Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-04-20NApril 13, 1977 (Regular-All Day Meeti,ng) Apri 1 20 ~_3_9_~ul~t AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The BOard reconvened at 5:50 P.M. and immediately adjourned. ~/ CHAIRMAN A~i 20, 1977 (Regular-Night Me( A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held April 20, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemart~ County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arriving at 8:21 P.M.), Gerald E.~Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Ant~hony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush (arriving at 8:21 P.H.). Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Attorney, Fred W. Payne; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Robert C. Riffle. Request to locate a billiard parlor and vending machine building on 1.066 acres zoned B-1 and located on the east side of Rio Road twelve hundred feet north of the Southern Railroad overpass. (Advertised on April 6 and April 13, 19 Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not yet acted on this request, but will hear it on May 3. Mr. Fisher said two members of the Board of Supervisors will not be present on May 4 and May 18 agenda is already full. He recommended that this matter be deferred until June 1. Motion to this effect was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Iachetta. None. Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-77-02. David Breeden. To rezone 403.7 acres from A-1 to R-2. Property on west side of Route 20 South at intersection of Route 742, approximately 2.6 miles south of Charlottesville. County Tax Map 90, Parcel 6, Scottsville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 6 and April 13, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not yet acted on this petition and has deferred further hearing until June 7. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, to defer this public hearing until June 15, 1977. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Iachetta. None. Mr. Dorrier and Mr. 'Rouda~ush. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-77-'07. Joel and Nancy Schneider. To permit the stabling of light horses and ponies on property located on Smithfield Road and Canterbury Hills. County Tax Map 60D, Section 5, Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 6 and April 13, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not acted on this petition. Motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to defer this publi~ hearing until June 1, 1977 The motion carried by the following recorded vcte: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Iachetta. None. Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 5. ZTA-77-01. George W. Clark. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for abbatoirs in the A-1 Agricultural Zone and a Use by Special Permit. Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 6 and April 13, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not yet acted on this request. Motion was th( :ffered by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to defer this public hearing until June 1, 197 The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Iachetta. None. Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 6. Resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit flood control structures and devices in the A-1 Zone by Special Use Permit. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on April 6 and April 13, 1977.) 5ing) .) // April 20, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said on February 9, 1977, the Board of Supervisors adopted a re~olution of intent to amend the A-1 Agricultural Zone to provide flood control structures and devices by Special Use Permit. The staff recommended a limited provision specially tailored to the needs of the Town of Scottsville. On April 5, 1977, by an 8 - 0 vote the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment to read as follows: Section 2-1-25 (40)'Flood Control Dams and Zmpoundments. Dr. Iachetta asked if there is any definition for a flood control device. Mr. Tucker said this was discussed at the Planning Commission hearing and they felt that a definition was not necessary since the words are self-explanatory. At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak for or against the amendment, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Dr. Zachetta and seconded by Mrs~ David to accept the recommendation of ther'Planning Commission and adopt Section 2-1-25 (40) as set out above. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Iachetta. None. Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-77-10. The Town of Scottsville. To construct a dam to act as a flood control impoundment on Mink Creek in Scottsville. Properties affected are in Mink Creek Valley adjacent and northeast of the town of Scottsville. County Tax Map !30A(2 Parcels 3F, 3G, 3H, and 6; and County Tax Map 131, Parcels 72, 73A, 77, 77C, 78 and 80, Scottsville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April g and April 13, ~977.) Mr. Tucker read the following staff report into the record: Character of the Area The area is rural in nature with most properties in the vicinity heavily wooded. Comprehensive Plan On February 22, 1977, the Planning Commission concurred with the staff that the proposed impoundment on Mink Creek is in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan, which recommends stream valley park and conservation uses for the area. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need to protect the historical heritage of downtown Scottsville, and this impoundment will aid in ~hat protection. Staff Comment Flooding in Scottsville has been caused by both the James River and Mink Creek. "At times of flooding on the James River, Mink Creek cannot flow t~hrough the culvert under the railroad to empty into the river because the river acts as a dam to back up the flow and causes significant amounts of flood damage." (Balzer and Assoc. Scottsville on the James, July, 1974) This situation is amplified if Mink Creek its~tf is .ru~n~ng high. The proposed Mink Creek impoundment is one element of a flood control program designed to protect Scottsville from flood damage. During flood conditions, the normal outflow from the impoundment would be impeded or terminated until such time as the James River subsided to a level at which Mink Creek waters could be~?carried through natural channels. At this time, the impoundment is proposed as a single-purpose flood control structure. Mr. Tucker said that on April 5, 1977, by an 8 - 0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP-77-10 subject to the following three conditions: 1. Any change in use such as drinking supply shall require amendment of Special Use Permit. 2. Approval of appropriate Federal, State and Local agencies. 3. Approval of County Engineer. Mr. Tucker noted that one letter in opposition from Mr. Haden Anderson had been received. At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mayor Raymon Thacker, Mayor of Scottsville. He said this is the first phase of the Scottsville flood control program which is being financed by HUD. The Town is presently having an engineering firm do an evaluation on the breaking point of this particular dam so as to satisfy HUD and the Corps of Engineers. The dam was designed for a one-hundred year flood, but now it is felt that it will go above that. Dr. Iachetta asked how far back from the edge of the lake the town will own this site. Mayor Thacker said the town had purchased all of the land the water will touch at its maximum depth. He said the town is satisfied with the Planning Commission's conditions. They do not intend to use the water for drinking purposes, however are planning on putting in a line for fire protection. With no one else rising to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tucker said he was not ~ware at the time the staff report was written that the dam was going to be used for fire protection. It might be wise ~f the Board included as a separate condition that the county engineer's approval Would also include that for fire protection so the town would not have to come back for an amendment to the special permit At this time, Mrs. David offered motion to approve SP-77-10 with conditions number t and April 20, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) County Engineer for uses including uses for fire suppression". Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Iachetta. None. Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush. The motion was seconded by Agenda Item No. 8. SP-77-11. Mulberry Corp. To amend SP-537 (a planned unit develop- ment) the 13.83 acres is zoned A-1 and located on the west side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) County Tax Map h5, Parcel 18, Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Advert±sed on April 6 and April 13, 1977.) Character of the Area The property lies within the urban area of Albemarle County as outlined by the Comprehensive Plan. The area in question is wooded and open land, with the terrain's slopes ranging from 5 to 25%. There are five (5) single-family dwellings, 13 two-story duplexes, and a small mobile home park within close proximity of the property in question. Background Evergreen Planned Community (SP-537) was approved at a density of 2.5 units per acre subject to conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission, which were subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors. On February 16, 1977, the Board of Supervisors deferred SP-98-76 (James Fleming) so that this application before you could be submitted and these applications could be considered jointly. Staff Comment Staff favors this plan over SP-537 for the following reasons: 1. Acreage in open space and recreation has more than doubled; 2. The change from single-family units to townhouse units will reduce earthdisturbing activity; 3. Though staff has no supportive data, chemical impact on the reservoir is likely to be less due to the reduction of acreage in individually- owned and cultivated lawn. Staff recommends approval of this amendment due to the apparent reduction of environmental impact as compared to the approved plan. The following are recommended conditions of approval for SP-77-11 developed with consideration to the 18 conditions of approval of SP-537 and in relation to the pending SP-98-76: 1. Approval is for 34 townhouse units. In the final approval process, open space is to be dedicated proportional to the number of units approved (11,236 square feet per unit); 2. Specification of improvements proposed (including park and playground furniture) for the areas indicated as tot lots and recreation; 3. No dwelling unit or parking area shall be located on slopes of 25% or greater. The County Engineer may, after review of appropriate plans and after review of the Betz Study, recommend revision of this condition prior to final plan approvals~ h. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation areas, pedestrian trails, parking areas, and debris basins are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; 5. Construction of all internal streets is to comply to the recommendations of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. 6. Ail sidewalks adjacent to proposed public roads shall be constructed to design specifications of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tation. Staff recommends a pedestrian walkway by located along the south side of Oakcrest Court, subject to approval of design specifications by the County Engineer and homeowners' agreement for maintenance; 7~ Approval ~s contingent upon the County Engineer's approval of: (~) construction specifications for all parking areas; (b) soil erosion and sedimentation control devices and overall storm drainage plan; In review of these items, the County Engineer shall be guided by the findings and recommendations of the Betz Study; 8. Dedication of 0.2 acres to the Albemarle County School Board to be used in conjunction with other property to be acquired as a school site. Density credit will be given for this property. The location of-this property shall be presented to the Planning Department and School Board for approval. (NOTE: SP-98-76 and SP-77-11 represent Evergreen as a unit. Therefore, the required school site dedications could be required anywhere within the Planned Community); 9. Approval is contingent upon the Albemarle County Service Authority's (k) ~apprav~l of complete water and sewer lines; (b) acceptance of dedication of water and sewer lines; 10. Approval is contingent upon adequate available capacity at the Meadowcreek STP; 11. Comply with the following conditions submitted by the City of Charlottesville concerning the gas pipeline easement (NOTE: As quoted in SP-537): (a) the contours on the plan indiCate some grading and excavation on the easement the plans for which have not been completed. These grading plans must be available for review and approval by the City of Charlottesville prior to commencement of the work; (b) reasonable ingress and egress to the full length of the forty foot easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must be assured; 12. No dwelling unit is to be located within the gas pipeline easement; 13. County Attorney's approval of any deed restrictions or homeowners' ~oa~o~ A_pril 20, ~977 (Regular - Night Meeting~) 14. 15. 16. No site plan~or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading plan for this property has been approved; The location of and acreages in the various land uses, rights-of way, and pedestrian ways as indicated on the preliminary plan shall be adhered to, except in respect to those changes necessitated by conditions of approval of this petition. Submit two (2) copies of a revised plan reflecting conditions setforth in this petition. While the properties under SP-98-76 and SP-77-11 are under separate ownership, it is the intent of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in approving these applications that Evergreen Planned Community be viewed as a unit in subsequent procedures. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on April 5, 1~77 by a vote of 8 - 0, recommended approval of this petition with conditions 1 through 7 and 9 through 26 as recommended by the Staff, but took no action to recommend staff condition number 8 due to pending reconsideration of this matter by'the School Board. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-98-76. Flamenco Enterprises Incorporated. Evergreen Plan Community. (Action deferred from February 16, 1977.) To amend SP-537 Mr. George Gilliam was present to represent Mulberry Corporation. He said he actually represents three entities, United Virginia Bank, Richmond; United Virginia Bank, Charlottesville; and Mulberry Corporation, which is a holding company for Central National Bank, Richmond. These three financial institutions' loaned money ~o ~the previous owners of this property. The debt secured by the Deed of Trust on this property was not paid and the three financial institutions foreclosed about a year ago. The banks were aware of the problem in the area particularly concerning the reservoir and the problems ~f densit~ a~d:took-no action to develop this property until January of this year. At that time without any prior notiae, they received notification that there was an application by the adjoining property owner to amend SP-537. The banks have submitted this amendment to SP-537 (SP-77-11) ia r~sponse to the action taken by the adjoining property owner. The banks want it clearly understood that they did not initiate this and are only doing so because it was made necessary by other events in the neighborhood. The banks do believe that this proposal, which has a l~wer density, is preferable to SP-537 and therefor.e request favorable consideration from the Board, but, if the board should decide that further consideration is necessary the banks do not have any immediate plans for their property. Mr. Fisher said it has been indicated that this application is before the Board to protect the property because of changes that are?being requested in SP-537. Mr. Gilliam said that was correct. The former site plan for SP-537 showed roads that worked bac~k and forth between this parcel and Mr. Fleming's property. When the revision was submitted, that flow through this property had been eliminated. Next to speak was Mr. Tim Lindstrom who asked if the two applications were being considered jointly. Mr. Fisher said at the moment the board was considering SP-77-11, but he did intend opening the floor for discussion of Mr. Fleming's pstition later in the meeting Mr.~sher said since February 16 the School Board had made a recommendation to require add'itional land on SP-98-76 and he did not understand the reason why. Mr. Tucker said the reason for theadditional land is that the original pro rate share was calculated based on distributing the elementary school enrollment. The School Board requested t~at the total enrollment be calculated. That is the reason for the change in the acreage. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Fleming if he wished to react to this recommendation. Mr. Fleming said he had called the School Board office and talked to someone and told him he was willing to meet with him and talk about selling the county some land. At this time Mr. Fisher asked if anyone would like to speak further on Mr. Fleming's application (SP-98-76). Mr. Paul Stacy said he was the acting president of Citizens for Albemarle, Incorporated. When the board last considered Mr. Fleming's amended application he appeared to request that the Board defer any action on the request until pending litigations surrounding Evergree~ property were adjudicated. It is their contention that this litigation has jeopardized the right of every county citizen to freely participate in the processes of local government and to freely voice legitimate opposition to something which affects him or her. He noted that there were few people present representing organizations which have opposed Evergreen project in t~e past. Mr. Stacy said Citizens for Albemarle feel s~rongly that a precedent must be established with regard to the issue of personal and financial liability resulting from any citizen's legitimate participation in the functioning of his or her government. The feel that all parties involved in these petitions can afford to wait a little longer until such a precedent is firmly established one way or the other. At 8:21 P.M., Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush arrived at the meeting and Mr. Fisher proceeded to bring them up-to-date on the matters under discussion. Ms. Charlotte Humphries said she was speaking as an individual. Since December 1976 when f±~'e county~.res~den~s~were named as defendants in a $5 million law suit, a threat has existed to anyone in Albemarle County who might w~sh to speak out in public on the subject of the development which is before the Board tonight. There is no way a public hearing in any true sense can be held while the right of ~reedom of speech is being challenged in a court of law. She urged the Board to act in the best interest of all citizens by postponing this hearing until the cloud of intimidation has been l~fted and the courts have reaffirmed the citizen's rights to express their beliefs freely. Mr. Tim Lindstrom said he opposes this proposal on its merits and on the merits employed to gain its acceptance. The events surrounding this matter threaten to establish a dangerous precedent that someone seeking the approval of this Board may deliberately and successfully employ coercive tactics to achieve that approval.. He asked that the Board delay further consideration until this suit has run its course. Mr. Fleming said he was amazed that Mr. Stacy only talked about his property and not that of his neighbor, United Virginia Bank. He felt it was amazing when private citizens can talk about constructive condemnation of Other people's property in Albemarle County to benefit their own. Mr. Fisher said he did not believe the Board had ever really dealth with the individual merits of the application that Mr. Fleming had brought. There are several questions about setbacks, buffers and other things that were a matter of controversy when this was before the Planning Commission. He did not know whether the Board wished to get into these at this time Mr. Fisher said he feels that thi~public hearing has been held under a sense of duress in that many persons have not felt free to speak. He believes that the only way the County can act to allow citizens in the future to come before this Board and speak is to State that when various persons interested are under personal suits and cannot speak, that no action will be taken and the public hearing will be continued until such time as the suits are settled. Mr. Henley said he felt matters could be tied up forever if every time the Board was going to vote on something of this sort a suit was involved. He felt that something like this ShoUld be l~ft to the courts and it is not something with which the Board should deal. Dr. Iachetta said he feels Mr. Fleming has chosen to substitute the wisdom of the Federal Judge for the ~ollective legislative wisdom of the Board of Supervisors. The matter of the special permit which is being amended by SP-98-76 neve.r was really resolved to the satisfaction of Mr. Fleming or the Board of Supervisors a year ago. He asked Mr. Payne if that were not correct. Mr Payne said the court retained jurisdiction of the matter for review if it were brought back by either party. To his knowledge the matter has never been brought before the court. As a-legislative matter it is not necessary that the ap~ accept the conditions once the Board has acted on them but the only way to get the question resolved in final terms before the court would be for the County to bring a proceeding in the Federal Court requesting the court to terminate its jurisdiction over the case. The question then would be whether Mr. Fleming could-b~ing a new suit based on th~s action and then it would be a question of waiting for the statue of limitations to run out. Mrs. David said she was considerably influenced by a statement Mr. Fleming had mada'at the February 24, 197~, meeting in which he had said, "I don't care how long we want it to be in court, all my legal fees are tax deductible and I am willing to be in court forever". When you put someone in that position against individuals who have no possibility of that kind of relief from their legal fees, Mrs. David said sh~ was unwilling to,act as long as kind of mneven balance exists. Mr. Roudabush said there is already an approved plan in existence with certain condition: attached. The applicant can proceed under the approval given on that permit. This is an amendment to that plan for a different type of development with less impacts so he did not se~ what the Board would be accomplishing by not acting on the application at this time. ~t 9:49 P.M. the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened and Mr. Fisher said he felt it was time for the Board to take ~some action. He reemphasized his feeling that the question is one of whether or not the citizens have been denied due process. He feels this to be a compelling reason not to take action on the application. Mrs. David said She did not want to see the Boar~ accept intimidation of citizens and therefore was willing to defer the public hearing until the litigation has been resclved. She then offered motion tb defer the public hearing on SP-77-11, as well as SP-98-76, until the matter of pending litigation has been resolved. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Dorrier said he was very concerned about the air of intimidation and he does not feel the Board has had an adequate public hearing. While he feels that the plan on SP-98-76 is definitely better than the previous plan, he is concerned about t~e law suits. While he ha~ some reservations about the Board holding up the application until the suits are dropped, he would tend to vote with the three members who have already expressed their concerns about this intimidation. Dr. Iachetta said suing these several individuals can only be interpreted as an effort t muzzle them completely. As long as he feels this way, he cannot apply unbiased judgement to what seems to be a superior plan to the one initially submitted. Either the Board is going to settle this in a legislative matter, or the Board will have to refer it back to the Judge. At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs~ David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. (A complete transcript of the above proceedings is on file in the Clerk's office.) Agenda Item No. 10. Request for Revenue Sharing Funds; Town Hall Levy Opera House. No one was present to make the request, therefore the item was sk~ped. Agenda Item No. 11. Lottery Permit: University of Virginia Women's Chorus. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve a lottery permit for the University of Virginia Women's Chorus for the calendar year 1977 based on the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of contract for Resource Recovery Study Commission Feasibility Study. Dr. Iachetta said this is the contract with the consultant selected by th~ Resource Recovery Study Commission for Phase I, the feasibility study which w~ll recommend an approach to solid waste recovery for the community. The consultants selected are Metcalf and April 20, 1977 (Regular.- Night Meeting) that cost from the $50,000 grant that was originally awarded to the Resource Recovery Study Commission. The contract has been reviewed b~ the County's legal staff. This study will give a recommendation as to how to go about the task of solid waste recovery involving potential sites, the kind of procedures which should be used, whether the community can afford to use a processing station to process waste, and a front~nd loader to remove metal and glass and in turn prepare a fuel that can be sold. Dr. Iachetta ~hen offered motion to approve the contract and authorize the Chairman to si~n same. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. DOrrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Set public hearing on proposed use of Revenue Sharing Funds. Mr. Agnor said that under the new Revenue Sharing Law, two public hearing are needed at least seven days apart. He recommended'that the first public hearing be on May 25 and the second on June 8. Motion to set the public hearing dates as recommended was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following reaorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed: Mr. Roudabush said he and Mr. Dorri Culpeper last Friday. The did make the commission awar( on primary and arterial roads specifically Route 20 bet~ and Route 29 North. They also requested consideration the problem on Route 29 North. At the request of the Chairman, at 9:23 P.M., moti seconded by Mrs. David, to adjourn into executive sessi The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS:~ Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, None. ~r had attended the highway hearing in of some bad problems in the County een Charlottesville and Scottsvitle if early funding for the studies of ~n was offered by Mr. Roudabush, in to discuss personnel and litigation iachetta and Roudabush. The Board reconvened at 10:~5 P.M. and motion was ,ffered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, to adjourn this meeting until April 25, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES; NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Hentsy, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. ~,.,.,/' - - ~M~[IRMAN