Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-10-01330 9-24-75 10-1-75 Cafeteria-Fund Textbook Fund General Operating-~apit~ Outlay Fund School Opera, ting-Capital Outlay Fund (Construction) Joint Security Complex Fund Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account Town of Scottsville (1% local sales tax) Total $ ~0~ 10,135.95 250.00 308,691.92 39,284.26 1,142.40 84.56 $1,525,168.~2 At 9:45 P.M. motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood, to adjourn this meeting to October 1, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. The motion ~carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheele~r and' Wood. None. Chairman t0-i-75 An adjourned~meeting of the Boardof Supervisors_ of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 1, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 24, 1975. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Ger~ald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. (Mr. Wood arriving at 7:45 P.M.). Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, J. Harvey Bailey; County Attorney, George R. St. John; Deputy County Attorney, FrederickPayne; and Assistant County Planner, _Robert Tucker. No. 1. Continuation of public hearing ,on Section 15-6.1 of the Albemarle County Code to be known as "Removal of Trash, etc. from property .when same might endanger thehealth or-safety of other residents of the County.'! Public hearing continued from~September 24, 1975. Mr. Hartwell Clarke, Zoning Administrator, was present, to answer questions, of the Board. Mr. Fisher said since the last meeting it has come to the .attention ~of the Board that there is a provision in the Fire Prevention Code that speaks to accumulation of waste, paper, wood, hay, straw, weeds, litter or combustible or. flammable wastes or rubbish of any kind. This section states that storage shall not produce conditions which in the opinion and judgment of the Fire Official will create a nuisance or hazard to the public health, safety and/or welfare. .He asked if this section covers the kind of problems that Mr. Clarke has recently encountered. Mr. Clarke said the Fire Marshal does not have.an inspector on his staff to help e~force this section. If this section were used., the Fire Marshal would have to make a determination And then be a witness in court. Mr. Fisher said this section does give the Fire Marshal the~power to determine what creates a. nuisance~or a hazard to the public health and it does define rubbish of any kind, and seems to cover the matter under.discussion. Mr. Clarke said that was true and a lot of the complaints received~by his office are for eyesores rather than matters relating to health and safety. Mr. Fisher said both the ordinance under discussion and the Fire Code were written to deal with public safety, but neither was writtento cover visual problems. The only difference in the two ordinances is the fact that they are enforced by different departments of the C6unty. Mr. Bailey said he had discussed this. problem .with Dr. George Moore.~of the Health Department. Dr. Moore said at one time he had an offender brought in and .forced to close an Open dump that he was operating. The neighbors who made complaints~were as concerned with the appearance of the yard aswith the health.hazard. Certifying trash as a fire hazard may be easiem to enforce than certifying trash as a.health~hazard~. Mr. Bailey asked if the zoning inspectors could be empowered to act for the Fire Marshal in this_matter~.however, remarked that he did not know if the inspector's "judgment" could be substituted for_that of the Fire Marshal. ~ Mr. Fisher said both ordinances seem to deal with the same problem~on the basis of public health, although neither is designedto havea citizens yard cleaned up according to some other citizens taste. Mr. Bailey noted that the. City of Charlottesville does police vacant properties. Mr. Henley said he did not think the County can go that far. Mr. Thacker said the ordinance considered,by the Boardon September 24 stated that the County Executive or his designated agent madedeterminations under the' ordinance~ The ordinance~has been redrafted to state that the governing body,makes this determination. Mr. Wheeler said the governing body will still need someone to act in its behalf. Mr.~ Thacker said he felt this redraft would eliminate the possibility of complaints from citizens, getting out of hand. He is concerned about who actually decides what endangers the health ,or safetyof the residents of the County~and asked Mr. Clarke ifthis would give his office any problems. Mr,. Clarke said most complaints received by his office are from people who find people dumping trash rather than~taking the trash to the County landfill. Mr. Carwile said the~ordinance under discussion will give the County a mechanism whereby a property owner can be put on notice that if the trash,~etc, is not removed within 10 days that the County will cause this to be done. and charge thatexpense to the property owner. The Fire Prevention Code states that~"if the notice of violation, is not complied with within the time'specified by the fire official,- he sh~ll request the legal counsel in the jurisdiction to institute the ~-~ appropriate legal proceedings to restrain, correct, or abate~such.violation which will require ~ removal or termination of'any~nt~wf~t~use of the building .or structure in violation of the provisions of this code or of any order or direction made pursuant thereto." Mr. Carwile said the proposed ordinance provides a more workable procedure fo~ correcting such violations in the County. ~ Mr. Henley said he still could not support the proposed ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he would prefer trying enforcement under the Fire Prevention Code before adopting what seems to be a parallel ordinance.~ 13. Mr. Carwile then offered motion to adopt the ordinance as set out on Page 326, Minute Book The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. Clarke if the zoning inspectors had ever encountered problems which were reported to the Fire Marshal for his review and action. Mr. Clarke said his office, to this date, has mostly answered complaints. His inspectors have not specifically looked for trash piles. If a citizen complains, they do investigate. Mr. Thacker again asked if there had been any attempt to prosecute under the Fire Prevention Code. Mr.. Clarke said no. Mr. Thacker said he has reser- vations about adopting another ordinance when all remedies have not been exhausted under/~Risting ordinance. -~ Mr. Carwile then amended his motion to adoption of the redrafted ordinancewith changes as follo~s:"~Take out beginning of second sentence reading "The County Executive, or his designated agent, shall, upon~.complaint of any citizen that a violation of this ordinance exists," and sub- stitute the following: "The governing body may, whenever it deems ~necessary,..." Change third sentence from: ~If such violation be not so abated within ten (10) days after the receipt of such notice, the County Executive, or his designated agent..., to "If such violation be not so abated within ten (10) days after the receipt of such notice, the governing body shall..." Mr. Carwile said this wouldin effect allow the governing body to make the determination. State .enabling legislation requires that this be. the governing body and the ~governing body does not have the right to delegate this responsibility to the County Executive. Mr. Thacker then~offered a substitute motion to defer action on this~ ordinance until the County staff has timeto attempt correction of the problem under the existing ordinance. Mr. Wood said he could not support the substitute motion. The substitute did not receive a second. The vote ~m~the .amended motion was as follows: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, _Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Thacker~ Mr. Wheeler said the motion did not carry and the County would use the existing ordinance. No. 2. Public Hearing- Section 10-18 of the Albemarle County Code '.'Ordinance for Regulation of Burning of Leaves." Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1975. Mr. Fisher read the proposed ordinance into the record: PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR REGULATION OF BURNING OF LEAVES, CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE IV, ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 10-18:, DISPOSAL OF LEAVES BY BURNING The disposal, by open burning, of leaves originating on private property and burned on those premises shall be lawful during the period October 1st to May 15th provided that: (a) No fire i's built within twenty-five (25) feet of any structure, within five (5) feet of an adjoining property line, nor on any highway right-of-way; (b) (c) Such burning is done between 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M, and all embers ar~e totally extinguished ac. the end of this period; Only leaves are burned and they are dry enough to burn without smoldering; (d) The leaves are burnedin reasonably small piles so as to minimize smoke and danger from fire getting out of control; (e) The fire is attended at all times; (f) No flammable, liquid or combustible solids, other than leaves, are used in the fi=e; (g) ~Water and tools for control of the fire are available and on'hand at the site of the fire. SECTION 10-19: CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS BURNING ~Every person who shall burn leaves as permitted by this ordinance shall do so at his own risk and shall be liable for damage caused by any fire which escapes, or gets out ,of control. SECTION 10-20: AUTHORITY OF COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL (a) The County Fire Marsh~al shall, have authority to suspend this ordinance and ban all open burnin, g during excessive drought or dry spells or for reasons of prevailing atmospheric conditions. (b) Notice of such suspension shall be communicated promptly to all local radio and television stations and daily newspapers. SECTION 10-21: PETITIONS TO BAN BURNING IN DESIGNATED AREAS residentsof any subdivision or other clearly defined area in the county The/may petition ~he County Board of Supervisors to enact supplementary ordinances banning all open burning of leaves in such.area. SECTION 10-22: VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE Any person who shall violate the terms of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shallbe punished accordingly. SECTION 10-23: APPLICABILITY. OF OTHER STATUTES (a) Du~ing the ~eriod March 1st to May 15th, the provisions of this 332 10-1-75 -(b) During the period May. 16th to September 30th, all.open burning of leaves shall be subject to .the regulations of the. State Air Pollution Cpntrp~ Board (c) Nothing~in this ordinance shall beconstrued to permit the burning of household garbage or any other materials except in accordance with this ordinance or the regulations of the State Air Pollution Control Board. SECTION 10-24. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon enactment. Mrs. ~palD~id, Chairman of the~Leaf Burning Committee, was present. She said the report presented by this committee was not. intended to endorse or encourage open-burning in close areas. Their study makes' clear that~burning in such areas produces smoke densities which cause discomfort to people with respiratory problems and has several ~other nuisance aspects'.~ The' report 'also states that citizens who burn leaves have an obligation to act reasonably and with due consideration toward their neighbors~ Mr. Wood said.this ordina~ce.is~ very.similar.to the one adopted .by the Board as a temporaryg measures year ago. He asked if the committee now has,reservations about such an ordinance. Mrs. David said no, not as long as the County has no~leaf, collectionservice and there is no possibility, of working out such an arrangement with the City. No one else from the public spoke for or against the ordinance and Mr. Wheeler declared the public, hearing closed. Mr. Wood thank the-committee for their work and then offered motion to adopt the ordinance as. read. Mr.. Fisher gave second and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Ca~4ile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. No. 3. Discussion of the proposed zoning, ordinance, and.map with membersof the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Mr. David Carr,. Chairman, Planning Commission, was present. He said the..discussio.n should begin with a report fr. om Mr.. John. Humphrey, County Planner,. with reference to.the Comprehensive Plan, and how the, Planning Commission feels the ordinance as presented.does meet or exceed objectives set out in that Plan. He said this seems to be the most. critized aspect.of the proposed zoning ordinance and. map. Mr. Humphrey read from a Planning Staff analysis of the Comprehensive Plan, dated September 26, 1975, as related to the proposed Zoning Ordinance. On page 53 of the Comprehensive Plan under"Goals" it states that the. Comprehensive Plan, being an instrument to guide future ~growth, must'be structured on the premises.of achieving certain long range development goals. The Plan recommends that Albemarle County endeavor to accomplish the following general goals: 1. Provide a suitable .living environment for-the present and future population of the .County of Albemarle. To establish.balanced.communities with provisions for adequate employment and service facilities. Provide housing to.match the various needs and income levels~of the~County's present and future population.~ 4. Respect conservation values, including the. preservation of stream valleys, mountain slopes, watersheds and other open space.areas. Respect the stated values, including the preservation of historic sites and buildings representing period.~architecture. Provide for orderly development consistent with good land use practices' and availability of public and semi-public facilities. To assist in.arriving, at these goals and subsequent obj.ectives and. policies, the consultant submitted along with:the Comprehensive Plan~certaintools of implementation; a revised subdivision ordinance, a new site plan ordinance and a revised zoning ordinance. The County, as of this date,, has adopted arevised .subdivision ordinance which: in many respects exceeds the consultant's proposal.:7%~he County has adopted a good site plan ordinance which takes into. consideration, many of the subsequent objectives and policies, stated in the Comprehensive Plan. I would note that prior.~-.to the adoption of the site plan ordinance, the County had no basic site plan control. Now the Board isconsidering adoption of the Zoning Ordinance as suggested by the consultant. To meet the goals-and .objectives and policies of the Comprehensive.P!an developed by the consultant, the consultant, submitted a document proposing the following types of zones: 1. Cens.e~a~ion District (CVN), minimum lot size five (5) acres. For uses permitted by right see addendum #1. 2. Agricultural District (AGR), one dwelling unit per two acres. These were the zones suggested.by the consultant to be in.keeping with the Master Plan and to arrive at the plans general objectives which were: 1. As the County's population grows, development should be cluster.ed in several communities along main transportation, arteries and in smaller villages throughout the County instead of r '' . allowing development to "sprawl outwa d from Charlottesville 2. Agricultural land should be. located in areas whose soil and terrain are most conducive 10-1-75 333 3~. Conservation lands shouldbedesignated in areas of poor soil, rugged terrain, those prone to_flooding, and the watersheds of public water supply impoundments. Conservation lands should be designated for areas where natural scenic vistas are deserving of protection. In adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, certain amendments were made by the County after public input with reference~to agricultural and conservation· objectives. These are spelled out on Page VIII of the addendum sectionof the.~Comprehensive Plan. Those amendments were as follows: I. Include, beginning on page 79 of this Plan, two new objectives to read as follows: A. Agricultural Objective Agricultural lands are designed primarily to accommodate farming and kindred rural occupations. While the basic aim is to preserve and promote this utilizati°'~df~lhe land, the uses permitted are broad enough to allow development of residential areas or it is recognized that certain desirable rural areas may logically be expected to develop in this.manner.. It is the intent, however, to discourage the random scattering, of residential, commercial, or industrial uses in. agricultural districts. (This system of course affects, and provisions were made for, clustering subdivisions, PUD's, and residential planned neighborhoods. If large lot develop~%~.c~ ments were to take place, you would entice those developers and land owners to use that approach~which would provide open space and eliminate the standard subdivisions which can cause the sprawl spoken to previously. Respect the~values and objectives of forestry anR agriculture as an employment~base and as a means of defining and containing urban communities, while guaranteeing the 7preservation of open landwhieh establishes the character and beauty of Albemarle County. In order to effectively implement the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to agriculture, a model ordinance for "special assessments" of agricultural, forest, and horticultural lands should be adopted as soon as feasible. (The County has adopted such~an ordinance. II. Agricultural lands should.be located in areas whose soils and terrain are most conducive to such activity and the maintenance of such land shall be encouraged. (The Commission did use the basicinformation~available in the initial proposed zoning map~ Even after public hearings, we feel that the proposed map meets those objectives.) Conservation Objectives Conservation areas should be used to preserve the natural resources and agricultural~activity of the County, including the natural scenzc, and.historic beauty of the County. These areas should be protected from commercial, industrial and intensive residential development. Conservation areas should be classified according to their natural ~so~,~es, scenic,~and/or historic value and appro- priate controls should be provided to encourage use and pre- servation of these areas. Respect conservation values, including the preservation of stream valleys,mo~untain slopes, watersheds, areas of scenic and natural beauty, and other open space areas. Conservation lands should be designated in areas of poor soil, rugged terrain, those prone to flooding and the watersheds of public water supply impoundments. Conservation lands should be designated for areas, where natural scenic vistas are deser- ving of protection. In order to effectively implement the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to these conservation objectives, a model ordinance for "special assessments" of conservation areas should be adopted as soon as possible. (I do not know if we have the authority to do this under State enabling legislation. I believe that much of this has been accomplished through the present "Land Use.Ordinance', which does take into consideration forest and agriculturalendeavors. We agree that much work needs ·to be done before having a true land use tax in the State of Virginia in order to make a comprehensive plan effective or any zoning ordinance effective.) Include the following statements or additional items to the section of "goals" as found on page 53 of this written text. Respect the values and objectives of forestry and ag iculture as an employment base. In order to effectively implement the Comprehensive Plan, the forthcoming revised subdivision control,, siltation control, and zoning ordinances, the new site development plan control ordinance, and a model ordinance for "special assess- ments":of agriculture, forestry, horticulture, or open space real estate should be adopted respectively, without delay. (TheZoning Ordinance is the only < ordinance not. adopted at this time.) 334 - i0-i-75 In the Commission's review of the zoning ordinance, as submitted by the~consultant,~-it was ascertained that it did not go far enough to meet the objectives and the needs of Albemarle County. Therefore, the first proposed zoning ordinance and map were revised. Those revisions included: 1.. 2. 3. 4. A ten (t0) acre agricultural zone. A five (5) acre agricultural zone. A five (5) acre' conservation-zone. A one and one-half (1 1/2) acre residential zone. The first three zones have the objectives of preserving and conserving the amenities of Albe- marle County which includes the agricultural endeavors, the steep slopes, the natural amenities and the_~flood plain. The latter zone, the one and one-half area zone, has the objective of actually seeing the. beginning~of the village cluster. These new zones were applied to the map, based upon available~material and factswith reference to the topography and soil capability. As we are all aware, during the courseof the numerous pUblic hearing held by the Commission, this~approach to zoning of land in the outlying and rural areas was not acceptable for the following~reasons: Land owners did not like the term conservation or misunderstood the objectives of the zone. TheagricUltural zone designated AL, by virtue of its description, indicated to many property owners that their land-was something less than good. This was of course not true. Many property owners receiving the ten acre designation did not want this minimum lot size.imposed on their land even though the majority of that land is being used in agricultural endeavors. In the ryes of these property owners, therewere many reasons for not having the ten acre zone. The rural residential zone, as originally proposed, and its one and one-half acre lot size. The property owners who found this type of category on their property were con- cerned that the agricultural aspects that they were previously afforded under the existing A, 1 were not now permitted, or if permitted, were permitted only on a minimum.of ten acres. In summary, the input received by the Commission from the public during their work sessions and the public hearing~, indicated thatsome rearrangement and reconsideration of this category of zoning should be accomplished. The revamping of the above groupings of zoning districtsresulted in the following: The ten acre zoning district was to be retained on the book, but not to be applied to the map unless requested by a property owner. This arrangement has provided for approximae~y 10,000 acres being indicated on the proposed map under the ten acre zone as of this date. (We have other-.communications on file indicating that others want this type of zone.) What was formerly known as the old agricultural limited five-acre zone and the conservation zone, with it's five-acre minimum lot size, were made'into one'zone with the intent of the two previous zones being incorporated into one.~ This worked out fine becausethere was only a minute differencebetween the intent or the usage% whenthe two zones are compared. Keep in mind that the objective of the Comprehensive Plan was to conserve and maintain not only our nautral amenities, but the agricultural endeavor. I must note here that I and many of theCommission members felt that Albemarle County's natural amenities and natural resources inclUde this agricultural endeavor, as does the Comprehensive Plan. e A good portion of the formerly proposed AL zoning on the map became what is now the Agricultural 2-acre zone. This happened as a result of public input as noted above and in item 4. That public input being that they did not want the large lot zoning, but wanted the agricultural aspects, in other words, the~y desired the status quo. It was then decided to eliminate the one and one-half acre density in the rural residential and establish a two-acre minimum lot size, but still maintain AGR-2, and with Commission approval of some of this reduction in therural area, the residential zone. occurred. It should be said that we did receive numerous requests from-property owners who had originally been designated ~for two acre zones, for five acre zones, and in some cases, ten acre zones. These requests~were~honored, placed on the map and the staff given authority to straighten the' lines in Order to make them uniform where it seemed appropriate. This resulted in.the proposed map and the 1.arger lot zoning as shown on the proposed map before the Board at this time. It appears that one of the key issues presented to the Board of Supervisors at their public hearing was that the Comprehensive Plan had not been met by virtue of there being no zone entitled conservation. I believewe have a problem with semantics and it is the opinion of the Commission and the staff that conservation does exist within the proposed agricultural five zone and. that this zone meets the goals and objectives outlined and presented in the .Comprehensive Plan. The intent andpurpose, stipulated in the ordinance as proposed reads as follows: "This district is designed to serve the dual purpose, of accommodating farming and kindred.rural occupations and the preservation and conservation of land being not suitable for intensive development." "Relationship to farming and .kindred rural occupations. The intent is to establish large parcels of land designated for permanent uses in agricultural and agriculturally related functions on land which has been determined to have soils highly productive for such uses. Regarding conservation, it is the intent of this district to preserve those areas of rugged terrain, those prone to floOding, those having poor drainage soils, and where development should be held~to a minimum for resource protection. It is the further intent of this district,to discourage the random scattering of land uses which require~public facilities,, such as roads, schools and emergency services to a greater extent than is generally available in areas rural in character and.topromote and preserve those aesthetic values, natural resources and environmental~amenitiesassociated with such areas." 335 Members.of the Board, the. majority of input that the Commission had at their~ public hearings and work sessions, from pr~operty owners designated CVN, was that,thereshouid not be a conservation zone per se. However, it appears that the Board received different comments at, their one public hearing. The Commission is inagreement that .it is a matter ~of semantics regarding the meaning of this district and are open for directions regarding its disposition. Statements have been made that the_clusters have been lost on the proposed zoning map. I submit that. them still'exist to the extent that they were proposed under the Comprehensive Plan. The .Compre- hensive Plan, while delineating general areas, did not indicate that they should be zoned immediately for such densities as R-2, R-3 or RTM, etc., but were to develop, as services became available or where planned for. The .concept is still there, however, it is not delineated, generally by color as it was on the originally proposed map with the one and~one-half acre density. It was not indicated in the zoning ordinancesubmitted..hy the. consultant to assist in implementation of the Compreh~sive Plan.. This Plan suggests, and implies that the clusters remain agricultural under two-acre density until such time as the services and theneeds exist. Getting back a moment to, the. conservation district, if it is to be a true conservation district, then. it is my opinionJthe drafting of such a conservation district should go well beyond what was proposed by the consultant and the rlanning Commission in that it would be drafted witk noresidential development at all, or residential development with rather larg tracts of land-such as fifty acres. (The Planning Commission discussed this and felt it could be called arbitrary and capricious.) Then it could truly be a conservation zone meeting the objectives. The. Commissionwrestled. with this large lot zoning during many work sessions with the assistance of the County Attorney's Office and with Rosser Payne and it was the conclusion that it was doubtful whether it could hold up in. court unless itcoutd be proven without a doubt that it was not "exclusionary zoning" and hada sound basis for its establishment. I think the Commission, the staff and many of the general public~ will-agree that if the.zoning map does not meet the Comprehensive Plan map, then it is zn the urban cluster. The original proposed zoning map presented to the Planning Commission by the staff, and as requested by the Planning Commission indicated a major reduction in.intensities of many parcels of land as it related to land use in this area;, The greatest objection-to down, zoning and the greatest support for. down-zoning came with reference, to this area. The Commission spent numerous hours in work sessions with the County Attorney's Office and~indiVidual property owners regarding this matter. Based upon information available to them, the majority of the Commission felt that wholesale~down-zoning.could not be consummated in this area., However, some lessening of the intensity of land use did hold up to this point. There are still other properties yet to be considered by the Board of Supervisors. I also draw your attention to the community, neighborhood, village, residential, commercial and industrial objectives which commence on page 54. of the Comprehensive Plan :which are basically outlined and are objectives for fulfillment to be written as part of the .text. With reference to the drafing of the proposed ordinance, and here I.~speak to ~hewritten section of the ordinance, the Commission has received input from the conSultant charged with the. original drafting, the County Attorney's Office, the Michie Publishing Company, the Planning staff, theEngineer- ing staff, the Building and Zoning Official, the general public, and individual property owners, It is the opinion of the staff and t~he Commiasi6n, that subject to final editing by the~legal,authority, in cooperation with the MiChie Company, that the baslic ordinance meets the needs of the general publicat this time and parallels the guidelines and objectives' and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as adopted. .... Mr. Wheeler thanked Mr. Humphrey stating that this was a good.report He said that. since the Board's public hearing, he has had time to reflect on comments made that night and a chance to talk with some~citizens in the County on just what procedure the Board should follow in adopting the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map He said that the decision must be made by the elected officials and input is not going to get the decision made. Mr. Wheeler said he feels confident that this Board can take the.ordinance and within 60 or 90 days come up with an ordinance that will be satisfactory, beneficial and good for the citizens of the County.. If this Board decides not to pursue the-issue any further, the new Board cs~hould be able to complete work on the ordinance in the year 1976. He then asked for comments from other Board members. Mr. Carwile said the Board must show the citizens~of the County that they can make the decision which is best for the County, but he~S,,~n~t sure the. ordinance could be adopted during 1975. He said the Board would be neglecting-their duty if they ignored theissue and didnothing,. He sug- gested that the Board continue .work on revising the ordinance. Mr. Wood said thePlanning Commission has been Working on the ordinance for three years, If the Board does not continue'to work on the ordinance they have done an injustice to 'the citizens of the County, The Plannin:g Commission has gone beyond the duty of any citizen .serving on such a com- mission to arrive at an ordinance text which is in compliance with the master plan.. If the cluster concept isof concern to people, that was almost taken care of when the.Subdivision Ordinance was adopted. Until there are utilities available, those clusters will not begin to develop~ Mr. Wood said that just because it is an election year, the Board should not pass their responsibilities onto a new Board.. He urged the Board to proceed with.work sessions and public hearings on the ordinance. Mr. Thacker said .that in spite of what Mr. Humphrey has said, he._ feels there .are still some discrepancies between the Comprehensive Plan and th~ ordinance and the. Boardwould be remiss is they did not proceed to correct thbse discrepancies. Mr. Fisher said he could not believe this was the same Board that met two or three-weeks ago. At that time, he had volunteered to go into work seSsions.to .try to work out the.problema in the ordinance. Mr. Car.r had made a strong speech about the major policydecisions which.had,to be made and Mr. Cart had said he didnot think this Board could make those decision. On that date, Mr. Wheeler had recommended that the Comprehensive Plan .be. reviewed first and then the ordinance adopted. The citizens .are not'asking that the Board adopt the ordinance, but rather that they proceedcarefully. Mrs. Fisher said he.is willing to work. on the ordinance, but did not think the Board could take action on the ordinance byDecember. Mr. Henley said he also is willing to work on theordinance because there are things .in ~the ordinance which he does not consider are right. He said the or-dinance ~is greatly misunderstood by the general citizenry. Mr. Wheeler said he has found that. citizens, in his district and other.districts of the County feel that this Boardshould proceed to work on the ordinance. He .said .that~puhlic hearings will not bring this ordinance to its final passage Whether or not. this Boardwants to work on the ordinance, 10-1-75 336 Albemarle High School.. He suggested that three members of the Board, Mr~ Humphrey and Mr. Cart work on the ordinance for the next.~30.days and try to pinpoint the problemareas. Mr.. Carwile asked if he were talking .about the~text.of the~ordinance or themap. Mr. Wheeler said he was talking about the text of the ordinance. The Board also has a folder of lO0 to 1.50 letters from property owners who have complained about their designation. He said. the~Board will have to.answer those letters even~ tually, but he felt the.ordinance should be.adopted first. Mr.. Healey said he feels the Board Will still have to conduct._additional.publichearings. Wheeler said. that may.,be correct, but.at the present time. the six members .of theBoard will not accept the ordinance presented to them. The Boardshould.come.to an. agreement on the.~ordinance before asking for further citizen comments. Mr. Mr. Fisher said he did not believe the Board can officially adopt a zoning ordinance.that has zones which ~e different from those shown~ on the adopted map. He asked if the map and~o, rdinance .did not have to/~opted concurrently~ Mr. Carwile~said. they must be adopted at the same time,.but the text of the ordinance should be addressed first. Mr. Wheeler said he did not feel it is necessary for the entire. Board to attend these work sessions. He said within 30 days a committee should be able to present.an.ordinance on which the entire Board will agree. Mr. Wood said he had the pleasure of working .with the Planning~Commission for three:years during their work sessionson the ordinance for the last eight, years as a.member of the Planning Commission. That is the reason he feels the ordinance is acceptable, and far surpasses.the ordinance~adopted in 1968. Mr. Thacker said the Board should resolvewhether or not the. entire Board is going to work on the ordinance or a committee. Mr. Wheeler said.he had.suggested this be a committee, so'that these would not beofficial meetings where minutes would have to be kept. and therefore relieve the.:workload of the. Cl.erks. Mr. Kenneth Haviland said he was representing Citizens for..Albemarle. They felt this was a good ordinance in January, 1975,. They had a few questions but.generally supported, th~ ordinance. They have attended work sessions ever since hearing there was opposition, to~.the ordinance., Mr. Haviland said their attendance at these work sessions and a review of correspondence meceived.bythe Planning Commission does not show the opposition that has been spoken of.~ He said Citizens for Albemarle supported the conservation zoning and asked who was against it. Mrs. BettyScott spoke for the League.of Women.~oters. She said the League.listed.four areas at the public hearing that they felt shouldbe corrected.. They want to.makeit clear that the. present (existing) ordinance is very poor and should be improved. She said she was pleased to see the Board's reaction tonight and hoped the Board would proceed with. due speed.~to do.something but_asked that the Board review carefully comments made by citizens at the public hearing. Mr. Cart said it is essential that the Board and Commission proceed.to.finalize the ordinance. He said Mr. Humphrey and his staff are W,~lling to work with the Board~on revising the. ordinance and it w0uld be time well spent. It was. ne~er the intent of the Commission to "sell the ordinance to the Board." Itt is their intent to give the Board and the citizens an.ordinancethey can live with. Mr. Wheeler said one thing that has changed his thinking is a letter he received from My. Cart and the Planning Commission since the Rublic hearing; Mr. Wheeler said he does support the work sessions on the ordinance and recommended that a committee composed of Mr..Thacker.as Chairman, Mr. Carwile.and Mr. Henley be appointed to hold workse.ssions with said meetings to be open to the general public. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded .by Mr~ Wood and carried..hy the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs.. Carwile, FiSher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. No. 4 ~ Appointment: be carried over. Student Drug Survey Ad-Hoc Committee. Mr. Fisher ~asked that this matter No. 5. Moti°n was offered by Mr. Carwile~ seconded.by Mr. 'Thacker, cancelling t.he regular meeting of November 26, 1975, and rescheduling same for~ November 1.9, 1975, at.~.7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse and cancelling the regular meeting ~scheduted for December 24, 1975. The motion carried,by the following recorded.vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs, Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker., Wheeler .and Wood. None. 10-1-75 337 No. 6. On motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile, the~minutes of the meeting of April 17, 1975, were approved as prssented. .The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Not Docketed. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile,. seconded by Mr. Thacker, ~ cancelling the regular meeting scheduled for October 8, 1975, at 7:30 P.M.~in the Albemarle'County Courthouse~ The motion carried: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: NOne. Not Docketed. Mr. Thacker said the first meeting of the committee,appointed to work on the Zoning Ordinance will be held on OctOber .8, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the~Board Room of the County~Office Building. Not Docketed. Mr. Wheeler said he had received.a letter-from Delegate James Murray regarding an amendment to. Code of Virginia, Section.65..1,4.1 allowing volunteer firemen and rescue squad members robe deemed employees of theCounty for the wSr~en's compensation~act. He asked that a staff report be written on this matter. Not Docketed. Mr. Wheeler said he had been presented with two advertisements to be run for the.post~ion of County Executive~ One ad would be run in news- papers of the National Association of County Officials and the.International CityManagement AssOciation~ The Other ad would be run in newspapers.~ He asked if anyone objected to the wording of these advertisements. No objections were~registered. 338 10-1-75 At 9:40 P~M. motion was offered hy Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood, to adjourn this meeting until~4:00 P.M. on Wednesday, October 8,. 1975, in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion,carried. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker,.Wheel. er and..Wood. None.