1974-09-11N9-11-74
1'4 5
A regular meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County was held at 7:30 P.M. on September !t, 1974, in the Albemarle County
Courthouse.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwite, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Absent: None.
Officers present:
Mr. Robert P. Sampson, Assistant to the County Executive
and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman announced, for the benefit of the press, a tour by four
members of t'he Board and Mr. R. A. Goodling of Farmers Home Administration,
of Augusta Cou~nty to inspect low-cost housing projects. He also stated that
they expect to make a tour next week some time of such projects in Albemarle
County built under Farmers Home Administration.
Mr. Wheeler called for public hearing as advertised in th Daily Progress
August 28 and September 4 on proposal to amend and reenact Section 4-13.1,
Chapter 4, Article I! of the Albemarle County Code by the addition of Hessian
Hills and Knollwood as areas designated where dogs are prohibited from running
at large. Petition with 101 signatures requesting this amendment was received
prior to the meeting.
Mrs. Arlene Burrus spoke for the amendment. She stated that she would
like to see the ordinance adopted on a County-wide basis but tonight she
was speaking to that section covered by the peti'tion. She referred to a number
of diseases, such as measles and mumps, carried by dogs. She also stated that
such leash law was needed for the protection of the dogs, to prevent them from
being killed'or crippled by cars. She also spoke to the unfairness to our
senior citizens who enjoy walking to be pursued by dogs running at large.
Mr. Ernest Freymulier who identified himself as one of the senior citizens
referred to by Mr. Burrus, spoke in behalf of the petition. He stated he lived on
West Park Drive where neighbors let their dogs out in the mornings to use
his front lawn for toilet facilities. He stated a law was needed to keep
these dogs~ from running on other peoples' property.
Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed after determining that
there was no one else from the public to speak to the petition.
Mr. Fisher asked if the area was defined in some fashion that could be
described to the Board, whether it was defined by subdivision plats of
Hessian Hills which are on file or iff it included any other areas.
Mrs. Burrus said this included the Hessian Hills Subdivision off of
Barracks Road, which also includes Knollwood, and covers 176 homes.
146
9-11-74
Mr. Fisher stated that he is aware of where this is, he is just not aware
of what this amendment to the ordinance says about the~.limits of the area we
are defining and he assumes now that it refers to the total subdivision,
known as Hessian Hills and Knollwood.
Mr. Sampson advised that that is what the resolution speaks to.
Mr. Wood stated that there is no question but that the Hessian Hills
and Knollwood Subdivisions are considered one area but across Hydraulic
Road is considered another area as it falls in another Magisterial District.
Mr. Carwile asked Mrs. Burrus if she personally solicited signatures to
the petition to which she replied affirmati~e!y. He also asked if she visited
the area on the west side of Georgetown Road, the Old Forge Road area, to
which she said yes. He wanted to know how~-many people on the petition lived
in the Old Forge section of Hessian Hills. Mrs. Burrus had no separation
on the petition to answer this question. She did indicate that there were
25 to 50 homes where the residents either stated they were opposed to the leash
law or did not care one way or the other, this was out of the total of 176 homes.
She further stated that although she did not make call backs when no one was
at home but asked neighbors to advise them of the meeting and request them to be
present to express their views.
Mr. Thacker referred to the 176 homes referred to in the areas and asked
Mrs. Burrus.if she could advise what percentage of the homes are covered in the
petition requesting the leash law enactment. Mrs. Burrus said she had been working
on this since February and turned the petition in either in June or July and could
not remember this.
Mr. Wood said there are 101 signatures on the petition and it appears most of
them.are husband and wife. He stated that he had had calls on both sides of the
fence; the petition presents all the positive factors but there have been many people
who have called in great opposition who are not here tonight. He further stated
that in other cases where this had come up there was a great effort made to contact
every individual home, either asking them to come here to speak on their own behalf
or have someone come and represent them.
Mrs. Burrus advised that she contacted five different families as late as
Monday night asking them to come and with the exception of Mr. Freymuller no other
person was present. ~
Mr. Wood said that on every vote taken by this Board on the leash law he had
voted in favor of it, he just wants to make sure that the Board has a fair
representation of the Hessian~Hills group prior to voting as he has had an awful
lot of opposition expressed to him.
Mr. Carwile asked Mrs. Burrus if she had contacted any of the residents in
the Hessian Hills Apartment and she replied that she had not, she was not sure that
they were allowed to have pets. Mr. Carwile said that at this point he would
be unwilling to support the inclusion of the portion of Hessian Hills which is on
the west side of Georgetown Road, the 01d Forge Road area.
Mr. Wood said he would be in favor of being consistent in the way he has
supported the dog leash law but he would like to see this Board have a little
more indication from the people in the Hessian Hills area than is represented
here tonight. Also it crosses Magisterial District lines and this is the first
time this has happened. He said his inclination would be to vote in favor of it
but due to the fact that the petition represents both the east side and west
side of Georgetown Road, which the petition does not really speak to, he would
like to recemmend that action be deferred for 30 days to get it defined as to
what area we are really speaking of.
Mr. Wood offered motion to defer action on the proposed amendment for
30 days. This motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile.
Mr. Thacker said it is very difficult to hurriedly determine what
percentage of the homeowners in Hessian Hills and Knollwood are represented
by the petition; it would appear that somewhat less than 50% of those homeowners
have signed the petition. His position has been in the past that unless we have
a considerable majority, in the range of 80% of the property owners in a partiaular
area, he would not support it. He recommended that if this motion passes every
effort be made to supplement this petition with the other homeowners' names
if they are inclined to be in favor of it.
Mr. Wheeler said in the past he has not counted names on the petitions
but has relied on those gentlemen who represent the areas to know the feeling
of the citizens in their district. He asked Mr. Wood and Mr. Carwile to have
recommendations for their area when this matter comes back to the Board.
Mr. Wood said that he could give his recommendation now, that unless
there are more petitioners for this he is not going to be able to support it.
He said this is the least amount of interest ever displayed before this Board
on a dog leash law. He further stated that he would like to consider the
application of the people on the east side of GeorgetoWn Road and let those people
on the west side, being in another Magisterial District, make their ownarequest.
Mr. Wood also told Hrs. Burrus he would be glad to help with an updated petition.
Mr. Henley said we only had about half a dozen complaints aboUt motor
cycles making noise and we passed a special ordinance.
Mr. Wood's mo~ion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwi!e, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
1 4 8 9-11-
Mr. Wheeler requested 'that this matter be placed on the agenda for the
second Wednesday in October.
The Chairman called for public hearing, as advertised in the Daily Progress
on August 17, 21 and 28, on proposal to amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance repealing Article 11-7 "Minimum Off-Street Parking" and Article
11-8, "Loading and Hnloading Areas", and intent to modernize and refine the
requirements for Off-Street Parking and Loading Areas pertaining to the
individual permitted uses in a zoning district.
Mr. Tucker of the planning staff was present to advise the Board on this
matter. He stated the provisions for off-street parking before the Board came
directly from the proposed Zoning Ordinance as recommended by Rosser Payne.
He advised the Planning Commission approved these requirements on September 9,
after several meetings and several changes, and proceeded to go over the Changes
which the Planning Commission recommended.
Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed after determining that no one
from the public wished to speak to this matter.
Mr. Carwile moved the adoption of Section 11-7 and 11-8 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood.
Mr. Thacker said he intended to support the motion but felt that Sections
11-7-7(27), (28) and (38), that the Planning Commission make the determination,
could possibly present problems to certain owners in predetermining the number
of spaces required; it's good to set this forth in the ordinance, at least some
standards with an option to the Planning Commission to amend and to reduce it if
they feeI it's possible.
Mr. Carwile said he shared some of Mr. Thacker's concern. The ordinance
as a whole is an improvement over what we have now but applicants should have
the benefit of as much certainty as possible in their planning before i't gets
to the Planning Commission. It would be unfair at the last moment to all of a
sudden alter, sometimes drastically, space requirements.
Mr. Tucker said that the only reason that they placed it in such a manner
is that they wanted to give the applicant an idea of how many customer parking
spaces he may need because in many cases he may only need five but they didn't
want t'o put a number of ten in and have it be excessive. They don't want to
blacktop every site they have.
Mr. St., John advised that this is one of those situations where it is impossible
to have standards in advance. Since this Board has said you have to have
standards in all cases except where it is impossible to prescribe them until you have
the facts before you, then you don't have to have them, you can leave it to the
Planning Commission. Each case has to be judged,on its own merits and your only -
standard is how many. you need.
Mr. Thacker said that this is true but he felt it would be possible
to establish a maximum standard, it may be excessive but at least it would
give an applicant some idea what the plan was and it could be reduced at
the discretion of the Planning Commission. He suggested that the three
articles under discussion be referred back to the Planning Commission!t~eir
input along these lines.
Mr. Wheeler suggested that the ordinance be passed and the three articles
be referred back.
Mr. Thacker said that is what he is suggesting. He would like to see
a range put in - a maximum number and a minimum number with the actual number
to be determined by the Planning Commission-but at least give the applicant
a range.
Mr. Thacker offered amendment to Mr. Carwile's motion to refer these
three articles back to the Planning Commission for further study and
recommendation. To clarify discussion of this, Mr. Thacker stated his intent
was to adopt the ordinance as offered in Mr. Carwile's motion and then refer
these articles back for further StUdy. Mr. Carwile asked for vote on his
motion first and then decide what the Board is going to do about the three
articles under discussion. The Chairman then called for vote on original
motion.
Mr. Fisher stated he had one more question. Under section 11-7-7(35) one
space is required for each accommdHa~on ~at tourist homes, motels and hotels.
He wanted to know what an-accommdH~o~ was under this ordinance, how it was
defined. After some discussion of this item, it was the sense of the Board that
the word "unit" would be preferred over ~c~omm~dat~or~'~ and Mr. Carwile
amended his motion to include this change.
Mr. Carwile's motion, as amended, was adopted by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Sections 11-7 and 11-8, as amended, follows:
11-7
GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
Statement of Intent
There shall be provided at the time of erection of
any main building or at the time any main building is
enlarged, minimum off-street parking space with adequate
provision for entrance and exitS by standard-size
automobiles, as follows:
ll-7-1
SPACE ON SAME LOT AND ADJACENT LOTS
Ail off-street parking space appurtenant to any
residential use permitted in any Residential
District shall be provided on the same lot
with the use to which it is appurtenant,
except as qualified below.
11-7-1(1)
11-?-2
11-7-3
11-7-3(1)
11-7-3(2)
11-7-4
11-?-5
11-7-5(1)
All off-street parking space appurtenant to any use
other than a residential use permitted in any
Residential District shall be provided on the same
lot with the use to which it is appurtenant except
where practical difficulties prevent such location
or where the public safety or the public
convenience would be better served by the location
thereof other than on the same lot. In Such cases,
the Planning Commission may authorize such alternative
location of required parking space as will adequately
serve the public interest, subject to the following
conditions.
(1)
Such space shall be located on land in the same
ownership as that Of the land on which is located
the use to which such .space is appurtenant
or, in the case of cooperative provision of parking
space, in the ownership of at least one of the
participants in the combination.
The entrance to such space shall be located within
five hundred (500) feet walking distance Of an
entrance to the use that such space serves~
LOCATION OF PARKING
In any residential area, where parking spaces are
accommodated in parking bays, no space shall be further
than one hundred (!00) feet from its appurtenant
dwelling unit.
Of such required spaces, 1/3 of the total number shall
be so located as to be convenient for visitors and
tradesmen requiring frequent ingress and egress.
COOPERATIVE PARKING
Parking space required under the provisions of this
Ordinance may be provided cooperatively for two or
more uses in a development or for two or more
individual uses, subject to arrangements that will
assmre the permanent availability of such space,
as such arrangements are approved by the Planning Commission.
The amount of such combined space shall be equal to the
sum of the amounts required for the separate uses;
provided, that the Planning Commission may reduce
the amount of space required for a church or for a
meeting place of a civic, fraternal or similar
organization under the provisions of a cbmbined
parking area by reason of different hours of normal
activity than those of other uses participating
in the combination,
SAFE AND CONVENZENT ACCESS
All off-street parking spaces and off-street loading
spaces shall be provided with safe and convenient access
to a street. Ail permitted uses requiring site plan
approval shall have entrances constructed in accord with
the specifications of the County Engineer and the
Virginia Department of Highways and be approved by the
Albemarle County Planning Commission.
PARKING AREA DESIGN
Ail off-street parking space, loading space, aisles,
and driveways except those provided for single family'
dwellings shall be constructed and maintained with a
dustless surfac~ and of such type of construction that
the same will be available for safe and convenient
use at all times. It shall have appropriate guards
where needed as determined by the administrator and
all off-street parking spaces shall be delineated on the
site.
9-11-74 1 5 1
11-7-5(2)
Any lights used b0 illuminate said parking
areas shall be so arranged as to reflect the
light away from adjoining premises in a
residential district and in a manner not to
affect traffic or adjacent roads.
11-7-5(3)
11-7-5(4)
Ail parking spaces will be so designed that no
part of any vehicle will extend over any property
line, right-of-way l±ne, walkway, driveway or
aisle space.
Ail parking lots, bays or areas shall be
landscaped to the maximum extent possible
in keeping with good safety practice.
Where adjacent to residential districts, all
lots shall be screened.
11-7-6
11-7-6(1)
11-7-6(2)
PARKING SPACE SIZE
Each off-street parking space provided shall
not be less than four hundred (400) square
feet in area. The area of drives, aisles,
landscaping, and such other provisions required
for adequate access shall be counted as part
of the four hundred (400) square feet.
Parking spaces located in parking structures or
buildings shall be designed on the basis of a
minimum of 270 square feat per vehicle including
moving and turning space.
11-7-6(3)
The dimensions for each individual parking space
shall not be less than two hundred (200) square
feet (20 X 10).
11-7-7
REQUIRED NUMER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES
11-7-7(1)
ANIMAL HOSPITAL AND COMMERCIAL KENNELS: One (1)
space per four hundredr(400) square feet of gross
floor area plus one (1) per each employee.
11-7-7(2)
11-7-7(3)
11-7-7(4)
AUTOMOBILE LAUNDRIES': One (1) space per each three
(3) employees plus a reservoir of five times the
maximum capacity of the laundry.
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION: One (!) space per each
employee plus two (2) spaces per each service stall.
In addition, when accessory activities such as the
rental of automobiles, truck and trailers of all
types, are involved on site there shall be
provided suitable area to accommodate the highest
number of rental units expected at any one time.
BANKS: One (1) parking space for each one hundred
fifty (150) square feet of gross floor area.
11-7-7(5)
11-7-7(6)
11-7-7(7)
11-7-7(8)
1t-7-7(9)
BARBER SHOPS-BEAUTY SHOPS, HEALTH SPAS AND CENTERS:
One space (1) per two hundred (2'00) square feet of
gross floor area plus one (1) space per employee.
BOARDING HOMES: One (i) space per 200 square feet of
gross floor area plus one space per employee.
BOWLING ALLEYS: Six (6) spaces per alley.
CARRY OUT RESTAURANTS: Thirteen (13) spaces per each
one thousand (1000) square feet of gross floor area.
CARTAGE AND .EXPRESS FACILITIES: One (1) space per
each three (3) employees plus one (1) space per each
vehicle maintained.
11-7-7(10) CHURCHES, HIGH'SCHOOLS, STADIUMS, AUDITORIUMS AND
SIMILAR PLACES OF ASSEMBLY:
each four (4) fixed seats.
One (1) space for
11-7-7(11) COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE HELIPORTS: One (1) space per
each one thousand (1000) square feet of operational area.
11-7-7(12) CONTRACTORS OR CONSTRUCTION SHOPS, OFFICE AND YARDS:
One (1) space per each employee.
11-7-7(13) COMMERCIAL SKATING RINK: One (1) space for each
one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet or fraction
thereof of skating rink area.
11-7-7(14) DANCE HALLS: One (1) space per each one hundred (100)
square feet of gross floor area.
11-7-7(15) DRIP, INk,RESTAURANTS: Eighteen (18) spaces per each one
thousand (1000) square feet of gross floor area.
11-7-7(16) FOOD OR CHAIN STORES: Five (5) spaces per each one
thousand (1000) square feet of ~gross floor area.
11-7-7(17) FUNERAL HOMES: One space per each fifty (50) square
feet of floor area in assembly room or chapel.
11-7-7(18) FHRNITURE: Two (2) spaces for the first one thousand
(1000) square feet plus one additional space for each
four hundred (400) square feet of floor area over one
t'housand (1000) square feet of retail area.
11-7-7(19) GREENHOUSE AND NURSERIES: Enclosed Retail Area - one (1)
per each one hundred (100) square feet of retail sales
for the first five thousand (5,000) square feet and one (!)
space for each two hundred (200) square feet of retail
sales area above five thousand (5,000) square feet.
Greenhouse Sales Area - one (1) space per each one
thousand (1,000) square feet and one (1) sapce for
each five hundred (500) square feet of greenhouse sales
area above one thousand (1000) square feet. Exterior
Nursery Sales Area - one (!) space per each five thousand
(5,000) square feet of exterior nursery sales area.
11-7-7(20) HOSPITALS, NURSING, CONVALESCENT: One (1) space for each
two (2) beds including cradles, childrens~ bed~.
11-7-7(21) LAUNDROMAT:
machines.
One (1) parking space for each two (2) washing
11-7-7(22) MEDICAL AND DENTAL CLINICS: One (1) space for each one
hundred (100) sq~re feet of area.
11-7-7(23) MOBiLE~MES: One and one half (1~) spaces per unit.
11-7-7(24) OFFICE BUILDINGS: One (t) space for each two hundred (200)
square feet of net office floor area.
11-7-7(25)
OTHER PERMITTED USES: A total number of spaces Sufficient
to accommodate the vehicles of all employees of the establishment
plus those of all persons who may be expected to visit the
same at any one time or as determined by the County Planner
and approved by the Planning Commission.
11r7-7(26) OTHER RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS NOT LISTED IN THIS ARTICLE:
One (1) space per each one hundred (100) square feet of
retail sales for the first five thousand (5,000) square feet
amd one (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet
of retail sales area above five thousand (5,000) square feet.
11-7-7(27) PRINTING AND PUBLISHING FACIEITIES: One (1) space per each
two employees with customer parking as determined by the
Planning Commission and in all cases a minimum of two (2)
customer parking spaces.
11-7-7(28) PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING OF MATERIALS, GOODS, OR PRODUCTS:
One (1) space per each two employees with customer parking
as determined by the Planning Commission and in all cases
a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces.
11-7-7(29) SINGLE FAMILY: Two (2) spaces per unit.
11-7-7(30) SIT DOWN RESTAURANT': Thirteen (13) spaces per each one
thousand (1,000) square feet of gross float area.
11-7-7(31) SHOPPING CENTERS: 5.5 spaces per each one thousand
(1000) square feet of gross leaseab!e floor area.
11-7-7(32) TESTING, REPAIRING, CLEANING, SERVING OF MATERIAL,.
GOODS OR PRODUCTS: One (1) space per each two (2)
employees with customer parking as determined by the
Planning Commission and in all cases a minimum of two
(2) customer parking spaces.
11-7-7(33) THEATRE, INDOORS; THEATRE, OUTDOOR:
per each four (4) seats.
One (1) space
11-7-7(34) THEATRE, DRIVE-IN: To be determined by the staff
after review of s~e plan.
11-7-7(35) TOURIST HOMES, MOTELS, HOTELS:
each unit.
One (!) space for
11-7-7(36)
TOWNHOUSES, PATIO HOUSES, DUPLEXES AND OTHER MULTI-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: Two (~) spaces per unit.
1].-7-7(37) TRAILER SALES AND RENTAL: BOAT SHOWROOM AND MODEL
HOME SALES: One (1) space per each three thousand
(3,000) square feet of business area.
11-7-7(38) WAREHOUSING AND WHOLESALING: One (1) space per each
three employees with customer parking as determined
by the Planning Commission and in all cases a minimum
of two (2) customer parking spaces.
11-8
REQUIRED OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE:
11-8-1
All off-street loadingspace shall be provided on
the same lot with the use to which it is appurtenant.
11-8-2
Off-street loading space shall be provided in addition
to and exclusive af the parking requirement on the basis
of:
(1) One (1) space for each eight thousand (8000)
square feet of retail gross leaseable area.
(2) One (1) space for each eight thousand (8000)
square feet of office space.
(3) One (1) space for each ten thousand (10,000)
square feet of industrial floor space.
11-8-3
Additional loading spaces may be required based upon
Planning Commission review of the site development plan.
11-8-4
Suah off-street loading space shall be a minimum of
twelve (12) feet in width, fourteen and one-half (t4~)
feet in clearance height and a depth sufficient to
accommodate the largest delivery trucks serving the
estabishment, but in no case shall such length be
less than twenty-five (25) feet.
11-8-5
Ail loading and unloading berths shall be surfaced
with a bituminous or other dust-free surface, and if the
loading berths front an a public street, the trucks
shall at no,time project onto the sidewalk or street.
Mr. Thacker offered motion to refer sections 11-7-7(27), (28) and
(38) back to the Planning Commission for further study and request for
recommendation establishing the maximum number of parking spaces to be
applied to these facilities, perhaps to tie the maximum to the floor area.
MOtion was seconded by Mr. Carwile.
Mr. Thacker's motion was adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES: M~ssrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Tucker advised that the Planning Commission still has not had an
opportunity to act on SP-~:p, application of William C. Cason for a two-
family dwelling in A-1 Agricultural Zone, and asked that this be again
deferred until the meeting of September 25. On motion by Mr. Wood, seconded
by Mr. Fisher, action on this application was deferred until September 25.
Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The chairman called for public hearing on SP-402, as advertised in
the Daily Progress on ~ugust 9 and August 16, 1974:
SP-402. Mr. George W. Shifflett has applied for a Special Permit to
place a mobile home on 5.0 acres in an A-1 zone located on the north side
of Route 668, one-half mile east of Route 810. Property is described
as County Tax Map 14, Parcel 52 A. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker advised that Mr. Shifftett called late this afternoon and said he would
not be able To attend tonight. He requested that the Board act on this without
him being in attendance; however, if the Board cannot decide tonight, he is going
to Withdraw. Mr. Wheeler recommended that Mr. Shifflett be permitted to withdraw.
Motion~t0 this~e-ffect.~WaS off,red by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Uar~i~e, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The next item of business was Lottery Permit Application for Charlottesville-
Albemarle American Legion Post 74. No one was present to represent the American
Legion at the time this item came up nor did amye~e appear in opposition. On
inquiry by Hr. Wheeler as to location, Mr. Sampson advised that the application
indicated the location to be on U. S. 25.0 East, near White House Motel on Pantops.
Mr. Wood moved approval of this application, which motion was seconded by Mr. Henley
and.adopted by the fotlowing~recorded vote:
AYES: Hessrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Preston Coiner appeared and submitted complaint regarding soil erosion.
He stated that he purchased a lot, adjacent to a lake, in Carrsbrook in December,
1970, and built a home there in the summer of 1971. He stated the.~!ake in
question is fed by a stream coming from Woodbrook. Shortly after moving there he
found that each time it rained quite a bit of silt and mud washes into the lake.
In October of 1971 he began a program of trying to get this corrected. He found,
upon investigation, two undeveloped streets in Woodbrook which had never been
improved in any way. There was erosion on these two streets which you could
literally put an automobile iht6. He then contacted Mr. Ben Miller of Montague and
Miller and advised them of the situation. After a period time he built a very
155
simple type silt basin, put up~..fence and some bales of straw to catch the debris.
However, the bales of hay were put behind the fence and the water washed the
bales of straw away. He contacted the Planning Department who referred him
to the Water Control Board who referred him back to the Planning Department.
In 1972 he again requested the developers to build another silt basin. In
December the ownership changed hands from Montague and Miller to Claude Cotten.
Mr. Cotten agreed to build a different kind of silt basin which appeared to
work for a while but is no longer effective. He said one df the main reasons
he bought the lot was to enjoy the recreation facilities of the lake and it
had been very annoying not to be able to even fish two-thirds of the time.
He felt that the developers of Woodbrook have both a moral and a legal
obligation to correct this problem.
Mrs. Ruth Miller advised that her-~departm~nt had investigated this
situation about two and a half months ago when the matter was brought to
her attention. She advised that Mr. John Smart and Mr. Donald Woodson
met with Mr. Cotten on the property and since that time Mr. Woodson and Mr.
Cotten have worked very closely on this. She asked that Mr. Woodson report
on what measures had been taken since this was reported to the Zoning
Department.
Mr. Woodson advised that within the last few months Mr. Cotten has
placed a new siltation basin in which, in his opinion, is working properly.
He also has straw bales on top of the dam in case the siltation basin
overflows and has straw bales along the stream which flows into Mr.
Coiner's lake. He has cleaned the siltation basin out twice within the last
month. In his opinimn, and in'~;the opinion of Mr. Smart and~representative
from VPI, Mr. Cotten has done a fine job in trying to control the soil
erosion.
Mr. Claude Cotten also testified that the silt basin has been working
properly since the time he bacame contract purchaser. He did say that they
had suffered some erosion during the last six weeks due to construction
on one of the lots in the area but that this was now mnder control.
Mr. Willis Williams, a neighbor of Mr. Coiner, supported the statements
made by Mr. Coiner. He felt the developers should be required to pave the
roads since he felt they had profitad from not building the roads to standards
while causing the silt problem in Carrsbrook. He asked that the developers
be made to pave the roads to correct the problem.
Mr. Cotten advised that at the time Montague and Miller graded the roads it
Was.~th~ir~intent~to develop this section. However, it was learned that sewer
to serve these lots was not available; therefore, no further development
took place.
9~11-74 j ~
Mr. Coiner disagreed with Mr. Woodson regarding the silt basin doing a fine
job. He stated that he would not be at this meeting if this were true.
Mr. Wood said this problem had existed for a long time. He has been out there and
viewed it. He said the Board needs to determine whether the erosion is coming
from Woodbrook, construction on the west side of Route 29 or where its coming
from. The ponds are ~illing with sedimentation. He suggested a survey of the entire
area to put a halt to it before the fall rains come.
Mr. Wheeler said he certainly felt the Thomas Jefferson ~Soil Conservation
District should have jurisdiction in such manner. He felt that organiZation
should visit the site again.
Mr. Wood suggested that we get the property owners throughout the watershed,
Mr. Cotten, Mr. Ben Miller, the people in the new shopping center, Mr. Bill Stevens
who has property on the other side of Route 29 and T. J. Soil Conservation
District people to meet with Mrs. Miller and Mr. Woodson in an effort to investigate
the source of th$ problem and correct it. Mr. Wood said he would be glad to
meet with such a group. Mr. Wheeler-authorized Mr. Wood To head up this group,
and report back to the Board.
Mr. Tucker submitted plat of Monticello Home Builders. He stated that it was
being~submitted to the Board at the request of Mr. Rinehart of the Planning
Commission. He stated that it has already been approved by the Planning
Commission but Mr. Rinehart felt it should come to this Board since it deals with
some pipe stem lots. It was pointed out that each lot would not have its own
separate entrance.
Mr. Boulton appeared on behalf of Monticello Home Builders and answered
questions from the Board.
Mr. Tucker advised that this is al legal subdivision and does meet requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance, as it existed at the time the plat was submitted
for approval.
Mr. Wood moved approval as recommended by the Planning Commission. This motion
was seconded by Mr. Carwile.
Two residents from the Keene area appeared in opposition. Mr. Wheeler pointed
out to them that although this Board may not be in agreement with a subdivision
in this area, it has no power to deny use of the land so long as it complies with
existing ordinances.
After considerable discussion among Board members with Mr. Boulton, Mr. WOod's
motion was adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Tucker advised that the Planning Commission approved site plan for
He reviewed the recommendations which have been
Moore Brothers Asphalt Plant.
157
met by the applicant. The staff recommended that screening on the eastern
boundary be located along the proposed entrance. Ail screening was to
be maintained as shown on the site plan. The Corps of Engineers furnished
information with regard to the flood plain. The grading plans have been approved
by Mr. Smart. He advised that the applicant had also complied with recommendation
of the County Engineer. The Highway Department has also approved plans for the
entrance. Several representatives were present on behalf~_~f Moore Brothers.
Mr. Carwile moved approval of Moore Brothers site plan. Motion was
seconded by Mr. Wood and adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Sampson advised that Mr. Shank, Jail Superintendent, has informed the
County that some regional jail employees will begin work on Monday, September
16 and in accordance with Section 53-206.7 of the Virginia Code, the Board
of Supervisors may require bond and set the amount of bond before they may
take the oath of office. Mr. Payne of the County Attorney's office advised
that this Statute allows the Board to request bond but does not require it.
Mr. Sampson stated that the practice now is to require $1,000 bond on each
jail employee. Mr. Fisher said it seems to him this is a function that
should go to the Jail Board, to make their decision and their recommendation
to the City and the County. Mr. Wheeler requested Mr. Sampson to notify
Mr. Shank that he is working for the Joint Jail Board and he should keep them
informed and make his requests to them.
Mr. Wheeler stated that a pay classification 'plan has been presented to
each member and the Board needs to set a date to take it under consideration.
He suggested a work session for next Wednesday night, September 18, at 7:30.
Mr. Wheeler said since the Board will be discussing individuals and
individual salaries, this should be an executive session. The Board requested
that departments heads and Mr. Schroeder be present. Mr. Wood felt very
strongly that the work session on the plan should be a public meet~ng~and when
individuals are discussed, then go into executive session. After some discussion,
it was agreed that Mr. Wood's suggestion would be followed. Mr. Wheeler
announced that this meeving would be adjourned until 7:30 P.M. on
September 18, 1974.
On request of Mr. Wheeler, motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded
b'y~Mr. Wood, to go into executive session at 9:15 P.M. to discuss legal
matters. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and was adopted by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened at 10:00 P.M.
158
Motion to adjourn to September 18 was offered by Mr. Uarwile and
seconded by Mr. Wood~and was adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
CHAIRMAN