Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-04-16April 9 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) A man in the audience asked what the Board had done. Mr. Fisher said he would the motion as it affects delineation of urban area neighborhoods #1 and #7. The wa~ limit at the ridge line will be used for delineation of the urban area, and the Boa~ committed itself to try to develop a stronger protection for the entire watershed a~ that is to be done has not yet been determined, only that the Board will work on be~ controls for the entire watershed, and soon. Mr. Lindstrom said the word "try" was the motion. Mr. Fisher said the boundary for the urban area has been determined, but that ~ only matter which needed to be discussed tonight. He asked if the other Board memb~ to continue or adjourn. At 11:00 P.M., motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded b~ Lindstrom, to adjourn this meeting until April 16, 1980, at 3:15 P.M. in the Board ] motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. April 16, 1950 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from April 9, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, on April 16, 19~0, at 3:15 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building~ Chs ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from April 9, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss. Ellen V. Nash and Mr. William S. Roudabush. Officers Present: Tucker, Jr. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Planner, Rob~ Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:25 P.M. with a moment Agenda Item No. 2. 1980.) Comprehensive Plan, Urban Area Amendments. (Deferred from Mr. Fisher said Miss Nash had requested this discussion today because of her c¢ about the boundary line established for the Monticello Mountain area and Neighborhoc 5 south of the City. Miss Nash said she did not think that any of the area shown or side of Route 20 below 1-64 should be included in Neighborhood 4 and that land need~ development because of this deletion be included in Neighborhood 5 instead. She al~ eliminating property on the west side of Route 742 from the industrial category. M~ asked the status of the petition for the Hillcrest PUD development. Mr. Tucker sai~ action was deferred several years ago pending completion of the AWT Plant. Mr. Fi~ from what he has heard, funding~-for Phase II of the ANT Plant is in trouble and tha? fect this whole area of the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned about eliminating the area west of Route Street Extended), but felt it might be worth considering deleting land to the~east- ~ April 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from Apr Lindstrom did not'feel that all of the densities deleted from these maps has to be another location because these maps already show densities which far exceed Pro- pulation figures. This area~could be included in future planning when water and vices are available~ Mr. Lindstrom said he could support deleting the area to the oute 20 because of the geographical features~in that area, however, he was not d in deleting the land to the west of Route 742. Dr. Iachetta said since it seems further development in that area is tied to the need for public utilities, he felt un could be added in the next update of the Plan. Mr. Fisher said the area still road improvements to Route 6~1. Roudabush said he had supported the Crowther~proposal for Biscuit Run and a lot of It it was a mistake when the~Board did not approve that plan. Nobody is going to improvements unless there is some incentive for growth. He feels that eventually th will have to be shifted from the northern end of the County because the transports will be unmanageable in that area. Biscuit Run i~close~ to utilities. Also, provid~ h in the southern part of the County is a good way to ease problems on the Rivanna Dr. Iachetta agreed that'putting tNe density close to utilities is logical and worth considering. Mr. Roudabush said it would take a developer several years of just to get through the approval process with the County and the Highway Department. Fisher asked that the Board return~to the question of deleting that portion of ood 4 on the east side of Route 20. Miss Nash said Mr. James Bear, Curator of o, was present, and asked him what affect he felt this area would have on Monticello a the urban area. Mr. Bear said he was concerned about what might be built on Route you turn off of Route 20. Mr. Fisher said the density shown for this area is i - 4 ~nits per acre. If history continues to repeat itself, people will ask for the llowable density which commits the County to providing roads, utilities, schools, Roudabush said if~the Board feels committed to granting the highest density allowed it is requ~ested, then the maximum density might as well be shown on the 'Plan maps ime. Mr. Bear said this is the historical route out of Charlottesville and he would ~t to remain the same. Dr. Iachetta agreed that the area on the east side of Route be deleted. ~isher said the Board should decide on the addition of the Biscuit Run area. Mr. the owners of the Forest Lodge Land Trust, which owns all of the land south of the ~rban Area 5, submitted a PUD plan yesterday for their propoerty. What has been would take 30 years to develop and they are only asking for the ability to make plans. They have included in the plans a sewage treatment spur which, points right [scuit Run and they have also developed a road scheme which they feel will solve ~e road problems in this area. Mr. Fisher said there have been citizens at Board ~o talk about the Biscuit Run area, but it was not included in the public hearing ~rch. People are present today from that area and Mr. Dure has said that the County ~as advised that the Board can act on the request. If the Board feels this is a ~t change,, the Plan can be readvertised. ~indstrom said he would offer motion to take the portion of Neighborhood ~ that is ~ute 20 and south of I-6~ out of the urban area. The motion was seconded by Miss Lindstrom said he meant this'motion for a concensus vote only. Mr. Roudabush said ~upport the motion if it included transferring some of that density to the Biscuit Mr. Lindstrom said that was not the intent of the motion. Dr. Iachetta said he ~ort the motion, but it does not answer the entire question of what should be done ~rt of the County. Mr. Henley said he could support taking that portion east of ~ut of the urban area, but he also had no problem with adding some of that density area. Roll was called on the motion which passed by the following recorded vote: ~srs. Fisher.; Henley, Iachetta,' Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. April 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from April 9, 1980) April 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from April 9, 1980) Mr. Fisher then requested a motion to adopt the Urban Area maps for the Compre~ Plan. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the maps which follow. The moti¢ seconded by Mr. Henley. Miss Nash asked when the Board would decide what to do abo~ watershed area deleted from Urban Areas i & 7. Mr. Fisher said he had planned to p~ item on a separate agenda. Roll was then called on the motion which passed by the ~ recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. April 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from April 9, April 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from April 9, 1980) Mr. Fisher .then requested a motion to adopt the Urban Area maps for the Compre~ Plan. Motion was offered~by Dr, Iachetta to adopt the maps which follow. The moti¢ seconded by Mr. Henley. Miss Nash asked when the Board~would decide what to do aboL watershed area deleted from Urban Areas I & 7. Mr. Fisher said he had planned to pt item on a separate~agenda. Roll was then called on the motion which passed by the ~ recorded vote: AYES' Messrs. Fisher~ Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. NOTE: 'Densities shown on this map may not be realizable with exist- ing facilities. April 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from Apri Urban Area Map 2 Neighborhood Two ' DETAILED LAND USE AMENDMENT KEY ~ Suburban Res. (max. 1 du/ac) ~ Low Density Res. (1-4 du/ac) ~ Medium Density Res. (5-10 du/ac)  Low-Medium Density Resf' (max. 6 du/ac) ~ High Density Res. (11-34 du/ac) ~Commercial ~Commercial Office O O~.en Space/Recreational (~=Park, I=Institution) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1977-1995 Proposed Roadway (CATS) ./ 348 Scale ~ 1"- 2000' -N- ~ ' April 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from April 9, 1980) NOTE-: Densities shown on this map may not be realizable with exist- lng facilities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN i '. 1977 - 1995 April 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from Aprii~9 April 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned ', ~1 Y A .kb,~ NOW: Densities shown on this map may not be realizable with exiSting facilities. COI~PREHENSIVE PLAN' 1977 --1995 Aprii'16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from Apz NOTE: Densities shown on this map may not be realizable with exist- ing facilities. ?. ./ April 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from April 9, 1980) NOTE: Densities shown on this.map may not be realiz- able with existing facilities. · ! ;~ COMPREH£NSIVE PLAN 1977 .- 1'995 KEY ~ Low Density Res. (1-4 du/ac) [] Hich D~nei~-~ P~e Map 7 Urban Area Neighborhood .Seven DETAILED LAND USE AMENDMENT April 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from Apri ~oregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. Le. Item No. 4. Proclamation - Madison House. Mr. Fisher said he has been signing .amations without asking for Board approval and if there were no objections, he ~inue this practice. The other Board members concurred. Item No. 5. Draft Contract: Transportation Route 29 North Corridor System. Board members had not had time to reView this document, discussion of same was April 23, 1980. )ocketed. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels there are some qualified persons at the ~ of Virginia who might help the Board review items relating to protection of the ~ Rivanna River watershed. He had planned to discuss this prospect with some of ~mally if the other Board members do not object. There were no objections. ~gnor noted receipt of two notices from the State Corporation Commission: i 3, 1980, Metropolitan CoaCh Corp. for a certificate of public convenience necessity as a sightseeing carrier by m~tor vehicle. ic Service Company of Virginia - notice of a rate increase. Fisher noted receipt of notice dated April 15, 1980, that the Virginia State Fire Commission will hold a regional public hearing at the Charlottesville Fire Department ers Station on April 23, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Fisher said the Board will probably g a work session on the Zoning Ordinance at that time and Mr. Roudabush will be Fisher noted that the meeting scheduled with City Council for April 23, 1980, had elled. Roudabush said he had attended the public hearing on pre-allocation of primary road the Culpeper District this past Tuesday. He delivered a statement prepared by the tut the drainage problem on Route 29 North, Route 29 North in general, and funding 20. He has requested a transcript of the hearing because he was not able to stay ~ntire meeting. i:34 P.M., Mr. Roudabush, offered motion to adjourn into executive session for in of personnel matters and land acquisition. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstr¢ Led by the following recorded vote: ~ssrs. Fisher, Henley~ Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. )ne. Board reccnvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned. April 16, 1980 (Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, held on April 16, 1980 at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlotte Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Ia C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:40 Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman. Mr. Fisher noted that the following items on the age~ not yet been acted upon by the Planning Commission. Agenda Item No. 5. ZTA-80-02. Marianne Tejeda. To amend the A-1 provisions Zoning Ordinance to permit temporary events. (Advertised in the Daily Progress ox and April 9, 1980.) Agenda Item No. 6. SP-80-15. U-Haul and Robyn L. Eaton. For light wareho~ 3.474 acres zoned B-i~ Proper~y on east side of Route 29 North, adjacent to and s Woodbrook Shopping Center and subdivision. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 104A. (Adv~ in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1980.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission will hear these two items at their Ms 1980 meeting, and suggested they be placed on the agenda for the Board of Supervi~ 7, 1980 meeting~. Motion was offered by Miss Nash to defer ZTA, 80-02 and SP-80-15 7, 1980. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Linds~rom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabus? None. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-80-01. Renata Tosti-Noc. For a commercial kennel on acres zoned A-1. South of 1-64 off of Route 29 South. (Deferred from March 19, Neither the applicant nor a representative was present, and Mr. Fisher suggested this item until later in the meeting. Agenda Item No. 3. S?-80-07. McClenahan Broadcasting Corp. mission tower and equipment building on 53.950 acres zoned A-1. Mountain. (Deferred from March 19, 1980.) For an FM radi¢ Located on Littl~ Mr. Fisher noted that the Planning Commission had recommended that instead o~ the requested location, the Board allow the antennae to be placed in Mint Springs The Board, on March 19th, deferred action to permit Board members to visit the si~ for staff review of the site's visibility from these recommended locations. Mr. said two memorandums have been received from Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant Co~ Engineer, regarding location of the tower, but the later memorandum, dated April gives the best description of tower visibility from various sites. "To: From: Re: Date: Guy B. Agnor, County Executive J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer McClenahan Broadcasting Corporation - Tower Location April 16, 1980 April 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) would cost less to construct the tower, accessibility would also be better. He tower would be constructed strong enough to add additional equipment for possible lice, rescue squads, etc. Mr. McClenahan said petitions have been submitted to with about 1,200 signatures favoring this radio station. Fisher then noted receipt of a petition containing 108 signatures, presented to of the Board regarding this application as follows: the undersigned residents of Albemarle County, strongly urge County Board of Supervisors to reject the proposed request of enahan Broadcasting to construct a 298 foot FM tower on le Yellow Mountain. We take pride in the beauty and serenity his beautiful mountain and consider Little Yellow Mountain, h adjoins the Blue Ridge, to be among the lovliest of God's tions. We are greatly saddened at the thought or'the damage property destruction that will result from the construction his giant tower, not to mention the offensive sight that will it from its construction. The undersigned earnestly solicit enahan Broadcasting to refrain from this project and to ider an alternate site if there is a real need for an FM o station in this area." to speak was Mr. Roger Thurston. He said he only opposes the location of the the Chiles property, not the radio station itself. He said if another site were here would be no opposition from surrounding neighbors. Ralph Williams asked if the FM tower could be constructed on top of the already AM tower. Mr. McClenahan said it could not be because it would interfere with a iet zone" established for the Green Bank Observatory in West Virginia. Mr. asked if approval is received for the tower to be located on Little Yellow will the AM facility also eventually be moved to that site. Mr. McC!enahan said eration could not be moved from its present location. to speak was Ms. Ellen Clark who said she helped get the petition in opposition wer location circulated. She said she presently has a full view of Little untain from her home, and would hate to see the mountain destroyed by the on of such a tower. Bob Suling asked why the Mint Springs Park location could not be considered as location, since it has been more highly recommended by engineers and station Mr. F~isher said the Board can only vote on the application before it, which is ing the tower on the Chiles property. Mr. Henley noted that approximately four Mr. McCienahan requested approval for a tower location within Mint Springs Park, .est was denied. Francis Thurston said she is an adjacent property owner and is opposed to the of the tower on the Chiles property. ne else wished to speak either for or against this application, and Mr. Fisher the public hearing closed at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Fisher said as far as locating the Mint Springs Park property, he could not see how a permit could be given to one .on or individual to make private commercial use of a portion of public land, erring a precedent and having to extend similar treatment to other citizens who re the same needs. Mr. Fisher said if the application for the Chiles property is ~hen the question of use of public land will have to be answered. Mr. Fisher ~. .... q~ .~,~1~ ah~ t~il~ withiu the oark. he feels that commercial use of April 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) out before any approval for locating the tower in Mint Springs Park is given. Dr. said he would also like to see a legal opinion before any approval is given to lo¢ tower in the park. No second was given to Mr. Henley's motion. Motion was then by Mr. Roudabush to deny the request to locate the tower on the Chiles property, the applicant be advised that the Board would consider an application to locate tX in Mint Springs Park provided the applicant submit a detailed plan developed in c¢ ation with the County Attorney, Planning Staff and Park Staff. Mr. Henley said hc not like to see the Board deny the request for the Chiles property location at th~ Miss Nash strongly voiced her opposition to placing the tower within the boundary park, and suggested approval of the original request to place the tower on the Ch~ property. Mr. Roudabush's motion also died for lack of a second. Motion was again offered by Mr. Henley to postpone action until May 7, 1980, request a site plan for location of the tower in Mint Springs Park. Also, a recon dation from the County Attorney as to what legal documents would be necessary to this. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Fisher said he would not su~ motion, because he was opposed to placing the tower in the park, and felt it unfa~ mislead the applicant. Dr. Iachetta said he would support the motion even though not inclined to favor location of the tower in the park, he felt in fairness to t~ applicant all possibilities should be investigated. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt t~ location should be investigated if it could significantly reduce the impact on thc and in turn, does not greatly affect the park. Mr. McClenahan said if the Board ~ approve a location within Mint Springs Park, he would again have to go back to thc Communications Commission and receive their approval of the site. Mr. Fisher sai¢ motion would include the County Attorney investigating the questions of rules of access, liability, and precedent. Roll was then called, and the motion carried bi following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No~ 4. SP-80-13. Linda M. Brown request to locate a mobile hom( acres zoned A-1. Property is located approximately 100 feet north of Route 660, imately 1/2 mile west of Earlysville. County Tax Map 31, Parcel 10R, Rivanna Dis~ (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 11, 1980.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows: Request: Mobile Home Zoning: A-1 Agricultural Acreage: 6.00 acres Location: Route 660, approximately one mile west of Route 743 across from the Crouse-Hinds Incorporated industrial plant. Character of the Area: This area, south of Earlysville, is comPrised level to rolling land with variable cover. The section immediately sur- rounding the-proposed location is clear of all vegetation and the houses surrounding the site itself are visible from Route 660.. There are no streams crossing or abutting the property. Development in the area is characterized by scattered single-family re- sidences spaced ~venly along Route 660. The Crouse-Hinds industrial plant is located directly opposite the entrance to the property. April 16, 1980 [Regular Night Meeting)~ Mr. Tucker: .sh to state my opposition to the granting of a Special Permit 80-1~t0~ ~te a mobile home on property described as County Tax Map~31,.Parcel sic), Rivanna Magisterial District adjacent to my property along Route in Earlysvil!e. I feel strongly that mobile homes are completely out ~eeping with the present character of the area. Surely other areas of county that already serve this type of dwelling unit could offer a more ~opriate site for this home. ~pe no administrative action will be taken to change the quality of the hborhood and devalue its attractiveness. erely yours, fried) Harold M. Hochman" .on was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the recom- ~ of the Planning Commission and approve this application with the one condition .. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:. ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. .da Item No. 2. SP-80-01. Renata Tosti-Noc. (Skipped earlier in the meeting.) Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows: ~est: Commercial Kennel age: 4.0 acres .ng: A-1 Agriculture .tion: Property, described as Tax Map 75, Parcel 53A, is located in southwest quadrant of the 1-64/Route 29 South interchange. Access to property is by a service road from Route 29 South. acter of the Area: This site contains a single-family dwelling. Other erties in the immediate vicinity are undeveloped. A single-family ling is located at the end of the access drive and a triplex and the away Restaurant are located along the service road. This site is 11 from the triplex and restaurant and is not visible from any de- pment in the area. f Comment: This property was rezoned from B-1 to A-1 in November, 1979 .-79-35). During that public hearing the applicant told the board that kennel operation would involve cutting/grooming and boarding of not than six dogs. The applicant has 30-40 dogs of her own which are .. These dogs are kept in the basement in individual crates (The Fire cial has no authority in this matter). did not support rezoning of this property to A-1 stating among other erns that "while this use may not adversely affect existing develop- it may be a deterrent to future development of adjoining properties." is the case whether these adjoining properties are developed under ~ercial or non-commercial zoning. 16,_ 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on March 4, 1980, unanimously recommended approval with the five conditions stated above and a sixth as follows: 6. Applicant to certify on yearly basis that she remains the owner of the ~ Mr. Tucker also noted receipt of the following letter in opposition to the or applications for rezoning (ZMA-79-35): "November 16, 1979 Mr. Robert Tucker Director of Planning C~unty Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Tucker: As you may recall, I spoke with you on the telephone last week, when it came attention that Renata Tosti-Noc was requesting a rezoning of her property adj mine on Route 64 south of Charlottesville from B-1 to A-1. I want to reiter~ writing what I indicated to you over the telephone--that I am opposed to such rezoning or to any rezoning of my property or other properties in that area. I have now held my property for development purposes for close to fifteen years with the explicit intent that its use would be as business property, given the fact that it has road frontage at the Route 64 interchange and on both sides of Route 29 South. This intent has been reflected in its pre- sent zoning and in the high taxes I have paid for many years. Since, moreover, the construction of a dog kennel, which you indicated was the intended use of the Tosti-Noc property, would make my own land less useful, as a motel site, or for residential development, I must consider construction of a dog kennel to constitute a nuisance and request, respect- fully that any application to do this be denied. I trust you will communicate with me should future actions be contemplated which might affect the value of my property. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, (signed) Harold M. Hochman, Professor" Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was the ap! Mrs. Tosti-Noc said the thirty dogs she presently has belong to her, and are very She added that she has them for security since she lives alone. Mr. Fisher asked she agreed to all the conditions. Mrs. Tosti-Noc said she understood them and ag~ them all. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this cation, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing c-!osed. ._ Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-80-1 the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom commented tl would like to see the oersonallv owned dogs of Mrs. Tos~i-No~ ~ar~ ~ ~ ~' April 16, 1980 (Regu!ar Night_Meeting) ~ucker noted that on March 11, 1980,~ the Planning Commission voted 6-0-1 to approval of this application with the three conditions. . .... ?isher dectar~d the public, hearing opened, and first to speak was. Mr. Bryan Smith Lng the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Smith said the primary reason ~astewater lift s~ation is to abate an existing pol!ution problem, in the George- , Old Salem, and Hession Hills area. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this lift station ~cated in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. Mr. Smith ~uld be. Because of that fact, special safety requirements were being used to ~ssible sewage overflow. He noted that it is a three pump system with both hd visual alarms. he else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and ? declared the public hearing closed Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, ~y Mr. Henley, to approve SP-80-08 a~ recommended by the Planning Commission. ~alled, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~s.rs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and. Miss Nash~and Mr, ,Roudabush. la Item No. 8. _SP-80-09. Albemarle County Service-Authority.~ For a.wastewater ~on on 0.9 acres zoned R-1. (Under Section ~-1-12(5). Property on north side of ~s Road in Westmoreland' Subdivision near intersection of C~rrsbrook Drive and is Road. Tax Map 62-A(2), Parcel L-ii. Charlottesville Distric~t. (Advertised _ly Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1980.) ~oudabush said he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on t~is application, · m participated in the design of this facility. ?ucker read the Planning Staff report as follows: ~st: Wastewater lift station (Section 4-1-1'2(5) ~ge: 0.9 acres ~g: R-1 Residential Limited ion: Property, described as Tax Map 62A(2), Parcel L-ii, is ed on the north side of Northfields Road in Northfields subdivision. ~cter of the Area: Property across Northfields~Road is undeveloped. site is in a swale and is partially wooded with evergreens. Comment: This wastewater lift station is one element of a sewerage ~m to serve the Northfields/Westmoreland area. This project has been ~wed in the Capital Improvements Program. recommends approval subject to: Staff approval of site plan; Maintenance of as many trees as possible during construction. ?ucker noted that at its meeting of March 11, 1980, the Planning unanimously recommended approval with the above two conditions. ~isher declared the public hearing opened, and Mr. Bryan Smith, representing the County Service Authority said he had nothing to add to the Planning Staff )r. Iachetta said this will serve an area that has had a problem with septic April 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-80-10. Foxfield Association. Under Section 2-1-25(7) Summer Camp - for a weekend campground for military historic meetings. The 178.59 of A-1 property is known as Foxfield and is located on Garth Road. Tax Map 43, Pa and 2lA. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 an 9, 1980.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows: Request: Weekend campground for military historic meeting (Section 2- 1-25(7) Summer Camp. Acreage: 178.592 acres Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map 43, Parcels 21 and 2lA, is located on the south side of Route 601 east of its intersection with Route 676. Character of the Area: This property is bordered on the west by the Farmington Hunt Club. Reynard Woods subdivision is on the north side of Route 601 on which the subject property has about 4800 feet of frontage. Properties to the south and east are forested. Single-family development is scattered throughout the area. The Foxfield property is largely open pasture. Staff~Comment: This petition is before you in an attempt to accommodate the Company of Military Historians who desire a one-time weekend event at Foxfield in May. Staff opinion is that this use is more appropriate to the alternatives staff has offered in ZTA-80-01 which is also before you~tonight. The "Albemarle Rifles" propose a re-creation of a Civil War encampment on May 2, 3, and 4, 1980, involving 200-500 participants and their families,. possibly drawing 500 spectators on May 3 and 4. In addition to the en- campment, one mock battle would be held on May 3 and 4 involving muskets and cannon. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. This special permit is issued to authorize only the activities pro- posed for May 2, 3, and 4 as outlined by Art Beltrone in letter to Raymond Wolf dated October 15, 1979. Dates, times and duration of activities shall be in accordance with said letter. This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire upon ter- mination of such activities. Should such activities not be held these dates, the Zoning Administrator may approve alternate dates not ex- ceeding three (3)consecutive days; 2,Fire Official aPproval in accordance with his memo of February 28, 3. Notification of Sheriff, rescue squad, and Health Department thirty ' (30) days prior to commencement of activities. Mr. Tucker noted that at its meeting of April 9, 1980, the ~Planning Commissi¢ mously voted to recommend approval of this application with the three conditions the staff report with one change. In condition three, notification should be twer days prior to commencement of activities. Mr. Tucker then noted receipt of alett April 14, 1980 from Mr. Coburn of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpo~ April 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) ~isher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. J. Benjamin srney representing Foxfield Association. Mr. Dick introduced Messrs. Raymond ~orks for Foxfield, and Joseph McFallen of the military historians. Mr. Dick would be a one time event, and it would be consistent with what Mrs. Tejeda s to see Foxfield used for. Mr. Raymond Wolf took exception to the Highway ~'s comments about the litter problem. He said his work crews have gone out the Following an event and cleaned the roadsides for at least one mile in all dir- He also noted several complaints which Foxfield made to the Albemarle County agarding garbage trucks being overloaded and the overflow was being released onto ~s the trucks drove by. to speak was Mr. Joseph McFallen President of the Albemarle Rifles. He said a ~onvention of the Company of Historians will be held in Charlottesville the first ~y, and they had requested the Civil War Battle recreation. Mr. McFallen said of recreation has been done in many communities on numerous occasions. He said Ld only be a certain amount of noise, which would be limited between the hours of four in the afternoon for those two days only. ~e else from the public wished to speak either for or against this application, Lsher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Dick reiterated that the applicant ?eement with conditions one through three, but felt a condition requiring a bond ? pick up would be unfair Mr. Fisher said it would be strictly up to the to clean up any litter r~sulting from this event, because it would effect for any future events at Foxfield. Mr. Wolf said he would go on record as Lng clean up within a two mile radius within twenty-four hours of the events ~n was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve SP-8~10 with the conditions ~d by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom added that he disagreed with the ~partment's letter in that he has never noticed a litter problem following a ~vent. Mr. Fisher suggested the addition of the word "1980" in condition one the dates of May 2, 3, and 4, to make clear that this would be only a one-time ~OTE: Copies of the letters referred to in the conditions are on file in the the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Lindstrom accepted Mr. Fisher's Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 10. horse show grounds. ZTA-80-01. Marianne Tejeda. To amend the definition of (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, ~. Benjamin Dick, representing Marianne Tejeda, requested this item be deferred. ~e Planning Commission and Mrs. Tejeda were not completely satisfied with the it presently exists, and are still working on it. Mr. Fisher asked if there ~ else from the public who wished to speak either for or against this amendment no one present to speak. Mr. Fisher then suggested this item be deferred to May Motion to defer to May 7, 1980 was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss carried by the following recorded vote: ~srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. le. April 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 11, 19 unanimously voted to recommend approval of this special permit with the one condit recommended by staff. Mr. Fisher said it seemed strange that this request is for a special permit t a residential use in a B-1 zone, rather than requesting a rezoning of the property Tucker said this was done because with a special permit the County can place condi the type of use proposed; if it were rezoned to an R-3 density, unless the applica to proffer, there would be no County control over the development. Mr. Fisher the how the Planning Commission could approve this request for a residential use if it zoned for such use. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has approved the subd plat. Mr. Fisher commented that this seemed to be an awkward way to go about this cedure. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. Mr. Tom Sinclair, representi~ applicant said he had nothing to add to the presentation. No one else from the p~ wished to speak either for or against this application, and Mr. Fisher declared th hearing closed. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if the condition intended to limit the number of 19. Mr. Tucker said the reference to the subdivision plat makes the intent clear there will only be 19 dwelling units. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this zoning is reco8 the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said it is as proposed in the Comprehensive PI Fisher asked about water, sewer and road ~facilities. Mr. Tucker said the road pls in the process of being approved at the present time. He said the Highway Depart~ approved the plans subject to some additional conditions that Mr. S. W. Heischman have to meet. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Heischman may have to come before the Board of visors and proffer a certain density for this land. He added that the Highway De~ will only accept this road into the State system if the capacity is limited or.thc built to the ultimate capacity. Mr. Tucker noted that public water and sewer are Mr. Fisher said the question of roads should be satisfactorily answered at t~ zoning stage, and that another condition should be considered to assure this propc served by a State maintained road. Mr. Fisher said if it is the pleasure of the ~ approve this request, he would like to suggest the following wording for a second ition: "Commonwealth Drive along the frontage of this property, shall be accepted the State Highway System, or bonded by the developer to insure such acceptance prJ occupancy of any units". Mr. Roudabush said a similar condition is already on thc division plat. Mr. Fisher said he felt it would be a stronger statement if it is the special permit. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lind to approve SP-80-11 with the two conditions. There being no further discussion, ~ called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabus~ None. Agenda Item No, 12. SP-80-12. Claudia Craig. For public riding stables on acres zoned A-1. Property on north side of Route 728 and west side of Route 729 ~ miles northeast of Woodridge. Tax Map 105, Parcel BP. Scottsvi~lle DistriCt. (AC in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 1980.) ~. Mr. Tucker noted that this property was before the Board of Supervisors on J~ 14, 1980 as a subdivision plat appeal (Cropp property). He then proceeded to reac Planning Staff report as follows: · April 16, 1980. (Regular Night Meeting) es boarded, the Special permit would have to be amended. Miss~Craigthen asked .mm~rcial entrance was actually necessary, because of the.limited use by so_ few Mr. Fisher said the commercial entrance requirement is set by the State Highwa~ t. Mr. Tucker suggested adding the words "if necessary" at the end of condition ne else from the public wished to speak either for or against this application, isher declared the Public hearing closed. Roudabush said he felt a special permit s~ould not be required for such a "natural" agricultural zone. He then offered motion for approval with the addition of the necessary" to the first condition. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and y the following recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ne. Fisher requested that the following two agenda items be heard simultaneously. da Item No. 13. SP-80-14. Monticello Memory Gardens. To locate a cemetery and um on 26.0 acres zoned A-1. Property on north side of Route 53 about 1/4 mile -64/Route 20 Interchange. Tax Map 77, Parcel 33. Rivanna District. (Advertised ily Progress on April 2 and April 9, t980.) est: age: ng: Cemetery and Crematorium (Section 2-1-25(8) 26 acres A-1 Agriculture tion: Property, described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 33, is located on the h side of Route 53 across from Michie Tavern. ory: February 20, 1980, Board amended A-1 text to provide for crema- ums by special use permit; March 18, 1980, Commission approved mauso- site plan; March 28, 1980., Mausoleum site plan appealed to Board by ining property owners. f Comment: Approval of this petition would bring the existing cemetery conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and permit establishment of a atorium. The crematorium is p~ropos~d_ to be located within the approved oleum structure. The applicant has indicated that no objectionable s are expected from the crematorium~ Addition of this use is not cted by the applicant to substantially increase trarfic. tter of concern to property owners in the area is the proposed facade he mausoleum structure. Staff has reviewed the special use permit text he Zoning Ordinance in regard to possible conditions of approval and d no language explicit to facade treatment, though provision is made the requirement of landscaping, screening, and buffering. In the oleum site plan approval, one condition dealt with staff approval of scaping. Due to the site plan appeal the Board may desire to approve ublic meeting the landscaping plan for screening from surrounding s. (Landscape screening would be effective for properties to the south for Route 53.) Staff believes screening on the east of the mausoleum d have only a minimum effect due to the height of the structure on that Apri! 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Soils: In this area, the soil is deep and well drained; permeability is moderate, and the available water capacity is high. Bedrock is usually deeper than 60 inches. The subsoil has a low shrink-swell potential. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Critical slopes. Type Utilities: No public facilities are available. Staff Comments: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation re- commends that no additional development be allowed on this site plan which would generate additional traffic to the cemetary. The Highway Department notes that the existing commercial entrance to this site does not have adequate sight distance, which can be improved, by relocating the entrance or grading on the Michie Tavern Museum property. Recommended Conditions of Approval: This site plan will meet the require- ments of Article 17 and Staff recommends approval subject to: No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of sight distance, only if the applicant can obtain the ~.~ne~ssa~y-~right of way from the Michie Tavern Museum pro- perry. b. Health Department approval. c. Grading permit. d. Show on the site plan, the septic location for the existing office building. e. Staff approval of landscape plans· f. County Engineer approval of existing internal roads. At their meeting of March 18, 1980, the Planning Commission condi- tionally approved this site plan subject to the fallowing conditions: No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: Health Department approval Grading permit. Show on the Site Plan the septic location for the existing office building. Staff approval of the landscape plans. County Engineer approval of the existing internal road. Note: The Commission was only speaking to~ the road along the Mausoleum site. Mr. Tucker noted that condition iA, as recommended by the staff was eliminat~ Planning Commission in the motion offered by Mr. Layton McCann, who stated it wou[ the historic entrance of the cemetery. The following letter was received by the Board of Supervisors on March 28, 1! requesting the site plan as approved conditionally by the Planning Commission, be by the Board of Supervisors: "March 27, 1980 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 April 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) lade to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 11-13, which provides in summary ; the Governing body (the Board of Supervisors) reserves unto itself the it to issue Special Use Permits. Thus, this review is requested in ~r that the Board of Supervisors may review the question of the necessity_ L Special Use Permit. ~nd, the adjoining property owners, signers of this !et~er,_all vio- ~ly objected to the location of the site of the buildings being in view ~ Route 53 and adjoining property. In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Leonard .loux, who are most affected (though not adjacent property owners by a 'ow strip of land), questioned the site selection. These objections to site development were made on the basis that the site was not har- ~ous with neighboring property which was the purpose and intent of the ~ development review as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 17-1. ~, this appeal is necessary in order that due consideration ~may be given .he decision of the Planning Commission. request for review is submitted by all of the owners* receiving notice uant to Article 17-3-2 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as "persons ag- .ved" ask that the Board of Supervisors reverse the decision of the .ning Commission, require the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit, give such other relief as may be justified in order to give proper .nistration to the Zoning Ordinance. ectfully submitted, .ie Tavern Gregory L. ~MacDonald~ General Manager W. T. Dettor, Jr. 'he Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation is submitting a separate letter his matter. fried) James A. Bear, Jr., Resident Director" Lindstrom stated it is obvious that the application is ~ intended to do more ly make conforming an existing use. He then asked if the special use permit conditioned in such a way as to address the question of the mausoleum, or can the be constructed without the approval of a special use permit and still be in ce withlocal ordinances. Mr. St. John said clearly a special, use permit was r the crematorium. ~ ' ' ~a~rd~-~a~r--~the .... ' .. -~n 2---t--2~$) c~f~-he~Z~g~~ Ceme- e allowed in the A-1 zone with a special use permit. If there is a non-conforming is unlawful only because it does not have a special use permit, but is listed as owed with a special use permit, it can be expanded to the limits of the property. case of this cemetery, graves can be added to the limits of the property without the Zoning Ordinance even though that expands the use. Mr. Frederick Payne's as that the mausoleum is the same as simply another grave or graves, a sepulcher, is what the Planning Commission based their recommendation on. Mr. St. John said opinion that a mausoleum is not a grave, but a building, and a new building a special use permit. Roudabush asked if owners of the cemetery lots should have received notification pplication. Mr. St. John said cemetery lots are not considered land they are s personal property. ~ · Fisher then declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Bruce n, representing the applicant. Mr. Williamson said there are already mauso!eums April 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) incorporating graves can have a mausoleum. He said this logic may appeal to lawye bureaucrats, but he did not think the general public would accept a three and one- story building with 1,872 crypts and a crematorium on the same grassy hillside cem that is presently there. Mr. Murray next commented about the Highway Department's concerning sight distance, saying that the addition of the mausoleum will generate traffic. Mr. Murray said the Comprehensive Plan designates this area to be open s park and institutional zoning, and to approve this drastic upgrading of a non-conf use is "flying straight in the face of the Comprehensive Plan's intent". He said Comprehensive Plan, in Section 2, under Goals and Objectives, it reads: "we shall historic value, including preservation of historic sites and buildings". He said should start with Monticello, Michie Tavern and Ash Lawn, and he then requested de both applications. Mr. Gale Pickford, representing Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Milloux, property owners full view of the proposed mausoleum, said that the lack of effective screening wou devaluate his clients property. He noted Section 11-13-3 of the Zoning Ordinance states the guidelines for issuing special permits in the A-1 zone. He said no whe this section does it mention crematoriums or mausoleums. Mr. Pickford criticized advertisement for this public hearing, saying that anyone unfamiliar with the tech terms used in the County Code would not understand the meaning and intent of the a tisement. Mr. ?ickford cited several court cases regarding petitions to change no conforming uses, e.g. a grocery store to a drug store which was denied and a green business to a florist shop which was denied by a Maryland court. He felt these ci cases were mild compared to a cemetery/mausoleum/crematorium upgrading. Mr. David Wood, representing the Stone Farm and himself as adjacent property said the Board should fight to protect Ash Lawn and other historical p~roperties in area. He also noted that as a cemetery lot owner at Monticello M~mory Gardens, he was against the sale agreement he made with the cemetery to construct such a large He said he was told upon purchasing two lots that only brass plates or small stone would ever be used. Mr. Frederick Nolting stated on behalf of the Board of the Thomas Jefferson M Foundation that this would be~a very severe distraction to perhaps the most famous attraction and historic monument in the Country. He requested denial of the appli Mr. Greg McDonald, manager of Michie Tavern, said he opposed the constructio~ mausoleum and crematorium for two reasons; first it would be in clear view from Ro and that development without historic significance should not be brought into this Mr. Max Kennedy, representing Mr. Bill Dettor, an adjacent propertH owner, sa client objected to being able to see th~s structure. He added that he agreed with points brought out by former speakers, and requested denial. Mr. Meek Barton of V.I.P. Tours said the tourist trade represents about the s largest industry in Albemarle'County. He said a miniature Monticello across from Tavern would confuse and discourage tourists coming'to see Monticello. Mr. Williamson, speaking for the applicant, presented a series of photographs of-~he proposed site, which indicated that the~ structure would be visible from Ro~ but only briefly and from a certain angle. He said this brief amount of visib±lit not effect tourists visiting Monticello, because of the condition requiring furthc screening. He said the increased capacity of the cemetery would not immediately ¢ increase in traffic, he said it would take at least thirty years for the number of to grave sites to increase appreciably. He said Mr. Murray's historY of how this cation came before the board was correct, but the applicant was not trying to h~dc April 16__, 1980_ (Regular Night Meeting~. eeded to read into the record the entire letter from the Highway Department dated 1980 as. follows: s site plan involves an improvement to an existing cemetery~.~ The ting commercial entrance to this cemetery has'inadequate sight distance h cannot be improved unless the entrance is relocated or grading is not under the control of the cemetery.or the department. The depart- has no accident data ~available which indicates an accident problem ts at this entrance. We would recommend, however, that~no additional lopment be allowed on this site plan which would generate additional fic to the cemetery." r said a'number of statements have been made about tourism being the primary in the County. He agreed that it is a major industry, and that some 500,000 sit Monticello ~yearly. He said it provides a major source of employment, and~he. concerned about this area for a long time. Mr. Fisher said that although the Supervisors is not normally in the process of reviewing-architectural plans, he proposed mausoleum was a blatant, attempt to obviously trade on the structure of . o and Jefferson's history, and that it concerned him a great deal. Mr. Fisher ~ elt the proposed facade was "tacky" and that it was a far cry from a cemetery ~ e concluded by stating he did not think a mausoleum was a natural extension of a rming use that should be permitted without a special permit and that he was not of a special permit for the crematorium. He said a case had not been made that he only place in the County that such a facility .could be placed, and felt it was t to trade on our history in the worst commercial sense. ~oudabush said he agreed with Mr. Fisher's comments, and .that if .he.had realized ~soleum could be so large he would not have voted for the amendment to the zoning · Roudabush said this structure will probably be larger than the real Monticello. his concerns for the development of the neighborhood, and the traffic problems lity would create. He added that he felt this was not a natural expansion of a~ which has been unobtrusive to most citizens for many years. Lindstrom said he gathered from Mr. St. John's statement that it is within the ~ iscretion to,determine whether or not a mausoleum is a normal.accessory use that~ · permitted. He said he felt this proposal is inconsistent with the area and with hat is going on in a non-conforming way, and that he just could not support, the on. St. John said his opinion was based on the fact that there are already some s within the cemetery; simple, above-ground graves which are either single or ypts, He said it could not be said that mausoleums per se are forbidden, because. already there; but, without presupposing the Board's decision, if the Board is site Plan, the Board must say what can be done to to obtain approval (e.g. size, have no significant impact on the surrounding area, etc.). Lindstrom said he was confused as to the applicant's rights to expand an existing rming use when that non-conforming use is permitted by special use permit. Mr. said the application is not to legitimize a non-conforming use, it. is an appli- r a special use permit for a crematorium on twenty-six acres. Mr. Lindstrom said t was advertised it is to locate a cemetery and crematorium on twenty-six acres. ohn said the crematorium is the only reason the special use permit is sought, the already exists and the mausoleum is before the Board under a site plan. Mr. asked if it is within the Board's discretion to determine that a mausoleum is .~ propriate accessory use. Mr. St. John said he felt the Board has the power to this mausoleum is not an accessory use and is not a legal extension of an ex- ~^~ ...... ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~v t~ ~ ma~o]eum, even one exactI~ April 16_, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher stated the special permit and the site plan have been denied. He Board would like to retain the Photographs that have been presented as part of the and that they would be available in the event they were needed.., Agenda Item No. 15. SP-80-16. Liebig International, Inc.. For warehousing (including administrative offices) on 6.0 acres zoned M-1. Property on south side Street Extended about 0.4 mile southwest of City Limits. Tax Map 77E(1), Parcel 1 of). Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2 and Apri 1980.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows: Request: Acreage: Zoning: Warehousing facility including administrative offices (8-1-27(10) 6.0 acres M-1 Industrial Limited Location: Property, described as Tax Map 77E(1), parcel 1~ (part of) is located on the east side of Avon Street Extended (Route 742), north and adjacent to Coyne and Delaney. Character of the Area: This property is open, gently rolling land. Several other commercial/industrial uses exist in the area. Public water is available from a 12" line along the front of the property. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes a single-story building with 2400 square feet of office area and 6500 square feet of warehousing area. Staff opinion is that this use is compatible to the existing development and zoning in the area. Staff recommends approval with no. conditions. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 8, 1980 unan~ voted to recommend approval with no conditions. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planni~ m~ssion discussed the matter of road~improvements, and determined that this facil~ not generate the need for any improvements and therefore did not require any impr¢ Mr. Tucker then presented the following letter to the Board for their information: "April 14, 1980 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman Board of Supervisors 400 County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Liebig International Site Plan, Special Permit #8016 Dear Mr. Fisher: The purpose of this letter is to restate the Department's concern and recommendations for improvements to Route 74~2. As indiaat~ed in ~our com- ments to the County through both the .Special Permit response dated March 27, 1980 and the Site Plan letter dated April 2, 1980-, we recommend that the full frontage of this property be improved placing curb and gutter at 26 feet from the centerline of the existing .road as a condition of this special permit. Route 742 is currently carrying approximately 3,000 vehicles per day and, April 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting_~). require better, roads to handle that increased development. He said if road ~nts are not done now, they will not be able to be required in the future. Mr. said if the Board wished to require those road improvements and the applicant did ~t those conditions, the Board's choice would be to either deny the Special Use remove them as conditions. ion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve Jse Permit 80-16 with no conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. ~r said he would not support the motion because he felt road improvements should ?ed. Miss Nash said she agreed the road improvements should be required. Roll called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ssrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ?. Fisher and Miss Nash. ~da Item No. 16. SP-80-18. Peacock Hill. Rezone 1.15 acres from the PUD desig- ~ A-1. Located on northwest side of Route 708 northeast of the common ground in ~ill PUD. Tax Map 73, Parcel 29, Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the ~gress on April 2 and April 9, 1980.) Iachetta said he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on this matter as he several solar homes for this development. Mr. Roudabush said he also wished to ~s his firm drew the plat for Peacock Hill. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows: zest: Amend SP-253 by deletion of 1.15 acres ~tion: Peacock Hill is located in the northwestern quadrant of the Route overpass of 1-64. Property requested for deletion is a portion of Tax 73, Parcel 29. ?f Comment: An adjoining property owner wishes to purchase 1.15 acres a Peacock Hill, but does not want the property to remain under the ~ned community designation. This property, shown as a building lot on a ~nt Commission-approved plat, directly abuts property owned by the ~haser. Staff finds no problem with this request since the property is ;he perimeter of Peacock Hill and its deletion would not significantly ~r the overall plan. However, the number of permitted dwellings should ?educed from 195 to 194 since this was approved as a building site. if ?oved, this property would revert automatically to A-1 zoning. ?f recommends approval subject to: The 1.15 acres shall be added to and become part and parcel of Tax Map 73, Parcel 48A; Development of Peacock Hill shall be limited to 194 dwelling units." Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting of. April 8, 1980, unanimously recommend approval with the two conditions as stated above. Mr. Fisher asked if Ld create a subst.andard lot. Mr. Tucker said it would not. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Tim Michel ;ing the applicant. He said the abutting property owner was there long before {ill was ever formed, and wished to purchase the property mainly for the view. April 16, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) I have belatedly learned that the school board position, in my opinion, is a political position. I am not a politician and have no desire of ever becoming one. I apologize to you and to the citizens of the county for any inconvenience caused by my accepting a four year term and serving less than four months. I believe that Albemarle County had a good educational system in January and still has a good system in April. I believe I should quit while we are ahead or at least even. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly, (signed) Thomas D. Blue" Mr. Roudabush offered motion to accept Mr. Blue's resignation, and that a let appreciation be send for the services rendered. In addition, Mr. Roudabush stated would also personally write Mr. Blue expressing his appreciation and disappointmen he found it necessary to resign so suddenly. Mr. Roudabush turned the letter over Clerk of the Board for filing. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carrie following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabusk None. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. At 12.05 A.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachc seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to April 23, 1980 at 2:30 P.M. in the Board the County Office Building. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the follo~ recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabus? None. Chairman