, it seems the Planning Commission has forgotten their original aims and made it
virtually impossible to farm in the County. I urge the Board not to pass the proposed ordinance
until more study has been made and until the definitions have been clarified in a tenable way.
William Reid: I would like to continue. On page 41, Section 2-6: Special Use Permits-
Authority of Board of Supervisors; notice and hearing required. "(a) The power to grant, grant
conditionally or deny special use permits shall be reserved to the Board of Supervisors~f~r hearing
and recommendation by the Planning Commission. Special use permits may be authorized upon a finding
278
9-3-75
be heard except after notice and hearing as provided in Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, as
amended. Applications shall be filed in the same manner as zoning applications." This is an
abbrevi'ated form of the procedure of how to get.a special use permit. Actually, you must first
apply for a permit, which is then referred to the planning Commission. They can. deliberate, under
state law, for 90 days or longer. After 90 days, the Board of Supervisors may consider the matter,
taking that the Planning Commission has consented. If you look through the ordinance, you will find
very few uses by right and a great many uses by special use permit. Everything that is now under
special permit provisions will simply have a larger acreage requirement and your only application
would be for permission to use a smaller acreage than required in the ordinance. The result is that
almost every conceivable money-making activity in the county will have to come hat in hand to go
through this routine.
Wheeler: Let me interrupt for one minute. Evidently you are saying that special permits are
not being handled correctly. We have seven and one-half years of experience in the county handling
these permits. If you will check the records, you will find that special permits have been handled
promptly and properly by both the Planning Commission and the Board. Do you have anything to say to
this Board for the record that they have not been promptly handled during that time?
Reid: I do not have anything.
Wheeler: You have answered my question.
Reid: Let me add that the way this ordinance reads, the Board will be saddled with a higher
work load because the number of special use permits has been greatly expanded. On page 46, Section
2-28 reads: "Uses not provided for: (a) If an application be made for a use not provided for in
any district by this ordinance, the zoning administrator shall refer the application to the Planning
Commission which shall make it's recommendation to the board of supervisors as to whether the use
shall be provided for in this ordinance and if so, the district or districts within which it shall
be so provided. The board of supervisors may then amend the ordinance to include the use as a
permitted use in one or more districts." "(b) If in any particular district a use is not permitted
which is permitted in another district or districts, and an application is made for such use to be
listed as permitted in that particular district, the administrator shall upon the application to the
planning commission which shall make its recommendation to the board of supervisors after notice and
hearing, thereinafter, the board of supervisors may amend this ordinance to list the use permitted
in that district." "(c) In enacting the amendment provided for by (a) and (b) above, the planning
commission ~nd board of supervisors shall consider the following guides and standards; that the
proposed use is appropriate within the district or districts and will have no more adverse effects
on other uses within the district applied for or in uses within adjoining districts than would uses
of the same general character already permitted in the district." This gives discretion over and
over again to professional planners, none of whom is a native or even a long time resident of the
county and the planning commission who have shown themselves uninterested in the agricultural
character of Albemarle County.
On Page 34, Section 1-7 reads: "Zoning administrator and director of planning--daties generally.
"It shall be the duty of the zoning administrator to ensure that a copy of the zoning map is main-
tained in the zoning office for inspection by the public during regular business hours, and such map
shall be kept current and shall reflect amendments as they are adopted by the board of supervisors.
The zoning administrator shall have on hand in his office a sufficient supply of each form which may
be required by any provisions of this ordinance and the administrator and his staff shall be charged
with the duty of.rendering assistance as necessary to the proper completion and processing of such
forms. Personal conferences with the administrator and director of planning may be scheduled by
writing or telephoning their offices for an appointment." Please note that the public is expected
to submit its plans, etc. to this man who is administering the law almost completely in his own
discretion. This discretionary power could open up the administrator to extreme criticism and
compromise as now occurs in large metropolitan areas.
On the same page, Section 1-8 reads: "Same--Appointment; compensation; right of entry. (a)
This ordinance shall be enforced by the zoning administrator and the director of planning who shall
be appointed by the board of supervisors. The zoning administrator and director of planning shall
serve at the pleasure of the board. Compensation for such officers shall be fixed by resolution of
the board of supervisors." "(b) The zoning administrator, director of planning, their deputies and
inspectors are hereby empowered to enter and go upon any private or public property in the county
for the purpose of inspecting for compliance with this ordinance and of administration and enforcement
hereof; provided, that any and all such entrys shall be in accordance with the general requirements
of due process and nothing herein shall authorize or purport to authorize any unlawful search or
seizure." This section does not say "after no~ice", "at reasonable hours", but it does allow these
people to come on your land at any hour of the day or night with the purpose of surprising you in a
violation of the ordinance.
On Page 35, Section 1-I0 reads: "Permits not issued in accordance with ordinance~aeat~red~-vo~d..
Ail departments, officials, and public employees of the county which are vested with the duty or
authority to issue permits or licenses shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance. They
shall issue permits for uses, buildings or purposes only when such permits are in harmony with the
provisions of this ordinance. Any permit, if issued in conflict with the provisions of this ord-
inance, shall be null and void." Suppose a man applies for a building permit and certificate of
occupancy, in good faith, and the clerk issuing the permits makes a mistake, but the house stands
for several years before the mistake is discovered. There is no protection for the public against
such mistakes and yet the clerks would have to be geniuses to be able to read and understand this
unindexed ordinance.
On Page 37, Section 1-16: "Violations; penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person to
violate, or cause, or permit the violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance. Any such
person, upon conviction of any such violation, shall be fined not less than ten dollars nor more
then two hundred fifty dollars. Such person shall be deemed to be guilty of a separate offense for
each and every day during which any violation of this ordinance is committed, continued or permitted
by such person and shall be punished as herein provided." The most probable cause of violation of
the ordinance will be either ignorance on the part of the public or ignorance on the part of the
clerks issuing the permits. There is no protection to the clerks, who are unlikely to be prosecuted,
or protection to the public, who are likely, to be proSecuted.
On page 37, Section 1-17 reads: "Legal remedies. The zoning administrator, or other proper
officer of the county may institute any appropriate action or proceeding to prevent the unlawful
erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or conversion of any building or structure,
or the unlawful use of land, to restrain, correct or abate any violation of the provisions of this
ordinance, to prevent the occupancy of such building, structure or land, or to prevent any illegal
~m~ ~11~_ hll~D~ ~ ~lR~ in ~ ~bO1)~ El]nh DremCses." This ~rovides primarily for a remedy b~
9-3-75
275
Dr. McLemore Birdsong: I was on the County Planning Commission for 14 years. After my property
was annexed by the City, I was a member of the City Planning Commission for five years, the last
year as Chairman. I know some of the agony involved in this ordinance. I have been through many
public hearings and will make this short. I wish to bring up something specific about Lots 3, 4 and
5 of Airport Acres. Mr. Barkley discussed this earlier. It seems obvious to me that the area is
commercial property. I have written a letter to Mr. Humphrey, with copies to the Planning Commission
and Board members and I will add nothing to that. On thing; when you talk about taking business
property and making it residential, I call that up-grading instead of down-grading. Since this land
has been commercial for 25 years it does not seem reasonable to suddenly have it changed to residential.
0pal David: I came tonight to say let's adopt the ordinance and try to live with it for a
while. I have observed some of the meetings of the Planning Commission and agree that they have
worked hard. If they did not make it simple, it is because it is not a simple subject. Jim Murray's
remarks about the overriding authority of the comprehensive plan threw me. I think there is general
agreement that the proposed ordinance is not in complete accord with the plan. However, next year
the plan is supposed to be reviewed and it seems drastic to throw out two years of work. I suggest
that action on the ordinance be delayed until next year. Let us look at the Comprehensive Plan,
make some decisions about the kind of county we want, and then pick up again.
Tony Iachetta: "The proposed zoning ordinance now before you should be returned to the Planning
Commission for complete revision. It is an unweildy ordinance which, aside from badly over zoning
the county, represents a complete abandonment of the county comprehensive plan. The comprehensive
plan, adopted in 1971, cost the taxpayers $60,000 in direct payment to Rosser Payne. In addition,
an unreported amount of money was spent in conducting some 29 public hearings before it was adopted.
Consistent with the concepts of good planning, in December of 1971, Mr. Payne submitted a proposed
zoning ordinance revision intended to complement the comprehensive plan. It is a matter of record
that this board failed to act upon that proposed ordinance and the matter has been delayed until
now. This inaction by a majority of this Board of Supervisors has continued despite the pleadings
of many civic groups.
There are many individual faults with this proposed ordinance. It fails to protect the South
Rivanna Reservoir. It does nothing to preserve the Highway 29 North corrido~ against further
decimation of the roadside by multiple openings. It does not include the conservation zones recommended
four years ago. It proposes putting 7600 people on 230 acres adjacent to the reservoir. It is in
fact a complete sell out to a few speculators whose only interest in this county appears to be a
desire to cut it up into as many dollars as possible. There are numerous such inconsistencies and
it is because of these I urge you to return this ordinance to the Planning Commission with the
following instructions:
1) Revise the ordinance to bring it into conformity with the comprehensive plan while reducing
its complexity; 2) carry out this effort with a maximum of public input; 3) should events make it
impossible to produce an ordinance which underpins the master plan, then revise the master plan; and
4) develop a zoning ordinance to support the revised plan.
This procedure is admittedly time consuming and may result in this Board of Supervisors not
having time to enact whatever comes out of the commission. Having avoided taking action for almost
four years, I suggest you avoid it entirely. To do so may be a greater service to this county than
to enact what is universally considered to be a bad ordinance."
John Wright: "As residents of Woodbrook whose daily lives are affected by business operations
adjacent to our neighborhood, we are gravely concerned with the extent of development allowed on 29
North under the proposed zoning ordinance. Specifically, we ask the Board to review the classifi-
cation of parcels 104 and 104A which are proposed for CG zoning. These parcels are currently zoned
Bi and were originally proposed, by the planning staff, to be zoned CL (Commercial Limited). The
statement~for the CL zones is far more in keeping with the needs of residential areas than the
statement of intent for CG which allows heavy trucking and nuisance factors. It is also in conflict
with the stated intent of the current Bi zone which is amost identi~&l~to the proposed CL statement
of intent.
We can sympathize with the needs of the current owners, but feel that the business currently
operating on parcel 104 can continue~.to operate under Article 22 or Section 22-1 concerning non-
conforming uses. Since a "for sale" sign now stands on part of this property, our greatest concern
is over possible future uses to which the land might be put if CG zoning is permitted. Such operr
ations as cabinet shops, monument works, transportation facilities, pool rooms, dance halls, auto-
mobile laundries, and building material and supply centers with their associated noise and traffic
would be highly undesirable neighbors and would detract from the character of Woodbrook as a family
neighborhood.
In viewing this situation, it appears that rather than conforming to the logic of the master
plan and progressive zoning, this rezoning regresses and opens a Pandora's box which invites many
possibilities that would violate the character of this residential neighborhoods.
We have not dwelt upon other aspects of the ordinance, but it appears that there are many other
examples of the proposed zoning that do not conform to the overall objectives of the master plan.
Perhaps additional deliberation is required before board approval of the ordinance is granted.
In closing~ we believe-that any reasonable deliberative body would view the placement of a CG
zone next to an R-2 zone as in violation of the stated purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance,
one of which is "to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community"."
Signed by: Mary Katherine Tompkins; Jay and Shirley Chronister; John and Karen Lafley; Alan and
Marlene Beckenstein; Neil and Eileen Gott; John and Kim Wright; Rodney L. Biltonen; John E. and
Nancy L. Topper; and Jane Biltonen.
Robert Keller: "We hear comments that the proposed zoning is too restrictive. On the other
hand, it provides for a population of half a million people, when we now have only 40,000. We
hear its requirements are too rigid; yet, it has 18 different zones designed to give it flexibility.
These sound contradictory; but upon examination, they really do not contradict, and actually are
talking about the same deficiencies of the proposed ordinance and map. A straight-jacket made up of
18 different kinds of materials is still a straight-jacket. It has no flexibility and leaves no
room for maneuvering when it covers the entire body. The criticism here is in cover.ing the entire
county with arbitrarily assigned zones. Even if there are 18 of them, they leave no options or room
for adjustment to future demands. Once assigned to a landowner, zonin~ designations are com~arativel~
280
when a 400 per cent excess holding capacity is assigned 25 to 50 years ahead of demonstrated needs.
Except for the outline of the County, there is little other resemblance between the master pl~an
adopted in 1971 and this proposed zoning map.
Under the Virginia Code 15.1, Chapter 11, the zoning map is defined as a tool to implement the
concepts of the adopted Land Use Map. Ail the smokescreens that have been thrown up, saying the
Comprehensive Plan is only a guideline that can be ignored, have been di-sspelled by continuing court
decisions in Virginia. They confirm that once a Comprehensive Plan has been adopted, it shall be
the dominant concept of County planning, and the zoning map shall be subordinated to ~the Land Use
Map. The law states that there shall be coordination between the Land Use Map and the Economic and
Population Growth Projections; Specific Public Works Programs; and a Zoning Map. The law further
calls for adjustment of planning in all its elements and programs on a 5-year calendar. It specificaily
mentions the 5-year review and readoption of the Land Use Map, Capital Outlay Programs for Public
Works, and the Official Map of the County. How can you justify a zoning map so out of step with all
the other elements of planning and the law itself?
I sincerely suggest you return this proposed map to the Planning Commission with instructions
for them to restudy the law under which they are operating, and to comply with its precepts of
coordination and adjustability."
Richard Cogan: I got notification of a special zone that apparently is going to follow the
course of several tributaries that feed the Reservoir. They intend to make a 200-foot buffer on
either side of these streams and then consider that buffer part of the Agr-5 zone. I assume this is
intended to protect the cleanliness of the streams and also avoid the possibility of placing structures
in the flood plain in the event of high water. I submit that you might consider a specific setback
in any zone. With this zoning change, it will not permit me to expand the commercial use which I
have and this is going to be a hardship. A zoning case in New Jersey was carried to that State's
Supreme Court. They made case law which now effects the entire state, so the zoning boards and
commissions are finding that they do not have so much to say anymore. The court is telling them
what to do. We are overregulated. What I am saying is not to invite litigation. It is expensive
to the taxpayers. I hope you will take this into consideration during deliberation of this ordinance.
I hope the ordinance, when finally adopted, will be less confusing.
Patsy Tiffany: I run Patricia Ann's Country Store in Greenwood and have for approximately one
year. If this property were to be zoned as presently proposed, it would be a non-conforming use.
The property is split between business and agriculture and the whole property should be zoned
business. The other two property owners on that interchange are zoned business, but they do not
operate a business. I ask this Board to zone the portion of the property where my business is
located to commercial or business.
F. Bradley Peyton, IV: I have interest in bringing the proposed zoning ordinance back into
accord with the 1970 Comprehensive Plan. I am worried, as a number of people have said tonight,
that the interest of the land developers and real estate people has~been thrust down our throats. I
am concerned that the proposed conservation~ zoning was eliminated from the ordinance. I do not
understand how one obtains Agr-!0 zoning. I am also concerned with the scenic highway designation
for Route 250 West. I feel the Board should not do anything to jeopardize the integrity of that
area so we can meet the requirements for the desired highway designation. I bring to the Board's
attention the incompatibility of commercial development in that area. I feel we are making con-
cessions to real estate and to development interests and they are not necessary at this time. I
draw your attention to a letter printed in The Daily Progress from Mr. Wayne Shannon of Covesville.
He asked who has the ear of the Planning Commission and was concerned that building and developing
interests are dictating what will be in the final ordinance. It does not matter to me who owns
various rural lots. I have a personal bias for living in a county which was at one point so
thoroughly agricultural and now is becoming more and more rural and urban. It is obvious that land
is a finite resource. As Mr. Shannon said in his letter, he is concerned that future generations
will reap the harvest of a thoughtless, selfish, residential sprawl and demise of land with enviro-
nmental, historic, agricultural and scenic importance. I feel it is evident from this hearing
tonight that we need further public meetings, public input and consideration of the proposed ordinance.
Jane Heyward: I think it is bad that the oonservation zone has been eliminated. I think it is
a valid zone and it is not correct to call the Ragged Mountains or the Southwest Mountain, agricultural.
John Kenneth Haviland: (Citizens for Albemarle) "At the public hearings held by the Planning
Commission earlier this year, Citizens for Albemarle strongly supported early adoption of the
original proposals of the Commission, with a few specific changes to bring them into harmony with
the spirit of the Master Plan. We attended all four hearings and heard many other organizations and
individuals express support of the proposals, in whole or part, including the League of Women Voters,
the Civic League, the Greenwood Citizens Council, and the Homeowners Associations of Northfields,
Berkeley, and the Hydraulic Road area. Of course, we also heard many criticisms and objections, but
most of these were based on misunderstanding about the proposed ordinance, confusion regarding the
reassessments for tax purposes, or opposition to zoning and planning per se.
Thus, we feel it was a grave misjudgment on the part of the Planning Commission to set about
wholesale revision of the map and ordinance in response to vociferous and short-sighted opposition,
while discounting the reasoned~s~port sustained over a period of years by concerned citizens. We
believe that previous decisions by the Supervisors have morally and financially committed the County
Government to the Master Plan. The revisions now before you are in direct conflict with the Master
Plan they were supposed to implement, and their adoption in this form would result in wasteful
expenditure of public funds, several years of lost time at a critical'juncture in the County's
history, and a general weaken!ag of public confidence in the intentions of our elected officials.
We believe that the revised map and ordinance should not be adopted until the following changes
are made to bring the proposals into closer harmony with the spirit of the Master Plan:
1. The excessive amount of premature zoning should be reduced~ The present zoning map should
not anticipate the requirements of the year 2000, but should be revised gradually to meet the needs
of the citizens. Thus, flexibility would be retained and the Supervisors could time development to
coincide With short-range demand and the availability of utilities. Also, the required revision of
the Master Plan could easily be transferred to the map whanever necessary. Two examples of pre-
mature zoning that should be carefully studied include the excess commercial land along arterial
highways such as Routes 250 East and 29 Norths and excess densities in the urban area, estimated at
9-3-75
2 8 i
2. The Conservation zone, distinct from Agriculture 5, should be restored. Contrary to assertions
by some, we have found little opposition to the Conservation zone itself in the public hearings or
written communications. Perhaps some areas were designated for Conservation where an Agricultural
zone would have been more appropriate. However, Conservation is a primary emphasis of the Master
Plan, and removal of that designation from steep slopes, watersheds, and flood plains would signal a
major weakening of intent. To lump these lands with agricultural lands, contrary to the recommenda-
tions of the Planning Staff, would make them more accessible to development and remove the long,range
protection contemplated by the Master Plan. Therefore, we feel the Conservation zone should remain in
the ordinance, and the principal areas so designated on the earlier map should be placed within it,
including the land adjacent to the South Fork Reservoir.
3. Low density rural zones should be preserved. When areas originally designated for the 5-
acre Agricultural zone were re-evaluated by the Commission, protest by a small minority of property
owners in some sections of the County were allowed to outweigh the acquiescence of the majority. (In
general, requests for change had been made by property owners of only one per cent of the total number
of parcels.) Thus, large portions of the map were shifted to Agriculture 2 against the recommendations
of the County Planner, who thought the majority· should prevail, and against the recommendation of the
legal advisor, who stated that the wishes of the property owners were not a sufficient legal basis for
zoning. We find no good reason for the shift, and we feel that such areas should remain in Agriculture
5 until the Supervisors determine they are needed for residential development. The statement by one
of the Commissioners, to justify the shift to 2 acres, that the "basis of zoning is how much land is
needed to sustain a residence" fails to take into account major objectives of the Master Plan, such as
the Agricultural and Conservation Objectives.
4. General industrial or commercial uses should not be included by right in the Planned Unit
Development because they might conflict with residential and other commercial uses. Such uses, if
deemed desirable, shoutd be permitted only by specific re-zoning actions.
In their attack on the original proposals of the Commission, opponents mada careless use of the
terms "vested interest" and "confiscation" to oppose rezoning to less intense uses. We would like to
stress that intensive research on this subject by the County Attorney has found little or no support
for such opposition. Mr. St. John assures us that a landowner cannot acquire a vested interest in
existing zoning merely because that zoning has influenced tax appraisal, nor even after a site plan
has been approved for development of land according to existing zoning. In most cases, an owner would
not have a vested right even after grading had been accomplished. As regards confiscation, only if
the public welfare requires that the landowners refrain from any use of land, even at a low density,
would compensation be necessary according to the law.
Finally, we would like to repeat that alteration of the proposed map to meet the preferences of a
minority of property owners has resulted in major inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Master Plan.
There is also littla relation between the proposed zoning and planned expansion of public services.
Scattered residences on 2-acre lots in rural areas would be inefficient to service, and would impede
development of public transportation, sure to be a necessity in the near future. Moreover, we do not
see how the Plan can be revised in 1976 to provide a convincing rationale for these alterations and
at the same time provide legal validity to the Zoning Map or a coherent framework for future planning.
Considering the large public investment in four years of planning that has been hastily set aside, we
question whether any compensation benefit has been offered to the community as a whole by these
revisions. However, if the above four recommendations are accepted, we do not oppose the adoption of
this map, in view_of the urgent need for new zoning."
Scott Peyton: I would like to speak about the proposed agricultural zoning designations. What
type of agriculture can be carried out on land that potentially could have a building on every five
acres or even two acres? I feel our farm land needs protection. People need places to live and build
their homes, but we also need food to eat. I do not feel that Agr-5 or Agr-~ is adequate to protect
the county's farmland. I further believe it is inappropriate to use the term agricultural when
referring to land that potentially will be developed. Farmland once developed will not grow crops
again. I urge you to take more extensive measures to protect our farmlands from development.
Margaret Reid: On the eve of the Bicentennial, I find it ironic that the Board is planning to
pass an ordinance which threatens to curtail or deny certain of the rights of Albemarle citizens. The
attitude that we will pass it, then change.it, is dangerous. While the Planning Commission spent many
hours on the ordinance, many ordinary citizens also spent a great deal of their own time reading,
studying, checking interpretations, and offering comments orally in public and in writing. Ail of
this was done in an honest effort to make government in Albemarle County truly representative of its
citizens and to preserve the natural advantages of the county. It is the feeling of many that no one
in authority is really listening. Many are probably not here tonight because they do not feel they
can change anything. Because they are silent you may choose to ignore them. I ask that you elected
officials be responsive to the citizens. Carefully read all of this, study this proposal and be
certain that you give the county a realistic, reasonable, intelligent zoning ordinance that will
protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of all Albemarle County citizens.
Jason Eckford: I am representing the Chamber of Commerce. We have taken no formal position as
yet on the zoning ordinance, but would like to give you some of our thinking. A newspaper article
recently called the zoning ordinance a necessary evil and that is a pretty apt description. It is
going to be difficult to take all of these conflicting opinions and get something that will be -
pallatable to everybody. The Chamber is concerned about the section on page 48 "premature develop-
ments". It is a general section and we fear that it is open to arbitrary decisions. It is not
specific. We are also concerned about the amount of industrial zoning. You have three industrial
zones. One, the industrial general, has a minor amount of acreage. Industrial limited has 1500
acres. Industrial research has a modest amount of acreage. 1500 acres sounds like a lot, but in
looking at the map, I have not been able to locate it. I think a lot of it must be for existing
industries. To give an example of why this is important, we have a certain number of high school
graduates each year and a certain amount of employment which recurs. We want to attract not a large
amount, but some new industry from time to time to take care of the high school graduates and others
who are unemployed. If you have only a small amount of land already zoned for industry, you are
creating~an artificial scarcity. The land that you have is going to be overpriced. I think we
should have more industrial zoning for the research classification so we can attract nice, neat
industries that do not detract from the overall community.
Speaking for myself, I am concerned about the cost of housing. Some tonight have taken pot shots
at realtors and developers, but these people have put a lot on the line. They~have put their innova-
tiveness, their hard work, and a lot of their money into the quality of life that many people in the
county have. Ail of us cannot live on farms. We are concerned about the cost of building a home on
means are built into the ordinance for changing land from one zoning classification to another, but
how is this going to work in the future. Unless there is a stong statement built into the ordinance
to guide future Planning Commissions and Boards of Supervisors, then it is going to revert to the same
old business where a vocal few are going to prevent too much of what is proposed.
Elizabeth Rosenblum: When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the citizens, after going through
all of the Planning Commission hearings, realized that there were no clearly stated objectives for
agriculture or conservation. We were disappointed in this and worked hard. The Board, at that time,
adopted the conservation and agricultural objectives as part of the plan. Now the conservation zone
has been deleted from this zoning ordinance. It seems it should be a vital part of our zoning ordinance
and map. Agriculture, with a mixture of agriculture and conservation does not describe what is needed
in a conservation zone. On the zoning map, there are areas where commercial general has been placed
adjacent to residential areas. I feel the Board was elected to protect the existing residents of the
county whether they be residential, commercial or industrial. If you look at the 29 North area, you
will find many violations of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The B-1 zone had a very
limited statement of intent. It is similar to commercial-limited and commercial-office, but is not
similar to commercial-general, which is for more intensive land use. I hope you will correct this in
the ordinance. There has been confusion about the fairness of procedures used as the Planning .Commission
carried out their hearings on this ordinance. We received a letter about the zoning of our land, a
15.22 acre parcel. We responded to this as was asked saying that we would like to have 5-acre zoning
rather than 2-acre zoning. I have never received a reply from the Planning Staff. In August, I again
received a notice for this hearing and the notice stated that we have 2-acre zoning on our 15 acre
parcel. I am going to present to you tonight, in person, a request for five-acre zoning. I am
concerned that many citizens wrote this same request to the Planning Staff and received no reply.
I would also like to know how many people accepted the five-acre zoning on their land without comment
and then had that changed to two-acre zoning when the zones were changed at a later date and the
agricultural-limited was deleted and we went to three agricultural zones. This ordinance is the major
thing that will effect Albemarle County in the years to come. The ordinance should not be passed in
its present form.
Richard Mowry: I live on 01d Proffit Road on 14.3 acres, tax parcels 46-70 and 46-61. Under the
proposed zoning, this would be changed from agriculture to rural-residential. This property is some
400 feet wide with a depth of a mile. It fronts on Route 649. I believe your agricultural utiliza-
tion of property in a rural-residential area is too restrictive. This small acreage has been utilized
for farming since the early !800's. It is a perfectly viable small farm. Under your zoning, I would
not be able to keep my few poultry, cattle, or goats. I believe ~hat acreages of 10 acres or more in
an area previously zoned agricultural, but rezoned to rural-residential should be permitted to have a
limited agricultural use. I think that the rezoning of Route 649 from agricultural to rural-residential
is discriminatory. Near my property there is an 80-acre parcel zoned industrial; a portion of about
70 acres is not developed and is for sale and has not been rezoned. I also note that there has been a
complete skirting on the rezoning of all large farms in the area. You have attacked only the small
farmers in this particular area.
C. A. Conte: I represent the Berkeley Community Association. I would like to speak to you about
the parcel of about 11.6 acres abutting Four Seasons and Berkeley. A petition was circulated in
Berkeley and forwarded to you with a large number of signatures opposing the change from RT to RTM.
We find it illogical that this is the only spot in the whole county that has this zoning. There are
three parcels here that are contiguous and make up a total of 27 acres and is the entire area in the
county zoned for RTM. It seems out of place and I would say that the use here is not compatible with
the adjacent residential areas. I would appreciate your consideration of a return to the RT zone and
if there are any further work sessions, I would appreciate the change to speak again.
Gene Clements: Although I disagree with a lot of what has been proposed, I would still like to
recognize and commend Mr. Carr and the Planning Commission for the work they have done on the ordinance.
I recognize'that increasing public needs demand an increasing need for zoning. I feel the ordinance
was inadequately presented to the public last winter. I know it is a technical document which may be
difficult to get across to the people, but ~ has many issues which I feel will not be ~discovered by
the people until some fu~ure~time when suddenly they find they have violated the ordinance and are
sorry they did not speak up at this time. I do not know all of the ramifications of each section of
the ordinance and submit that the Planning commission and Board of Supervisors do not either. As an
example, a carnival as defined on page 15 is a traveling or transportable group or an aggregation of
rides, shows, games, or concessions or combination thereof. Are my re'latives who stop by my home mn
route to Florida a traveling group? A public parking garage as defined on page 19 is a building
designed or used for storage of automobiles owned or used by persons other than occupants of such
building. Does this mean that my brother who lives nearby cannot use the second stall of my two-car
garage? Home gardens are defined as an accessory use in a residential district for production of
vegetables, fruits and flowers generally for use and/or consumption by the occupants of the premises.
Does this apply to all residential districts? Does it mean it must be on that piece of land where the
main structure, the home, is located? Public water supply as defined is a central system for ~J
supplying potable water to three or more independent dwellings and which may be owned and/or operated
by a municipality, or county or service authority or by a person approved by the Board of Supervisors
and properly licensed by the State Board of Health in accordance with Title 62 of the Code of Virginia,
as amended. Does this mean future wells or springs serving three or more families become the property
of the government or must be operated by a person licensed by the State Board of Health? Is water a
natural resource? If~ so, it is not enumerated as such in Division IV of the ordinance. The carnival
and public parking garage examples cited are absurd, of course. I feel I know the intent of the
ordinance regarding them. But, if I am to take them literally the zoning administrator will be in a
position of determining what is or is not absurd. The home garden, public water supply and water as a
natural resource may not be so absurd. What percentage of ~he middle-class county residents do you
feel understand most of the ordinance, some of the ordinance, very little of the ordinance? I feel
this is a small percentage. There are 175 pages of restrictions with 206 corrections of which 24
correctionS appear to need corrections. If we must have planned development, I hope we will not jump
overboard but take it a step at a time. I, therefore, ask that you reject the ordinance as proposed.
Williams Stewens: I address you as a real estate man and developer. I am very glad to be
classified in that area having been the developer of Bellair and my brother was the real estate broker
who developed Farmington. I think one thing has come out of the two years of work and the lengthy
discussions held by the Planning Commission. The old Bible is a darn sight better than the revised
version.
9-3-75
283
before it is passed so that it will bear some remote resemblance to the Comprehensive Plan. i would
like to call your attention to the Agr-2 zone which is proposed for 30% of the county. In Section 5-1,
Agr-2 is defined as a district for low-density, single,family housing compatible with farming activities.
Upon looking over the uses permitted as listed on pages 55 and 56, I see that constructing condominiums
is a righ~ in a ~ingle-fami!y zone. Private stabling of horses is a right. In the RR-2 zones, private
stables must have a special permit. Presumably horse stables will have a more obnoxius odor when
located in RR-2.
Forestry, dairying, hunting and game preserves and wholesale plant nurseries are permitted by
right. Special use permits could allow commercial poultry and hog farming, sawmills, airports, and
sanitary'landfills. I find all of these uses,'special and by right, patently ridiculous on such small
plots of land. It appears that the original Agr-5 uses were changed to Agr-2 uses letter for letter
without sufficient consideration of the impact of this change. I believe that this zone is a way of
appearing to preserve agricultural land for food and fiber productions. The ultimate result, however,~
with the required setbacks, will be patches of houses, lawns, an occasional vegetable garden, plus
innumerable public service problems. I urge you to ponsider eliminating the Agr-2 zone and redistri-
buting this land appropriately to Agr-5 and RR-2.
Wheeler: Mrs.. Samsell, for your information condominiums are allowed in all zones by State law
!~suggest that you solve that with Mr. Murray and Mr. Michie.
~d Bain: I speak on behalf of four or five property owners and will follow this up with more
detail in writing to the Planning Office. The first parcel is owned by Mid-Park Llimited and is in the
northeast qnadrant of the Shadwell Interchange, and~is~%proposed by the Planning Commission to be CL.
We are requesting that the Board make this CG. It is the only part of the quadrant that has other
than CG.~
The~next parcel of land is Tax Map 45-108 owned by Mr. Richard DeButts and others, on North 29.
This property is currently proposed to be RT and we request CG since it fronts on North 29. There is
CG on the~north and the south. This is~approximately 15 acres of land.
The other two parcels, both of which are in conjunction with each other, have been spoken about
tonight by people from Four Seasons and Berkeley. They are Tax Map 45-26C owned by Becker Corporation
and 45-26 owned by Mr. DeButts, Mr. Gibbs and others. The Becker Corporation property is 11.64 acres
and the Planning Commission has recommended this to be RTM, 12 units per acre. We ask the Board to
affirm that decision for several reasons. I can understand the position of the Berkeley community,
but they are surrounded by commercial-limited, commercial-general, and residential, multiple-family of
20 units per acre which is certainly a higher density than RTM which is 12 units per acre. Across
State Route 631 there is more RM which again is 20 units per acre, and some commercial-limited. For
these reasons we request RTM for that parcel. Also for the Parcel 45-26 which is immediately in front
of this property previously mentioned, five acres fronting on State Route 631. The owners request
this except for that portion fronting on State Route 631 and they ask for commercial zoning similar to
that across the road which is CL on that portion.
William Woodworth: I live in the White Hall District. I endorse and support statements made by
the Citizens for Albemarle, League Of Women Voters, Farm Bureau Federation and many other individual
speakers who have stressed the need to preserve the agricultural land in this county and to restore
the conservation zone. The ordinance and map developed by the Planning Staff and Planning Commission,
and very ably done, presented basically the kinds of future development planning that this county
needs. It did conform to ~the master Comprehensive Plan which many speakers tonight have stressed we
should adhere to. Unfortunately, it seems that many of the changes which have been introduced between
then and now were made because of pressure on the part of individual property owners whose major
interest was apparently to see h~ much money they could make out of a piece of land. In many cases,
not land that was owned by their families for generations, not land they intended to keep in agri-
cultural uses, but simp2y to divide up into small building lots to make as much money as they could,
as quickly as they could. The present owner of a piece of property is in effect holding it in trust
for the future. The needs of the whole community need to be kept in mind. Not only the needs, but
the desires and wishes of the adjacent property owners. Other speakers tonight have stressed the need
to preserve good agricultural land in agricultural production. I urge that you consider reversing
some of the figures you now have in the existing draft of the ordinance. It seems that the A-10 might
better be the prominent size of 275,000 acres. The A-5 the second size of 142,000 and let the A-2 and
the RR take up the smaller acreages that are left. tf 'people in the county think they are being
subjected to too much control, they ought to see what goes on in other counties. HUD recentlY did a
cost study of suburban sprawl. Urban development .may consume 50% less land, require 55% less capital,
create 45% less air pollution and consume 44% less energy than suburban sprawl. I urge you to con-
sider this cluster idea very seriously and to concentrate future development where development has
already occurred. Intensify development in and around the City of Charlottesville and the other
urbanized clusters in the county. Also keep in mind the value of tourism in-the county. It is
certainly one of the leading industries. If this county is al!owed.to deteriorate in its attractive-
ness, it would be a loss in tourism. Commercial and industrial development is obviously necessary for
any growing area, but it can be incorporated in a way that does not detract from the beauty of the
county if development is put in clusters and there are adequate greenbelts With adequate buffer zones
between the industrial and commercial areas. I hope this county is not going to follow the sad a
example of~Fairfax County, Falls Church, Staunton, or Waynesboro, in allowing commercial and industrial
development to make an ugly eyesore out of what was once a beautiful county. I ,support the desig,
nation of the west side of Route 29, once you are in view of the mountains, as a scenic highway and
also Route 250 West of Charlottesville. I urge the Board to reconsider the original Proposal %hat was
put forward by the Planning Staff and Planning Commission last winter and to adopt a new zoning
ordinance that will be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan than the ordinance now before you.
........ ~nces Granger: I am interested in the Reservoir, and in definitions of words, and I really
would like to know what all of this is going to cost. I cannot seem to find the answer anywhere. I
have studied on my own and found that the county cannot process a ~eai~l use permit for under a
hundred dollars. Special use permits are increasing at a fairly substantial rate. Under the pro-
posed zoning ordinance, I maintain that they will go up considerably. In tbs past, at 5~dget hearings,
I asked if there were any projections as far as what would happen if any proposed zoning ordinance
were put into effect. I have chased around a good bit and written down a lot of figures and talked to
a lot of people on the phone, but'I cannot get any kind of assessment, appraisal,i or projection as to
what all of this is going to cost. I do not see how you can consider the issue without considering
the cost at the same time.
Roger Davis: I am an architect and a twenty year resident of Albemarle County. I am speaking
proposed Albemarle County Zonin~ Ordinance as presently structured.
property which is in Hessian Hills, Section 2, B!ock'B, Lots 3 and 4.
from R-1 to R-2.
Specifically in regard to my
This is proposed to be rezoned
1) Section 7-2(h). Home occupation Class "A". I request this be changed to read Class "B".
The Class "A" definition is over restrictive af~d becomes unreasonable in practice. I have practiced
architecture from this home office for 18 years. At times I have one or two draftsmen to help me. I
do not wish to ask for special permission every time I need some extra help. My neighbors have never
had to complain of my activity. Under this short-sighted rule, an english professor cannot hire a
typist to be in his home and type a transcript that may result in profit when published. I recommend
the deletion of sub-paragraph (1).
2) Section 7-2. Relative to Home occupation Class "A" (2). A man has (or perhaps had) a right
to use his home as he sees fit. The 25% is arbitrary. So long as 51% is home use, it is more home
than office. I suggest this change. You define this by floor area - what about the artist that uses
wall area for light or the musician that uses volume for reverberation? I recommend the deletion of
sub-paragraph (2).
3) Section 7-2. Relative to Home occupation Class "A" (3). There is an old architectural
dictum that says "form follows function". Again the author of this proposed ordinance is short-
sighted, over restrictive and unimaginative. Certainly "some" changes in outside appearance or premises
could be tolerated instead of the "no change" and no hint of purpose. What about the addition of a
swimming pool for the express purpose of giving swimming lessons for profit? or tennis courts?~ Each
~ime your ordinance is too narrow. Also, I happen to teach a course in lighting at the University and
am a member of the Illuminating Engineering Society. What possible harm could I do to my neighbors if
I discreetly light my sign along with my garden flowers? (The restriction makes even less sense on
AGR-10). I recommend the deletion of sub-paragraph (3).
4) Section 7-2. Relative to Home occupations Class "A" (4). This becomes over restrictive and
narrow in scope. What about the dear Avon Lady? Or an artist selling on consignment along with her
own works and home studio? A jeweler engraving Jefferson cups could not sell an extra one to you that
was unengraved under this Ordinance writing. I recommend the deletion of sub-paragraph (4).
I suggest the following: Page 20, Home occupation-Class A. Home occupations may be conducted in
the dwelling or on the premises so long as they are not offensive to the neighbors, openly commercial
in nature and do not appreciably alter the residential nature of the property.
Section 8-4(a). I have owned Lot 3 in Section B since 195~ with the intent of building a small
house for my retirement years. This is an irregular pie shaped lot of approximately 13,000 sq. ft.
It is the only unbuilt lot in the area. A rezoning with the proposed restrictions is an unjust hardship.
I request~an exception to the area requirement. I also oppose the exact number of square feet being a
part of the ordinance. The use of the term "more or less" after the specific number, gives the land
owner and administrative authority a more practical leeway. With as much as 30% variation, no harm
would be done to a neighborhood area.
Section 8-6(a). My lot B-3 of record has a 60 ft. frontage. The whole street backing to this
lot has 60 ft. fronts. I request an exception to the proposed ordinance that I be permitted to build
on this lot (without a one year time limit). I am not ready to retire just yet. I oppose the exact
dimension requirement of lot frontage. The way this is stated - "the required fronta~ge shall be: (a)
One hundred feet for single-family residential, etc.", implies that each lot must be 100 ft., no
more - no less. In the case of a pie shaped lot with 90 ft. front and 30,000 sq. ft. area it is more
acceptable than 100 ft. and 20,000 sq. ft. and yet is not permitted without exception. As soon as a
specific minimum frontage is given, the law of costs seem to stamp them all out to this minimum.
Leave way for judgment!
Your consideration of my comments and requests will be appreciated. Finally, in closing, I make
this professional comment after having read through the proposed ordinance. The staff preparing this
ordinance should be thanked for their efforts, admonished for their errors and given our best con-
structive efforts to shape up and adopt a Workable ordinance for Albemarle. However, I consider this
document overbearing and oppressive to the property owner. It is extremely restrictive and narrow
minded in concept. I believe t. Jhe process for relief will be expensive, slow and~burdens~me~ for all
parties concerned. I firmly believe we need a Zoning Ordinance in Albemarle and would hope the
suggestions made to the Board during the public hearings will be given serious consideration. Further,
that you make enough basic revisions to make this workable, imaginative and more acceptable to all
parties concerned."
Carlo Colombini: This is a private, personal request. I request that that portion of our
property identified as County Tax Map 062-52; 063-10; 063-018 containing respectively 71.06, 16.10 and
16.28 acres and being known as the Redbud property be assigned the status of Agr.-2. A portion of it
is adjacent to the proposed Agr.-2 area.
Curtis Crawford: I have taken note of the number of people who have cited ±mportant changes
from concepts of the adopted master plan; especially, the conservation zone, the minimum lot sizes
in the agricultural areas and the cluster concept. No one has defended those changes as recommended
by the Planning Commission. If there are good reasons, they should be heard~ The Board should
require the Planning Commission to present a systematic statement of their reasons for significant
departures from the original plan.
Mr. Chapman: I think you should ask yourself if this is an over reaction to a good j~ob.
Perhaps the pendulum is swinging too far in the other direction and this might lead to over complications
and increase in cost. ~tEverything has to be brought to you gentlemen to make a decision. I think
the people will elect the Board of Supervisors and they will appoint people to the Planning Commissio~ ~
and this will give us a more flexible' system that will act according to the times.
Wheeler: I will now give Board members a change to make comments.
Wood: i have no commenvs at this time.
Henley: I would like to thank you (the publiC) for your show of interest and commend you for
your endurance. I think there is a lot of work to be done on the ~ordinance.
Fisher: I want the public to realize that the ordinance was presented to t~e Board this summer
9-3-75
9-4-75
285
work that needs to be done to the ordinance, but I am not sure that sending it back to the Planning
Commission is the correct way. The suggestion that the Planning Commission speak to the Board and
the public about the deviance from the Comprehensive Plan is an interesting one. I hope that somehow
we will get the thinking that has led to the ordinance as it stands at this moment.
Thacker: I would like to th~nk those citizens who have shown an interest in the ordinance and
spoken tonight. I agree that there is a great deal more work needed.
Carwile- No comments.
Wheeler: Mr. Carr. Do you have any Comments?
Carr: I would like to say that the Commission awaits your directions as to any additional work
required. They are interested in presenting an ordinance that is acceptable to you and the people
of this county. I made six notes of major concern tonight, but I will address only two of those. I
would like to meet with the Board and the Commission and discuss why I think the Commission deviated
from the Comprehensive Plan. That would be a worthwhile discussion. Secondly, the Commission dealt
at great length over a two-year period with preservation of agricultural lands. From comments
tonight, we apparently missed that goal. If we did, maybe the Board can give us further guidance.
Wheeler: We do appreciate your (public) comments. This is the beginning of our work on this
ordinance~which is before us because we think it is time to make changes and corrections in the
ordinance to bring it into line with the Master Plan. I want to say that zoning is controversial,
has been, and always will be controversial. I remember when zoning was first passed. It was said
there would be a big exodus from Albemarle County. Well, exactly the opposite has happened. We
have more people coming all the time and we have to deal with those people. I want to remind you
that while there are quite a number of people here tonight, there are almost 45,000 people in
Albemarle County. The decision this Board makes has got to be something that will be best for the
majority of that 45,000, not just for one specific group, or the developers, or the property owners,
or the agricultural people. We will hold a workshop next Wednesday afternoon and set a course of
action at that time.
At 11:25 P.M. Mr. Wood offered motion, which was seconded by Mr. Thacker, to adjourn this
meeting until 7:30 P.M. on September 4, 1975, in the Albemarle County Courthouse. The motion carried
by the following recorded vove:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Chairman
9-4-75 (Adjourned from September 3, 1975)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 4, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr.,
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; County Planner, John L. Humphrey; County Engineer, J. Harvey
Bailey; and Assistant County Planner, Robert Tucker.
Wheeler: Meeting come to order. We are here tonight to dis¢~uss an ordinance which has been
drafted by the County Attorney and the s~aff using guidelines recommended by the committee appointed
to draft ~ui~e!ines so development can be carried out in the South Rivanna River Reservoir watershed.
I will ask Mr. St. John to go over the ordinance and then we will hear comments from the committe~,
Board members and the citizens present.
St. John: I will read the ordinance and suggest two changes be made in same.
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE TO PROTECT THE QUALITY OF WATER
IN THE SOUTH RIVANNA RIVER RESERVOIR
Preamble
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ~eing gravely concerned for the viability
of the South Rivanna River Reservoir as a public drinking water supply for the County and for the City
of Charlottesville, has determined to protect this irreplaceable public asset by employing whatever
measures may be necessary to effect the same, even though such measures ~ay have an adverse impact on
certain segments of the local economy and on certain individual property rights; and
WHEREAS, a study is ~a~b~ing made, a.~ the instance of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority,
(~ will stop right here. I am not sure that this study was aolel~. ih the instance of the~-Authority.
Perhaps it was at the instance of the Authority, and the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County.)
by Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc., t~ be cOmpleted in approximately ~4 months, and the Board is
concerned lest development during the said 14 month period should result in ~reparable damage to the
reservoir; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 1975, in Order ~o protect the said reservoir,
enacted an ordinance suspending development within ~he waterhhed of the
of 14 days; and
the Board of Supervisors
said reservoir for a perio~
WHEREAS, while the Board of Supervisors fully intends t'o protect the said reservoir from pollution,
at the same time it recognizes a duty to accomplish this objective in such a manner as not to d~press
the local economy or interfere with individual property rights except to the extent that the same shall
be absolutely necessary to accomplish this ~objecti~e; and
~ WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors on ~ugust 6, 1975, appointed a committee to study the control