Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-05-28N5-21-7b ~pec~a±~ 5-28-75 (Hight) suggested the best way to avoid problems is to have someone from the advisory committee go into the field and work directly with the developer. He added that in his years of experience ha has found the developers most cooperative and more than willing to comply. Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Hartwell Clarke would have sufficient time to properly enforce this ordinance along with his other responsibilities as Zoning Administrator and Building Inspector ...... He said that as long as Mr. Clarke feels he can handle this added responsibility, he will go along with the recommendation of the staff. Mr. Fisher stated he was concerned about the make-up of the advisory committee. He did not feel a member of the Planning Commission (which is an advisory body in itself) should be involved in the implementation of the ordinance. Mr. Batchelor stated the reason the Planning Commission is involved in the advisory committee is because they are so involved in site plan work. He added that the Planning Commission representative on the advisory co~nittee can be a designated agent, allowing them to designate someone who possibly is a county staff member. Mr. St. John spoke to the enforcement aspect of the ordinance. He stated he has tried pros- ecuting under the old ordinance but has never been able to win because no one had ever actually visited the site. He felt it was essential for either one member or the entire advisory committee to actually visit the site before giving recommendations and approval. Mr. Hartwel'l Clarke agreed with Mr. St. John that visiting the site would be helpful. He added that having a member of the Home Builders Association on the advisory committee would be helpful in determining whether-or ~nto:~ a recommendation by the committee would be workable. After considerable discussion as to who should be appointed to the advisory committee, Mr. Carwile suggested the deletion of the Planning Commission member, and replace it with "a member appointed by the Board of Supervisors who shall have experience and/or technical expertise in the fields of construction and engineering, and they shall be appointed for a term of one year". Mrs. Frances Martin said in order to avoid a conflict of interest, the person considered to fill such an appointed post should not be an active participant in the construction/development .... field. She also questioned how the County would control property owners causing erosion if they have not submitted plans under this ordinance. Mr. St. John said under the new ordinance, only unpaved agricultural roads would be exempt. Mr. Batchetor added that violators in most cases are given an opportunity to correct the violation before the County institutes court action. At this point, Mr. Carwile offered motion to advertise the proposed ordinance for a public hearing. (That draft which provides for the advisory committee consisting of three members, with the elimination of the one member appointed by the Chairman of the Planning Commission, substituting a member appointed by the Board of Supervisors having experience and expertise in the fields of construction and engineering, for a term of one year with compensation for non-staff members being set by the Board from time to time by resolution; and appeals to be brought to the Board of Supervisors. This public hearing to be held on June 18, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Second to this motion was made by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Thacker-noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Rolfe E. Schroeder, consultant for the County's adopted Pay/Classification Plan, stating he would conduct a classification and pay survey for the employees of the Circuit Court Clerk's Office at a cost of $400 based on a three day study. At 9:35 P.M. motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood, to adjourn this meeting. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. Chairman 5-28-75 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 28, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr. and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: Mr. Gordon L. Wheeler. Officers present: County Executive, T. M. Batchelor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. St. John. Also present: Deputy County Attornies, James Bowling and Frederick Payne and Assistant County Planner, Robert Tucker. The meeting was called to order at 7:20 P.M. with Mr. Thacker chairing. No. 1. ZMP-316 and SP-446. Holy Comforter Catholic Church. (Deferred from April 9, 1975.) Mr. Tucker st'ated that the applicant had requested a further deferral in order to solve some legal problems which had arisen. Motion to defer these petitions until June 18, 1975, was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. 5-28-75 (Night) 117 The Board continued with public hearings as advertised in The Daily Progress on May 7 and May 14, 1975: No. 4. SP-466. Dr. Charles Hurt. To locate a Planned Community on 200.84 acres zoned A-! Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of State Route 20 South and the east side of State Route 742. Property is further described as County Tax Map 91, Parcel 2. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said the applicant had requested that the public hearing on this petition be deferred until June 18, 1975, in order to allow time to work out some engineering problems with the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by~ Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker~and Wood. NAYS: 'None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. No. 6. SP-469. Northwoods Corporation. To locate a general store on part of 13.844 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is on the west side of State Route 785 and is further described as County Tax Map 32B, Parcel D, part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Mike Wor!ey, the applicant, has requested that the petition be withdrawn without prejudiCe. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr.'Wheeler. The Board continued with a public hearing as advertised in The Daily Progress on May 8 and May 14, 1975: No. 2. To-consider an amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to be known as Article 17, Site Development Plan Ordinance. Also to consider repealing Sections 6-9-1, 7-7-1, 8-2-1 and 9-2~1. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission and staff have worked for over two months on this ordinance. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance as presented, but the County Engineer has brought to the attention of the staff two sections which should be reconsidered. Section 17-4-16 which states "Profiles to be submitted for all sanitary and storm sewers, streets, or other utilities and shall be submitted on standard profile sheets." There is no definition for "other utilities" Mr. Bailey has suggested the wording "Cross-sections showing clearances where utility lines cross one another." Section 17-5-6(a) where it reads "Off-street parking bays sufficient to accommodate the required parking ratio are provided to complement the street system." The staff suggests that the wording be changed to: "Off-street parking spaces sufficient to compensate for the loss of on-street parking due to the modification of geometric design standards." Section 17-5-10 which reads: "Parking bays shall be constructed to standards promulgated and approved by the county engineer. Ail parking bays shall be so designed that no vehicle when parked thereon shall overhang property lines, sidewalks and moving travel lanes, public or private." Suggested wording: "Parking areas design and construction shall shall be approved by the County Engineer in accordance with sound engineering practices. Ail parking areas shall be so designed that no .... " Section 17-5-17. In the middle of that section the Planning Commission recommends striking the following,sentence: "Where the particular development contributes in part, along with other development or developments in the area, to the need for such facilities, the developer may be required to contribute lands, on a pro-rata basis, for such facilities as are reasonably attribut- able to the particular development." Mr. Tucker said in the initial draft submitted to the Board, the staff was the approving authority for site plans, however, the Planning Commission felt this should remain under their authority and the draft has been revised to reflect that change. The staff requests that if and when this ordinance is adopted, the Board consider an enactment date of one month after adoption so as to allow time for appointment of a ~echnical 6ommittee. This would also give those people drafting site plans time to review the ordinance. At this time, Mr. Thacker opened the public hearing. The first to speak was Karen Lilleleht. She said that on May 19 the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Board delete that part of Section 17-5-17 which would allow the County to require developers to donate money to be used for parks, schools, open space and other public or private recreational uses. She felt that if the monetary contribution is left out this exempts the small developer from any obligation to participate in the cost of any facilities his development might create. This exemption would create an inequity in the ordinance in favor of small developers which large developers may exploit in court. Mrs. Lilleleht felt thetordinance would be improved by requiring all developers to put money into an escrow fund to help build new schools and other facilities which are needed to service any new development. She said this has been tried successfully in Florida and should be tried in Albemarle. Next to'speak was Robert L. Wittnebel for Citizens for Albemarle: "Citizens for Albemarle supports the proposed Site Plan Development Ordinance as it is presently drafted and urges you to adopt it without any revisions which might weaken its intent. We draw your attention especially to the provisions of the appraval by the Planning Commission. In its recent deliberations of the new zoning ordinance,' the Commission has repeatedly indicated its ability to provide protection to home owners through the Site Plan Development Ordinance. Thus, any change in this provision might weaken the proposed zoning ordinance. We also wish to express our support for the provisions for landscaping, and other s~reening measures, which we believe to be very important in that they will also protect home owners against the encroachment of commercial and business zones. It will help to improve the appearance of our highways." Statement signed by J. K. Haviland, President, Citizens for Albemarle. lis 5-2~-75 [NignsJ Kathy Gilman, speaking for the League of Women Voters: "The League of Women Voters supports the adoption of a Site Development Ordinance as a necessary element in effective planning for land use in Albemarle County. We believe this ordinance contains guidelines for appropriate protection- of the land,, the environment, and the best interests of County residents. We appreciate the ~ attention of the Planning Commission and the staff to comments from the public on the different drafts of the.ordinance and we feel the ordinance has been clarified through consideration of suggestions from the public. In recent work sessions by the Planning Commission on the revised zoning ordinance, frequent attention has been called to the use of a site development plan ordinance to provide for appropriate land development. We strongly support the review of site plans by the Planning Commission and believe the Commission can be more effective and flexible in implementing the revised zoning ordinance if its members review land development which effects surrounding properties, roads and public facilities. The buffer zone area provided for in the ordinance is vital for the protection of residential and agricultural areas and is necessary to assure appropriate transition between zones and between dif~ferent land uses in the same zone. We believe that the provisions of this ordinance should allow the Planning Commission, through site plan review, to require that adequate and appropriate buffer zones be included in the site plans it reviews. We appreciate your consideration of our suggestions and we support the adoption of a site plan ordinance as soon as possible." No other member of the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time. Mr. Fisher asked if the ordinance at this time gives the Planning Commission final approval after the site plan has been reviewed by a technical committee. Mr. Tucker answered yes. Mr. Fisher asked why two members of the Planning Commission will be on the technical committee and also be part o£ the final approving authority. Mr. Tucker said this was the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Initially, they felt this procedure should be tried and if the Commission became just a rubber stamp for the technical committee, they could then give authority for approval to the technical committee and the staff. Mr. Fisher said he has attended several meetings of the review committee for subdivision plats. Only a staff member was in attendance. He asked if this is supposed to be a technical review committee. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel the committee will be effective unless input is received from all members. He asked what improvement this will be over present procedures. Mr. Tucker said that the present technical committee is only a policy, whereas the new committee will be set by law. Mr. John Humphrey said the biggest change will be the adoption of the ordinance itself. This ordinance sets out the guidelines by which the plans will be reviewed. Mr. Thacker said he had a number of questions concerning the proposed ordinance and suggested that the Board set a date for a workshop. Mr. Carwile concurred. Mr. Thacker said the date would be set later in the meetin.g. At this time the Board went back to zoning matters as advertised in The Daily Progress on May 7 and May 14, 1,975: No. 3. ZMP~321. Jesse E. Seale. To rezone four acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-1 Residential. Property is situated on the west side of State Route 684, about one mile north of its intersection with State Route 788 in Crozet. Property is described as County Tax Map 39, Parcel 20C. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said this property is on Route 684 north of Mint Springs Park. This area is rural in character with several single-family dwellings in the immediate area. An apple orchard is east of the property. The property is relatively flat, sloping gently southward. Because of its proximity to the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as conservation or on'e dwelling unit for five acres. The property presently contains three rental single-family dwellings which are located along the narrow portion of the property fronting on Route 684. The northern and widest,portion of this property is vacant and is estimated to be in excess of two acres. The applicant has requested this rezoning in order that his son may build upon the vacant portion of the land. He may also subdivide and sell the three existing structures at some time in the future. Mr. Tucker said the staff is of the opinion that in view of the density proposed in the Comprehensive Plan, the existing zoning is proper. The staff is also concerned that a precedent could be set for higher density zoning in the area and would therefore recommend denial of the request. Mr. Tucker ended by stating that the Planning Commission also recommends denial of the petition. Mr. Seale was present in support of his request. He said he would like to build one house on the large parcel. The rental units were located on the land in the 1950's. Mr. Henley asked if the rezoning was requested so the houses could be sold. Mr. Seale said he does not intend to sell at the present time. Mr. Henley asked if two acres were available on the upper end of .the property if Mr. Seale could not build without the rezoning. Mr. Tucker said he would still be exceeding the density allowed in t~e A-1 zone. Mr. Carwile asked if he could subdivide and sell off the two-acre tract that has no house at this time. Mr. Tucker said the lot would be more non-conforming by having three houses on two acres. Mr. Henley said the whole problem is the fact that there are three houses on the lower end of the lot and Mr. Seale has two acres on the upper end which are not usable at this time. The two acres are of no benefit to the three houses since the sewage could not be run uphill. At this time the public hearing was opened. petition and the public hearing was closed. No one from the public spoke for or against the Mr. Henley said he did not care about the rezoning if there was someway Mr. Seale could use the two acres. Mr. Carwile suggested that he obtain an area variance. Mr. Batchelor said this would allow the Board of Zoning Appeals to legislate and they do not have that power. To allow what Mr. Henley is speaking of, the Board could consider rezoning the two acres at the top of the property to RS-i, one-acre lots. Mr. Payne said that was not the problem. If the Board is going to rezone any land, they should rezone the southern portion of the property. The problem is that there are now three houses on essentially two acres and the only way to make them conforming is to make the density such that there can be three houses on two acres. Mr. Henley asked if each house has a well. Mr. Seale said no. Mr. Batchelor asked if the southern portion could be rezoned to RS-I? Mr. Tucker said he would still be non-conforming as regards dens~ty. The bottom two acres could be rezoned to R-1. Mr. Payne said if Mr. Seale makes any change in the present four acre lot, it is no longer a non-conforming lot of record, but an unlawful lot unless it is rezoned. i! 9 60,000 square feet if public water and sewer are not available. Mr. Tucker said if the entir~ parcel, or any portion, is rezoned and Mr. Seale wants to subdivide, he would have to request a waiver of the 60,000 sq. ft. requirement. Mr. Fisher said the Board has a recommendation from the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission for denial of this request. However, since Mr. Seate may have a legitimate problem, he would like to make a review of the site before voting. Mr. Henley said he felt the staff and Commission should look at the problem from purely a planning point of view and they have done that. It is now up to the Board to try to solve the problem. This is the third time he has had to vote for a similar request and although it is contrary to what he wants to do, there is a problem and there is only one way to solve it. Mr. Wood agreed. He said the request seems to be the only answer. He would like to see the property rezoned to R-1 so Mr. Seale can use his property. Mr. Henley asked if this zoning would allow Mr. Sea!e to build one house and no more. Mr. Tucker said he will still have a 60,000 square foot problem. If he wants to sell the property or even subdivide to give his son a piece of the property, he can meet that. But, if he wants to sell off the rental units, he would need a waiver of that requirement. He could meet the zoning requirements of one dwelling unit on 20,000 square feet. Mr. Henley said the Board would understand the problem if they could see the property. The two acres are up hill and there is no way this acreage can be used to help the houses presently on the property. Mr. Thacker said in effect the Board would not be doing anyhhing since the two acres cannot be used to enhance the three existing houses. Mr. Fisher said the Comprehensive Plan recommends a much lower density. Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve ZMP-321. carried by the following recorded vote: The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker and Wood. Mr. Fisher. Mr. Wheeler. No. 5. SP-468. James Armstrong. To locate a garage on 0.39 acre zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of State Route 715 in Esmont. Property is further described as County Tax Map 128B, Parcel 31. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said this property is located within a rural village with residential, commercial and public land uses found within the immediate area. The post office, a warehouse, and a vacant store are located on the west side of Route 715. Single-family development is found throughout the village. A special permit to locate a public garage on this parcel was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 22, 1972. The applicant is requesting a change in the conditions imposed on that permit (SP-211). The two conditions from which relief is asked are: (1) Not more than six vehicles which are in Mr. Armstrong's care for repair, maintenance or restoration be garaged over~ night on the property at any one time; and (2) any vehicles which are on site for repair, mainten- ance or restoration be located in a specifically designated parking area approved by the planning staff and this area be screened from public view as approved by the planning staff. Mr. Tucker said from field inspection, the staff noted that approximately six dwellings are visible from the garage. Three of these dwellings are partially buffered by a 10 to 15 foot bank at the rear of the garage and hardwoods on the north and south sides of the property. The applicant is presently proposing an addition to the garage which will house four vehicles for repair. The garage can presently house only one vehicle. The applicant has recently landscaped the property with laurels', dogwoods and azaleas. Evergreens were not planted because of the damage caused by sap dropping from these trees onto cars. Mr. Tucker said while the staff contends that this type of use is incompatible with the area, the applicant has made an attempt to meet the conditions placed upon him by the Board of Supervisors. The staff feels that in view of the addition proposed, which will house up to five vehicles, the condition of six vehicles left outside of the building overnight is reasonable. The Planning Commission recommends approval of SP-468 with the following conditions substituted for conditions # 1 and #2 on the original special permit: (i) Not more than six vehicles, which are in Mr. Armstrong's care for repair, maintenance or restoration be left outside of the structure overnight at any one time. (2) Existing landscaping be maintained. The Planning Commission also recommends adding the following condition to any approval: (3) SHtel~Ian approval of proposed new addition. Mr. Tucker presented letters from Messrs. Andrew J. Boatwright, Hunter P. Tapscott, William P. Heath, and Fred Beauchamp in opposition to approval of this permit. /:Ha said a petition was also presented from the applicant asking that the foregoing conditions be removed from the permit approval. Mr. Fisher asked if the new condition would add to the six vehicles which could be left outside overnight, any cars that might be stored inside. Mr. Tucker said yes, he may be able to store five additional cars inside. Mr. Fisher said the other condition regarding screening approved by the Planning Staff suggests that existing landscaping be maintained. Mr. Tucker said the landscaping has just been completed. Mr. Fisher said he had driven by this location this afternoon and could not see any landscaping. Mr. Tucker said it is not evergreen screening. Mr. Thacker asked if the Planning Staff had been requested to approve screening other than evergreens. Mr. Tucker said he was aware of no such request. Mr. Thacker said before he opened the floor for public discussion, he would remind those present to keep their comments within the realm of zoning matters. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Jr. was present to represent Mr. Armstrong. He objected to the two conditions set out above and also another condition on the original permit that a $300 bond be posted. He also objected to a site plan~being required. Mr. Dorrier said this garage is operated by Mr. Armstrong and his family. They have no plans to hire others to expand the business. Mr. Armstrong has spent $2000-$3000 in improvements and in planning for an annex to the building. This was originally the site of a pulp wood yard, a railroad station, a flour mill, an ice -olant and a 120 5-28-75 a general store, an auctioneering activity and another general store about one block away. Mr. Dottier said there are no junk vehicles on this location. Mr. Armstrong has attempted to stay within the six car limit imposed by the Board, but there are times when he cannot. His business has increased to where he cannot operate his shop with this present restriction. The requirement for ~. s~me~type of fencing is also objected to because it would shield his shop from public view. Mr. Armstrong feels his business must be visible. The cost of screening would be prohibitive and would allow vandalism to occur at night when no one is at the garage. Mr. Armstrong and his wife have made an attempt to beautify the area by planting dogwoods, redbuds, rose bushes, laurel trees, azaleas, flowers and a garden. They have moved old railroads ties which were on the site when they moved in. This garage provides income for the community and tax revenue for the County. A petition was presented with approximately 200 signatures supporting this request. The people who live adjacent, with one exception, support Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Dorrier said there are objections from people who live further awaY, but he asked that the Board take into consideration the fact that the people who live adjacent to this property support the request. Mr. Dottier said Mr. Armstrong's service center should not be singled out for discriminatory treatment. He contended that no other garage in the County has such restrictions placed upon it'. He felt these restrictions violate Mr. Armstrong's rights. Mr. Dorrier contended that the Board granted the permit and in good faith Mr. Armstrong has tried to live up to the conditions placed upon same. He then showed to the Board several photographs of the location of this request. Mr. Dorrier ended by stating that this is a small businessman and he felt the county should do everything possible to help him stay in business. Mrs. Margaret Payne said she lives directly across the road from this parcel. There is not much noise. Occasionally a sanding machine can be heard, but this is not a loud noise. Mr. Walsh said he lives close also. Since Mr. Armstrong began his business on this location he has conducted his business in an orderly manner. Mr. Armstrong works hard and has a wife and five children to support. Mr. Dorrier said he had several people present who would speak to Mr. Armstrong's mechanical ability. Mr. Thacker reminded Mr. Dorrier that any conversation relating to Mr. Armstrong's abilities is not a matter to be included in a zoning hearing. Mr. Bill Rucker spoke next. He said he lives four houses away. He felt the limit of six cars and screening are unreasonable. He said the garage is neat and attractive. He felt the six car limit would hamper Mr. Armstrong since he works on antique cars and occasionally will have some antique cars, which are being restored, stored on the lot. Mr. David Wood was present to represent Mr. Matthew Murray, Mr. & Mrs. Turnbull, Mr. and Mrs. Ward Jones, Mrs. B. M. Little, Mr. Wesley Peterson, Mrs. Hunter Tapscott, Mrs. Dorothy Boatwright, Mr. W. P. Heath, and Mr. T. R. Steger, all in opposition to the application. Mr. Wood said approval of this application, or similar applications, will destroy the rural atmosphere of Esmont. This garage is on a 0.39 acre plot. The lot is irregular and the useful part of the lot is less than 1/3 of an acre. This application was presented for a public hearing before. Zt was approved with certain restrictions with which Mr. Armstrong has not complied. Mr. Wood had a listing of the vehicles stored on the lot for the most of the 1973 year and up through June 26, 1974. Mr. Wood read several examples showing that more than six vehicles were stored on the property at one time. He said this was an example of the way the applicant felt about the County's restrictions. Mr. Wood said no screening existed on the property until just before this application was filed and really cannot be considered screening; only planting. Ail except Mr. Jones and Mr. Steger are residents of the village ~proper. He said the 200 people signing the applicant's petition do not live in Esmont and several live in other counties. They have no vested interest because they do hot own property within the village. Mr. Wood felt this property should not be operated as a garage at nights or on Sunday. He said this causes a nuisance. Mr. Wood said Mrs. Payne, who spoke first, works and is not at home during the day. The two people most affected by this use are Mrs. Tapscott and Mrs. Boatright, both elderly ladies who are not able to appear tonight. Mr. Wood ended by asking that the Board reject the applicant's request. Mr. Dottier said he understood Mrs. Boatwright had no objection to the shop itself. The shop is in compliance with the County's master plan. Mr. Steger, represented by Mr. Wood, is not a resident of Esmont, but owns rental units in the community. Mr. Armstrong said the original provision was for screening of the parking area and not the entire site. He said he had not been able to reach an agreement with the planning, staff on a designated area. Va!arie Cox said she lives in Esmont and finds the garage an improvement over previous uses. Dan Childress said he lives about one and one-half miles away. He said the noise is nothing compared to a timbering operation which took place in the area several years ago. He said he works a swing shift and he has not heard all the noise talked about. Mr. John Arbaugh said this has been a place of business for years. previous uses. He felt the six car restriction should be lifted. The noise is much less than Mrs. Armstrong said the pictures shown by Mr. Dorrier will show that the houses of the people in opposition cannot be seen from this location. Mr. Daniel Van Clief said he is interested in the business part of the community although he does not live in Esmont village. He said this was not a trial for Mr. Armstrong tonight but the question to be addressed is whethsr the restrictions placed on the original permit were valid and whether those persons present have forgotten the humanities. He personnally objected to the state- ment that the land is too small and will~not hold the number of cars requested. Zf Mr. Armstrong mus~ stay within the property lines, the number of cars will be limited by those lines. He asked that the Board combine the humanities with the restrictions and determine if the restrictions are valid. Mr. David Wood said Mrs. Tapscott and Mrs. Boatwright had both called and asked him to re- present them. He said Mr. Van C!ief is just like a lot of those speaking. He does not live in the immediate neighborhood and has no standing in the matter. At this point, Mr. Thacker closed the public hearing. He noted for the record several of the letters received in opposition; Mr. Hunter P. Tapscott, Mr. S. J. Boatwright, Jr., Mr. Albert R. Turnbull, Mr~. Fred Beauchamp and Mr. Andrew J. Boatwright. Mr Henley said he noted that the addition to the garage will hold five vehicles which will allow Mr. Armstrong to have 11 vehicles and this seems to be a reasonable number. He felt the Board b-~u-75 (~ight) 121 Mr. Fisher said when he looked at the site today, he took along the conditions imposed on the original permit. The Board specifically stated that this use should be screened from public view, with screening approved by the Planning Staff. Although low bushes have been planted, it is not screened from'public view in any way. it has been two and one-half years since this permit was approved. In November, 1972, when this permit was heard, there was a public outcry against approval of the request. The Board against the recommendation of the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission tried to give Mr. Armstrong the opportunity to operate a garage and protect the community at the same time. Mr. Fisher said he interpreted Condition #1 to mean that the vehicles had to be garaged inside overnight and the area be screened. He did not feel the Board would have approved the petition with lesser restrictions. If the applicant had made an attempt to meet the conditions within a reasonable time period and could not do it, he had recourse to come to the Board of Super- visors to have those conditions lifted. Mr. Fisher did not feel that two and one-half years is a reasonable time period and did not feel there has been an honest attempt to meet the Board's conditions. He felt the people in the community should be protected by screening as the Board originally specified. Mr. Thacker said it is not true that if the Board does not approve this request they are denying Mr. Armstrong the right to use his property. This is not a use allowed by right in the A-! zone as spelled out in the County's ordinance. This is a privilege granted by special permit. He agreed with Mr. Fisher that two and one-half years is more than adequate time to either comply with conditions or apply for relief from the conditions. Mr. Thacker said he felt the limit of six cars was established for a specific reason. He noted that on April 7, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. there were 11 vehicles parked on the site. On May 19, 1975, at 9:30 P.M. there were nine vehicles plus one tractor. At 5:20 P.M., this date, there were six cars, one trailer, and three lawnmowers. Mr. Thacker said he felt there has been no attempt to comply with the conditions. He felt the conditions were placed in good faith in an attempt to reach a compromise to allow a use by the applicant and in an attempt to appease the residents of the area. He felt the County staff has been remiss in not revoking the permit. Mr. Lloyd Wood agreed with Mr. Henley that a limit of six cars outside of the building is probably enough. He thought the screening might be detrimental to this operation. The third condition, recommended by the Planning Commission, about site plan approval seems unrealistic knowing the situation which exists. This is not a new structure, but renovation of an existing structure. Mr. Wood then offered motion to approve SP-468 with substitute conditions # 1 and #2 as recommended by the Planning commission and all conditons on the original permit to remain in effect. Mr. Henley gave second to the motion. He said he could see that occasionally Mr. Armstrong would have more than six cars on the property, but did not see this as a problem. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel the applicant has demonstrated his best efforts to comply with the conditions of the original permit. To return to the Board after two and one-half years to have the conditions changed seems to be encouraging other applicants or permit holders not to comply with conditions imposed by this Board. Mr. Henley said this is only 1/3 of an acre and does not seem to be a large operation. red tape should be cut ou~and did.-~t feel 1/3 of an acre could be screened effectively. He felt Mr. Thacker reminded the Board that the conditons were placed on the special permit in good faith and accepted by the applicant before he began any business activity on the site. He agreed with Mr. Fisher that two and one-half years is an inordinately long time without making an attempt to comply with the conditions and he would not support approval of this petition. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, and Wood. Messrs. Fisher and Thacker. Mr. Wheeler. ....... ~t~ 9:'~0 P]M. the Board took a recess and reconvened at 9:20 P.M. at which time they continued with public hearings on zoning matters: No. 7. SP-47t. Nancy Capervon. To locate a two-family dwelling on 4.674 acres zoned A-i Agri- cultural. Property is situated on the east side of State Route 676 just north of its intersection with State Route 743. Property is further described as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 6D(1). Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said this property is located on the east side of Route 676, just across the bridge and ad~jacent to the Charlottesville Reservoir. This area is semi-rural in character and is located on the fringe of the urban area. The property slopes down toward the reservoir with the main building situated in the northwest portion og'~th~'property. Large parcels of three acres and upward predominate the area. It is an area which presently maintains a density of one dwelling unit per ten acres. The applicant wishes to renovate an existing stable into a two-family dwelling. The stable is presently located approximately 200 feet from the water's edge of the reservoir. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that areas adjacent to water impoundments should be protected and recommends a~density of one dwelling unit per five acres. The staff felt that in view of the densities existing in the area and the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan, to allow a two- family dwelling in this area would change the character and established pattern of development which presently exists. The staff recommended denial but gave the following conditions which should be attached ~o any approval given by the Board: (1) County Building official approval. (2) Health Department final approval of septic system. (3) Provision of a minimum of four off-street parking spaces. (4) Any other structures planned to be rented will require an additional special use permit. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission also recommends denial of the petition. Mr. Carwile asked if this is the only building on the tract. Mr. Tucker said no. There are two small cottages which are not habitable. These are in addition to the residence and the stable. Mrs. Caperton Was present in support of the request. She said the Planning Commission denied her request because they did not want to establish a precedent for duplexes on the Reservoir.' She said there are already several duplexes located in the area and the precedent has already been set. This is an existing structure. Mrs. Caperton said she understands the present zoning laws would allow her to have one rental unit at this spot without any approvals. There will be the same number of people living in the dwelling whether it is a duplex or a single-family rental unit. A repre- sentative of the Hea~th D~m~ ~ ~ ..... ~ *~^ i22 5-28-75 (Night) At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Frances Martin was the first to speak as Chairman of Water Quality Committee of Citizens of Albemarle. She said they have long been concerned with the quality of the reservoir. She asked that the Board deny this permit pending completion of the South Rivanna River Reservoir study. She felt that each time the Board grants a permit, it makes it harder to deny the next such request. Approval of this request will bring a flood of such requests before the study is completed and the only way to discourage this is to make it clear that the Board is putting that area in a holding pattern until the completion of the study. Mr. Carwile asked Mrs. Martin if she understood that Mrs. Caperton has the right to convert the building into a rental unit even if the Board denies this permit. Mrs. Martin said she realizes this and it may seem like a symbolic action to turn down the permit, but she felt a symbolic action is needed to make clear the Board's concern about the reservoir. Mr. Wood S~id~if~there would be no more people in the building as a duplex than as a single rent_al unit, how could this raise the density. Mrs] Martin said if this special permit is granted, the Board will have to grant a permit to anyone who requests one in this area. Mr. Wood said that a special permit is a discretionary matter with the Board and each will be considered on its merits. Mrs. Martin felt this approval would create greater pressures on the Board. Mr. Wood disagreed. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henley asked what assurance the Board would have that the existing building would not be enlarged and there would be no more people living in the building. Mr. Tucker said a~condition can be attached to any approval that only the existing structure can be used. Mr. Wood suggested that there be no outside structural changes and the living area be confined to a certain number of square feet. Mr. Fisher said he understands there is one residence on the property and to add a duplex would create three habitable dwelling units on 4.7 acres. That is a greater density than the A-1 zone permits. Mr. Tucker said the A-1 zone allows a duplex with a special use permit. Mr. Fisher asked if the zoning ordinance allows more than one unit per two acres. Mr. Tucker said the ordinance does not speak to that. Mr. Thacker said he thinks it comes back to a question of definition. He assumes the cottage is an accessory structure and not a dwelling unit. Mr. Fisher said he was talking about a duplex and an existing house, which makes three habitable dwelling units. Mr. Payne said the density requirements do not speak to dwelling units specifically. The only density requirements are for single-family residential units, which are one unit per two acres, and as a permitted use the ordinance provides for duplexes on two acres. Mr. Henley asked if.Mrs. Caperton would object if the Board attached a condition to any approval that the stable must be used as is. Mrs. Caperton said she would like to build a deck, but would not object to the inside being limited to present size. Mr. Carwile said he feels all members of the Board are concerned about the quality of the reservoir and he also realizes the Board can make a symbolic gesture in denying this request. However, he did not think a symbolic gesture would be a precedence to the Board because each ma~ter that comes before the Board is basically a matter which the Board can decide. He questioned whether this symbolic gesture would be justified with what Mrs. Caperton proposes since from a density standpoint she would be allowed to do the same thing if she did not call it a duplex, but made it just one large rental unit. Mr. Carwile then offered'motion to approve SP-471, with the four conditions as set out in the staff's report and with the addition of condition #5: No additional space can be enclosed under the roof of this dwelling. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood. Mr. Fisher asked about a question of pending litigation. He said at the time the Board took action on that case, a question arose as to whether any higher land use densities had taken place in the area of the reservoir since the Comprehensive Plan had been adopted. To his knowledge, no greater densities had been allowed since that time. He wondered if any action taken at this time would have a bearing on that litigation. Mr. St. John said'it not accurate to say that every application which comes before the Board can be treated separately and without consideration of applications which have gone before. Appli- cations which are different in some respects can be treated differently. If there is application A which is granted, application B which is granted, then applicant C comes along and his factual ~ situation is indistinguishable from A & B, then the Board has set a precedent with A & B and this applicant can obtain a judgment from the ~ourt sayin~ he has been discriminated against. If A is differenT, if B is different, and if C is different and those differences are legally significant, the petitions can be treated differently. But, if the Board cannov find a bona fide distinguishing fact, then what the Board does tonight will set a precedent it may be bound by in the future. In general, the answer to the question is that any decision the Board makes on applications for special use permits in that area might well have an influence on the outcome of the pending litigation. Mr. St. John said Mrs. Caperton has an existing building and this is a distinguishing factor. But, Mr. St. advised the Board to be careful and have in mind that they may well be setting a precedent even in a case like this were the facts are different. To his mind, an application for a planned unit (the application which is the subject of litigation) development, which amounts to a rezoning, a land use change, is distinguishable from this application. Mr. Thacker said that there will really be no increase in density, iMr. Fisher disagreed. Mr. St. John said if the Board is increasing the density by this approval that would be a precedent. Mr. Thacker asked if duplexes are allowed on a two-acre parcel. Mr. Humphrey said only through a special permit application. Mr. St. John said the litigants application is for a special permit. Mr Fisher said he under~tands~ Mrs. Caperton has a right, without a special use permit', to put in one additional u~it. That would be two dwelling units on more than four acres and clearly within the density requirements o~ the A-1 zone. But, the question of haying three dwelling ~nits on less than six acres does increase the density. Mr. St. John asked to what extent the density is being increased. Mr. Fisher said by having three dwelling units on less than six acres, which is the normal criteria for th~ A-1 zone. ~ Mr. Carwile said for purposes of the record he would like to state that he views this special permit application as significantly different from the one which is presently under litigation with the County. Primarily, the Board is dealing with a situation where the dwelling is already in existence. The entire structure can be converted to a rental unit. It could all be converted to bedrooms. This application would give Mrs. Caperton some flexibility on how the building is ~ 5-28-75 (Night) 123 At this time, Mr. Thacker called for a vote on the motion and the motion carried by the Following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker and Wood.' NAYS:' Mr. Fisher. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. No. 8. Subdivision plat of William and Anne M. Carpenter, showing Parcels A and B, located at the intersection of State Routes 637 and 786 at Ivy. (Plat of R. O. Snow & Associates and dated May 8, 197~. ) Mr. Tucker said this property was rezoned RS-1 on July 24, 1974. The applicant is requesting a waiver Qf the 60,000 square foot requirement posed by subdivision regulations and also a waiver of a 25 foot dedication of right of way to the Virginia Department of-Highways. The Planning Commission recommends approval of both waivers. The Virginia Department of Highways has indicated that any improvement along Route 637 is a low priority. The staff did suggest to the Planning Commission that the southern portion could be waived, but not to waive that portion along the northern part of 637. Mr. Fisher asked if a plat was available showing where the structures~would be located. Tucker did not have such a plat. Mr. Mr. Joseph Richmond, Jr. was present to represent the applicant. He said this land was rezoned a yea~ ago. At that time, it was suitable for construction of an additional dwelling wi'th conversion of an existing garage into a dwelling house. Since that time, a contract has been entered into for sale of the existing house. The applicant intends to convert the garage into a house for himself and has drilled another well. He has spent a substantianl sum based on the rezoning~ approval. With respect to 637 as it extends from 250 west, the road has six or eight homes fronting on it, but most are less than 50 feet from the centerline of the road. To dedicate on the northern portion of 637, the front edge of the house would then be within 23 feet of the centerline and the porch would almost be on the road. He suggested~that it is improbable that 637 from Route 250 will ever be widened. With respect to 637 on the southern boundary of the property, this is the road that circles down by the old mill. He suggested that with the numerous proposals for relocating 637 it is highly improbable that it will stay in the present location and he did not feel any dedication would have an effect on this area. Mr. Richmond pointed out that this is a hardship case. Mr. Fisher said the lines sketched on the new plat do not agree with the plat previously presented to the Board. Mr. Tucker said the draftsman had sketched these~lin~es a~ the time~_a£--~the rezoning to be sure that two one-acre parcels are available. Since Mr. Fisher was not sure that the lots would meet the setback requirements on the sides, etc., and that the Board was not creating illegal lots, he offered motion to defer any action on this petition until a new plat could be presented to the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. No. 9. Thacker Construction Co. Request for review of conditions on ~ite plan on Route 29 N. (Mr. Thacker abstaining during discussion of the following matter. He turned the gavel over to Mr. Carwile.) Mr. Tucker said the applicants request for a review was made by letter to the Board. April 17, 1975, the Board had vo~ed to hear this appeal. On Mr. Joe Howell, Vice President, Thacker Construction was present representing the applicant. He said the Planning Commission had placed three conditions on approval of the site plan. Exception is taken to the condition calling for screening along the south~fen~e line. The tract is zoned M-2 and is completely surrounded by M-2. This~acreage was selected after checking regulations in the County's zoning ordinance because they felt they had the right to build adjacent to the south~line where the fencing has been required. This whole area is fairly well screened with trees. The nearest house is outside of this whole tract. The trailer court which is located in the area is screened and the Planning Commission recognized this. Mr. Howell said if the staff had looked at the tract they would have seen the trees. Mr. Tucker said the staff had looked at the tract. While there is screening there now, it is all hardwoods and in the winter there will be no screening. Mr. Howell said the owner of the house is not an adjacent property owner. Mr. Tucker said the staff is aware of this, but there is no screening between these properties. Mr. Carwile said he feels screening is for the protection of property owners in the area and not just the property owner who happens to be physically adjacent. Mr. Howell said by definition an M-2 district is to establish an area where the principal use of the land is for heavy commercial and industrial operations which may create some nuisance when not properly associated with and not particularly compatible with residential, institutional, mr neighborhood commercial service establishments. Mr. Howell said he interpreted the ordinance to mean that they could build to the south line without screening and he had tried to make this point at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission felt that if this property were all developed at one time or if the property just south of this were developed, there would be no need for screening. But, at this time, they do not know when it will be developed and thus required the scree~ning. Mr. Carwile asked if the screening was recommended by the Planning Commission or the staff. Mr. Tucker said it was brought out at the Planning Commission meeting that this parcel can be seen from the northbound lane of Route 29 N. Mr. Carwi!e said he would like to see the site before voting on this matter and requested that it be deferred. Motion to defer this matter until June tl, 1975, was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. ABSTAINING: Mr. Thacker. i24 5-2~-7~ (Nmgnvj No. 10. Request for the County to be the sponsoring agent for a Division of Justice and Crime Prevention grant. Mr. Batchelor said the County has received a request from Second Effort, Inc. to act as a local government sponsor for Second Effort in their request for Virginia Division of Justice an~ Crime Prevention grant funding. Second Effort is a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation working for reha- bilitation of exoffenders, primarily from State institutions. The program is an off-shoot of the National Jaycees' "Volunteers in Corrections" program and the National Jaycees has put up the matching funds required so that no funding is being requested from the County. The request for County sponsorship is necessitated by the fact that the grant funds must be given to a government unit and cannot be given directly to a volunteer agency such as Second Effort. D.J.C.P. has ranked the Second Effort program very highly and has given strong indication that it will be included in the State D.J.C.P. funding plan beginning in 1976. At that time, the State Department of Corrections will become the sponsoring government unit. However, it appears very likely that a $50,000 grant will be available to Second Effort this year through the local govern- ment part of the D.J.C.P. funding plan. They can only receive these funds if a local government will act as their sponsor. Albemarle County is being requested to serve in this capacity for one year because Second Effort President, Mr. Connie Crenshaw, is a County resident from Earlysville. Miss Page Godsey, Administrative Assistant, said sponsorship of the program will involve no direct cost to the County this year and Mr. Crenshaw states the organization's intention to never request any County funding. The County would act as a pass through for D.J.C.P. grant funds, passing the funds through in lump sums and not performing accounts payable or bookkeeping functions for the organization. Acting as sponsor does make the County legally responsible for assuming that the funds are spent as stipulated in the grant control The County is the legal contracting agency with D.J.C.P. and then the County subcontracts with Second Effort. The D.J.C.P. staff has stated that, in practice, they would conduct performance audits directly with Second Effort. Mr. Batchelor said that after talking with Mr. Crenshaw and with the staff of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and the D.J.C.P., he would recommend that the Board agree to serve as a sponsor for Second Effort in this grant request for one year. Mr. Crenshaw is an accountant and it is felt that he and the Board of Directors will conduct the program in a professional, fiscally responsible manner. Mr. Batchelor further recommended that the Board of Supervisors set a policy of accepting such sponsorships for grants only in cases where the County is not expected to conduct performance audits, where the program is deemed valuable by the Board of Supervisors, where the program organization is considered to have the expertise available for effective and fiscally responsible operations, and the organization has stated that it will not later request County funding. Mr. John Crenshaw, President, and and Mr. Don Sandridge, Treasurer, of Second Effort were present and made brief remarks. Also present was Mr. Sam Pruitt, D.J.C.P. Planner with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Mr. Carwile asked if the County Attorney's Office has investigated the County's legal responsi- bilities. Mr. Batchelor said no, but the staff has talked to the County's auditors. Mr. Fisher asked if this would be audited by the County's auditors each year as part of the County's funds. Mr. Batchelor said yes. They will be audited as funds being received and disbursed; only a two-part audit. The County will not have to audit the books of Second Effort, what they do and how they do it. Mr. Fisher said if the County is legally responsible and something goes wrong,~are the County taxpayers then liable for any deficit that may occur. Miss Godsey said the County is held responsible by D.J.C.P. Mr. Fisher suggested that the County Attorney check this. Mr. Pruitt said the County would sign a contract with D.J.C.P. and Second Effort will sign a contract with the County. Mr. Thacker asked if this protram is an overlap of the operations of the Offender Aid and Restoratioh group. Mr. Crenshaw said the two organizations work together. Second Effort is a statewide organization. Offender Aid and Restoration is only in six communities in the state. Motion was then offered by Mr. Carwile to defer any action on this matter until 7:30 P.M. on June 11, 1975, at which time a report is expected from the County Attorney. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwi!e, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. No. 11. Recodification in editing of Albemarle County Code. Mr. St. John said the County Code has become almost unenforcable because certain sections are in conflict with other sections and some sections are now obsolete. Michie City Publications Company now furnishes to the County each year a printing service for any additions to the Code, however, if the Code is recodified, and edited, they will bring all differences to the attention of the Board and make suggestions on how to reconcile these differences. Mr. St. John said they have agreed to do this work and furnished two prices as follows: Letterpress process. Base price for the entire project - $5,000, if the Code does not exceed 250 pages. For each page over 250, a price of $17.50 per page. Multilith process. Base price for the entire project - $4,200, if the Code does not exceed 250 pages. For each page over 250, a price of $16.00 per page. After a short discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher, to approve this request; the Code to be printed by Multilith process. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: .Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. ABSTAINING: Mr. Wood. No. 12a. Appointment: Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to appoint Mr. John L. Spencer, a plant engineer at Stromberg-Carlson Corporation to ........... ~ ~- ~ w m~n~. s~id term to ex~ire of April 16, 1977. The 5-28~75 (Night) 125 motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT:- Mr. Wheeler~ No. 12b. Appointment: Charlottesville Area Transportation Restudy, Technical Committee amd Policy Committee. Ordered carried over to June 11, 1975. No. 12c. Appointment: to June 11, 1975. Jefferson Madison Regional Library Board of Directors. Ordered carried over No. 13. Resolution: Milton Road. The following communication from Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, was entered for the record: "May 19, 1975 "I have researched the problem of whether a discontinuance for maintenance of Milton Road by the Highway Department will occasion a reversion of the public way to the adjacent property owners. The cases on this subject are in direct conflict. The most recent case on this subject, Louisa County v. VEPCO, 213 Va. 407 (1972), involving the abandonment of a bridge, quotes an earlier case to the effect that either dis- continuance or abandonment of a road in the State Highway System which is a mere right of way destroys it as a public road. However, another relatively recent case, Ord v. Fugate, 207 Va. 752 (1967), draws a sharp distinction between discontinuance and abandonment with regard to its effect on the continuing existence of the road as a public right of way. The Ord case holds that mere discontinuance as opposed to abandonment, will not serve to destroy a road, even a mere r±ght of way, as a public way. "It would appear that the conflict between these two cases arises as a result of an overly broad reading of the earlier case of Bond v. Green, 189 Va. 23 (1940). This case, which holds no distinction between abandonment and discontinuance, appears to have been ~verruled by a comprehensive amendment to the highway statutes effective in 1950. See Ord v. Fugate, supra. This statutory change seems to have changed the common law principles upon which the Bond case was f6unded. "it is my opinion that the Ord case must be deemed to be controlling in this case since it is both more nearly on point and better reasoned in light of existing law. For this reason, I believe that the above captioned road may be discontinued as a part of the State Highway System without destroying it as~ a public way." Mr. St. John said there is no way to predict how the Supr/eme Court will reason'and normally you go by the latest case. The Ord case is still in effect and th'e facts of the later case are different. He felt the Cou~t did not mean to do away with the County's right to discontinue~use of any highway. Mr. Henley then offered motion to adopt the following resolution': BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways be, and hereby is, requested to discontinue maintenance of a portion of O~d State Route 729, lying on the easterly side of the Rivanna River between the centerline thereof and the newly constructed portion of State Route 729, being further described as that portion of Old State Route 729 lying between Station 30+00 and Station 43+50 on the records of the Virginia Department of Highways, but that such road be continued as a public road. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. Claims against the County in the amount of $1,624,968.62 were presented, examined and allowed and certified to the Director of Finance and charged against t~e following funds: General Fund General Operating Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund Textbook Fund General Operating-Capital Outlay Fund School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Commonwealth of Virginia (Current Credit Account) Town of Scottsville (1% Local Sales Tax) Total 369.79 321,228.71 894,087.50 33,158.68 1,053.45 5,885.63 239,280.56 34,445.94 95,265.08 193.28 $ 1,'6'24,'968.'6~ Mr. Thacker said the Board needed to set a date for a workshop session on the Site Plan __ Development Ordinance. Mr. Carwile offered motion to set this workshop for 4:00 P.M. on June 11, 1975, and to adjourn this meeting until that time. The motion wa-s seconded by Mr. Wood. Mr. Fisher said before the Board adjourned he would like to formally request that the Board hold a meeting next week to deal wi~h a personnel matter. He suggested Tuesday or Wednesday at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Thacker said there was already a motion on the floor. Mr. Wood said he could not meet any day next week. Mr. Fisher said he would like to remind the Board that he had requested on May 6 that this meeting be held as soon as possible. That is three weeks ago today and he would suggest that a time be found on which the Board can meev. Mr. Thacker suggested that since there was already a motion on the floor that'a substitute motion was in order. ~.- ~~ ~ '' ' !26 5-28-75 (Ni6ht) 6-4-75 (Day) Mr. Wood said the Board already has a regular meeting scheduled for June i1 and it is a light agenda and he did not see why this matter could not be taken care of at that meeting. Mr. Carwile asked the urgency of having the meeting next week. Mr. Fisher said the urgency is because the matter is one on which the Board may possibly reach a tie vote and the term'of the appointed tie- breaker expires on June 8. Mr. Carwile said he felt this statement was presumptuous. Mr. Wood said he felt all Board members should play by the same rules and whether a tie-breaker is needed or not, he felt the matter could be taken care of on the !lth. Mr. Henley said he could see no importance in having the tie-breaker but he could meet next week. Mr. Wood said the Board has',been meeting a lot and his business is the greatest at the end of the school year and he could see no reason why this matter could not be taken care of at a regular night meeting. Mr. Fisher said he will have requested this meeting four weeks ago n'ext Wednesday. The Board has not found time to meet in those four weeks. Mr. Carwile said he recalled receiving a letter, but did not remember any discussion on the matter. He did not think it is a matter which the Board should hide from by not meeting, but did not see the urgency of suddenly meeting to discuss it. Mr. Carwile said he was willing to discuss it at this moment. Mr. Wood said he would also discuss it now, and vote on it now, if Mr. Fisher so desired. Mr. Fisher requested that the role be called (11:00 P.M.) and the substitute motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher and Henley. NAYS: Mr. Thacker (He said he was concerned that Mr. Wood had stated he could not be present and he felt the matter was one which required attendance of the entire Board) and Mr. Wood (He said it would be very difficult for him to be present). ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. Chairman 6-4-75 (Afternoon) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vir.ginia, was held on June 4, 1975, at 4:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from May 28, 1975. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Ab sent: None. Officers present: County Executive, T. M. Batchelor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. St. John. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 4:15 P.M. and Mr. Fisher was recognized. He read the following prepared statement: Gentlemen of the Board: When I wrote to you a month ago requesting this meeting, I stated that I was asking for a vote on the question of the Board's confidence in the County Executive, without the need for charges or defense. However, since that time I have realized that any vote on this issue demands a reason in order to be fair to Mr. Batchelor, to the Board and to the citizens of the County. For this reason, I have prepared a statement as to the reasons why I think a change must be made. i request your indulgence for a few minutes. As an introduction, I-want to state that my decision to seek to replace Mr. Batchelor as County Executive was made three years ago in June of 1972. I had spent six months on the Board, attempting to work with Mr. Batchelor, and trying, along with other members of the Board, to advise him about ways in which he could more effectively perform his job. However, after a continuous stream of reports from private citizens about the arrogance with which they had been treated by Mr. Batchelor, after several instances of seemingly lax enforcement of County ordinances (where no real responsibility could be placed), after repeated crisis Board decisions because the County Executive had not been able to plan ahead well enough to inform the Board of impending actions before the deadline was at hand, I decided that this was no way to run a government. At the time of that decision, I polled the Board to see if other members felt a change should be made. At least one reason given for staying with Mr. Batchelor at that time was that an annexation suit was in process, and it was no time to change. In 1973, the question was again raised, but a majority of the Board again felt that no change was necessary. In early 1974, the special grand jury was in session and the question wasn't raised. However, after Mr. Batche!or's trial and conviction, I informed you that ! thought the public's confidence in Mr. Batchelor could never be restored, that he was mortally wounded. The Board felt that he should be given a chance to find a job and some felt that the Board's support would help him find employment. ! was convinced by that argument and others to vote for an endorsement with which I was uncomfortable at the time, still trying to be absolutely fair to the man. After that vote, a number of events have occurred which have led me to believe that no constructive changes have resulted from the scrutiny and criticism of the past few years; some examples follow. In October and November of 1974, the Board went through an extraordinary series of difficulties regarding the adoption of a pay and classification plan, as mandated by State law. Two plans were presented as recommendations of the County Executive. Finally, the Board, in executive session, arrived at a compromise with which there was no Board disagreement. Then a day or two before a scheduled vote on that plan, Mr. Batchelor sent us, for no apparent reason, a proposal four, with no fiscal impact summary attached. The summary, provided at the time of the scheduled vote~ indicated that his new recommendation (his third) would only cost $5,474 more, yet would in ........... ~ ~ ~o~ was deferred again, and it was