1975-02-12N2,12-75 (night)
52.5/
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on February 12, 1975 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.
OFFICERS PRESENT: T. M. Batchelor, County Executive; George R. St. John (County
Attorney).
The first item on the agenda was a request by Mr. Michael Gleason, Chairman of
the Albemarle-Charlottesville Bicentennial Commission, for an appropriation of $11,667
to help finance the Bicentennial Center's construction expenses. Mr. Gleason read
from a prepared statement, which gave some background as to the conception of the
center, the tourism it will bring to the Charlottesville area, etc. It was noted
that State funding for the Information Center has been substantial; over one-half
million dollars to be used for pre-construction, construction, exhibits, and land-
scaping. He further mentioned that funds are also being raised by the Virginia
Independence Bicentennial Commission. A total of $34,990 is required for architect
fees and additional utility costs. Of this amount the City of Charlottesville will
pay two-thirds ($23,323) and the County of Albemarle will pay one-third ($11,667).
The Commission also needs a commitment from the City and County that the locality
will operate the center subject to a contractual arrangement. Mr. Gleason concluded
his statement by saying that immediate approval is needed in order to open the center
by April, 1976.
Mr. Thacker asked if the contractual agreement was in writing, and if so, had it
been ~SUbmitted to the County Attorney's office for review. Mr. Gleason replied that
it was not fully formulated yet, but the County's verbal agreement statingthey would
be willing to go with a contractual agreement is sufficient at this point. He further
stated that upon the contract's completion, it would~be submitted to Mr. St. John for
his review. Mr. Gleason condensed his request to the Board stating they were asking
approval of the $20,000 which was the original commitment, $11,667 which is the new
request and verbal agreement to operate the center.
Mr._ Thacker questioned why the architectual fees were not paid for by the state.
Mr. Gleason stated that under the original commitment, the localities agreed to pay
for the land, the architect fees, and fund the utilities.
At this point, Mr. Wheeler asked the Clerk to read a letter into the record
which he had received relative to the Bicentennial Commission's request.
"February 11, 1975
Chairman, Board of Supervisors, County of Albemarle; Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Sir:
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Restaurant Association had a board
meeting Monday, February 10th. We voted unanimously in support of having
the Bi-centennial center located in this area, and we also voted unanimously
against accepting the bid for construction of the facility at a higher cost
than previously stated. It is our consenses that the expenses of the
2-12-75 (Night)
government in this area are already high enough and any additional dollar
burden is certainly not acceptable.
With unemployment at possibly an all time high, construction people
out of work, and the taxes and expenses to the citizen as well as the cost
of running a governing body at a pressure existing point, it may be best to
eliminate some of the cost features of the center.
We strongly feel the excitement surrounding the center, and want to
see it under construction, but we just as strongly re-buff any additional
cost of the facility.
We thank you for this opportunity to voice our support of the center
and also want to be heard concerning the economics of the construction.
The pressure is already to great to bear in some instances. Don't add to
that burden with additional monies poured into the center, instead may we
suggest that you lessen that burden with some type of elimination process
on some of the features of the center.
Thank you.
(signed) Toni G. Dean, Secretar~ Board of Directors"
Mr. Gleason replied to the letter by stating that the Commission had considered
cutting on the center, but felt that it was already cut to the bear bone. He further
noted that if they go back to the drawing board, they will never have the center
completed by the Bicentennial.
Mr. Carwile asked Mr. Gleason to clarify a statement in his prepared notes
relative to the contractual agreement. "...the general costs of operating the
Information Center, through December 1983, will be borne by the state subject to a
contractual arrangement with our locality." Mr. Gleason responded by saying that the
intended meaning is that the State will give the Commission a certain sum of money to
operate the center under certain guidelines (example: hours of operation). If the
localities decide to go.outside those guidelines (example: longer hours of operation),
then the localities must pay the difference. Mr. Lloyd Wood expanded further on Mr.
Gleason's example in order tQ further clarify the Commission's request.
Mr~ Gleason.introduced to the Board two other members of the Bicentennial Com-
mission, Miss Missy Marks, Vice Chairman; and Mr. Fred F6rguson, Executive Vice
President of the Chamber of Commerce., and Miss Martha Seldon of Citizens of Albemarle. ~
Miss Marks stated that she fully supports the Commission's requests. Mr. Furguson
stated that the Chamber of Commerce supports the request for additional funds mainly
because of the potential revenues the Information Center will bring into the community
upon it's completion. Next, Miss Seldon read a statement from the Citizens of Albemarle
stating that organizations support of the additional funding.
Mrs. Victoria Craw, representing the Civic League, stated that the,League was in
support of the Center even before the plans were drawn and accepted. The League
still supports the Center, even with this additional request for funds.
Mr. Wheeler stated that he is afraid if the Board approves this request for
$11,667, the Commission will keep coming back for more and more money, and he feels
the taxpayers want a hault to the spending.
Mr. Lloyd Wood stated again that the request is minimal, and that the State is
putting up more th~'n their originally agreed upon share, and since he feels the
2-12-75 (Night)
Center is more than worthwhile, he supports appropriating the additional money. Mr.
Woo~.:: stated that he spoke to Mrs. Rinehart of the Charlottesville City Council,
and she stated that the Council will be voting on their portion of the appropriation
on Tuesday night. Her feeling was that the Council was in agreement to approve the
request. ~
Mr. Wood offered motion to adopt the following ResOlution, second was made by
Mr. Carwile, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood.
None.
"BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $11,667 be, and the same hereby i~ appropriated from Revenue Sharing
funds and transferred to the General Operating Fund for expenditures for
the Bicentennial Commission."
The next item on the agenda was a discussion on the P.E.P. Program. Mr. Batchelor
presented the information to the Board. He first stated that after discussions with
Mr. McClure of the School Board, they would require four positions; that is one
Electrician at $700/month, two Carpenters for 7.5 man months, and one Carpenters
Helper for 4.0 man months. These four positions, plus one for a License Examiner in
the Finance Department are to replace positions originally approved for the Social
Services Department which have been picked up by the State SoCial Servic~Department.
Mr. Batchelor stated that they have received indiCations that they will be able to
fu~ these requested positions.
Mr. Thacker noted that none of the requested positions are for a full year, and
asked what happens to these people at the end of the federally sponsored program.
Mr. Batchelor replied that the County has the funds budgeted to fill the positions
through the remainder of the year. Mr. Henley asked why the Federal Program has
placed time limits on these positions. Mr. Batchelor replied that is the way Congress
passed it.
Mr. Wheeler stated that he and Mr. Thacker have visited the Virginia Employment
office. In January, 1974 there were 400 people drawing unemployment from the Region
Ten office, and 4,000 as of January, 1975. He further noted that there were more
than 30 people applying for the P.E.P. jobs, which indicated that people do not want
to collect unemployment.
At this point, motion for approval of the P.E.P. Program in the amount of
$45,026.95 was made by Mr. Lloyd Wood, seconded by Mr. William Thacker.
Mr. Thacker asked if these positions were totally paid by Federal Funds. Mr.
Batchelor stated that all the positions (with the exception of the Electrician and
the Carpenters) are in the budget, and that the funds are being requested on a
contractual basis. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Batchelor for clarification as to who filled
an examiners position which was open under the P.E.P. Program in the Land Use Office.
Mr. Batchelor stated that the position was not being filled by a P.E.P. person as a
regular employee in the Land Use Office said she would handle the examiners position
2-12-75 (Night)
528
on a temporary basis, and that her job (clerical office work) would then be filled by
a P.E.P. person. Mr. Wood stated that he wanted this point specifically clarified
publically and recorded in the minutes because he had received a complaint that an
employed person had received a P.E.P. job.
At this point role was called and motion was carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The Board next conducted three special permit public hearings, as advertised in
the Daily Progress on the following dates:
SP-444, R. Fisher -- January 8 and 15, 1975
SP-440, R. Thompson -- January 1 and 8, 1975
SP-435, J. Fleming -- deferred from January 22, 1975
(1)
SP-444. Roger I. and Rebecca F. Fisher have petitioned to locate a mobile
home on 2.01 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the
South side of State Route 640, near its intersection with State Route 784.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 34, Parcel 39H. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, read from the Staff Report:
"This property is located on the south side of Route 640 approximately 2
miles north of Stony Point. The area is rural with open, gently rolling pasture
land. There are several single-family dwellings in the vicinity.
The applicant wishes to locate a mobile home on his property as an interim
means of housing until a conventional single-family dwelling is constructed.
Construction of this dwelling unit has begun, with the foundation already being
completed. The parcel on which the mobile home is to be placed is open land and
the mobile home can be seen from 5 dwellings in the area.
The Planning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions:
2.
3.
4.
Health Department and County Building Official approval;
Individual well and septic systems;
Time limit of two (2) years;
The mobile home must be removed from this propertyat the completion of the
conventional dwelling unit or after two (2) years, whichever comes first;
and
This permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferable."
Mr. Humphrey pointed out the location of the property on the map.
Mr. Wheeler asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Mr. Roger Fisher
stated that he had nothing to say other than he was waiting and hoping for approval
by the Board. Mr. Humphrey stated that initially there was opposition, but upon
finding out that the mobile home was only for an interim basis, the opposition was
removed. No one else from the public spoke for or against this petition.
Mr. Fisher offered motion for approval of this request with the conditions as
specified by the Planning Commission. Second to this motion was made by Mr. Thacker,
and motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
(2)
SP-440. Ronald H. Thompson has petitioned to locate a mobile home on 15
acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the East side of
State Route 616, about 1/4 mile south of its intersection with the C and O
Railroad. Property is further described as County Tax Map 80, Parcel 159.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
2-12-75 (Night)
Mr. Humphrey stated that Mr. Thompson was not present at the meeting because he
had telephoned the Planning Office, speaking to Mr. Robert Tucker, and requested that
this special permit request be withdrawn. Mr. Humphrey also noted that there had
been considerable opposition to this special permit request, and that Mr. Thompson
was not specific in stating whether to withdraw with or without prejudice.
Mr. Wood made a motion to withdraw the request without prejudice, this motion
was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
(CLERK'S NOTE: This portion of the minutes isbeing transcribed in a verbatim form,
to conform with minutes of January 22, 1975, and to allow the Board to have a com-
plete and accurate record of what transpired)
(3)
SP-435. James N. Fleming, Flamenco - Four Seasons (deferred from December
11, 1974 and continued from January 22, 1975) to locate a Planned Community
on 128.06 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural on Route 743 and Route 657.
Mr. Wheeler: Mr. Humphrey do you have anything new to present?
Mr. Humphrey: Mr. Chairman, we have submitted a copy with several additions to
the original staff conditions of approval, with some modifications. As you will
recall, the staff had recommended approval of the planned unit concept.
Mr. Wheeler: Has Mr. Fleming received a copy of these?
Mr. Humphrey: No Sir.
Mr. Wheeler: Will you please furnish them with a copy.
Mr. Humphrey: Yes Sir. This was done after consultation with Mr. J. Harvey
Bailey, County Engineer and involves in part,~ elimination of previously numbered
item 8, and the addition of 10, 11 and 12. Mr. Bailey is in attendance to answer any
questions, as requested by the Board. Mr. Gordon Yeager is also here from the Soil
Conservation Service, Mr. Charles Perry of the Highway Department is also here and it
is my understanding late this afternoon, that there was a representative from the
State Health Department also here. I do not know whether they have (the Health
Department Representative) has any additional information to be added or not.
Mr. Wheeler: I think you had better go down through these quickly, 1 through
12.
Mr. Humphrey: The amended staff conditions of approval are:
"1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Maintain a 2.5 dwelling unit per acre density;
Submission of a revised site plan for Planning Commission and Board approval;
Approval from State Highway Department concerning internal street rights-
of-way, dedication of land along Route 743 for future widening and no
entrance onto Route 657 until it is improved;
Submit to the Albemarle County Service Authority an estimate, by stages, of
the capacities that will be expected on an annual basis;
Submit to the Planning Department evidence of any agreement between the
developer and the City of Charlottesville concerning the use of the gas
pipeline easement;
Minimum of 4.3 acres to be located on the southern portion of the property,
adjacent to Four Seasons West, which would provide a neighborhood park for
a concentrated population with active recreation facilities;
530
2-12-75 (Night)
7) Dedication of water and sewer lines to Albemarle County Service Authority;
and the Authority's approval on maintenance and operation of sewer pump
station.
8) Sidewalks to be located on one side of the major internal through streets;
9) County Attorney review of any deed restrictions or home owner's association
agreements.
10) Permanent or temporary debris basins on all drainage swales, approved by
County Engineer and Soil Conservation Service.
11) Permanent water impoundment on main stem of drainage swale bisecting
property, approved by County Engineer and Soil Conservation Service.
12) No physical connection at this time of Carr Drive with Lambs Road."
Mr. Wheeler: Any questions of Mr. Humphrey on this gentlemen?
Mr. Fisher: As I understand this, you are withdrawing the recommendation that
land be reserved for future treatment of surface water runoff.
Mr. Humphrey: At this site, yes sir. It doesn't preclude when technology is
available, to have such a treatment facility located further east or north of this
property where the (Pause) not of this property, but of the drainage wa~srShed, where
it would accommodate and catch all drainage within this subwatershed draining into
the Reservoir. Property is located at this point (pointing to the map) the northern
most extremity, according to Mr. Bailey the most logical place for such a treatment
facility, would better be located at a point here, catching all the storm water
drained into that watershed.
Mr. Fisher: If such surface water treatment were required who would pay for it?
Mr. Humphrey: At the present time, we would assume it would be part of any
public or capital improvements program the County may have at that time, relative to
treatment of sewage or storm water.
Mr. Thacker: Who ownes this property over here?
Mr. Humphrey: To the north, this property is owned I believe by the Greer
Estates which I believe you do have a letter on that was part of the original package.
I believe it is parcel 9 and 7.
Mr. Wheeler: Okay gentlemen, any further questions of Mr. Humphrey?
Mr. Fisher: One of the letters that we received from the State Health Department
or the Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, or somebody, talked about the fact that the
main drainage swale through their property should not be left open. It should be run
through a pipe or conduit or something. Did you address this with the County Engineer?
Mr. Humphrey: I did not Mr. Chairman I believe Mr. Bailey is prepared to talk
to that.
Mr. Wheeler: Mr. Bailey, could we ask you to come forward, we have a chair
right over here,
Mr. Fisher: The question I addressed was the recommendation from somebody of
the State, I'm having some difficulty finding that particular letter, that the (Pause)
it is from Mr. M. D. Philips, Pollution Control Specialist who suggested complete
isolation of this drainage channel, they are talking about a wet weather tributary to
the Reservoir. "We would advise complete isolation of this drainage channel from the
development. This could be accomplished by the use of a no access culvert or other
factory means. We would not advise leaving portions of this stream as a surface
2-12-75 (Night)
5317
channel through the development."
Mr. Wheeler: C~an?
all can hear you.
Mr. Bailey:
Is that a practical suggestion?
I ask you to speak, and when you speak, speak loud so we
I had not been aware of this particular passage. I don't know.
Gentlemen, does he expand on the reason for that. I wouldn't think it practical
myself.
Mr. Fisher: Well, he underlines the word complete isolation of this drainage
channel and I just wondered whether or not you had considered it.
Mr. Bailey: No sir I had not.
Mr. Humphrey: In reading, it appears that he wants to have an open channelization
all the way down, no mention of an impoundment which we feel would be a better approach
then having a channel empty direct, which the implications are the way he proposes
it.
Mr. Fisher: I thought that they were discribing an enclosed branch so that the
water coming from upstream would go through this property into the Reservoir with no
pollution from this site.
What is happening to the water that is falling onto the site itself?
Well he is talking about impoundments for controlling that I
Mr. Bailey:
Mr. Fisher:
believe.
Mr. Bailey:
You don't happen to know just what his idea is? Do you understand
it to mean catch the water from drainage areas above this development and carry it
through the development and at the same time impounding the water that falls within
the development itself.
Mr. Fisher: That is what I understood Mr. Bailey.
Mr. Thacker: I didn't. When he is isolating the channel from the development
I would think he would mean to channel this water through without any
Mr. Humphrey: That doesn't quite make sense.
Mr. Thacker: No it doesn't.
Mr. Humphrey: Because no mention has been made of what would happen in the
upper branches. Channel that and empty that directly and you are still going to have
the same problems and when that develops you are going to have to have something
else.
Mr. Bailey: Mr. Fisher, I believe it would be better to take this opportunity
to, on the furthest down stream then anything that has been considered thus far, to
do what you can to serve the entire drainage area above. It seems to me that this
particular item would defeat that.
Mr. Fisher: I see, then the question then becomes whether or not the impound-
ment that is proposed can contain an adequate amount of runoff from the entire
drainage basin and hold it for sufficient periods to allow sedimentation.
Mr. Bailey: Yes.
Mr. Fisher: Then I guess that is the next question that we have.
2-12-75 (Night)
Mr. Bailey: We have made computations from the data that was furnished to us by
the developer and have used the maps to make some measurements and some calculations.
The (Pause) we think that an effective structure can be devised and maintained. Of
course, we didn't go into design, but we went just with preliminary figures on it.
It would seem to us that one question was raised about the flooding of the gas line
through the area. We believe that you can impound an area just short of the gas
line, and with a structure running through the dam that would carry the water at such
a rate as to state a combination of storage and water passing through that would
effectively control sedimentation. This is based on subdivisions that the entire
area will be developed in much the same fashion as this one, and a flood of 100 year
frequency and intensity with the rates of runoff that would be consistent with the
development as intended.
Mr. Fisher: Have you done these computations yourself?
Mr. Bailey: Mr, Williams did most of the work, I have examined it; Mr. Williams
is very competent.
Mr. Wheeler:
Mr. Thacker:
Any other questions from Mr. Bailey at this time gentlemen?
Mr. Chairman, I have one for the record. Mr. Bailey, we heard
several times the recommendation of impounding and treating storm water runoff in
this development. Is this a feasible alternative?
Mr. Bailey: Well, it is more of a problem then I can just offhand tackle. I
don't know just what would be required. The treatment that would be ~f any concern
to the Reservoir would be for removal of nutrients and that is rather elaborate and
expensive treatment. Now this matter of sedimentation, of Course, doesn't solve that
problem. We have discussed with Mr. Yeager just what might take place, and if there
were. any advantages at all in sedimentation for the removal of any nutrients. I
think he has made some investigation of that. I don't think and I don't believe at
this point and for a problem of this size, if the State regulatory agencies are
willing to treat storm waters at a future date which they may do (Pause) it is
nothing that we have any experience in. I don't know anybody that has had anything
further then just creating the sediment basin to remove what you'll drop in yourself.
Mr. Thacker: This is one of the recommendations of Mr. Phillips in his letter
of December 16th. As you see he is with the State Water Control Board. We need more
information from him.
Mr. Bailey: Mr. George Williams is here this evening and he may have a little
wider knowledge of the field.
Mr. Wheeler: Any other questions of Mr. Bailey at this particular minute.
Gentlemen, we have Mr. Perry here from the State Highway Department. Mr. Warner had
a death in his family and had to be out of town. Mr. Perry, maybe you would like to
come forward and let the Board find out if they have any questions about this road
network; or maybe ~ou have some comments to make.
Mr. Perry: No, I've looked over the report here and I think it covers any
2-12-75 (Night)
comments that we could make.
Mr. Wheeler: I think the staff is recommending (Pause)
Mr. Perry: If you would like I'll run through it. Basically, on page three, we
had proposed an entrance on Route 657 be approved basically because of the . . . on
that road is varied from 12 to 18 feet and has approximately 1 to 4 foot shoulders.
This particular road carries already 504 vehicles, which is quite a lot for this type
of design. The two entrances that are proposed on Route 743, we haven't really
spoken to that. At this time if a request comes for the entrances we would then
review it to assure that the site distance and other geometric designs would conform.
This leads us then to the improvement of Route 743, the ultimate plan is followed
through with and the development is completed 743 would certainly be outdated and I
don't believe it would handle the amount of traffic. We estimate right now this will
of course depend on how our funds develop, but right now we estimate probably in 1977
or 78 that we can start construction on this particular road. After the improvements
are made of course, I don't see any problem with the total development. I also
understand that this development will probably be over a five to ten year period,
which I certainly think would not create too much of a problem if he starts out in
increments. Then we can of course, go ahead with our improvement program on this
road before we get too much traffic on 743. Also, we generally looked into the road
situation and made some recommendations that we will need 70 feet of right-Of-way and
also 60 feet throughout the remainder of Evergreen Drive, 70 Feet right-of-way through
the commercial property with a median and turn lanes provided into the commerCial
area, Lakeshore Drive with 70 feet of right-of-way through the commercial property,
also from that point on, it would be 50 feet of right-of-way. Carr Drive is 60 feet
of right-of-way. We also recommended that with the improvement on 743 that this be
kept in mind so that development would not take place without the additional right-
of-way that woul~ be required for the improvements on 743.
Mr. Wheeler: Okay gentlemen, questions of Mr. Perry?
Mr. Thacker: Charlie, do you want to speak to the Dam?
Mr. Perry: Well, there is a problem, the Highway Department will not take a
road over a dam into the system, as we found out at Hollymead, the Highway Department
just will not do it. I think there are a couple of dams proposed with roads over the
top of them, but we would not take the makings of this road, it would have to stop on
each side of the dam.
Mr. Fisher: Who would bear the liability for the maintenance of the dam?
Mr. Perry: Probably the developer or the homeowners association.
Mr. Thacker: Sir let me ask you something, I must have misunderstood somewhere
along the line. I understood that the Highway Department would maintain a road over
the dam 18 inches deep, but would not take responsibility of the dam.
Mr. Perry: I probably didn't go into that thoroughly enough. We will maintain
3 4 2-12-75 (Night)
road surface, however, any damage due to the dam itself, we would not be responsible
for.
Mr. Thacker: Charlie you would only maintain it if the dam were constructed
under State inspection.
Mr. Perry: Yes that is a very lengthy policy and very expensive.
Mr. Fisher: I want to ask you one question about the funding of improvements
along Route 743. Some of the discussions that we've had have lead us to believe that
not very much else is going to get improved in the County if that road is developed
on that scale.
Mr. Perry: Right. This particular road with the expensive right-of-way, and
the very elaborate design for this type road to handle this amount of traffic, is
certainly going to be expensive. Even more so with the rising costs that we are
experiencing.
Mr. Wheeler: Any other questions from Mr. Perry gentlemen? Thank you sir.
Okay gentlemen, who is next. John do you want to hear from Mr. George.Williams. Mr.
Williams could I ask you to come forward. If you have some comments you want to make
or the Board may have some questions.
Mr. George Williams: (Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority)
Thank you. There are a few comments I want to start out with, the one we are most
concerned with is the nutrient question which would have the most significant effect
on the Reservoir itself. As far as the sedimentation question is concerned, you
probably can control it with adequate sedimentation ponds. The question of course,
is two fold in the Reservoir. One of eutrification and the other of sedimentation.
That leaves a big chunk of the first question, eutrification, somewhat in limbo.
There was a question a little while ago that Mr. Bailey was discussing as to, "is
there any effective way.to control and treat urban runoff for nutrient removal?" I
frankly know of no practical means to do that. I've never seen it accomplished
unless just treated for sedimentation, but not for nutrient removal.
Mr. Wheeler: Are there any questions of Mr. Williams? Thank you sir. Mr.
Yeager
Mr. Yeager: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak a moment as to the effective
life of the structure and some of the characteristics of the structure and its
ability to control sediment. Generally speaking, I feel a structure like this would
be 75% effective in controlling sediment. In otherwords for every 100 tons of
sediment that comes in through the structure, you could expect perhaps 25 tons to
pass through the structure. As far as the nutrients go, of course, phosphate is one
of the big items and a limited factor in creating problems. These phosphate elements
are tied very closely to soil particles, and we feel that control of sediment is one
of the big factors in controlling the phosphate that gets into the structure. Because
the phosphate is tied to the soil particles, if you trap 75% of the soil then you can
reasonably say that you will trap 75% of the phosphate. This structure should be
2-12-75 (Night)
designed to handle the frequency flow, not based entirely on this development, but
design based upon the entire watershed and the future development within the water-
shed. So this (Pause) if you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
Mr. Fisher: You have had some experience with dams for control of sedimentation.
Mr. Yeager: Yes Sir.
Mr. FiSher: Is the amount of space set aside for the sedimentation basin and
the dam itself adequate for this purpose.
Mr. Yeager: Well, we really haven't checked the elevations that closely. That
is a relatively steep area up there and in order to get an 11 acre lake you are going
to have to have a pretty deep lake. I'm not sure what the depth of the lake is but
this is something that would have to be checked out pretty closely. An 11 acre lake
could be 20, 30, 40 feet deep maybe, depending how steep the area is.
Mr. Fisher: If this is approved, will your agency take any responsibility in
approving the design of the structure? That is to protect the publics interest.
Mr. Yeager: No sir we won't take the responsibility of the design, we would be
happy to work with the designing engineer, in furnishing the information that we have
available. We won't design it for him, we won't be responsible for approving the
design. We would be happy to work with the design engineer in furnishing design
information.
Mr. Wheeler:
Mr. Thacker:
Okay gentlemen, any other questions of Mr. Yeager?
One question Mr. Chairman. Mr. Yeager, your organization will
undertake to make periodic inspections of a sedimentations control system to deter-
mine when or recommend to somebody when it should be cleaned.
Mr. Yeager: We don't make this as a policy inforcement program, but we will
work very closely with the County, and if they have a question, we will be very happy
to consult with them, but we don't get involved with inforcement in any way, but we
would help with the overall sedimentation control program.
Mr. Fisher: Just let me address one more question. If this project is approved,
and it is developed, and it is owned by the people who live there, I believe both the
maintenance of the dam and the responsibility for keeping the lake cleaned out to
where it has sufficient capacity would all fall to the home owners. Is that cor-
rect?
Mr. Yeager: I would think so, it would be their responsibility. The useful
life of the structure would be entirely dependent upon the management of the water-
shed. If they do a very poor job of stabilizing this after completion, then of
course there is something wrong (Pause) on the other hand if they do a good job then
they can look forward to a long usefulness. This thing may have to be drained
periodically and cleaned out, this is a design feature that would have to go into it,
if you wanted to drain the structure so it could be cleaned out.
Mr. Carwile: Are you familiar with the general slope characteristics of the
terrain on this particular property?
2-12-75 (Night)
Mr. Yeager: Well I just looked at the contour, I haven't inspected it that
closely because you would have to get into the design of the structure. I don't know
how deep the reservoir would have to be in order to get an 11 acre lake. That is
something that would have to be checked out.
Mr. Carwile: You mentioned possible draining of the structure as a feature for
periodic maintenance. Does the technology exist to do this in a safe manner and
t~king into account the need to preserve the Reservoir.
Mr. Yeager: This wouldn't be a problem I would think as-far as draining it.
Mr. Wheeler: Any other questions of Mr. Yeager gentlemen? Thank you sir.
Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Chairman and other Board members, I'm Doug Caldwell, Regional
Engineer with the State Health Department, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, out of-the
Lexington Office, and I would like to make a few comments concerning this proposal,
and I would refer as probably . . I'll be summarizing a letter which our Bureau
Director wrote to Mr. Tucker, the Assistant County Planner. I don't know if you
gentlemen have a copy of this letter; it was a December 9th letter concerning the
questions which have already been discussed tonight, and the question of nutrients
has been brought up tonight quite a few times. We definitely feel that this is going
to be a problem. I would question the statement that Mr. Yeager made concerning the
removal of nutrients by simple sedimentation in siltation ponds. I think if removal
of nutrients was this simple then all costs for tertiary treatment plants and sewage
plants to date would not have to be borne. I think we could refer to some other
problems, some other pollutants which might be a problem, and these were referred to
in that letter. Mr. Bartsch refers to the first flush following a rain fall. He
refers to many heavy metals which would necessarily be a result of the internal
combustion engine, of which there will be many in this area if this development is
completed. He also indicates the problems which could result from pesticides, herb-
icides, again he refers to nutrients, and also the possibility of the problems with
the various salts which would be possibly used on the roadways following snowfalls.
He refers again to the siltation problems, which he feels will be a problem both
during construction and following construction. I think in summary, the feeling of
the Health Department, that any development of this nature and of this magnitude on
the drainage area to the South Rivanna Reservoir can have nothing but a detrimental
effect, and our main concern, our only concern at this point, is the protection of a
valuable water source; that is the South Rivanna Reservoir for the City of Charlottes-
ville and surrounding Albemarle County. For this reason we feel a development of
this nature would definitely be detrimental to this valuable water source and jeo-
pardize its continued use.
-Mr. Wheeler: Now you have talked about a density of 6.7.
Mr. Caldwell: The overall figure I had was 804 total family units ultimately
along this line was what I was referring to. This is not to say that (Pause)
Mr. Wheeler: I would like to make some comments. Our staff recommended and
2-12-75 (Night)
Planning has recommended that this be approved at a 2.5 basis.
total of what John?
Mr. Humphrey:
Mr. Caldwell:
Which gives you a
Over 200.
The Health Department's feeling is that any development on the
tributaries or on the drainage area to the Reservoir would be detrimental, and I feel
the comments would be the same and our feelings would definitely be the same even
with a lower density.
Mr. Wood: Your saying no more cars, no more people, no more dogs; on all
tributaries?
Mr. Caldwell: Ideally, this would be the position of the Health Department.
Mr. Wood: You said it was the position, now I don't understand that "is the
position". Now you are saying this is ideally the position or that it is the position?
Mr. Caldwell: We are concerned only with health and water. We feel that any
further development on the drainage area would be detrimental to a certain extent,
and we are not in favor of any development.
Mr. Wood: I don't understand that from the Local Health Department officials.
Mr. Batchelor: This is not lOcal, it is State.
Mr. Caldwell: I'm speaking for the Secretary of Engineering, State Health
Department. Our concern is for the public water supPly serving the City of Char-
lottesville and Albemarle County.
Mr. Wheeler: Now you started out speaking to a density of a total of 800. I
asked a question if you cut it down 75% to a 25% figure probably of 200. Certainly
it couldn't be to the same extent, but if I get the gist of what you're saying is,
that if we put one out there, we've put one too many.
Mr. Caldwell: I think that is a safe statement.
Mr. Carwile: You would apply that statement to the entire drainage basin that
serves the Reservoir, which is like 280 square miles.
Mr. Batchelor: A little over one-third of the County.
Mr. Caldwell: I told you ideally now.
Mr. Carwile: We have to address the realities of the situation, and not so much
what we would like to have and if we could restructure the pattern of development in
Albemarle County, or where the Reservoir is located. I can't accept, I mean~, I'm
very much concerned about the Reservoir, but I can't accept a statement as being
given to us, in the sense that the public has to make a good sensible judgment when
it is applied to the entire drainage basin; maybe that is ideal, I won't argue about
that, I'll accept that. Just help us and guide us in what we can do to help the
Reservoir, but at the same time address the realities of life.
Mr. Caldwell: Well, our major concern here again is water quality and the idea
of a high density like this on the drainage area is totally in opposition to the
feelings of the Health Department. I'm not going to say that we would be_ here
fighting to keep a single home. from being built somewhere else on the Reservoir, I'm
538
2-12-75 (Night)
saying that ideally we would have to take the position that any development on the
drainage area of the Reservoir would be detrimental to a certain degree. I think the
degree here is so magnified that our position is that we have ~to oppose it.
Mr. Wheeler: Any other questions gentlemen. Thank you sir. Mr. Williams, I
see your hand up.
Mr. George Williams: There seems to be some big question here about the amount
of nutrients tied up in the urban runoff. We've got a man here that can speak to
that question, and I think it would be very helpful if we could get him to come up
here to speak.
Dr. Clinton Parker: I want you to ask me a question, otherwise we'll end up
talking aboUt everything that has been run over before.
Mr. Carwile: I would like for you to address the nutrient content in urban
runoff and the effect that sedimentation has on it.
Dr. Parker: I'm not quite sure what to tell you in one minute, except that
obviously that where you have people, where you use fertilizers, and you have cars,
you are going to have problems. Magnitude of the problem is greater with the more
yards you have, the more cars you have and more fertilizer you put down. All right,
if you have an urban area, one of the problems that exist'is what Mr. Bartsch says,
that when you do have this first flushing, and it doesn't take much observation to
see this, it is just like the gutters being washed out, all of a sudden it has a big
bowel movement and it just moves right out on you. That is what Mr. Bartsch is
talking about. The controversy of the extent of this being a problem versus an
agricultural problem and which you would also have to recognize is that there is no
clear answer at this point, and that is the reason for this technical committee to
make the study of which all of you are familiar with. It would be a mistake on my
part to get up here and to say that it is going to be "X" amount, because if I knew
that I could save you $200,000 which you are paying out for a study.
Mr. Wood: That is the best answer I've heard you give.
Mr. Wheeler: Mr. Fleming, do you have any new information that you want to
present or anyone that you have to bring any information to this Board.
Mr. Carter: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we have anything new to present, Mr.
Roudabush is here and he has his plans with him, the ones he had before, and he is
going to answer any questions you might have. There are a couple of things that have
come up before. You have touched on a couple of things that have come up, as far as
the~road over the dam. On the preliminary plat which was given to you. The road
over the dam were emergency lanes, and were not meant to be used all the time. We
feel the County Engineer report shows that we have used a practical means to protect
the Reservoir, and that we are doing all we can to protect the Reservoir. We just
ask you to lOok at it, weigh it all, and ask you to vote on it.
Mr. Wheeler: Thank you sir. All right, does anyone else have any new information
to bring before the Board.
2-12-75 (Night)
539
Mr, JeRoyd X. Greene: Yes sir, there is a matter which I would like to bring to
your attention. I guess the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words
(Pause), I'm JeRoyd X. Greene. I have some pictures of some R2 zoned land right on
the Reservoir, of which this land runs directly into the Reservoir, and the density
on this is 6 units per acre. As you will notice there are septic tanks, which are
right behind the property, and which there could be and probably would on a large
rainfall, have flowoff directly into your Reservoir. The land which is contiguous to
the Reservoir and running into the Reservoir, is zoned for high density usage, some
of which is greater than that which Mr. Fleming has requested. These are very
beautiful pictures by the way, and there is completely nothing to stop any developer,
only that land running directly into the Reservoir from putting in multi-dwelling
units, condominiums, what-have-you, because that has already been zoned. I have a
feeling that in the words of "Big Daddy", in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", I feel that
there is mandasity in the air. You have dragged out all of these experts, all of
whom, if you put them in a great big pile with them and 15¢, you can get a cup of
coffee. Why I say that is because not one person, not one person has come in with
any concrete evidence, that this particular planned unit development, if allowed to
exist, would tip the ecological balance of the Reservoir. Not one iota. Everything
has been based upon speculation. Speculation which is not even supported by data,
data which is at least two years old. You had a gentlemen come in from the Health
Department, he said that you should have no planning, and I noticed that you gen-
tlemen got to squirming. I also know that all of. you gentlemen are up for re-elec-
tion in November and there is a great deal of political pressure in your County
because this developer is black and the possibility that the development will be
housing low and middle income people. The only issue that is before this body, is a
zoning request. That zoning request has to be made irrespective of racial consid-
eration, irrespective of political considerations, and it must be made in my opinion,
consistent with land use and zoning determinations which have been made prior to
this. You cannot make a determination depriving a man reasonable use of his landon
speculation, and as an attorney-at,law, I deal with facts and evidence as you gentlemen
do. You have presented no evidence, or there has been no evidence presented here
which concretely establishes 1) The present state of the Reservoir in terms of its
ecological crisis, 2) the "beyond a reasonable doubt" impact of this particular
project on that, that is that this is the straw that will break the camel's back, and
we would submit that given all of the information that you have, you have no choice
but to vote this up, that is to give Mr. Fleming his 6.7 density as he requested,
because anything less than that would have a racially impacted result. That is
today, that you as a matter~ of fact that it has been brought to your attention that
the probable use for this development will be for low and middle income families.
That is the first thing you know. You also know .that anything less than 6.7 units
per acre, will drive the cost of building and drive the cost of acquisition out of
2-12-75 (Night)
the range of these individuals. So, therefore, whatever you profess in terms of your
motives, the result is the only issue that we are going to have to deal with. If The
result of your decision is to drive the price and the cost of this out of the range
of persons in the inner city who desparately need housing, then with the information
that you have that I have seen (I asked Mr. Tucker to send me all the information and
he did) and all we have is speculation, sheer speculation. So we would only say
this: If you deny this 6.7 density, then we ask you to put a moratorium on all
development, all development in Albemarle County, because to deprive Mr. Fleming
based on speculation, would require that you also deprive everybody else on specu-
lation, because that is what the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
means. You already have an opinion from one of the experts that was called into this
workshop that there should be no development. So, we submit that the compromise in
this case is not four units per acre, or five or three, but that it is either what
Mr. Fleming has requested, or no further building plus, down-grading of~the present
high density planned unit developments and other zoning determinations which have
been made for which there has not been one piece of scratch on the ground in terms of
development. Particularly, and I make this point plan, if you are concerned about
the people of Albemarle County and the people of Charlottesville that have to drink
this water, the first thing that you should do is put a moratorium on building on
that land which goes right directly into the Reservoir, for which there has been a
zoning determination made, for which tomorrow they could bring the tractors out and
begin to build high-rises, or low-rises, or no-rises and put any number of people on
there. So we would submit that if there is good faith here, and I don't know whether
there is, it will only be determined at the end of what you say, then you will move
consistent with this paranoia which seems to float around the County that black folks
are going to move in. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not Mr. Fleming
gets his zoning request. I think he has put a good plan together, I think he has
supported the data, and I don't think you have one iota of concrete evidence to
establish a negative ecological impact on the Reservoir at this time.
Mr. Wheeler: Does anyone have any new information? Gentlemen, the public
hearing is closed. We are going to take a two minute recess.
(Recess began at 9:00 P.M. and meeting was called back to order at 9:10 P.M.)
Mr. Wheeler: Gentlemen, the meeting is back in session, the matter is now with
the Board, and Mr. Carwile would like to make some comments.
Mr. Carwile: I would just like to make several comments with respect to several
things that I have heard tonight. 1) I do not feel that it is upon this Board to
carry the burden of proof as to whether this zoning should be approved or disapproved
or whether it is in the public welfare or not. I think it is on the applicant, he
has the burden of proof of showing that the zoning is not going to be to the detri-
ment of the public welfare, and more important than that, I don't think that in the
consideration of a Reservoir, that we have to be pushed to the point that this is
2-12-75 (Night)
going to be the straw that broke the camel's back. I think we are going to have to
take into account the Reservoir and plan, and not wait until it reaches a crisis
situation. I fully agree with Mr. Greene, however, that our decision should be based
upon sound land use planning and upon those things which our zoning ordinance should
take into effect. I do not believe; in fact I know, that this Board is not going to
consider the racial issues, that that is not an issue before this Board. It was not
an issue until it was brought here. As I look at this matter, and as I consider some
of the land use aspects of it, some of the things that our Zoning Ordinance tells us
that we should look at. I have serious reservations as to whether or not this will
not adversely effect some of the adjacent property, and impair its value. These are
some of the criteria that our Zoning Ordinance in the provision with respect %o
special use permits, addresses itself to. I think that the Zoning Ordinance also
provides a possible or tentative solution to that, in that it goes on to say in the
special use section, that the Board may require buffer strips, and I think that we
are faced here with the situation that if we are going to allow (and I'm not sure
that this will happen), but if high density development is to be allowed within a
relatively rural area, undeveloped area, I think this Board has to take into account
providing buffer protection to some of the adjacent property owners who feel, and I
think with some degree of justification, that their property values will be impaired
by a use, an intense use, that has not been consistent with the previous uses in the
area. The (Pause) I have serious reservations about allowing any traffic or any
access on Lamb's Road at the present time, until it is improved, and I think that
before this Board can consider whether it is going to approve or not approve it, it
has to sit down a~do some serious formulation of what would be the proper conditions
for approval. I for one think that any motion for approval would be premature,
unless we are at a point where we have by consensus amongst the Board, agreed upon
what would be the conditions. I would hate for us to address density or address
approval without first addressing in some degree of detail, Mr. Chairman, what the
conditions would be, and I think the conditions would have to be more extensive than
those which have been presented tonight. I think that there would have to be some
modification of those and some additional conditions.
Okay, thank you Mr. Carwile. Mr. Fisher, do you have some comments
Mr. Wheeler:
you want to make?
Mr. Fisher:
Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned about this matter for some time
and I have some comments that I have to make. The question that Mr. Greene has
brought to us, and Mr. Fleming has brought to us about the question of whether or not
this is a racial matter. They are the only two people who have mentioned this ex-
plicitly and implicitly to me in any of the discussions that I have had with anyone
about the use of this property. Several letters were referenced by Mr. Humphrey at
the first hearing, they were not read. I want to read a few excerpts from these
letters. The first is from Mr. Steven M. Young, Department of Health, Bureau of
Sanitary Engineering.
2-12-75 (Night)
"When considering the management of a water supply source such as the South
Rivanna Reservoir, the overriding principle which must be acknowledged is
the protection of that source from any type of contamination which might
affect the public health. It is important to realize that the South
Rivanna Reservoir is the only nearby raw water source capable of satisfying
future water supply demand for the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Area."
The second letter I wish to read from is January 6, 1975 from Mr. J. Harvey
Bailey concerning Evergreen.
"Provided that the conditions at the lower end of the property are suitable
for a dam site, it seems feasible to construct a flood-control system that
would catch practically all the run-off from the subject property, ... The
owner's'engineer should give data and design to demonstrate the following:
The maximum storm run-off volume to be stored, the discharge rate
through the dam and the time of sedimentation secured thereby.
Design of emergency spillway
Method of removal of debris and/or sediment from the impoundment
Computations on the effectiveness of the dam relative to the reduction
of sediment entering the Rivanna Reservoir.
It is imperative that such a structure should be made operative before
clearing and grading operations are begun in the areas to be developed...
We do not have any data on how to treat storm water to remove the objec-
tionable nutrients. The owner's engineer could be invited to make a proposal,
or, he could be invited to show that the amount of nutrients that could be
expected to enter the reservoir are immaterial to its condition.
Sanitary sewage may be pumped from the area, provided there are proper
safeguards to insure continuous service and methods to prevent the dis-
charge of sewage into the reservoir."
The next letter that I want to read from is from the State Water Control Board
Mr. M. D. Phillips.
"While it is true that the plan considers possible phasing out of the
impoundment (on page 104), we believe that until alternate sources are
fully developed, the quality of the existing reservoir should be protected
to the maximum extent possible... We are aware of no practical technology
that could be used to control or divert the runoff. We are aware of no
practical means to avoid this situation." (which is talking about trash
and other floatable debris)
"If the development is unavoidable, there are measures that could tend to
reduce the impact on the impoundment, but I would like to stress that, in
our opinion, such measures would not eliminate the problems that could be
expected."
The fourth letter I wish to read from is from Mr. Erich Bartsch, State Depart-
ment of Health.
"This Department is of the opinion that a development of this nature
would, indeed, be detrimental to the reservoir which is already exper-~
iencing problems."
The fifth letter is from Mr. Lawrence R. Quarles, Chairman of the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority to the Planning Commission, which says:
"I hope the Commission will give careful consideration to the potential
irreversible harm which may result from high density development before the
facts from the study are available for guidance in setting up adequate
control ~to protect the reservoir."
Now, I agree with Mr. Carwile, the responsibility to prove damage to the Reservoir
should not fall to the County, it is the applicant's responsibility to prove that it
is not detrimental to the public welfare. I don't believe that that has been shown.
The question of the existing high zoning around ~the Reservoir has been addressed.
That high density zoning was not approved by this Board of Supervisors, it was approved
several years ago when there was no great concern over the eminent demise of the
Reservoir as a major source of water for the present and future population of the
2-12-75 (Night)
entire community. I believe at the time of that zoning, the Reservoir was considered
to be a scenic and recreational attraction, and that some development along its
shores was seen to be both inevitable and profitable. However, even since the passing
of the County's Comprehensive Plan in 1971, which must by law be revised by the end
of 1976, alarming degradation of the quality of the Reservoir has become apparent to
many, if not to all of the urban suburban community. The responsibility for the
protection of that public facility can be shared but only so far. And insofar as
land use in it's watershed is concerned, only the members of this Board of Super-
visors, can be pointed to for its protection. If we do not do our jobs to protect
the public interest in this matter, then we are indeed the ones whom the accusing
fingers of the future will point. That is all I have to say.
Mr. Wheeler: Thank you Mr. Fisher. Mr. Thacker, do you have any comments at
this particular time?
Mr. Thacker: Mr. Chairman, I think most of my comments would be repetitious. I
think one thing that perhaps should be pointed out and placed into .the record is the
fact that this Board as well as the City Council of Charlottesville has received
information from an ad hoc committee concerning the degradation.of the Reservoir, the
eutrification and the sedimentation. We have been requested, and it was recommended
by that particular committee, that this Board institute a study. I think the figure
of $200,000 implimenting that study was the figure used by the Committee. But I
think this is a matter of public record, I think it is a matter that every informed
citizen within Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville is aware of, and I
don't think it is particularly necessary to go to the time and have it re-entered
into the record in this particular matter. I would have to agree with both the
statements made by both Mr. Carwile and Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Wheeler: Mr. Wood do you have any comments at this time?
Mr. Wood: Mr. Chairman I don't have any comments at this time.
Mr. Wheeler: Mr. Henley, do you have any comments at this particular time?
Mr. Henley: Well, I'm not ready to vote on this, because I think (Pause) I'm
not convinced that this lake which is going to be used as a sediment basin (Pause) no
one has convinced me that it is going to work yet. The Soil ConServation said they
haven't been to look at it yet to determine whether it is going to be big enough.
I'm not ready to vote on something like this unless I know sort of the stages in
which it is going to be developed before overloading Hydraulic Road more than it is;
I would like to know how fast it is going to be developed, and how it will work in
with the improvement of Hydraulic Road. I certainly agree with the comments of the
other Board members on the other things.
Mr. Wheeler: Well gentlemen, if I can maybe try to put this together, from your
comments they seem to be, certainly from Mr. Carwile's comments, that if we do want
to consider the approval of this special permit at some density, either at 6.7 or
some lesser density, that any conditions that might go with that special permit
2-12-75 (Night)
4 4
certainly need some further consideration and work that needs to be done. In that
case, we do need time. If it is the decision or the feeling of this Board that this
petition is to be denied, I think that work would be futile. So, gentlemen, I would
say to you that if there is some consideration of approving this, either with the
density that the applicant is asking for or some density that this Board~could agree
to, then I would recommend that this Board be given a few more days and that this be
continued to a time when we can make a final decision. John, when is our next zoning
meeting?
Mr. John Humphrey: It would be March 5th is the next scheduled, the next one
after that would be March 26th. Mr. Chairman, if I'm not out of order, I would like
to.point out, that if it is to be deferred for additional conditions, there is very
little that the staff can do to add to the conditions unless we know what density,
and what the proposed layout will be and where it is located. It would be rather
hard for the staff to come up with any specifics. This is the reason we have asked
for a 2.5 if something other than the applicant has requested is granted, we need to
have another site plan submitted for review in view of that density.
Mr. Wheeler: Well, gentlemen, do you wish to discuss this a little bit?
Mr. Fisher: I am of the opinion with the staff and the planning commission,
that to grant a density of 6.7 dwelling units per acre would likely, would defin-
itely, violate the Comprehensive Plan that we now have. It would likely constitute,
that is in my opinion, a clear and eminent danger to the public welfare as it is
imbodied in the Reservoir. I have no intention of supporting that density. I
believe that it is the applicant's position that he wants that or nothing, and since
he has stated that a number of times, I'm not certain what purpose it would serve by
considering a density less than that.
Mr. Wheeler: Well, I think I can state for those reasons I could not support it
at 6.7, but with the proper conditions, with the proper buffers~ as Mr. Carwile spoke
of, I certainly could support a density of 2.5 as recommended by Planning, in line
with our Comprehensive Plan and would like for the Board to give some consideration
to that particular density, and working on conditions for consideration.
Mr. Henley: Well, I maybe could support that too, but I think it's not up to
our Department to keep providing this information that we need, and I think we need
to know more about this catch basin. He says it's going to be five to ten years, but
we don't know that it is, I think we need a schedule, and if he is going to go at a
slow rate, you may not need as much of a lake, but I don't know this and I need
somebody to tell and like I say, I'd like to know how fast he is going to build this
before I vote on Hydraulic Road. But I don't believe it is up to us to provide this
information.
Mr. Thacker: No, but really, on the other hand, we condition a special use
permit to the extent that we want to in that regard, I would think. Isn't that true
Mr. St. John?
2-12-75 (Night)
Mr. St. John: I don't think you can establish the building rate.
Mr. Henley: No, but he could tell us what it is going to be and then determine
whether I'm going to
Mr. St. John: But, may I at this point raise a question which occur~d to me
while we are all here. This may not be the best time to do it, but the applicant is
here, his attorney's and engineer is here, and this seems to me to be a ~good time to
bring up this question so everybody knows they exist and resolve them. This lake as
I understand it is to be maintained by the Homeowners Association, and there is a
definite problem in the future about this. I know for example, of the case of Lake
Louisa, which washed out, and this is not even a lake that is necessary for the
health and welfare of the community, it is only a recreational lake, so whether it is
rebuilt or not only effects those who enjoy it for recreation. This lake is going to
be something that effects the general health and welfare of the entire watershed, a
large part of the community, and yet it is not going to be maintained by the service
authority, or the county, or the county government, and I understand we don't want to
be responsible for doing this, and yet if you ~nvision when this lake may wash out
because of a flood, the only way to rebuild it is for the Board of DirectorS of the
Homeowners Association, who are themselves home owners and responsible to the others,
they are going to have to assess the home owners in this particular development,
funds with which to rebuild this sedimentation lake'if it is rebuilt at all. If they
don't rebuild that, there is nothing in the law to force them to do it and they may
well not want to do it, it is expensive. A flood can happen every two months for
example, as soon as they get it built, it could wash out again. It's directors are
going to have to assess these people to rebuild it, and they are going to feel that
they have a lake there which is not only for their health and so forth, but which
gives benefit to other people up stream who cannot be assessed to rebuild it. There
is no way that the County Government or the County Court System can force this Home-
owners Association to rebuild this lake if something happens to it. I don't know the
answer to this, but it is a problem which I think Mr. Fleming's attorney's can work
on and we'll work on, but it should be resolved before the conditions are decided on.
I don't see how a Homeowners Association handling the maintenance of this lake can
work, in other words.
Mr. Henley: As much problem as we have maintaining the roads, you know they are
not going to maintain a dam.
Mr. St. John: I don't think it would work, and I think it ought to be realized
at this point that either the County or the service authority will have to be respon-
sible for %his dam, and if that is the case, then some means of collecting revenues
to take care of it will have to be provided for, either from the developer or however
you all want to see to it. But I just don't think a Homeowners Association will be
able to willing to do it.
Mr. Wheeler: Gentlemen, which direction do we go?
2-12-75 (Night)
Mr. Fisher: I repeat my question, if the applicant states that 6.7 dwelling
units is what he wants, and'I personally cannot support that, I'm not certain what
purpose we are going to serve by holding further work sessions, and he has stated
categorically through his attorneys and himself that this is'what he wants and
nothing else.
Mr. Wheeler: Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter: Yes, I think Mr. Fisher is exactly right. Further work sessions
are not going to help. We have presented all the plans and specifications that we
are required to present at this stage of the planned development, in accordance with
the present zoning ordinance. If there is anything else that is needed, Mr. Rouda-
bush is here to answer your questions, but our position is that further work sessions
and further conditions; we've got all the Conditions on it now that we can take, and
we ask the Board to make a decision.
Mr. Carwile: Mr. Carter did I understand you to reply that it is the applicant's
position that you will only be satisfied with 6.7 units per acre?
Well, that is the application, 2.5 is really economically unfeas-
Mr. Carter:
ible.
Mr. Carwile:
Mr. Carter:
2.5 is unacceptable to the applicant?
That is right, we asked for 6.7; while we may rather have 2.5 than
none, we want you to vote tonight, because this has been going on a long time, and
further work sessions
Mr. Wheeler: You said you would rather have 2.5 than none.
Mr. Carter: Only for other purposes,~ but we asked for 6.7, that is the request
we have before you, and we would ask you to vote on it.
Mr. Carwile.: I understand what the applicant is saying that they want us to
vote on the request for 6.7 or none, then I regret that if nothing can be worked out
in the spirit of compromise and good planning and taking into account the public
welfare, we are faced with here; I therefore make a motion to deny the special use
permit.
Mr. Fisher:
Mr. Wheeler:
Mr. Thacker:
Second.
Discussion gentlemen, or do we need any further discussion?
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one very brief comment. The
2.5 as recommended by the Planning Staff I believe is in accordance with the Com-
prehensive Plan, which really is a guide and not a firm dictate. But I think that in
every instance in the past where we have had a planned unit development special use
permit come before the Board, we have based approval based on the Comprehensive Plan.
In every case I think we have followed the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan,
and for that reason I will support Mr. Carwile's motion.
Mr. Wheeler: I would just like to repeat gentlemen, the fact that I cannot
support 6.7. I think every reason has been stated for that and I think that with the
concern for the ReservOir that only with the proper safeguards would I even consider
2-12-75 (Night)
5 4 ::TA
2.5, and for that reason, I expect to.support the motion.
Mr. Carwile: May I speak to my own motion. I woUld just like to say so the
record will have it in it, that were the applicant willing to accept something con-
sistent with the master plan, I would be willing to consider it with the appropriate
COnditions, but I do not understand the applicant to be willing to do that. I agree
with you that future workshops will then be futile.
Mr, Wheeler: Any further discussion gentlemen? Call the role.
AYES: MesSrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood.
NAYS: None
The petition is denied, gentlemen, we will take a two minute
Mr. Wheeler:
recess.
(CLERKS NOTE:
End Verbatim Transcript)
The next item discussed ~si~hot~n~;~heT~agenda. Mr. Thacker announced that he
was g~ng~c~.t~i;~a~s~ai~f.r~e:~fol~.o~in~ ~sc~ss~n. Mr. Wood reported on the option
agreement to be entered into to take over the Elks Home for use by the Juvenile
Court. Mr. Wood reported that the Elks members voted on selling the Lodge to the
County for use by the Juvenile Court, and this motion passed by more than a two-
thirds vote. He noted that this agreement was discussed by Mr. Gilliam and Mrs.
Rinehart of the Charlottesville City Council and Mr. Gerald Fisher, and they are.
hopeful that the City Council and the Board of Supervisors will approve this action
and give the matter back to the Committee to make appropriate arrangements with
architects. Mr, Wheeler suggested that this matter be placed on the agenda for
Thursday, FebrUary 20, 1975.
Mr. Lee Hall, a citizen of the County, asked for a few moments with the Board to
discuss a problem he was having regarding zoning. He stated to the Board that the
Health Department inspected his well on 121274, belonging to Hall Brothers Corporate
Homes, on Avon Street Extended, and found the well to be contaminated. The Health
Department stated that contamination came from the intestinal tract of a warm blooded
animal. He further stated that a neighbor had horses located on a tract of land
about 15 feet from his well. Mr. Hall added that the Zoning Administrator sent out a
letter requesting the animals to be removed, on December 18th, and that the animals
were not removed until January 30th. He stated that there was a conflict betWeen the
Zoning Administrator and the neighbor, but that he has still lost the use of his
well. He referred and presented to the Board a copy of a letter written by a Mrs.
Pleasants dated February 4, 1975 read to the Board by Mr. Carwile, stating that they
had permission from the Planning Office to build a stable .~n their property and that
the houses were legally there.
Mr. Fisher asked if a test had been conducted on the water in the well Since the
2-12-75 (Night)
removal of the horses. Mr. Hall stated gone had been made. He added th~ the con-
tamination of his well was the fault of either the Zoning Office, the Planning Office
or someone, and he wanted tD know who. He stated that he was now out a $2,000 well,
and his employees must bring their water from home, and he wanted the Board to find
out who was liable for the damages to his well. Mr. St. John stated that whether or
not the well was defective, and regardless of the fact that the horses were there in
violation of the zoning~ ordinance or not, the Board has no power or authority to
determine who is liable in this matter. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance and the
Zoning Administrator have no control over "nuisances" to adjoining land owners, as
long as the "nuisance" is not in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. St. John
stated that his only recourse was through the Civil Courts.
Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned a~ 10:30 P.M.
Chairman