Loading...
1975-10-2210-22-75 (Night) 36.3 A regular meeting was held on October 22, 1975 by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at 7:30 P.M. in the County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. ABSENT: Mr. William C. Thacker, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. J.H. Bailey, County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; Hartwell Clarke, Zoning Administrator; and Robert Tucker, Assistant County Planner. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. No. 2. Approval of Minutes: June 19, 1975; Mr. Fisher requested additional clarification regarding reason for transfer of funds shown as item #19a on page 151. (Said reason being to cover increases in salaries given employees when the pay and classification plan was adopted in November, 1974.) July 2, 1975 and July 9, 1975 had no corrections or additions. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwi!e to approve the above minutes with noted corrections, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. No. 3. Mr. Wheeler presented a letter dated October 17, 1975 from Mr. John H. Bailey, Jr., requesting the Board of Supervisors to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow the operation of commercial kennels in the A-1 Zone with a special permit. Mr. Bailey was nov present. Mr. Wood offered motion to adopt the following resolution of intent. BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for Commercial Kennels in the A-1 Agri- cultural District with a special use permit, and to amend the definition under Section 16-48 to Commercial Kennels; and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said proposal and report back to this Board at the earliest possible date. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. No. 4. Public Hearing to amend Section 17-6-3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and 24, 1975). Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had approved the following amendment: 17-6-3. Approval of a site development plan pursuant to this article shall expire 18 months after the date of approval unless actual construction shall have commenced and is there- after prosecuted in good faith. Mr. Tucker said this amendment ~equires actual construction to have commenced, whereas the Ordinance now states only a building permit must be obtained within the 18 months. Mr. Henley said he agreed with the proposed amendment, because conditions can certainly change in i8 months and offered motion for adoption. Mr. Wood seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote' AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. (The following three items were advertised for public hearing in the Daily Progress on October 1 and October 8, 1975) No. 5. ZMP-332, William T. Dettor, Jr.: Request to rezone 31.893 acres from A-1 Agricultural, RS-1 Residential, and B-1 Business to M-2 Manufacturing. Property situated on south side of Route 738 near intersection with Route 676. Property described as County Tax Map 58 Parcel 37 Samuel Miller District. ' Mr. Tucker read the staff report: "This property is located on the south side of Route 738 adjacent to the C & 0 Railroad and west of Ivy, and is rural in nature. There are four single- family dwellings directly opposite the subject property to the north. The property to the east contains a warehouse along the railroad and the property just north of the warehouse is proposed for an office and mechanical engineering laboratory. Murray Elementary is located further to the east. Property to the west of_subject property is vacant and the C & 0 Railway forms the southern boundary of the parcel in question. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that this area, because of its access to rail transportation, be developed as heavy industry. The property was rezoned to B-1 and RS-1 on July 16, 1970. The appli~cant now wishes to rezone and use this property for industrial purposes. He proposes to expand the existing warehouse facilities. The Planning Commission recommended approval, with the following changes: Tax Map 58, Parcels 37 and 37B be zoned M-I, with the exception of a 400 foot depth of RS-1 zoning from Route 738 and a 200 foot buffer of A-1 zoning parallel to the Kelly property. The Planning,.Commission also noted that the 100 foot buffer along the east property will be retained as originally imposed under CU-140. Mr. William T. Dettor, Jr. was present, and said Mr. Herbert Tull, III, an adjoining property owner, had no objection of the rezoning request. He said the property is commercial by nature, due to the Railroad, and because of this, is not conducive to residential zoning. He requested a 100 foot buffer zoning parallel to the Kelly property instead of 200 feet, in order not to waste valuable railroad siding space. 364 10-22-75 (Night) Mr. Herbert Tull questioned if Mr. Dettor would be required to widen roads leading into the rezoned parcel, as he had not yet honored a private contract with him to do road work. Mr. Wheeler informed him that the Board applied for and was refused Industrial Access money from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Two women who live in the area of the proposed rezoning, did not wish to see any further rezoning to manufacturing until the road is widened and precautions taken to reduce noise and increase safety in the vicinity of Murray School. No one else from the public wished to speak, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher stated he had received several telephone calls on the matter, all concerning the roads and traffic by the school. Mr. Wood asked if any complaints of noise had been received from school officials. Mr. Tucker said none had been r~¢eived. Mr. Fisher then offered motion that the property be rezoned according to the recommendations of the Planning Commission with a 400 foot setback from RS-1 (State Route 738) and a 200 foot setback on the west side of the Property adjacent to the Kelly Property; the balance of parcels 37 and 37B be M-1 Industrial with a 100 foot buffer on the east side of Parcel 37B, which is not to be developed. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following reco.rded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. Recess was called at 8:10 P.M., and meeting reconvened at 8:15 P.M. No. 6. SP-499 Peacock Hill Limited Partnership: Locate a central water and sewer system on 336 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural (P.U.D.) Property situated on west side of Route 708 and north side of 1-64. Property described as County Tax Map 73, Parcels 29, 29D, and 29F Samuel Miller District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report: "This area is rural in nature and the property in question is being developed as a planned community. The applicant is requesting approval of the central drainfield system and central well system to serve Section 2 of Peacock Hill Planned Community. There are 60 proposed units in Section 2. Information concerning the wells which are to serve Section 2, as stated in letter from Mr. Ashley Williams, A6ting County Engineer, dated 10-22- 75, states test reports for five wells (Nos. 1, 3, 5, 9 and 10) have been received, as well as site approval of the wells by the Health Department. Ail wells were tested for a period of 48 hours, and total output from the above noted wells equaled 99~ gallons per minute, and meets the approval of the County Engineer. Mr. Tucker noted that total units in Sections 1 and 2 of the P.U.D. equaled 98 units. He added the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) 3) 5) 6) 7) Well output of one gallon per minute per unit; Well output to be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer; Any additional units served by the/se wells will require an additional special use permit; Public Service Corporation filed with the State Corporation Commission; Storage of water from wells to be in line with the requirements set forth by the Health Department; Finalized utility system for the central water and sewer facilities, showing the septic lines and the back-up system for the current septic fields, detail sizing of the water lines as presented and approved for Section !; This Special Use Permit granted to serve Sections 1 and 2 of Peacock Hill and a maximum of ninety-nine (99) dwellings based upon the capacity of the five wells tested which report a capacity of 29, 38, 11~, 7, and 15 gallons per minute. Mr. Frank Smith, Peacock Hill Developer, said none of the units have yet been completed, and he does not expect any occupancy before December 1st. The preliminary road and drainfield work for Section 2 has been done, and plat was submitted to the Planning Commission for final approval on October 21st. No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to approve SP-499 with the seven conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwi!e, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Thacker. No. 7. SP~516 C.J. Pugh: request to locate a general store on 4.58 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property situated on north side of Route 636 west of intersection with Route 736. Property described as County Tax Map 84, Parcel 9 White Hall District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report: "Area maintains a rural farmland character with rolling topography near the Blue Ridge Mountains. Single-family development is sparse with four residences located in the immediate area. The parcel contains a one story wood frame structure that was previously used as a country store. The structure itself is setback only about 25 feet from the edge of the pavement on Route 636. Parking would have to be provided to the west of the store as there is only enough space for three parallel parking spaces in.front of the store. Visibility for ingress and egress is good toward the east, but only fair to the west. While the staff questions the feasibility of this store from a marketing standpoint, it is our opinion that the reopening would not change the character of the area in which it is to be located and would not affect adversely the use of the neighboring property. The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval with the following conditions: Approval of all state a'nd local agencies; Planning Commission approval of site plan and planting plan; Parking to be located to west of store with a gravelled surface; Signing to be limited to one wall sign with area of 30 square feet." 10-22-75 (night) 36.',5 Mr. C.J. Pugh was present, and asked if the special permit allowed the sale of gasoline. Mr. Wheeler said yes, as long as he had sufficient space for tanks etc. Mr. Robert Merrill, a neighbor, felt the store was a good idea. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant had plans to expand the store in the future. Mr. Pugh said he intended only a small operation and had no plans for expansion. Mr. Fisher expressed concern about approving this permit on 4.58 acres of property, as the special permit traveled with the property, not the owner. Mr. Tucker said that if any expansion were intended, a site plan would be required by the Planning Commission. Motion was then offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood to approve the special permit with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile,~ Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. No. 8. S?-517, FaYe Bryant: request to locate a mobile home on 11.7 acres zoned A-1 Agri- cultural. Property located ~ mile south of Collins Market on Route 29 South. County Tax Map 87, Parcel 39 Samuel Miller District. (advertised in Daily Progress on September 23 and 30, 1975) Mr. Tucker requested deferral, as the applicant did not attend the Planning Commission hearing. Motion to defer until November 12, 1975 was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Thacker. No. 9. SP-518, Kenneth L. Gibson, Jr.: request to locate a mobile home on 20.38 acres zoned A-1. Property located on east side of Route 689, ~ mile south of intersection with Route 637. County Tax Map 71, Parcel 57 Samuel Miller District. (advertised in Daily Progress on September 23 and 30~ 1975). Mr. Fisher said he had received a telephone call from the applicant indicating that there had been a death in his family and would not be able to attend the Board session. Mr. Fisher requested the matter be heard without the applicant's presence. No one on the Board objected, and Mr. Robert Tucker read the staff report. "Area is rural with very little development, and is primarily wooded with some pasture and cropland. The requested home is already located on the property, and visible from the southwesterr portion of the property. There are two existing mobile homes that appear to be located on this property near the state road. Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval with the following conditions: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Approval from appropriate state and local agenoies; Minimum of 100 foot setback from any state right-of-way; Minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet; Minimum side yard setback of 25 feet; Skirting around mobile home from base of mobile home to ground level; This permit is non-transferable; Mobile home cannot be rented under any circumstances.; Screening as required by zoning staff; This special use permit is valid for 5 years. No one from the public wished to speak either for or against the request, and Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Henley to approve SP-518 with the nine conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. No. 10. Public hearing to adopt an ordinance to Protect The Quality Of Water In The South Rivanna River Reservoir~ by amending Section 6-3 of the Albemarle County Soil Erosion and Sedimenta- tion Control Ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 1 and 8, 1975).(NOTE: The following discussion is presented in a verbatim form to correspond with all previous discussions.) Mr. Wheeler: Okay Gentlemen, Nb. 10 Public Hearing adoption of ordinance to protect the quality of water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir, amendment to Section 6-3 of the Albemarle County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. This is official action on this ordinance passed by this Board almost two months ago'. You have copies of the ordinance. I have received a copy of a letter from the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission signed by Mr. Joseph B. Wilson. It was sent to our County Deputy Attorney. Mr. Fisher you are the official reader. Would you read this? This has some bearing. "September 17, 1975 Mr. Frederick W. Payne We have reviewed the proposed amendment to the Albemarle County Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and offer the following comments: In Appendix A, Section 1, the prohibition for building, grading, or excavation on slopes of 25% or greater, except for utilities and roads, lends itself to a debate that we prefer not to enter. Rather, we prefer to urge localities to consider restrictions, not necessarily prohibitions - with these restrictions (or special requirements) to apply on slopes of 15% or more. Costs for control of storm water, erosion and sediment control measures, pavement, utilities, and building construction do increase con- siderably on slopes over 15%. In addition, the annual maintenance costs would be much higher. Nevertheless, development properly planned and based on the soils and geology of the site can occur on relatively steep slopes, with minimal damage, if the appropriate precautions are taken. In other words, the development must be tailored to the site characteristics rather than developing a site to accommodate a preconceived plan. Under Appendix A, Section II, "Minimization 'and Control of Storm RUnoff", we would suggest 10-22-75 (Night) Water Conservation Commission. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. Sincerely, (signed) Joseph B. Willson, Jr., Director" Mr. Wheeler: Thank you, Mr. Fisher. 0kay gentlemen, do we have any additional information or any correspondence to add to the record? If not, the public hearing will be open. Mr. Fisher: What does this mean, this technical release 55, so on. Does anyone on the County staff have any information on that? Mr. Bailey: Evidently our Soil Conservation Service Office here was not aware of this publication. At least, I think they would haVe called it to our attention when we were studying it. Mr. Wheeler: This is the date of January 7, 1975. into this Mr. St. John. Did your office after receiving this letter look Mr. St. John: No sir. Mr. Bailey: Evidently I suppose the situation here was taken on faith and not on examination. Mr. Wheeler: I don't think they would have made the recommendation to us. make a note to be sure that you get this release. I think you had better Mr. Bailey: Yes sir, I certainly will. Mr. Wheeler: Okay, the public hearing is open. information they would like to present? Do we have those who would like to speak or have Mr. Busby: I'm Robert Busby. I'm interested in the subdivision ordinance... We have a problem of erosion control. The problem has been involving our property during the summer .... this subject to bring before the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Wheeler: Not under this. No sir. Mr. Busby: Well perhaps, the Board should know... Mr. Wheeler: You can bring it before this Board but we're taking up this particular ordinance right now. I'm calling for the public hearing on this particular ordinance. Do you have comments or something to present on this ordinance? Something that has not been presented. This Board has received information, from some organizations through the original public hearings. If you think it is important, repeat it. Mr. Kenneth Havitand: We have requested down-zoning of the area around the reservoir at every opportunity during the past few years. Failure to take this action is jeopardizing future law suits against the County whose cost will be borne by the taxpayers probably. However, if you are not willing to take this essential step, then at least we feel that you should pass this ordinance as a very poor second best choice. That's all I have to say. Mr. Steve Crandall: Mr. Chairman, my name is Steve Crandel! of the University of Virginia Legal Environment Group. The following views are those of the Legal Environment Group of the University of Virginia. The Legal Environment Group is a non-profit, non-partisan student organization dedi- cated to improving living environment through legal and educational means. The Soil Erosion Ordinance amendment under consideration here tonight is neither the most adequate nor the fairest method of protecting the Rivanna Reservoir during the 14-month study. The following points illustrate this content±on. 1. This ordinance deals with soil erosion and not with reservoir eutrophication. In Section I of this amendment, the Board of Supervisors recognized the problem that needed solving was "to protect the South Rivanna River Reservoir from pollution and eutrophication". Unfortunately, this ordinance will only prevent some soil and clay from reaching the Reservoir banks and will not significantly prevent the continuing eutrophication of the water supply from nitrates and phosphates that are carried by water runoff. 2. This ordinance is unnecessarily overbroad. The development restriction applies to ever- yone in the watershed rather than the areas within 1/2 mile of the major water bodies most likely to cause the eutrophication. 3. This ordinance fails to implement the recommended guideline of an absolute restriction of development in areas of over 15% slope. The ad-hoc technical committee clearly stated, on the basis of empirical evidence, that the amount of soil running into the Reservoir was critically dependent on the percentage slope of the land. To use the words of Dr. Brown: "From 10-15% you have pretty much an inorease in erosion. So basically at each percentage above 10% you are getting consistently more erosion. And at 15% and above, you've got a tremendously significant increase in erosion for most types of soil. Up to 15%, you're getting from .75-1.5 tons of runoff soil per acre. And at above 15%, you get from 1.5 to 4 and higher. Again, above 15% you have a significant increase." As I stated earlier, the Legal Environment Group does not believe that a soil erosion ordinance is the most adequate method of preventing eutrophication. But if this is the only course of action that the Board is willing to take, then the more stringent slope requirement should be adopted. Again to use the words of Dr. Brown: "I men- tioned here earlier that phosphates stick to sediments...and most fresh waters have a problem with phosphates. So we can't say that sedimentation and nutrient enrichment are two separate problems." 4. This ordinance should be amended according to the suggestion of Mr. Smith from Peacock Hill, as far as road building is concerned. It is unsound to prohibit building of houses in critical areas while allowing roads to be built in the same areas. As Mr. Smith said; "Anybody that has looked at a road can see that this is probably the most destructive, erosive device that man can build." Appendix A part I should therefore be amended to exclude the building of roads from slopes greater than 15%. 5. Perhaps most importantly, this amendment would permit high density development, right-now~ in a critical area of the Reservoir. Once such a development is allowed, we question whether 10-22-75 (Night) what the fourteen month study~ concluded. Following the conclusion of these remarks, the Legal Environment Group would appreciate it if the County Attorney, Mr. St. John, would address this legal issue before the gathering here tonight. 6.~ Finally, and most urgently, we ask that the Board of Supervisors act now in accordance with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. This plan is dangerously ambiguous with respect to the future of the South Rivanna River Reservoir. If, as is recommended at page 178 of the Plan, it is the intention of the Board eventually to phase out the use of the Reservoir as a source of water supply,~then the Board must tak~ forceful steps now to protect the integrity of the 73,851 acres of 4 other watershed areas considered essential to meet the water supply needs of this County in the-year 2000. Otherwise, the Board should change the ambiguity of the Plan and zone according to the suggestion on page 95 of the Plan which would place the Rivanna Reservoir in a conservation zone. In view of the problems and inconsistencies mentioned above, the Legal Environment Group asks that the Board reconsider this ordinance in favor of the three following suggestions: A. Impose a complete moratorium on all development within 1/2 mile of the Reservoir and major tributaries; or, if such is considered not legally defensible, B. Schedule immediate rezoning hearings in order to implement temporary zoning changes during the course of the fourteen month study; or C. Change the present soil erosion ordinance amendment to exclude development and roads in areas of 15% slope or more and limit the effect of this ordinance to areas within 1/2 mile of the Reservoir and major tributaries. We strongly~urge and hope that the Board of Supervisors will adopt Recommendation "C", so as to avoid unnecessary hardship on developers outside the critical runoff areas as well as to protect the County~-s~-~precious water supply. This position of the Legal Environment Group was unanimously approved by a vote of the full membership this afternoon. I thank you. This is the only copy I have right now~but I will be happy to get you one. Ms. Gilman: I'm Kathy Gilman. I have a statement from the League of Women Voters. Protection of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir has been of primary importance to the League of Women Voters for many years. As citizens of this community, we expect the local governing bodies to give our water supply'the best protection possible. We have major reservations about the effectiveness of the ordinance that is before us tonight. 1. We are concerned about the'change from a 15% to a 25% slope on which bui. lding, grading, and excavating activities are allowed. It is not clear that technical evidence supports this change. 2. The enforcement of this ordinance poses many problems. Who will decide if additional treatment is necessary? What could this treatment cost? The citizen must be informed of the potential hidden costs of construction and maintenance of treatment facilities and monitoring of runoff. 3. The ordinance addresses the problem of erosion but does not concern itself with the pro- blem of nutrients in the runoff present as a consequence of development. The League is concerned that this ordinance may not do the job it is meant to do. It puts restrictions on land miles from any major tributaries and allows high density development on the shores of the reservoir. Downzoning to Conservation zoning around the Reservoir would better protect the water supply. If the Board is unwilling to take this step, this ordinance, strictly enforced and carefully monitored for.effectiveness, will probably be better than no protection at all." Mr. Merrill: I'm Bob Merrill. I'm greatly concerned if this ordinance is really going to work. It's going to take an army of enforcers to do it and I'm wondering if any estimate has been made of the cost of enforcing this and monitoring and so on. We really need that number to evaluate this in relation to having to pay for a rezoning condemnation suit and that type.of thing. I'wonder if it would be~.possible for your staff to get some figures from other localities that~might have a similar ordinance who are trying to enforce~it and just.get an idea whether it's $100,000 a year to enforce this. We need a number like that. Mr. Clarke: I will try to give a pretty close estimate if you would like. There's no additional cost to administer. We have two men, the cost has been determined as $20,000 each to manage the force. Mr. Wheeler: That is for all soil erosion not just this one ordinance. Mr. Clarke: True. The entire Soil Erosion special program is roughly $40,000 for the entire County not just this one ordinance. Mr. Merrill: What was this $18,000 additional requested the other day. I read it in the paper. Mr. Clarke: That's the cost of a second man. We figured the cost of the first man roughly to be about $20,000 and rounded the figure off to $40,000. Mr. Merrill: Now that would just be the cost of enforcement. sampling and testing and so on with this natural water. Suppose you had to do a lot of Mr. Clarke: Well as we see it right now, we are asking Mr. Yae~er to do everything except the police part of it... Mr. Merrill: Mr. Yaeger is with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority? Mr.~ :Clarke: No, he's with the Soit ~Conservation~Service. this~p~rablem ..... Turns in recommendations to correcting Dr. F.A. Iachetta: My problem~with this ordinance I think can be rather simply stated. It's basic- ally an experiment from an engineering point of view and having performed engineering experiments that didn't work, I'm somewhat concerned that if you perform this one and it doesn't work and you allow development of the kind that your study says you shouldn't have, you then have an irreversible process and you've started something you can't turn around you've got too much invested on the part of the landowners that are already there and has done the thing that he has been allowed to legally 10-22-75 (Night) Mr. Humphris: My name is Robert Humphris. First of all just a short suggestion' I noticed in the paper tonight there is a symposium on water quality. The title is Biological Monitoring of Water and Effluent Quality to be held down at V.P.I. on Sunday, November 2 through Tuesday, November 4. It is sponsored by their Center for Environmental Studies and will cover such topics as a future of biological monitoring and pollution control, evaluation of ah-automated system for industrial site, such things as the~state of the article of biological monitoring, techniques for simulating pol- lution control and they are currently studying problems related to biological monitoring around the world. I Would strongly suggest that you use some of your discretionary funds to send somebody down to this symposium to absorb what they can to help us with our problem here. Second, I would like to ask if you would do what the Legal Environmental Group has asked and ask Mr. St. John to give a public discussion or at least his opinion on what the consequences might be if a precedent may have been set by allowing a development to take place on this high density area and if as a result of this study, in fact if the study shows in fact that something should not take place or if develop- ment should not be allowed since a precedent has been set, would it be very difficult legally to downzone the rest of the area? In fact, earlier I believe Mr. St. John issued his guess that down- zoning was feasible or legal. There was a newspaper article to this effect. Could you give your opinion as of now again, what your opinion would be on the downzoning of that area, that high density area? You will do it tonight, that's what I am asking please. Mr. Wheeler: I'll talk to Mr. Bailey about somebody from staff but I have a suggestion on who should attend that conference on the second through the fourth. I would suggest all the candidates for the Board of Supervisors attend. I'll check with Mr. St. John on this. Do we have others to speak? Ms. Tompkins: I'm Kathy Tompkins representing the Woodbrook Community Association. I too would support down zoning of that particular area if you find that feasible but short of that, we would also like to see a return to the 15% slope. Short of that, we would like to see you refer to the original guidelines that were presented by the committee.and the consultant which referred to highly erodable soils as a factor which should be considered in restricting development in the watershed. Now this is not mentioned in this emergency ordinance that I can tell, it simply states-the 25% slope and has nothing to say about the erodability of the soil. As I understand it, you can have a lesser slope that is very highly erodable because of the nature of the soil and still have a severe problem and I think you should consider this. There are ways of determining the soil lost per acre. I understand there is a formula that people in the field use for determining the amount of soil loss that they can expect and I think that you should refer this back to the experts to determine a standard by which you would also restrict development according to the erodability of the soil not only by the slope but also with the erodability and I'm still concerned about another matter too, one that I mentioned before. That is the possibility that work might stop for a period of time on a development that was begun, particularly one that was very close to a major tributary or to the reservoir. If this should happen, we would be in a mess. If this work was to delay for five to six months as we have seen it in some sites, it would be very detrimental to the reservoir and I don't know what you can do about it or whether there is anything that can be done but if there could be any kind of incentive built in to this ordinance to keep builders on the move, it sure would help. Thank you. Mr. Wood: Mr. Chairman, to answer Mrs. Tompkins question about what happens if they stop in the middle and it's just left there. It's my understanding that since this is going to be an amendment to the soil erosion ordinance, then the bond is going to have to be posted to insure that the ade- quate protection is taking place whether the developers are doing business or not. So I feel com- fortable that with the bonding provision as it exists, properly enforced I think we'll be safe in a situation like that should it developJ Mr. Wheeler: Anyone else? The public hearing is closed except on one issue. Mr. St.~ John, I might ask you now and the question has been asked to briefly explain again to the Board and to the citizens present; one--your thoughts on down zoning as we stand at this particular time and second your thoughts then on down zoning if we allow development over the next fourteen months and some develop~ ment occurs then the Board takes action of down zoning. Could you speak to'that? Mr. St. John: What Mr. Humphris has referred to I gave my opinion on in writing sometime ago and what was not against what I felt confident about that opinion at that time and that's the opinion on vested interest, nobody has the Vested interest to the present zoning. Then you have the Williams case in Fairfax County which turned over a moratorium and the Vaughan case in Fairfax County which turned over a moratorium, not a moratorium type that we had, so I don't think it has changed all that much and I still feel that in true context you could have down zoning there. 1) because of the public water supply being involved and 2) even in the Williams case where the Supreme Court struck down some down zoning, they said that were this a rezoning comprehensive wise or re-enactment of the new comprehensive zoning ordinance, you can down zone the area of the land there but always remember that you have to have a factual basis for doing it. That is to say to down zone you have to have either a mistake when the original zoning was enacted or a change in circumstances to justify diminishing the value of someone's property. The Supreme Court of Virginia recognizes what every- body knows and that' is that down zoning property diminishes its value on account that it has its own .... and they are going to make you justify that through public necessity and if public necessity exists, the right to down zone exists particularly where the public water supply is concerned and particularly where the comprehensive zoning ordinance is being enacted. But now you are talking about... Mr. Wheeler: That's as we stand today? Mr. St. John: That's as we stand today. Mr. Wheeler: I think that the question is--let's say we go through 14 months, we have a developer and this study that's, the environmental engineers find that from ~this study that we should not have developers and then the County moves toward rezoning. Mr. St. John: I feel of course that any work that is taking place, and you have buildings going up, development going on, people have the vested right to continue under whatever guidelines and regu- lations are necessary to prevent pollution with respect to the other land that has not been built on or developed. You could still, through the zoning ordinance or down zoning if you want to call it that, prevent development in this area having allowed development to proceed in one area wouldn't force you to allow it to proceed in other areas if this study shows that down zoning .... Mr. Wheeler: Does that answer your question Ms. Tompkins? ._ Mr. Wood: You did say George that it would not mean that you would ~ave to rezone or allow building..? 10-22-75 (Night) Mr. St. John: I'm saying that if this fourteen month study or how long it's going to take results in determination that it's in the public interest or its necessary for the public health to zone all the rest of the land on that reservoir, except what's already been built on, conservation for ex- ample. You can't do that. You can't go back and rezone what's already been built. Mr. Wheeler: Thank you. Okay gentlemen. You have heard the comments. about it for almost sixty days. What's the pleasure of the Board? You have had time to think Mr. Wood: Mr. Chairman, before we get into a mo~ion, the gentleman there that spoke from the Uni- versity, I think we need to address his 15% to 25% slope or at least have some dialogue as to why it is 25% now. Although that committee originally recommended 15% and you all will probably remember the night that we had the State Water Control Board, the Health Department, the man from Betz Environmental Engineers, Mr. Bailey and what-have-you ~n the Jurors box, and as the letter indicates here now, those recommendations came from members of that Committee. They did not come from this Board. I considered that Committee to be a panel of experts, and as well as I recall, it did not originate with this Board. I remember the gentlemen from Betz saying that he would recommend the 25% rather than .... and he is the gentlemen doing the study. If there is some difference that some other member of the Committee had, I don't remember any other member making the change, I certainly didn't. I don't feel qualified to make such a recommendation to go from 15% to 25%, but I think that the expertise that we have, I certainly don't feel required to make it 15% if they are saying 25%. Mr. Wheeler: Well, to speak to that, after receiving the letter from Mr. Willson, I'm not so much concerned with these percentages, as I am concerned that no matter what the slope might be, that it be properly planned. Mr. Clarke, after hearing his comments, and the backup material from the soil erosion ordinance, it looks like what you said Hartwell that the slope, the 15% slope, the 10% slope and if such soil is erodable, then special guidelines will have to be used. You can have 25% slope or 30% slope and it might not erode quite as much. So it is going to have to be the guidelines of this committee. Mr. Clarke: I think the figure of 25% would pretty much be a figure they could_go by. Mr. Wheeler: You think we should stick with the 25%? Mr. Clarke: I have no feelings on it one way or the other. Mr. Bailey: There were two considerations. The committee that reported to you would set an absolute limit without respect to other conditions on slopes and preferred to stay with the 15%, however, the Committee could live with the 25% and certainly it seems to point out many number of cases existing in the County where greater than 15% slopes have been used for building. WE would have preferred, if we thought we could, to have done just what is suggested in Mr. Willson's letter that we cut the garment according to the cloth, and consider each application on its own merit, but that also is difficult for the public to work around. The public has to develop, or any member of the public who is interested in a development, would have to go to the expense of developing and improving the conditions and the remedies to live with the conditions without any assurance~that it would not be denied. The soil erosion committee would not impose what might be harsh measures. This 25% is in the nature of a compromise. Mr. Wheeler: Thank you Mr. Bailey. Alright gentlemen, what's the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I have a statement to make. Since the last hearing and the action of this Board, there have been a number of press reports and a number of letters of people trying to amplify on what happened here. I want to make it clear, and I want the minutes and the news media to record that the following events have taken place concerning the Rivanna Reservoir and the high density zoning which exists on its shore line. 1) Four members of this Board have publicly stated their opposition to down zoning anywhere in the County. 2) The Planning Commission refused to even recommend even on a planning basis, that the sensitive area around the reservoir be down zoned. 3) The next most effective measure, a temporary delay of development on the shores of the Reservoir, was defeated by this Board on September 4, 1975. 4) The next most effective measure, the controls ordinance, as proposed by Mr. Thacker's own committee for prohibition of development on slopes over 15%, wouldn't pass. 5) The next attempt allowing development on slopes up to 25%, which has been in effect since September 4th has already allowed a 147 unit development to be approved, reducing the density of that development by only seven units or about 5%. This experience has lead me to question the effectiveness of such a permissive control ordinance. I must state that this sequence of events may go down in history as the single most short-sighted series of actions of this Board of Supervisors. Ten years from now when we are all paying for expensive treatment of runoff or for new water sources, or possibly suffering severe water shortages, I wonder how many citizens will feel so strongly about the private property rights, which have been paramount in the Board's decisions. The public has rights too, to be protected from the actions of individuals who have friends in high places. Now, this history and all the letters we have from the State taking various positions, stating it is the desire of this department to prohibit any new development along the South Rivanna Reservoir at least until the results of the Reservoir study have been finalized, again on September 2nd this department does not recommend development along the Reservoir on and on .... I want it clear that I think the only thing to be done to permanently protect the reservoir is to downzone it, but to what zoning I don't know. I don't know if it should go to one acre zoning or two acre zoning or five acre zoning or ten acre zoning, I think then that we should wait for the results of the 14 month study to tell us what should be done. But in the meantime we should permit no development on such sensitive areas as this. And it is again my feeling that we should adopt the minimum mora, torium on building permits on that area adjacent to the reservoir for the purposes of waiting for this study to be completed so that we would know what should be done. Mr. Chairman, I've made this motion three times, you are all familiar with it, it says, "No building permit shall be issued for any developm~pt in the immediate drainage basin of the South Rivanna River reservoir until such time as the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority shall have determined the effect of such development on the said reservoir and that includes the area as delineaved before on the west and north by the reservoir, on the south by State Route 631, on the west by State Route 743, and on the east by State Route 659. An emergency being found to exist this ordinance shall take effect immediately." and I so move. Mr. Wheeler: Mr. Fisher, before I make my remarks, I'm at least going to give you the courtesy of getting a second to your motion, but you can be assured that I am going to have something to say, because I feel some of your remarks are uncalled for and untrue. Do I hear a second. Mr. Henley: Well, I'm pretty famous for seconding on these touchy p~oblems; I'll second it so we can discuss it. Mr. Wheeler: Okay, it has been seconded. I didn't come up here tonight to get excited not in the middle of a campaign, because I don't have to make any campaign speeches. I've~been surrounded with na.m~a~n statements for the last two or three months .... what is ha~enin~ here, you two ~ent!emen 10-222'75 (Night) Mr. Wood: It is the same motion that Mr. Fisher offered once before, and he's going to pull the same stunt... Mr. Carwile: It's an election year. Mr. Wood: Let me ask a question Gerry, is this same small area that has been told to the entire Board that it cannot be defended, and it is bounded by Route 660, just so-that ~ know what position I'm in? Mr. Fisher: Mr. Wood, I'm talking about plain common horse sense. about, the same one that I talked about .... This is the area that I'm talking Mr. Wheeler: It is the same area. Okay, let the record show that Mr. Carwile and Mr. Wood are abstaining. I think I had better stand to say this. As I was saying, I~'ve been surrounded by campaign statements for the last two or three months, i'm not in this campaign, and I was hoping that I could pretty much stay out of it, but let me just get right back to some of this. For one thing, it is one thing...and I'm sure that all the Board members are concerned about the Reservoir; now Mr. Fisher when you say that at least four members of this Board opposed down zoning some months ago at a time when we were not talking about the reservoir, we were strictly stating the feeling at that time and impressions to the Planning Commission. The Board has not voted on down zoning, that has not gotten to us, and to sit here and state that that is the position of four members of this Board, you know darn well it isn't true. It isn't true, and you know under what situation it was said. YoU also, I've heard not only members of this Board, but I've heard almost all the candidates, some who expect to be sitting on this board, have stated that once this study is presented, I think they have all stated they hope to do what they think is necessary to protect the County. They want some information, and I would just like to call your hand, that to make a statement like that is not fair to your fellow Board members and not fair to the citizens of this County. And I don't like it. Let me tell you, other than development around that Reservoir, and I've said this many times, there are other things that get into polluting that reservoir and cause problems in that reservoir. Some of which I've been fighting for for a long time, and it would have been nice to have had some of the members of this Board support me during that time; when I've been to Richmond and I've been to Washington. Finally after all these years, I notice today the EPA funding the study, and engineering for the sewer line to Crozet, that has been a problem for a long time. I don't think anyone is pointing a finger at the people who have said well look, you took this particular stand. Goodness knows all of us have taken stands over the years. You also realize that we do not have a full complement tonight, and you also must realize that a motion like this has caused two members of the Board to step aside so it leaves three to vote, and I think it is taking unfair advantage of the Board, and I have to state that. I'm through, I'm ready to vote. Any further discussion. Mr. Henley: Well, I guess this would be a grand opportunity to get some publicity for the reservoir, but I think since I've been on th~ 'Board, I've insisted that when we make decisions that we give all the Board members an opportunity to be here, especially decisions as important as this. Although I seconded the motion, I'm not willing to vote on it until Mr. Thacker has a chance to be here. Mr. Wheeler: Well, unless Mr. Fisher withdraws the motion, I'm going to have to call the role. Mr. Henley: I think one time I insisted that we wait was one time you were not here. I think something this important, we should wait until Mr. Thacker is here. If you could redesign the lines so .... well I still think Mr. Thacker should be here. I would like to say that I think this is the right approach, I've felt all along that there should be a moratorium until this study was over. I don't see how you can down zone without having some recommendation as to what zone. ! told Mr. Fisher this, when the study is in, maybe development is not as bad as we think, maybe we can develop to a certain extent, and that is one reason I think we should wait. I support the moratorium. Lets face the problem, but I'm not going to vote on it tonight. Mr. Wheeler: Mr. Fisher do you want to vote on your motion tonight? Mr. Fisher: Yes sir, I would like to have a vote on the motion. Mr. Wheeler: Call, the role. AYES: Mr. Fisher. NAYS: Mr. Wheeler. ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. ABSTAIN: Messrs. Carwile, Henley and Wood. Mr. Wheeler: The motion does not carry. Would you please call Mr. Carwile and Mr. Wood back in here please. Okay, the motion did not carry, a tie vote, it did not carry. We are back considering an ordinance to protect the quality of water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir. Gentlemen, I'm ready to again support this ordinance. Mr. Carwile: I move its adoption. Mr. Wheeler: Could I ask you .... Mr. Carwile: With the Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Mr. Wheeler: Do I hear a second. Mr. Wood: Mr. Chairman, I second Mr. Carwile's motion, and I do understand that this is for the entire watershed. Mr. Wheeler: That's right. Discussion? Call the role. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Thacker. (CLERK'S NOTE: End verbatim transcript.) Amendment to the Ordinance To Protect The Quality Of Water In The South Rivanna River Reservoir, as shown in full in minutes of September 4, 1975, Minute Book #13, Pages 285-288 reads as follows: Appendix A, Section B, Subsection 10: Technical Release #55, entitled Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds., dated January, 1975, as prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, is hereby adopted by reference. 10-22-75 (Night) No. 11. Earlysville Heights Roads. report would be made at a later date. Mr. Wheeler reported the review was not complete, and the No. 12. Appointment to Library Board: Mr. Wheeler requested deferral until next meeting. At 9:30 P.M. a recess was called; meeting reconvened at 9:35 P.M. Mr. Robert Busby brought to the Board's attention a bonding problem which occurred when the Soil Erosion Control Ordinance went into effect. He said the initial bond requested on a 15 lot subdivision was $16,000, which if put up as a cash bond could have been reduced to $12,000. After voicing complaints, it was reduced to $8,000. He then said he had spoken to Mr. Clark during recess, and that Mr. Clarke would handle the matter further. Mr. Clarke said the reason the bond was reduced was the Committee recommended $16,000; when the developer complained, they discovered an error in computing the amount of the bond, and reduced it to $8,000. No. 13. Lottery Permit, Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. Mr. Bailey reported the application was made on October 2, 1975 for raffle and lottery for the calendar year 1975. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher for approval, based on the Board's adopted policy. Role was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Thacker. Mr. Wheeler requested the meeting be adjourned to 4:00 P.M. on Wednesday, October 29, 1975 in the Board Room to discuss: a report by the County Executive on the Space Needs'Committee regarding progress on the lease for the Wilhoit Building; report from the Committee regarding the Service Authority debt to the County; Revenue Sharing for 1976; Library Board appointment; Earlysvi!le Road report; and funding for Solid Waste Committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher to adjourn to Wednesday October 29, 1975, at 4:00 P.M. Role was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. None. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Chairma~Y~ ..... 10-29-75 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 29, 1975, at 4:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from October 22, 1975. PRESENT: 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, J. Harvey Bailey, County Attorney, George R. St. John, and Deputy County Attorney, Fred Payne. The meeting was called to order at 4:10 P.M. No. 1. Approval~of minutes. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Henley~to approve the minutes of July 17, 1975. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. No. 3. Resolution--Mcintire School Building. Mr. Wheeler said he had received a copy of a letter from Clarence S. McClure in which Mr. McClure asked that the Board of Supervisors give the School.~Boamd permission to proceed with plans for the use of this building. Mr. Carwile said that this is the recommendation of the Space Committee and offered motion to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, has for some time considered the use of McIntire School as a County Office Building but now finds that is not feasible; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby publicly state that McIntire School will not be used as a County Office Building and that the Albemarle County School Board may proceed with plans for the addition of McIntire to the public school system of Albemarle County.