1973-08-23219
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
was held on August 23, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Char-
lottesville, Virginia. Said meeting being adjourned from August 22, 1973.
PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., Gordon
L. Wheeler, and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
ABSENT: Mr. William C. Thacker, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive and County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and requested an executive session to
discuss with the County Attorney a matter which may be the subject of litigation. Motion
to this effect was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the
following recorded vote:
Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood.
AYES'
NAYS'
None.
The Board reconvened at 7'41 P.M.
hearing on the Land Use Tax Ordinance.
At this time the Chairman called for a public
Notice of this hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on August 10 and August 17, 1973.
Mr. Wheeler stated that the staff had been instructed to draft a report concerning
the cost of implementing this ordinance and he asked Mr. Batchelor to make a presenta-
tion.
Mr. Batchelor said the staff had been instructed to visit Loudoun and Fauquier
Counties. Neither of these counties felt the Board could implement this tax without
a soil survey, however,.the staff had talked to other people around the state and since
this time had found that a soil survey was not necessary if the ordinance is enacted
for three classes; good, medium and farm soils. The staff feels the Board would
need to hire three qualified men who would be able to make appraisals of land for
capabilities. The cost of this plus two clerks is approximately $116,000. Mr.
Batchelor said new guidelines have been received from the State and there is an al-
ternate method. Although State statute does not require that the owner furnish the
information needed as to soil classifications this could be included in the ordinance
as a condition. He said if the Board wished to implement this tax for the year 1974
the ordinance would have to be enacted immediately. The staff recommended a fee of
$25 be charged to help offset the administrative costs involved. He said that nothing
had been worked out on how the land book would work and no system had been established
for the collection of roll-back taxes.
At this time the Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. Robert Woodall said he had not come seeking tax relief. His interest was on
behalf of the farmers in Albemarle county since he is in favor of keeping the farms
in the County in their_ present state and not having them eroded by industry.
Mr. John Smart said he thought Soil Conservation would help get the soil informa-
tion needed and he felt that most farmers already have a soil plan and a capability
map of their lands. He recommended that the ordinance be enacted this year and a filing
?"~ha~ge of $10 for a farm of 100 acres and an additional 50~ for any acreage above That.
Mr. Vernon Maupin'said he was totally against the land use tax. He felt it was
unfair.
Mr. Fred Scott, a member of the Land Use Tax Committee, spoke in favor of the
land use tax.
Mr. Robert Coles of Keswick, spoke in favor.
Mr. Tom Blue said he felt the adoption of this ordinance would also help the
master plan by preserving open spaces that are not farms.
Mr. Wheeler asked if the staff had considered a filing fee of $15 for 100 acres
and $25 for all over 100. Mr. Batchelor said it had been considered but the staff
felt it would create more administrative problems. Mr. Carwile thought the County
should recover as much loss as possibl6 .through the $25 application fee. Mr. Henley
felt the fee should be set at a minimum of $25 with an additional charge per acre. Mr.
Batchelor said his figure was based on parcels and not on acreage. Mr. Jones said
the ordinance as written said that contiguous land put to two or more qualified uses
must have an application filed for each use. Mr. Simms said the applications must be
filed by parcel and it will cost as much to process each parcel as it would to pro-
cess an acreage. Mr. Batchelor said that the applicant would have to identify acreage
and the classification for each parcel. Mr. Fisher suggested that the filing fee be
per parcel with an acreage fee.
Mr. St. John said that on Page 4, Paragraph B, Section 9-31 of the proposed
ordinance there should be added to the end of the last sentence under that paragraph
the words, "And a separate application shall be filed for each parcel on the land
book."
Musselman
Mr. ~obert~sked if this would be a charge for one year or a recurring charge.
Mr. Wheeler said the Board had decided they would review this matter at the end of
the first year and make a decision at that time. Mr. St. John said he could not
see why the applicant would have to apply each year since he is bound by law to re-
port any changes in use of his property.
Mr. Fred Scott felt it would emasculate the law if it were based on $15 per
parcel and an acreage charge. He said this would reduce the benefit to the property
owners the Board was trying to reach by this law and he recommended that for the
first year there be no application fee charged.
Mr. Fisher then offered motion that the application fee under the proposed
ordinance be $15 per parcel plus 10~ an acre on such parcel. Motion was seconded
by Mr. Carwile.
Mr. Wood said that this filing fee would not cover the cost of implementing
this ordinance. He asked who would make up this tax loss next March when it is
time to adopt a new County .budget and there is needed a p, ossible 50~ per $100
increase on the tax rate.
Vote was taken at this time and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
8-23-73
22i
AYES' Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS' None.
Motion was Offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood to amend, Section 9-31,
page 4, paragraph B of the proposed ordinance by adding the following words to
the end of the la'st sentence of that paragraph, ~'And a separate application shall be
filed for each parcel on the land book." Motion carried by the folloWing recorded vote'
AYES' Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS' None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to adopt the Land Use Tax Ordinance as amended,
with the effective date to be August 23, 1973.
Mr. Wood said he had followed House Bill 99 since it began and he had talked to
supervisors in Fauquier and Loudoun Counties and their experiences had not been pleasant.
In Albemarle County he £elt that it was important to preserve the land as it is,
however, he had grave questions as to whether this is the proper method. He felt
that when legislation is passed that will effect the budget, it should be enacted at
budget time. He said that not only is the Board voting to preserve open spaces but
they are also voting for a tax increase for nex~ year.
Mr. Fisher's motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote' ·
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS- None.
(The full text of the ordinance as 'adopted is set out below).
LAND USE TAX ORDINANCE
Chapter 9
ARTICLE VIII
ORDINANCE FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
AGRICULTURAL, HORTICULTURAL, FOREST OR
OPEN SPACE REAL ESTATE
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle finds that aa expanding population and reduction
in the quantity of real estate devoted to agricultural, horticultural, forest and
open space uses make the preservation of such real estate a matter vital ~o the public
interest; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to encourage the preservation and proper
use of such real estate in order to assure a readily available source of agricultural,
horticultural, and forest products and of open spaces within reach of concentrations
of population to conserve natural resources in forms which will prevent erosion,
to protect adequate and safe water supplies, to preserve scenic natural beauty and
open spaces and to promote proper land use planning and the orderly development of
real estate for the accommodation of an expanding population; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to promote a balanced economy and ameliorate
222
pressures which force the conversion of such real estate to more intensive uses
and which are attributable in part to the assessment of such real estate at values
incompatible with its use and preservation for agricultural, horticultural, forest
or open space purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle, having heretofore adopted a land-use plan
as set forth in Article'4, Chapter 11 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950);
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board. of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia that real estate devoted to agricultural, horticultural, forest
and open space uses within its boundaries shall be taxed i'n accordance with the
provisions of Article 1.1 of Chapter 15 of Title 58 of the Code of Virginia (1950),
and of this ordinance, to promote the preservation of such real estate ultimately
for the public benefit.
Section 9-30. Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance the following
special classifications of real estate are established and defined:
(a) Real estate devoted to agricultural use shall mean real estate when devoted
to the bona fide production for sale of plants and animals useful to man under uni-
form standards prescribed by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce or when
devoted to and meeting the requirements and qualifications for payments or compen-
sation pursuant to a soil conservation program under an agreement with an agency of
the federal government.
(b) Real estate devoted to horticultural use shall mean real estate when devoted
to the bona fide production for sale of fruits of all kinds, including grapes, nuts
and berries; vegetables; nursery and floral products; or when devoted to and meeting-
the requirements and qualifications for payments or other compensation pursuant to
a soil 'conservation program under an agreement with an agency of the federal govern-
ment.
(c) Real estate devoted to forest use shall mean land, when devoted to tre~
growth in Such quantity and so spaced and maintained as to constitute a forest area
under standards prescribed by the Director of'the Virginia Department of Conservation
and Economic Development pursuant to the authority set out in Sec. 58-769.12, Code
of Virginia, including the standing timber and trees thereon.
(d) Real estate devoted to open space use shall mean real estat~ when so used
as to be provided or preserved for park or recreational purposes, conservation of
land or other natural resources, floodways, historic or scenic purposes, or assisting
in the shaping of the character, direction, and timing of community development, under
uniform standards prescribed by the Director of the Commission of Outdoor Recreation
pursuant to the authority set out in Sec. 58-769.12, Code of Virginia, and this
ordi.nance.
Section 9-31. Application by Property Owners for Assessment.
(a) The owner o3 any real estate meeting the criteria set forth in Sec. 9-30 and
Section 9-32(b) herein and the standards adopted by the Commissioner of Agriculture
8-23-73
223
and Commerce, the Director of the Department of Conservation and Economic Development
or the Director of the Commission of Outdoor Recreation, and this ordinance may, on
or before November 1 of each year, apply to the local assessing officer for the
classification, assessment and taxation of such property for the next succeeding
Tax year on the basis of its use. SUch application shall be on forms supplied by the
State Commissioner of Taxation and made available by the local assessing officer and
shall include such additional schedules, photographs and draWings as may be required
by the local assessing officer.
(b) Where contiguous land is devoted to two or more qualifying uses, a separate
application shall be filed for each use and a separate application shall be filed
for each parcel on the land book.
Section 9-32. Determinations to be Made by Local Officers Before Assessment of
Real Estate Under Ordinance. Promptly upon receipt of any application and prior to
the assessment of any parcel of real estate under this ordinance, the local assessing
officer or the Director of Finance~shall determine whether the subject property meets
the criteria for taxation hereunder:
(a) Determine that the real estate meets the criteria set forth in Sec.
9-30 above and the standards prescribed thereunder to qualify for one of the class-
ifications set forth therein, and he may request an opinion from the Director of
the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Commission of Outdoor Re-
creation or Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce; and
(b) Determine further that real estate devoted to (1) agricultural or horticul-
tural use consists of a minimum of five acres, (2) forest use consists of a minimum
of twenty acres, and (3) open space use consists of a minimum of five acres.
Section 9-33. Valuation of Real Estate Under Ordinance.
(a) In valuing real estate for purposes of Taxation, the'Director of Finance or
the duly appointed assessing officer shall consider only those indicia of value which
such real estate has for agricultural, horticultural, forest or open space use and
real estate taxes for jurisdiction shall be ex~ended upon the value so determined.
In addition to use.of his personal knowledge, judgment and experience as to the
value of real estate in agricultural, horticultural, forest or open space use, he
shall, in arriving at the value of such land, consider available evidence of agri-
cultural, horticultural, forest or open space capability, and the recommendations of
value of such real estate as made by the State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee.
In such determination the locaI assessing officer or the Director of Finance in
addition to the standards supplied by the State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee,
the standards for £orest areas prescribed by the Director of the Department of Con-
serva~ion and Economic Development, and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce,
and the uniform standards prescribed by the Director of the Commission of Outdoor
Recreation, may request that an opinion of the Director of the Department of Con-
servation and Economic Development as to land which qualifies for forest use, or
an opinion from the Director of the Commission of Outdoor Recreation as to land which
qualifies as open space use.
(b) In determining the total area of real estate actively devoted to agricul- ,
rural, horticultural, forest or open space use there shall be included the area
of all real estate under barns, sheds, silos, cribs, greenhouses, public recreation
facilities and like structures, lakes, dams, ponds, streams, irrtga'tion' ditches, and
like facilities; but real estate under, and such additional real estate as may be ~-~
actually used in connection with, the farm house or home or any other structure not ~
related to such special use shall be excluded in determining such total area.
(c) All structures which are located on real estate in agricultural, horticul-
tural, forest or open.space use and the farm house and~home or any other structure
not related to such special use a~d the real estate on which the farm house or home
or such other structure is located, together with the additional real estate used in
connection therewith, shall be valued, assessed and taxed by the same standards,
methods and procedures as other taxable structures and other real estate in the local-
ity.
(d) In addition, such real estate in agricultural, horticultural, forest or
open space use shall be evaluated on the basis of fair market value as applied to
other real estate in the taxing jurisdiction, and land book records shall be main- ~
rained to show both the use value and the fair market value of such real estate.
Section 9-34. Processing Applications; Continuation of Assessment, Fees, etc.
(a) The local assessing officer shall prepare and transmit to the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, a list of all applications filed and
approved hereunder and the Clerk shall index the names in a book entitled, "Land
Use Tax Assessment Book" and file said application in the Clerk's Office. The Board
of Supervisors of Albemarle County shall, beginning July 1, 1973, compensate the
Clerk at the rate of $1.00 per application filed and indexed, notwithstanding any
limitation provided in Code of Virginia Section 14.1-143 or any other Section of the
Code of Virginia.
(b) An application fee of $15.00 per parcel, plus 10~ an acre on such parcel
is required to accompanyrall applications under this ordinance, payable to the
Director of Finance, Albemarle County. -~
(c) The tax for the next succeeding tax year for property qualifying under this ~
ordinance shall be based on the use value recorded in the Land Use Tax Assessment Book.
(d) Continuation of valuation, assessment and taxation under this ordinance
shall depend on the continuance o£ the real estate in the use for which classi£ica-
tion is granted in compliance with the other requirements of this ordinance and
Article 1.1 of ChapTer 15 of Title 58 of the Code of Virginia, and not upon con-
tinuance of the same owner of title to the land.
3
8-23-73
Section 9-35. Changes In Use of Real Estate Assessed Under Ordinance; Roll-Back
Taxes. When real estate qualifies for assessment and taxation on the basis of use
under this ordinance, and the use by which it qualified changes to non-qualifying use,
it shall be subject to additional taxes, hereinafter referred to as roll-back taxes,
in an amount equal to the amount, if any, by which the taxes paid or payable on the
basis of the valuation, assessment and taxation under this ordinance were exceeded
by the taxes that would have been paid or payable on the basis of the valuation,
assessment or taxation of other real estate in the taxing locality in the year of
the change in each of the five years immediately preceding the year of the change,
plus simple interest on such roll-back taxes at the rate of six per cent per annum.
If in the tax year in which the change of use occurs, the real estate was not valued,
assessed and taxed u'nder this ordinance, the real estate shall be subject to roll-back
taxes for such of the five years immediately preceding in which the_real estate was
valued, assessed and taxed under this ordinance.
(b) In determining roll-back taxes chargeable on real estate which has changed
in use, the Director of Finance shall extend the real estate tax rate for the current
and next preceding five years, or such lesser number of years as the property may
have been taxed on its use value, upon the difference between the value determined
under Section 9-33(d) of this ordinance and the use value determined under Section
.9-33(a) of this ordinance for each such year.
(c) Liability to the roll-back taxes shall attach when a change in use occurs,
but not when a change in ownership of the title takes place if the new owner continues
the real estate in the use for which it is classified under the conditions prescribed
in this ordinance and Article 1.1 of Chapter 15 of Title' 58 of the Code of Virginia
(1950).
Section 9-36. Roll-Back Taxes; Liability and Penalty; Misstatements In Applica-
tions; Failure to Report Change in Use.
(a) The owner of any real estate ,liable for roll-back taxes sh~all, within 60
days following a change in use, veport to the Director of Finance, on forms to be
prescribed, any change in the use of such property to a non-qualifying use, and the
Director of Finance shall compute and bill the taxpayer for the amount of the roll-back
taxes which the owner must then pay within the said 60 day period. Any person
failing to report properly any change in use of property for which an application
for use value taxation had been filed shall be liable for all such taxes, in such
amounts and at such times as if he had complied herewith and assessments had been
properly made, and such owner shall be liable for a penalty equal to one hundred per
centum of the amount of the roll-back tax which penalty shall be collected as a part
of the tax. In addition to such penalty, there is hereby imposed interest of one-half
per centum for each month or fraction thereof, during which the failure continues.
226
(b) Any person making a material mis-sTatement of fact in any application filed.
pursuant hereto shal,1 be liable for taxes, in such amounts and at such times as if
such property had been assessed on the basis of fair market values as applied
to other real estate in the taxing jurisdiction, together with interest and penalties
thereon, and he shall be further assessed with an additional penalty of one hundred
per centum of Such unpaid taxes.
Section 9-37. Separation of Part of Real Estate Assessed Under Ordinance; Con-
tiguous Real Estate Located in More Than One Locality.
(a) Separation or split-off of a part of the real estate which is being valued,
assessed and taxed under this ordinance, either by conveyance or other action of
such real estate for a use other than agricultural, horticultural, forest or open
space, shall subject the real estate so separated to liability for the roll-back taxes
applicable thereto, but shall not impair the right of the remaining real estate to
continuance of such valuation, assessment and taxation, provided it meets minimum
acreag~ requirements and such other conditions of this ordinance and Article 1.1 of
ChapTer 15 of Title 58 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as may be applicable.
(b) Where a contiguous real estate in agricultural, horticultural, forest or
open space use in one ownership is located in more than one tax locality, compliance
with the minimum acreage or gross sales requirements shall be determined on the basis
of the total area of such real estate and not the area which is located in the
particular taxing locality.
Section 9-38. Taxing of Real Estate Assessed Under Ordinance by Right of
Eminent Domain. The taxing of real estate which is being valued, assessed and taxed
under this ordinance by right of eminent domain shall not subject the real estate
so taken To the roll-back taxes herein opposed.
Section 9-39. Application of Other Provisions of Title 58. The provisions
of Title 58 of the Code of Virginia applicable to local levies and real estate
assessment and taxation shall be applicable to assessments and taxation hereunder
mutatis muTandis including, without limitat±on, provisions relating to tax liens
and the correction of erroneous assessments, and for such purposes the roll-back
taxes shall be considered to be deferred real estate taxes.
Section 9-40. Effective Date. The effective date of this ordinance shall be
August 23, 1973.
The next matter under discussion was site plan review for Charlottesville
Shopping World. Action on this matter had been deferred from August 16, 1973.
Mr. Wheeler stated that he did have a conflict of interest_and therefore was ab-
staining and he asked Mr. Fisher to take over duties as Chairman.
Mr. Fisher said that this matter had come to the Board by request of a number
of citizens in Berkeley. He felt the Board had several options: 1) to do nothing
and let the Planning Commission's recommendations stand; 2) the Board could favor
227
the request of the citizens and block the entrance onto Dominion Drive; 3) the
Board could consider another proposal for access and exit with a right-hand turn
only onto Dominion Drive; and 4) that access from Dominion Drive be only an entrance
so the people coming from Berkeley and Four Seasons could enter the shopping center
without going onto Route 29 N. He then stated that if anyone had new information
to present, the Board would hear it at this time.
Mr. James Cosby, representing the Berkeley Community Association, said that this
site plan involves a subdivision of land and is subject to subdivision ordinance
controls. To the best of his knowledge there had not been lawful compliance since
the subdivision plat has not been submitted or approved, therefore, any approval
of the site plan by the Board of Supervisors at this Time should be conditioned
upon this being a lawful subdivision which could come at a future hearing. He said
the Berkeley Community Association should not be prejudiced at the subdivision
hearing by action on this site plan. He also said that if access to .Dominion Drive
is approved, the Berkeley Community Association would oppose the ~divi~sion itself
because of the important fact not being considered here, a 200 ft. by 200 ft. parcel
on the corner. He said if the access is not approved the Berkeley Co~unity Association
probably would not oppose the subdivision of the land since they would have a much
diminished interest. He said if the access were approved it should be conditioned
on the granting on a 63 ft. right of way, the widening of Dominion Drive to 48 feet,
transplanting the white pine trees and reconstructing the rail fence that lines t. he
property at the present time, providing a no-left turn onto Dominion Drive and con-
sideration be given to a traffic light at the corner of Rt. 29 and Dominion Drive.
He said they feel this is a change of the use of the road to a substantial degree and
thereby falls within provisions of Section 15.1-456. He said this would change the
nature of a residential street to a mixed residential commercial street and it would
local
change it from a~thoroughfare to a major thoroughfare and this was inconsistent with
the County's master plan.
Mr. St. John said it was his understanding that this is not a subdivision of
land because the parcel involved in the shopping center is already a parcel separately
owned from the corner and there is no division being Made. Miss Mary Joy White
said that no subdivision had been applied for since the area involved in the shopping
center was over five acres and had access. Mr. St. John said the shopping center area
did not fit into the definitions of the subdivision ordinance. He said if by necessity
the owner cut off an unused portion which was small e~a~ug~'~.t~ constitute a subdivision
it would then be subject to subdivision controls.
Mr. Fisher asked i~ the corner lot had not been subdivided if this qualified as
a proper site plan when only a portion of the property is subject ~o site plan review.
Mr. St. John said yes. When they record a plat dividing the ownership of this, it
would then have ~o come before the staff and the Planning Commission for subdivision
approval.
228
8_23_-73
Mr. Bill RoudabUsh said this site plan only covers a portion of the tract of
land that is owned by one person at this time. At some future time a plat will be
submitted dividing this parcel. Mr. Lloyd Wood asked if Charlottesville Shopping
World is the onwer of this property. Mr. Roudabush said no, they are the contract
purchaser. Mr. St. John asked if the owner and the contract purchaser had. zboth
signed the application for this site plan. Miss White said there is no provision
for this under site plan review. Mrs. Joan Graves said at the Planning Commission
meeting Dr. Catlin did ask about a deceleration lane along Rt. 29 N at the entrance
to Berkeley and he was told that the corner lot was not part of the property and
this could not be made a condition.
Mr. St. John said he based his opinion on this statement because the Planning
Commission was told Charlottesville Shopping World could not provide a deceleration
lane because the land was already owned by a different person. He said if that is
true then this is not a subdivision, it has already been subdivided. Mr. Fisher
said he understood from reading the Planning Commission's minutes and from Mrs.
Graves remarks that it was the Planning Commission's desire to have a deceleration
lane on the corner lot and they were dissuaded from this because the corner lot is
no~ owned by the same owner.
Mr. Roudabush said the land under a binding sales contract does not include
the corner lot. They did not want to submit a subdivision plat and have it recorded
prior to site plan approval since if it was no~ approved it would have to be wiped
off of the records.
Mr. St. John said this was a legitimate reason for saying you could not have a
deceleration lane since the parties rights and obligations are fixed by contract just
as much as if a deed had been drawn.
Mr. Cosby then read the definition of a subdivision from the ordinance. He
felt this is a division of land by sales contract, by site plan submitted and it is
for the purpose of sale or building development either immediate or future.
Mr. Carwile said at the Time there is a subdivision it will come back to the
Planning Commission and will be subject to the subdiVision ordinance at that time.
Mr. St. John said if the Board approved something in the site plan which is not
in conformity with the subdivision ordinance and later the developer submits a
subdivision plat and there is something which is not the same as this plan, he did
not see how it could be disapproved at that time.
Mr. Carwile asked if the staff felt there was anything in the site plan in con-
flict with the existing ordinance. Miss White said the site plan review committee
had reviewed this and they approved it as submitted. Mr. Fisher said that brought.
the discussion-back to the matter of Traffic and roads and he asked Mr. Warner if
he had anything to contribute to this situation as a traffic expert.
Mr. Warner said he had discussed this with district staff and it was their
8-23-73
229
feeling that Dominion Drive should be widened on the side of the development from
Route 29 along the entire length of the property. He said there was no way to require
the developer to develop the opposite side of the road. In order to have this
entrance and exit on Dominion Drive there would have to be sufficient room to provide
a left turn and storage lane for people coming out of Berkeley into the shopping center
area, and if this is not provided the exit will not be permitted onto Dominion Drive.
Mr. Fisher asked if it was his feeling that to widen Dominion Drive on the
side of the property requested would remove the white pine trees in question. Mr.
Warner said there was no question about this. Mr. Wood said this is strictly from
an engineering point of view to handle the traffic. Mr. Warner said correct.
Mr. Wood asked if the district engineers had considered that traffic for a small
shopping center such as this could be handled from Route 29. Mr. Warner said this
was basically what he had said, it could be done.
Mr. Fisher said if this is approved as recommended by the Plann±ng Commission
then the Highway Department itself will decide if an entrance will be permitted
there based on the applicant's desire to widen Dominion Drive. Mr. Warner said this
was basically true. Mr. Wood said then it would be out of the Board's hands and
would be the decision of someone in Culpeper who would say this would have to be
widened and this would destroy the entrance. He said it was his impression when this
matter was brought to the Board that the Berkeley Community Association was not
opposed to the shopping center but they object to destroying the residential at-
mosphere of the entrance that has been created there. He said the Board protected
this atmosphere when they granied the first PUD for Four Seasons. There were three
months of discussion that went intop~ote.e~ingDominion Drive. He said that if this
entrance is granted onto Dominion Drive and in the future someone brings in ~a site
plan for the corner lot for some type of customer-oriented business, th~ Board could
not deny a~other entrance right beside this one onto Dominion Drive. If the
engineer's have determined that this shopping center can be adequately handled from
its frontage on Route 29 and leave the entrance closed, he felt it would be wise to
accept their advice.
Mr. Fisher. asked Mr. Rubin for comments. Mr. Rubin said he had not been able
to hear and asked that Mr. Warner's comments be repeated. Mr. Fisher said the High-
way Department had decided that in order for a permit to be issued for an entrance
onto Dominion Drive that the owner of the site plan would have to provide additional
land and roadway. This would provide for an ultimate 65 ft. right of way.
An unidentified gentleman said Charlottesville Shopping World had agreed to
provide three 11 ft. lanes to accommodate the problem talked about. The purpose
would be to provide two out lanes on Dominion Drive, one of which would provide
stacking into the shopping center, the other for left-hand turns moving onto Rt. 29
so that right turn movements would not have to be repeated. He felt these three
23'0
8-23-73
lanes from Route 29 back to a point approximately 100 ft. passed' the entrance to
the shopping center were sufficient and he did not see any reason for a fourth.
Mr. Fisher said 100 ft. from the entrance toward Berkeley seemed like a short
distance. He said it seemed that the taking of additional land may completely
remove the screening which was provided for under the site plan approval. Mr.
Rubin said it had been worked out so that there need be no white pines taken down.
In order to do that they cannot conform exactly to the Board's speci£ications.
Mr. Wood said he did not feel that a no left turn would be good or make any improve-
ment but would create a problem.
An unidentified gentleman said with the residences already in Berk~ey and Four
Seasons and an estimated total of 3,000 people in these subdivisions in the future,
this
it was almost insane to require two left turns on Rt. 29 and~would be encouraged by
closing this exit on Dominion Drive. ,~,
Mr. Wood said that when the Board approved the permit for Four Seasons they
had approved a certain amount of commercial, and as far as the growth patterns in
that area are concerned, ~our Seasons also has an exit onto Rio Road. There has
also been a new road constructed to eliminate the use of Rio Road. This comes in
almost adjacent to .this property.
Mr. Cosby asked that the Highway Department reconsider their position concerning
right of way. He said the requirement of the law and requirement of:the State High-
way standard is that after completion of the project it must be in compliance with
the standards. He felt that all of this additional right of way must come off of
the part being developed since that is the part creating the burden. He said the
developers traffic~representative had stated that widening the road to be in com-
pliance would not require the removal of the white pine row on the north side of
Dominion Drive. He showed a photograph.. He said that the trees there now overhang
Dominion Drive and he did not think the statement before this was correct since you
could see that they would have to be removed in order to widen Dominion Drive.
Mr. Carwile said if the Chairman was ready to entertain a motion he felt the
Board had heard both sides of the issue entirely.
Mr. Lawrence Pettit, President of the Berkeley Community Association said they
are opposed to any operation of the Dominion entrance to Berkeley. They are opposed
to making it a thoroughfare and they felt this Board had supported them in this
position when they approved the permit for Four Seasons. He said that in thinking
about the citizens of Berkeley and all the citizens of the County, the prolonged use
onto Dominion Drive would certainly increase the traffic to a point where this could
be made a four-lane highway and he asked what would happen when the corner lot
which has automatic access to residential area without recourse to permit this in the
interest of safety.
Mr. Carwile then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning
Commission provided that if there is an entrance onto Dominion Drive that the deve-
loper fully comply with all Highway Department requirements and if this involves
8-23--73
the removal of any pine trees that the developer be responsible for replacing these
trees along the right of way of Dominion Drive, the trees to be of like size and the
developer would also be responsible for replacing the split rail fence if the fence
is involved.
Mr. Henley felt there were enough people using Dominion Drive at this time. The
_/motion died~o~ t~ck~o~ second.
Mr. Wood then offered motion to approve the site plan as submitted and recommended
by the Planning Commission, with one exception, that there be no entrance onto
Dominion Drive..
Mr. Carwile suggested that the Board defer final consideration of this matter
until Mr. Thacker could be present. He felt the Board was deadlocked and did not
think this matter could be resolved at this time.
Mr. Wood said he would be willing to vote either way since he felt the Board
had agreed that they would not unduly delay the developer. Mr. Batchelor suggested
that if the Board felt this were the only problem and they did not want to delay the
developer, that they approve the rest of the site plan.
Mr. Carwile asked Mr. Rubin if he preferred a final decision from the Board
tonight or if the Board could approve everything except the entrance onto Dominion
Drive and defer that question until other members of the Board could be present.
Mr. Rubin said this was the only reason that he was here. Mr. Wood said it was
his impression that this is the only condition in question. Mr. Carwile said he
would not support deleting the entrance because he felt this was dictated in the need
of safety.
Mr. Henley said he felt Dominion Drive was mainly for the two subdivisions
serviced by this road, however, he thought that the traffic exiting would be coming
out for other things then going into ~he. shopping center, and he seconded Mr. Wood's
motion.
Mr. Carwile said he felt it was a mistake. Mr. Henley said that other
arrangements should have been made before this development was started. A Mr.
Martin Millner, the architect for the project asked if he could make a comment.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board would like to hear anymore comments. Mr. Wood
said he felt his position was clear and he had heard the gentleman's ~peech at
the Planning commission meeting. He did not mind hearing anything that was new.
Mr. Millner said there seems to be a misconception about the traffic generated
by the shopping center as far as Dominion Drive is concerned. Traffic studies that
had been made show relatively little traffic generated. Mr. Wood said he felt that
after the lengthy discussion that had been held on this matter tha~ the Board had
heard enough comments about the traf£ic. Mr. Fisher then called for a vote, which
was as follows:
AYES' Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Wood.
NAYS' Mr. Carwile.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Wheeler.
8-23-73
Mr. Wheeler resumed his duty as Chairman and called the meeting back to order.
Mr. Batchelor stated that he had received a memo from Jim Ritchie, Superintendent
of the Albemarle County Welfare Department asking that the Board of Supervisors
extend for one month the experimental working hours for his department. Motion to
grant this request was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Batchelor then requested that a special appropriation be made for the
implementation of the land use tax ordinance. Motion to adopt the following
resolution was offered by Mr. Fisher and seconded by Mr. Wood:
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $53,800 be, and the same hereby is, transferred from the
General Fund to the General Operating Fund to be used for the implementa-
t. io~ of the land use tax ordinance.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Claims against the County amounting to $817,140.45 were presented, examined and
allowed and certified to the Director of Finance for payment an~ charged against
the following funds:
General Fund .................... $
General Operating Fund ...............
School Operating Fund ................
School Construction: Capital Outlay Fund ......
General Operating: Capital Outlay Fund .......
Textbook Rental Fund ................
Local Sales Tax-Town of Scottsville .........
Commonwealth of Virginia: Current Credit Account.
Total $
-115.20
276,419.69
208,594.45
244,600.40
46,t13.11
40,957.24
156.15
184.21
817,140.45
Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
Chairman