Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-01-18NJanuary 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 18, 1978, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers present: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M., by the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-77-81. Viola Irene Turner. To locate a mobile home on 4.98 acres zoned A-1. Property located on access road off the west side of Route 627 approximate- ly 0.4 mile north of the intersection of Routes 6 and 62?. County Tax Map 128~(1), Parcel 33, Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 6, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission meeting was cancelled last night due to the weather, and this petition therefore was not heard. He recommended that the Board of Supervisors reschedule this hearing to February 1, 1978. No one from the public was present, and Mr. Fisher requested this item be deferred. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to defer the public hearing to the February 1, 1978, meeting. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-77-24. Charles W. Hurt. Public hearing on a petition to rezone 92 acres from A-1 to A-I/RPN. Property on southeast side of Route 729 with a portion on the north side of Route 729 about 1/4 mile from the intersection of Routes 729 and 250 East. County Tax Map 79, Parcel 23 (part thereof), and County Tax Map 79C, Parcel 1. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4 and January 11, 1978.) Mr. Robert Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: "Location: On the southeast side of Route 729 at Shadwell, as well as on the west side of Shadwell Road ( Route 709 ). Acreage: 92+ acres Existing Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Requested Zoning: RPN/A-1 Residential Planned Neighborhood Existing Zoning and General Character of the Surrounding Area The property is to a great extent bounded by A-1 zoned property which is presently residential in nature. To the west is ~tone-Robinson School zoned A-1. To the northeast is Shadwel! Estates subdivision part of which is zoned RS-I; the remainder is A-1. The average si~e of the lots in Shadwell Estates Subdivision is 1 acre. To the north, on the opposite site of the existing lake, is a 26+ acre property presently rural in character but zoned R-3 Residential. Histor~ Special Permit 308 was applied for on this property in 1973 calling for the development of Collina Planned Community. This application was concurrent with a site plan application submitted for the 27~ acre R-3 parcel which was to be developed in townhouse clusters served by both central water and sewer. The total plan called for 90 single family lots, 120 townhouse condominium units, and approximately 1.5 acres of small shop~ on 130+ acres. On November 19, 1973, the Planning Commission approved the special permit. On November 28, 1973, the application was denied by the Board of Supervisors. ZMA-77-17 was a request to rezone the subject property from A-1 to RPN/A-1 with 46 single family dwelling units on 92+ acres. This application was approved by the Planning Commission on September 27, 1977, but later denied by the Board of Supervisors on November 2, 1977. Applicant's P. roposal This proposal calls for the development of 42 residential lots on 91.9+ acres. This proposed development has two (2) parts. Thirty (30) of the proposed units will be located on the east side of the existing lake and will have access exclusively by way of Route 709 (Shadwell Road). The remaining twelve (12) lots will be located on the west side of the lake and will have access from Route 729. A state road is proposed to serve 25 of the 30 ~S on the east side of the lake, the remainder (5) will be served by private roads (Association roads). On the west side of the lake ten (10) of the 12 lots will be served by a private road, the~ other two (2) will be served directly., from Route 729. The project is proposed to have a central water system with the exception of two lots which front on Route 729, which are proposed to have individual wells. Ail lots served by central water will be a minimum of 40,000+ square feet in area. This plan calls for the 11+ acre lake to remain and be used as a recreational facility with boat- ing and fishing facilities. The lake and dam are to be in common, ownership January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) and maintained by a homeowner's association. This proposal calls for common open space to amount to 35% of the gross acreage; this figure includes the lake (12~), pedestrian trails, a picnic area near the dam, a small beach and boat launch facility, and common open area which ia generally steep in slope and serves as a buffer between the development and adjacent properties. Comprehensive Plan Conformance The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to remain agricultural in nature. Comparative Impact Statistics Zoning Gross Density Net Density Common Open Space Total Dwelling Units Population Additional Vehicle Trips/Day Route 709 Route 729 School EnroIlment Existing A-1 0.5 du/acre 0.5 du/acre 0 acres (0%) 45* (34 excluding lake and assuming state roads) 144+ N/A 329±v Applicant's Proposal RPN/A-1 0.45 du/acre (0.52 ex- 0.75 du/acre cluding lake) 32.3 acres (35%) 42 (61%) 134+ 219+ 88¥ 30?+_vpd K-5 13.5 12.6 6-8 7.47 6.972 9-12 8.91 8.316 29. ~-~+ 27.888+ THEREFORE 30~ 2,8+ *Assumes all lots are pipestems and includes lake Summary of Proposed Land Uses ACRES % OF SITE Residential Lots 55.~ 60.7% Streets 3.8 4.1% Common area (includes 32.3 35.2% lake) Lake 11 + 12.0% STAFF COMMENT Tentatively, the water will come from two (2) wells. The development will have open space amounting to 10% over the required minimum of 25%. Favorable: Considering the severe topography of the site, the lot layout does a good job of preserving the steeper wooded slopes. The use of private drives reduces the amount of land-disturbing activity. The smaller lot sizes allow that a greater amount of virgin wood remain undisturbed. The common ownership of the lake and dam will help insure that they remain amenities for the area. The plan allows for emergency fire access to the lake for pumping purposes. Unfavorable: As noted by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, the additional traffic from this development would more than double the existing traffic count on Route 709 (Shadwell Road). This is an important point because the intersection of Routes 709 and 250 East has inadequate sight distance and can be considered a hazard. There was some public concern regarding the safety of the existing dam which is found within the proposed development. Staff opinion is that the dam should be reviewed and determined safe prior to any final subdivision approval. There was also public concern re- garding the effect the steep slopes will have on pollution from septic facilities. In response to this question, the County Engineer has noted that the effect due to sloPe should be minimal. Zn addition, as requested during the previous application, the Virginia Department of Health reviewed the site and noted that all but perhaps two of the originally proposed lots were adequate for individual septic~facilitie~. In the present proposal, the lots have been rearranged to better address the concern of pollutants from septic tank failure. There was also concern from residents of Shadwell Estates that their wells would be polluted by septic runoff. This problem has been addressed by creating an open area buffer between the subdivisions. The staff's under- standing is that a part of this buffer is being purchased by adjacent residents of Shadwell Estates. There was also concern that undesirable motor boats would be used on the lake. A portion of the lake falls out- side the subject property. This has caused.concern among some of the adjacent owners. However, staff opinion is that the uses permitted on the lake will largely remain the same, and in effect there could be more control on permitted uses due to enforcement by the Homeowner's Association. Though the aPplicant has reduced the number of dwelling units requested in this appl±cation from 46 to 42, staff opinion is that a desirable number of dwelling units (based on the review of the previous application by the Board of Supervisors) would be 39. However, the density should be determined by the Planning Commission~and ~Board of Supervisors." January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker noted that on January 10, 1978, the Planning Commission unanimously re- commended approval of this petition with.the following conditions: "1. Written Health Department approval; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilities;'~ 3. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of all internal roads and private drives with adequate turnaround space at. the end of each; 4. Virginia Department Of Highways and Transportation approval of internal state roads; 5. No dwelling units nor septic fields to be built on slopes in excess of 25%; 6. No dwelling units nor septic fields to be built within 50 feet of the lake water's edge at mean level to be determined by the Virginia Department of Health; 7. The applicant will have a certified engineer test the existing dam and certify that it is safe to the satisfaction of the County Engineer; 8. A maintenance agreement for the maintenance of all common area, recreational facilities, private drives, and the dam is to be approved by the County Attorney's Office and recorded; 9. Final subdivision approval will be subject to the County Engineer's Office approval of central water systems; 10. A grading permit will be required prior to subdivision approval; 11. Ail lots are to have access to common open space; 12. An approved secondary drainfield location must be provided for each lot; 13. That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation review the intersection of Route 250 East and Route 709 in order to determine whet~er signs or warning lights are necessary; if it is determined that controls are warranted, they shall be installed at the developer's expense; 14. County Engineering Department approval of right-of-way widths." M~[ Fisher asked how many dwelling units the previous application was for. Mr. Tucker answered 46, and said this application is for 42. Dr. Iachetta asked the County Attorney's opinion as to whether this reduction in density constituted a substantial enough change to warrant a reapplication of this request within a one-year period of time. Mr. St. John said he agre~with the opinion previously given by Deputy County Attorney, Frederick W. Payne, at the Planning Commission meeting, that it did cmnstitute a substantial change, and was allowable for reapplication within the one-year period of time. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Roy Parks, representing the applicant. He presented maps and descriptions of the property. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Parks if any of the internal roads would be built to state standards. Mr. Parks said no that all the internal roads would be private and maintained by the homeowners association. Mr. Fisher noted that with only a 20 foot right-of-way, these roads would never be able to be taken into the State Secondary Road System. Mr. Parks said if the Board felt strongly in favor of State approved roads only, the necessary changes could be made. Mr. Parks also noted that the fire department would have access to the lake for fire protection purposes. Mr. Roudabush questioned the setback distance of homes from the proposed roadway. Mr. Parks said it was shown at about 70 feet, but that it could easily be changed to conform to the requirements of the RPN zone which is 75 feet. Mr. Lindstrom requested assurance that there would be no septic systems placed on areas of 25% or greater slopes. Mr. Parks said there is no need to place septic systems in areas of steep slopes, but said the Board was free to make that a condition of approval. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated January 17, 1978, addressed to all the members of the Board of Supervisors from Mr. James C. Pyles, however the letter was not read, and no copy was given to the clerk for the file. Mr. Jack Taggart said he represented two brothers who were adjacent property owners, by the name of Pyles. He referred to the 'letter dated January 17, 1978. He said his clients, felt there was no appreciable change in density, for although the number of homes requested is less (from 46 to 40), the percentage of land requi~d for open space, septic systems and dam improvements wmuld still make it impossible to approve 40 homes in this zone. He noted the increase of traffic at the intersection onto Route 250 and felt the proposed fire protection methods were inadequate. Mr. Jim ?yles said access to this property should be from State Route 729 where sight distance is adequate, and less hazardous than that proposed in the applicant's plan. Mr. Pyles said he was also opposed to the proposed density in this plan. Mr. Parks said he wished to clarify statements made by Mr. Taggart. He said they would be grading the area at the intersection to Route 250, which would improve the sight distance. Also, RPN zoning does not require fire protection, and although it comes from the lake, the protection proposed is more than required. Mr. Taggart reiterated the concern of his clients about use of the lake and the density with regards to septic system capabilities. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said the question of whether or not this plan is substantially different from the first application needsto be answered before any further discussion on the merits of the petition. Mr. St. John said it was his opinion that if this case were brought before a Judge, the ruling would be that this application was substantially different and warranted separate consideration. Mr. Fisher felt it should be the decision of the Board of Supervisors After considerable discussion as to whether the Board wished to vote on this application on it's own merit, it was the consensus that they would hear and vote on the application tonight. January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting.) At 9:03 P.M., Mr. Fisher called for a three minute recess. 9:11 P.M. Meeting was reconvened at Discussion among Board members indicated their concern that the density was still too great, and that the dam should be upgraded to allow additional accass to the property other than the dangerous intersection at Route 250. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve this application with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and the addition of the following conditions: 1) The number of lots in the development be limited to 39. 2) The developer is to install a road across the dam (non-dedicated) to provide access to Route 729. 3) Setback from Route Z29 shall be 100 feet from the centerline of the road. Mr. Roudabush offered a second to Mr. Lindstrom's motion. Dr. Iachetta asked that the condition limiting the number of~?units be made even tighter by using the following phrasing: The number of lots in the development is limited to 39; with the reduction from the number of lots shown on plan presented at the Board of Supervisors meeting of January 18, 1978, to be made along Route ~29 on the west side of the lake. Dr. Iachetta's recommended amendment to the motion was accepted by Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Roudabush. Mr. St. John reminded the Board that since it would be a private road over the dam, if it should wash out,' the Board could not require property owners to rebuild it; it would be strictly up to the property owners by a vote of the homeowners association. Mr. Parks asked if a temporary road could be installed over the dam, and Mr. Fisher said it was the intention of the Board that a permanent non-dedicated, private road be installed over the dam for use by all of the residents in this development, to be maintained by the homeowners association. There was no further discussion, and motion for approval carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 4. Resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Article 17, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, to provide for preliminary site plans. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4 and January 11, 1978.) Mr. Tucker said this item has not been acted on by the Planning Commission, and re- commended that the Board defer action until February 1st. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Zachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-77-10. Arthur Wyler. To amend Section 6-1-23 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to read: ~'Residential uses having a maximum gross residential density of 24 units per acre." (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4 and January 11 1978). Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had not acted, and recommended the Board defer action until their February 1st meeting. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconde~ by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Article 19, Residential Planned Neighborhood, Section 19-3, USES PERMITTED. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4, and January 1!, 1978). Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had not acted, and recommended the Board defer action until their February 1st meeting. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the water a~d sewer jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4 and January 11, 1978). Mr. Tucker read the County ~lanning Staff's report, which included a brief history of this matter, and a letter from Mr. E. E. Thompson, Jr., Executive Director of the Albemarl~ County Service Authority stating their opposition in reduction of the jurisdictional areas. "History October 6, 1977: Board of Supervisors requested Planning Commission to review jurisdictional areas for conformance to Comprehensive Plan. January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) O49 November 1, 1977: Planning Commission recommended amendments to jurisdic- tional areas to comply with Comprehensive Plan, provided no area receiving service should be abandoned; Comprehen- sive Plan also needs amendment November 16, 1977: Board of Super¥±sors accepted recommendations of Planning Commission. Public hearings required to: (1) Amend Com- prehensive Plan; (2) Establish new jurisdictional area boundaries December 13, 1977: Planning Commission adopts resolution of intent to amend Comprehensive Plan January 10, 1978: Public hearing by Planning Commission to amend the Com- prehensive Plan as it relates to jurisdictional areas of Albemarle County Service Authority Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be to Map 20 (which recommends future service areas) in order to: Correct the map for~Crozet; Incorporate areas of existing and proposed development requiring such facilities; Incorporate areas currently receiving service; Provide for enhancement of the existing systems. The Albemarle County Service Authority remains opposed to any reduction in the current jurisdictional areas. Staff opinion is that the proposed jurisdictional areas substantively comply with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and are supportive of the goals of containing development within the designated growth centers and discouraging sprawl-type development of the rural areas. NOTE: The proposed jurisdictional areas to be presented by map have been amended since last reviewed by the Commission and Board to include those areas currently receiving service. There are two areas added to the map where no service is currently provided: e That area between Route 29 North and Route 606 and the general airport area has been included to provide service to the airport properties and Teledyne (if necessary) and to improve general water service by a looped system; That area bounded by Route 250 West and Route 751 to make water available to an existing subdivision." "November 16, 1977 To: From: Gerald Fisher, Chairman E. E. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director Jurisdictional Areas The Albemarle County Service Authority Board unanimously requeststhat existing jurisdictional areas not be reduced in size. In fact we request that area seven in the area adjacent to Biscuit Run be expanded to the ridge lines on both slopes as requested in our last meeting. There are other areas that according to the County Planning Department aDpear to be ready for development in the near future and lay just outside our operating areas. A joint effort should be undertaken by our staff and the planning staff to see where orderly expansion of jurisdictional areas should take place. This would be presented to our Board sometime after the first of the year followed by a formal report from tkem.~t Mr. Tucker presented a map showing present jurisdictional areas being served, areas with partial service, and areas recommended for future total or partial service. Mr. Thompson reviewed the map again for the Board. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and the only person to speak was Mr. Max Evans, who asked if there was water service in the Biscuit Run area. Mr. Thompson said no. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition. After considerable discussion of present and future plans of the Service Authority, it was suggested that this matter be deferred until the meeting of February 8, 1978, and that the following information be prepared for presentation at that time: 1. A map showing the jurisdictional boundaries as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A mBp showing the jurisdictional boundaries as recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. A map showing those areas in which the Service Author£ty now has customers. 4. Developments presently in existence in the "pink" areas are to be shown. 5. Developments that have already been approved contingent upon their being served by public water and/or s~wer are to be shown. 6. These maps are to be of a large enough scale that distinguishable landmarks, road-numbers, etc. are easily found. 7. The Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors is to be invited to meet with the Board on this date to discuss controversial areas. 050 January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Motion to defer was off~red by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Windsor Plat. Mr. Lindstrom explained his reasons for calling this matter before the Board. He stated the Planning Commission has adopted a policy for land effected by the Runoff Control Ordinance. That policy being any lot effected by the 200 foot setback requirement, must meet a 40,000 or 60,000 square foot requirement, depending on number of utilities serving the property. Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission heard two plat requests for waivers of the 40,000 square foot requirement, and granted one and refused the other even though they were substantially the same. Mr. Tucker said the Windsor Plat received its waiver of the 40,000 square foot require- ment by having two septic systems on each lot (17 or 30 lots received this waiver in the Windsor development), subject to approval of the State Health Department, and it must be noted on the plat and deed for each of those lots, that those two septic systems do exist. Following some discussion by Board members as to what purpose the 40,000-60,000 square foot requirement serves, Mr. Fisher requested representatives of the plats in question make brief statements. Mr. Frank Kessler, representing the Windsor Plat, said he felt the regulations were very restrictive, but they were able to meet all of them except those imposed by the policy of the Planning Commission. He then quoted a statement made by Mr. Gloeckner of the Planning Commission regarding this policy. "The policy requiring 40,000 square feet outside the 200 foot setback from the stream...I think that's an excessive requirement. I think we can get by with 12,000 square feet or two sites. I agree with Max (Evans), I think we've superimposed apples over oranges, and the ordinance is getting so restrictive that we're forcing people to do a bad job rather than a good job. When this came in it was highly received ~nd I still think it's one of the best sub- divisions that's been brought in here in a long time, from the use of the land. The major question though, I think, is the 40,000 square feet outside of the 200 foot setback. I don't think that was intended by either juris- diction. The Health Department initially in setting up the area considered 40,000 square feet for a garage, a house, a driveway, God knows what else, maybe a swimming pool, some other amenities, even leaving some trees. You would still only disturb 6,000 square feet for a septic field. Now we're starting off with 60,000 square foot lots and we're asking for another 40,000 on behalf of each lot over and above the 60,000. I think our policy should be that each lot should have two alternate sites and not limit it to the square footage of the lot." In addition, he made reference to a memorandum from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey to Mr. Robert Tucker, dated January 3, 1978 regarding the Planning Commission policy. "Date: To: From: Subject: January 3, 1978 Robert Tucker J. Harvey Bailey Windsor Residential Planned Neighborhood Reference is made to our conversation relative to the subject development, particularly to the location of septic fields. This development is within a reservoir watershed and therefore subject to the provisions of the Soil Loss Ordinance. Because less than five percent of the area after development will be impervious surface, no permit is required. However, the provision of the ordinance which requires that septic systems be located 200 ' minimum distance from any stream, perennial or intermittant, applies. The Planning Commission on December 13, 1977 adopted a policy that requires a m~nimum of 40,000 sq. ft. outside of the 200' setback where wells are utilized provided the well is located within the 200' setback and meets Virginia Depart- ment of Health requirements and setbacks from septic facilities; otherwise, a minimum of 60,000 sq. ft. outside the 200' setback will be required. This is in conformity with the earlier policy of 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size where one utility is public or 60,000 sq. ft. where both water' supply and sewage disposal are on the lot. The Runoff Control Official's opinion was asked on this policy. It is his opinion that an alternative should be offered the owner which would allow the approval of a lot which has less than 40,000 sq. ft. of area outside the 200' setback, provided that there was sufficient area outside such setback to establish two septic fields, either of which would be sufficient to the needs of the lot. This means that the owner must prove to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that (a) he has sufficient area outside of the 200' set- back; (b) the area is fit for use as a septic field; (c) it will serve the dwelling that is to be constructed, and (d) whichever site is used initially for a septic field, the alternate site will be reserved and not encumbered with any use that would prevent its use as a septic field site. It would be nec- essary for these sites to be clearly defined on the plat of record together with a statement that nothing shall be done which would prevent either site from being used as a septic field. January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 051 Such an alternative will probably require some additional work on the part of the staff as well as on the part of the developer. However, in our opinion this alternative is in the spirit of the earlier policy, since it will provide a backup unit to the septic system. It provides a way for the planner to be more fleXible in making a layout and it reduces the use of land for no concrete purpose. I have discussed the above with Mr. Homer Cheavacci of the Health Depart- ment. Mr. Cheavacci does not think he should recommend the above since he has previously recommended the 40,000 sq. ft. provision. There is a spring shown on Lot 20. This spring is to be enclosed and drained through an mnderdrain for a distance of 240' to discharge in the common open space. The existing stream channel will be filled. The 200' setback line'.as shown on the Windsor plat will then be valid." Mr. Max Evans presented diagrams showing how Windsor meets the Ordinance, ~b~ how the Planning Commission's policy creates the difficulties which made the waiver necessary. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone Was present representing Langford Subdivision, which was denied a waiver by the Planning Commission, and noted that no one was present. Mr. Tucker then said the major difference between Langford and Windsor was the characteri.stic of the land, Windsor being gently rolling and Langford being hilly and having steep slopes which caused further reduction in usable land areas. Mr. St. John said his opinion was that you cannot require two drainfields outside the 200 foot setback where you have a subdivision as a matter of right as in the case of Langford. This would have to be placed in an ordinance and have a public hearing held on the subject. Motion Was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, that the Planning Commission's policy be reviewed by the Commission, staff and County Attorney's office to be certain that the policy concurs with the ordinances on the books, and is not' more stringent than those ordinances. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. At 11:08 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess. Meeting reconvened at 11:13 P.M. Agenda Item No. 8. Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Agnor recommended that this mattel be deferred to February 8, 1978, due to lack of time at tonight's meeting. Motion to defer was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 10. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor read the application by Mr. James P. Towe requesting a lottery permit for the 1~78 calendar year for the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company. Motion for approval was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudsbush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: MEssrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 11. Appointments. Motion ~as o.f~ra~ed ~' Dr~ ~acheltta to appoint Mr. E. Shannon Shirley of 1290 Seminole Trail~ Cha~lot~s.¥'~21'e~i.to ~ha"iEqual~z~tion'Board for the calendar year 1978; and that a letter of appreciation be sent to Mrs. Marilyn Edmunds for her service on that Board. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindst~om and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Not Docketed: Mr. Dorrier requested time on a future agenda to interview persons for the Mental~Health Board. Mr. Fisher said lunch time during the February 8th meeting would be appropriate. Messrs. Fred Landess, Kenneth Fox and James Niblet, representing the General Electric Company, requested the Board to hear G.E.'s requested appeal of their site plan prior to receiving the decision regarding the availability of Industrial Access Funds. They noted that this decision is not due until sometime in mid-February, and that General Electric's schedule is critically behind, i Mr. Fisher said the site plan hearing could be set for the next meeting of the Board of Supervisors, and he could request the staf£'s opinion as to how not receiving state funds 'for road improvements would effect the proposed plan. Mr. Fox agreed wit~ Mr. Fisher's suggestion. Mr. Fisher continued that it was the i~tent that at least on~ member of the Board of Supervisors would be present at the Highway Department's meeting the Industrial Access Fund request is heard. O52 January 18, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) February 1, 1978 (Special Called A~ternoon Meeting) Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. R0Udabush, to set the site plan ~'~ appeal for the meeting of February 1st, and obtain staff opinions on how not receiving in- dustrial access funds would effect approYal of this site plan. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mr. Agnor distributed to Board members a memo noting the policy of the School Board regarding the destruction of old school books. Claims against the County for the month of January, 1978, are set out below: Commonwealth of Virginia - Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund School Construction - Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville - 1% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund General Operating - Capital Outlay Fund $ 18,795.32 603,691.31 2,123,802.21 41,547.30 30,212.98 782.92 50,443.92 117.67 18,680.68 16,506.00 Total - $2,904,580.31 At 11:25 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned. Chairman February 1, 1978 (Afternoon - Special Called Meeting) Pursuant to the following notice which was mailed on January 23, 1978, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, met in special session at 3:00 P.M. on February 1, 1978, in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. "Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. and Mr. W. S. Roudabush have requested a special meeting of the Board of Supervisors for 3:00 P.M. on Wednesday, February 1, 1978, in order to discuss legal matters in executive session. The meeting is to be held ~in the Board Room." 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: St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. The meeting was called to order at 3:12 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher who noted that although the letter calling this meeting requested same for discussion of only legal matters, property acquisition also needs to be discussed and this can be done because all members are present. Motion to adjourn into executive session with the above named Board and staff members and Mrs. Opal David and Mr. William Poff, was offered by Dr. Iachetta and seconded by Mr. Dorrier. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs..Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned. man ' -