Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-02-01NFebruary 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) / 053 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 1, 1978, 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. Officers present: Messrs. G~y 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 7:30 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher who noted receipt of a letter from the Potomac Edis~on Electric Company, requesting their customers in Albemarle County to conserve energy. They note~ special fuel problems due to the United Mine Workers' strike. Mr. Fisher also noted receipt of an invitation from the Morton Frozen Food Company to tour their facilities. He requested the Board members to think of a convenient time for such a tour. Agenda Item No. 2. Resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Article 17, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, to provide for preliminary site plans. (Deferred from January 18, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: "Site Plans In Relation To Run-off Control Ordinance At this time, it appears that application of the Run-off Control Ordinance to a site plan may, in some cases, significantly alter the plan. In such cases, Planning Commission review of plans prior to review by the Run-off Control Official may be fruitless. If the Run-off Control Ordinance significantly alters the plan, a second review by the Planning Commission would be required. One alternative to this approach would be to require approval by the Run-off Control Official prior to Planning Commission review. Staff does not recommend this approach because development of a run-off control plan is expensive and time consuming. This would be unwise without general guidance as to the Planning Staff's recommendations and Planning Commission requirements concerning the site plan, since such recommendation and requirements may also significantly alter the plan or even render the project economically infeasible. Since development of a run-off control plan is expensive, the Planning Commission may be hesitant to impose requiremants which would alter the site plan and require amendment of the run-off control plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission may feel a loss of flexibility in review of such plans. This issue has been discussed in reference to requiring final road plans prior to Planning Commission approval of subdivision plats. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the requirement of a preliminary site plan in such cases where a run-off control permit may be required. No final site plan would be accepted until review of the preliminary plan has taken place between the applicant and the Planning and Engineering Departments. The Engineering Department could review the applicant's preliminary plan and calculations and guide the applicant as to the level of pollutant removal required and the economics of such removal. The Planning Staff could inform the applicant as to what recommendations would be made to the Planning Commission and give him a history of action in similar situations. In this fashion, the applicant would have an idea of what would be required in both the run, off control and site plan procedures and could evaluate the viability of his proposal accordingly. Comments provided in this preliminary review would serve as a guide and would not be considered binding on the applicant or the County. If the Planning Commission agrees with this approach, a resolution of intent to amend Section 17-3-1 to require a preliminary plan for development in cases where a run-off control permit is required would be in order. The reSOlution should include provision for appropriate administrative procedures and content of the preliminary plan. Mr. Tucker said the Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting of December 13, 1977, at the request of the staff, adopted a resolution of intent to amend Article 17, Site Development Plan of the Zoning Ordinance to require a preliminary plan in cases where a run-off control permit is required." Mr. Tucker also noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of thi.s amendment as presented by the staff. He said this would require the applicant to submit an additional phase before the final site plan phase, but he added that it would in the long run save the applicant time and money if problems were detected. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing, and no one either for or against this amendment wished to speak. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Ro~dabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following ordinance: BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Article 17, Site Development Plan, Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 17-3-1, be amended and reenacted to read as follows: O5,4 FebrUary 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Section 17-3-1. Preliminary S'i'te 'Dev'elopment Plan An informal meeting and discussion between the applicant and the County planning staff should be held prior to the submission of a site plan. The applicant should present a preliminary schematic master plan showing: (a) boundary lines of subject property; (b) existing land conditions and existing topography at a maximum of ten-foot contour intervals; (c) general layout design of what is proposed on a scale of not smaller than one-inch equals one-hundred feet; (d) building setback lines; and (e) zoning of subject property and adjacent parcels. This is not to be considered binding by the county or the owner of the property, but serves simply as a guide toward future development as each section of development is submitted for final approval. In the case of any development proposed to be located within the watershed of any public water supply impoundment, the applicant shall submit a preliminary site development plan in accordance with this section prior' to the submission of a final site development plan to insure that the proposed development will be feasible in light of all applicable law. Any recommendations or comments during review of any preliminary site development plan shall not be considered binding by the county or the applicant, but shall serve as a guide to future planning and development. Except as the director of planning may otherwise specify in a particular case, the applicant shall submit four copies of the preliminary site development plan showing: (a) general information including, the name and address of the property owner; the name of the individual who prepared the plan; the date of the drawing; north point; scale (not smaller than one-inch equals one-hundred feet); tax map and parcel number of the property; vicinity map at a scale of one-inch equals two miles; (b) existing conditions including, boundary lines of property and departing lot lines of adjoining parcels; zoning of subject property and adjacent parcels; building and setback lines; street names and state route numbers; topography at a maximum of ten-foot contour intervals; natural drainage channels and easements, water courses or bodies including name and location; 100-year flood plain limits; existing wooded areas and areas of vegetative cover; (c) general layout of what is proposed, including, location of structures; summary of total number of dwelling units by type and area; gross and net residential areas; floor area of ~o~imercial and industrial uses and number of employees; off-street parking and loading areas; proposed streets, access easements and aisles; location of active and passive recreation spaces, commonly-owned open space, parks, schools, or other public uses, if applicable; areas to be cleared of vegetative cover; general limits of grading; proposed water and sewerage facilities; conceptual scheme of drainage facilities; acreage in impervious lot coverage. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3. Resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Article 19, Residential Planned Neighborhood, Section 19-3, USES PERMITTED. (Deferred from January 18, 1978.) Mr. Tucker said that action on this was deferred by the Planning Commission until next week, and he recommended that the Board of Supervisors defer this item until their meeting of February 15, 1978. Motion to defer was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-77-81. Viola Irene Turner. acres zoned A-1. (Deferred from January 18, 1978.) To locate a mobile home on 4.98 Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report, and noted that the Planning Commission recommended unanimously approval of this request, with conditions recommended by the staff. "Character of the Area This area, proposed as Esmont village, is characterized by small lot development. Several other mobile homes are located in the area. A mobile home located on this property would be visible from three residences. Reasonable screening exists at the front of the property; additional screening on the east would be appropriate. February 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 055 Staff Comment The applicant recently purchased this property. The home on the property was totally destroyed by fire after purchase. Two adults and two children would live in the mobile home ( her daughter's family ). If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance to include screening to the east; 2. Removal of debris and rubble of dwelling destroyed by fire at this site to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. Continued maintenance of property so as to remain orderly and clean to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator." Mr. Fisher noted receipt of letters from Ms. Louise Hedgeman, Mr. Ray Watkins, and Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., President of the Southside Albemarle Association, all in opposition to this special permit request. Ms. Turner was present, and Mr. Dorrier asked her if the problem of trash and junk in front of her home had been taken care of. She said it had not yet because of the poor weather, but that she intended to do so, as soon as possible. Mr. Dorrier reminded her that this was the subject of most of the opposition by neighbors. Ms. Turner said her daughter would be living in the mobile home, and that she would m~ke sure that it was kept clean. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Domrier said he had strong reservations about this application, due to the condition of her present residence. He noted that he would support it if a condition were added that the residence be maintained in an orderly and clean manner, and that debris and trash not be allowed to accumulate on the property. Mr. Fisher said he felt this was fairly well covered in the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. Mr. Dorrier asked if condition three could be strengthened or a fourth condition added to insure that Mrs. Turner complied with keeping the grounds clean and free from trash. Mr. St. John and Mr. Tucker were of the opinion that everything the County dould do was covered in the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta said he felt any further restrictions would constitute government interference with the way someone can use their private property. He noted that if this was a private home instead of a mobile home, the Board of Supervisors would have no say at all in how the property is to be maintained. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Dr. Iachetta's opinion. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve this special permit with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. $. SP-??-?6. Robert P. Boyle. To restore Boyd Tavern to be used as a restaurant. Property located on Route 616. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 18 and January 25, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report and noted that the Planning Commis~ sion recommended denial of this request by a vote of ? to 2 at their December 13, 1977 meeting. (Note: See staff report and conditions recommended by the staff in minutes of December 21, 1977.) Mr. Fisher said this special permit was approved by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting of January 11, 1978, during the afternoon session, but due to an error, adjoining neighbors were notified th~at the meeting would be at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Fisher said due to this misunderstanding, this special permit had been readvertised, and is being reheard on its merits tonight. Mr. Boyle said he made statements at the Beard of Supervisors meeting in December during the public hearing for the Zoning Text Amendment for this permit, and then reviewed his plans for this property. He said he wished to restore this old structure to a use similar to that which it was originally intended. Mr. Lanny Moore said he did not like the idea of a restaurant. He lived directly across from the tavern, and would like to see it restored and possibly used as a museum. Mr. Bernard Chamberlain said he spoke at the last Board of Supervisors hearing, and considered this property an historical landmark. Mr. Boyle is not seeking to impose a use that was not there previously, but only to reactivate a use in a building that was built for this purpose. Mr. George Price said he was an adjacent property owner who felt the structure should be preserved, but wondered if this was the correct method since in the past the County has been opposed to spot zoning. Mr. B. F. D. Runk said he was a~resident of the Boyd Tavern area. He felt the inn should be restored, and like the Hollymead Inn, become an asset to the County. Mr. Joseph Ancona, an adjacent property owner, said many children catch a school bus in front of this site, and he is afraid of a possible hazard. He also noted that the road was very narrow and the sight distance poor in that area. He did not want to look from his property and see a lot of cars on the adjoining property and watch the spot become an eyesore 056 February 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if this ~site were checked by the Highway Department. Mr. Tucker said he received a letter from Mr. Cbburn which said there appeared to be a location for a commercial entrance, but did not know if this. was checked by a fie.~d clerk. Mr. Tucker recommended that a condition be added to assure proper sight dist~nne at the entrance. Ms. Ellen Nash said she approved of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. She did not think the restaumant would interfere with the school children traveling the road, as it would not be open at 8:00 A.M. She said it would be a place that would not turn into a "honky-tonk". Mr. Kingsley Hughes said the traffic generated would probably come from Route 250. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Dorrier said he would be in favor of approving the special permit, as he felt concerns of the public would not likely happen. Mr. Boyle said he took some sight distance measurements, and estimated that to the north there ms 400 feet, and to the south over 600 feet sight distance. Mr. Roudabush said he only supported this because the owner was taking the old structure back to its original use. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve this special permit with the following conditions: "1. Structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith. 2. No expansion beyond the original limits of the structure. 3. No off-premises license for sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted. 4. This shall be a sit-down restaurant. No take-out food service or stand-up eating shall be permitted. 5. No admissions after 11:30 P.M. 6. Site plan approval. 7. Building and fire inspections approval. 8. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies. 9. Signing for the tavern shall be approved by the Planning Commission at site plan review to insure that signs are of a design appropriate to the architecture of that period." The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Mr. Roudabush asked if this special permit would expire if the granted use was discontinued. Mr. St. John said if the permit was not used within 18 months it would automatically expire. If the use were commenced and then abandoned, it would have to be revoked by the Board of Supervisors. Roll was then called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 8:36 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a short recess. Meeting reconvened at 8:44 P.M. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-77-61. Robert Sweeney. To make an existing non-conforming public garage, with ~the sale of used cars~ conforming under Section 2-1-25(23) of the Zoning Ordinance. Property on south side of Route 53. (Deferred from December 7, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said he received a letter dated January 31, 1978, from Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Attorney, representing Mr. Sweeney requesting a deferral until February 15, 1978. Mr. Fisher said since the letter requesting deferral was just received yesterday, he would still conduct the pubIic hearing because ~. it had been advertised for tonight's meeting. No one from the public either for or against this application wished to speak. Motion to defer until February 15 was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dottier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-?7-10. Arthur Wyler. To amend Section 6-1-23 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to read: "Residential uses having a maximum gross density of 24 u~£ts per acre." (Deferred from January 18, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff report: "Arthur Wyler is requesting that the density provision by right in the R-3 Residential General Zone be amended to read as follows: Section 6-1-23 Residential uses having a maximum gross residential density of twenty-four (24) dwelling units per. acre. This provision currently reads: Section 6-1-23 Residential uses having a maximum net residential density of twenty (20) dwelling units per acre. A net residential density of 20 units per acre is equivalent to a gross residential density of 14.6 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan recommends an average of 18 units per acre for areas of multi-family development with a gross density range from $ to 34 units/acre ( Comprehensive Plan - Tables 22 and 32 ). At this time, staff is reluctant to recommend increase in the density by right because there are large tracts zoned R-8 which do not comply with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the following amendment: February 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) O57 Section 6-1-23 Residential uses having a maximum gross density of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre. Additional Staff Comment In November,L1976, when the R-3 density provisions were amended, staff had recommended maximum net densities of 20 units/acre by right and 34 units/acre by special p!e~-~t. This has caused problems: (1) It is difficult to calculate the number of units which may go on a property using net density; (2) A net density of 3~ units per acre is a gross density of 21 units per acre. There are 12 multi-family complexes which exceed this density and are therefore non-conforming. Staff requests the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution of intent to amend Section 6-1-21(10) to read as follows: Section 6-1-21(10) Residential uses having a maximum gross residential density of more than eighteen (18) but not more than thirty-four (34) dwelling units per acre. Bo Members of the Planning Commission and citizens have expressed concern that recreational requirements of the R-3 zone may be inadequate. In re- view of the Parks Plan, staff recommended that the Parks Commission be requested to review zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements for open space and recreation. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission invite such input for pending zoning ordinance re~ision." Mr. Tucker noted that through an oversight by the applicant and the staff, two sections of the ordinance were not included which should have been; those being Section 5-2-1 which is the R-2 zone dealing with net residential density and Section 6-2-1 which is the R-3 zone dealing wit~ net residential density. He added that it was the opinion of the County Attorney that this matter be deferred until March 1st so that all three zoning text amend- ments could be handled simultaneously, thus eliminating any conflicting wording in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Fisher made note of the following letters received in favor of the applicant's request: Stevens $ Company; Richard Shank Associates; Fidelity American Bank; Mr. William W. Stevenson; Blue Ridge Home Builders Association; Alcove Management; Elizabeth P. Rosenblum; Ray V. Long; Weinstein Associates; Old Salem Apartments; Cart Realty Management and Sales, Inc.; and Citizens for Albemarle. Mr. Fisher said that with so many people present to speak on this matter, he felt it essential to open the public hearing. First to speak was Mr. Chuck Rotgin of the Great Eastern Management Corp. He said his organization was in favor of adoption of this amend- ment. He noted that most of the apartments owned by his company were non-conforming, with a higher density than presently allowed in the zoning ordinance. He further noted that the demand for housing in this area is greater than the amount of land presently zoned for multi-family housing thus causing rents to be priced too high for the average family. Mr. Ronnie Morris said he is in favor of the amendment, as the current number of apartments allowed per acre would cause the average rent to be approximately $400.00 per unit. He felt this.cost was prohibitive, and that additional units per acre would bring the average unit cost to a more reasonable figure. Mr. James Payne, an architect-, said he would like to see the amendment approved, but also the 400 square feet of required parking space reduced, thus freeing more land for housing. Ms. Ruth Wadlington, President of the League of Women's Voters, urged the Board to support the recommendation of the staff, and not enact this amendment at this time. She said it would sabotage the new Comprehensive Plan. She said the League would also like to see requirements for playgrounds mn apartment complexes. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this amendment, and Mr. Fisher requested a motion to continue the public hearing until more imput can be gathered in relation to the changes proposed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to defer action until March 1, 1978. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: General Electric Phase I Site Plan. Mr. Fisher noted that the applicant had requested a hearing on the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. After discussing the request on January 11, 1978, this appeal was postponed until a hearing could take p!aee by the Department of Highways and Transporta- tion on the mssue of Industrial Access Funding. Mr. Fred Landess, on behalf of G. E. re- quested tonight's hearing even though no decision has been made by the Highway Department. Mr. Fisher said he feels a final decision will be difficult at this time. Mr. Tucker then re. ~iewedd the history of this application, conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and possible alternatives to condition #2 for road upgrading if industrial access funds are not available from the State. 058 February 1., 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) "Date: January 30, 1978 To: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. - County Executive Fro.m:'~- Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. -Director of Planning Subject: Routes 606 and 763 Improvement Alternatives At the Board's direction, the staff has developed the following alternatives for the Board's consideration as they relate to the improvement of Routes 606 and Y~ as required by the Planning Commission as a condition of approval of the General Electric Site Plan. These are suggested for consideration in the event the industrial access funds are not approved by the Virginia Highway and Transportation Commission. 1. Require GE to improve Routes 606 and 763 to Category I of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards, which would accommo- date the indnstry's first phase of development, since only 200 VPD are anticipated for this phase. The additional improvements, as recommended by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, i.e. Category III standards could be made a part of the 6-Year Plan for secondary road improvements; or 2. Establish a pro-rata share of cost for improvements to Routes 606 and 763 between GE and the County based upon traffic counts; or 3. Al.low access to the site only from U. S. 29; or 4. Require GE to make those improvements which they feel are necessary for their own needs. While the improve~ments required by the Planning Commission are somewhat prece- dent setting, improvements such as decel lanes and safety improvements are s~.andard requirements for site plan and subdivision approvals. Therefore, we would recommend that these standard requirements plus the dedication of right~ of-way and the relocation of utilities be the full responsibility of the applicant. In closing, I would note that the staff did not attempt to outline those alter- natives which were obvious, e.g., the existing Planning Commission requirement or the alternative of requiring nothing; but rather those alternatives which might provide some flexibility for discussion." Mr. Landess, representing the applicant, said the main reason for this hearing is due to the time schedule the applicant must meet. He requested that condition two be dropped completely and not substituted with an alternate condition, as any alternate condition agreed to by General Electric might influence the decision by the Highway Department. He assured the County that General Electric wanted to do their part to improve the road because it would be used mainly by their employees. Dr. Iachetta said he was concerned that if no Industrial Access Funds are received, and General Electric begins their bUilding with no positive commitment to improve the road, that funds would then have to be taken from the County's Secondary Road Fund, causing other roads in the County to be neglected. Mr. Lindstrom said he was worried about setting a precedent in this area, and then offered motion to defer this maYter until a decision ms received from the State Highway Department as to the granting of Industrial Access Funds. Mr. Fisher said no one else from the public had had an opportunity to~.speak regarding this appeal, and re- quested Mr. Lindstrom to withdraw his motion. Mr. Lindstrom agreed. No one else from the public wished to speak on this appeal. Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Fisher both said they would not support a total waiver of condition number two. Dr. Iachetta said he was sympathetic, but felt 15 days was not too long a wait for a decision from the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer any decision on this appeal until a decision is reached by the State Department of Highways and Transportation regarding the availability of Industrial Access Funds. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Report: Sign Variances. Mr. Fisher said a report has been re- ceived from Mr. J. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator, regarding sign variances granted in recent months by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He said this was brought to the Board's attention by citizens who Wished to have some review made of those activities. Mr. Fisher said the discussion revolved mainly around two variances recently granted, those beling for W. F. Paulette ~ Son of Scottsville and Jim Price Chevrolet on Route 29 North. Mr. Gilbert Sommers said it was his understanding that the Paulette Company wanted the large sign due to other sign competition in the area. He noted that between Route 20 and 29 there are no signs at all to compete with Mr. Paulette's. He further noted that it was his opinion that the building itself is not Conforming with other structures in the area. Ms. Martha Selden said the Board shonld keep in mind the review of state scenic highway~ and byways. No one else from the public wished to speak regarding this matter. Mr. Dorrier said he was impressed with the £act that it was not a free standing sign owned by Mr. Paulette, but one on the front of the building. Mrs. Selden repeated her argument that it would cause Route 6 to loose its Scenic Byway designation. Mr. Fisher said it was not the job of the Board of Supervisors to determine the type of sign, but to decide whether this should be ~rought to a court action. Mr. Dottier said the fact that Board of Zoning Appeals noted that this type of sign would be a highway safety feature would hurt the Board's chances in court. Dr. Iachetta said he felt a sign on the front of the building woul actually be a traffic hazard because someone driving would have to wait until the last possible moment to see the building before turning. If the sign is freestanding and near the February 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 059 road, traffic would see it well in advance and allow a safer turn. Mr.. St. John read from the Zoning Ordinance stating allowable sign sizes in the County. Mr. Fisher said he felt since this sign was ~ ' ' 243° over the allowable szze, that mt Iwas significant enough to justify taking the paulette Company to court to reverse the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, to appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning ~ppeals on VA-77-75 o~ W. F. Paulette and Son. Motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. Mr. Henley Mr. Henley said he could not vote in favor of something he did not know very much about. Mr. St. John said he would note the appeal tomorrow and do it in the name of the Board of Supervisors. At~10:34 P.M.s, Mr. Fishem requested a three minute recess. 10:38 P.M. Meeting reconvened at Agenda Item No. 10. Joint Security Complex. Discussion: planning Grant~ Proposal to study expansion of the Mr. Fisher said he attended one of several meetings on the possibility 6f including Fluvanna, Greene and Madison Counties in an expansion of the existing Regional Jail. An initial study has been conducted by the staff of the Thomas Jefferson~ Planning District Commission, with a recommendation that these counties be included in sharing the capital costs in constructing the additional facilities. Recommendations have been received from the Jail Board, who encouraged that an application be made for Federal funds to help with 'the construction. It was also estimated that as much as $75,000 could be obtained from the State of Virginia for construction costs. The Council of the City of Charlottesville supports the recommendation of the Jail Board. Mr. Henley, Board of Supervisor representative on the Jail Board, reported that Bome of the problems currently being experienced due' to overcrowding are shortages in water, kitchen space, staff including guards, recreational space, etc. He then read figures for future jail needs up to 1990. Mr. Henley said he did not see where any expansion au this time was necessary, and that if the three additional counties were added, it would end up costing the County more money to run the complex. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said he did not feel it should cost $25,000 (the requested amount of the grant) to conduct a study of the possibility of adding space at the complex. He said $10,000 worth of improvements are required now to bring the building up to the fire marshal's standards. Dr. Iachetta said he would not support a request for $25,000 to conduct a study on whether or not a larger jail should be built. After considerable debate on whether or not to support a study of an expansion, Mr. Henley offered motion not to recommend a study on possible expansion. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Dr. Iachetta continued and said that he would possibly support this study, if the three localities showed some interest in the expansion. Mr. Fisher then recommended that the Board not disapprove the study, but possibly defer a decision until the three localities express their recommendations as far as their participation in an expansion of the jail. Mr. Lindstrom offered a substitUte motion stating that the Board not make any specific recommendation with reference to this request, but wait and see if there is any genuine interest from the three rural counties. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by · the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Appropriation: Purchase of Post Office Building. Mr. Ray Jones recommended that $125,000 be appropriated from Revenue Sharing Funds to co,er closing costs for the purchase of the post office. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconde~ by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $125,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from General Revenue Sharing Funds and coded to 47-18A.3, Purchase of Post Office Building for. a Library. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. lla. Request to extend deadline for purchase of Dog Tags. Per his memorandum of January 31, 1978, Mr. Ray B. Jones reported many people complain- ed that it would be impossible to meet the dog tag deadline due to extremely bad weather conditions in recent weeks. He recommended the deadline be extended through February 28, 1978. Motion approving this extension was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. February 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 12. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor read the application for a Lottery Permit for the Incarnation Catholic Church for the calendar year 1978. Motion approving this permit was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by/the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Appointments: (A) Mr. Fisher reported his term on the Thomas Jefferson Emergency Medical Services Council has expired, and he was willing to serve for an additional term if appointed by the Board. Motion was offered to reappoint Mr. Fisher to that Council by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. (B) Mr. Henley said he had two appointments to the Watershed Management Plan Committee. Fir'st for the Community of Crozet, Mrs. Roy (Lily) Patterson, and secondly for the Farm Community, Mr. ~. N. Garnett. Mr. Agnor said the Farm Bureau has recommended Mr. Carroll B. Smith, and the Thomas Jefferson Water and Soil Conservation District has recommended the appointment of Mr. Harry Garth. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to appoint these four to the Watershed Management Plan Committee. Roll was called, and motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. (C) Mr. Fisher said he received a letter from the Northwestern Virginia Health Systems Agency requesting the appointment of a representative from Albemarle County for their Board in the capacity of a consumer. Mr. Fisher requested that this be studied by Board members and recommendations be made at the next meeting. (D) Mr. Fisher said he received a letter from Mr. Charles Vest, tendering his resigna- tion from the Jail Board effective immediately. He requested possible names for this appoint- ment to be presented at next week's meeting. (E) Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dottier, to appoint Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom as the Board of Supervisors liasion to the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Fisher reported on a meeting with the Mayor of Charlottesville regarding the Committee on Run-Off Control Costs. He said they agreed that nefther the Mayor or the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors would serve, but that two Board representatives and the County Executive, as well as two Council represen- tatives and the City.Manager would be appointed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom that Mr. Roudabush, Dr. Iachetta gndfMr.Agnor be appointed to thfs Committee. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher reported receipt of the following letter: "January 23, 1978 Gerald Poindexter, Esquire 304 W. Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23220 Jay Swett, Esquire MCGUIRE, WOODS $ BATTLE Court Square Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Jerry Tremblay, Esquire 105 E. High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Fleming v. Moore, et. al. Civil Action No. 76-0053 (C) Gent lemen: I have carefully gone over the depositions and all of the papers filed in this case and I have reached the conclusion that summary judgment in favor of the defendant is appropriate in this case. An opinion setting forth the reasons will be forthcoming, hopefully, the latter part of this week. I wanted you to know my decision in this matter so that you would not make extensive preparations for the trial. Very truly yours, February 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher said an application from Mr. Fleming was still pending, which was.t.abled due to the suits filed in Cour~c'~~ ~i~h t~-is "i~er'-'of res6iu~t:[on, 'it would' h6w be appropriate to set- a new hearing date. Mr. Fisher recommende~ March<~l, 1978, would be the closest appropriate time to conduct that hearing. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, ~to conduct va p~blic hearing on this app!igation (SP-.98~76),? Mr. Lindstrom requested abste~°~iO~':fr~ vot~q~ca~se~e::had re~mes~nted~clients in thbSe c~Urt suitS just discussed. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Agnor read the following resolution adopted by the~Albemarle County School Board. WHEREAS, Albemarle High School is in dire need of additional space for physical education and the target date for September, 1978-79 for additional facilities is already impossible to meet, and WHEREAS, approval for the construction of the Albemarle High School~ ..... p~sical education facility was approved by the Board of Supervisors in the amount of $1,000,000, and source of funds for the project was discussed as coming from the Literary Fund, the Western Albemarle High School construction fund and carry-over funds, and WHEREAS, the planning for this project has been completed with no thought~ of compliance with certain federal laws that apply when federal funds are used for such~pr~ject~% an~ WHEREAS, the archite~t and ~h~s~h$ol superlntende~t plan to advertise for bids this week with no anticipation of a federal wage scale or compliance with the federal laws referred to above, and WHERE~S", th~'~-Sch'~ol-~oar~ Wa~':dlr~dted by the 'B0~rd Of ~up~rvisors to p%an the project within the $1,000,000 ~-allocatio~ or appropriation and not to request additional funds for the project, b~t '~ h~h~c~ns%ruction cost is likely to result with the use of revenue sharing funds for this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County School Board inform the Board of Supervisors that it would prefer not to have federal revenue sharing funds used in this project as is currently being considered because of the potential for delay and the potential~for an increased con- struction cost. FURTHERMORE, if funding for this project must include revenue sharing funds, the School Board requests that the Board of Supervisors approve an increase in the $1,000,000 to cover the higher cost because of the mnvolve- ment of federal funds. --Mr. Agnor explained the history behind this resolution, and state~'~hat' althohgh the School Board~iadopted it with some erroneous information, they still stood behind it. It was th~ ~concensus of the Board that they had no desire to increase the cost or create any delays in the bid process for additional space for physical education facilities. Mr. Gilbert SRmmers asked the Board of Smpervisors to look into the problem of deteriorating bUildings in the ':~co%tSgi~i~i'~'- Shb~p~ng ce~e~. '~e said he~ discussed the problem with Mr. St. John and Mr. Dick, who informed him that once the building is completed it is out of ~heir hands. He showed photographs taken of the shopping center, and Board members were in agreement tha~ the buildings were indeed deteriorated.' Mr. Agnor noted that there is~ a section' i~~: t~-~:~u~i~:~g~co~e' %~ 'Pr~e-~ ~ ~e~ith, Welfare and' Safety o~ '~he publico; gi~7~g ~the~D.i~e. ctor of Inspections the powe~ to. Close or tear down structures that are a menace to the public. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. So~mmers that he would take the photograph and forward it to the staff to study and report back to the Board. Mr. S~mmers requested the Board of Supervisors support of a bill presently before the State Legislature regarding the appointment of members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The bill would transfer the power of appointments from the courts to the local government. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel it wise to support this bill directly, but possibly through the Virginia Association of Counties. At 11:55 P.M. Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned.