Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-11-19present. Mr. Jones said this request is for an appropriation for a local match on three A95 grants from the Division of Justice and Crime Prevention. Two grants are for salaries, and-~one grant is for equipment. One salary grantS, is a renewal of a prior grant; that being for medical personnel at the jail. The second is a new application for salary of a classification officer and the other is an application for recreation equipment. Motion was then offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood to authorize a revision to the Joint Security Complex in the amount of $1,768.00 under Code 190-405, Recreational Equipment and to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $334.82 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund and coded to 18C.5; this money to be used for Albemarle County's share of certain grants awarded to the Joint Security Complex. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood. None. Mr. Shank said this would probably be the last chance he would have to address this Board of Supervisors and he would like~to thank them for their support and the reception given him in the operation of the Joint Security Complex. Mr. Wheeler said he had recently met with the newly elected members of the Board who will take office on January 1, 1976, in order to arrange orientation sessions. They have requested that in order to serve in an official capacity until such time as they take office that the members be appointed a a committee to interview, screen, and negotiate with persons seeking the position of County Executive. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, to appoint Mrs. Opal D. David, and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr~LGerald~!~Ei~.~Fisher¥ J~.~T..~ Henley, Jr., F. A. Iachetta, and William~S. Roudabush as this committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood. None. Mr. St. John said it had recently come to his attention from Mr. Ray Jones that Albemarle County may have been shorted along with several other counties in Virginia on Revenue Sharing Funds. Several other counties have suits pending and although their case is somewhat different accounting wise, the principle~is the same. Mr. James Bowling has been over the matter with Mr. Jones and the county auditors. They have been to the Office of Revenue Sharing in Washington, D. C., to talk with Revenue Sharing lawyers and Revenue Sharing officers to see if they would voluntarily pay the County the amount Mr. Jones feels the County is due, approximately $300,000.00. Mr. St. John said this arose because of the forms which the Revenue Sharing used. The forms were drafted in such a way as to make it ~ impossible for the County to accurately ref~ectTf~gu~es. These forms have now been corrected. The Office of Revenue Sharing has now taken the position that the County did not complain soon enough and they will not voluntarily go back and make the correction. Mr. St. John said this is a question of law and he feels that the County has a good chance of winning a case. The lawyers for the Revenue Sharing Office have said they cannot voluntarily go back and pay the County unless the County gets a favorable ruling from a Federal Court stating that the County has standing and has not failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Mr. St. John said other counties have filed suit against the~ Office of Revenue Sharing and have hired outside attorneys. He understands they charge 20% of the amount recovered and the County must also pay accountants fees. Mr. Wheeler then recommended that the Board authorize the County Attorney to proceed with filing a suit on behalf of the County. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Carwile and seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. At 10:00 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Carwile~ seconded by Mr. Wood to adjourn this meeting until November 19, 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, Wheeler, and Wood. CHAIR~ 11-19-7'5 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 19, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from November 12, 1975. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J2'. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler, and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. (Mr. Wood arriving at 7:55 P.M.) ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, J. Harvey Bailey, County Attorney, George R. St'i John, and County Planner, John Humphrey. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. 11-19-75 The applicant was not present. Mr. Humphrey said she had been notified three times of this meeting date. She was present attthe Planning Commission hearing at the time the Planning Commission recommended denial of the mobile home. ~:Mr. Humphrey said the mobile home is presently on the requested site in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. It was placed on the property without a special permit. The applicant has said the occupancy of the home will be by her brother who will l'ive in the mobile home and build a house at a later time. The Planning Commission recommended denial feeling that such a use is incompatible with the existing single family homes in the area. ~ Mr. Fisher asked if the mobile home had been purchased from a dealer. Mr. Humphrey said no. He understood it was from a separate entity. The zoning administrator found the mobile home in another location and had caused its removal. It was 'then found on this site and it has no water or sewer connection. Mr. Fisher said he felt there were people present to speak about this mobile home and the Board proceeded with the public hearing in the applicant's absence. Mr. Humphrey said the request is for a mobile home on 11.7 acres located on the west side of Route 29 South, approximately five-tenths of a mile west of Route 710. The area is rural in character, with rolling topography and single-family dwellings located on both sides of Route 29. A small convenience store is located across from the property. The mobile home is presently located on a knoll and visible from Route 29. There are five single-family dwellings visible from this site. However, the mobile home could be screened with evergreens. This request is before the Board of Supervisors because of objections from adjoining property owners. Mr. Humphrey said the staff had recommended~-~th~if this petition were approved that nine conditions be attached to the approval, but since the Planning Commission had recommended denial he would not list those at this time. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Roy Clark representing his mother-in-law, Helen Morgan, an adjoining property owner, and Mrs. Ora Atwell, both spoke in opposition to approval of this permit. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he had visited the site today and there appears to be more like twelve single-family residences in the area. He then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny request for SP-517 and further stipulated that the mobile home be removed from this site prior to January 1, 1976. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker. Mr. Wheeler said it should be made clear to the applicant that the mobile home is not to be moved to another location in Albemarle County without a permit. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. At this time, the Board continued with a public hearing as advertised in the Daily Progress on October 31 and November 7, 1975. 2. SP-468. James R. Armstrong. This permit concerns the location of a garage on the east side of Route 715 in Esmont, County Tax Map 128B, Parcel 31. This public hearing is held on REMAND of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. Mr. Humphrey said Mr. Armst~ang's attorney had a conflict and had asked that this matter be deferr~ until December 10. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile, to defer the public hearing and any action on this petition until December 10, 1975. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. The Board then continued with public hearings as advertised in the Daily Progress on October 29 and November 5, 1975. 3. ZMP-336. Elizabeth L. Breeden, to rezone 212.001 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property on the west side of Route 631 ~Qld~5~nchburg-Road)~ ahd3?de~¢ribed~as County Tax ~ap 8:~:~ Parce~s~ and'95A.~.and~'.'T~x.::Map:'.90~,.::..parcel 3. Samuel Miller District. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission had not acted on this petition and requested that the public hearing be deferred. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher, to defer the public hearing on this petition until December 10, 1975. Motion carried by the following recorded vote:. AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. 4. ZMP-338. ~:..Richard Cogan, to rezone 8.92 acres from B-1 Business to A-1 Agricultural. Property on the south side of Interstate 64 and north side of Route 25~ East and described as County Tax 78 Parcel 47A. Rivanna District. ' Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission had not acted on this petition and asked that the matter be deferred. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwile, to defer the public hearing on this matter until December 10, 1975. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. 11-19-75 5. ZMP-339. North Corporation, to rezone 40,000 square feet from A~i Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property on the south side of Route 649 (Proffit Road) and described as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 36, part thereof. 'Rivanna District. (Mr. Carwile abstaining during discussion and action taken on this matter.) Mr. Humphrey said this property is located on the south side ~6f.State Route 649 (Proffit Road) east of its intersection with U. S. Route 29. More specifically this property is located on the east side of a 60-foot driveway which has been constructed with a gravelled surface off Route 649. This area is semi-rural in character and in a state of transition. This property is presently vacant. Property to the east is zoned A-1 Agricultural and developed in single-family units. Further to the east is Jefferson Village, which is zoned R-1 Residential. On the north side of Route 649 is more scattered single-family development. R-1 and RS-1 zoning is found in the area. Across from Jefferson Village is 57 acres zoned RS-1 and being developed as Terrybrook Subdivision. At the intersection of Routes 29 and 649, these four quadrants are zoned B-1 Commercial. The northwest quadrant is developed as office and retail uses. The southwest quadrant is developed as a branch bank and under construction is a supermarket. The southeast quadrant contains a motel and a carpet sales outlet. The northeast quadrant is vacant. A rezoning of this property was considered and denied in 1974. At that time, the staff recommended denial and have not changed their reCommendation for the following reasons: There is a total of 103.5976 acres zoned B-1 Commercial within 800 feet of subject property. Only seven (plus-minus) acres of this commercial property is being utilized. There is a 13.75 acre tract zoned B-1 directly across from this site which is vacant. Mr. Humphrey said the staff can see no need nor justification for additional commercial zoning in the area and therefore again recommends denial. The Planning Commission, in their deliberations took into consideration that the applicant has a bona fide user for the property. In their consideration of the proposed new County Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission had a study made as to highest and best use of all the land in this quadrant. The analysis said that this plot was best suited for retail commercial. Since the Planning Commission had recommended CL zoning for the quadrant in the future and in view of the applicant's bona fide user they recommend approval of ZMP-339. The Planning Commission did indicate to the applicant that on site plan consideration for the development of the property, they would like to see access only from the internal road and not from Route 649. Mr. Thacker asked if the Planning Commission were recommending that the entrance be off of the future 60 foot right-of-way indicated on plat plan presented to the Board. Mr. Humphrey said it would be desirable. Mr. Henley said he felt there was questiOn about the location of this access road the last time this matter was heard. Mr. Humphrey said it is only a paper road at this time. The County has not approved it as a road. As far as~fut~e planning of this tract is concerned, it would be desirable to locate the road at this point. It would be in connection with the overall development of the North Rivanna cluster. Mr. Fisher asked if the road does exist. Mr. Humphrey said yes, it has been cut. Mr. Henley said he thought there was a question about the road hooking into Hollymead. Mr. Humphrey said there were some plans about three years ago involving Phase II of Hollymead Subdivision that indicated the road would tie Phase II to the internal road that now goes from Route 649 down to Hollymead School and into the existing Phase I of Hollymead. Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Humphrey could see any prQbtems with the road hooking into Phase II. Mr. Humphrey said he could not answer that question without an overall plan before him. Mr. Henley said he felt if the Board approved this request they were also approving the road at this location. Mr. Wheeler did not feel so. (Mr. Wood arrived at 7:55 P.M.) Mr. Bailey said that when the water line was installed going to Jefferson Village some consideration was given to the fact that this road is shown on plans. Mr. James Hill was present for the applicant. He said they have complied with what the planners have requested and taken the entrance off Of Route 649 and put it onto this internal road. He said this matter was before the Board a year ago and was denied. However, the people wanting to use this parcel of land must feel there is a need for'a convenience store in the area because he did not feel they would have agreed to spend money for landscaping, etc., if they were not contemplating making a profit. Mr. Wheeler then opened the public hearing to the public. No one spoke for or against the matter and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Wheeler asked if any people living in Jefferson Village or Terrybrook had expressed opposition. Mr. Humphrey said no. Mr. Wheeler Said he was amazed at the number of lots which have been sold in Terrybrook and the number already existing in Jefferson Village. Considering the number of houses at present on the side of the road going towards Proffit there certainly would be a need for a convenience store and if that is the plan he could support rezoning for this type of use. Mr. Henley said the first time this matter came to the Board, he felt that more planning was needed on the overall development of this area. He still feels that approval of this request will establish the road. Mr. Wheeler said he feels that any development of this land will probably be at. least ten years off and he did not know where else the road would come out. Mr. Humphrey said it could be tied in totally internally. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission and approve ZMP-339. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Henley, (Mr. Henley prefaced his vote saying that he had voted against the request last year because he felt that more planning was needed on the road. However, he can see the problem of predicting how this area will develop in the future. Since the entrance has been taken off of Route 649 and put on an internal road, he would vote aye.), Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. (Prefaced his vote by stating he would accept the recommendation of the Planning Staff.) ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. 11-19-75 Mr. Wood stated ~hat he had just been called by Mr. John Hanna from the State. Highway Safety Commission Office. Mr. Hanna is in town-tonight and needs to work on some legislative matters. Mr. Wood said he would not stay but would leave the meeting at this time. (8:00 P.M.) 6. SP-520. L2I~Associates, to locate a central well on 6.142 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property on north side of Route 706, approximately 0.2 mile west of Route 631 and described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 79. Samuel Miller District. Mr. Humphrey said this property is located on the north side of Route 706, approximately 0.2 mil~west of Route 631. The area is rural in nature, but is being developed in single-family residential uses - both rental and owner-occupied. The applicant has been supplying water to his tenants from this well since 1974. This particular well serves only three units. The applicant recently obtained approval for a nearby central well which serves 13 units. The central well in question yields 15 gallons per minute, however, a 48-hour teSt has not been made. The State Health DePartment has given approval on the bacteriological testing of the water. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommends approval of SP-520 with two conditions: Any additional unit served by this well will require an additional special use permit; and 2. ~Q~nty Engineer's approval of water lines and storage capacity. Mr. Fisher asked if the two wells were close enought together to draw of~f of the same water channel. Mr. Harry Brown, present for the applicant, said they were about six hundred yards~apart. He said this came about through a mistake on their part. They were aware of State regulations but when they went to the Planning Office to see about selling a house they were asked about their special permit and they do not have a permit. Mr. Fisher said it has been a policy of the Board to require a pump-down test for new construction. However, he felt that with a year~s~sxpe~&~nce and a condition that any additional units require testing, the permit should be approved. He then offered motion to approve SP-520 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile. Mr. Thacker said he agreed with Mr. Fisher that where a central well serves owner-occupied dwellings, a 48-hour pump-down test should be required. There have been situations where a landlord would not have any tenants and he felt that this was an unnecessary requirement. He alcoa feels that this special permit process for additional units is lengthy and costly to the applicant. He asked if this could be handled administratively. Mr. St. John~said that section 15.1-435 of the Code of Virginia s~ates that if after going through the procedure of getting approval, no person, firm, corporation, etc., which has constructed or installed a water system after having complied with provisions of this article shall extend any service in excess of the number of connections for which the approval was originally given. In case of any such extension, the person shall proceed in the same manner as the original application. He said this restricts the Board as to what they can do. Vote was taken on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwi~e,' Ei.sher, ~'Hanley, Thacker and Wheeler. None. Mr. Wood. 7. SP-~23. H. H. Tiffany, to locate a central well to serve 14 units on 32.16 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property on the east side of Route 690 at the intersection of Route 796 and described as County Tax Map 70, Parcel 1, part thereof. White Hall District .... ~ ~-~,?~ ...... ~.~.~ ~-~ Mr. Humphrey said this property is located on the east sid~ of Route 690 and the north of Route 796. This area is rural in character and sparsely developed residentially. The property in question contains several farm buildings and ~s presently being farmed. The applicant is requesting 14 connections for this central well. These connections are proposed to service a proposed subdivision of one-acre lots near Newtown and an existing subdivision at Routes 690 and 796. Mr. Humphrey noted that there is a rezoning application tied to this request; ZMP-334 will not be heard until December 10, 1975. He said that late today Mr. Ashley Williams, the County Engineer, had given him a memo stating that he had reviewed the information submitted for the proposed well on SP-5231 A report attached~.to that memo indicated that the well has been pumped at 17 gallons per minute over an 80-hour flow period. With the. one gallon, per minute, per unit policy of the Board, the well could be pumped to serve 17 units. Mr. Williams said he had received no further information on the water line layout or the storage needed for the water supply but understood that Mr. Tiffany would have such information with him at the hearing tonight. Mr ..... Humphrey said the Planning Commission had recommended approval with the following conditions: Verification of well output after a 48-hour testing, a minimum of 14 gallons per minute. 2.~ Health Department approval of the bacteriological testing. 3. County Engineering Department approval of the wa~r line sizing. County Attorney's approval of the Public Service ~Corporation's documents as they relate to the service of these ~ots. Mr. Fisher asked if the pump-down test had been performed by a w~ll driller. Mr. Humphrey said it was done by a~'Mr. John W. Webb. Mr. Wheeler asked if Mr. Webb were in the well drilling business. Mr. Tiffany said he is a geologist. Mr. Tiffany then noted that ~he application had been advertised in the name of H. H. Tiffany and should have been advertised in the ~ame of Public Service Company of Virginia, Incorporated. He said the Public Service ~Company is an existing corporation, licensed by the State Corporation Commission to serve water to Corvitle Farms in Greenwood. Several months ago he had made application to the State Corporation 11-19-75 "H. H. Tiffany.") Mr. Henley said he was concerned about~the flow readings since Mr. Webb had not signed the report and the Board did not know Mr. Webb. Mr. Tiffany said this is an existing well and the Board has no procedures for testing an existing well. Mr. Wheeler asked~if the well is serving dwellings now. Mr. Tiffany said no. At this time, Mr. Wheeler requested a recess. The Board recessed at 8:30 P.M. and reconvened at 8:40 P.M. and continued with the matter under discussion. Mr. Tiffany said the flow of the well could be greater. The test was limited by the pump. He only needed seventeen gallons per minute. They, therefore, opened up the well and let it run for eight hours continuOusly filling five gallon jugs. That is what Mr. Williams had approved. In discussing this matter with Mr. Williams, they had also discussed the design of the water system. Mr. Williams had said he could not design the system. Mr. Tiffany was to bring in a design and Mr. Williams would then approve or disapprove same. Therefore, he has shown a layout with a two-inch water line to each home using the 5,000 storage tank already in existence. Mr. Henley asked if the existing pump could be used to determine if there is capacity. Mr. Bailey said it has been reported at 17 gallons per minute and it is a legitimate way to determine if it can meet the need. However, it does not demonstrate the full capacity of the well. Mr. Thacker asked if condition number three should not read "County Engineering Department approval of the water system." Mr. Bailey said yes. Mr. Wheeler said he felt if the County Engineer approves this system, the Board can rely on him to take care of the matter. Howe~er,~since the Board had not heard the rezoning request for the lots expected to be served by the well, he asked if the Board is in any way committing itself or future boards to approving the rezoning. Mr. St. John said no. Mr. Thacker asked if the question of the application had been resolved. Mr. St. John said if it is put into the record, there would be no problem with issuing the permit to the Public Service Company of Virginia, Incorporated. Mr. Carwile then offered motion to approve-SP-523 as recommended by the Planning Commission but changing number three to read "County Engineering Department's approval of ~the water system." The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. St. John said he wanted to be sure the Board understood that by ~irtue of approving this water system, it is~%not dependent on the rezoning request which will come before the Board in December. Mr. Tiffany will now have the right to use the water system. Mr. Fisher said it is his understanding that if this is approved, the Board is approving connections to fourteen dwelling units no matter what the zoning. At this time, ~o%e was taken on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. None. Mr. Wood. 8. SP-524. Conner Homes of Charlottesville, Incorporatedf to locate a central well on 106.72 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property on the south side of Route 618 and north side of Route 620 near Woodridge and described as County Tax Map 115, Parcels 22 and 23. Scottsville District. Mr. Humphrey said this property is located on the north side of Route 620 and south side of Route 618. The property is situated about one-fourth of a mile east of the intersection of Routes 618 and 620. The area is rural in character with wooded, flat terrain. There are several single-family dwellings and mobile homes~in the immediate area. A general store is located in the center of Woodridge. A Planned Community to be located on this property was approved on July 9, 1975, by the governing body of Albemarle County. One of the conditions of approval is as folloWs: "Approval of SP-475 (Woodridge Planned Community) is predicated on an application being made for a central water system which will serve this entire development with one gallon per minute per unit. This approval is void if such a special permit is not approved within one year from this date. No development is to take place until a central water special permit is approved." This planned community is proposed to have 75 units, therefore, the central water system should have an output of 75 gallons per minute. There have been two wells which were drilled and tested for a 48-hour period. One of the wells produced 40 gallons per minute and the other produced 53 gallons per minute after 48 hours, for a total of 93 gallons per minute; far above the total required. Mr. Humphrey said the well had been tested by C. R. Moore Well Drilling. They had indicated that well number three was tested on October 1, 2, and 3, tested at a rate of 40 gallons per minute. The total amount of water pumped was 119,300 gallons. Well number one was tested from October 3 to October 5. Based on the well test, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) Bacteriological testing and approval by the Health Department of water quality. 2) County Engineer's approval of sizing of water line. Mr. Bailey noted that in addition to bacteriological tests, there should also be mineral testing. He said that usually the better a well is, the more likely it is to have difficulty with iron and manganese. He said he felt the State would require this even if this were not a public system. Mr. St. John said by law this central well would have to be operated as a public service corporation. Mr. Wheeler asked why the previous permit (SP-523) said the documents must be approved by the County Attorney's office and same is not stipulated on this permit. Mr. St. John said that (SP-523) did not have to be a public service corporation as a matter of law. Any time fifty homes or more are served by one system, you are required to have a public service corporation under the State Corporation Commission. The applicant~.~ was present in support of the petition. He said he was told in Fluvanna County that as long as he had separate wells the system did not have to be set up as a pUblic Service Corporation. Mr. Bailey said the wells should be interconnected so they are mutually supporting and only one system. The applican~ said he had not been made aware of this stipulation during application for the permit or during the Planning Commission hearings. He felt someone should 11-19-75 Mr. Thacker then offered motion to approve SP-524 with the following conditions: Bacteriological and mineral testing and approval of the State Health Department for water quality. 2. County Engineer's approval of the water system. Water. system to be just one system and to be operated as a Public Service Corporation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher. Mr. Thacker then said he would like to amend his motion so the Board could be sure the system could not be expanded. He asked if there could be more than 75 units tied into this system. Mr. Humphrey said not unless the applicant applied for an amendment to the PUD application and changed the density and the land use concept. Mr. Fisher asked if it would be possible that the applicant could go off of the property and serve other residents. Mr. Humphrey said they would have to apply for a change in this permit before doing that if the permit is conditioned on the wells being tied into a central system to serve 75 units. Mr. Fisher asked if this permit would allow the applicant to serve only 75 units on this particular parcel of property. Mr. Humphrey said yes. Mr. Thacker said he wanted to be sure they could not go off of this property and extend the system. Mr. Wheeler said he was only voting on 75 units. Mr. Thacker said he wanted to be sure that everybody in the future would know what the Board had voted on. He felt it would be simpler to amend his original motion stating that the special permit is limited to 75 units on this particular p&~cel of land. Mr. Humphrey noted that there are also recreational facilities on the site, plus other uses. Mr. Thacker then amended his motion again to add condition number 4: "This water system is limited to Woodridge Planned Development, SP-475, with a maximum of 75 single-family dwelling units and any recreational usage as allowed by water capacity of the wells." This amended motion was agreed to by Mr. Fisher and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. None. Mr. Wood. 9. SP-527. Robert A. Leiby and Donald Nelson, to locate a craft shop on 3.001 acres zoned A-i Agricultural Property on south side of Route 250 West and described as County Tax" Map 57, Parcel 81F, Samuel Miller District. Mr..~H~mph~ey.-~said<~his.p~gper~y£is~located at the southwest co~ne~?o~ithe intersection of Routes 250 West and 682, and approximately four miles west of Ivy. This area is rural in nature, with very little development in the immediate vicinity. Crafter's Gallery, a retail outlet for art and craft work, is located on subject property; this craft shop was approved on January 23, 1974. Also located on the subject property is a wood frame house and a new house is being constructed. The C & O Railway is located to the south~of subject property. The applicant is requeSting this special permit in order to operate a kiln, which is located on the ~estern portion of the property in an enclosed wood structure. Pottery fired from this kiln would be sold at Crafter's Gallery as well as other retail outlets. The staff has no objection to the one kiln being operated, however, further extension of the production of crafter items would approach processing and manufacturing which are only permitted in the industri&l zones. To allow this would not be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan nor existing zoning in the area. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following four conditions: 1. Operation of one kiln only at any one time. 2. Landscaping around kiln as determined by the Planning Staff. 3. No outside storage of materials. 4. No retail sales from Parcel X, Tax Map 57, Parcel 8J. Mr. Leiby was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against the petition. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to approve SP-527 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fishe~, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. 10. SP-528. Walter H. Mehring, Jr., to locate a two-family dwelling on 611.2 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property on east side of Route 698 about one mile ~orth~.~of Route 633. Further described as County Tax Map 97, Parcel 21, Samuel Miller District. Mr. Humphrey said this property is located on the east side of Route 698 approximately one-mile north of Route 633 at Heards Mountain. This area is rural in nature and mountainous. The area is made up of large parcels with the only development being single-family dwellings and farm buildings. There are no O~her dwellings visible from this proposed two-family dwellings? The applicant is requesting a two-family dwelling for his daughter and her husband. The applicant does anticipate using the additional dwelling unit for future re~tal purposes. It has been the policy of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission not to allow two-family dwellings in areas other than those designated as a cluster community or village in the Comprehensive Plan. The reasons for this is that this could set a precedent or change the character of the area in which the two-family dwelling is to be located. The staff concurs with this policy. Mr. Humphrey ended by stating that~the Planning Commission recommended approval with four conditions: 1. Approval by all county agencies. 3. Limited to members of family only. 4. No more duplexes are to be located on the property. ~r. Carwile and Mr. Wheeler both asked why condition number three was imposed. Mr. Humphrey said this question had come up at the Planning Commission hearings. Both he and the member of the County Attorney's staff attending that meeting felt that~this condition might be illegal and that it also is unenforceable. Mr. Wheeler said if the Board is to allow the building, it should not be limited to just the family. Mr. Mehring was present and read ~he~>fOl~owing into the record: "My great-grandfather planted vineyards, on the contour, near Monticello over a hundred and fifty years ago. Members of our family have owned land in Albemarle County most of that time and I understand that they have taken the best possible care of it. On December 16, 1966, I was given a citation from the Commonwealth of Virginia in recognition of outstanding achievements in soil and water conservation. We have built a house. The chief reason for building a two family house is that I want a place where my wife can stay when I die, she to live in the house~.and~nt the basement. It is self evident that she cannot live in such an isolated spot alone. The reason for the separate electric meters is so that the cost of heating the house and the hot water can be fairly shared. The two family house looks like a one family house. me, some snap shots of the house. I have, with Our elder son and his wife expect to live in the basement until he finishes a house of his own which he has started. Our daughter and her husband may want to stay in the house until they can get settled elsewhere. I am furnished a house in Highland Orchards and I hope to be there for sometime. Therefore we would like to be able to rent both the first floor and the basement if and when the house is vacant. approve We hope that you will/SP-528 omitting Mr. Gloeckner's amendment, condition No. 3., "limited to members of family only." Very truly yours, Walter H. Mehring, Jr." The public hearing was opened and no one from the public spoke for or against the. request. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to approve SP-528 as recommended by the Planning Commission but with only conditions number one, two, and four. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. None. Mr. Wood. The Board continued with a public hearing as advertiDed on October 21 and October 28, 1975. 11. SP-529. Robert and Beverly Rice, to locate a mobile home on 20.55 acres zoned A-1. Property located on Rt. 712, approximately 1-1/8 miles southeast of intersection on Route 712 and 713, Coun~ Tax Map 122, Parcel 12K, Scottsvil~e District. Mr. Humphrey said this property is located on the north side of Route 712, approximately one and one- half miles east of Keene. This area is rural ~in character with land usage in the area consisting of crop- land, pasture land, forest, and single-family development. Topographically, the land is relatively flat. The parcel on which the mobile home is to be placed is pasture and has very few trees; additional screening would be necessary. Mr. HUmphrey said the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following seven conditions: 1. Minimum of 100 foot setback from the right=of-way of Route 712. 2. Minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet and minimum side yard setback of 25 feet. 3. Screening, as recommended by the Zoning Staff. 4. Skirting around mobile home f~om its base to ground level. 5. Mobile home permit is not-transferrable. 6. Mobile home cannot be rented under any circumstances. 7. Mobile~home permit is issued for a period of three years with administrative approval for an additional two years. Mr. Humphrey said this application was brought to the Board because of a letter in opposition from Delores L. Ambros, a resident of New York State, who owns property in this area. Mrs. Rice was present and asked if the skirting required in the conditions would have to be put into place immediately. Mr. Humphrey said this is a requirement of the State Building Code. No one else from the public spoke for or against the issuance of the permit. Motion was then offerd by Mr. Thacker, seconded ~y Mr. Carwile, to approve SP-529, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, an~,._~heeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. At 9:20 P.M. and upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned.