1972-04-12April 12, 1972
An adjourned meeting was held at'~7:30 ~P.M.' on this date in the Albemarle
County Court HouSe, said meeting being adjourned from April 4, 1972. Notice of suoh
date and place of meeting was pUb~lished in the Daily Progress on March 30 and
April 6, 1972. The purpose of this meeting being to hold a public hearing on the
f ol 1 owing:
SP-156. North Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to establish a Planned Community on land situated
east of Route 29 North in the immediate area known as "Hollymead."
The subject property is situated generally between Routes 649, ~29 North,
and 643. Propertycontains 252 acres and is described as County Tax
Map 46, Parcels 29, 27, 26B and 26E. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
William C. Thacker, Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Absent: None.
(Mr. Stuart F. Carwile was present, but did not sit with the Board or participate
in discussion or action on Hollymead.)
Officers Present: County Executive and County Attorney.
The Chairman explained the purpose of the meeting amd asked Mr. Humphrey,
County Planner, for an up-dated staff report on this petition. Mr. Humphrey
stated that he had tarried to the Heal-th De~rtment regarding the possibility of
septic tanks in Phase I as an interim measure until such time as public s'ewer is
available. The Health Department had no objections to this as long as percolation
not
tests, which have/been performed, prove satisfactory. Concerning the roads in
Holl~ead, Mr. Humphrey read the foll'~ing letter from Mr. Max Evans:
"March 20, 1972
Mr. Robert Warner, Resident Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
River Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Bob:
Thank you kindly for the opportunity to discuss with you
and John Humphries the present and future plans for HOLLYMEAD.
It is good that we gould clarify the basic requirements for
the road to HOLLYMEAD School.
According to my notes the following agreements were reached:
The present road will allow 85 dwelling units
ko be constructed in this phase of the HOLLYMEAD
community.
e
Additional pavement on the present geometry can
bring the VPD count to as high as 5,500.
The cut shoulders must be improved to 8' in
width and the fill shoulders to 10' in width at
the time additional pavement is placed.
This section of HOLLYMEAD is generally self-contained
with cul-de-sacs and the total development density
of approximately 800 dwelling units will yield a
VPD within the 5,500 limit of Category IV.
The exact credits for the present road'and future
pavement depths will be specified by the Virginia
Department of Highways.
At no time will ~,he number of dwelling units exceed
the VPD capacity of the roadway.
Yours truly,
(Signed) Max Evans"
At this time, the Chairman introduced those persons present who would
make presentations for the petitioner. Speaking on behalf of the petitioner was
Mr. Max Evans, Mr. Frank Burke and Dr. Charles W. Hurt.
~fte~-~a lengthy presentation, Dr. Hurt read the fOllowing letter
inter.the record:
"April 12, 1972
Dr. Charles W. Hurt
Route 29, North
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Re: Hollymead Planned Community Concept, Albemarle County.
Dear Dr. Hurt:
Thank you for your invitation to review your plans and
accompanying documents with regard to the above referenced project.
It is obvious to me from this review that you have utilized the
best professional services in devising a planned community for the
Rivanna Cluster in full accord with the Comprehensive Plan developed
for and adopted by Albemarle County.
I found your designs well supported by documented economic,
physical and human resource data equated to the present demand for
housing and convenience services in Albemarle County.
In my opinion, your proposals are oompleted in accord with the
"Controlled Growth Policies" outlined in the recently adopted plan.
In fact, the approach you are using is the best way to provide a
"balanced" community and at the same time preserve a large portion
of the County~ valuable open space.
Personally, I have advocated this method of clustering develot~uent
in all the public hearings during the earlier stages of plan development.
I have carefully reviewed the staff and planning commission
reports and am satisfied that their conditions and recommendations
are reasonable, and I understand from you that you intend to abide
by those recommendations when the decision on each is imminent in
the process of your actual development program.
I ~further understand that-your utilities plan is being developed
in close conjunction with those of the county and the city and that
your cost analysis shows that none of your services are being provided
at the cost to anyone outside your own planned community. The plans
for the Powell's Creek system have been approved and funded, now
awaiting a decision by the County and the City on a joint contract
approach. The water main from Charlottesville north to Piney
Mountina, located in the center of Route 29 is accessible to your
property at several points and'should present no'~cOnnection or supply
problem. All other planned public facilities have been recognized
and incorporated in your proposals.
Finally, let me restate a position I have adhered to since the
beginning of the planning process in Albemarle County.
Growth will occur in Albemarle County. The only questions remaining
are: where, in what form, and at what time. These questions can only be
answered by the dictates of the general state statutes requiring that
planned growth be considered in light of reasonable, orderly, economic,
control of the density and distribution of population, and that the
general health, safety and welfare of the population be promoted and
improved.
The public sector responsibility has been carried out thmough
its plans for this area to date. None of these plans can work however,
unless the private development sector initiates the request to begin.
No one should lose sight of this simple economic fact, so necessary
in the complete planning cycle.
The timing is certainly correct in light of current events, the
location is in accord with t~e public sector plan, and the form is
by far the better choice over conventional development.
I see no reason, whi~ agreeing with both the staff and the county
planning commission, why your proposal should not be acceptable to
Albemarle County.
Sincerely~
(Signed) Rosser H. Payne, Jr., A.I.P."
Upon completion of statements made by the foregoing persons the Chairman
called upon the public for comment. A brief summary of general comments follows:
Mr. Robert Dolan expressed the opinion that growth is taking place
everywhere and since the unemployment rate is so low and with the addition of
Interstates 64 and 81 he believes there is no way to stop this growth. He stated
that the County will develop with no plan and he thinks a planned community like
Hollymead is needed.
Mr. Michael Demetsky expressed conce~n about additional vehicular
traffic on 29 North.
Mr. Bob Merkel expressed concern ~that in 30 years approximately 50% of the
land in Albemarle would be in use. He also expressed the opinion that more industry
m~ld be discouraged, thereby reducing the number of people in the County.
Mr. RiChard Seldon said he is disturbed that a fiscal impact analysis has
not been performed. He does not believe that a project of this kind can pay-for
itself.
Mrs. Robert Seldon 'expressed concern that there is no low-income housing
planned in 'Hollymead and felt that approval should not be rushed without environmental
and social impact studies being made.
Mrs. Gabrielle Hall, a real estate agent, spoke in f~avor of the petitioner.
Mr. Henry Maclin, a financial planner, spoke in favor.
Mr. F. A. Iachetta said he is not opposed to the plan but said he is not
assured that the Board knows how to make the cluster concept legal.
Mr. Clay Camp spoke in favor of the planned community concept.
Mr. Bill Litton from Commonwealth Mortgage Company in Richmond said that
Commonwealth Mortgage believes this is a good plan and they are surprised at the
controversy.
Mr. William-Colony spoke in favor of this type of development, but felt
that it is growth serving. He asked that action be delayed until such time as the
Board and the people are satisifed that there are no better alternatives.
Mr. Jo~_Cannon felt there is no reason to delay, approval on basis for need
for additional studies.
Mr. Robert Lee, a builder, urged that some areas be set aside for
low-income housing.
Mrs. Nancy O'Brien from the League of Women Voters, asked that 'an
agreement be reached for the funding, of Sewer lines. She also felt that no
proper soil survey had been done and that the roads have not been jointly
planned. She also expressed concern about low-income housing.
Mr. L. A. Berlin felt there should be low cost housing even if same
had to be subsidized by the Federal and state governments.
Mr. Bob Ward, from Lake Monticello, felt that a planned community
is the best way to handle growth. He felt that the plan as presented isa good
plan and that it meets the master plan requirements and that it~should be approved.
Mrs. Rosenblum felt that the issue is not growth but the fact' that new
ordinances have not been adopted to go along with the planned community concept.
Mr. Roy Patterson endorsed Mrs. ~.RQsenblums, comments.
Mrs. Hall also expresSed concern over ~the lack of low-income housing,
but felt that approval should not be held up over this one point.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, motion was made by Mr. Thacker,
seconded by Mr. Wood that this matter ~e deferred until April 20, 1972, as soon
after 10:00 A.M. as possible to hear a report from the Highway. Department concerning
the roads in Hollymea~ The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. · .............
At this point, Mr. Carwile made a motion that this meeting be adjourned
until 5~00 P.M. on Wednesday, April 19, 1972, in the Board Room of the County
Office Building.
recorded vote.
AYES: Messr s.
NAYS: None.
Motion was seconded by Mr.' Thacker and passed by the following
Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker,' Wheeler and Wood.
Chairman