Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-06-16NJune 16, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) 2?5 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 16, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia PRESENT: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Director of Planning, Robert Tucker. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. 2) Set.tax levy for 1976. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, secondled by Mr. to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby lay the County levy for the year 1976 for General County Purposes at Four Dollars and Eighty Cents ($4.80) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of real estate and public service corporations; at Five Dollars and Ninety Cents ($5.90) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; and at Five Dollars and Ninety Cents ($5.90) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; and FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, uSed or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads) based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and all vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; excluding merchant's capital, farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Sections 58-829 and 58-829.1. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. 3~ Adoption: Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seConded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote, to adopt the Annual Appropriation Ordinance as set out below: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 An ordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expen- ditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1977; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: SECTION I That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1977: Paragraph One For the current expenses of COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT OF TAXES AND OTHER REFUNDS the sum of twenty-seven thousand dollars and no cents ($27,000) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Refunds $ 27,000 Paragraph Two For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT the sum of one million eight hundred twenty-seven thousand thirty- six dollars and no cents ($1,827,036) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 27G June 16,1976 (Regular Night Meeting) l~ %-Board_pf_S.Uper~isors $ 102,011 2. County Executive's Office 97,248 3. Personnel 294,268 4. Purchasing Department 36,543 5. County Attorney 69,870 6. Director of Assessments & Board of Equalization 246,221 7. Director of Finance 262,835 8. Engineering 94,312 9. Planning Department 139,569 10. Zoning & Erosion Control Department 77,773 11. Ivy Landfill 113,450 12. Keene Landfill 54,640 13. Elections 48,725 14. Maintenance-Buildings & Grounds 136,461 15. Virginia Association of Counties 3,636 16. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 9,280 17. Chamber of Commerce-Dues 1,200 18. Economic Development Commission 3,500 19. Bicentennial Commission 12,667 20. Soil Survey 22,127 21. Miscellaneous Telephone Expense 200 22. National Association of Counties-Dues 500 Paragraph Three For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN DEVELOPMENT the sum of three million three hundred twenty-five thousand three hundred sixty-five dollars and no cents ($3,325,365) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Parks & Recreation $ 124,210 2. Board of Public Welfare 2,250 3. Administration-Department of Social Services 579,219 4. Public Assistance: Federal, State & Local 1,967,417 5. Purchase of Services-Title XX Program 100,000 6. Health Department 196,277 7. Mental Health & Retardation Services Board 47,504 8. Regional Library 240,000 9. Piedmont Virginia Community College 4,315 10. Extension Service 44,271 11. Youth Employment Service 2,000 t2. District Home 5,000 13. Offender Aid & Restoration 5,622 14. Madison House 2,000 15. Lunacy Commission 3,000 16. Jefferson Area Board on Aging 2,280 Paragraph Four .For the current expenses of the function of PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE the sum of one million one hundred ninety-five thousand one hundred eighty- seven dollars and no cents ($1,195,187) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. County Clerk & Commissioner of Accounts $ 85,922 2. Circuit Court 31,606 3. General District Court 7,130 4. Commonwealth Attorney's Office 46,220 5. Juvenile Court 15,241 6. Policing & Investigation 493,440 7. Fire Department 157,002 8. Forest Fire Extinction Service-State 2,800 9. Volunteer Fire Departments 75,600 10. Fire Marshal 23,087 11. Inspections Department 174,660 12. Protection of Livestock & Fowl 31,289 13. Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad 2,500 14. Highway Safety Commission 500 15. Emergency Services Office 6,000 16. Contributions to Regional Jail Operation 37,240 17. Juvenile Detention Home 1,200 18. Magistrate's Office 1,250 19. Scottsville Rescue Squad 2,500 Paragraph Five For the current expenses of the function of DEBT SERVICE the sum of sixty-eight thousand four hundred seventy-five dollars and no cents ($68,475) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Redemption-Jail Bonds $ 50,000 2. Interest-Jail Bonds 18,375 3. Cremation Costs 100 SUMMARY TOTAL GENERAL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 ' $ 6,:4:4'3-,063 June 16, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) 277 To be provided as follows: Anticipated balance au July 1, 1976 Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from Commonwealth Transfers from Revenue Sharing Funds Non-Revenue Receipts Total GENERAL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 $ 124,300 3,242,0~04 2,971,999 38,000 66,760 $ 6,443,063 SECTION II That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1977: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the SCHOOL OPERATING Fund the sum of thirteen million seven hundred thirty thousand thirty-six dollars and no cents ($13,730,036) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Administration Instruction, Regular Day School Other Instructional Costs Attendance & Health Services Attendance & Health Services (Activities) Pupil Transporation Replacement-Transportation Vehicles School Food Services Operation-School Plant Maintenance-School Plant Fixed Charges Adult Education Other Educational Programs Capital Outlay Debt Service 216,050 7,369,200 920,700 52,700 129,800 794 120 99 700 13 100 789 000 246 500 395 000 89,000 257,000 387,300 1,970,866 Paragraph Two For the current expenses of FEDERAL SCHOOL PROGRAMS the sum of aeven hundred forty-six thousand three hundred fifty-two dollars and no cents ($746,352) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. ESEA Title I (Low Income) $ 30~,655 2. ESEA Title I (Migrant) 53,697 3. ESEA Title IV-C (Media Center) 119,970 4. ESEA Title IV-B (Libraries & Learning Resources) 40,000 5. ESAA Title VII (SP*AR) 107,530 6. Right-to-Read Program 122,500 SUMMARY Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 $14,476,388 To be provided for as follows: Anticipated balance at July 1, 1976 Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. from Gen. Fd.) Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Non-Revenue ReceipTs Total SCHOOL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 8,420,116 5,188,820 746,352 121,100 $14,476,388 SECTION III That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes specified herein for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1977: Paragraph One For the function of CAPITAL OUTLAY the sum of ninety-four thousand three hundred dollars and no cents ($94,300) is hereby appropriated from the Capital Outlay Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Health Department-Addition of Wing $ 94,300 SUMMARY Total CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 $ 94,300 278 June 16, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) To be provided as follows: Anticipated balance at July 1, 1976 Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. from Gen. Fd.) Total CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 94,300 $ 94,300 SECTION IV That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1977: Paragraph One For the function of CAFETERIA OPERATIONS the sum of four hundred twenty thousand dollars and no cents ($420,000) is hereby appropriated from the Cafeteria Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias $ 420,000 SUMMARY Total CAFETERIA FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 $ 420,000 To be provided for as follows: Anticipated balance at July 1, 1976 Receipts from Cafeterias Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 420,000 $ 420,000 Paragraph Two For the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS the sum of ninety thousand~ dollars and no cents ($90,000) is hereby appropriated from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Textbooks $ 90,000 SUMMARY Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 $ 90,000 'To be provided as follows: Anticipated balance at July 1, 1976 Receipts from Rental Fees Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 90,000 $ 90,000 Paragraph Three For the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FUND the sum of four thousand seven hundred dollars and no cents ($4,700) is hereby appropriated from the McIntire Trust Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Payment to County Schools $ 4,700 SUMMARY Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 $ 4,700 To be provided as follows: Revenue from investments per trust Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available For~Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 $ 4,700 $ 4,700 Paragraph Four For the function of the REGIONAL JAIL OPERATIONS the sum of six hundred sixty-six thousand seven hundred sixty dollars and no cents ($666,760) is hereby appropriated from the REGIONAL JAIL FUND to be apportioned as follows: 1. Operation of Regional Jail $ 666,760 SUMMARY Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 $ 666,76'0 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from Other Sources Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977 $ 111,720 475,915 79,125 $ 666,76O June 16, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) 279 Total Appropriations mentioned in Sections I through IV in this Ordinance for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1977: RECAPITULATION Section I Section II Section III Section IV General Fund School Operating Fund Capital Outlay Fund Self-Sustaining Funds GRAND TOTAL: $ 6,443,063 14,476,388 94,300 1,181,460_ $22,195,211 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the director of finance is hereby authorized to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time as monies beCome available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds from the General Fund for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance. SECTION V All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through IV are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said items and those set forth in this section. Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro- priations made out of the General Fund, the School Operating Fund, the Capital Outlay Fund, the Cafeteria Fund, the McIntire Trust Fund, the Regional Jail Fund, and the Textbook Rental Fund are declared To be maximun, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. Paragraph Two Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the sai'd agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or make transfers between specific items of appropriation without the consent of the director of finance being first obtained. Paragraph Three All balances of appropriations payable out of the General Fund of the county treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June, 1977, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the county treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1977. However, nothing in this para- graph shall be construed to be applicable to the School Fund, Capital Outlay Fund, School Construction Fund, Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust Fund, or Contributions to Volunteer Fire Departments, but any balance available in these funds shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of these funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1977. Paragraph Four No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual seryices for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agenT; provided, however, no requisition for contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved.by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or indiv- idual and the purchasing agent, who shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obligations incurred contrary to these requirements shall not be considered obligations of the county, and the director of finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations. 28O June 16, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) Paragraph Five Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by any or all county departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of Their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal auto- mobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subjec~ to change from time to time to maintain like rates. Paragraph Six All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the director of finance. Paragraph Seven All ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ON JULY FIRST, NINETEEN HUNDRED aND SEVENTY SIX. 4) E. P. Bickers - Request for waiver of water and sewer requirements. Mr. Tucker read the following staff report into the record: "Applicant wishes to subdivide 2.59 acres into three parcels. Property is situated on the south side of Route 631 South (Stagecoach Road) near Oak Hill. Property is zoned R-3 Residential. It is presently recorded as two parcels of one acre and 1.59 acres. There is an existing dwelling on the one acre parcel, which is rental property. Mr. Bickers resides on an adjacent parcel to the east containing approximately .37 acres. No central water or sewer is available. Mr. Bickers wishes to divide the property into three parcels in order to give each of his two daughters a lot to build on. The average size of the three parcels following dedication of 25' on Route 631 would be 36,731 square feet. The Subdivision Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 60,000 square feet with no central water or sewer~ Therefore, such a division requires l) approval of a waiver of water and sewer requirements; 2) also, an easement must be approved to serve the back two lots which would not have road frontage; in addition, 3) the final plat should show 25' dedication from the centerline of Route 631; the Health Department has given approval (dated November 24, 1975) for two additional dwellings served by two septic systems and a common well. On April 27, 1976, the Planning Commission did not approve the proposed subdivision and waiver, but recommended instead the alternative as suggested by the Planning Staff. That is, instead of subdividing at this time; to give the entire 1.59-acre parcel to one daughter with the understanding that she would build to one side of the parcel. In the future, if and when public sewer and water became available, the parcel could then be subdivided without requiring any waiver. However, there is no guarantee that the zoning would remain as is, and no way of knowing when the public utilities could be expected. Mr. Bickers chose to go on to the Board of Supervisors and to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission." (Copies of the proposed subdivision map and letter from the Health Department giving approval of two additional septic fields and a preliminary sketch of the subdivision are on permanent file in the Clerk's Office.) Mr. Gale Pickford, representing the applicant, said the lot is surrounded by parcels, mostly 1 1/2 acres or les~. The-property is. zoned R3 Residential and has a permitted use by right for a multi-family dwelling. Mr. Bickers has been unsuccessful in purchasing additional land so as to comply with the 60,000 square foot requirement. The Planning Commission suggested giving a parcel to one daughter and making further divisions should central water and sewer become available. There is no guarantee when the utilities would be available. This request ~is to provide both daughters with a homesite. One of the daughters has already secured financing. The two separate dwellings would be allowed as a matter of right under R-3, multi-family or duplex. As pointed out in the Health Department's letter, one well would serve these two properties. In order for Mr. Bickers to provide the two homesites at this time, he is requesting the Board to allow him a variance from the 60,000 square foot requirement. The applicant, Mr. Bickers, said he has been unable to obtain more land. Mr. Fisher said the Board asked the Health Department what the minimum lot size should be in the COunty when both a well and septic tank will be on a lot. They recommended 60,000 square £1eet. It surprised him that the Health Department would then recommend that this lot, which is not a great deal larger than 60,000 square feet could be divided into two lots with two septic tanks and drainfields. Mr. Dorrier could see no problem with putting the houses where the applicant proposed. He could visualize no detriment to the county on approving this request since the Health Department had given aDproval. Mr. Henley asked how far public water and sewer was from the subject property. Mr. Tucker said the closest was at Sherwood Manor, which is approximate 2,500 feet. Mr. Fisher felt if the requirements of the subdivision ordinance are waived for this request, the Board will be faced with other such requests. Mr. Bickers could not understand why a duplex, which yields more solid waste, could be built on this lot when two single family dwellings cannot. Mr. Tucker said a duplex would be allowed but felt the rationale behind this is that a duplex would be rented. He felt the county is only trying to protect homeowners in case problems arose with septic fields. .y 28 . June 16, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) At this time, motion was offered~by Mr. Dorrier to approve the waiver of the water and sewer requirements so the applicant could build the one house and the easement be put in as stated in the memorandum dated June 10, 1976. With no second, the motion died. Mrs. David then offered motion to deny the request based on the evidence presented by the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Mr. Dorrier. 5) Public Hearing: ZMP-04-76. Double C Corporation. (Deferred from May 19, 1976.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission still has not acted on this petition. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to defer ZMP-04-76 to July 7, 1976. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. 6~_~Publicr~H~aring: ZMP-07-76. Elizabeth L. Breeden. To rezone 245+(-) acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-1 Residential and 54.2+(-) acres from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property off Route 20 South just south of intersection with Route 742. County Tax Map 90, Parcel 16, both parts thereof. Scottsville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1976.) Since the Planning Commission had not acted on this matter, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to defer ZMP-07-76 to July 7, 1976. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS': Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. 7) Public Hearing: Resolution of intent to amend the R-2 zone to include Article 5-1-15(6) Home Occupation, Class A, as a use by special permit. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1976.) Mr. Tucker said this item and the next three are for the same applicant, Mr. Jon Erickson. The applicant applied to the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow him to operate an office for a driver's training school in his home by right in the R-2 zone. When the Planning Commission heard this on May 4, they decided that rather than a home office it was better to allow this as a home occupation, Class A in the R-2 zone. At that time, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend the R-2 zone as well as amend the Home Occupation, Class A definition to provide a more restricti definition. It was unclear at the Planning Commission's meeting two weeks ago whether the commission would be receptive to providing for home occupation by right or by special use permit. Therefore, Mr. Erickson applied for a special use permit in the event the Planning Commission did not decide to allow it by right. The Planning Commission after review of the Home Occupation, Class A, in the R-2 zone, recommends that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to include Article 5-1-18, Home Occupation, Class A, as a use by right in the R-2 zone. They also recommend the definition of Home Occupation, Class A, 16-44-1(d) to read "There shall be no sales, or transfer of goods from the premises, other than items handcrafte on the premises, in connection with such home occupation; this does not exclude beauty shops and one chair barber shops." This was done so anyone who had an office or home occupation in his home, could take orders, but the orders could not be sold from the home. Dr. Iachetta asked if the proposed amendment excluded such home occupations as Tupperware salesman. Mr. Tucker said this was brought to the Zoning Administrator's attention and it was his opinion that this would not prohibit that. The public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mrs. Erickson. She said while Mr. Erickson is on the road teaching, she wanted to be able to answer the phone at their home. They are currently renting an office at the Crozet Drug Company until it is legal to do this at home. With no one else desiring to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. David offered motion to amend Section 16-44-1(d) definition of Home Occupation, Class A to read as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Dr. Iachetta was concerned about the definition making one person legal and another illegal. Mr. St. John felt the purpose of the amendment was to make collection and distribution of goods illegal. That in turn would justify allowing this in the R-2 zone. HOme occupation, Class A, is not presently allowed in R-2. They are cutting out any activity which involves the receipt and storage of goods in a home such as the Avon lady. Mr. Henley asked if that applied in the A-1 zone. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Tucker did not think that was the Planning Commission's intent. He felt they were just trying to prohibit someone having heavy duty equipment or something of that nature. Mr. St. John said Class A occupations now preclude sales. Dr. Iachetta said he could not support the motion if people are going to be prohibited from doing those sort of things from their homes. With the new information, Mr. Dottier withdrew his second. Mrs. David then withdrew her previous motion and offered the following, amend the R-2 zone to include Article 5-1-18, Home Occupation, Class A, as a use by right. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. 282 June 16, 1976 (Re~nlEr Night Mee~i~ .8) Resolution of intent to amend Article 16-44-1(d) definition of Home Occupation- Class A. Conditioned upon the above information, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to reject the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding amending Article 16-44-1(d), Home OccUpation, Class A. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. 9) Public Hearing: UP-76-04. Jon A. Erickson. to include "Home Office" by right in the R-2 zone. Request to amend the Zoning Ordinance 10) Public Hearing: SP-38-76. Jon A. Erickson. Request for Home Occupation, Class A on a lot zoned R-2, located on St. George Avenue, Crozet. County Tax Map 56A(2), Parcel 73(1), White Hall Magisterial District. Upon request of the applicant, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to withdraw these two items without prejudice. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. ll) Public Hearing: May 19, 1976. UP-76-01. Ritter Consumer Finance Company, Inc. Deferred from Mr. Dorrier abstained because of representing Ritter Finance. Mr. Tucker said Ritter Finance has petitioned the Board to amend the B-1 and M-2 zones to allow roof signs. At the May 19, 1976, meeting this was deferred in order for the County Attorney's office to study the definition of roof signs. This has been done. He read the following into the record with the changes underlined: 15A-6-2.1 Business Signs: Roof: (a) Sign shall in no manner be illuminated; (b) ~~e~e~e~e~a~-~eh-~-~e~-~-es~a~shme~ sha~-~e~-e~eee~-~O0-s~a~e-~ee~; the aggregate area of all such signs for any establishment shall not exceed one square foot per one front linear foot of said establishment, with a maximum area not to exceed one hundred (100) square feet; (c) sign shall be in vertical plane; (d) no portion of sign shall exceed 30' in height above ground level nor project above the roof peak, including mansard and fake mansard roofs. On a parapet wall, sign shall not project above the parapet wall; (e) no more than three signs,. including roof signs, shall be permitted for any establishment. 15A-8-2.1 Business Signs: Roof: (a) sign shall in no manner be illuminated; (b) ~he-a~e~a~e-~ea-e~-a~-s~eh-s~s-~e~-a~-es~a~iskme~ s~a&&-~e~-e~eee~-&Og-s~a~e-~ee~T the aggregate area of all such signs for any establishment shall not exceed one square foot per one front linear foot of said establishment, with a maximum area not to exceed one hundred (lO0) square feet;.(c) sign shall be in vertical plane; (d) no portion of sign shall exceed 30' in height above ground level nor project above the roof peak, including mansard and fake mansard roofs. On a parapet wall, sign shall not project above the parapet wall; (e) no more than three signs, including roof signs, shall be permitted for any establishment. 16-30.2 gAVE' The lower portion of a roof that overhangs the wall. 16-35.1 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 bui'~i~g~or~y~s%gn'~:~h~t¥~e~ts above the intersection of the roof decking and wall face sha~-~e-~eeme~-a-~ee~-s~§~, or any sign extending above the eave or parapet shall be deemed a roof sign; provided that no sign located entirely on that portion of the wall of any building constituting the gable end thereof 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. 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 was disturbed about the 100 square foot limit and no more than three signs for any one establishment because then a one hundred square foot roof sign would be allowed along with a one hundred square foot wall sign and a free standing sign. He felt this was one of the things which was trying to be avoided. He suggested limiting the aggregate area of all signs rather than limiting each sign to one hundred square feet. In this way, the aggregate area of all three signs would be limited. Mrs. Fisher asked if "said establishment" meant the building itself or the frontage of a lot. Mr. Tucker said the building. Mr. Fisher asked if a small building could have the same size sign as a large building. Mr. Tucker said no. 283 J~ne 16, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) At this time, the public hearing was opened. Present was Mr. J. C. Dougherty, Assistant Vice President of Ritter Consumer Finance Company, Inc. With no one else desiring to speak, the public hearing was closed. After some discussion, Mr. Roudabush offered motion to amend and reenact the Zoning Ordinance as set out below: 15A-6-2.1 Business Signs: Roof: (a) Sign shall in no manner be -illuminated; (b) the aggregate area of all signs for any establishment shall not exceed 100 square feet; (c) sign shall be in vertical plane; (d) no portion of sign shall exceed 30' in height above ground level nor project above the roof peak, including mansard and fake mansard roofs. On a parapet wall, sign shall not project above the parapet wall; (e) no more than three signs, including roof signs, shall be permitted for any establishment. 15A-8-2.1 Business Signs: Roof: (a) Sign shall in no manner be illuminated; (b) the aggregate area of all signs for any establishment shall not exceed 100 square feet; (c) sign shall be in vertical plane; (d) no portion of sign shall exceed 30' in height above ground level nor project above the roof peak, including mansard and fake mansard roofs. On a parapet wall, sign shall not project above the parapet wall; (e) no more than three signs, including roof signs, shall be permitted for any establishment. 16-30.2 Eave: The lower portion of a roof that overhangs the wall. 16-35.1 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 or any sign extending above the eave or parapet shall be deemed a roof sign; provided that no sign located entirely on that portion of the wall of any building constituting the gable end thereof 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. Mrs. David seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following record6d vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. 12) .,%Publi-c Hearing: ZMP-08-76. Edward R. Jackson. Request to rezone 1.83 acres from A-1 to B-1. Property on east side of Route 29 South. County Tax Map 75, Parcel 50A. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and 10, 1976.) Mr. Thckerrread ~he~rstaff/-repOrt~intO "The property is Situated between Route 29 South and the Southern Railway. The Hickory Ridge Service Station is located north of the property. Remaining properties in the vicinity are undeveloped. There is an existing dwelling on the property. The Comprehensive Plan does not indicate definitive laad use proposals for this area. The proposed zoning map of last year showed this parcel to be Rural Residential. Topographic features of this site would make development for B-1 Business purposes extremely costly. Extensive cut-and-fill would be necessary to bring the property within acceptable limits of the road grade. Additionally, the Highway Department would require either a deceleration or third lane on this property. The staff recognizes that the depth and location of this property between Route 29 and the railroad do not make this site conducive to continued residential use. However, staff would caution against employing this as rationale for rezoning to a business or industrial use as there are numerous properties in the area of similar site characteristics, and rezoning this property would set precedents for similar rezonings in the future. The staff recommends denial of this petition based on the following: 1) Rezoning this property would set a precedent for future rezonings of similar nature; 2) Approximately 67 acres of undeveloped B-1 property exists in the area; 3) While the Comprehensive Plan makes no recommendations for this property, the proposal is not in keeping with the proposed zoning." The Planning Commission, by a vote of 8 to 1, recommended denial of this petition. The Planning CommisSion, after the hearings on this petition and ZMP-09-76, instructed the staff to conduct a study on areas such as this. The purpose is to study properties which are located between two physical features such as a highway and a railroad and the proper utilitization of land being prohibited from normal development. Mr. Tucker said he had informed Mr. Jackson of the study. The staff and the Commission realize the dilemma a property owner faces in this type of situation. Mr. Fisher suggested ZMP-09-76, the next item on the agenda, be considered with this request. June 16, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) i3) Public Hearing: ZMP-09-76. Edward R. Jackson. from A-1 to B-1. Property on east side of Route 29 South. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Request to rezone 0.61 acre County Tax Map 75, Parcel 52. Mr..Tucker read the staff report into the record: "The site is undeveloped except for two billboards. There are two dwellings to the north and the Hickory Hill Baptist Church is adjacent to the south. Property is situated between old Route 29 South and the Southern Railroad. The Comprehensive Plan does not indicate land use~proposals for this property. The small acreage (0.61 acres) of this property is of concern to the staff as no public water or sewer are available in this area. Combined with the small acreage, the odd shape of this parcel would add to development difficulties. The property is located on old Route 29 South which could be employed as a service road, a concept which the' County supports. However, access signing from Route 29 South should be improved. Staff recommends denial of this petition based on the following: 1) While the Comprehensive Plan makes no recomm'endations, this proposal is not in compliance with the proposed zoning; 2) Approximately 67 acres of undeveloped B-1 property 'exists in the area; 3) Rezoning this property would set a precedent for future rezonings of a similar nature. The applicant proposes office use for this property. Should the Board rezone this property, the staff recommends the Commercial Office Zone be employed here rather than the B-1 Business zone." Again, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial, Mr. Tucker presented to the Board petitions and letters from adjacent landowners in the subject area who are opposed to this rezoning. (COPIES ON PERMANENT FILE IN CLERK'S OFFICE.) Mr. Edward Jackson, the applicant, was present and'requested withdrawal of Z~-09-76 without prejudice. Mr. Roudabush offered motion to allow withdrawal of ZMP-09-76 as requested by the applicant, without prejudice. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush. None. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Dr. Robert Selden, a resident of Sherwood Farms, was concerned about the possibility of business development in this area which might detract from the attractiveness of this particular route into Charlottesville. Also, if the property is rezoned to B-1 and in the future owned by someone else it could develop into some other use as permitted for B-1 which would be less attractive. With no one else desiring to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher was concerned that strip zoning might develop. He agreed with the staff and Planning Commission that rezoning this property would set a precedent and might create a problem for other property owners in the area. Mr.' Roudabush felt that neither site is suitable for agricultural or business. The widening of the highway has taken much of the land. Since the staff is studying areas of this nature, he preferred that action be deferred until the study is complete. Many other properties in the county have the same problem. Dr. Iachetta agreed with Mr. Roudabush and suggested that Mr. Jackson wait for the completion of the study. Mr. Fisher asked the time frame of the study. Mr. Tucker felt ninety days would be sufficient. Mr. Henley felt this area should be studied in a shorter period of time rather than including this along with other~areas. Mr. Roudabush agreed with Mr. Henley and felt Mr. Jackson woUld like a recommendation as soon as Possible. At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to defer this matter until August 4, 1976, in order for the staff to conduct a study as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 9:06 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:12 P.M. 14)i,~!Publi.c Hearing: ~SP-26-76. A. J. Associates, Inc. Request for an antennae test site on 178.96 acres zoned A-1. Property on south side of Route 610 one mile east of Route 20 North. County Tax Map 63, Parcel 28. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and 10, 1976.) Mr. Tucker read the staff report into the record: "The area is Primarily undeveloped and rural in nature. The subject Property is both open and wooded. The applicant stated the equipment housing facility would be visible in the winter months from one dwelling located about 500 yards from the facility. The applicant does not foresee expansion of Discussion then followed on ZMP-08-76. Mr. Jackson said he has had more than enough disruptions of this land. He would not. ask for this rezoning if he did not think it was the best use of this property. No opposition has been received from any~of the neighboring owners. When his signs were removed from the property, he suffered a loss of revenue. He will comply with building regulations and hoped to make it attractive. He felt some business activity is needed on 29 South. June 16, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) this operation or the generation of abnormal traffic in the area. The staff recommended approval of this application conditioned upon the following: 1) Removal of towers and associated structure if use is to be discontinued, or if towers become inoperable or unsound. 2) Antennae test range facilities are to comply with the plan as submitted and are not to exceed 24 feet in height." The Planning Commission recommended approval with the conditions listed above and with the addition of the following: 3) Limited to one antennae and receiving shack. 4) Three year time limit. 5) No subdivision of this testing site without Planning Commission approval. Mr. Tucker noted a letter received from Mr. Charles E. Holloway stating his opposition to this test site along with the names of other property owners in the adjacent area, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Dwyer, Ms. Quincy Lucille Robinson, Mr. W. W. Shuyler, Mr. Rives S. Gentry, Mr. Bart J. Shaw-Kennedy. (COPY ON PERMANENT FILE IN CLERK'S OFFICE.) The public hearing was opened. Dr. Robert Harris, representing the applicant, was present. He said this will consist of a simple tower with a three to four foot wide ditch G~,~gravel which will radiate about 20 thousandths of a watt of power. A walkie~tatkieDhas more power than this. Almost everything is electro magnetic radiation such as heat from a fireplace. Very little radiation will be received from the site. With no one else desiring to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush said he had received a number of calls expressing concern about allowing a semi,con~ne~cial,~or~-semi~industrial use on agricultural land. Also, the land between the two state roads is rural in nature and allowing this would disrupt the view. Dr. Iachetta did not feel any noise was associated with antennae testing and could be introduced in an agricultural area. At this time, he offered motion to approve SP-26-76 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. 15) Public Hearing: SP-31-76. Patricia Ann Tiffany. To amend SP-261 to provide for a~location sign on Route 250 West. Property zoned A-1 Agricultural and located on north side of Route 250 West and south side of 1-64. County Tax Map 55, Parcel 19. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report into the record: "This area is rural in nature. Two markets .are located across Route 250 from this property and "Tucked-Away", a home of historical significance, is located immediately east of the property. The Comprehensive Plan indicates "The Cedars" and "The Long House" as primarily historic sites and the area in general is indicated for agricultural use. The applicant requests relief from condition #2ton apDrO~al~o~'~SP~261~gr~nied, by the Board of Supervisors on July 12, 1973, which reads as follows: (2) No sign other than one identification sign of four (4) square feet be permitted. The staff recommends approval of this petition conditioned upon the following 1) Signing to be accomplished under provisions of Article 18, Scenic Highway Designation, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; 2) Conditions 1, 4, 5, and 6 of SP-261 and substitute conditions 3a, 3b, and 3c (approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 15, 1973) shall be complied with and completed to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and Highway Department before any sign permit is issued and before any sign is erected. 3) No signs (other than provided for in substitute conditions 3a, 3b, and 3c) are to be visible from Interstate Route 64." Mr. Tucker then read the existing conditions into the record: 1) Approval of the Highway Department for entrance permit and proper drainage structures under the fill. 4) That the access road be paved where it traverses on land not owned by the applicant. 5) Only one 50-foot entrance as indicated on the supplemental plan and to build deceleration lane and acceleration lane to Highway Department standards. 6) Twenty foot road is to be restored to its natural condition after construction is complete. 3a) One wall sign to be allow-ed on rear of the structure which faces 1-64. 3b) Sign to be identical in design to that submitted and attached herewith. 3c) Sign to be limited to 50 square feet. (Square footage defined as the smallest rectangle totally enclosing the lettering.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with the conditions recommended by the staff. Thus, condition 2 of SP-261 was removed entirely. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Delores Shoemaker, representing the applicant, was present. She felt the major problem is the small sign which faces 250. They would like to put a sign on both sides of a wagon. It would be about eighteen square feet on each side. Mr. Fisher suggested a copy of the sign be on file so as to avoid any misunderstanding in the future. Next to speak was Mrs. Martha Selden..She understood this request was to be deferred and had notified citizens having views on this not to attend this meeting. Mr. Fisher was reluctant to act on this request because citizens having views on this were not present. With no one else desiring to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. ROudabush offered motion to defer SP-31-76 to July 7, 1976. the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Dr. Iachetta seconded AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. June 16, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) 16) Public Hearing: SP-32-76. Eric Heiner. To locate light warehousing facilities on 1.73 acres zoned B~l Business. Property on north side of Route 631 (Rio Road) 500 feet west of Southern Railroad. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 147, Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and 10, 1976.) Mr. Tucker read the staff report into the record: "Subject property is currently undeveloped. To the immediate east of the property are a dwelling and the Southern Railroad. To the south is a petroleum storage facility. To the north is a gasoline service station and a 7-Day Junior. Across Rio Road, in the City, is the Greenbrier area, which is developed in single-family residential use. The Comprehensive Plan indicates neighborhood shopping uses for this property. In staff opinion, the definition "light warehousing" indicates this use to be designed primarily as a residential-oriented commercial use. The applicant intends to provide warehouses for the storage of personal property, equipment, and furniture for individuals and small businesses who do not have adequate storage areas. Staff recommends approval of this petition with the following conditions: 1) Site plan approval; 2) Highway Department approval; 3) Screening along the front of this property (to be shown in site plan); 4) Ail storage shall be enclosed, i.e., no outside storage shall be permitted; and 5) Approval of appropriate state and local agencies." The Planning Commission recommended approval with the above conditions and added the following: 6) Operating hours limited from 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Eric Heiner, the applicant was present. .He said the warehouse will be primarily for personal use of apartment and residentiz dwellers who need space for storage. The traffic will be light,~ln,oe it is only for storage. Mr. Richard Booth spoke next in opposition. With no one else desiring to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush felt there was a demand for warehousing of this type in Charlottesville. Due to the lack of traffic and employees, this business is well suited for this property. He offered motion to approve this request with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. 17) Public Hearing: UP-76-05. Peggy Hancock. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to include an Agricultural-Conservation zone with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres for single-family dwellings and with no multiple family dwelling units or commercial- industrial uses. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and 10, 1976.) Mr. Tucker read the staff report into the record: "The staff finds the request for an "agricultural-conservation" zone to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Approval of this use permit would provide an opportunity for the County to introduce such a zone on an application basis rather than by imposition through development of a new zoning map. For this reason, the staff proposes a Conservation Zone with severe restrictions on uses permitted by right and by special permit. In this fashion, this zone could be amende~ in the future to provide for other compatible uses rather than accommodating existing uses. The staff recommends that the Albemarle County Planning Commission and the · Board of Supervisors amend the Zoning Ordinance by the addition of Article 1.1 Conservation District." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval of same but with several additions which are Section 1.1-1-1, Uses Permitted by Right, (13) Forestry; Section 1.1-6-2, Height Regulations, added "Silos, barns"; Section 1.1-6, Height Regulations, changed thirty-five to forty. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ron Hancock, representing Mrs. Peggy Hancock, was present. He said the reason her name appeared on the request was due to her filing the petition, but the intent is to include the entire Tilman, Turner Mountain area which encompasses nearly 3,000 acres. Amending the Zoning Ordinance to include the five (5) acre minimum conservation zone will result in a new zoning classification which can be used and applied to the entire neighborhood. He said seventy-seven property owners in the area wish to-be rezoned. Sixty-six were contacted by letters, five by phone and six had no known address. A neighborhood meeting was held on the question. Regardless of the size of one's property, they were not discriminated against in the survey. He said the property owners are only trying to preserve the neighborhood. Mr. Frederick L. W. Richardson spoke next in support. He said a number of residents in the Ivy Community, Owensville Road, and Old Ballard Road area have tried to get five acre zoning for ten years and been unsuccessful. He felt the Comprehensive Plan has been misconceived and in the meantime developers have moved in cutting up the land. The residents are frustrated because official action has never been given and they have decided to do something themselves. He said every week someone appears before the Board requesting land to be split up. The law seems to be behind these people. He said those speaking tonight have a map showing the requested area and if the Board wants to meet the needs of the citizens, they have the means by which to do it, locality by locality. With no one else desiring to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher commended the citizens for the leadership displayed in this matter. He agreed with establishing the ordinance to allow voluntary conversion of land to this category and felt that is an appropriate procedure. He said to impose five acre zoning on those not requesting same is not an easy matter for the Board. By adopting this ordinance, it will permit any single property owner to request their property to be rezoned. June ~1976 (Regular Night Meeting) 287 Dr. Iachetta said the A-1 zone was not created for farming but for future subdividing. At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to amend the Albemarle~County Zoning Ordinance by the inclusion of Article 1.I, Conservation District, as presented by the Planning Commission and with the following changes: Section 1.l-l-1 (2) add "farms" between "poultry and"; 1.1-2-1 (a) (4) add "permitted" between "other uses" and to include a new definition, Section 16-18.1. Mrs. David seconded the motion. Mr. Roudabush said this will not be a true conservation zone because lots of more than five acres are needed for such. Mrs. David said she has suggested that this zone be known as a Conservation Residential zone. Mr. Roudabush said he could not see anything being achieved from the adoption of the ordinance. He felt this zoning will be forced on people without their consent. Actually these individual groups can control subdividing of land better than zoning can. Mr. Henley felt a two-acre lot is plenty big and did not in~nd~.~Q~_s~pport the adoption of the ordinance. He did not feel this zoning will be voluntary. Mr. Dorrier did not feel people can afford more than a two-acre lot, but supports conservation zoning. At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the vote which followS: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, and Iachetta. Messrs. Henley and Roudabush. (NOTE: ORDINANCE AS ADOPTED IS SET OUT IN FULL BELOW.) ARTICLE 1.1 CONSERVATION DISTRICT CVN STATEMENT OF INTENT This district is designed to preserve those areas of rugged terrain, those prone to flooding, those having poor draining soils, and those where land development should be held to a minimum to promote and preserve those aesthetic values, natural resources, and environmental amenities associated with such areas. 1.1-1 USE REGULATIONS 1.1-1-1 USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Accessory buildings and uses Agriculture - excluding poultry farms and hog farms Conservation and preservation areas Graveyards, family Off-street parking as required by this ordinance Parks and recreation areas - publicly owned Single family detached dwelling units - conventional and cluster subdivision Churches, parishes, and adjunct cemeteries Public utilities: poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters, and related and similar facilities; water and sewer distribution lines (10) Home Occupation: Class A (11) Single family rental units - two or fewer at a density of not more than one unit per five acres (12) Signs as permitted in Article 15A (13) Forestry 1.1-1-2 USES PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT (1) (2) (3) Educational institutions: public and private Construction facilities, temporary, in accordance with Section 16-21 Public utilities: Public water and sewer transmission mains or trunk lines and treatment facilities, pumping station; electrical power transmission and distribution substations and transmission lines and towers, oil and gas transmission pipelines and pumping stations; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro-wave and radio wave transmission and relay towers and substations 1.1-2-1 AREA REQUIREMENTS (1) Minimum lot size: (a) (b) (c) (d) Five acres for single-family residential (conventional) Three acres for single-family residential (cluster) Five acres for churches, educational institutions Other permitted uses: no minimum;~ provided that building coverage, lot coverage, setback and yard requirements shall apply 1.1-2-2 MAXIMUM PERCENT BUILDING COVERAGE (1) Single-family units on lot - No requirements other than yard and setback requirements (2) Other permitted uses, 70% 1.1-2-3 MAXIMUM PERCENT LOT COVERAGE (CLUSTER ALTERNATE) (i) No more than 70% of the gross site area may be devoted to individual lots, streets and parking bays 28 8 June 16, ~:~1976 (Regular Night Meeting) 1.1-3 SETBACK REGULATIONS All structures except signs advertising sale or rental of the property,-shall be located one hundred feet or more frOm any street, road or access right-of-way. Cluster alternate - sixty feet 1.1-4 FRONTAGE REGULATIONS For residential lot, the minimum required frontage shall be' 1.1-4-1 250 feet for single-family residential (conventional) 1.1-4-2 150 feet for single family residential (cluster alternate) 1.1-5 1.1-5-1 YARD REGULATIONS Side - The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be (1) Sixty feet - conventional (2) Forty feet - cluster alternate 1.1-6 HEIGHT REGULATIONS Buildings may be erected up to thirty-five feet in height except that' 1.1-6-1 A public or semi-public building such as a school, church or library may be ~erected to a height of sixty feet from grade 1.1-6-2 Silos, barns, church spires, belfries, cupolas, municipal water towers, chimneys, flues, flagpoles, television antennaes and radio aerials are exempt. Parapet walls may be up to four feet above the height of the building on which the Walls rest. 1.1-6-3 No accessory building which is within fifty feet of any property line shall be more than one story high 1.1-7 1.1-8 SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CORNER LOTS The side yard on the side facing the side street shall be fifty feet or more for both main and accessory buildings SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory buildings and structures shall not be located closer than twenty-five feet to any property line 1.1-9 MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING Reference Section 11-7 1.1-10 SIGNS Reference Article 15A DEFINITIONS 16-18.1 CLUSTER ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT - Development premised on unit density which allows unit credit based on gross acreage but permits development including lots and streets on a given percentage of the overall gross site * * * * * Mr. Fisher said the citizens should realize that imposing this zone on anyone not requesting same will be a struggle. Mr. St. John said there were some implication~ that needed to be expressed or the citizens will be left with misconceptions. If the Board's only basis for rezoning land is because a person volunteers to have his land rezoned, the owner can change his mind and request a different zoning. There is a basic rule in zoning law that an individual's property'cannot be rezoned against his will just because his neighbors want the rezoning. This would constitute a delegation of the Board's legislative powers to a non-elected group and that is unlawful. The public hearing is held in order to bring out facts bearing on land use planning concepts. The public hearing is not intended to measure the will of the majority of people. Dr. Iachetta asked if the Board's decision has to be based on the "Statement of Intent" for the district. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr~ Fisher asked if the criteria set out are met, if the Board would be prevented from zoning property to this zone. Mr. St. John said no. ~If 80% of the citizens in an area want some type of rezoning, the Board has to look at the physical, characteristics~ ~ of the land which would justify the zone. If the land is .... i borderline but there ~ ~a~tual and topographical criteria which would allow the rezon~g~:~. can be done in two or three different ways. Financial development of the County and other factors also have to be considered but usually more than one type of zoning can be applied to any given area of land. All considerations cannot be abdicated and a rule formulated that if 90% of.the people in an area want agricultural zoning such zoning will automatically be established. Mr. Henley felt if 80% of the citizens want the rezoning, then 100% are going to be rezoned. Mr. Roudabush said the same theory would apply if people wanting higher density zoning petition for such on the basis that an aggregate in numbers would bring about the rezoning. June 16, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) 289 Mr. Collett Thach said the people in the area feel the topography there lends itself to the five acre minimum zoning. Dr. Meem asked if the petition the residents have signed requesting a rezoning of the area will be discussed tonight. Mr. Fisher felt the next step is for someone to make a formal request for rezoning. Until requests are made, there will be no action by the Planning Commission or the Board. Mr. St. John said the procedure could be started tonight if the Board'requested the Planning Commission to hold a hearing and make a recommendation. If the landowners do this themselves, they can only make application for their own individual parcels of land. Mr. Tucker noted that Mrs. Hancock had brought in checks of $20.00 cash from all of the people wanting this rezoning. Mr. St. John said if the Board adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, the landowners will not have to pay this fee. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a request for amending the zoning map signed by some property owners. He asked if the Board wanted the Planning Commission to consider the areas as whole or as individual requests. Mr. Roudabush said he was not ready to face downzoning. At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Albemarle County Planning Commission to consider changing the Zoning Map to include that area of land shown on Exhibit B, noted as being received by the Board of Supervisors at a meeting held on June 16, 1976, in the Albemarle County Courthouse, in the Conservation District, CVN, Article 1.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission is requested to hold public hearings and to make recommendations on this matter to the Board as soon as practicable. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher and Iachetta. Messrs. Henley and Roudabush. Claims against the County for the month of June were presented, examined, allowed and certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds: General Fund General Operating Fund -~-.~School Operating Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Cafeteria Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Commonwealth of Virginia--Current Credit Account Town of Scottsville--l% Local Sales Tax $ 494.84 498,021.63 1,635,469.58 454,742.93 40,975.49 83.02 40,726.29 27,592.23 1,066.90 86.56 $2,699,259.47 At 11:12 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.