1975-12-10N(12-10-75 Afternoon)
(12-10-75 Night)
Not Docketed.. Mr. Wheeler read a notice of public hearing from the State Corporation Com-
mission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity as a common carrier of passengers by
motor vehicle by Airport Taxi, Inc. Hearing is scheduled for 2:00 P.M., December 29, 1975, Blanton
Building, Richmond, Virginia.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:10 P.M.
12-10-75 Night
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
December 10, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the County Courthouse.
PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr.,
Gordon L. Wheeler, and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: J.H. Bailey, County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and John
Humphrey, County Planner.
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mr. Gordon L. Wheeler, Chairman.
(NOTE: Discussion on the following special permit is verbatim, at the request of the County Attorney's
office.)
Mr. Wheeler: No. 1. SP-537, James N. Fleming. We have a note here that, John, you bring us up to
date on the action of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Humphrey: The Planning Commission has recommended, or it has deferred their action on this
application, until February 2nd, this is based on the staff's evaluation of the time limit as to
when action must take place, that is within 90 days of application. They did so for several reasons,
there were ten items involved as Justification. They desire a revised preliminary p!an, they feel
the one that was presented and on file is insufficient. Two, size and location of the commercial
area should be shown, the size should be reduced, this being at the Planning Commission level.
Three, further information regarding impact on schools should be determined. We met with the School
Board on Monday night, regarding the possibility of the School Board requesting the dedication of
some land .... they were not ready to make a decision on that at that time. They suggested January
15th before they could make that determination. Four, more information is needed regarding the
common area, this involves the submittal of the Homeowners Agreement, to be reviewed by the County
Attorney's office, and a report given to the Planning Commission. Five, more.information regarding
the siltation pond as shown on the plan; the dam, the capabilities and its safety. Six, more com-
plete engineering plans for the project, again this is dealing with the general alignment of sewer
lines, water, and drainage. Seven, rearrangement of lot layout so as not to encroach on slopes of
more than 25%. This was brought about by a staff evaluation, based upon the site plan submitted.
It was noted that some of the residential lots were to be shown on/within the 25% slopes. The staff
review comments received by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Those comments
have been received by the Highway Department, and the staff feels that we should follow their recom-
mendations. Nine, complete review by the Albemarle County Engineering Department regarding storm
water and utility plans. Ten, evidence that the applicant has considered the ordinance to protect
the quality of the water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir, the interim ordinance. It was the
Planning Commission's feeling that sufficient detail had not been given of that ordinance, and
applied to the site plan, and they want review by the applicant of this ordinance as it relates to
development.
Mr. Wheeler: May I ask you a question? If this information that was requested, was presented to
the staff within the next few days, does the Planning Commission have any meetings within the next
ten days so they could take this up? The Board has a meeting now scheduled for December 30th.
Mr. Humphrey: There is one more scheduled for site plan and subdivision approvals, prior to that
30th date. There are some twelve items on that agenda.
Mr. Wheeler:
Mr. Carwile:
Okay Gentlemen, do you have questions of Mr. Humphrey before I recognize the petitioner?
What is the date of that meeting?
Mr. Humphrey: It would be next Tuesday the 16th.
Mr. Fisher: The agenda says that this should be deferred. It is our normal policy when action has
not been taken by the Planning Commission, to defer action to a date certain.
Mr. Humphrey: Yes sir. The Commission did not establish a date, they were depending on the applicant
to present the information they desire to the staff, and the staff following up and setting a date.
That date as we have stated there, is the one that we selected as being the last possible date on
which we could consider it before it went on to the Board of Supervisor.
Mr. Fisher: There is nothing to say that it couldn't be acted on sooner if you had the information.
Mr. Humphrey: No sir, absolutely not.
Mr. Wheeler: Any other questions of Mr. Humphrey?
Mr. Carwile: Could I see the list of the things that the Planning Commission has requested of the
applicant, John?
Mr. Humphrey: These were taken, and do not represent the approved minutes. I will note that the
staff had recommendations regarding conditions, and at the Planning Commission meeting, as far as I
can recall, the applicant agreed to all the following conditions; with some slight reservations ...
Mr. Carwile: No, just a general concern tO me that when you are talking about conceptual approval
of a project like this, to put an applicant to the expense that he may be put to do some of these
things. In particular light of this project, which has been to the Planning Commission and the
Board one time before, it would seem to me that if it were sufficient to get to us at that stage
before~ the same type of information should not change to be sufficient to get it to us now.
Mr. Fisher: This has been brought to us as a substantially different application, has it not?
Mr. Humphrey: Yes, there has been a reduction in the overall density from the original proposal of
over six units per acre, and it is down to 2.47 units per acre, as it now stands, and as indicated
on this plan.
Mr. Bailey: I believe the essential difference may be in the enactment of the interim ordinance and
its relation to the 25% slopes.
Mr. Carwile: Well, what concerns me is a general statement such as more complete engineering plans
for the project. When an applicant doesn't know that it is going to be approved, to go through the
expense, when you can condition the approval on sufficient compliance with whatever engineering
requirements you have; seems to be the better route.
Mr. Humphrey: In that connection, you are dealing with, in essence they want to see and have ver-
ified by the Engineering Department, the ability of the sediment basins. It was alluded to that
there would be more than the.., the sedimentation basin that was shown on this plan is not the
actual location, there are some revisions which this plan does not indicate. As noted by the Com-
mission, the requirements for the submittals are general in nature and basically preliminary, and
that they require preliminary land use plans, utility plans and road plans. The Commission can ask
for additional information if they desire.
Mr. Wheeler:
heard.
Okay gentlemen, before we taken any action, the applicant is here and wishes to be
Mr. Puryear: Gentlemen, my name is Edgar F. Puryear, Jr., and I'm representing James Fleming and
others with respect to this petition. We would like to respectfully ask the Board of Supervisors to
hear this matter this evening, but since you indicated to us that there is going to be a meeting on
the 30th of December. There were some sixteen conditions by the Planning Commission that were laid
down with respect to this project. ~ There were only two that we had reservations about. One~, which
is something which is not required by others, a 100 foot buffer zone between certain tracts of land,
and the other'was, where we were requesting 3~ acres of commercial rezoning, they had suggested one
acre. We thought we could live with two acres with respect to this. Quite frankly we asked them
for a decision, even if the answer is no, so that we could have the opportunity to move forward. We
come to you gentlemen in good faith, in the spirit of compromise. We have reduced this from well in
excess of 6 units per acre to 2.46 per acre. We have already revised the difficUlties that we had
with respect to the slope land, and as I see it, that was the only real dilemma. As far as some of
the other items that were raised, well quite frankly the recommendation of the staff to the Planning
Commission,-we consider to be very favorable. It would all have been conditioned upon these par-
ticular conditions, which as we said, we are ready to live with. We most of all feel that we are
being put off, and it is my understanding that perhaps the Board of Supervisors would make some
request to the Planning Commission when they meet on the 16th to give us the opportunity to be heard
with respect to these matters. The items that were raised that night, we have complied with all
that is expected of us, and several of the items that were raised that particular night really were
not .things that we had to do. There was a study of the impact upon the school system at a density
of six per acre. We now reduced it to 2~, now they say they don't understand what the impact will
be in the school system, why we find that difficult to understand. The Highway had approved, there
have been no difficulties as far as the highway system is concerned when we were talking in terms of
a density~of some six dwelling units per acre, yet we reduced it to 2~, and then we are told t~hat
night, no we are going to have to loOk at the highway situation. So, we believe that we are ready
to take it to the Planning Commission, we are ready to get a vote on it, indeed we asked 'for a vote
that evening, we were denied a vote. We ask you gentlemen this evening to either be heard on it or
perhaps be heard on it December 30th. It may be some encouragement to the Planning Commission to
hear us on the 16th to give us the opportunity to present these aspects of, and just frankly get a
decision from the Planning Commission either yes or no so we can have the opportunity to proceed.
Mr. Wheeler: Thank you ~Mr. Puryear. Might I ask a question on this letter that was addressed from
Mr. Humphrey to Mr. Fleming requesting certain information? Do you think that most'of this could be
available to the Planning Commission sometime in the next few days?
Mr. Puryear: Our engineers, Mr. Wheeler, have been working on this quite extensively since the
hearing last week, and we believe we are ready, and can certainly be ready by the 16th. We are
ready this evening to make the presentation. ~
Mr. Wheeler: Okay, thank you sir. Gentlemen, this has been before t~he Board before, this is some-
thing that is coming back to the Board, I think the present Planning Commission is familiar with the
request, and I do not want to ask the Planning Commission to act without full information. I would
certainly like to support a motion from this Board deferring action on this until December 30th, but
requesting, if possible for the Planning Commission to hear this, and if they've got sufficient
information, to send a recommendation on to this Board so that we might take action. I certainly do
not expect the Planning Commission to act if they do not have the information they need, but let us
assume that they do have that information. I would like to support a motion requesting they act and
send it on to us for action, and defer this until December 30th. I would be glad to hear from you
gentlemen.
Mr. Thacker: Mr. Chairman., I would so move, but I would like to comment. It appears to melthat
some of the information requested is really at the site plan level, rather than at the special
permit level. I would request that that type of information be deferred for site plan review.
Mr. Carwi!e: I second Mr. Thacker's motion.
Mr Wheeler: Do we have discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Fisher: What specific information are you suggesting belongs in a site plan, and should not be
required of the applicant prior to the preliminary approval?
Mr. Thacker: I'm thinking basically of the engineering data that Mr. Carwile mentioned earlier. I
think some of the other things are items that can be conditioned under a special permit approval,
such as encroachment on slopes exceeding 25%, compliance with the interim ordinance protecting the
reservoir, I think that this should be considered as a special use permit and nothing else.
Mr. Fi'sher: Mr. Humphrey do you want to respond as to why you need that engineering information?
Mr. Humphrey: This was the Planning Commission's request, they wanted to see whether or not the
siltation basin on an engineering basis was sufficient to take care of the runoff complications,
should check out en~in~r~ ~~ h~ ~ ~*~ .... ~
Mr. Thacker: Mr. Humphrey, is it not true that this type of thing could~~ with the condition%
that this type of situation be handled to the satisfaction of the engineering department?
Mr. Humphrey: Yes sir, it has been done that way in the past.
Mr. Fisher: The motion is to defer to December 30th.
Mr. Thacker: And request that the Planning Commission if possible act on...
Mr. Wheeler: I think it is understood that this is the request of the Planning Commission, and I
say again I don't think it is a request for them to act without information, but if the information
can be sent to them.
Mr. Puryear: Mr. Wheeler, I just checked with our engineers, we are ready with each one of these
items, we would be ready by Tuesday night, we are ready tonight.
Mr. Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I will support the motion with a statement that I often, usually support
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, I do not want to ask them to take action unless they
have the information they feel is necessary. But, if it is possible for them to, if they have the
information and it is possible for them to act, I would support the motion.
Mr. Wheeler: Well, I think that is the intention of all of us, with the idea that this is something
that we have been hassled with for some time, and it seems the...
Mr. Thacker: The intent of my motion certainly is that the Planning Commission ask no more and
certainly no less of this applicant than any other. If they have the information and feel they can
act on it.
Mr. Wheeler: Mr. St. John do you have... Mr. Bailey.
Mr. Bailey: I think that this well protects...I couldn't state in what detail the engineering is
required at this stage, and I don't think that they are looking for a final design, but on concept
again as a ...that there would have to be a concept outline that can be followed.
Mr. Wheeler: Thank you. Any other discussion, gentlemen? If not, can I have a motion for deferral
to December 30th in this room, meeting at 7:30 P.M. and with a request that if possible, the Planning
Commission send a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Call the roll.
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Mr. Wheeler: Mr. Humphrey, would you check with the Planning Commission and see when and if they
can hear it, and notify the petitioner so that everyone is notified?
Mr. Puryear: Is it correct that they meet on the 16th?
Mr. Humphrey: I believe that is correct, but I would like to verify that, unless we changed the
date because of holidays, that would be the date for site plans.
Mr. Wheeler: I think Mr. Humphrey would need to confirm with Mr. David Carr, who is the Chairman of
the Planning Commission, and they may want to have a special day for this. Anyway you will be
notified. We do thank you gentlemen.
No. 2. ZMP-338, Richard Cogan (deferred from meeting of November 19, 1975). Mr. Humphrey said
the Planning Commission had not acted on this request, but anticipated the applicant's withdrawal
shortly. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Henley to defer ZMP-338 until January
14, 1976. Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 3. Public Hearing to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to include "Article 18
Scenic Highways and Byways." This proposed amendment would place certain restrictions on designated
scenic highways and byways. (advertised in the Daily Progress on November 19 & 26, 1975.) Mr.
Humphrey said the Planning Commission deferred action on this due to additional public input, and
requested the Board to defer action until the last meeting in January. Motion was offered by Mr.
Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood to defer this public hearing until January 28, 1976~. Motion was
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 4. Public Hearing to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to include "Article 20
Planned Unit Development", and repeal sections 2-1-25(23) and 2-7 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance. This proposed amendment is provided to replace the existing Planned Communities section
and provide more variety and flexibility in the residential districts. (advertised in the Daily
Progress on November 19 & 26, 1975.) Mr. Humphrey requested deferral by the Board due to the
Planning Commission not having acted. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood to
defer this public hearing until January 28, 1976. Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 5. SP-466, Charles W. Hurt "Hillcrest" (deferred from September 24, 1975). Mr. Carwile
said he would be abstaining from discussion and vote on this matter. Mr. Humphrey said this was
deferred i~ September awaiting receipt of a letter confirming recertification of the Moore's Creek
Sewage Treatment Plant. Mr. Humphrey said he had been in communication with Mr. George Williams of
the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, and there was one problem remaining before certification could
be expected. He then proceeded to read the original 14 conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission (June 18, 1975 meeting, Minute Book 13, page 140).
Mr. Henley §~id during the last discussion, there was a problem with building homes on certain
soils within this planned community, and asked if the county was going to be certain this was
remedied. Mr. Humphrey said this soil is to be removed. Mr. Jim Hill, representing Dr. Hurt,
requested a decision from the Board, as they wished to begin installation of utilities. Mr. J. H~
Bailey said he had received a letter from the League of Women Voters in support of the Hillcrest
Planned Community.
Mr. Thacker said he could see no change in the situation from two months ago, as recertification
of the Moore's Creek Treatment Plant still had no~ been received. He then offered motion to defer
action until such recertification is received. Mr. Hill said it would be almost two years before
water hookups would be needed, and requested a decision from the Board. Mr. Wheeler asked how long
this could be deferred. Mr. St. John said there was no time limit; it could be deferred indefi-
nitely. Mr. Henley then seconded the motion, and added that if the developer is allowed to lay
utilities, he feels he will then have a vested interest in the land and can demand a permit to
complete the project. Mr. St. John said he feels that allowing the developer to put utility lines
in the ground changes the status quo, and gives the developer a right to expect that the water and
sewer~capacity will be provided within a reasonable time. After some additional discussion as to
how Hitlcrest is similar to other planned unit developments already approved by the County, roll was
called, and motion to defer indefinitely was adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and
NAYS: Messrs. Wheeler and Wood.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Carwile.
Thacker.
No. 6. ZMP-336, Elizabeth Breeden (deferred from November 19, 1975).
planning staff report:
Mr. Humphrey read the
Property is located on the west side of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road), just south of
Southwood Mobile Home Park. The area is rural in character with very little development. The
tract in question is wooded in deciduous and non-deciduous trees. The terrain is rolling topo-
graphy with some steep slopes. There are several streams running through the property. The
COmprehensive Plan recommends this property be retained for agricultural uses and a density of
one dwelling unit per two acres.
Impact under applicant's proposal:
180 acres - residential = 180 dwelling units ~ i unit per acre (net)
32 acres for streets (15% of total)
212 total acreage
180 units x 3.2 persons/unit = 576 population
180 units x 1.5 vehicles/unit = 270 vehicles
180 units x 7.0 vehicle trips/day/unit = 1260 vehicle trips/day
180 units x 0.72 students/unit = 129.6 (58.5 elementary, 32.4 intermediate & 38.7 secondary)
The Department of Education statues a development of this nature, as proposed, would cause
overcrowdedness at Rose Hill Elementary, and require at least one additional mobile classroom.
The intermediate school at Walton would reach its capacity more quickly than anticipated. Jack
Jouett's and Albemarle High's existing overcrowdedness would be increased until the new Western
High School is completed.
Access from this property would be from Route 631. The 24-hour vehicle count from this
area to the east bound ramp of 1-64 was 1981 as of September, 1974. The Department of Highways
states they are "opposed to any rezoning along this route that would increase the density it
presently is zoned for".
At the present time, there are no public sewer lines in the area. A private water system
is located in the Southwood Mobile Home Park, 0.5 miles north. If rezoned and developed in
one-acre lots, a minimum of one utility, either public water or sewer must be provided. The
majority of soils on this property are deep, well drained soils with moderate limitations for
septic fields. There are some areas, primarily to the west and south of the tract, which have
15-25% slopes.
It is the staff's opinion that in view of the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation of
maintaining a two-acre density, as this property is already zoned, to increase the density at
this time wou~d not be in keeping. We feel this rezoning request is premature since there is
still a substantial amount of vacant land within the urban area, where more services could be
readily provided, that should be developed prior to extending the urban area's limits. The
impact upon the County's school system would also attest to the prematurity of this rezoning
since additional classrooms would be needed at the elementary school serving this area when
fully developed and causing premature overcrowding of the intermediate school.
With reference to sewer availability, we find this application is in the identical situa-
tion as Hillcrest Planned Community. With reference to water, we question the advisability of
using the existing water system serving 0akhill Subdivision and Southwood Mobile Home Park. In
the staff's opinion this proposal could best serve the future inhabitants and the interest of
the general public by being developed under a PUD, RPN, or the cluster concept under the den-
sity permitted by the A-i zone. If a portion of this land is to be developed for low and
moderate income groups, standard zoning practices are not the tools to provide for it. It must
and should be accomplsihed through a more flexible zoning approach. We would nove that three
other requests for RS-1 zoning in the immediate area were found by the County as not being in
the best interest of the general public. The staff recommends denial. The Planning Commission
voted 5 to 2 against a motion for approval."
Mr. Thacker asked if there were any way to preserve a 400 foot buffer zone along Route 631.
Mr. St. John said only if the land were dedicated to public use. He did not believe the developer
could restrict the use in a way that would be enforceable by the County.
Mrs. Elizabeth Breeden presented her response to the Board in a form comparable to Mr. Humphrey's
staff report. In her report she describes the character of the area, how it relates to the Compre-
hensive Plan, it's effect on schools and transportation. She included letters from Mr. C. B. Perry
of the Department of Highways & Transportation dated October 30, 1975 stating their willingness to
investigate possible alignment Changes for Route 631; letter from I.J. Breeden, President of Forest
Oak Utilities dated October 17, 1975 stating their willingness to supply water to each individual
lot, and that their present capacity is 720,000 gallons per day; a letter from Mr. E.E. Thompson,
(~2-10-75 Night)
4.08
unless this rezoning is granted it would be financially impossible to develop the lots for middle
income homes.
No one from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing. Mr. Fisher
said he did not want to get into the position of maintaining small parcels of land all over the
county, which would keep it off the tax rolls. He added that the best way out for the developer was
the route of a planned unit development, and that this was only a rezoning request, not a site plan
approval. Mr. Wheeler agreed, and said the Board can only approve or deny as a rezoning request.
Mr. Thacker said he liked the concept presented, but could not approve of the county maintaining
sections of developments. Mr. Wood said he also liked the concept of the plan presented, and felt
the county should attempt to find a way~of approving it without the county maintaining dedicated
parcels. He asked why a 400 foot buffer could not be a site plan condition. Mr. Humphrey said no
site plan is .required, that only a plat is required under the Subdivision Ordinance. At this point,
Mr. Henley offered motion to deny the rezoning request for the reasons given by the Planning staff
and Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Wheeler.
NAYS: Messrs. Thacker and Wood.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
Not Docketed. Mr. Thacker offered motion to have the Planning Commission and County Attorney's
office meet to develop a method whereby a buffer zone can be part of a rezoning request without
county dedication of the land. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following rec-
orded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
No. 7. SP-468, James R. Armstrong (deferred from November 19, 1975).
(NOTE: Verbatim transcript of this discussion is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors.)
Mr. John Humphrey said the special permit had been remanded to the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors by the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in order for them to reconsider their condition
of approval which limits the number of vehicles that may be left outside of a structure overnight.
This condition now limits that number,, to not more than six vehicles to be left outside overnight.
He said the Planning Staff felt the conditions were proper, however, the Circuit Court stated that
the condition was unreasonable and not related to the health, safety and welfare of the area. The
staff suggested possibly an alternate reading that no auto graveyard or junk yard be maintained on
the property unless inside an enclosed structure.
Mr. St. John said the Board was to discuss~ the entire special use permit, not just the one
condition. He added that the decree of the Circuit Court on October 16, 1975 pertained to condition
number one, and that the other conditions remain in full force a~d effect. If the Board of Super-
visors fails to comply with the terms of this order and that means it would fail to take any action
on it consistent with the terms of this decree, then an injunction would become permanent. He said
it was his judgment that the Board would have the power to revoke the permit on the grounds that the
conditions it was granted on would be followed, and when it became apparent that the conditions were
not going to be followed, the permit could be revoked. Another alternative is simply to accept the
court's ruling and go ahead and put that into the record; or substitute another condition such as
suggested by the staff or such as a different number of cars. The County Attorney has three more
days to file a narrative statement of the evidence taken before the Board as notice of appeal. Mr.
Thacker asked if the special permit had not been previously amended. Mr. St. John said that the
original permit required trees to be planted as screening, and that on May 30th this requirement was
changed to state that the existing landscaping be maintained.
Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Jr., representing Mr. Armstrong, felt the Board should accept the court's
recommendation as presented in the decree. He said Judge Berry's decision was that the six car
restriction was an unreasonable restriction, and placed Mr. Armstrong in an untenable position with
regard to making a living. He said Mr. Armstrong was not running a junkyard, and that his garage is
in compliance with the concept presented in the master plan.
Mr. David Wood, representing thirteen residents in the Esmont village, read condition number
four "This special permit shall become void if the use of the property creates a public nuisance in
the opinion of the Board of Supervisors from the standpoint of appearance or excessive noise created."
He reminded the Board that the permit had been before the Board three times since first coming up in
1972. Each time, the Planning staff and Planning Commission stated the use was incompatible with
the neighborhood. He then urged the Board to deny the permit or refer the matter back to the Planning
Commission for their recommendations of what conditions they deem proper to protect this residential
neighborhood.
Mr. Homer Tapscott said he wished to speak on behalf of his mother who lives directly next to
the Armstrong business. He said there was a great deal of noise emitted from the garage, and that
it looked very much like a junkyard. He concluded by saying this dispute has caused more dissension
in Esmont than anything he could remember in his lifetime.
Mr. William Heath, a property owner in Esmont, said Mr. Armstrong ignored every restriction
placed on him by the Board. He said the garage was noisy, and diminished the value of his property.
He said nine of the fourteen families in the vicinity opposed the garage, and requested the Board to
revoke the permit.
Mr. Jack Camblos said if the Board fails to comply with the terms of the order by Judge Berry,
the injunction will be permanent. He said the decree indicates that this permit shall continue, but
that condition one shall'no longer be enforced. He said Mr. Armstrong could not effectly control
the amount of automobiles that are parked while awaiting work, due to the railroad right-of-way
located at the edge of his property. He concluded that the only fair thing for the Board to do was
to reissue the special permit with conditions two, three, four, and five; and t~hat he had no objec-
tion if the Planning Commission wished to add the condition that there be no junkyard or graveyard
there.
No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing. Mr.
Wheeler said he would never have voted to approve the original special permit unless the Board
thought there could be some control over the number of vehicles. He added that he would be glad to
~o~ ~vok~ the ~ermit or standin~ on the conditions Dlaced and appeaI. Mr. Thacker said he
fewer than eleven vehicles parked in front of the garage; he added he felt the Board made a mistake
approving the permit three years ago, and should correct that mistake at this time. Mr. Fisher said
not only had the applicant not complied with the conditions originally imposed, but did not comply
even after the Board reduced the requirements. He said he did not support the application the first
two times it was before the Board, and could support revocation of the permit now on the grounds
that the applicant had not complied with the conditions of the permit and seems unwilling to comply
with the conditions of the permit.
Mr. Wood said he could not go along with denying the permit. He felt the Board had only one
choice, approve the permit and lift the condition of the six automobiles. He said he has had many
good comments from the citizens who live in Esmont about the services provided by Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Carwile said he also would not support a motion of denial, but would support appeal of the
court's decision. He would also support a public hearing at a future date to determine whether or
not a nuisance existed. Mr. Carwile felt any applicant has the right to appeal conditions placed on
a permit by the Board. Mr. Henley felt the court decree should be appealed.
Mr. St. John said there was no court reporter present when the case was heard, and this pre-
sented a big obstacle to appealing the case.
Mr. Thacker said in view of the total history of the special permit, and information which
constitutes this a public nuisance, he offered motion to deny special permit 468. Mr. St. John said
that by denying the petition the Board would actually be revoking it. He suggested the Board hold
more hearings on the question of public nuisance. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion to deny. Mr. Dave
Wood said he felt the County should hold hearings as to whether or not Mr. Armstrong's garage con-
stitutes a public nuisance before going back into court. Mr. Thacker then withdrew his motion, and
requested a two minute recess.
At 9:50 P.M., Mr. Wheeler called a five minute recess. Meeting reconvened at 9:55 P.M. Mr.
Thacker then offered motion that the Board defer action until the second Wednesday in January, 1976,
at which time the Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to determine whether or not this
operation does constitute a public nuisance. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
Mr. Wood.
No. 8. ZMP-334, Draft Building Company--Public Hearing to rezone 6 acres from A-1 to RS-1.
Property situated on southeast side of Route 690 near Newtown. Property further described as County
Tax Map 70, Parcel 1, part thereof, White Hall District (advertised in the Daily Progress on November
19 and 26, 1975).
Mr. John Humphrey read the staff report: "Property is located on the east side of Route 690
south of Newtown. It is rural in character with farming activity taking place. There is a sub-
stantial amount of single-family development just north of the proposed rezoning. The Comprehensive
Plan designates this area for conservation, one dwelling unit per five acres, because of its pro-
ximity to the Blue Ridge. The applicant recently (July, 1975) applied for a rezoning of a portion
of this property to R-1 Residential, however, this request was denied. Presently, single-family
lots are located directly across from subject property and average 2 acres. Newtown, located north
of the property in question, contains lots which range from ~ acres down to 0.3 acres with the
average lot size being 1.6 acres. There are nine approved two acre lots located south of this
proposed rezoning along Routes 690 and 796. The applicant is also requesting a special use permit
for a central water system to serve the proposed six lots. The staff is of the opinion that this
proposed rezoning is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and a precedent could be set for 1
acre density zoning in the area, and recommend denial." The Planning Commission, however, is recom-
mending approval of the RS-1 residential rezoning.
Mr. H. H. Tiffany of Draft Building Company, said this request was brought before the Board in
March, and denied. The proposal before the Board this time is for six one acre lots to'be developed
with F.H.A. housing using a central well and septic system. He said only property fronting on State
roads will be developed, using the remaining land in the 300 acre tract as agricultural. He felt
the only alternative other than F.H.A. housing would be mobile homes. The following people, res-
idents of Newtown and people seeking to purchase the F.H.A. housing proposed by Mr. Tiffany, all
spoke in favor of the rezoning request: Mr. George Green, Ms. Dora Simms, Mr. Charles White, Mr.
Purcel Carter, Mr. Steve O'Neil and Mr. William Gibson. No one else from the public wished to speak
either for or against the request, and Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing.
Mr. Henley asked how much the lots would sell for and if Mr. Tiffany was sure there were to be
only six. Mr. Tiffany said there could only be six lots, because that was all the road frontage
available, and that the lots would sell for $3,500 each. Mr. Henley and Mr. Fisher then questioned
if any septic problems were anticipated. Mr. Humphrey said according to a Conservation Service
report dated 1939, the soils in the area were suitable. Motion was then offered by Mr. Wood, seconded
by Mr. Carwile to approve ZMP-334. Mr. Henley said he would not vote in favor of the motion because
he questioned rezoning only six of 300 acres to RS-1. Roll was called, and motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
No. 9. UP-75-10, John H. Bailey, Jr., public hearing to amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to permit kennels in the A-1 agricultural zone with a special use permit. (advertised in
the Daily Progress on November 19 & 26, 1975).
Mr. Humphrey said Mr. Bailey has requested the Board of Supervisors to amend the County's
Zoning Ordinance to allow for kennels in the A-1 agricultural district With a special use permit.
It has been the interpretation in the past to allow private kennels, i.e., the breeding of dogs for
sale, by right under the agricultural definition which provides for the keeping of animals out of
private homes. The staff is of the opinion that this policy should continue. For kennels which are
designed for the boarding, breeding, and caring for dogs and cats and is a primary use, in return
for compensation, we see as more commercial in nature and should be allowed only by special use
permit. We would recommend that "Commercial Kennels" be permitted in the A-1 Agricultural District
under the Special Use Permit provision Section 2-1-25(18.3) and the M-1 Manufacturing District by
right. Also that the definition under section 16-48 be changed to "Commercial" Kennel. The Planning
Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the general ordinance.
Mr. John H. BaileY, Jr., was present, and requested f~vn~hl~ ~n~a~ ~ ah~ ~o~S u~ ^~^
( i -;~ )
~ .~ ~-75 Night
Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Thacker, to approve UP-75-10 amending the Albemarle County Zoning Ordin-
ance; the definition in Section 16-48 to read Commercial Kennell and Section 2-1-25(18.3) allowing
Commercial Kennels in A-1 zone with Special Use Permit.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
No. 10. SP-531, John H. Bailey, Jr., public hearing to locate a kennel on 3.0 acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property situated on west side of Route 758 near Nelson County line. County Tax Map
69, Parcel 27, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 19 & 26, 1975).
Mr. Humphrey read the staff report: The area is completely rural with some residential devel-
opment. The terrain is gently rolling with hardwood forest and some pasture. The property in
question is thickly wooded in deciduous trees. The applicant is requesting to locate a kennel
in order to raise and board dogs in return for compensation. The area in which this kennel is
proposed is sparsely developed. There are five dwelling units in the immediate area. Three
are visible during this time of the year. The nearest dwelling unit is located approximately
600 feet from the applicant's property line. The other dwellings are located a minimum of 1500
feet from the property in question. It is the staff's opinion that in view of the location of
this property, relative to nearby dwellings, a kennel on this property would not considerably
change the character of the surrounding area if proper conditions were tied to the approval and
if the kennel could be monitored periodically. The staff and Planning Commission recommend~
approval with the following conditions:
3.
4.
5.
Approval of all state and local agencies;
Maintain a minimum of 100 foot tree buffer around property;
Animals to be kept in enclosed (wire) runs;
Signing be limited to four square feet;
Zoning staff's review in two years, and this special use permit shall be reviewed
every five (5) years thereafter by the zoning staff. It shall be brought back to the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for reconsideration if deemed necessary;
This special permit is conditioned upon the approval of the amendment for commercial
kennels in the A-1 zone by the Board of Supervisors;
This special permit is non-transferable;
Kennel is limited to thirty (30) runs.
Mr. John H. Bailey, Jr., was present, and showed a sketch of the property layout. He noted
that the nearest home was 600', but that was through trees, and at the bottom of a valley. He added
that the kennel would be for boarding purposes only. No one from the public wished to speak and Mr.
Wheeler closed the public hearing. Mr. Henley offered motion to approve special permit 531, with
the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
No. 11. SP-532, Benjamin R. Meadows, public hearing to locate a mobile home on 116.5 acres
zoned A-1. Property described as County Tax Map 84, Parcel 54, White Hall and Samuel Miller Districts.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 4 & 11, 1975).
Mr. Humphrey read the staff report: Property is located on the west side of an old county road
which has access to Route 736 in the extreme western portion of the county. The area is com-
pletely rural and mountainous. Property is wooded in deciduous trees. There appears to be one
single-family dwelling on the property. This comes before the Board because of an objection
from an adjoining property owner as follows:
"November 10, 1975
We wish to report that both Mrs. Carpenter and I oppose having a mobile home on the pro-
perty described as County Tax Map 84, Parcel 54 adjacent to our property. We sincerely hope
this can be avoided. We also feel that our land is needed for timber, grain and livestock.
Our winding county roads are already over crowded with the traffic we already have. Since we
are unable to attend most meetings, please let us know if there is anything else we can do to
keep our county from being over crowded.
Sincerely, Jack T. Carpenter"
The staff was unable to determine the location of the mobile home upon site inspection and
was also unable to contact the applicant concerning the location. Approval of the special
permit is recommended with the following conditions:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Approval by all state and local agencies;
Minimum setback from access right-of-way of 100 feet;
Minimum setback of 25 feet from side property lines and 35 feet from rear property lines;
Skirting around mobiZe home from ground level to base of mobile home;
Mobile home cannot be rented under any circumstances;
This permit is non-transferable;
Screening, if any, determined by Zoning staff;
Time limit of five years.
Mr. Meadows stated the property presently belonged to Mr. Louis Martin Marshall, who was to
become his father-in-law in April. He added that the mobile home would not be visible to any of the
surrounding property owners. No one from the public wished to speak and the public hearing was
closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to approve the permit with the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 12. SP-533, Patricia Carlton, public hearing to locate a general store on 91 acres zoned
~ro~ertv situated on north side of Route 664, about 1/4 mile west of its interesection with
November 19 & 26, 1975).
(12-10-75 Night) 41~
Mr. Humphrey read the staff report. "Property located on the northeast side ,of Route 664 north
of Earlysvilie. Area is rural in nature with single-family residential development !ocated~
sporadically throughout. Topography is flat and wooded with deciduous trees. The general
store in question is already in existence and has been for many years. It has not, however,
been in operation for the past two years, thus preventing its reopening as a non-conforming
use. The store is in excellent condition and appearance. It has adequate parking and good
visibility for ingress and egress. The store will have gasoline pumps. The staff and Planning
Commission recommend approval with the following conditions:
1. Approval by appropriate state and local agencies;
2. Planting plan approved by the planning staff; and
3. Any addition to existing structure will require additional special use permit.
Mr. Carlton was present, representing his wife, Patricia Carlton. He said his only comment was
that the general store also has an auto rack, in addition to the gas pump. Mr. Humphrey said a rack
was not included in the definition of general country store. Mr. Carlton said the rack had been
there since the construction of the store in 1956. Mr. Henley said it would be used only for lubri-
cation, changing oil, etc. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this
petition, and Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to
approve SP-533 with the conditions stated by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr.
Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. WOod.
R
No. 13. SP-536, Shelter Associates, public hearing to locate a planing mill on 0.35+ acres
zoned A-1. Property situated at intersection of Route 601 and 665 in Free Union. County Tax Map
29, Parcel 41E. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 19 & 26, 1975).
Mr. Humphrey read the staff report: "The area is rural in nature with a community village
atmosphere. There are single-family dwellings located adjacent to the proposed woodworking
shop on the north, east and west. A garage is located across Route 601 from the shop and a
general store is located further to the east as well as the post office. Shelter Associates
plans to operate a woodworking shop rather than a planing mill, although some occasional
planing of lumber may be done. This is to be located in the vacant Free Union Market. The
applicant plans to build cabinets and furniture for wholesale sale. This use is specifically
permitted in the M-1 Industrial District. While this type of use may be compatible in most
areas of A-I, as a primary use catering to harvesting of timber, it is the staff's opinion that
this location would not be one of them. The primary reason for its incompatibility is its
proximity to a major portion of residential development in Free Union. Noise that would be
created from the shop would change the character and affect adversely the use of neighboring
properties relative to noise. The staff feels the proposed location of the woodworking shop
would not be in the best interest and public welfare of the community and therefore, recommend
denial.
The Plan~ing Commission, however, recommends approval with the following conditions:
3.
4.
5.
Approval of state and local agencies, including building inspection and fire marshal
approval;
Ail work to take place within the main structure and accessory sheds;
No outside storage of materials;
Employees working in building to be limited to five full-time employees;
Retail sales to b'e brought back to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Mr, Fisher asked if there were any provisions for possible part-time employees. Two ge-ntlemen
representing Shelter Associates said they only employ seven full-time people, but most of these
employees work outside; they never anticipated having five employees in the building simultaneously.
No one from the public wished to speak either for or against the petition, and Mr. Wheeler closed
the public hearing. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to approve special permit 536 subject to
the conditions set by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
At 10:50 P.M., Mr. Wheeler called a short recess in the meeting.
was reconvened.
At 11:00 P.M., the meeting
No. 14. SP-534, Willoughby Corporation, public hearing to locate a Planned Community on 141.415
acres zoned A-1 Agricultural (Planned Community). Property situated on east side of Route 631 (5th
Street Extended). County Tax Map 76M(1) Parcels 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4C-1, and County Tax
Map 76M(2), Parcels SA, 5B, 5B(!), 6B, and 7. Scottsville District. (Advertised in Daily Progress
on November 19 & 26, 1975).
Mr. Humphrey read the staff report: "The area is urban, being located adjacent to the corpor-
ate limits of Charlottesville. There is commercial and residential activity in the immediate
area. Property in question has both deciduous and non-deciduous trees as well as some open
land. There is one industry located on the southeast portion of the property, and an existing
residence without buildings. Moores' Creek traverses the property. Topography of the site is
rolling terrain with some steep slopes primarily located along the streams.
On August 19, 1971, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved a planned community
to be located on subject property with a residential density of 16.6 dwelling units per acre;
498,000 square feet of retail floor area, and 42.63 acres of industrial land. This recently
submitted master plan for development of this property has substantially changed from the one
approved by the Board in 1971; therefore an amendment to the original special use permit is
warranted.
This property is located within the urban area as designated by the Comprehensive Plan.
Recommended land uses for this area are high density residential (15 du's per acre), conser-
trips per day, and 57/4 children.
The Albemarle County Department of Education states the redistricting of both the elemen-
tary and secondary schools would handle the projected enrollment from this development, once it
is fully inhabited. The middle school level would reach 95% of its capacity once this project
is fully developed. Under the original proposal for this planned community in 1971, one con-
dition of approval was a five year reservation for a school site. In discussing the contin-
uance of this reservation with Education Department Officials, it was their opinion that due to
the decrease in density of this project, it would not be fair and equitable to the developer to
continue the school site reservation. The Planning'staff is of the opinion that the proper
location for a future school complex would be in the area south of 1-64 and Oak Hill in the
"Biscuit Run" Watershed area. Mr. Humphrey added that he met with the School Board on December
6th, and the Board adopted a resolution recommending to the Planning Commission the elimination
of the reservation of a five acre tract.
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, recommends the internal street
system be approved as it was for the original application in 1971.
Water is available to this tract and will be served by the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Sewer availability would be through the Moore's Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. At
this time, Moore's Creek Sewage Treatment plant is over capacity but expects recertification
for additional capacity in December. Sewer and water distribution plans have not been sub-
mitted as yet and will of course, need the County Engineer's approval.
The staff is of the opinion that this amendment to the original planned community is a
good plan. There are several areas, however, that should be addressed. First, the flood plain
study on Moore's Creek indicates that the intermediate regional flood limits (100 year frequency)
is only encroached by recreational areas. The standard project flood (rare occurrence) is
encroached by townhouses in the northern portions of the property. The Corps of Engineers
should be consulted prior to construction of these particular units. Second, the amount of
commercial area proposed appears to be excessive in view of the amount of residents projected.
There are seventeen acres proposed in the form of a mall or shopping center within the county's
portion of the planned community and 7.33 acres within the city. The ultimate commercial needs
of the residents is estimated to be approximately 10 acres. The location of this site (its
relationship to 1-64 and existing residential development) lends itself well to serve as a
community shopping area. Therefore, the 17 acres as proposed is proper in the staff's opinion.
The staff and Planning Commission recommend approval with the follOwing conditions:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Maintain the proposed density of 5.3 dwelling units per acre (gross);
Approval from State Highway Department concerning internal street rights-of-way, and cross
sections;
Corps of Engineers review and approval of any development, i.e., residential, commercial,
and streets--within the flood plain limits;
This approval is contingent upon the recertifica~ion for increased capacity to Moore's
Creek Sewage Treatment Plant.
Submit to the Albemarle County Service Authority an estimate by stages, of the capacities
that will be expected on an annual basis;
Open space and recreation plan to be submitted for approval by the County Department of
Planning indicating recreation equipment and facilities proposed;
Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service Authority;
This approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's approval;.
All streets to be constructed with sidewalks;
County Attorney's review of any deed restrictions or home owner's association agreements;
No site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading plan for this
property has been approved;
Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation areas,
nature and bike trails, parking areas, and debris basis are located, shall be disturbed,
all other land shall remain in a natural state;
The commercial area shall be limited to 17 acres gross area in Albemarle County;
Bike trails are to be developed in keeping with the concept received and accepted by the
Planning Commission under a study entitled "Bikeway Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia"
dated Fall, 1975, prepared by Albemarle County Planning Department;
Present erosion problems to be corrected to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator
before any further approvals reGuired hereafter are given;
Ail internal roads serving this development are to meet the standards of the Virginia
Department of Highways for inclusion into the Highway System of Virginia;
The generalized land use plan, showing the location of the types of single-family and
multi-family development and commercial areas and the access to these areas from the
internal road system shall be adhered to. The Land Use Plan referred to is that described
as Exhibit "A", prepared by Environmental Interface and marked received 11/26/75 and color
coded and signed by John L. Humphrey, Director of Planning.
Due to the fact that the School Board through resolution, stated that no school reser-
vation is warranted, the Planning Commission concurs with their resolution."
Mr. Robert Leighton, representing Willoughby Corporation, made a presentation to the Board,
using maps showing slope, soils, elevations, climate, and final building layout plans. No one else
from the public wished to speak either for or against this~petition, and Mr. Wheeler closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Wheeler said this planned community is in the same location as the proposed Hillcrest
planned community. He felt the Board should not have deferred Hillcrest and should not defer this
request just because sewer capacity is not available immediately. He then asked if the Board wished
to defer this request, as they did with Hillcrest, until recertification of the Moore's Creek
Treatment Plant was received. Mr· Henley said he felt there was no way to approve the plan if there
were no sewer lines available to the site. Mr. Fisher agreed, and offered motion to defer a dec-
ision on SP-534, until recertification of the Moore's Creek Sewer Treatment Plant is received from
the State Water Control Board. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Carwile said he agreed with
Mr. Wheeler, and felt the problem of sewer capacity was a planning problem, and there was no reason
to defer this item and hold up the planning process. Roll was called, and motion to defer carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Thacker.
Messrs. Carwile and Wheeler.
Mr. Wood.
No. 15. Public Hearing to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance "Article 19--
Residential Planned Neighborhood", providing for variety and flexibility in residential dis-
tricts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 19 & 26, 1975)
Mr. Humphrey said this ordinance is intended to replace the P.U.D. which has been used so
much for cluster and planned residential development. The Planning Commission has approved
following ordinance:
ARTICLE 19 -- RESIDENTIAL PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD, RPN
19-1
PURPOSE AND INTENT
The Residential Planned Neighborhood District is intended to encourage and
provide for a variety and flexibility in land development for residential
purposes, and uses ancillary thereto, that are necessary to meet those changes
in technology and demand which will be consistent with the best interest of the
county and the area in which it is located._ It is also the intent of this
district to promote economical and efficient land use~ an improved level of
amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, creative design and
a better environment.
19-2
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE
19'2-1
The Board of Supervisors may authorize the development of residential planned
neiEhborhoods within the Agricultural A-i, Residential Suburban RS-i, and
Limited Residential R-I, R-2, and R-3 Districts created by this ordinance, after
notice and hearing as required by Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia.
Such authorization shall be given only to land having a minimum acreage of
ten acres under common ownership or control.
19-2-2
Additional land area may subsequently be added to an approved residential planned
neighborhood if it adjoins or forms a logical addition to the existing planned
neighborhood. The procedure for an addition shall be the same as if an original
application were filed, and all requirements of this section shall apply except
the minimum acreage requirement as specified above.
19-2-3
The applicant shall file an application for rezoning with the Zoning Admin-
istrator and shall furnish with his application twelve copies of a preliminary
plan showing: the proposed general location of the various types of specific
land uses, the proposed densities of population in residential areas, the net
and gross residential density of the neighborhood, a street plan, public utility
plan, storm drainage plan, and a plan showing the location of the active and
passive recreation spaces, parks, schools and other public or community uses.
19-2-4
The staff of the County shall review the application for rezoning and the
preliminary plan as submitted by the applicant and evaluate the proposed project
and present its recommendations for necessary utilities and other facilities to
protect other uses within the area. No approval shall be given of any such
rezoning and preliminary plan until the recommendations of the Staff have been
considered by the Planning Commission after studying the characteristics of the
area in which the proposed planned neighborhood is to be located.
19-2-5
Following the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the approval of the
Board of Supervisors of the rezoning and preliminary plan, the applicant shall
submit a final site development plan in keeping with the approved preliminary
plan and in conformance with Article 17 of this ordinance hnd with the Albemarle
County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance. The minimum area to be shown
on any final site plan or subdivision plat shall be not less than two acres of
the land originally submitted on the preliminary plan. Thereafter, no modifi-
cation may be made in the final plan except by an amended final plan submitted
for approval.
19-2-6
19-3
19-3-1
Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, Article 17 of this Ordin-
ance and the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance shall
apply to any residential planned neighborhood developed pursuant to this Art-
icle.
USES PERMITTED
There shall be no special exceptions permitted in the RPN Districts.
lowing uses shall be permitted by right.
The fol-
(a) Dwelling units in detached, semi-detached, attached and multi-storeyed
structures, or any combination thereof;
(b) Institutions to the extent that they are designed and intended to serve the
residents of the RPN District;
(c) Commercial convenience facilities designed and intended to serve the residents
of the RPN District, subject to Section 19-4-3 of this ordinance;
(d) Educational institutions;
(e) Fire and rescue stations;
(g) Day .care centers;
-' (h)' Home occupation, Class A;
(i) Community centers;
(j) Parks and recreation facilities;
(k) Accessory uses and buildings.
19-4
19-4-1
DENSITY PERMITTED
Except as otherwise provided bY law, the maximum residential density shall not exceed
the following number of units per gross acre for each type of RPN District:
(a) RPN-AI:
(b) RPN-RSi:
(c) RPN-Ri:
(d) RPN-R2:
(e) RPN-R3:
0.5 dwelling units per gross acre;
1.0 dwelling units per gross, acre;
5,3 dwelling Units per gross acre;
8.4 dwelling units per gross acre;
34.3 dwelling units per gross acre.
19-4-2
Nothing herein shall be construed to supersede or impair the application of any
provision of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
19-4-3
19-4-4
Commercial uses, including parking shall be permitted in developments greater than 50
acres and shall be limited to 1.5% of the gross area of development. It is the
intent that commercial areas not be larger than required by the development.
For purposes of this section, the term "grOss acre" shall be construed to include the
entire area within the residential planned neighborhood, whether or not the same
shall be developed in any particular manner.
19-5
AREA REGULATIONS
19-5-1
No more than seventy-five (75) percent of the site shall be developed with lots,
buildings, streets, and off-street parking.
19-6
19-6-1
SETBACK, YARD~ AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS
There shall be no minimum setback requirement within the RPN District; except that
all struCtures to be located on the outer perimeter of such district shall conform to
the setback of the adjoining district and provided further that setback lines on
roads, streets of highways, in the Virginia State System of Highways, either existing
or proposed shall be determined by the Planning Commission.
19-6-2 The location of all structures shall be shown on the final plans.
19-6-3
Accessory buildings to the overall development and their aggregate area shall not
exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the area designated as open space.
19-7
19-7-1
HEIGHT REGULATION
No building shall be greater than 65 feet in height.
19-8
CORNER LOT REGULATION
19-8-1
The yard on the side facing the side street shall be thirty (30) feet or more from
the street right-of-way for both main and accessory structures.
19-9
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS
19-9-1
Minimum off-street parking requirements shall be as set forth in Article 11-7 of this
ordinance.
19-10
SIGN REGULATIONS
19-10-1 Sign regulation shall be as set forth in Article 15A of this~ ordinance.
No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this ordinance, and Mr. Wheeler
closed the public hearing. Mr. Carwile said in section 19-2-3, the requirements of a preliminary
plan are too extensive, and will require the applicant to almost complete engineering work before he
received any approvals. Mr. Humphrey said they were not demanding specific plans, but general plans
so the Planning Commission and Board can visualize the concept of the community. Mr. Carwile then
asked if there were some way to reword this section to clarify the meaning of preliminary plans.
Mr. Carwile then offered motion to defer action until December 18, 1975. Motion was seconded by Mr.
Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
At 11:55 P.M. meeting was adjourned.
Chairman