Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-04-19NApril 19, 1978 (Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of SuperviSors of Albemarle CountY, Virginia, was held on April 19, 1978, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle Countyl Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. ~ii~ Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (Arrived at 9:55 P.M.), 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. ~ohn, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.. Fisher. As requested by the Farber Company, (Charlottesville Fashion Square), a meeting was held today with Messrs. Eric Deckinger, Leonard Farber, Guy Agnor, George St. John, Robert W. Tucker and Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher said the company representatives have proposed a different approach for providing the residential collector which is the only point in contenti, but it will involve other properties. However, no decision was made at the meeting and the matter is now in the hands of the staff and the applicant for further review. Agenda Item No. la. Approval of MinuteS: t0 and August 17, 1977 (Night). June 8, July 13, July 20 (Afternoon), August Dr. Iachetta said the second sentence of the next to last paragraph on page 265 of July 13, 1977 should read: "The County Engineer, Mr. J. Harvey Bailey said he saw no problems with the water system, however, one half (the portion for Ednam Forest) will be placed in operation before the part of the system which is to serve the Ednam RPN." Dr. Iachetta then noted a correction on page 279 of July 20, 1977 (afternoon), second paragraph, fourth sentence from the end should read: "Mr. Fisher asked if a bike trail can be built not following a roadway. Mr. Tucker said some routes recommended in the County'~ Bikeway Plan do not follow existing roads." Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve the minutes of July 13, 1977 and July 20, 1977 (afternoon) with the above corrections. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier. The remaining minutes were deferred to the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-78~9. Dennis G. & Betty M. Stokes. To locate a day care center, nursery-living quarters on 1.22 acres zoned R-2 Residential. Property is located on the east side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) across from Albemarle High SchooI. County Tax Map 61, Parcels ~36 and 36B. Charlottesville Magisterial District (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 5, 1978 and April 12, 1978.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, read the following staff report into the record: "This property is heavily wooded and developed with a large stone single-family dwelling. Albemarle High School and Georgetown Green are to the west. The County has recently approved an apartment complex and major subdivision in this area. Currently properties to the north, east, and south are undeveloped as zoned. A single-family dwelling exists immediately to the north. The Comprehensive Plan recommends low density residential (2.5 du/acre) in this area. Neighborhood Committee I has recommended commercial office use in this area. This use~would be for 20 children in one or two classes supervised by three staff members. Children would receive instruction in phonics and other school preparatory areas. The applicant has stated~mn intent to seek Virginia Department of Welfare licensing as a child care center at a later date. The applicant proposes to reside on the premises. The applicant currently operates the Knollwood Nursery School; this site would be a second location. Staff makes the following observations in respect to this petition: Area residentiallY undeveloped/pedestrian access. Ideally, such a use has a 1/4 mile radius pedestrian service area. On the east side of Hydraulic Road, properties in this range are currently undeveloped or underdeveloped residentially. Georgetown Green and Westgate Apartments on the west side of Hydraulic Road are within reasonable distance to be considered in the pedestrian range, however, pedestrian access is poor; Hydraulic Road. Assuming minimal enrollment from the pedestrian service area, this site would generate about 90 vehicle trips per day. As in the previous application on this property, staff is concerned that sight distance at the existing entrance is inadequate. Additionally, the staff has recommended denial of other petitions in the area due to the high traffic volume and pending improvements to Hydraulic Road; Approval of such use located within a single-family dwelling could set precedent for similar requests..Staff is concerned about the substantial use of a single-family dwelling and lot for purposes other than a residence. April 19, 1978 (Night Meeting) Licensing not required by State. Due to the proposed educational nature and hours of operation of this use, no licensing would be required by the Virginia Department of Welfare and no further review or inspection would be made by that agency. Consequently, the Virginia Department of Health will review this use only in terms of adequacy of water supply and sewerage facilities, not in terms of sanitation and maintenance as outlined in Welfare Department regulations. Many of the state requirements for child care centers can be addressed in the conditions of this petition, while the application of certain requirements may be exceeding the police power of zoning. St~ff recommends denial of this petition on the basis of inadequacies of Hydraulic Road, poor sight distance at this property, and inadequate pedestrian access. Staff opinion is that this request is premature. Staff recognizes that concerns about lack of licensing can be mitigated by continuous supervision and administration by the applicant. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: Buffering of the play area from adjacent residence and chain linked fence to be approved by staff; Permit is issued to applicant and is non-transferrable; Approval by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; Approval of paving specifications by County Engineer; Approval of appropriate state and local agencies. Conditions stated are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of requirements and regulations by the Virginia Department o~ Welfare or any other agency; Licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. In 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." Th~ Planning Commission by a vote of 6-2 on April 11, 1978, recommended to the Board approval'subject to the above stated conditions. Mr. Tucker noted letters from Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Stokes, owners of the property and from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Huff, who will be running the nursery. (COPY ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.) Mr. Tucker said the applicant disagrees with the following recommendation from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation~datad~March27~7.!978: "The existing property does not have adequate sight distance; however, this can be improved through grading. Since this would be a commercial venture, the department would recommend the full frontage development of the property (that is widening and curb and gutter and storm sewer as necessary) in accordance ~ith the construction plans for Hydraulic Road. These items can be handled under commercial permit." At t~is time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Huff spoke first. He said the site is ideal for a day care center and felt the sight distance was adequate. The property sits off the road and has a lot of trees. The condition of improving 190 feet to conform to the Highway standards is finanically impossible for him to meet. He noted there are no curbs or gutters along the east side of Hydraulic Road. Mr. Huff said coming out of the property and looking to the right there is about 500 feet of sight distance and to the left, 350 feet. He felt he could put in a wider driveway but the 190 feet construction is too much of a burden. Mr. Dennis Stokes said in 1975, he came to the Board for an office building and was turned down because of visibility. But two months later the doctor's professional building, down the road from subject property, was approved. This has less visibility entering and leaving than his property. Mr. Stokes said the enbankment between the highway and his ~roperty line is approximately two feet high. He felt anyone in a car would have sufficient sight. The grading would not improve the sight looking south which is currently 482 feet. He emphasized that he could not afford to grade Hydraulic Road, resurface and put in curb and gutter and felt it was unfair to request these improvements. With no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said the property is currently zoned residential and he feels this request will convert it to commercial zoning. Mr. Roudabush asked if the sight distance would be adequate after Hydraulic Road is improved. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and said yes. Dr. Iachetta asked if this proposed improvement would have to be redone with the Hydrau!i¢ Road improvements. Mr. Roosevelt said no. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Highway Department's recommendation applied regardless of the County's recommendation. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department has authority to require curb and gutter under its permit procedures. Mr. Roudabush asked if a cost sharing basis could be provided since Hydraulic Road improvements are anticipated. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department is not in a position to participate in such costs when they are solely across the frontage of someone else. Mr. Roudabush asked if additional right of way woul'd be required with the Hydraulic Road im~ Mr. Roosevelt was uncertain but if so he felt no more than fifteen feet would be necessary. Mr. Lindstrom referred to an earlier request made in the Rio Road-Route 29 North area. The Highway Department has plans for improvement of that area and requested the applicant to dedicate a greater amount of right of way than is required in the County's ordinances. Mr. April 19, 1978 (Night Meeting) Mr. Roudabush felt it unfair to require one owner to build to a standard that is not applicable to others in the same category. He would feel different about the request, if road improvements were not scheduled, a set of plans for a sixty foot right of way were not available, and curb and gutter and sidewalks were not in the plans. In all fairness, he felt the Board could only require this applicant to have a deceleration lane and adequate sight distance. Mr. Fisher felt this use will increase the traffic densities. Dr. Iachetta said the number of vehicles for this use~are known. Since Hydraulic Road is scheduled for improvements he felt it was unfair to require the applicant to install curb and drainage. Mrs.. Hdff said the only traffic would be from 7:45 A.M. to 8:45 A.M. and in the afternoon from 4:30 to 5:30. She said a two-story stone house is on the site and the first floor will be the nursery and they will live on the second floor. 'Mr. Henley felt it was ideal to have children in the country~ At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendat for approval. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Roudabush felt condition #3 needed to be changed. Mr. Roosevelt said two matters being discussed are sight distance requirements and the entrance. He has no authority to waive the sight distance requirements. However, he can use his judgment for the curb and gutter. In order to conserve limited secondary funds, when the opportunity occurs to have someone else build the curb and gutter, he felt it should be required. Mr. Roosevelt said if the Board feels this is an undue burden on the applicant, he would be willing to support a right turn lane which is called a rural commercial entrance. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not support that but would not support requiring curb and gutter. He felt it was unfair to impose costs on property owners just because the opportunity exists. Dr. Iachetta then amended his motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and changing the wording of condition #3 to read: "Approval by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for a rural commercial entrance." Mr. Roudabush seconded the amended motion and same~ carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. ~' ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 3. ZTA-78~4. Deborah Winn. To amend Article 4 of the County Zoning Ordinance, R-1 Residential Limited District to provide for "Nursery School" as defined by Section 16-64.1, as a use by special permit. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 5, 1978 and April 12, 1978.) Agenda Item No. 4. SP-?8-10. Deborah Winn. To locate a "nursery school" for 20 or less children on 0.521+ acres zoned R-1 Residential. Property is located in Canterbury Hills, 202 Chaucer Road. County Tax Map 60D, Section 4, Block A, Lot 21. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 5, 1978 and April 12, 1978.) These two items will be considered together. M~Tncker read the following staff report for ZTA-78&04: "D~borah Winn is petitioning the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to amend the R-1 Limited Residential District to provide for "nursery school" ~(as defined by Section 16-64.1 of the Zoning Ordinance) by special use permit. Nursery school is currently provided for in the CO Commercial Office District by right. The American Society of Planning Officials PAS Memo No. M-Ii recommends that day care facilities should be treated in a fashion similar to community facilities and "should be permitted to locate in any zoning district as long as need has been demonstrated, licensing requirements have been met, and no .~physical hazard to children can be reasonably anticipatedJ' Staff agrees ghat private facilities should be permitted to locate in any zone which provides for comparable public facilities. Staff opinion is that a nursery school is similar to an elementary school. Pertinent wording from the statement of intent of the R-1 zone is as follows: "The regulations for this district are designed to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the district, to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life where there are children, and to prohibit all activities of a commercial nature. To these ends, development is limited to relatively low concentration and permitted .uses are limited basically to single-unit dwellings providing homes for residents plus certain additional uses, such as schools, parks, churches, and certain public facilities that serve the residents of the district." While a private nursery school is an activity "of a commercial nature," it also serves "to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life where there are children" and is a use similar to a public school which would "serve the residents of the district." Therefore, staff opinion is that this use complies with the statement of intent of the R-1 zone. Staff opinion is that these supportive uses such as "schools, parks, churches, and certain public faciliti'es'' should be separate from the single-family "d~elling usage of residential lots. However, since this use is proposed by special use permit, each application could be evaluated on its own merits. Staff recommends the following amendment which would provide for nursery schools b~ soecial use oermit: on April 19, 1978 (Night Meeting) Section 4-1-12(8) Nursery School" Mr. Tucker said on April 4, 1978, the Planning Commission by a vote of 7-1, recommended to the Board of Supervisors denial. The primary reason for denial was because of the Zoning Ordinance revision which is in process. Mr. Tucker read the following staff report for SP-78~10: "This property is developed with a single-family dwelling. size in Canterbury Hills is 1/2 acre. The average lot The applicant with an assistant proposes to operate a nursery school for 20 students in the basement of an existing dwelling. This basement is currently unfinished and the applicant has agreed that completion -of the basement would be in accordance with state regulations for licensed child care centers. Staff makes the following observations in respect to this petition: This use could generate traffic in a volume not normally expected in a subdivision of this nature. An increased 82 vehicle trips per day or the equivalent of traffic from 11 dwellings could be generated from this site. Since this use is located centrally within the subdivision and since pedestrian access is available, it is reasonable to assume that this potential volume could be reduced by enrollment of children in the area; Outdoor activity could cause noise not normally expected in such development. In respect to this concern, the County has required tot lot recreational areas consistently within multi-family developments and occasionally Within single-family developments where common areas are proposed. As proposed, this nursery school would have a greater number of staff members per student than in an elementary school, and therefore the potential for supervision is greater; Approval of such use located directly within a developed area and within a single-family dwelling Could set precedent for similar requests. Possible incompatibility to this area has been outlined in terms of noise and traffic. Staff is also concerned about the substantial use of a single-family dwelling and lot for purposes other than a residence. This concern is lessened to some extent by the opinion that a single-family dwelling as a nursery school would be more conducive to the comfort and general sense of well-being of a child than other types of facilities; additionally, since the basement is unfinished, it could be developed according to requirements outlined for child care centers. Adequate area within the dwelling and for outside play area exists; Inadequate off-street parking. The Zoning Ordinance requires that off-street parking be adequate for the use contemplated. While parking requirements for nursery schools are not specified, Section 11-7-7(25) would apply: Other Permitted Uses: A total number of spaces sufficient to accommodate the vehicles of all employees of the establishment plus those of all persons who may be expected to visit the same at any one time or as determined by the County Planner and approved by the Planning Commission. Based on PAS Memo No. M-ii (See ZTA-78-04), staff would recommend five off-street parking spaces for this use (two per single-family dwelling; one per 10 children; one per two employees). Since on-street parking is permitted on Chaucer Road, the applicant may wish to seek variance from Section 11-7-7(25). Licensing not required by State. Due to the proposed educational nature and hours of operation of this use, no licensing would be required by the Virginia Department of Welfare and no further review or inspection would be made by that agency. Consequently, the Virginia Department of Health will review this use only in terms of adequacy of water supply and sewerage facilities, not in terms of sanitation and maintenance as outlined in Welfare Department regulations. Many of the state requirements for child care centers can be addressed in the conditions of this petition, while the application of certain requirements may be exceeding the police power of zoning. However, the applicant has indicated to the staff a willingness to comply with selected regulations. The County Department of Social Services has indicated a willingness~ to monitor those requirements which are beyond the normal review of the Zoning Administrator, Building Official, and Fire Official. Staff opinion is that this use may be intrusive to the area primarily on the basis of potential traffic generation, and therefore recommends denial of this petition. Staff recognizes that some other concerns outlined above c~outd be mitigated by conscientious supervision and administration by the applicant. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: ~1.~ ~ Approval is for one year, at the end of which time the Board of Supervisors shall hold public hearing to determine, among other things, if this use has proven to be compatible to the area; 2. Buffering of play area from surrounding properties to be approved by staff; 3. Not more than twenty children shall be enrolled at any given time and two staff members to be Present all times during operation; ~ The following minimum requirements shall apply: (a) Not less than 25 square feet of indoor play area per child; (b) Not less than 200 cubic feet of ind6or air space per child; ~(c) Not less than 75 square feet of developed outdoor plaY area per child; Approval of appropriate state and local agencies. Conditions stated herein are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of requirements and regulations by the Virginia Department of Welfare or any other agency." Mr. Tucker said the Planning CommiSsion on April 4, 1978 recommended denial of SP-78~10. He~no~ied~i~.the Highway Department recommended a circular driveway for easy access. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Speaking first was Mr. Matt Murray, representing Ms. Deborah Winn, the applicant. Mr. Murray said the logical place to have nursery schools is in the residential area particularly in the home. He noted residential 'zones are recommended in the model zoning ordinance for nursery schools. Mrs. Winn envisions teaching a Montessori school, which is a method of training and teaching children. Mr. Murray noted the Zoning Ordinance had been amended many times in the past and felt it unfair to deny this application based on'that. The primary objection at the Planning Commission meeting was the traffic increase. After considerable thought, Mrs. Winn proposes to have a central meeting place away from the neighborhood to pick.up the children. Approximately four to six children will walk from the neighborhood to the school. With this proposal, the total number of trips per day would be about ten instead of the projected eighty-two. Another objection of the residents was that this is a residential neighborhood. He pointed out that the deed of restrictions, effective in 1963 contained a section on the purposes of buildings or premises. In this Section, a public school,~elementary and high, private schools, such as kindergarten, nursery school,, play school is allowed. Therefore, he felt those buying a house in Canterbury Hills were aware that such a school was permitted. Mr. Murray said the house is thirty feet off the street, and the play area, which will be in the back of the house, will not be seen from the road. The second objection of the staff was the outdoor activity. The children will only be outside 20 to 30 minutes a day. The people most affected by the noise are in favor of it. Another concern of the staff was approval of this special permit would set a precedent. This is true but the commercial use in the R~i zone has already been set as Home Occupation Class A. He did not feel any damage would be created because it will be governed by the special use permit. He felt the other concern of the staff regarding parking would be resolved by the shuttle bus Mrs. Winn.proposes to operate. The staff also felt there would be no supervision. This is a volunteer program and the parents will police the school themselves. Mr. Murray felt condition #5 was not necessary since there will be no traffic on the site. In conclusion, Mr. Murray felt the amendment to the ordinance was beneficial to the entire county and the applicant has demonstra a willingness to make this a useful asset to the community. He urged the support of the applications. Speaking next was Mrs. Winn. She explained the Montessorri method of teaching. She said a Montessorri school currently exists in a R-1 zone in the City and the neighbors do not realize it is there. Ms. Deborah Arbaugh, resident of the City spoke next. She lives in a neighborhood where a Montessorri school currently exists. She did not feel property values would decrease as those present at the Planning Commission had felt. Ms. Arbaugh urged the support of the Zoning Ordinance amendment. Speaking next was Mr. Jim Johnson, resident of Chaucer Road, between the Winn property and Barracks Road. He was comfortable with the conditions and could not see how property values would decrease with the use of a school. Next was Mr. Joel Schneider, resident of Canterbury Hills, speaking in support of the nursery school. Speaking next in opposition were Messrs. Dennis Good, Charles Tolbert, Forrest Kerns and Ed Deets. Their major concern for opposition was the traffic increase and the residential character of the neighborhood being destroyed. Mr. Deets noted that Mrs. Seily has requested her letter of support be withdrawn. Mr. Murray reemphasiZed that the school would not be evident to the residents or the public.' He suggested if approval is given that the conditions be amended to allow no more than ten vehicle trips per.day to the site. At 9:35 P.M., the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom was not opposed to the special permit but could not support the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance since it is being revised. Mr. Roudabush said he could not support these uses in the R-1 zone at this time. Mr. Henley did not feel that zoning ordinance amendments could not be made until the Zoning Ordinance was revised. Mr. Fisher said amendments to the Zoning Ordinance have been made when they have been for the benefit of the community. He did not feel this request was for the benefit of the community and could not support the requested amendment. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to deny ZTA-78~04. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion. Dr. Zachetta said he could not support the motion because he felt it excluded what may be desired in some places. He could not support the special permit at this time but he felt the general approach was a valid future activity for the County. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier. ed April 19, 1978 (Night Meeting) At 9:50 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:00 P.M. Mr. Dorrier arrived at 9:55 P.M. Agenda Item No. 5. S?-78-il. Gregory R. Schmidt. To locate an Agricultural Service Occupation (Equine Veterinary) on 21 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture. Property is located on northeast side of Route 640 approximately 1/4 mile northwest of the intersection of Routes 231 and 640 (Cash's Corner). County Tax Map 50, Parcels 29, 29A, 29E and 29F. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 5, 1978 and April 12, 1978.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "This property has recently been cleared and the dwelling recently constructed. Several large tracts exist in the area with smaller parcels in the Cash's Corner area. This area is shown as "other rural land" in the Comprehensive Plan indicating no specific characteristics warranting conservation designation. The plan' recommends that the County "permit location and continuation of industrial an~ commercial uses which support or are a part of the agricultural economy." The applicant proposes to operate an on-call equine veterinary. No treatment on the premises are foreseen at this time, and therefore, no horse facilities are proposed. Staff recommends approval for the following reasons: The request complies with the recommendations of the Com~prehensive Plan; The business would be a service to and ~supportive of the agricultural industry in Albemarle County; The use would be unobtrusive in the area. Recommended Conditions of Approval Amendment of this permit shall be required for on-site treatment, and on-site treatment facilities." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on April 4, 1978, recommended approval with the above condition plus the following condition: Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrance. were Mr. Tucker said two letters~eceived in opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Van Brooks, adjacent property owners and Mr. and Mr. Gary Cooper. Mr. Fisher asked if the application was limited to an existing structure On the property. Mr. Tucker said yes, it is limited to the dwelling· The vet will go out and treat animals at various locations· No treatment of the animals will be on the premises· The reason'it could not fall under the Home Occupation category was because an additional employee other than a member of the family would have to be employed and it would have to be an area greater than one-fourth the size of the house· Mr. Tucker said the following recommendation was received from the Virginia Department of Highways: "The use of the property as an Equine Veterinary would probably indicate that from time to time large trucks or cars with horse trailers would be utilizing this proPerty. Would recommend a commercial permit be required. In this case, a standard 30-foot wide entrance would be satisfactory." Mr. Roudabush felt the conditions were contraditory since condition no. 1 says there shall be no on-site treatment. Mr. Gregory Schmidt, the applicant was present, and said he had no plans to build a hospital and no commercial vans or trucks would be coming onto the property. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Rick Richmond, representing Mr. Schmidt, was present. He requested that condition no. 2 be deleted because it was in conflict with condition no. 1. With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher felt with the use proposed and with no traffic entering the property that · condition no. 2 was not necessary. Mr. Roosevelt said a commercial entrance which is 30 feet wide is recommended for a business. However, it is the power of the Board to require commercial entrances. If the Board does not feel it necessary, then the Highway Department does not have the power to require same. With the use proposed, he did not feel a commercial entrance was required. Mr. Schmidt said the only traffic would be the employee arriving and leaving and himself doing the same. He also noted that the present entrance is 30 feet wide. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve SP-78411~W~h~cm~d~t~n~no. 1 as recommend~ by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom 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. 6. ZMA-78=Ol. ?E.~Qrant Cosner. To rezone 6.25 acres from A-1 Agricu!td to B-1 General Business. Property is located at the intersection of Routes 712, 715 and 20 South at Keene. County Tax Map 121, Parcel 91. Scottsvi!te Magisterial District. (Advertise in the D~ly Progress on April 5, 1978 and April 12, 1978.) Mr. Tucker said this was requested to be withdrawn without prejudice before the Planning Commission. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to withdraw ZMA-78-01 without prejudice. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. April l~_~~ht Meetin~_ ~-Agenda Item No. 7. SP-78-02. Great Eastern Companies. (Deferred from February 15 and subsequently withdrawn before the Planning Commission on March 14.) Mr. Tucker noted this was also requested to be withdrawn without prejudice. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to withdraw SP-78~02 Without prejudice. Mr. Roudabush 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. 8. Discussion: Industrial Access Road for Kloeckner-Pentaplast. Mr. Fisher said a letter was received at the April 12, 1978 meeting requesting the Board to reconsider their resolution of September 7, 1977 for industrial access funds for a road to the Kloeckner-Pentaplast plant. (See Minute Book 16, page 191.) At that meeting, M~ Roosevelt was requested to ascertain the actual status of the access fund request. Mr. Roosevelt said he contacted the Secondary Roads Engineer and asked if the Board could withdraw their resolution. The Secondary Roads Engineer said to address the Highway Commissioner directly. Mr. Roosevelt then reviewed the policy for industrial access funds. He noted that the first step, Passage of resolutions, has been done by the counties of Albemarle and Louisa. Based upon those resolutions, the Highway Department agreed to an allocation of industrial access funds with two stipulations: 1) The industry entering into a firm contract for the construction of the facility and 2) the necessary right of way and adjustment for utilities to be provided at no cost to the Commonwealth. Mr. Roosevelt felt condition-one has been met. As for the second condition, the Town of Gordonsville indicated in the prelimin. that they would be responsible for the right of way. They have encountered some difficulties in obtaining the right of way and have requested the Highway Department to use their powers of condemnation for obtaining same. However, they would incur the cost of the right of way and the Department's time in obtaining same. Mr. Roosevelt felt this requirement has also been fulfilled. Mr. Roudabush felt enough people were concerned that the matter should not be dropped at this point. He thought the right of way was to be provided by the applicant. Mr. Roosevel said the necessary right of way and utility easements are to be provided at no cost to the Commonwealth. Mr. Roudabush said Route 660 on the back side of subject property is another access which is entirely in Louisa County. It is an unimproved secondary road which would require major upgrading to serve the plant. He felt access over Route 231 was chosen since it requires less upgrading and is shorter. Route 660 also leads into the Town of Gordonsville and the town prefers the road for the plant to be directed away from the town. Mr. Fisher was concerned about losing the County's credibility for industrial access funds if the County retracts their request. He understood the situation and he felt some re~onsibility since the County let the Governor's office and others pressure them into taking quick action after being assured there were no problems. Mr. Henley said he would be reluctant to change his position because he felt the County would regret it in the future. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel the County's credibility for industrial access fund~ would be--~ost if false representations were made. Mr. Roudabush felt the Board should contact the Commissioner asking what effect withdrawa of the resolution would have. Mr. Fisher felt a statement of circumstances surrounding the application should be made first. Mr. Roudabush agreed and did not feel the credibility of the County would be hurt. Dr. Iachetta said he misunderstood the request because he thought it was to improve an existing state road. Mr. Roudabush said that was also his impression and was shocked when he found out the road was actually over a recorded right of way. '-:-'M~. Rick Richmond was present and said the County Administrator of Louisa County has indicated that Louisa County is going to construct a state highway leading out to Route 660 and it is scheduled for upgrading in the future. He understood from material he has read that the twenty-five foot right of way can be used as part of the road going to the site and felt that was questionable. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush for the Chairman to write a letter to the Highway Commissioner explaining the situation and the problems that have arisen and request some guidance. 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. 9. Discussion: Scenic Rivers Committee. Mr. Fisher said Mr. St. John's office has written the charge for the Scenic Rivers Committee. He then presented same for Board discussion. After discussion, the consensus of ~e_Board was to include the James River, Hardware River, Rockfish River and Rivanna River in the charge for the Committee. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following charge adding the above mentioned rivers. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Lries The purpose of the Scenic Rivers Committee shall be to evaluate the Moormans River, Mechum River, North and South Forks of the Rivanna River, James River, Rockfish River, Hardware River and Rivanna River in Albemarle County in terms of the criteria for scenic rivers set forth in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan and in Virginia Code Section 10-167, et seq. The Committee shall make recommendations to the Albemarle County B'oard of Supervisors as soon as possible as to which of the ~aid rivers, or portions thereof, are worthy of protection as scenic rivers in light of the said criteria and in furtherance of the public health, safety and welfare; and to make further recommendations as to what actions should be taken by the Board of Supervisors to protect the scenic characteristics of the rivers found to be worthy of such protection, inc!uding,~but not limited to, amendments to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Albemarle County Code and/or requests for designation by the General Assembly as scenic rivers pursuant to the aforesaid statute. The Committee shall coordinate its efforts with the Virginia Commission on Outdoor Recreation. Dis-cussion then followed on the appointment of the committee. Mr. Henley nominated Mr. Dan Maupin, owner of land on the Moormans River. Mr. Lindstrom nominated Mr. Steve Helvin, owner of property on the South Fork of the Rivanna River; Mr. Tim Michel of the Piedmont Environmental ~ouncil; and Mr. Michael Gleason, who is an interested citizen. Motion to appoint the above named persons was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters, Not on the Agenda. Dr. Iachetta said on March 29, 1978, he wrote to the Commonwealth's Attorney concerning a possible conflict of interest he might have as one third owner of the D.H.I. Energy Systems Company. He then noted letter dated April 13, 1978 from the Commonwealth's Attorney stating that he only needed a letter of disclosure. (COPY ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD.) He then read the following letter into the record: "April 17, 1978 Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County RE: Conflict of Interest Gentlemen: Pursuant to a letter from John A. Dezio, Commonwealth's Attorney, to. the undersigned dated April 13, 1978, attached hereto, I hereby register with the Board of Supervisors the following disclosure and statement of intent: I am the owner of a 1/3 interest in D.H.I. Energy Systems Company. It is not anticipated that the Board will in the future 'enter into any contract whatsoever with D.H.I. Energy Systems Company, but since that company may enter into a contract or contracts with the Jordan Corporation for certain work and materials in connection with the project to provide housing for the elderly near Crozet, known as "The Meadows", it is my intention to disqualify myself fr~m voting upon, or participation in discussion of, the procurement of any contract for the construction of the houses or the community center in that project. ~ (SIGNED) F. A. Iachetta Supervisor CharlotteSville Magisterial District" At the rec into executive the motion and AYES: Messrs. NAYS' None. uest of Mr. Fisher, motion was offered bY Mr. Henley at 10:48 P.M., to adjourn session to discuss legal matters and land acquisition. Mr. Dorrier seconded same carried by the following recorded vote: Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. At 11:59 P.M., the Board reconvened. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn to April 20, 1978iat 4:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. NAYS: None. Dorrier, Fisher, .Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. /