1974-11-13N11-13-74 (night) 3 3 7/
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on November 13, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler, and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
ABSENT: None
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. T.M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney.
First item on the agenda was a public hearing proposed by Mr. Lloyd Wood~he
adoption of an emergency Leaf Burning Ordinance in the County. Mr. Wood made mention
of his numerous discussions with the County Fire Marshal, City Fire Officials, and
people of the County, (mainly in the "Hessian Hills" Subdivision) and stated that
there is a definite need for this ordinance. He noted that the garbage disposal
companies will only take one bag at a time, and that citizens do not have the means
to dispose of leaves themselves. Mr. Wood said that ideally everyone would prefer no
burning at all, but due to the excessive number of leaves presently on the ground,
and the potential hazard they propose, he recommended the adoption of an emergency
ordinance for the burning of leaves, for later advertisement and final adoption. Mr.
Wood also noted that the Environmental Protection Agency presently has rules covering
leaf burning. These rules state one must have written permission of all neighbors
within 300 feet of the burning site. It was noted that the ordinance being proposed
was more restrictive than the E.P.A.'s rule. Mr. Wood then proceeded to note specific
restrictions in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Kelly Reynolds, Albemarle County Fire Marshal, spoke about a safe distance
being established from the fire to other structures. Mr. Reynolds' next comment was
for the Fire Marshal to have the authority to ban burning due to '!undesirable pre-
vailing atmospheric conditions". His example was that of a very windy day. Another
suggestion was that if for any reason the Fire Department must be called to the scene
of a leaf fire, he (the Fire Marshal) will have the right to revoke that person's
burning privilege. Mr. Reynolds also suggested that persons requesting to burn
leaves call the Fire Marshal's office and register. The most important benefit of
this would be, if a leaf fire caused excessive smoke, a fire company would not be
called to the scene needlessly.
Mr. Fisher questioned Mr. Reynolds about a statement in literature received from
the State Air Pollution Control Board relative to their authority to terminate all
burning in case of an emergency air pollution state.
It was suggested by an unknown citizen that burning be restricted to the person's
own property, not in the street or on public ground. Also, that 50 feet was too
great a distance for some property and thought .25 feet would be more reasonable. Mr.
Reynolds was opposed to 25 feet, stating that leaves burn much too fast for less of a
distance.
~ 3 50O 11- -74 (night)
Mr. Wood reiterated some facts about'the proposed ordinance, especially noting
the time limit on the Ordinance and the initial reason for proposing it.
Mr. Dixon, representing 102 people who signed a petition from Hessian Hills,
noted that the people would prefer not burning, but have no choice. He suggested the
County consider pick-up of leaves in the future. He also hoped that a safe distance
of 25 feet not 50 feet would be noted in the ordinance, as he felt 50 feet was too
far.
At this point, Mr. Wood made motion for approval of an Emergency Leaf Burning
ordinance, with the addition of ~section (f) being amended to 25 feet instead of 50
feet; Section 2 relating to prevailing atmospheric conditions; an additional sec-
tion requiring leaves be burned on that person's own property; and each person de-
siring to burn leaves must register with the County Fire Marshal.
Mr. Fisher felt a better solution must be found before next fall, and suggested
a time limit for the Ordinance be set, namely October 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974.
After considerable further discussion about limiting the time of this ordinance, and
finding a better solution before next fall, Mr. Fisher seconded the motion for
approval. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood.
NAYS: None
The complete text of the Ordinance, as adopted, is set out below:
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AND PROVIDING FOR REGULATON
OF THE BURNING OF LEAVES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY PURSUANT TO
VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 10-17.18(b), AS AMENDED
CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE IV, ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 10-18: PRECAUTIONS REQUIRED TO PREVENT SPREAD OF FIRE:
The disposal, by burning, of leaves originating on the premises of private
residences and burned on those premises shall be lawful provided that:
(a) Such burning is done between 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
and all embers are totally extinguished at the end
of this period.
(b) The fire must be attended at all times.
(c) Only leaves may be burned.
(d) Water and tools for control of the fire must be
available and on hand at the site of the fire.
(e) The leaves must be burned in reasonably small piles
so as to minimize danger from fire getting out of
control.
(f) Every person who shall burn leaves as permitted by
this ordinance shall do so at his or her own risk
and shall be responsible for damage caused by any
fire which escapes or gets out of control.
(g) No fire may be built within twenty-five (25) feet
of any structure.
(h) All persons seeking to burn leaves pursuant to this
ordinance shall notify the County Fire Marshal or
the County Sheriff in advance, of intent to burn,
stating time and location of such burning.
11-13-74 (Night)
SECTION 10-19: AUTHORITY OF COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL:
The County Fire'Marshal shall have authority to suspend this ordinance and
ban all burning, during excessive drought or dry spells, or for reasons of
prevailing atmospheric conditions.
SECTION 10-20: ORDINANCE SHALL BE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1 TO
DECEMBER 31, 1974
This ordinance shall be effective only between the dates of October 1
through December 31, 1974, inclusive. At all other times, the regulations for
the control and abatement of air pollution as promulgated by the State Air
Pollution COntrol Board, shall be in effect. All burning of leaves permitted
under this ordinance shall not be commenced and shall be immediately terminated
upon declaration of an alert warning or emergency stage of the Air Pollution
Episode when proclaimed by either the Executive Director of the State Air
Pollution Control Board or his designated representative.
SECTION 10-21:
AN EMERGENCY BEING FOUND TO EXIST, THIS
ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY
UPON ENACTMENT.
Motion was then made by Mr. Wood to advertise the Leaf Burning Ordinance for a
public hearing to be held on December 19, 1974, at 10:00 A.M. Motion was seconded by
Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs:
N~¥S: None.
(1) ZMP-311:
Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. ~ '~ ~_
John M. Nokes - This petition was the subject of a tie vote
at the meeting of October 23, 1974. When the Board began the
discussion, a vote for approval was still on the floor.
Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, stated that he had communicated with
the Traffic Department of the City, and introduced Mr. Charles Perry of the Virginia
Department of Highways. Mr. Humphrey proceeded to read a letter from Mr. Malengo of
the City Traffic Engineering Department:
"With reference to your letter to me of October 29, 1974,
concerning the subject intersection; this is to advise that the
City does not have plans at this time for any improvements at
this intersection. However, in making that statement I do not
intend to imply that improvements are not needed.
The existing configuration of this intersection is very
inadequate, as can be evidenced throughout any typical day. I
would say this with two points in mind:
(1)the difficulty and delay experienced when trying to
enter Route 250 from Route 754.
(2) The horizontal clearance of the C & O Railroad
bridge immediately west of the intersection which
will permit passage in only one direction.
Also, it has been my observation when traveling Route 754
that the roadway width is inadequate until near the bypass
connection. Since this is a State maintained roadway, it would
be necessary to contact them for any additional information
regarding approval of this section. The Highway Department
would also be responsible for improving the Railroad Overpass.
It is my opinion that a significant increase in traffic
would require improvements upon Route 754 to the Railroad
Underpass and a more suitable tie-in to Route 250."
Mr. Humphrey noted that the intersection was confirmed as being just in the
County.
Mr. Charles Perry of the Virginia Department of Highways noted a recent traffic
count showed approximately 1144 vehicles using the road. With the projected add-
itional number of cars (approximately 2841), the total projected number of ~
340
11-13-74 (Night)
vehicles would be around 4000. Mr. Perry felt the road could handle this traffic,
but that there would be some problem at the intersection of Route 250 East and West.
Hopefully, with the completion of the Bypass in the early fall, congestion at this
intersection will be eliminated.
Mr. Fisher questioned Mr. Perry about the continued safety of the road with this
200% increase. Mr. Perry stated that the character of the road itsel.f would prohibit
fast moving traffic, and that the biggest concern would be the intersection.
Mr. Thacker commented that the condition of the road is the biggest problem.
Mr. Thacker received confirmation from Mr. Perry that the road was adequate to handle
the increased traffic.
Vote was now called for on the October 23, 1974, motion for approval, and was
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood.
NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
(2) SP-422: Bruce L. Browne. (Public hearing on this matter was deferred
from October 23, 1974)
Mr. Humphrey noted that the Planning Commission has not yet acted on this item.
Mr. Thacker therefore presented motion to again defer this public hearing until
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following
December 11, 1974.
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
(3)
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood.
None.
Mr. Carwile.
SP-425: Eugene R. Clothier.
October 23, 1974)
(Action on this matter was deferred from
Mr. Wheeler proceeded to read a letter dated October 23, 1974 --
"Due to delays which we have encountered, Dr. Clothier requests that
.consideration for his application be deferred til Wednesday, December
llth."
No one was present from the public representing Dr. Clothier; Mr. Fisher
presented motion to defer this matter until December 11, 1974. This motion was
seconded by Mr. Thacker, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Carwile.
At this time, the Board continued with zoning matters as advertised in
Daily Progress on October 23 and October 30, 1974:
(4) SP-421:
The
Fred W. Scott, Jr. To locate a private airport on 487.11 acres
zoned A1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south
side of State Route 692, about 1½ miles west of Crossroads.
Mr. Humphrey stated from the Staff Report.
"The area is rural in character with several single-family dwellings
located along Route 692. There are also several barns located on the
11-13-74 (Night)
property. The applicant is requesting a private airport to be located
on a pasture of his farm. The pasture is flat and free of any obstruc-
tions. The runway will be located approximately 1000 feet from the nearest
dwelling and state road.
The staff having found no problem with the request recommends approval
with the following conditions:
Approval from the Division of Aeronautics of the State
Corporation Commission;
Approval from FAA; and
This airport be limited to the private use of the applicant.
He said the Planning Commission recommends approval with the following
conditions:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Approval of Division of Aeronautics and State Corporation
Commission.
F.A.A. approval.
The airport is limited to the private use of the applicant and
is restricted to one base aircraft.
Review of the permit every five years.
Grass runway only.
A Total of 100 landings and/or take-offs per year. (or a
total of 100 operations.)
Runway not to exceed 3,500 lineal feet.
The Permit is issued to applicant only, and is not transferrable.
No runway lights permitted, for night use.
To explain the justification for condition number six, Mr. Humphrey read the
following letter into the record:
"Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Charlottesville, Virginia
November 4, 1974
Re: SP-421
Gentlemen:
I recently wrote to my neighbors explaining my application to this board for
a permit to locate a private non-commercial grass airport on Bundoran Farm,
and how it applied to my existing business situation and possibly future
events.
Many of the comments in this letter are pertinent for the purpose of the
application for special use permit.
I am a commercial pilot with single, multi-engine and instrument ratings and
own a Beech Bonanza single engine airplane, which I fly about 100 hours
(20,000 miles) a year, about 70% of the time on business. It provides
access to many towns that do not have adequate airline service and saves hours
of time that would otherwise be spent driving from major terminals to smaller
towns, where, it seems, I always need to go.
I have checked with engineers and have compared their data with the infor-
mation that is published by the FAA for use by localities interested in
establishing airports for public use, constructed with federal funds. As
you might expect, these FAA criteria are rather strict from an air safety
point of view. The site which I would propose meets the slope criteria of
the FAA, and accordingly, would be a safe and efficient use of the property
in question. In fact, there are several airstrips in Virginia open to the
public which are on far less desirable sites.
With respect to air traffic volume which would be created by this grass
airport, it is appropriate to discuss only the termination flights. Many
of my trips are long and involve only departures and arrivals in
Charlottesville with stops along the route. For example, last year my log
.book shows 19 departures from Charlottesville and 19 arrivals, a total of 38
"operations" or about one every week and a half. On departure, the airplane
makes about as much noise as a truck or large farm tractor and on arrival
is much quieter as the aircraft power is greatly reduced in that configur-
ation. I do not anticipate any great increase in my own use of my aircraft.
As I have written to my neighbors we are considering going into a cattle
operation of .somewhat different scope and if this project is put into opera-
tion the possibility exists that traffic volume might double, but I think that
this estimate would be high, at least in the first several years. At any
3 42
11-13-74 (Night)
rate, this could result in maybe 80 operations per year (40 landings, and
40 departures) or one every 4 days or so. Noise abatement procedures could
be followed so that departures would cause ~a minimum of nuisance.
Please understand that no jets or heavy aircraft could use this field, as
their runway requirements are much greater than we have available, only
light aircraft would be capable, and the airstrip would be marked "private"
on aeronautical charts, and the field markings could also indicate this.
It will not be open to the public.
This field if approved would result in a substantial savings of my time.
It is a one hour round trip from North Garden to the Charlottesville
airport amounting to 38 hours or approximately a full working week a
year. It would also create savings of hangar rent which I now pay to ~a
fixed base operator.
By way of comment, there are presently 3 other private airstrips in Albemarle
listed on aeronautical charts and at least 3 in addition which are not
charted. I am not aware of any disturbances that any of the neighbors of
these airstrips are suffering.
Finally, I would note that our family has lived on this same farm at North
Garden since our arrival in Albemarle County in 1945. I believe that the
property which my father owned and now I own in North Garden has improved
in usefulness and attractiveness over the 29 years, and I hope that we have
been reasonably good neighbors. I do not want to do anything that will re-
duce the value of our property, or my neighbors', and I do not believe that
this proposed grass field will do so as it will ensure that portion of our
farm will remain an attractive open area for years to come.
Sincerely,
Fred W. Scott, Jr. (signed)"
Mr. Fisher asked what was meant when the Planning Commission asked for a review
of this request after five years. Mr. Humphrey replied, stating review was to see if
applicant was complying and to see if the character of the area had changed to warrant
a re-evaluation of the site.
Mr. Scott was present at the meeting, and pointed out to the Board that the
restrictions as imposed by the Planning Commission are acceptable to him. Mr. Scott
pointed out that he did not feel the usage was great enough to disturb his neighbors
but that he.was willing to make concessions if need be.
A Mr. Rainer from the public, stated that he was present at the Planning Com-
mission hearing and agrees with the restrictions imposed.
Mr. M. Y. Sutherland, a neighbor of Mr. S~t's stated that he was very much
opposed to the building of the private air strip. He felt the air strip would de-
preciate his property. He also feels that as owner of his land he also own a certain
amount of "air space" above his property, and therefore, conside~ a plane flying at an
altitude of 50 feet trespassing. He also felt that the low flying aircraft would
disturb the cattle which he has grazing on the pasture directly under the landing
approach to the strip. He therefore, wanted it on record that he was totally opposed
to the granting of the petition.
Mr. Eddie Page of North Garden, considered the air strip to be more of a
suburban or urban activity and not a rural activity.
Public hearing was declared closed by Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Fisher questioned Mr.
Scott about the height of the aircraft during approach and departure. Mr. Scott
stated that it is possible to move the runway~~r away from Mr. Sutherland's
property. According to the F.A.A., requirements are not set for minimum distance
above the ground during an approach. The only F.A.A. requirements are during actual
flight such as 1000 feet above a populated area, and' feet above a nonpopulated
area'.
Mr. Wheeler questioned Mr. Batchelor if the building of this runway would have
any effect on the County' Airport. Mr. Batchelor noted that it should not; it would
only mean the removal of one man's business from the airport. Also, there are only a
limited number of people who own property suitable for their own airstrip. Mr. Fisher
brought up the question of aviation fuel at the proposed runway site. Mr. Scott noted
that they would probably have fuel stored, but that it had the same qualities as 100
octane gasoline.
Mr. Carwile asked if Mr. Scott had FAA approval for the airstrip and was it based
on any specific location of the strip on the property. Mr. Scott said FAA gives only
airspace approval and therefore only have regulations concerning the length of the
runway. He also noted that the only State requirement is that the airstrip be re-
gistered and this registration is complete.
Mr. Fisher stated his concern about what an airstrip would do to surrounding
property values and neighbors . Even with Mr. Scott's assurances of his willingness
to cooperate, he is still too concerned about neighbors' property rights to approve.
this petition.
Mr. Wood expounded on the noise of takeoffs and landings, stating he had done
some flying and could not see how the noise would be disturbing to anyone.
Mr. Carwile at this point offered motion to approve SP421 based upon the re-
commendations set forth by the Planning Commission and with the added note that Mr.
Scott do everything possible to place the air strip as far away from Mr. Sutherland's
property as possible. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood.
Mr. Henley asked for clarification of the term "operations". It was explained by
Mr. Carwile that 100 operations meant 50 takeoffs and 50 landings.
At this point role was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
(Mr. Henley prefaced his vote by stating that he would not have voted for this pet-
ition without the five year review. He does not agree that this operation will not
disturb cattle, but since it appears that the airstrip will only be used once a week,
he would vote yes.)
(Mr. Fisher prefaced his vote by stating that if the location of the airstrip could
have been established, he would have supported the motion.)
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher
(5) SP431. Stockton Creek. To locate professional office and craft shop on 11.51 acres
zoned A-1. P~pperty on 250 West at intersection of Rt. 690. (Map 70, Parcel 15A,
part This item was not ready for presentation, therefore, motion was put forth by Mr.
thereof.)
Carwile and seconded by Mr. Thacker to defer until December 1t, 1974 meeting. Motion
was carried by the following recorded vote:
11-13-74 (Night)
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None
(6)
SP-433 Peyton G. and Juanita B. Taylor. To locate a two-family dwelling on
1.64 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of
Route 250 East, in Milton ~Heights Subdivision.
"The area is semirural in nature and developed primarily in single-family resi-
dential development. All surrounding lots are wooded.
This property is located within the Keswick Cluster as outlined by the Compre-
hensive Plan. This property is proposed for medium density residential (~avg 2.5
DU/acre).
Shadwell Estates, which is adjacent to this subdivision carried deed restric-
tions such as this could be found by the staff for Milton Heights Subdivision. The
staff, recommended approval on the basis that this request fits the proposals of the
comprehensive plan and there are no deed restrictions prohibiting this use.
1) Minimum of four (4) parking spaces provided;
2) Building Official approval;
3) Health Department approval;
Mr. John Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the re-
quest with the following conditions:
1) Minimum of four (4) parking spaces provided;
2) Building Official approval;
3) Health Department approval; and
4) No external structural alterations.
Mr. Taylor informed the Board that one of the main reasons he wished to locate
a two-family dwelling instead of a single family dwelling was due to the fact that
both he and his wife are not in the best health, and desired neighbors.
Mr. Humphrey noted that the house is already in existance, and would just be a
conversion. No one other than Mr. Taylor spoke from the public either for or against
the petition. Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing..
Mr. Fisher felt the Board should discourage two-family dwellings on lots set up
for one family use. He noted problems with septic tanks. It was noted by Mr. Humphrey
that under the new proposed zoning ordinance the property would be listed as RR or R1
which would allow such housing. Mr. Fisher did not agree with Mr. Humphrey's state-
ment, but was interrupted by Mr. Carwile who felt that the Board should only address
themselves to the present zoning ordinance. Mr. Carwile made motion at this time for
approval of the request subject to the Planning Commission's conditions as stated,
Mr. Wood seconded the motion.
Mr. Wheeler noted that he intended to vote for the motion because even though
there will be two family units in the one structure, there will technically be only
four people and the septic system is constructed to handle this. Mr. Fisher re-
iterated that it is not in accordance with the present zoning regulations, they will
probably have septic tank problems, and that he could not support the motion.
Mr. Henley noted that it is a small duplex, and that the proposed added ap-
artment can only accommodate two people; this should not cause any problems. Mr.
Thacker questioned Mr. Taylor as to when the building was constructed. His answer
was two and one-half years ago. At this point role was called, and the motion was
11-13-7.4 (Night)
345e
adopt~dby the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: 'Mr0 Fisher
The~following zoning matters were advertised on October 9 and October 16, 1974:
(7) SP424: John R. Crawford. To place a mobile home on 11.26 acres zoned A-1
agricultural. Property is situated in a subdivision known as
Quandarry Farms~
Mr. John Humphrey said "The area is rural in nature and~being developed as
single-family residential. There are approximately 20-25 single-family dwellings
along Route 727 within a one mile radius of the property in question.
The site is wooded and contains one single-family dwelling which is the resid-
ence 6f the applicant.
The applicant wishes to locate a mobile home on his property for his son.
The parcel is wooded and could be properly screened depending on the location of the
mobile home."
Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
request with the following conditions:
1) County~Health Department approval of individual well and
septic tank to serve the mobile home;
2) County Building Official approval;
3) 100 foot setback from Route 727;
4) Screening from Route 727;
5) Location to be determined by the Zoning Department~
6) Skirting around mobile home from base of mobile home to
ground level;
7) This permit is issued to the son of the applicant and is
non-transferable;
8) Time limit of five years.
Mr. Crawford noted that they planned to set up the mobile home about 600 feet
from Route 727 and that it would be properly screened. Mr. Thacker asked if the home
could be screened from the adjacent property also. Mr. Crawford assured him it could
be done.
Mr. Thacker noted he would approve only because the subdivision is of large
acreage, and made appropriate motion for approval subject to the conditions put forth
by the Planning Commission. Second to this motion was made by Mr. Fisher, and car-
ried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None
Mr. Wheeler abstaining during discussion and vote on the following matter.
(8) SP427: Norbin M. Ladd. To place a mobile home on 2+ acres zoned A-1 agri-
cultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 647.near
Cismont.
Mr. John Humphrey said "The area is rural in nature and wooded, however, it is
de~eloped quite substantially in single-family dwelling.
The property presently contains one single-family dwelling which is located
approximately 200 feet from the nearest dwelling. The structure is completely
surrounded by evergreens. Access to the property is by a narrow access road from
Route 647.
11-13-74 (Night)
The applicant, who lives alone, wishes to place a three room trailer at the rear
of his dwelling which he intends to use primarily for storage purposes."
He pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request
due to opposition and a petition presented at that meeting. (Mr. Humphrey presented
the petition to the Board).
Mr. Metro Evanchick was present, representing Mr. Ladd. He stated that the
trailer would be placed alongside a house recently purchased by Mr. Ladd. It was
brought to the Boards attention that the trailer was required so the applicant could
have plumbing and running water. He also assured the Board that-the trailer would be
well screened and that it would hardly be visible to any neighboring homes.
Mr. Thacker declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher noted the consid-
erable public opposition to this mobile home being placed on the property and asked
the approximate.size of the house. Mr. Evanchick stated that it was a three room
structure consisting of a living room, bedroom, and kitchen with a very small storage
closet. He also noted that the applicant had no intention of renting the trailer to
another party. At this point Mr. WOod made motion to approve SP-427 with the fol-
lowing conditions as recommended by the Planning Staff.
1. Building Official approval
2. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile home;
3. Mobile home is not to be rented;
4. Five (5) year time limit.
Mr. Fisher stated he was not in agreement with the other Board members and felt
the permit should be denied. He felt a three and one-half room home was adequate for
one man, and that the problem of plumbing could be better solved by adding it to the
home, not adding a mobile home.
Mr. Carwile noted that it was not the Board, s function to decide how many rooms
one man needs to live~~ but to decide land use. At this point, role was called and
motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Thacker, and Wood.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Wheeler.
The Board continued with Zoning matters advertised on October 23 and October
30, 1974:
(9) The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will consider an amendment to
Section 3-5 of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and DeVelopment Ordinance
concerning preliminary subdivision plat fees.
Mr. John Humphrey noted that Section 3-5 pertained to Preliminary Plat Fees.
Criticism had been received from surveyors and engineers with regard to the high
cost of reviewing preliminary plats. The problem has been re-evaluated and the
Planning Staff is now recommending a new fee, which is minimal and will cover the
cost involved in the review process. Sections to be amended are: Section 3-5-1(1).
$40.00 per preliminary plat; and 3-5-1(2) $0.25 per lot located within the
preliminary plat.
11-13-74 (Night)
Mr. Fisher questio~what the present fees are.
34?//
Mr. Humphrey noted that they
presently are $8.00 per acre for the first 100 acres in a subdivision, and $5.00
for each additional acre or fraction thereof. It was discovered by a surveyor
that in computing these amounts-on a large acreage, it can become a very large
amount. Mr. Humphrey noted that the lower preliminary plat fees will encourage
builders to submit preliminary plats. No one from the public wished to speak on
the subject of Plat Fees, therefore Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Fisher stated that when the subject was first brought to his attention,
he thought that the cost of the preliminary plat was going to be reduced and the
cost of the final plat would be increased so there would be no loss in money, but
would still encourage the filing of a full plat of subdivisions at an early stage.
Mr. Humphrey stated that final plat provisions have not yet been reviewed,
and that they are presently based on a reasonable cost for review. Mr. Humphrey
noted that the costs have been evaluated for two years and the new rate proposed
of $40.00 is sufficient to cover costs involved.
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile and seconded by Mr. Thacker, to amend and
reenact Section 3-5 of the Land Subdivision and Development~Ordinance of Albemarle
County, Virginia, as follows:
Section 3-5-1(1) $40.00 per preliminary plat;
Section 3-5-1(2) $0.25 per lot located within the preliminary plat.
Mr. Fisher questioned the tremendOus loss in revenue if this amendment is
adopted. Mr. Carwile and Mr. Humphrey both stated that the purpose is to en-
courage citizens to bring preliminary plats to the Planning Staff for review and
for constructive criticiSm. The fees have been studied,and where large acreage is
involved, fees are much higher than justified. Mr. Humphrey felt that the low-
ering of the fee will be beneficial to the County in the long run. At this point,
role was called and this motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None
(10) Amend Sections 7-7-1; 8-2-1; and 9-2-1 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance to provide for administrative approval of certain
site plans.
Mr. John Humphrey said the change will be as follows: Strike the last sentence
in the paragraph and add the words: provided that in the case "of any plan not
involving a new accessory or storage building and new entranceway or additional
parking area, the Zoning Administrator may act on such act without the recommendation
of the Commission."
This attempts to provide some administrative approval of the site plan or some
improvements to a structure without having to go to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Fisher questioned what zone this is effective in, and Mr. Humphrey answered
in B-l, M-1 and M-2. Mr. Carwile questioned the use of the words "new use" and asked
what Mr. Humphrey considered a change in "use", by giving several examples. Mr.
11-13-74 (Night)
Humphrey noted that it is changing from one conforming use to another in the same
category. Mr. Humphrey noted that the main objection that the Planning Commission
had to this proposal was that some Planning Commission members want the opportunity
to review all site plans.
Mr. St. John noted, that this proposal was first brought to his attention,
because it was already being handled this way as a matter of policy, and they wished
policy to conform with the ordinance. After considerable lengthy discussion as to
the meaning of "new use" between Mr. St. John, Mr. Carwile and Mr. Fisher; Mr.
Batchelor broke in and suggested that the Board pass the amendment as proposed, and
then have the subject of "new use" go back to the Planning Commission for a recom-
mendation to the Board of Supervisors. At this point Mr. Fisher, offered motion to
amend and reenact the Zoning Ordinance in the following sections:
Section 7-7-1:
Before a building permit shall be issued or construction commenced on
any permitted use in this district, or a permit issued for a new use, the
plans, in sufficient detail to show the proposed structures including any
enclosure or fence, the landscaping and the operations and processes to be
conducted on the premises, shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for
study. The Zoning Administrator shall, together with his written recommen-
dation; refer these plans to the Planning Commission for its recommendation;
provided, that in the case of any plan not involving a new accessory or storage
building and not involving a new.entranceway or additional parking area, the
Zoning Administrator may act on such plan without the recommendation of the
Commission.
Section 8-2-1.:
Before a building permit shall be issued or construction commenced on any
permitted use in this district, or a permit issued for a new use, the plans, in
sufficient detail to show the proposed structures including any enclosure or
fence, the landscaping and the operations and processes to be conducted on the
premises, shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for study. The Zoning
Administrator shall, together with his written recommendation; refer these plans
to the Planning Commission for its recommendation; provided, that in the case of
any plan not involving a new accessory or storage building and not involving a
new entranceway or additional parking area, the Zoning Administrator may act on
such plan without the recommendation of the Commission.
Section 9-2-1:
Before a building permit shall be issued or construction commenced on any
permitted use in this district, or a permit issued for a new use, the plans, in
sufficient detail to show the proposed structures including any enclosure or
fence, the landscaping and the operations and processes to be conducted on the
premises, shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for study. The Zoning
Administrator shall, together with his written recommendation; refer these plans
to the Planning Commission for its recommendation; provided, that in the case of
any plan not involving a new accessory or storage building and not involving a
new entranceway or additional parking area, the Zoning Administrator may act on
such plan without the recommendation of the Commission.
Mr. Fisher's motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS:
None
(11)
Amend Section 2 of the Albemarle County Subdivision and Development
Ordinance by the addition of Section 2-7 for the purpose of providing for
administrative approval of certain subdivision plats by the agent for the
Planning Commission.
11-13-74 (Night)
Mr. John Humphrey noted that this amendment to the County Subdivision and
Development Ordinance,. is recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
Humphrey proceeded to read the amendment as follows:
Mr.
BE IT~ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY that
the Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance of Albemarle County be
amended by the addition of a Section 2-7 as follows:
SECTION 2-7. Administration Approval Certain Subdivision Plats.
In the case of any subdivision involving the creationof three or fewer
lots, all fronting on an existing public road, the Director of Planning is
hereby constituted the agent of the Commission for purposes of reviewing
and approving subdivision plat applications; provided that nothing con-
tained in this section shall be construed to limit the right of the Com-
mission to review any such application nor to restrict the right of any
party to appeal pursuant to Section 12 of this Ordinance.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Humphrey if anyone had ever tried getting around the ordin-
ance ~by'bringing in only two lots at a time. Mr. Humphrey noted that no one had
abused the ordinance at this time.
Mr. Carwile made motion for adoption of the amendment; as set out above,Mr. Wood
seconded the motion; role was~called, and motion was carried by the following re-
corded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
(12)
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by revising Sections 11-7-
7(27), 11-7-7(28), 11-7-7(32), and 11-7-7(38), Re: Off-Street Parking
Provision. Deferred from October 23, 1974.
Mr. Thacker asked if there were any limits indicated, Mr. Humphrey said no. Mr.
Wheeler asked Mr. St. John where this proposed amendment stood, as at the last
meeting it was deferred and referred to the County Attorney's office for review. Mr.
St. John said they were still working on this ordinance, and asked for another
deferral. Mr. Wheeler then asked for a motion to again defer action until December
11, 1974; which was made by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The following Resolution was read into the record by Mr. William Thacker for
consideration by the Board:
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Sign Advisory Commission has returned
its report concerning the state of signs and sign laws; and
WHEREAS, one of the recommendations of the said Commission was that
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisor's request General Assembly leg-
islation which would give local option as to the amortization of signs; and
WHEREAS, the said Board of Supervisors has received and is in basic
accord with the recommendations of the said Commission;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY that the General Assembly of Virginia be and it
hereby is respectfully requested to consider the problem of sign
amortization and to enact legislation permitting localities to provide
for the amortization of signs within their respective jurisdictions.
11-13-74 ~(Night)
Mr. Thacker made motion to adOpt the resolution as just read, second was re-
ceived by Mr. Carwile. Motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. John Humphrey presented to the Board a requested variance on an already
approved site plan for Moore Brothers. He described their request as wanting to
"flipftop" the facilities located on the property. That is, take the apparatus at
the back of the building and place it' in the front; take the storage of sand and
gravel and put it in the rear.
Mr.. Fisher questioned Mr. Humphrey about seeing advertised a special permit for
Moore Brothers regarding a cement plant. Mr. Humphrey noted that this special permit
request will be coming before the Board later in the month. Mr. Fisher proposed that
it would be entirely inappropriate to take action on revising a site 'plan, until the
special permit can be brought before the Board. It was agreed by the other Board
members to delay action until the special permit came before the Board. Motion for
deferral was made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the fol-
lowing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The next item on the agenda was a Pay and Classification Plan for the County
Employees. Mr. Michael Carroll was present to discuss the Plan with the Board. Mr.
Fisher was the first to speak, stating that he would support adoption of the proposal
without the Personnel Analyst. Mr. Wheeler stated that he also would support a
revised proposal entitled "Board's" proposal to be effective November 1st.
Mr. Carwile asked if the Board should adopt the Board proposal, how this pro-
posal effects the higher salaried employees. Mr. Batchelor answered that it est-
ablishes a pay and classification system for all nonmanagerial people and does not
establish a pay and classification system for managerial people. Mr. Wheeler noted
that he hoped to work the managerial people into the plan during the 197376 budget.
Mr. Carwile asked if the Board is required by the State to adopt a pay and classif-
ication plan. If the Board does not include higher paid employees, will it comply
with the State requirements? Mr. Batchelor answered that it would not. Mr. Carwile
stated that he would be reluctant to adopt something that does not put us in com-
pliance with State requirements. The plan should have been in effect last July 1,
1974.
Mr. Fisher stated that he felt we had a classification plan even if all emp-
loyees are not on uniform salary steps. Mr. Batchelor suggested that if that is the
way the Board felt, it should be added to the resolution.
Mr. Wood noted that if the Board adopts the plan now being discussed, they will
exclude some of the most valuable people on staff. He felt the Board should adopt
11-13-74 (Night)
the plan as presented by the Consultants instead of pulling it apart and trying to
reorganize it when it will cost the Board less than $10,000. Mr. Henley asked what
will happen when the new budget is approved. Mr. Batchelor noted that the plan calls
for merit increases of one step.
Mr. Carwile noted ~hat the merit increase is not an automatic-increase and that
the only automatic increase that would be given would be the cost of living increase
voted by the Board. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Batchelor who would be entitled to a merit
increase. Mr. Ba~chelor replied all those who "measure up"; he noted that they are
training employees so they can judge who deserves a merit increase, how you measure
their increase etc., with a cost of living on top of that merit increase.
Mr. Fisher stated that he came in prepared to vote for the Board's proposal be-
cause he felt the employees at the low end of the salary range have been most hurt by
inflation. He does not feel that management personnel are in this same situation. He
felt ~ Plan should be adopted as is, without the Personnel Analyst; and made
motion to this effect.
Mr. Wheeler summarized some discussion by Mr. Carwile and Mr. Fisher~ noting
that if the Board adopts the plan they leave the people in managerial positions alone
until they are changed at a later time by the Board. Mr. Wood stated that if this is
what the Board intends to adopt they are making a mistake. He would prefer adopting
the full Pay and Classification Plan as proposed by the Consultants. Mr. Wood's
feelings were that the County cannot be run by a title, you have to pay for it. Mr.
Wheeler said including management at this time would be inflationary, and that the
employees most in need of this pay and classification plan are those at the bottom of
the salary scale.
Mr. Wood reiterated his statement that the Board is making a mistake if they
adopt the plan presently before the Board. He called it an ineffective compromise
that they would regret as soon as it was adopted.
Mr. Henley seconded Mr Fisher's motion for approval. Mr Tha~ker asked for an
interpretation of proposal 94. Mr. Batchelor explained it was placed in the Plan as
a compromise between the Board's recommendation and his. Recommendation Proposal 94
will take everyone in a management position to at least the first step in their
paygrade and would place all those management positions whose salaries fall between
two grades at the next highest grade.
Mr. Carwile stated that he personally preferred doing this. At a net cost this
would effectively implement the pay plan for all County employee. However he will
only support the plan is if it to be implemented ~.~2~ on a merit basis] he will not
support a plan that has automatic increases. Mr. Fisher concurred. Mr. Thacker
stated that he felt the Board should be as fair as possible with the County's emp-
loyees, and offered a substitute motion to adopt proposal 94. This substitute motion
was seconded by Mr. Wood. This would not include the position of Personnel Analyst.
Mr. Fisher stated the figures for proposal 94 were not correct, and requested
2
11-13-74 (Night)
exact figures before voting. Due to this controversy on figures presented, Mr.
Wheeler suggested the motion on the floor, be withdrawn, have Mr. Sampson review and
if necessary correct the figures, and bring the matter back before the Board at their
next meeting on November 19th. Per Mr. Wheeler's request, motion was withdrawn and
deferred until the day meeting of the Board on November 19, 1974.
Request was received for an appropriation in the amount of $2,550 for editorial
work to be performed by Michie Company before enactment of the revised Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance. This amount will also cover the cost of 500 printed copies
Motion
of the ordinance for public hearing purposes before the Board of Supervisors.
was offered by Mr. Wood to adopt the following resolution:
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $2,550 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated~from the
General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund and coded to
account 10-E-226 for expenditures in preparation of presenting a revised
Zoning Ordinance, and expenditure of these funds is hereby approved.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Mr. Wood noted that the committee that is presently negotiating with the B.P.O.E.
for purchase of the building at 411 East High Street for use of such facilities as a
Juvenile Court has a problem. When the original purchase option was signed, the
Elk's had agreed to a price of $225,000. The property has now been appraisd~by two
different firms. One appraisal is for $250,000 and the other is for $273,000.
Hopefully, in the near future the committee and the Elk's will be able to agree to an
option that reflects the true value of the property.
Appointment to the Library Board was carried over.
Mr. Wheeler reminded the Board that at the meeting on November 19th, they would
be electing members to several committees, and also would be discussing the problem
oS Georgetown Road. He also noted that Mr. St. John has requested an executive
session with regard to a legal matter pertaining to the Ivy Landfill.
At 10:53 P.M. motion was presented'by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr..Henley to go
into executive session to discuss a legal matter. Role was called and motion was
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The meeting reconvened after executive session, and motion to adjourn to Nov-
ember 19 at 9:00 a.m, was made by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
~3