Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-09-15N / / September 15, 1976 (Night Meeting) 369 A regular meeting of the Board~of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 15, 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 W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Director of Planning, Robert Tucker; and Deputy County Attorney, Frederick Payne. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M. by the Chairman. Agenda Item No. 1. Public Hearing: John A. McGowan, application for a public enter- tainment business under Article 7-1-26 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property located in Shopper'~ World complex on Route 29 North at Dominion Drive. Parcel 61M-lC. Mr. Tucker said Article 7-1-26 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for a public entertainment business as a use by right in the B-1 zone after public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. On April 16, 1976, the Board received this request for such a business. The matter was referred to the Planning Commission for their review and comments without public hearing. After discussion, the Planning Commission recommends that the following conditions be attached to approval of this request: (1) Hours of Operation shall be from 11:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. except on Friday and Saturday, when the hours of operation shall be 11:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. (2) An attendant shall be on duty at all times during hours of operation. (3) No food or drink shall be allowed on the premises. Mr. Fred Nowak was present to represent the applicant. (Mr. McGowan was also present.) M~.- MoBak said this business will be devoted to electric amusement games and will be family- ~. Mr. McGowan originally asked that the business be open from 11:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. seven days a week and still requests that this be allowed. He agrees with the other conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. A Mrs.-F~~, a resident of Berkeley asked that the closing hours be kept at 10:00 P.M. unless an age limit is set for admission. No one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. David said the objection to the hours was raised by Mr. Peatross, a member of the Planning Commission. He felt 10:00 P.M. is late enough for a child to be out on a school night. Mr. Henley, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush had no objection to the business being open until 11:00 P.M. Dr. Iachetta did not feel this will be a family operation, but a place where teenagers can spend money in a hurry. He felt the hours should be left at 10:00 P.M. for week nights. Mr. Fisher said this application comes before the Boar~ because of a "quirk" in the County's ordinance. Other businesses in that area can set their hours without anyz~.~s~ri~ being imposed. He did not feel it is reasonable for the Board to judge what is too late for a child to be out at night and did not feel the Board should arbitrarily reduce ~e operating hours. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve the application with conditions No. 2 and No. 3 as recommended by the Planning Commission, but changing No. 1 to read: "Hours of operation shall be from 11:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David.and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: SP-56-76. Mamie Dunbar. To locate a mobile home on 5.0 acres zoned A-1. Property on west side of Route 631 adjoining Rivanna Rifle Range. County Tax Map-89, Parcels 56 and 58, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said this area is rural in nature with several single-family dwellings in the immediate area. The Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc., is located adjacent to the north of subject property. Chestnut Grove Baptist Church is located across from the property. There presently exists one single-family dwelling on the property. The staff was unable to contact Mrs. Dunbar concerning where the mobile home is to located and who is to reside in the mobile home. This petition is before the Board because Dr. S. W. Britton, an adjoining property owner, objected to approval of the permit. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5/3, recommended approval with the following conditions: (1) Approval from all appropriate state and local agencies. (2) Minimum setback from Route 631 of 100 feet. (3) Minimum side and rear yard setback of 35 feet. (4) Only the land needed for the location of the mobile home, septic drainfield and driveway sha-ll be disturbed. (5) Skirting around mobile home from base of mobile home to ground level. (6) Staff to locate mobile home where it is not visible from the road. (7) Mobile home is not to be rented. (8) Special permit is limited to five years. 370 September 15, 1976 (Night Meeting) Mr. Henley asked if Dr. Britton is an adjoining landowner. he does not live on the property. Mr. Tucker said yes, but Mrs. Dunbar was present. Through a series of questions, Mr. Fisher determined that Mrs. Dunbar will live in this mobile home; the residence mentioned in the staff report is not on the five acres covered by this petition, but on an adjoining three and one-half acre parcel; the residence will not be sold, but will be occupied by a relative; and the mobile home will be about 1/10th of a mile from the highway. At this point, Mr. Payne said he is a member of the Rivanna Rifle Club but does ~$~ feel there is any conflict of interest involved with this petition, therefore did ~o$~disqualify himself. No one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henley did not agree with the five year condition. Dr. Iachetta felt condition #6 placed an undue burden on the staff since this is not a normal condition. Mr. Roudabush said if the tax maps presented with this petition are accurate, the mobile home cannot be located closer than 500 feet to the highway because the parcel is of an insufficient width back to that point. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to approve SP-56-76 with only conditions one through five and seven of the Planning Commission's recommendations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, lachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3. Sign Committee. (Adjourned from September 8, 1976). Mr. Fisher said he had asked the Chamber of Commerce for comments at the September 8 meeting and been informed that they were unprepared to make a statement at that time. Representatives are present tonight and will be allowed to make that statement at this time, but the discussion will not be opened to the public. Present was Mr. J. B. Hinch, President of the Chamber of Commerce, who read the followin prepared statement: "The Charlottesville and Albemarle County Chamber of Commerce supports the individual rights of business persons and also recognizes the need to protect and preserve the natural beauty of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. How- ever, the present Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 15A dealing with Signs, has caused various interpretations and created uncertainty as to its provisions. Several areas in particular, such as sign placement and definition of types of signs, have caused considerable confusion. A new business is uncertain as to the types of sign$,~asYwell~as other regulations, and in most cases does not consider these facts until a site or business has been purchased. In view of this situation, the Chamber of Commerce feels that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors needs to create a new Sign Advisory Commission. This Commission does not have to be of any set size, only that~ it be a balance of the total community. In order to avoid a hand picked committee, the Board should ask for applications from willing representatives in much the same manner that the City of Charlottesville now does for committees or commissions. The Sign~Advisory Commission should be charged to reopen a study of the people and to review the current Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 15A on Signs, and make recommendations to correct the inadequacies of discrimination and interpretation." Mr. Fisher said there were many comments made last week about continuing the operation of this committee. He felt it would be extraordinary to discontinue a committee that wished to continue working. He then made the following recommendations on this matter: (i) Establish a new committee of ten members, composed of representatives of four business organizations, four non-business organizations and two neutral members. (2) Each member must be a citizen of Albemarle County. (3) Each business representative should be in business in Albemarle County, if at all possible. (4) Each organization will be invited to nominate two people who are willing to serve; the Board of Supervisors will then select one for appointment to the commission. (This will permit some geographical distribution.) (5) Mr. Michael Gleason will be asked to continue to serve as chairman to provide continuity, time, and staff assistance to the commission. (6) The charge to the commission will be drafted by Mr. Roudabush for approval by the Board of Supervisors at the time of appointing the commission. (7) Members of the 1974-75 Sign Advisory Commission will be eligible for reappointment to the 1976 Sign Advisory Commission. (8) Proposed representation: Chairman, Mr. Gleason; Board representative, Mr. Roudabush. (9) Business representatives: Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, nominate two; Charlottesville-Albemarle Restaurant Association, nominate two; Charlottesville-Albemarle Hotel-Motel Association, nominate two; sign industry, Mr. Leroy Graves and Mr. Edward Jackson to decide which one September 15, 1976 (Night Meeting) 371 (10) Non-Business representatives: League of Women Voters, nominate two; Citizens for Albemarle, nominate two; Charlottesville-Albemarle Civic League, nominate two; Route 29 North homeowners, invite one nominee each from Berkeley, Carrsbrook, Four Seasons (two separate homeowners groups) and Woodbrook, and from these five nominees, the Board will select one to serve. (I1) Nominations, in writing, to be in the hands of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors by October 14, 1976, so same can be included in the Board's packet for the meeting of October 20, 1976, at which time appointments and the charge will be considered. Mr. Dorrier said he supported Mr. Fisher's recommendations 100%, and then offered motion to approve the plan as outlined. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: ZMA-12-76. Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Martin. To rezone 10.07+ acres from A-1 Agricultural to CVN-Conservation. Property located at west end of Forest Ridge Road in Ardwood Subdivision. County Tax Map 45G, Parcels 4, 4A and 5, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker Said Ardwood Subdivision is developed in an average lot size of 4.55 acres. The area is heavily wooded as is the subject property. The property is predominately in slopes in excess of 25%, draining directly into the South Rivanna River Reservoir. Although the Land Use Plan map indicates agricultural use for this area, the text of the Plan states that conservation areas should be designed for the watersheds of public water supply impound- ments. The staff felt this property satisfies the conservation criteria of the Comprehensive Plan and is in compliance with the statement of intent of the CVN zone. The property is within the moratorium area established for the preservation of the Reservoir. The Planning Commission recommends unanimously that the petition be approved. Mrs. Martin was present. public hearing was closed. The public hearing was opened; no one rising to speak, the Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta and seconded by Mrs. David to approve ZMA-t2-76. Mr. Henley said he feels this is an entirely different situation from another request coming to the Board in which citizens have asked that other peoples land be rezoned to CVN. Mr. Roudabush said he supports this request, with the understanding that this is not a move toward downzoning of ~roperty around the Reservoir, but is being done by specific request. Dr. Iachetta said tb~property owne~should be commended for taking this step on.qee~own The motion carried by the vote which follows: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Rouda~bush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: ZMA-13-76. acres from R-1 Residential to CO-Commercial Office. Estates and has frontage along U.S. Route 250 West. Charlottesville Magisterial District. William H. Faulconer. To rezone 3.84 Property at the entrance to Bellair County Tax Map 76C, Parcel B-iA, (Note: Mr. Agnor said he is a property owner in Liberty Hills south of Bellair. He has not participated in staff review of this petition. In order to avoid any semblance of conflict of interest, he would remove himself from the discussion on th~ matter and left the table.) Mr. Tucker said a gasoline service station and Piedmont Tractor are located on. the north side of U.S. Route 250, west of the subject property. To the east lies the intern change of Route 250 West and the Route 250/29 By-Pass. The property is bounded by the entrance to Bellair to the west and by Bellair to the south. Route 754 intersects with Route 250 directly north of the property. The Comprehensive Plan indicates low density residential use for this property. A neighborhood shopping area is proposed on the north side of Route 250. The applicant requests rezoning of this property to Commercial Office in order to establish a medical office complex consisting of three buildings of residential design and a total gross floor area of 19,200 square feet. As in all rezoning cases, the staff emphasizes that approval of this petition will not restrict this property to this proposed use. Mr. Tucker said the topographic features of the site provide both advantages and disadvantages to development, namely: (1) Generally, the property lies approximately 10 feet below the grade level of Route 250 West and 20 feet below grade level of Old Farm Road; the two roadways from which access is proposed. While resulting in steep access,/ egress, the low-lying character of the property and existing trees along Old Farm Road effectively screen the site from dwellings in Bellair. (2) The site is bounded on three sides by roads and the required setbacks from these roads significantly reduce the developable area of the site. (3) There will be increased traffic in this area of Route 250 West if the property is developed as proposed. Improvements to turning lanes, inter- sections and other physical controls should be made prior to the intro- duction of intensive uses in this area. Mr. Tucker said the "Commercial Office zone" was developed as a buffer between residenti areas and intensive commercial areas to incorporate uses which would not detract from residential development. The staff feels the "Commercial Office zone" is appropriate for this property, however, feel the proposal for this site is ambitious considering the physical and legal restrictions to development. 37Z September 15, 1976 (Might Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the HighWay Department has made a study of this intersection. They have about $12,000 to make improvements, including a deceleration lane into Bellair for eastbound traffic°and a raised median for turning~~and crossing the 250 By-Pass. He then read 6he foliowing letter into the record: ~ ~ "September 7, 1976 Mr. Robert W. Tucker Director of Planning 414 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Tucker: Re: Rezoning Faulconer Property Route 250, Albemarle County Reference is made to the proposed rezoning of the Faulconer property and more specifically our discussion on September 3, 1976. The Department has funds available for the improvement of Route 250 in the vicinity of Route 809,_the entrance to Bellaire Subdivision. The funds available will allow for channelization of the turning movements at this intersection and at the roadway which functions as a ramp from the Route 29 By-Pass. This is the ramp which passes under the railroad track. The Department's plan is to basically channelize the left turn movements at these two intersections. In addition, a right turn lane will be constructed'along Route 250 East to allow traffic turning right into the Bellaire Subdivision to be protected as they turn into the street. Concerning the Faulconer development, the Department feels that left turns from the development onto Route 250 should be strictly controlled. It is the abundance of left turns being made in this area which is currently complicating the traffic movement. Therefore, if commercial development of the Faulconer property is approved, the Department will require exits to be placed along Route 250 which will allow right turns only. The entrance to the property from Route 250 may be placed directly opposite the proposed cross-over adjacent to the ramp which passes under the railroad tracks. Because the entrance and exit from the property along Route 250 will be one way only, the Department will certainly strongly consider waiving minimum commercial entrance width requirements of 30 feet. The requirements listed above will make necessary another access to the property. Traffic desiring to go west on Route 250 would use this exit to reach the intersection of Route 809 and 250. Regarding the entrance plan noted above, the Department feels this will give the safest access for the public to the property. Certainly the development of the Faulconer property as a commercial enterprise will further complicate the traffic problems in this area. As to whether this will "over burden" the road- way, I can only say the answer to such a question is subjective. The Department currently has many miles of primary road only two lanes wide on very poor vertical alignment which is carrying half again to twice as much traffic as Route 250 currently carries. Although the traffic problems along these highways are severe during certain periods of the day, traffic does continue to move in relative safety. The Department's plan for the channelization of the turning movements in this vicinity should considerably relieve the traffic problems being experienced there. Once the improvements proposed are completed, the Department will continue to observe this intersection. If additional improvements are necessary at;~a later date, we will attempt to finance such improvements as soon as possible after the need is recognized. Yours truly, (Signed) D.S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer" Mr. Tucker ended by stating that the Planning Commission recommended, by an 8/1 vote, denial of this request. Mr. E. O. McCue, Jr. was present representing Mr. Faulconer. Mr. McCue said this parcel of land was purchased in 1956 and was not included on the plat put to record of the Bellair Subdivision. Mr. Faulconer bought the land to provide a buffer between the sub~ division and other incompatible land uses. The lot is overgrown now and provides a natural screen between Bellair and Route 250 W. Dr. W. W. Ross has agreed to purchase the property for a specific use and he and Mr. Faulconer have agreed to that use. Mr. McCue said he knows that in a rezoning application there is no guarantee to the Board that the land will be used as stated and therefore the buyer/seller have agreed to a deed restriction that the property can only be used for a medical complex. The two buildings will be complementary to the residence~ in Bellair. The contemplated use will not degrade the character of the area since there is a Gulf service station and Piedmont Tractor across Route 250 West. The buildings will not be outstanding and will not be visibile from the 250 By-Pass. Mr. Max Evans reviewed the proposed site plans, showing building location, shrubbery, parking areas, etc. He said the "Commercial Office zone" was intended to provide a buffer between residential uses and other uses. This property has relatively direct access to a major thoroughfare, therefore eliminating the need to traverse lesser developed areas. Since Route 250 is a Scenic Highway, the complex was planned with this in mind. The plan fits the existing site characteristics of the property and the vegetative cover. This is an optimum use for the land. The traffic problems will be relieved by what the Highway Departmel proposes. Only about 1/3 of the property will be developed. They do not intent to present one plan and then use another. September 15, 1976 (Night Meeting) 3?3 Mr. Fred Landess was present to represent the Bellair Homeowners Association. He said the question of whether this will be an attractive building and whether this land should be ~a~oned to "Commercial Office" are two separate questions. There are restrictions in the deeds of the Bellair Homeowners and they feel these restrictions are also binding on this property. The intersection at the entrance to Bellair is dangerous and has been for a long time. Placing a concrete island painted yellow will not take care of the added usage at this intersection and the County should not add to the traffic burden at this point. The Homeowners are also concerned about extending business zoning further out 250 West feeling that 250 will become another Route 29 North. Charles Flora, President of the Bellair Homeowners Association, handed to the Board petitions signed by 102 residents of Bellair Subdivision in opposition to this request, citing the following objections: 1) Bellair is a residential communi~y and should remain so; 2) There presently exists a traffic hazard at the entrance to Bellair; 3) Route 250 West has been designated a Scenic Highway by the County; and 4) They object to an office building at this location. Mr. RobertB~~tsaid he is a property owner in Bellair. There is no guarantee that a medical office building will be built after a rezoning is approved. The traffic on Route 250 at the entrance to Bellair is already hazardous without increasing service problems. Mr. Edmund Berkeley said the Board is being requested to change residential property to commercial property on an inadequate parcel of land on a scenic highway and he asked that the petition be denied. Mr. Larry Gardner, Mr. William Preston, and Mr. Harold Bowen, all reinforced remarks made by Mr. ~$~d~nd Mr. Berkeley concerning traffic problems on Route 250 West. Mrs. Virginia Bowen said there is no assurance that after the first building is erected that the next one will not be 10 stories tall. She does not want to see Route 250 West become a commercial strip. Mr. Mc~ue said Mr. Faulconer denies that the 1953 document subjects this land to any restrictions and he requested approval of the petition. No one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he has brought the matter of the entrance to Bellair on Route 250 and the traffic problems at this intersection to the attention of the Highway Department a number of times during the past four years. He is reluctant to create any more tur~i~gh~s at this point. The area was originally zoned for residential use and the residents assumed it would remain that way. Mr. Roudabush said he does not feel the property will remain vacant too long, but he thinks it would be inappropriate to develop the land in residential units facing the road. He will not support a rezoning at this time because of the traffic conditions. Dr. Iachetta said he has had personal experiences with the traffic at this intersection and agrees that it is hazardous. He categorically rejects the idea that every parcel of land fronting on every highway must automatically be commercial, especially in areas like this one. Because he feels this way, he will oppose the rezoning at this time. Mr. Dorrier agreed that the traffic at this intersection is hazardous and much too great to consider adding additional. He said he does not know the optimum use for this land, but does not think a commercial office building is appropriate at this time. Mrs. David agreed with Dr. ~achetta's remarks. She said this is a nice residential section and she~does not want to see the quality of the area dil~.~ Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to deny request for ZMA-13-76. The motion carried by'the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 9:40 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:52 P.M. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: ZTA-76-08. Eric Heiner. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow residential use in the B-1 Business zone only by special permit. Mr. Tucker said the staff feels that such a use should be subordinate to the use of the property for business purposes. Incorporating a subordinate residential use in the B-1 zone would provide the following advantages: (1) The business proprietor could be assured of continuous supervision of the property. (2) Residing on the business property would eliminate the cost of separate housing for the businessman, thus encouraging success of smaller businesses. The following amendments would establish a residential use in the B-1 zone by special permit: Add Section 7-1-42(11) Accessory dwelling accommodation Add Section 16-28.1 Dwelling Accommodation, Accessory: One or more rooms designed to provide living and sleeping accommodations in a structure used primarily for commercial purposes, the inhabitation of which shall be limited to the proprietor and his family or an employee of the proprietor and his family. 374 September 15, 1976 (Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request with one change in Section 16-28-1; change last line to read: "proporietor and his family or bona fide employee of the proprietor and his family." A Mr. Shank was present to represent Mr. Heiner. He said this amendment was requested so Mr. Heiner's business could have around the clock security on the site. No one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tucker said the staff feels that with the change made in the definition by the Planning Commission there would be no major problem to allowing this use by right, in the B-1 zone. Mr. Roudabush said there might be some businesses where this type of application should not be encouraged and he agrees with the Planning Commission that this use be allowed only by special permit. Mr. Payne said an "a" should be inserted in the last line of the definition between the words "his family or" and "bona fide employee". Motion was then offered by Mrs. David to approve this request as recommended by the Planning Commission by adding a new Section 7-1-42(11) and a new Section 16-28.1 to the Zoning ordinance reading as follows: Section 16-28.1 Dwelling Accommodation, Accessory: One or more rooms designed to provide living and sleeping accommodations in a structure used primarily for commercial purposes, the inhabitation of which shall be limited to the proprietor and his family or a bona fide employee of the proprietor and his family. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: SP-50-76. Eric Heiner. To have a residential use in the B-1 Business zone at property located on north side of Route 631 approximately 1200 feet from its intersection with the railroad. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 147, Charlottes ville Magisterial District. - Mr. Tucker said to the immediate east of the property is a dwelling and the Southern Railroad. To the south is a petroleum storage facility. To the north is a gasoline service station and a Seven-Day Junior. Across Rio Road, in the City, is the Greenbrier area which is developed in single-family residential uses. On June 16, 1976, the Board approved SP-32- 76, a request for light warehousing on this property. Due to the nature of the operation, the applicant desires continuous supervision of the property for security reasons. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the application with the following conditions: (2) (3) (4) Staff approval of amended site plan. Two parking spaces required for accessory dwelling accommodation. Fire Marshal approval. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies. The public hearing was opened. No one rising to speak, the public was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-50-76. motion carried by the following recorded vote: The AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David~and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. The Albemarle County~Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the frontage setback in the A-1 Agricultural zone be changed from thirty feet from the right-of-way to seventy-five feet from the right-of-way. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on June 29, 1976, adopted a resolution recom- mending to the Board the following change in Section 2-3, Setback Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance (A-1 Agricultural zone): "Ail structures, except signs advertising sale or rent of the property, shall be located seventy-five feet or more from any street right-of-way." On August 3, 1976, by a vote of 6/2, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board this change noting a concern for this setback in certain instances, but feeling that a variance will solve any problems encountered. Mr. Tucker said the dissenting votes were cast because those members of the Planning Commission felt the setback should be measured from the centerline of the road and not from the right-of-way of the road. Mr. Henley asked why the setback for residential zones is 50 feet and the Planning Commission is recommending 75 feet for the A-1 zone. Mr. Tucker said either 50 feet or 75 feet would be an effective setback, but the Planning Commission may have felt that because the A-1 zone has a lower density that an added buffer would be appropriate. A 30-foot · setback is not adequate. The Planning ComMission has been requiring added setback at the time of approving subdivision plats, but this does nothing for lots of record. Mr. Henley asked what is meant by "structure" and if this definition includes such things as gate posts, fences and property signs. Mr. Payne said the Ordinance has never been construed to include fences along a front property line. Mrs. Henley suggested that the wording be changed to "building structures" instead of just "structure." ./ September 15, 1976 (Night Meeting) 375 At this time, the public hearing was opened. hearing was closed. No one rose to speak and the public Mr. Roudabush felt this change in the ordinance might be too restrictive on true agri- cultural operations. There are some accessory uses which apply to strictly farming and agricultural operations and this change may create some problems for them. Mr. Dorrier said this may work a hardship on some persons in the County who do not have sufficient land width to setback 75 feet from the road. In that case, they may be able to obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, but this imposes another hardship on the landowner. Mr. Dorrier said he would like to know more about the problems encountered by the Planning Commission before voting on this matter. Dr. Iachetta said one potential problem with the present 30-foot setback occurs with requirements of the State Highway Department. They will not improve a road unless it can be widened. Ifi:-many cases this causes a realignment of the existing road. A realignment might cause 20 feet to be taken from the property owner on one side of the road and nothing from the opposite landowner. Where landowners are unwilling to donate sufficient right-of-way, a Secondary System road will not be improved. Dr. Iachetta also felt it would be best to change the word "structures" to "buildings". Mrs. David said the current definition of "structure" reads: "Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanent location on the ground, or attachment to somethi~ having a permanent location on the ground. This includes, among other things, dwellings, buildings, signs, and so forth." She said it might be best to return this matter to the Planning Commission for further study. Mr. Fisher said there seems to be a strong consensus that there is a definitional problem. In the A-1 zone, which is both agricultural and residential, the Board might use a greater setback for residences, barns and other buildings, but should not be unduly restri tive on fences and accessory uses for agricultural uses. He suggested that Mr. Payne, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Henley discuss what should and should not be included under the definition of "structure" for the A-1 zone and what an applicable setback would be for true agricultural operations and the matter be deferred. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer this matter until October 20, 1976. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the following wording regarding the height regulation in the RPN zone: "No building shall exceed thirty- five (35) feet i~height, provided that the Board of County Supervisors may permit one or more buildings within any district established hereunder to exceed thirty-five (35) feet, but not more than sixty-five (65) feet, upon a finding by the Board that such additional height will be compatible with the public health, safety and general welfare and with the character and development of the neighborhood." Mr. Tucker said subsequent to a resolution of the Board adopted on June 9, 1976, the ~Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 29, 1976, developed the above recommendation concerning the height regulation in the RPN zone and unanimously recommends approval. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Dorothy Speidel, Citizens for Albemarle, spoke in favor of this amendment. No one else from the public speaking, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 19-7-1, Height Regulations, RPN Zone, by substituting the wording set out above for that presently in the Ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and RoudabuSh. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: SP-468, James R. Armstrong. To amend conditions No; 8 and No. 9 placed on this special permit on April 7, 1976, relating to fencing. Propertl located on east side of Route 715 in Esmont, County Tax Map 128B, Parcel 31. Scottsville Magisterial District. (Note: Mr. Dorrier said he had at one time represented Mr. Armstrong and would abstain from discussion and vote on this matter as he has done in the past.) Mr. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator, was present. He handed to the Board an agreement signed by Mr. Armstrong (marked received by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting of September 15, 1976, and signed by the Clerk). Mr'. Dick said he had visited Mr. Armstrong's garage on July 8, 1976, and found that Mr. Armstrong was in substantial complianc with all of the conditions set by the Board on April 7, except for the screening. Mr. Armstrong has planted trees and bushes; some are growing, some have died from the weather, and some have been vandalized by unknown persons. Mr. Armstrong felt that condition No. 8 requiring the fence to be installed the full length of his property, including his building, could not be constructed for various reasons. Mr. Dick said he discussed this matter with Mr. Agnor. Mr. Agnor had said that although the Zoning Administrator does not have the authority to change any condition on a special use permit, he can come to the Board and express his opinion if he feels a condition previously imposed is either unenforceable under the law, or undesirable in its effect and recommend that the condition be amended. He then asked Mr. Armstrong to present his proposed amendment. 376 September 15, 1976 (Night Meeting) Mr. Armstrong read to the Board the agreement noted above: "September 14, 1976 I, James R. Armstrong propose the following amendment to my special use permit and agree to its conditions to be implemented by me within 90 days or such reasonable time specified by the Board of Supervisors. (t) To erect a 7 1/2 foot opaque, basket-weave fence which can be purchased at Lowe's in eight-foot sections. (2) This fence is to run from my existing masonry wall in a northern direction for 24 feet,turning west for 32 feet to a corner, turning south for 48 feet; and then turning east for 32 feet and anchoring the fence to the corner (northern corner) of the existing building. A gate of the same material will be erected 16 feet in length with two sections which will open and close during use and non-use; the above enclosed area is to enclose the three parking spaces allocated by the Board of Supervisors. Major work such as pulling engines or restoring antique cars will be done in this area as well as in the garage now being constructed on the left side of the building. (3) I further agree to operate my garage Monday through Saturday 7 A.M. to 7:30-P.M. except in the event of emergencies, Monday-Saturday and Sundays. I agree to office work on Sunday where it involves no noise. (e.g., bookkeeping, paper work, hand sanding, and in that event, with the doors closed.) I agree to continue the proposed plantings, as previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Signed: James R. Armstrong" At this time, the public hearing was opened. Messrs. Raymond Walsh, Charles Harris, and Bill Rucker, all felt the fence is not necessary, but had no objection to same if Mr. Armstrong feels it is necessary. Mr. David~Wood, representing 12 residents of the village of Esmont, spoke in opposition saying this is the llth time that this matter has been heard by one of the governing bodies of Albemarle County and the citizens are entitled to some protection from this sort of harassment. He took issue with Mr. Dick's statement that there has been substantial complian With the conditions placed by the Board in April. He said the whole issue before the Board is how to make the appearance and noise of this operation compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The screening and fencing are necessary and neither has been done. The sketch presented to the Board tonight showing the fencing proposed by Mr. Armstrong will put the fence less than half-way across this property. Such a fence will not help the appearance and he urged the Board to revoke the permit on the grounds that this garage is a nuisance. He asked that the fencing required by the Board in April not be reduced. Mr. A1 Turner said the Zoning Administrator's written report indicated the fencing could not be erected because the lot is too small. He noted that the Planning Commission in 1972 recommended against approval of this permit because they felt the lot was too small for operation of a garage. To now offer that excuse for not erecting the fence does not make sense to him. Mr. William Heath, speaking in opposition, asked that the fence be erected all the way across the front of the property plus the fencing to the south end of the wall on the south side of the property as previously required. Mr. Young said if the Board is considering revocation of this permit, he would like to reinforce that. Mr. ~James Jones noted that Mr. Armstrong and another resident of Esmont had spent their own money bullzoning out, burning and hauling away the old railroad ties which used to be on the property adjoining Mr. Armstrong's. No one else speaking, the public hearing was close~. Mr.' Armstrong.said the original permit issued in 1972 required that cars left for restoration and/or repair were to be parked in a designated area and screened from public vieTM. He and the Zoning Administrator never could agree on a parking area and "fencing"was not a requirement. ~ Mr. Henley then offered MOTION to amend:SP-468 by replacing condition # 8 imposed on April 7, 1976, with the agreement as read by Mr. Armstrong. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta said he felt Mr. Armstrong had agreed to the fencing imposed by the Board on April 7 and it has not been erected. He does not have much confidence that this new agreement will be carried out either. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Armstrong had agreed with every~ thing on April 7 until he walked out of the room and the Board then made its decision'in his absence. Mr. Armstrong said he had agreed to the three-board fence. Mr. Dick said parties on both sides of this issue are unanimous that they do.not want a three-board fence, feeling that it has no screening value whatsoever. Dr. Iachetta said that was not his point. The Board supposedly, at Mr. Armstrong's suggestion, had the possibility of a three-board fence. Now, two months after the deadline set by the Board, it has not materialized. Dr, Iachetta said he is having troubling visualiz that the fence will ever be erected. Mr. Dick said the County Attorney's Office has said that this agreement is binding on Mr. Armstrong. It will give the County a better tool by which to compel Mr. Armstrong to adhere to the conditions set by the Board. ng September 15 1976 (Nigh:Meeting) Dr. Iachetta said when the Board discussed this permit in February, an opaque fence across the property was mentioned. This was objected to because it was felt such a fence would lead to vandalism. He asked why this fence is any less likely to lead to vandalism than one across the entire property. Mr. Dick said that was a valid ~o~ern, but Mr. Armstro~ has indicated his~willingness to erect the fence as stated in the~agreement so as to satisfy the residents in opposition. Mr. Dick said Mr. Fisher had requested that Mr. Armstrong's specifications be written down. Mr. Fisher said when he had seen Mr. Armstrong's proposal yesterday, there was only one dimension included, all the others were blank. He had suggeste( that the proposal be written down so the Board would have something definitive to work with. Mr. Dick said he had found by researching the files that until the meeting in April of this year, there was never a requirement for a fence. Prior to that, it was only screening. Mr. Armstrong took that condition to court because of the effect pollen has on freshly painted cars. The court upheld Mr. Armstrong's position. In April, 1976, the requirement for screening was changed to fencing. Mr. Fisher asked about the remaining open area not fenced under this proposal. Mr. Dick said Mr. Armstrong proposes to do his major work (car repairs and antique restoration) inside the enclosed work area. Mr. Fisher asked if the open area will be for parking operable cars or for customer parking. Mr. Armstrong said all of the overnight parking will be within the walled area. The only advantage in having this walled area is that it makes theft a little harder. Mr. Agnor said he and Mr. Dick had dicussed the enforceability of the fence as required by the April condition. There was to be an opaque section across the front of Mr. Armstrong' building effectively screening it entirely from the traveling public. They did not feel this condition would be upheld in court. The fence that is proposed is a compromise and will screen those vehicles that are being worked on or parked overnight. This fence will still leave the portion of the property serving as his office exposed to customers view. Dr. Iachetta asked if Mr. Armstrong is proposing to limit parking to the area inside the fence. Mr. Armstrong said that would be for "night" parking. Mr. Payne said this should be made a part of the motion. Mr. Henley said he felt Mr. Armstrong will try to control the parking to the best of his ability. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Armstrong has stated that all overnight parking of vehicles under his control will be inside that area. Mr. Henley said if that is made a strict requirement, this will be back before the Board next week. Mrs. David said she feels Mr. Dick has brought the Board a reasonable solution to this matter. She accepts Mr. Dick's assurance that he will pursue the enforcement of these conditions. Mr. Fisher said he has voted against amending this permit twice on principle. He does not feel that once a special permit is issued, the applicant accepts the conditions attached thereto, and has gone into business with that permit in hand, that the Board should be continually requested to give relief from the conditions. Mr. Fisher said he would not support the motion. Mr. ?ayne said it was not clear to him if the condition regarding parking was incorporat into the motion. Mr. Henley then AMENDED HIS MOTION to include "Ail vehicles under Mr. Armstrong's control are to be kept in the enclosed area at night." The amendment was accepted by Mr. Roudabush and by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Dick asked the Board to set a time limit for completion of the fencing. Mr. Henley AMENDED HIS MOTION again to add that "Completion of fencing as agreed to by Mr. Armstrong under No. 8 is to be completed by December 14, 1976." This amendment was also accepted by Mr. Roudabush. The roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and'Roudabush. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated 9/'6/76 from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, recommending that certain road projects be dropped and the monies transferred to other projects. He asked that this be placed on the agenda for October 13. At 11:18 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn this meeting until September 16, 1976, at 7:30 P.M., at Walker School on Dairy Road, Charlott ville, The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None.