Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-10-20NOctober 20, 1976 (Night) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County~ Virginia, was held on October 20, 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. Henley7 Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, and William S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr, Robert W. Tucker, County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, at 7:32 P.M., and he went directly to Agenda Items 8 and 10. (Public hearings were advertised in the Daily Progress on October 6 and 13, 1976.) Agenda Item No. 8. Resolution of Intent: The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend Section 6-1-13 of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision Ordinance and Section 17-5-19 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as each of these pertain to sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Mr. Fisher noted that these have not been acted on by the Planning Commission and asked that this public hearing be deferred. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to defer this item to November 3~ 1976. 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. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-68-76. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. To expand plan~ facilities with a transmission line and storage tank. Transmission line is proposed to commence at Morton Frozen Foods Crozet Plant on Route 240; then westward in the C & 0 Railroad right of way a distance of about 1,000 feet; then in a southwesterly direction to the eastern end of Hill Top Street (Route 691); then westward in the right of way of Hill Top and Tabor Streets; then north in the right of way of State Route 240 to Jarmans Gap Road; then westward in the right of way of Jarmans Gap Road; then northward in the right of way of Blue Ridge Avenue (Route 685) to the C & 0 right of way; then westward in the C & 0 right of way to Route 789; then northward in the right of way of Route 789 about 700 feet; then in a northwesterly direction about 800 feet to its termination at the proposed storage tank on property described as County Tax Map 557 Parcel 46, White Hall District. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to defer this item to November 37 1976. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Dr, AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 2. Appointments: Sign Advisory Committee. Mr. Fisher said he had received nominees from all of the agencies that had been instructed to submit names. They are Mr. Daye E. Wilkins, Jr., Hotel-Motel Association; Mrs. Martha Selden, Citizens for Albemarle; Miss Ellen V. Nash7 Civic League; Mr. Paul Holdren, Restaurant Association~ Mrs. Barbara Yalden-Thomson, League of Women Voters~ Mr. Munir Eways, Chamber of Commerce; Mr. George McBride, Route 29 North Homeowners' Association; and Mr. Leroy Graves, Sign Industry. He said Mr. William Roudabush will serve as the representative from the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Michael Gleason7 is to serve as Chairman of the Committee. Motion was offered by Mrs. David for approval of the above nominees. 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, Mr. William Roudabush read the following entitled "Charge for Restudy of Section i5A~ Signs, Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance" into the record: I. Purpose and Scope of Sign Ordinance: The purpose of any sign control ordinance is to regulate all exterior signs so as to protect health, safety and morals and to promote the general public welfare. The principal features are the limiting of advertising to the business of premises as to both on-Site and off-site signs. The content of the regulations should include general regulations applicable to all signs as well as specific regulations which are applicable to each of the various zoning districts as defined in the zoning ordinance. The scope should contain such things as: 1) Size of signs, including a method of determining the permitted sign area which is equitable and least subject to dispute. Methods may include such things as a ratio of sign. area to building or property area or ratio to building width or envelope or others. 2) Sign location. 3) 4) Sign content. Illumination. 5) Exempt signs. October 20, 1976 (Ni~h~ ~ 6) Prohibited signs· 7) ~p~a~y signs. 8) Nonconforming signs. 9) ~e~mi~s and fees. 10) )Stnmc~n~al requirements· 11) Inspection, removal and safety 12) Administration and penalties· 13) Definitions. II. Review Methods: Review requests which have previously been made to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances to the sign ordinance as follows: l) The type variance requested, i.e., size, location, height, etc. 2) The justification given by the applicant. 3) Action by Board of Zoning Appeals and its justification. A review and study of the existing sign ordinance and signs with emphasis on: 1) Types of signs permitted in each zoning district including the definitions applicable thereto. The regulations pertaining to size and height of each type of sign as defined in the ordinance. The required location and setback for each type of sign as related to each zoning district, and whether this adequately meets the identification requirement of visibility and legibility. Prohibited signs and hazardous signs. Study methods to provide signs suitable to meet the needs of businesses located in shopping centers or multi-establishment.sites on an equitable number and size basis without proliferation. Study of the need for the following categories of both Off-Site and On-Site signs, their justification and controls applicable. l) Those signs of a general advertising nature and whether they have a true benefit as to their directional and informational character. 3) Those signs which are directional in nature serving that segment of the business community engaged in furnishing accommodations, essential services and commodities required by the public. Those signs which provide only identification of location and nature of business. (The number justifiably needed for each establishment and their location.) III. Recommendations: ~A.~ z,.~mapar~ore~mmm~nd~sns to the Board for possible revisions to p~s~<~standards for permitting signs by zoning district cons~ut$~daadd~~daas simply as possible with a minimum of regulatory material and meet the following goals: 1) To meet any deficiencies found'in the scope of the existing ~in~n~e.. Clarify definitions and interpretations. 3) Provide an equitable and nondiscriminatory method for sizing and locating signs which are necessary without ~de~2F~ctive competition between signs. Provide guidelines under which variances could be considered in ~d~r~to~me~t~ra~di.n~y~irmmms~ances which would not-be detrimental to the public welfare. 5) Provide for the ultimate removal of certain nonconforming signs. ~[~) Provide for the removal of signs of discontinued usage. 7) Provide for the use of innovative types of signs in situations where such use woUld produce a more effective highway orientated sign program. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the foregoing charge. Dr. Iachetta October 20, 1976 (Night) 425 Mr. Gleason asked abo~at~a~i~£rame~baing set for tha~Committee. Mr. Fisher suggested reporting to the Board when the Committee had something available. Agenda Item No. 3. Rifle or Shotgun. Public Hearing: Ordinance to Prohibit Transporting a Loaded Mr. Dorrier read the following ordinance as proposed into the record: BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the County Code be, and it hereby is, amended by the addition thereto of a Section 13-9.1 as follows: Section 13-9.1. Firearms--Transporting a loaded rifle or shotgun. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to transport, possess or carry a loaded shotgun or loaded rifle in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway within the County, provided; however, that the foregoing shall not apply to duly authorized law enforcement officers or military personnel in the performance of their lawful duties, nor to any person who reasonably believes that a loaded rifle or shotgun is necessary for his personal safety in the course of his employment or business. (b) Any person violating this section shall be liable to a fine not to exceed $100.00 for each such violation. (c) Ail law enforcement officers authorized to act as such within the County shall have the power to enforce this section, including, but not limited to, all duly appointed and acting game wardens. At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. James Murray, Jr., representing Southside Albemarle Association. He said the Association supported the proposed ordinance and would like to add the following resolution: WHEREAS, in recent years Southern Albemarle County has been plagued by a tremendous increase in violations of existing hunting and firearms laws, the majority of which violations involve the discharging of firearms from motor vehicles on public highways; and WHEREAS, existing statutes and ordinances designed to prohibit and prevent such activity have proven very difficult for our competent and hard working law enforcement officials to enforce; and WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly, at the behest of law enforcement agencies and with the support of the Virginia Game Commission has enacted legislation which would permit Albemarle County to enact an ordinance prohibiting the carrying of a loaded rifle or shotgun in a motor vehicle; and WHEREAS~ it is the opinion of both the law enforcement officials of Albemarle County and the Southside Albemarle Association that enactment of Such an ordinance would assist in reducing the instances of illegal hunting which have created such a great threat to life, limb and property in the County, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the general membership of the Southside Albemarle Association through its Board of Directors urges the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to enact the proposed new Section 13-9.1 of the County Code, as authorized by the Code of Virginia Section 18.2-287.1. At this time, Mr. Murray introduced Captain James Garick,aa~yo~£~e~r of the Virginia Game Commission. Captain Garick said the Commission endorse~ the proposed ordinance and feels it is for the safety of hunters. Mr. Dorrier asked if any other counties in the State have this type of ordinance. Captain Garick said Orange had adopted same~and it has been effective there. Some illegal hunting has been eliminated. Sheriff George Bailey spoke next expressing his concern about illegal hunting and felt the ordinance is needed. Mrs. David asked the difference between this ordinance and the present legislation. Sheriff BaiZey said the proposed ordinance restricts carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle and gives his department the authority to check vehicles. Next to speak was Billy Hackworth, Game Warden for Albemarle and Greene County. He said a lot of problems exist with hunters riding the roads and if both sides have posted property, they just block the roads. He also receives a lot of complaints about shooting from vehicles. Mr. Jack Camblos was next to speck on behalf of a landowner in southside Albemarle County. He suggested the ordinance say "motor vehicles" instead of "vehicles". As a matter of law, "vehicle" can mean almost anything and since this involves motor vehicles, it should so specify. He further suggested a definition of a lo.aded shotgun or rifle be included. He felt it can be argued that an automatic shotgun with shells in it, but not in the firing chamber, is not a loaded firearm. He supported the ordinance and urged the Board to adopt same with the suggestions above included. Mr. W. R. Kidd, a resident of southside Albemarle County, was next to speak. He supported the ordinance and felt it gives the landowners some protection from illegal hunting but was concerned with the amount of game wardens allocated to a county of this size. Mr. Fisher noted that the Board had requested an additional game warde~but the request was denied. October 20, 1976 (Nighs Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney if the suggestion by Mr. Camblos of inserting "motor" in front of "vehicle" in paragraph A would create any problem. Mr. St. John said it would not create any problem and would resolve any ambiguities but felt doing so really makes no difference. (Clerk's Note: No action was taken on this matter.) At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the foregoing ordinance with the addition of the following section: (d) Loaded rifle or shotgun as used in this ordinance is defined as a rifle or shotgun with ammunition within the action chamber~ magazine or clip which is within or on the rifle or shotgun. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier commenR~d the Southside Albemarle Association for their work. Agenda Item No. 3A. Other Matters Not on the Agenda From the Public. the public was present to speak. No one from Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-14-76. Kenneth Youe!. To rezone 66.59 acres from A-I to RS-1/RPN. Property on south side of Rt. 660 about 1/4 mile from intersection of Rts. 660 and 743. County Tax Map 31, Parcels 16A and 22 (part thereof), Charlottesville District. Mr. Robert Tucker, County Planner, said the immediate area is rural in nature though considerable residential development exists on the north side of Route 660. Other propertie~ surrounding the subject property are primarily undeveloped. Murray Manufacturing is approximately 1/2 mile west of the property. Commercially and residentially developed areas occur at the intersection of Routes 660 and 743 and north along Route 743. Approximat 52 acres of M-1 manufacturing land (primarily Murray Manufacturing) is to the west of Route 660. Across Route 660 are 5.4 acres zoned R-1 residential. At the intersection of Route 660 and 743 are approximately 8 acres zoner B-1 Business. Earlysville Heights and Deer Run subdivisions are zoned R-1 Residential. The Comprehensive Plan indicates Earlysvil] as a village cluster with a proposed population of 4,000 persons. The subject property would be partially within this cluster and partially in an area designated for agricultural use. The proposed land use sumraary for the proposed RPN plan is 28 residential lots which encompass 43.35 acres or roughly 66.5% of the site. The road right of way encompasses 4.97 acres which is 7.6% of the site. The open space (common area) is 16.83 acres or 25.8% of the site. The ~taff has not presented impact statistics of the proposal compared to existing zoning because these statistics are identical. The staff has discussed an A- 1/RPN designation with the applicants representative and agreement was reached that such designation would be in accord with the proposed density. The Loftlands proposal is similar to the cluster subdivision concept the County has been pursuing while the permitted lot size is less than the existing A-1 zone permits, density credit is given for common open space and the overall gross density is maintained. He noted that the minimum lot size is roughly ! 1/2 acres. The staff recommended approval with the following conditions: i) In the final platting process, open space (common space) is to be platted proportionatel to the number of lots platted. 2) County Attorney approval of homeowner's agreements to include disposition and maintenance of open space. 3) County Engineer approval of proposed lake and sediment basins. 4) The Zoning designation be A-1/RPN. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with the above conditions and inserting "dam and" between "of proposed" in condition three and added the following two conditions: 5) Final plans will be subject to Site Plan Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. 6) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the 60 foot right-of-way into Section 2, instead of the 20 foot right-of-way. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker to expl&in condition 1. Mr. Tucker said this is now required for Planned Unit Developments. ji~A~ lots are platted, the amount of open space they will have is also required to be p!atted.~This is required so i~anything happens with the development discontinues the lots orgina!ly platted, would have their share of open space. Ail the lots do not have to be platted at the same time~but includes lots which are planned to be platted at one time. Mr. Fisher felt this was a very cumbersome procedure. Mr. Tucker said it was not unless only ~yo? three were done at a time. He felt this was the only way to assure open space being platted along with the lots. Mr. Rouda asked why a 60.foot right-of-way was be~ng~i~mRquired. Mr. Tucker said if the land in the back was developed this right-of-way might be necessary. The public hearing was opened. Mr'. Max Evans, architect for the applicant, was present. He noted the land s!ope~ away from the highway so there is not good access to lots ~hich are on the main highway. There is one major ravine going through the center which is the location of the open space. There are two ridges which are the location of the roads and the lots themselves. Ail of the lots are accessible from the internal roads and none from the existing highway. The entrance to the development is located on the existing driveway. The existing drive at the first section would be abandoned. The proposed lake with the sediment basins and the dam will be located further down off of the property to be platted. The reason for not platting the dam is because the applicant did not want anymore of his farm land tobbe taken. He said the plan was to plat enough land so there would be shore line access on both sides. Dr. Iachetta asked what the recourse to the~property owners would be as to the rebuilding of the dam if it washed out. Mr. Evans said it could be included in the deed or the homeowners agreement ~hat even though the ~mm is not contained on property within the development, the owners would have a right to access to the dam to make repairs. With no one else desiring to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. St. John felt the ~mgal~tmight to use theilake by the p~rchasers of the lots should be included in the-agreement. He asked if this right Wsuld be sold along with ~he lots or if it would be permission individually given by Mr. youell. Mr. Evans said the applicant would have the right to deny this use but did not feel he would do so. He .Y push October 20, 1976 (Night) said the purpose of the open space around the lake was so the applicant and the property owners would have enough shoreline to enjoy the water. Dr. Iachetta felt the p~posai did not assure the purchasers of a~ays having a lake. Mr. St. John said this could be written in the agreement and the applicant would also haYe to share in the cost of repairs~_ Mr. Roudabush asked if this had been checked for compliance with the moratorium ordinance. Mr. Evans said it is outside of the area. Mr. Fisher felt the rights and responsibilities to the water and dam should be in the agreement if the dam and most of the shoreline were included in this development. Mr. Roudabush was in agreement with this. 2M~. Evans said this could be written in the agreement and still give the applicant shoreline area he wanted for his own use. After some discussion about this, it was the consensus of the Board to include some provision for the maintanance and upkeep of the dam. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve ZMA-14-76 with the conditions of the Planning Commission and with the following changes: condition number 2 to include "and also include provisions for maintenance, upkeep, repair and replacement of dam"; add the following wording to condition number 6 "right- of-way at the end of the cul-de-sac be of standard width to meet the Highway Department's requirements"; and add condition: (~ ~r~has~rs of the lots within the development have as part of their open space, right of use of the surface of the entire Iake." Mr. Henley 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-:00 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:08 P.M. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-72-76. John W. ?ropst. To locate a central well on 20.51 acres zoned A-1. Property on west side of Route 20 North near intersection of Routes 20 and 769. County Tax Map 62, Parcel 49B. Rivanna~Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said this property is a long narrow triangle extending more than 1/4 mile from Route 20. The back portion of the property is developed with four cottages. The applicant has pursued an engineering career overseas for 15 years and during that period of time has constructed and rented cottages on his property. There are two wells, each serving two cottages. The applicant wishes to construct a fifth dwelling for his own use to be served by one of the two existing wells. The foundation for this dwelling was dug some 15 years ago. ~h~lanning Commission recommended approval ~ubject to the following condition: Administrative approval of site plan sketch. Mr. Tucker said testing of the well is complete and adequate output is available. The ~lia~hea~m~asompened. The applicant was present and with no one desiring to speak the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush offered motion to approve SP-72-76 with the condition of the Plan~ing Commission. 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. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-73-76. Town of Scottsville. To locate a communications tower on 51.082 acres zoned A-1. Property on Route 795 behind the Old School Building and Union B~ptist Church. County Tax Map 131, Parcel 80. Scottsvilie Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said the properties to the west are developed residentially. To the north are residential uses and the Union Baptist Church. To the south are residential uses in Scottsville. To the east properties are primarily wooded as is the subject property. The Town of Scottsville proposes this radio communication tower to improve communications among the local rescue, fire, and police departments and the County Sheriff's Department and the University of Virginia Hospital in an effort to better police and provide emergency services in the southern portion of the County. The 14- inch square tower is proposed to be !00 feet high complemented by a 4 x 8 foot cinderblock equipment building. Federal Aviation Agency approval has been secured. The staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) Minimum disruption of wooded areas to erect the tower; 2) In the event the tower is damaged beyond feasible repair or is abandoned, the tower shall be removed by the applicant within sixty (60) days. The Planning Commission recommended approval only with condition number 2. The property was given to the Town of Scottsvi!le with the proviso that timber could be removed from the site; thus, condition one was eliminated. The public hearing was opened. Mayor Raymon Thacker of ~¢ottsvi!le said when the town of Scottsville suffered a flood in 1969~ their~communications were cut off for several days. He appeared before the Senate ?ublic Works Committee in Washington and stresse to them the lack of communication Scottsville had. Since that time, he has worked with the Emergency Services Department for a communication program. He said the Federal Government is giving the town $25,000 for assistance. The subject tower will be placed on property which was donated and will t~n~wi~h the Sheriff's Office, the University of Virginia Hospital Emergency Services and the Department of Emergency Services in Richmond. With no one else desiring to speak for or against the request, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve SP-73-76 in accordance with the condition of the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta seconded the mot±on and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-75-76. Albert Schwartzenboeck. To locate a central well on 182 acres zoned A-1. Property on southwest side of Route 620, two miles east of Route 795. County Tax Map 104, Parcel 15. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said the subject property is developed with a residence and dairy complex. Across Route 620 are three mobile homes and a single-family residence.' A country store is located approximately 1/2 mile to the north. The Planning Department administratively approved two special permit applications for mobile homes on this property on July 28, 1976. Since the mobile homes and existing residence wouid be served by the same well, a special permit for a public water system is required (Because of this requirement, only one mobile home permit has been issued.) He said the staff recommended approval with the following condition: "County Engineer's approval to include approval of location and size of water lines, and certification of 48-hour testing." He said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with the following condition: Location and size of water lines be approved by the County Engineer. Mr. Tucker..said the reason for eliminating the 48-hoUr testing was due to statements made by the ~applicant. · If ~he weK1 were tested for 48 hours it would burn up his pump and the water supply will only be used by Mr. Schwartzenboeck and his family. Mr. Tucker noted- a letter which was received from Mr. W. T. Baker, Regional Supervisor, Bureau of Dairy Services concerning Mr. Schwartzenboeck's water supply.' (Copy on permanent file in Clerk's Office.) He also noted a memorandum sent to the County Executive from the Planning, Zoning and Engineering Departments concerning changes in the central well permit procedures. (Copy on permanent file in Clerk's Office.) The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. Albert Schwartzenboeck, was present and said he felt it unnecessary, if farmers have a good well, to go through all these hearings. He di~dnot feel the central well permit policy should apply to farms. He said his brother was disabled and it would be a lot easier if he could move closer to their home. With no one else desiring to speak, the publicZhae~g¥~as~osed. concerned that a condition was. not included specifying a number of units. ~he~pplicant is serving Omly his own family and farm this permit is not needed. David said it was her impression that the state code required the governing body to approve anything that had three or more units. Mr. St. John said the Code only required the person desiring a central well to notify the governing body and appear at the~meeting. applicant does not have to ask for any permit. He has an absolute right to install the central well system unless the board finds that such water system does not have an adequate source of supply or that the system is not capable of serving the proposed number of units. Mr. St. John felt the applicant had a right to install the system. Th~e.was considerable discussion about the procedures for central well systems comparing the State Code and the county ordinance~ Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve SP-75-76 with the following condition: Approve the central well with a maximum of five (5) residential connections. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Fisher was Dr. Iachetta said AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher noted he was supporting the waiver of the pumping and testing requirements on the well because it is a family operation. Agenda~!tem N0~t~8~ This was discussed earlier in the meeting. Agenda Item No. 9. Resolution of Intent: Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map by rezoning one lot from BL1 Business to R-1 Residential. Property located in Berkeley Subdivision, Lot 2, Block 6, Section 6, County Tax Map 61M. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said on August 31, 1976, the Albemarle County Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to rezone this from B-1 Business to R-1 Residential pursuant to the request of Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance. The staff reviewed the zoning history of this lot and believes an error was made in the original zoning of the lot as B-1 Business. ~ chronology of this lot is as follows. In August 3, 1965, the lot was recorded subject to restrictions of other Berkeley lots except that the lot may be used as aT~weli lot. On November 29, 1967, a written request by David Wood that all undeveloped land in the Berkeley Subdivision be zoned B-1 Business. Request granted as submitted. On November 22, 1968, the lot was transferred as a gift to Albemarle County. In the 1967 request by Mr. Wood, undeveloped properties were defined as those areas "not divided into lots". Since the subject lot was recorded in 1965, staff believes an error was made in the original designation of this lot as B-1 Business. The planning commission recommends approval of the rezoning. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Donn Bent, speaking for the Berkeley Com~aunity Association, was first to speak. He was in favor of the rezoning. Also speaking in favor were: Mr. C. ~. Wickline, Mrs. George Nichols, Mrs. Gerald Smith, and an unidentified gentleman. With no one else desiring to speak, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve the rezoning as 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. ince .e ~tober 20~ 1976 (Night) 429' Agenda Item No. 10. This was discussed at the beginning of the meeting. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-79-76. Kathy Roberts. To locate a mobile home on 7.10 acres zoned A-1. Property on Route 676, approximately 1 1/2 miles west of intersection with Route 678. County Tax Map 58, Parcel 3I. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said the area is rural in nature. Adjacent to the east is a single- family dwelling. A mobile home is adjacent to the west. Adjacent property to the south is undeveloped and heavily wooded. No residence is visible on the property to the north. This application is before the Board due to objection of one adjacent property owner and one resident of the area. Mrs. Wood is making this request so that her daughter (Kathy Roberts) may reside on the property and assist her with household duties. (Mrs. Wood suffers a chronic disorder which prevents her conduct of duties.) IA letter from her doctor is on permanent file in the Clerk's Office.) The mobile home would be located where a mobile home was previously located and would use existing water facilities and septic drainfield. Staff has viewed the site and staff opinion is that the mobile home would not be visible from the road or from other residences in that area. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Mobile home to be located as described; 2) Approval of appropriate state and local agencies~ 3) Skirting around the mo'bile home from the ground level to the base of the mobile home. The Planning Commission recommended denial with a 6-3 vote. Other letters of objection were received after the staff report. (Letters on permanent file of the Clerk.) At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Dr. Larry Meem. He lives in the neighborhood not far from the subject property and ~e~ls it would be a mistake to place mobile homes in this area~since they would decrease the value of the other homes ~n~$h~.a~. He thought Mrs. Wood could build an addition to the existing house to accommodate the situation and Wout~Ladd to the value of the subj~ect property which the mobile home would not. Mr. Ron Hancock was next to speak. He felt since the Board voted down five acre conservation zoning several weeks ago they should not be hearing this tonight. Ms. Susan Landin was next to speak. She felt the mobile home could not be adequately screened from the adjacent landowners or the road. She reminded the Board that placin~ this trailer here would be adjacent to another mobile home which is not screened or skirted adequately. She questioned the condition and value of the mobile home.feeling that such would affect the ~alue of other property in the area. S~eaalso agreed with Mr. Hancock concerning the conservation zoning pending. Dr. Herbert Tull agreed with Mr. Hancock that this requesta.~h~ld be deferred. An unidentified gentleman was next to speak. He felt the issue tonight did not have much to do with the particular application but did pertain to conservation zoning. He felt a moratorium should be placed on anything in this area that would be inconsistent with the type of zoning requested by the citizens. Mrs. Evelyn Wood, the applicant's mother, was next to speak. She could not understand why screening was a problem because there were pine trees surrounding the property and no one could see the mobile home from the highway. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Ron Keeler of the Planning Department had been out to the property and stood where the mobile home was to be located and could not see any residences. Mrs. Kathy Roberts, the applicant, said white pines were going to be planted along the driveway and the mobile would ~]~dequately ~r~e~d~ Mrs. Lawrence Meem was ~agreement with all the others speaking in opposition. With no one else desiring to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he had not seen the site and would like to be able to view the site, talk to Mrs. Wood and to those in opposition before making a decision on the matter. Mr. Henley'could not understand why so mu~h opp~mn was being voiced over someone placing a mobile home on the property. Mrs. David felt the Board should follow the feelings of the Chairman and pointed out that approval of mobile homes has always been a special procedure and problems do exist with them being placed at certain areas. She offered motion at this time to defer the matter to November 3, 1976. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. To amend Section 2-3 of the~Zoning Ordinance in reference to setback regulations. (Deferred from September 15, 1976.) ~a On September 15, 1976, the Board deferred action on this amendment so the definition could be rewritten to better refect the needs of the County. Mr. Henley, Chairman of the Committee to review the setback requirements, said a compromise had been ~aache~2~ on the matter. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Henley to amend and reenact~Section 2-3 as follows: Section 2-3. Setback Requirements. Ail structures, as herein specifically defined, shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from any street, road, or access easement. For purposes of this section only, the term "structures~ shall not be deemed to include on-site signs for sale or rental of propert~ shelt~r~~e~nd~e~b~h~ol children travelin~ 430 Dr.~Iamhetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote~ AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Not Docketed. Mr. Roudabush offered motion to appoint Mrs. Bernice Mitchell~of Keswick~to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging. This term of office to expire on October 20, 1978. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mrs. David offered motion to appoint Mrs. Jacquelyn N. Huckle to fill the unexpired term of Mrs. Imogene Bunn to the Thomas Jefferson Advisory Council on Aging. to expire on June 1, 1978. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Davi~d and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. St. John did not think applications for mobile homes or anything else an$horized in the Ivy area can be denied on the ground that certain properties were not zoned to conservation. He feels the time will come when it will be unlawful for the Board', or any other governing body, to make a distinction between a mobile home and any other kind of home. He did not feel the majority of people in an area can dictate to those who can not afford a more expensive house. Mr. Fisher felt legislation will eventually take away from the locality the power to regulate mobile homes. Mr. Fisher said he had received a report on study of the local costs of implementing state mandated programs from Mr. Clarence McClure, Superintendent of Schools. He said a copy of this will be given to the other Baard members. Mr. Agnor said he had interviewed a number of applicants for the housing coordinator position and was prepared to make a recommendation, but was informed by the Housing Committee that they would like to be involved in the interviews. He had a meeting with the Housing Committee and they did not agree with his choice. It was decided to include the committee in th~sselection process. (Thus, a recommendation will be made at a later date.) Mr. Agnor said he had two existing county employees interested in the position of Deputy Dog Warden. (This position avai!a~e due to the death of Sam Robertson and promotion of Herman Dorrier to fill th~t~vacancy.) One, a~g~~n with the Joint Security Complex who wanted a change of work but who would have to take a $2,000 a year cut. Thus, he had reservations about recommending him for the position. The other is Ira G. Drumheller, dispatcher in the Sheriff's Department. The position would mean a slight increase in salary~for him and ~m~commended ~r. Drumhe&ler for the position of Deputy Dog Warden. He was very impressed with Mr. Drumhel!er's personality and attitude toward work. At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to appoint Mr. Drumheller to the position of Deputy Dog Warden w~t~ sa~d ~oslt~pm tp being effective November 3, 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. At 11:08 P.M., Dr. Iachetta offered mo~ion to adjourn the meeting to October 27, 1976 at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. 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. CHAIRMAN