Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-05-02NMay 2, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) April 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meetin.-) The Board of Supervisors recognizes that industrial development must serve the interests of the County~population as a whole. It is the belief of the Board that it is inappropriate for it as governing body of the County to actively encourage or discourage industrial development, but that such activity should be carried on. by the various agencies, public and private, charged with such responsibility. Finally, it is the desire and intent of the Board to provide for such industrial growth as is necessary to provide meaningful and rewarding jobs for the residents of the County and to do so in a manner that will maintain the quality of~life that is unique to Albemarle County and minimize the tax burden on the general population, NOT DOCKETED: Mr. Fisher an. nounced a conference on "Trends and Problems in Local Government: A Legislative Review" to be held in Lynchburg on April 23, 1979. Mr. Agnor said that he planned to attend. Mr. Fisher also announced that he had a memo from the Superintendent of Schools requesting that the joint School Board and Board of Supervisors Site Selection Committee be reactivated. The memo stated that it is not necessary to select a site £or a new school at this time, it may become necessary to explore the option of relocating Meriwether Lewis School. It also may become necessary to consider expanding the site of one of the schools or the school bus garage. Dr. Iachetta, Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Henley were appointed to serve on this committee. Mr. Fisher asked for volunteers to serve on the Joint Committee for Tourism. Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Dorrier volunteered to serve on this committee. Letters to this effect were sent, to Mr. Charles Smith and Mayor Laurence Brunton. This committee is to work out the details of a tourism program with same being returned for Board and Council action. Mr. Agnor announced that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport has been in existence for 25 years. The Airport-Commission is planning a 25 year anniversary on May 13th along with the air show. Mr. Fisher announced that the Local Government Officials conference will be held August 19-21. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. May ~, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 2, 1979, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney~; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who asked for a moment of silence. "To: RE: Sirs: Agenda Item No. 2. Petition: Sewage Problems Old Forge Road. Mrs. Jean Wheby was present and read the fotlbwing letter: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors The need for sewers in the Old Forge Subdivision We wish to present to you at this time, a petition which states the following: We, the undersigned, residents and property owners of the Old Forge Subdivision, respectfully request that the significant need for sewers in our neighborhood demands a high priority recommendation by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to the Albemarle County Service Authority on behalf of such a project. May 2, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) There are 45 occupied houses, one unoccupied, and several undeveloped lots in the Old Forge subdivision. The 41 signatures on the attached petitions were obtained from within the subdivision and reflect an 89% positive re- sponse from 39 owner-residents, one tenant-resident, and one owner of an undeveloped lot. One owner-resident could not be reached, and four chose not to sign. Our neighborhood has had its share of septic problems, including standing water, sewage back-up, and in the case of some of the newer lots, failure of the soil to perk. Some of our septic systems were installed enough years ago that they would not be in compliance with current requirements as to size of drainfields, and are, therefore, inadequate. We believe that now is the time for the Old Forge Subdivision to become a part of a sewer system, and hope that you will act favorably on our request. Sincerely, (Signed) Mrs. Jean WhebY" Mrs. Wheby then presented the petitions signed by 41 residents of the Old Forge subdivisic Mr. Lindstrom~and MrZ-~. E. Thompson, ~xecu~lve ,~i~c~r of the Albemarle County Service Authority, had met with representatives of the area.~]~Te~ is a need for this service because there is actually an odor on occasion. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the Board recommend to the Service Authority that this project be considered a high priority and appro- priate action be taken. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier,-.Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-Zg-10. Christopher Byrum. To locate a mobile home on 89.70 acres zoned A-1. Property is located to the northwest off Route 604, approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection of Routes 664 and 604. County Tax Map 19, Parcel 2, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 20, 1979.) Agenda Item No. 4. SP-79-11. Steven Byrum. To locate a mobile home on 89.70 acres zoned A-1. Property is located to the northwest off Route 604, approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection of R6utes 664 and 604. County Tax Map 19, Parcel 2, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 20, 1979.) ~~~~ Mr. Tucker said the above two petitions can be considered together since~-~e~~ ~ ~- - _ ~,..~then read the following staff repprt: "Character of 'the Area ?I'~'--"" This property is heavily wooded. Adjacent to this property is Lexington Subdivision (11 lots; currently three dwellings). Between Route 664 and this site are five mobile homes clearly visible from Route 604. History In 1976, the applicants proposed a family division of this property into five-acre parcels with a 43-acre residue (since that time, additional acreage has been acquired). A portion of the easement serving this property is of 14-foot width. The request to divide was denied (this request preceded the private roads provision of the Subdivision Ordinance). Staff Comment These petitions come before you due to objection from an adjoining property~ owner. The applicants have stated that the mobile homes would be located near the center of the wooded property, some 600-1000 feet from the objecting property owner and not visible from any adjoining property. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve these applicants, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Mobile homes to be located so as not to be visible from adjoining properties. 2. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at their meeting on May 1, 1979, unanimously recommended approval of these two petitions with the following conditions: 1. A 75 foot buffer., to remain in its natural state, between the location of the mobile homes and the Lexington Subdivision. 2. Compliance with Section 11-1~-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. ~ The public hearing was opened. Christopher and Steven Byrum were present. There was no one else present to speak for or against these petitions. The public hearing was' closed. Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve both SP-79-10 and S~-79-1i with the above two conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ,1979 (~e ular N±ght ~eetin'.) _ Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-?9-05. John W. and Elizabeth Carter. To rezone 9.99 acres from R-2 to R-3 (with a proffer of 15 units per acre rather than the maximum density). Property located on northeast side of Route 631 about 1/2 mile southeast of intersection of Routes 631 and 29 North. County Tax Map 61, Parcels 124B, 124C and 124D. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress April 18 and April 25, 1979.) Mr. Tucker read the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: R-3 Residential General Acreage: 9.99 acres Existing Zoning: R-2 Residential Limited Location: Property is located on the north side of Rio Road across from Squire Hill Apartments. Proffer: Maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. Character of the Area A single-family dwelling and non-conforming repair garage exist on this property with the rear of the property in woods. Bonanza and Putt-Putt are to the west, Northfields Subdivision and vacant land are to the east, Squire Hill Apartments is across Rio Road, and property to the north is undeveloped and wooded. ~ Zoning in the Area Properties to the east are zoned R-2, A-1 and R-1. south. B-1 zoning exists to the east. R-3 is to the north and Comparative Impact~'S't'at'iS't'ics 'Existing R-2 Proposed R-3 Dwellings 84 149 Population 252 447 Vehicle trips/day 613 1088 School-aged children 48 85 K-5 21 37 6-8 12 21 9-12 15 27 Comprehensive Plan The adopted Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan recommends low-density residential (average 2.5 du/ac) in this area. The Neighborhood 2 Committee, established to refine Comprehensive Plan proposals, has recommended medium- density residential (average 10 du/ac) in this area. The Comprehensive Plan also proposes an urban expressway be located west of this property. Staff Comment Recently, concern has been expressed on two subjects in this area: air pollution and safety of Rio Road. The State Air Pollution Control Board has indicated that with full development of Fashion Square, the limits of ambient air degradation of the Rio Road-Route 29 North area will have been approached, thus limiting future development in the area. As to the safety of Rio Road, this is a matter for determination by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Staff opinion is that the question of air pollution can easily be addressed at time of site plan/subdivision review by conditioning approval of proposed development on State Air Pollution Control Board approval. Vacant residential zoning in the area (about 12 acres of R-2 and 27 acres of R-3) could yield about 640 dwellings if fully developed. While staff is reluctant to estimate from land use plans, it appears that 640 dwellings is about 50% more than what the Neighborhood 2 Committee recommended for this area. Staff recommends denial of this petition for the following reasons: Current zoning provides for up to 8.5 dwelling units per acre which is more in keeping with the committee recommended l0 dwelling units,! acre than the requested 15 dwelling units/acre. Staff opinion is that the potential under existing zoning in the area exceeds that recommended by the neighborhood committee. Note: The staff has referred to revisions of the Comprehensive Plan for this area as recommended by the Neighborhood 2 Committee. These revised plans have not been presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for amendment of the Plan and, therefore~ remain as recommendations." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at their meeting on April 10, 1979, reached a vote of 3/3/1, therefore, makes no recommendation regarding this request. Dr. Iachetta asked several questions regarding the differences in school enrollment figures for R-2 and R-3 properties and zoning densities in the area of this property. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Carter were present with their attorney, Mr. William Perkins. Mr. Perkins explained the location of the property and the surrounding zoning categories. He said the Carter property is in the~middle of R-3 and business zoning. It is also in an area with a major highway and water/sewer facilities in place. When the Albemarle County Service Authority was obtaining easements across this property for the new sewer line, the Carter's were told that this would enhance their property therefore, damages should not be considered. The Carter's have also been advised by people negotiating for purchase of the property that the property would be more valuable and easier to sell if the zoning were changed to high density. R-3 zoning would allow 20 dwelling units Der acre, but taking the proposed neighborhood plan into consideration, the Carter's are May 2, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) proffering only 15 dwelling units per acre. Since there were some questions by the Planning Commission members concerning air pollution in the area, the Honn Realty Company checked with the State Air Pollution Control Board and were advised that 568 dwelling u~its could be constructed in the area before the Pollution Board would require that a special permit be requested of them. The request under consideration tonight is for only 150 dwelling units. Mr. Perkins noted that there was no one present at the Planning Commission hearing to object to this request. (Mr. Perkins presented for the record a letter from S. Ward Butler of the Air Pollution Control Board, dated April 30, 1979.) Dr. Iachetta said if only 568 units can be built in this area before a special permit is required, and this rezoning uses up 150 of those units, the~Board may some day be faced with denying applications based on air quality. Mr. Perkins felt this consideration is a part of site review and felt it is wrong to penalize this property because a special use permit is not required by the Air Pollution Board at this time. With no one else present to speak for or against this rezoning, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush noted that there is a non-conforming body shop on one of the parcels requested for rezoning. He asked what will happen to that' non-conforming use. Mr. Perkins said he felt that if the property is developed according to the requested zoning, the non- conforming use would be abandoned since it would not be economically feasible to continue that use. Mr. Fisher noted that there was no written proffer with the papers furnished on this petition, but the wording of the proffer is contained within the staff's report. Mr. Dorrier said the present zoning does not appear to be in keeping with surrounding zoning but R-3 zoning would be in keeping with the zoning across Rio Road. He felt this type of high density zoning should be in the part of the County where utilities presently exist, thus taking pressure off the rural areas. He said he could support 15 units per acre on this property. ~ Mr. Fisher asked how many more units can be built on the undeveloped portion of Squire Hill. Mr. Tucker replied that there are 27 acres of R-3 zone~ land which can have a maximum density of 20 units per acre. Dr. Iachetta asked if the County has received a site plan for Phase II of Squire Hill. Mr. Tucker said there is a preliminary site plan. Dr. Iachetta said he feels the 2 1/2 units per acre recommended by the Comprehensive Plan is too low considering how the surrounding properties have developed. The existing R-2 zoning on this property allows 8 1/2 units per acre and the only argument he can see for going to-a higher density is ~that it is worth more money to the owners. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned that Dr. Iachetta is not happy with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the 2 1/2 dwelling units per acre may be a low and unrealistic figure, the Board has not amended the Plan, therefore, it is the guide that the Planning Commission and Board must use when approving rezoning petitions~ This is a particularly sensitive area of the County. The~ County has been struggling to find a solution to the traff±c problems on Route 29 North and Rio Road and has not yet affected a solution. The Board should be careful about increasing density beyond what the existing roads can handle. Mr. Fisher said his decision will have to be based on existing zoning and the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Roudabush said if one looks at the criteria used in adopting a comprehensive plan, this is an area that has adequate roads (the roads will be upgraded in the near future) and utilities already in place. Mr. Dorrier said if this approval will not create a traffic hazard, he feels it should be approved. Mr. Henley said the roads fronting .this property will be upgraded eventually, the utilities are already in place and he will support the request. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve ZMA-79-05' with the proffer of a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom was concerned that if he votes for R-3 on this property, there will be no justification for voting down R-3 on other requests coming before the Board for properties in the same area. He feels that this is a piece-meal way of dealing with rezoning and is contrary to recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendations of the neighborhood committee. He said he would not support the petition. Mr. Dorrier said he has always felt the Comprehensive Plan is just a guide. In his opinion, this area is slated for growth. He feels that putting high density development where utilities are already in place is a concept of the Plan and this will take the pressure off development in agricultural areas. Mr. Lindstrom said in an area as sensitive as this one, he would like to look at the overall development of the area. He has never thought the existing zoning ordinance reflected any serious planning for the future of the County and the existing zoning categories do not reflect any planning~ This may be an area where the density should be increased, but not without looking at the remainder of the area in terms of future growth, air quality and other factors. Dr. Iachetta said several groups from subdivisions up and down Route 29 spent time studying the Comprehensive Plan before it was adopted. These groups recommended that there be a gradation of density from business, to apartments, to single family units in order to have buffers between the various zones. If 15 units per acre are put on this property, there will be high density right next to single-family units without having any gradation at all. He felt that 15 units per acre is too high and too far from the consensus of these groups. Mr. Roudabush said this property is oriented directly on Rio Road. There iS R-3 property across the road, behind and beside this property. Most of the other Vacant lands in the area are oriented on other roads. Roll was then called on the motion, and same died in a tie vote as follows: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush. Messrs. Fisher, Ia~hetta and Lindstrom, 278 May 2, 19_7_9 (Regular Night Mee~J~~ _ Mr. Fisher asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to reconsider the vote. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board would consider a density of 10 units per acre instead of 15. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel it was appropriate to consider ~anything that is not formally before the Board. He asked the County Attorney for a clarification. Mr. St. John said there has been case, nor any Attorney General's opinion, on the question. The Board is left with the language stated in the State Code and there is noprohibition against discussion of such a consideration. Mr. Dorrier said all of the discussion to this point has been concerned with density. He felt the Board should discuss the issue while it is before them to avoid the same discussion at some future date. Mr. Roudabush said he would like to suggest that the Board consider rezoning only Parcel 124D to R-3. Mr. Henley suggested that the applicant be questioned as to whether or not such action would be acceptable. Mr. Perkins said he would have to consult with his clients. Mr. Fisher said the motion has failed'-and the only question before the Board is whether to reconsider the vote. Mr. Roudabush suggested rezoning only Parcel 124D and. not the total acreage because there is a fairly substantial single-family residence on one of the other parcels that would probably be kept as a home. He did not feel it would be economically feasible to tear down this house and replace it with just a few dwellings. Parcel 124D does not front on Rio Road, so the character of the frontage on Rio Road probably would not be changed, therefore, there would be no significant changes in the character of the neighborhood. He said he feels this is a reasonable compromise and. this zoning would act as a buffer. Mr. Henley again asked if the applicants were agreeable. Mr. Perkins said he had three issues to address. First, although there is considerable'land in the area already zoned for R-3 (20 units per acre), the topography of the land would make it impractical to develop same at that density. Second, rezoning the Carter's land to R'3 would allow this property to act as a buffer to the B-1 on the adjoining property. Third, this rezoning request ha~ been publicized by the press and by'notices to the adjoining property owners, and there have been no objections. Mr. Roudabush said for the possibility of exploring the rezoning of only Parcel 124D, he would offer motion to reconsider the vote. Mr. Dorrier asked what access would be used for this parcel since it does not have frontage on Rio Road. Mr. Roudabush said since a road does not have to be zoned, it could come through one of the other parcels. Mr. Dorrier then seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said he felt it makes less sense to rezone this parcel since it does not have frontage on Rio Road and he would not vote for the motion. Roll was called on the motion, to reconsider~ and same failed by the following recorded vote' Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and RoUdabush. Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom. AYES: NAYS: At 9:10 P.M., the Board recessed and reconWened at 9:20 P.M. Mr. Perkins said he had discussed this matter with his clients during the recess. They would like to make an amended proffer as follows: Rezone Parcels 124C' and 124D to R-3 and delete Parcel 124B from the application, thus leaving the zoning on Parcel 124B as R-2. Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney for an opinion on-~this amended proffer. Mr. St. John said the petition stands denied at this time. In order for'the Board to formally consider the amended proffer, the Board would have to vote-to reconsider the petition and then take the amendment. He felt that this is allowed under zoning statutes. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not care whether the Board reconsidered the question, but there were oth~er applications on the agenda and he felt the Board should proceed with those items first. Mr. Roudabush and Dr. Iachetta also felt it would be appropriate to move this item to the end of the agenda. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-79-08. Bennington Limited Partnership. To amend SP-78-22, in order to delete the pool and to use the main house as a child and/or adult day (and night) care facility. Property located west of the c~ity line between Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads adjacent to Westgate and Solomon Court properties. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A, Charlottesvl District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 18 and April 25, 1979.) Mr. Tucker read the following staff report: "On June 14, 1978, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-78-22 for a total of 375 dwe~lling units. The following statement was in the accompanying staff report: "There is an existing residence on the site which is slated to be a clubhouse for the recreational facilities." In subsequent planning, a swimming pool was shown adjacent to the house. Since that time, the following has occurred: The swimming pool and clubhouse in Westgate II will not be lost due to improvements to Hydraulic Road and therefore the applicant desires to delete the Mowinckel house as a clubhouse. A day-care center, desires to locate in the Mowinckel house either on the basis of lease or purchase. (While Bennington Limited Partnership is shown as the applicant in this petition, Sharon Jones would operate the day-care center.) Bennington Limited Partnership (or Great Eastern Management) has indicated a possible revision to the overall plan at some future date. Given these circumstances, it may be easier to address the topics separately: A.mendment of SP-78-22 with regard to recreational facilities; Establishment of the day-care facility. Recreational Facilities: Staff's initial concern was that adequate area and variety of recreational facilities remain for Barclay Place after the proposed amendment. The applicant has submitted a schedule of recreational facilities for Barclay Place and the adjoining Westgate and Solomon Court development. Staff opinion is that recreational facilities will be adequate in variety and more than adequate in area. le May 2, 1979-(Regular Night Meeting) Day Care Center: Mrs. Jones, who would live in the dwelling, expects an initial enrollment of 45 children with an ultimate enrollment of about 90 children. The facility would be operated under state license. Access is being requested on a temporary basis through Westgate apartments with permanent access from Georgetown Road to be provided at a future date as the Mowinckel tract develops. Proposed hours of operation would be from 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. The dwelling is currently served by septic system and public water. In view of the population is this area, staff finds this an appropriate use and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 10. Amend the approved site plan of August 29, Z978. County Engineering Department approval of adequate on-site and off-site drainage facilities. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access facilities and adequate dedication for a 60-foot right-of-way along Route 656 frontage, including increasing the pavement depth of the existing Bennington-Road to satisfy Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications from Inglewood Drive to the end of the existing temporary turnaround. This site is approved for a total of 375 dwelling units; provided that if any units are to have access from Bennington Road, they shall be 34 in number, with lots t - 12 developed as single-family detached dwelling units; the remaining lots developed as single-family detached and two-family dwelling units with a maximum of seven two-family dwellings whose location shall be approved by the County Planning Staff. In the alternative, the area proposed for subdivision as shown on plat (dated 5/30/78 and initialled "RWT") may be developed in townhouses provided access is only through Georgetown Road. At such time as access is established to Georgetown Road, permanent access for the day care center to Georgetown Road shall be provided. a.) The staff shall approve temporary access, parking and play area~g~r the day care center· (The following standards shall be used for the temporary plan: parking - 1 space/2 employees; 1 space/10 children enrolled; 2 spaces for the dwelling; play area - 75 square feet/child enrolled); b.) Zn the event of sale of property on which the day care facility is located, the County Attorney shall review written agreements insuring site plan cooperation. The day care center shall be served by both public water and sewer to be approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Approval of the day care center by appropriate state and local agencies. Cionditions stated are supp~meD~,~a~ and nothing contained herein shall be , ~ dieemed to preclude applica~ o~ ~utrements and regulations by the Virginia Department of Welfare or any other agency· Licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. I~ the event of license expiration, suspension or revocation, the Zoning Administrator shall refer this petition to the Board of SUpervisors for public hearing after notice pursuant to Section 15.1~431 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. It shall be the_responsibility of- the applicant to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter· Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the ~provisions of this special use permit· Conditions 1, 6a, 7, 8, and 9 shall be met prior to the opening of the day care center. Mr. Tucker said on April 10, 1979, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the staff's conditions. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Tom Wagner, representing the applicant, was present and stated there were no objections to the conditions. It was previous] thought that the Westgate Clubhouse would be lost by the Hydraulic Road improvements. However that has changed and there is not a need for another clubhouse. Mrs. Sharon Jones, the operator of the proposed day care center, said the building is adequate for a child care center and is in a good location. A need is evident for a facility of this type in the area. With no one else present to speak for or against' the petition, tha public hearing .was closed. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve SP-~9-08 with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the followi~ recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush~ None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-79-09. F. Anthony Iachetta. Request for a Home Occupation - Class B - on 8.30 acres zoned A-1. Property on south side of Route 643, about 1.5 miles southeast of Route 29 North. County Tax Map 46, Parcel 22A. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress, April 18 and April 25, 1979). Dr. Zachetta abstained from the discussion. Mr. Lindstrom also abstained since he had represented Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Tucker then read the following staff report: May 2~ 1979 ~R ' Staff Comment The applicant has operated a consulting engineering office on this site under Home Occupation: Class A, since July, 1977. The Class B designation is being requested in order to permit up to two employees. Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with_Section 16 - 44.1, Home Occupation Class B." Mr. Tucker said that on April 10, 1979, by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this petition~ The public hearing was opened. Dr. Iachetta explained the need for enlarging his ~ consultinE~bU~ness by providing for the addition of two employees. (Letter dated April 2, 1979 on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors explains in more detail the PrOPosed use.) With no one else present,to speak for or ~against the petition, the public hearing.was closed. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to approve SP-79-09 as recommended by'the Planning Commission. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 8. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2-4(c) of the Albemarle County Code relating to compensation of Planning Commission members. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 18 and April 25, 1979). Mr. Fisher said this amendment was. ordered advertised for a public hearing by the Board because the Planning Commission members are currently paid only $100.00 per month and meet as many as seven times a month. Therefore, it was felt that the members are not adeqUately compensated. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the amendment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 24('c), CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE II, OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 2-4(c), Chapter 2, Article II of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2-4(c). Compensation. Ail members of the Planning Commission, except the member of the board of supervisors serving as a nonvoting member, shall receive two thousand four hundred dollars per annum to be paid in monthly installments. Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 4, Article II of the Albemarle County Code by the addition of Section 4-9.1 relating to the impoundment and disposition of killer dogs. (Advertised in the Daily Progress April 18 and April 25, 1979). Mr. Agnor explained that this provision is necessary so the dog warden may impound any dog believed to be killing livestock or poultry until the case is heard in court. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. There being no one present to speak for or against the proposed amendment, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE IMPOUNDMENT AND DISPOSITION OF MILLER DOGS BE IT ORDAINED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a Section 4-9.1: Section 4-9.1. Same -.'ImPoundment and disposition In the event any dog warden or other person has reason to believe that any dog is killing livestock or committing any of the depredations mentioned in Section 4-9, and a warrant or summons is issued by a magistrate of the county, as set out in Section 4-9, the alleged killer dog may be impounded by the dog warden until such time as the owner or custodian thereof shall provide evidence of the adequate provisions to be made to protect livestock or poultry from such dog, which provisions may include, but not be limited to, securing of such dog on the premises "Character of the Area This area is rural in character with parcels in the immediate vicinity ranging from about two to five acres. May 2, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) of the owner or custodian, with defined limitations of access. Any dog released under such conditions shall be kept under such securing provisions, and any person failing to so keep such dog so secured shall be deemed in violation of this section. Conviction of a violation of this section shall be deemed a misdemeanor offense and shall be punishable as provided by Section 1-6. The owner or custodian redeeming such dog from impoundment as provided above shall also pay the fees and furnish the license as provided by Sections 4-20 and 4-23, respectively. If the court finds such dog is not a livestock killer or has not committed any of the depredations mentioned in Section 4-9, any dog not redeemed within ten days of disposition of the original charge by the court shall be dealt with by the dog warden in the same manner as provided for the disposition of unlicensed dogs in Section 4-10. Mr. Henley seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Ztem No. 10. Resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for Commission review of all subdivisions in the urban area. (Advertised in the Daily Progres~ April 18 and April 25, 1979). Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report: "The following amendment to the subdivision ordinance would provide for Planning Commission review of subdivisions in the Urban Area. The purpose is to permit limitation of entrances to public roads which the staff cannot require since easements are involved. Sect'io'n 18'-13'. ~dminist~at~iVe approval of cert. a~nfsubdivision plats. In the case of any subdivision involving the creation of three or fewer lots, all fronting on an existing public road, the director of planning is hereby constituted the agent of the commission for purposes of reviewing and approving subdivision plat applications; provided, that nothing contained in this section shall be construed to limit the right of the commission to review any such application nor to restrict the right of any party to appeal pursuant to section 18-4; and provided further that the director of planning shall not approve 'any's~c'h 'plat WhiCh 'he ~determines to be in the urban area as set' fo'r't'h 'i'n 't'h'e 'comprehensive plan. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on April 10, 1979, unanimously recommended approval of this amendment. He noted that it has been an adopted policy of the Commission for some months and the Commission felt it should be part of the Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the communities of Crozet and Hollymead will be included in this review. Dr. Iachetta asked if this would help expedite the subdivision process. Mr. Tucker said it would actually make the process longer. The public hearing was opened. There was no one present to speak for or against this amendment and the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to amend and reenact Section 18-13 of the Albemarle County Code, said section being a part of Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land, by adopting the language set out above. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Resolution of intent to amend Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for administrative approval of minor site plan amendments. (Advertised in the Daily Progress April 18 and April 25, 1979.) Mr. Tucker read the staff's report: "The following amendment would provide for staff approval of minor site plan changes. Note that the staff's authority would be limited to changes which would be in keeping with the spirit of the original approval and which would have no additional impact on adjacent properties or public facilities. 17-6-5 No change, revision or erasure shall be made on any pending or final site development plan nor on any accompanying data sheet where approval has been endorsed on the plat or sheet unless authorization for such change is granted in writing by the governing bo~y or its agent. Any site development plan may be revised, provided that request for such revision shall be filed and processed in the same manner as the original site-plan~ The foregoing notwit~hstanding, the director of planning may ''ap'prOVe'. ~d~i~s't~t'~Ve'~y'~~ ~i't'hoUt submission 'to''t~es'ite 'review '~c'om~i-ttee"o~ 't~e' p'I~nning c'ommission~ minor changes t'o approved ' si'te' pT~ns 'in '~ny"'c'~se inwhich he shall determine that the sit'e plan~ as amended, is .in compliance with the terms of all appIic'abl~e law; is substantially in compliance with the approved _May 2, 1979 (Reg~ular Night Meeting) site pla.n as approved by the commission~ together with all c'on'd'i't'i'ons: imposed by 't'he'c'ommis'sion thereon; and will have no addit'i'o~aI 'ad'Ve'rs'e'im]pac't''o~ 'adjacent propert±es or'public faci'Ii't'fes. Mr. Tucker said on April 10, 1979, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of this amendment. The public hearing was opened. No one was present to speak for or against the proposed amendment, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to amend and reenact Section 17-6-5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by adoption of the language set out above. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No.. 12. Appeal: A Modular Sewage Treatment Plant. General Electric Addition Site Plan and Request to Operat~ (Deferred from April 18, 1979). Mr. Fisher explained that on April 18, 1979, the Board had appointed a committee to draft conditions that might be placed on a modular sewage treatment plant for the G.E. property A letter dated April 26, 1979, from Mr. E. E. Thompson, Jr., Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, writing for the committee has been received. This letter lists five recommended conditions and also notes that a special meeting of the Service Authority Board was held on April 25 and they unanimously concur in these recommendations. Mr. Roudabush, a member of that committee, reported that the group addressed conditions that relate to the involvement of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Tucker has also drafted a set of conditions appropriate for the General Electric site plan which incorpora these suggestions. Mr. Tucker then read the recommended conditions: A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Location of fire hydrants on site plan as recommended by Fire Prevention Officer; b. Staff approval of amendment to Landscape Plan. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Approval of appropriate agencies of sewage treatment facilities. In addition to the above conditions, the following conditions shall apply to the General Electric Site Plan approval: a. If General Electric is allowed by the Board of Supervisors to construct a modular sewage treatment plant on its property, the plant will provide services only for General Electric. Further, the plant will be operated and maintained solely by General Electric. b. At such-time as an off-site sewer line adequately sized to meet General ~lectric'~s needs is constructed to General Electric's property line, General Electric, at its cost, will expand, if necessary, the Camelot sewer treatment plant sufficient to meet its needs and upon completion of the expansion, abandon its plant and connect to the Camelot plant. c. If at some time in the future an off-site sewer line adequately sized to meet General Etectric's needs is extended close enough to the General Electric property line, such that salvage value of General Electric's plant will pay for the line, then General Electric agrees, at its cost, to extend the off-site sewer line to its property, expand, if necessary, the Camelot plant sufficient to meet its needs and upon completion oh the expansion, abandon the plant and connect to the Camelot sewer treatment plant. d. Concerning paragraph (c) above, if the salvage value of General Electric's plant is not sufficient to cover extension of an off-site sewer line to General Electric property line, the Service Authority will have the option to make up any difference in cost. Thereupon, General Electric will proceed to abandon its private plant and hook up to the Camelot plant as outlined in paragraph' (c) above. e. If General Electric expands and hooks up to the Camelot plant at Some time in the future, General Electric's availability and connection fees shall be General Electric's cost of expanding and connecting to the Camelot Plant. f. Once abandonment of the modular sewage treatment plant occurs, General Electric shall dismantle and remove the modular plant from the General Electric site within six months and shall reseed and landscape the area previously occupied by the modular plant, per specifications of the Albemarle County Planning Department." Mr. Thompson and Mr. Roudabush then explained the conditions. Mr. Fred Landess, Attorney For General Electric, said he had been furnished a copy of conditions IA -3E before tonight and representatives of'G.E, present tonight have'also agreed to condition 3F. Mr. Lindstrom suggested condition 3(a) be changed to read: "Approval is granted by the ~9~d of Supervisors to construct a modular sewage treatment plant on its property,the plant ~ill provide services only for the General Electric planb and uses accessory thereto. Further, the plant will be operated and maintained solely by General Electric." e May 2, 1979 (Regular Night Meet.~.ng) Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve the General Electric Site Plan amendment with the conditions set out above, but changing No. 3A to read as recommended by Mr, Lindstrom and to'approve General EleCtric's request' to operate a modular sewage treatment plant on their property. Dr, Zachetta Seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded ¥ote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher~ HenleY, Iachstta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 13. 18, 1979). Proposal: Industrial Development Authority (Deferred from April. On April 18, 1979, the Board heard a proposal from Mr. Ronald Morris to. use Industrial ' Development Authority revenue bonds to finance construction of a 71-unit apartment project designed specifically for elderly persons. Mr. Fisher said he had asked for a deferral of this issue until the staff could review how this project fits in with the overall housing needs of the county and confirm statements as to the pass 'through of lower interest.costs to tenants in the apartments. Mr. Russell Otis, Housing Coordinator, was present and said he reviewed the project. He did not feel it will have any impact, either positive or negative, on any proposed housing programs for the County. Mr. Agnor said there is nothing specifically written into any regulations to insure that the savings on interest will inure to the tenants of the property, but it does show, in the calculations of costs of the project which are reviewed by the Federal agencies and then used to set the rental rates that Mr. Morris can charge. He said the savings cannot be calculated as a direct dollar to dollar saving. Mr. Donald Holden, Chairman of the IDA, was present and again explained the project. (See Minutes of April 18, 1979, Afternoon meeting.) Mr. Fisher said he thought the project was probably needed and felt the Board should vote to approve same. Mr. Dorrier was in favor of passing any savings on to the elderly and offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby gives its approval in accordance with Sections 2-50 and 2-51,-Chapter 3, Article IX of the Albemarle County Code to the financing by the Industrial Development Authority ~f Albemarle County, Virginia of a 71 unit apartment project for elderly persons on Hydraulic Road in Albemarle County, all as outlined in Donald L. Ward's memo of April 2, 1979 and as approved, subject to various conditions, by Resolution of the Industrial Development Authority dated as of March 29, 1979. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher noted that the first project being built with IDA revenue bonds (Eldercare Gardens) is having a ground breaking on May 10 at 2:00 P.M. and the Board members are invited. Agenda Item No. 14. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application for the American Business Women's Association to have a raffle at Albemarle Square beginning May 12, 1979 and running through July 2, 1979 for the scholarship fund for young women interest in furthering their education in business. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve the lottery permit for these dates in accordance with the Board's adopted rules. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board then returned to Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Roudabush offered motion to reconsider ZMA-79-05 for the purpose of allowing the applicant to request an amendment if they so desired. Mr. Lindstrom urged the Chirman to reopen the public hearing to any member of the public who might wish to speak to the amendment. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Perkins said his clients would like to amend their request by eliminating parcel 124B from the application so the application will then be applicable only to Parcels 124C and and 124D for an R-3 zoning with a proffer of 12 units per acre rather than the 20 units per acre allowed by right. He felt this action would, by economics, effectively eliminate the existing nonconforming use presently on parcel 124C. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if this is now a significantly different application. Mr. St. John replied the test is whether the amendment will result in the rezoning of a smaller tract of land, or the same land or a smaller tract of. land to a lower density. If the amended proffer meets that criteria, the Board can act on the amendment at this time or refer it back to the Planning Commission for a review and recommendations. May 2, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) The public hearing was then reopened. Mr. Mike Boblitz, resident of Brookmere Drive in Woodbrook, was present to ask that this application be deferred until-such time as other residents in the area have been made aware of the proposed rezoning. He expressed concern about the overall economical impact on this area especially since Fashion Square Mall and other high density zoning are in the area. He felt it should be deferred until the Board can look at the Comprehensive Plan and the impact of this high density zoning. With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush restated that he feels this request is a reasonable use for this land in this location. This is a lesser request than the Planning Commission considered and he feels the actual realistic impact will be much less than the statistical impact of figures in the staff's report. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to defer ZMA~79-05 to May 9, 1979 to allow the Planning staff an opportunity to review the amended proffer and make recommend.ations to the Board. Also, Dr. Iachetta wanted the opportunity to discuss this with his constituents at a meeting on May 3, 1979. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed: Dr. Iachetta said he had received a letter from Mr. F. Alton Garrett resigning as a member of the Economic Development Commission, effective June 30, 1979. Mr. Agnor said the Executive Director of the Jefferson Area Board on Aging has requested that the Board cosponsor a meeting to hear the needs of the elderly. In the past, this has been a regional meeting but with low participation. This year, the JABA Board decided to have a meeting in each jurisdiction and are asking the governing bodies to participate. A tentative date of May 15, 1979, at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, was set for this meeting. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 P.M. ~ -- (...// Chairman