Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-21May 21~ 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 21, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George R St. John; and County Planner, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who requested a moment of silence. Mr. Roudabush nominated Mr. David Sutton to represent the Rivanna District on the School Board to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Mr. Thomas Blue; said term to expire on December 31, 1983. He then offered motion to that effect. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher then noted a letter from VEPCO dated May 9, 1980 concerning application #116 to the State Corporation Commission regarding the Farmville-Charlottesville 230 KV Conversion. This notice is an amendment to an exhibit sheet concerning the location of the structures which was sent to the Board in February. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-80-28. Ronnie Wells. Locate a mobile home on 2.05 acres zoned A-1. Located on west side of Route 621 approximately one mile south of the intersection of Routes 621 and 20. County Tax Map 63, Parcel 45A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 7 and May 14, 1980.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, then presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: A mobile home and conventional dwelling are currently located on the parent parcel. (This application is accompanied by a subdivision plat.) The site where this mobile home is proposed to be located is a rolling, stream-valley pasture in cedar succession. Due to topography and mature hardwoods and pines in the area, staff opinion is that the mobile home will not be visible from the road or other dwellings in the area. Staff Comment: This petition is before you at the applicant's request in order to expedite the review process. The rental site where this mobile home is currently located must be vacated due to Health Department regulations. (A letter was received from Mrs. Margaret Wells dated May 1, 1980 stating that the septic system at their present location was not adequate and the Health Department gave them fifteen days to move which expired on April 23, 1980. Therefore, the applicant had to purchase two acres to relocate the mobile home and a temporary extension has been given to them by the Health Department in order to get approval by the County.) Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Tucker said on May 20, 1980, the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP-80-2f subject to the above condition. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant was purchasing the land to be subdivided. Mr. Tucker said yes. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ronnie Wells, the applicant, was present. With no one else present to speak for or against the matter, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve SP-80&~8 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3. Appeal: Huntwood Phases I and II Site Plan. (Deferred from May 14, 1980.) (Plat drawn by B. Aubrey Huffman & ~ssociates, Ltd., Tax Map 60A, Parcel 13, 3.20 acres, Jack Jouett District, dated February 7, 1980) Mr. Roudabush abstained from discussion on this matter since the firm he is associated with participated in the preparation of the early stages of these site plans in 1977.. Mr. Tucker said this item was deferred from May 14, 1980 in order that the applicant could submit to the Runoff Control Official data and information on runoff calculations for Phase II in order that he could determine the feasibility of the plan. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer and Runoff Control Official, has reviewed the plans and submitted ~the following memorandum dated May 20, 1980: May 2~ 1980~Regular Night Meeting) "PurSnant. to the request of the Board of Supervisors which was made at the Board meeting held on May 14, 1980, the Engineering Department has reviewed the plans which were submitted to us by Mr. Tom Sinclair, relative to the application' of the provisions of the Runoff Control Ordinance to the development of Huntwood. This review was preliminary and was for the purpose of determining the feasibility of the concept. Review for the purpose of obtaining a Runoff Control Permit will follow a formal submittal by the developer or owner. The plans which were submitted, however, are well advanced in detail and our ability to review was advanced thereby. We also have visited the site to judge for ourselves the values given to ground cover and the development of off-site area which drains through the property under consideration. We are in agreement with the calculations of the rate of stormwater runoff, the sediment loading and phosphorus loading that Mr. Sinclair has used in his computations. While reserving judgment on certain details, we are convinced that the development can be made to fuIly comply with the requirements of the Runoff Control Ordinance. It is noted that the plan submitted for our review provides for the impoundment of the stormwater from approximately twenty-three acres of off-site watershed. While we believe this is to the county's advantage, it is by no means required by the ordinance. This stormwater could be carried by culvert through the property to be developed, and the control of rat~ of runoff, sediments and phosphorus be confined to the Huntwood property." Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bailey has indicated that the type of runoff which will run down to the stream will not create any problems. However, any property line which runs down a stream has to be overcompensated for handling runoff because there is no way to actually impound such an area. Mr. Fisher said it appears that at the present time there is no plan approved for what is going to be done with the surface water runoff. Mr. Tucker said that was correct but Mr. Bailey has indicated the proposed plan is feasible for both phases of the site plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about the guidelines of the Runoff Control Ordinance. He would like to have the engineering department address whether half of the property can be impounded and the other-half left unimpounded by overcompensating one half. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bailey did comment to him that the amount of runoff down the stream would not have any effect on the reservoir. Mr. Fisher then asked if there were any other issues to be discussed. Mr. Tucker said no but there were other issues in the letter from Mr. Lindstrom appealing the site plan. Mr. Lindstrom restated his concerns in his appeal letter presented at the May 14, 1980 meeting (set out in the minutes of same). Mainly, location of the basketball court relative to the detention basin, locations of units 9-13 on 25% slopes, and the buffer between Huntwood and Hessian Hills. He felt some conditions should be added to the approval of the site plan and offered motion to approve Huntwood Phases I and II Site Plans with the conditions of the Planning Commission and the following conditions added to Phase II: (h) to require a buffer zone of forty feet minimum in Phase II; (i) that no recreat~ areas be located within the confines of the sedimentation pond; and (j) compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinanc.e and Soil Erosion Ordinance, including no waiver of the Soil Erosion Ordinance as it relates to slopes in excess of twenty-five percent. Miss Nash seconded the mOtion. Dr. Iachetta asked if it is known how much sediment might be deposited relative to the proposed recreational use. Mr. Tucker was not sure the County Engineer had determined how much sediment would be deposited and left in the area. However, Mr. Ashley Williams, Assistan County Engineer, felt from the review of runoff control measures proposed for the area, that the basketball court would be usable. Of course it would not be usable during rains, storms, etc., but once the water had drained, it could be used. Mr. Lindstrom felt there would be some sedimentation left after every rain. Mr. Fisher then asked if there were any further questions. Mr. Ron Carter, the applicant, said he has gone to a great deal of trouble to provide the Board with additional information in order to clarify some concerns and was taken back by the action contemplated in the motion. He then asked if Mr. Tom Sinclair, engineer with B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates, could present some information pertaining to the twenty-five percent slopes and the amount of time that the basketball court would be under water as well as having sediment remain on same. The Board did not object, but Mr. Fisher requested the comments be brief since he had not planned to have another public hearing. Mr. Tom Sinclair presented a sketch of the existing slopes. He said the twenty-five percen~ slopes are under where building #10 will be located. As for the basketball court, Mr. Sinclair said it was felt that a basketball court was something good to put in the develop~ However, if the Board is concerned about the siltation which might occur, something other than a basketball court could be placed in the development. He then noted calculations which show that the basketball court would fill up with every ten-year intensity storm, but would take only twenty-three minutes to drain. He also noted that for every two year intensity storm, the court would fill up to the foul lines which are not on the basketball court itself. Mr. Henley asked how much recreational area is required for this development. Mr. Sinclair said 1,350 square feet but the plan shows a little over 12,000 square feet. Mr. Henley asked if a portion of the basketball court could be at one end of the parking lot. Mr. Sinclair said that could be done, but the parking lot is on a slope of about six percent. Mr. Robert Cooper, whose property is within thirty-four feet of Phase II, felt it highly improper that this property was ever zoned for high density development. He also noted that from the rear of his property, he would be looking at a continuous structure, two hundred feet long and three stories high. Therefore, he has made appeals on several occasions for maximum screening which will be difficult because of the elevation of the properties. However Mr. Carter has stated that he is willing to put in whatever screening the Planning Commission specifies. ~n ent. Ma~ 2]~ 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Speaking next was Mr. Ron Carter. He pointed out a sketch showing buildings 9, 10, il, 12 and 13 which showed that the front of the buildings is on, or within, the twenty-five percent slope area. He said to move the buildings back and still meet requirements for setbacks, screening, etc., within the terms of the Zoning Ordinance is a problem and puts the project closer to the Cooper's. When~ working on this plan, Mr. Bailey had felt it better to leave the buildings further away from the property line and provide more screening. Mr. Carter did not feel the basin should be referred to as such but rather as a grassy hole in the ground. The purpose of the area is to trap water and not let sediment, which carries p~osphates, dump directly into the reservoir. Periodically, the area will have to be cleaned and the sediment removed. Very seldom will the basketball court have water on it and even if it does, he could not imagine that there would be much sediment in the water since this area is about two feet lower than the court. He felt this was an excellent use of the land and something that might be beneficial not only to the county and the water supply but for the people who live on this piece of property. As for screening, Mr. Carter said he has stated to the Cooper's and the planning staff that whatever can be done within reasonable limits to Protect the visibility of adjacent properties, will be done. He noted that Mrs. Masloff, a neighbor, is concerned about the sewerage facilities on the site because the Old Forge Road area in Hessian Hills is having a sewage dispoSal problem. However, a new pump station and force main will be installed right along this property. Therefore, there will not be any problems with sewage affecting the streams. He also noted that a forty foot buffer is not required by the ordinance. Mr. Carter said by eliminating building #10 and adding a walk out basement to other buildings, it will eliminate disturbing the area next to Hessian Hills. Mr. Carter said he had a concern about the technicality of this review. The site plan for Phase I was submitted three years ago and approved. However, approval of that site plan expired, and he was not aware of this until he began Phase II. In January, he obtained a~ building permit for Phase I and during the development of Phase II it came to light that the approval time for Phase I had eXPired. He then asked Mr. Tucker to resubmit Phase I for reapproval along with Phase II. He also noted that Phase I was done by Roudabush and Phase II by Huffman. The phases are on two separate parcels recorded in two separate deed books. He then requested the Board to treat the two phases as two separate plans. Mr. Lindstrom asked whose responsibility it would be to maintain the sedimentation basin. Mr. Carter said the responsibility will be that of the townhouse owners. Mr. asked if maintenance would be taken care of in the Runoff Control Official's approval. Mr. Tucker said yes and through bonds, and the homeowner's agreement which has to be approved by the County Attorney. Mr. Fisher noted that a site plan on which approval has expired is subject to all existing ordinances. He presumed that Phase I meets all the laws of the County including the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances and relates to the sedimentation on Phase II. Therefore, he did not see how the two phases could be separated in this discussion. Speaking next was Mr. William Seiler, owner of property on Sturbridge Road. He supported the three concerns of Mr. Lindstrom. He felt an elimination of recreational area for the development would result in people coming onto his property. He also supported the forty foot barrier recommended by Mr. Lindstrom particularly to retain the integrities of the two neighborhoods which will differ greatly. In conclusion, Mr. Seiler was in support of the motion made by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Cooper about this property being incorrectly zoned, but the zoning is in place. This property is difficult to develop as discussions have pointed out. He felt the ordinances in effect should be adhered to. He was against any development on twenty-five percent slopes and felt even if the end result is not objectionable, the process of getting to such is a problem. This particular area is within the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and he felt that is all the more reason to adhere to the ordinanc~ which deal with soil erosion. He could not support the proposal to permit constr~uction on slopes in excess of twenty-five percent. Also, he was not in favor of a waiver of the and did not feel such was warranted in this case. As for the buffer zone, he felt the Board does have the authority to require a reasonable buffer zone. The sedimentation basin will hold sediment and he did not feel this was a practical place for a recreational area. Mr. Henley was not opposed to the sedimentation basin being used for the recreational area and felt it was ridiculous to require otherwise. Mr. Lindstrom disagreed and felt the Board was talking about statutory requirements for recreation. Many people have complained about the County skimping on recreational areas in the urban part of the County and that makes it difficult for him to accept the concept of a basketball court in a sedimentation basin. If the sedimentation basin is to be useful, he felt some other form of recreatmon should be provided, but did not feel basketball was ~appropriate. Mr. Henley did not oppose putting the four units on the small portion of twenty-five percent slopes and supported the recommendation of the County Engineer. Dr. Iachetta said even if the pond is grassy, the area will still be used~by the residents. The paved area is also of concern. Dr. Iachetta felt the problem with the proposal is that it does not put the majority of the structure on the slopes that the County is attempting to protect. He had some concern about whether the developer could accomplish what he wants to if the buildings are moved back. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not suggesting that the existing buffer be removed. He felt the applicant needed to put the buildings elsewhere and that was the effect of the amendments he had offered. Mr. Henley felt the twenty-five percent slope area is small and felt the County should require the developer to provide fifty percent of the recreational area somewhere else. He felt it would be inappropriate to say that the basin area can not be used as a portion of the recreational area. Mr. Fisher suggested an additional condition as follows: (i) Removal of the basketball court from the sedimentation pond. Mr. Lindstrom~agreed with that recommendation. However, his ~concern was the impact of the development on people who cannot protect themselves. Dr. Iachetta the~ offered a substitute motion to add the following condition in addition to the Planning Commission conditions for Phase II: (i) Remove the paved area from the pond, basketball court, per se and the applicant be required to provide at least one-half of the recreational area somewhere else. Mr. Lindstrom accepted the amendment and seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher noted the buffer zone of forty feet as shown on othe original submission will be retained and there will be no waiver of the Soil Erosion Ordinance as it relates to construction on slopes in excess of twenty-five percent. Dr. Iachetta then asked how far the buildings will be located from the property line. Mr. Tucker thought it was approximatel forty feet. O44 May 21~ 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. St. John felt the Board was taking the position that a regulation was being waived on the site plan and he did not see any regulation being waived. The regulations require that this matter go to the Zoning Administrator, either under the Soil Erosion Control Ordinance or the Runoff Control Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator has.an advisory committee and his erosion control recommendation and plans are reviewable by this~Board only .on appeal by the developer. The Runoff Control Ordinance does not provide for any review by this Board. Mr. St. John felt the Board has called a decision, not of the Planning Commission's recommendation, but of the Runoff Control Official, and that is the Zoning Administrator's responsibility. As for the buffer, that is something the developer proffered when he submitte¢ this plan; there is only a twenty-five foot requirement for a rear yard setback in ~h~ If the buildings are forty feet from the rear line, then the Board can require screening, but this case is not the same as a special use permit where the Board has the discretion to decide how far from the side yard line the structure will be located. In conclusion, Mr. St. John questioned the Board's power'to require these additional conditions. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any problem for the Board to make a statement that there should be no waiver of an ordinance. Mr. St. John said no, but he could not find in the ordinance anything that has been waived by the way the site plan was presented. Mr. Fisher felt the County Attorney was seeing this as an interpretation of an ordinance and Mr. Lindstrom sees this as a waiver of an ordinance. Mr. St. John did not see anything which could reasonably be called a waiver of an ordinance by any interpretation and could not find the twenty-five percent requirement in the ordinance. This requirement was added to the Erosion and Sedimental Control Handbook and there are other provisions in the handbook on which some interpretative judgment has to be applied and that is purely in the engineer's judgment. Mr. St. John noted that there is no process here for the Board to sit in judgment over whether the engineer has properly applied the handbook. Mr. Lindstrom then said he was not willing to go against this interpretation and advice by the County Attorney. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. St. John were speaking about the buffer zone and the waiver of provisions of the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Mr. St. John said the buffer zone was proffered by the applicant and can be kept as long as the Board does not change other essential aspects of what has been submitted. Mr. St. John was concerned about the twenty-five percent slope requirements. If that is invoked, the buildings will not be able to be placed where they ~rrently are shown and that triggers the business about the location of the basketball court. This provision is not in the Runoff or Soil Erosion Ordinances, therefore not in the hands of the Zoning Administrator. Therefore, this provision can certainly be a part of site Plan review, but Mr. St. John said it is the other technical requirements of the Zoning Ordinance that bother him. After a short discussion, based on the County Attorney's opinion, Mr. Lindstrom withdrew his motion. Miss Nash accepted the withdrawal. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve Huntwood Site Plan Phases I and II as recommended by the Planning Commission and adding condition (i) as follows to the conditions for Phase II: "Remove paved area from pond, basketball court, per se, and applicant be requested to provide one-half of the recreational area somewhere else." Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher noted the conditions are for Phase II and asked if there were any amendments to the conditions for Phase I. Hearing none, the roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush. (Mr. Roudabush returned to the meeting at 8:52 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-80-07. Liberia Development Corporation. To amend ZMA-77-18 (Whittington RPN) with respect to fire protection conditions. The 201.7 acres of RPN/RS-1 land is on west side of Route 631 about 1.5 miles northeast of intersection of Routes 706 and 631. County Tax Map 89, Parcel 95; and County Tax Map 90, Parcels 3, 45, 46, 47 and 48. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 7 and May 14, 1980.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "History: September 6, 1977: Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. September 21, 1977: Board deferred action to receive recommendations from Albemarle County Service Authority concerning expansion of jurisdictional area to incorporate Whittington for public water usage. November 17, 1977: ZMA-77-18 approved for 104 dwellings with condition #8 reading as follows: Fire Marshal approval to include approval of water line sizes and locations, emergency access provisions, locations of dwellings and provision of fire protection facilities and fire hydrants, including storage tank with a minimum capacity of 82,200 gallons. The applicant is currently requesting deletion of the wording "including storage tank with a minimum capacity of 82,200 gallons" from condition #8. The applicant proposes an impoundment(s) and dry hydrant system for fire protection. Staff Comment: The applicant's stated purpose for requesting this amendment is the estimated difference in cost of providing a central well system for domestic purposes only and a central well system for domestic purposes and fire protection. The applicant has estimated this difference in cost to be about $100,000 due to difference in storage tank size, fire hydrants, and storage tank location for added pressure. ion May 21, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) O45 The Fire Official's opinion is that the applicant's cost estimate for fire protection might be reduced significantly by giving consideration to pump pressure vs. static pressure and alternative storage tanks other than steel tanks (i.e. - collapsible or other material if such are acceptable to the Health Department). In review of the original application, the Board requested estimates from the Service Authority for the cost of extending public water to the property vs. pr~ovision of domestic and fire flow requirement through a central well system. County ordinances permit the requirement of extending public water when it is "reasonably available" regardless of zoning, usage and density. In the past, the cost difference between public water and central well system has been used as one criterion in evaluation of the term 'reasonably available'. The Service Authority estimated the cost of public water extension to range from about $126,500 to $166,000, depending on line size and Service Authority participation. Ail estimates apparently excluded internal service other than fire hydrants. The cost of providing comparable service from a central well system was estimated at $35,000 to $40,000. Since the applicant's current estimate for the fire protection aspect alone is $100,000 for the central well system, reevaluation of requiring public water and amending the jurisdictional area may be appropriate. Two other applications are currently pending in this immediate area. At this time, it appears that both applications will require public water (fire protection) to develop as proposed. Also to be considered is that condition #6 of ZMA-77-18 reads: 'Impacts from this development (i.e. - school enrollment impact, traffic) will be considered in future approval for other properties and requirements for improvements will be made accordingly.' Should the Commission and Board choose to entertain any amendment to condition #8 of ZMA-77-!8, staff would recommend that one or more of the following may be helpful in deliberations: Investigation of methods proposed by Fire Official in "A" above to determine if existing condition #8 can be accomplished in a less costly manner. This would involve the applicant, fire official and health department. Reevaluation and update of all cost estimates cited in 'B' above by the County Engineer and Service Authority to determine if requiring public water is reasonable. These agencies should consider estimates submitted by the applicant. For reasons cited in 'C' above, staff opinion is that consideration of this application would be appropriate in conjunction with review of the pending Forest Lodge planned community. If, at this time, the Commission and Board choose to amend condition #8 in accordance with the applicant's request, staff would recommend the following language: Fire Official approval of: access to and locations of impoundments and dry hydrants; other emergency access provisions; locations of dwellings; locations of appurtenances for future poSsible hydrants on central well system. Central well system including all line sizes and appurtenances shall be designed in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority design standards and approved by the Service Authority for future possible acceptance." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission approved ZMA-80-07 with the above conditio~ at its meeting on April 29, 1980. He also noted the following memorandum from Mr. Ira B. Cortez, Fire Official, dated April 18, 1980: "1. If a central well system is used in this RPN, an adequate amount of water will be provided ~r f±re~mDppresS~n purposes (Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section 17-5-18). An adequate supply will be 500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for two hours (60,000 gallon/ISO standard). If public water is not available, then the private supply can come from an elevated tank. Fiberglass or rubber type, are the least expensive and can be purchased for approximately $15,000. Another alt_ernative could be none!evated tank and an adequate pumping station for fire flow and pressure. It is felt that an adequate water supply is needed in this specific area due to the long response time from the responsible volunteer fire department (North Garden). In all likelihood, this company could not respond in less than twenty minutes due to the road conditions on 01d Lynchburg Road. if the ¥olunteers decide to use Route 29 South to 1-64, and then on Route 631, the travel time is still approximately the same and a large supply would be necessary to prevent any further spread of fire. It is not recommended that any further development be allowed without an adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes in this area. 048 May 21, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) If the Board decides to accept the pond and dry hydrant system as shown on the plan, then adequate turning space should also be provided. If the Zoning Ordinance permitted discretion on the part of the Fire Official based on density and exposure, I would not require a pressurized, but would require a dry hydrant system fOr this project." Mr. Tucker also noted the following estimates which were requested by the Planning Commission at its April 22, 1980 meeting. The estimates are based on figures provided by the Albemarle County Service Authority. No change in costs for anticipated rock, engineering or contingencies are included: "1 · 12" Drop Inlet pipe provided 1,560+ gpm 6,000 linear feet x $20.00 per foot 8 each fire hydrants ~ $1,000 Rock (anticipated) Engineering Contingencies Including Land (easements) Total using 12" pipe $120,000 8,000 11,440 25,168 15,100 $179,708 8" Drop Inlet pipe providing 1,050+ gpm 6,000 linear feet x $16.00 per foot 8 each fire hydrant ~ $1,000 Rock (anticipated) Engineering Contingencies Including Land (easements) Total using 8" pipe $ 96,000 8,000 11,440 25,168 1, ,5oo $144,108" The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Roy Parks, representing the applicant, was present· He updated the Board on the progress of the project. He said there are five spring fed streams, in the area. He then noted the area recommended for the pond, one of the original requirements of the Board for the pressured system, is simply out of the question due to economics· The storage tank alone would cost $84,000 and due to the elevation of the site, a road of from 2,800 to 3,000 feet would have to be provided· Based on estimates the cost oR these facilities w~ld cost about $200,000. The interest on that amount would be about ¢4 ..... ~ ..... ~ ~-o. _ . - ~ ¥~,~o~ zor a one-quarter million dollar initial investment. The applicant has agreed to construct a central water system which will cost about $50,000. The applicant feels it is fair to put in an impoundment and water supply as recommended by the Fire Marshal, plus a central well system. Mr. Parks felt both of these are major amenities which are not available in most rural areas. Dr. Iachetta asked the projected cost for a dry hydrant ~system and the impoundment. Mr. Parks felt it would be a $15,000 plus. Mr. Parks said dry hydrants are not expensive, but the earthmoving and a dam which would have to be designed for a one hundred year flood would be the major expense. Dr. Iachetta said from looking at the estimates of running an eight inch line ~and listening to the estimates for a central well, system olus the costs of · . (~ ~ #- ~ ~ this impoundment which would give questionable fire protectmon, ~c~es no'seem to be that much difference in the cost of an eight inch water line system. Mr. Parks did not disagree but said the problem is that all the costs are up front. He also noted that his clien~ is willing to do that if he could get R-1 zoning because then the applicant could compete in the housing market. This is the only place in the County which is selling a home and a two-ac: lot for $40,000. Mr. Parks said the Fire Marshal has pointed out that it does not make any difference whether the water is there or not because of response time from the fire department Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, attorney representing the adjacent property owners, was present. He noted two pending requests for rezonings in the surrounding area. Therefore, he requested that if a central well system is permitted for this project that it not be a precedent for other rezoning requests. In conclusion, he asked that the Board consider the fact that there may be public water going by this property at some future date and the property would then be accessible to public water. Mr. Fisher said condition #9 of the original permit required that all the lots be served by a central water system. Mr. Parks said his client is willing to put in the size pipe necessary to meet standards if and when public water is available and would be willing to hook onto such at that time. With no further comments for or against the'petition, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta said there is a fallacy in thinking that the North Garden Volunteer Fire Department is the first engine capable of reaching this property. The County expends a great deal of money each year for two engines located at the Ridge Street station that are to go south of town. Mr. Roudabush felt that felt ponds are better and more reliable than wells. He hoped that whatever system is installed, it will be designed to accommodate hooking onto public water in the future and also some type of hydrant service should be provided. Mr. Lindstrom asked what provisions will be made for the maintenance of the pond. Mr. Tucker said there is no such requirement, but maintenance is basically a part of the homeowner agreement. Mr. Fisher was concerned that public funds have had to be used to "bail out" subdivisions which developed trouble with their central well systems. Dr. Iachetta said, if a well is drilled, a pressure tank installed, and a pump put in for an individual dwelling unit~, this could not be done for less than $1,500 per unit at today's costs. However, the investment for public water, which will insure both water supply for fire protection and customer usage, is about $1,400 per lot and he could not see that this is an unreasonable requirement. Mr. Parks said the first 25 to 50 lots would have to be sold at an enormous price to offset this expense. May 2.]~ 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) 047 Mr. Fisher then asked the Board's feelings about the request and noted his concern about losing fire protection which was a condition placed on the original permit and accepted as reasonabl~ by the applicant at the time. Mr. Roudabush said as he understood the Fire Marshal's report to state that fire p~otection could be provided by a dry hydrant system as well as by public water and if this is true, he .had no reason to oppose the request. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to accept the .Planning Commission's recommendation to approve ZMA-80-77 with the wording for condition #8 as set out above. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Dr. Iachetta said he could not support the motion as worded but could support the motion if connection to public water, when public water is available to the site, is added as a condition. Mr. Roudabush accepted that amendment to his motion and alSo added that the system should be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority when any connection to same is made. Mr. St. John said a public service corporation is required if more than fifty lots are to be served by this central well system. Such corporation would be obligated to dedicate the system to the Albemarle County Service Authority free of charge at such time as the Service Authority is willing and able to provide water in this area. He asked if that was the intent of the motion. Mr. Fisher thought it was. Mr. St. John said "free of charge" means that the public service company is not going to seek a certificate of public necessity and convenience to get an area assigned to it as a public utility. He felt the applicant's acceptance of these conditions should be a part of the record. Mr. Parks accepted the conditions. Mr. Henley then seconded the amended motion. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board had the authority to determine if public water is reasonably available to the property. Mr. St. John said no; the applicant could withdraw this amendment and stay with the central well system. This area is not in the jurisdictional boundaries of the Service Authority so there ~s no way to say that water is reasonably available. Mr. Fisher said the Service Authority could not serve this project even if the wASer~e~e immediately adjacent because the land is not within their jurisdictional areas. Mr. St. John said that is legally accurate, but this Board has the authority to expand the jurisdictional areas. Also, instead of this Board saying how many feet of line should be within the property, this determination should be left to the Service Authority when water is available. Dr. Iachetta then reworded his motion as follows: "Connection to be made to the Albemarl County Service Authority when public lines become avai-lable and same to be dedicated to the Service Authority free of charge." At this time, the Chairman asked that the roll be called. The Clerk called the roll and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher then noted that the motion to approve ZMA-80-07 as recommended by the Planning Commission, with the substitute condition #8, was on the floor for the Board to consider. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachet'ta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. At 9:45 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:52 P.M. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-80-08. Marion B. Short. To rezone 12.63 acres from A-1 to M-1. Property on southeast side of Route 742 (Avon Street Extended) and also has frontage on Route 20. County Tax Map 90, Parcel 28. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 7 and May 14, 1980.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area - Existing Zoning Properties to the south are zoned RS-1 and developed residentially. Properties across Routes 20 South and 742 are zoned A-1. Properties to the north are zoned M-1 Industrial and developed industrially. C..o~prehensive Plan Th~omp~ehensive Plan recommends industrial usage for this property. However, this property does not receive a priority ranking for industrial designation when Comprehensive Plan standards are applied. While the Comprehensive Plan recommends an average slope of less than ten percent, this property slopes almost continuously from Route 742 down to Route 20 with an average grade of more than fifteen percent. Staff Comment Staff opinion is that the topography of this property severely limits large-scale intensive industrial uses. Small scale uses such as the Gentry shop/office could realistically locate on this property. Full development of the property would likely occasion access to both Routes 742 and 20 South. The nearest public utilities are located at the National Guard Armory on Route 742 (Avon Street) and Piedmont Virginia Community College on Route 20 South. In the past,'staff has not supported industrial designation for steeper properties and therefore, though the Compr~ns~e)~.an~ec~omm~s industrial usage for this property, staff does not support this petition, unless the scale of development could be limited." Mr. Tucker said the Planning CommiSsion at its meeting May 6, 1980, recommended denial by a vote of 6/2. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jack Cambl°s, attorney representing the applicant, was present. He asked if the determination of the steepness of the slope was made from a topographical map'or from' an actual inspection of the land. Mr. Tucker said the slope analysis was made using the USGS map and a visual inspection. Twenty-five percent slopes are in a~couple of places but the area near Avon Street is much more reasonable for developmen for industrial purposes. Mr. Camblos said this property has much less slope than propertias to the north which have been zoned industrial and the Comprehensive Plan recommends industrial usage in this area. He felt anyone using the property for industry would undoubtedly protect the slope. Mr. Camblos felt the request was reasonable. He also noted that the request is not by the owner but rather her children. The owner is an elderly lady, Mrs. Payne and is in a nursing home. The children have been allowed by the court to pursue this rezoning in order that the money received from sale of the property can be used to take care of Mrs. Payne. Mr. Watson, an adjacent property owner, spoke next. He noted his property is zoned residential and his Purpose in buying the land was to build a home on it and this has been done. He disliked objecting to someone doing as they desired on their property but he was not in favor of another industry, such as Wilson Trucking, being next door to him. In conclusion, Mr. Watson did not object to a light industry being permitted on the property since it would be quieter, but was strongly opposed to another noisy operation. Mr. Fisher noted that the application is for a straight rezoning and any of the uses permitted in an M-1 zone would be allowed by right if this request is approved. Mr. Roudabush asked what the setback reqUirement is When industrial property adjoins residential. Mr. Tucker said the setback is a minimum of fifty feet. Mr. Watson asked the uses allowed in an M-1 zone. Mr. Tucker read same to Mr. Watson. Speaking next was Mrs. Watson, noting the general concerns of the neighborhood about this request. Mr. Camblos pointed out that this land is of little value if zoned residential. He felt the neighbors should have realized this could occur when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Mr. Camblos felt the request is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. With no one else present to speak for or against the matter, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked about the priority rating the property received for an industrial designation and the fact that it did not seem to meet Comprehensive Plan standards. Mr. Tucker said the primary reason for the rating was due to the lack of utilities and the steepness of the property on the Avon Street side. Mr. Roudabush said some industries do not require heavy utility usage and felt this could change the priority rating. He did not feel the ratings should carry too much weight in this particular case. Mr. Fisher felt the Board should know in advance what industry will be located on the property. Mr. Roudabush did not feel an applicant could come in and make a rezoning request and give the name of the particular industry that would locate on the property. He felt the land should be available before an industry is found and he also felt that the water lines are closer to the property than the report indicates. Mr. Lindstrom Said the Board's Industrial Development policy was adopted to implement some of the phasing and ratings set out in the Comprehensive Plan. He felt this type of zoning request is speculative. That, coupled with the slope problem, made him reluctant to go against the recommendation of the staff and Planning Commission. Mr. Roudabush felt it would be reasonable to consider rezoning the front part of the property on Route 20 since it is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial usage and ~ would be comparable to existing uses on adjoining property. Mr. Camblos said the applicant would be willing to change the request if that is the feeling of the Board. Mr. Roudabush felt 1the constraints of the setback would take care of any obnoxious noises that concern the neighbors. Miss Nash asked what would happen to the drainage. Mr. Tucker said that would be taken care of during site plan review. Miss Nash then offered motion to deny the rezoning request for ZMA-80-08 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Roudabush said before the vote is taken he would like to know if the applicant must wait a year to reapply, if this request is denied. Mr. St. John said he could not resubmit the same application, but could submit a proffer. Mr. Fisher agreed with the comments made by Mr. Lindstrom. However, he did feel the Board needed to look at the expansion of utilities in this area. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:~ Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Tucker noted that the following two agenda items are related and should be considered together: Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-80-09. Dr. Charles W. Hurt. To rezone 4.48 acres from B-1 to M-1. 'Property on north side of Route 649 (Proffit Road) and has frontage on southeast side~ of Route 29 North. County Tax Map 32A, Parcel 2-lB. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 7 and May 14, 1980.) "Character of the Area This site is surrounded primarily by vacant land and commercial uses. The closest dwelling is on the east side of Route 29 North and about 700 feet away and buffered by existing woods. While fronting on Route 29, access to this site would be limited to Proffit Road (Route 649). O49 May 21, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) ~omprehensive Plan The Hollymead Citizens Committee, which worked on the community plan, recommended high density residential for this site and industrial usage for property immediately tm the north, also owned by the applicant. During Planning Commission consideration of the committee's recommendations, the applicant opposed both recommendations, requesting that this site be shown for commercial usage. The plan as adopted by the Board shows commercial usage for a portion of this property while property to the north was deleted from Hol!ymead entirely. In terms of the Comprehensive ~:. Plan's standards for industriat~ designation, this site would receive a priority ranking of two, indicating a high suitability for industrial usage. Sewage disposal is not available. Staff Comment Staff does not support this petition for the following reasons: This request does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan recommends that industrial usage be restricted to the west side of Route 29. The planned industrial park and some light industrial acreage in that area are currently vacant. Staff would note that this petition is accompanied by a special use permit petition. If this p~operty were restricted to the proposed use, staff would recommend that locational requirements of that use be given consideration." Agenda Item No. 7. SP-80-21. Dr. Charles W. Hurt. Petitioned under Section 8-1-27(4) of the Zoning Ordinance for manufacturing of prefabricated buildings and materials on 4.48 acres zoned B-1 (proposed for M-1 zoning). Property on north side of Route 649 (Proffit Road) and has frontage on southeast side of Route 29 North. County Tax Map 32A, Parcel 2-lB. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 7 and May 14, 1980.) "Staff Comment Initial development would consist of a 7,000 square foot building, open at both ends, which would house six employees. Equipment would consist of a sixteen inch radial arm saw, table saw, and pneumatic nailers. Ail construction and material storage would be indoors. About twenty tractor trailer trips per month are expected. Ultimate development would consist of four 7,000 square foot structures and about eighteen employees. (In terms of compatibility to the area, this operation would be similar to the current Better Living operation on Lyman Street). The tentative occupant and applicant are currently in contract negotiations which call for these building components to be used primarily in the development of Hol!ymead Planned Community. In this context, a better location for this use would be in the southeast quadrant of the Route 29/Route 649 intersection to avoid cross truck traffic on Route 649 (location on the west side of Route 29, where the Comprehensive Plan calls for industrial usage would be the least desirable from a traffic conflict point of view). Staff could support temporary location and zoning for a prefabricated building component operation in the southeast quadrant of Route 29/Route 649 for the reason stated above. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 3. 4. 5. Access shall be limited to the 50 foot joint access easement with Tract II to Route 649; Site plan approval; Heavy equipment such as planer and jointers shall be excluded; Buildings limited to 28,000 square feet in total area; Ail construction activity and material storage shall be indoors." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 6, 1980, by a vote of 7/1, recommended that both ZMA-80-09 and SP-80-21 be denied. The public hearing was opened. Speaking first was the applicant, Mr. Andrew Thornton. He stated that he and another gentlemen will be using the property if it is rezoned. Mr. Thornton said if he understood correctly, the following were the reasons given for denial by the staff and the Planning Commission: 1) The Comprehensive Plan recommends industrial zoning on the west side of Route 2.9. 2) Concern about heavy traffic on Route 649 east of Route 29. 3) One of the Planning Commission members was concerned that this request is for 4.48 acres which would leave 2+ acres on Route 29. 4) Traffic would be crossing Route. 649. In response to these concerns, Mr. Thornton said there is M-1 land on the opposite side of Route 29 North. However, most of that land is part of a planned industrial development and there is a considerable cost involved in preparing the utilities to serve the property. The owner of the planned industrial development is willing to install utilities when the right industry comes along. However, Mr. Thornton did not feel he and his partner were the rig~ht ones. Certainly the size operation that he will have is not what the owner of the PID is looking for. He also noted that M-1 land is not e. asy to find in the County and what can be found is very expensive. Mr. Thornton said the lease agreement with Dr. Hurt is very benefici for a business just getting started, because they have the option to buy two or three years from now. As for the heavy traffic on Route 649, the Highway Department survey showed a count of 2,735 vehicles as compared to Route 649 West of Route 29 which has 3,769 vehicles. O5O May 21, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Therefore, the traffic is twenty-five percent heavier on the west side than on the east side. He also noted that the entrance to the plant on the east portion of Route 649 would be within two hundred yards of Route 29. On the west side of Route 649, the entrance would be at least one-half mile down a road which is curvey. Due to the fact that the trucks coming to the property will be oversized, he felt two hundred yards to a major artery is a better choice. The reason for not requesting that the entire parcel be rezoned is because he did not foresee that much land being needed in the future for this~operation. As for access onto Route 29 for the two-acre parcel, he has been told this will no~ happen. This 4.48 acre lot feeds into the two-acre parcel and he does have an option to buy that piece of property for a model home for his business. However, the same entrance on Route 649 would be used. Mr. Thornton then stated his reasons for requesting approval: 1) close proximity of this property to Route 29; 2) the business is suited to most of the housing business; and 3) the site is totally level and there will no soil erosion problems. Speaking next was Mrs. Mary Lovelace, adjacent property owner on Route 785 just off of Route 649. Her objections were not specifically to the proposed use but the uncertainty of what will happen on the property and the noise levels. She felt having industrial zoning next to a residential area would create pressure to rezone other parcels closer to the residential area and this rezoning would set a precedent. She was also concerned about the increased traffic on Route 649. Mr. Thornton said there is a large gulley between this property and the next property so no one will be able to see the business. He did not feel there would be much increase in traffic since the business is small. With no one else present to speak for or against these petitions, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush felt this request was a good example of a person needing industrial zoned land for a particular use and location. He did not feel there was an abundance of industrial zoned land in the County appropriate for the needs people have. This Operation is needed in the County and has'become the only viable way homes will be built in the near future. He also felt constrained by the fact that this land is not shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Roudabush did not object to this land being used for this particular operation. Mr. Lindstrom noted that an applicant can offer a proffer as a condition for a rezoning. He was certain that if this property is rezoned to accommodate this applicant, and then this applicant did not go through with his plans that the owner would put a tremendous price tag on the property. Therefore, he felt a proffer would be better. He asked the policy on a proffer. Mr. Tucker said that normally the Zoning Administrator advises the applicant of the uses provided in a particular zone and alerts the applicant to the proffer provision because most people are not aware of this. However, he did not know how a proffer could be made in this case since this use is allowed only by special use permit. Mr. St. John did not feel that would preclude a proffer.' Mr. Tucker aSked what would happen if the special use permit were denied. Dr. Iachetta shared the applicant's concern about looking for a low cost site and admitted there were none. However, the owner of this property would be permitte~ to do whatever is permitted in the M-1 zone if this rezoning is approved and the requested operation does not work out. He could not support having more M-1 land in this area since a. great deal of M-1 has been created in the area between the Airport and Route 29 and the Northside Industrial Park in the last few years. He also felt there was a fair amount of M-1 land outside of the industrial park that is not occupied. Mr. Roudabush feit this particular location is ideal for the proposed operation since access to a major arterial is easy and at a controlled intersection. A new access would not have to be created onto the highway and the propertY lends itself to heavy equipment. Mr. Fisher could not support the request due'to the large amount of acreage created within the last few years for light industry, most of which is vacant. He felt this would be a spot zoning of M-1 that is surrounded by no other similar industrial zoning. Mr. Thornton felt the Chamber of Commerce, the Planning Commission and the Board should communioate about the need for new businesses in the County. He then asked if the Board could suggest a location where they could locate. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to accept the Planning Commission's recomm~a~mn~o deny ZMA-80-09. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Mr. Roudabush felt this was another good example of the frustration of people looking for sites in the county for industrial and commercial uses and the fact that there does not seem to be any way for the County to help them. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley (prefaced his vote by saying he could supPort the request with a proffer and he felt the applicant is free to come back with one), Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush (prefaced his vote by saying he was in agreement with Mr. Henley)-. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher asked if SP-80~21.~as~mo0t~7orZ£f~!~at~mn~as~ne~8~d,i ~Mr. St. John said the request is moot due to the denial of the zoning application which would make the special use permit impossible. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-80-10. Patsy O. Tiffany. To rezone 2.0 acres from A-1 to B-1. Property off a fifty foot right~of-way north of Route 250 and west of 1-64. CoUnty Tax Map 55, Parcel 19 ('part thereof). White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 7 and May 14, 198~.) \\ May 217 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "The staff report for SP-79-52 summar±zes the history of various commercial rezoning and special use permit petitions on this property. The Board's action to deny SP-79-52 was subject to litigation. (The Court opinion of December 21, 1979 is on file in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's office.) Staff Comment In SP-79-52, staff likened multiple special permits on this property as having the same effect as commercial rezoning. Staff cited four reasons for its recomm~datinn of denial. While these reasons addressed the petition for special use permit as a vehicle for increased commercializiation, they are also applicable to an extent to this petition. Staff recommends denial of this petition for the following reasons (some comments are restated from ZMA-173, SP-352, ZMA-310 and SP-79-52): 1. Staff finds no change in circumstances from ZMA-173, SP-352, ZMA-310 and SP-79-52 supportive of the applicant's request. Increased commercial activity, whether by rezonin or special use permit, was a subject of these prior requests. 2. In 'ZMA-310 and restated in SP-79-52, staff noted that about 114 acres of B-1 zoned land exists near the quadrants of the 1-64/Route 250 West interchange. Staff opinion is that this commercial zoning is excessive and does not support increasing the amount of commercial land in this area through special use permit, rezoning or other method. Staff opinion, in this context, is that this request does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Vacant commercially-zoned land exists in this area. 3. As stated in ZMA-173 and noted also in SP-79-52, the topography of this property is not conducive to continued commercial development. This is amplified by the fact that this property is in the Rivanna Reservoir watershed." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 6, 1980, unanimously recommended denial of ZMA-80-10. Mr. Fisher noted letter dated April 30, 1980, from Mr. F. Bradley Peyton, IV, adjacent property owner, urging denial of this request. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Hank Tiffany was present to speaM on behalf of Patsy O. Tiffany, his wife. He shared the Board's opinion that the area should not be a megalopolis. He realized the question before the Board for this request was difficult since the Board does not desire to have the country-side industrialized or commercialized. He did not agree that this request should be commercial anyway and felt that the proper application should have been for a special use permit, which would have been more restrictive. Mr. Tiffany then reviewed the history of the property and the antique shop that Mrs. Tiffany had in the past. He noted the great job his wife has done for the community and also that the letter from Mr. Peyton did not speak against the Operation his wife had. The previous business had to be sold because it was 11,000 square feet and too expensive for his wife to maintain with the increased cost in fuel. Therefore, such was sold to someone that could better utilize the building. Mrs. Tiffany owns thirty acres of land in this area and five are already zoned commercial. The five acres zoned commercial is not suitable for such use since it sets across a creek, very difficult to reach and has no commercial value. Mr. Tiffany felt rezoning a piece of land at an interchange to build an antique shop is not too far-fetched because such would be a reasonable buffer to the residential and agricultural areas. Speaking next was Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, representing the Plummets, owners of adjacent property. He noted that Mr. Tiffany has agreed to certain conditions if this rezoning request is approved; namely, bonding for potential drainage problems onto the Plummers property and location and size of the building to be constructed. Mr. Tiffany said that is correct. Mr. Fisher said the Board cannot make any conditions in a rezoning and such has to be considered a private contract between the private parties. Mr. Fisher also noted that this is different from the special-permit heard by the Board last year whereby certain conditions could be made. With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said in reading the letter from Judge David Berry relating to the case of SP-79-52, he felt the Judge had made it clear that the Board had followed the Comprehensive Plan and such was upheld by the Court. He would certainly hate to discourage the Judge by acting even more arbitrarily in rezoning, not with a special use permit, but with a blanket B-1 zoning. Mr. Fisher felt the same as he did on the special use permit request except that he felt B-1 zoning is a broader use and less restrictive than a special use permit. Mr. Fisher said the Board will soon be working on the Zoning Map and dealing with the question of the amount of B-! land in the County and he was dnsure what will be decided for this area but suspected B-1 zoning would not be increased. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny ZMA-80-10. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Mr. Henley felt Mr. Tiffany was going to develop this property through a special use permit process and that was wrong. He felt the property should be rezoned but had never stated favoring a rezoning._ He felt the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan was to encourage growth closer to Crozet and maybe in the future this intersection will develop. Howeve~ he felt it premature to begin such now by rezoning these two acres because he felt that would eventually lead to the entire tract being develope~ Therefore, Mr. Henley could not support the request. Mr. Roudabush had supported the applica~ tion for a special use permit because he felt that was a better method if the activity was May 21, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) to be allowed. Mr. Roudabush felt in light of what existed in the area commercially, it would not have been unreasonable to allow the special use permit. In conclusion, Mr. Roudabust said he would not support the rezoning request because he felt that the special use permit was the best way to accomplish the need. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Appropriation~ Agenda Item No. 10. ApProval of Minutes: September 5, 1979. These two items were deferred to a later date. Agenda Item No. 11. Request to vacate a subdivision plat. Mr. Roudabush abstained from the discussion and vote since his firm was involved in the preparation of the plat. Mr. Agnor said the Clerk is in receipt of a letter from Mr. Clyde Gouldman representing American Federal Savings and Loan Association noting that the Associatior is applying for an amendment to the Four Seasons PUD plan to permit a day-care .center in the ..existing recreational clubhouse in Four Seasons. The County Attorney's office has determined that a public hearing is needed to vacate the subdivision plat since this day-care center evidently will be on the same parcel of land. This special permit is scheduled before the Board on June 18. Therefore, the Clerk is requesting a public hearing be set in order that this vacation of plat can be heard before the special use permit. Mr. St. John said nothing can be done on the special permit until the original plat is vacated. Motion was then offered by Dr Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to set the public hearing for vacating a plat of a portion of "Four Seasons" on June 18, 1980. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 12. Authorize Chairman to sign deed for purchase of Bishop Hill property Mr. St. John presented the following resolution to authorize the Chairman to execute same on behalf of the County. He also noted that the title to the property has been certified by the Deputy County Attorney, Mr. James M. Bowling, IV. "BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that James M. Bowling, IV, is hereby appointed to examine and approve in writing title to all those seven (7) certain lots or parcels of land in Albemarle County, Virginia, more particularly described as Lot 7 and Lots 9 through 14, Bishop Hill subdivision~ as shown on a plat of William Morris Foster, C.L.S., dated March 14, 1980. FURTHER, Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, is hereby authorized to accept a certain deed of conveyance, dated April 30, 1980, from William Morris Foster and Anne M. Foster, his wife and JoSeph H. Cobb and Diane Cobb, his wife, to the County of Albemarle, in behalf of the County of Albemarle pursuant to the terms of a certain contract of purchase, dated March 3, 1980, by and between William Morris Foster and Joseph H. Cobb and the County of Albemarle." Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the foregoing resolution authorizing the Chairman to sign the deed (Copy of the deed ~is set out below) for the purchase of the Bishop Hill property. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. "THIS DEED, made and entered into th~s~30th day of April, 1980, by and between WILLIAM MORRIS FOSTER and ANNE M. FOSTER, his wife, JOSEPH H. COBB and DIANE COBB, his wife, parties of %he first parb~ and THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, party of the second part; W I T N E S,~S E T H : That for and in consideration of the sum of. $66,000.00, cash in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, William Morris FoSter and Anne M. Foster, hi's wife, and Joseph H. Cobb and Diane Cobb, his wife, hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANT OF TITLE unto the County of Albemarle, ~1~ those seven (7) certain lots or parcels of land in Albemarle. County, Virginia, more particularly described as Lot 7 and Lots 9 thru 14, Bishop Hill SUbdivision, as shown on a plat of Wm. Morris Foster, C.L.S., dated March 14, 1980, attached hereto and made a part hereof, bei~g~a portion of the property conveyed to William Morris Foster and Joseph H. Cobb by deed of Harry B. Bishop and others dated July 5, 1978, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Deed Book 654, page 576. The property herein conveYed is subject-to the building setback line as shown on said plat and to the Statement of Subdivision of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 666, page 66, as amended to reduce the total living area of Lot 7 and Lots 9-14 to 1,200 square feet by an Amendment to Statement of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 693, page 452; to a right of way to Central Telephone Company of Virginia dated July 5, 1979, of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 665, page 564; and to a right of way to Virginia Electric and Power Company of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 681, page 761. 9 5 3 May 21~ 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) The County of A~bemarle does hereby accept the conveyance of the above described real estate, as evidenced by the signature of its Chairman, duly authorized to act on behalf of the County of Albemarle pursuant to a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle at its meeting of May 21, 1980." Agenda Item No. 14. At 11:50 P.M., motion was offered by Mr~ Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adjourn to May 29, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. ~~HA~RMAN