Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 19731112 November 5, 1973 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on November 5, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the County Court House, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those present were Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Dr. James Sams, Mr. Louis Staley, Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, and Mr. Lloyd 11ood, Supervisor. and Mr. Peter Easter, Mr. David Carr, Mrs. Ellen Craddock was absent. Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. a. ZMP-286. West Realty Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 71.37 acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-2 Residential. Property is situated on the east side of Route631 (Rio Road) at the intersection of Route 768. Property is described as County Tax Map 62, Parcel 17 and 17C. Rivanna Magisterial District. Dr. Catlin said it was up to the Commission whether they should accept the applicant's application for withdrawal without prejudice. Mr. Rinehart motioned to accept the applicant's application for withdrawal without prejudice. Mr. Carr seconded the motion which carried unanimously by those members present. b. SP-288. Ray's Homes has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home sales on 13.33 acres of land zoned B-1 Business. Property is situated on the south side of Route 250 East near its intersection with Interstate 64. Property is described as County tax Map 78, Parcels 33A and 33B. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report stating that the staff was of the opinion that the request should be denied which would be in the best interest of the general welfare and safety of the public as it relates to traffic and road conditions. However, if approved, it should be conditioned upon the following: 1) Health Department approval of a septic tank and field system. 1113 2)That the storage of all mobile homes and module units be placed no nearer to the r-o-w of Route 250 than 50 feet. 3)That all access ways and patron parking as indicated in the site plan be surface treated with a dust proof material and maintained in a dust proof condition. 4)That no flag or pennants be used for advertising or attention getting items 5)All lighting be placed so as not to create a traffic hazard for vehicles traversing Route 250 in both directions to the satis- faction of the County Planner and Resident Highway Engineer. 6)That the deacceleration lane be 12 feet wide for a distance of 200 feet with a taper of 150 feet. Mr. Lee Booker, representative of the applicant, said that the biggest problems seemed to be the safety aspects. He said he thought this type of business would have less traffic than some other business. Mr. Edwin Preston wanted to know how many mobile homes would be located on this site at a given time. It was ascertained that there would be approximately 15 to 18 at one time and there would be an average of 30 per month coming in and going out. Mr. Preston stated that his concern was that this was a junction of I-64, where many visitors entered the City of Charlottesville, and that a mobile home sales lot would not be the most attractive thing to have on this site. Mr. Tommy Snead, repairer and mover of mobile homes, voiced his support of the petition. Mr. Juhl-Neilsen voiced opposition to the request with similar views to that of Mr. Preston's. Mr. Booker stated that the applicant had a tenative lease agreement and did not believe the applicant would object to reviewing the possibility of screening with the planning dept. Upon questioning by Mr. Rinehart, it was ascertained that P the site was not visible from the I-64 west bound lane and did not 1114 believe it was visible from I-64 east bound lane. Mr. Rinehart and Mr. Easter, as well as other members of the Commission, were concerned with the aesthetic aspects. After further discussion about this point, Mr. Rinehart motioned that the petition be denied. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried by a 4 to 3 vote in favor of the motion. c. SP-304. T. J. Snead has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 102.4 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 784, about 1 mile north of Stony Point. Property is described as County Tax Map 48, Parcel 6. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. McClure asked that the records show that he was not participating or voting on this petition. Mr. Tucker read the staff report stating that if the Commission approved the permit, it should be conditioned upon the following: 150' setback from Route 784 and health department approval. Mr. Snead told the Commission that this petition if granted would be for a mobile home for a part time agricultural employee and that the other mobile homes already on the property were for his children. He said that he would not be charging rent, just rent in exchange for work on his land. Upon questioning by Mr. Rinehart, it was ascertained that the mobile home would be approximately 1500' from any property lines and that it was screened from all directions except from Mr. Snead's home and was located almost in the center of the property. Dr. Sams motioned that the permit be approved for a period of five years, with a 150' setback and health dept. approval. Mr. Staley seconded the motion which carried unanimously with Mr. McClure abstaining. d. SP-305. Star Realty Systems 'has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a wholesale bakery products facility on 1 acre of land zoned B-1 Business. Property is 1115 situated on the west side of Route 29 North, north of its intersection with Route 631 (Rio Road). Property is described as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 106. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report commenting that the request was made previously on property in Berkmar, which the site plan committee determined to be too small. The committee has reviewed the new site plan and has found it to be in order. The facility will include bakery products retail trade, the storage and distribution of merchandise, and overnight parking of commercial delivery vehicles inside the building. No production will occur on the premises. Staff recommends approval of the special permit and site plan conditioned upon health department approval. Mr. Wallace Hatcher of Lantz Construction was present to speak for the petition. He told the Commission that it would be an I.T. & T. Continental Baking route truck depot for distribution of products made elsewhere, but they needed the Commission's approval since there was a wholesale aspect involved. Dr. Catlin said the development should be from roads coming in from 29 rather than along 29 North. Mr. Goode Love told the Commission that they were trying to find a location for the business and that the applicant would put in a de -acceleration lane. Mr. Rinehart suggested that the planning dept. come up with a suggested plan for development of this area - roads at least. Dr. Catlin said he was in no way suggesting that the property not be developed. He wanted to know where major entrances were going, and did they need or should they have double entrances, etc. Mr. Rinehart mentioned that the Commission had once talked of a loop in this area. Mr. McClure motioned approval of the Special Permit with health 1116 department approval. Mr. Easter seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. McClure also motioned deferral of action on the site plan for 2 weeks so that questions raised could be discussed further. Mr. Easter seconded the motion which carried unanimously. e. SP-306. Rachel A.Brown has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a two-family dwelling on 3.51 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Willow Brook Road in Ardwood Subdivision. Property is described as County Tax Map 45G, Lot 8. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report commenting that the new zoning ordinance would provide for this type of "accessory living unit" where the appearance of the single family unit will not be appreciably altered. Recent requests for this type of "two-family dwelling" have been approved on large acreages which have not violated the 2-acre density. He told the Commission that the staff was recommending denial, however, based on the restrictive covenant in this case which forbids apartments or duplexes in Ardwood Subdivision. Mrs. Brown told the Commission that over a year ago she obtained a divorce and at that time her attorney advised that if she could put an apartment in her basement, with the additional income, she could probably hold on to her property. She said at that time she had no idea she was breaking any County Ordinance. She said if denied permission to keep the apartment, she would probably lose her home. Mr. Dick Gibson, attorney representing Mrs. Brown, stated that the zoning ordinance did not mention restrictive convenants and pointed out that he did not belive that the Commission had the right to act as a jurisdictional body and that any decision on restrictive covenants should be decided by the courts. Mr. Bill Stevens, supporting the applicant, showed pictures of Mrs. Brown's house to the Commission showing that the exterior of the 1117 E house had not been altered. He pointed out that areas such as Farmington had rental apartments and that they had certainly not harmed the neighborhood. Mr. R. B. Comer, resident of "Ardwood" presented a petition from the homeowners of the development recommending denial. They were concerned that it might set a precedent in the area, and that it may change the rural atmosphere of the subdivision. Mrs. Fran Martin pointedout that under the special permit granted Hickory Ridge, the County required restrictive covenants to protect property owners and the County's interest. Mr. Gibson said if this type of thing was to be covered under the proposed zoning ordinance, it would be unreasonable to put Mrs. Brown through a hardship at this time. Dr. Catlin said it was his opinion that it should be denied because it does conform with the density of the zone. Mr. Rinehart motioned that the petition be denied which was seconded by Mr. McClure and carried with Mr. Tinsley voting against the motion. f. SP-306A. Rena Barnett has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 4 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 708, about 1 mile south of its intersection with Route 637. Property is described as County Tax Map 73, Parcel 39 (part thereof). Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report commenting that the property was located in the area of the Ragged Mountains. Subject property being surrounded by dense woods. He stated that a site had been prepared for the mobile home, 100-150' from the road, with a buffer of large trees along Route 708. He recommended that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this petition, it should be conditioned upon health department approval. Mrs. Barnett told the Commission that she would like to locate 1118 her mobile home here because she wanted to be near her mother who was quite feeble. Mr. Higginson, speaking for Mrs. Barnett, told the Commission that the mobile home would be located 168' from the highway and was sure that Mrs. Barnett would comply with health department standards. Mr. Tinsley motioned approval of the permit for a period of five years at the end of which time she would have to come back to the Commission for approval and health department approval. J Mr. Staley seconded the motion which carried unanimously by those members present. g. SP-307. Charles Lascano has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 11 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 747, about 1 mile northeast of its intersection with Route 600. Property is described as County Tax Map 33, Parcel 40. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report commenting that the applicant might be agreeable to a temporary permit, and that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this petition, it should be conditioned upon 100' setback and health department approval. Mr. Lascano told the Commission that it was his intent to move the mobile home as soon as his permanent house was completed. Mr. McClure motioned approval of the petition for a period of two (2) years with one (1) year administrative approval, 100' setback and health department approval. Mr. Staley seconded the motion which carried unanimously by those members present. h. SP-308. Cogswell/Hausler Associates has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a planned unit development and central water and sewer system on 107.77 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 250 East, and the east side of Route 729. Property is described as County Tax Map 79, Parcel 23, 1119 and County Tax Map 79C, Parcel 1. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff's recommendation which was as follows: " The staff has concluded from its investigation of the plan, relating it to the capabilities of the land and its impact on the general area, that the proposal is too dense to be accomodated on the land (with septic system, etc.) However, good engineering and money can overcome the problems. The staff recognizes that through proper engineering that possibly the proposed development could be a success and we commend the applicant for his approach in the design of the development, relative to their attempts to relate the character of the land to the type of development. The staff disagrees with only one element of the proposal, that being the 9 acre plus tract of commercial development located on Route 729 and paralleling the Rivanna River. If the Planning Commission and/or Board are of the opinion that the proposed development fits into the Comprehensive Plan, and that the development can be made practical with its limitations, we would suggest the following conditions being imposed on any approval of Special Permit-208 for a planned community: 1) That evidence be submitted for approval by the County of Albemarle, of a satisfactory sanitary sewer -waste disposal system, approved by the appropriate state agencies. The disposal system should be submitted to the County Board of Supervisors under a separate Special Permit. The previous condition also shall appply to the proposed central water supply. 2) That a 30' dedication of or re -dedication of road right-of-way from the center line of Route 729 be accomplished. The objective of this condition is to provide for ultimately a 60' right-of-way where Route 729 parallels this development. 3)That all collector or local roads within this proposal be constructed to state standards. 4)That a citizens' association be established and deed restrictions and covenants for the disposition and maintenance of the open space and recreatior area be submitted to the County for their review and approval. 5) That all slopes exceeding 20% not be disturbed and only that area to accomodate the housing be denuded within a given lot within this project. 6)That an agreement be made between the Albemarle County Service Authority and/or Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and consummated relative to the ultimate ownership and maintenance of any approved sanitary sewer facility or central water supply. 7)That provisions be made for pedestrian walkways and bicycle trails. 1120 M Mr. Hausler presented 6 models to the Commission. He told the Commission that they were a Planning and Architectural firm from Chapel Hill, North Carolina and that they only received the staff report that afternoon, and that he disagreed with the point that the land be rezoned to 5 acre density (conservation zone). He told the Commission that the total density of the area would be 672 as opposed to a possible population of 1740, which was something under 40% of what was possible. He also stated that both tracts were to be organized under a homeowners association and that their main objective had been to preserve the existing terrain as much as possible by avoiding mass grading. He said they planned to deal with the Soil Conservation Service. He said they had tried to consider Jefferson's architecture as much as possible in their plans. He said that no development would take place on a site where the slopes were greater than 30% and that removal of trees on site would take place only at the location of a specific house. He told the Commission that the minimum lot size was 17,500 square feet, and that the overall densitv was more than 1 acre per unit, with the average lot size totaling 1/2 acre. 1121 Mrs. Joan Graves told the Commission that she was concerned with the definition of a PUD, and wundered if it stated whether the 100 acres had to be contiguous? 'load Mrs. McSchaw wanted to know the cost of houses? Mr. Edwin Preston was concerned about the effect that this large scale development would have on the surrounding rural area, the traffic problem, and the historic value of the area. He stated that this area would be turned into something that was surburban in character. Mr. Hausler stated that after consulting with the planning staff, they were of the opinion that there need not be a 100-acre contiguous tract and that site "A" could easily become residential instead of B-1 Business. He stated that the cost of the townhouses would be in the mid 30's to 40's and that single family units would start in the low 40's and run up. After further discussion about the above comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Rinehart commented that recently the Planning Commission had not waved the density of the zones involved. Dr. Catlin wanted to know what plans the developers had for roads? Mr. Hausler replied that he preferred to keep all roads in private ownership, scaled down a little from state standards, thus minimizing the pavement put in. Dr. Sams questioned what the open space would be used for. Mr. Hausler replied that most of the open space was fairly steep and would not be used for recreation, however, there would be water recreation, pools, and tennis courts in other areas. Dr. Catlin thought the following points were of vital concern: roads, could they rely on water systems for long term supply, who would pay for water when the well goes dry, if their sewer approach was acceptable, should the density conform to the zone, and if they 1122 were being realistic of the future of the R-3 zone. Mr. Easter wanted to know if this area was in the long range plans of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Wood, Supervisor, replied that it was not. Mr. McClure moved that the petition be denied because of the lack of utilities. Dr. Sams seconded the motion, stating that he thought it was not the intent of the ordinance to allow a non-contiguous site for a PUD or cluster. Mr. Rinehart reiterated that the density did not comply with the existing zoning. Mr. Hausler said that he was not told that this would not be a PUD. There was a discussion among commission members about the time and money that had been put into this request by the developer, and Dr. Sams said he thought it would be reasonable to postpone their decision for at least a week. Mr. McClure said that he was willing to withdraw his motion. Mr. Staley motioned to defer action on the petition for 2 weeks, to give the applicant a chance to solve some of these questions. Mr. McClure seconded the motion. Mr. Rinehart commented that he thought the Commission should be consistent on density requirements on PUDs. Mr. McClure thought that a cluster development should go below density, and didn't think that this was a PUD. There was further discussion with the Commission deciding that the applicant had not been given sufficient information or that there was 1123 a lack of communication, and that the applicant should be given a chance to solve some of the questions involved. The motion carried unanimouslyr to defer action for two (2) weeks. J. H. Williams - Site Plan - deferred item Miss White told the Commission that Mr. Williams had agreed to construct a deacceleration lane at least by spring and also to post a $550 bond and that the Planning staff recommended approval of the plan. A resident of Airport Acres was concerned that customers from the proposed motor cycle shop would be using the road at Airport Acres. The resident was assured by the owner of the motor cycle shop that this would not happen. The Commission was concerned that they had a policy of requiring Route a 120' setback on 29 for service roads. Mr. Foster told the Commission that the existing buildings were only 75' from the road. Dr. Sams motioned that the site plan be approved with the planning staff's recommendations. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Rinehart was concerned with the amount of bond put on the deacceleration lane, and suggested that Miss White have the County Engineer review it again. Miss White said that she would. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 9 1124 November 13, 1973 This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on November 13, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisor's meeting room, County Office, Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Louis Staley, Mr. Peter Easter, Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. David Carr, Dr. James Sams, and Mrs. Ellen Craddock. Mr. George St. John, County Attorney, was also present. Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. The Commission then reviewed the minutes of August 13, 1973 through September 24, 1973. Mrs. Craddock motioned approval of the minutes with the following corrections and additions. On Page 1066, "Mrs. Craddock" is to be added to the list of members present at the September 17, 1973 meeting. On Page 1072, Paragraph #2, Dr. Catlin said that he could not second a motion and asked that it be replaced with the correct Commission members name. On Page 1027, change "how how far the cluster" to read "how far the "cluster houses" would be located. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion which carried unanimously by those members present. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that at the last meeting of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, due to vast citizen interest, the Commission said they would delay action on the water /(citizens' and county's) quality management plan for several weeks; their/main objection being on page X135 which did not reflect the Commission's and Board's policy. Said page having many conflicting statements. After a brief 1125 /thatT. J. Planning District discussion, Mr. Humphrey reminded the Commission would like to have some sort recommendation from them. (County Planning Comission). There was a discussion of the Cogswell-Hausler Special Permit request concerning density and the water and sewer situation and another discussion concerning the Cushman rezoning regarding the future of the Ivy area. Work Session. Article 11 - Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance Mr. St. John suggested the following revisions and additions: "It shall be unlawful to clear, fill or grade for any purpose other than agricultural tillage of the soil in Albemarle County or to engage in other related activity, etc." "The construction of road, ponds,or buildings shall not be exempt from this regulation even if the same be for the purpose of promoting agriculture. Mr. Carr and other Commission members were concerned with the hardship this could put on the ordinary farmer under the bureaucratic process? having to apply for permits and come into to town frequently. Mr. St. John suggested that the only alternative was to leave it as it stood. Mrs. Fran Martin commented that many farmers in the County have Soil Conservation Service plans. Dr. Sams said he was of the opinion that "the actual tilling of the soil" was too narrow a definition of agriculture and that may be if they thought about it they could come up with something better. This item was deferred until the next workshop. ,h,ly Mr. Humphrey suggested that'€�ie Thomas Jefferson Water and Soil Conservation District could come up with something to help them. 1126 Parking Requirements Furniture stores parking requirements that were discussed were as follows: 2 spaces per the first 1000 square feet of floor area plus 1 parking space for every addtional 350 square feet of gross floor area over that. ( This also took care of 2 or 3 employees.) It was suggested that building supply sales be included in the reduced parking and that parking be looked at on a retail floor area instead of gross area. It was decided that Mr. Carr and Mr. Rinehart would work with Mr. Humphrey on the formulas for the above mentioned parking areas. Article 18 - Non -Conforming Uses Section 18-7-4 Mr. Humphrey suggested that said article should refer to the exception under the flood plain ordinance. Section 18-1-3 18-1-1 Mrs. Craddock wanted to know if 24 months was too long a time, Mr_. St. John said that a person has a vested right to continue indefinite- ly a non -conforming use, and was not sure whether they could enforce 18-1-1 but thought they should leave it in as other localities had similar phrases. Mr. Humphrey stated that everything included in Article 18 reflects what the present non -conforming section with two exceptions. Section 18-7-2 " a non --conforming structure is damaged less than 50%" (the present ordinance shows 75%) Section 18-7-1 "before the occurence shall not exceed 50V (present ordinance has 75%) 1127 Mr. St. John suggested that the following phrase be added to the end of Section 18-6-1 "provided such lot or lots complied with the zoning ordinance in effect prior to such date". It was the concensus of the Commission to do this. Mr. St. John was also of the opinion that in Article 18-7-1 "However property owners so affected may take recourse to obtain rezoning" should be omitted The Planning Commission agreed with this. In Article 18-7-4 it was suggested that "subject to the provisions of Article of the Flood Plain Ordinance" be added. The Commission was in agreement with this. Article 23: Provisions for Appeal Mr. St. John commented that back in the "General Provisions for Special Use Permits" there was a section stating that the governing body reserves unto itself the power to deny,grant or conditionally grant special use permits. He said a cross reference to this should be made in Article 23-1-1. He stated that the section on the Board of Zoning Appeals was prescribed by statue and that they did not have much discretion on this. Upon recommendation from Mr. Humphrey, Article 23-6 and 23-2-6 was deleted from the ordinance. Article 24 "Violation and Penalty" was approved as was. Article 25 - "Amendments" Section 25-4 was noted that it was in concurrence with the enabling legislation. Article 26 - Article 26-3: It was decided that the office location, hours, and phone number should be deleted. In other words leave in section starting with "It shall be" through "an appointment". Article 26-1: Mr. St. John stated that he thought the following should be added: 26-1-2 " The administrator and the administrator's 1128 /check deputies, are hereby empowered to enter and to upon any private or public property in the County of Albemarle for the purpose of inspecting for compliance with this ordinance and of administration and enforcement hereof. Dr. Sams he did not like persons being able to enter persons property under the auspices of the zoning ordinance. Many members were of the opinion that "with notice to the owner" should be added. Mr. St. John replied that sometimes the owner could not be located and this held things up. He stated that they needed a right to enter onto property but that it did not allow a no-knock type entry. There was a discussion on whether an "attempt to give reasonable" notice of entry onto property should be included. Dr. Sams was of the opinion that the ordinance should encourage compliance rather than try to catch violators. Mr. St. John commented that there were some people who did not really want to comply and that in these instances such a clause would prohibit enforcement. After continued discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that this decision of enforcement should be left up to the Board of Supervisors as it was a matter of County policy. Mrs. Craddock stated that it was her opinion that the Commission should state how they felt and that they should keep it as Mr. St. John had it written. Dr. Sams was opposed to Mrs. Craddocks suggestion and stated enforcement had nothing to do with Planning. It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. St. John take the above to the Board stating some members were for it and some opposed but that they felt as planners that the question of enforcement was not up to them. Article 27- Flood Plain Zone 1129 Mr. Humphrey stated that there were no changes in this except change what zoning uses are permitted in flood plain ( new zones). Site Development Plan Mr. Humphrey suggested that maybe they would like to do this at a full work session. and that Darts needed to be changed relating to changes in subdivision ordinance. He stated that they also had to work on signs. Mr. Humphrey was instructed to put both of these items on the work session of November 26,1973. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. R. 1130 November 19, 1973 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on November 19, 1973 in the County Court House, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman, Mr. David Carr, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Dr. James Sams, Mr. Louis Staley, Mr. Peter Easter, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Mr. Jack Rinehart was absent. Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. ZMP-269 Grover Forloines (deferred item) /that this item Mr. Humphrey told the Commission had been deferred earlier in the year, because of the need for a letter from the Albemarle County Service Authority. Said letter was received and dated November 5, 1973 and stated the following information pursuant to Mr. Forloines request for water service on the 120 acre parcel of land located at the intersection of State Route 677 and 676: 1. The contract was awarded and construction began on the Still - House -Ivy waterline in October 1973. 2. The current estimated completion date is August 1, 1974; however, the contractor is using two crews which may make comple- tion earlier. 3. The developer will extend at his expense an 8-inch waterline off of the 12-inch line at a point and location approved by the County Engineer. 4. Water should be available to serve this area no later than September 1974. 5. All waterlines willbe subject to design approval and inspection by the County Engineer. 6. The developer shall deed and dedicate the off -site main and on -site distribution system to the Albemarle County Service Authority 7. The developer will be responsible for maintenance of all waterlines for oneyear after acceptance by the Service Authority. 8. Since this will be served by a high pressure line and installed along a state road, it will be necessary to install ductile iron pipe and class 250 fittings. 9. Fire hydrants must be installed within the subdivision and served by an 8-inch line. 10. No occupancy permits shall be issued until completion, testing and water line officially in service. 1131 The StillHouse-Ivy line is designed to provide approximately 600,000 gallons per day and will be backed up by a 750,000 storaf,e tank on Still -House Mountain. This should be ample to serve the area with fire protection and domestic consumption for many years. Dr. Catlin wanted to know what the term "moderate limitations" stated in the soil report meant? Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that there were some problems with this type of soil but with proper engineering development could be accomplished. Dr. Sams wanted to know how the outcome of this soil survey compared with other surveysof RS-1 land? Mr. Humphrey stated that they were quite common in Albemarle County. After further discussion by Commission members, Mr. Clyde Gouldman, representing Section 1 Committee from West Leigh Isaid that in the R-1 zone, the zoning ordinance granted the power to limit density, comparing it to soil limitations. He requested that the Commission try at least to limit density to be in line with this. Mr. Humphrey stated that this was found in the subdivision ordinance and could be taken up in the course of subdivision approval. Mr. Louie Scribner wanted to know if the developer would pay for the cost of the 8" water line and would the new line extend as far as the end of Ballard Road. Mr. Richardson asked how many housing units the soil would allow. Mr. Humphrey replied that it would appear that around 80 or 90 lots could be obtained on the 120 acres. site. Mrs. Manson wanted to know if there would be a lake on the Mr. Joe Gibson asked if this rezoning could be conditional? Dr. Catlin stated that the specific details of the plan would be taken care of under subdivision approval. 1132 ti Mr. McClure said he was concerned with the residents>of Ivy definite objection to the master plan as it pertained to their area and wondered if a study of the area was proposed. Mr. Humphrey stated that funds were being requested in the budget for such a study, however, it would not be completed until the end of 1974. Mrs. Craddock made a motion to deny the petition in order to protect the two stream beds, and because of the soil limitations and in order to protect the rural atmosphere. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. Mr. Carr stated that he thought there was nothing basically wrong with the applicant's proposal to rezone the land but that the greater question was whether Ivy was going to be permitted to grow or whether they were going to put a block on growth in Ivy. Mr. McClure said he sympathized with the Citizens of Ivy and he believed they should act in accordance with the Master Plan. Dr. Sams thoughts were much in agreement with Mr. McClure's. Mr. Stalev commented that he didn't see where thev could do much better. Dr. Catlin stated that this development was on the fringe of the area designated in the master plan and that it was his opinion that the master plan should be developed over a long period of time, and that 94% of the area residents were in favor of keeping their village status. Mr. Carr stated that he did not think they could make the first decision and that he would prefer that the matter be deferred again. Mr. Humphrey stated that under the enabling legislature, the matter could not be deferred again. Mr. Easter stated that the proposed development was quite a jump from the center of the Ivy cluster. 1133 The motion was then voted on with Mr. Easter, Mr. Tinsley, Mrs. Craddock and Dr. Catlin voting in favor of the motion (denial) and Mr. Carr,Dr. Sams, Mr. Stalev, and Mr. McClure voting against the motion. The motion failed to carry. Mr. McClure then made a motion for approval of the petition and recommended that some action be taken in favor of the citizensirequest for change in the master plan for the Ivy area. Dr. Sams seconded the motion. Mrs. Craddock suggested that the motion be divided into "2" separate motions. There was a 4 to 4 vote on the approval of the petition, which failed to carry. The second motion to reconsider the master plan as it pertains to the Ivy area before making any more decisions in Ivy carried unanimously. b) Elijah Agee request for a 50' easement to serve 2-two acre lots. Located south side Route 715, about 1 1/2 miles south of Keene. It was noted that this was a recorded easement request in lieu of restricted road as a restricted road would take away from lots A & B (reduce their acreage). The staff suggested, if approved, that it be terminated at the northern boundary of the property. Mr. Singleton, representing the applicant, stated that it would only be serving three lots. Upon questioning by Mr. Carr, it was ascertained that there would not be 2 acres for each lot left if a restricted road was used. The Commission attempted to make it clear to Mr. Agee that he could not subdivide the large rear lot if this easement was granted. Mr. Tinsley motioned that the easement be approved with no further subdivison of lots along the easement taking place. Mr. Carr seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1134 c) Amy B. Safley - request for a 20', front.age on Route 660 to serve one -four acre parcel. Located west side Route 660 about 1 1/2 miles south of its intersection with Route 29 North. The staff told the Commission that Vernon Maupin, landowner, sold the property and had requested withdrawal, which was so done. d) F. F. Bishop -- request for a 50' easement to serve 2-two acre lots. Located south side Route 715, about 1 1/2 miles south of Keene. Mr. Tinsley motioned approval of the easement to serve only lots C & D. Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. e) R. A. Yancey - site plan - mini -market. Located south side Route 250 West near Yancey's Mill. The staff's recommendations were: /de_Dt . 1) de -acceleration lane per highway standards 2) reserved parking in the rear 3) front parking be changed from slanting to perpendicular. Mr. Yancey told the Commission that truck scales located nearby might prohibit the de -acceleration lane. Mr. Humphrey stated that the highway department had visited the site and requested a de -acceleration lane. Dr. Sams motioned approval of the site plan per the staff's recommendations. McClure seconded the motion which carried unanimously. f) Citizens' Bank and Trust - site plan - temporary office. Located west side Route 29 North; south side Airport Road. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that the site plan indicated a de -acceleration lane on Route649 and the widening on 29 to become a de- acceleration lane. It was ascertained by Dr. Catlin that there was sufficient setback for a service road. Mr. Carr motioned approval of the site plan for a 22 year time period. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously by these members present. g)Star Realty Site Plan - deferred item 1135 Mr. Hatcher of Lantz Construction was present. After a brief discussion, Mrs. Craddock motioned that the site plan be approved with the following conditions: 1) only one entrance, at least 50' wide, approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and the Albemarle County Planning Department; 2) the re -location of three parking spaces from the front to the rear of the building; 3) and the reservation of access to the adjoining properties, should a service drive become necessary in the future. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously by those members present. h) SP-308 Cogswell-Hausler (deferred item) Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that the applicant must apply for a separate special permit for sewer and water,and that Mr. Anderson Soil Conservationist, recommended that the impoundment be placed in proper order. Mr. Easter asked that the records show that he was not partici- pating in this discussion. Mr. McClure told the Commission that he and several :ether Commission members had visited the site and thought that it was a nice site, however, he wanted to know if they were going to allow a higher density than a PUD allows? Mr. Staley stated that he was in favor of an approval, if the sewer and water situation could be solved. Mr. Deward Martin, Engineer, and Mr. Joseph Richmond, Attorney were present to represent the petition. Mr. Richmond stated that if they deeded the lake site to this 90-acre tract, they would have 100 contiguous acres. Dr. Catlin asked Mr. Martin how the water and sewer situation stood? 1136 Mr. Martin said that they could have a backup emergency water supply from the lake; and that they would have to get the State Water Control Board's approval, which they could get if they went to a tertiary treatment plant. Mr. James Craig, an interested citizen, said he would like to present to the Commission a letter pertaining to water meter_ readings prepared in the spring of 1969 by Mr. E.O. Gooch and Associates, which related to a similar proposed project in the Keswick Country Club area. Copy of said letter being in the Snecial Permit file. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Richmond if he was correct in assuming that they had no water information available? Mr. Hausler replied that they were asking conceptual approval of a plan, and that they needed this before the State Water Control Board would give their approval. Mr. Martin, Engineer, said it was his belief that they could find water there, however, if it turns out that wells go dry, they would put a regular filtration plant in, as an emergency supply. Dr. Catlin stated his concern that the County would have to haul water as in other areas, if the wells went dry. Mrs. Craddock stated that she thought that this was an extremely well drawn up plan, which lies about 3/4 in the high density area of the Comprehensive Plan. She however stated that it would definitely overload the schools. what? Dr. Sams wanted to know if this was a preliminary approval or Mr. Humphrey replied that he didn't see it as piece meal and that there would be a separate special permit for water and sewer and also there would be subdivision control. 1137 After further discussion on density, water, etc. Mr. Carr motioned preliminary approval of the project subject to all provisions (on page 1119) previously made by the planning staff,"and also 1)this commission being satisfied with provisions made for water and sewer and 2) that the impoundment be strengthened. Mr. McClure seconded the motion. Mr. Hausler wanted to know if the County Board of Supervisors would still have final approval of water and sewer? He was told that they would. It was added to the motion that the parcel beyond"Clifton" was not to be included in the plan, and that bounds shown must be 100 acres or in access of. Also, that lots 13 and 14 and the business section were not to be a part of the PUD. Mrs. Craddock said that she would like it broughtto the attention of the Board of Supervisors that they had a letter from the depart- ment of education stating that any new development in the area would seriously overcrowd Stone Robinson school. The motion carried unanimously. The Commission derided to take up the scheduled water study at the next work session. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. FE 1138 November 26, 1973 This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on November 26, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mrs. Ellen Craddocv, Dr. James Sams, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mr. David Carr, Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr Peter Easter, Mr. Louis Staley, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Mr. I-'cClure was a' --,sent. Also present was Mr. Bob Abbott, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Mr. Abbott told the Commission that the forced main approach as compared to individual treatment plants was about 1/6 as expensive, and that it would be expensive for residents to tie into systems that were served by the force main approach. Mr. Humphrey presented to the Commission the planning staff's opinion which was as follows: "If it can be proved that the "force main" concept will assist in the preservation of the adopted County Policy, with reference to the "clustering" of development and the related maps amended to eliminate lineal development, then the planning staff would be of the opinion that the County's interest had been served. I would note that during the public hearing, it was stated by the consulting firm,that tap�ng into a force main was possible by the installa- tion of another pumping station. It was our understanding that it could be done at the bottom of drainage swales and lines extended up those swales. Therefore, contradicting the statements that it would preserve H the "cluster" concept. Further investigation of this matter is warranted. Mr. Abbott told the Commission that during the interim period, when population growth reached its maximum in an area, interceptor lines would 1130 be more than 1/6 as expensive as individual plants. Mr. Abbott told the Commission that there had already been a four party agreement for the Crozet area (interceptor limes) drawn up which was estimated to cost $60,000 as opposed to $132,000 for an individual plant. Mr. Bailey, the County Engineer, told the Commission that past Crozet history shows a strong desire on the part of the State Water Control Board to bring the sewage out of Crozet, and that the City of Charlottesville was afraid of the effect that an individual plant would have on their reservoir. Mr. Wood said he thought the Commission should take a more positive attitude and that the Commission should solve this problem of water management and then set forth on enforcing the master plan, which he agreed would be a difficult job if interceptor lines were used. Mr. Carr stated that this made him think more that Ivy should be a master bedroom .... Dr. Catlin stated that his concept of a cluster was that it be self-contained. There was further discussion along this line. The Commission then looked at the Site Development Plan, which was approved with the following corrections and additions: Section IV-2 add "is" to the following phrase. Plans shall indicate whether meridian as is referred to "is" magnetic....." Section V-1 2 paragraph.... No site development plan shall be approved within "ten" days.... Section V-7 3rd paragraph ....the County shall take the necessary "procedural" steps...... Section V -12 Minimum easement shall be "6" feet. Section V -21 Appended to this ordinance is a manual "entitled". 24 The approval of a site developmentolan or the installation of the improvements as required in this Ordinance shall not obligate the County to accept improvements for maintenance, repair or operation. Acceptance shall be subject to County an/or 1140 State regulations, where applicable, concerning the acceptance of each type of improvement. Section V-25 The Planning Commission and the governing body or its agent may require, as a condition prerequisite to approval of any site development plan, that the developer provide space for and facilities for necessary public purposes including parks, schools, and other physical improvements, the need for which is directly occasioned by and specifically attributable to the particular development 26 Nothing herein shall require theapproval of any development, use or plan, or any feature thereof, which shall be found by the Planning Commission, the governing body or its agent, to constitute a danger to the public health, safety or general welfare, or which shall be determined by such commission, governing body or agent, to be a departure from or violation of sound engineering, design or standards. It was also ascertained that the articles such as soil erosion, site development, signs, etc. should be a part of the zoning ordinance rather than be separate articles, which would mean that variances would still go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Commission then discussed the Sign Ordinance: Mr. Humphrey recommended thatthe Commission adopt what they have now except that there would be additions of amendments on signs which will be coming before the Commission and Board soon concerning billboards and signs on Interstate Highway systems. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 1141 December 3, 1973 OR This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on December 3, 1973 in the County Court House, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. David Carr, Mr. Louis Staley, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Dr. James Sams, Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Peter Easter, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. ZMP-282. Cushman Realty and Building Corporation has peti- tioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 214.45 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the east and west sides of Route 678, about 3/4 mile north of Ivy. Property is described as County Tax Map 58, Parcel 81. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker presented the Commission with a letter dated 12/3/73 asking that they be allowed to withdraw the petition without prejudice. After a brief discussion, Mr. Rinehart motioned that the applicant be allowed to withdraw the petition without prejudice, The motion was seconded by Mr. Carr and carried unanimously. Mr. McClure asked that the records show that he was not participating or voting on the following two rezonings. ZMP-285. The Southland Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone .591 acres of land from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property is situated on the south side of Route 649 near its intersection with Route 29 North. Property is further described as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 36 (part thereof). Charlottesville Magisterial District. ZMP-290. North Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone .549 acres of land from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property is situated on the south side of Route 649,near its intersection with Route 29 North. Property is further described as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 36. (part thereof). Charlottesville Magisterial District. 114.2 The staff commented that there was abundant vacant B-1 zoning in the area without additional zoning of B-1. Further the granting of the segment would establish an area which would continue the antiquated approval of commercial development. (strip zoning). The hearing was then opened to the public. Mr. James Hill, Agent for the applicant, told the Commission that most of the land around the area that was zoned B-1 Business was not for sale, especially in small segments. Mrs. Lovelace commented that there was adequate B-1 zoning in that area and that it was already a very busy intersection. She also questioned the correctness of the public advertisement. The public hearing was then closed and the matter was before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rinehart suggested that possibly he would rather have this zoning at an intersection than along the road, so that possibly this was a logical location. Mrs. Miller, Zoning Administrator, commented that according to state law, it should be re -advertised since the notices were incorrect. In view of Mrs. Miller's comments, Mr. Tinsley made a motion to defer action on ZMP-285 so that it could be re -advertised properly. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Dr. Sams made a motion to defer action on ZMP-290 so that it could be re -advertised properly also. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously by those members present. The Planning staff was asked to re -schedule the two previous items for the nearest meeting possible. 1143 ZMP-289. Raymond V. Long, Jr. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 2.227 acres of land from B-1 Business to M-1 Industrial. Property is situated err+ on the east side of Route 631 (Rio Road) and the west side of the Southern Railroad. Property is further described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 146D. Charlottesville Magisterial District. ZMP-288. Raymond V. Long, Jr. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.066 acres of land from B-1 Business to M-1 Industrial. Property is situated on the east side of Route 631 (Rio Road) and the west side of the Southern Railroad. Property is further described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 146A. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr.Tucker read the staff report commenting that an M-1 zone in this area is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan which indicates the area for low density residential and neighborhood commercial. As a non -conforming operation, the present activities can continue. He suggested that the area needed to upgraded to the objectives of the adopted plan, therefore, an M-1 zone which would permit additional uses which would be out of character with the immediate area. Mr. Easter asked that the records show that he was not discussion or voting on participating in/ZMP-288 and ZMP-289. Mr. Raymond Smith, representing the applicant, stated they would like to construct a building to store materials in. Mrs.Margaret Parr, Mr. Harold Booth, and a representative of Northfields Subdivision spoke in opposition to the requests. Mr. John Lowe, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Roepke, adjacent property owners, spoke in opposition to the request and suggested that some time ago the planning department had been asked to make an investigation as to whether the present use was the same as the pre-existing use or whether it had been expanded. Mr. Tucker stated that they had affadavits signed by Mr. Long that the uses had not been expanded. 1144 Many other property owners spoke in opposition to the requests. Mrs. Craddock made a motion to deny ZMP-288 as it was contrary to the present zoning and character of the area. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion which carried unanimously with Mr. Easter abstaining. Mr. Carr made a similar motion to deny ZMP-289 which was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously with Mr. Easter abstaining. The planning staff was then instructed to re -investigate the situation to decide if the non -conforming use had been expanded, etc. SP-310. W. M. Collins has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate an addition to a mobile home park on 4.11 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 706, about 1 mile north of its intersection with Route 708. Property is further described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 23A. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report recommending that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve the petition, the following conditions should be a part of the approval. 1. The two mobile homes which are in violation be made a part of the request. 2. The mobile home which is located behind the existing row of mobile homes be relocated at the proposed mobile home site addition. 3. There be adequate screening - two staggered rows of evergreen trees, minimum height of 6', where indicated on the plan prepared by Warren Wade, date 12-3-73. 4. Health Department approval. 5. The extension of water lines in terms of size and material be approved by the County Engineer. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Collins if he knew that he was in violation of the ordinance? Mr. Collins replied that he had another special permit for mobile homes. 1145 M Mr. Staley was concerned if there was sufficient water supply. Mrs. Lovelace wanted to know if it could be more evenly spread over the 14 acres of land? It was ascertained that as long as his request was within the bounds of the zoning ordinance, that it did not have to be spread over the 14 acres of land. Mr. Carr Dorman, a nearby property owner, spoke in oppo- sition to the request stating that there were no curbs and gutters, no central sewage, and that it was just, in his opinion, a rural slum. Mr. Willis Carson and a Mrs. Hall also spoke in opposition to the request. Mrs. Lovelace wanted to know if these mobile hones were on separate septic tank systems? Dr. Catlin replied that there was 1 septic tank per two mobile homes plus drain fields. Mrs. Craddock made a motion to defer action on the request until the members had a chance to visit the site. Mr. Carr seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The request was to be deferred for two weeks. The Planning Commission stated that they would like a copy of the recommendations. SP-311. Robert Pollard has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 149.3 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 795, about 1 1/2 miles north of Scottsville Property is further described as County Tax Map 131, Parcel 6. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report commenting that in January 1972 David Pollard requested a mobile home permit (MHP-304) under the lineal relative clause for his son. His son, Robert, is now requesting a special use permit to re -locate the above mobile home on about 40 acres of land which his father will 1146 deed to him. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this petition, it should be conditioned upon 100' setback from Route 795, health department approval, and removal of as few trees as possible. Mr. Pollard wanted to know if the setback suggested was mandatory, as there was a good place approximately 85' from the road to locate the mobile home. After further discussion the public hearing was closed. Mr. Rinehart motioned approval of the request for a period of 5 years, with removal of as few trees as possible, health dept. approval, and a setback of approximately 80' from the right-of-way. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. Mr. Pollard questioned the period of 5 years as he was concerned about the cost of placing the mobile home there. Dr.Catlin told him that the probability was very small that he would not be able to renew his permit. The motion for approval carried unanimously with the above mentioned conditions. SP-312. Isaac Lantz has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 10 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated off Route 806, about 4 miles east of Nortonsville. Property is further described as County Tax Map 10, Parcel 5, (part thereof). White Hall Magisterial District. The staff report stated that it was assumed that the mobile home was to be located near the existing homes. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this petition, it should be conditioned upon health dept. approval. Since the mobile home will not be located on a state road, a minimum setback of 50' from the access road should be adequate. After a brief discussion, Mr. Carr motioned approval 1147 of the permit conditioned upon health dept. approval, for a period of 5 years, and a 50' setback with removal of as few trees as possible. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. SP-313. William F. Austin has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate the stabling of horses on 2.5 acres of land zoned R-1 Residential, Property is situated on the north side of Williston Drive in West Leigh Subdivision. Property is further described as County Tax Map 59C(1), Parcel 8. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report stating that a special permit was recently approved on Williston Drive to allow stabling facilities for 4 horses on 4.5 acres. There also exists across the lake from subject property an exercise rink and stabling facilities for horses. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve the petition, they may wish to limit the number of horses permitted on the 2.5 acres. Mr. Austin told the Commission that he would like to stable a maximum of three horses or ponies on the lot. Mr. Rinehart wanted to know if 3 were necessary. After further discussion, Mr. Rinehart motioned approval of the request with a maximum of 2 horses being housed permanently on the property. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unani- mously. SP-314. Richard Points has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 4.15 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 671; north side of Route 668. Property is further described as County Tax Map 16, Parcel 43. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report stating that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve 1148 the petition, it should be conditioned upon at least a 50' setback from both Rt. 688 and Route 671, and health dept. approval. Mrs. Craddock wanted to know if this was an open field? It was ascertained that it was. Mr. Tinsley wanted to know if the 50' setback was suffi- cient? Miss White replied that there were other houses very close to the road in that neighborhood. Mr. Carr wanted to know if the applicant owned the property and the mobile home? It was ascertained that he did. Mr. Rinehart wanted to know if it could be setback 100''? It was decided that it could be. Mr. Carr motioned approval of the request with staff renewal every 2 years up to 6 years, after which time it would have to come back before the Planning Commission and Board 14 of Supervisors and also a 100' setback and health dept. approval. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion which carried unanimously. SP-315. Cecil R. Knight has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 64.25 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 810, about 2 miles west of Boonesville. Property is further described as County Tax Map 6, Parcel 38. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report stating that due to the topography, most of the site is clearly visible from the road. The setback should should be determined by the best location for the septic system and the access road. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this petition it should be conditioned upon health dept. approval. At least a 50' setback is recommended. Upon questioning by Mr. Tinsley, it was ascertained that 1149 Mr. Knight kept welfare recepients and other hardship cases in his home and that possibly a boy that he had raised since he was a child would be living in the mobile home. It was ascertained that the mobile home would not be rented. Mr. Rinehart motioned approval of the permit in view of the fact that Mr. Knight would be giving someone a place to live. The motion was for administrative approval every two years up to a period of 6 years, 100' setback, and screening left to the discretion of the planning staff. Mr. Carr seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Tucker then asked the Commission if they would like to make a statement as a body with reference to the Water Quality Management plan? He stated that the plan as it relates to Crozet was in compliance with the master plan. Upon questioning by Mr. Rinehart, it was ascertained that approval for Crozet was done previously when the Commission adopted a sewer plan. Mr. Carr stated that he thought that economics dictated the solution to this problem as the interceptor lines were so much less expensive. After further discussion along these lines, it was the Consensus of the Commission that they were not in a position at this time to make a statement concerning the plan. The staff said they would like for Mr. St. John to get in touch with Rosser Payne to discuss the Water Quality Manage- ment Plan. Then Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor, asked if possibly a provision for handling mobile home applications administratively couldn't be incorporated in the ordinance 1150 since special permits for mobile homes were taking up a great deal of the Comission's and Board's time. After further discussion by Commission members the staff was instructed to come up with a list of quidelines for administrative approval of mobile homes. It was the consensus of the Commission that if the applicant did not meet these guidelines, or there were complaints from nearby property owners then a public hearing would be necessary and that the permit should go with the person rather than than the land. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.