Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-06-02A24 4 May 27, 1976 (Adjourned from May 26) June 2, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 27~ 197~ At 5:33 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Zachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn this meeting until June 2, 1976, at 3:00 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, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Chairman June 2, 1976 (AFTERNOON) (Adjourned from May 27,1976) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 2, 1976, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesvilt~ Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from May 27, 1976. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker. Agenda Item No. 1. ZMP-02-76. Virginia Dryden Kellogg. (Continued from May 5 and May 1976.) Mr. Fisher said discussion of this petition was deferred from May 26 at the applicant request. Mr. Dorrier will not be present this date and has left the following statement to be read to the Board: "May 28, 1976 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Re: Ednam Development I have participated in several public hearings concerning Ednam Proposed Residential Planned Neighborhood and regret not being able to participate in the final session. During the past hearings, I have been impressed by the thoroughness and detail of the proposed development and the concern evidenced by Mr. and Mrs. Kellogg to create an outstanding complex, with concern for both the environment and the neighboring landowners. While many of the neighbors would like to have the land remain as it is, or have a lesser number of houses built on the tract, the present owners are entitled to develop their land within the bounds of the zoning law as presently written. I feel that the Ednam Proposed Residential Planned Neighborhood is a better use of the land than building the maximum number of houses allowed under the present zoning for the land. My only reservations are the tertiary sewage treatment facility and the height limitation on the condominiums. I can support the project if the Rivanna Water and Service (Sewer) Authority will operate the tertiary sewage treatment facility and if a height limitation of 35 to 45 feet is imposed upon the condominium structures. If these conditions are met, I would vote to approve the petition of Mrs. Kellogg requesting RPN-R1 z~ning. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr." Mr. Fisher said the Board had asked for a policy statement from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority under which it would consider the operation of a package treatment plant as proposed for this property. Mr. Agnor read the following into the record: "Noted as received June 2, 1976 Statement of Policy for Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority ~ghould a private developer be unable to obtain public sewage service and desires to provide a package treatment plant and further, if the proposed development is within the area to be served by the regional sewerage system, and should the governing body of the political subdivision desire that Rivanna assume operational control of such a plant, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would be willing to assume operational control of the plant under the following conditions: (i) The owner would be required to obtain the necessary design ~approvals inclu- ding that of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and to obtain the neces- sary N~DES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit for the operation of the plant. This would include but not be limited to approval by the State Water Control Board and the State Health Department of the design of the plant and the plans and specifications for its construction. (2) The owner would have to pay all costs incident to the construction, operation, maintenance~ repair, power, and if required, modification of the plant should such be required by any appropriate regulatory authority. June 2, 1976 (Afternoo~-A~journed from May 27) 245 (3) The plant must demonstrate its ability to consistently meet the NPDES permit prior to assumption of responsibility for its operation by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The owner of the plant must make a binding commitment to take the plant off line and divert the sewage into a regional system as soon as facilities are available, and to remove the package plant from service. (5) The owner or developer must provide satisfactory assurances to Rivanna by bond, escrow arrangement, or some other suitable means to insure that Rivanna will not be liable for any enforcement penalties for violation of the NPDES permit which are attributable to construction or design of the plant. Rivanna, of course, would be responsible for any permit violations resulting from actions of its personnel or negligence on their part. (6) Any arrangement under which Rivanna would operate such a plant, would have to'be covered by a carefully drawn contract insuring that Rivanna's requirements as set forth in this statement are accurately protected. As an alternative, a developer may desire to maintain the operation of a package plant by his own forces. In this case, Rivanna can, pursuant to a suitable contract, provide technical assistance in the recruitment and training of necessary personnel, technical advi~e on the operation of a plant, and where it seems feasible, assist in repair and maintenance of a plant owned by another. Under this arrangement, full responsibility of the proper operation of the plant would rest solely with the developer. Rivanna would serve only as a consultant or as a contractor for purposes of performing repair and maintenance items not within the capability of the owner. Such a contract would necessarily include provision for adequate reimbursement to Rivanna for any work performed by them or advice or assistance rendered by them. It must be kept in mind that even should Rivanna be the operator of a plant, it cannot be in a position of providing retail service to the individual customers. Arrangements along this line have to be worked out between the developer and the appropriate agency (City or Albemarle County Service Authority) as the case may be." Dr. Iachetta said the Rivanna Authority had not indicated in its statement whether or not they would take on all such plants, no matter what size, if they qualify. Mr. Roudabush said that was answered in the first paragraph; "should the governing body of the political subdivision desire that Rivanna assume operational control of such a plant..." Dr. Iachetta said that statement throws the problem on the Board and the Board is not in the business of running sewer plants. How many plants can the Rivanna Authority handle in the next three years and operate successfully? Mr. Fisher noted that this plant would have two or three operators when the maximum number of units are connected. Dr. Iachetta said that accompl~she the task of insuring technical supervision. He asked if the financial arrangements would be between the Rivanna Authority, the developer and the Albemarle County Service Authority. Does the statement saying the "owner would have to pay all costs of construction, maintenance operation, repair, power, and if required, modification of the plant..." mean that the Rivanna Authority will not provide anything except the technical overview? Mr. Agnor said each situation may require different arrangements in terms of the consumers on the system. The consumers will be customers of the Albemarle County Service Authority. The plant operati will be paid entirely by the developer and billed by the Rivanna Authority. The Rivanna Authority, under the terms of the Four-Party Agreement, cannot deal directly with consumers on the lines. Mr. William Perkins, attorney representing the applicant was present. He ~aid he had given to the County Attorney and Planning Staff a document to be considered by the Board. He said the statement by the Rivanna Authority contemplates an additional contract between the developer and the Rivanna Authority. The law of Virginia provides for operation of these plants by a public service corporation, under strict guidelines,~but the owner is willing to pay all costs incident to construction because they do intend to build the plant. In this statement, the Supervisors would require that these plants be handled by the Rivanna Authorit ~ut~.i~.n~Eo~tion~ait~the RivannaAu~hority Witl!~ha~e, in effect, voided the rezoning granted by the Board through an act over which the Board has no control. Mr. Perkins said Paragraph 3 says "the plant must demonstrate its ability to consistently meet the NPDES permit prior to assumption ..." He said the plant can only properly be tested if all the units to be served by it are occupied and discharging sewage into the plant. Mr. Agnor said the Rivanna Authority is stating that they will operate the plant from the first day of operation, run it through testing procedures required by regulatory agencies, but will not assume any responsibility for its meeting its permit until it has been proven that the design of the plant will function as intended. Mr. Perkins suggested adding~to the resolution: "The applicant will negotiate and use her best efforts to effect operation and maintenance of the sewer facilities described in the aforementioned preliminary plan, as supplemented, amended and modified by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and will establisk a public service corporation to operate and maintain such facility only if such negotiations are inconclusive. Applicant has reviewed the recent statement of policy by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and although same contains some generalities, she is of the firm belief that negotiations for operation and maintenance Of the proposed facility will not be incon- clusive.'' Mr. Perkins said the owner and the Supervisors need to work together for the betterment of the County in order to effectively rezone land for this particular project. The possible alternative of a public service corporation is needed in the event negotiations with the Rivanna Authority fail so there will not be an impasse on this detail. Mr. Ro said he would object to any public service corporation operating this plant. He did not think the policy statement requires anything that is not required of all plants the Rivanna Authority operates. Mr. Fisher said if the rezoning is granted, it seems to be the intention of the Board that the operation will be carried out by the Rivanna Authority, without a public service corporation. Mr. Roudabush asked if this policy statement had been adopted by the Rivanna Authority's Board of Directors. Mr. Agnor said it was adopted by the Rivanna Board without havin~ it written out in its final form. The Rivanna Authority has no idea of being arbitrary or offsetting any action of this Board in rezoning land. 246 June 2, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 27) Mr. Fisher asked if any Board member had questions about the traffic and highway problems. Dr. Iachetta said they had been resolved. Mr. Fisher said the applicant proposes a standpipe storage type system for water. He asked the County Engineer for comments. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey said he was speaking for the Albemarle County Service Authority. Ednam Forest also has water problems. The owner is now developing the last section of Ednam Forest and this will require greater water pressure to serve that section. If he undertakes this work independently he will have to install storage and a pump system with regulatory valves to operate the system. Mr. Stephen Phillips, Enginee] for Ednam Forest and Mr. John Rogan, has looked at the McNair Report and believes he has a better system, easier to operate and without additional costs to the primary owners. He proposes that a standpipe for storage be located on the portion of the City Reservoir property above Ednam Forest with a pump station located at the juncture where the 12" main of the City ends and the 10" main that serves Ednam Forest begins. Lines can be sized to carry fire flows, by gravity, from that storage plant to a point in either Ednam Forest or Ednam. To served Ednam Forest alone, the cost of such an installation is estimated to cost $75,000. The County Engineer's office has estimated $200,000 for the total job. A joint system would remove structures that would not add anything and would detract from the aesthetics of the community and would isolate it where it would probably not be visible to the public. A joint system would also be of benefit to the Albemarle County Service Authority by providing a way to extend their service to other customers in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Fisher asked if this arrangement would help existing homes in Ednam Forest that now experience low water pressure. Mr. Bailey said yes. Dr. Iachetta asked if negotiations have taken place between the two owners. Mr Perkins said they will use their best efforts to negotiate an agreement for joint solution of the problems. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Bailey if tl proposal by McNair is satisfactory should a joint solution not be possible. Mr. Bailey said yE Mr. Fisher said in PUD's, the County has been requiring dedication of school sites, parks, etc. as conditions of approval. He asked why none were required for this development. Mr. Tucker said because the acreage is small, the site is not particularly amenable to a school site, and the school population once the development~is completed is estimated at only 78, the Planning Commission did not make this a requirement. Mr. Fisher said the Board must now decide if this rezoning is in the public's best interest. The land is presently zoned as R-1 for single-family detached housing. The proposa calls for several types of housing including multi-storied structures. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Tucker has indicated that there are 6,224 acres of R-1 lands in the County, of which about one-half are presently vacant. Mr. Fisher said he believes that anyone who has 10 acres of R-1 land can come in and apply for a similar type of development. Multi-family, multi- storied housing in effect changes R-1 zoning to R-3 zoning. This is the first application received under the new RPN category and he asked that the board discuss precedents. He said the County's ordinance will permit an R?N in any residential zone as long as the gross density is not affected. Dr. Iachetta said if the RPN is not to be allowed, it should not have been put into the ordinance in the first place. Mr. Fisher said the application before the Board seems to be generally acceptable until it gets to the question of multistoried buildings.~ ~Mr.. Roudabush said this rezoning will not change the density allowed. It is a question of ~ding units ou~ on the ground or building compact units that will not occupy as much ground space. There are enough differences in sites and accessibility to utilities to make each such application different. Mr. Fisher said the tallest residential building in the area at present is two stories high. If he lived in that area, he would not want a five-story building constructed near him. Also, the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as low density residential or one dwelling unit per acre. Dr. Iachetta said his only concern with the RPN zone is the 65 feet height allowed. Mrs. David said part of the reason for including this height was to meet a need for lowcost housing and housing for senior citizens. She said the RPN is a viable zone and should be kept in the ordinance. Mr. Fisher said the Commercial Office Zone, which was just adopted, sets a maximum height of 35 feet by right and 60 feet by special permit. Mrs. David noted that there are several different height limitations in the R-1 zone. Mr. Roudabush asked if the applicant contemplated using the maximum height allowed in this zone. Mr. Perkins said originally their plans called for 65 feet. The owners reviewed this with their architect and came back with a proposal to reduce the height on all except two of the building to 35 feet; two multi-family buildings to be 50 feet in height. Mrs. David asked if the two buildings would be on the highest part of the property. Mr. Perkins said no, they are located down on the topography so the tops of the buildings are below the top of the present barn. Mr. Fisher said these buildings will be visible from a long distance away. Ms. Dorothy Speidel, Citizens for Albemarle, said they are worried about heights and about precedent setting in this case. Mr. Perkins said if the Board is concerned that there is an error in the ordinance, the ordinance can be changed, but as far as this applicant is concerned, that is not proper. Mr. Henley said if the County Engineer and others agree that it is best to have one 200,000 gallon storage tank on Reservoir property, that should be made one of the conditions. He did not feel there will be fire protection for_the tall build±ngs if this is not required. He said he had no problem with buildings of 50 feet in height. Mr. Roudabush said he was satisfied with the policy statement of the Rivanna Authority. He would like to see any approval~f~this~.'r~u~~~d~ni~.~he~owner pursuing a water plan as outlined by the County Engineer. He said he is in favor of approving this .rezoning at this time, with the Planning Commission considering the design and location of each building on the property with respect to height. Dr. Iachetta felt the following conditions should be inclUded in any approval: 1) satisfactory contract for tertiary sewage treatment plant operation with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority; 2) water system to be designed to provide adequate service to the area, including fire protection, and without detriment to the existing subdivisions; 3) buildings, heights to be limited to 45 feet for multi-family structures if erected on the higher elevations of the property; and 4) roads satisfactory to the requirements of the State Highway Department. June 2, 1976 (Afternoon - Adjourned from Mayi~27) Mrs. David said she feels the applicants have tried to satisfy all objections. The conditions proposed by Dr. Iachetta are good. She hoped that some attempt would be made to relocate some of the buildings to other portions of the property to perhaps break up the heights. Mr. Fisher said the preliminary site plan presented to the Board sh~s the approximate location of the buildings and the approximate usage of the property. The applicant cannot deviate but so far from that prelim±Nary plan once the Board gives its approval. The Board is in the position of either rejecting the preliminary site plan or accepting it with the buildings shown in their final approximate positions. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Mr. Fisher said the proposal of the applicant is good in many ways but he will not support this rezoning. He did not believe it is proper to put multi-family dwellings in a single-family area. Mr. Fisher noted that he had a copy of a document which was prepared by Mr. Perkins, but which he had not reviewed. Mr. St. John said this document was sent to his office about 10 days ago. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John to read the ordinance into the record since the other Board members did not have a copy. Mr. St. John read: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING MAP TO PROVIDE FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATION WHEREAS, after public hearing, duly advertised and held, the application of Mrs. Virginia Dryden Kellogg for rezoning was recommended to this Board by the Albemarle County Planning Commission on March 23, 1976, by adoption of motion of Mr. Easter appearing in the minutes of that Commission as follows: Mr. Easter moved approval of the concept for development subject to the submissions of the applicant and his representative, and subject to the conditions set forth by the office of the County Attorney through the letter from Mr. Frederick W. Payne to Mr. David W. Carr; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by this Board on March 24, 1976, action thereon being deferred until April 21, 1976; and WHEREAS, consideration of the application was further deferred to May 5, 1976, pursuant to the request of the applicant by letter dated April 19, 1976; and WHEREAS, by letter dated May 3, 1976, the applicant submitted additional documents in support of the application and advised the Board that a sewer line right-of-way had been negotiated and acquired across adjacent lands to serve the applicant's property; and WHEREAS, this Board reopened the public hearing at its meeting of May 5, 1976, and deferred action on the application until May 26, 1976, for reasons appearing in the minutes of the meeting of this Board of May 5, 1976; and WHEREAS, it appears to the Board that this application for rezoning is made upon the basis of a preliminary plan filed by the applicant as provided by Section 19-1-2 of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County supplemented, amended, and modified by the following documents and letters: 1. Supplemental submission information dated March 18, 1976. Letter of Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, dated March 23, 1976. Letter of William A. Perkins, Jr., attorney for applicant, dated May 3, 1976, with three enclosures: (a) letter of agreement; (b) report of John McNair & Associates; and (c) State Water Control Board letter dated April 6, 1976; and WHEREAS, it further appears to the Board that the applicant, upon inquiry and/or upon request of Supervisors, supplemented, amended, and modified the aforementioned preliminary plan, supplemented, amended, and modified as set out above by the following agreements: .~.~v~z-~.greement of applicant that a bond would be posted to insure construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Ednam tertiary treatment faciltty until same be taken over by a public service corporation or the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority· Agreement by applicant that the height of dwelling units on the premises shall be limited to 35 feet except that a maximum of two buildings containing not more than a total of 50 multiple- f~mily~'dW~ll~ng~.~units may be 50 feet in height, same to be located at locations on the premises to be approved pursuant to Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance at time of final site development plan submission. ~;: .~greement by applicant that the proposed Ednam tertiary treatment plant shall: (a) be placed at a location and constructed in such manner as to meet all requirements, standards, and approvals of the State Health Department and (State) Water Control Board; (b) that the plant shall be disconnected as soon as central public sewer service becomes available through the proposed interceptor line to service this area; (c) in the event the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority does not operate such facility, the applicant shall establish a public service corporation to own, operate, and maintain said facility in accordance with the statutes of Virginia. June 2, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 27) Agreement by applicant that title to all water and sewer lines will be transferred to Albemarle County Service Authority or its successors after completion thereof and upon request of such transfer by that Authority. Agreement by applicant that before construction of water and/or sewer facilities described in the aforementioned preliminary plan as supplemented, amended, and modified, that applicant will negotiate and use her best efforts to effect construction and operation of such facilities as may be practicable to serve the properties of applicant and the adjoining properties of Boar's Head Inn, Inc., and John B. Rogan provided such facilities be economically feasible in the judgment of applicant, John B. Rogan, and Boar's Head Inn, Inc., and agreement can be reached regarding proportionate contribution of such parties for construction and operation thereof. Agreement by applicant that specific design, location, operation, and ownership of all water, sewer, and storm drain facilities to serve Ednam shall be submitted to the County Engineer for review and recommendation prior to the final site plan development submission; and WHEREAS, it further appears to the Board, upon the basis of the application supplemented, amended, and modified as aforesaid, that the same should be approved accordingly; BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the Albemarle Coun~Zoning Map be, and it hereby is, amended to provide that the land described in the application of Virginia D. Kellogg, bearing No. ZMP-76-02 as supplemented, amended, and modified, be, and they are hereby, zoned as Residential Planned NeighborhoOd/R-1 in accordance with Article 19 of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County. Mr. St. John said the applicant has affirmatively agreed to these things so this will not be contract zoning. By agreeing to do these things, rather than having them imposed on the approval, it puts the Board in a much stronger legal position. Mr. Fisher said he could not comprehend all the implications contained in the ordinance without having a copy to review. At 5:08 P.M., a recess was called in order to allow time for making copies of the ordinance for Board members. The meeting reconvened at 5:12 P.M. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Clarence McClure was present to present to the Board cuts made by the School Board in the Education budget as ordered by the Board on May 27, 1976. Mr. McClure read to the Board a memorandum dated June 2, 1976, which outlined a $200,000 reduction in the 1976-77 School Budget. A!though-~ Mr. Fisher felt that some reduction should have been made in salaries, Dr. Iachetta said the School Board had complied with the Board's wishes to cut their budget by $200,000 and thereupon offered motion to approve the School budget ~s presented by the School Board, this date, and further to authorize the School Board to proceed with the issuance of contracts. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier. The Board continued their discussion of ZMP-76-02 bY first reading the ordinance. Mr. St. John said if the Board is anticipating a conditio~ that no building be higher than 45 feet instead of the 50 feet proposed by the applicant, that can be added as a condition to the ordinance. Mr. Perkins said he understands that the language that the Board wants to consider at the end of the ordinance should read: "with the proposed sewage treatment facility to be operated and maintained by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority purusant to its "current statement of policy" and with the height of the two multiple-family dwellings not to exceed 45 feet." Mrs. David said there is no identifiation number on the Rivanna Authority's policy statement. Mr. St. John said to-refer to the policy statement received this date by the Board. Dr. Iachetta asked if the Board should take exception to No. 3(c). Mr. Perkins said the Board has taken exception by stating the the proposed sewage treatment plant is to be operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority· Mr. Fisher asked if the Board was to leave all of the language in the ordinance just as read, but~could~add additional items at the end. Mr. Perkins said he thought that was the proper method to accomplish the Board's requirements. Mr. Fisher said the Board has not agreed to No. 5. Mr. St. John said that will be taken care of by the additional language Mr. Perkins just suggested. Mr. Perkins said he cannot agree to change language that has already been agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Fisher asked how the Board can make sure there will be a joint water system. Any party can say it is not economically feasible and just walk away. Mr. St. John said the only way the Board can do this is to condition its approval of the application on an agreement being made. If the Board does not want to go~-that far, then paragraph-6 is th~ County's leverage. Mr. Fisher said the question of providing water should be of paramount concern to the Board. He asked if the intent of the Board should be made plainer. ~r. Iachetta felt the Board can only encourage the two parties to get together to solve the water problem; it cannot be a require- ment on this rezoning. Mr. Fisher suggested that in the absence of a joint water system to serve the area, any other water system would have to be approved by this Board. Mr. Perkins suggested that the following wording be added: "With the direction of the applicant, John B. Rogan and Boar's Head Inn, Inc., and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority are hereby directed to explore and exhaust all possible avenues to reach accord relative to joint solution of the water service." Mr. Fisher asked how the Board could direct John Rogan. Mr. Perkins agreed that they cannot. Mr Fisher said a unified water system is something the Board can approve. June 2, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 27) · ~ _ ~ '~ '- ~ ~ .J~j/J~JfJ~h~ ~ 249 Mr. Roudabush suggested continuing the sentence at the end of the ordinance to say "and, further, provided that the final approval shall be conditioned upon the establishment of a unified water system designed to serve the property of the applicant and Ednam Forest." Mr. Perkins said if this wording is added to the ordinance, they will not be able to obtain financing to proceed, because the whole rezoning will be conditioned on the joint water system. Mr. Roudabush then suggested: "and, further, provided that final approval shall be based upon the establishment of a unified water system designed to serve property of the applicant and Ednam Forest." Mr. Perkins again protested. Dr. Iachetta suggested that the Board base its final approval on the water system being approved by the Board. Mr. Perkins said they could proceed with that condition. Mr. Fisher said it appears the ordinance should be left as originally presented with the following added at the end: "With the proposed sewage treatment facility to be operated and maintained by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority pursuant to its "Statement of Policy" received by the Board of Supervisors on June 2, 1976, and with the height of the two multiple- family dwellings not to exceed 45 feet, and further provided that the water system shall be subject to final approval by this Board." Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt AU Ordinance to Amend the Albemarle County Zonin~_~Ma~o Provide for Residential Planned N,~hborhood Designation, with changes agreed to by the Board (and just Stated by Mr. Fisher) incorporated therein. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: Mr~ Fisher. ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier. At 5:57 P.M., the meeting that began at 3:00 P.M. was adjourned. Chairman June 2, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 2, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David, and Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Attorney, George R. St. John~and County Planner, Robert Tucker. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman. Agenda Item No. 1. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Section 7-5 of the Albemarle County Code concerning certain procedures of the Albemarle County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 26, 1976.) The public hearing was opened. No one rose to speak. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote to adopt the ordinance as advertised. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier. (The ordinance as adopted is set out below.) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 7-5 OF THE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING CERTAIN PROCEDURES OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that there are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Code of the County of Albemarle Sections 7-5(d), 7-5(e) and 7-5(f) as follows: (d) In the event that' the plans and specifications so submitted shall be approved, the zoning administrator shall require, prior to the issuance of an erosion control permit, a performance bond with surety or other security of a type satisfactory to the zoning administrator in an amount determined by the zoning administrator to be sufficient for completion of the control~~ specified in the plans and specifications should the person receiving the permit not complete the controls as required. (e) When a plan submitted for approval pursuant to this chapter is found to be inadequate, the zoning administrator, in accordance with recommendations of the advisory committee, shall specify such modifications, terms and conditions as will permit approval of the plan and shall communicate these requirements to the applicant. The applicant may then resubmit a revised plan showing such corrections as may be necessary to comply with the standards of the handbook.