1973-11-1411-14-73
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
was held on November 14, 1973, at 4:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from November 7,
1973.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile (Arriving at 4:30 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.,
(Arriving at 5:25 P.M.).
Absent: None.
Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order. He said this meeting was being held at
the request of the Planning Commission to discuss with them the proposed zoning map.
Dr. Avery Catlin said the Planning Commission wished to talk with the Board about
the Board's philosophy on. the new zoning map. He said the Commission could possibly
355
put a lot of work into this map and it might not be in linie with what the Board wishes.
He felt it would be useful to discuss the kinds of changes that should be made in the map.
Dr. Catlin said it has come to the attention of the Commission that the present zoning
map is not in compliance with the comprehensive pian in several areas of the County. The
Commission has wondered at what point they should rezone land to a less intensive use to
bring the land into Compliance with the comprehensive plan. He said the new map shows
a great deal of land as a conservation zone, which is a less dense zone than the present
agricultural zone. Some members of the Planning Commission contemplate a much smaller
conservation zone then the one shown on the proposed map. The Planning Commission also
wants comments from the Board as to whether the urban area around Charlottesville and the
various clusters should be one zone as presently shown on the proposed map or should a
large portion be conservation. Dr. Catlin said the present zoning ordinance is very
inclusive. There is only one business zone in the present ordinance, whereas the proposed
ordinance will have three business zones. This means the Planning Commission will have
to make judgements as to how that land which is presently zoned business will be divided
into the three zones and they asked for an indication from the Board of Supervisors as
to how that division should be made.
Mr. Fisher asked on what basis the Planning Commission developed the conservation
zones. Dr. Catlin said the areas were placed on the map by the consultant, Mr. Rosser
Payne. These were based on topography, soil type, protection of water impoundments and
protection of drainage areas of streams leading to water impoundments.
Mr. John Humphrey said because of additional zones the Planning Commission has
included in the new ordinance, the proposed map may be somewhat disregarded in it's
entirety. Ak %he time the map was received by the Planning Commission, it did relect
Mr. Payne's proposals for zoning categories. These are now out of date and will be
removed.
Mr. Batchelor asked if the planned unit developments shown on the map were
11-14-73
arbitrarily placed or if they could be placed anywhere in the agricultural zone. Dr.
Catlin said the new ordinance will allow these to be located in any residential zone.
Mr. Humphrey said this was correct, however, there will be minimum requirements to be
met.
Mr. Wheeler said if the Planning Commission took the map and placed on it the new
proposed zones they felt proper for the entire county, there would be no objections
from property owners for the major portion. He said in areas such as Route 29 North,
there may be great opposition and the Board will need to talk with the County Attorney
to see if there are certain vested interests He said the Board needs to work with
the Planning Commission and then get reaction from citizens, however, he was not sure how
to go about this. It had been suggested that two members of the Board work with the
Planning Commission on this map and ordinance. He then asked for comments from other
Board members.
Mr. Fisher said there are quantities of land zoned.for commercial uses which even
by Mr. Payne's population projections would handle 230,000 people. He said the land
on Route 29 North has been zoned in stips and he felt the Board must try to correct
some of that zoning. This could be included as a lighter business or less intensive use.
Mr. Fisher said if the Planning Commission took the entire comprehensive plan and cluster
communities and total surburban area and rezoned all of that land to its ultimate use
for year 2000, he would be opposed to that concept. He felt the comprehensive plan muSt
be reviewed and brought into line with state population projections on which sewer grants
will be given to localities. He said there is a.difference between Mr. Payne's projections
and the state's projections of three to one. The plan must be reduced throughout the entire
county by a factor of 50 to 60 percent to conform to the best population estimates. He
felt this application could create a bad mistake for the county.
Dr. Catlin said the Commission wanted the Board's opinion on the question of
rezoning land to a lower use where the Planning Commission is convinced the original
zoning was inappropriate or where development has not taken place. He said this will
be very controversial.
Mr. Wheeler said he did not feel the Board and the Planning Commission could
set up a tentative plan until there is some idea of how controversial this might be.
Mr. Fisher has said, and he agrees, that there is quite a difference between population
projections. He said if some of these areas are rezoned it will increase the value of
the remaining land by a tremendous amount. He said there is now a problem in the county
with low cost housing and in order that land prices not skyrocket, the Board may have to
rezone a smaller amount of land to a less intensive use and then evaluate the effect on
the remaining land.
Mr. Thacker said if the Planning Commission finds something on the map that they
think should be changed, they should make a recommendation on same.
11-14-~3
357
Mr. Batchelor said if the Board gave some guidance to the Planning Commission
as to which direction the Board wanted them to take, it would eliminate the possibility
of the Commission presenting to the Board an entirely different map from what was wanted.
Mr. Wheeler said he felt that whatever was presented the first time would not be
the finished product but they must start and have public hearings in order to receive
public comments. He suggested that the Planning Commission use moderation and not
lean in either direction.
Mr. Fisher said without specific examples it was hard to react.
Mr. David Carr said there is a move among the citizens to reduce some of the
density areas considerably from the zoning standpoint. He said that if the 1800 acres
of land presently zoned business are reduced drastically, it will create a boost for
a few and problems for many. He felt the Commission must be careful in its consideration
not only in the business zones but the higher density areas.
Mr. Jack Rinehart said the master plan is the best guide and he felt it could be
used for working out an ideal, broad, schematic approach or ideal zoning map. He said
this should be used to put in as much reading as possible and let this begin to show
the problems. A list of the problems could then be brought back to the Board.
Mr. Fisher said the aspects of the comprehensive plan will be lost completely if
no attempt is made-to implement them. He said citizen support of the master plan will
suffer a degree of cynicism if the Board does not attempt to protect and to take as many
steps as they can in the direction of implementing the plan for the future county. He
said he did not want to tell the Planning Commission not to pull back and look at the
ideal situation, but he could not say it will be possible ~for the Board to adopt such a
plan.
Dr. Catlin said in spite of talking in generalities, he felt it had been valuable
to hear the Board express their -individual thoughts. He said the Commission would
attempt to get some ideas to the Board soon.
Mr. Clifton McClure said he was not.sure how familiar the Board was with the
work the Planning Commission has done so far. In the agricultural zone they had
started with a 10 acre, a five acre and a two acre zone. They have also added some
low, medium and high density zones. He felt it would be a good idea for the Board to
familiarize themselves with these zones, and approve the Planning Commission's concepts,
before they are put on the map.
Mr. Wheeler said he did not believe this would cause too great of a problem.
The Board has had one work session on this matter.
Mr~ Humphrey said it had been some time ago. He said the staff would need approxi-
mately a week to give the Board a brief summary, in table form, of what the zones are
and what the characteristics of those zones will be.
Mr. Wheeler said, if the staff could get this information to the Board, they could
have a work session and give approval on the proposed zones.
358
Mr. Henley said he was concerned about cluster type subdivisions in the A-1 zone.
He said he is concerned that he must vote for this or let people put two acre lots
on their property.
Mr. Wheeler said he felt that quite often the Board must vote for the lesser
of two evils and he is looking forward to having additional zones. He felt this is
a weakness of the present ordinance in that it has too many categories clustered into
one zone.
Mrs. Craddock said the work which has.been done on the new zoning ordinance will
relieve the situation in the agricultural zone.
Mr. Wheeler said the Board would also like to discuss with the Planning Commission
the lineal relative provisions on mobile home requests. He said he understood that
in the proposed ordinance this will be changed and included with special permit requests.
Mr. Humphrey said the staff has been aware that in some cases because of this
provision in the present ordinance, there are actually mobile home parks in some areas.
He said the records show that this provision is being utilized almost 3 - 1 as opposed
to special permits. It was included to accommodate certain situations in the County, but
is
he feels that administratively it/almost unenforcable. He said where it had been
thought to be the exception it has almost become the rule. In the present system,
the applicant must only swear and certify, on the application that the lineal relative
is a son or daughter. The commission is recommending in the new ordinance that this
be included in the special permit category and not be handled as an across-the-counter
matter. He said this will increase the public hearings three ~fold on mobile homes,
but the staff feels these permits are a problem now.
Mr. Wheeler said he felt there are abuses under the present system. Although
he realizes it will cause additional work for both the Planning Commission and the
Board, he said immediate action should be taken to place all mobile homes under special
permits. He said it will probably be some time before enacting the new ordinance and
he asked that the Board amend the present ordinance immediately.
Mr. Batchelor asked~if the Board would consider letting the Board of Zoning
Appeals decide if the applicant is a lineal relative. He said if the Board hears all
of these cases it will probably add one more night meeting a month to the Board's
schedule.
Mr. Wheeler said he feels so strongly about mobile homes that he recommends this
change be made in the present ordinance. He said that when applications must be made
for special permits, the number of requests for same will drop off~
Mr. Fisher asked what position had been reached in the new ordinance relating
to mobile homes. He asked if there were any other ~changes besides including all as
special permit requests.
Dr. Catlin said they have considered mobile home subdivisions. They are in the
ordinance and have also tried to provide a way. for subdivisions of low cost to be allowed.
11-14-73
359
These subdivisions would change over the years in~o permanent homes and the Commission has
allowed permanent homes to be built in mobile home subdivisions. They also included
mobile home parks.
Mr. Humphrey said there is a margin in the requirements to upgrade the minimum
requirements which the County now has. They also made provisions for mobile home parks
in their own individual zones, in some other zones and also in the industrial zones
as a temporary measure. There is a wide gamit of provisions for mobile homes. He
said in this approach the commission has broadened this in order to get nearer central
sewer and water in order to provide for these subdivisions. He said this is quite
different from has been in the ordinance in the past.
Mr. Fisher asked if it were Mr.'Wheeler's intention to request today that the
staff begin work to amend the existing zoning ordinance to bring this under the
special permit procedure. Mr. Wheeler replied that was his hope. He realized that
this would have to go to the Planning Commission and then back to the Board before
amending the ordinance.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission could forsee this as being the same
problem explained.
Dr. Catlin said the Planning Commission has not discussed this specifically, but
he could recognize the problem discussed. He said Mr. Humphrey's figures support this as
being a problem. He saw no objection to it except for the additional work load.
Mr. Henley said if the Board is still going to give permits'for lineal relatives
he did not see why someone on the County staff could not do this without the Board
holding a public hearing.
Mr. Wheeler said this is exactly what is going on now.
Mr Henley felt this would only require extra time while the staff checked to see
if the applicant was actually a lineal relative.
Mr. Wheeler said he felt these permits do need more checking. He said there have
been instances where the Board has"~found that the mobile home is for rental purposes
and these permits have been denied.
Mr. Thacker said if the special permit is issued through a public hearing, the
adjacent property owners would be aware of the conditions placed on that permit. He
felt this is basically the advantage of such a procedure.
Mr. Wheeler said quite often there are people who appear at public hearings
objecting to these permits.
Mr. Rinehart asked if this would only be an administrative change since the
ordinance would still allow the applicant to come before the Board and the Planning
Commission and still have a home and a mobile home on a four-acre lot in an A-1 zone.
He gave this acreage only as an example.
Mr. McClure said this has been discussed during the preparation of the new
ordinance. He said they have found instances where they did not feel the Board would
have granted a special permit for a lineal relative. Instances where the trailer is
360
set close to the road with minimum setback and no screening. He said .they are not
under the same conditions as Other applicants because they do not have to screen their
trailers or receive health department approval.
Mr. Wheeler said that is part of his complaint. He does not feel that these
trailers are being connected to septic tanks and following the same requirements being
placed on other mobile homes. He said although the Board may have additional work, he
felt they would have better control.
Mr. Henley said someone must see that they follow conditions and he felt that same
person could also issue the permits.
Mr. Humphrey said when the Planning Staff knocks on doors and the person refuses
them entry or refuses to given any information, this is were it become unenforcable.
Mr. Henley asked why it would be more enforcable if the Board g~anted a permit.
Mr~ Humphrey said the conditions granted carry more weight than..those issued
across the counter. He said the issuance of permits in this instance is very broad
with only minimum zoning requirements. There have been 500 to 600 permits issued for
lineal relatives throughout-the county.
Mr. Carwile asked if under the new zoning ordinance, with mobile home subdivisions
distinguished from a mobile home park, if both of th~sehad to have mobile home park
zoning.
Mr. Humphrey said no. There will be a separate category for mobile home parks
and within the single family residential zone categories, with a special permit,
mobile home subdivisions. These will run from two acres down to R-3 which is 15,000
square feet.
Mr. Carr said the Planning Commission had worked a long time on these provisions
to try to make it attractive for a developer to build a mobile home subdivision. He
asked that the Board look at this section of the ordinance and then. give the Planning
Commission ideas on how this can be achieved. He said this is a vital issued since
occupants of mobile homes need a desirable place to live and have a home.
Mr. Carwile asked the density range for a mobile home park. Mr. Cart said
it was eight per acre. Mr. Carwile asked the utility requirements. Mr. Humphrey said
he could not remember the specifics, but without central systems the lots would need
to be larger.
Mr. Carr said these have been arranged so that two trailers could .use a joint septic
field, subject to certain provisions.
Mr. Fisher concurred with Chairman that this provision is a problem. He then
offered motion to ask the Planning Commission and Planning Staff to review the possibility
of changing existing ordinances to eliminiate the lineal'relative provision in the
Zoning Ordinance and to place all mobile homes under the special permit application
in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. St. John said there are some other mobile homes as a matter of right in
the present ordinance and in order to place all mobile homes in the special use category
11-14-73
361
the Board would need to eliminate more then juS~ the lineal relative provisions. He
said to clarify whether this would also eliminate the farm hand provision.
Mr. Wheeler asked to what extent this provision was being used. Mr. Humphrey
said it was being used by very few. Mr. Wheeler said he could foresee no particular
problem with this provision and could see no reason to include this with the lineal
relative provision.
Mr. Rinehart asked if there is a time limit placed on tenant trailers. Mr. Humphrey
said as long as they are used for bonafide agricultural employees, the permit is good.
He said the other provision is for emergency use for a year because of destruction of
a house by fire or other natural causes. He said this has been used only during the
recent floods and on a few other~ occasions where_a house has been destroyed by fire.
Mr. Wheeler felt that this amendment should be confined only to lineal relatives at
this time.
Mr. Fisher amended his motion and offered the following resolution for adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
by eliminating the lineal relative provision under Section 2-1-23 and
placing this provision under uses allowed with a special use permit in
the A-1 Agricultural zone, and further requests the Planning Commission
to hold public hearings on said proposal to amend the County Zoning
Ordinance and report back to this Board at the earliest date possible.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
Mr. Rinehart asked if it would not make sense to place all mobile homes under special
permits. Mr. Wheeler said there is a problem since it takes approximately two months
of staff work and public hearings by the Planning Commission and the Board before a
permit is issued. He said he could see where the farmer would need to hire help
immediately and he could not see that this is now a problem.
Mr. Humphrey said the applicant is required to go to the Health Department for
approval of a septic tank system.
Mr. Wheeler said if the Planning Commission feels strongly about this, they should
bring a recommendation back to the Board.
Mr. Wheeler ~said there was one other matter which the Board would like to discuss
with the Planning Commission. He said the matter of restricted roads had been under
consideration for some time and no decision has been reached.
Mr. Carwile said there needs to be a policy decision reached as to whether or not
restricted roads serve a purpose for the County, and if they do serve a purpose-, what
restrictions the Board will impose on the ability of someone to hay restricted roads.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Humphrey to review the recommendations of the committee
for the members present.
Mr. Humphrey said if the County is going to permit restricted roads, the committee
11-14-73
which was appointed by the Chairman, had recommended certain provisions and requirements
being attached theretO. One would be a series of articles to be recorded to guarantee
proper maintenance of the roads. Another provision would be to set forth a standard
for two classes of restricted roads, one to serve 10 or less dwelling units, known as
Class A, and another standard for 50 which would be known as Class B. The Board instructed
Mr. Warner of the Highway Department to see-how close these standards came to being
parallel to State standards. Mr. Warner had stated that since the State minimum
standard for subdivision streets calls for a 20 foot surface, the Class A proposal
would not be acceptable.
Mr. Wheeler said he would like to discuss the different classes first. He did not
feel he would support a restricted road that serves more than ten lots or a restricted
road that abuts propertY which may be developed at a later date. He felt the Board
will have many problems if they permit restricted roads that serve 50 homes. He- said
it will not be more than two years before residents in these subdivisions would come
before the Board to have these roads accepted into the State system.
Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission was concerned with the'attachment of
two individual restricted roads. They felt that there should not be-any connection
between two subdivisions, of 50 lots each, unless these roads were brought to state
standards.
Mr. Wheeler felt a decision should be made on this before going any further with ~
the discussion.~1
Mr. Rinehart said the Planning Commission had agreed that the limit should not be
more than 50 vehicle trips per day. This would be for approximately seven lots and
he felt the Commission was not considering any more than 10 lots.
Mr. Carr said this is a difficult problem and he would like to see some middle
ground. He does not want to see subdivisons with straight, 60 foot streets, curb and
gutter. The County could have more attractive roadways. He hoped the county would not
adopt for all residential uses, just a highway standard. He asked that there be some
design imagination even with drainage and proper run off control.
Mr. Wheeler said he agreed with his statements but the imagination only lasts
as long as the.potholes in the roads are cared for. He said no matter what standard
is used, someone has to maintain the roads. When the property changes hands four or --m
five times, that is when the complaints come to the Board. He has heard these complaints ~
constantly since being a member of the Board and the performance~has not been good. He
said he might vote for restricted roads for 10 lots to see how it will work for the next
few years.
Mr. Rinehart felt restricted roads should be approved where they will have the- ~
best use in the county, off of secondary roads which allow development perpendicular
to the road rather than strip development along the front of the property. If limited
to a small number of dwellings, with positive deed obligations, he felt this would have
11-14-73
363
a tremendous use. It will also add a varietyof roads rather than sweeping urban roads
in the county's urban areas. It would be a useful tool even if allowed for only four
or five dwellings.
Dr. Catlin said the Planning Commission did debate adequate design standards,
and the question of checking in someway to see that design standards are met. He said
if the Board has these two items plus the agreements which should be checked by an
attorney, this would give the Board the safeguard which they are looking for.
Mr. Wheeler said if the Board is going to hold this down to 10 lots, action should
be taken now.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Warner, in his letter, states that the Class B proposal basically
conforms to minimum design standards for subdivision streets and if built accordingly
could be eligible to.be made a part of the Secondary System. He asked if this meant that
the Highway Department would accept a street built to this standard. Mr. Humphrey said
with slight modifications.
Mr. St. John said he that the proposed standard for 50 lots almost coincides with
the states lowest standard.
Mr. Fisher said if the road entitled Class B is acceptable to the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways then it is no longer a restricted road.
Mr. Batchelor said the board was faced with two things. The over design standards
of the State Highway Department for residential subdivisions and the fact that design
standards are drawn for the flat lands of Virginia Beach. He said there is no way to
build a Class B street in the vista areas in the mountains of Albemarle County.
Mr. Thacker said he agreed with Mr. Fisher. Mr. Wheeler said if the Board did not
approve restricted roads for more than 10 lots they would not need the Class B.
Mr. Batchelor said if the Board approved more than 10, he felt they would have
tremendous problems within two years.
Mr. St. John said whether this were limited to ten or not~ the Board now has
something in the ordinance which puts the property owner on notice that these are
restricted roads.
Mr. Carwile said this had been discussed by the committee.
Mr. Wheeler said he would support this provision for up to 10 dwellings.
Mr. Fisher said he felt that the appendices to the proposed subdivision ordinance,
in most respects, take care of the problems he has experienced with restricted roads.
He felt there are a few particulars, which are not significant, which need to be changed.
He asked if this will be a matter of right in a subdivision of 10 dwelling units or less
or whether it is to have special approval by the Planning Commission or the Board of
Supervisors or both.
Mr. St. John said this was brought up by the City in their survey of the new
subdivision ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked if it is a matter of right. Mr. St. John
said no. There is no restriction in the ordinance on the number of residences to be
11-14-73
served by these roads except in the standards themselves. When this went through the
Planning Commission, they recommended that the numbers be reduced. They did not vote
on it so there is no formal action by the Planning Commission for the Board to consider.
In the new subdivision ordinance there is a provision for private access easements.
Neither of these is a matter of right.
Mr. Fisher felt that in this circumstance the Board should establish Class A
standards only for 10 or less dwelling units, but, stipulate that these requests be
approved not only by the Planning Commission, but also the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Wheeler said he would support the approval of 10 by the Planning Commission
but anything beyond that would need the approval of this Board.
Mr. BatChelor said if the Board did not want requests for more than 10 lots
they should state so now, since he felt that if anything higher were to be approved
the Board would have requests for two or more large subdivision each month.
Mr. Forbes Reback posed a question concerning the joining of two subdivisions by
restricted streets.
Mr. St. John said the new ordinance prohibits the joining of two subdivisions
by restricted streets. Mr. Carwile asked if this applied where subdivisions develop
in phases. Mr. St. John said it was a matter of interpretation, but the spirit of
the ordinance would be violated otherwise. He said, in effect, the Class B classification
would be eliminated, and the Board has not harmed anybody because these roads are already
built to state standards, according to Mr. Warner. If the Board allows Class A roads,
they are putting the same numerical restriction on it that the County already has.
Mr. Wheeler asked the feeling of the other Board'members.
Mr. Fisher said it appeared to him that if the main road of a development were
approved by the Planning Commission and accepted into the state system and maintained
by the state, that this would allow cul-de-sacs to be built off the main road for
every 10 or less units and if these cul-de-sacs were approved as restricted roads they
could service as many as 1000 units. He asked if the homeowners association is a total
thing or if there is a separate homeowners association for each cul-de-sac.
Mr. St. John said it does not necessarily have to be a cul-de-sac but can also
be a horseshoe and he understood that the Board would not allow this.
Mr. Fisher said he did not think the Board should get into this.
Mr. Thacker said he felt this could be eliminated by limiting the subdivisions to
ten or less parcels.
Mr. Humphrey said there may be an occasion where in order to make low-cost housing
more feasible or workable economically or for proper clustering that this would be needed.
Mr. Fisher said he hoped the Planning Commission would exercise great care in
giving approval for restricted roads.
Mr. Wheeler asked what action was needed to go on record showing that restricted
roads would be approved by this Board.
365
Mr. Humphrey said there is a moratorium now on restricted road requests.
Mr. St. John felt the Board should wait until the total ordinance is returned by
the City of Charlottesville. He said City Council has another 45 days on which to act
on the ordinance. The Board can wait until the total ordinance is returned by the City
and then enact these provisions with the new subdivision ordinance, or the Board can
amend the existing subdivision ordinance to incorporate all of the restricted roads
said
provisions. Mr. St. John/that any amendment of the old ordinance must go the. City for
their concurrencesince any amendment like this may be void within three miles of the
City unless they concur.
Mr. Humphrey said the present ordinance allows discretion in the granting of four
and he asked if the Planning Commission should continue with this discretion for the
granting of restricted roads for four dwellings.
Mr. St. John said the moratorium could be lifted and then each application considered
a case by case basis.
Mr. Wheeler said he did not object to this.
Mr. Fisher said in the home owners by-laws, it requires a member of the governing
board of the citizens association to be one of~the mortgage lenders, and there are
only three members, and he felt that this is too restrictive.
Mr. Louie Scribner, Jr. presented to the Board a copy of a petition and letter
from the residents of Ivy concerning a straw ballot that was taken concerning growth
in the Ivy area.
Mr. Carwile said the T. J. Planning District Commission is in the process of
considering the metropolitan ,regional water plan. The will~ be another public hearing on
this the first Tuesday in December and a work'~shop session on November 20. They have
asked that the Planning Commission furnish written comments on the plan as it affects
Albemarle County. Particularly in controversy are the interceptor lines to Keswick
and Earlysville. The State Water Control Board bas said that the District does not have
to adopt that part of the plan at this time but %t can be included at a later date.
Mr. Wheeler thanked the members of~ the Planning C~mmission who were in attendance
at this meeting.
Upon proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 5:37 P.M.
~ Cha~rmJn ~
366
11-14-73
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
was held on November 14, 1973, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood,-Jr.
Absent: None,
Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
(1) SP-300. John Snead. Action on this matter and the public hearing was deferred
from October 24, 1973. Mr. Humphrey said that on April 14, 1969, the applicant received
approval for CU-82 to place two mobile homes on this six acre tract, which also contained
his home. Since that time, one of the two mobile homes has been removed.. The applicant
recently replaced it with another mobile home, but was informed that he would have to
obtain a special permit since too much time has elapsed since the original home was
removed. He said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the permit with a
200 foot setback from the right of way, the permit to be for a five year period and
the trailer is to be occupied by Mr. & Mrs. Taylor, and if they move the permit becomes
invalid.
Mr. Snead was present. He said he had taken Mr. Taylor in because he had no place to
live. Mr. Taylor has no income other than social security and welfare payments.
No one from the public spoke for or against the petition.
Mr. Thacker offered motion to approve SP-300 as recommended .by the Planning
Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
At this time, the Chairman called for public hearings on zoning matters as advertised
in the Daily P.rogress on October 18 and October 28, 1973:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on November 14,
1973, at 7:30 P.M. in the County Courthouse, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia,
t~ consider the following amendments to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as
authorized by Article II, Section 11-4, of the Zoning Ordinance.
(1) Amend Article 7, Business General District B-1 by adding Section 7-1-42 --
Motor Vehicle Sales, service and rental and Section 7-1-43 -- Printing Shops.
Mr. Humphrey said the addition of 7-1-42 had come to the attention of the Planning
Commission during a review of a site plan for J. H. Williams who wanted approval for
motorcycle sales. This amendment is to clarify language in the present zoning ordinance.
Mr. Humphrey said 7-1-43 was requested when it was found that no proper use is
contained in the B-1 zone for this activity. The applicant applied in a letter of
intent to the Planning Commission for its inclusion. The Planning Commission has
recommended both of these be included.
Mr. Carwile asked if the staff concurred in the Planning Commission's recommendations.
Mr. Humphrey said he could forsee no problems. He said there may be nuisances and
11-]_4-73
Wayside Press has asked for
This
367
this should be included in the special permit provision.
this amendment in order to locate on Route 29 in an area already zoned B-1.
~_will be a special permit provision.
No one from the public spoke for or against the amendment.
Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to adopt these amendments to the zoning ordinance.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
~" NAYS: None.
[ (2) Amend Article 8, Industrial, Limited District M-1 by adding Section 8,1-27 --
Motor Vehicle sales, service and rental and Section 8-1-28 -- Printing shops.
Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission could see no need for a special permit
for this provision. No one from the public spoke for or against the amendment.
Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to adopt the foregoing amendments to the zoning
ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
As requested by the staff, Mr. Carwile offered motion to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, intendS to amend the sign ordinance as follows:
15A-9-5. Signs Prohibited: No signs are permitted in any
zone along Federal Interstate Highway Systems and
designated scenic highway systems: except for on
site sale or rental signs and on site business signs,
provided these signs follow the requirements set
forth in Article 15A.
AND, FURTHER requests the Planning Commission to hold public
hearing on said proposal to amend the County's Sign Ordinance and
report back to this Board at the earliest date possible.
The foreoing motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Wheeler said the Board has discussed billboards several times and he asked if
the Board felt action~ should be taken on this matter.
Mr. Carwile said he would like to see billboards amortizied over a short period of
time in the county and he suggested that the Board request that all existing signs be
removed in a reasonably short time.
Mr. Fisher said the present ordinance prohibits new billboards. Mr. Wheeler said it
also requires that they be kept in good repair and he suggested that Mr. Humphrey look
into the matter and draft an ordinance for consideration.
Mr. Thacker offered motion to refer to the Planning Commission for study, the
amortizing of off-site billboards over a reasonably short period of time, and that this
368
be returned to the Board for adoption.
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
11-14-73
The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M.
Chairman