Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-08-01300 August 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 1, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office BUilding, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, ¥irginia. Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (Arrived at 7:34 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom and P. eter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present' Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., and Deputy County Executive, The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-84-41. George A. Bowles, III, Request to locate a racquetball/ tennis club and skating rink on a 9 acre portion of a 14~..2 acre tract zoned Highway Commercial. Located on west side of Route 29 North across from Woodbrook Shopping Center. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 93A (part). Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24, 1984). Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission deferred SP-84-41 to August 14, 1984 and the suggestion is for deferral by the Board to September 5, 1984. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-84-37. Warren E. Andrews. Request to construct a water pump house and footbridge in the flood plain of Ivy Creek in conjunction with development of a private golf course. Property is zoned Rural Areas and has 200.645 acres. Located on Routes 677 and 637 about .5 mile southeast of Ivy. County Tax Map 58, Parcel 100. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24, 1984..) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, said there are two plans for this property. One is a master plan of the property that is being reviewed for the golf course. The second plan outlines the golf course and the flood plain limits and. the foot bridge proposed. Mr. Tucker pointed out the bridge to be located on Route 637. (Mr. Henley arrived at 7:34 P.M.) Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "R~uest: Water pumping station and two bridges in flood plain Acreag~ 200.6q5 acres Zoning: RA, Rural Areas/FH Flood Hazard Location: Property described as Tax Map 48, Parcel 100, is on Routes 637 and 677 about 0.5 mile southeast of Ivy and is known'as Ivy Farm. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a 9 hole golf course p~ both sides of Ivy Creek. The two bridges are proposed to provide convenient access. The water pumping station would be employed to maintain the golf course and vineyards. (Mr. Tucker said the original proposal indicated that the pumping station would be located within the flood plain but that has been moved outside of the flood plain, but t-he appurtenances are still located within the flood plain. The idea is for water to be pumped from Ivy Creek to the pond that is being constructed and that will be used to irrigate the golf course.) The initial grading plan submitted called for removal of trees adjacent to the stream and in other locations, removal of a hedgerow, natural drainage swales to be 'graded smooth as determined by architect', and grading in the flood plain for golf cart paths as. well as trees and greens. Establishment of a golf course has been viewed as a use by right, subordinate to private usage of the property. Section 10.2.24 provides for 'swim, golf, tennis and similar recreational facilities' as uses by special use permit. This provision has been interpreted as applicable to commercial and club type activities as opposed to private uses (i.e. - swimming pools and tennis courts have been authorized as accessory to residential usage)." At this point Mr. Lindstrom interrupted Mr. Tucker to express a concern about the interpretation of "accessory use" given by Mr. Michael Tompkins, Zoning Administrator, as set out in the following memorandum dated July 18, 1984 to Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning: August 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 301 "RE: SP-84-37, Warren E. Andrews (Joseph Seagrams & Sons, Inc.) In response to your memo dated July 16, 1984, please accept this memo as clarification of the zoning questions raised by the Planning Commission at its July 12, 1984 meeting pertaining to the above referenced case. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SubJ~ect property is owned by Seagrams & Sons, Inc. and consists of 200 plus acres with several acres in vineyards and a large residence. Farm support personnel are housed in several tenant homes as well as residences for the farm manager and assistant farm manager. Existing accessory uses to the large main residence include an 800 square foot swimming pool and tennis courts (7,200 square feet). DETERMINATION REGARDING GOLF~COURSE The zoning ordinance defines an accessory use as: 'A subordinate use, building or structure customarily incidental to and located upon the same lot occupied by the main use or building.' (i.e. private swimming pool, tennis courts, etc.) As stated in your staff report, Sections 10.2.24 and 5.1.16 provide for 'swim, golf, tennis and similar recreational facilities' as uses by special use permit. Those regulations, however, apply to commercial and club type facilities as opposed to private uses. Finally, I have on record, a letter from the agent for Seagrams & Sons, Inc. expressing the private use only of the golf course. Based on the aforementioned, it is my determination that the golf course is a use by right as an accessory use subordinate to the private usage of the property. Also, once the golf course is established, I see no apparent concern should the current or subsequent owner attempt to change its status. Both the current owner and the Real Estate Assessment department have been informed that such a change would require a special use permit and would be subject, therefore, to any conditions that the Plan~ing Commission might recommend to the Board of Supervisors as afforded by the Zoning Ordinance. DETERMINATION REGARDING WATER PUMP HOUSE It is my understanding that the water pump house will be physically located out of the 100 year flood plain ~ith pipe lines and possibly other apparatus lying in the flood plain and leading into Ivy Creek. Section 30.3.5.2.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires structures for water supply 30.3.5.2.1.4 requires a speci water or wastewater inCludinE pecial use permit to allow 'dams, levees and other nd flood control' within the floodway. Section al use permit to allow 'pump stations for power supply and control devices, holding ponds and other appurtenances' witkin the floodway. These two sections imply that the pump house does not require a special use permit but the appurtenances (water lines, etc.) do. It is my opinion that the two cannot be separated and, therefore, the pump house and appurtenances technically require a special use permit. Moreover, although the Flood Hazard Overlay district requirement' for a special use permit initiates the review of the water collection system, the intent of the Zoning Ordinance also affords review of the impact this project will have on the County watershed system. SUMMARY In summary, please advise the Planning Commission of the following determinations: The golf course is a permitted use by right as an accessory use, subordinate to the private usage of the property. The water pump house and .appurtenances require a special use permit." Mr. Lindstrom sai~ he has some concern about this statement regarding the definition for an accessory use, and frankly, cannot imagine a nine hole golf course as being customaril incidental to a residential use. When he asked Mr. Tompkins about his interpretation, the use was compared to a swimming 'pool or tennis court, but he feels the impact is much greater on the public than a swimming pool or a tennis court. For that reason, he is concerned that the Board may open ~e~r'~ a~t~of~t~ngs~ a~h~ipad or airport could be considered incidsntial to a residential use. He is not even certain this is a residence in the normal sense of the word. This property is owned by'a corporation, and he feels same will be used as an entertainment facility on a fairly substantial basis and not Just for a private family. Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom said he would like for the Board members to consider appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision on this petition. He did not know what legal ramifications would be considered for an accessory use. Further, he did not feel the nine hole golf course was a customary use, given the customs of the area and in terms of impact on surrounding properties and a golf course is much more significant than a tennis court. 30.2 August 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting~ Mr. Fisher asked if the appeal would be on the actual procedure regarding the petition coming to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom felt the golf course should be by special use permit. Further, his concern is that if the Zoning Administrator's opinion is accepted, where ~will the line be drawn as to what is customarily incidental to a residential use. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John his opinion. Mr. St. John said the procedure is not the subject of appeal, but rather the ruling of the Zoning Administrator, that decision can be appealed within thirty days after writing of the opinion; specifically by August 18, 1984. Mr. Fisher asked the procedure involved for an appeal. Mr. St. John explained that an appeal is made to the Board of Zoning Appeals on the interpretation, then to the circuit court if the action of the Board of Zoning Appeals is not satisfactory. Mr. St. John said as for the merits of the petition, the comments of Mr. Lindstrom are well taken. The question is whether this is a corporate headquarters which is more defined in the Zoning Ordinance. If that is the case and the purpose of the golf course, then the comments of Mr. Lindstrom are well taken. Presumably all of the officers of the corporation would have access to the golf course making it a quasi-public facility. Mr. Fisher said the facility could be for employees or as Mr. Lindstrom indicated even for stockholders. Mr. St. John said the stockholders are not known and there is such a thing as a family corporation whereby a home is placed in a corporate name. Under the law, theoretically, the house is to be used for corporate purposes and if a family uses the house as a private residence then it is not corporate property. Therefore, Mr. St. John said this is not a private residence and the golf course is not an accessory to a private residence. Mr. Fisher said he has a number of questions about how the golf course could be used if the present owners sold or changed its operation. The definition of a private use as stated in the applicant's letter is a "fuzzy issue". (Note: The staff commented in the staff report that "Once established, it may be difficult to disapprove commercial/club usage of the golf course either by the current or subsequent owner." Mr. Andrews in his letter dated July 20, 1984 responded to the comment by the following "The course is exclusivel private. . . The course will be an accessory to residential usage such as a tennis court or swimming pool. It is realized that if either the present owner or any subsequent owner wanted to change this status, they would have to apply for a special use permit as stated in the Zoning Ordinance.") Further, he is concerned about how many people will be using the facility particularly due to the road in the subject area. Mr. St. John felt more detailed facts are needed before appealing the Zoning Administrator's interpretation. Mr. St. John said if the Zoning Administrator based his opinion on the assumption that this is a bona fide family residence and the family wants the golf course for family use, then he could see the logic in the Zoning Administrator's ruling. However, the facts should be in the record and the applicant is present to answer these questions. The specific questions are who is going to use the golf course and residence and the particular purpose that the house is serving. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Warren Andrews, partner in SLDC Architects, was present to represent his clients. Mr. Andrews said he is to oversee the construction of the golf course and to attend meetings regarding the petition. Mr. Fisher said he questions if Mr. Andrews can really speak for the corporation regarding the intended use and the number of people to use the facility. Mr. Andrews said he is familiar with the property and will attempt to answer questions. Mr. Fisher asked how many officers and employees of Seagrams will use the facility in one year. Mr. Andrews said ninety percent of the users will come by plane. This is basically a private residence and intended to be for top executives with an average of ten persons per month. Mrs. Cooke asked who is now living in the house. Mr. Andrews said a couple who are employees of the corporation. Mrs. Cooke asked if the couple owns the house. Mr. Andrews said no. Mr. Andrews said the residence is used as a family residence and will be for visitors. Mr. St. John did not feel a resident has to own a home in order for the home to be considered a single-family residence. He then gave an example of a farm manager and his family residing in a farm house and running a farm. The people living there fit the definitio of single-family although not owning the home. Mr. St. John said the question is whether this house is being used as a legitimate single-family residence or whether the persons living there are merely managers of the recreational facility. From the comments of Mr. Andrews, he feels the couple are resident managers for Seagrams. Mr. Fisher felt the same. Mr. Bowie said if that is the case then the matter is perhaps being considered under the wrong interpretation and is not a single-family dwelling. Mr. St. John said the question is close. It could be subject to interpretation by the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Court. Mr. Lindstrom felt this interpretation of "accessory use" is beyond the intention of the ordinance and he is concerned about the avenues this might open for future applicants. He preferred the matter be challenged. Further, Mr. Lindstrom felt the golf course should be considered on its own merits and the implication of the golf course should be addressed. The petition before the Board is for a special use permit for a pump station because same is in the flood plain. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Zoning Administrator had let this one "slip through". Mr. St. John said the Zoning Administrator saw the users as guests of the resident manager. Mr. St. John said his personal analysis is that the residents will not have a~hi~ to say about who comes to the residence because they are only employed to manage and live in the house. He did not feel the visitors could be considered guests of someone working in a corporate structure with no choice of who comes and uses the golf course; specifically considering the statement made by Mr. Andrews that executives will be the users. At this point, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to defer SP-84-37 indefinitely and begin the procedure for appealing the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator as contained in his memo dated July 18, 1984 with the understanding that if the County Attorney can find some information to change the current opinion of the Board members, same will be returned for further consideration. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. August 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 303 Mr. Way agreed with the comments but felt the applicant presented the petition in good faith and has followed the County's procedures. Therefore, he did not like tying the matter up by possible court action. He also felt the golf course should be the subject before the Board. Mr. St. John said the applicant can file a special use permit for the golf course. Mr. Henley was not sure he had any problems with the golf course but did understand the points made by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Andrews asked if he could comment. Mr. Fisher said he did not object but would have to allow others present to comment if Mr. Andrews is so allowed. Mr. Henley said perhaps some useful information could be added. Mr. Andrews briefly described the golf course and noted that same is a short course known as a Scottish course unlike the Farmington course. Mr. Fisher said the golf course is not really the question but rather the ruling of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Andrews said the applicant has followed all procedures as he has been directed since the initial application was made. Months of delay now seem to be involved. Mr. Fisher said the Board is questioning the Zoning Administrator's ruling on the matter. Mr. Henley said he would advise the applicant to apply for a special use permit for the golf course. Mr. Andrews said that would mean an additional two months wait and he questioned why this was not told to him several months ago. Mr. Lindstrom said that is his question. Next to speak was Mrs. Treva Cromwell. She said Mr. Lindstrom's point was one of her major concerns and she feels that according to the Zoning Ordinance, a golf course is a public facility and not a domestic use. She agreed that the golf course should have been requested in special use permit form. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie did not have any problem with the golf course being by right for a private property owner but was concerned about the procedures. At this time, he is not certain if he objects to a corporate headquarters having a golf course a~nd agreed with Mr. Way about tying the issue up in the manner described for the appeals process. As he understands, the process can take a month or longer. Mr. Lindstrom said his basic concern is that the golf course is not before the Board and can therefore not be considered on its own merits. A discussion followed on speeding the normal review process should' the applicant apply for a special use permit for the golf course. Mr. Tucker said the Board can direct the staff to move the filing deadline forward with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor~ meetings on same being held back to back. Mr. Henley agreed with the suggestion because he felt the applicant should have the option to apply for a special use permit since the County caused the mix-up. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the special use permit for the golf course and this special use permit be considered at the same time. Mr. Tucker noted that special use permits for accessory uses require a site plan and in order to expedite the issue, the site plan can be submitted along with the special use permit for the golf course should the applicant apply for same. Mr. Fisher said the only action the Board can take is to direct the staff to move as expeditiously as possible should the application be filed and could be a subsequent motion. Mr. Lindstrom did not object to including that in his motion. Mr. Bowie said he could support the motion if the suggestion to expedite the process is included. Roll was called on the motion to defer SP-84-37 indefinitely and the Board's intent to appeal the Zoning Administrator's ruling relative to "golf course being a use by right as an accessory use subordinate to the private usage of the property" to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-84-38. E. I. Design, Associates. Request to subdivide 110.4 acres into nine lots (average size 4.1 acres) leaving 73.5 acres residue. Property is zoned Rural Areas, RA and is located on the east side of Route 649 southeast of Route 643. County Tax Map 46, Parcel 8. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24, 1984). Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Acreage:_ 110.4 acres ~oc'ation: East side of Route 649 (Proffit Road), about 1/2 mile southeast of the intersection of Route 649 and Route 643. Tax Map 46, Parcel 8 (part). Applicant's Proposal: To create nine lots on proposed private road with an average " size of 4.1 acres ranging in size from 2.5 to 8.3 acres, leaving 69.5 acres in residue, retained as farm; 76.6 acres originally in forest and 36.5 acres originally in agriculture; 33.7 acres to be retained in agriculture; three miles of bridle paths (Easements on farm tract). Gross density one dwelling unit per eleven acres. Individual wells and septic systems proposed. Character of the Area: This property is a farm land tract of both agricultural and forestal uses as are the adjoining properties. Route 643 to the west is developed residentially with lots of less than five acre size. There are about fifteen homes along Route 643 between Route 649 and Bentivar Subdivision. Route 649 (Proffit Road) between Route 643 and Route 20 North is extremely rural. Staff counted about six mail boxes at parcels other than farms along this two miles of road. 304 August 1, ~i1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Comprehensive Plan: The Plan shows this area for Rural Area ti. 'Land Use control efforts should be directed at'encouraging agricultural and forestal activities in the rural areas of the.County and maintaining the availability of large tracts of productive lands for current and future usage. Residential, commercial and other development activities should be directed to designated growth areas rather than being permitted to encroach on agricultural and forestal areas With~detrimental effects.' Sp_ecia! Use Permit Criteria: t. Size, shape and topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production .... No comments. 2. Actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production. . . . i The parcel as a whole (110.4 acres) consists o£ two ridges .divided by a stream and bordered on the east by the North Fork Rivanna River. The stream supports two ponds on the site. Steep slopes are located along the river and in the area of the ponds. The proposed road will depart from the existing farm road, cross the stream and continue along the far ridge. The area proposed for lots is about 36.9 acres of mostly woods. The soils along the ridges consist of Elioak loam with 2-15% slopes. It has an agricultural caPability of Class IIe or IIIe, depending upon the slope. Class IIe is considered prime soil, with a risk of erosion being the main limitation. Elioak loam is rated high for woodland suitability. Septic limitations are slight or moderate, depending upon the slope. The soils in the steeper areas are rated less favorably for agriculture and woodland suitability due to slope. The flood plain is rated Class IIw or IIIw for agriculture with wetness a limitation. The flood plain is rated very high for woodland suitability. 3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal areas of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available. This property has enjoyed preferential land use taxation based on agricultural and forestal uses since 1975. Therefore, the property owner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County Real Estate Department that legitimate, continuous agricultural/forestal use has been maintained. The County land use records show that about 19% of the subject property currently taxed as Class II or III agricultural land; 14% is taxed as lesser quality agricultural land, 26% is taxed as excellent woodlands; 40% is taxed as good or fair woodlands. 4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area .... This property is within an agricultural and forestal area, as over 50% of the land within one mile of the border of the property has been under land use taxation (agricultural and forestal use). Most of the parcels have been under this status since 1974 and 1976. The visual impact of the proposed lots is minimized by their location in a wooded area. The real impact of these new lots in area of large farms will be felt in the increased pressure for residential development and gradual loss of agricultural and forestry uses. 5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas .... This property is not located in a developed rural area as less than 50% of the land within one mile of the boundary of this parcel is in parcels smaller than five acres in size. The small lots are concentrated in the area of Proffit and along Route 643. 6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, services and employment centers'. . . . (A) Within one mile of the urban area boundary as described in the Comprehensive Plan. This proposed development is not within one mile of an urban area. The Pantops area is located about six miles from the property. (B) Within 1/2 mile of a community boundary as in Comprehensive Plan. This proposed development is not within 1/2 mile of a community boundary. Hollymead community is located about 1 1/2 miles away. It has no physical relationship to this property. AuguSt 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 3O5 (C) The proposed development is not within 1/2 mile of major crossroads of Type I or Type II villages. Proffit is not recognized as a village in the Comprehensive Plan. The nearest village is Stony Point (4 1/2 miles). The nearest commercial area is located at Pantops or on Route 20, north of Stony Point. 7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services. Schools: Stony Point/Burley/Albemarle. Slight impact on the schools serving the area. Note that the secondary school requires the use of mobile classrooms and that its enrollment exceeds it capacity. Fire Protection: Response time for the Stony Point ¥olunteer Fire Company would be about eight to ten minutes. One hundred feet of building separation is required. 8. Would the traffic generated from the proposed development in the opinion of Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: (A) Occasion the need for road improvements; (B) Cause a tolerable road to become nontolerable; (C) Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road. Route 649 (Proffit Road) from Route 20 to Route 643 carries 345 vehicle trips per day and is considered tolerable. This proposed development will generate an additional 63 vehicle trips per day. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation comments are as follows: The Department recommends an overall plan for the development at this location to insure that proper access is provided for the entire site. This section of Route 649 does not have a good alignment and a good entrance location will probably involve some work to obtain sight distance. The existing farm entrance has less than adequate sight distance for a vehicle turning left into the entrance and would require work on the other side of the road on private property. The Department recommends that all roads be constructed so that they can come into the State Secondary System. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant proposes nine lots ranging from 2.5 to 8.3 acres on a private road. Current subdivision regulations require a public road for lots under five acres. The proposal would remove one-third of the existing farm from land use taxation. In order to qualify for land use for forestry use, a minimum of twenty-one acres (which includes a one acre house site) is required. In order for the Commission and Board to approve this petition, it must be shown that the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood, with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and with the special use permit criteria discussed above. Points in favor of the proposal are: - The lot layout minimizes visual impact; - Route 649 is considered a tolerable road. Negative points of the proposal are: - The removal of one-third of a working farm from land use taxation in an area where farm land preservation is an important goal; - The creation of small lots which are no longer eligible for land use; - The impact of increased pressure for residential development in an agricultural/forestal area; - The remoteness of the property from proposed growth areas and services. Staff recommends denial of the petition." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 12, 1984, by a vote of recommended approval of SP-84-38 with the following conditions: "l. Approval is restricted to seven lots of not less than five acres per lot (In addition to the farm parcel). 2. No further subdivision rights on the ll0.4 acres of land." August 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the original proposal was for five parcels of less than twenty-one acres and then four, twenty-one acre parcels, a total of nine parcels for the 110 acres and all being by right. However, the applicant has submitted a new plan based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. The new proposal is for eight lots along the private road all being in excess of five acres with the ninth parcel being the existing farm. Mr. Tucker said the special use permit is still necessary in order to get the eight parcels of less than twenty-one acres. Mr. Tucker said the revised proposal is no~ to increase the number of rights but simply to maintain the farm tract as a viable use. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker his opinion of the revised proposal. Mr. Tucker felt the proposal was a better approach. He realizes the twenty-one acre provision was decided in 1980 during revision of the Zoning Ordinance as a way to provide a viable size tract for farm usage. Further, Mr. Tucker did not feel the owner would have viable farming units if the property were developed as can be done by right with four parcels of twenty-one acres each. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any way to distinguish this proposal from another proposal where a large parcel of land could be divided into many more twenty-one acre parcels than this property can. Mr. Tucker felt the same logic could be used if there were wooded areas. Mr. Bowie said he unders~ this property is on a wooded ridge line and suitable for nothing else but could be clear cut and used for agricultural purposes. Mrs. Cooke recalled one point discussed at the Planning Commission meeting concerning septic fields and asked if the revised proposal corrected that problem. Mr. Tucker felt with the size of the proposed lots, the steeper areas will not be a problem~ As he understand there is adequate area for a building site and two drainfie!d locations on each lot. The public hearing was opened. Mr. James Johnston, applicant, was present and noted that he was not aware that the planning staff had recommended denial of the petition until the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Johnston said he has lived on this property since 1950 and would like to continue living on same. When he realized that more return from the property would have to be received than he was earning as a farmer, he carefully considered what could be done to save the farm and still receive a return on his investment in the property. Mr. Johnston said the by-right division of the property into nine parcels did not seem to be the best use of the land so he decided to obtain the best legal and design advice he could get. In conclusion, Mr. Johnston asked the Board's approval of the request. Mr. Roy Parks from E. I. Design Associates was present and spoke nexT. His firm was hired to help the applicant realize a return on his money and also protect the existing character and resource of the property. The applicant desires to build a home on the property with minimum impact. The entire site was studied and the location of the homes was pinpointed. Mr. Parks then distributed photos which he felt important for realizing the resource which is the farm. He explained the areas proposed for development and those to remain in existing condition. Mr. Parks said various alternatives were examined and the design presented protects the resource. He felt this is a good example of a special use permit for public interest. With no one else present from the public to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said he has been over the farm and felt the proposal is a logical use of the land. There can be nine parcels by right but to comply with the ordinance regulations the farm would be destroyed. The proposal places the homes where the land is wooded and the pasture land will remain as existing. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve SP-84-.38 with the two conditions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher asked if the approval should be tied to the drawing as presented this evening. Mr. Tucker said yes and the number, of lots in condition 1 of the Planning Commission should be changed. Mr. Bowie amended his motion to change condition I to read eight lots of not-less than five acres. Mr. Henley said a lot of arguments occurred when farms were discussed during the revision on the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, he did not want people to think he was going to support every piece of land which comes in for a subdivision. Mr. Bowie said the reason he supports the petition is because this is the number of lots allowed by right and the farm is not destroyed nor is strip development taking place. Mr. Henley said that may be true, but he is still concerned about turning this property into a subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom said the idea of the twenty-one acre parcel was to be agricultural and this seems to be a turn around on that. He was concerned about a precedent.being established and the potential for this same argument to be made about other properties. Mr. Fisher restated the motion and suggested a third condition regarding the map referred to this evening. Mr. Bowie had no problem with the suggestion and amended his motion to approve SP-84-38 with the following three conditions: 1. Approval is restricted to eight lots of not less than five acres per lot (In addition to the farm parcel). 2. No further subdivision rights on the 110.4 acres of land. 3. Approval is tied to map presented by the applicant marked, "received on July 26, 1984, by the Planning Commission". Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The Board recessed at 8:45 P.M. and reconvened at 8:55 P.M. August 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 307 Agenda Item No. 7. SP-84-39. Harry B. and Helen K. Thornley. Request to subdivide 46 acres into 12 lots (average size 3.8 acres). Property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is on the east side of Route 729 about 0.7 mile north of Route 53. County Tax Map 93, Parcel 58 (part). Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24, 1984). Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Acreage: 46 acres, part of 286 acres. Locati'on[ East side of Rt. 729, just south of the airport at Milton. Tax Map 93, Parcel 58 (part)· Scottsville District· ~pplicant's prOposal: To create 12 lots on a proposed state road. Lot sizes range from 2.7 to 5.3 acres with an average size of 3.8 acres and 240.85 acres remain in residue· Individual wells and septic systems proposed. Zoned Rural Areas· History: January 24, 1984 this 46 acres was subdivided from the remainder of Parcel 58. It retained three development rights, permitting four parcels maximum by right. Character of the Area: This property is a farmland tract used for agricultural and forestal uses and pasture. The area proposed for lots has been recently clear cut. It is bordered on the south and east by large agricultural and forestal areas· To the north it is bordered by the University of Virginia Airport and to the west. it is bordered by primarily residential on large lots and acreages. Two major subdivisions are Ashmere Subdivision (22 lots, average size 6.8 acres) and Milton Hills Subdivision (47 lots, average size about 3.5 acres). Few residences in these subdivision are visible from Rt. 729. Comprehensive Plan: The ,Plan shows this area is 'Rural Area IV. ,Land~,use control · 'efforts should be directed at encouraging agricultural and forestal activities in the rural areas of the County and maintaining the availability of large tracts of productive lands for current and future usage. Residential, commercial and other development activities should be directed to designated growth areas rather than being permitted to encroach on agricultural and fcrestal areas with (Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance) detrimental effects.' Special Use Permit Criteria: The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property. · No comments. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production. This 46 acres is separated from the remainder of the farm by streams on two sides. This site is gently sloping with steeper slopes along the streams. The building sites are located on soils of the Manteo, Nason and Hiwassee series. Manteo Channery silt loam (lots l, 2, 3, ll and 12 and along streams) has severe limitations for agricultural production with use limited to pasture or woodlands. Woodland suitability is moderate. Severe limitations for septic systems due to shallow depth to rock. Nason silt loam and Hiwassee loam (lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) are Class IIe or prime agricultural soils with the main limitation being risk of erosion. They are rated moderately high for woodland suitability. The site has obviously been used for timber production in the past. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950. This property has enjoyed preferential land use taxation based on agricultural and forestal uses since 1976. Therefore, the property owner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County Real Estate Department that legitimate, continuous agricultural/forestal use has been maintained. The land use records in the Real Estate Department show most of this site rated excellent for forestry uses and Class II or III for agricultural capability. The steep slopes along the streams and parts of Lots ll and 12 are rated fair for forestry and Class VI or VII for agriculture. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development .... About 50-60% of the land within one mile of this development is under land use taxation. Most of the parcels have been classified under land use since 1975-77. The airport is not under land use taxation, but it contributes visually to the open space in the area. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas .... This property is not located in a developed rural area as less than 50% of the land within one mile of the boundary of this parcel is in lots of five acres or less. The area east of Route 729 has very little development. While the proposed lot sizes are similar to Section 3 of Milton H~lls, this development would be much more visible from Route 729. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, services and employment centers. A. The proposed development is not within one mile of an urban area· ,308 August 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) The proposed development is not within 1/2 mile of a community development. C. The proposed development is not within 1/2 mile of a village. This property is located roughly 6.3 miles southeast of the Pantops/ 250 East area and 2.3 miles from Stone Robinson Elementary School. Convenience commercial is located at Shadwell and on Route 53. The probable effect of-the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services. Schools: Stone Robinson/Walton/Albemarle. This projected enrollment will h~ave a slight impact on the schools serving the area. The secondary school requires the use of mobile classrooms and its enrollment exceeds its capacity. Fire Protection: The response time for the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company would be about fifteen minutes. One hundred foot building separation required. Would the traffic generated from the proposed development .... A. Occasion the need for road improvements; B. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road; C. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road. Route 729 between Route 53 and Route 1120 (Milton Hills Drive) carries 669 vehicle trips per day. Route 729 south of this development is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as a 'current road deficiency.' Sections of Route 729 between Milton Hills and Milton are listed as nontolerable. This development will add to the northbound traffic with about 84 vehicle trips per day. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comments are as follows: 'The Department recommends an overall plan for this development so that proper access can be provided. The alignment along this section of Route 729 is not very good, and an entrance to serve this development will probably require some work to obtain the necessary sight distance.' This site drains into a tributary of the Rivanna River and is not in a watershed area. Staff Comment: In order to permit the proposed twelve parcels, the Commission and Board must find that the development will be compatible with the neighborhood, with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and with the special use permit criteria discussed above. Points in favor of the proposal are its location, adjacent residential subdivisions, and the topography and shape of the land which lend it to residential use. Negative points are: - The removal of land from active forestry use in an area where there is heavy participation in the land use program; - A change in the character of the area which has a predominantly rural quality; - High visibility from Route 729; - This area is not proposed as a growth area and is remote from services; - Route 729 has poor alignment for the existing traffic count. Staff cannot recommend approval of this petition· Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff would recommend that the parcels which front on Route 729 should be large enough to reduce the visual impact of the development and to accommodate septic systems in the poorer soils." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 12, 1984, recommended approval of SP-84-39 by a vote of 4/0/1 with the following condition: "No lot to be smaller than five acres." Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan does not show this area as being prime agricultural but does consider the area fairly good land. Therefore, the five-acre density was recommended. Mr. Tucker said a call was received from the Health Department after the Planning Commission meeting alerting the County that many problems exist regarding septic fields in the Milton Hills and Ashmere Subdivisions. 0nly one lot of the six approved lots in Ashmere Subdivision has a suitable site with the perk rate being slow for same. The entrance is the biggest problem for the Milton Hills Subdivision. However, large lots are at the entrance. Two to three lots in Milton Hills were rejected and required twice the square footage normally required for drainfields. Mr. Tucker further noted that a soil analysis has not been done and even with the condition of the Planning Commission, approval for five-acre lots will have to wait subdivision plat approval and soil analysis reports. August 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 309 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Harry Thornley, applicant, was present. He said this request is similar to the previous petition, but the main farm had to be sold due to the owners health. He explained that originally there was 286 acres; 240 were sold as a farm, and the remaining 46 acres were kept for development purposes. He noted that the area is very enclosed as noted in the staff report. Mr. Thornley said although a statement has been made that the land lends itself to agricultural purposes, that is not true. Eighteen acres of the forty-six were clear cut of very old pine trees three years ago. Mr. Thorntey said that was not done to make money but to prevent a problem. Approximately fourteen acres is in flat pasture and during his twenty years of liVing here, the only use of the pasture land has been to grow hay, alfalfa and clover. The remainder is unusable due to the banks of the stream. Mr. Thornley said-the original request was for twelve, three-acre lots. However, the Planning Commission approved nine, five-acre lots. Mr. Thornley felt the land is of no value with three, two-acre lots and forty acres of unusable land. He felt a reasonable request has been made and although negative points were made by the planning staff, he did feel the Commission by its vote paid little attention to the statements. In conclusion, Mr. Thornley did not feel farming anything less than 1000 acres is economical. Speaking next was Mr. Bill Clover who pointed out that development cannot at any point go across the river into this area. Therefore, development is confined to the small area being discussed. He felt there is a demand for property in this area. Sales in the two adjoining subdivisions attest to that. Further, Mr. Clover felt the use requested is a logical use for the property and particularly with the number of parcels being reduced from twelve to nine. In conclusion, he hoped the Board would look favorably on the request. Next to speak was Mr. Tom Gale from the firm of Roudabush Associates. He said a concern has been expressed about the entrance location in terms of inadequate sight distance. Mr. Gale said this is the only place an entrance can be located and still have the 550 feet of sight distance required. The shoulders on the road are banks which range from three to six feet above the edge. At the most the property would be visible-for only about 100 feet along the 1250 foot road frontage. Therefore, the property is not visible from Route 729. Mr. Gale said as indicated, about one-half of the property has been clear cut, and he felt a subdivision would be an improvement. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said from reviewing the staff report and all the negative factors (severe limitations for septic systems and nontolerable road conditions), he could find no reason to support the petition other than the personal request. Therefore, he supported denial of the petition as recommended by the staff and not the Planning Commission's action for approval. Mr. Way supported the proposal since the property is across the road from two major subdivisions and no objections have been received. He felt the request is a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Bowie said he has visited the site and saw no other practical use of the property. The property is not visible from the road due to the growth on the.airport property and due to the steep bank in front of subject property. Therefore, he supported the petition. Mrs. Cooke said she is familiar with the area and agreed with the comments of Mr. Way and Mr. Bowie. This property is surrounded by other development and she did not see this request as being detrimental to the area. The only concern she has is the statement regardin~ the septic fields, but she did not feel that is the Board's responsibility. Mr. Fisher emphasized that the applicant has a right to build four houses and with the severe septic system limitations he felt that is enough for the property. Mr. Bowie said whether or not the Health Department only supports four lots is not before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is that three of the present Board members struggled for months and months to design and develop the Zoning Ordinance. Further, Mr. Lindstrom said until the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance were aligned, the County had suburban sprawl; this was addressed during the revision of the Zoning Ordinance. He also noted that suburban development in a rural area does create expectations of services. There is no way the County can provide public water and sewer to this area. Mr. Lindstrom said to depend on the Health Department to s~ the number of lots destroys the main thrust of the Zoning Ordinance which is to encourage development in areas where services can be provided and discourage development where services cannot be provided. The Board spent considerable time developing the list of criteria for development in the rural areas, and same was designed not only to look at the ability of land for agricultural or forestal purposes but also to the suitability of land for development. Mr. Lindstrom said the Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Fred Payne, has stated that "every piece of land in the County does not have to grow houses" and he felt same was true about this request. Mr. Lindstrom stated concern that some of the Board members do not seem to either respect or understand all the work that went into the revision of the Zoning Ordinance nor to see the perception built into the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not support the petition and felt there is some reasonable agricultural use of the property. The applicant divided the land and reserved unto himself four houses by right and was aware of that when the property was sold and the division made. He was ~ certain he saw a Strong morale equitable argument and felt approval would be away from the zoning and planning the three Board members worked on for one and one-half years. 310 August 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Henley said if all the Board had wrestled with sites such as this as much as the three members had, the feelings of himself, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom would be better understood. Although, he has voted for several such requests in the past with smaller acreages, he is not going to state that he will not vote for another request having positive aspects, but he cannot support this particular petition. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve SP-84-39 with the condition of the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following tie vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way. Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. With no motion to reconsider the petition, the petition was denied by the recorded vote above. The following two petitions are related and the staff reports wilt be presented together Agenda Item No. 8. CPA-84-6. Resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to recommend low density residential as opposed to industrial usage in an area commonly known as the Woolen Mills. The area under consideration is bounded by the C & 0 Railroad on the south, the Rivanna River on the north and east, and the City of Charlottesville .on the west. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24, 1984.) Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-84-17. Margaret and Michael Van Yahres, et al. To rezone the following properties located on Market Street in the Woolen Mills area from LI to R-2: Tax Map 77A, Parcel 77 (0.961 acres); Tax Map 78, Parcel 2lB (part - 0.68 acres); Tax Map 7.8, Parcel 2lA (0..3 acres); 'Tax Map 77A, Parcel 78 (lot). Also to rezone Tax Map 78, Parcel 21C (lot) from LI to R-4. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24, 1984.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report for CPA-84-6: "At its meeting on June 19, 1984, the Albemarle County Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 to recommend low density residential as opposed to industrial usage in an area commonly known as the Woolen Mills. Staff Comment: This area is located in Neighborhood Four and is recommended for industrial usage by the Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002. After review of the Woolen Mills area, staff found that it would be difficult to develop industrially. Residential usage along the Woolen Mills Road would probably be more in keeping with the existing neighborhood for the following reasons: - Residential usage would be preferred over any further industrial development according to the Fire Official, Ira Cortez. Presently the Woolen Mills area has poor fire flow and poor truck access which factors would restrict industrial development. ~Fire flow and access would pose no problem for additional residential development. The area would be served by the Keswick Fire Department and secondly, by a City fire unit. - Vehicle trips per day on City and County streets would certainly be less intensive due to limited residential development as compared to both the automobile and truck traffic occasioned by industrial development. - Student~ in this area would attend either Stony Point Elementary, Burley Middle or Albemarle High Schools. Both the elementary and middle schools are presently under capacity and the small increases in high school students which might occur with additional residential development is not a significant impact. In addition, according to Mr. Robert Thraves in the Education Department, a bus driver already lives in this area and could readily provide transportation. - The Woolen Mills area although historically an industrial area has over the years become a revitalized residential neighborhood with a number of rehabilitated homes. The area is geographically divided from Albemarle County by the Rivanna River and has been associated, due to its proximity, with the City of Charlottesville and adjoining residential neighborhoods. Amending the Comprehensive Plan would recognize the existing and predominant land use in this area." Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report for ZMA-84-17: "Requested Zoning: Tax Map 77A, Parcel 77 (0.961 acres) from LI to R-2 Tax Map 78, Parcel 2lB (part 0.68 acres of 11.07 acres) from LI to R-2 (Mr. Tucker said this parcel is adjacent to the railroad and he discovered today that the contract purchaser intends to convert the existing structure into a duplex. This cannot be done with R-2 zoning due to the amount of acreage required under R-2; R-4 zoning is necessary.) Tax Map 78, Parcel 2lA (0.3 acres) from LI to R-2 Tax Map 77A, Parcel 78 (approximately 0.8 acres) from LI to R-2 Tax Map 78, Parcel 21C (approxmately 0.3 acres) from LI to R-4 (Mr. Tucker said this parcel contains a duplex.) August 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 311 Staff Comment: Most of the properties are currently in residential usage. ~ax Map 78, Parcel 2lB is developed with an industrial building proposed for conversion to residential usage. Staff recommends approval assuming the Comprehensive Plan is amended accordingly." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at ±ts meeting on July 12, 1984 unanimously recommended approval of both CPA-84-6 and ZMA-84-17. Mr. Tucker also noted that the railroad is being used as the major buffer area as well as a boundary line between the industrial and residential uses. Mr. Fisher asked the reason for Tax Map 78, Parcel 21C (0.3 acres) being requested for R~4aa~d~nOt?~R~2. Mr.. Tucker said a building exists on Parcel 21C having four nonconforming units. Mr. Fisher said he understands R-4 zoning is for four units per acre. Mr. Tucker said that is correct but in this case same is ~permissible because the parcel is almost totally developed. The idea is to use a cluster concept to utilize the existing structure since same is already developed residentially. Mr. Fisher said he was confused with the concept. Mr. Way asked if the request includes all the housing in the subject area. Mr. Tucker said no, three property owners are not included and some industrially zoned properties with existing dwellings will remain between the lots zoned residential. The Commission did not adopt a resolution to amend all of the properties. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Fran Lawrence, one of the applicants, was present. The only property, he understands, that is not part of the rezoning is the last unit which was originally a duplex and now contains individually owned units. One of the owners, Mr. Roger Spencer, is present. The problem has been mentioned by Mr. Tucker regarding the R-2 zoning requested for Parcel 2lB. Therefore, a deferral may be best in order that the proper zoning, R-4, can be requested so the duplex can be permitted. Mr. Lawrence said the area has always been residential and he felt the Comprehensive Plan should recognize same. There is one single-family cottage, one, three-unit apartment building, and two duplexes in being discussed, b' the su ~ect area. Mr. Fisher said without a map showing all the properties he is having difficulty with the details of each parcel involved. Mr. Lawrence distributed photographs of the duplexes and explained what is included in the application. Without a detailed map, Mr. Fisher suggested deferral for a week until some questions can be resolved and a map is available. Mr. Lawrence did not object. Mr. Fisher said the basic concept seems to be that the land is used residentially, has always been, and the request is for a rezoning to the existing use of the properties. Mr. Lawrence said one property that will be impacted negatively by the re-zoning is the boiler plant, but unlike the other properties in the area, same has never been used as a residence. Speaking next was Mr. Roger Spencer, property owner of the duplex. He noted living in the Woolen Mills area all his life. Mr. Spencer said his concern is that there are three levels from basement up and if there should be a need for an emergency vehicle, the vehicle would have to come to the back. The parking situation is a concern and there is no access in and out of the area. Therefore, he is opposed to the petition, particularly because the roadway cannot accommodate any more traffic. Mr. Fisher suggested the public hearing be continued and a detailed map showing the properties requesting the rezoning and those not involved be presented at the August 8, 1984 meeting. He would also request an analysis of how many additional units would be created by the requested rezoning over the existing number as well as the total number of units that would be created as a result of the rezoning· in order that the impact to the streets and the parking issue can be addressed as stated by Mr. Spencer. Motion to defer C?A-84-6 and ZMA-84-17 to August 8, 1984, was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Agreement: Scottsville ~olunteer Fire Company. Mr. Agnor said the following agreement is between the County of Albemarle and the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Company. The agreement is to advance $50,000 during Fiscal Year 1984-85 for the purchase of a tanker. This request has been approved by the Jefferson Country Ffrefighters' Association. Mr. Agnor said the funding will be repaid at $10,000 per year beginning in Fiscal Year 1985-86 for a period of five years. Mr. Agnor reco~nended approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute same. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to authorize the Chairman to execute the following agreement between the County and the Scottsville ~olunteer Fire Company as recommended by Mr. Agnor. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None · THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 1st day of August, 1984, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County") and the SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY ("Scottsville"); WITNESSETH : That for and in consideration of the operation by Scottsville of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the period of this agreement, and the purchase by Scottsville of a new fire service tanker, the County shall pay to Scottsville the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) during fiscal year 1984-85 from the County's capital fund. Thenceforth, the sum 312 August 1,11984 (Regular Night Meeting) of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) per year shall~be withheld each year by the County from the County's annual grant to Scottsville for a period of five (5) years, beginning fiscal year 1985-86, so that at the end of the fifth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of $50,000.00 shall have been withheld. This withholding is in addition to any other withholding as a result of prior service agreements with SCottsville. In the event Scottsville shall in the future for any reason cease to provide the services described above, the tanker and all other fire fighting and fire prevention equipment owned by Scottsville shall become the property of the County. Agenda Item No. 10a. Revision: CDBG Regional Application. Mr. Tucker said the Board at its meeting on July 11, 1984 adopted a resolution for the regional application for Community Development Block Grant funds. A revised resolution is being presented~because Nelson and Fluvanna Counties have changed the amount of funds being requested. The specific change is Fluvanna from $400,000 to $340,000 and Nelson from $200,000 to $40,000. Although, this does not affect the County's request in the application, he did feel reapproval was necessary. Mr. Tucker said this reenforces his original feelings that if the regional application is not approved this year, he would suggest that only a local ~application be made in the future. Mr. Tucker~concluded by stating that the resolution is only to reflect the change as set out above. Motion to approve the following resolution of agreement relative to the Regional Application for Community Development Block Grant funds was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. L1ndstrom, and carri'ed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. BOwie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: Non-e. RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT TO APPLY FOR VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO BE USED JOINTLY BY THE COUNTIES OF ALBEMARLE, FLUVANNA, AND NELSON FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES IN THE RESPECTIVE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS WHEREAS, it is the purpose of local government to create a climate which encourages a wide range of adequate housing for its citizens; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has participated in programs and activities which have broadened the choice of housing for its citizens, particularly those who have less choice in the market place; and WHEREAS, this jurisdiction has accepted a mutual obligation to shar.e the development of assisted housing opportunities through participation in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Areawide Housing Opportunity Plan (AHOP); and WHEREAS, one of the goals of the AHOP is rehabilitation of existing housing stock which does not meet minimum standards of quality, health, safety; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby authorize the submission of a jointly sponsored regional application titled Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Program to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for $580,000 (which is distributed among the political jurisdictions as $200,000 for Albemarle, $340,000 for Ftuvanna and $40,000 for Nelson) in Virginia Community Development Block Grant funds for housing rehabilitation for low and moderate income families in the respective political subdivisions; the sources of the funds for the proposed project are $580,000 from Virginia Community Development Block Grant, $45,613 local, $99,200 federal and $150,600 from a private commercial bank; public hearings, duly advertised have been held to gain public input for the development of this proposal; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby authorize the County Executive of Albemarle County to sign on behalf of the County of Albemarle, any necessary certifications and assurances relating to the application as may be required by the Commonwealth of ¥irginia, subject to the approval of the County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: March 14 and March 21 (afternoon), 1984. Mr. Henley had read the minutes of March 21 (afternoon), 1984 and noted no corrections. Motion to approve the minutes of March 21 (afternoon), 1984 was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote' AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The minutes of March 14, 1984 were assigned to Mr. Lindstrom who had been absent at said meeting. Therefore, the minutes were reassigned to Mr. Way. 313 August 18; 1984 ~(Regular Day Meeting) August 198/4 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of memorandum dated July 31, 1984 from Mr. George Long, Executive Director of the Virginia Association of Counties, concerning anti-trust legislation providing immunity for local governments (Copy Of this letter is on file in the Clerk's Office). The U. S. Senate has adopted an amendment to House Resolution 5712 concerning anti$?~aSt legislation. The amendment has been sponsored by Senator Strom Thurmond and would exempt local governments from damages in anti-trust actions and litigation. Mr. Long urges that all counties, cities and towns contact their representatives to recommend that the Thurmond Amendment be accepted and passed by the U. S. House of Representatives. Also, U. S. Representative Frederick Boucher of the Ninth District is a member of the subcommittee considering the amendment and Mr. Long suggests copy of the letter be sent to Mr. Boucher as well. Mr. Fisher said the NACo staff representatives have indicated that the amendment obtains approximately eighty percent of the immunity that local governments need. Senator Thurmond has indicated willingness to work on the remaining twenty percent during the 1985 Session of the U. S. Congress. Mr. Fisher said in line with the suggestion of Mr. Long he would also suggest that a letter urging support for the legislation be sent to J. Kenneth Robinson and a copy of same to Mr. Boucher. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, -seconded by mr. ~a~y, ~o this effect. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded Vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Eisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowie requested a similar letter be drafted for his signature to J. Kenneth Robinson Mr. Lindstrom requested letter for his signature be drafted to Mr. Boucher. Mr. Fisher noted a joint Subcommittee to review proposals for changing highway allocation will hold its first meeting on August 22, 1984 at 10:00 A.M. in Richmond. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a public hearing has been scheduled on the revised Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Tucker said the public hearing has been scheduled for August 23, 1984. Mr. Lindstrom said the reason for asking is because he has one item for consideration in the program. The AWT plant was approved as an Advanced~Wastewater Treatment Plant but was never funded. Therefore, only a secondary treatment plant exists with phosphate reduction capacity. Mr. Lindstrom said he recently attended a conference in which the Chesapeake Bay was discussed. There are a lot of communities in the watershed of the Bay and Albemarle County is one of those communities. Part of the discussion at the conference was to look at the land use impact from watersheds to the Bay. Mr. Lindstrom said the same thing is being put into the watershed of the Bay that is being eliminated from our own drinking water supplies. Even though the consequences for the Bay are different in that the water is not for drinking, it is a substantial resource for fisheries. Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom said he would like for the Board to consider the possibility of funding the additional facilities of the treatment plant to take care of the County's contributions to the Bay project. Mr. Agnor suggested that this be included for discussion during the ~oint meeting between the Board and City Council on August 23, 1984. No objection was received. Agenda Item No. 13. adjourned at 10:10 P.M. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting ~,~AIRMAN August'S, i98~ (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 8, 1984, at 9:00 A.M. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. ?atricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (Arrived at 9:07 A~M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; Deputy County Executives, Ray B. Jones and Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2, Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence.