Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 01 77 PC MinutesN_ February 1, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, February 1, 1977, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider a series of public hearings. Those members present were David W. Carr, Chairman; William Roy Barksdale; Kurt M. Gloeckner; Dr. James W. Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; Paul M. Peatross; Col. William R. Washington; Leslie Jones; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent was Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman. Other officials present were Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Carlos Montenegro, Planner; J. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator; and Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Carr established that a quorum as present and called the meeting to order. Minutes of January 25, 1977 were deferred until a later meeting in the interest of time. Mr. Carr stated that the first item of business dealt with a letter which each Commissioner had received and information which each Commissioner had received from the County Attorney's office. Further information had been received from the Commonwealth's Attorney in reference to this matter. He stated that he first wanted to address if anyone has any questions regarding this and if the Commission is ready to proceed with SP-98-76. Mr. Peatross stated that he had read the material and he personally had no problems. He stated that what had been presented to him as far as hearing the matter that night, as opposed to deferring it to another meeting, if that was what the chairman meant in the way of discussion. Mr. Peatross said that he had read what the County Attorney and the Commonwealth's Attorney had said, and he had no problems with proceeding that night, though he did note he did not know how the other Commission members felt. He said that he was not involved with the matter when litigation was considered. Mr. Jones said that he felt the same way. Dr. Moore asked if Mr. Payne had any elaboration of what Mr. St. John had said. Mr. Payne said that there are really two questions, and Mr. St. John, County Attorney, has set these out. One is if the Commission has a legal conflict of interests and the other is each Commissioner's own view, if any Commissioner feels inhibited in giving fair consideration to this matter. He said that the first question has been answered. An opinion from the Attorney for the Commonwealth has been received on this, saying that no conflict of interests, under the Virginia statute, exists, in his opinion. and it is clearly not the bar to anyone's participation in this hearing. If, on the other hand, each Commissioner decides that he cannot give fair consideration to this request, for this or any other reason, the Commissioner would be justified in disqualifying himself. ?n Mr. Payne further stated that he has been named as a potential defendant, and he said that he feels no such inhibition. He said that any advice that he would be called upon to give the Commission would be untainted, either way. He said that he felt no personal infringement, though he could speak for no one else. Dr. Moore asked to what extent the opinion of the Commonwealth's Attorney has stength in terms of personal protection for individual members of the Commission. Mr. Payne stated that it protects the Commissioners and if it is later challenged (if an individual does not disqualify himself because of his possible involvement in this litigation, and he stressed possible involvement, since he was not aware of any Commission member or staff member having been named as a defendant and he was unaware of anyone having been served as a party) he felt each Commissioner would be protected from any liability under the Conflict of Interests Act in that the opinion of the Commonweath's Attorney had been sought. He stated that this opinion had been that the Commissioners could participate, and he felt the Commission is insulated to that extent. Mr. Peatross stated that he felt each Commission member has the right to rely upon that opinion. He said as a Commission member, he intended to rely upon the advice of the Commonwealth's Attorney. He said that he felt this would be acting in good faith. He said he had no reason, as a Commission member, not to rely on the opinion of the Commonwealth's Attorney. Mrs. Graves asked if there were any problem with the re -numbering of this special use permit. She said that she wanted to clarify that the Commission is speaking to an amendment to the previous special use permit. She said that she wanted to make sure that this was not anything more than an amendment to Special Use Permit 537. She asked if in the past amendments had been assigned numbers other than the original special use permit number. Mr. Tucker said that amendments to other planned communities have been assigned new numbers rather than the original special permit number. Mrs. Graves asked if it is clear that this is an amendment to another special use permit and not a new special use permit. Mr. Tucker stated that this is correct. Mr. Carr said that since there were no more questions regarding the opinions of the County Attorney and the Commonwealth's Attorney, Mr. Lindstrom had requested that he be heard prior to any further comments reference this matter (SP-98-87). Mr. Lindstrom addressed the Commission (see attached comments). Mr. Paul Stacy, Acting President of Citizen's for Albemarle Inc. also addressed the Commission (see attached comments). Mr. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator, stated that the County Executive had given him permission to speak to the Planning Commission on behalf of the Planning Staff and the Zoning Department. He stated that that date (February 1, 1977) there was an article in The Daily Progress by Peter Bacque which said that the "Uohn Doe" defendants were specifically named. He stated that he believed it was Churchill who stated that "the press is the force of state for which we rely on to protect our liberties and our rights". He said that he knows Peter Bacque is a reporter 71 I am here representing Citizens for Albemarle and Albemarle Taxpayers Association. As their representative I urge you to defer action upon the Evergreen application that is before you tonight. I urge this because it is absolutely necessary that this application be viewed on its merits and its merits alone. It must not be considered as a way out of the maze of law suits that have been brought in this community. I do not believe that if you honestly assess your own feelings about this application that you can act upon it. I say this because the web of litigation and the threat of person -mil suit and financial loss created by the present circumstances in this community mean that you cannot help but act upon this application without substantial concern .for the effect which your actions may have upon you in a very personal and financial way. I am reluctant to say these things because by underlining the threat I fear that you may consider me to be a part of the threat, and I do not mean to be so at all. But I have been asked to speak of these matters by clients who have been greatly con- cerned about the effect of development upon the co,�Lrunity°s water quality and upon their own tax burden, and I honestly believe that the suits brought by Mr. Fleming have mace it impossible for you to objectively consider these problems. And you must give them objective consideration if you are to fulfill your obligations to the community. 09 9 In 7z - 2 - im Specifically, Virginia Code Section 2.1-352 requires that any official who feels that his action on a particular matter may affect him in a "material financial way" must dis- qualify himself from acting on that matter. With a $5,000,000 law suit having been brought against a number of local citizens which also names as additional defendant or defendants one or more county officials for their action specifically relating to the proposed development, I cannot see how .any one of you can say that your actions on the Evergreen application to be presented could not affect you in a material financial way. Irrespective of this statute, I believe that the funda- mental principles of representative government and its abhorrence for a conflict of interest place a heavy burden upon each of you to assess -the effects of these suits upon your independent judgement, and your ability to act in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare. Because each of you is equally threatened, I do not believe that this commission has any alternative except to defer action. until such time as this conflict between personal interest and public duty has been removed. Please understand. that I do not wish to set a precedent that will hamper government in the future. I believe that the suits brought by Mr. Fleming and -the actions of Judge Turk have clouded traditional concepts of legislative immunity and created a unique-; circumstance. Until the doctrine of immunity has been clarified, as it inevitably must be at the conclusion of the pending suits, I request that action be d.efe.r_red.' When a %3 - 3 - questions now surrounding this doctrine have been clarified NW then you will at least know what, in reality, your liability is. Furthermore, I do not believe that a deferral of action implies weakness. Rather, I believe it demonstrates that the commission cannot and will not act under threat, direct or implied. The truth of the matter is that your paramount responsi- bility is to act upon the merits, and only the merits of the matters before you. Actions taken as a demonstration of courage or to avoid hardship are absolutely improper here, for they have nothing to do with the merits of the proposal. So please,each of you ask yourself before you act "What truly will be the basis for my action?" If the basis is an impartial and realistic analysis of the proposal, then you have a responsibility and duty to act. But if the basis is concern as to whether you will be named in James Fleming'_s_ $5,000,000 lawsuit, then it is equally your legal duty and responsibility to defer action. E9 9 Em 11 TO: Albemarle County Planning Commission FROM: Paul Stacy, Acting President Citizen's For Albemarle Inc. RE: SP-98-76 as an amendment to SP-537 DATE: February 1, 1977 Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Paul Stacy and I am the Acting President of Citizens For Albemarle Inc. On behalf of our organiza- tion, I would like to make the following statement concerning Mr. Fleming's appear- ance before you tonight. As you know, Citizen's For Albemarle Inc. has, from the outset, strongly op- posed Mr. Fleming's Evergreen project in close proximity to the South Fork Rivanna Resevoir.. Our continued opposition to this development has always b�:on based on the premis that no major housing development should be permitLe' where it might prove to have a detrimental effect on the routine maintenance of a public-?rinking supply system. In tha absence of verifiable evidence to the contras:;, 0�1r position remains unchanged. We have opposed this project in the past. I am here before you tonight to atate emphatically our continued opposition to the Evergreen project in its present loca- tion. And I will further state that, in the future, we shall continue to adamantly oppose anyone who seeks to compromise the public's intcrest for the private gain of a few. However, in recent months, the prospect of legitimate public opposition appear- ing before this or any local governmental body has been "chilled." 111r. Fleming, in seeking to achieve his goals, has decided to bulldoze everyone in Alb•�marle County into silent submission by filing personal liability lawsuits against 5 private coun- ty citizens who have been publicly identified as opposing 114.s project. That he has done so on the specious grounds of racial discrimination is as ridiculous as it is in- accurate and merits no further comment from me. (over) 9 In -z- 7s But what I am truly concerned about here tonight is an issue which transcends this specific case. And that is the integrity of citizen participation in the functioning of their government. With a $5,000,000 lawsuit pending against 4 private county citizens, I would like to ask each of you the following ques- tion: Who in Albemarle County now feels free to exercise his or her rights to par- ticipate in the processes of local government, without harrassment, knowing fully that he or she may be personally sued as a result of that participation? Who in Albemarle County is unwary enough to tread into that Catch-22? If I may take the liberty of answering my own question, my simple reply is - no one. To substantiate this answer, I will state that, when I polled the govern- ing body of Citizens For Albemarle Inc. concerning my appearance here tonight, fully one-half of those to whom I spoke expressed their fear that they might be sued as a result of consenting to my appearance. In light of this and out of concern for the rest of Albemarle County's citi- zenry, I. ask that you here tonight defer any action on Mr. Fleming's request until such time as these personal liability lawsuits are ultimately adjudicated. In asking for a deferral, I ask that you consider with respect and sensitivity, the integrity of the processes of our local government and the spirit out of which the concept of public hearings has been established - a concept which Mr. Flemirg's lawsuits have both jeapordized and made mockery of. Thank you. rN Res e tfull ' P ul'+'tacy, Acting Presij� ent Citizens For Albemarle Znc. 9 In ?4, of skill and integrity, but Mr. Dick said that he believes Mr. Bacque has received information which is both in error and plainly wrong. Mr. Dick stated that he is asking that the press and newsmedia, since this is the only forum with which "we" have to defend our rights, to respond to their ethical responsibility "by helping our good names be brought to the proper light." Mr. Dick further stated that "while we have not read the depositions from which Mr. Lindstrom's letter was drawn, or purportedly the article was written, the staff members are fairly convinced from our own investigative efforts, that Mr. Fleming has been misquoted out of context. I, personally, was not in the County at the time, am not a part of a conspiracy, nor do I wish to be. We feel that government officials must be able to handle a fair comment on their actions because we are government officials, but there is nothing in the lawbooks or the rules of human conduct that says because we are public officials that we must remain indifferent and quiet to reckless and negligent statements concerning their good name. We therefore ask that the news media, both the wire service and the news media, protect our good names and give the same space it gave today to get to the truth. For we are certain that the information relied upon and Mr. Lindstrom, who has told us that it was heresay, is incorrect. Thank you." Mr. Fleming stated that in reference to Mr. Lindstrom's letter dated January 26 from Mr. Lindstrom to Mr. Carr and Mr. St. John, and a copy of which was sent to Judge Turk, is a typical letter of malice. He said that he could read no truth in that letter whatsoever. Mr. Carr told the Commission that it had heard what Mr. Lindstrom has had to say, what Mr. Stacy has had to say, and he asked if the Commission had any questions. Mr. Peatross said that he had a question. He said that he wished to ask Mr. Lindstrom, if he, as a Commission member, has a conflict of interests here in being able to sit impartially. He said that he wished to give Mr. Lindstrom some factual background. Mr. Peatross stated that he came on the Commission in January, 1976, and he said that he, as a Commission member, has not considered anything with reference to Mr. Fleming's application. Thus Mr. Peatross asked if Mr. Lindstrom were addressing his comments to him, and suggesting that he might have a conflict because he might be named in a suit. Mr. Peatross said that he did not know how he could be since he has never taken any action on Mr. Fleming's application in any form. Mr. Peatross said that he wanted to give Mr. Lindstrom the opportunity to express any conflict he felt he(Mr. Peatross) might have, in light of that in order to understand Mr. Lindstrom's objection. Mr. Lindstrom said that he did not think that the past, or persons who had nothing to do with the matters alleged in the suit, has much to do with whether he has been made a party defendant. Because of that belief on his part, and because of what he has inferred from reliable sources to be Mr. Fleming's testimony, in depositions just last week, "I do believe that everyone who sits in a County position, of any sort, specifically this body here, does face a possibility - and he said that he wanted to stress that, possibility - of liability; liability of having to obtain an attorney, legal fees, etc. to defend action that might be brought against him. The fact that this has been done with respect to this request to the Board of Supervisors, which mostly was elected after most of the transactions with this particular application. Mr. Lindstrom stated that this indicated to him that even though certain Commissioners have not had anything to do with Mr. Fleming's previous applications may have nothing to do with each Commissioner finding himself in a lawsuit, perhaps subject to liability. Because of that, he said that he wishedto stress that each Commissioner is subject to that challenge. The possibility is very real and he urged that each Commissioner assess in his own mind, since this is the way conflict of interests has to be dealt with. He said that each Commissioner must assess in his mind if he is ready to deal with that, or if he will be concerned about it when time for a decision comes. 77 Mr. Lindstrom said that if he were in the place of the Commission he would have a rough time straining out personal considerations from public considerations. Mr. Peatross said that is true every time the Commission holds a meeting on Tuesday night. Mr. Lindstrom said that is not true, especially in light of the past history that has been created by Mr. Fleming. Mr. Peatross said that he had no personal knowledge of past history and said that was why he had asked if Mr. Lindstrom had any objections to his sitting on the Commission. Mr. Peatross said that he had had no dealings with this matter before, other than what he has read in the newspapers. He said that every time he walks in here he could be sued for something he does now and in the future. He asked if Mr. Lindstrom's objection is to something he has considered in the past. Mr. Lindstrom replied that he was talking about the doctrine of legislative immunity which has stood pretty well in the past as a bar to this sort of liability. But it has been highly clouded with respect to Mr. Fleming's earlier suit. At the time of most of these transactions, most individuals to later become involved were not government officials, but that did not seem to affect their liability in the eyes of the courts or in the eyes of their attorney. Mr. Lindstrom felt that that history, which the Commission must be aware of, and the $5 million suit which the Commission must be aware of, and the other suits of Mr. Fleming which the Commission must be aware of, put a heavy burden on each Commissioner. However, he said that he did not want anyone to think that he was questioning anyone's integrity, but he said that he was trying to point out it puts a very serious question as to whether the Commission can act without regard to the possibility of liability under a $5 million law suit which is on the books and in view of past actions of the applicant, and in view of the response that.40) the Courts have had, and all that history which is a matter of public record. He said that if the Commission feels as though this is not a matter of personal influence on each member, then the Commission has a duty to go ahead and act. He said that if he were in that position, he would find it difficult to act, to sieve off all that personal impact. Mr. Peatross said that if he had that feeling he would agree with Mr. Lindstrom. He said that he could not come in here every Tuesday night and feel like he might be sued for something that he did. He said that if that were the case nothing would ever be done, and the Commission could not function and go forth with the business before it. Mr. Lindstrom said that the circumstances surrounding this application, in view of the challenge that has been given to legislative immunity, and the real and recent developments in this County, and the applicant's naming of a "John Doe" makes it very much different from any other application before the Commission. The applicant has brought a suit in which he has not named specifically any member of this organization but he has implied that a County official, or officials - one or more - has acted in conspiracy against him and he has not seen fit to delineate who it might be. This is what makes this different from other matters the Commission might have before it. Dr. Moore questioned Mr. Payne about the extent members of the Commission are already named in this "John Doe" designation in this suit. Mr. Payne said that as he understands the basis of Mr. Lindstrom's letter, the suit names as a party - and he said that he has not read the pleadings - "John Doe" an unnamed, one or more, county officials. And in answer to the question of depositions, Mr. Payne said that he has not read the depositions. "Mr. Fleming stated that "John Doe" may be one or more of the following persons: and he enumerated members of this Commission, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Dick, Mrs. Scala and myself, Mr. St. John, and a number of other people." To this point, no pleading has been served on any of those people Mr. Payne, said,to his knowledge. "I did not understand from that deposition that Mr. Fleming intended to name any of those people as parties specifically, but rather that those were examples of the people who might be subsumed under the term 'John Doe'." Mr. Payne said that he does not consider that any of those people is presently a party to that lawsuit, and certainly none of those parties (to his knowledge) has been served. He said that he certainly has not been served. d Dr. Moore said that in response to what Mr. Peatross had said, if the Commission acts on this tonight, we automatically become part of the whole thing, in a sense.I/ He asked if this were not correct, since the Commission has then taken part in this particular development. Mr. Payne said that this is true. Mr. Keeler said that he had something he wished to add. Mr. Keeler said that the letter from Mr. Lindstrom had been received by the staff on Wednesday. He said that Mr. Lindstrom was not present at the depositions. That same day Mr. Dick spoke with Jay Swett, an attorney who was present. Mr. Swett indicated to Mr. Dick that he was not in agreement with Mr. Lindstrom's letter, in total agreement that is. He did not say what he agreed with and what he didn't agree with. On Wednesday that staff attempted to contact both Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Swett and both were apparently out of town. Friday morning Mr. Swett called Mr. Keeler and told him on the phone that he would be prepared to state to the Planning Commission that the content of Mr. Lindstrom's letter as to what transpired in the depositions was accurrate. That afternoon, and in the meantime Mr. Dick had spoken to Mr. Fleming and gotten a different interpretation, Mr. Lindstrom came to our office and spoke to Mr. Tucker and him, and indicated to them that he substantively agreed with what Mr. Fleming had stated had transpired at the deposition, which is different to what is presented in the letter. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he stands behind his letter. He stated that the depositions, which he has had an opportunity to read a preliminary transcript from, indicated as possible defendants the people named in his letter. Mr. Lindstrom said in substance that is what he feels he had stated to Mr. Keeler. He said that he did not know what Mr. Fleming had said though. Mr. Carr told Mr. Payne that it might be in the interest of some of the members of the Commission to go into the jury room in executive session to see what some views are. He asked Mr. Payne if the Commission is at liberty to do that, if the Commission chooses to do that. Mr. Payne said that the Freedom of Information Act, which is the controlling body of law on this, provides a Section 2.1-344 that executive sessions are permissible: "Executive or closed meetings may be held for the following purposes" and Number 6 of those is "Consultation with legal counsel, briefings by staff members, consultants, or attorneys pertaining to actual or potential litigation or other legal matters within the jurisdiction of the public body." So since this is a matter of actual or potential litigation, depending upon how one looks at it, Mr. Payne felt it would be lawful for the Commission to adjourn into executive session to discuss the matter. Mr. Carr asked if the Commission wished to do that, to discuss the matter with Mr. Payne in light of what has been said during the meeting. Mr. Gloeckner and Dr. Moore felt that it would be a good idea to have such an executive session. Mr. Peatross said that he wished to state for the record that he had no problem with staying "out here" and not adjourni-ng to executive session, though he said that he is neutral on the matter. Mr. Barksdale felt the same way that Mr. Peatross did, however he said that if everyone wanted an executive session, he would go. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission adjourn to executive session. Mr. Payne asked Mr. Gloeckner if in this motion he meant to discuss potential or actual litigation. Mr. Gloeckner said that he moved that the Commission adjourn to executive session to discuss possible or actual litigation, and to get advice from the attorney. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, with no furtherdiscussion. The Commission adjourned to the jury room. The Commission returned to the courtroom, and Mr. Peatross moved that the Commissiol return to public session after being in executive session. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. SP-98-76. JAMES N. FLEMING, FLAMENCO ENTERPRISES, has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend SP-537 ( a special use permit for a Planned Unit Developemnt ). The 114.2 acres involved is zoned A-1 Agricultural and is located on the west side of Route 743 ( Hydraulic Road ). County Tax Map 45, Parcels 8 and 19, Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He noted for the benefit of the Commission that there is an approved plan for County Tax Map 45, Parcels 8 and 19, and this (SP-98-76) is a request to amend an approved plan. Excluded from this amendment is Parcel 18, which is not under this applicant's ownership. Parcel 18 will remain under the conditions of the original special use permit ( SP-537 ). Mr. Steve Phillips, engineer, representing the applicant, stated that he is requesting the waiver of two conditions of approval. He asked that parking within 100 feet of residences not be required. Mr. Phillips requested this in order to keep the plan aesthetically pleasing and for security reasons. The other waiver requested was the commercial size designation. He asked that the commercial area be increased to 2.0 acres in order to accommodate commercial offices. Mr. Thomas Albro, representing Mr. and Mrs. Bedford Moore, stated that the Moores consider this to be a better plan than what was originally approved, but noted they remain concerned about the environment and aesthetics of the area. Mr. Robert Humphris, representing the Albemarle Taxpayers, noted his concern for the watershed area. He questioned the elimination of the sedimentation basin. He asked if the Betz study finds it to be necessary to protect the reservoir, is there room in the amended plan to locate it. Mr. Matt Rittberg recommended that the Commission table the matter until the BETZ study is completed and until litigation is completed. individually After these comments from the public, the Commission/addressed each condition recommended by the staff. When it addressed the parking space distance from each appurtenant dwelling unit, Mr. Payne told the Commission that this is not something that can be addressed by the Commission. If a waiver of this condition is desired, it must be sought from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Commission amended the commercial area from 1.5 acres to 1.8 acres of land, including parking areas, but exclusive of internal access roads. Discussion on the 100 foot buffer of common open space along the property line of Shack Mountain was discussed. Though shown on the schematic plan, it was noted that since this is a preliminary, the Commission must address at this time if the buffer will be required or if it will not be required. It was the consensus of the Commission, and the recommendation of the staff, that this condition addressing the buffer to the historic landmark remain in the conditions of approval for SP-98-76. The Commission advised the staff to obtain a definite position from the School Board about any reservation of property from this project for a school site prior to the public hearing on SP-98-76 before the Board of Supervisors. In order to have the entire area of the Planned Unit Development cohesive, it was decided that the condition addressing final approval of the Albemarle County Service Authority of the complete water and sewer plans including plans for the proposed connections to the existing water and sewer lines, and the condition addressing the fact that the pump and force main shall be adequately sized to serve all units in Evergreen Planned Community including those units shown on Parcel 18 under SP-537 and appropriate water and sewer line easements shall be provided to serve Parcel 18, should remain conditions of approval for SP-98-76. When questioned by Mr. Carr about the elimination of the sedimentation basin, Mr. Keeler stated that condition #10 would cover this if it is later found to be necessary. Dr. Mog�ebnoted his concern about the commercial use on this road, since }here appears/adequate commerical zoning in the area, as well as existing commercial use to serve the area, including the new development. He said that he is afraid the small amount of commercial area will further clutter the road in that area and cause further traffic congestion on what is already an inadequate road. Mr. Barksdale favored the commercial area - 1.8 acres - since commercial areas have always been included in planned unit developments. Mrs. Graves stated that if the commercial area is to serve only this particular development, it should be located deeper within the development. Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the request for SP-98-76 and the preliminary plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for 260 townhouse units. In the final approval process, open space is to be dedicated proportional to the number of units approved (13,664 square feet of open space per dwelling unit); PR B1 2. Specification of improvements proposed ( including park and playground furniture ) for the areas indicated as tot lots and recreation. Include the additional tot lot recommended by the staff near Route 657. A tabulation of acreages in tot lots and other recreational areas shall be presented to the Planning Commission prior to final plan approvals; 3. No dwelling unit or parking area shall be located on slopes of 250 or greater. The County Engineer may, after review of appropriate plans and after review of the Betz Study, recommend revision of this condition prior to final plan approvals; 4. A 100-foot tree buffer of common open space shall be maintained along the property line of Shack Mountain. No development is to take place within this buffer. All other minimum building setbacks from adjacent properties are to be as required under Section 2-7-9 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; 5. No parking space shall be located further than 100 feet from its appurtenant dwelling unit ( as required by Section 11-7-2(1) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; 6. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation areas, pedestrian trails, parking areas, and debris basins are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; 7. The commercial area is to be no greater than one and eight -tenths (1.8) acres of land, including parking areas, but exclusive of internal access roads; 8. Construction of all internal streets is to comply to the recommendations of the Virginia Department of Highways. No access to or from Route 657 will be permitted, except for emergency vehicle use, until such time as the Highway Department determines that Route 657 has been upgraded to the extent to safely accommodate the increased traffic which would result from this development and from the connection to Route 743. Dedication of right-of-way of twenty-five (25) feet from the centerline along Routes 657 and 743 is required ( Section 18-8 of the Albemarle County Lnad Subdivision and Development Ordinance ). Reservation, measured from respective centerlines, shall be forty (40) feet along Route 657 and forty-five (45) feet along Route 743 as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. Improvement of site distance and construction of turn lane on Route 743 to the specifications of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; 9. All sidewalks adjacent to existing or proposed public roads shall be constructed to design specifications of the Virginia Department of Highways. Sidewalks shall be located as proposed on the plan except that the sidewalk along Cedar Drive shall be located on the east side of the road. Sidewalks shall be constructed along the frontage of Routes 657 and 743 in compliance with design standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and in locations recommended by the Highway Department with respect to future improvements to these roads; 10. Approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's final approval of the following: a) construction specifications for all parking areas; b) specifications for the sewage pump station access road (joint approval of Albemarle County Service Authority Engineer required); c) soil erosion and sedimentation control devices and overall storm drainage plan. In the review of these items, the County Engineer shall be guided by the findings and recommendations of the Betz Study; 11. Dedication of 1.3 acres to the Albemarle County School Board to be used in conjunction with other property to be acquired as a school site, if desired by the Albemarle County School Board. Density credit will be given for this property. The location of this property shall be presented to the Planning Department and School Board for approval; 12. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to provide all water and sewer facilities including such off -site facilities as may be necessitated by this development; 13. Approval is contingent upon the Albemarle County Service Authority's final approval of the complete water and sewer plans including plans for the proposed connections to the existing water and sewer lines; fZ 14. Approval is contingent upon the Albemarle County Service Authority's acceptance of the following: a) the dedication of water and sewer lines; b) the dedication of the sewage pump station access road; c) the responsibility of operation and maintenance of the sewage pump station; 15. Approval is contingent upon adequate available capacity at the Meadowcreek Sewage Treatment Plant; 16. Comply with the following conditions submitted by the City of Charlottesville concerning the gas pipeline easement: a) the contours on the plan indicate some grading and excavation on the easement, the plans for which have not been completed. These grading plans must be available for reivew and approval by the City of Charlottesville prior to commencement of the work; b) reasonable ingress and egress to the full length of the forty foot easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must be assured; 17. No dwelling unit, parking area, or recreational area is to be located within the gas pipeline easement; 18. County Attorney's approval of any deed restrictions or homeowners' association agreements; 19. No site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading plan for this property has been approved; 20. Fifty foot rights -of -way with appropriate drainage, construction, and slope easements shall be dedicated at appropriate locations in order to provide access to Parcel 18. The geometric designs of these rights -of -way are subject to Highway Department approval; 21. The locations of and acreages in the various land uses, rights -of -way, and pedestrian ways as indicated on the preliminary plan shall be adhered to, except in respect to those changes necessitated by conditions of approval of this petition. Submit two (2) copies of a revised plan reflecting conditions setforth in this petition; 22. The pump and force main shall be adequately sized to serve all units in Evergreen Planned Community including those units shown on Parcel 18 under SP-537 and appropriate water and sewer line easements shall be provided to serve Parcel 18. Mr. Jones seconded this motion. The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion. SP-99-76. SHELTER ASSOCIATES has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a professional office on 0.88 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is located on the east side of Route 601, just south of Free Union. County Tax Map 29, Parcel 43, White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Carr noted that previously there was a special permit which had been approved that would be later vacated. This is a request for a special permit on a different piece of property in order to have outside storage. Mr. Peatross moved approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. To be included in site plan approval for SP-100-76; 2. Removal of inoperative autos and debris to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator; 3. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies including Building Official and Fire Marshal; 4. No retail sAles from the premises. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-0-1, with Mrs. Graves abstaining. WE SP-100-76. SHELTER ASSOCIATES has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a craft shop on 0.88 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is located on the east side of Route 601, just south of Free Union. County Tax Map 29, Parcel 43, White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that this is in conjunction with the just approved SP-99-76. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the request, after amending condition V , subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies, including the Building Official and Fire Marshal; 2. All woodworking is to take place within the existing warehouse or replacement building; 3. No outside storage of materials; 4. Employees working in the building shall be limited to five (5) full-time employees; 5. No retail sales from the premises; 6. A written statement requesting abandonment of SP-536 by both the applicant and property owner; 7. Site Plan approval; 8. In the event the Zoning Administrator determines this use to be a nuisance to the surrounding residential uses, he shall refer this petition to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for further review; 9. Removal of inoperative autos and debris to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Peatross seconded this motion, and the motion carried by a vote of 7-0-1, with Mrs. Graves abstaining. SP-102-76. WORRELL NEWSPAPERS has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate an accessory dwelling accommodation on 50.5648 acres zoned B-1. Property is lcoated on the south side of Route 250 east at Pantops Mountain. County Tax Map 78, Parcel 20C, Scottsville and Rivanna Magisterial Districts. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies; 2. Approval of Building Official and Fire Marshal. The staff also noted that it recommended approval only because these accommodat- ions are closely associated with the business operation of Worrell Newspapers. Mr. Dennis Rooker, representing the applicant, stated that this is a rather unique situation since the units that would be converted are located in the heart of 52 acres and are surrounded by farmland. He did not feel this would set precedent since every special use permit must be judged on its merits. 3 Mr. Payne advised the Commission that in view of the definition of accessory dwelling accommodation, only the proprietor or a bona fide employee could live in this and they were not intended for transient occupants. He said he viewed this to be in the nature of a private motel, with limited clientele. He said that if the ordinance limits the use in this fashion, it would be inappropriate for the Commission to alter this intent without amending the ordinance. Mr. Peatross said that if there is any question here, the applicant should request that the ordinance be amended to meet his needs. Mrs. Graves said that if this special use permit is approved as requested, she feels the use will later be abuses and there may later be attempts to make it a use by right. She said that she only supported it in the first place since it was a use by special permit. Mr. Peatross moved, in view of the Commission's discussion that the request be denied. Mrs. Graves seconded this motion, with carried by a vote of 7-1, with Col. Washington dissenting. The Commission directed the staff to meet with the representatives from Worrell and see what could be done about meeting their needs. The Commission said they would support this in the form of a resolution of intent. It was suggested that this be officially voted upon by the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner moved this be carried out. Mr. Peatross seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with Mrs. Graves and Col. Washington dissenting. (The motion later came back in the following manner: Amend the B-1 Business District to provide for all uses which are provided for in the R-3 Residential General Distirct.) Since there was no further business, tjie meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.,Z. W. Tucker, Jr. - Secre M 9