Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-04-26NApril 21,21976 (Regular meeting - Night ) 171 Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher noted he had received a letter from Harold S. Morton, who is on the Board of Directors for Piedmont Virginia Community College, whose term expires on June 30, 1976. Mr. Morton had indicated his willingness to serve another term. At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to reappoint Mr. Morton to serve another term on the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board; said term expiring on June 30, 1980. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, F~she,r~, H'~enley, Iachetta, and Roudabush. None. At ll:30 P.M. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to adjourn this meeting until 9:00 A.M. on April 22, 1976, in the Federal Court, Post Office Building. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the vote which follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush. None. An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors O~ Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 22, 1976, at 9:00 A.M. in the Federal Court, Post Office Building, East Market Street, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (Arriving at 4:50 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. The Board convened at 9:00 A.M. and immediately recessed for the trial. At 4:30 P.M., the Board reconvened and upon motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs. David, adjourned into executive session to discuss litigation. Also present at this meeting, ~e~/.~ormer Board members Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler, Lloyd F. Wood, and the County Attorney and his staff, George R. St. John, James V. Bowling, IV and Frederick W. Payne. Mr. Dorrier arrived at 4:50 P.M. Messrs. Carwile, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood left the meeting at 5:00 P.M. The Board reconvened into open session at 5:30 P.M. and recessed this meeting until Monday, April 26, 1976, at 8:30 A.M. in the Federal Court. On April 26, 1976, the Board convened at 8:30 A.M. in the Federal Court and immediately recessed for the trial. At 10:30 A.M. the Board reconvened and motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs. David, to adjourn into executive session to discuss litigation. The Board reconvened at 10:45 A.M. and returned to the trial. At 11:00 A.M., the case was dismissed and the meeting was recessed until 8:30 P.M. on April 26, 1976. At 8:30 P.M., on April 26, 1976, the Board of Supervisors held a session, adjourned from earlier in the day, in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: St. John. County ExeCutive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. The meeting was called to order at 8:33 P.M. by the Chairman. Mr. Fisher said the Board had been in Court most of last week and again today on the issue of a special permit appli- cation for areas of land near the South Rivanna River Reservoir. He made the following statement on behalf of ~he Board: "The first application Mr. Fleming made was in the latter part of 1974. This was acted on by the Board in 1975 and was denied on the basis of a density of 6.7 dwelling units per acre. The applicant refused to consider a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre; which was essentially offered to him at that time. After that denial, the applicant brought suit in Federal Court against the Board of Supervisors. Later a 172 April 26, 1976 (Night Meeting-Adjourned) second application was made in the latter part of 1975 and acted~on earlier this year for 2.5 dwelling units per acre. This was denied because of an existing temporary moratorium. Between these applications, as a result of litigation, the Board of Super¥isors had assured the plaintiff and the Court that it would make every effort to steer the second application successfully through the legislative process barring any unforseen circumstances that would preclude approval. Based on this~assurance, the plaintiff.made certain expenditures in preparing the second application. When that application was filed, the Board of Supervisors made every effort to carry out its assurance to the plaintiff,~d the Court, but was unable to complete the 1.egislative Process before January of this year. When the application came to public hearing in January and February, areas near the Reservoir were under a general moratorium which precluded any favorable action on the appticant's~request.~ The applicant request.ed an immediate vote on the application and it was unanimously denied. It should be made clear that the Fleming case was not carried to its completion and the County had presented little of its case on the central issues involved. Today's act of settlement was not a voluntary decision by the present Board of Supervisors to grant a rezoning to higher density near the Reservoir, rather, it was a decision to honor a previous assurance made to the applicant and to the Court. In return for an early settlement, the applicant has agreed to be bound by all of the County's ordinances, including the recently amended Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; the 500-foot and steep slope building ban. Reasonable conditions of approval are to be worked out by the Board of Supervisors in public meetings over the next several weeks. If the applicant does not accept the Board's conditions, then either the applicant or the Board of Supervisors may request a judicial review of the conditions only. The Board of Supervisors, the County Attorney, the County Staff, citizens, members of the State Water Control Board and State Health Department, all expended considerable efforts in trying to serve the public interest in trying to defend this case. Because the applicant agrees to be bound by the County's Reservoir protection ordinance, we now believe that the public interest is best served by ending this proceeding. For these reasons, ~ settlement has been reached. The Reservoir protection ordinances are iht-act and the only remaining questions revolve around reasonable conditions for development of this area, if, and when, a decision is made to lift the Reservoir protection ordinances and thus allow construction to be resumed. A public meeting will be scheduled in May to review the conditions for this application." Mr. St. John made the following statement: "I want to address any questions that might be raised as to why this Board, when it acted on the Evergreen application, on January 28, 1976, was advised that it was free to exercise its independent judgment, when the Board has now been advised to make this settlement based on previous negotiations of the old Board. My view was that the applicant took his chances on the outcome of the legislative process, even though both sides had elected last fall to seek a solution to that dispute by returning a second application through the legislative process. I never thought that one Board could bind, or influence, a subsequent Board to act in any given way on any decision. Since the new Board had received a mandate from the public to halt rezonings and development in that area, my view was that the new Board was free to exercise its legislative judgment in that area. The Court did not agree with that view and thought that if the applicant had been encouraged to go b~ck through the legislative process a second time on a reduced density, the new Board should give consideration to the fact that the applicant had been encouraged to expend sums of money, time and effort in proceeding through that legislative process. The Court's opinion carried great weight with me in advising the Board to make this settlement. I personally feel that the battle to protect the Reservoir has just begun. Now that this case has been settled, I do not believe anyone can inject the issues of race into that battle to protect the reservoir. In this day and time, any decision by a governing body can subject its members to a suit for personal monetary damages. I feel this Board has acted with courage to protect this Reservoir and I hope the people of this County and the City of Charlottesville will continue to support this Board in that effort because you are acting in their behalf and in their interest." Mr. Fisher then asked if any of the Board members would like to make comments. Ail concurred with Mr. Fisher's statement. Mr. St. John asked the Board to take official action to ratify the decision made in executive session earlier this day authorizing him to endorse the Consent order which was entered in Federal Court today. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta ratifying the granting to Mr. St. John of the Board's authority to endorse for the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County the consent order reflected in the Court's order entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, April 7, 1976. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: April 26, 1976 (Night Meeting - A~journed) ~73 AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:45 P.M. At this time, the Board conducted a public work session on the 1976-77 County budget with members of the Albemarle County School Board. At the end of the session, motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to advertise for the public hearing on the budget, the School budget in total as first presented to the Board of Supervisors. The motion carried by the vote which follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 10:10 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:17 P.M. Motion was then offered by Mr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David to advertise a p~blic hearing on the budget for 7:30 P.M. on May 26, 1976, at Jack Jouett Junior High School. The motion carried: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board continuedftheir work session on the budg~et with Mr. Agnor explaining alternati~ methods of setting a tax levy for the 1976-77 fiscal year. At 10:45 P.M., the meeting was adjourned~~