Loading...
1975-01-22N1-22-75 (night) 473 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, .Virginia was he'ld on January 22, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County CourthoUse, Charlottes- ville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, T. M. Batchelor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John. The first item was a public hearing to amend and re-enact Section 4-13-1, Chapter 4, Article II, of the Albemarle County Code to include Stonehenge under the "Dog Leash Law". Mr. Batchelor presented to the Board a petition signed by the 14 residents of Stonehenge. Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing open. Mr. Jim Myers was present in support of the amendment. No one else from the public spoke. Mr. Wood noted that everyone who presently lives in the Stonehenge complex has signed the petition including the developer. Motion was put forth by Mr. Wood to amend and re-enact Section 4-13-1, Chapter 4, Article II of the Albemarle County Code to in- clude Stonehenge under the "Dog Leash LAW", .as follows: Area No. 13 Stonehenge Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 9543, page 409; 9545, page 660; #548, page 326,345, 346, 3~7, 348, 522; 9550, page 320. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ~st ~o'e~aD~th~%~f~SoheA~a ~e~y@~n~g~g~h'~eh~asnd~e~er~ed from January 16, 1975, was next on the agenda. Mr. Batchelor noted that he has received staff comments and a report from the Acting Director of Social Services on the proposed agency for aging, and it was unanimously recommended that the County of Albemarle enter into this agreement. It was further noted that the County would now be able to get a coordinating agency and an advocate in this area, which the State is not allowing within the Social Services agency. Mr. Wheeler noted that there had been some concern by the County Attorney as to the legality of this agency. Mr. Frederick Payne, stated that in checking, he could find no legal problems with the agreement as redrafted since the January 16 meeting. Mr. Fisher stated he felt the duties of the local jurisdiction should be specifically noted so each jurisdiction can predict what their expenditures would be and this has been added to the draft. He also requested the Board to strike the following sentence if the agreement should be adopted; page 5, Section 6. "or other such formula as may be established by the Board." Mr. Wheeler asked if anyone from the public wished to speak regarding this matter, no one from the public spoke either for or against adoption of the agreement~. Mr. Thacker asked if the agreement had been approved by any other localities. It was answered that Greene County has already approved the 1-22-75 (night) · agreement. Mr. Fisher offered motion to authorize the Chairman to sign the Joint Exercise of of Power Agreement for the Jefferson Area Agency on Aging on behalf of the County with the recommended change. Mr. Carwile seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood. NAYS: None. The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Jefferson Area Agency on Aging, as authorized for signature, appears below: JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT Jefferson Area Board for Aging WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albe- marle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson are aware of the diversity of interests and concerns of older persons within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, these concerns are the joint responsibility of the local governing bodies and certain agencies of the State and Federal govern- ments; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that opportunities be provided older persons and their needs met on a regional basis in order to assist them in maintaining an independent life style as long as possible; NOW, THEREFORE, this agreement made and entered into this day of , 1975, by and between the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson, WI TNE S S E TH : That for and in consideration of the mutual promises and agree- ments to be performed respectively as hereinafter set forth, the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson contract among themselves as follows: SECTION 1. There is hereby created the Jefferson Area Board for Aging which shall serve as the mechanism for the joint exercise of powers of the participating member juris-dictions in furtherance of and in accordance with the Older Americans Act of 1965, the Older Americans Comprehensive Service Amendments of 1973, Chapter 24 of Title 2.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950~, as amended, and the respec- tive rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. SECTION 2. The Board will function to operate such programs and/or to provide such services as agreed upon by the participating jurisdictions in order to implement the annual Comprehensive Plan for Aging Services of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (Planning District Ten), here-inafter referred to as "District". SECTION 3. The functions of the Board shall be to: A. provide for the comprehensive and coordinated delivery of needed services to the senior citizens within the District; B. provide, by contract with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, for ongoing planning, needs determination, data collection, evaluation of existing and future services, use of resources for senior citizens within the District, and assistance in the annual revision to The Comprehensive Plan for Aging Services; C. enter into agreements with providers of social services and to pass through Federal and State funds for the provision of needed services by these providers to senior citizens within the District; [ 1-22-75 (night) 4'.75 D. prOvide~'for'the initiation,-expansion, or impro~e-, ment of social services for senior citizens in the District in compliance with Federal and State regulations, guidelines and priorities; E. render appropriate technical assistance to providers of social services for senior citizens in the District; F. encourage and, when appropriate, assist in the development of funding arrangements which utilize several sources of funds to enhance a service to senior citizens in, the District; G. contract for regional programs for senior citizens in the District, such as the nutrition program funded under Title VII of the Older Americans Act, as amended; H. provide for the establishment of a network of coordinated local information-referral-tracking services in order to assure that all senior citizens and providers of services in the District will have access to such sources; I. establish as the advisory council to the Board the existing Advisory Council on Aging of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, to advise the Board on all matters relating to the administration of the qomprehensive Plan and operations conducted by the Board. This Council shall consist of representatives of the target population and the general public. SECTION 4. The Board may exercise all powers of the parties hereto.relating to the aforementioned functions including, but not limited to, the selection, hiring and discharge of employees, the expenditure of funds given to it pursuant to this agreement, the employment of consultants and the execution of necessary contracts not otherwise prohibited by law. All property held for use by the Board shall remain the property of the member jurisdictions and shall be held as such by the Board as agent therefor. SECTION 5. The Board shall oversee and be responsible for both the operation of such locally approved regional projects, and the pass through of Federal and State funds as may be consistent with the annual Comprehensive Plan for Agi.ng Services. The Board shall carry out these duties subject to each of the following conditions: A. the project or pass through of funds shall have been reviewed and approved by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.and its_Advisory Council on Aging as being consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan for Aging Services and all other regional~plans and policies as they may be relevant. Projects requiring special planning studies prior to implementation may be undertaken only after consultation with the Planning District Commission; such planning studies shall be. offered under contract or other appropriate arrangement to the Commission. If the Planning District Commission chooses not to undertake the study, the Board may authorize its own staff or other agencies or firms to perform such a planning study under the Board's auspices. B. a specific project or pass through shall have been approved in writing for implementation through the Jefferson Area Board for Aging by the two or more member jurisdictions who desire to participate. Since implementa- tion of the project shall apply only to those jurisdictions approving their participation, any additional costs to the Board arising from such project, and not otherwise compen- sated for, shall be borne by the jurisdictions involved. 476 1-22-75 (Night) i C. the method of agreement, the obligations, and the local financial participation shall be set forth in the annual proposed budget and scope of work prepared by the Board and authorized specifically by each constituent governing body of each jurisdiction. Any commitment of local funds must be approved by each local jurisdiction in writing. D. projects undertaken by or through the Board shall include arrangements for evaluation by the staff of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. SECTION 6. The Board shall be supported financially by grants from the Federal government, administered by the Virginia Office on Aging; and by contributions from member jurisdictions. The Board shall request annually of each member governing body an appropriation of funds to cover, in part, costs of regional projects and administration, to be determined according to the ratio of senior citizens (aged 60 and over) in each jurisdiction to the total number of senior citizens in the District. In addition, the Board may accept such gifts, grants, loans, and other sources of income as may become available to it from any public, private or charitable source or from the United States of America or Commonwealth of Virginia or agency or instrumentality thereof. SECTION 7. The Board shall consist of one (1) elected official for each member jurisdiction, or his designate. In addition, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle shall have one (1) additional representative each who shall be appointed by the governing body of his respective jurisdiction. Each member shall have one equal vote in all matters before the Board. Each member of the Board shall serve a term of two years. Members may be reappointed and shall serve at the pleasure of the governing body of their respective jurisdictions. To insure stability of membership and retention of experienced members on the Board, initial terms of Board members shall be established to insure that not all BOard members will be replaced at any one time. SECTION 8. The officers of the Board shall consist of a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman who shall be elected by the membership of the Board. The Board shall have the power to elect such other officers as it may deem necessary to the proper exercise of its powers and functions. Such officers shall serve for a period of one year or until their respective successors are elected. Officers shall be eligible for re- election. The Board shall have power to employ such agents as it shall deem necessary to the proper execution of its powers and functions. The Board may make such rules of procedure as it shall deem necessary and proper for the conduct of its business not inconsistent with this agreement and shall hold meetings at a regular time to be determined by the Board. Meetings shall be conducted in conformance with the Virginia Freedom on Information Act. SECTION 9. This agreement shall continue in effect indefinitely, Termination of this agreement shall be by action of the governing bodies of all member jurisdictions. Any member jurisdiction may withdraw as party to this agreement by action of its governing body upon ninety (90) days written notice to the Board. Copies of such notice shall be sent to the clerk of the governing body of each member jurisdiction. This agreement may be amended by the concurrence of the governing bodies of all member jurisdictions. SECTION 10. In the event of termination, all property then held by the Board shall be distributed among the member jurisdictions in proportion to their respective contributions to the expenses of the Board. 1-22-75 (Night) SECTION 11. Additional member jurisditions may become parties hereto upon written application therefor and upon ratification of such application by the governing bodies of all member jurisdictions. A jurisdiction joining in this manner is subject to its share of that fiscal year of the planning and administrative budget. 477 SECTION 12. This agreement shall take effect on the same date it is adopted and signed by that governmental subdivision whose senior adult population (aged 60 and over), when added to the aggregate senior adult population of those jurisdictions which have already adopted and signed the agreement, embraces the majority of the senior adult population within the District. SECTION 13. The principal office of the Board shall be in Charlottesville, Virginia. The location of the principal office may be changed by the concurrence of three-fourths of the Board present at a regular meeting, provided that the clerk of the governing body of each member jurisdiCtion has been notified of the contemplated relocation in writing at least thirty days prior to such meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the member jurisdictions have caused their names to be signed and attested by their duly authorized officials. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE ATTEST: BY: ATTEST: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BY: ATTEST: COUNTY OF FLUVANNA BY: ATTEST: COUNTY OF GREENE BY: ATTEST: COUNTY OF LOUISA BY: ATTEST: COUNTY OF NELSON BY: 478 1-22-75 (Night) The Board continued with public hearings advertised in the Daily Progress on January 1 and January 8, 1975. ZMP315 RICHARD deBUTTS, etal., to rezone 15.66 acres located on the east side of State Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road), from R-3 Residen- tial and A-1 Agricultural to R-2 Residential. Property is further described as County Tax Map 76, Parcel 52, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, read from the Staff Report: This property is located.on the east side of State Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road). Country Green Apartments is located to the north. Oak Hill subdivision, Southwood Mobile Home Park and Oak Hill Mobile Home Court is located to the east and south, respectively. The property in question is presently vacant and wooded. There has been a substantial amount of growth and development in the area to the north, east and south. This development has been in the form of single- family and multi-family residential. Single-family development is located adjacent to this property to the east and southwest, with lot sizes ranging from 0.39 to 5.9 acres. Southwood Mobile Home Park is located to the south of this property and Oak Hill Mobile Home Court is located to the east. Country Green Apartments and Sherwood Manor is located to the north of the area proposed for rezoning. The property in question is presently zoned R-3 and A-1. The portion of which is zoned R-3 is approximately 0.75 acres and is located on the southeast quadrant formed by the intersection of State Routes 781 and 631. Properties to the south and west of the property are zoned A-1 Agri- cultural. Properties to the north and east are zoned R-3 Residential and B-1 Commercial. At the present time, there is only 2.5 acres of land zoned R-2 Residen- tial within the southern half of the urban area of Albemarle County, and that 2.5 acres is developed. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that this area be developed as medium density residential (2.5 du/acre); however, the plan does not recognize existing high density zoning within the area. The major street and highway plan adopted by Albemarle County in 1968indicates that State Route 780 is to be extended through this property to tie into Route 631. The property to be set aside for this right-of-way would have to be determined, if and when this property is developed. Improvements to Moore's Creek STP are almost complete. However, additional loading capacity to Moore's Creek has not been approved by the State Water Control Board as yet. If, and when, that approval for an increase in capacity is given, the first-come, first-served concept applies through the Albemarle County Service Authority. The topography of this parcel varies considerably. The northern portion of this property slopes steeply to the east, down to a natural drainage swale from which runoff ultimately flows into Biscuit Run. The southern portion of the property is gently undulating and would be conducive to development with little or no fill needed. The staff noted that the statistics given in the report are potential impact figures. They do not reflect the fact that the topography of the parcel in question would limit the development of this parcel subs~aRtially. It is the staff's feeling that R-2 zoning would be compatible in this area which is made up of land uses ranging from single-family development on small-medium sized lots to multi-family and mobile home residential areas. This rezoning would provide a buffer and a more conducive variety of housing between the single-family development to the east and north, and the mobile home park to the south. The Planning Staff and Planning Commis- sion both therefore recommend approval." Mr. Steve Helvin, representing the applicant, reviewed several points regarding the reasons for rezoning. He also pointed out that there was suffic- ient access to the property. He noted that the main reason this request is 1-22-75 .(Night) before the Board at this time is so this development will be first in line for 479 sewage treatment at the Moore's Creek plant. No one from the public spoke for or against this request. Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed at this time. Mr. Fisher asked if soil erosion problems were consider~ed before the decision to recommend approval was made by the Planning Staff and Commission. Mr. Wood stated that he was at the Planning Commission hearing, and it was implied that the Soil Erosion Ordinance would be the tool by which the erosion problem would be governed; the matter would not be discussed further Until an actual site plan was submitted. Mr. Wood at this point offered motion for approval of ZMP-315 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Thacker seconded the motion. Role was then called, and the motion was approved by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. aP440. RONALD H. THOMPSON, to locate a mobile home on~l.5 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of State Route 616, about 1/4 mile south of its intersection with the C and O Railroad. Property is further described as County Tax Map 80, Parcel 159. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Ronald H. Thompson was not present, nor was anyone representing Mr. Thompson. Therefore, motion was made by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker, to defer action on the request until someone representing the applicant was present at the public hearing. Role was called and motion to defer until February 12th, was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: -None. e SP-445. STOCKTON CREEK, to locate a craft shop on 11.51 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 250 West, at the intersection of State Route 690. Property also described as County tax map 70, Parcel 15A, part thereof. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. John Humphrey read from the Planning Staff Report: "The property is located cn the south side of Route 250 west near Greenwood. The area is rural in character occupied dwellings. There are area. Stockton Creek is a corpoz as cabinets, tables and chairs. approximately 200 yards from Re as the workshop. The staff felt this use is have architectural and historic proposed, this structure can be recommends approval with the fc 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Products be limited manufacturing; Building Official ap Limit of one free st and the location to Provisions of adequa Staff; Schematic site plan indicating the locatJ Closing of the cente~ received January 6, Staff review of cond Maximum number of pe] Permits issued to St( Mr. Humphrey pointed out that the Craft Shop compatible with the Mr. Paul Gray, representing St and the property contains a large barn and two several single-family dwellings in the immediate ation which produces custom built wood products such All existing structures are presently located ute 250 west. The barn is to be renovated and used compatible with the area. The barn is considered to al significance. With the use and renovations preserved. The staff and commission therefore, llowing conditions: o custom built items, i.e., no assembly line-type royal of barn renovations; .nding sign with maximum area of eight (8) square feet ~e approved by the Planning Staff; .e parking and location to be approved by the Planning ,o be submitted to the Planning Staff for approval, on of the sign and parking area; -most entrance as shown on the general site plan 975 within one year from date of final approval; tions after one year; sons to be employed by Craft Shop to be 12 persons; ~ckton Creek only and non-transferable. :he Commission felt the conditions listed would make Lrea. ~ckton Creek, showed photographs and sketches of the 48O 1-22-75 (Night) proposed layout to the Board. Mr. Fisher questioned Mr. Gray as to whether this would be just a sales outlet or also a manufacturing plant. Mr. Gray noted that this will be mainly for custom furniture building and direct sales to the public are anticipated at this time. Mr. Carwile questioned the size of the building and the reason for the limitation as to the number of empto¥~$'~Mb~.~ray stated that when renovated, it could conceivably hold m~e than the but they agree to the recommendation of the Commission. Mr. Henley asked what was going to be done with the home presently on the property. Mr. Gray said it would probably be rented. Mr. Wendell Jackson was present representing the Greenwood Citizens Council. He said the Council is not in opposition to the granting of this permit. It can be of benefit to the owners and the community if tastefully done. The Council is concerned with the possible consequences of a special permit which does not meet the conditions set by the Board at the time same is granted. He said this has happened with other special permits in their area. They urge the Board when granting special permits, to look carefully at the demons which may be involved and to carefully make conditions for p~otection of the citizens. Also to ~ake into the mechanism for seeing that the condStions imposed are fulfilled. Mr. Wheel~de~lare~?t~e~b~c%hea~ing closed. Mr. Fisher suggested that the use of the property be "tied down" in the conditions of the permit. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Humphrey if, as Planner, he had considered that there would not only be manufacturing of furniture, but actual retail sales. Mr. Humphrey noted that retail sales are related to craft shops and gift shops, and that it~is a permitted use. Mr. Wood said this was not discussed at the Planning Commission hearings. He felt that a craft shop would automa- tically have retail sales and the permit was approved on this basis. Mr. Fisher questioned if additional Planning Commission approval would be required if any additional buildings are desired in the future. Mr. Humphrey noted that it was not specified, but this woul~ be the correct procedure, that is; return to the Planning Commission for approval of any additional building on the property. Mr. Carwile pointed out condition 97, "Staff review of conditions after one year;" was redundant. Mr. Humphrey said it is a standard condition. Mr. Fisher then requested that the Board defer action until he, as district representative, has an opportunity to discuss the permit with the applicant to try and come up with a better plan.~ Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Gray if there was any time restriction. Mr. Gray stated that he would prefer a decision tonight, since approval of the permit is needed before deciding whether or not to buy the property. Mr. Wood said this request has been in the County's hands for approximately four months. He felt this causes a hardship on the applicant and asked the Board to act on the request. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Gray which he preferred, action on February 12th, or right now. Mr. Gray stated he would prefer action tonight. Mr. Fisher suggested the addition of a condition that if the applicant wishes to do any additional building on the property (whether an addition to or an entirely new structure), that the request be brought back to the Board. Mr. Carwile stated that he would like to see condition #7 deleted, as it is redundant, and ambiguous. Mr. Fisher then made motion to approve SP-445 with the deletion of #7 as stated by the Planning Staff and Commission and the addition of the following new new condition #7 as follows: "no new buildings or additions to existing buildings will be permitted." Mr. Carwile seconded Mr. Fisher's motion and added the comment that by eliminating the original condition 97, it would not be eliminating staff inspection, it is ~liminating staff review after one year. Mr. Thacker commented that the Zoning Ordinance must be complied with before a certificate of occupancy is issued, so there would be an inspection of the property in any case. At this point role was called, and motion as presented by Mr. Fisher was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. At 8:25 P. M. Mr. Wheeler requested a recess. The Board reconvened at 8:34 P.M. and continued with the following zoning matter: 1-22-75 (night) 481 SP-435, James .N. Fleming, Flamenco - Four Seasons (deferred from December 11, 1974) to locate a Planned Community on 128.06 acres zoned A~..~.j~icultural on Route 743 and Route 657. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: Ladies and Gentlemen, we want to be sure that everyone has a chance to be heard, if you want to speak, we ask you to come to that microphone, identify yourself so we can get it on tape and I ask the Board members, if you have comments to speak up as we have a little problem with people hearing. I would ask those who speak to be brief, we do not want to exclude anyone from making state- ments but we would ask you to hold down the repetition as much as possible. Mr. Humphrey proceed. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner: (reads from Staff Report) "The property is located on the west side of Hydraulic Road (Route 743), approximately~½ mile from the intersection of Hydraulic Road and Rio Road. The subject property is immediately to the north of Four Seasons West. This proposed planned community lies within the urban area of Albemarle County as outlined by the Comprehensive Plan. The area in question is open, gently rolling pasture land with slopes ranging from 5% to 25%. The land is also adjacent or near to 5 single-family dwellings, 13 two-story duplexes, and a small mobile home park con- taining 8 units. The comprehensive plan indicates that the proposed planned com- munity lies within the designated urban area of the county. The plan suggests that the property in question maintain a medium density re- sidential use (2.5 dwelling units/acre), not to exceed 2½ per acre. The property in question is zoned A-1 as well as the property to the North and West. The property to the southwest is zOned R-2 Residential and is developed in two-story duplexes. There are 75.66 acres zoned R-3 Residential located to the south of the proposed Planned Community. Four Seasons West is to be located on this R-3 property and a site plan has been approved for the first phase containing approximately 124 units. Across Route 743 from the pro- perty in question is 25.1 acres zoned R-3 and 20.34 acres zoned R-2. The majority of both parcels are vacant with the exception of a small mobile home park. The staff has indicated and presented to Mr. Chairman the proposed impact statistics and a summary of these can be found on the third page giving: impact under existing zoning 54 dwelling units @ unit/2 acres (net); Impact under Comprehensive Plan's suggested density 272 dwelling units @ 2.~5 unit/acre (net); Impact of Applicant's Proposal 804 dwelling units @ 11.4 units/ acre (n~t)." Mr. Chairman, I would like to stop at this point and indicate that the appli- cant; again this is State Route 743, we mentioned Four Seasons West, which abutts the property to the South is currently vacant, near the intersection of 743 and 631 is where the plan has been approved for the first phase of Four Seasons West. The plan indicates a small commercial community or neighborhood center to be located on frontage of Route 743 (center frontage) with a mixture of townhouses, garden apartments, patio houses, duplexes, and some cOndominiums. The breakdown would be 167 Townhouses, 146 Garden Apartments, 167 Patio Houses, 80 Duplexes, 244 Con- dominiums for a total of 804 living units at a per acre d.ensity of 6.7. They are proposing a commercial service shop with a total square foot area of 36,300 of retail area on approximately 8.39 acres. We are also indicating an inpoundment site at this location; and to have as shown, internal access, along with the roads, extension into the future expansion of Four Seasons West and also a connection to what is generally known as Lamb's Road, which passes Albemarle High School and ter- 1-22-75 minates just west of this property. "The Department of Education states that the impact on schools in the area of this Planned Community would probably require some redistricting and reassignment of students, as would any other development in the urban arsa~ It should be noted that the proposed planned community is expec- ted to be a ten year project. The proposed planned community indicates that there will be three entrances into the property. Two will be located on Route 743 and one will be located on Route 657 (Lamb's Road). The Highway Department states that Route 657 is inadequate to handle the traffic volume that would be generated by this proposal, and suggests that the entrance onto Lamb's Road not be permitted until the road is improved. The Highway Department also feels that Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) will be able to accommodate the traffic generated from the initial development Qf this proposal, and within the next five years the improvement to Hydraulic Road is expected, which could handle the traffic volume anticipated at the completion of the planned community. The following rights-of-way widths are suggested by the State Highway Department in consultation with the Planning Staff if taken into their system: Evergreen Drive - 70' r-o-w along the commercial property with a median, and turn lanes provided into the commercial area; 60' r-o-w throughout the remainder of Evergreen Drive. Lakeshore Drive - 70' r-o-w along the commercial property with a median, and turn lanes provided into the commercial area; 50' r-o-w ~throughout the remainder of Lakeshore Drive. Carr Drive 60' r-o-w. Street tying into Four Seasons West - 60' r-o-w. Greer Drive, Carr Court, Spruce Court, Evergreen Court, Cedar Court, and Pine Court - 50' r-o-w. A 35' dedication of land from the center line of Route 743 along the front of the planned community. The street over the dam of the lake and the streets giving access to residential parking lots cannot be taken into the State highway system and must be privately maintained. The applicant proposes to use public water from the County Service Authority. An existing water line is located along Hydraulic Road. Plans indicate that sewer lineS from this project are expected to tie into the Four Seasons West project which will then ultimately be served by the Meadowcreek Sewage Treatment Plant. Sewer availability at the Mea- dowcreek Plant will be on a first-come, first-served basis. The County Service Authority suggests that the developer submit to the authority an estimate by stages of the capacities that will be expected on an annual basis. The Authority will not commit or reserve total capacities for large developments to any one developer. The force main sewer line is proposed to be located within the City's gas pipeline easement. In addition to the sewer line, plans indicate that some tennis courts and a proposed lake will be located over a por- tion of this same easement. Initial comments from the City are that they oppose and do not intend to allow a lake, tennis court, or sewer line on or within the gas pipeline easement. While a study of the impact that various land uses are having and will have on the Rivanna Reservoir is needed desperately, precautions should be taken whenever possible to prevent additional sediment and nutrients from flowing into the Reservoir. Runoff from the property in question flows into a stream which traverses the property and ultimately flows into the Reservoir. Sediment from soil erosion which eventually finds its way into the Reservoir is a primary deterrent to the life of any reservoir; however, plans for the development of Evergreen indicate that a dam will be constructed, forming a lake on the property. The staff feels that this lake would act as a large sediment basis and minimize soil erosion into the Reservoir. 1-22-75 483 Nutrients flowing into a reservoir are a different problem. These are the actual pollutants; such as fertilizer, pesticides, sewage, leaching from roof-tops and pavement, other storm runoff, and many, many others. In order to prevent nutrientS from being added to a reservoir, runoff must be properly treated for nutrient removal. The staff is of the opinion that the density proposed by the appli- cant is too high and is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. The staff is receptive to a planned community in this area, and we support a planned unit concept; but only at the density proposed by the Compre- hensive Plan which is maximum 2.5 dwelling units per acre. It is the feeling of the staff that since there are 189 acres zoned high density residential in this immediate area, it is felt that this is adequate to fulfill the needs of the county for some time. To establish more would not be in the best interests of the county and this immediate area~ The staff therefore recommends approval of Special Permit-435 to locate a Planned Community with the following conditions: 1. Maintain a 2.5 dwelling unit per acre density; 2. Submission of revised site plan and Planning Commission and Board approval based on 2.5 unit/acre density; 3. Approval from State Highway Department concerning inter- nal Street rights-of-way, dedication of land along Route 657 until it is improved; 4. Submit to the Albemarle County Service Authority an estimate, by stages, of the capacities that will be expected on an annual basis; 5. Submit to the Planning Department evidence of any agreement between the developer and the City of Charlottesville concerning the use of the gas pipeline easement; 6. Reserve an adequate amount of land, to be determined by the County Engineering Department, which could be used for~an adequate treatment facility relative to runoff; if warranted, to remove any nutrients from the storm runoff in the area; 7. Minimum of 4.3 acres to be located on the southern portion of the property, adjacent to Four Seasons West, which would provide a neighborhood Park for a concentrated population with active recreation fac- ilities; 8. Dedication of water and sewer lines to Albemarle County Service Authority; and 9. Sidewalks to be located only on one side of the major internal through streets; 10. County Attorney's review of any deed restrictions or Home Owners Association Agreements. If the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors agrees with the applicant's proposal, the following conditions" .... which I will hold at this point, and refer to letters that we have received and forwarded on for Board consumption. Mr. Humphrey then proceeded to reference letters received by his Department. (NOTE: all letters as referenced by Mr~ Humphrey at this time are on permanent file in the Office of the Clerk to the County Board of Supervisors). Letter dated December 16, 1974 from Mr. M. D. Phillips, Pollution Control Specialist, State Water Control Board; directed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Statement received on January 7, 1975 from Mr. Mahlon G. Kelly, Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (Member, Ad Hoc Technical Committee on the Rivanna Reservoir.) Memo dated January 6, 1975 from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey directed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, .Jr. Letter dated January 3, 1975 from Mr. Steven M. Young, Assistant Regional Engineer, State Bureau of Sanitary Engineering; directed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Letter dated June 20, 1974 signed by Mr. Robert B. Taylor, Acting Regional Engineer for Mr. Norman Phillips, Jr., P.E., Director Bureau of Sanitary Engineering; directed to Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner. Letter dated December 9,1974 from Erich H. Bartsch, P.E., Director Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, Department of Health, Commonwealth of Virginia; directed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Letter dated December 19, 1974 from Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., of Richmond and Fishburne Attorneys; directed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker. Letter dated December 9, 1974 from Mr. Joseph W. Richmond of Richmond and Fishburne Attorneys; directed to the following nine persons: a) Mr. David W. Carr b) Mr. M. Clifton McClure c) Mr. Peter Easter d) Mr. M. Jack Rinehard, Jr. e) Mrs. William E. Craddock f) Mr. Roy Barksdale g) Dr.~ James Sims h) Mr. Louis Staley i-) Mr. William Tinsley Statement received January 7, 1975 from Mr. W. P. Dinsmoor White, Executive Director Piedmont Environmental Council. 10. Letter dated January 6, 1975 from Paul C. Hutton and-Frances S. Hutton directed to ~lbemarle County Executive Officer (This letter was read in full before the Board and the Public). "January 6, 1975 Albemarle County Executive Officer, Albemarle Court House, Charlottesville, Va. Dear Sir: As my wife and I are unable to attend the meeting I believe is scheduled for this evening to hear both sides of the controversy over proposed plans for a real estate development project close to the new reservoir providing drinking water for Charlottesville and especially the County I write this to say that we are strongly opposed to such plans and will go to all possible lengths to put a stop to them. And so, if you are keeping any kind of a head count on the "pros" and "cons" relating to such a development, please by all means put us in the "con" column. Very truly yours, (signed) Paul C. Hutton (signed) Frances S. Hutton" Mr. John Humphrey: Mr. Chairman if you desire for me to read these letters, I will be glad to although you do have copies. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: There is one letter in this packet from Mr. Joseph Richmond and~ the copy that we received is not totally readable; so I think you are going to have to read it into the record. "December 9, 1974 Mr. David W. Carr 1117 Emmet Street Charlottesvill-e, Virginia Mr. M. Clifton McClure P.O. Box 1333 Charlottesville, Virginia Mr. Roy Barksdale Route 1, Box 129B Afton, Virginia 22920 Dr. James Sims P.O. Box 307 Scottsville, Virginia 24590 Mr. Peter Easter 1325 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia Mr. Louis Staley Ridgecroft Crozet, Virginia 22932 Mr. M. Jack Rinehard, Jr. 407 East Water STreet Charlottesville, Virginia Mr. William Tinsley Box 1, Box 249C Keswick, Virginia Mrs. William E. Craddock Albemarle Lake Road Charlottesville, Virginia Gentlemen: Mr. Joseph W. Richmond, Jr. and I are the administrators of the estate of Mary Carr Greer and also attorneys for Mrs. Evangeline G. Jones. The Greer estate owns a tract of land containing 61.8 acres, more or less, composed of all or parts of Parcels 45-7, 45-8 and 44.35B as shown on the Albemarle County Tax Map. Mrs. Jones owns a tract of 18.5 acres shown substantially as Parcel 45-9 on the Albe- marle County Tax Map. The Greer estate and Mrs. Jones' property adjoins property owned by Flamenco, Inc. and James N. Fleming, which is presently being considered by the Planning Commission for planned unit development. We are informed that Mr. Fleming has asked for a planned unit development having a density of seven units per acre. Mr. Joel M. Cochran is the real estate agent for the estate and also for the property of Mrs. Jones. Both the estate's property and Mrs. Jones' property have presently been listed with Mr. Cochran for sale. The concern of ourselves and Mr. Cochran is that if the Planning Commission grants Mr. Fleming and Flamenco, Inc. approval of a planned unit development the area in which his property is located as well as the Greer and Jones property will reach a saturation point and in the future it will be impossible for a developer to do anything with the development of the Greer property and the Jones property. While the Greer estate and Mrs. Jones are in no position financially to develop their properties, it is hoped that a sale can be made through Mr. Cochran to a developer affording to the estate and Mrs. Jones the best possible price. Such a price obviously cannot be obtained if these properties cannot be developed because of the fact that due to the location of these properties between the reservoir and the Fleming property .the Planning Commission will later feel it improper to develop the Greer and Jones properties because the area will have been saturated by the development of the Fleming property. WE understand that a further hearing is to be held by the Planning Commission on Monday, January 6, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. at the Community College an~d Mr. Cochran has been authorized to be present at this meeting on behalf of Mrs. Jones and the Greet estate to ask an expres- sion of opinion from the Planning Commission as to the future develop- ment of the Greet and Jones property. Very truly yours, (signed) Joseph W. Richmond" Mr. John Humphrey: Mr. Chairman, that completes the staff report. I would like to reiterate that the staff supports the planned unit concept, but at a density of 2.5 no more than that. The Commission supports a planned unit concept, but the density they feel is too much, and they are recommending denial. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: O.K. Gentlemen, any questions of Mr. Humphrey at this time? Mr. William Thacker: Mr. Chairman, I have one question of Mr. Humphrey. Mr. Humphrey, concerning condition number six, which regards treatment of storm water runoff. Is this to be interpreted that the developer would provide such treat- ment so that any storm runoff would not introduce additional nutrients into the Reservoir? 4 8 6 1-22-75 Mr. John Humphrey: No sir, this is the right on behalf of the preservation of an area of land to be determined by the County Engineer, to establish an adequate treatment facility if found to be needed. It would appear to be at the County's expense. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: O.K. Gentlemen, any other questions of Mr. Humphrey at this particular time? (no' response) Thank you Mr. Humphrey. Mr. Fleming... Mr. Richard Carter: Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard Carter, I represent the applicant. Just one word in passing, Mr. Richmond's letter as I understand the jist of it, it's "don't approve this zoning because I"m going to 'sell my property and I don't want to come back and if somebody beside me has already been rezoned". Well, it's my understanding that all zoning applications certainly aren't approved, but it's much like the water, on a first come first serve basis. I think he should have sold it sooner. I would just like to make a few comments tonight concerning this project. First of all I want to get over to you exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to put in a planned unit development, with housing in the $35,000 range, with $4,000 to $6,000 lots. This is the income range, this is what we think is needed in Albemarle County; $30,000 to $40,000 total investment. This is for the County employees, school teachers, laborers, people that are in the $8,000 to $15,000 per year income. This is why we can go along with everything in the staff report except the density. Because to drop back to 2.5 dwelling units per acre, as in the staff report, then you are talking $20,000 lots $60,000 to $75,000 homes; and this is not what we want to reach. This land, the topography of this land, the open space that we have left in the planned unit development, we need this density and $3,500 to $4,500 lots; $30,000 to $35,000 homes. We feel that this is what is needed in Albemarle County. There are not houses on the market at this price, this is what the people need, and this is what we want to give them. Now, we would like to point out, as the staff report has pointed out, that all around the Reservoir, all around this area is high density. It is a Southwest R-2, 75 acres of R-3, another R-3, Four Seasons West is R-3; all in this area is high density. So we're not coming ~in and sayng,'here we are in the middle of an area that is nothing but agricultural, we want high density' The high density is there, it's the logical progression, the logical growth of the urban area. Now, you can look at the Comprehensive Plan and you can say well, this is medium high, os this is medium low,~ under the Comprehensive Plan where this is dark blue, this is 2.5. So that is what we have to call it. I submit to you that if you look at the Comprehen- sive Plan; it is pretty arbitrary. When they are drawing on page 94 of the urban area what is dark blue, what is light blue, and what is blue with white dots, it is a pretty arbitra'ry designation; and we are asking for 6.7. Right beside us is Four Seasons West R-3 who got six, so we are not asking for anything that is not already there. This is an eight to ten year project. This is not going to be built-tomor- row. This was also pointed out in the staff report. 1-22-75 487 Now, the staff report at the end lists many conditions, whether you approve it at 2.5 or 6.7; there are plenty of conditions, many conditions. We want to cooper- ate, we want you to know this, that we come in a spirit of cooperation. We want to work on each and every one of these. We'll do everything that is humanly possible on all these conditions. The only one we cannot work on is the density and the reason we cannot work on the density is because it is economically unfeasible to put this type of housing on this type of land where you have this much open space. If you look at that drawing on the board, you will see Mr. Roudabush's drawings, there is a lot of green up there, and all that green is open space, and that is what we are trying to do is keep the open space. You are going to hear a lot of people talk tonight about the Reservoir; it's going to hurt the Reservoir, it's going to kill the Reservoir, we're going to poison everybody that drinks water in Charlottesville. We are very interested in the Reservoir, we don't want to hurt'the Reservoir. Those of us that don't live in the County and work in the City; we drink the water. We don't want to hurt the Reservoir. This property is not on the Reservoir, it doesn't border on the Reservoir. You've already got high density on the Reservoir, and there is already R-3 and R-2 zoning right on the Reservoir that goes down to the water line. This property has 75 acres between it and the Reservoir~ Also in connection with the Reservoir, Four Seasons West drains into this property. The.way it is now it is an open field~ When Four Seasons West drains, it's going to drain right on through it. But as proposed, when this lake is built and this dam is built, not only is it going to help the draining of this area, but it's going to help the draining of Four Seasons West. Forty percent of this land is open space, we believe that around the Reservoir and around that area, as much open space as possible should be there. So, we don't want to'hurt the Reservoir, we'll do all we can to help the Reservoir. As you see this is a planned unit development; it's condominiums, townhouses and so- forth. A relatively new approach in this area, and we had to go to this approach for just the reason I mentioned; to keep the open spaces.. Last year, in 1974, 50% of all homes and all family dwellings built in the United States were condominiums and planned unit developments. So this is the coming thing, not only Albemarle County, not only the State of Virginia, but everybody is going to it. We think we have a good plan. Mr. Roudabush is here, he is going to explain to you the plan. You are going to hear people say it's a bad plan. People are going to say we talked~with so-and-so and he is an authority, he knows this and he knows that, and it's a bad plan. Well, nobody talked to Mr. Roudabush about the plan, and asked him about it. He and Mr. Fleming and-several others drew it up and we think it is a good plan. It's going to help the Reservoir, it's going to help the people that need this type of housing, that is what we want to help. Now, just a few ¢l'osing comments on the staff report. I would like you to keep in mind the schools. There~is going to be quite an impact on schools, there could be redistricting; but the staff report says, as with any other development in the 1-22-75 (night) urban area. This is what the urban area is for, it is for development. We are not calling it a rural area, it is an urban area, there are going to be people in it as in any other development. .Now, there is some question as to Lamb's Road. At the Planning Commission, we had~two hearings. First hearing someone that lived on Lamb's Road was very concerned about the traffic on Lamb's Road. Well, we should be, it's a terrible road, it can't stand this much traffic. We are willing to cooperate, we will close off Lamb's Road. It says within the next five years improvements to Hydraulic Road, and this is an eight to ten year project. The improvements to Hydraulic can handle the volume of traffic anticipated. So we'll close Lamb's Road, L~amb's Road is not fit for this, so we're just trying to impress upon you that we are willing to cooperate. Now, the City is worried about the gas line. They don't want tennis courts on their gas line; they don't want a parking lot on their gas line. When they come in to work on the gas line, we have interfered with their right-of-way. O.K., we'll move it. If there is a tennis court on the City's gas line, we'll get it off. If the lake is on the City's gas line, we'll move it. When Bill Roudabush shows you the site plan tonight, just remember it is 'preliminary. We are in here asking for approval of a planned unit~community, and we are showing you a suggested site plan. We '11 work it out any way you want it. So, we are willing to compromise. If the gas line is in danger then we will move it. Also, I think the way it is zoned now, A-l, with the new tax assessment it would be almost prohibitive to put almost any- thing but mansions in this area, but rather than have the owner, or anyone that ownes this property go in and put two acre lots and put houses on every two acres, where you really don't have control, here you have a planned unit development'that you can control the development of this land, you can work with this land. In closing, let me just go over a few things. First of all, the density we are asking for; we are not asking for any more density than any other planned unit development. We are not asking for -- Four Seasons West is 6 -- we are asking for 6.7. So we are asking relatively the same density as our next door neighbor. So there is no difference in density all around the Reservoir. The Reservoir is not sacred to the Planning Commission when they made the proposed zoning ordinance, when they put high density right on it with like a 50' conservation buffer. It wasn't sacred then, and we're not on the Reservoir, there are 75 acres between us. We are not asking for that. The problem of the Reservoir is going to be the same whether this planned unit development is there or whether it is not there. If the study is going to take two years, and I submit to you that the people we are trying to provide housing for need housing now, they don't need housing ten or twelve years from now. This is an eight to ten year project. Don't make these people who need housing in this range wait two more years. This plan was approved by the Staff, except for the density, this plan was approved by the Planning Commission; there were only two negative votes for anything other than density. The vote that voted 1-22-75 (night) 489 it down on the Planning Commission the people who gave their reasons for voting, all except two stated that the density was the problem. There was no motion to come back at 2.5 . The motion was made to kill the plan, the motion was seconded, some- one said 2.5 I could take but 6.7 is too much. There was no amendment to the motion nothing else, it was just killed at that. But, everybody who gave their reasons other than the person who made the motion and seconder was on density. So that the plan, the basic concept of this planned unit development was approved by the Planning Commission. Again, let me say that there is a need for this type of housing, we are within the Comprehensive Plan and the only difference that I can see between this planned unit development, between this area and any other area around the Reservoir, any other area; you are going to hear more facts and figures tonight than you can shake a stick at - these people'have really done a lot of work to say that it is really goingS'toe'hurt the Reservoir; but any density, there are other densities on this that will have the same effect -- so the only difference I see density wise, effect on the Reservoir wise, income wise, any effect; is that this time we have a black applicant going into a situation where everybody else around him is white. Gentlemen, I don't think, and I know that you know that this is not a valid reason to deny this plan. Thank you very much. ~ Mr. Roudabush has some plans and pictures and Mr. Fleming has a 'few words to say. Mr. William Roudabush: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, I will try to be as brief as possible. I have a pretty good speaking voice, and I would like you to see some drawings so if I could move to someplace that would be convenient to post these. Gentlemen, we have three drawings that we would like to show you. First is this location map, which shows the general location of the proposed "Evergreen" develop- ment. Out there in the green are the boundaries of the project. The streets going through the property are shaded brown - the proposed streets. This road here is Route 743 and goes down and crosses the Reservoir at the two bridges. This one goes on to Earlysville and this goes on to the Free Union area. The yellow area is the Four Seasons West project immediately adjacent to EVergreen. Albemarle High School is this red building down in this area. This road running in ~this direction is Lamb's ROad, this property is the property of Mr. Bedford Moore. Four Seasons, phase one is in this area here. You can see by the drawing that there is some dis- tance between the Evergreen property and the Rivanna Reservoir. The next point we would like to bring to your attention is a zoning map showing the relationship of Evergreen to other Property in the area, and the Reservoir. This chart here is the color code for the existing zoning in the area. Evergreen is the red area here and is slashed with diagonal red lines. Four Seasons West is zoned R-3 is this brownish area 'here, as is all the other R-3 area on the map colored with the same pattern. 1-22-75 (night) Business zoning in the area is the red area in various places. The most predominent area zoning is the R-2 zoning, down in this area. This is the Rivanna Reservoir, which is slashed with diagonal black lines, this is the Ivy Creek Tributary, and this is the main bed of the Rivanna River. The dam on the Rivanna River is in this location h~re. The existing zoning of Evergreen is A-l'Agricultural, as is all the other uncolored areas of.the map. The only area in the County in which a planned community can be located is an A-1 agricultural zone. If the Board would recall that Four Seasons in this area here, was zoned R-3 and before the planned community could be put in they had to apply for rezoning to agricultural in order that the special use permit could be applied for. We had another map, which is not avail- able tonight which was a drainage map, we loaned it to the County Engineer to pre- pare his report, and we have not yet received it back, but the data prepared by the County Engineer, I believe is contained in a letter to you and it is essentially the same as the information we gathered from the map. There are some 362 acres which drain through this tract of land. It is composed of the property running up to Albemarle High School and adjacent to Evergreen~ There have been some comments concerning the City gas line right-of-way, which traverses this. piece of property. T~ere are several comments I would like to make concerning that. One is that the City gas line comes under the Rivanna Reservoir, it goes through Evergreen it goes through Four seasons West, it continues cross country to the Minor tract, which has just been submitted for approval for high density, high-rise apartment complex that goes through the parking lot of that development. It goes through Westfield Sub- division crosses ~Route 29, and cuts diagonally through Rutledge Subdivision and also goes through the parking of Charlottesville High School. It continues on through McIntire Park, up through McIntire Road up the ridge of McIntire through the City yards. We are aware of the possible problems in working with this gas line and the development has 'been laid out around the gas line, and the 0nly things that are planned within the vacinity of the gas line are the tennis courts, and the tail end of one of the lakes on this project. We feel that the plans can be modified and adapted to meet the requirements that the City may want to impose within the limits of the right-of-way which they have through this property.' I know all of you can't see the map in detail I have some handouts which I will pass around to you, which show the proposed density of the project. You will note that the project consists of several types of housing mixtures con.sisting of three and four story condominiums, duplex units, possibly two story, one story patio houses, two story garden apartment units, and two story townhouse units and a small neighborhood recreational area. The location of these units are as follows: This red band here is Route 743 leading down to the twin bridges and the Reservoir, a commercial area consisting of 8.39 acres in this area, the blue areas on the plan are three proposed lakes, the blue single lines represent stream beds or drainage channels running through the property. Ther~ being principally four drainage channels, one in this area here is the principal 1-22-75 (night) 491 drainage stream which runs completely through the property. The plan calls for a dam to be built at the low end of the drainage area which would completely trap and impound drainage from all the streams going through the property. The light uncolored areas of the map indicate areas of housing units. This area here being patio type houses, this area would be townhouses, this area is garden apartments, townhouses in this area, duplexes in this area, and condominiums in this area. The yellow areas indicate tennis courts or swimming pools and other areas of recreation for the property. This plan is mearly a preliminary plan showing the possible development of the project. There have been questions asked at the planning commission hearing, con- cerning detailed final design of facilities. This plan does not attempt to show any fi<hal design at all. The ordinance requires that the applicant furnish a preliminary plan showing proposed general layout, the general location of various types of land uses, the proposed densities of population in the residential area, a street plan, a public utility plan, a storm drainage plan, and a plan showing the location of recreational spaces. The ordinance goes on to require that a final plan consisting of any section of not less than 10 acres be submitted with a final design criteria. That is what we are attempting to do. Me are presenting you a general plan which shows the various types of housing we are providing, their general location, the density of the various types of living units. We are not attempting to furnish you any final design criteria on any phases of this development. It is not required, it requires a great deal of study, there will be many other people involved in making these plans, but they will be submitted to you, we will attempt to work these out with the County Engineering, and the County Planning staff, and meet whate~er re- quirements you would put upon this development. Another thing that I would like to show you are some photographs which I think illustrate the concept of this develop- ment. TheSe pictures were taken at a similar type of development in another area, in which an effort was made to preserve the natural vegetation, the trees and the contour of the land. I think if you will look at these pictures and study them you will see there is very little grading done to accommodate the buildings. The trees have not been disturbed, the contour of the land has not been disturbed, the trees which are located within parking lots and similar areas, have been preserved by a little bit of innovation and grading although this is not by any figment of the imagination the architectural concept of this development, but it does indicate that things can be done to preserve the natural aspects of a piece of property with- out destroying it completely. This is what we would like to propose to do if this project is approved. I would like to point out to you that this project, being zoned agricultural can be subdivided into lots, lots would have to be two acres in area. The property consists of 128 acres. To develop it into two acre lots it would probably take about eight acres to construct streets, leaving about 120 acres-avail- able for lots or 60 residential lots. That would require the use of the entire 1-22-75 (night) tract of land. There would be no open space left. There would be community owned or community maintained, and in order to build on ~a two acre lot, probably the entire lot would have to be cleared. As you can see from this drawing the areas that are being community owned areas, and community maintained and in so far as possible left in their natural state, are all colored green, and that is a large amount of land as compared to the white areas which is to be devoted to building purposes. I think that concludes all the remarks that I have to make to you. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: Mr. Fleming before you speak, there is just something that I would like to state as the policy of this Board so it will be clear, and for those who desire to speak, I want you to state the true facts as to how you feel about this. But just let me; I shouldn't have to say this, but sometimes the things that are not said are the things that cause trouble so I just want to reemphasiz~ that it is the policy of this Board, and the members of this Board are dedicated to two principals being: when considering zoning one thing we don't consider is the color of the applicant, that will not be considered in this or any other zoning application. Two, personalities. They are not things that we consider as part of zoning. I just want to make that clear, I won't repeat it; the things that are not said cause trouble. Those things are not part of the consideration, and will not be part of the consideration. Mr. Fleming .... Mr. James Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have this letter made a part of the record; I sent it to each Board member. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: Can I have the clerk read that. "THE TRUE FACTS" 1. White people do not pollute, but one 'is lead to believe that black people pollute. 2. There is no land in the immediate area, which is owned by blacks' zoned for high density. 3. All the land zoned for high density in the immediate area is owned by white. 4. There is high density land adjoining "my property", now zoned for thirty (30) units per acre (R-3), also developed land adjoining "my land" zoned R-2, and developed as R-2 land. 5. There is R-3 land across the road, from "my property:, also R-2 land owned by white. 6. "My la~d is located away from the reservoir - but there is high density land on the reservoir, owned by white". 7. There is already high density development on the reservoir. 8. The City gas line is located under part of the reservoir. 9. Some facts presented to me, by the County, "The highest and best use of this land is not to raise corn or more hogs" t0. Under the two and one-half (2½) units per acre, it would mean ~hat I~would~h~ ~Q~go>to.~th~six~y~housahd ($60,000) dollars ~plus - cost houses, and eliminate the majority segment of society that I would like to serve - including blacks. 11. I try to understand Mr. Bedford Moore's philosophy, that he does not want the possibility of "BLACKS" being LOCATED NEXT TO HIS CASTLE. 1-22-75 (night) 493 12. The reservoir have been lacking in attention, as there are HOGS AND COWS "Now using the reservoir". If by some of the deeds, the 200' easement strip was fenced in, and the reservoir patrolled, I think the problem would be cured. "As a ten (10) year old boy, I wanted to protect my dog, so I fenced him in". NO GROWTH ...................... NO GROWTH. (signed) James N. Fleming, SRA, CRA" Mr. Gordon Wheeler: Let that be part of the record. ProceSd Mr. Fleming. Mr. James Fleming: The only thing I have to add to this is where I came up with the 6.7 acres, was at the lowest density of any zoning on the Reservoir at that time was R-2 which was down on the Reservoir, zoned for 6 units per acre. The R-2 zoning did not require the developer to put any open space what-so-ever. As a planned unit development it requires the developer to put open space. And in the essence of time, I will read my final statement. My final statement is "I must keep asking the question, why white people do not pollute but black people pollute" Mr. JeRoyd X. Greene: Mr. Chairman, and members of the Board of Supervisors, I'm JeRoyd X. Greene an attorney from Richmond. My firm has been retained by Mr. Fleming, possibly to look into the matter of the zoning determination, which may be made by this Board based upon the recommendation from the Planning Commission. We are concerned, naturally, number one by the completely arbitrary nature in which the zoning appears to have been made in terms of decisions up to this point. If you notice that in the map you have, the University of Virginia tract of land, which is owned up at the top, which is a high density zoning area, for which there has been as I understand, no determination made at this time as to the use of that land, except that a zoning decision has been made and approved. We are concerned, naturally;, I understand the Chairman's feelings that race is not a consideration, however, the concern that it lies as a real concern is that when you look at the decisions that have been made heretofore, and the fact that there will be people who oppose this plan based upon matters of environmental impact, of open spaces. You will find that these individuals who have spoken and who will speak against this plan have not made similar requests for the down grading of sites which have been given high density consideration for which there has been no commitment by the owner in terms of planning or development to the extent that there is a vested interest which would be jeo- pardized by down grading. We are also concerned about the fact that when you look at the determination made by the Planning Commission and the staff approval, you find that the very basis for this planned unit development would be destroyed by the density determination which has been made, because you will price the very individ- uals who seek to utilize and purchase property within this development and this subdivision, right out of the market. Open spaces in zoning have been historically one of the ways in which Counties and Cities have been able to control population growth and industrial development. Unfortunately in this Country, we have found that not only has it been able to check both population growth and industrial develop- 1-22-75 (night) ment, but has also been used as a covert means to control the entry and the develop- .ment of minority people; not only black people, but all persons who are of a minority representation in this country. We are concerned about that, we are con- cerned about the fact that within the report of the Planning Commission within the staff report, that there has been established no compelling interest by the County in terms of this development as it has been established. There have been specious arguments made concerning environmental impact, there have been specious arguments made in terms of the fact that we have a saturation, but I don't think that within the context of what you have proposed and the criticisms and critiques which have been placed by both staff personnel and also by your Planning Commission, that there has been any overriding interest which has been established by the County, to prevent this planned unit development from reaching fruition. So, consequently, I would like to save both the County and Mr. Fleming the expense of taking this matter to a further tribunal if your decision is negative. We suspect that the underlying issue, which concerns Mr. Carter, which concerns Mr. Fleming, that is the one which you Mr. Chairman have spoken that there is no consideration being made of race; is truly a true statement. Not so much in terms of what you say, but what you do. Consequently, when you look at the hodge-podge planning, when you go out to the site and you look at commercial strip zoning determination, when you look at the just completely disorderly development, so far has been made, and the fact that there has been no serious effort by staff, no serious effort by the Planning Commission to down grade, those decisions which have already been made particularly prior to 1968 and up to 1968 before you got your Comprehensive Plan into law, there has been no serious effort to down grade those properties which have already been given high density approval and there has been no onsight con- struction, or no real commitment by the owner who has received the benefit of this Board's blessings in that determination. Consequently when we look at the whole situation in it's completeness, we ask you to prove your statement that race is not a consider- ation by granting this matter. I think that this developer has shown the maximum in terms of cooperation, to the extent that he has not come in with a "blue sky" plan, he has come in with a completely comprehensive, a completely engineered, architect, and surveyed plan. The whole thing speaks of excellence, the whole thing speaks of commitment, and we ask that you give Mr. Fleming and his associates the kind of dignity and the kind of consideration which he has given you by presenting you with what I consider to be a most excellent plan, and also giving to you his full and complete cooperation in terms of achieving the end which he desires as a land owner. Thank you. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: marion to you Mr. Greene. Just let me make this one comment. It might be of infor- Up until the decision is here, the decisions have not been made, recommendations have been made to this point. The decision rests with this Board. -Next, we did not have a zoning ordinance until 1968, prior to that time, we 1-22-75 {night) did not have zoning. Our first zoning ordinance actually came into effect in the summer of 1968. Right now our Planning Staff is working on a new proposed zoning ord- inance that would speak to some of the things you have spoken of. So, that is just a matter of information. Okay, who would like to speak next ... Mayor. Mayor Charles Barber of Charlottesville: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. I would like to say a few things. First, I am not here on behalf of the City to be concerned about the gas line and the lake that he alluded to during his presentation. Neither of those is a concern. But I hope the Board won't look at this as making their decision. I am not here, and I am sure the Board won't make a decision on race. I believe that you will make a decision that you feel is best for the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville concerning the Reservoir% I have to say that regardless of who pollutes, whether it is black or white, the Reservoir will be no good to neither black or white; County or City. So I hope that the decision that you make tOnight, or whenever you make the decision, will be based on primarily on what is best for Albemarle County and Charlottesville, especially those in Albemarle who live around and use the water from the Reservoir. I believe someone mentioned earlier that Charlottesville is so concerned about the tennis courts. If that is a concern, it is a very minor one. If someone is concerned about the parking lot, that is a very minor one. Let no one distort your mind and your thoughts from what is the real problem. I am here tonight on behalf of the City Council concerning the Reservoir, and the Reservoir only. We believe at this time a decision to rezone and increase the high density arOund the reservoir will be detrimental to the Reservoir. We the City and the County have the Committee underway, that we both are paying for and we ask you, if you will make one or two decisions -- delay or deny for the benefit of the Reservoir. We also believe that your Comprehensive Plan states that 6.7 units per acre is high and I have to agree with this gentlemen here about getting low cost housing in Albemarle County. I think that is great, but we are opposed to where it is going to be located. We in Charlottesville, like you in Albemarle, and those who have the proposal; we are for housing. But, we believe that it is more important to save the Reservoir right now, or delay it. I believe that it was stated that it would be eight to ten years before this would all take place, so gentlemen, I would ask you if you would at least wait two years and get the report that we are going to pay for before you make a decision. I have a prepared statement as you can see, but I don't feel like using it. The City has no opposition and we have no predicament or position to tell the Board members how to vote. We ask for you to think about who is going to be effected. I believe that we are on the line, the County and the City. You, like the City, are responsi- ble for water for Albemarle County and for the City of Charlottesville. We certainly hope and feel that any deliberation and decision that you make that you will not think of race, you should only think of facts, and those facts are what is best for the Reservoir, the people in that part of the County, and for the people in Charlottes- ville. Thank you very much. 1-22-75 (night) Mrs. Victoria Craw: My name is Craw, and while I live in the area that we are talking about, I am out of sight of it, and I don't drink the water from the Reservoir, so I am speaking for the Civic League. We have watched the deterioration of communities that have suffered from lack of control and because of that we work very hard for the adoption of our Master Plan. One absolute requirement of our plan is the pro- tection of our indispensable and irreplaceable water supply. Any high density building around the Reservoir is a threat to the Reservoir. This is not to say that high density building is undesirable, on the contrary, it is an intrical part of the cluster concept. And in our 745 square miles there is room and a need for it, but not boardering any water suPply whatsoever. We have seem a marked change in the Reservoir during these two short years since its creation. So it doesn't seem un- reasonable to seek a delay of all constrUction that could, even remotely, add to pollution until a thorough study of the present and future health of the water is made. We have just received a letter from the Federal EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) which stresses the urgency of the study, and of remedial action. And gen- tlemen, in addition to the recommendation of the Planning Commission, a very consid- erable number of petitions which you will soon receive, show what enormous public support you have for denying this application. Thank you. Mr. John Longley: Mr. Chairman, I am a landowner in the County, but a resident of the City. I am here only in the capacity of submitting to this Board a letter from Dean Lawrence R. Quarles, former Dean of the School of Engineering; which concerns the Reservoir, and in which he speaks in his capacity as Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. It is a ~ery strongly worded letter, it is sent with a covering memorandUm addressed to yourselves, and I would like permission to either read it myself, or have the Clerk read it. Let's let the Clerk read it. "January 2, 1975 Mr. David W. Carr Chairman of Albemarle COunty -Planning Commission Parrackside Garth Road Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Mr. Carr: I understand that at its meeting on January 6, 1975 the Commission will be considering high density developments near the South Rivanna reservoir. I regret very much that I have a long standing committment to be in California on AEC business, and hence cannot attend your meeting. If it is permissible I should like this letter read into the record at the hearing. As you know the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority board has endorsed a plan for making a comprehensive study of the reservoir and its watershed in order to determine the sources of pollutants in the reservoir. Such a study is imperative to permit adequate safeguards to be effected to prevent destruction of this valuable resource. The reservoir is in grave danger of being rendered worthless due to eutrophication and sedimentation. It is a major source of water for the community and will become increasing important as the population grows. It represents a major investment and replacement, even if another suitable supply could be found;~would cost many millions of dollarS. 1-22-75 (night) I hope the Commission will give careful consideration to the potential irreversible harm which may result from high density development before the facts from the study are avail- able for guidance in setting up adequate control to protect the reservoir. The Board of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has not seen this letter so it does not necessarily have the Board's endorsement, but it does represent my views as a concerned citizen who has some technical knowledge of the problem. Sincerely yours, (signed) Lawrence R. Quarles, Chairman" Mr. W. P. Dinsmore White: Mr. Chairman, my name is W.P. Dinsmore White, I am the executive director of the Piedmont Environmental Council, Warrenton, Virginia. Albemarle County is one of nine Counties in which the Piedmont Environmental Council is involved in land use and environmental research. I here tonight represent approximately 125 citizen members in the Council from Albemarle County. I don't want to make a lengthy statement, because I know we have a lot of people to speak, and also I understand from Mr. Humphrey, that my statement has already been entered into your record. I would like to summarize two or three points. First, develop- ment on the edge of an environmental resource such as a Reservoir, will usually destroy that resource through sedimentation or pollution and that to me is not wise planning, whoever does it. Second, we are caught up in a vicious circle. Any new number of housing units means more people and more consumption of water. We have a need for more water storage as we grow in population yet, we may loose an entire Reservoir in the process of allowing this development proposal in this location. We are not talking of a moratorium here thirdly, we are asking for a deferral of a decision or a denial'of this situation, while an intensive study is undertaken to underline the effects of any such development, on our scarce, elusive water supplies. We must face the fact that whatever is done to retard or alleviate the possible effects on the Reservoir, it is not possible to have no effect. And any effect at all will excellerate the demise of the Reservoir. Our desire to defer this develop- ment applies similarly to all development proposals within the watershed area of the Reservoir. According to some experts, we have ten years in order to preserve or pretect the Rivanna Reservoir. Surely in this day of economic recession, we can hold up our economic development until we have a more accurate assessment of our holding capacities, of the effects of development on our water system, and of how much and what kind of growth will provide water for and treat the wastes of. Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Robert Coles of Keswick, Virginia: I have been authorized to read this statement on behalf of Delegate James B. Murray. "I support the position that major development within the proximity of the South Rivanna Reservoir, should be restrained until a study has been made, indicating whether or not such development is a sig- nificant factor in the present excellerated rate of eutrification of that Reservoir." Thank you. 1-22-75 (night) Mrs. Henderson Haywood: I represent the Citizens for Albemarle. I have already given a copy of the full statement to the Board. Because it is a full state- ment, and because much of its substance was later presented to you by experts when the Reservoir study was discussed, I am only going to touch on a few points. But for the record I want it to be known that a complete statement has been given to each of you to read at your leisure. (NOTE: Four page copy of Citizens for Albemarle statement is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). You have heard a great deal about the harmful effects that can appear in flash flood runoff water from a site like Evergreen. This statement I have given you, contains a long list including such elements as the cancer producing petroleum pro- ducts from the construction equipment. The list goes on and on, we hope you are successful in keeping them out of our drinking water. I know you are as concerned as we are about this matter. In order to minimize this dangerous runoff, close supervision of this construction site will be necessary. We wonder whether the County will be in a position to provide for the funds for a large enough' staff properly trained to strongly enforce the erosion controls and extensive monitoring needed for the complete site. After construction, will there be funds to continue monitoring the permanent controls on the site such as the dam and the pond. If this is not well done, dredging the Reservoir could become imperative. Dredging, as you know is expensive. The Army Corp of Engineers estimates costs from $1.50 to $8.00 per cubic yard. There is a further problem that dredging can release additional nutrients from the bottom to further increase algae production. We suggest preven- tion is the best cure in this case, and urge as much restraint as possible in future development at least until the study of the Reservoir presents us with guidelines for the future. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: of the record. Let the statement of Citizens for Albemarle be made part Mr. Garland Gentry: Mr. Chairman, I'm Garland Gentry, and I would like to call to your attention one aspect of this problem, which I don't know if any of you have thought about before. It may not seem relavent, but it is, so bear with me. I am the President of the Blue Ridge Bass Masters, which is the local chapter of a National Fishing Organization, the "Bass Angler's Sportsmen Society". This is known as BASS for short, so I will refer to it. that way. BASS not only tries to encourage more and more people to take up this great outdoor sport, but it also believes in good conservation and environmental protection. Our Club has Stood behind these beliefs, and we have contributed whenever we could. We have supported the Scenic River Bill for the Rivanna, and we feel we must support those who are against this, and any other new large development near the Reservoir. This year, our club has spent it's time and efforts in keeping the numerous public areas clean and we are now making trash containers for all areas. I have spoken with Mr. Guy Agnor, who is the Director of Public Works, and he has assured us of his cooperation. As I said, this may seem 1-22-75 (night) 49'-9 off the subject, but it isn't. I mention these because our club wants to see the Reservoir open to the public and clean enough for their use. I expect some of you here may ~eady know it, but the fishing is the main pass time on the Reservoir ~nd ~he fishing is great. Both City and County reSidents have been taking advantage of it for a long time now, but if we allow the construction of large developments such as the one which is proposed near the area, we are faced with the fact that there will be runoff and pollution. Our organization has a vast research foundation and they have spent thoUsands and thousands of dollars studying'this exact problem. Their conclusions are that the end results of too muCh development and construction near a Reservoir are always the same -- the growth of the fish are stunted, and shortly thereafter you will have a massive fish kill. The Reservoir would then be so polluted you wouldn't want to stick your finger in it, much less drink it. So for the sake of those who enjoy the fishing, both young and old as well as the fact that we need the drinking water, I ask on behalf of our Club and the National Bass Angler's Sportmens Society that you do not allow this development or any other to destroy the balance of nature which exists in the Reservoir today. Thank you. Mr. Floyd Johnson: Mr. Chairman, my name is Floyd Johnson, and with your permission Sir, as a former member and Chairman of the Planning Commission, I wish to present to you for your consideration petitions containing the names of 1,697 concerned charlottesville and Albemarle County citizens. Gentlemen, we welcome and request your favorable consideration to our dedicated concern for the quality of our County water especially at the head of all water sheds. Thank you. (NOTE: Petition as presented is on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the County Board of Supervisors) Mr. Gordon Wheeler: Gentlemen of the Board and citizens this will be filed with the Clerk and will be a matter of record and will be part of this public hearing. Marsha S. Mashaw, 2nd Vice President of the League of Women Voters of Charlottes- ville and Albemarle County: "January 22, 1975 TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors RE: SP-435 for a Planned Community (Evergreen) The League of Women Voters supports the concept of planned unit development for desirable and protective use of land, especially in critical environmental areas. But we must oppose the development a planned community consisting of 804 dwelling units on 128 acres of land at a density of 6.7 dwelling units per acre on a site so near our community water supply. This land is cUrrently zoned agriculture with a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres, and it is shown on the proposed zoning map a~ 1 dwelling unit per 1.5 acres. It would be dangerous and premature to increase the density beyond the present designation on land so near the Rivanna Reservoir, especially since a decision is imminent regarding a study of the Reservoir. In letters received last month from the State Water Control Board and the State Health Department, it was pointed out that a development such as Evergreen "would, indeed, be detrimental to the reservoir which is already experiencing problems." This judgment is based on the nutrient and toxic metal content of run-off from such developments, 1-22-75 (nigh%) as well as the siltation problems that would result during and after construction. Thus, it seems imperative to deny this Special Permit and thereby attempt to protect the Rivanna Reservoir, a source of water which serves 8,055 County residents and nearly 25,000 City residents. We ask you to bear in mind that replacement of the Reservoir would re- quire several impoundments, would take at least ten years to complete, and cost $10 million in 1972 dollars. The Board of Supervisors is charged with protecting the health, safety and welfare of citizens in its planning and zoning decisions. By denying this permit request, we believe that you will be carrying out that obligation. Not only would your "no" vote avert the possi- bility of a critical water problem, it would also prevent an increase in congestion on already-dangerous Hydraulic and Lambs Roads and it would prevent the creation of an excessively large area of high- density development. A great deal of high density zoning presently exists adjacent to this area, and thus a protective buffer of low density land between it and the Reservoir is mandated. Low density zoning on this property, as it presently exists, would also create a mixture of densities in the area which would be more consistent with the ob- jectives of the County Comprehensive Plan than the proposal before you tonight. In closing, the League believes that no action should be taken to increase den~sity on any land near the Reservoir until all facts are available. We urge you to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny this Special Permit. Marcia S. Mashaw (signed) 2nd Vice President" I would like to submit this for the record. I would also like to add something that is not in my statement, but that is in response to something that was said earlier. That is, as you the members of the Board of Supervisors, know the League of Women Voters has appeared before you many times either to speak for or against petitions, special permits, and zoning requests which have been before you. We have consistently opposed high density zoning around the Reservoir. We have been advocat- ing conservation zoning for several years around the Reservoir and I might add that one of our Vice-Presidents has not been too happy about this. But this is a policy our Board, and we have been before you many times. I think your record will also show that we. opposed the Hollymead development mainly because it was not going to have any low cost housing in it. I think the record will also show that whenever any large developments have come before you one question that the League has con- sistently asked is what are going to be the provisions for low and moderate income people. So, I think it is unfair to say that the people who are before you tonight are here only for this particular instance and have never been before you at other times. Thank you. Mr. Richard C. Collins: I'm a professor of urban planning .at the University of Virginia and Chairman of that department within the School of Architecture. I have prepared some notes which I feel really synthesize what I tried to say to the Planning Commission a few weeks ago, and with your permission I would like to read it. Before I do that, I would like to say that I am here for a little different reason I think. I am very much concerned about the integrity of the concept of Planned Unit Development. One of the major reasons I became involved is because of the Reservoir issue, but I'm also concerned about the proposed ordinance within the 1-22-75 (night) 0 1 City of Charlottesville which will make provisions and incentives for low income dwellings and rental units as well. It is something that I would very much like to see as Chairman of the Housing Redevelopment Authority within the City, and if the concept or the practice of planned unit development falls into disrepute because of poor procedure, it will be threatened on other values. I will read this as quickly as I can. . "Despite the employment of the words "planned unit development" to describe the proposal for "Evergreen", it is not an appropriate use of the term. "Evergreen" is basically an effort to rezone a parcel of rural residential land to higher residential density and commercial uses with- out appropriate procedures. The proposal attempts to achieve the higher densities, and hence greater profits, by invOking the "planned unit" concept without any peoper use of the planning processes required, and without a realization of the advantages to the public of that planning innovation. Planned Unit Developments offer considerable benefits to developers, residents, and citizens by permitting clustering of dwelling units, greater dedication of open and public space, higher quality landscape and architectural design, and greater shared information and evaluation between the private developer and the public planning agency. None of the above have been realized in the case of "Evergreen" Note the following: The Site: State agencies, the local planning staff and Commission, plus the City of Charlottesville, all express serious reservations about the high density development of this site. The area should be classed a "critical environmental area" based on present knowledge of the relationship between land use and water quality. The water supply of the region, the quality of the Rivanna River, and the plans for waste treatment down stream would all be further endangered by more intensive use. The Planning Process: Planning consists of more than a topographical map and the designated location of structures and basic infrastructure. This is especially true in this instance where preventive steps to ensure minimal harm to the reservoir from silt or toxic or nutrient runoffs are essential. We have only the word of the developer that the proposed dam and lake, the safeguards to minimize siltation runoff and the pro- posed treatment plant are, in fact, feasible and effective. Further, it is apparent from the Planning Commission staff report that there was virtually no cooperative planning prior to the submission of the developer's request for rezoning. Even a cursory review of the conditions that the County staff would impose before development shows the lack of public involvement in the plan's preparation. The Design and Open Space Advantages: There is very little area dedicated to open space or recreation in compensation for the very substantial increase in density proposed by clustering the numerous units. The Planning Staff recommended a minimum dedication of 4 acres for parkland. It is doubtful whether even that amount would offset the demands created by this density. Fuller Consideration of Public Costs: In terms of demands upon sewage, highways, schools, etc., there has been only the most cursory examination. Much of the analysis that has been done was by the County's planning staff through clearances with other public agencies. One example: The State District Highway Engineer estimates that to bring Lamb's Road and Hydraulic Road up to acceptable levels to handle this development, the cost would be about $200,000 and $1,500,000; respectively. Those numbers represent the entire county secondary road budget for five or six years under current allocations; what are the implications for the 300 miles of unsurfaced roads in the County and other existing road priorities? Timing: This proposal comes at a most inopportune time from the public policy standpoint. The County is in the process of con- sidering a much improved zoning ordinance. To grant this zoning 1-22-75 (night) change now could, in effect, crea~e a special exception to the total evaluation of land uses and procedures for planning. I, myself, believe that this proposal is before the County now because there is a rightful concern on the part of the developer that the new ordinance would not permit the slipshod process that "Evergreen" represents. Richard C. Collins (unsigned)" I would like to submit this for the record Mr. Chairman. Mr. John Kenneth Haviland: My name is Ken Havi-land, I live near the Reservoir, and I am a professor at the School of Engineering at the University, and I am a Board member of the Citizens for Albemarle. I am not speaking tonight as a water quality expert, but the following statement -- I'm going to read my statement, you have copies of this statement, but I'm going to skip a few things because I think it's getting late. (Following statement are excerpts from formal statement presented in full to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, which is being held on permanent file) "STATEMENT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY CONCERNING SP-435 (EVERGREEN). January 22nd, 1975 By John Kenneth Haviland. The following statement was prepared on behalf of the Board of Citizens for Albemarle, and has been based on dis- cussions with engineers, scientists, and other qualified persons concerning the threat to the reservoir posed by the proposed Evergreen development. The County Engineer, Mr. Bailey, in a letter to the Planning Staff made the following statement - '... We do not have any data on how to treat storm water to remove the objectionable nutrients. The owner's engineer could be invited to make a proposal or he could be invited to show that the amount of nutrients that could be expected to enter the reser- voir are immaterial to its condition' If there has been such a proposal, or if the suggested demonstration has been made, there is no record of this fact in the files of the Planning Department, nor was such material presented at the two hearings conducted by the Planning Commission. In the absence of specific engineering informa- tion, the plans for Evergreen have been discussed with a number of qualified engineers and scientists. Principle points raised in thesediscussions are summarized below. (1) Despite impressions given to the contrary, the pro- posed ll-acre lake will not be able to contain runoff from the 362 acres involved during a heavy rain, but will merely slow up the flow and remove some of the heavier sediment .... (2) The suggested use~of~a treatment plant for the re- moval of sediment and nutrients from a development lake (that is the extra four acres we are talking of) is beyond current technology.. (3) If Evergreen were developed, .the reservoir would not only receive sediment and .nutrients would be greatly increased over what it now gets from the present undeveloped area. It has been claimed that there is no proof that the runoff from such developments contributes to eutrophication. However, there is ample proof of this in the literature, and it is supported by statements made by %he State Water Control Board and by the Department of Health in letters to the Planning Staff. 1-22-75 (night) (4) As construction proceeded . ., the lake would silt up rapid, ly, and would become ineffective long before a new water supply source could possible be developed (that is the development lake would no longer exist after a certain length of time). (5) Even supposing that a feasible method of proteCting the reservoir were to be proposed, the county would be forced to rely on the developer for the construction of the dam and whatever treatment plant was required. To supervise this, it would be necessary to'hire additional engineering staff or consultants, at some cost to the tax payer. County experience with dams built by developers has been unsatisfactory in several instances ...... The County Staff, while recommending approval at a lower density, appear to have based this report on the understand- ing that the lake would catch all of the sediment during a heavy rain, and that tertiary treatment would be possible as a last resort. Evidently, these assumptions are incorrect. In conclusion, it is submitted that the reservoir cannot be protected adequately against this development by present day technology, and that the county does not have the staff necessary to control the application of advanced technology which would be required if it existed. TherefOre, we simply cannot afford the serious risks involved if we are to rely on the reservoir as a water supply." I would like to make a couple of comments which are not on here. One is, pos- sibly someone could indicate to you where the watershed for the Reservoir lies on that map. It is actually along Hydraulic Road, Rio Road, and then up the SPCA Road. So, when we are talking about arbitrariness, some of the proposed zoning that has been proposed tonight is on the watershed of the Reservoir and a lot isn't. There is a very strong dividing line, which is not arbitrary at all, and I want to point out that the Citizens for Albemarle have consistently opposed this development in the watershed of the Reservoir. That is all. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: Make this statement part of the record. Sir, Mr. Humphrey has in his office a big map and he can point out to you the watershed to you any time you would like. Mr. Haviland: I was hoping perhaps someone could point it out to us here. We do have a map. It could be quite easily delineated. (location of the Watershed area was then pointed out on the County Map by Mr. Thomas Batchelor, County Execu- tire) . Mr. Archibald Creg: Mr. Chairman, my name is Archibald Creg, Keswick, Virginia, and I would like to introduce into the record of this hearing two letters. One from the State Water Control Board from Mr. M. P. Phillips, Pollution Control Specialist addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Assistant County Planner, dated December 16, 1974. It is a long technical letter, I wish to summarize it; there is one sentence here wherein he says, "we do not believe that a residential development with a density of 18 persons per acre, located within 1000 feet of a Reservoir to be in the best interests regarding protection of that Reservoir as a public water supply." The other letter is from the Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, Commonwealth of Virginia, written by Mr. Stephen M. Young, Assistant Regional Engineer, written to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, dated January 3, 1975; and which by way of summary, again another 1-22-75 (night) technical letter "This Department is of the opinion that a development such as the planned community of Evergreen would, indeed, be detrimental to the South Rivanna Reservoir." (NOTE: Two letters as presented to' the Board by Mr. Creg, are on permanent file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Supervisors). Mrs. Frances Martin: I just wanted to ask a question. It was said at the Planning Commission meeting, that the engineering details on the size of the lake, it's capacity, whatever treatment plants might be necessary etc., were matters that should be taken up in the site plan control meeting. I question whether a site plan can be denied once you grant a permit, and if that is true, what would happen, if as the Water Control Board says, there is no practiCal technology to control the run- off. If the permit had been granted and a site plan had to be granted also. Thank you. Mr. Bedford Moore: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. I did not realize I lived in a castle, I hope my wife will not take that remark any more seriously than I do. However, perhaps I should read into the record a letter of November 27, 1974 addressed to Mr. James N. Fleming. "I write you as a courtesy to say that I have not followed up that proposed meeting with you and your partners because I have realized, upon looking further into the matter, that I could not negotiate with you gentlemen in good faith and then turn around and oppose your project in the public hearings--as I feel I must do for the good of my neighbors and the county as a whole. Let me assure you that there is absolutely nothing personal in my opposing you on this matter. Sincerely yours, (signed) Bedford Moore" If I may Sir, enter this in the record. To be more serious, my opposition is really, I do have -- and I must speak I suppose for this reason -- I have about a half mile of frontage all the way along the proposed project. Mr. Carter has indi- cated that "Evergreen" is practically surrounded with high density. That is not my impression. I think that if you simply look at the map, Mr. Roudabush's contradicts him. The white, it goes almost the whole way around, you add up your boundaries, and it is all A-1. So there is simply a little confusion in Mr. Carter's (shall we say) enthusiasm in his remarks. My opposition, I would like to say simply and briefly, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, is really on grounds of incompatibility of land use. Not perhaps in the sense that some might take it, it is incompatible I feel, as one of the landowners on the ReserVoir (Ivy Creek comes aroung me, across the end, and up the side as you can see, but I shant take time to point that out). Many landowners on the Reservoir, many of whom are here, I can count several, are opposing this, accepting conservation as a concept perhaps to some disadvantage if you will, but none the less, it is desirable we feel to think of the community as a whole. We must be supported by you gentlemen. We can't hold out alone on this, it is going to be a domino the whole way around the Reservoir and this is the crutial case. I ~rant you 1-22-75 (night) you have a problem historically, up along the bluff, which has been for a long time zoned otherwise. If you start going with A-l, which is what Mr. Fleming, with all due respect to you personally, with Mr. Fleming, Mr. Creg, and his other partners, they are all A-1 just as I am, just as the Greer Estate from whom you have heard to- night read into the record. If you start doing that, I feel for the Reservoir gen- erally. Therefore, I beseach you gentlemen, protect the Reservoir, support us, we want to support you and we invite you to support us. We landowners all around the Reservoir are ready to hold out to accept conservation. But, I appeal to you, support us by your action tonight. Mr. Robert Keller: Mr. Chairman, I'm Robert Keller, I have a copy of a state- ment that we presented at the Planning Commission's hearing in which I would like to include in ~he record to show that at other times we have objected to high density zoning within the Reservoir basin, and our statement tonight is not aimed just at the Fleming property. (NOTE: Four page statement from the Citizens of Albemarle, as previously submitted by Mrs. Henderson Haywood, is on permanent file in the Office of the Clerk to the County Board of Supervisors). Mr. Richard Carter: I would like the chance to say that I believe that Dr. Hurt owns some land across Lamb's Road and probably neighbors of Mr. Moore's. I'm .sure he didn't buy for agriculture purposes. Mr. James Fleming: This meeting could go on and on. ., so I will be as brief as possible. There is already high density zoning, high density development, not zoning, high density development on the Reservoir. Also, I've heard a statement. that my property is away from the Reservoir. There is a stream running through it it is spring fed, it is my property. I am providing a lake there, in the long run will be of benefit for the other properties. :Four Seasons West, adjoining my pro- perty; they already have plans that have already been approved~ Their land is in the watershed and their water will run into the Reservoir too. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: Alright. Gentlemen of the Board, I have a recommendation to make to %he Board on a way to handle this. Gentlemen, I would recommend that we close the public hearing at this time with this thought. That this Board, in order that we might make a decision that is fair to the petitioner and fair to the citizens of this County, that we set another time to work on this. At which time we can have our engineers or any other technical people that this Board might desire, to come and present information that the Board members might deside. At the same time a vote hearing, whether it be one two or three times, that anyone the petitioner or citizens who have additional information to present, that we receive that information. Is that acceptable gentlemen. With that in mind, we will close the public hearing tonight, and we will.decide on a time to continue. I will ask that you wait, as we will be setting a time tonight so you can c~ome the next time. Mr. Humphrey, on our February 12th, how is that 1-22-75 (night) schedule. Mr. John Humphrey: Mr. Gordon Wheeler: As of this date, Mr. Chairman, Okay gentlemen, I would suggest that this hearing and decision making process be continued to February 12, 1975 at which time, we will ask that Mr. Bailey and any other Hechnical people that this Board might desire be present to discuss with us some of the questions that must be in your mind and need to be resolved in making this decision. Mr. John Humphrey: Mr. Chairman, might I suggest that Mr. Fleming have any of his technical people available that he may wish to have there. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: Oh yes, let me make this clear Mr. Fleming, not only to you, but to anyone else interested, that anything that has been discussed tonight any letters or information that have been filed are available to you; and I state again that anything new that you want to present in the way of bringing in technical people, it will be heard. And, it will be heard from any citizen of the county. Mr. Thomas Batchelor: Mr. Chairman, might I ask the Board members if they have questions that they would like of staff when they appear, please call our office or the engineers office so they can be prepared for that meeting. We'll probably have one or two things, so it will probably Mr. Gordon Wheeler: start at about 8:00 P.M. Mr. James Fleming: Mr. Gordon Wheeler: Mrs. Frances Martin: Thank you very much. Okay gentlemen Would it be possible for a Citizens organization to send experts on their own pertaining to engineers and people Mr. Gordon Wheeler: If they have Something new to present. Any one can come. Okay gentlemen can we have a motion to continue this until February 12th. Mr. Stuart Carwile: Mr. Chairman I make the motion. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: Do I hear a second? Mr. Gerald Fisher: Mr. Chairman I second. Mr. Gordon Wheeler: Okay, we have a motion to continue this until February 12th, made by Mr. Carwile seconded by Mr. Fisher. Discussion call the role. AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None Mr. Wheeler announced that several Board members will be out of town attending the National Association of Counties Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C. on February 26, this is the night of a regular Board meeting. He asked that the Board c~ncel that meeting and set a new meeting date of March 5, 1975, to hear zoning matters. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the fol- lowing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. 1-22-75 (Night) 507 At approximately 10:25 P.M. Mr. Wheeler requested that the Board adjourn this meeting to January 29, 1975, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, to discuss reorganization of the Planning/Zoning Departments, hear a report from the expansion committee and charge the Housing Committee with their duties. Motion to tkis effect was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the fol- lowing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Chairman