1974-01-2347'8
1-23-74
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on January 23, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Absent: None.
Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney.
At 7:30 P.M. the Chairman called for a public hearing, as advertised in the Daily
Progress on January 12 and January 18, 1974, to amend and reenact Section 4-13-1,
Chapter 4, Article II, of the Albemarle County Code, by the addition of Camelot Sub-
division as one of those areas designated where dogs are prohibited from running at
large. Mr. T. V. Anderson was present to speak in favor of this amendment to the Code
and presented to the Board a petition containing 31 signatures of those signing in
favor. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to adopt~the following addition to Section
4-13-1, Chapter 4, .Article II, of the Albemarle County Code:
Area No. 7 - Camelot Subdivision as platted and put to record
in the Clerk's Office of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 450, pages 127 through 12-9.
Mr. Wood's motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and passed by the following reCorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The Chairman then called for a public hearing, as advertised in the Daily Progress
on January 12 and January 18, 1974, to amend and reenact Section 4-13-1, Chapter 4,
Article II, of the Albemarle County Code, by the addition of Sherwood Manor Subdivision
as one of those areas designated where dogs are prohibited from running at large. Mr.
John McGeevy, president of Sherwood Manor homeowners, spoke in favor. Motion was offered
by Mr. Fisher to adopt the following addition to Section 4-13-1, Chapter 4, Article II,
of the~Albemarle County Code:
Area No. 8 - Sherwood Manor Subdivision as platted and put to
record in the Clerk's Office of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 504, page 114, and Deed Book 514,
page 505.
Mr. Fisher's motion was given second by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The Board continued with public hearings on zoning matters. These public hearings
were advertised in the Daily Progress on January 3 and January 10, 1974:
(1) ZMP-291.
Ski Land of Charlottesville, Inc. has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to rezone 6.1 acres of land from R-3 Residential to
A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of Route 250
East, about one mile east of Charlottesville. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A, part thereof. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
1-23-74
479
(Mr. Carwite abstaining during the following discussion). Hr. John Humphrey gave the
staff's report. He said the property is situated approximately 1000 feet north of Route
250 east, in the area known as Pantops and on the front slopes of Southwest Mountains.
The entrance to the property is located at Spectrum East. The terrain is rough. An
existing ski slope is located immediately north and adjacent to the property and is
Zoned A-1. R-3 zoning abuts the property on all other sides. The land is located in a
watershed which drains in a westerly direction to the Rivanna River. The subject parcel
lies in an area indicated to be on the urban cluster of Charlottesville and is in an area
' ~designated for conservation. Mr. Humphrey said the removal of R-3 zoning from the slopes
of Southwest Mountains is in keeping with the objectives of the comprehensive plan. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning. .There is on file a request for
a special permit to enlarge and expand the ski slopes that now exist. This request is
incomplete and not ready to be heard at this time.
No one from the public spoke for or against this Petiton. No one was present to
represent the petitioner. Mr. Batchelor asked if the petitioner had indicated that he
would like to have both this request and the special permit heard at the same time. Mr.
Humphrey said yes, but Mr. Robert Van Dell had said he did want to proceed with this
request and he was notified of the Planning Commission's action of January 14.
Mr. Thacker offered motion to defer any action on this petition until the next
regular zoning meeting of the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood.
Mr. Wood said if a public hearing is advertised, it should be heard unless it is
withdrawn within 15 days of the hearing. He felt the Board should adopt a policy on
this matter. Mr. Wheeler suggested that this placed on the agenda in March or April
for further discussion. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the
followin9 recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Humphrey to draft such a policy and have it approved by the
Planning Commission and then sent to the Board for their approval. Mr. Wood felt the
Board should adopt a policy which will be in the best interests of the citizens.
(2) ZMP-292. Ferrell Smith has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to rezone five acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property
is situated on the south side of Route 769, about 3/4 mile east of its
intersection with Route 20 North. Property is further described as
County Tax Map 62, Parcel 79. Rivanna Magisterial District.
No one was present to represent the petitioner. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to
defer any action on this request until the next regular zoning meeting of the Board. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
48O
1-23-74
(3) SP-253. Frank Folsom smith has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super-
visors to locate a central well system and central septic system on
352.44 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north
side of Interstate 64, and the west side of Route 708. Property is
further described as County Tax Map 73, Parcels 29, 29D and 29F. Samuel
Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey said this is a request to locate a central well and septic system on land
known as Peacock Hill. Submittal of a plan for a central system was one of the conditions
of approval. The Planning~Commission modified the original recommendation and accepted
a septic field system to serve the individual clusters. The applicant proposes to use
two wells at this time. One well has been dug, tested for 48 hours, and has a capacity
of 38 g.p.m. The applicant also proposes a 5,000 gallon storage tank and a 25,000
gallon storage capacity at another location. The plans have been reviewed by the
County Engineer. Mr. Ashley Williams was present to answer questions. The plan has
gone through the revision stage and this is the final revised plan. The State Health
Department has reviewed the location of the well sites. The Planning Commission recom-
mended approval of the water system for only 76 units. That is the rate of capacity
per dwelling, or 1/2 gallon per unit. The staff has received plans for the sewer system
and these have been reviewed by the County Engineer, who has given his approval. There
are to be clusters, no more than 10 or 12 on any one septic field. There will be a tank
and distribution box for each unit, but there will be a combined septic field which will
take a space of approximately two acres. There will be approximately six of these
individual central systems to serve the clusters. The single family homes will be on
their own individual systems. The Health Department has reviewed this and they have
stated that they will approve if the Board of Supervisors approves, subject to final
review of percolation tests and soil analyses. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of these two concepts, with the following conditions:
(1) Septic system to be shown on site plan, also back.up space
for each system.
(2) That legal instruments indicating ownership and maintenance
responsibility of systems be produced at time of site plan
review. These have to be reviewed and approved by the
County Attorney. (Restrictive covenants)
(3) Health Department approval.
(4) (Well) water to be for 76 dwelling units only.
(5) Inspection of water and sewer lines, as they are being
stalled, by the County Engineer.
(6) No more than 12 dwelling units on each septic drainfield.
Mr. Humphrey said this was approved by an 8-1 vote. Dr. Sams did not feel this is a
central system, which was one of the conditions of the original approval.
Mr. Wheeler asked how many units were in the original approval. Mr. Humphrey said
there were 195. Mr. Wheeler asked the staff's opinion.on the water supply. Mr. Humphrey
said it would have to be evaluated closely and reviewed as to the remedies available
to the individual owners, or what the county would have to bear if the well system
failed. Mr. Wheeler asked how the septic system compared with what the Board had
1-23-74 ~" ~- -
481
expected to be a central system. Mr. Humphrey said he was Under the impression that
it was to be a tertiary system, however, in order to give the applicant flexibility in
analyzing a tertiary system as opposed to a septic system, this was discussed. He
said that septic systems are considered short range. The soil analyses were very
marginal. There were~areas that were good and the applicant did place the clusters in
· those areas. He said the Health Department has indicated that they will approve this
system, however, the only example of this type of system in the county is a~t Deerwood.
Mr. Leigh Middleditch was present to represent the petitioner. He asked the Board
to approve the design concept for these'two systems. He said Mr. John McNair was
present to explain these in detail.
Mr. Frank Smith, the petitioner, said that since last June he had proceeded with
planning, working on the sewer and water systems for this site. He has planned, subject
to the will of this Board, to proceed with construction in the spring. The final step is
site plan approval of each cluster. He will comply with the six conditions handed down
by the Planning Commission. A water system has been developed that will serve all 154
cluster and single family units. Two wells have been drilled and another has been authorized
to be drilled in the location of site #2, even though the Planning Commission and the
Engineering Departments have said that the two wells will supply 76 units. The first
phase is for only 38 units. He said the sewer system is called an advanced below ground
disposal system by the EPA and this is known as a septic system. From a designers and
developers viewpoint the most critical item to be considered in any utility system is
the maintenance and operation of the systems and constant inspection of these systems
is the essence of the system. Mr. Smith said there will be 154 units on the cluster system,
or 15 disposal systems with an average of over 10 units on each system with no cluster
having more than 12..units. There will be individual disposal systems for 37 to 41
individual home sites. Each one covers a minimum of two acres.
Mr. Wheeler asked who'will own and operate these systems next year or 20 years from
now. Mr. Smith said in the' beginning this will be a civic association which will be
formed by the owner of the property. This will maintain and operate these systems and
as the units are completed, and the home owners become a part of the association, they
will eventually take over the system. Within the civic association there will be a
carefully constructed maintenance ~and operation mechanism that will ensure that this will
be perpetually maintained. There will be rights of the civic association to require that
each person in the association contributes his share of the maintenance ,fees. This will
not only be for sewer and water, bUt~.also for roads, recreational facilities and
exterior maintenance.
Mr. John McNair said if they constructed a single treatment plant, they must do
something with the effluent. The watershed o~n which this project is located, is a
tributary to Mechums River and then to the CharlottesVille Reservior. They were
concerned about putting an effluent discharge into this stream. Considering all the
4.82
1-23-74
alternatives, they feel this is the best solution. It has been designed so that it
can be easily maintained. There is dual drainage and a dosage site, which eventually
doses each side of the drainage field so there is time for each of the drainage areas
to rest. This is a concept, the use of ground and underground disposal, which is being
pushed by EPA. ~A new law has been passed by EPA and there are interim requirements
under PL92-500 for municipal facilities. Mr. McNair said if they build a tertiary
treatment system, a mechanical type plant, there is more maintenance than with this
type of system. He-said with proper operation and maintenance it will have zero
discharge into Mechums River.
Mr. Henley asked if the plan is for a 750 gallon tank for each cluster. Mr. McNair
said it is for 750 gallons of capacity for each cluster unit. Mr. Thacker asked if
the attorneys have prepared any documents for maintenance of the system outlining the
operation of such an association. Mr~ Smith said not to date. They felt that they
had to receive approval of the board for this system and the recommendation of the
Board as to what they would like to see. They plan to use a homeowners associat~a~,
which is one of the model documents in the ~proposed subdivision ordinance, in preparing
the civic association, as well as their experiences in maintaining condominium
associations in other parts of the country. They are prepared to submit their
documentation to the County Attorney and then to the Board for approval.
Mr. Fisher asked who would establish the rules and maintenance schedule for a
~system such as these septic tank drainfields. Mr. McNair said under this plan, the
Health Department is the only one involved. He did not think they will require any
specific reporting on the operation of this system. He said they will set up a system
of standard maintenance which will be recommended to the owner. Mr. Fisher asked how
many people will be required to maintain this system on.a continuing basis on the program
which he will recommend. Mr. McNair said he has no particular personnel chart on this.
Mr. Batchelor asked if the areas indicated on the plan for the clusters will be
the specific drainfields. Mr. McNair said yes. Extensive tests have been run on all
of these areas and will be under the ownership of the civic association and will not
be in private ownership. Mr. Batchelor asked if there will be adequate land in the
individual clusters for additional drainfields if something happens to ~the original.
Mr. McNair said this is a specific requirement of the Planning Commission, that
the applicant will not only show a specific site, but also an alternate. Mr. Batchelor
asked if the area adjacent to the individual clusters will be in common ownership.
Mr. McNair said the intent is to have all except the immediate areas around the clusters
to be in common ownership.
Mr. Wheeler then called on the public for comments.
Mr. John O. Higginson said he owns land on Route 708, less than one mile from this lid
site. He is concerned about there being an adequate supply of water for 195 dwelling
units. If the approval is for a central well to serve the entire subdivision and not
1-23-74
483
for an individual cluster, he questioned the issuance of the permit at this time. He
asked if the water and sewer system is inadequate if the County is ready to run lines,
at the expense of the county and the taxpayers, to this subdivision.
Mr. P. M. Baber said he lives on Route 708 near this site. He said although the
well drilled tested out at 38 g.p.m., he has been told by inhabitants of the area that
this was a very wet season. He wondered if one test during a good year of rainfall is
adequate before putting in 195 units. He did not know how the water flows to his well
and he asked what rights the owners have if they are left with no water. He thought
there shoUld be some protection offered to the landowners.
Mrs. Frances Martin said she had no questions about the system. She asked if
there is a definition of a central system in the zoning ordinance and if not she
asked that the Board say this is the type of system they wanted.
Mr. Humphrey said there is a definition of a public sewer system and a public
water supply and they are very similar to that as set out in the State Code. Mr.
Wheeler said in answer to the question about the water supply, the Board did expect
there would be a number of wells. However, when speaking about the sewerage, he was
not sure this is what the Board expected. He understood the Board was requiring a
central system and not a septic tank system as presented here. He asked for a staff
comment.
Mr. Humphrey said the word tertiary was deleted from the Board's recommendations
sent to the Planning Commission. It was noted in the Board's minutes that this was done
in order to give the applicant flexibility with a design to fit this development. Mr.
Fisher said it was his feeling that the Board wanted this to be one system to serve all
the units. Mr. Wheeler said his comments that night were all directed toward water.
He said he had not seen anything that will satisfy him yet.
Mr. St. John said the plans indicate an integrated water system so if one well does
not produce the other wells can furnish water to any point on this system, and there
are not two or three separate systems. He said Mr. Middleditch had talked to him about
this, bu't he felt that under Virginia law, if the system serves more than 50 units it
has to be a public service corporation and' it cannot be done by a homeowners association.
He said he would have to check this further.
Mr. Middleditch said Code Section 56-265~1 describes a public utility as one that
furnishes various services, including water and sewer facilities, tf it serves less
than 50 customers, it is excluded from that definition. They have had a preliminary
discussion with the State Corporation Commission and they had not ruled on this since
legal documents have not yet been submitted. The Commission led him to believe that if
the civic association, the owners, own the system and they are supplying water to
themselves, they are. not customers of themselves. If the Board does not approve the
design concept, there will be no need to develop the legal documents ....
4.84
1-23-74
Mr. St. John said if you can do this in Virginia with a homeowners assocation for
over 50 units on a water system it is different from the sewer systems. They are not
integrated. There are 15 different sewer systems. A prospective purchaser in this
planned unit development would belong to a homeowners association for the entire develop-
'ment so he could use the open spaces, etc. He would also belong to another association
for maintenance of the integrated water system and to a third homeowners association
involving only that number of homeowners using the same septic system .with him. He asked
if that was correct. Mr. Middleditch said that was not correct. They are talking about
one civic association. It dependson how you interpr.et the term integrated-.~ Integ~a~nn
with respect to the septic facilitie,s does not mean that each unit must be connected by a
line to each other unit. The concept of the centralization is the management and there
will be one organization. Mr. St. asked if said the homeowner would pay dues to an
organization that would be responsible for maintenance of his sewer system plus all the
other septic systems and not just his own. Mr. Middleditch said that was correct.
Mr..Wheeler said what is being attempted on the central water system is only a
start. He did not feel this was any part of a central sewer system, but he did feel this
Board has a right to approve this concept. Mr. W-heeler said he would not support this
request for only 38 units fox water service but would need to see an overall plan.
Mr. McNair said they were only asking for approval for the ~umber~of units which can
be supported b,y the water system. He said that system will operate by itself, serve 76
units, and is a complete system and can be expanded if ~they find additional water.
Mr. Batchelor asked on what this is based. ~Mr. McNair said 1/2 g.p.m., ~which is the
health department requirement~iwi~hout fire protection. Mr. Wheeler said there was
a memo from the engineering department in tonight's packet, and the engineering department
had made no recommendations on .this plan. Mr. Smith said the County ordinance requires
a detailed site plan in which the applicant gives detailed topographic suvey, detailed
location of all water and sewer facilities, roads and other utility systems and they
intend to do this.
Mr. Batchelor did not feel that a development of this size can rely on only 1/2
gallon per minute for water capacity, .with or without storage. Mr. Fisher said he is
concerned about whether there is enough water for the ultimate development of this
entire planned unit development. He said approving this part on the basis of one well
will involve making investments on the part of Mr. Smith and others for a larger system
and they may not be able to find water.at a later time. He was concerned about allowing
the maximum number of units on that one well. The question of the maintenance and
operation of the well system and the sewer system is of equal important. There have been
several ideas presented on how the joint land ownership will be handled. He is not
convinced~either way on-the septic field, as to whether or not it will work. He felt
that instruments should exist for the continued operation of whatever system, there is
before approval is given. Mr. Fisher said he was not ready to approve this tonight
without legal instruments~being presented for review.
Mr. Carwile thought it would be best to defer action while the applicant works with
the county staff. Mr. Fisher said if the Board does that, then it means that they approve
the concept, but only need the legal instruments and he felt the Board needs to decide if
they approve the basic concept. Mr. Wheeler said he will not be satisfied with only 1/2
g.p.m, on water, it will need to be at least one g.p.m. Mr. Batchelor asked if he meant
for the total 195 units, or for only the number of units they wish to build at this time.
Mr. Henley felt it should be for the total development. Mr. Carwile said he could see
no reason why they should have to have the wells in the ground for the entire 195 units
from the beginning of the project, when the total project may . be a five to eight
year project. He saw no reason to require this as long as the county can regulate the
phases. Mr. Henley said he thought this had already been approved and the county would
not be able to regulate it. Mr. Carwile said it was his understanding that the water and
sewer aspects were not approved and are still under the control of the Board.. The Board
can control this as each phase is approved. He did not feel it is fair to any applicant
on a long.term project, to make that applicant fulfill all the conditions on the entire
project at the beginning. Mr. Wheeler said he felt the ground rules have been set and he
did not feel the Board will change their mind when giving approval for additional units.
Mr. Carwile said his suggestion to defer did not mean that he-is satisfied with 1/2 g.p.m.
He agreed with the Chairman that in a situation such as this, for clustering and fire
protection, that more water is needed. Mr. Henley said they also show plans for a swimming
pool. Mr. Wheeler did not feel that by deferring the Board is approving.anything. This would
give Mr. Smith a chance to work with the staff on water and sewer and to bring in some
concrete information concerning the homeowners association. Mr. Fisher said with the
amount of work done on project, there is no reason not to have the legal documents so
the Board will .know what they are working with. He did not want to defer action
indefinitely.
Mr. Carwila offered motion to defer any action on this petition for 60 days. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Wood.
Mr. Batchelor asked if this was being deferred to 'answer the following questions:
(1) the advisability of clustering septic tank systems as opposed to a one location,
package, tertiary type treatment plant; (2) the gallons of water that will be necessary
to serve this development, per unit, and the availability of that gallonage on these
locations; (3) legal documents, such as, who will operate, what type of maintenance, etc.;
and (4) whether or not this should be public service since it will be for over 50 units.
Mr. Thacker asked that recommendations be made as to what will be required in gallons and
storage for fire protection. Mr. Wood said instead of directing this to the already
overburdened staff, he asked that the applicant bring this information in.. Mr. Wheeler
said he felt the Board wanted the staff to review this before it is returned to the Board.
Vote was taken .at this point and the motion carried by the following re.corded vote:
AYES: Messrs, Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
1-23-74
Mr. Wheeler said the Board had received a request from the citizens of Crozet to
be .heard on the dog leash law adopted by the Board on November 15, 1973. He said there
was misunderstanding last week about the time and he asked that the Board hear the
matter at this time.
Mr. Edward P. Farish said he had a petition containing 290 names, asking that the
Board remove from the record, the recently enacted leash law for the Crozet area. He
felt the ordinance is unfair because it is not county wide. The majority of the
people in this area do.not want this ordinance .... ~;.Hei~said in order to enforce this
ordinance there would ~have to be a dog warden on duty 24 hours a day.. He said by
leashing dogs, this taken away protection from the citizens, turning rapists-and thieves
loose on the citizens. He alleged that the public was not notified that this leash law
was being considered by the Board. He asked that the Board either remove the ordinance
tonight or impose a moratorium on the ordinance until the Board can hold another public
hearing.
Mr. Henry Joslin said his wife is left alone at night and their dog is the only
protection she has.
Mr. Herbert McAllister said he lives one-fifth of a mile from where this petition
started, the first petition. He did not know anything about it at that time or he would
have appeared.
A lady, said she lives on Hilltop street, and she does not want to tie her dog. She~
said the dog license charges were raised this year and she could see no reason for this
if the people will not be allowed to have their dogs with them.
A gentlemen said he lives in Crozet and has four children and the dog is their only
protection. He asked why the citizens have to buy a dog license to make the citizens
keep the dog on their own property. He said people have broken into the Presbyterian
Church, next to his home.. He asked why the Board had passed a dog leash law in Crozet
when they could not.pass a loitering law... He knew nothing about the original hearing
until he saw an article on the editorial page of the newspaper.
Mr. Farish said he was told that he had to buy a dog tag and he said he was being
penalized by having to keep the dog tied.
Mrs. Bruce said she is opposed to the dog leash-law. She was unaware that Crozet
had a problem with dogs. Most of. these are used for protection.
Mr. Wheeler said he felt the Board had received the concensus of the people. He
said the Board does have the authority to enact this ordinance for separate~ areas and not
make the ordinance county wide. He said the Board members did not initiate the original
action~nd that legal procedures were followed. He said if the original petition does
not represent the feeling of the citizens of Crozet the Board will have to look at this
again.
Mr. Henley said he did not know how these people could have missedthe .first public
hearing. He had several people call him several times a week. Mr. Wheeler said the
1-23-74
487
Board was willing to hold a public hearing and have both those for and those against
appear at that time.
Mr. Farish said he would like to have a copy of the original petitions.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to advertise a change of meeting place for a
meeting to be held on February 19, 1974, at 7:30 P.M., at Henley Junior High School.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried, by the fOllowing recorded vote:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
AYES:
NAYS: None.
(4) SP-310.
W. M. Collins has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to
locate an addition to a mobile home park on 14.11 acres of land zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 706, about
one mile north of its intersection with Route 708. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 23A. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
Notice of this public hearing was advertised, separately from other zoning petitions for
this night, in the Daily Progress, on January 9 and January 16, 1974. Mr. Collins was
~ot present. Since there were citizens present to comment on this petition, the Board
continued.
Mr. Humphrey said Mr. Collins has also applied for a special permit for a central
well and the Planning staff has not been able to obtain full information from Mr. Collins.
Mr. Humphrey said this permit is for expansion of a~ existing mobile home park. The
property is situated on the west side of Route 706, about one mile north of its inter-
section with Route 708. There are five single family residences and four mobile homes
located across from the existing mobile home park. Pastureland or open land is to the ......
north,_west and south of the property. In November, 1969, the applicant was given approval
for ~six mobile homes, in addition to five which were already existing (CU-117). At the
present time, there exists 13 mobile homes and one single family residence on this property.
The applicant is requesting an addition of six mobile home spaces. Mr. Humphrey said
two mobile homes, which are now in violation, need to be relocated. This will provide
for only three additional spaces. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the petition with the following conditions:
(1) Provided that the two mobile homes which are in violation, be made a
part of this request.
(2) Provided that the mobile home Which is located behind the existing
row of mobile homes be relocated at the proposed mobile home site
addition.
(3) That there be adequate screening. It was suggested that there be two
rows of evergreen trees, minimum height of six feet, as indicated on
the plan prepared by Warren Wade on December 3, 1973. This screening
to be approved by the planning staff.
(4) Health Department approval with reference to septic tanks.
(5)The extension of water lines, in terms of size and materials, are to be
approved by the County Engineer.
(6) Approval of a central water supply is to be a separate special use permit.
Mr. Carter Dorman said his property adjoins this property. He questioned the
approval of the Planning Commission.. He also questioned sanctioning the fact that Mr.
Collins has already located two mobile homes in violation of existing regulations and
488
1-23-74
also Mr, Collins' ability to comply with regulations in the future~ He did not feel
screening will ever take place and this will become a bigger disgrace.
Mrs. Peggy Carson said she lives on the other side of the trailer camp. She feels
this is an eyesore to the area.
Mr. Wood then offered motion to defer any further action on this petition until the
next zoning meeting and for the staff to inform Mr. Collins that if he is not present,
action will be taken at that time. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher said this petition has had a long history in the Planning Commission.
Mr. Dorman questioned the Board not taking action at this time. Mr. Wheeler said the
Board has. a policy that in order to treat all citizens fairly, that they will not take
action if the petitioner is not.present.
Mrs. Carson said there were others in the area who are in opposition to the expansion
of this trailer court, but they are older people and nOt able to attend the Supervisors'
meeting. She said there has been raw sewage running on the ground. Mr. wheeler said
that should be referred to the Health Department. Mr. Fisher said if there are people
who cannot, because of physical disability, attend Board meetings, the Board will accept
written communications.
Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
(5) SP-317.
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Carroll Fisher has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors i~
to locate a mobile home on 2.38 acres zoned A~i Agricultural. Property is
situated on the west side of Route 689, about two miles north of Batesville.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 71, Parcel 11, part thereof.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey said the area is rural in character; however, there are eight conventional
single family houses and six mobile homes located in the immediate area. The subject
property is located on a rock, gravel, access road and is presently being used as pasture-
land for cattle. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommended approval with the
following conditions: (1) five (5) year, temporary permit; (2) 100 foot setback from
Route 689 and the access way; (3) health department approval of a septic tank system;
and (4) screening left to the discretion of the planning staff.
Mr. Carroll Fishes was present in support of the petition. An unidentified man
said he was an adjoining property owner and 'he does not object to placement of this
mobile home as long as it complies with the Planning Commission's recommendations. No
one else from the public spoke for or against.
Mr. Wheeler said he had recently found two mobile homes which this Board has approved
conditioned upon health department approval of a septic tank system, however, these have
never been installed and some do not have wells. He asked~ that Mr.. Batchelor's summer
interns make a review of all mobile home permits issued, to make sure all conditions have
been complied with.
1-~3-74
489
Mr. Gerald Fisher said he had visited the area. He is concerned because the mobile
home will be placed in the middle of a large field visible from a long distance a~d he
felt that screening should, be placed to protect the people who have built permanent homes.
Miss Mary Joy White, planning staff, said he had visited this site and she felt that with
natural screening, the distance that this home will be placed from the road, and condition
~4 recommended by the Planning Commission, that these would be adequate. Mr. Fisher then
offered motion to approve the petition as recommended by the Planning Commission. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
(6) SP-318.
Robert A. Leiby, Jr. and Donald A.~ Nelson have petitioned the Albemarle
COunty Board of Supervisors to locate a craft and gift shop on about six
acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of
Route 682, near Mechum River. Property is further described as County
Tax Map 57, Parcel 81, part thereof. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey said the property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of
Routes 250 West and Route 682, approximately four miles west of Ivy. This area is rural
in nature, with very little development. The property abuts Route 250 west to the north,
Route 682 to the east, and the C & O Railway to the South. The property contains one
frame house in need of major repair and a deteriorated barn. Both are located within
75 feet of Route 682. The property is primarily open pastureland. The Planning Commission
recommended approval with the following conditions:
(1) Site plan approval by the commission.
(2) Only one (1) four square foot identification sign on the
premises or a 20 square foot sign on the barn for
identification.
(3) No outside storage.
(4) The shop is to be used only as an outlet for artists
work in weaving, pottery, woodwork and related arts
and crafts.
(5) One year special permit to be renewed annually,
~:~_i~administratively~/if the activity continues to comply
with the above .mentioned conditions.
(6) Health department approval for installation of a
septic tank system.
Mr. Forbes Reback was present to represent Mr. Leiby and Mr. Nelson. He said the
applicants have contracted to purchase approximately six acres, subject to survey. For
the past 12 years the property has been owned by a Willie Dunbar, who has operated a junk
yard on the property. He said this is not an application for a rezoning. The applicants
will remodel the house for a residence and the barn will be used for a craft shop such
as Chimney Corners and will have an exterior appearance such as that of Claire Burke.
He realizes the citizens are trying to have Route 250 West designated as a scenic
highway. The Civic League, in making their awards last year, gave awards to both Claire
Burke and the Village Green Corporation and Ednam Green. This will be that type of
activity and will not b.e high density; some agricultural pursuits will continue.
490
1-23-74
A gentlemen said he has a house on Route 682 and has no concern aboUt what will
be placed on the property since he feels that this will be a vast improvement over the
present use of the property. He is concerned, however, with the traffic and he asked
that the Board consider what is a deteriorating road problem in the whole county.
Mrs. Connie Agee said she lives on Route 682 and she was speaking as a member of
the Ivy Citizens Association. She said they are concerned with this request and feel
that random location of such facilities constitutes stripping in violation of county
ordinances. The area under consideration is designated as a low. density, residential,
buffer zone and they urged the Board to preserve the character of this area which is
so vital to the success of the plan.
Mrs. Ginny Moore said she owns two acres on the other side of 250 and they the area
will not be served by this installation. She wants the area to remain as low.density and
she asked that the Board consider the traffic.
Mrs. Frances Martin, Citizens~for .Albemarle, read the following into the record:
We realize that the petitioners are reputable,, clean-cut
young men who apparently desire to establish an attractive business
that would improve the present appearance of the site and by itself
do no measurable damage to the neighborhood. They have also
indicated that they are willing to abide by the setbacks and other
requirements for the proposed scenic highway designation of 250~West.
However, the public has discovered that there are two questions
to be answered about every special permit petition:
1. How desirable is this individual proposed use?
e
What precedent will this use set for the future develop-
ment of the neighborhood?
This special permit application proposes a commercial use
in an agricultural zone. We realize that farming can be considered
a commercial use, but it usually does not present the problems
associated with business, such as traffic, signs, and lights. Our
present zoning ordinance states, "It is the intent to discourage
the random scattering of residential, commercial, or industrial
uses in this type of district." We assume this intent is based
on the fear that such scattered uses will eventually lead to
petitions for rezoning that would constitute spot zoning,
eventually defeating the basic purpose of zoning itself. In support
of this interpretation, the ordinance al. so states that uses by
special permit "shall not tend to change the character and
established pattern of development of the area or community in
which it wishes to locate." A member of the Planning Commission
stated a preference for the location of this type of shop outside
a sh~pping center, but we wonder if this preference is really
consistent with zoning. We feel that as a tourist attraction,
such a shOp will lead to requests to locate other tourist facilities
nearby, with a detrimental effect on the neighborhood.
In short, this proposed use does not serve the public interest
by fulfilling any public need, and it may harm the public by
serving as a catalyst for development.at a higher density in this
area than the Master Plan envisions. It is opposed for-convincing
reasons by knowledgeable citizens who have thoroughly studied the
question of~scenic highway designation and have proved their
constructive public spirit by uncounted hours of work to forward
this beneficial project. Therefore, we ask the Supervisors to deny
this request for Special Permit 318.
Mr. Wheeler asked if the staff had given any thought to this use....being compatible
with the area. Mr. Humphrey said, based on the public hearings and statements made by
the applicants, they feel that it can be compatible. It would have the character of a
dwelling. The commission was concerned about this being a commercial venture, however,
they thought it would fit into the area. He said the approval of the Planning Commission
was by a 5/3 vote; it was not unanimous. Mr..~Wheeler asked Mr. Humphrey's opinion as
County Planner. Mr. Humphrey said this type of approach, with the recommended conditions,
can be compatible. He did not see that it will be injurious to the area. He said the
staff did make comments to ~the Planning Commission about 250 becoming a scenic highway and
with proper screening and elimination of signs, it could have the character of a single
family dwelling. He did not feel that this would set a precedent for future requests.
Mr. Humphrey said he talked with representatives of the Virginia Outdoor Recreation Bureau
and. they are concerned with screening and signing along state highways, not setback.
Mr. Fisher asked about the Planning Commissions' recommendation concerning signs.
Mr. Humphrey said one, four-square foot sign can be placed at the entrance on Route 682.
That-identification sign is permitted in the A-1 zone. Or, a 2Q=square foot sign could
be placed on the structure. The Commission felt this was sufficient.
Mr. Fisher said the key word is "or". Mr. Humphrey said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if
there was any consideration given to restricting the use of lights. Mr. Humphrey said
he could not recall. It was suggested that they submit a more detailed site plan. At
that time, conditions can be placed on screening and they can also require proper
deceleration lanes. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any reason to consider this at this
time. Mr. Humphrey said conditions placed on a special use permit have more weight than
those placed on the site plan. He said if there are lights on the parking lot, they
should be indirect and not shine on Route 250.
Mr. Reback said the first gentlemen who spoke was concerned about traffic problems.
They do not anticipate a lot of traffic. This will not generate as much traffic as
Pop's Restaurant, which is near this location. This will not be a Stuckey's, it is going
to be a very low key, very expensive craft shop basically catering to the taste of local
residents. Mrs. Agee was concerned about detrimental commercial uses. He said right now
there is a non-conforming use for a junk yard on this property and this can be continued
indefinitely unless it is abandoned. The plan does show a buffer zone between Ivy and
Mechums River, however, this is just a matter of a few hundred yards from the Mechums
River line. The Board cannot set a zoning precedent with a special use permit. This is
not a tourist facility. He said a four square foot sign is smatler.__~than~mos~ estate
signs along Route 250. He said they will agree to any restrictions on lighting which
are reasonable. Mr. Leiby will be living in the house and wants to be a good neighbor.
Another lady, unidentified, said she is concerned about setting a precedent for
commercial development in this area.
Mr. Leiby said they have agreed to this use being reviewed every year. He did not
feel this will, therefore, set a precedent.
Mr. Fisher said that he also shares the concern that any permanent special permit
becomes a rezoning. He feels that this sort of thing is a problem. He said he has heard
a lot of information from both sides of this particular question and he had come tonight
1-23-74
492
undecided. He feels it would be an improvement for the use of this property. However,
at the same time he feels that it should come back to the local government in a reasonable
period of time after ~five years or so, so it can be reviewed for land use patterns in the
area to see if, at that time, it is reasonably consistent. He said five years is not a
correct length of time, but some definite period of time should be set so that there could
be a end to this use unless it is approved by another Board.
Mr. Carwile asked that Mr. Fisher summarize in respect to the termination of this use.
Mr, Fisher said it could be approved as recommended by the Planning Commission, on an
annual basis, administratively, but that this permit would terminate at a period of five
years and come back to a public hearing to see what has happened to the land use in that area.
Mr. Carwile said this type of procedure bothers him because the pattern of land use
that may develop in that area in the next five to ten years, or whatever length of time is
decided npon, is something over which the.~applicants will have no control~ ~This is going
to be controlled by what the Board of Supervisors sayathe zoning ordinance is, and the
zoning classifications are, in the rezonings the Board grants. This is totally out of the
applicants hands. He said in the matter of review and control, the Board should set down
the conditions they want the applicant to comply with as a condition to granting the permit.
These can be reviewed periodically and as long as the applicant complies with those conditions
he would be allowed to have that permit. Otherwise, the Board is, in effect, taking the
risk of capital improvements out of the control of the applicant and putting ~hese under
the actions of the Board.
Mr.~ Fisher said he is still concerned that a permanent special permit, has the same
effect as a rezoning. He said he will not support a rezoning for a commerical use in this
area. Mr. Carwile said-a speCial permit is different in this particular instance in that
it will be tied to-this use by this applicant and not a general rezoning that any future~
owner of the property can take advantage of. in that respect they are different. He said
if the Board approves a special permit, the continuation of it should be at the applicant's
peril and .not at the peril of someone else if he is going to invest his money to make
improvements that would obviously be required at this site.
Mr. Fisher said that any outdoor lighting should be indirect in nature. There is
some lighting on 250 now that shines into the path of drivers and he feels this is a mistake.
Mr. Fisher offered motion, to approve SP-318 with the conditions stated by the
Planning Com~&ssion and added conditions, all as set out below:
(1) Site plan approval by the Commission (site plan basically
to indicate the area to be graded for parking lot in
relation to that for house and barn.)
(2) Only one (t) four square foot identification sign on the
premises or a 20 square foot sign on the barn for identi-
fication.
(3) No outside storage.
493
(4) The shop to be used only as an outlet for artists work
in weaving, pottery, woodwork and related arts and crafts.
(5) Health Department approval for installation of a septic
tank system.
(6) Permit to be for 10. years with annual administrative approval.
(7) Any outdoor lighting shall be indirect ~only.
Mr. Fisher's motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded
vote:
YES:
NAYS:
(7)
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
SP-319.
William R. Wood has petitioned the Albemarls County Board of .Supervisors
to locate a stable on about 5 1/2 acres zoned R-1 Residential. Property
is situated on the south end of Croydon Road in West Leigh Subdivision.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 59C(2), Parcel 57. Samuel
Miller Magisterial District.
It was ascertained that Mr. Wood was not present. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to
defer any action and public hearing on this matter until February 13, 1974.
was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
(8)
Messrs. Carwile,-Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
ZMP-293.
The motion
Richard Shank and Mike Evans have petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to rezone 1.687 acres from R-2 Residential to B-I Business.
Property is situated on the south side of Rio Road and the east Side of
the Southern Railway at their intersection. Property is further described
as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 153A. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey gave the staff's report. He said R-2 zoning abuts property to the south
and east; ~hree parcels located across Route .631 are~.zoned B-1. The B-1 zone across
Route 631 contains a construction firm and a trailer. The construction firm.is a ,non-
conforming use. The vocational school is located on property immediately south of the
property and a house exists to the immediate east. Public sewer is located ,on the
vocational school property. Public water is available along Rio Road via. an 18" main.
The comprehensive plan does~not.~recognize the commercial zone that exists in the immediate
area. A neighboring facility is indicated on the west side of the railroad right of way.
The adopted plan indicates a need to upgrade the immediate area by a less intensive zoning.
It is the opinion of the staff that the B-1 zoning that exists across Route 631 could
best serve the interests of the general public by a reclassification to a more limited
business zone such as the proposed C-O commercial district. The.property directly across
from it, which in part is the subject of this application, could have a similar limited
commercial-approach. Office use, linked on the west side by neighborhood commercial and
on the southeast by the institutional use (Vocational.Technical School) would be more in
keeping with the plan and existing usage. The staff, while recognizing the most desirable
use to be a small office facility, does not recommend B-1 zoning, but would recommend a
future C-O commercial zone. The staff also noted that the shape, location and topography
of the parcel does not lend itself to residential or intensive commercial use. Mr.
Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for
B-1 zoning by an 8/1 vote.
494
1-23-74
Mr. Shank spoke in support of the request. He said that the parcel in question
is currently zoned R-2 and is completely surrounded by uses which are non-residential.
If this parcel were developed residentially the eight to ten dwellings that would be
allowed, would be isolated from other residential areas by non,residential uses. The
narrowness and topography of the site severely limit it use for residential purposes.
He said it is their desire to locate a professional office building on the site, along
what they feel will be the new Charlottesville growth corridor. The site is located in a
developing business and institutional neighborhood on which a low density office space
use is more in character than what would have to be a poor residential environment.
Mr. Shank said they had presented to Mr. Humphrey a letter stating that will voluntarily
restrict the B-1 uses of this property to those proposed in the C-O Office zone.
No one from the public spoke for or against the petition.
Mr. Wheeler said he understood there was a lot of opposition 'against the petition at
the Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Wood said there were several people in attendance
tonight, but they had left. He said that if this parcel is zoned B-l, the Church that
originally purchased this property would also have to ask that their property facing
directly on Rio Road be rezoned to B-1. He said even though the applicants want to
install an office building at this location, the Board would have no control over the
property if rezoned. Mr. Wood said he feels it is premature for the Board to commit this
area to business. They had a mobile home request in ~his area last year and 'it was
denied.
Mr. Fisher said the Planning Department had recently sent a report to the Board
showing that B-1 zoning is the largest area of land .zoned in the county, which is not
presently developed.
Mr. Wood offered motion to deny ZMP-293. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: Mr. Carwile.
The next item under discussion was a request to lift a building permit moratorium
imposed ~by this Board on Greenbrier and Peyton Drives. (Mr. Carwile abstaining during
the following discussion). Mr. Batchelor said he now has a signed agreement from Dr.
Hurt. Mr. Thacker asked if Exhibit A referred to in the agreement indicated the streets
exactly. Mr. Hill said yes. Mr. WheeZer said he felt it had been discussed that once
the agreement was signed that the building permit moratorium would be lifted on Greenbrier
and Peyton Drives. Mr. Wood said that was his' desire. Mr. Humphrey said the lifting
of the building moratorium on ~Commonwealth and Westfield Roads also needed clarifying.
He said there has been a subdivision plat submitted for Commonwealth, Westfield and
Peyton, all together. According to the subdivision ordinance, surety must be shown to
insure that the roads can be put into the state' system. He said he could not release the
subdivision plat until he either receives a waiver or statement, even though the roads
1-23-74
495
are now being built; t.the extent that the subdivision plat will be approved. Mr. Hill
said he understood this., but he asked if the building permit moratorium had been lifted
on Westfield and Commonwealth Drives. Mr. Thacker said he was under the impression that
the moratorium was lifted subject to having surety to satisy the county ordinance. What
was left, and what the Board is concerned with tonight, is that portion that is included
in the request for industrial access funds. Mr. Batchelor said there is surety for 50%
of that Work. Mr. Thacker said this was his concern. T~e~Board~:~.has~received no indication
that industrial access funds will be received and if they do not receive these funds, they
will be.~back to where there were at the beginning; a road not in the state system and not
knowing who will bring it up to state standards.
Mr. Hill again asked why they would have to have surety. Mr. Thacker said the
subdivision ordinance requires surety. Mr. Batchelor said if the plat goes to record,
you must put up surety with the plat.
Mr. Wheeler asked if the Board wanted to lift the building permit moratorium on
Greenbrier and Peyton Drives. Mr. Fisher said the Board had a committee that worked
on this request for a long time and. he asked their recommendations. Mr~ Wheeler said
he would be willing to support Mr. Thacker's recommendations. Mr. Thacker said he did not
want to work a hardship on anyone. The Board is almost at the same place they were at
this same time last year. He is concerned that if the-Board does not receive~industrial
access funds, and the moratorium is lifted, the land may be built up. He could not recommend
lifting the moratorium at this time. Mr. Hill said they have complied with the rules
and regulations the Board has imposed. They have a bond in the amount of $23r000 and
have signed the agreement for the balance of construction .... He said the Board is trying
to impose an additional penalty and he did not think this is fair.
Mr. Thacker said he did not feel the Board is building another penaltyinto it.
He had said from the beginning that if Dr. Hurt, or whoever owns the land, is willing to
put up surety in the full amount of the upg. rading, he would ~recommend that the moratorium
be lifted. Mr. Hill said no one can tie up $75,000 in one piece of road. He said there
is no road in the county that has that much tied up doing nothing. Mr. Hill said when he
had talked to the Board earlier he was told that the Board had the power to impose a
building moratorium, they could also request site plan approval, and if the roads were not
included on the site plan, they did not have to approve the site plan. Mr. Thacker asked
if all the land in this area is zoned B-1. Mr. Humphrey said yes, Mr. Thacker asked if
site plans are required. Mr. Humphrey said they are in the B-1 zone. Mr. Thacker said if
the Board has some control over the roads he would recommend lifting the moratorium. Mr.
Wheeler said the~Board has been trying to get the-agreement signed for~two months and he
felt Mr. Hill had delayed the request as much as anyone else. Mr. Hill said %he highway
department had not put in an estimate for drainage and they had to redraft that part~, Mr.
Batchelor said the county also had to prepare-Exhibit A and send this to Dr. Hurt~with some
modifications and he objected to part of it and that was revised and additional work was
put on for the modifications so that the County could make sure the sidewalks would be
1-23-74
installed. There was a time lag from the time it was approved so that details could
be worked~ out. Mr. Thacker said if the State is as slow as the county and owner have
been, the land will be built on before we know whether w~e get industrial access funds.
Mr. Batchelor~ said he did. not feel there is that much property which can be built on.
Mr. Thacker said maybe not built, but permits could be issued and the county would certainly
not revoke them. Mr. Henley asked if there is a time-limit on industrial access funds.
Mr. Batchelor said it will take four to six months. Mr. Henley asked if there is any way
to get Stromberg to guarantee something. Mr. Hill said if they sold any liand, they would
have to bring the roads to state standards because most people buying the land would
require this. Mr. Thacker said property has been sold on these roads which are not to
state standards. There are offices on Commonwealth, the ice rink, property to the rear of
the Virginia Land Office and these roads were not acceptable to the state standards. Mr.
Hill said if they have to put up a performance bond, there would be no way they can do
this. He said he had done everything possible to get these roads into the system. He
said the Board must have some faith in what they can do even though their tract record
has not been that good<in the past. Mr. Thacker asked if the county does not receive.
industrial access funds, if the roads will be brought up to standards. Mr. Hill said yes.
Mr. Wheeler asked if all site plans for this area can be brought to the Board.
Mr. Humphrey said yes. Mr. Hill said if the roads are not brought up to standards within
six months, with the rise in materials costs, they would not be able to afford this. ~-~
Mr. Thacker asked if a site plan must be approved before the building permit is issued.
Mr. Humphrey said yes. Mr. Thacker asked how long this approval takes. Mr. Humphrey
said normally three to four weeks. Mr. Wheeler said he would not be upset about just
one site plan coming to the Board, but if twenty-five were presented, this would be a
different matter. Mr. Wheeler said he felt Mr. Hill has made an effort to get these roads
accepted. He understood .Mr. Thacker's concern, but he felt the ~Board could lift the
moratorium and require all site plans to come to the Board and if conditions are not
satisfactory they could impose another moratorium. Mr. Hill said he hoped that within
three months all the roads will be completed. Mr. Wood said he did not feel the Board
should jeopardize Mr. Hill's position on the industrial access funds by requiring him
to say that he will bring the roads to standard, whether or not these funds are received.
Mr. Fisher said he agreed that Mr. Hill has done what was requested by the Board.
He said if the Board asks the staff to expedite the handling of the industrial access
funds request and ba~e all site plains for this area come to the Board, and if in the
judgement of this Board it is not possible to get the industrial access funds in time to
do the thing right and the time schedule is such that this Board~feels there is still
a problem, or if the industrial access funds are turned down, that the Board could
reconsider at that point. Mr. Fisher offered motion to lift the building permit
moratorium on greenbrie~ an~d' Peyton .Drives~The motion was 'seconded by .Mr. Wood and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN_ING ~. Mr. C_ar~wi!e-
1-23-74
Request was received from the City Manager asking that the Board extend the agreement
between the City and the County for the use of the County landfill at Ivy beyond the
current expiration date. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to extend this contract for
thirty days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Thacker.
The next item on the agenda was a request from CFM Corporation for a restricted
road and access easement off of Sunset Avenue. Action on this request had been deferred
from January 9, 1974. Mr. Bill Cannon was present. Mr. Wheeler asked how the Board
can approve restricted roads for a development of 216 units when restricted roads policy
states no.more than 10 dwelling Units can be approved. Mr. Cannon said one problem is
that the Virginia Department of Highway's definition differs from the County's in that
they define the number of owners and not the number of units. Mr. Wheeler asked what kind
of roads were installed, in the past, when someone wanted to build apartments. Mr. Humphrey
said they have always been under private ownership. Mr. Cannon said on this particular
site the grade drops off steeply from Sunset Avenue and requires them to come diagonally
across the front of the property to get a 10% grade. That would have been no problem,
since it would have all been on one parcel. VEPCO went through the property with their
high transmission line and they severed the parcel and created a number of pieces of land.
Mr. Cannon said the road will be built to Virginia Department of Highway standards and
will have to be bonded like any subdivision road. Mr. Wheeler asked what would~be
wrong with installing a private road, Mr. Cannon said he would be happy to, but he
crossing four pieces of property and he had sent in the normal site plan and it came
back with a letter stating that he had a restricted road. Mr. Carwile said he owns all the
property but it has been cut into several parcels by the VEPCO condemnation. Mr.
Batchelor said if all the land were on a common plat the Board would not be considering
this matter. Mr. Cannon said the land will be developed in stages and it is possible
there could be a different owner for each stage. He said the road is being designed
and built to state standards. Mr. Humphrey said if there are to be different owners
there must be some arrangement for cooperative use of any restricted road. He said
this could be changed to a highway dedicated to public use. Mr. Carwile said that may
not be the solution in that if this were to remain under common ownership he could have
a bond up for a long time. Mr. Humphrey asked if this land had been broken up for
financing. Mr. Cannon said no. The first section of the apartment project is on
the first 12 acres and it leaves a residue.~acreage. Mr. Humphrey suggested that he resubmit
the plat and not show any lines. They could then have their access ways like any
other apartment project. Mr. Fisher said if this whole area is developed as R-3, they
could have a large vehicle count. Mr. Cannon said the road was designed for the density
it will create.
Z 98
1-23-74
_,_r. ..Mr:.iCarwile offered motion to approve the request as a restricted road with the
requirement that the owner will establish agreements for maintenance and conditioned
upon it being built to state standards for whatever the load capacity of the road will
be. Mr. St. John asked if~:~his~..meant....that he should have homeowners documents. Mr.
Carwile said before any conveyance to another owner. Mr. Wheeler said he did not see
how the board could approve this asa restricted road. Mr. St. John said the planning
department, in the past, has had plats presented stating that this subdivision is for
financing only. That would be a subdivision, but not for transfer of ownership. Before
any transfer of ownership of any part of that parcel could be made, at that time, they
would have to have the road built to state specifications and put up a bond. But they
would not have to do it until that time. This could be a private access easement and it
can be built anyway, but have on the plat that it is for financing only. If at any
later date any part is sold, at that time, whether it is up to state specifications before
os not it will have to be made a restricted road, if it serves only a few people. If
this could not be done, it would have to be brought to standards and a bond posted. Mr.
Cannon asked if it could be handled as a private road until that time. Mr. Carwile said.
if it was included on the plat that this was not for conveyance other than purposes of
financing. Mr. Humphrey and Mr. St. John were directed to handle this matter.
Mr. Wood said he would like to nominate Dr. Robert Brown, headmaster of Blue
Ridge School, to the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board. Mr. Wheeler suggested
that this name be held for a vote at a later meeting.
Claims against the County amount of $1,954,145.09 were examined, allowed and
certified to the director of fnance for payment and charged against the following
funds:
General Operating Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
Textbook Rental Fund
School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund
General Operating-Capital Outlay Fund
McIntire Trust Fund
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Town of Scottsville-Local Sales Tax
Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account
Total
461,696.48
1,039,286..34
36,311.45
4,005.09
264,t88.3~
50,000.00
3~857.02
78,326.00
161.04
16,313.37
1,954.145.09
Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at' 11:45 P.M.
Chairman