Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-25 adj An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 25, 1980, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from June 18, 1980. 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 (Arrived at 10:37 A.M.); and County Planner, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing on the Revised Zoning Map. Progress on June 11 and June 18, 1980.) (Advertised in the Daily Mr. Fisher said it has been six months since the Planning Commission made its recommenda- tion to the Board for a new Zoning Map and this will be the seventeenth meeting on the ordinance and map since that time. This public hearing is to allow individual property owners to make comments on the zoning proposed for their individual parcels. The public hearing was then opened. Speaking first was Mr. George B. McCallum, III, representing Ms. Mary Patricia Brown, owner of property identified as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 119. This is a triangular parcel which fronts on Route 29 North. The present zoning is B-1 and the proposed zoning is C-i, which is not acceptable to Ms. Brown. She desires Highway Commercial zoning which is comparable to the present B-1. B-1 zoning allows fast- food restaurants and hotels/motels but such are not available in the proposed C-1 designation. These two categories are important to his client and neither are available in the HC as a use by right. The fast-food restaurants are only by special use permit in the C-1 zone. Mr. McCallum felt the uses under highway commercial are more intensive than those for the existing B-1 zone and such are not suited for this property since the lots are small. He noted a subdivision plat reviewed in March for this property and on which no additional conditions were imposed. This property will have an internal road system and such was agreed to by the applicant as well as making some significant improvements to RoUte 29. Lot 2 of this parcel is forty thousand square feet and is on the corner of the parcel. An offer has been made by a fast food chain to pay $5.00 per square foot which would make the lot worth $200,000. The improvements to Route 29 to build the internal road, etc., are in the vicinity of $100,000. The negotations are obviously contingent upon the zoning. The value of this property without the requested zoning would be only $100,000. Mr. McCallum said one of the larger lots which is 100,000 square feet lies in the back of the property and he felt such would be attractive as a hotel/motel. This could not be done under the C-1 designation. The request today is for a C~designation plus the hotel/motel category. One way to do this would be to change the text of the C-1 district to allow fast-food restaurants and hotels/motels. He emphasized that there will be an internal road system and such improvements are expensive. His client is not speculating on the property but the venture is for a true investment. In conclusion, Mr. McCallum felt the applicant has done everything she can with her property under the B-1 designation and currently could subdivide in a way that would benefit the County and fit the County's idea of how the area will develop. He felt the County should work with Mrs. Brown in order to give her the reasonable use of the property she currently enjoys. Speaking next on behalf of the Berkeley Community~Asmciation was .Mrs. Joan Graves,. She presented the following memorandum: "1. The corner of Dominion Drive and Route 29 North, adjacent to Shopper's World. (County Tax Map 61M-1D and iH) Planned Development Shopping Center zoning was recommended by the planning staff, but was changed by the Commission at Mr. DaVid Wood's request to Highway Commercial, the most intenSive comme~cial'use. Mr~. Wood has been trying to gain right of access through Dominion Dr~ve for several years, unsu¢cessfuly, since he has access to this property through Shopper's World. We feel that zoning this prOperty highway commercial would separate its use from Shopper's World and ensure an entrance on Dominion Drive. There is no safe way to provide access via Dominion Drive .... 2. We support the proposed C-1 designation for land south of Berkeley on the west s~deof Route 29 (Tax Map 61, Parcel 119), and the' R-6 proposal for'land west and north of the 2600 and 2700 blocks of Commonwealth Drive (Tax Map 45, Parcels 26 and 26A). ~ ~6uld like to 'have seen C-0 development proposed for the undeveloped portion of Berkmar Drive which abuts Berkeley to the north, and certainly feel that Highway Commercial violates the intent of the Comprehensive Plan as it speaks to buffering residential areas. A three hundred foot strip frontage of highway commercial on Rio Road and the rest C-1 might be an acceptable compromise as long as no road access is allowed into Berkeley, except the connector shown in the Comprehensive Plan. If Highway Commercial is allowed to remain on the map on property abutting Berkeley, it would be an intensification of uses allowed in the present B-1 zone." Speaking next was Mr. Ed Bain, representing the property owner of Tax Map 45, Parcel 26. He felt the proposed zoning of R6 was a downzoning from the current R-2 and felt it more appropriate for such to be zoned R-10. The property has an entrance into it and he did not feel R-10 with 10 units per acre affects Berkeley anymore than the original R-2 designa- tion did. In conclusion, he felt that it was closer to the R-10 designation than the actual J~a~ 25 ]980 (D~ay Meeting-Adjourned from J.une 18~ 1980) R-6 proposed. Speaking next was Mr. George B. McCallum, III, on behalf of Lloyd F. and Patsy Wood, owners of Tax Map 61, Parcel 124E. A portion of the property is presently zoned B-1 and the remainder is zoned R-3. The proposed zoning is for Highway Commercial for that which is presently B-1 and such is acceptable to his clients. However, the remainder which was R-3 has been rezoned to R-10 and that is not acceptable. Therefore, the request is to change the R-10 designstion to R-15. Mr. McCallum noted that the property is suited to high density residential development because it is in the urban area and is essentially level and has p~b~ic water and sewer. He noted that this property is on a good road, convenient to schools, employment and shopping. The requested R-15 zoning'would provide a good gradation in zoning in relation to surrounding properties. Mr. McCallum noted the vegetation and trees which could be maintained as buffers to the adjacent properties. He also pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan called for medium density in this area and when the Comprehensive Plan was developed it was stressed and mentioned that this plan was a guide not a rezoning. This p~n was to be a guide for the future and not become the basis for taking away zoning rights which property owners had enjoyed for years under the present Zoning Ordinance. He felt it was at the Board's discretion to decide whether to adhere to the standards of the Comprehensiv Plan or to choose another approach. He did not feel properties were examined that closely when the Comprehensive Plan was developed. Mr. McCallum noted that Tax Map 61, Parcel 124, adjacent to this property and owned by the Charlottesville Oil Company, is hoped to be developed in concert with Mr. Wood's property. Mr. McCallum felt Albemarle County needed high density development in appropriate areas and'the possibility of a unified ownership is. of value to the County. In conclusion, he stated that although R-15 is less than what Mr. Wood currently enjoys he would be agreeable to this zoning category. Mr. Tucker noted a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Donald Reid, owners of property described as Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 and 30A. The property is adjacent to the Hollymead Community. When the zoning map was prepared, a natural boundary was followed to outline the Hollymead community. This boundary is a tributary to Powell Creek and the stream basically cuts the Reid's property in half. Therefore, one-half of the property has been zoned rural and the other half zoned as Hollymead Community. Mr. Tucker felt including the one-half proposed to be rural in the Hollymead Community as R-1 would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Iachetta said the parcel consists of fifty-five acres and the part that is adjacent to Jefferson Village is what is proposed to be R-1. Speaking next was Mr. Leigh Middleditch on behalf of Mrs. John Ewald, Jr., owner of property described as County Tax Map 74, Parcels 14B and 15 which are in the northwest quadrant of the Ivy Interchange. The proposed zoning is RA and his client requests the RTM (research and technical manufacturing) category be retained. General Electric, the previous owners, obtained a rezoning of this property several years ago as a research and technical manufacturing zone. After the Ewalds purchased the property in 1973, a considerable study was done on the utilization of the site for a research facility. A number of consultants were hired to plan for such and the Ewalds hoped that someday such a facility could occupy the site. Unfortunately, while these studies were being conducted, Mr. Ewald died. Therefore another problem exists if the zoning is changed. The Federal estate tax on the estate would have to be recorded at the fair market value of the property under existing zoning and a change in zoning will affect its-value. Mr. Middleditch also noted two letters regardingt~he use of the property as a research and technical manufacturing business. One letter from Dean W. Dexter Whitehead concerning the possible use of this property by a research facility and the second letter in support of the property remaining RTM from Mr. G. A. McAlpine, President of the Products of University Research. Although, Tandem is not deemed to have an industrial use in the narrative in the Comprehensive Plan, the map on page 9 of the Comprehens Plan would put Tandem in the first priority except for the nonavailability of sewer and water at the present time. In conclusion, Mr. Middleditch requested that this property be permitted to remain RTM instead of the proposed RA which would be a downzoning and a decrease in the value. Next to speak was Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, representing Mr. and Mrs. Harry H. Plummer, owners of property described as County Tax Map 55, Parcel 19B. The subject property is near the Crozet exit off of 1-64 and Route 250 West. The entire parcel of four acres is currently zoned commercial. However, the proposed rezoning is for one-half of the parcel to be a less intensive use. The justification from the Planning Commission for this division was due to the steep slopes on the western side of the property. The eastern side is primarily slopes and the western side of Tucked Away Creek which was the dividing line and is the only flat area that could be used for highway commercial. Therefore, he felt the justification for splitting this property in half was arbitrary and incorrect. The flat area on the western side is proposed for RA and the steep area on the east is highway commercial. He realized that the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as RA and deletion of highway commercial on the interchange. He.felt the Board should treat the Plummers property the same as the surroundin~ properties are treated, which is highway commercial. The problem with the proposed highway commercial zoning is that the entrance to the Tiffany's highway commercial property and the entrance to the Stinnet property which surrounds the Plummers is through the Plummers driveway Mr. Rasmussen noted that the home (Tucked Away) is historical and was built in the 1700's and has some value as an inn. The Plummers had a study done by Mr. Max Evans to determine the potential of this proPerty for craft shops and the study determined that the property does have potential for highway commercial uses. In conclusion, Mr. Rasmussen asked that the Plummers property be treated in the same manner as the surrounding parcels, either do one thing or the other, put it all in RA or all in highway commercial. Speaking next was Mrs. Elizabeth Peters who presented a letter for Mrs. Jane Goodwin requesting that the Ivy Creek Area be designated a rural zone. She then presented the following letter for herself: "I, Elizabeth Peters live at the back of Farmington on approximately 5 acres. When we first moved here twelve years ago there was one house on an 11 acre tract. It has since been subdivided and now has four additional houses each on approximately 2 acre lots. Our stream connects to a branch that flows into Ivy Creek and is bordered by the four new houses. Due to silt and poisons used to fertilize the lawns and kill the poison ivy, crab grass, and honeysuckle on these properties we now have to water our horses from the central water system instead of using the creek we formerly were able to use. The character of the lands behind us is rural and was formerly mostly farm area. We in this area strongly desire you, the Board, to consider this as a rural area, not a growth June 25~ 1980 (Da~ Meeting-Adjourned from JuRe area, not only to protect the watershed of Zvy Creek and the Reservoir but also to maintain the rural character of this lovely area and other similar areas and water sources around Charlottesville." Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, presented a letter exerpted below: "Citizens for Albemarle. . . believe(s) you should find as much common ground as possible and proceed to enact the ordinance and map. . . We think the new map should have a rural zone, or zones, and that new development should be discouraged there and be directed toward the growth areas. There should be additional regulations, perhaps in the form of an overlay district, to further limit development and protect the environmc in all watersheds of drinking water impoundments. The overlay district should require that an environmental analysis be submitted with the site plan so that sensitive areas could be protected. The site plan and analysis always should be reviewed by the Supervisors. The following factors should be analyzed in order to delineate and protect the sensitive areas in the overlay zone: 1. Soils: areas of erodable soils. 2. Drainage: major drainage swales and watercourses. 3. Topography: areas of steep slopes (over 25% in open land and over 15% in wooded areas). 4. Vegetation: quantity and type of trees, to restrict the amount of trees removed and to require or at least to encourage the replanting of those removed. A development clearly should be prohibited when the analysis indicates certain damage to a water supply. A development ought to be prohibited when the analysis indicates the likelihood of damage to a public water supply." Mr. Tucker said Mr. Ed Bain had to leave and had asked to mention Tax Map 32, Parcel 20 along Proffit Road. The property belongs to Mr. Benton Patterson and the request is for the existing B-1 to be retained as highway commercial. The proposed zoning is RA and the applicant is against such. Speaking next was Mr. George McCallum, on behalf of the BMC Corporation. The subject property is located at Oak Hill and is described as County Tax Map 76, parcel 52L and contains the Oakhill Food Store and Trailer Park. The property is currently zoned R-3 which allows 20 units per acre. The existing Oakhill Grocery Store has been in business for a long period of time and has been very su~essful. The proposed zoning is R-2 which would allow three units per acre with bonuses. Since the proposed zoning is less than currently allowed, the Corporation requests the recognition of the commercial designation which has been such for years. In fact, the use predates the zoning ordinance and has existed under the grandf~the clause of the existing ordinance. Mr. McCallum said the requested zoning is R-15. He also noted that if the proposed R-2 is enforced, the mobile home park will suffer economically and the park has been used to finance a mortgage. In conclusion, Mr. McCallum said the corporation requests that the existing zoning of R-3 be recognized and did not feel there was any apparent reason for such to be changed. Mr. Donald Reid, owner of property described as Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 and 30A, was present. He requested that his property, which adjoins the Hollymead Community and has been split into RA and the Hollymead Community zone, be commonly zoned with the Hollymead Community as R-1. Ms. Laura Armhoff was present in support of the Ivy Creek Area being designated as a rural area. With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. At 10:37 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:57 A.M. Mr. Fisher said there are some unresolved parts of the zoning map which are not before the Board today but were adopted and recommended by the Planning Commission in December. He noted a series of meetings held in the spring on the Comprehensive Plan which resulted in changes to the boundaries of the urban area, specifically, in the Biscuit Run, Monticello Mountain, Pantops Mountain areas and the watershed areas of urban neighborhoods 1 and 7. He felt it was time to move ahead with getting a recommendation on what to do with the parcels of land that are now recommended for one use on the map and have been changed subsequently by the vote on the Comprehensive Plan amendments. It appears the Board is uncertain as to how to handle such, whether it should be by terrain or by existing usage, infrastructure of roads, water and sewer or whatever. Therefore, Mr. Fisher.felt the proper approach would be to request the planning staff to prepare' amendments to ~he map for those ar~as where the Comprehensive Plan was changed by this Board after the zoning map was prepared. He then requested a resolution for the planning staff to prepare amendments to the zoning map and text of the zoning ordinance in accordance with the approved changes made by the Board on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to that .effect. Dr, Iachetta seconded the motion. 'Mr. Tucker was unsure if he could give a timetable of when these amendments could be returned to the Board. However, he felt certainly by mid-August. Mr. Fisher said another question is, if August is the probable date, if there is another procedure that can be followed. Mr. St. John said the State Code allows the County to adopt a Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance covering all of the County or only part of the County. This means that the Board can go forward with only part of the County, and omit the areas which are not complete. However, he noted that a new text cannot be enacted without a new map. The two have to be done together. Mr. Fisher preforred to have both things together. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was any aspect that could be prepared fairly quickly so as to get as much as possible done now. Mr. Tucker said yes. He envisioned having new maps completed in order to avoid confusion. Mr. Fisher asked if this procedure should involve the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John said it was not necessary. The consensus of the Board was to bring back the amendments on this matter to the BoarS. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and 5~ame carried by the following recorded vote: A-YES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. nt June 25 1980 (Day Meeting-Adjourned from June 18, 1980) Mr. Fisher then asked how the Board should handle requests on parcels which have been appealed. The general feeling of the Board was to go over only the appeals presented today. Mr. Roudabush asked if an applicant ~?is willing to make a proffer of certain conditions for specific zoning, if the Board is permitted to accept that proffer on a general rezoning map or does the proffer have to be on an individual parcel. Mr. St. John did not feel the individual appeals should be treated like a full-pledged zoning review because that would mean the staff would have to prepare a staff report any time a proffer was made in order to deal with the appeal properly. He did not feel a comprehensive rezoning is the time to do that. He also did not feel a comprehensive rezoning precludes the applicant from later offering a proffer. Mr. Roudabush asked if an application could be made before the adoption of this ordinance. Mr, St. John said if such is made, the Board is obligated to go'~hrough the entire process just as any other application for a rezoning. Dr. Iachetta asked if the Board could now respond to the proposed categories in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. St. John said yes since the Board did hold a public hearing on the map as well as the overall ordinance. However, he would warn the Board that it should be aware of spot zoning. He would also advise against the acceptance of any proffer~n~w. Mr. Roudabush asked if Mr. St. John meant that a property owner could not make a proffer until the ordinance is adopted. Mr. St. John said no, if the applicant insists, it can be done. Mr. Roudabush asked what happens if the zone requested is not in the proposed zoning ordinance. Mr. St. John said if a proffer is filed, it has to be accepted under the existing zoning ordinance. The Board then discussed the items presented earlier. The first being County Tax Map 61, parcel 119, Mary Patricia Brown. The proposed zoning is C-1. The property is currently zoned B-1 and the request is for highway commercial or a change in the zoning text to permit fast-food restaurants and hotels/motels by right in the C-1 zone. Mr. RoudabUsh preferred changing the map and not the text Mr. Fisher asked what the comprehensive plan recommends for this area. Mr. Tucker said the area is shown as commercial and noted that the Comprehensi~ Plan does not delineate between highway commercial or any other commercial zone. Dr~ Iachetta said he understands that a fast-food restaurant is allowed in C-1 with a special~ use permit. Mr. Tucker said correct. Dr. Iachetta said even if a change is made to HC, there would still need to be a special use permit granted for a fast-food restaurant so the only thing excluded as a use is the hotel/motel category. Mr Tucker said correct, and he would not recommend changing the text. Dr. Iachetta agreed. Mr. Roudabush felt highway commercial should be allowed along Route 29. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker the reason for the zoning proposed. Mr. Tucker said primarily because most of the access will be oriented towards Route 29 even though the subdivision plat recently submitted showed internal access. After a considerable discussion by the Board about the history of the adjoining parcels, Mr. Lindstrom felt the zoning should be left C-1 as proposed and recommended such additional uses could be considered if a proffer were submitted. Mr. Roudabush disagreed because he felt the owner has rights under the present zoning designation and now those rights will be taken away. Dr. Iachetta did not support highway commercial in this area. He then offered motion to leave the zoning on County Tax Map 61, parcel 11~ C-1 as shown on the proposed Zoning Map. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carrmed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. Roudabush. ~ The next item for discussion was Tax Map 61M, Parcel iD, property of David J. Wood, discussed by Mrs. Joan Graves earlier in the meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to change the zoning on this parcel to planned development shopping center as recommended by the staff. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Mr. Henley asked if this one-acre piece of land could be thrown into a planned development-shopping center, such as Shopper's World. Mr. Tucker understood that the owner of the parcel, Mr. David Wood, has an easement through the shopping center to his site. Mr. St. John did not feel it was being made a part of the shopping center by being zoned as such. Mr. Roudabush asked if this zoning would preclude an application for an entrance. Mr. St. John said no, not with a proffer. Mr. Roudabush asked how the uses differ for a shopping center and highway commercial. Mr. Tucker said the heavy, more intensive uses are not permitted in a shopping center. Mr. Fisher then asked how this zoning related to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said this is all shown as commercial. (Dr. Iachetta left the meeting at 11:53 A.M.) Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstr°m and Miss Nash and Mr. RoudabuSh. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. The next parcel for discussion was Tax Map 6~, Parcel~4iE,propertY of Lloyd F. and Patsy Wood. (Dr. Iachetta returned to the meeting at 11:56 A~M.) Mr. Fisher noted that the requested zoning is for R-10 which would permit up to ten units by right and fifteen with bonuses. The proposed zoning is R-6 which is six units by right and nine units~with bonuses, The current zoning is R-2 which permits up to eight units per acre. He asked the ComprehenSi~ Plan recommendation. Mr. Tucker said medium density is shown in that area which is ten units by right. Motion was then offered by Mr, Lindstrom to leave the designation, R-6, as recommended on the Zoning Map, since such conforms with the existing zoning and the Comprehens~ Plan recommendation. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion. Mr. Roudabush said he would support the motion on the assumption that the bonus provisions will stay in the ordinance. Mr. Henley agreed. 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 and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. June 25, 1980 (Day Meeting-Adjourned from gune 18, 1980) Discussion then followed on Tax Map 61K, Parcel 1, the Albemarle Veterinary Hospital. Mr. Tucker said the parcel is recognized as commercial on the zoning map and such seems to be in compliance with a request he had received from Dr. Huckle. Therefore, no action is needed. He did want to indicate, however, that a veterinary office requires a special use permit in the C-1 and HC zones. Therefore, this facility will be nonconforming. The proposed zoning ordinance will not make the use conforming until a special use permit is obtained. Mr. Tucker said the proposed zoning is highway commercial and current zoning is R-3. The Board members then expressed their concern about what would happen to the parcel of land if this particular facility went out of business, burned down, etc. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it were possible for the County Attorney to redefine the term "nonconforming" and perhaps such would be better than a blanket rezoning for each nonconforming use in the County that is to be preserved. After a brief discussion, Mr. Fisher suggested leaving this designation as highway commercial for the time being until the County Attorney has an opportunity to redefine nonconforming and also with the knowledge that there will be other existing uses where changes will have to be made. The next parcels of discussion were the ones presented by Mrs. Joan Graves, Tax Map 61U, parcels 1, iA, iF, 1G and 12. These are designated as highway commercial and abut Berkmar Drive and are of great concern to Mrs. Graves, a resident of Berkeley. The parcels are presently designated B-1. Mr. Roudabush felt the owners should be entitled to have some of the uses which they currently enjoy since they built the road themselves and relied on the current zoning. Mr. Henley was disturbed about changing any of this when the property owner was not present and only upon the recommendation of one person who is only a resident of the adjacent subdivision. Mr. Fisher said there will be another public hearing and he felt the Board is entitled to look at parcels regardless of who is making the appeal. Mr. Roudabush felt that the Board had been trying to solicit some zoning items but if the Board continues changing and saying people can come in later and get what they want, there will be more zoning map amendments than ever. Mr. Lindstrom asked the staff's recommendation. Mr. Tucker said the recommendation is C-1 on both sides of Berkmar Drive. The reason for the recommendation was that the majority of uses in existence fit into the C-1 category. He did not feel the Comprehensive Plan was meant to show this area as residential. Mr. Roudabush said if it did, then it was certainly an error. Mr. Henley supported C-1 on both sides of Berkmar Drive but felt the owners should have an opportunity to speak for themselves. After a discussion about the Berkmar Drive area, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to change the highway commercial designation to C-1 for Tax Map 61U, Parcels 1, IA, IF, 1G, SA, 9A, 10A, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion. 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. Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 3. At 12:35 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch. ~fBoard reconvened at 1:35 P~.M. with all members present. Mr. Fisher said there was a matter of potential litigation and also a personnel matter which needed to be discussed in executive session. Motion to adjourn into executive session was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabus and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 3:35 P.M. with Mr. Roudabush being absent at this time. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. following notices from utility companies for the record: Mr. Fisher entered the 1) 2) The Potomac Edison Company - Notice of determination respecting the termination of customer service standard pursuant to Section 113 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Case No. PUE800024. The Potomac Edison Company - Determination respecting the advertising standard pursuant to Section 113 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Case No. PUE800021. 3) Rappahannock Electric Cooperative - Determination respecting the Advertising Standard pursuant to Section 113 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Case No. PUE800021. Rappahannock Electric Cooperative - Determination respecting the Advertising Standard pursuant to Section 303 of the Public Utility Policies Act of 1978 Case No. PUE800022. ' 5) Lynchburg Gas Company - State Corporation Commission Case No. PUES00021, Advertising Standard. 6) Lynchburg-Ga~ Company - State Corporation Commission Case No. PUE800027, Terminavion of Customer Service Standard. 7) Virginia Electric and Power Company - Determination respecting the Advertising ~'~Yst'andard~Dnrsuan~ to Section 113 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Case No. PUE800021. 8) Virginia Electric and Power Company - Determination respecting the Advertising Standard pursuant to Section 303 of the Public Utility Policies Act of 1978, Case No. PUES00022. June 25, 1980 (Adjourned from June 18, 1980) Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning Map (Continued from morning sessional Mr. David J. Wood was present to make the following requests for changes on the proposed zoning map. Parcel known as County Tax Map 61M, Parcel 1 to the south and west of the existing Pizza Inn and the land on which the Pizza Inn is located. Mr. Wood requested HC (Highway Commercial) zoning for this property. He said he has owned the land since 1953 and paid taxes on the B-i, commercial zoning for a number of years. To downzone that parcei will result in a considerable financial loss. Mr. Fisher noted that the parcel is proposed for C-1 zoning. ~ Mr. Wood then mentioned Parcel iD of Tax Map 61M which is a one-acre parcel at the north corner of the intersection of Route 29 North and Dominion Drive. An application for a Pizza Inn on this parcel was submitted to the Board. a number of years ag° which showed access to Dominion Drive and Route 29 North. The Board denied access to both roads. Mr. Wood said that in 1974, Parcel lC was sold to Charlottesville Shopper's World. and an easement through the Shopping Center was reserved for Parcel iD. In March, 1975 the.site plan for Shopper's World was approved. That site plan showed parking spaces along the northern boundary and most of the western boundary of the property. After the site plan was approved, it was found that more parking spaces were needed so the plan was redesigned and submitted for approval. It has now been found that the easement runs over parking spaces on the revised plan, so the easement is not usable. The only place where access can be obtained for Parcel ID is in the northwestern corner, but there.is a 15-foot difference in elevation from this parcel into Shopper's World. If Parcel iD were leveled, a steep ramp would have to be constructed in order to use the access into the Shopper's World parking lot. This is an impractical solution for a commercial use. The property has been shown to many developers over the last two years but has not been sold because of this situation. Access through the Shopping Center is not a practical access for any development. Mr. Wood then asked that Parcel ID be considered for HC (Highway Commercial) zoning and said that later access may be requested to Dominion Drive again. ~ Mr. Wood then mentioned Tax Map 61U, Parcels 14 and 1 and Block 12. This property is on Berkmar Drive which is currently zoned B-1 from the Charlottesville Shopper's World property all the way through to Rio Road. He said.a lot of money was spent to build Berkmar Drive to open UP that land for B-1 development and a parcel of land was given to the coUnty for a rescue squad building. A lot of the land on Berkmar has uses which do not comply with the proposed C-1 zone and he asked that the Board consider these parcels for HC. Mr. Wood then mentioned property of Mr. William H. White in Yancey Mills, Tax Map 55, Parcels 83, 84, 102, 103 and Tax Map 55A, Parcels 39 and 40. He said these are all contiguous parcels presently zoned A-1. The proposed R-1 zone in Crozet extends toward Yancey Mills and has been stopped at the boundary of this property. He felt it would be more logical to stop the boundary of the R-1 at a road (which would put Mr. White's property under R-1 zoning) or some physical boundary, rather than using a'property line which he did not consider to be a logical boundary. Mr. Wood discussed the property of Mr. Meredith Bickers at the intersection of 1-64 and Route 250 East, Tax Map 78, Parcel 33. The property is located across the road from the Sheraton Inn and appears to be an important parcel of commercial land. Mr. Bickers has owned the property for a number of years and has negotiated with about four different motel firms for sale of the property, but has never reached an agreement. The property is now being considered for the agricultural/rural designation and this does not seem to be appropriate for a quadrant of an interchange. He said this zoning would result in a severe financial loss to Mr. Bickers and requested that the property be zoned HC. Mr. WOod mentioned the properties known as Stone Farm and Lanark (Tax Maps 90, 10i, 102, 103) which belong~to his brother and sister; properties of about 5,000 acres in total located south of Ash Lawn. Mr. Wood said there is no objection to the agricultural/rural designation but objection is lodged against the wording in the ordinance which restricts the right to subdivide. When the limitation of 20 lots by right is applied to existing parcels, it seems ridiculous. Mr. Edward Bain, Jr. was present to speak for Mr. Benton Patterson, owner of Tax Map 32, Parcel 20. He said this land was sold based on the current commercial designation and Mr. Patterson took back a substantial amount of deferred purchase money, the outstanding balance is $200,000. The property contains about 78 acres, and if it is downzoned to agricultural land, essentially nothing could be done with the land other than strip the road frontage. He asked that at least a C-1 designation be retained on the property as anything less than that designation would put Mr. Patterson in'an adverse financial position. With no other member of the public present to speak, the public hearing was reclosed at 4:08 P.M. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board continue work on the Rural Areas text of the zoning ordinance on July 16 at 1:30 P.M. June 25, 1980 (Adjourned from June 18, 1980) Agenda Item No. 6. Letter from Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority re: Problem in the Crozet Area. Septic System "June 3, 1980 Mr. Gerald Fisher, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Gerry: Enclosed is a copy of the letter I have written to Mr. Ronald Conner, State Department of Health, regarding the septic system problems in the Crozet area. Will the Board of Supervisors also ask Mr. Conner to visit the area and to support Albemarle's efforts to speed up the timetable for funding the Crozet Interceptor, if he sees no other long-term solution to the problem? I have asked Mrs. Hammock and Mrs. Remley to list addresses of those complaining about odor and failing systems so that we will have a partial list, at least, by the time Mr. Conner or someone from his office comes. I do not know the names of all of the neighborhoods we visited, but included in our "tour" were Brookwood (where many homes required pumps to pump wastewater uphill to drainfields), Orchard Acres, Laurel Hills, Snead's Trailer Court, and an area of low- cost housing. Some are well established developments. Brookwood, however, has a number of new homes whose owners have discovered inadequate systems. Local health officials have been involved when residents complained about odors from neighboring drainfields, as well as when those plagued by their own failing systems sought help. A reasonable life for an on-site system for a single family dwelling, with proper maintenance, is about 30 years. Failure to plan a sewage disposal system to last that long can result in a serious health hazard. I am afraid that is what has occurred in the Crozet area. We need a skilled professional survey of the situation. agrees and seeks Mr. Conner's assistance. I hope the Board of Supervisors Sincerely, (Signed) Treva W. Cromwell Chairman" "June 3, 1980 Mr. Ronald Conner, Regional Director Department of Health 129 S. Randolph Street Lexington, Virginia 24450 Dear Mr. Conner: During the State Water Control Board's priorty-list hearing in Richmond on May 15, 1980, two ladies from Crozet supported the request of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and of City and County officials to speed up the timetable for funding of the Crozet Interceptor. One, Mrs. Kay Remley, presented a petition with about 800 signatures. The other, Mrs. Katie Hammock gave a graphic account of conditions in Crozet where septic tank/drainfield systems are failing. Later, I contacted the two ladies to thank them for their efforts and support and made arrangements to visit neighborhoods where they claim problems of inadequate subsurface systems have defied solutions. I spent several hours there last week and believe the situation warrants a close look by your office to check the affected developments - to review the existing conditions and practices of the local health officials who have approved these systems. Several homeowners reported that County health officials told them they "had to do something" about failing (or failed) systems. But there's not much they can do. The too-small lots are inadequate for a second absorption field; the seasonal water table is obviously too high; and the heavy soils all through that area have a slow filtration rate. Because of concern about their problems, Mrs. Remley contacted Mr. J. Kenneth Robinson's Congressional office here for help and was told about the State Water Control Board's hearing in May. So many of those who signed the petition see the interceptor as the only relief from an intolerable situation. These people are doing what they can - don't use their washers, limit bathroom use when it rains, and haul dirt to cover their bubbling yards. One young couple has spent $1700 in an attempt to solve the problem. As might be expected, complaints about odor are common. Developments with septic tank/soil absorption field problems are not concentrated in one area, but are scattered throughout the Crozet community so that a general solution- a sewerage system - seems the only long range alternative. If, after viewing the area, you agree, I urge your Department to join forces with the citizens of Crozet, the Rivanna Authority and City and County officials in their appeal to the State Water Control Board for early funding of the Crozet Interceptor; which, as you know, has long been recommendec as the solution to the pollution problems .in Crozet. Sincerely, (Signed) Treva W. Cromwell Chairman" June 25, 1980 (Adjourned from June 18, 1980) Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board Should join the Rivanna Authority in this request to Mr. Conner and he felt that review of the approval process for septic systems and drainfields should also be requested. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to this effect. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Dr. Iachetta said there are a number of septic fields in his district that have failed within two years after being put into use. That may in part have been caused by the regular used in approving locations. Mr. Henley said he had no problem with asking Mr. Conner to look at the problem in Crozet, but as pertains to the second part of the request, he felt the Board might be jumping on Mr. Conner at Mrs. Cromwell's recommendation. Dr. Iachetta said the motion is only requesting a review of the Health Department's procedures. Mr. Henley said he would prefer that a letter be written only asking Mr. Conner to look at the problem and determine what can be done. Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. Agnor draft such a letter based on the consensus. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 7. Request for Appropriation from JAUNT. Mr. Agnor said that at the beginning of the present fiscal year, this Board agreed to provide JAUNT with cash funds to cover their operating deficit in Albemarle County for the period from January through December 1979; that amount was calculated to be $24,000. In February, JAUNT returned to the Board and said they had not yet received any Federal funds and asked that the loan be extended through June. At that time, $9,500 of the original $24,000 had been expended, so a new need of $20,000 was calculated for the remainder of the fiscal year. In March, an invoice for Novembe~ and December was submitted to the Finance Director and in April, an invoice was submitted for January through March. By May all but $3,000 of the $20,000 has been used. Recently, Mr. Jones was requested to release $4,000, but could not meet that request in its entirety. Now, JAUNT requests funds for May and June as well as an extension of repayment of the funds disbursed thus far. Mrs. Linda Wilson has said that there has been no indication yet as to when the Section 18 funds will be released by the Federal government. Mr. Agnor said authori- zation is needed to advance JAUNT an additional $10,000 through June 30, 1980, and if the Board wishes, it might also authorize another $10,000 for the months of July and August. Mr. Agnor said he had talked with Mrs. Wilson this week and she said that because of the Attorney General's opinion on the labor warranty required for the Section 18 funds, all Section 18 funds in Virginia have been frozen. JAUNT is looking at the possibility of signing its own labor warranty since it is a nonprofit corporation'. But, if JAUNT is not allowed to sign the warranty, and localities are not allowed to sign because of the Attorney General's opinion, there is a problem in the whole state as to how these funds will be released. .If the Board authorizes the additional funds requested by JAUNT, it should do so with the knowledge that the legal problem with this labor warranty will freeze Federal funds for all transportation systems in Virginia for a good while. Mr. Fisher said he serves on the JAUNT Board and he knows it is difficult for its staff to continue operating when it is not known from month to month what will happen. He recom- mended that the Board authorize the funding requested for May through August, 1980. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $20,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from-the General Fund and coded to 18B - JAUNT, with these funds being dispersed at the rate of $5,00G per month for the months of May, June, July and August, 1980, based upon financial reports furnished to the Director of Finance showing that this money is needed to cover JAUNT's operating deficit created in Albemarle County. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. following recorded vote: Roll was called-and the motion carried by the AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 8. Request for Advance to the School Fund. The following memorandum from Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, dated June 19, 1980, was received: "It appears that the School Fund may have a deficit balance as of'June 30, 1980. The School Fund is a cash control account in which all revenues allocated to Education are added to the fund, and all expenses are deducted from the fund to arrive at a balance. This deficit is not a budget deficit. A deficit fund balance is caused from delays in receiving revenues or'~by a build up in receivables, combined with increased scope of operations. Another cause is when a single month of operat±ons has an abnormally large amount of expenses as is the case in June of each year. For instance, the school payroll-for the month of May was $1,~029,588.85, whereas the payroll for the month of June will be $2,136,261.10, plus one-time payments amounting to $122,961. June 25, 1980 (Adjourned from June 18, 1980) The increased payroll for June results from ten-month employees taking their salaries in twelve pay periods. The July and August checks are written in June and charged against the fund as "warrants payable" in accordance with the requirements of the State Auditor. The one-time payments amounting to $122,961 is caused in part by regular school employees taking leave which requires the hiring of substitutes; extra activity in athletics during the spring months; and payment of fringe benefit costs (social security, retirement and life insurance). The amount of fringe benefit costs paid by the state is determined by the average daily attendance. Since the State paid for the first eight months of this fiscal year based on approximately 9,500 students, and this figure was adjusted and lowered to the actual enrollment figure in May, the County had to pay an additional $47,000 in local money for fringe costs. ~The quickest way to create a deficit fund balance is to enlarge existing reimbursable programs that require the County to first pay costs with local funds and then be reimbursed. About $686,281 of such funds have not been received in reimbursements to date. Some of this money will probably be received by June 30, however, there is no assurance of this. Since it is not proper to have a deficit fund balance on June 30, I request that the Board adopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Finance to transfer from the General Fund to the School Fund $835,670. This amount represents one month of local funds appropriated to Education for this fiscal year. The Board will be making the transfer one month in advance as this amount would be transferred in July anyway. Not only will this action solve the June 30 problem, but it will also provide approximately $200,000 for accounts payable. The fund deficit balance will be approximately $600,000. By making this advance, it will not be necessary for a reversion once the reimbursements are received on the current fiscal year's opera~ions. Favorable action on this request to transfer in advance $835,670, may be only a one year solution to the problem. As the Board is already aware, the State is transferring to the County effective July 1, the cost of all fringe benefits. This amounts to over $1 million each year and requires the County to have more operating capital. This problem may become so acute next year that the request will be for an actual appropriation rather than an advance transfer." Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to authorize the transfer of $835,670 from the General Fund to the School Fund for the fiscal year 1979'-80; this amount being transferred at this time in lieu of the normal transfer of local funds which would be made for the month of July, 1980. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 9. Special Appropriation: Finance Department. randum from Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, was presented: The following memo- "The Indirect Cost Allocation Plan for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1979, has been completed by Overman, Robinson & Brown. Contractual arrangements for this study were made earlier, however, no appropriation was made at that time. The Plan was approved by the State Welfare Department this month. The County is to be reimbursed $35,639 for its share of central services provided to the Social Services Department during the fiscal year 1979. Of this amount, $7,127.80 is due and payble to ORB and an appropriation is requested. The increased amount of auto decal sales by outside agencies, combined with the increase in unit price, will produce an over-expenditure of approximately $3,400. The Finance Department budget cannot absorb this cost in its total budget. Therefore, an appropriation of $3,400 is requested to cover this expense." Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,400 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the following codes in the Finance Department budget for the reasons listed: 3-299.1 Consultants - Indirect Cost Study $ 7,127.80 3-317a Sale of Auto Tags-Other Agencies 3~400.00 Total Appropriation $10,527.80 Agenda Item No. 9A. Resolution: Permit for Bus Stops, Route 29 North. Mrs. June T. Moon was present and said it had just been learned that the County must post a bond with the Virginia Department of Highways and Trasnportation for bus stops located on Route 29 North. In lieu of such bond, a permit can be obtained if the Board of Supervisors adopts a resolution guaranteeing costs involved in the maintenance, improvement and removal of these stops. Helen Poore of the Charlottesville Transit Service has said that no costs are anticipated in this connection. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution: June 25, 1980 (Adjourned from June 18, 1980) WHEREAS, experimental mass transit service along the Route 29 North corridor is scheduled to begin June 10, 1980; and WHEREAS, all bus stops along this route have been established by Charlottesville Transit Service, contract service provider, and approved by the Albemarle County Staff and by Daniel S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation requires that a bond be posted by the County of Albemarle, or a permit secured through an appropriate resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors, in lieu thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the County of Albemarle does hereby guarantee any and all costs involved in the maintenance, improvement, and removal of all bus stops installed on the Route 29 North corridor, and does hereby apply for permit in lieu of bond. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and to Charlottes- ville Transit Service. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Mrs. Moon said that authorization was needed for either the Chairman or the County Executive to sign a permit application for the bus stops. Motion to authorize the County Executive to sign an application with the Virginia DePartment of Highways and Transportation to install and maintain eleven bus stops between RoUte 743 and the Greene County Line was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Mrs. Helen Poore from the Charlottesville Transit Service was present and requested a resolution of the question about the number of signs to be installed on the buses and the location of sameD She gave the following proposal: Signs to be metal, weatherproof, with black lettering on white background. Signs to be 20 inches high and 48 inches wide. Lettering on signs to be: Albemarle County Bus Service (?" letters) Funding by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (4" letters) Charlottesville Transite Service, Contractor (2" letters) Mr. Fisher said he felt the buses should have the signs painted on the front, back and both sides. Since the buses are supposedly being bought for the County's route, he could see no reason to use temporary signs. Mrs. Poore said the contract signed for this route did not call for any signs. The buses being purchased by the City are committed to this system, but back-up vehicles from the City fleet will be used for this route. The sunburst logo painted on the buses was done at the City's expense and is not a part of the contract cost. Mr. Agnor said when the signs were discussed before, it was said that if the City's sunburst emblem and the words "Charlottesville Transit Service" were painted on the buses, the only thing the County wanted was a sign to cover that wording and emblem. The metal brackets which must be mounted on the sides of the buses, will allow a sign to be slipped into that bracket covering the sunburst and writing. Mrs. Poore said if a sign is requested for each side of the buses, that is where the frames will be mounted. Mr. Henley and Dr. Iachetta both agreed with this idea. Mrs. Moon said the signs cost $87 each and that cost was not included in the contemplated budget for this route. This cost will be at County expense since the signs were not included in the bid proposal. Mr. Fisher asked if a special appro- priation was needed for the signs. Mr. Agnor said no. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the sign proposal as set out above, with signs being mounted in a metal frame which will cover the City's sunburst logo; number of signs to be purchased - six; and cost of the signs to be borne by the County. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Roudabush. !40' June 25, 1980 '(AdjoUrned from June 18, 1980) Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Estimated Carry-Over Balance on June 30, 1980. Mr. Ray Jones presented a memorandum~dated June 6, 1980,~on the above subject. Memo is summarized beloW: "The carry-over balance is estimated to total $1,054,811 for the current year's operation. Of this amount, $300,000 is represented by a return to the General Fund of money received from a $500,000 Literary Fund Loan on the Albemarle High School Physical Education project; the other $200,000 went into the School's Construction Fund. The $300,000, plus approximately $700,000 in excess earnings on investments, makes up the majority of the carry-over balance. ....... ~ Schoot,~.F:und revenues are less than the amount budge~te~:'~6ue to an over-estima~e~i,;~ of the average daily attendance figure, plus reductions in federally-funded programs~ General Operations expenditures will be approximately $113,000 less than the amounts appropriated, and School Operating expenditures will be approximately $300,000 less than the amounts appropriated. However, there will be some over- expenditures in energy related items." Agenda Item No. ll. Appointments. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mr-. Howard W. Allen to the Piedmont Community College Board of Directors effective July l, 1980, with term ending on June 30, 1984. Mr. Allen rePlaces Mr. James Butler whose term has expired. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted letter received from Mr. D. B. Hope, District Highway Engineer, in reference to a problem with cutting of roads in Westmoreland Subdivision by the Albemarle County Service Authority for installation of the sewer line. He said he did not understand the letter. Mr. Agnor said he would write Mr. Hope again and ask him to accept a letter from the A.C.S.A. as a guarantee that they will stand behind any paving required if the patch work~ does not hold. Mr. Fisher noted petition received from residents on Northfields Road and ~untington Road requesting the Board and the Albemarle County Service Authority to arrange for these residents to acquire public sewage service. Ther. reason for the request is that the soil in the area is not conducive for perking, thus causing the yards to stay wet all the time and the sewage to come to the top of the ground. Dr. Iachetta said this is in his district and he had not known there was a problem on Huntington Road. He asked that this be deferred to July 9 so he could have time to talk to some of the residents about the problem. Mr. Fisher said he had received a document entitled "Emergency Services in Charlottesville from the Mayor. Mr. Agnor said he had also seen the report and would make a summary of same at the July 9 meeting. Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 24, adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan so the ordinance relating to the Buck Mountain Creek Watershed can be made permanent if this Board so desires. The Planning Commission will hear this amendment on July 15. If the Board of Supervisors wants to proceed with a public hearing on the emergency ordinance, the Board will have to order same advertised. If the Board does not want to pursue this idea, there is no need for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said if the Board wanted to continue, he would suggest August 13 as a hearing date. Motion to set a public hearing on the Buck Mountain Creek ordinance for August 13, 1980, was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 5:21 P.M. Dr. Iachetta said representatives from the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company have asked if it would be possible to have a fire hydrant installed on the front of their property, unmetered, to fill trucks. Mr. Agnor suggested that the staff study this request since there is another fire hydrant in the area which might be moved to this property. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to authorize the County Staff to study the question and arrive at a cost estimate. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 13. At 5:25 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.