1998-06-10June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1}
000324
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 10, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, Second
Floor, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris,
Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4.
Public.
There were none.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris,
seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.3, and to accept the
remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Item No. 5.1. SP-98-08. Crossroads CV143 (Sign #96). (Defer to July
1, 1998). At the request of staff, this item was deferred until July 1, 1998.
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) Grant, $19,825 (Form ~97065).
The Executive Summary states that this is a supplement to a Department
of Justice grant that was approved through September 30, 1998. The intent of
the grant is to increase community oriented policing through increased
overtime and use of hand held notepad computers. Previously, the County of
Albemarle approved the purchase of 15 notepad computers and 2,000 hours of
overtime under the COPS MORE program to increase the presence of existing
sworn officers in community policing activities.
The US Department of Justice has approved a $14,869 supplement to pay
for additional overtime to allow officers to work on community oriented
policing activities. There is a $4,956 local match that will be paid for from
current budgeted expenditures. There are no additional local funds are
required. Staff recommends approval of appropriation 97065 in the amount of
$19,825.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97
NUMBER 97065
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUAIDING FOR COPS GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night M~etihg)
(Page 2)
1152131010210000 FICA
TOTAL
000825
$18,417.00
1.409.00
$19,825.00
REVENGE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2152133000330001 FEDERAL GR3~NT REVENGE $14,869.00
2152151000512229 TRANSFER FROM G/F 4,956.00
TOTAL $19,825.00
Item No. 5.3. Resolution to take roads in Lake Reynovia Subdivision
(SUB-89-225) into the State Secondary Ssytem of Highways.
The Department of Engineering has certified that the roads in the
referenced sudvision are substantially complete and ready for VDoT acceptance.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in regular meeting on the 10th day of June, 1998, adopted the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Lake Reynovia (SUB-89-225) described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May 28, 1998, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the re-
quirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Lake Reynovia as described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May 28, 1998, to the secondary
system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia,
and the Department's Subdivision Street Re_cfuirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements
for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Reynovia Drive from Station 10+11, right edge of
pavement of State Route 742, to Station 41+85, end of
dedication, beginning of emergency access, 3174 lineal
feet, as shown on plat recorded 3/13/92 in the office
the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 1210, pages 394-400, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, and additional right-of-way widths recorded on
3/2/94, in Deed Book 1387, pages 46-47; 7/15/94 in Deed
Book 1418, pages 307-312, 313-314 and 315-316; guard-
rail/sight easement recorded on 1/30/98, in Deed Book
1671, page 518; 2/24/98 in Deed Book 1677, page 497;
4/3/96 in Deed Book 1534, page 494 and 1/30/97 in Deed
Book 1590, pages 509-514; drainage easements recorded on
7/29/97 in Deed Book 1629, page 551 and 552; 1/30/98 in
Deed Book 1671, page 519; 5/8/98 in Deed Book 1701, page
377; 2/24/98 in Deed Book 1677, page 498; and 1/30/97 in
Deed Book 1590, pages 509-514, for a length of 0.60
mile.
00,0,826
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night M~etih~)
(Page 3)
2)
Honeysuckle Lane from Station 10+11, right edge of
pavement of Reynovia Drive {Station 29+19), to Station
19+71.85, rear of cul-de-sac, 960.85 lineal feet, as
show-non plat recorded 4/4/96 in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1528,
pages 706-70g, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, and
additional drainage easements recorded on 2/24/98 in
Deed Book 1677, page 498, for a length of 0.18 mile.
3)
Goldenrod Court from Station 10+10, left edge of
pavement of Honeysuckle Lane (Station 15+58), to Station
13+00.25, rear of cul-de-sac, 290.25 lineal feet, as
shown on plat recorded 4/4/96 in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1528,
pages 706-709, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, and
additional drainage easements recorded on 7/29/97 in
Deed Book 1629, page 555, for a length of 0.05 mile.
4)
Larkspur Court from Station 9+90, right edge of pavement
of Reynovia Drive (Station 41+26), to Station 7+36.92,
rear of cul-de-sac, 253.08 lineal feet, as shown on plat
recorded 7/15/94 in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1418, pages 315-
316, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.05 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.88 mile.
Item No. 5.4. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for April 14 and
May 19, 1998, were received for information.
Item No. 5.5. March 1998 Financial Report, was received for informa-
tion.
Item No. 5.6. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
Board of Directors for April 29, 1998, was received for information.
NonAgenda. Before beginning the public hearings, Mr. Marshall read the
Board of Supervisors' rules for public hearings. He said he would call three
names at a time, and those people should come to the front of the room. Each
person needs to be prepared to speak after the previous speaker has completed
his or her remarks, and each individual will be given three minutes to speak.
The Vice Chairman has a timer, and when he pushes the button a light will turn
green, and the time will begin. When the light turns yellow, two and one-half
minutes will have been used, which means the speaker has 30 seconds remaining.
When the red light shows, the speaker will have to end his or her remarks. He
asked that the people not speak from their seat nor out of turn, and he
requested that all comments be addressed directly to the Board as a whole. If
a group or organization is being represented by a speaker, the person speaking
for the group may ask the others to rise and be recognized, but people should
not applaud. Eebate is prohibited. He asked people with written statements
to hand them to the Clerk, who will see that the Supervisors receive them. He
repeated his request to the group to hold all applause during the meeting,
because it takes up a lot of time. Since there are so many people who came to
speak, he will try to keep things moving, and he noted that the Board will
probably take a recess after the first hour or so. He asked the group to be
courteous and adhere to the rules so the meeting can run as smoothly as
possible. However, he pointed out that if anyone becomes unruly, he will call
a recess of the Board.
Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend Chapter 8,
Finance & Taxation, Article IX, Transient Occupancy Tax to provide regulations
for the administration of the existing transient occupancy tax, to require a
monthly remittance of the tax, & to allow the lodging provider a deduction for
the timely collection & payment of the tax. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on May 25 and June 1, 1998.)
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night M~ti~g)
(Page 4)
0003 7
Mr. Tucker explained tha~'~ i~ ~ ~biic hearing on an ordinance to
amend Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article IX, Transient Occupancy Tax to
provide regulations for the administration of the existing Transient Occupancy
Tax, to require a monthly remittance, and to allow the lodging provider a
deduction for the timely collection and payment of the tax. He noted an
inquiry from a business owner about the possibility of remitting the Transient
Occupany Tax on a monthly basis instead of the quarterly basis now used and
allowing a deduction for the business for the timely collection and payment of
the tax. A survey was sent out to the 25 businesses that currently remit the
tax, and of the 14 that responded, only one indicated they preferred the
current method of remittance. He noted that the Finance Department staff, as
well as the County Attorney's Office, has reviewed and revised the article of
the Albemarle County Code dealin9 with the Transient Occupancy Tax. The
revised article mirrors the meals tax regulations, changes the remittance to a
monthly basis and allows for a lodging provider deduction. The staff recom-
mends the adoption of this ordinance.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to speak. No one responded, so Mr. Marshall closed the public
hearing.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adopt an
ordinance to amend Chapter 8, Finance & Taxation, Article IX, Transient
Occupancy Tax to provide regulations for the administration of the existing
transient occupancy tax, to require a monthly remittance of the tax, & to
allow the lodging provider a deduction for the timely collection & payment of
the tax. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO: 98-8 (2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMENDAND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION,
ARTICLE IX, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article
IX, Transient Occupancy Tax, is hereby amended and reordained by
amendin9 sections 8-41 through 8-43, and adding sections 8-44
through 8-53.
Sec. 8-41. Definitions
Director of Finance. The director of finance of the county
and any of his duly authorized deputies, assistants, employees or
agents.
Lodging provider. Any person who operates a hotel, motel,
boarding house, or travel campground in the county.
Purchaser. Any person who rents a room or space in a hotel,
motel, boarding house, or travel campground for fewer than thirty
(30) consecutive days of continuous occupancy.
State law reference--authority to adopt this article Va. Code
§ 58.1-3819.
Sec. 8-42. Imposed; amount of tax.
There is hereby imposed a tax on the occupancy of all rooms or
spaces in hotels, motels, boardin9 houses and travel campgrounds
within the county. Such tax shall be assessed at the rate of five
(5) percent of the amount charged for such occupancy; provided,
however, that nothin9 herein shall be construed as imposing any tax
upon rooms or spaces rented for continuous occupancy to the same
10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000328
June
(Page 5)
person or group of persons for thirty (30) or more days in hotels,
motels, boarding houses, or travel campgrounds. (11-28-73; 8-15-74;
4-13-88; 3-19-97)
The revenues collected from that portion of the tax over two
(2) percent shall be designated and spent for promoting tourism,
travel or business that generates tourism or travel in the county.
State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3819
Sec. 8-43. Payment and collection of tax.
Ail lodging providers liable for collection of taxes imposed
by this article, shall collect the amount of tax imposed under this
article from the purchaser on whom the same is levied at the time
payment for such lodging becomes due and payable, whether payment is
made in cash or on credit by means of a credit card or otherwise.
The amount of tax owed by the purchaser shall be added to the cost
of the room or space by the lodging provider who shall pay the taxes
collected to the county as provided in this article. Taxes
collected by the lodging provider shall be held in trust by the
lodging provider until remitted to the county.
State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3819.
Sec. 8-44. Deduction for lodging provider.
For the purpose of compensating lodging providers for the
collection of the tax imposed by this article, every lodging
provider shall be allowed three (3) percent of the amount of tax due
and accounted for in the form of a deduction on his monthly return
not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per monthly return;
provided, the full amount shall be due if any part of the payment is
delinquent at the time of payment.
State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3819(D).
Sec. 8-45. Reports and remittances generally.
Every lodging provider liable for collection of taxes under
this article shall make out a report, upon such forms and setting
forth such information as the director of finance may prescribe and
require, showing the amount of gross receipts collected and the tax
required to be collected, and shall sign and deliver such report to
the director of finance with a remittance of such tax. Such reports
and remittance shall be made on or before the twentieth day of each
month, covering the amount of tax collected during the preceding
month.
Sec. 8-46. Preservation of records.
It shall be the duty of any lodging provider liable for
collection and remittance of the taxes imposed by this article to
keep and preserve for a period of three (3) years recOrds showing
gross receipts, the amount charged the purchaser for each stay, the
date thereof, the taxes collected thereon and the amount of tax
required to be collected by this article. The director of finance
shall have the power to examine such records at reasonable times and
without unreasonable interference with the business of the lodging
provider for the purpose of administering and enforcing the
provisions of this article and to make copies of all or any parts
thereof.
Sec. 8-47. Duty of lodging provider when going out of business.
Whenever any lodging provider required to collect or pay to
the county a tax under this article shall cease to operate or
otherwise dispose of his business, any tax payable under this
article shall become immediately due and payable and such person
shall immediately make a report and pay the tax due.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Sec. 8-48. Enforcement; duty of director of finance.
The director of finance shall promulgate rules and regulations
for the interpretation, administration and enforcement of this
article. It shall also be the duty of the director of finance to
ascertain the name of every lodging provider liable for the
collection of the tax imposed by this article who fails, refuses or
neglects to collect such tax or to make the reports and remittances
required by this article. The director of finance shall have all
the enforcement powers as authorized by Article 1, Chapter 31 of
Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia for purposes of this article.
Sec. 8-49. Procedure upon failure to collect, report, etc.
If any lodging provider whose duty it is to do so shall fail
or refuse to collect the tax imposed under this article and to make,
within the time provided in this article, the reports and remit-
tances mentioned in this article, the director of finance shall
proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and
information on which to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon
as the director of finance shall procure such facts and information
as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax
payable by any lodging provider who has failed or refused to collect
such tax and to make such report and remittance, he shall proceed to
determine and assess against such lodging provider the tax and
penalties provided for by this article and shall notify such lodging
provider, by registered mail sent to his last known place of
address, of the total amount of such tax and penalties and the total
amount thereof shall be payable within ten (10) days from the date
such notice is sent.
Sec. 8-50. Collection.
The director of finance shall have the power and the duty of
collecting the taxes imposed and levied hereunder and shall cause
the same to be paid into the general treasury for the county.
8.51. Penalty for late remittance or false return.
(a) If any lodging provider whose duty it is to do so shall
fail or refuse to file any report required by this article or to
remit to the director of finance the tax required to be collected
and paid under this article within the time and in the amount
specified in this article, there shall be added to such tax by the
director of finance a penalty in the amount of ten (10) percent of
the total amount of tax owed if the failure is not for more than
thirty (30) days, with an additional penalty of ten (10) percent of
the total amount of tax owed for each additional thirty (30) days or
fraction thereof during which the failure continues, such penalty
not to exceed thirty (30) percent of the tax owed, provided,
however, the minimum penalty shall be ten dollars ($10.00) o
(b) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to
defraud the county of any tax due under this article, a penalty of
fifty (50) percent of the tax owed shall be assessed against the
person required to collect such tax.
Sec. 8-52. Violations of article.
Any person required to collect, account for and pay over a tax
under this article, who willfully fails to collect or truthfully
account for and pay over such tax, and any such person who willfully
evades or attempts to evade any such tax or payment thereof, shall
be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction under this section
shall not relieve any person from the payment, collection or
remittance of the taxes or penalties provided for in this article.
Any agreement by any person to pay the taxes or penalties provided
for in this article by a series of installment payments shall not
relieve any person of criminal liability for violation of this
article until the full amount of taxes and penalties agreed to be
paid by such person is received by the director of finance. Each
failure or violation, and each day's continuance thereof, shall
constitute a separate offense.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
000330
State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3907; as to punishment
for Class i misdemeanor, see § 18.2-11.
Sec. 8-53. Severability.
If any provision of this article, or any application of such
provision to any person or under any circumstances, shall be
invalid, the remainder of this article, or the application of such
provision to persons or under circumstances other than those to
which it shall have been held invalid, shall not be affected
thereby.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance shall be
effective on and after July 1, 1998.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-97-57. Townwood Mobile Home Park (Signs
#75,88&89). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to add 15 add'l units to existing
mobile home park as permitted by §17.2.2(17). TM61,P8. Located in SE corner
of intersection of Rio Road & Hydraulic Road. Property consists of approx
12.6 acs. Znd R-10, Residential. (The property is located in Neighborhood 1
& recommended for Urban Density [6.01 -34 dwelling units per acre]. Rio
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg stated that this is a request to add 15 additional units
to the existing Townwood Mobile Home Park as permitted by Section 17.2.2(17).
The parcel is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Rio Road
and Hydraulic Road, it consists of approximately 12.6 acres, and it is zoned
R-10, Residential. No additional clearing or grading is being proposed to
allow for the additional units. He explained that this mobile home park
existed prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, so it does not comply
with a number of provisions in Section 5.3 dealing with mobile home parks, but
the proposed new lots will comply with certain regulations of this section or
provide better compliance than currently exists. It was staff's opinion that
approval of the request would provide desirable improvements to an existing
substandard mobile home park, particularly in the areas of health and safety,
despite not being in compliance with all current ordinance requirements. He
said staff recommended approval with 12 conditions originally, but the
Planning Commission on April 21,1998, deferred the application to allow
additional review to address concerns raised by the County's Chief of Housing,
as well as potential zoning violations.
There are certain zoning violations for which the applicant has been
cited, and the applicant has been working to abate those violations. He has
received from the Zoning Administrator a status of the violations as of today,
and he distributed a memo to this effect. He added that the Supervisors will
find this memo referring to two violations which were initially cited on site
-- one for illegal trash dumping and another for inoperative vehicles. He
went on to say the applicant has removed refuse and seeded a large area in the
rear of the property where the trash had previously been located. There
remains four small scattered sites in the woods where a few items such as a
mattress, chair, glass and cans are improperly disposed. In a previous
inspection there had been 10 inoperative motor vehicles, and presently there
are only two. He commented that the Zoning Administrator indicates that her
staff will be checking again next week as to the status of the violations.
Mr. Cilimberg then referred to the issue of fair housing matters. He
said the staff, in the intervening time between the two considerations by the
Planning Commission of this item, made some suggested conditions to address
certain areas of the Fair Housing Act. He pointed out that before the
Planning Commission meeting, there was a question as to whether or not these
particular conditions were relevant to a special use permit dealing with land
use matters, and ultimately the Planning Commission did not include two
conditions in its recommendation to this Board. He recalled that the recom-
mendation for approval was a four to three vote and included adding conditions
addressing the screening aspects between Townwood Mobile Home Park and the
Townwood town homes by providing a fence rather than the planting of trees.
He said it also provided for verification that adequate water supply was
available to all units both existing and new before the special use permit
could be exercised and that all zoning violations which were cited in the
Zoning Administrator's letter would be abated before exercising the special
use permit through any future site plan. The Supervisors have before them a
recommendation for approval with 13 conditions covering these areas.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 0003~1
(Page 8)
He then referred to the Commissioners who did not support this request.
He said their concern related to the fact that there were not now conditions
regarding Fair Housing Act matters either as to the compliance with certain
requirements under Acts of Virginia Law or for the drawing up of new leases.
There was also concern expressed about existing violations and the fact that
this special use permit may be premature as related to the abatement of the
violations. Those Commissioners voting for approval felt this situation
provided generally an improvement Over the existing situation. He would be
glad to answer any questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if there has been further contact with the Housing
Committee. She said the Committee members had some steps they wanted the
applicant to take which they would have regarded as adequate, if the applicant
had done so. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he is unsure if there has been
further work with the Housing Committee Office, since the Planning Commis-
sion's public hearing.
No other Board member had any questions.
Mr. Jim Hill, representing the owners of Townwood mobile homes, stated
that he concurs with the staff's recommendations. The whole mobile park has
access to public sewer, and the residents are trying desperately to acquire
public water. Before everything is finished with this project, he hopes that
all of the units will have public water and sewer. He said the place has been
cleaned up, and it is amazing how much was taken out of there. The people
seem happy this is being done, and he thinks one of these days this will be a
mobile home park of which everybody will be proud.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Hill if he thinks the one recreational vehicle
parking space being provided for the additional 13 units is adequate. Mr.
Hill answered that he does not know how to answer this question, because under
the law, there can only be a certain number of vehicles there for each unit.
This issue will have to be discussed with the Planning staff. Ms. Humphris
stated that she hopes the Townwood representatives will do this, although she
knows the standard is one recreational vehicle space per ten units. She said
given today's lifestyles, she feels that there should be more spaces rather
than fewer.
Mr. Hill then mentioned the proposed tot lot. Ms. Humphris agreed that
the tot lot is a good idea.
Ms. Thomas next asked the same question of Mr. Hill that she asked of
staff which related to the fact that the Housing Committee had a fair housing
logo and statements in the leases as well as requests along those lines. She
asked the status of these things. Mr. Hill answered that Townwood residents
had a meeting with the Housing Coordinator, and it was decided Mr. Hill would
try to get a lease together and get the Housing Coordinator's approval on it.
He stated that this was the end of it, and he is waiting to get everything
cleared up, so all of the details can be worked out.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bob Mete spoke on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Spring
Court Condominiums Association where he serves as Vice President. He said
owners and renters alike enjoy well kept buildings and grounds at Spring
Court, and 70 percent of their budget is dedicated to the maintenance of
building and property. As neighbors to Townwood, Spring Court residents are
asking the Supervisors to reject the proposal to expand this property. He
outlined his reasons by saying the current owners and management of this
property do little or nothing to manage the appearance of the property, and
expanding it will only increase the existing situation. The current owners
and management do nothing when called upon to correct situations.existing on
the property or with their residents. He referred to the problem of garbage
which was mentioned by County staff, and he said he has had multiple personal
experiences in hauling truckloads and truckloads of garbage off Spring Court's
property which has been thrown from the Townwood property. This type of
refuge is thrown on a continual basis, and he said examples of the garbage are
bicycles, broken toys, bags of garbage, dirty diapers, newspapers, small
appliances, parts of trailers which have rotted and fallen off, swings, tires
and empty oil cans, etc. He stated that Spring Court residents have on many
occasions spoken to the management both verbally and in written form, but
nothing is ever done.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~2
(Page 9)
He next mentioned another issue relating to trespassing. He said
residents from Townwood continually trespass through Spring Court's property
at all times of the day and night. The average age of Spring Court's owners
is well over 60, and a majority of the residents are single, female and
widowed and are frightened by trespassing juveniles at all hours of the night.
He noted that the trespassing problem has become so prevalent that members of
his Association voted to spend close to $5,000 to erect fencing along the
borders of Townwood and Rio West to stop the trespassing situation. He said
during this fencing process, Townwood and Rio West were contacted in an effort
to make Spring Court's property safer, and the managers and owners of Rio West
granted an easement to put part of the fence on their property to make a long
continuous line. However, the management of Townwood really did not care
about the proposal and did not respond. There is an existing wooden fence
between the properties which he believes is Townwood's. The management of
Townwood was asked to remove the fence so Spring Court's fencing could be put
in its place to make it look better. Representatives from Townwood's manage-
ment responded that it wasn't their fence, even though there are no records of
Spring Court ever erecting this fence. The fence has been left there because
Spring Court's management does not believe it is theirs, and it was felt that
possibly with double fencing the amount of trespassers could be slowed down.
He pointed out that the fence has been in place less than a year, and multiple
repairs have had to be made to it, and the trespassing continues. The
trespassers cut the fence, roll it up, and tie it so they can get back and
forth.
Mr. Mete commented that the Townwood property, in its current state,
only suppresses and depresses all the values of the properties located around
it. It is apparent the owners of Townwood enjoy taking income from their
property but return nothing to maintain or beautify it. He respectfully
suggested that the Board of Supervisors reject any among other items, should
benefit the residents of that community considerably.
Ms. Lois Tickle, President of the Townwood Property Owners Association,
stated that Townwood is a community of 140 town homes, which are physically
located next to, but not associated with, Townwood Mobile Home Park. The town
homes community is very much in favor of the changes being required of the
management of the mobile home park. The addition of fire hydrants, improve-
ments to the existing road and providing a place for the children to play,
among other items, should benefit the residents of that community consider-
ably. She went on to say that over the last few months Townwood has had
several concerns regarding the requested expansion. With the assistance of
Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Fritz, of the Planning Office, concerns regarding the
placement of the trailer beds, the layouts of the trailer lots and the
location of the tot lot have been laid to rest. She noted that last week the
Planning Commission graciously granted the Townwood Property Owners Associa-
tion's request of a fence along the back of certain lots which is included in
Condition #11 of the recommended actions.
She said Townwood residents' final concern over the expansion is that
they want to be assured that Albemarle County, in approving this request, will
gain significant control over the condition of the mobile home. It has been
obvious significant, positive changes have occurred since the petition for
expansion has been made. Management of the mobile home park has been required
to accomplish a large scale cleanup and there has been some attempt at
landscaping. Townwood residents are looking for assurance that these condi-
tions will not be allowed to deteriorate back to their previous state. She
said not only are they concerned for the residents of the mobile home park,
but they are also concerned about the property values of the surrounding
areas. She stated that everybody is adversely affected by negative conditions
on neighboring properties, and if the Board of Supervisors can provide
assurance in this area, then Townwood residents are in favor of the petition
for expansion.
At 7:30 p.m., Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing, since there were
no other speakers.
Mr. Bowerman, in direct response to Ms. Tickle's question, asked Mr.
Cilimberg to address the issue of the different resources available, which
cannot be enforced now, that County officials can bring to bear on the mobile
home park, if the special use permit is approved.
Mr. Cilimber9 answered that the conditions are such that exercise of the
special use permit will accomplish things County officials cannot currently
gune 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000833
(Page 10)
enforce. However, mechanisms are already in place to deal with enforcement
actions relating to conditions in the park such as zoning violations, and this
won't change with the approval of the special use permit. If zoning viola-
tions exist, they can be cited and enforcement can take place against them,
whether or not the special use permit is approved. He added that the special
use permit will subject the park to additional conditions, and if at some
point in time the conditions are not adhered to, the special use permit would
be in jeopardy. Mr. Bowerman clarified that anyone can contact the Zoning
Department as far as zoning violations are concerned. Mr. Cilimberg con-
curred.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the Planning Commission required screening
between lots eight through twelve of the new mobile homes. He remarked that
when he visited the site, he saw the chain link fence which clearly goes along
the entire property line now. This should be a fairly effective barrier
unless the fence is cut, and trespassing occurs through it. He added that
because Townwood is higher than the adjacent land in the Four Seasons area, a
fence really does not do anything. He noted that not only would the mobile
homes be in view if there was a six foot fence there, but the ground they sit
on would also be visible, because of the topography. He then asked if the
Commission examined the issue of whether plantings could be used in terms of a
more permanent screening buffer. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that the original
condition just included plantings, but when a six foot high screening fence
was recommended instead by the Townwood representatives, it replaced the
plantings. The Commission never discussed doing both.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Commission members discussed the fence on both
sides or just on the Townwood side behind Lots Two, Three and Four. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Commission was particularly paying attention to Lots Two,
Three and Four on the Townwood side. Mr. Bowerman stated that the fence in
this location is appropriate, but his question relates to why the fence
stopped after three lots and not after four. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the
Commission did not discuss taking the fence farther than that.
Mr. Bowerman said it appears to him that the fence runs along the gas
line easement. However, he feels a much more effective way to deal with some
of the visual concerns of the neighbors to the north would be a permanent
vegetation screening which could grow higher than six feet and, over time,
would provide a much more substantial buffer. It appears that with the fence
already installed, screening rather than fencing at least on the side of Lots
Eight, Nine and Ten, would be an appropriate course of action. He would
recommend this to the other Supervisors in lieu of the actual fence because on
either side of the buffering fence where it begins and ends, it goes back to
the chain link. He would rather see the money spent for an elongated vegeta-
tive buffer which goes beyond Lots Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven and Twelve,
because he thinks it would be a more effective buffer. He went on to say he
is also struck by the difference of the state of appearance discussed by the
two different representatives from the community in terms of what has tran-
spired on the property in question. When he visited the site today, he did
not see any evidence of trash or dumping, and it looked as if there had been
quite an effort made to clean up the property. He inquired if the first
speaker could say if the condition to which he spoke still exists.
Mr. Mete responded that the Association has a service to do the grounds
weekly, and part of the contract involves cleaning up the property, not only
around the buildings but around the fence lines. The major trash has been
removed, because his Association members physically moved it. However, he
stated that someone else is hired to clean up the other things being thrown
onto the property.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if Mr. Mete has spoken to the current owners
recently about the problems existing there. Mr. Mete answered that he has not
spoken recently to them.
Mr. Bowerman said it would be in Mr. Hill's best interest to see that
the concerns Mr. Mete addressed are not just on a short term basis, but on an
ongoing basis. Mr. Bowerman stated that this is the type of thing he will be
looking for if this application is approved. He went on to say that as far as
balance is concerned, it will probably be a good decision to approve the extra
units because water and sewer is being provided and amenities are being added
to Townwood, and in some respects, it is being brought up to a more current
standard in the County's ordinance. There is ample room on the property for
the new units, and they have a lot more space per unit than the existing ones,
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
000334
because the existing ones are crowded together. He stated that this gives an
opportunity to bring in a higher quality of life than currently exists because
of the conditions required by the County's ordinance. He will probably be in
favor of this special use permit and will move for its approval. However, he
is very interested that everybody be a good neighbor, to the extent that it
takes enforcement by either the Zoning Department or the Police Department if
trespassing is involved. This is an important part of this application. He
mentioned that providing buffers and fencing to alleviate some of the concerns
is also important, but he thinks if everybody works together, it will be a
better situation. He pointed out that the Townwood Mobile Home park is under
new ownership, and although he can't speak to what was going on there before,
when he visited the site today, it looked fairly decent.
Ms. Humphris stated that people would like for this Board to mandate
that there be no garbage, trash or discarded mattresses and chairs thrown out,
but the Supervisors do not have such authority. She and Ms. Thomas believe in
the broken window pane theory, whereas if a vandal breaks one window pane,
then soon the whole building is vandalized. She thinks the same analogy can
be made to this situation that if somebody throws a chair out, and it sits
there, everybody else will throw their extra furniture and trash in the same
area. She believes it is the moral obligation of the owners to do as the
Spring Court residents do, which is to have a regular trash pickup. She
agreed that the fault is on the people who do the dumping, but if this cannot
be fixed and they cannot be prevented from doing it, then she believes the
owners have the obligation to keep it a very livable space both for the
residents, as well as the neighbors.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the very nature of this type of dwelling
unit is that there is not a lot of space to store anything. He said people
are either living in the space, or it is outside. He asked Mr. Hill is there
is a routine cleanup proposed, besides a regular garbage pickup. Mr. Hill
answered, "no." There is a regular trash pickup once a week. Mr. Bowerman
asked if it includes white goods, too. Mr. Hill stated that the pickup only
includes everyday trash. Mr. Bowerman asked again about white goods, etc.
Mr. Hill said the residents are sent a letter informing them they have to get
rid of white goods, etc., and there is a pickup time available. Mr. Bowerman
asked if this type of pickup will be on a regular basis. Mr. Hill answered
affirmatively. He added that it will include stoves, refrigerators, televi-
sions, washers, dryers and hot water heaters, etc. He thinks the people who
live there will become a little more aware of what is going on, and they will
appreciate it, because they seem to be responding now.
Mr. Bowerman suggested a roundup of this type of trash every month or
every two months beyond the regular garbage pickup. He noted that although
people would still be charged when the items are picked up, if the things were
taken to the Landfill, it would be simpler for the residents, and it would be
on a regular basis. This might be a good benefit for everybody, because
storage is a problem.
Mr. Martin commented that he is glad there have been improvements, and
he hopes they continue with the new management. He voiced a concern, though,
that the Planning Commission identified some things needing improvement, but
there are still four small scattered sites in the woods with a few items such
as mattresses, chairs, glasses and cans which are still improperly disposed.
He said even though the spotlight has been intensely upon them, the inspection
today reveals there are still two cars present out of ten. He stated that
when the spotlight is on people, they usually do a great job. However, when
the spotlight was on the new owners, they only did a good job.
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Martin. He said if any affected resident
has a concern, he or she can contact him, and he will follow up with Mr. Hill.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman moved for approval of SP-97-57 with the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, except for the removal of
the six-foot high fence from the back of Lots Eight through Twelve and
substitute in its place ~a vegetative buffer (presumably white pine) to an
amount of money at least equivalent to the cost of the proposed fence.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, but she noted the lack of enthusiasm
shown by the other Board members which she attributed to the reason pointed
out by Mr. Martin. She has a feeling this is the one chance to put the
spotlight on this mobile home park. This should have been sufficient, but she
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
0003:35
is concerned that County officials are about to lose their chance to do
something about the problems.
Mr. Bowerman asked what else Ms. Thomas would suggest. Ms. Thomas
answered that she does not know anything else to do. However, there are some
zoning violations when there is an illegal trash dump.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there should not be any of this tolerated
there, and it won't be, because there will be a follow-up of any calls made to
staff. He thinks it was not followed up before because no one was reporting
it, and the County employees do not go around looking for these things.
Ms. Humphris wondered if any other Board member is concerned about the
provision of only one recreational vehicle parking space.
Mr. Bowerman replied that he was not concerned about this when he
visited the site. He said recreational vehicles are not inexpensive, and he
would not expect there would be a multitude of them at the mobile home park.
There is plenty of area for them, if they come and go, although there is not a
place to afix them with sewer and water. Ms. Humphris indicated that she was
not expecting the recreational vehicles to be available to sewer and water.
Ms. Thomas expressed her puzzlement as to what more this Board can do.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it takes a lot of people to bring to light uses and
then to deal with them, and this is the only effective way over time to deal
with them. The fact there will be standard water and sewer service will be a
big increase over what is currently available to those residents. He noted
that the new lots meet the County's current standards which are a lot differ-
ent than the existing ones. He thinks on balance, it is a positive move, but
it is not something that can be approved and then ignored.
Ms. Thomas remarked that without this action, this Board has no ability
to require the screening, the tot lot or even the fire hydrants. She said
this is the Supervisors' means of improving the situation, and on balance, she
will support the motion, but with a good deal of uneasiness. Mr. Bowerman
commented that this Board's responsibility will not end here.
Ms. Humphris stated that any park such as this needs to be well managed,
whether it is large or small, and what will determine the future of this park
will be the degree of continuous good management. She then directed her
comments to Mr. Hill when she said the success or failure of this Board's
approval of the additional 13 units at the Townwood Mobile Home Park will
depend on the management of Virginia Land Company from this time forward. She
said everybody can tell the mobile home parks in the County which are well
managed, as well as the ones that are not. She stated that this one is not
well managed. Mr. Hill answered that according to the special use permit, it
has to be managed well. He went on to say it has to be managed well to keep
the clientele. Ms. Humphris said there are things this Board cannot legis-
late, that Mr. Hill needs to manage. Mr. Hill responded that he can do so.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA 98-03. Lighting Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING on
an ordinance to amend Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia by adding a new §4.17, Outdoor
Lighting, to require that certain outdoor luminaires (lighting fixtures) be
fully shielded. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1,
1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report relating to the Lighting
Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent on
September 4, 1996 to amend the Zoning Ordinance to regulate outdoor lighting,
and the April, 1998 staff report to the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors points out the background of the work done since 1996 to bring
this ordinance forward. The Planning Commission has held its public hearing
and has made recommendations to this Board. The ordinance regulates the
direction of light emitted from the brighter outdoor luminaries, and he
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
000336
discussed the amount of lumens which are emitted from different types of
lights. He pointed out that virtually all commerical lighting will be
affected by the ordinance, but most residential lighting will not be affected.
He noted that staff recommends.approval of this Zoning Text Amendment as
proposed. The Planning CommisDion recommended approval as well, with slight
modifications that have been reflected in the ordinance before this Board
which was prepared by the County Attorney's office.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the staff has had any conversation with
Virginia Power representatives, since they put up the arc lights just about
anywhere people request them. He mentioned that there is one outside of the
barn on the farm next to where he lives. He asked if Virginia Power represen-
tatives are willing to go along with this ordinance and shield these types of
lights in the future. Mr. Cilimberg responded that Virginia Power representa-
tives have indicated they will shield such lights, but there is a design which
can be installed that is basically a type of street light which is completely
recessed. This type of light can be installed in all of Virginia Power's
future installations.
Mr. Marshall then directed his question to Mr. Davis. He asked if, in
approving this ordinance, County officials can legally obligate Virginia Power
to comply with the installation of the arc lights which are being put every-
where. Mr. Davis answered that Virginia Power is subject to the County's
Zoning Ordinance and is not exempt from its requirements.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he had originally thought the purpose of this
amendment was to deal with parking lot and building lighting, but he notices
by definition of outside luminaries that it includes any site, structure or
sign. He asked if vending machines would fall under the definition of sign,
and he wondered if this is how vending machines got involved in this issue.
Ms. Mary Joy Scala, of the Planning Department, answered, "no." She said this
definition just refers to a light shining on a regular sign. Vending machines
are not included in this ordinance, at all. If a sign is lit by an outdoor
luminary, then the luminary, itself, is included. Mr. Bowerman asked if this
is true whether it is internally lit, or if it has beam lighting. Ms. Scala
replied that the ordinance would apply to the signs being beamed, but it
would not apply to internally lit signs. She explained that the reason for
this is that the sign, itself, provides a shield for the internal light which
is usually a fluorescent light. She said the light is diffused so this
ordinance would not apply. She added, though, that it would apply to a
spotlight which is shining on a sign.
Board members had no further questions, so Mr. Marshall opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Frank Stoner noted that he lives at 240 Chestnut Oak Lane in the
County, and he is present at this meeting on behalf of the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Chamber of Commerce as both a Director and the Co-Chair of the
Legislative Action Committee. He apologized for what must seem to be an
unclear message that the Chamber may have given this Board over the last 60 or
90 days on this particular ordinance. He said it has been an ordinance which
has been difficult for the Chamber to sort through, and it was far more
complicated than originally envisioned. At some level, Chamber members felt
as though they had been invited to dinner, but the hosts called and said
Chamber members didn't have to show up for the first course because the hosts
would take care of it. In January of 1997 there was an agreement between this
Board and Emily Couric as part of the enabling legislation to draft a compre-
hensive ordinance on lighting. The understanding was that everybody would sit
down and draft an ordinance which was both complete and effective, but in
which everybody had the opportunity to participate. This never really
happened, and while there was certainly opportunity for public input, what
lacked in the process was the opportunity to sit down with the experts and the
people who drafted the ordinance to have an active dialogue with them and with
the folks who are the most affected by this particular ordinance. He stated
that members of the development community learned recently that the secret to
success on any given project is to get the neighborhood involved in the
beginning and sit down with a blank sheet of paper and ask for input. The
Chamber Committee members feel they did not get this opportunity with respect
to this ordinance. However, he noted that they have played catch up over the
last 60 days and called meetings with members of the Planning staff who
drafted the ordinance, as well as members of the lighting consultant groups
which were part of the drafting of the ordinance. He has spoken with Phil
Ianna at the University of Virginia, and Mr. Stoner feels as though the
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
000337
Chamber is somewhat educated on the ordinance through an open and active
dialogue with these people, which he thought was very productive.
He thinks there are some real flaws in the ordinance and it needs to go
back to the drawing board for some period of time. He recommended three to
six months to re-evaluate the ordinance and to correct what is perceived to be
some of the flaws. He said although there may be a number of flaws yet to be
uncovered, he would like to list a few of the ones he found.
Mr. Stoner stated that there is no exemption in the current ordinance
for motion control security lighting, flag pole or fountain lighting, and
there may be some first amendment right issues involved here. There is no
exemption for lighting of significant or historic buildings.
Ms. Karen Dame, a resident of the White Hall Magisterial District,
stated that people may think it is dark there at night, but it is not. There
is significant light scattered to the southeast from the Urban Area of the
County, and she very much supports adoption of an ordinance such as this one
to help reduce further encroachment of the Urban Area in the Rural Areas of
the County. As followup to Mr. Stoner's remarks, Ms. Dame noted that she
thinks this ordinance affects all County residents equally and not particu-
larly the members of a single organization in the County.
Mr. Ben Foster spoke against the proposed Lighting Ordinance because he
thinks the objectives of the ordinance are not correct. The objectives create
the impression of an overwhelming public need or some reason for it besides
preference. He read from the ordinance that the primary objective is to
preserve the natural resource of dark sky. He stated that under no stretch of
the imagination is a dark sky a natural resource. The ozone layer and the
rain forest are natural resources, as well as fossil fuel, but the dark sky is
not. He pointed out that people can shine as many lights into the dark sky as
they wish for as long as they like, and it will have absolutely no bad effect,
whatsoever. People cannot preserve what they cannot destroy. He said nothing
can destroy the dark sky so, therefore, it cannot be preserved. He indicated
that he knows of no reason the ordinance protects the public safety, particu-
larly the safety of drivers of motor vehicles by preventing glare from outside
luminaries. He mentioned that he got some statistics from the Police Depart-
ment and out of 1,779 accidents, five people claimed to be blinded by light.
He noted, though, that these five people were most likely blinded by head-
lights, and not any other sort of lights. There does not seem to be a huge
risk from people getting into accidents because of lighting. He reiterated
that there is no public safety concern there.
He then read from the proposed ordinance that it will protect the
general welfare by protecting the trespass of light. This does not help the
general welfare in the least, and instead, it helps the neighbors. He
acknowledged that there may be a few neighbors who complain about lights, but
that is not the general welfare. He stated that if all of these objectives
are totally wrong, then the only reason for this ordinance is public prefer-
ence. He mentioned that if public preference is taken into consideration as
far as the ordinance is concerned, then the benefits have to be weighed
against the cost. If it is a clear night without moon or clouds, then more
stars will be visible, and that is the benefit. He added that the downside of
the ordinance is that virtually all lighting associated with condominiums,
rental properties and office buildings, etc., will have to be changed. This
will increase costs because power poles will have to be installed, and
additional space will be needed. He stated that if people want to pay this
price, that is fine. He recalled that in the beginning, citizens were told
that luminaries included all signs, which would mean that a lot of signs would
not be allowed.
Mr. Marshall reminded the speakers that when the yellow light comes on,
they will have only 30 seconds more to make their remarks. He stated that
there will be two beeps, if people cannot see the yellow light, which is also
a 30 second reminder. He told the group that there are 20 people speaking in
relation to this ordinance, and over 80 people signed up to speak relative to
the Mountaintop Ordinance. He has to keep this meeting moving, and he asked
the speakers to adhere to the three minute speaking limit.
Mr. Craig van der Linde agreed with Mr. Foster that this is not an
environmental situation. He owns quite a few rental complexes in Charlottes-
ville, and he keeps them well lit for the safety of the tenants, some of which
are employed by the County of Albemarle. There is no way he can get the
000338
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
coverage for the safety of the tenants in the complexes he owns with the
lights being proposed. He added that every nook and cranny needs to be
covered, as well as parking areas, for the safety of the people. He mentioned
that he also does not want to send his family to a convenience store, or
anywhere else, which is not properly lit all the way around the building. He
feels this is a safety issue, and he would like for more time to be put into
planning this ordinance. He asked for the vote to be delayed so everybody can
work together and develop an ordinance which is a little more reasonable.
Mr. Bob Watson, represented the Charlottesville Area Legislative Action
Coalition, which is a new group that will be going by the acronym of CALAC.
He said his group supports the goal of lustering light pollution. However,
there are many technical questions unanswered in this particular ordinance.
Since no surrounding jurisdiction has such an ordinance, he recommends that
this Board defer action until more information is received from the affected
public. As officials from other jurisdictions take a look at the proposed
ordinance, they may want to follow suit. He emphasized that this ordinance
should be the best that can possibly be constructed, since other jurisdictions
may follow Albemarle County's lead. He said CALAC recommends deferral of at
least 90 days to allow input from the affected public.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick urged passage of the proposed Lighting Ordinance.
She said it is a simple ordinance, and the heart of it is only one line long.
It is workable and addresses an increasing tendency for fierce and glaring
lighting. She said it has always been her understanding that this lighting
ordinance would be done in two phases. First, it would address new lighting
and then later a second phase would examine existing lighting with regulations
made possible by new legislation.
Mr. Bruce Gatling Austin, an amateur astronomer, announced that he is
concerned with light pollution. He has to go all the way to Scottsville to
see many of the objects in the sky, that he can no longer see from his home
which is four miles south of town. He added that at his mother's house, which
is one-half mile west of town, he can see even fewer of the same objects,
mostly because of lighting in the City, but also from just general lighting in
the sky. He reported that his nearby neighbor has a light pole completely
unshielded. He mentioned that his father used to run a store, and when the
store closed at night, the outside light was turned off. He said interior
lights were then turned on, making it much simpler for police passing by to
see if there was any type of unwanted activity inside. He noted that if there
were exterior lights burning, they frequently shined in the policemen's eyes
and they could not see inside.
Mr. Jim Childress thanked the Chairman, as well as the other Supervi-
sors, for allowing him the opportunity to speak. He has worked in the Route
29 North corridor for the last seven and one-half years where he has been very
impressed with the County, City and State for the improvements made there. He
said one of the nice things about it is that the businesses paying taxes to
the County have improved, as well as their lighting. He thinks this is a
positive thing for the businesses and tax base of the County. He remarked
that the proposed ordinance definitely needs to be reviewed over many more
months because there are a lot of things which need to be examined. He agreed
that darkness is not a natural resource, since it is something which cannot be
destroyed. The trespass of light leads him to believe that whether or not
there is a light on a garage, in a neighborhood or on the side of a building,
it is a security issue. He referred to the security light on his own home,
which he says makes him feel safe as far as his family is concerned when he is
not there. The proposed ordinance would affect commercial businesses, where
safety and shopping are concerned. He works in a commercial business which
improved its lighting several years ago. It has made a tremendous impact on
safety, security, theft and vandalism on this property, as well as many
others. He believes this proposal needs to be examined a lot more carefully,
because he does not know of any person in this room who would want to go
shopping at a mall or convenience store that is not properly lit. He said if
a person is traveling down Route 29 and has to stop to buy gas, he thinks the
person will stop in an area which is well lit rather than an area that is not.
He also mentioned that nothing can be done about some of the bright lights
relating to Federal Government buildings. He thinks this proposed ordinance
needs to be examined for at least 90 days to six months so more research can
be done on it.
Mr. Jerry Halfant thanked the Board for this opportunity to speak. He
then asked for action to be deferred on the proposed Lighting Ordinance until
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16
000339
a study group of homeowners, business representatives and technical experts
can be formed to further examine the safety and economic impact of this
proposed ordinance. He voiced his concern that many citizens are unaware of
how this ordinance will affect their residences and businesses, and he
referred to such things as building or pole mounted security lighting of
driveway or road markers. He also mentioned his concern that some of the
restrictions will reduce lighting in commercial areas and present a safety and
security issue for consumers as they walk through darkened parking lots of
County businesses. He believes this ordinance is not understood by the
citizens of the County, and when and if they do understand it, they will not
see the need for it or want it. He again asked the Supervisors to defer
action until a study group could be formed to better evaluate the impact on
County residents and businesses.
Mr. Wayne McDaniel, Controller and Secretary of Jim Price Chevrolet~
mentioned that this is a business which has been in Charlottesville for 30
years and has a significant tax base within the community. His concern
relates to public safety which he considers to be personal property as well as
personal safety. The fact can be documented that his business has improved
its lighting in the last few years. Prior to this improvement, there were
instances of one to two times a month where people would break into cars and
steal radios and tires, etc., as well as do general vandalism. He remarked
that people might think this could be expected on the back lot, but these
break-ins were brazen, and things would be taken off of vehicles parked next
to Route 29. He noted that the people making these thefts were not concerned
about the amount of traffic nor about the people going by but, instead, they
were concerned about the amount of lighting that would cover and conceal what
they were doing. He pointed out that since the lights have been upgraded, the
frequency of these incidents have been reduced to approximately two a year,
which is a significant savings to his company and the economic factors. He
referred to the staff's comment that this ordinance would be policed by the
complaints of people. He said it does not take a whole lot for some people to
get upset or decide they want to make a complaint for no more reason than they
feel as though they were ill treated or not handled fairly. He stated that it
would be hard for the public to understand this particular ordinance with the
lack of publicity it has received. He would hate to think he was turning over
his property to be policed by someone who really did not understand what the
ordinance involves. He then requested that this ordinance be deferred so
appropriate research can be done.
Mr. Jack Glasheen stated that he has lived in the Charlottesville area
for 28 years and has resided at his current home in Crozet for 14 years. Two
years ago he decided to make a career change and study law, and during the
last 24 months he has examined statutes and ordinances. He commented that he
would characterize himself as someone who does not favor too much governmental
regulation, but it gives him a great deal of pleasure to talk to this Board
this evening in support of the pending Lighting Ordinance. The ordinance can
be characterized as one in which no one loses. He commented that this is a
win/win proposition for residents of Albemarle County and surrounding coun-
ties, as well as the merchants and lighting distributors.
His reason for supporting this ordinance involves six issues, which
relate to understanding the purpose of the ordinance, quality of life issues,
economic issues, environmental issues, safety issues, and responsibility
issues. He then briefly addressed these six issues in relationship to this
ordinance. First, it is important for those who might have some fears about
the ordinance to understand that it is not an anti-lighting ordinance, but
instead, it is an anti-wasted lighting ordinance. Regarding the quality of
life issue, he said one of the reasons many people choose to live in Albemarle
County is because of the unique beauty it offers its residents. He stated
that this beauty includes being able to walk outside on a clear evening and
enjoy the stars and the beautiful night sky. He added that next is the
economic issue. He noted that if lights coming from a fixture are directed
skyward and not on an intended target, the light is wasted, and if the same
light was redirected downward to its intended target, then less wattage could
be used to illuminate the intended target. He commented that this results in
monetary savings, particularly for merchants, for whom night lighting is a
significant capital expenditure. He pointed out that he is using the word,
"merchant," to include businesses, government and service providers. He said
it is well documented in cities that have passed retroactive lighting ordi-
nances that many merchants paid for the new lighting fixtures within one year
and enjoyed savings beyond that point. He mentioned that people who install
properly directed lights will enjoy these savings from the outset.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
000340
In addition, Mr. Glasheen said this ordinance helps the merchants by
forcing the architects to design buildings to include proper lighting and by
forcing the lighting distributors to provide the merchants with lighting to
meet the ordinance requirements, as well as by saving money for the merchants
on their electric bills. He stated that it won't be necessary to invent new
light fixtures to meet these requirements because properly shielded light
fixtures of many types already exist and are readily available to the distrib-
utors. The distributors will still make their profits because the need for
night lighting will still exist. He remarked that the fourth issue is the
environmental issue, and naturally if power consumption is cut down, valuable
natural resources are being saved. He stated that safety is always one of the
major considerations of nocturnal lighting. He said lighting that is pointed
skyward offers nothing to this category, and common sense indicates that
lighting pointed horizontally is unsafe for drivers, pedestrians and for crime
prevention. He then mentioned the final issue of responsibility and indicated
that it comes in several forms. There is the responsibility to the surround-
ing counties not to pollute their night skies with lighting.
Mr. Greg Dillon told the Board members that he is the father of a four
and one-half year old daughter, and one of his loves is amateur astronomy. He
has heard several people refer to the sky as a resource which cannot be
destroyed, but he thinks when people think of the issue of dark skies, it
takes a mental leap. He stated that while the sky cannot be physically
destroyed, it can mentally be destroyed. He likes to look at the Milky Way,
which is a beautiful thing in the sky. He remarked that it is an arm of the
galaxy which stretches across the sky, and he would like to show it to his
daughter. He commented that he intends to show it to her, but if he cannot,
then it is a lost resource. He said although it is not a physically lost
resource, it is a mentally lost resource because she cannot enjoy the ability
of seeing the beauty of the stars. He believes this ordinance addresses
reasonable use of lighting. He recalled speakers referring to security
lighting, and he agreed that light which lights the sky is not an efficient
use of lighting. He noted, though, that this is what this ordinance ad-
dresses. He next mentioned his concern that the ordinance was originally
proposed in 1996, but it has not yet been approved. This makes him uncomfort-
able, and he wondered if it will continue to stall. He stated that this
ordinance is not retroactive, so it does not address previous lighting. He
feels from this perspective and a lot of the other issues, that it is a
balanced proposal. He then asked the people in support of this ordinance to
stand. (Approximately 50 people stood.)
Mr. Robert Brugh, a resident of Albemarle County, spoke in opposition to
the Lighting Ordinance. First, he referred to an article in the newspaper
where Ms. Scala, of the Planning Department, said the ordinance would not
increase County bureaucracy, since additional staff would not be hired to
enforce regulations, because money was not available. He said Ms. Scala
indicated that enforcement would be almost entirely driven by citizens'
complaints. He then mentioned a budget item that keeps increasing every year,
and he stated that what began as a small item is now a large budget expense.
He remarked that this Board will probably be hiring a light bulb checker in a
few years, because he has already had a similar thing happen to him. He
explained that he had a plan approved by the Planning Commission, as well as
the Board of Supervisors and inspected by someone in the Inspections Depart-
ment. When he was ready for opening, a member of this Board got a telephone
call. He recalled that an inspector came to his place of business and wanted
the globes taken off the lights to check the bulbs. He thinks the same thing
will happen with this ordinance because it will be driven by citizens'
complaints. He especially asked the Supervisors not to approve anything which
would require a person to do underground work to comform to the ordinance. He
said when something is put on lights to restrict them, it is cutting down on
light which has already been designed by architects and safety people. He
stated that the lights will have already been designated as required lighting
for safety reasons. He then requested the Board not to approve an ordinance
which would require someome to have to put in a new curb, signpost or do
underground work to comply, when the project has already been approved
previously.
Mr. Philip Ianna, Associate Director of McCormick Observatory of the
University of Virginia, referred to Money Magazine's high ranking of this area
as a very desirable place to live. He said surely it did not include local
outdoor lighting. The ordinance before the Board tonight covers the most
egregious cases of glare and upward wasted light by requiring shields on the
brightest area of lighting. He added that it does not remove lighting, but it
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18
00034
improves lighting. By reducing glare, it improves visibility which improves
safety, and does not reduce it. He mentioned convenience stores where there
is substantial evidence that better lighting reduces crime. The thought is
that nonglare better lighting attracts more people, and the presence of people
results in lower crime. He went on to say that there are specific lighting
issues, as mentioned by previous speakers, which can and should be addressed
in a more comprehensive lighting ordinance. He stated that although there is
a lighting ordinance which has been authorized by the State to be written by
Albemarle County officials, he does not see this as a reason for delaying
passing this ordinance at this time. He added that there is an opportunity
for Albemarle County to be a model for the surrounding counties and the City
of Charlottesville, and he urged the Board to pass the ordinance now and then
move forward with a more detailed ordinance in the future.
Mr. David Sutton spoke in favor of the principle of the Lighting
Ordinance because he thinks the concept of dark skies is an excellent concept.
He stated that this is a good ordinance and goes a long way to protecting the
dark skies. However, he thinks it could be a better ordinance, and he urged
the Board to defer its decision until there is an opportunity to improve the
language of the ordinance. In his opinion, it could be stated better and
clearer that the ordinance does not cover signs. The staff has indicated its
intention not to cover internal illuminated signs, but this is not clear from
the language of the ordinance. He added that the intention of the staff would
be of little solace to people who would get notice of violation from the
Zoning Department. He also believes the ordinance could be improved by
allowing for exemptions for fountain lighting, flagpole lighting and security
lighting which has been set up for motion detecting. He thinks there are
several technical areas where this ordinance could be improved, and he
believes this County deserves the very best ordinance. If it is to be a model
ordinance, then everyone should do their best to have the very best ordinance.
He then asked the Supervisors to make this ordinance the best it can be, and
by doing so, the Board can also honor the commitment many people in the
Chamber of Commerce feel was made.
Mr. Mark Schuyler, a resident of the Jack Jouett District, stated that
he is a lighting designer based in Charlottesville, Virginia, and he believes
this ordinance is fair and enforceable. He said it should require no addi-
tional staff and would not require a lighting specialist to handle the
situation in a proper manner.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Marshall closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Marshall commented that he thinks there is a need for an ordinance,
but he does not think this Board should vote on it tonight. He would person-
ally like to defer the matter in order to set up a committee of business
people and citizens, etc., so the Supervisors can get a better idea of this
issue.
Ms. Thomas remarked that it is within this Board's rights to defer this
matter, as well as to appoint a committee, and perhaps other Board members
would like to do so. However, she feels a real need to correct some of the
misconceptions. When she is through speaking, Board members may think there
is evidence a committee is needed, since there are so many misconceptions.
She explained that the ordinance contains waivers for situations such as
flagpole lighting, etc., and no one will have to change building lights or
layouts, because the ordinance is not retroactive. The whole point was to
have an ordinance which was simple, straightforward and took effect now but
did not have a retroactive aspect to it. This Board received permission from
the General Assembly to have a retroactive ordinance which the County could
not have without General Assembly approval, and that is what Senator Couric
helped the County officials get with the Chamber's help and support. She
commented that people will not have to change their current fixtures, and all
the provisions in this ordinance can be met with fixtures presently on the
market. She acknowledged the fact that shoppers only like well lit places,
but she noted that there is a distinction between well lit and glare in
people's faces. This ordinance does not reduce the amount of light any
business now has on its premises. She remarked that the County already has an
ordinance indicating that there can only be a certain amount of light
spillover to a person's neighbor, and nothing in this ordinance addresses that
or changes it. She added that it certainly does not require darkened parking
lots. She noted that one of the best parking lots in the community is the one
at McIntire ball fields, and it is a model for the requirements of this
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
000342
ordinance. She commented that the ordinance certainly does not require
darkened automobile lots, and she spoke of Carter Myers' lot as an example of
one which is lit very well. She reiterated that nothing in this ordinance
will require anybody to change what they have now. She referred to Mark
Schuyler's comments that the ordinance is fair and enforceable. She said Mr.
Schuyler is an expert, and his comments are certainly reflective of what Ms.
Thomas has seen with this ordinance.
She stated that if people want to have a delay in approving the ordi-
nance, this Board needs to decide whether it is a delay to write the retroac-
tive ordinance or whether it is a delay to change the ordinance. She added
that there have been very few suggestions or comments dealing with how to
change this ordinance. However, if clearing up the fact that internally
illuminated signs are not part of this ordinance, and it is a big issue, she
is sure it can be amended this evening. She mentioned that there are many
people in the community who would like to be involved if the ordinance is
going to be given more consideration. She said, though, it will probably be a
major task force and not just a short Chamber of Commerce fix because, as
someone pointed out, this is an issue for the whole community. She stated
that ordinarily she is the first to suggest task forces, and she thinks she
has overstayed her welcome on a number of task forces in the County, so she is
not opposed to this concept. However, if the task force is appointed, she
does not think it should be done because there is the idea that the ordinance
is flawed, but rather for some other reason.
Mr. Martin stated that some of the people who spoke tonight were
completely opposed to this ordinance. However, others were not opposed to the
ordinance but, instead, they were in favor of it. They just wanted time for
more input. He said when people are in agreement with the objective, but just
want to work out some minor details, some of the best work has been done by
letting this process take place. He does not know if a 90 day deferral is
necessary, but it will not hurt anything to allow people who basically agree
on an objective to spend a little more time together and work out some of the
details.
Mr. Perkins stated that he can support a deferral.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he will support a deferral, but he had
thought the Chamber, as well as other groups, had been given the opportunity
to be involved during the planning process. It is discouraging to get to this
point and have all these questions remaining. He does not think there is a
problem with deferring the matter, but it is extremely frustrating. He added
that it is almost as though this Board should enact an ordinance because that
is when it seems to get the attention. He said it is during the planning
process when County officials seek public involvement, but they don't get as
much as they should. He is unsure if it is this Board's fault, because it
does not communicate well. However, the issues coming to the surface tonight
could certainly have been dealt with in a work process as the ordinance was
being developed. He stated that this started out as simply a way to direct
light to the surface of the earth where the people are and where they use it.
He said light going into the air where there are no people was going to be
eliminated simply by cutting it off and directing it downward. He added that
it would save energy, and it would direct the light where it is needed. He
commented, though, that it has become a lot more complicated than that and he
is not sure why. As far as he is concerned, the signs can be taken out of the
ordinance, since he never envisioned signs being a part of it, anyway. He
thought parking lots and structures were being considered. He went on to say
security lights are 150 watts, and this ordinance does not even cover them,
because the ordinance does not take effect until the lights are 160 watts. He
noted that there are not many 160 watt bulbs that people would be using for
flood lights and security lights. He is willing to defer this Board's
decision on the Lighting Ordinance to seek the input of those people who have
concerns and to try to eliminate a lot of waivers. He referred to vending
machines and other uses which he never envisioned being included in the
ordinance. He emphasized that he does not think these types of items should
be waived because he did not think they should ever have been included. He
will support the deferral in the hope that the ordinance will be easier to
understand. If everybody understands it, then there can be a debate on the
merits of the actual ordinance and not a minunderstanding.
Ms. Humphris mentioned her bafflement at this last minute flurry of
attack on the ordinance when it is really quite simply designed to regulate
the direction of light, and it only applies to new or replaced installations.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
000843
She would very reluctantly support a deferral, but only if the committee which
is going to be doing the work has a very specific charge of what the ordinance
is expected to do. She added that the committee should also have a very
limited amount of time to accomplish it. She added that there were not so
many things listed tonight that it should take any huge amount of time, and
she thinks 90 days is rather outrageous. In two weeks all of the items
mentioned tonight could be covered very easily as to whether they should be
discarded or included.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would rather everybody support the ordinance
because they understand it, and it makes sense. Ms. Humphris agreed. She said
it is very obvious, after listening to the speakers tonight, that a lot of
people do not understand it.
Mr. Marshall noted that it seems to be the general consensus of the
Board to defer this matter, and he asked for a motion. He reminded the
Supervisors, though, that this Board will not meet as a full Board until
August due to vacation schedules. The ordinance will have to be deferred at
least until August.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman made a motion to defer ZTA 98-03 until August
12, 1998.
Ms. Thomas inquired if staff should come back to this Board with a
proposal as to what will happen between now and August. She does not think
vaguely deferring the matter will work.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the staff needs to have consultation with the
people who made the comments tonight to get their involvement. He added that
the staff can then make the proposal to this Board as to how to get the
involvement of the people into the discussion. This process should help
everybody to understand what is going to be presented to this Board, although
they may not agree with it.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that on October 15, 1996, the Planning Commission
had a work session on the Lighting issue with the Chamber of Commerce, as well
as other people being invited, and there have been numerous other meetings
ever since. She said obviously something was not communicated. She added
that she thinks it is hard to have the kind of discussion at a public hearing
that makes any ordinance better, so she will second the motion for deferral.
Ms. Humphris asked if a work session should be held at the day meeting
in August so everybody is clear on the Lighting Ordinance before the Supervi-
sors' final vote at their next meeting.
Mr. Martin stated that he thought people were basically in agreement.
The staff may be able to give the Board an update in August that is sufficient
for another public hearing. He does not think a work session neceSsarily has
to be held. Ms. Humphris responded that it does not have to be a work
session, but the Board needs to know what has been produced during this period
of time.
Mr. Tucker asked if his understanding is correct that the Board would
like for the staff to bring back for next week's meeting a charge for the task
force, as well as some recommendations on the make-up of the task force. This
item could be put on the Consent Agenda, and the staff can come back to this
Board on August 5 with an update. He said on August 12, the Board can have a
public hearing, if necessary, and then take final action.
Mr. Marshall concurred that this is the Board's understanding.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it seems to him a focus is being put on fine
tuning this ordinance.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(At 8:45 p.m., Mr. Marshall announced that the Board would take a short
recess. The Board reconvened at 9:00 p.m.)
000344
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
(Note: The next three items were heard together. )
Agenda Item No. 9. CPA 98-01. Mountains. PUBLIC HEARING on a proposal
to amend Chapter 2 of the Comp Plan, ~the Natural Environment," to include sec
on ~Mountains" described by contour elevation; & to amend the Open Space and
Critical Resources Plan Concept Map. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May
25 and June 1, 1998.)
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA 98-05. Mountain Overlay District & related
provisions. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend Chapter 20, Zoning, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle to add §30.8, Mountain Overlay District,
& to amend related zoning provisions. The Mountain Overlay District estab-
lishes a new zoning district to regulate subdiv & building activity above
designated contour elevations in mountain districts, incl a requirement to
obtain an SP to subdivide lots under 21 acs, & restrictions, such as no
building to occur on the mountain ridge. In addition, the following amend-
ments to Chapter 20 would apply County-wide: an amendment to add §4.2.01,
Constructed Embankments, which requires that no slope be created in any zoning
district which is steeper than 2:1. Amendments are also proposed to related
Code provisions, including §3.0 Definitions, §4.2 Critical Slopes, & §31.2.2
Building Permits. {Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1,
1998.)
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA 98-10. Mountain Overlay District. PUBLIC
HEARING on a proposal to amend the official zoning map to add a Mountain
Overlay District designation to certain properties which are located above
designated contour elevations & described as Mountains in the proposed §30.8,
Mountain Overlay District, & in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 1998.)
Ms. Scala said she would talk about the rationale for the maps, what the
ordinance does and how it meshes with current regulations, as well as recent
changes to the ordinance. The first part of the proposal is an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan to include a section on mountains including a list of
mountains described by contour elevation. She noted that the contour plan is
a policy document, and this section is especially important to the special use
permit process. The second part is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Text.
She explained that the Mountain Overlay District establishes a new zoning
district to regulate subdivision and building activity above designated
contour elevations in the mountain districts. The most recent draft of the
proposed text is June 8, 1998. She noted that the third part is an amendment
to the Zoning Map to add a Mountain Overlay District designation to certain
properties which are located above designated contour elevations and are
described as mountains in the Mountain Overlay District and in the Open Space
Plan.
She then referred to a soils map showing critical slopes based on slopes
of 25 percent and greater, and she pointed out the MOD boundaries which have
been identified by a specific contour line elevation located in the area where
the critical slopes begin on a particular mountain. She noted the elevation
of the critical slopes on the different mountains, and she said the intent is
to protect the mountain resources above this elevation where the mountains
become visually prominent and where development is more difficult due to
concentrations of the critical slopes. She pointed out that within the MOD
boundaries, ridge areas have been delineated and in no case does a ridge area
extend outside a MOD boundary. She noted that the ridge area is the highest
and most prominent part of the mountain, and it is defined as land within 100
vertical feet of the montain ridge line and peaks. She added that the intent
of the ordinance is to keep development off of the ridge area as much as
possible.
Ms. Scala stated that she would not go into detail about the background,
but mountain protection was first discussed in the 1971 Comprehensive Plan.
This particular ordinance came from a Mountain Protection Committee, which was
appointed by the Board of Supervisors in 1995. Committee members felt that
mountains had characteristics which distinguished them from other rural land,
and they recommended an ordinance for the mountains to protect the environ-
ment, scenic quality, economic benefits, general public safety and to promote
more efficient use of taxpayer services by limiting delivery of services in
the Rural Area.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
000345
She pointed out that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this ordinance on May 19,1998 and recommended unanimously to approve all three
amendments with three major changes. The first was to add a grandfathering
clause which would allow existing residences such as in Ashcroft and Rosemont
Subdivisions which are located in the Mountain District to be added on to or
rebuilt. The second major change was to delete the special use permit for
small lots which meant that the owners could then use all the development for
small lots, as well as the large 21 acre parcels within the MOD by right,
provided they have a building site. The third change was that this Board
should consider a special use permit to allow a certain amount of development
on the ridge area, if the owner could show that building there would cause
less environmental degradation than building below the ridge.
She then described what the ordinance does and called attention to the
summary on Page Two of the staff report outlining the current regulations.
The proposed MOD is an overlay district and it would overlay the underlying
zoning district which is largely zoned as RA, Rural Area. There is also a
small amount of mountain area zoned R-I, Residential. She commented that
currently, building can take place in the RA District in mountain areas, if
development rights exist and if a building site is available. She said a
building site is defined as a minimum of 30,000 square feet of less than 25
percent slope, and the purpose of this is to allow location of the dwelling,
the septic system and a reserve back-up area for a septic system. Also other
zoning and subdivision requirements have to be met such as access require-
ments. She said if a parcel currently has no building site, one dwelling is
permitted.
She noted that she has been asked by many people as to why the existing
regulations are insufficient. There are a large number of development rights
existing in the RA on mountains which could be used by right. She added that
there are unique environmental concerns in the mountains and a site plan
cannot be required for a single family dwelling, so there is no opportunity to
review for issues such as design, safety and screening. She remarked that
aesthetic requirements cannot be imposed, so therefore color is not an issue
with which County officials can deal. There are no driveway regulations
currently, so a driveway can be constructed across 25 percent slopes. She
also noted that if there are multiple building sites on a parcel, the County
cannot specify building lower rather than higher. These are some of the
things this ordinance is intended to correct.
She reiterated that the ordinance provides that owners can build within
the MOD using all their development rights and existing residences would be
grandfathered. There are three options for building on the ridge areas. She
said orginially if the only available building site on the parcel was on the
ridge area, or if the whole parcel was in steep slopes and that was the only
place to build, then the ordinance would allow a single family dwelling by
right on the ridge area. This was to provide a reasonable use of the parcel.
She mentioned that this latest draft of the ordinance has two new sections and
both would allow, by special use permit, additional building on the ridge
area. The Planning Commission recommended this change. She went on to say
additional building can be done on the ridge area if it is a case where the
owner can show that building on the ridge would cause less environmental
degradation than building below the ridge area. The second is to allow one or
more dwellings by special use permit on the ridge area when developments would
otherwise be lost by not having the right to build there. She stated that
both these options to build on the ridge area would have to meet the intent of
the MOD, as well as general special use permit criteria in the Zoning Ordi-
nance, including compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Scala mentioned
that she gets a lot of questions as to whether an RPD is still required in the
Mountain Overlay District, and she said it is required, and it is probably a
preferable way to develop a property that has a mountain resource.
Ms. Thomas called Ms. Scala's attention to the fact that she had
inadvertently said an RPD is still required in the Mountain Overlay District
when she had meant to say that it is still allowed.
Ms. Scala thanked Ms. Thomas for this correction. Ms. Scala continued
with her presentation by saying that the third major change to this draft is
that the County Engineer has suggested new language in the constructed
embankments and private road sections to allow greater flexibility in approv-
ing constructed embankments which are steeper than a two to one slope. She
explained that now private driveways must maintain two to one slopes on the
side slopes, but this new provision would allow the County Engineer to approve
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
000346
waivers, and now they can go to any steepness. She mentioned other provisions
of the ordinance which would require private roads to have a 40 foot turning
radius for horizontal curvature which is to allow emergency vehicles to make
the turn going up a private road to access a mountain property. She stated
that another provision is that building sites must be shown on a plat. She
explained that if a parcel straddles an MOD, then the building site must be
located outside of the MOD, if one is available. She noted that there is
always the option to subdivide within the MOD. She then referred to the Water
Ordinance which defines land disturbing activity differently within the MOD.
She said it is defined as 2,500 square feet rather than 10,000, and with the
MOD, it is more likely that an erosion control plan would be required rather
than just an agreement. These two provisions are to ensure that soil
erosion, where it is more likely to occur on steep land, would be taken care
of.
She next introduced Joseph Samuels, who is a local appraiser, as well as
a member of the County's Purchase of Development Rights Committee. She noted
that he spoke at the Board's work session last week, and Board members asked
him to speak again. She said he will speak regarding the question of property
values. She said Mr. Samuels will be followed by the County Attorney who will
briefly discuss the issue of property rights.
Mr. Samuels said he was asked to assist the Board in the value implica-
tions of the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance, and he has been asked to repeat
his conclusions tonight that he presented to the Board of Supervisors last
week. He noted that he is not being paid by the Board and he does not speak
tonight on behalf of any group or individual who is pressing for an advantage
relative to the ordinance. He has been an appraiser for 26 years and a broker
for 15 years with offices in Charlottesville. He has appraised office
buildings, subdivisions, rural land and farms, but his appraisal business
today is primarily partial interests where he has calculated everything from
air rights near airports to the loss of development rights on farming estates
and conservation easements. All of his comments and conclusions last week and
tonight are based upon adoption of the ordinance with the Planning Commis-
sion's recommendations. He then presented his statement. (See statement
presented to the Board of Supervisors from Joseph T. Samuels, Inc., dated June
4, 1998.) In his opinion, with the changes proposed by the Planning Commis-
sion, the ordinance is a very flexible document that can support the highest
and best use defined by the market in a manner that will not disrupt existing
value.
Mr. Marshall stated that he would ask the same question he asked Mr.
Samuels at the work session because he would like for the public to have the
benefit of the answer. He then asked if, in Mr. Samuels' opinion as an
appraiser, he thinks this ordinance would have a detrimental effect on
property values of the people who own mountaintop land. He said, though, Mr.
Samuels' statement indicates that he does not think there would a problem.
Mr. Marshall next inquired if Mr. Samuels has consulted other appraisers in
the County who are doing this type of thing. He said he has talked to several
since Mr. Samuels made his presentation to this Board, and they do not agree.
He also asked how many people are in Mr. Samuels' firm.
Mr. Samuels answered that he has two people in his firm. There could be
different opinions, and he does not think a round table discussion is the kind
of thing where opinions are formed. He stated that an opinion is an opinion,
and he has tried to support his opinion.
Mr. Marshall wondered if Mr. Samuels does appraisals for lending
institutions, etc. Mr. Samuels replied that almost all of his clients are
private, and he does not do work any more for lending institutions.
Mr. Marshall then asked Mr. Davis if he wanted to speak.
Mr. Davis stated that he was asked whether or not the Mountain Overlay
Ordinance, as it applies to existing property rights, would constitute a
taking of the property which would require the County to compensate landown-
ers. In examining this issue, Mr. Davis said it is very clear that the
Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that a regulatory action is not a taking of
property so long as there remains a reasonable use of the property. He
explained that this is true, as the courts point out, even if it limits a
property owner's ability to develop or use the land as the owner originally
intended to use it, or even if it does not allow the property to be developed
in a way that may maximize the owner's investment. He said, as has been
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
00034'7
described today, the Mountain Overlay Ordinance allows every existing property
owner at least one residential development site, and it does not affect other
existing by right uses or special uses. He stated that as proposed in the
ordinance before this Board tonight, there are provisions which will allow all
existing development rights to be utilized under appropriate conditions. He
said as presented now under any legal standard that might apply, there are
reasonable and economic uses of the property. He stated that for this reason,
even though some property owners may feel the value of their property may be
lessened by these restrictions, there is no legal obligation which would
require the County to compensate any landowner for any claim for loss of
property value, because it would not be a legal taking of any property rights
under this ordinance.
Mr. Marshall inquired if an appraiser, who does appraisals for banks and
lending institutions, was to say the value of this property was substantially
reduced, would the County be liable to reimburse any of these people. He
noted that basically these are the people who set market values.
Mr. Davis responded that the County would not be liable as long as there
is a reasonable use of the property. To prove the property is of less value
after the adoption of the ordinance would not constitute a taking and would
not require the County to compensate for any loss of value provided the
property still has an economic and reasonable use. This ordinance would not
take away such a use. In his opinion, the County would not be obligated and
would never be required by court to compensate such a landowner.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Davis could defend this ordinance in court, if
the County were to be sued. Mr. Davis answered that he could do so under
existing law.
Ms. Humphris said she wanted to clarify the difference between a private
driveway and a private road. She went on to explain that driveways serving
just one or two dwellings are not subject to minimum turning radius require-
ments. However, private roads serving more than two dwelling units are
subject to these requirements. Ms. Scala concurred with Ms. Humphris.
Mr. Martin mentioned that he has several questions which he would like
to ask later before the Board votes on this matter. He would first like to
hear what the public has to say.
Mr. Marshall asked if he could get a consensus of the Board as to
whether they feel they want to vote on this issue tonight. He stated that in
light of the number of people who are speaking and the lateness of the hour,
he personally does not feel he is going to be mentally up to making a decision
tonight. Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Marshall said he asked for a consensus of the Board because if the
Board is not going to vote on the matter tonight, the public needs to know.
There may be some people who will speak and want to leave the meeting after
that, if the vote is not going to be taken. He reiterated that he does not
want to vote on this issue at 1:00 a.m. He wants to have time, after the
public hearing, to discuss this in detail with the other Board members and
then make a decision. Ms. Humphris agreed and other Board members agreed.
Mr. Marshall informed the public that the vote would not be taken
tonight. The public hearing would be held, and the vote would be taken at a
later date. He mentioned, again, that this Board will not have full member-
ship until the first meeting in August, so the vote on this issue will not
happen before that time.
Ms. Thomas stated that she is not agreeing to delay the vote for this
length of time. The Board meets next week. Ms. Humphris concurred with Ms.
Thomas.
Mr. Marshall reiterated that there will not be a full Board present next
week. There is already a full agenda, and Mr. Bowerman is leaving that
particular meeting early.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if this issue is on the agenda, he will stay
for the duration of the meeting. He had asked for the difficult items to be
placed at the beginning of the meeting, so that if he was able to leave early,
he could do so.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
000348
Ms. Humphris commented that she sees no reason to delay the vote, once
all of the public input has been received. She noted that there will be a
week for the Board to consider the public comments, and they certainly should
be able to vote next week.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he does not want to make this decision
tonight either. He wants to be able to listen to the public and there may be
questions the Board members want to ask staff beyond that point which may or
may not be answered by June 17, 1998. He would like to reserve making the
decision on the date to which the vote will be deferred, until after the
public has spoken. Board members agreed.
At 9:30 p.m., Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. He stated that he
would call five names at a time, so those people can come forward and be
prepared to speak, in the hope that the meeting could move forward quickly.
The first speaker, Ms. Pat Napoleon, voiced her utmost support for the
proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance. She and her family own several
parcels of the ridge top land in Cismont, and they treasure their privilege to
serve as stewards of this beautiful property. She stated that many changes
have befallen the Charlottesville/Albemarle area during the recent years. She
added that the rapid population increase has made a colossal impact, and
resulting pressures to manage growth have been a challenge to say the least.
The area mountains offer one last opportunity for the County's citizens to
savor the tranquility of days past. She commented that those people who had
the privilege as children to live within and enjoy local mountain environment
in an undisturbed state would like to see future generations have this chance
to do likewise. She said it must be remembered that some of the glorious
landscapes being discussed tonight helped to spur the dreams and visions of
many noted early American individuals and families. She noted that the time
has come for everyone to unite in a collective effort to preserve the historic
and aesthetic qualities of the local mountain land. She invited any person to
travel through the mountainous areas of North Carolina and east Tennessee as
she did not long ago. The visual alterations imposed during recent years are
alarming, and although several protective ordinances have been enacted, in her
view, it is too late for them. She stated that much damage has already taken
place. She added that in short the elevated ground in Albemarle County is
special and vulnerable, and more guidelines are needed now to protect these
pristine vistas. She said landowners, including developers, should consider
the feelings of all who look toward these ridges. The mountain land not only
belongs to her and her family, but ownership transcends these boundaries. She
said consideration for fragile animal and plant habitat, as well as respect
for neighbors, must be incorporated before imposing changes on these grounds.
She thanked the Board members for their thoughtful attention to the matters at
hand. She said it is her sincere hope that they will make this commitment
tonight, and the vote will not be deferred long. She stated that enough
compromise has ensued, and she asked the Supervisors to go the distance to
protect the lands which have shaped the character of many before the present
time and continues to do so today.
Mr. Ivo Romenesko remarked that he is present at this meeting as a
private citizen, and he is not engaged by any client nor is he representing
any other group other than himself. He owns property in Albemarle County,
although it is not mountaintop property. He is a certified general appraiser
and an MAI designated member of the Appraisal Institute, and he is owner of
the Appraisal Group which is one of the largest appraisal firms in the State
of Virginia. He pointed out that he has appraised real estate for over 28
years, and he has done thousands of appraisals of property in Albemarle County
for banks, private property owners, corporations, governmental agencies and
others. He then stated that the property rights affected by the proposed
Mountaintop Ordinance do have value, and this raises the question of just
compensation. In recent years he has done numerous appraisals of conservation
and open space easements in this County, and in every case, the market value
of the property was reduced to one degree or another by conservation or open
space easements. In every case, the owner was donating the easement in
exchange for tax credit or a deduction. He added that, to his knowledge, the
IRS has never questioned any of these valuations and, in fact, has cooperated
with these donations of easements and the tax deductions. He pointed out that
the Appraisal Journal, a publication of the Appraisal Institute, in its April
issue states that most conservation easements range from 40 to 60 percent of
value, and the more restrictive the easement, the lower the property value.
He also mentioned that the National Park Service places significant value on
mountains and has purchased land on Skyline Drive and the Shenandoah National
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
000349
Park. The Service continues to acquire scenic easements to protect viewsheds
from the Park, but property owners are always paid for these scenic easements.
He noted that the Service Authority pays for easements even when water and
sewer easements benefit the property owner. The Highway Department purchases
sight view easements, and in each of these examples, the public benefits and
the property owner is paid. In his experience, he sees no evidence that
houses on mountaintops diminish values of houses in nearby low lands.
However, he has seen evidence that other things being equal, development
rights contribute to value. He added that there is undeniable evidence that
demand creates value, and if no one wanted to build on mountaintops, there
would be no reason to protect that. If the mountaintops require protection
from construction, then there must be a demand for the mountaintops which
must, therefore, have value. He supports the goal of scenic preservation, but
he also supports the rights of private property owners. The citizens of
Albemarle cannot expect to acquire something of undeniable value at no cost.
(Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Romenesko that he had used up all of his allotted
time.)
After applause from members of the audience, Mr. Marshall reminded them
that he had asked them not to applaud. However, he explained that if future
speakers ask for members of the audience to stand in support, that will be
fine.
Mr. Charles Trachta, President of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association
(ANA), read a statement from the Executive Board of the ANA. He indicated
from the statement that the Mountaintop Preservation Committee has been
struggling to find a way to preserve this County. The preservation of the
beauty of these mountains is not just for the pleasure of the eye, but it is
for the environmental concerns of the area, the sportsmans' concern, the
business and real estate concerns, and it is for the concern of every person
who lives in Albemarle County, and even those who are just passing through.
He asked Board members to think about why people move here and stay. He
stated that Albemarle's government, its businesses, real estate and developers
use the beauty of this County to sell it and make the County work and grow.
The MTP Committee has not met secretly, and anyone or any group could have
voiced their concerns and opinions. He said for more than a year ANA has had
an appointed representative to act as an observer to the Committee. He
pointed out that ANA members have discussed the Committee's work at numerous
meetings, and the consensus of the meetings show that ANA is in support of the
ordinance in its original form. He added that ANA members are willing to
accept the compromise the Planning Commission has sent to this Board so some
protection of the mountains is enacted. He stated that when the MTP Committee
completed its work, the opposition decided to voice its disapproval. He said
when the Supervisors are deciding whether or not to support this work, and
they are considering the opposition, they need to ask themselves where these
people were when the Committee was meeting the last few years. Since the MTP
Committee has finished its work, he asked how many developers have submitted
site plans so they would not be affected by this ordinance. He understands
the Supervisors cannot vote tonight because of the number of speakers. Yet,
he asked if they postpone this vote, that they instruct the Planning Depart-
ment not to accept any site plans after today until a vote is taken.
Mr. Donald Lyon, a member of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association and
President of the Raintree Homeowners Association, supported the statements of
Mr. Trachta. However, he emphasized the need for the Board of Supervisors to
vote on this matter tonight, and if not tonight, in a few days. He said one
mountain is already threatened due to a subdivision plat, and other subdivi-
sion plats have already been filed. He referred to a list of nine development
proposals as of June 2, and he said to think there will be no development on
these mountaintops is clearly refuted. He asked the Supervisors not to let
Albemarle County lose any more mountains or ground because of the Supervisors'
inaction. He said it is in the County's best interest for the Board to vote
on this issue tonight and not to delay this action.
Mr. Jim Lark, a resident of the Buck Mountain section of the County and
Secretary of the Jefferson Area Libertarians, stated that as a Virginia
hillbilly by both birth and conviction, he yields to no one in his love for
the beauty of the mountains of this area. However, the proposed Mountain
Protection Ordinance is a regulatory taking which improperly restricts the
right of property owners to the peaceful use of their property. There are
several ways to protect the mountains such as restrictive covenants and the
purchase of development rights which do not violate the rights of property
owners, and he urged the Supervisors to vote against the proposed ordinance.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
0003 0
Captain Chris Byrom, of the United States Air Force, remarked that he
flew in from Seattle, Washington to speak tonight. He has been kept
up-to-date by his parents and family as far as the discussions and proposals
that have been presented on this issue, and he is disturbed by the absence of
discussion on the effect this proposed ordinance will have on the citizens who
live within the proposed Mountain Overlay Districts. He commented that most
of these citizens are not, as they have been characterized in the full page
ads in the Daily Progress, the richest citizens of the County. These are
often people who have family histories of having lived here for generations.
They drive 20 year old cars because this is what they can afford, and the
homes they live in are not ones they have purchased through great expense, but
they are ones which have been passed down from generation to generation. He
added that for these families who are citizens 'within this area that are going
to be directly affected by the proposed ordinance, he would like to point out
some of the unfair costs they will bear. He said for the right to submit a
building permit, and not to even get it approved, somebody has to have a final
plat showing an approved building site. This requires several thousands of
dollars of expense paid to a surveyor to prepare the final plat, and it still
does not mean they will have the right to build. For the protection of water
resources, it is proposed they will have to come up with an Erosion Control
Plan, and several thousand dollars will have to be paid to devel0p this plan.
He said even with the proposed changes mentioned in the beginning of this
meeting, it will have to be proven there is less of an environmental impact to
build on a ridge than in a lower area. He asked what professional will have
to be paid several thousands of dollars to prove this fact to some bureau-
crat's satisfaction. There will be many other additional expenses involved
with moving the building site from a flat area on to a slope which will
include building site preparation, the design of the home and its foundation
and preparation of septic fields and wells. He added that mowing equipment to
keep back brush from the home that is satisfactorily safe for operating on
slopes will have to be involved. He said implementation of this ordinance
constitutes an imposition on the citizens and allows only the rich to develop
their land, and he believes this constitutes a reprehensible change in the
character of Albemarle County.
Mr. Bob Byrom, father of the previous speaker, stated that he is
speaking for the other five of his children and 13 grandchildren who cannot be
present tonight. He opposes the Mountain District plan and feels very
strongly that the proposal is unworkable, unfair and completely unnecessary.
He said it is a very bad solution to a problem that does not exist. He then
noted his concerns about the arguments that have been used to promote support
of this plan. He recalled the public hearing held by the Planning Commission
where the planners used slides to project what could or would happen in this
County. The major commercial developments were very large, there were
gigantic condominiums, and there was a building growing out of the top of the
mountain. These areas appeared to be much larger than Wintergreen. The sites
of these points were not identified by the briefers, and he was told by
someone in the audience that they do not even exist in Virginia. This Board
and the County with its existing rules have the ability to control this type
of commercial development. He referred to Mr. Davis' comments that this is
not an unreasonable taking of property rights. However, Mr. Byrom believes
the most reasonable use of farmland is to be able to build farm residences on
the land. He noted that he has by letter asked the Director of Planning and
Development in Albemarle County to tell him what effect this ordinance will
have on his 818 acre farm. He has not received even a penny postcard. He
then referred to Mr. Samuels' remarks that 997 acres were being transferred
with ten development rights. He said with his 818 acres he has nine develop-
ment rights. Yet, the projection which was given at the Planning meeting
showed a uniform color of amber going from Charlottesville out to where he
lives in the northwest corner of the mountains as the development that will
happen in this County in the absence of this ordinance. (Mr. Marshall
informed Mr. Byrom that he had used up all of his time.)
Ms. Jean Kolb stated that she and her husband own 100 acres of mountain
land including 3,000 feet of ridge line all within a proposed Mountain Overlay
District, and they strongly support this ordinance. She said using the
estimate of a Planning staff member that there are something like 7,000
division rights in the proposed MOD, there is the possibility of several
thousand houses to be built on these mountains, because the ordinance says
every parcel has one building right. There is the tendency for every parcel
owner to think that the one house he wants to build won't disturb the mountain
much and maybe it won't. However, the cumulative effect of this potential for
several thousand houses with their associated roads and power lines certainly
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
00035i
will disturb the mountains, and that is why it is proper and right for this
Board to set up some building rules. She went on to say it is not just
proper, but it is the Supervisors' responsibility to protect what everybody
agrees is a resource that this whole community values. She stated that one
house won't put a strain on the County emergency vehicles but 1,000 will, and
one house won't disturb wildlife, but 1,000 will. She thinks the grouse and
the black bears that have been using these mountains for 5,000 years without
damaging them have earned the right to remain there. She noted that people
have said they take good care of their mountain land, so building rules are
not needed. She agreed that good care has been taken of the mountain land,
but nobody knows who the next two or three owners are going to be, so she
feels long term protection is needed. As to property values, Ms. Kolb stated
that everywhere in the United States where wilderness areas have been desig-
nated, people are flocking to live near them. The opportunity to buy a piece
of protected land is likely to make land in or partly in these MODs much
sought after in years to come. She stated that it cannot be said too often
that this ordinance does not prevent anyone from building a house on a parcel
of land. She said it sets the rules, but there is provision in the ordinance
for valid exceptions of every one of those rules. She asked that the Supervi-
sors not delay action on this issue, because some people are going to rush to
subdivide. She suggested putting this framework in place and then, as
recommended in the 1996 version of the Mountain Protection Plan, work out a
system for the transfer of development rights, or the purchase of development,
or perhaps for some compensating tax relief. She asked that the Supervisors
pass this ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission so that the
mountains enjoyed by the last three generations of Albemarle County residents
will be here for the next three generations.
Mr. Brad Barnhill, a member of the local Jefferson Area Libertarian
Party, said he has some very fundamental views on this issue. He added that
he is sure everybody wants the areas in question to be protected, and it is
his firm belief that the property owner is a far better steward for his
children's future than any other. If he understands the question before this
Board, it would seem the County is attempting to protect the interest of one
group of people against another group. This is not the proper use of govern-
ment force. He stated that under mob rule, any group of people together can
prevail their interests over any other smaller group. He went on to say the
true purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of the individual
from usurpation by the majority. The County officials act as though they own
the property in question when clearly they do not. He commented that every-
body has a natural right to absolute ownership of their property, and for the
County to impose the interest of the many over the rights of a few, he feels
is robbery. He asked if it really matters if the robber wears a badge or a
mask. He thinks not, and it is his hope that the Supervisors feel the same.
He said everybody has a natural right to life, liberty and property, and these
three natural rights are supposed to be in the Supervisors' hands and under
their protection. He asked the Supervisors to recognize their oath to protect
the rights as secured by the constitution.
Mr. Ed Strauss remarked that he lives in the western part of the County
and right now his property is not affected by this ordinance. He said,
though, as soon as somebody thinks a certain thing is desirable or it should
stay a certain way forever, he or she will want it restricted. He stated that
people who think something is nice or think they need something to survive
want to tell the other people how it should be without taking into consider-
ation how the property looks. He noted that the appearance of the property is
a credit to the people and not to government. He said open space and moun-
taintops are all owned by somebody, and they are not just there for everybody
to look at. They are how they are because the owners want them that way. He
commented that to say the Supervisors know better how to take care of this
land is fundamentally wrong. He then questioned if mountains are at risk. He
mentioned that there has been a Holiday Inn on Afton Mountain for 30 years,
and he asked if anything has been built on the ridge line next to it. There
is some building behind it, but he asked where the big expansion is on Afton
Mountain. He noted that 1-64 was built through the Afton area, and everybody
thought this was bad, but it is still there. He stated that animals are still
there, and they get hit by cars every night. He asked what is more important
than the rights of humans, and he pointed out that human beings are Albemarle
County's greatest resource. The government has the right to talk about
holding mountains over people, but the people have the common sense. He added
that human beings created this place, and they will be here as long as it is
here. He suggested that the Supervisors should vote no because it is not
about controlling people or controlling land. The mountains will be here
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
00085;8
after everybody is gone. He reiterated that he asked the Supervisors to vote
no, but if they have to vote affirmatively, then they need to consider a
companion human being protection plan. They need to spell out to the ones who
have children, who make their homes here, and who invest in this County what
it will cost to continue to live here, because that is important, too.
Mr. John Little commented that he is representing Ms. Julia Campbell,
who owns 45 acres known as Lewis Mountain, and it is located off of Ivy Road,
just on the cuff of the City/County boundary line. He said Ms. Campbell's
property is presently zoned residential Ri, and this zoning classification is
for areas designated for residential development in community and urban areas
of the County. The property is surrounded by nearby commercial and
multi-family residential development, University property and a County water
tank. He said if the proposed district were to include Ms. Campbell's
property, what was once earmarked for permitted residential development, will
then be a protected area. He added that certainly this changes her economic
expectations and the value of her property. He noted that to date only
elevation and critical slopes have been considered as to whether or not her
property should be in the district, but no consideration at all has been given
to its location, which is an urban and community area. The stated public
benefits of the ordinance just don't have the efficacy in that area, and
accordingly this property should not be included in the proposed district.
Secondly, he remarked that if this property is included in the district, the
owner should be compensated for any change in value, since both the U.S. and
Virginia Constitutions prohibit the government from taking private property
for public use without just compensation. He said ownership of property
consists of a bundle of rights that include the right to develop property, and
when the government takes away development rights from this bundle, it may be
required to pay. The law of inverse condemnation is alive and well in the
State of Virginia. He mentioned that in the Prince William County versus Omni
Homes 1997 case, the court left open as to whether the taking of just one
right may constitute a taking. He added that interestingly in the same case,
the County is reported to have paid $3,700,000 to another litigant to settle
an inverse condemnation case when the County adopted regulations to implement
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. This forces the County to put its money
where its mouth is. The general rule is that if a regulation goes too far, a
taking will occur which requires compensation. He asked when does a regula-
tion go too far. The law on this point is a muddle, because some believe the
courts have created uncertainty on purpose so that government and property
owners will work out their differences by meaningful dialogue in a political
process. He then respectfully urged the Board not to include Ms. Campbell's
property in the district and to be mindful that when regulations go too far,
landowners may be entitled to compensation.
Mr. Jim Hall stated that he and his wife own 100 acres of land that is
affected by the Mountain Protection Plan, and they support the plan as it was
originally proposed 100 percent. He noted the discussion about taking away
individual property rights, and said he would like to offer some historical
perspective. He added that 200 years ago there was virtually no restrictions
on property rights, and there really needed to be none. However, as technol-
ogy, transportation and population of the County have grown, it has been the
duty of the Board of Supervisors tO ensure proper development of the County's
land. He thinks most rural landowners would agree it is good that neighbors
cannot put in a factory or a K-mart or McDonald's, or even 100 houses, on 50
acres of land. He noted that it has always been the duty of the Board of
Supervisors to properly zone land. He recalled a gentleman's remarks at the
Planning Commission meeting last month that only 15 or 20 homes were built in
the mountain areas last year. This gentleman asked then what was the problem.
Mr. Hall commented that if this number increases to 25 or 30 over the next 10
years, which is a very real possibility, then over the next 50 years, there
could well be 1,500 homes built in the mountain areas. He stated that just as
former Boards have made tough decisions to restrict the rights of landowners,
it is now this Board's duty to protect the quality of the drinking water,
streams and the beauty of the mountains. He asked the Supervisors not to let
the children and grandchildren wake up to mountains that are marked with
development. He encouraged the Supervisors to vote for this legislation as
originally proposed and to enact legislation which similarly restricts the
development of all rural land.
Ms. Barbara Moon commented that most everything she had to say has been
said, except to say she opposes this ordinance. She said land is becoming
scarce, and the best financial planning for a person's children is to give
them property. She stated that it is hard to start a home this day and time
000353
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
and sharing land with children is the right of parents and not a Board of
Supervisors' decision. She asked the Board to vote for the landowners.
Mr. George Howard remarked that he has sent the Board of Supervisors a
statement, but he would like to offer a few more comments. He and his wife
own Red Brook Farm, which consists of approximately 200 acres, 60 of which are
in the proposed Mountain Overlay District. This property has been in his
family for 152 years, and there are no buildings in the mountains, and he does
not propose to subdivide his property. He hopes to pass it on to his children
some day. He and his family are opposed to this ordinance, and he wondered
what the ordinance is about, anyway. He said some say it is about appearance,
but it is possible for people to clear-cut a mountain, yet a building cannot
be put on a ridge. He inquired if the Board would rather have a clear-cut
mountain or a Monticello on a ridge. He emphasized that he thinks it is not
about appearance because a Monticello on a ridge is much more beautiful than a
clear-cut mountain. He said supporters of the ordinance make many other
claims for its being necessary, but these claims are fairly well covered by
current regulations. He commented that the only thing this ordinance is about
is control of personal property, and no one can convince him that the relegat-
ing of use of land for agricultural and forestal only does not severely
depress the value of the land, and therefore, this is a taking. The County
should compensate the owners for these takings and require a title to the
land. He stated that if all of these people wish to see these mountains, and
they wish for the property not to be changed, then they ought to be willing to
buy it from the owners. He added that this ordinance is about erosion of the
rights of property owners, because piece by piece, drop by drop, these rights
are eroded away. He asked that the Board of Supervisors vote against the
ordinance.
Ms. Marian Dowell spoke against the ordinance because she wants the
property to remain as it is. She said she does not own any property, but her
mother and father have passed on, and left the property to their two children.
She reiterated that she wants the property left in its present state.
MS. Ruth Wadlington, Co-President of the League of Women Voters of
Charlottesville/Albemarle, stated that the League has had a committee studying
the Mountain Protection Ordinance for a long time. She handed in a copy of a
statement earlier, but she would also like to make a few comments. She said
most people want to assure that the natural mountain beauty making Albemarle
County such a special place continues undisturbed whether for economic or
aesthetic reasons. She stated that while all those families who have lived on
the land for many years have an appreciation of the obligation this entails,
there is a strong worry that accelerating development pressures will cause
damages everybody Will regret. She noted that all zoning puts restrictions on
what can be done with land. She pointed out that one of the latest primary
concerns is the preservation of Albemarle County's water supply and quality,
and many provisions the Supervisors are considering are designed to specifi-
cally deal with this issue. There are clearly differences of opinion as to
what measures will ensure the best policies for the community at large, and
some do not even think this is a valid goal. She stated that some very good
suggestions have emerged from previous hearings, and the Planning Commission
has recommended that the Supervisors adopt some of those. She added that
allowing by special permit a building site on a ridge or plateau where it will
be less harmful to the environment seems to be a sensible compromise. She
went on to say some flexibility may help to avert the law of unintended
consequences. She added that the League is most grateful to the people who
have given their time and energies to creating and refining this ordinance,
and she urged the Board to adopt the proposed zoning amendments in addition to
the Comprehensive Plan. She said she now has a much greater appreciation for
the job done by the Supervisors.
Ms. Ninon Gore stated that she would like to see Albemarle County's
mountains protected from developers.
Mr. Fred Gore mentioned that there might need to be some more discussion
before there is a vote. He suggested that maybe some more people could
express their views, even though there are a lot of people who are going to do
so at this meeting. He said he does not think there has been enough discus-
sion to really examine what this ordinance is going to cover. He added that
the concerns of the people who are going to be affected by it need to be
addressed more. He is in the spirit of the proposal, but he will have to go
against it, at this point.
000354
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
Ms. Frances Lee-Vandell commented that she likes the ordinance, and she
likes the fact that families are coming together here from Seattle and other
places to talk about how they will deal with their family farms. The issue
has to be brought up, and she hopes that with this ordinance, the Supervisors
will continue to keep the dialogue open so there will be some way of advising
people about intergenerational transfer of their family farms. This point
needs to be addressed here in the Mountain Protection Ordinance.
Mr. Eric Nielsen said he is a member of the Shenandoah Ecosystems
Defense Group, which is a locally based nonprofit organization committed to
the sustainable conservation and restoration of the natural values of the
Central Appalachians. He commented that his group supports the Mountain
Protection Plan in its original proposed form with the exception of exemptions
for intensive agricultural operations. The right to own private property is
granted by the public, and the public has the responsibility to oversee its
usage and to ensure that public values are upheld. He said simply because
money can be made in an enterprise does not not make the activity justifiable.
He said if the Fire Department and zoning regulations won't allow him to
harbor native plant and animal communities in his small yard, then why should
someone be allowed to pave a mountaintop negatively impacting people, as well
as natural and economic resources downstream all the way to the Atlantic
Ocean. He asked if people should be allowed to wantonly develop the County's
beautiful mountains simply because they are developers, and that is what they
do. He said although he does not have the good fortune to own land in
Albemarle County's mountains, it does not mean his home is not there. He
stated that his home goes out his door, right across the property line at the
edge of his yard, across the railroad tracks, out into the countryside and up
into the mountains. He stated that he will walk through his home at will, and
he will fight to defend it from the thieves who come to steal the precious
wildness which remains whether it is in his living room, on the back porch or
up on the roof top. The right to own private property is really not a right
at all. He added that it is a privilege which comes from having the economic
resources to afford it, or the good fortune to inherit it. He went on to say
it is a privilege and a responsibility. He stated that land is more than a
raw undeveloped material awaiting human initiative to make it valuable. He
added that it is a fully and actively functioning system supporting the
livelihoods of countless organisms including all the residents of Albemarle
County. He next emphasized that the exemption for agricultural facilities
should be eliminated. He said having grown up in the Shenandoah Valley, he is
well aware of the damage to water quality, scenic quality and ecological
resources that can occur due to insufficient regulation of the poultry
industry and other large and intensive agricultural operations. With this
exception, he asked that the Mountain Protection Plan be enacted as originally
proposed and that the public and County officials together make this small
beginning to honor the natural and cultural heritage of this beautiful place.
Mr. Steve Blaine remarked that he is representing a group of mountain
landowners whose combined land accounts for over 8,000 acres which will be
affected by this ordinance in the Mountain Overlay District. He said while
his clients support the goals of the ordinance to preserve and protect
mountain land, they oppose the ordinance in its current form. He stated that
it would be impossible in the amount of time allowed during these proceedings
to express all their views, as well as their arguments in opposition to this
ordinance, so he has arranged for the next five speakers who share the views
of his clients, or are his clients, to address those views. The Board will
first hear from Mr. George Shoffner, who is a certified appraiser with over 13
years of experience in appraising Albemarle County property. He added that
Mr. Shoffner will comment on the proposed ordinance's effect on land values
and will rebut previous statements made in an effort to advocate this ordi-
nance as did Mr. Romenesko earlier. Next, he said Mr. Roger Ray will speak,
who has over 40 years of experience in surveying, designing, building and
inspecting roads. Mr. Ray will relate the effects of the proposed private
road and driveway standards to his own property in the County. He stated that
his remarks will demonstrate that at the very least, some additional practical
and professional input needs to be given to the proposed measures to regulate
road building in the mountains. Third, Mr. Blaine said the Board will hear
from Mr. Bob Buford, whose family has for decades owned over 1,500 acres on
Buck's Elbow. He commented that Mr. Buford has maintained responsibly over
four miles of roads in what will become the ridge area or Mountain Overlay
District. He said Mr. Buford will share with the Board his deep concerns
about this ordinance. Fourth, Mr. Jack Bocock, who is a community resident
and substantial landowner, will share his views. Mr. Blaine noted that the
Bococks and Scotts have combined holdings of over 5,000 acres, and these
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
000355
families have been excellent stewards and caretakers of mountain property for
over 100 years. Mr. Blaine said that Mr. Dan O'Neill will speak last from the
viewpoint of an owner of small mountain parcels, and whose parcels will be
profoundly affected by the ordinance. He stated that when the Board members
listen to these five speakers, they will hear, as they have heard from some of
the earlier speakers, that these mountain landowners care deeply about their
mountain property. He asked if the mountain landowners care so deeply and
those in favor of this ordinance apparently care deeply about the mountains,
then why is this a contentious issue. He said he believes the mountain
landowners can give some meaningful input to help improve the ordinance so a
consensus can be reached.
Mr. George Shoffner stated that as a certified real estate appraiser, he
has been engaged in the appraisal of real estate in Albemarle County for the
past 13 years, and he is a lifelong resident of this area. He said he has
been asked by Mr. Blaine, on behalf of Mr. Blaine's clients, to comment on the
proposed Mountain Overlay District. He mentioned that last week, as well as
tonight, the Board listened to another appraiser express the opinion of no
evidence being available to suggest a loss in property value to those proper-
ties subject to the restrictions of the Mountain Overlay District. He will
respectfully disagree with this opinion. He pointed out that his opinion is
based on sales data which he has researched, and it is also based on evidence
from statements made by interviewed buyer's and seller's as well as their
representing brokers. He stated that from a buyers' and sellers' perspective
the most important element of the proposed ordinance will be to effectively
eliminate building sites above certain elevations. He added that during the
course of his interviews, it was made quite clear that most buyers would not
pay the same for a parcel of land where a house could not be situated to their
satisfaction as they would for an unrestricted property. Their primary
objection was a reduction of views available from the lower elevations. He
mentioned that several times he heard brokers state that their buyers would
"walk away from such transactions rather than discount the price and accept
the restriction." He stated that despite another appraiser's research, which
failed to find any measurable difference in values, it cannot be predicted how
many transactions will not occur should the prospective buyer perceive the
process or the restrictions to be too cumbersome. This is the invisible part
of the market reacting to the loss of certain property rights. He noted that
when buyers and sellers can't agree on a meeting of the minds as a result of
real or perceived property restrictions, the affect on values should not be
characterized as neutral. He recalled that previously the claim was made that
property owners or values won't be affected since the ordinance will be
uniformly applied. He said because real estate is unique, though, no two
properties are alike. Therefore, an accessible property of the mountaintop
building site and expansive views afforded by its elevation will have a very
different value from a remote timber tract with steep topography and difficult
access. He stated that because their best use differs, their underlying
values will also differ, and despite the uniform application the impact on
these properties could be very different. He said it is his opinion that not
only the potential for loss in property values exist but in certain specific
cases, it is very likely.
Mr. Roger Ray noted that construction embankments have not been ad-
dressed. He said he personally delivered a letter to each Board member with
a packet of VDoT's standards for design of embankments today, and he hopes
some of them have had a chance to look at this information. He said VDoT's
design criteria for embankments to serve all roads in Virginia, including
primary, interstate and secondary, have seven different designs for the
embankments, and four of them include slopes steeper than the two to one slope
as proposed by this ordinance. The best way to share his opposition to the
ordinance is to relate how it will personally adversely affect him, and it
will affect each and every property owner in all of Albemarle County the same
as it would him. He noted that the embankment issue is not just in the
Overlay District, but it is Countywide. He said he has spoken to at least 25
people in the last couple of days, and not one of these people realized that
this embankment issue was Countywide, but they thought it was only in the
Overlay District. He stated that he would like for the Highway Commissioner,
at some point, to ask all of the folks here tonight how many of them under-
stand that this is a Countywide issue. He remarked that he owns approximately
25 acres on Route 602 in Southern Albemarle County in the Scottsville Dis-
trict, and it is a beautiful wooded lot that faces the Rockfish River. He
pointed out that the building site on this tract of land is approximately 140
feet higher than the existing public road, and there is no other suitable
building site on this property except on top of the knoll. He explained that
000356
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
to construct a driveway, which would come under the embankment ordinance, to
the building site would require constructing approximately 600 feet of road in
natural ground slopes ranging from five percent cross slope to 30 percent
cross slope. He said once he gets ready to build this driveway during the
next two years, if this ordinance is in effect, he will play havoc with his
parcel of land, because it will appear he is building a major roadway instead
of a private driveway. He noted that the difference between embankments of a
one to one slope and a two to one slope, is that if there is a 30 percent
cross slope, there is approximately three times more surface area to be
disturbed. He said it is not the slope of the embankment that should be the
controlling point but, instead, it should be the reclamation and stabilization
of the driveway. He then thanked each Board member in advance for voting
against, or making drastic changes, in this ordinance. (Mr. Marshall informed
Mr. Ray that he had used up all of his time.)
Mr. Robert Buford noted that through a private corporation his family
owns approximately 1,400 acres near the crest of Buck's Elbow Mountain in
western Albemarle County. He said his family began acquiring this property in
1964, and they have only built one dwelling on the property which was done in
1969. There are no plans for development or to build any other buildings on
the property, but he hopes his children and grandchildren might have the
opportunity to do so in the future, if they so desire. He pointed out that he
is sympathetic to the purpose of the ordinance of preserving the scenic beauty
of the mountains, but he opposes the ordinance because of what he considers to
be serious defects in it. The definition of ridge area is too broad, and it
fails to recognize that the tops of these mountains are basically flat or
gently rolling. There are pastures and not stiff ridges. He mentioned his
property where the ridge area ranges in width from 1,000 feet to 1,700 feet
and includes a total of 300 acres on which only one dwelling could be built.
He then recommended that only land within 30 feet elevation from the ridge
line be embraced within the ridge area or tentatively that the width of the
ridge area be limited to 100 feet on either side of the ridge line. He next
referred to the second defect, which Mr. Ray had already mentioned, relating
to the embankments. He said it is utterly unrealistic to impose such stan-
dards on mountain roads with a two to one requirement as far as slopes are
concerned. He pointed out that the State and Federal Governments do not
comply with such requirements, and all people have to do is drive on 1-64 from
here to Richmond, and they will see banks ranging 45 degrees or more. He
suggested people cross over Afton Mountain or Ragged Mountain, and they will
see the same thing. He called attention to the Jarman Gap Road which provides
access to Buck's Elbow Mountain, where slopes no less than 45 degrees can
regularly be found, and there are some as much as 60 degrees. He told Board
members that the cost of building to their requirements would be prohibitive,
and it would do unnecessary destruction to trees, vegetation and disturbed
property which simply is not necessary. He mentioned that there are already
numerous roads in these mountains and some are 100 years old which feed old
cabins where families used to live. They are logging roads but they are kept
open now to fight forest fires. He remarked that he has personally taken care
of approximately four miles of these roads, and he keeps them open, so they
can be used as a means of access for farm equipment or if there is a forest
fire. He submitted that it should be proper to use these roads as a means of
access to a building site rather than force him to build a new road which
would destroy a great deal more of the surface area than would otherwise be
the case. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Buford that he had used up all of his
time.)
Mr. Jack Bocock stated that he is a resident of Charlottesville and a
landowner in southwest Albemarle County near Rockfish Gap, and his family has
owned this land for nearly 100 years. He said he uses this land, and the
buildings on it, as a second home and vacation spot for his extended family.
He pointed out that during the last 75 years, one additional house has been
added to the property. He stated that he is clearly not speaking against this
ordinance because of a hidden fast track development agenda. He said his
family has always endeavored to be not only good and responsible stewards of
their land, but also good citizens in this community. He noted that his
family has opened their property to the public in order to raise funds for
local fire and rescue units, and they have assisted the tourist industry by
participating in Garden Week, as well as to let Boy Scout troops use the land
for camping, and they are proud to have been able to offer their land to local
ROTC units for their training needs. He stated that his family members are
very fortunate to own land in Albemarle County, and they understand that there
are distinct responsibilities that accompany the privileges of ownership. He
commented that he and his family members are in favor of ensuring that the
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
000357
County has the ability to regulate the development of its natural resources,
and they support the general purpose of this ordinance. Nevertheless, he does
not believe that this proposal has been properly vented by all of the affected
parties. He said he has been coming to Albemarle County his entire life and
has lived year round in the County for nearly five years. He apologized that
he has not kept up with local politics better than he has done, but he said he
was not fully aware of the implications of the proposed ordinance until
shortly before the last public meeting. From his perspective, this ordinance
appears to be on a type of schedule that stifles mixed input and proper
debate. He said no matter the fate of this proposal, it is not appropriate to
reduce the private property values of the citizens this Board represents
without a full and broad based discussion. The currently proposed ordinance
is unduly broad and needlessly punitive to landowners who have, in many cases,
consistently tried to promote the interests of the community and responsible
use of the land. He then urged the Supervisors to delay action on this
ordinance until they have had time to carefully consider the position of
existing landowners who do not intend to develop their land for commercial
purposes. He also agreed with the gentleman who suggested earlier that no
further applications for subdivisions be accepted, and he hopes the Supervi-
sors will implement this suggestion immediately.
Mr. Dan O'Neill reported that his family owns four small parcels on
Buck's Elbow and Camp Mountain, and three of these parcels lie partly in and
partly out of the ridge area. There is no question that these parcels will be
severely negatively affected by this ordinance. He pointed out that in each
case the natural building site is at the top of the ridge, in an open very
level area. He noted that the access road leading to the parcels is at the
top of the ridge, and he would be forced under this ordinance to forego this
natural building site on a level open spot at the top of the mountain and
build a long driveway of probably 1,000 feet or more over steep ground, as
well as clear a wooded area for a building spot which would be far inferior
lower down where the views would not be as good. The value would clearly be
affected, and anyone who was willing to drive up the mountain to get to this
parcel would not pay the same price if he or she were faced with the obliga-
tion to spend more on road and site construction for an inferior building
site. Also, forcing building off the top of the ridge is not consistent with
the goals of the ordinance, and he is sympathetic with these goals. He stated
that forcing residents to disturb more ground could cause the possibility of
greater soil erosion, as well as a greater scarring to the mountain, and it is
ill advised. He mentioned the provision for a special use permit mechanism to
possibly make allowances in certain cases for building sites, but he said many
landowners do not feel the special use permit is the right mechanism to allow
for circumstances such as this. The reason is because it is such a politi-
cally charged issue, and he thinks a lot of people feel that if they have to
come before this Board for permission to build on the ridge, there will be
tremendous public opposition. The same groups of people who have taken out
full page ads in the Daily Progress are likely going to oppose even the most
reasonable applications. He added that, finally, he feels he has to express
his strong feeling that landowners have not been given an opportunity in this
public hearing stage of the process to fully express their views. He said a
week ago this Board held a work session at which there were four speakers, and
every one of the speakers spoke in support of this ordinance. He went on to
say every one of the speakers were given ten to fifteen minutes to express
their views, and as this Board can see, three minutes is not enough time for
members of the public to express their views. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr.
O'Neill that he had used up all of his time.)
Mr. Gary Westmoreland remarked that he is Chairman of the Jefferson Area
Libertarians, which is a political group strongly supporting the right of
individuals to own and use their property as they see fit as long as they
respect other individuals' equivalent right to do likewise. He noted that his
group has circulated a blue flyer tonight summarizing its position of opposi-
tion to the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance, and the opposition is
twofold. First, he pointed out that the property in the Mountain Overlay
District, and the rights attached to it, are and should remain under the
ownership and control of the property owner and not the Albemarle County
government. Secondly, the mountains can be protected without destroying the
right to own and use property, which he referred to as property rights by
protective covenants and the voluntary purchase of property by those seeking
to retain the mountains in an undeveloped state. He added that the creation
of the Mountain Overlay District by the Planning Commission is an attempt to
create common ownership of the mountains within Albemarle County, starting at
700 feet in elevation, by regulation and control of the use of private
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
000858
property. The right to own and use property as the owners see fit in the
Mountain Overlay District is abridged by this ordinance, and there are real
economic burdens imposed on the property owners. He went on to say all of
this can be avoided by the rejection Of this ordinance. He commented that if
the Board of Supervisors, in its collective wisdom, wishes to protect the
mountains by regulations and controls contained in this or any other ordi-
nance, it constitutes the taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment
to the United States Constitution that states in part, "nor shall private
property be taken for public use without just compensation." He also men-
tioned Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia. He told the
Board members that if they approve this ordinance or a similar one then they
have a legal and moral obligation to compensate the affected property owners
and create the mechanism to do so.
Ms. Charlotte Hogue asked why should present owners of mountain land be
subjected to the unfair taking of their property just to satisfy those who
want to use this land to serve their interest. She went on to say unless all
property in the County is devalued accordingly, this is blatant discrimination
for a minority of landowners, not to mention the onset of socialism. She
added that even though there is a grandfather clause mentioned as well as
certain levels of height, there is no assurance that these won't be changed
later by future Board members. She said members of this Board have not always
honored commitments made by previous Board members. She gave an example of
this by referring to the Landfill. She stated that owners of houses at 700
feet of elevation and above have been handed a windfall at the expense of the
other mountain land owners, and she asked if this is fair. She said it is
not. She wondered if those so interested in keeping the view are willing to
buy the land. They are not, they only want to take it. The same people
supporting this ordinance would be up in arms if their properties were
devalued or its use restricted. She pointed out that a lifetime of work has
gone into building up the value of people's property only to have it taken
away. She added that it is not really being taken away, but it has been
stolen by others who want something at someone else's expense. She urged the
Supervisors to please vote against this ordinance.
Ms. Marjorie Maupin Paul commented that she owns mountain property which
would be included in the proposed Mountain Overlay District. She said
mountain land is not under pressure for development, and she has no faith that
the Supervisors will control development with this ordinance. This ordinance,
like the current rural zoning, has loopholes which will allow developers to
give the County another Inglecress or Ashcroft, but it will prevent her and
her children from building homes on their own land. She added that her family
owns 175 acres of mountain property, and the hardwood trees which have grown
there have paid for her education, for her sister's nursing training and for
many, many years of medical bills for nursing care for her parents. She said,
at the same time, these trees have spent 24 hours a day filtering and purify-
ing the air for County citizens to breathe. She remarked that her family has
been good stewards of these beautiful mountains, and they will continue to do
so. She stated that with this ordinance, County officials are taking away the
use of her property rights. They are not only robbing her of monetary value,
but more importantly to her, they are robbing her and her children of the
personal utility of their resources. She asked the Supervisors to remember
how they felt when VDoT representatives said the Western Bypass would be built
no matter what a majority of the people here needed or wanted. She added that
she has the same sick feeling in the pit of her stomach now whenever she reads
or hears about this ordinance. She stated that it is not needed or wanted, it
is not fair to the people who own the land, and it is not right or constitu-
tional. She said it is the wrong solution to a problem existing only in the
minds of people who don't own the land but somehow think landowners should
maintain it at their own expense for others' viewing pleasure. She went on to
say if the County officials truly want to preserve the mountains, then they
should consider buying them. She added that they can do the same thing
Governor Glenn Denning is doing in Maryland where the government is buying
wetlands, lakes and other natural areas to preserve them for all to enjoy.
She said it can be done, and it is being done, and County officials can do it
here. She suggested that all that has to be done is to raise the taxes on the
low landers' properties to make funds available to buy the mountain land. She
remarked that then the County officials could make parks all over Albemarle
County and not allow any new buildings there. However, she told them that
when they do this, they need to make sure there are enough funds available to
properly maintain the mountains, because the people who are here now won't be
there then to take care of them anymore. She asked the Supervisors to please
consider this option, rather than taking the property rights from the land
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
000859
owners. She said if Albemarle County owns it, then Albemarle County can
control its use, but while she owns it, she should control its use. She urged
the Supervisors to vote no on this unfair and unconstitutional ordinance. She
then asked all of the people who were still present at the meeting, and who
were against the ordinance to stand (approximately 100 people responded).
Mr. Joseph Pratt said he and his wife own a farm of 180 acres near Stony
Point, and the land he owns is a mile from the ridge of the Southwest Moun-
tains, and it is fully a quarter of a mile outside the 700 foot elevation that
has been indicated as the Mountain Overlay District for the Southwest Moun-
tains. However, the Planning Commission has identified an area of from 100 to
several hundred feet in circumference. He stated that although his land is at
exactly 700 feet or no more than 720 feet on part of it, because this is the
highest point of any surrounding area, it has been designated as a ridge area
subject to the highest restrictions in the Mountain Protection Plan. He said
in this area of 700 to 720 feet, he is restricted as much as someone at the
top of the mountain whose land lies at 1,200 to 1,400 feet. He reported that
he has spoken to people in the Planning Department several times about this
matter, and he has asked them if this is not perhaps out of the intention of
the ordinance. The response has been that a line had to be drawn somewhere,
and in order to be fair, his land would have to be subjected to the same
restrictions. However, he stated that in this area all other land below the
ridge of the Southwest Mountains and continuous with it between 700 up to
1,000 feet is not subject to the same restrictions because it is not a ridge
area. He understands he is not the only person in a similar situation, and he
has identified another property of five or ten acres on this fragment of
mountain between 700 and 750 feet which has also been designated as a ridge
area. He noted that his land has been in his family for 35 years, and the
family has been very environmentally responsible. He pointed out that his
family has designated a road along the edge of the property which runs past
this area, and all development on the farm on the entire 100 acres that is in
Parcel Two and which is adjacent to this road, has been restricted. He
mentioned that he is unsure exactly where the 700 foot elevation line runs,
but he will be at great expense to prove where it is and where he can develop.
(Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Pratt that he had used up all of his time.)
Mr. Frank Kessler indicated that two years ago, one year ago and six
months ago he certainly opposed the Mountain Ordinance. He said he talked to
Mr. Marshall about the matter over two months ago, and yet he finds himself in
great admiration of the mountains. He stated that he has changed his view
since the Planning Commission meeting, and he now feels the Changes that have
been made give fair utilization of the property in the mountains. He men-
tioned that any time there is an ordinance, people always feel there is a
problem with their rights, and he has felt the same way. He recalled the same
feeling with the Sign Ordinance, but he thinks Albemarle County today has a
better streetscape with 12 foot signs being no more than 32 square feet in
size. He then referred to the farmers who opposed the Chesapeake Bay Act when
their property was involved, but it is apparent the decision paid off when the
results of fishing are seen in the Chesapeake Bay today, along with other
conservation requirements. He added that he thinks a great community for
everybody is what is really important, and asked the Supervisors to do
something which he thinks sometimes government does not do. He said govern-
ments plan and implement things, but sometimes they don't evaluate. He stated
that he would like to see a work session set for 18 months to two years from
now so some of the problems being heard tonight can be evaluated. He added
that the Supervisors can meet forever, but nothing can be determined until the
program is implemented, but they must be there to evaluate and to change
things.. He referred to the fact that some people are suggesting that the
ordinance be approved tonight without site plans, etc. He said he thinks
anything in progress or anything submitted to the County should be reviewed
and continued, and he asked the Supervisors not to undercut any project that
is already in progress. He said people are asking for 30 or 40 development
rights, but he believes everyone is looking for long term preservation. He
added that he believes there are good uses involved with this ordinance since
the proposed changes were made.
Ms. Babette Thorpe read a statement on behalf of the Piedmont Environ-
mental Council urging the Board of Supervisors to adopt the Mountain Protec-
tion Ordinance and asking that the requirement for special use permits to
develop small lots in the Mountain Protection Overlay District be restored.
She also noted that the PEC is asking that the Supervisors not delay their
vote any longer than necessary to digest the comments they will be hearing
this evening. (See statement to the Board of Supervisors dated June 10, 1998
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
000.360
from the Piedmont Environmental Council.) Ms. Thorpe next talked personally
about the fact that she could not stand up in front of this Board to say she
has hundreds of acres of mountain land and offer support of this ordinance.
The truth is she owns about one fifth of an acre. However, Mr. Birdwoods
overheard her lament and gave her permission to use his name and his acreage.
She said on behalf of Mr. Birdwoods, whose family owns approximately 1,500
acres in the Appleberry Mountain area, she wishes to state that they whole-
heartedly endorse and support this Mountain Protection Plan.
Ms. Karen Dame spoke on behalf of the members and Board of Directors of
the Citizens for Albemarle and asked the Supervisors to adopt a Mountain
Protection Ordinance this evening. The group members more strongly favor the
provisions of the ordinance as originally presented to the Planning Commission
on May 18, 1998, and they especially urge the Board of Supervisors to restore
the requirement for a special use permit for the creation of small lots in the
Mountain Overlay District. They are also asking that the Supervisors add
specific review criteria to guide the Planning Commission and this Board when
reviewing these special permit applications. She added that with such
criteria in place, the public will know what types of development projects are
likely to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance and thus likely to
gain approval. Next, Ms. Dame spoke as a resident of the White Hall Magiste-
rial District. She said she supports adoption of a Mountaintop Protection
Ordinance, and she feels the ordinance in front of this Board is a step in the
right direction, although it provides weak protection and already includes
tremendous compromises among competing interests. She emphasized that she
believes this ordinance is the minimum that should be done. She said she
recognizes that new more restrictive land use ordinances are experienced by
some residents as intrusive and even as oppressive. However, the Planning
Commission's build out analysis of current by right development potential has
shown a bigger picture, and without new action by County officials, the
consequence of the existing Zoning Ordinances will be an intrusive, oppressive
alteration of the very features of Albemarle to one single feature which is
intensive manmade development. She said she hopes a Mountaintop Protection
Ordinance will be approved tonight and thereby be the first among many
pro-active changes to the Zoning Ordinance, all of them boldly designed to
prevent the future seen on the build out maps.
Mr. DeForest Mellon urged the Board to adopt the Mountain Protection
Ordinance. He said Albemarle County is defined in a large part by the beauty
of its natural geography. He went on to say the public has long recognized
this fact, and the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation in a recent
brochure has used neighboring pristine mountain vistas to advertise its new
research park to outside interests. He stated that by 1971, the mountains
surrounding Charlottesville were delineated as conservation areas, to recog-
nize their unique quality and to offer them nominal protection from develop-
ment. He added that this is not good enough because high rise structures such
as University Village now intrude on the view of the surrounding landscape and
highly visible stark white houses with long eroding access roads now scar the
western face of the Southwest Mountains. He said if measures are not now
taken to protect what is left of this unique natural heritage, it will
disappear as everybody watches it happen. The Board of Supervisors has the
last chance to decide in favor of this area's residents, for whom the forest
and mountains constitute an enrichment to life, or a few professional develop-
ers, who stand to enrich themselves by developing the mountain vistas. This
Board will determine the future of this fragile beauty.
Mr. Matt Kayhoe stated that the three previous speakers have said what
he wanted to say with the exception of the fact that he has a tremendous
amount of admiration for County officials who are trying to plan ahead for
problems before they strike everybody down. He said his experience has been
that rural counties in Virginia have exhibited a tendency to collapse in front
of the advancing front created by development and growth. He stated that he
thinks the fact that County officials are taking this step, or even consider-
ing a Mountain Protection Ordinance, is really quite important. He also added
that the staff has done a marvelous job of putting things together, and he
thinks it is a vote for all of Albemarle County's citizens.
Ms. Julie Courtenay Campbell informed the Board members that she owns
close to 45 acres in Albemarle County just immediately west of Charlottesville
beyond the University Apartments and St. Anne's School. She said many years
ago during the 1960s, the State decided to put in a bypass from Route 250 to
Route 29 which runs close to Bellair. She stated that it didn't include her
land, but it involved part of the estate from where her land was purchased in
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
1950, and her water supply was there. She said in the process the government
took the water. She noted that where State officials wanted to put the
highway, cars would have been under eight feet of water, so it had to be
slightly moved. She emphasized that she was told this would enhance the value
of her property. She pointed out that her husband is a lawyer, but he didn't
try to practice real estate law in Virginia, since he was good at corporation
business. They were paid for the taking of this water, after lengthy delays.
She noted, though, at first it was being said that the property was being
taken, but the highway enhances the value of the property. She said it did
not enhance the property, and it didn't even touch it. She pointed out, too,
that since it was a bypass, there was no access onto it. She added that this
is one example, but it is personally known to her that the County has to pay
for the taking, if it is taken without regard to any enhancement of any other
value. She noted that this is in the Constitution. She commented that with
all of the court cases on internet, as well as all of the computer hookups,
there doesn't have to be 95 lawyers across the country studying this issue, as
were involved when she was examining her water rights, etc. She stated that
she is going to have a lawyer to represent her to make County officials pay
for the taking of her property, and she invited all others who wished to join
her in a class action suit. She hopes the Supervisors will be held individu-
ally and personally responsible for the legal costs this will require, and she
noted that this is possible. She stated that she means no personal rudeness,
but if County officials involve citizens in a court action because the
property is being taken without payment, she expects them to either condemn by
eminent domain and pay for it or leave them alone. She next commented that
she looks down from Lewis Mountain on a lot of apartment roofs and some of the
apartments she has been in are rather nice. The University surrounds just
about all of the remainder of her property, and there are two or three nice
houses at the foot of the hill toward Route 250 and another one in the other
direction. The water tank was installed, bus it is not on her property.
However, it has been said that the water tank is 100 feet below her level of
the hill, so if this is the line, she is out of luck. (Mr. Marshall informed
Ms. Campbell that she had used up all of her time.)
Mr. Tom Olivier, from the Schuyler area, said the mountains contain
critical natural resources which provide essential habitat for native plant
and animal populations, and they help create watersheds and provide drinking
water for the urban population, He added that they happen to be gorgeous and
economically valuable, although he thinks the greatest importance of mountains
lies in the natural resources they provide. The surfaces of mountains are
fragile and sometimes dangerous, and even history teaches that heavy prices
are paid if mountain surfaces are treated roughly. He mentioned that public
interest demands that development policies pay attention to the special costs
and risks that mountain developments can entail. He went on to say the notion
that localities cannot rightly regulate land uses strikes him as new, wild and
untenable. With one exception, he asked that the Supervisors support the
draft of the Mountain Protection Ordinance in the form considered by the
Planning Commission prior to amendment. He said while he would like to see
small lots allowed only by special use permit, he would suggest that a
supporting document be developed to spell out the conditions favoring the
granting of a special use permit. He added that such a document would clarify
the implications of the ordinance to mountain land owners and could contain
guidance from the Board of Supervisors on hardships and any other site
specific factors which should be weighed in a review of a special use permit
application. He stated that he believes this approach would be preferable to
a broad weakening of the original ordinance as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Lloyd Toms, Jr., from a sixth generation of Albemarle County
residents, noted that his family has always owned mountain land. He said his
family members have taken very good care of it, and if they had not, he is
sure County representatives would have informed them. He stated that at the
present, they still don't need the County officials' help or anybody else's
help with this land. He commented that they paid for the land, as well as
the taxes on the land. This proposal, in its present form, is a disaster.
According to this proposal, as he understands it, County officials will tell
him where he can build a home and what type of road he will need. He then
referred to a call he made to the Albemarle County Zoning Department yester-
day. He stated that he asked the Zoning Department representative what rules
and regulations would he need to follow to clear-cut logs on his property,
although he has no intention of doing so. The reply was that the person would
have to get back to him. He stated that he then received a call from the
Zoning Department at 9:00 a.m. the next morning informing him that nothing was
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
000362
needed from the County. He went on to say this doesn't make sense, and
somebody needs to rethink some things. He remarked that he loves these
mountains and his family members love them. He said if others want to dictate
what to do with his property, then they should buy his property.
Mr. Petie Craddock noted that he lives in the Scottsville District, he
is a Board member of a volunteer fire company, he owns mountaintop land and he
supports the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance. He said people who own
mountaintop land have a responsibility as good citizens to develop mountain
property in ways to prevent erosion, give emergency vehicles better access and
protect the scenic quality of the ridge lines which are responsible for much
of the County's character and economic prosperity. He reminded the members of
the Board of Supervisors of their responsibility when. they took the oath to
uphold the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia including those laws which
govern zoning and comprehensive planning. He added that Section 15.1 of the
Code of Virginia specifically states that the Supervisors should improve
public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the citizens. He commented
that the Code also states that they must preserve agricultural and forestal
lands, and all of this is to be done with efficient and economical use of
public funds. He pointed out that developing the mountains threatens natural
resources, agricultural and forestal land and the safety and general welfare
of all the citizens in the County. He said it will affect higher taxes to
provide for infrastructure of public services including fire and rescue. This
is not'efficient and economic use of public funds, and it will lower property
value all over the County, as well. He went on to say while a few will profit
from the mountains, it will cost everybody else dearly. Consequently, he
stated that he opposes any deferral of passing this ordinance because it will
allow more time for last minute under the wire development, as well as
subdividing of plats, and it will rob the County of one of its economic
assets. He next referred to comments made by some of the speakers who
indicated they did not understand why the ordinance is needed now. He said it
is needed now for obvious reasons such as rapid growth, but this ordinance is
also needed because the Supervisors are required by Virginia law to plan and
zone to preserve the County's resources, agricultural and forestal lands and
for the general welfare of the citizens of the County. He asked the Supervi-
sors to remember when they vote that they have a moral, legal and fiscal
obligation to the entire County.
Mr. Dennis Woodriff, who owns mountain property near Stony Point, said
what will happen with this ordinance is of great concern to him because he
owns approximataely 60 acres of land. He commended the Supervisors for
attempting to protect his property, because he feels his investment is really
only as good as it is secure. He stated that one of the most valuable parts
of an investment is how secure it is, and if the land around him is protected,
his investment is much more secure. He recalled the time when he owned 150
acres of land in Orange County with about two miles of road frontage. He said
he dedicated development rights to the Virginia Tourist Foundation and got a
tax deduction because supposedly the land was now worth one third or one half
of what it had been since now he couldn't develop it. He stated that a few
years went by and some other people who were nearby also dedicated their land.
He said then someone came along and wanted to buy his property with one of the
reasons being that he knew he was purchasing something which had the assurance
of being protected in the future. He remarked that he got close'to twice per
acre what anybody else in the area had gotten, and one of the reasons is that
people were buying something they knew would not be changing. He commented
that some of the assumptions people are making about the devaluation of their
property is possible, but are not always accurate.
Mr. Gerald Carter stated that he lives on ridge top in the Southwest
Mountains near Stony Point. He noted that he will profit very much if this
ordinance passes, because he will not have any neighbors, which is the way he
wanted it. He added, though, that he doesn't think it is right, because
people who own mountain land are not second class citizens. He stated that a
majority of people in Albemarle County consider this property very precious,
and there have been a lot of comments about how valuable this land is to the
people in Albemarle County. However, they don't seem to want to put a dime
behind what they say. He asked the Supervisors why they don't suggest that
the people of Albemarle pay a few dollars more in taxes to protect the
mountains, and they will find out how important the mountains are to the
majority. The Supervisors would not believe the sacrifices some of the
property owners make to live in these mountains, because they care about them
so much. He added that he does not think it is right the way the property
owners are being treated. The property owners have invested very heavily in
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
this, and the people who support this ordinance have invested nothing. Yet,
the Supervisors are going to reduce the landowners' rights. He referred to
the comment that the value of the land will not be changed. He said if he
couldn't live on this property, the man he bought it from would still have it,
and that man wouldn't have his money. The Supervisors have three choices.
They can support this ordinance and support the majority of the people in
Albemarle County who want to look at the mountains. Or, they can have the
moral courage to stand up for American principles of fairness and justice and
vote against this ordinance. Or, they can start over again and include the
landowners so they can protect their own land.
Mr. Bruce Gatling-Auston announced that he owns land which would be
included in the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance. He said about 90
percent of his property is red land, and he owns approximately 31 acres of 25
percent or more. He ~tated that he knew this when he bought the land, and he
tried to buy more like it, but he hasn't succeeded. He added that he has
watched in dismay as other people who did succeed started to develop the land,-
and where there were woods and forests, there are now two large driveways and
a lot fewer trees. He urged the Board of Supervisors to support this ordi-
nance in its original form with some guidelines for special use permits. He
said Mr. Olivier's guidelines appeal to him greatly.
Mr. James Walker, a third generation property owner in Albemarle County,
stated that he owns land in the proposed Mountain Overlay District. He added
that he appreciates the opportunity to speak to the Supervisors tonight, and
he appreciates their patience. He said he also appreciates the intent of this
ordinance, but he does not quite agree with the principle. He went on to say
that the principle involves the idea that this ordinance is required so
Albemarle County landowners do not destroy the natural beauty that everyone
here wants to protect. He asked the Supervisors to realize that many of the
people here would not have been willing to sell their land to developers long
before there were zoning ordinances. He commented that many of the people
here tonight are landowners who filled rocked in ditches and planted grass and
trees long before there was erosion control ordinances. The natural beauty of
Albemarle County which exists now is direct evidence that the property owners
are good stewards of their land. Their presence here tonight is mostly to
convey to the Supervisors that an ordinance is not required to maintain the
natural beauty of Albemarle County that the landowners have worked so hard to
preserve from one generation to the next. He noted that the County budget is
already stretched, and he asked that the money be spent in a wiser manner.
Mr. Fred Scott stated that he thinks it is a good idea to save farm and
timberland, and he agrees it is a good idea to preserve mountain land, but he
thinks this ordinance can be improved. The ordinance does not provide for
wise use of land, and this really concerns him, and it isn't fair. He stated
that it is not wise because the ordinance is going to force development down
off the slopes of the mountains and onto the very best farmland. He commented
that the large lot requirement still in force is going to accelerate the rate
at which the remaining farm and timberland in the valley will be used up. He
said it has to, because there is no other land. He recalled that for 50 years
he has walked all over his farm land and that of others. He mentioned that
there are lots of places people can build in the mountain elevations where
there are large areas of usable acreage which is suitable for construction,
and careful and sensitive building techniques can easily make development not
only practical and attractive but desirable. These building sites have real
value, and when owners' rights are restricted to use their property, those
values will be devastated. He remarked that if the Supervisors don't believe
him, they can ask the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Federal Govern-
ment. He mentioned that several months ago he attended a meeting of the PEC.
He said Ms. Scala was there, and she and PEC representatives explained how the
Outdoors Foundation works. He stated that it is real simple. He added that
the farmers give to the Foundation their development rights, and they suffer a
loss in value. He emphasized that the value is real, and the loss is real.
The loss is deductible under the Federal Tax Code, and a good part of the loss
is thereby recovered to the owner as he files his tax return. The public
benefits, the owner benefits, and the public pays for those benefits. This is
sound public policy, and it is designed to encourage citizen cooperation in
the common goal. He said it is a very appealing program, and it is beginning
to work quite well. However, these same people today are saying the loss of
these same rights will damage the owners in no way whatsoever. He said it is
simply not possible that both statements are true. He told the Supervisors
that their vote could devastate the financial situations of many owners, and
much of their equity is going to disappear, which is a fact. He said if an
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
000364
outside influence such as a new law or real estate either adds costs or
decreases usability, then the real estate will decrease in value. The
Supervisors should trust the outrage the mountain landowners have expressed.
He went on to say people are smart enough to know when they are being badly
hurt, and if the Supervisors rush to judgment with this impulsive, unwise and
unfair legislation, they may have declared war on some of the County's most
responsible citizens. However, if the Supervisors have the courage to take
the time to convince or encourage landowners to work with them to protect the
mountains in a cooperative way and under a mutual plan, then many of the
County citizens will help them.
Ms. Treva Cromwell said arguments pro and con about this ordinance
reveal everyone agreeing on one important issue which is that everybody surely
likes the mountains, and they would like to keep them the way they are. The
ranks are broken, though, as far as what to do about keeping the beautiful
economic asset which everyone seems to recognize. She remarked that there are
those who own mountain property who believe they have been good stewards of
the land and, furthermore, believe government has no right to tell them how
they can use their land. However, she pointed out that mountain lands are
more valuable today partly because of services provided by government such as
schools, roads, fire and police protection paid for by the taxes of all the
citizens. She stated that, on the other hand, there are many values associ-
ated with mountain land ownership, but there are other values enjoyed by the
general public whose property values are enhanced simply because they have
mountain views. There are those who look to the mountains to protect the
sources of the public drinking water supply, and there are others who simply
enjoy the blue ridges that frame their environment. She asked if Albemarle
County citizens are so sharply divided that they can find no common ground as
to the best solution for everybody, and she voiced her belief that common
ground can be found. She said Albemarle County citizens cannot simply stumble
along with the status quo and be able to meet the pressures of growth which
will inevitably bring more and more development to the mountains. She then
mentioned the changes made by the Planning Commission in the original ordi-
nance, which she thinks are reasonable. She added that she believes the
ordinance can be the tool to maintain the County's quality of life, its
economy and, according to Money Magazine, its reputation for being one of the
best places to live in the United States. She said she is convinced that some
kind of mountain protection is needed, and this proposal is a good sugges-
tion. (Mr. Marshall informed Ms. Cromwell that she had used up all of her
time.)
Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, reminded the Supervisors that
Crozet is a designated Growth Area and as such Crozet has its own special set
of zoning rules and regulations to direct concentrated growth there. He
stated that he sees the Mountain Protection Ordinance as an extension of these
zoning rules for the same reason, which is to protect the rural character of
Albemarle County. He added that if this ordinance is not approved, the next
time Growth Area community residents are asked to accept more development,
additional congestion and more traffic, they will have every reason to ask
this Board why and for what reason. He commented that it would be a mistake
for the Board to assume that the Growth Area residents do not care deeply
about rural preservation just because they live in Growth Areas. He next
referred to a picture he had taken at Beaver Creek, and he noted the saying
that a picture is worth a thousand words. He said while Beaver Creek, itself,
is very beautiful, it is the mountains in the background which make the
picture. He added that he would be leaving the picture with the Board members
so they will have a chance to look at this image and imagine how different it
would be if the mountains were scarred with uncontrolled development.
Mr. Robert Hogue stated that each year federal, state and local govern-
ments take some of the people's rights and freedoms away. He mentioned that
hunting rights are under attack in Albemarle County, and the same goes for
logging nationwide. He said each year government officials propose new
regulations that would make equipment and supplies more expensive for owners
of farms and ranches. He stated that some regulations will take land out of
the operation, and if a profit is not made, the farm will be sold. He next
referred to tourism where some people want to save all the trees for the
tourism and restaurant industry. He remarked that willow trees on the Blue
Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive are being damaged by pollution from cars, but
he does not hear the tourism industry calling for the closure of the Parkway
or Drive. He then mentioned property values and he pointed out that if this
ordinance passes, the owners of nice homes already in the mountains will make
a nice profit if they choose to sell. He stated that if the other landowners'
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
000365
rights are taken away, they should be compensated. He noted that the popula-
tion is increasing worldwide, in the United States, as well as Albemarle
County. He asked where the County officials plan for the population to live,
and he wondered if they would propose a regulation that every couple should
have one child, or maybe a regulation allowing no one to move into Albemarle.
He mentioned polls, and he said the one he hears the most about is for less
government. There are enough regulations for housing now, and he asked the
Supervisors to vote no for the Mountain Protection Ordinance.
Mr. Clifton McCleskey stated that he and his wife farm a 174 acre place
on the south end of Carter's Mountain, and ten to 15 acres of this property
are within the Mountain Overlay District. He remarked that he has no plans to
develop any part of this farm, and he hopes they can continue farming for
another 25 years. However, he thinks this proposed ordinance will affect the
value of his property, as well as other property owners. He said it seems to
him the existing policy in Albemarle County demonstrates this fact. He
explained that the agricultural value of land, which is presumably all that
would be allowed under this proposal for most acreages, is consistently lower
than the appraised value which suggests agricultural value is not as great as
market value. He also mentioned his main concern as to the overall unfairness
of the ordinance, as well as the shakiness of the case being made for it. He
said in spite of the language about erosion, water quality and public safety,
it is very clear that what drives this is an ecstatic concern relating to a
kind of beauty. He stated that it is a very narrow and parochial type of
beauty, because it is the beauty that is associated with undeveloped and
unused mountain views. He added that he likes this, too, but he also thinks
there are other beauties which need to be of concern. He said a well tended
vineyard, cottage, barn, or hayfield are all objects of beauty as well. He
pointed out that to think all that lends beauty to Albemarle County is the
mountains is to miss the contribution that mankind can make. He recalled the
first time he saw the Shenandoah Valley where his biggest impression was not
the mountains, but the valley itself, and much of it is manmade. He said he
thinks the citizens are being offered a bill of goods, and they should resist
them. He mentioned that in addition to farming, he has taught courses in
American Politics as a faculty member at the University of Virginia for the
last 25 years. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. McClesky that he had used up all
of his time.)
Mr. A. C. (Corky) Shackelford, Jr. informed Board members that he has a
farm of approximately 370 acres in the Rivanna District, and he is present to
express his skepticism about some of the basis on which a decision is being
made relative to the Mountain Protection Ordinance. He then referred to the
map on the wall where he said some of his land is marked in red. He noted
that his land is no higher than the major part of Route 20 between Charlottes-
ville and the Orange County line and has no more slope than the floor of this
room. He said it is marked in red on the map as a 25 percent slope, but he
does not know how these designations are made. He stated that his main
concern, though, is that many people have land as their only asset for
retirement and even for subsistence. He added that there is no question value
is taken away from them, if they can't develop this land. He commented that
his home is in the shadow of Peter's Mountain and the big AT&T relay station
on top of it, which is probably as large and unattractive as anything that
could be built here in the County on a mountaintop. He noted that he loves
the mountains, and didn't really favor this building, but unlike a former
speaker, he can't consider these mountains that he really loves as part of his
home as long as he does not own them and somebody else pays the taxes on them.
He said he wishes the Supervisors and others who have supported this ordinance
would feel the same way. He pointed out that Peter's Mountain has had this
station for a long time, and the mountain hasn't come down, the streams
haven't silted up, and he is still drinking water from a spring coming from
the mountain. He emphasized that he is in good health for a man who is 68
years old. He recalled that a number of speeches in favor of this ordinance
have seemed to assume that if houses are not built on the mountains they won't
be built anyway. He said it is a sure thing if the houses are not built on
the mountains, they will be built on good farmland on the values which he
thinks are just as attractive. He asked the Board members, if they are going
to take rights away from some people, to pay for them. He mentioned Mr.
Davis' statement that the County is not obligated to pay for them, which he
said does not encourage him to support this ordinance.
~ Mr. Wally Parks remarked that through all the rhetoric and discussion,
he believes this matter boils down to one primary issue, which is the determi-
nation of whether or not it is fair to discriminate against one kind of
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
landowner for the soul benefit of all other landowners.
000366
He asked if it is
fair to take from one class of property owners by giving them a separate set
of rules to abide by with regard to how they can use property which they own.
The County staff says nobody loses with this proposal, but he asked the
Supervisors if they really believe it, or do they believe because they
personally are not losing on this issue, that nobody loses. He added that
when government uses discrimination to get its way, he does not see how
anybody can win. He referred to ads calling the mountains, "our mountains."
He stated that he does not think his mountain is the community's anymore than
people would think their yards would be the community's. He said if people in
the County wish to control the mountain property, then they should purchase
it. He mentioned the comment that land is not devalued by this ordinance, but
he said when he loses the freedom to use his land as he previously could, he
has suffered a loss. He said when he loses potential buyers on a resale
market, he has suffered a loss. He referred to the 1970s when VEPCO, which is
now Virginia Power, ran a high voltage transmission line through his property
on the Southwest Mountains. He stated that at that time they paid the
affected land owners approximately $1,000 an acre. He noted that they did not
purchase the land, but they were compensating the landowners for the loss of
the use and the devaluation of the land. The landowners were not allowed to
build on the 150 foot wide path, and Virginia Power paid money because they
took this land. He stated that now the County wants to take land supposedly
for the benefit of the community at his expense and tell him nobody loses. He
said if the Supervisors honestly feel that these new burdensome regulations
are so needed and so fair then why not apply them to all properties in the
County and share the wealth and joy with everybody who owns land. He stated
that he thinks it is wrong when government discriminates against one class of
property owner and offers nothing in return.
Mr. Steven Walton stated that he and his family own mountain property in
the White Hall District. He noted that he has heard the County Attorney say
technically this is not a taking of property, but he asked the Supervisors
what they feel in their hearts. He said every property owner of the mountain
lands has come forward tonight and expressed their loss. He added that they
have also heard from people who live probably on a one acre lot in a subdivi-
sion say it won't affect them at all. He agreed that it won't. He said it
just affects the people who own the land, and he reminded the Supervisors that
they have been elected to do a job for everyone in the community. They have
fiduciary responsibility to do that for these people, too, because they are
taxpayers and they are the Supervisors' bosses. These are the people who own
the land that will be affected. He mentioned that a lot of people, such~as
his family members, have owned land in this County for generations. He said
whether it has been developed or not, if the landowner still owns it, it is
considered money in the bank. He went on to say whether or not the landowners
choose to develop it in their generation or pass it on to their children so
their children can develop it, or steward it and pass it on to the next
generation is up to the individual property owner. He urged the Supervisors
to vote against the Mountain Overlay District regulation. He believes
government is like good medicine. A little bit goes a long way.
Mr. Ed Scharer, of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, commented that most
of what he wanted to say has already been said. He added that this is a
taking without compensation, and as such will be challenged. He said people
will be given no other choice. He then pointed out to all the people who
called the areas, "our viewsheds" and "our mountains" that they are not their
mountains unless their name is on the tax bill.
Ms. Phyllis Shelton informed the Supervisors that her admiration for
them has to do with her admiration for their stamina. The question raised as
to why more people have not come out to the virtually interminable delibera-
tions of the Planning Commission has to do with the fact that until this issue
came up, they didn't perceive a problem. The point has been made that the
problem the Supervisors are trying to legislate against is more potential than
it is actual, and this is a sweeping and fairly broad type of issue. She
reminded the Supervisors that Albemarle County has Zoning Ordinances. She
said if someone is presenting a subdivision to go on top of a mountain, then
the County should have administrators who can point out the problems instead
of making a sweeping ordinance to cover much more than it needs to do. She
remarked that there is a lack of common sense in this approach, and she thinks
the point has already been well made that this is an extension of government
in an intrusive way, and it is something to which a lot of people are opposed.
She noted that the tourism industry has been loud in its support of this
.issue. She said she just came back from a trip to Europe, and it is interest-
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
000367
ing that universally Switzerland, Southern France and Italy have chosen to
build on the tops of mountains because that is the least usable land. The
presumption that the only value of the mountaintops is for them to be pristine
and have nothing on them is something that is ill taken. She noted that
people who own property, as she and her family do, are very concerned with
maintaining its beauty. She said she enjoys it every day, and to force on the
stewards of the land regulations that inhibit their maintaining and caring for
the property, is going to potentially do as much damage to the scenic beauty
of the County as otherwise. She urged the Board of Supervisors to oppose this
ordinance. She said she thinks a narrower structure would accomplish a damage
that could be done by some development, but the sweeping proposal will cause
more harm than it will rectify the fear of this potential issue.
Mr. Traynor Biasiolli noted that his family owns 120 acres straddling
County Line Mountain, some of which lies in the Mountain Overlay District. He
recalled that one of the opponents of this proposed Mountain Protection Plan
recently stated that ownership implies the right to build, maintain, sell or
even destroy that which is owned. He agrees. However, by the same token,
people do not truly own the land in this sense, and they cannot own the land.
He said rather they are here as stewards of the land, and they have as much
right to abuse it as they do another person. He pointed out that this
ordinance does not take property rights, but it merely enforces property
responsibility, which is a responsibility to both human and biotic communi-
ties. The mountains of Albemarle County are rare and beautiful places because
they have not been crowded by subdivisions and development. He asked that the
Supervisors approve the Mountain Protection Ordinance with a few amendments.
First, he asked that the 21 acre minimum lot size be approved as in the
original version. The two acre minimum lot size as proposed would result in
excessive forest fragmentation. Secondly, he asked that the exemption for
large scale agricultural facilities be eliminated. He reported that one of
his neighbors on County Line Mountain has literally stripped away a large
portion of the mountain to put in a 700 foot long industrial turkey barn. The
noise, odor and environmental degradation that this facility creates impacts
the area much more than a mountaintop development.
Mr. Norman Beil, representing the Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicycling
Association, stated that this Association is committed to sound planning,
protection of the environment and a high quality of life in Charlottesville
and Albemarle. The work done by the Mountain Protection Committee and the
Planning Department is consistent with the Association's goals. He remarked
that the three recommendations of the Committee, an ordinance delineating a
Mountain Overlay District, a Lighting Ordinance and additional planning tools
are each important, and his Association supports them. He said critics of the
proposed ordinance have correctly pointed out that most of the damaging
development in the rural areas does not occur in the mountains. He stated
that while this does not mean separate protection of the mountains is unneces-
sary, it indicates a need for a comprehensive approach. He said one other
tool the County officials have wisely looked into is the purchase of develop-
ment rights, and there has never been a better time for this. He remarked
that the New York Times wrote last week about the extraordinary volume of bond
issues and other revenue raising devices that appeared on state and local
ballots in 1996 and last year. He commented that nearly three out of four of
more than 150 environmental finance measures won approval even though they
typically called for a small property or sales tax. He said altogether these
measures will eventually raise more than $4,000,000,000 for conservation
projects. He stated that combined with the ordinance, along with the program
educating property owners about the financial advantages of conservation
easements, a purchase of development program would result in strong protection
for the mountains and other ecologically important rural areas. He also
referred to something he said was overlooked at the Planning Commission public
hearing. He noted that the ordinance does not apply only to private land,
because included in the Overlay District is Mount Jefferson, also known as
Observatory Hill, which is part of the University of Virginia. He stated that
his Association members believe the University, as an institution devoted to
the common good, should preserve Mount Jefferson forever for its natural and
recreational values, and they hope the ordinance will lead in that direction.
He concluded his remarks by saying that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicy-
cling Association fully supports the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance as
part of a comprehensive approach involving education, financial incentives and
a reasonable amount of regulation. The Association would be pleased to see a
moratorium placed on new subdivision in the mountains while the details of the
ordinance are worked out and work continues on the rural area section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
000368
Ms. Mary Ford voiced her opposition to the Mountain Protection Plan.
She stated that she is a native of Albemarle County, she has lived here her
entire life, she is a landowner, and her property is affected by this ordi-
nance. She said she appreciates the Supervisors' patience in listening to the
public tonight, and she hopes they are really listening to the mountain owners
and how they feel. She added that she does not know how many people on the
Committee actually own mountain land and are affected by this ordinance, but
she hopes the Board will consider the owners' feelings and what they want.
She noted that they have been protecting their .land for years, they are proud
of it, they continue to take care of it and have every intention of doing so.
She said she hopes the Board of Supervisors will not approve this proposal.
Mr. Harold Spainhour informed the Board that he owns approximately 15
acres that will be in the Mountain Overlay District, and he is opposed to the
proposal. He asked how many of the Supervisors have read the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights, and he said he was encouraged by the three responses from
the Supervisors. He commented, though, it seems strange for a government
sworn to protect individual freedoms and private property rights, that there
is somebody'who wants to take people's rights away a little bit at a time. He
stated that landowners are told not to worry, because their properties are not
worth anything, so they don't have to be paid for them. He next asked why the
County officials want this right, and he said they want it for the economic
development of the County. He wondered if properties are not worth anything
individually, why are they suddenly worth a lot once the County officials have
those rights.
Mr. Keith Ford noted that he is opposed to this plan because it has hurt
his feelings. He said it has really made him angry because he does not know
where all of the people who drew up this plan were when the landowners were
fighting the Gypsy Moth. He added that he thinks Albemarle County needs a
wake up call. He said somebody needs to get a plan for the landowner, not to
take his land away, but to help him. He pointed out that Albemarle County
only has two game wardens, and it is days before property owners can get their
help. He remarked that they are good game wardens, and they do a good job,
but they are understaffed. He asked who is going to take up for the land-
owner, and when will he get some representation. He said landowners know they
don't want their rights taken away so their grandchildren can't have a piece
of land. He stated that he doesn't want his grandchildren in a trailer park
or town house, because he doesn't think this would be right if he owns 237
acres of Albemarle County land. He reiterated that somebody has to get a plan
for the landowner and somebody has got to help him. He asked if the County
citizens would have been better off if the money had been used for them
instead of spending it on this plan. He wondered if the lady would have been
murdered at Stony Point last year, or if Keith Wagner's horse's eyes would
have been shot out. He asked if Mark Freed's miniature ponies would have been
run down by a pack of deer dogs, and when they broke their front legs, they
had to be killed and buried. He wondered if Hunter Lewis' gates would have
been torn down by ATVs if this money had been utilized to protect the land-
owner. He inquired if the money had been given to Sheriff Hawkins to increase
his security and to hire more deputies, would there have been eight break-ins
from White Hall to Nortonsville. He noted that his uncle lost his antique
furniture, and his tenant was robbed. He inquired if all of this should have
been taken into consideration instead of taking the rights of the landowner
away. He said he thinks the money could have been utilized a lot better than
that. He stated that it has been seen how rights in other countries have been
taken away, and taking a man's rights isn't near as bad as it is when he tries
to gain them back. He mentioned cities being burned, and he asked if anybody
was mad at these people for taking back their rights. He said he was not,
because they were down as low as they could get, and they had to go up.
Mr. Rick Walden stated that there is no question everybody at this
meeting is interested in protecting and preserving the mountains, and there
should be no question that the property rights and property values of the
people who own these mountains should also be protected and preserved. The
ordinance, when it eventually passes, should do both. He added that because
of the nature of the road and site requirements of the ordinance and the
extreme difficulty and expense involved in obtaining a special use permit
required by the ordinance as it now stands, many mountain landowners' building
rights would not be able to be used because the approved building sites would
not be able to be reached by a legal road. To protect people from this loss
of use and value, which is not obvious when the ordinance is read, and
concurrently protect the mountains, he would propose the following changes to
the ordinance. He noted that he has sent copies of these changes to the Board
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
000369
members. First, there would be no changes to erosion control measures which
protect the mountains from any erosion effect. He added that homes should be
built on level wooded lots, and the only other alternative is a steeper slope.
He stated that no healthy trees should be cut within 20 feet of building sites
or roadways. He said homes should be no taller than one and one-half stories,
and they should be done in natural materials and colors, although he is unsure
if this can be regulated. He commented that road embankment standards should
be changed to allow up to one to one slopes and up to 20 percent grades
depending on soil conditions. He added that this change would result in less
soil disturbance and loss of trees and vegetation and, therefore, less erosion
and ground degradation. He said existing stabilized roads should be permitted
for use as driveways in lieu of construction of entirely new roads which will
illogically result in unnecessary soil disturbance and subsequent erosion. He
stated that clustering in division rights should be allowed in lower building
areas, with these road construction requirements and with minimized visual
impact. He said landowners should be allowed to sell division rights to
landowners outside the Mountain Overlay District, and he emphasized that
these rights are made unusable by the ordinance. He said in family division
situations where the parcel inquest needs to be kept for a minimum of eight
years, all driveway requirements should be suspended and the full use of all
divisions shall not be denied because of any constraints imposed by the
ordinance. He mentioned in forested areas sitting on extreme mountain ridge
tops, homes may be constructed on any 30 square foot building site with the
requirements of his first four suggestions. This will allow new homes to be
built on less steep land resulting in less erosion and unchanged visual
impact. These changes will both protect the mountains and the property rights
and values of the citizens who o~rn these mountains. He asked the Supervisors
to take the time to consider these suggestions for the good of the mountains
and those who own them, and to listen to the voices of the landowners who are
here tonight who are adversely affected by this ordinaice. He also asked that
they take these landowners' sincere concerns to heart.
Mr. Gerry Fisher stated that his family owns 900 acres of land around
the Village of Heards Mountain and Massey's Mountain. He said his family has
owned it for 45 years and through three generations, and they have not even
built a dog house on this property. He pointed out that he and his family
members are not in the development business but, instead, they grow trees. He
added that like his good neighbor, Jean Kolb, he would like a chance to build
a house somewhere on this mountain at some time. He would also like for his
children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, who own other pieces of the
property, to be able to do the same. He said his family members are much more
affected by the ridge area limitations than he is, so he is not speaking for
his family or against the ridge area. He stated, though, that he would have a
political problem with his family, if he supported the ridge area regulations.
He then noted that the embankments issue is the part he is most concerned with
now. He went on to say, because so much of the land he owns is steep, he
fears the way the embankment language is written would prevent him from even
being able to build a driveway across the land without spending a great deal
of money on engineering surveys and perhaps ending up disturbing a great deal
more ground than probably needs to be done. He commented that the proposed
regulation regarding the two to one slopes, one and one-half to one slopes or
the provision for extenuating circumstances, which defines such things as rock
and other existing physical site features, needs to be changed. He remarked
that it needs to allow for people to build retaining walls, to put in rip-rap
banks and other kinds of things other than existing physical site features
which would limit the amount of soil that has to be moved in order to build a
driveway. This is too restrictive, and he thinks it will create a lot more
erosion than anything else here.
Mr. Larry De Neveu indicated that he and his family own land in the
White Hall District, and almost all of the 400 acres is covered by this
proposed ordinance. He said if this ordinance is passed, he does not see
County officials as confiscating his land, because he thinks he would know if
this is being done. He stated that he looks at it as a zoning matter, and the
officials are doing what they have been elected to do. He went on to say he
does not think the police protection issue is oppressive, and he does not
think public education is brainwashing. He commented that he does not think
this is a taking of his land, and if he did, he would object. He noted that
this process has been going on for approximately three years, and everyone has
had a reasonable chance to voice their opinions. He said he thinks the
Supervisors have communicated the issues very well to most of the people, and
he asked the Supervisors to vote unanimously for the ordinance in its
original form.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meetin9)
(Page 47)
000;3'20
Mr. Rick Beyer, of the Liberty Land Company, which is the developer of
Ashcroft, stated that it looks as though there has been a lot of progress made
on this ordinance. He said he believes a process is being developed that is
bringing this issue more to the point where everybody is having to compromise
a little bit, and he thinks the decision to defer was very good. He commented
that his reading of the ordinance, with the amendments, indicates that
property rights are not being taken away. They will possibly be more diffi-
cult to get to, and he doesn't really think this can be supported in some
cases. He stated that if the ridge area is the best place to build, then it
is the best place, and it shouldn't take a special use permit to get there.
This is a complex issue and it took him a while to digest the changes made
during the last couple of days. He pointed out that he does not think people
realize they are going to be able to use their division rights, and he does
not think most people realize the difference between the requirements for a
driveway and the requirements for a private road. He commented that he does
not believe these things can be ironed out in ten days or by next Wednesday.
There is still more time needed, if an ordinance is developed that makes
sense. He added that he thinks the special use permit should be taken away,
and if the best place for a house is at the top of the hill, he does not think
the special use permit should be held as something that might or might not be
granted. As far as Ashcroft is concerned, he said he would like to have
something specified for all Planned Unit Developments, if they are planned and
work has already taken place in them. He suggested that the ordinance should
specifically cover them and not leave him wondring what the status of these
places will be when this ordinance is approved.
Mr. Scott Peyton, a lifelong resident of Albemarle County, mentioned
that throughout his life he has spent time in, through and around the moun-
tains of Albemarle County, and much of this has been on private land. He said
he has friends, neighbors, and family who own property which will be affected
by this ordinance, and he referred to the responsible stewardship practices
that many, if not most, of the mountain owners currently utilize on their
land. However, he noted that he does not see anything in this ordinance to
discourage these same property owners from continuing to practice good
stewardship, if this ordinance is approved. He said he fears for the moun-
tains, and he thinks the ordinance would afford some measure of protection
against those who would seek to exploit the mountain resources in Albemarle
County. He encouraged the Supervisors to support and pass this ordinance.
Mr. Ronnie Morris noted that approximately 60 people have spoken, at his
last count, and there were 38 adamantly against this ordinance and 22 for it.
He said he is here for the third time to defend his rights as a mountain
property owner and a lifelong Albemarle County resident, as well as at least
four generations of people who have lived in Albemarle County's mountain
region. He said he lives in the White Hall District, and seldom do people in
this district object to the Mountaintop Ordinance as it is written. He stated
that he recently attended and spoke at the Planning Commission meeting which
constituted approximately six to seven hours. He pointed out that an over-
whelming majority of those who spoke were against this ordinance, yet the
Commission voted six to nothing in its favor. He said he has confidence that
this Board's leadership, with its desire to serve the people, will not lead to
a similar outcome. He commented that the Mountaintop Ordinance is not a
mechanism to reduce erosion, provide safety, or improve water quality, etc.,
because it is strictly a matter of scenic importance. He noted that a
majority of the water problems don't come from mountain development, but
instead, subdivisions, golf courses and fertilizer on lawns certainly affect
water quality. These things don't affect his water because he lives in the
mountains, but they probably affect the Supervisors' water because of where
they live. He added that he does not want to see commercial development or
subdivisions on the mountains, but he feels the landowners should have a right
to build on the mountains in a manner that is aesthetically acceptable with
certain restrictions on clearing and high visibility construction. He asked
the Supervisors to trust the judgment of the mountain property owners, because
they have been good stewards of the land for generations. He suggested if a
subdivision owner or the owners of other non-mountain property want a mountain
for a backdrop, then let them purchase it. He asked the Supervisors to vote
no to non-mountain property owners who want to take away the mountain owners'
rights in order to serve themselves.
Ms. Page Gilliam said she is a member of the Mountain Protection
Committee and an owner, with her family, of mountain land. She noted that she
is speaking tonight for herself and not for the Mountain Protection Committee,
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 48)
O003?ft
as a whole. She stated that she has been surprised recently to hear comments
which have assumed the Mountain Protection Committee either invited or even
challenged landowners to participate in the proceedings, but nobody responded.
She added that this is not the case. She reported that her Committee never
brought landowners into the meetings in a systematic way. The process was as
inclusive and fair as it could be within the limitations of the mandate, but
the Committee was neither authorized nor charged to hold public hearings. The
meetings, while technically open, were not widely publicized. However, on
isolated occasions Committee members were contacted by interested property
owners, and some of these people came to the meetings, including Mr. Gerry
Fisher, who just spoke. She stressed that, with all respect to those in-
volved, the Committee's recommendations did not have the benefit of extensive
public comment. She said she has always anticipated that property owners
would have an opportunity to study this ordinance fully in its final form, and
she thinks the pubic deserves to have its comments considered in a meaningful
way under the auspices of this Board. She commented that until this happens,
the process of turning the proposal into law is incomplete. She next asked
that the Supervisors send this proposal back for further study over a period
of not less than 90 days. She suggested a task force be appointed to study at
least the following fresh and constructive ideas that the Mountain Protection
Committee did not consider or incorporate in its recommendations. First, she
mentioned that there needs to be a proposal to redefine ridge area to take
into account the topography of flattop mountains. Secondly, she suggested a
proposal to modify the plans and requirements regarding private roads. Next,
she said issues of valuation need to be considered and lastly, consideration
needs to be given to whether or not the special use permit is an appropriate
mechanism for deciding if a particular building site is or is not in line with
the purposes of the plan. She said many owners are unclear as to the criteria
they would have to meet in order to receive a variance. She stated that she
understands some are worried about an avalanche of under the wire applications
for mountain development, if this proposal is not passed tonight or even next
week. She added that she does not know how to assess this risk, but there are
serious issues still to be addressed. She emphasized that if the passage of
a complex far-reaching measure is rushed, when there are still well reasoned
and substantive suggestions being offered that have not been heard before, the
Supervisors run the risk of passing a seriously flawed ordinance. However,
mountain legislation coming from the collaborative effort that she is urginig
will be stronger and much more likely to withstand attack.
Ms. Kathy Bodkin told the Supervisors that she and her family own and
live on 31 acres at the top of the mountain on the section of Route 600
between Cismont and Stony Point which is within the Southwest Mountain range.
She said she favors the general intent of the ordinance to protect the beauty
of Albemarle County, but she is opposed to some of the specific regulations
and particularly to the process. She then referred to Page Gilliam's comments
and indicated her support. Ms. Bodkin stated that the Board does not have the
necessary information to make these far-reaching decisions and the process by
which this has all occurred is flawed. She said good decisions require facts
and dialogue, and she made three suggestions. First, she asked the Board to
direct the County staff to make a complete fiscal impact study of the proposed
regulations with regard to each and every property owner to inform each and
every property owner individually in writing how these provisions will affect
their particular property and to report back to this Board on the precise
dollar figure these changes will cost each landowner separately and in total.
She commented that she believes the purpose of these regulations has been to
get to the large developer. Yet, she thinks some of the small property owners
are being hurt, such as herself. She said, for example, her property has been
on the market for approximately six months, and she has had offers withdrawn
within the last 60 days because of this situation. She stated that it will
cost her between $30,000 and $60,000. She mentioned that she can give the
volunteer assessor, who has said there will be no impact, an example of
precise impact besides having at least three development rights on her
property taken away. She said since all of her property is in the ridge area,
and there is one house on the property, according to staff it is very much up
for debate whether she could build at all on any other place on the property,
as well as any future owner. This may have taken away her right to move at
all. Secondly, she suggested that the Supervisors should also consider
appropriate compensation to all landowners who are in the Mountain Overlay
District. This is not selfish, it is only fair. She added that her last
recommendation is that this Board needs to realize how this matter has not
been fairly publicized to everyone in the County. She noted that this topic
is not on the web site page, and neither are the minutes. The last mention of
this topic was in September, 1996 in the FYI report, so she as a citizen
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 49)
trying to stay informed, could not have found this information. She suggested
that the Supervisors need to require all committees and commissions to put
their minutes on their web site page. She stated also that they should report
to the Supervisors after their meetings so the information can go into the
Supervisors' minutes of record, and the citizens can access it. This would
help in the future with some of the problems. She added that she hopes all
landowners will be involved in the Board's discussions in the future.
Mr. Dick Brandt told the Supervisors he has great respect for the tasks
in front of them. He said he threw away his notes and thoughts that he was
going to try to say in three minutes a long time ago, and he is uncertain as
to what he should say now. He added that this tells him he is in tune with
the complexity of the creation of this ordinance, and he thinks it is impor-
tant that the Supervisors continue with it. He commented that he is in favor
of the idea of the ordinance, although there are technical problems needing
attention. He stated that he has been convinced, since he came to this area
30 years ago, that the mountains will look like little hills instead of
mountains if something is not done. He said he has seen development creep
half way up Buck's Elbow Mountain. He noted that he has great gratitude for
the long time homeowners of the mountain land, and he is very grateful for
their stewardship, but that is not what worries him. He said growth and
development plans are here, and he thinks the County will be ruined if
something is not done in line with the ordinance this Board is currently
addressing. He wished the Supervisors lots of luck, and he asked that they
continue in pursuit with the final details of the ordinance to as many
people's satisfaction as possible.
Ms. Barbara Payne stated that she owns 100 acres of land in the White
Hall District, and she is in favor of the Mountain Protection Ordinance. She
noted that her remarks were prompted by a letter to the Daily Progress
recently about this ordinance. The letter stated that if Thomas Jefferson
were alive today, and this ordinance was passed, he wouldn't be allowed to
build Monticello. She added that she thought, as she so often had before,
that if development happening today were similar to Monticello an ordinance
would not have to be created. She said everybody might not be arguing about
it here tonight, because Monticello blends into its surroundings, and it is in
harmony with the environment. She pointed out that driving on 1-64 a person
would never know Monticello was there in the summer and even in winter, it is
difficult to pick it out from the forest. She said Jefferson built the house
of dark brick and left a belt of trees around the perimeter of the ridge top,
and the contour of the mountain was not changed. She remarked that in answer
to a question asked earlier tonight, she has looked around, and she finds that
development today contrasts sharply with Monticello. She emphasized that one
needs only to look at the south part of the Southwest Mountains to see this
happening. She stated that she is in sympathy with the individual property
owner who is a good steward of the land but, unfortunately, there are many who
have and will continue to degrade and destroy the beauty of this County.
Thus, she feels a need for this ordinance.
Mr. Jack Marshall informed the Board members that he and his wife own
100 acres on Fox Mountain, which fall within the proposed Mountain Overlay
District, and he strongly urged the Board to adopt this ordinance. He said in
addition to the tremendous public benefits over time, there are other reasons.
First, he thinks the cost to the landowners has been overstated. The economic
cost is substantially less than the alarmists' claims, except possibly from
those speculators who willingly gambled. He believes he and most other
families who own mountain land would lose nothing or could creatively move
parcel borders and building sites to lose very little. He said if adjustments
don't work satisfactorily, there is a way to seek special permits. He stated
that costs to his personal freedom have also been greatly exaggerated. He
said mountain landowners already accept the principle that they cannot do
whatever they want on their land, even though they own it and pay taxes on it.
He added that they cannot hunt or burn fires whenever they want or throw
anything in the streams on their land, and they can't build a factory or
unlimited residential developments. He went on to say the mountain landowners
agreed to these limitations on their personal freedom because they understand
that their parcels of land are not islands isolated from everything but
integrated parts of the community. They may have the right to sell the land,
but in the meantime, they have responsibilities to the larger community.
Secondly, he believes there is nothing sacrosanct about the number of develop-
ment rights on the land when he bought it. He stated that land use decisions
have been made by elected people from his community using the perspective
available at the time, as well as their best judgment. He said it wasn't
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 50)
000378
divine revelation that his land should have nine development rights. He
stated that if a subsequent Board increases the value of the land by rezoning
and doubling the development rights, he would not feel obliged to write a
check to local government representing the added new value to his property.
He said if the new community perspective about the responsible use of land
leads elected leaders to a revised judgment about his land, and it is a wise
judgment in the best interest of the whole community but one which may reduce
his development rights, he would feel hypocritical if he demanded to be
compensated. Finally, an expanding population will increasingly exert new
demands on mountaintop land. This is the essence, because as a community,
courage and vision is displayed by anticipating the destructive influence not
of a single Monticello, but of the cumulative effect of hundreds or even
thousands of Monticellos. He added that this ordinance creates a natural
tension which can be felt in the auditorium tonight, and it is a tension
between the individual good and a public good. He stated that, on balance, he
thinks the ordinance is clearly weighted on the side of the long term interest
of the whole community.
Mr. Marshall announced that Ms. Sara Lee Barnes had to leave the
meeting, and he asked Mr. Martin to read the letter she had left for the
Board.
Mr. Martin said Ms. Barnes' letter indicates that basically Ms. Barnes
is a long time resident and owner of mountain land, and she supports the
ordinance.
Mr. Michael T. Boggs remarked that he has been a mountain resident of
Albemarle County for the past 25 years,and he is President of Haley, Chisholm
and Morris, Inc. He informed the Board members that his 32 years of experi-
ence in designing and building roads and development sites includes 24 years
of road construction and site development in mostly mountainous terrain at
Wintergreen and Massanutten resorts, as well as the development and construc-
tion of Rosemont, where only nine percent or seven of the seventy-seven
development rights available to create new lots were used. This is the second
most counterproductive ordinance ever proposed in Albemarle County. He
recalled that the first was the proposal involving the 21 acre parcels that he
believes have served to fragment much of Albemarle County's agricultural and
forestal land, and has unnecessarily removed thousands of acres from produc-
tion. This proposed MOD ordinance is ineffective in accomplishing the goals
of 90 percent of its proposals, and it eliminates the use of many development
rights on the higher and usually flatter elevations which causes tremendous
loss of property value. The ordinance does nothing to control the siting, the
amount of clearing, the size or the color and, in other words, the visibility
of the many viable building sites will remain. He said it serves to create
much more land disturbance and visibility of the roads and houses that will be
pushed down 100 feet from the mountaintops onto the mountainsides where there
is no way to hide either. These areas have drainage problems, and the septic
systems are much more likely to leak to the surface. He commented that plant
and wildlife habitat are much more abundant. These areas fall within, or at
the beginning, of the most critical slopes, and generally the roads and
driveways serving lots in these areas of the mountainsides will cause far
better impact on critical slopes and aesthetics. He called attention to the
strategies outlined on Page One of the proposed Comprehensive Plan change, as
well as the design standards on Page Seven. He noted that the strategies and
95 percent of the design standards are excellent measures to protect moun-
tains. He asked why aren't these strategies and standards a simple theme of
the proposed ordinance, rather than an ineffective and counterproductive stab
at only the first strategy listed. He said somewhere along the line the
original goal to protect the mountains became derailed. He thinks the Board
needs to take a hard look at the proposal, and sit down with some landowners,
developers, engineers and contractors who have practical experience in
mountainland ownership, stewardship, and construction on this type of terrain.
True workshops need to be conducted unlike the orchestrated affair which
happened last Wednesday. He strongly urged the Board members to do this.
Mr. Peter Hallock commented that most of what he wanted to say has
already been said, but he honestly feels that the downzoning of 1980 increased
his family farm's value more than a bunch of two acre lots in Keswick. He
said he thinks the real estate agents will agree with him. He stated that
when an easement is given, it is an individual parcel. He noted that the
Supervisors are making a whole protected area so, therefore, the land is
treated differently in value. He said he will discuss with the Board members
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 51)
000374'
the issue involving the difference in value at a later time, but he wanted
them to know he is in favor of the ordinance.
Ms. Linda Shank announced that she owns property in a ridge area. She
thanked the Supervisors and expressed her respect to each of them for the
responsibility they have accepted as elected officials. She said she recog-
nizes the challenge they face as they carefully weigh the pros and cons in
making this decision. She added that she has watched the Supervisors and she
sees them actively listening, and she thinks this is probably some of the most
difficult listening she can imagine. She said she is truly moved by the
democratic process here in which everybody can express their opinions.
However, she went on to say she has been trying to make sense out of this
ordinance, but she hasn't been able to do so, and she would have to vote no
tonight. As a nurse, Ms. Shank said she supports many aspects of environmen-
tal protection, but she opposes this ordinance because she sees it as taking
without giving and taking without compensating. She stated that she truly
finds it remarkable that the staff and elected officials of her County have
chosen this environmental issue to focus on when she believes there are other
conditions presenting a widespread growing which is very real and very
destructive in its effect. She then proposed a new ordinance to Albemarle
County vehicle owners that since there are too many cars in Albemarle County
which are clogging the roads, polluting the environment and destroying the
beauty of the scenic areas, threatening the general public safety and burden-
ing the taxpayer's services. She said any family with more than one vehicle
will be required to give up all but one car or truck, and the family will not
be compensated for the vehicle or vehicles that the County will take, as they
will still have one car or one truck for transportation. She added that the
families with extra vehicles should be happy to give them up for the greater
good of the community. She said she would also include a special use permit
for an extra truck which may be granted at the sole whim of the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors if a person can prove that over 90
percent of his or her income is derived from farming.
Mr. William Dunwoody, an Albemarle County resident living near
Barboursville, spoke in support of controlled growth in County development.
However, he said he believes people's deeded rights in division and develop-
ment should not be randomly seized and eliminated. This is a constitutional
issue, as well as a moral one. He went on to say if the ordinance is to be
considered as it was originally, it should be scrapped. He said, though, if
it is passed, it should be with the proposed changes from the Planning
Commission which would allow him, as a 100 percent disabled veteran, as well
as his retired mother, to live on his 20 acres so they can take care of each
other on their two division lots. He suggested that more time be taken for
consideration of all of these possible sorts of distinct problems that seem to
be enlarging. He said Albemarle County officials are in a unique position
because there is unparalleled explosive population growth. He noted that it
is inevitable, it is happening now, and that is why everybody is at this
meeting. He stated that it cannot be wished away, and it cannot be ignored,
so he suggested addressing it in a forthright manner. The 700 foot elevation
limit should be eliminated, because it is ridiculous, and at best it is a
stopgap method for dealing with an arbitrary portion of the problem. He said
it is ineffectual and a crumbling dyke. He noted that the City is having a
reversion issue, and it is still unclear if Albemarle County wants to be a
town or city. He asked how a serious decision can be made when there is an
unknown future without allowing for change as a constant. He said a Rural
Overlay District could perhaps be adopted which would afford the entire County
protection from uncontrolled development, and not just mountain owners. He
thinks a plan should be adopted taking new ideas such as William Sherman's
cohousing projects, who is a visionary new architect in Charlottesville. He
said County officials should be prepared to evaluate these approaches to
development at whatever altitude and wherever the County may develop, so there
can be green healthy areas for people to live. He stated that damaged land
should be reclaimed with private and government funding and by using manpower
of boy scouts, girl scouts and 4-H members. This sort of thing was done when
he was a child, and areas were made prettier with things such as trees and
vegetables being planted. He stated that people stand in line to sign up for
garden plots in a state park in Wilmington Delaware. He added that people who
are hungry in the County can be fed, and trees can be planted for commercial
uses, which will be more money for the County. He said growth can be dealt
with realistically and instead of being run over by it, Albemarle County can
be a national example of how it can be managed. He said perhaps Mr. Sherman
and a few of the County landowners could get together to see what develops.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 52)
000.375
Mr. Wendell Wood commented that he has been coming to meetings before
Albemarle County Boards of Supervisors for over 30 years, but the one thing
disturbing him about this ordinance is the rush to judgment. He stated that
after all of these comments, the Supervisors must have some doubt about what
they are doing. He said he thinks the Supervisors should be very concerned
about making a decision they can back up after the diversity of opinions
tonight from attorneys and appraisers, as well as the limited input. He
emphasized that he hopes they will not make a decision on this ordinance until
they give it more study. The Board members have obviously seen enough deeply
concerned citizens here tonight to know if a decision is made with the
ordinance in its present form, they will be challenged. He thinks they will
be doing a serious injustice to the taxpayers' money to spend the hundreds of
thousands of dollars that will be spent in legal fees. He stated that he
believes Mr. Davis will probably agree that he cannot guarantee he is going to
win this case. Mr. Wood also referred to Mr. Samuels' opinion, and the
difference of opinions of other appraisers. Mr. Wood said he personally does
not think the Supervisors will win such a case, and he believes reasonable
people can come to a reasonable conclusion. He believes an ordinance can be
achieved that will work, and although everybody may not get what they want, it
should not seriously affect the people. He hopes the Supervisors take some of
the comments made tonight into consideration and study them and develop
something they can feel reasonably comfortable they can defend.
Mr. Dude Western announced that he is not a resident of Albemarle
County, but he owns land on Pasture Fence Mountain. He said he doesn't know
what the County officials are up to, because the mountains are in good shape.
He referred to the Planning Commission meeting when erosion problems were
shown. This erosion was in a National Park, and it was there because the
Government doesn't know how to manage anything. The top of the mountain being
discussed is not being eroded. He emphasized that the Albemarle County
government is up to something, because nothing had been done for years and
years, and suddenly the County government wants to start something. He said
it does not make sense to him, and he thinks for the best interest of every-
body, they should tell the citizens what they have on their minds and what
they are planning for the future. He again referred to the Planning Commis-
sion meeting. The commissioners were the most disrespectful people he had
ever seen. He stated that half of them couldn't be heard, and the other half
walked in and out of the meeting. He commented that they were hearing the
people, but they were not listening. They had made up their minds what they
were going to do before they got to the meeting, and you could tell their
minds were somewhere else. He indicated that this was a bad situation for
people in public office. He added that the Supervisors have not been too much
better because they have been up and down and in and out all of the time. He
told the Board members if they have already made up their mind to pass the
ordinance, the best thing for them to do on election day next time is to get
out of town, because they will not be re-elected. He said he does not
understand what it is all about, because the mountain is not eroding, and it
is not going anywhere. He noted that he has been traveling this mountain for
over 40 years, and it is in better shape than the Park, which is Federal land.
He also mentioned that the mountain land is in better shape than the State and
County roads. He said when a person's land is devalued, money is being taken
out of his pocket.
Mr. Sid Shumate noted that he is an electrical engineering graduate, and
is employed full-time as a broadcast engineer and appraiser with BIA Media,
Inc., in Chantilly, Virginia. However, he said he lives in Albemarle County,
although it is a long commute. He informed the Board that he is also the
Manager at Blue Ridge Video Services, and he is a contractor licensed for
building electrical and specialty videos, specifically television broadcast
facility construction. He also noted that he is the former Director of
Engineering at WVIR TV and served as such from 1979 to 1995. He stated that
he has some specific comments relating to his specialty which is the building
of television and radio facilities on top of these mountains, and he also has
some general comments. He then referred to Section 30.8.6 of the proposed
ordinance dealing with exempt structures. The radio equipment buildings and
shelters that accompany radio communications towers appear to be exempted by
Section A which allows exemption of an accessory building of less than 500
square feet. The size of the exemption appears inadequate because the normal
size of a television transmitter building ranges from 800 to 1,500 square feet
depending on the size of the transmitter. For example, he referred to the
present WVIR main transmitter building which was built in 1992, and has 1,300
square feet of internal floor space. The present full exemption would appear
to perpetuate and even promote the present poorly organized system of allowing
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 53)
000376
multiple unmatched uncoordinated equipment shelters and buildings to be built
helter skelter around the base of multiple user towers. He pointed out that
some of these exist on Carter's Mountain. He said with no restriction, these
structures can range from solidly built concrete structures down to flimsy
wooden sheds. He noted that he has inspected, evaluated and appraised
numerous tower site installations across the U.S., and he suggested that since
the question of restricting construction on the mountaintops has been raised,
this would be an appropriate time to upgrade the construction requirements and
methods for structures found at the base of radio towers. He pointed out that
many areas of the U.S. now require that equipment shelters to accommodate
multiple user towers be made of fire retardant and fire resistant Class C
materials for better construction. He said a minimum example would be a
masonry structure with a reinforced concrete slab roof supported by the
concrete block walls. He stated that also often required is that a multiple
section building be constructed similar in concept of a storage section of
commercial lease storage facilities but involving a more fire resistant
construction for use by all of the users of a particular tower. The Forest
Service promotes the use of such buildings, and these buildings provide fire
prevention, as well as fire protection benefits because such buildings are
likely to survive brush and forest fires as well as prevent them by containing
internal fires until the fire department can arrive. He stated that addi-
tional requirements to require the minimization of environmental hazards and
eyesores associated with tower sites can be better applied and enforced on a
required collaborative site building than on multiple structures. (Mr.
Marshall informed Mr. Shumate that he had used up all of his time.) Mr.
Shumate asked if he could leave a copy of his comments with Board members.
Mr. Marshall answered affirmatively.
Dr. Olin West stated that he lives in the Free Union area with his wife
and two sons, and he voiced his appreciation to the Supervisors for staying so
long at the meeting so everybody could be heard. He said he supports the new
Mountaintop Ordinance, only he wishes it was stronger. He referred to the
Free Union area where he said owners of mountaintop land generally respect the
natural beauty of the mountains and they do not visibly build on them. This
good judgment deserves everybody's thanks. However, he mentioned two excep-
tions of buildings which are built on the mountains and can be seen from his
property. He pointed out that there are only two of these buildings in an
expanse of many miles of mountains, but these two are like beacons which
beckon the eye, and they definitely interrupt and detract from the natural
beauty of the mountains. He stated that each time a new building is built,
more of the natural beauty of this area will be permanently compromised, and
property values are likely to be hurt. He said it is unfair and untrue to say
that this ordinance will take away property owners rights to build, because it
does not. He noted that each and every mountain landowner retains the right
to build under this ordinance, but there are stipulations that buildings be
placed to maximize the beauty of the County as a whole. He stated that in
numerous other areas of the country where strong local control has been
exerted upon property owners to preserve the natural appearance and beauty of
the area, property values have remained high for all. There is plenty of
precedence for this and it is not considered pirating of personal property
rates. He mentioned, for instance, the two beautiful Massachusetts islands of
Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, where property owners are told in no uncer-
tain terms by local planning boards not only where to build but with what
materials. He remarked that there is rigid control over style, design and
size of buildings, and the result is not only the preservation of natural
beauty, but remarkable civic pride and extraordinarily high property values.
He said he truly believes Thomas Jefferson would vote for this ordinance, if
he could be here tonight.
Mr. Marshall stated that Dr. West was the last speaker to sign up on the
sheet. However, he asked if there were others who wished to make comments
and, if so, they should come forward.
Mr. Donnie Dunn, from Free Union, remarked that he picked up a friend at
Dulles International Airport on May 5. They were driving through the County,
and they were commenting about how beautiful and majestic the mountains are.
He has been in the area for approximately 45 years, and he does not see the
need to overdo something that is already good. He would like to see a lot
more dialogue about this issue before property owners in this County are
impeached. He added that they have done a beautiful job of being good
stewards of the mountains, and will continue to do so.
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 54)
00037'7
Mr. Ralph Maroney noted that he owns 500 acres which is going to be
directly or indirectly affected by the ordinance, and he fears this is the
start of something bigger. He said if the ordinance has a 700 foot elevation
limit this year, it may go to 600 feet next year, and there may be only half
the amount of rights for the landowners the year after. He referred to the
language of the ordinance where it mentions reasonable use of property under
appropriate conditions. He said he would really like to know what this
statement means because it is not very clear. He mentioned Dr. West's remarks
about the starkness of the two houses in the Free Union area, and he said
there are two more such houses on the west side of the Southwest Mountains.
He remarked that one house is white and the other is made of red brick, but
both can be seen for miles and miles, and he thinks this is the real concern.
These types of houses have more of an impact than anything else, including
all of the elevation and water control measures. He is against this ordi-
nance, and it seems to him that the Board should listen to the 46 or 47
landowners with property at this elevation who have spoken against the
ordinance. He pointed out that of the 30 people who have spoken in favor of
the ordinance, there were only five or six who were landowners, and the rest
are people who live below and want to keep the scenic view. He said if they
really want to keep the scenic view, they should pay for it by taking some of
their tax money and putting it forward to pay for PRDs. He noted that this
has been done in Nantucket, and by doing this, Nantucket is able to compete
with developers over pieces of property. He went on to say if this practice
is started, there will be a tremendous amount of money coming to the County
officials for this purpose.
Mr. Marshall inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak
before he closed the public hearing. Seeing no one else, Mr. Marshall closed
the public hearing at 12:41 a.m.
Mr. Marshall stated that he does not want to vote on this matter tonight
or next week. He wants to ask a lot of questions, and he prefers to vote on
the ordinance sometime in August. He added that there are a lot of questions
he wants answered before he can support or not support this ordinance.
MS. Thomas asked if Mr. Marshall is suggesting that the ordinance not be
discussed next week. Mr. Marshall answered that he does not want to vote on
the ordinance next week, but that does not mean members of this Board cannot
overrule him. He went on to say he does not think enough information can be
gathered in a week's time to vote on it.
Ms. Thomas agreed that Board members won't get enough information by
next week, if they do not ask questions tonight. She would hate for the
Supervisors not to ask questions when they are fresh in their minds, but she
would also hate to start a conversation at 12:45 a.m. She suggested that next
week will be a bit of a compromise, because it is not so far away that there
cannot be a discussion based on what has been heard tonight including the
process input. She added that some of the process input has suggested that
something quite different ought to happen in the next month and not just have
the Supervisors go off on their various vacations and then come back and ask
some questions. She does not think this responds to the suggestions from
people who want a chance to have everything in the forum of another open
house, so they know exactly how their land will be affected by this ordinance,
to a work session, or a task force. She stated that lots of things have been
suggested, and she thinks people deserve to have this matter discussed next
week rather than just have the time pass.
Mr. Martin remarked that he would like to table this discussion until
next week. The Supervisors can decide at that time whether or not they want
to discuss it further.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Supervisors supply their questions to
staff by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow while they are still fresh in their minds. The
Board could defer this matter until next Wednesday, and if there is not enough
information, it will have to be deferred again. However, if Board members are
satisfied with the information, they can take action on the ordinance. He
said, though, he does not want to foreclose the opportunity to have this
information by next week, and he does not want to foreclose the opportunity of
asking these questions as soon as possible.
Mr. Marshall noted that he does not just want to ask staff questions.
He wants to ask some of the professional people questions who only had three
minutes to speak tonight. He mentioned Mr. Romenesko who is the head of the
000378
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 55)
largest appraisal group in the State of Virginia. Mr. Marshall said his input
is very important, and he does not think he heard everything he needs to hear
from him in three minutes. He stated that Mr. Romenesko is just an example,
because there are several other people to whom he needs to talk. He said he
has to earn a living, and he is not going to have time to get all of these
answers by next week.
Mr. Martin agreed that it would be hard to have questions to staff by
5:00 p.m. tomorrow.
Mr. Marshall informed the other Board members that if they vote on this
ordinance next week before he can get the information he needs to make a
proper decision, he will vote against it.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that this week will not be very productively
spent, if the staff is not given some sort of guidance. She assumes this was
the impetus to Mr. Bowerman's suggestion that the staff be given some of the
Board members' questions by the close of the day tomorrow.
At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to table the discussion on the
Mountain Protection Ordinance until next Wednesday.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Martin is suggesting that there be no guidance
to staff in the meantime. Mr. Martin said the staff members heard the same
comments the Supervisors heard, and if the Board members have this conversa-
tion tonight, they will be at this meeting for another hour or hour and a
half. There will surely be some disagreements among the Board members, and he
does not think 1:00 a.m. is the time for such a discussion.
Ms. Thomas said she was not suggesting that. She commented that she was
only picking up on Mr. Bowerman's suggestion.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he does not want to ask any questions now
because he really needs to be clear-headed when he goes back over his notes.
He does not think staff will have all of the answers tonight anyway, but he
would like to get his questions to staff as soon as possible. He added that
if other Board members do not have any questions, or they cannot get them
together, then they do not have to give the staff members anything by tomor-
row.
Mr. Marshall stated that he has five pages of questions, but he is going
to work at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow, and he will be working until 8:00 p.m. He does
not know when he will have time to get his questions to staff.
Mr. Perkins referred to Page Gilliam's recommendation that the matter be
sent back to the Mountain Protection Committee for 60 or 90 days. He thinks
this is the best idea. He noted that the mountains have been a topic of
conversation since 1971, and the Committee has been working on it for three
years, so he does not see why two or three months will make any difference.
Mr. Marshall said he needs a motion on this matter before the meeting
can be adjourned. Ms. Thomas reminded Mr. Marshall that a motion was already
offered to table the matter completely until next Wednesday.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that there is a full schedule for next Wednes-
day's meeting. He asked if this item would be put at the end or the beginning
of the agenda. Ms. Thomas suggested that the matter be taken up earlier
rather than later.
Mr. Bowerman assured Mr. Marshall that he would be present until this
matter is discussed next week. His preference is to have a shorter meeting.
Mr. Martin mentioned to the Chairman that a motion was on the floor.
At this point, Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was then called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Approved
by Board
Dateq'q'q~
June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000379
(Page 56)
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: August 7 and October 2, 1996.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of October 2, 1996, pages 1-18 (Item
~7) and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
~AYS: None.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of August 7, 1996, pages 14 (Item #7) -
27 (Item #14) and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:51 p.m.
Chairman