HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-05-19NI~.V 19~ 19_7~ (Might ~etin~)
a
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on May 19,~.1976 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 7:40
P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: Dr. F. AnthOny Iachetta.
Officers Present: Guy B. Agno~, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning.
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher.
Mr. Charles Long, a member of the Bicentennial Commission, was present. He displayed
P~a$~~e&~L~ $~e~rm~e~mE~i~ medal for Queen Elizabeth's visit to Charlottesville in
J~lY~ T~e~edal~'waS done by the Chief Engraver of the United States Mint and is the first
time anything has been done outside of the Mint. The design will belong to the Albemarle-
Charlottesville Bicentennial Commission. Orders will be taken on a pre-issue basis. The
medals have not cost the Commission any money as of this date. It is not a profit making
project but assuming there are profits they will go the Commission.
No. 1. ZMP-76-0~. Double C Corporation to rezone 25.91 acres from A-1 Agricultural to
RpN/R-1 Residential Planned Neighborhood. Property is located on the northwest side of
Route 652 between Westmoreland and Woodbrook. County Tax Map 46, Parcel 20, Charlottesville
Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6 and May 13, 1976.)
The Planning Commission had not acted on this petition and motion was offered by Mrs.
David to defer this until June 16, 1976. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
No. 2. UP-76-04. Jon A. Erickson to amend Article 5 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to provide for "Home Office" by right in the R-2 Residential Zone. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on May 6 and May 13, 1976.)
The Planning Commission had not acted on this matter and motion was offered by Mrs.
David, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to defer this matter until June 16, 1976. Same was carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
No. 3. ZMP-76-03. David L. Hale to rezone 0.5 acre from R-2 Residential to B-1
Business. Property is on the north side of Route 631 (Rio Road West) and described as
County Tax Map 45H, Parcel 19, Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on May 1 and May 7, 1976.)
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, read into the record the following staff
~report: "This property is located on the north side of Route 631 (Rio Road) near its
intersection with Route 649 (SPCA Road). This area is urban in nature with residential and
commercial Uses located nearby. The property to the north is vacant, property to the east
contains a newly constructed office building, the property to the south and across Rio Road
is vacant and the property to the west contains a single-family dwelling. The property in
question presently contains a single-family dwelling. The Comprehensive Plan recommends
high density residential use along this area of Rio Road. The staff is of the opinion that
commercial office use is appropriate in this area." The staff recommended in March that
prior to any action on this petition a commercial office zone be prepared and submitted
to the Planning Commission and the Board for approval. This has been done and the staff and
Planning Commission now recommend approval of the site for commercial office zoning.
Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Tucker if the applicant was in agreement with the CO zone since
his application was based on the B-1 zone. Mr. Tucker said the applicant is in agreement
because this is what he originally intended the use to be.
Mr. Fisher asked the applicant if the zone was in conformance with his intentions for
the use of the property. Mr. David Hale said yes.
The public hearing was opened. No one from the public spoke for or against this
matter. The public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. David to approve ZMP-76-03 for Commercial Office Zone.
Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
A~EE: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Mr.
No. ~. SP-19-76. Mr. & Mrs. Robert M. Byrom to locate a two-family dwelling on 345
acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is located on the western side of Route 810 a
~ 1/2 miles SW of Boonesville. County Tax Map 6, Parcel 29. White Hall Magisterial District
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6 and May 13, 1976).
Mr. Tucker read the staff report into the record: "The area is undeveloped with only
two single family units across Route 810. Subject dwelling is setback several hundred feet
May 19, 1976 (Night
from Route 810. The Comprehensive Plan indicates conservation use for this area with the
nearest village cluster (White Hall) approximately eight miles away. It has been the policy
of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission not to allow two-family dwellings in
areas other than those designed as community or village clusters in the Comprehensive Plan.
The reasons for this are that a precedent for duplex development would be set in these areas
and that such development could alter the character of these areas. In applying for building
permit #75-562 on July 8, 1975, the applicant made written statement that the dwelling was
'not to be used as a two-family dwelling.' On March 17, 1976, the applicant submitted a
written explanation of his intent in applying for special permit. Because this property is
located about eight miles from the nearest designated village cluster, the staff recommends
denial of this petition."
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Byrom requested the two-family dwelling in order to have someone at
the house at all times during the BY~om's absence. They have had problems with robbery and
feel this would be some protection. On that reasoning, the Planning Commission recommends
approval with the following three conditionS: 1) Approval of appropriate state and county
agencies; 2) One electric meter; 3) Owner occupy main portion of two-family residence.
Mrs. David asked if the two-family residence would be located in the middle of the 345
acres. Mr. Tucker said it was not in the middle but setback several hundred feet from the
road.
Mr. Dorrier asked why the staff recommended denial. Mr. Tucker said the policy of
the Planning Commission and the Board had been that two-family residences should be located
in compliance with ~he Comprehensive Plan in village or community clusters. By allowing
this outside of these areas, a precedent would be set.
Mr. Robert M. By,om was present. He said this is specifically living space over a
garage. They had been robbed in early March and the first question the Sheriff asked was
who was staying there while he was gone. This is the main reason for this request for a
two-family dwelling. The garage and the main house are connected by a breezeway.
Mr. Fisher said he understood the concerns of the staff. Exceptions have been made to
this policy when there were particular hardships. He understood this use is in some sense
based on Mr. Byrom's inhabitation of the main residence but that may not be the case with
subsequent owners. He asked if Mr. By, om would object to an additional condition that the
permit be granted to him only.
Mr. Henley did not have any objections to the present arrangement. He then moved
approval of SP-19-76 with the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
No. 5'. SP-20-76. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to locate an interceptor line along the Rivanna River from Route 29 North to
Woolen Mills. Charlottesville and Rivanna Magisterial Districts. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 6 and May 13, 1976.)
Mr. Robert Tucker read the following staff report into the record: "The Rivanna
interceptor sewer line will begin near the point at which Route 29 North crosses the South
Fork of the Rivanna River and continue along the eastern bank of the Rivanna, crossing
beneath Southern Railroad at its bridge over the Rivanna. The Rivanna interceptor continues
primarily along the western bank of the Rivanna to a connection with the Meadow Creek
interceptor at which point, the interceptor crosses the Rivanna and follows the east bank a
short distance and crosses again to the west. It then continues under the~U. S. Route 250
By-Pass and crosses to the river to the east bank around 1,500 feet below the by-pass.
Again it runs a short distance on the east bank and crosses to the west bank again where it
continues to a pumping station south of the Woolen Mills and finally by force main to the
proposed AWT plant. In staff opinion, the McNair and Associates study supercedes the
Comprehensive Plan's Public Facilities Plan in this area, because the AWT plan was not
foreseen in the Comprehensive Plan. The staff has analyzed the location of the proposed
Rivanna interceptor and found it in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map
for the Urban Area. The interceptor will serve medium-density residential development to
the west of the Rivanna and east of the Southern Railroad. The proposed interceptor trans-
verses the Rivanna at appropriate locations to serve medium and high density residential and
commercial uses as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. In the opinion of the County
Engineer, cost to the developer to serve areas along Route 20 north of the Meadow Creek
connection would be prohibitive, thus reinforcing the Comprehensive Plan's indication of
low-density residential use for those areas. This proposed project is an integral part of
the regional Advanced Wastewater Treatment system currently planned for completion by 1980,
and is to connect Woodbrook, Powell's Creek, and the Meadow Creek facilities to the AWT
plant. The staff recommends approval of this request conditioned on the following: l)
Immediate reseeding of areas of earth disturbing activity. 2) Approval of appropriate
Federal, state, and local agencies." He stated that the Planning Commission also
approval with the conditions listed above.
Mr. Gene Potter, representing the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, was present.
said the interceptor sewer line has been approved by the state and local agencies.
He
Mrs. David asked if the line would go under water or over water when the Rivanna River
is crossed. Mr. Potter said the river crossings are to expedite the construction of the
interceptor line itself. There are geological conditions on the west side of the river
which make it cheaper to cross the river and go down the other side rather than to excavate
the rock that is there. Ail of the river crossings will be below the existing grade level
of the bottom of the river. They will not cause obstruction in the flow of the river. The
pipe is encased with concrete in accordance with the State Health Department's requirement.
Ma ly~9 1976 (Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked if the line goes
line will go through a portion of the property. The plan has been reviewed by the City
Manager's office and they are in compliance with the interceptor line's routing. The only
request from the City Manager's office is that the time of construction be given in order
that the area can be restored in the quickest manner possible.
Mr. Roudabush offered motion to approve SP-20-76 with the conditions as recommended by
the Planning Commission. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
No. 6. SP-21-76. Claire Burke, Inc., has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
locate a wholesale and processing facility on 3.71 acres zoned B-1 Business. Property is
located on Route 29 North, behind the Orange Derby Restaurant. County Tax Map 61Z, Parcel
03-2~ Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6 and
May 13, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report into the record: "To the south of the site
is a combined gasoline service station/truck rental business and an office building. Between
the site and U.S. Route 29 is the Orange Derby Restaurant and an auto parts shop. Properties
to the north and east are contained in the proposed Branchlands development and are heavily
wooded. A row of evergreens provides screening to the south. The Comprehensive Plan
indicates commerCial, warehousing, and highway uses for this area, which is compatible with
the applicant's request. The applicant informed the staff that the existing building will
house the operation which consists basically of packing cosmetics. Processing in this
operation involves the mixing of ingredients for sachet. The applicant expects 3-4 truck
trips per day at the site, consisting of two deliveries to the site and one or two delivery
trips from the site. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this petition conditione~
upon the following: 1) Approval of appropriate state and local agencies before occupancy;
2) Approval by staff of employee parking before occupancy; 3) No cutting or removal of
trees from the site without staff approval; 4) Operation of this enterprise is restricted
to the applicant's description that only packaging of cosmetics and mixing of sachet shall
occur on the premises; 5) Landscaping as indicated on the site plan as submitted on April
3, 1976"; 6) Front of property be upgraded to standard deceleration lane quality to be
approved by Virginia Department of Highways; 7) Recommend to the Zoning Administrator that
the permit be issued with a written statement that the deceleration lane be completed
within six months of occupancy. (Mr. Tucker recommended that the applicant post a bond
rather than give a statement.)
Mr. Roudabush said a bond is required by the Highway Department. He asked if the
County could not indicate the site plan would not be finally approved until a permit is
received from the Highway Department for a deceleration lane and bond posted with the
Highway Department. Mr. Tucker said that would be a good alternative.
A Mr. Atlas was present representing the applicant. He said Mr. Charles Perry of the
Highway Department had indicated to him that the deceleration lane is adequate as constructed
A bond has not been mentioned previously and he did not understand the need for same.
Ms. Mary K. Young, the applicant, was also present.
number 7, were acceptable to her.
She said all conditions, except
At this time, the public hearing was opened. No one rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher felt whatever is done about the deceleration lane it should
he in compliance Nigh the Planning Commission's desire that any improvements be made in a
reaSnnab~yl~h~rt p~od?of~&me.
Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve SP-21-76 subject to the first six conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. RoUdabush asked if condition number six could be changed to read "if required by
the Virginia Department of Highways, standard deceleration lane to be provided" and reword
condition seven to "provided that bond be posted with the Highway Department to assure
completion within six months." This would let the Highway Department decide what is reGuired
for a deceleration lane and they could require the bond themselves.
Mr. Fisher felt number 6 should stay as stated above. Mr. Roudabush said there are
two entrances onto this property. To get a deceleration lane, it would be coming off of
another deceleration lane. Otherwise, it would have to be constructed on adjoining property
which does not belong to the applicant.
Mr. Roudabush then offered a substitute motion: To approve SP-21-76 with the first 5
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and rewording condition number six to
read: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy to Claire Burke, Inc., approval shall
be received from the Virginia Highway Department assuring the adequancy of existing entrances
and/or assurance that compliance with entrance standards will be completed within six
months; and eliminating condition number seven.
Mr. Dorrier accepted this wording as an amendment to his original motion. Mrs. David
then seconded the amended motion and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None~.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
No. 7. UP-76-01. Ritter Consumer Finance Company, Inc., has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for roof signs in the
B-1 Business and M-2 Industrial Zones by amending Article 15-A. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 6 and May 13, 1976.)
222
May 19, 1976 (Night Meeting)
Mr. Dorrier abstained from participation of this matter because he represents Ritter
Finance.
Mr. Tucker read the staff report into the record: "The staff is of the opinion that
the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors have made adequate provisions for
signing in the Zoning Ordinance. More specifically, free standing, projecting, and wall
signs are Signs Permitted in the B-1 and M-2 zones. Therefore the staff recommends denial
of this petition. If the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission approve this
request, the staff recommends the following amendments:
15A-6-2.1. Business Signs: Roof: (a) Sign shall in no manner be illuminated; (b)
the aggregate area of all such signs shall not exceed 100 square feet; (c) sign shall be in
vertical plane; (d) no portion of sign shall project above the roof peak including mansard
and fake mansard roofs. On a parapet wall, sign shall not project above the parapet wall.
15A-8-2.1. Business Signs: Roof: (a) Sign shall in no manner be illuminated; (b)
the aggregate area of all such signs shall not exceed 100 square feet; (c) sign shall be in
a vertical plane; (d) no portion of sign shall project above the roof peak including
mansard and fake mansard roofs. On a parapet wall, sign shall not project above the parapet
wall.
16-30.2. Eave: The lower portion of a roof that overhangs the wall.
16-65.1. Parapet: That part of any wall entirely above the roof.
16-80-15.1. Sign, roof: Any sign so erected or affixed to a building wholly upon the
roof of the building or any sign that projects above the intersection of the roof decking
and wall face shall be deemed a roof sign, or any sign extending above the eave or parapet
shall be deemed a roof sign.
16-75.2. Roof, Mansard: A roof having two slopes on all sides with the lower portion
having a steeper slope than the upper portion. This definition shall apply to any roof
having a flat upper portion and sloped sides.
16-75.1. Roof, Fake Mansard: A roof constructed in the fashion of a mansard roof, any
portion of which extends below the intersection of the wall face and roof decking."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends denial of this petition because they
feel ~hat~ad~quate~rovis.~Ons'ha~e~b~ad~'-f~or signs in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. John Dougherty, Vice-President of Ritter Finance, was present. He said Ritter has
moved to their present location and he was responsible for obtaining approval under the sign
ordinance-before getting a sign. He contracted with Daru Signs, they checked with the
Zoning Office and verbally got permission for erection of the sign in October of 1975. In
January, 1.976, Mr. Hartwell Clarke, the Zoning Administrator, came out and claimed the sign
to be illegal. He appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals, but this was denied. A~petition
has been filed with the Court on that decision.
Mr. Hartwell Clarke said there is mo definition in the present ordinance to cover a fake
mansard roof. The Daru Company erected the supports built into the roof without any permit.
After the signs were in ptace~ they applied for a permit and one was issued. A complaint
was received in the Zoning Office. Mr. Clarke said he checked the plans and found no wall
behind this particular section of 'roof. Thus, there is no way to call it anything but a'
roof sign which is technically and legally not permissible under the existing ordinance.
Mr. Clarke said the procedure used by the staff, from the time the sign ordinance was enacted
until he took it over, was to allow a sign to be erected then inspect it for'compliance.
The procedure has been changed but it still does not work well.
Mr. Fisher felt the amendment as written will encourage the enlargement of fake roof
areas to get signs up higher into the air. The question of signs should be studied in all
zones. A more uniform standard needs to be established.
Mr. RoUdabush said Ritter Finance is !ocat'ed in a neighborhood shopping center not one
considered a commercial activity. The purpose of the shopping village is to serve the needs
of the neighborhood. The tenants will change from time to time and the signs will change.
He did not feel that at the present there is any control over this and the neighborhoods
need protection. He was also in favor of a committee reviewing the sign ordinances.
Mr. Henley stated he did not see a problem with the sign. Mr. Fisher said his concern
is that free standing, projecting and wall sign-s are already permitted in these zones. Some
zones have no limit on how many signs there can be.
Mr. Agnor recommended as did Mr. St. John, that the amendment be enacted then the sign
ordinance be given to a committee for complete review. He did not understand the denial of
roof signs in the ordinance as long as they are not above the eave or peak of the roof.
Mrs. David then offered motion to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adopting the sections
as set out above. Mr. Henley seconded the motion.
Mr. Clarke said there were two small loopholes in the ordinance. Any sign extending
above the eave is deemed a roof sign. The eave is the lower portion of a roof that overhangs
the wall. On a roof or on a~amb~roof where the wall goes past that eave line, you would
have to consider the section of the wall in the "A" as a roof sign. There is still a technic
difficulty in that a sign would be allowed on the flat section of wall in the "A" and
another sign could be put on the wall below.
Mr. St. John asked if the Board would be willing to defer a~zt~n on this request to see
if the staff and his office could draft some language to say that if a wall sign is allowed,
a roof sign would not be or vice versa. Mr. Fisher said he would not support an amendment
unless the question of proliferation is dealt with.
MEs. David then withdrew her motion as did Mr. Henley his second.
Mr. Roudabush offered motion to defer this matter until June 16, 1976 so the County
Attorney's office could review the language of the proposed amendment in light of the
discussion and make appropriate recommendations. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Dorrier.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
No. 8. UP-76-02. The Gelletly Company, Inc., has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to amend Article 8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for office space by
right in the M-1 Industrial Zone. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6 and May 13,
1976. )
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report into the record: "The primary purpose of
the M-1 zone is 'to permit certain industries, which do not in any way detract from resi-
dential desirability to locate in any area adjacent to residential uses.' Office use, in
staff opinion, would be a more desirable use adjacent to residential areas than several of
the uses permitted in the M-1 zone. The staff recommends that the M-1 Industrial Zone be
amended to include 8-1-31 -- Offices and Article 16 be amended to provide 16-64(~) Office:
A room o~.D~lding in which a person transacts his business or carries on his stated occupatic
The Planning Commission also recommended approval.
Mr. Skip Gelletly, the applicant, was present in support of the petition. The amendment
would provide a better, more pleasing transition between industrial and other zoned areas.
Mr. Roudabush asked~if the reason for the petition was due to the present ordinance not
allowing a person to combine his office and industrial operations on the same parcel of
land. Mr. Tucker said this is strictly an office building and is not provided for in the M-
I zone.
The public hearing was opened.
and the public hearing was closed.
No one from the public wished to speak on this petition
Mrs. David offered motion to amend the Zoning Ordinance by approv, ing UP~,76,02 as set
above. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
No. 9. UP76-03. Albemarle County Bloodstock Company has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to amend Article 2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for
Agricultural Service Occupations with a special use permit. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 6 and May 13, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report into the record: "The staff finds this
requested amendment supportive of the statement of intent of the A-1 zone to accommodate
agricultural and kindred rural occupations. The staff recommends "Agricultural Service
Occupation" as a use by special permit and that the ordinance be amended as follows: 16-5.1.
Agricultural Service Occupation - An occupation serving agriculture in which skill and
expertise in some agriculturally related field is applied to the affairs of others engaged
in the business of agricultural production."
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment.
Mr. Robert Ashcom, representing the Albemarle County Bloodstock Company was present. He
wants to locate his business in Albemarle County but the Zoning Ordinance did not qualify
his company under the existing wording of professional offices.~Mr~a~shaom~aai~h~iS
licensed to sell livestock insurance in Virginia.
Mr. Fisher said he did not want to encourage people to make applications like this for
the A-1 zone. Mr. Henley asked where he would suggest putting a business doing tractor
repairs. Mr. Fisher said they are now in a B-1 zone. Mr. Dorrier said since this is a farm
service occupation it should be located near farms. Mr. Fisher felt the definition could be
construed to mean almost anything that deals with agriculture. He would like to encourage on[
those things which would draw from a small area within an agricultural zone.
The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to amend the Zoning Ordinance by approving the amendment
as set out above. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and felt since it comes under the special
use permit section of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board would have a chance to view any
application made. The vote was carried as follows:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
No. 10. SP-25-76. Albemarle County Bloodstock has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to permit Agricultural Service Occupations on 0.351 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property
on north side of Route 601, near intersection with Route 676. County Tax Map 43, Parcel
29A, Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 6 and May
13, 1976.)
May 19, 1976 (Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker read a letter from Mr. Forbes Reback asking that this application be withdrawn
While waiting for this request to be heard, Mr. Ashcom had located in the City and does not
need the permit.
Mr. Roudabush offered motion to allow the request to be withdrawn without prejUdice.
Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Not Docketed.
Mrs. David said she had received a petition signed by the majority of residents in the
Old Forge Road area asking for fire protection. She realizes the Board does not have a
firm policy for handling requests of this type at this time. She suggested that the petition
be referred to Mr. Agnor and that he advise the Board on how to proceed in the development
of a policy statement and guidelines for handling cases of this type.
Mr. Roudabush felt the staff should prepare a report of all the properties served by
county water which have adequate fire protection and those which do not. He felt the problem
needs to be recognized.
Mr. Agnor said the scope of the problem should be addressed. The citizens ~houtd h~e prov
with information abo~t the procedures they can follow to get fire protection at their own
expense. ~'
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter of appreciation from Mr. Edward Gatewood~ Jr.,
concerning Mr. Fisher's recent letter to the editor of the Daily Progress about the outcome
of the City election.
Also, a letter from Mrs. Margaret Wood, Extension Agent, thanking the Board for their
cooperation in Youth in Government Day.
Mr. Fisher also noted two invitations. One from the Louisa Bicentennial ComMission
inviting the Board to attend Festival Day, Saturday, May 29, 1976. The other from the
Shenandoah National Park for an open house at Park Headquarters on May 23, 1976 to mark
their 50th anniversary.
At 10:10 P.M., the Board adjourned, upon motion by Mrs. David, to May 24, 1976, at 2:00
P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building to continue discussion of the Evergreen
project. Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: -Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
.ded