Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-08-148-14-74 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held at 7:30 p.m. on August 14, 1974 in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, Jt T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. ABSENT: None. OFFICER PRESENT: County Attorney. Also present were Fred Payne~im Bowling from the County Attorney's office~ Robert Sampson, Assistant to the County Executive~and Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner in the County Planning Department. Mr. Wheeler announced that Mr. Batchelor had received a telegram yesterday from President Ford inviting him to a meeting in Washington, D..C. tomorrow. He had been excused by the Board from attending this meeting for that reason. He is the only County Executive in the United States invited to attend that meeting. (1) Z~P- 304. George and Mary Jones. from July 24, 1974. Action on this matter was deferred Mrs. Scala read the following memorandum into the record: "August 7~ 1974 Board of Supervisors Steve Colangelo, Intern and Mary Joy Scala, Senior ~lanner Re-Zoning Request ZMP-304 George and Mary Jones On July 26, 1974 we met with George Jones at the site to discuss his re, zoning request and his plans for the additional house he wants to build on his property. The proposed site is steeply sloped and will require considerable grading, but Mr. Jones feels this ca~ be done in 6 to 8 hours work. The house is intended for his wife's parents, the Howards, an elderly couple who live nearby on a 4 acre parcel. Their present house is an old frame construction that has no indoor plumbing, is poorly insulated, and is heated by a wood stove. Mr. Jones is a masonry contractor and he intends to build the new house himself. Although the Howards will live in the house now, it is ultimately intended for 'Jones' own children. We suggested the possibility of his building the new home on the Howa~ds' own land, but Mr. Jones was un~illing to do this, since that land will eventually be divided among all of the Howard heirs and he will be unable to give the house to his children. Building on his own land will also enable Mr. Jones to utilize his existing well, whereas the Howards' have no w~ll and would have to drill a new one. We also explained that the Howards could possibly finance the home themselves through the Farmers Home Administration program, but Mr. Jones was not interested in this, since it did not fit in with his plan of eventually giving the house to his own children. Mr. Jones could not give me any information on the Howards' income, so I was unable to check their eligibility for the FmHA program. Mr~ Jones was unwilling to discuss any other options for rehousing the Howards and insisted he would 'continue to pursue his rezoning request." 8-14-74 Mrs. Scala said this request is to rezone 2.034 acres to RS-1 which would allow for one acre lots. The Planning Staff had recommended denial feeling this is spot zoning. The Planning Commission concurred in their recommendation. Mr. Henley said he knows this area and there would be no problem with the surrounding properties. Mr. Wheeler said everyone knows his desire to provide housing in Albemarle County and if there is a motion to approve this request, he will support same. Mr. Henley said although he feels strongly about putting RS-1 zoning on property, he realizes there are circumstances that overweigh this and he offered motion to approve ZMP-304. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood. Mr. Fisher said this is obviously one of those times where on a Planning basis the recommendations received from bo~h the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission are correct. Although, he does not like to continue expanding one acre zoning in areas where the comprehensive plan does not recommend this zoning, he presumes that this matter is being presented as a hardship case and as such he will support the request. Mr. Wheeler said he also shares Mr. Fisher's feelings, but he thinks that the Board has a responsibility to provide for all citizens. This is an unusual circumstance and probably to provide proper homes for all citizens, the Board will be faced with taking such action in unusual circumstances. Mr. Fisher said he supports the motion because Mr. Howard and his wife do not have adequate housing. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (2) Public hearing on the next matter was published in the Daily Progress on July 24 and July 31, 1974. '2%="Theu~BoardfQf~-Supervisors~_o'fAtbemarle~County having~.received a recommended revised ordinance from the County Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on said proposed revised subdivision ordinance to be known as the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance. The subject ordinance will replace the existing Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance adopted in 1948, and as amended thereafter, with the objective of providing for an ordinance more in 'keeping with the objectives of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and with modern day land practices. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish subdivision control standards and procedures for the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and such of its environs as may be under the jurisdiction of the governing body thereof. This ordinance is to guide and facilitate the orderly, beneficial growth of the community, to assure the orderly subdivision of land and its development, and to promote public health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare." 8-14~74 Mrs. Scala said she had several amendments, from both the County Planner and the County Attorney, to bring before the Board tonight. (1) Since the area conservationist for the soil conservation service is no longer the approving body for the soil erosion section of the Zoning Ordinance, this should be changed to reflect that an official of the board of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District is the body responsible for review of soil erosion control measures and the approval thereof. This should be changed everywhere the area conservationist is mentioned in the Ordinance. (2) The definition of landscape architect should be changed to read: "That person licensed by the State of Virginia to practice as such in the Commonwealth of Virginia." (3) Everywhere in the Ordinance that it makes reference to a certified professional engineer that wording should be followed by the words "to the limit of his license." (4) The whole section on fees should be changed as follows: SUGGESTED SUBDIVISION FEE SCHEDULE Preliminary Plat The subdivider shall pay a fee at the time when the preliminary of plat is filed. Such fee shall be in the form of cash or a certified check payable to the County of Albemarle, Virginia, the amount thereof to be determined in accordanc~ with the following schedule: (a) $8.00 per acre for the first 10 acres in the subdivision. (b) $5.00 per acre for each additional acre or fraction thereof over 10 acres in the subdivision. (c) Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or not a preliminary plat for the same property has been filed previously, shall be subject to the same requirements and fees as specified for filing of the preliminary plat. Final Plat The subdivider shall pay a fee at the time the final plat is filed. Such fee shall be in the form of cash or a certified check payable to the County of Albemarle, the amount thereof to be determined in accordance with the following schedule: (a) Administrative approval - $15.00 for plats containing three or less lots plus $10.00 for field inspection if warranted. (b) Commission and Board of Supervisors approval $40.00 minimum for plats containing three or less lots; plus $2.00 per lot for each lot in excess of three, to and including 18 lots; $1.00 per lot for each lot over 18 lots. L[ 9 (5) The section on fees for site plans has been removed since it is not appropriate to this ordinance. (6) Anywhere in the ordinance that it states that nine prints of the plat shall be filed, this has been changed to ten because of the number of people receiving copies of these plats. Also through a change in procedures, if a plat has to be revised, the Planning Department is requesting seven copies of that revised plat. (7) Change section 7-9-12 to read: "The number, approximate dimensions and area of lots." (8) Change section 8-5-6 to read: "The location of all minimum building setback lines specified in this and the Zoning Ordinance, with the square footage of lots indicated on each individual parcel." (9) The Planning Staff is not sure that the County gives final approval under section 8A. (10) Section 9, premature subdivisions. This section has been included by the County ~ttorney upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. (11) The County Attorney has ~recommended that the words Wherever practicable be eliminated from section 4-1. This is now allowed by State Code. (12) The County Attorney recommended that section 3-15.1, payment of sewer and drainage costs, be added with wording as follows: A. Each subdivider or developer of land in Albemarle County shall pay to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors his pro rata share of the cost of providing reasonable and necessary sewerage and drainage facilities, located outside the property limits of the land owned or controlled by him but necessitated or required, at least in part, by the conatruction or improvement of his subdivision or development. B. No such payment for sewer and drainage costs shall be required until such time as the Albemarle County Service Authority and the shall have established a general sewer and drainage improvement program for an area having related and common sewer and drainage conditions and within which the land owned or controlled by the developer or subdivider is located. The Albemarle County Service Authority and the shall, as a part of said program, establish regulations setting forth standards to determine the proportionate share of total estimated cost of ultimate sewerage and drainage facilities required adequately to serve a related and common area, when and if fully developed in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan, that shall be borne by each subdivider or developer within the area. C. Such proportionate share of total estimated cost of ultimate sewerage and drainage facilities required adequately no serve a related and common area shall be limited to the proportion of such total estimated cost which the increased sewage flow and/or increased volume and velocity of storm water runoff to be actually 8~14-~74 51 caused by his subdivision or development bears to total estimated volume and velocity of such sewage and/or runoff from such area in its fully developed state. D. Each such payment received from each subdivider or developer shall be expended only for the construction of those facilities for which the payment was required, and until so ex~nded shall be held in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of the subdivider or developer; provided, however, that in lieu of such payment the Board of Supervisors may provide for the posting of a bond with surety satisfactory to it conditioned on payment at commencement of such construction. The Chairman then opened the floor for comments from the public. First to speak was Mr. Daley Craig. Generally, he supports the ordinance as written but is bothered by Section 9 entitled "Premature Subdivisions." He said any subdivision could be considered premature and most~been. But there would not be housing available at the present time if they had not been premature. He requested the Board to delete Section 9 in its entirety. Mr. Randy Rinehart President of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association read the following resolution to the Board: "WHEREAS Section Nine of the Proposed Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance is contrary to public policy, and WHEREAS it~places the entire burden of the community's lack of planning to provide local services and facilities upon the underhoused segment of the citizenry, and WHEREAS it is a tool which allows the people who have adequate housing to militate against those who do not, and WHEREAS it discourages competition, thereby increasing the cost of housing to consumers. IT IS THEREFORE resolved that Section Nine be deleted. Unanimously adopted by the Board of Directors of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association on August 14, 1974." Mr. Bill Roudabush said he was a member of the County Planning Commission when this amended ordinance was first drafted. There had been amendments made since that time with which he does not agree. He listed the following items: Section 1-54 under the definition of a Subdivision. There is a new State,law whic~-~equires that a..c0ndomium~be inctude~d-inthe definition-_of a subdivision. It is included here but not mentioned in any other spot in the ordinance. He suggested that since there are mmny state statutes governing con~omz~a~ that this_.term be left out of this ordinance. Also, the ordinance has been broadened to include every division of land up to five acres whereas the previous ordinance only included those divisions up through three acres. ~ections 1-54.1 and 1-54.2 deal with situations which are exempt from the subdivision ordinance. Previously, the division and sale of land for agricultural purposes was exempt but are not in this ordinance. He asked that the Board consider exempting lands that have been subdivided by highway condemnations which would not comply with County statutues. He suggested that the title of Section 3-13 be changed to read "Substandard Subdivisions and Nonconforming Lots." There are tracts of land which have been created in such configurations that it would be better to redivide them in a more realistic manner. However, this ordinance would make this redividing subject to the zoning ordinance also. Mr. Roudabush also requested that the zoning ordinance be changed to reflect that "they may be resubdivided provided that the resubdivision results in the general improvement of the layout of the property involved and such occupancy would be required to meet the necessary setback lines as noted in the Zoning Ordinance." Section 8A dealing with concurrence of the City of Charlottesville should be changed in the first line of 8A-1 after the words "in the case of any subdivision" by inserting the words "requiring the platting of streets for dedication, any part of which lies within one mile of the corporate limits of the City of Charlottesville." Mr. Roudabush agreed with remarks already made in reference to Section 9. There is nothing cont.ained in this section to say what is adequate or inadequate. He supports the ordinance with the changes he has noted and asked for speedy adoption of same. Mr. Chuck Rotgin said he is concerned with the cluster or townhouse community. There is no reference to either of these in the proposed ordinance. The existing townhouse ordinance is part of the existing subdivision ordinance but it appears as an addendum to the zoning ordinance. He asked if there should not be a mention in this proposed ordinance that Section 14 of~the existing ordinance will become part of this ordinance until the new zoning ordinance is enacted. Mr. St. John said that question has been raised before. Although the townhouse ordinance appears in the zoning ordinance, it will not be repealed by the adoption of this ordinance. However, he agreed that this matte~ should be clarified. Mr. Rotgin continued by saying that he was not opposed to Section 9 on premature subdivisions if some guidelines were set. There is too much leeway in the ordinance at this time. He asked that the land subdivision and development ordinance, be adopted without Section 9. Mr. Dick Nunnally was next to speak. He said Section 9 disturbs him. It leaves too much discretion to the Planning Commission. Home sites are needed for low and middle income people. The only financing available at this time is for modular units. Most financing comes from FHA and a person must have their own land because FHA does not allow enough for a home site. He said his company now has two subdivisions in the process of being built one in Louisa County and one in Fluvanna, because it is imp'ossible to get reasonably priced land in Albemarle County. If the conditions under Section 9 are imposed, home building for low and middle income people would be out of the picture. The Board should consider the needs of all the people and he felt~Section 9 would eliminate housing for Iow and middle income people and should be deleted from the ordinance. Mr. Henley said he was not sure the Board of Supervisors or the Subdivision Ordinance should run up the price of land in the County. Mr. Nunnally said in order to get people home sites they can afford, the developers will have to go further and further out into the County where they can install wells and septic tanks. The two acre minimum requirement runs the cost up and he can see no need for that requirement since the Health. Department says one acre will do. Mr. James Fleming concurred with the statements on Section 9. Mr. William Stevenson said to raise the minimum acreage from three acres to five acres is discriminatory. Section 9 is indefinite since it does not have adequate standards and is objectionable. At this time the Chairman asked the Board for comments. " Mr. Fisher said since some of the changes presented tonight had not been previously presented to the public, he felt they should have an opportunity to study these and make further comments. Mr. Wheeler suggested that the public hearing be carried over until the next zoning meeting of the Board. Mr. St. John said he would like to comment on several items which had been brought up tonight. On Mr. Roudabush's suggestion to require city approval only for subdivisions involving streets, the suggestion sounds logical and he can understand the suggestion. However, under state law the city has an absolute right to review any and every subdivision within a three mile radius but they have elected not to exercise that full jurisdiction. To change this now would require further negotiations with the city. Mr. Roudabush said he did not mind the regulations but he felt that on small things the time consumed was not equitable. Mr. Wheeler said it has taken, more than six months to get to this point. If changes are made, and this section~iS taken back to the City it will probably require another six months before the ordinance can be adopted. He did not think the ordinance can be sacrificed at this time. If in the future renegotiations are required, he will explore the possibility. Mr. St. John said Section 9. is controversial. It was suggested by the Planning Commission to be included for consideration. The County Attorney's office does not advocate this section but submits it because other localities have included it in their ordinances. In one.~locality it was stricken down because it did not carry any standards. Therefore, standards have been included in this section. There is still a possibility that Section 9 could be stricken down by the local court if it is adopted with the ordinance. It has been said that when something is zoned for a subdivision~ the zoning itself says that the subdivision is not premature or it would not have been zoned that way in the first 8-14-74 place. Mr. St. John said the point raised about condemnations being exempted from the subdivision ordinance is a good provision: In Albemarle County, it has already been ruled that the ordinance does not apply to a persons property that is condemned and which leaves just a small tip of land in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Henley asked if there would be any problem putting the agricultural subdivision_ of land back into the ordinance. Mr. St. John said there is a provision under Section 1-54.1 that the sale or exchange of parcels between adjoining landowners where such sale or exchange does not create additional building-lots is exempt. Mr. Thacker said that does not cover every situation because this could be two acres and' would create an additional building site. Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission struggled with that section. They felt it was being abused because there were a number of exchanges for agricultural purposes. But the outcome was not for agricultural purposes and that is the reason the exemption was taken out. Mr. St. John said that when there is an agricultural exemption in any ordinance, it has been abused not by farmers but by other people who use this as a means to accomplish things other than agricultural. Mr. Fisher said the question of separate parcels being created by condemnation should be considered and written into the ordinance. This has created a number of p~oblems for owners of property in the County. He asked if the Planning Commission had asked that Section 9 be included so they would have some basis on which to reduce the size of a subdivision in an area that was properly zoned, if someone came in with a project with five thousand lots or more. Mr. St. John said it was envisioned that this could happen. There is a tract of land in the southeastern part of Albemarle County with 4700 acres. This could be subdivided on one plat and built with either condominiums or single family residences. There are projects like this over the country which cover 5,000 acres or more and where 5,000 houses or more are built and people move right in. That is an extreme example but the purpose of the prematurity clause. Mr. Fisher asked if there are any records of court cases referring to this in the State of Virginia. Mr. Fred Payne said there is only one case. That was in Loudoun County Circuit Court. In that case, it was struck down because it did not have sufficient standards but the court did not dissupport the ordinance in precedent. Mr. St. John said they did not have the standards which have been included in this ordinance. These standards have been included to keep from falling into that category and are about as good a set of standards as can be included. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see this section carried into the next public hearing and hear what courts have said about this section. He felt that is the critical question. Mr. Thacker said the biggest difficulty with the ordinance is Section 9. Standards have been set. The majority of these are discretionary and he felt it would be a mistake to place this power in the hands of the Planning Commission. 8~14-74 without having firm guidelines to establish prematurity. He said at this time he can find no way to support this section but would be willing to listen to further information. Mr. Carwile said he also has difficulty with Section 9. Although standards have been included, they are very subjective.and there is no criteria for.the Board's.Of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, the staff or the applicant to judge what is premature and what is not. This County will constantly be approving subdivisions and he could see problems in approving some subdivisions and turning down others as being premature. Such action would be arbitrary and unreasonable. He can not support Section 9. Mr. Carwile suggested that Section 3,13 be amended to allow for resubdivision of substandard lots in such a manner that they would not necessarily have to comply with the new Subdivision Ordinance but would result in an improvement over previous subdivisions. He said this has presented a problem and lot owners have been unable to comply with the existing ordinance, when the staff felt that a new subdivision would be better than an existing subdivision. Usually this comes in the two or three acre ion groups and. he.would like to see that section changed. Mr. Wood said he shares everyones concern on Section 9~ He would like to see it excluded in its entirety. He also asked that Section 3-13 be reworded. Since this ordinance has been under consideration for a long time and has been discussed considerably, he would like to see the Board take a vote as soon as possible. Mr. Wheeler said the Board has been working on this ordinance for so long, he can not remember back that far. He felt comments made tonight will help clear up some of the wording. In good conscience, he can not support Section 9. Once the Board has rezoned property, the property owners should be allowed to use that land according to that zone. Mr. Thacker asked if the reference in Section 1-54 pertaining to condominiums is adequate. Mr. Payne said this had been included in response to the recent condominium statute enacted. That statute says that condominiums can not be treated differently than what the statute terms physicall~ identical development. Mr. Thacker asked if this provision brings the County into compliance with state statute. Mr. Payne said the ordinance will apply to condominium developments under the same conditions it would apply to any other development that is physically identical. Mr. Thacker asked if a definition of a condominium should be included. Mr. Payne said it is defined by state statute and it is not necessary that it be in this ordinance. Mr. Thacker asked for background on the increase of parcels falling under the Subdivision Ordinance from three to five acres. Mr. St. John said the Planning Commission had discussed this at length. They felt it was necessary that subdivision control be provided for subdivisions up to five acres rather than the previous three. Mr. Fisher asked if their thinking had any thing to do with the new five acre lot minimum/sizes in parts of the County under the new Zoning Ordinance. Mr. St. John said it may have but that did not control their thinking. Motion was then offered by Mr. Fisher to continue the public hearing on the Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance until August 28, 1974. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood. He said it is his intention to vote on the Subdivision Ordinance on that night and not carry it any further. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Wheeler called for a two minute recess and asked that the Board excuse Mr. St. John at this time. (3) SP-364. Lucy and Thomas Mills. (Vote on this matter was deferred from July 24 so information could be presented to Mr. Henley and Mr. Thacker.) Mrs. Scala reviewed the request. She said the Planning Commission recommended denial due to the prObablity of inadequate screening, the applicant does non own the land,and there are no other mobile homes in the area. Mrs. Mills was present in support of the request. She said the land was given to her by her aunt. Her aunt is seventy-three years old and sick. She has no children and Mrs. Mills wants to move her trailer to this land to be close.to her aunt. Mr. David Wood was present. his objection~s to this request~ Mr. Fisher said he has been struggling with this because of the precedent of putting a mobile home at this location~..versus the hardship and human need and~whether it is a matter of providing a home where a home is not now available. He has viewed the property and can not see that the mobile home will be adequately screened. It is not creating a home for someone who does not already have a home and he has difficulty trying to support the request. Mr. Carwile said he had supported the request at the last hearing because of the hardship and human needs and feels that these outweigh the other circumstances. Mr. Wheeler said he agrees with Mr. Fisher. He has looked at the land and does not think the trailer can be screened. Everyone knows his feelings about providing homes but this is not the type of home he thinks about providing and he can not He said he had mailed a letter to the Board explaining support the petition. 8-14-74 Mr. Wood said he also feels the human need is the great factor. This is a seventy-three year old lady with no children, Well-liked in the community. He felt the conditions recommended by the planning staff would give adequate protection for this mobile home. If the mobile home can not be screened then it could not be put on this site, but he feit the applicant should be granted a chance to see if she can meet the conditions. Mr. Henley said the Board seems to worry alot about screening mobile homes. But there are alot of shacks in the County that could bear screening. This is one means of providing housing and he would support the petition. Mr. Wood offered motion to approve SP-364 with the conditions outlined by the planning staff: 1) Finalizing property transaction, 2) Building official approval, 3) Screening provided from all roads, 4) Minimum setback of 100 feet from all roads, 5) Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile home, 6) Time limit of fiVe years, 7) This special permit is issued only to the applicant and is not transferrable. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile. Mr. Fisher asked if there is an existing mobile home permit for the mobile home where it is located now. Mrs. Scala said she wm not sure,~ this has not been checked, Mr. Fisher asked if it was the intent of the motion that the other permit be null and void. Mr. Wood said he would add that as an additional condition:f~No mobile home will be moved into the space being vacated by the Mills, without the proper permit. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Wheeler. (4) SP-366. William Batton. (Deferced from July 24, 1974~because the petitioner was not present at that time.) Mrs. Scala said the area is rural in nature in the.mountainous region of the County. Doyles River runs near the west side of the property. There are nine single family dwellings, four mobile homes and a country store in the immediate area. There is also a conventional single family dwelling located on the property in question. The Planning Commission recommended approval' with the following conditions: 1) Building official approval, 2) Screening from Route 810, 3) Minimum setback of 100 feet from Route 810 and a minimum setback of 25 feet from the existing structure and stream, 4) Skirting around the mobile home from ground level to the base of the mobile home, 5) Time limit of five years, 6) This special permit is issued only to the applicant and is not transferrable. Mr. Batton was present in support of the petition. Mr. Barton said his daughter would live in the mobile home. She would take care of her grandmother who is living in the existing dwelling and-who is blind. No one from the public spoke for or against the petition. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to approve SP-386 as recommended by the Planning Commission and with condition number 7: No mobile home will .be moved into the space being vacated by Mr. Batton's daughter, without the proper permit being issued. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the-following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (5) SP-368. William T. Payne. (Deferred from July 24, 1974 so Mr. Thacker would have a chance to look at the property.) Mr. Thacker said he had not looked at the site and would prefer that action be deferred until August 28. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to continue this public hearing until August 28, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (6) The next item before the Board was request for extension of an existing restricted road which presently serves one twenty-three acre parcel. This request from Richard N~ Anderson. The present restricted road was approved in 1972 and is on a parcel of land about six miles southwest of Ivy on Route 637.. The request is to extend the restricted road to serve a total of nine lots. Each of these nine lots will be deeded to a member of the family. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the extension of the restricted road to serve nine lots subject to County standards for restricted roads and that no further subdivision can take place without a further approval. Mrs. Scala said she understands that at this time, Mr. Anderson wishes to request that the standards for restricted roads be waived because of the nature of the subdivision. This was not presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. R. O. Snow was present.to represent Mr. Anderson. He said Mr. Anderson is an elderly man who wants to give these lots to his family but does not want to spend $50,000 on roads in order to give his property away. This was explained to the Planning Commission but he did not think they understand what restricted roads consist of. Mr. James Anderson was present. He said it is his father's intention to give the land to-his grandsons but does not anticipate that more than one or two will ever 8~14-74 ~? occupy or elect to build homes on this property.- Mr. Wheeler said he can understand what Mr. Anderson is trying to do. But he feels there are too many improbabilities and that this will be a headache for someone in future years. Mr. Fisher asked what would happen if ten or more years from now someone wants to subdivide one of these lots into two acre parcels. Mr. Anderson said there will be a restriction in the deed restricting these lots to one single family dwellingS. Mr. Wood said he was sympathetic to the request but in essence it is a subdivision over which the Board would have no control the day after it is approved and there would be nine lots on a substandard road. Mr. Carwile askedif it were not customary in a situation like this that a notation be put on the plat that no further subdivision can take place without approval of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. Mr. Snow said that notation will be on the plat. Mr. St. JOhn said that is a means of preventing resuhdivision and would work better than a restricted covenant. Mr. Carwile then offered motion to approve this request subject to the following condition: Approved subject to the subdivisioh plat having a note on it that there will be no further subdivision of any of this property without it coming back to the Board of Supervisors, at which time the Board of Supervisors could require that the road be brought up to State standards if they so desire. Further, that the road to be constructed will ~q.t have to be currently constructed to county restricted road standards. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. (7) UP-74-02. AYES: NAYS: Cosmopolitan Spa.has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Article 7-1, to allow health spas as a permitted use in the B 1 Business, General zone. (Mr. Carwile abstaining during discussion of the following matter.) Mrs. Scala said the staff feels that health spas are compatible with commerical uses and should be permitted. The proposed Zoning Ordinance for Albemarle County indicates that health spas would be permitted by right in the commercial limited district. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with a condition that a definition be drawn and incorporated into the ordinance. She presented the following wording for the Board's approval: A health spa is an establishment which provides facilities and personalized supervision for maintaining one's physical fitness. Such establishment should include work out area, steam, sauna and sun rooms, whirlpool bath and swimming pool, and a dressing room area with shower and toilet facilities. Mrs. Scala said when this definition was brought to the Planning Commission, they approved same but noted that a health spa would not have to include all of these facilities. The petitioner was present in support of this request. Mr. Fisher asked if the County Attorney had written this definition. Mr. St. John said no. However, he has read it and does not see anything wron§~ with it but does not think that a definition is really necessary. Mr. Wood then offered motion to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow health spas in the existing BI Business zone as a permitted use. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. (8) ZMP-308. Double C Corporation~has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone approximately 1~ acres from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business. Property is situated on the north side of Route 631, (Rio Road), west of Route 29 North. Property i~ further described as County Tax Map 45H, Parcels 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mrs. Scala Said "there are two single-family dwellings located in the immediate area of this property as well as several commercial uses. A mobile home park is located to the north off of Greenfield Court. This property is presently vacant and slopes down toward Greenfield Court. If rezoned the applicant intends to locate professional offices on the property in question, zoning presently exists across from subject property and is being developed. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that this area be developed as high density residential, however, the character of this area has changed substantially since there are two commercial uses located near the proposed site. The proposed zoning map proposes that this area be placed in the Commercial General District and the property further to the west as high density residential. Should this property be developed as professional offices, it would serve as an ideal buffer between the high density residential uses and the heavy commercial uses. The staff recommended approval." Mrs. Scala said the Planning Commission did recommend approval. The applicant was present in support of the request. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: None. Carwile to approve ZMP-308. Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. 8~%4~74 7 61 (9) SP-370. Mr. & Mrs. Sam Lively~have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 566.94 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural Property is situated 1~ miles past the intersection of Route 729 and Route 53; northeast side. Property is further described as County Tax Map 94, Parcel 17, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Wheeler said he has received a great number of telephone calls about this petition during the last month. He had intended to view the site. However, because of court actions, has not been able to do so. He would like to proceed with the public hearing but will ask that action on this petition be deferred so he can look at the property. He also said that from the telephone calls there seems to be a dispute between neighbors and he does not want personalities to get into the matter. Mrs. Scala said this property is located on the south side of Route 53, approximately two miles from the intersection of Routes 53 and 729. The Rivanna River forms the eastern boundary and the property is approximately 1~ miles from the Flu. vanna County line. The area is rural in character with several dwellings located near the property. The property is farmland with the majority being in pasture'!land. The property is owned by Mrs. Elizabeth B. Sweeney. The applicant has presently been occupying a mobile home on this property~ under MHP-252 which has now expired. At the first Planning Commission meeting, Mrs. Sweeney said the mobile home is not visible from the highway and her neighbor Mr. Schuyler Harris has no objection. The Planning Commission had deferred action at the first public hearing in order to make a sight review of the property. At the next Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Easter said he was not as upset with the mobile home as with the trash and suggested that the mobile home be placed near the landlord's residence so it would not be in view of other residents in the area. Mr. Rinehart had the same reaction and said he would vote for the mobile home only if it were within two hundred yards of the Sweeney residence. The Planning Commission had recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) County Building official approval. 2) A minimum setback of 100 feet from Route 53. 3) Skirting around the mobile home from ground level to the base. 4) Five year time limit. 5) This permit is issued to the applicant and is not transferrable. 6) The entrance to the Sweeney property is to be cleaned up. 7) The mobile home is to be placed within 200 yards of the main dwelling on the property. Mrs. Scala said that Mrs. Ruth Miller, Zoning Administrator, was present to speak about the zoning violation. Mrs. Miller said she had requested that the Planning Commission incorporate into their motion that the premises be cleaned up and the junk cars moved would before she/issue an occupancy permit for the mobile home. Mr. Wheeler asked fi 2 8-14-74 how many mobile homes are on the~property. Mrs. Miller said there are two. One was issued by this Board of Supervisors for a six month period several years ago. Her file reveals that her predeccesor had written a letter to Mrs. Sweeney stating that he had been authorized by the Board of Supervisors to grant an~extension of the six months to a five year period which will not expire now unnil 1975. Mrs. Miller said she had written to Mrs. Sweeney to the effect that the original permit had expired and the trailer was to be removed. Mrs. Sweeney came to the office and said she had received this letter from Mr. Goldsmith and consequently a copy was found in the old file. Mr. Fisher asked if this was by action of the Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Miller said she has been unable to find that in the record. There was in the file a copy of a one year permit for Sam Lively. This was also obtained from Mr. Goldsmith. Upon issuance of that permit, the Sam Lively trailer was moved to the premises but never occupied. Mr. Wheeler said Mrs. Miller had given him this information previously. He has been on this Board for several years and he does not think the minutes will reflect these actions and he does not remember them. He said the Board should proceed with this appli'cation. But there is another mobile home on that property and that permit should also be straightened out. Mrs. Miller said she needs directions of the Board as to what she should do. Mr. Thacker asked if the mobile home is located with utilities, etc., or just sitting on the property. Mrs. Miller said it is just sitting on the p~operty. Mr. Sam Lively was present in support of the petition. Mrs. Sweeney was present. She said Mr. Lively had been working for her for the last ten years. He was put out on the road and had no place to live. He brought this trailer some two years ago and it was pulled into her entrance but no one has ever lived in it. She said she owns 5'66 acres of land and there must be some place on that property to place the trailer other than within 200 yards of her~ home. Mr. Wheeler asked about the other mobile home on Mrs. Sweeney's property. Mrs. Sweeney said she had a five year permit which was issued to her son by Mr. Goldsmith. She handed same to Mr. Wheeler and he read the following letter into the record: "May 17, 197~ Mrs. Elizabeth B. Sweeney Route 6, Box 68 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 In re Special Permit for Robert Lively Mobile Home Dear Mrs. Sweeney: This letter will serve as approval to allow the Mobile Home for Robert Lively to remain at its location for an additional period of five (5) years. The new expiration date is June 17, 1977. You need not sign a new permit. Please tell Mr. Sweeney "hi" for me and I hope that you both are in good health. Sincerely, (Signed) Joseph M. Goldsmith, Zoning Administrator" Mr. P~heeler asked if Mr. Robert Lively is living in the trailer now. Mrs. Sweeney said yes. He feeds her cattle. There is no other help in that neighborhood. Mr. Wheeler asked Mrs. Scala if this is the type of permit the Planning Office issues on mobile homes. Mrs. Scala said she did not know about the permit but it sounded rather informal. Mr. Wheeler said he ab o ut-- was not sure/the issuance of and the Board would have to look into this matter. Mr. Earl Martin, Jr., said he is the adjoining property owner. He did not see how the mobile home can be lived in since it has no sewer or electricity. There should be some place else to put this trailer. Mr. J. L. Lively said the second mobile home was moved onto Mrs. Sweeney's property on April 17, 1974. He has a legal right, of way to get into his farm and the trailer is within 75 to 80 yards of his entrance. He said the traffic and a::~ the trash piles have increased. They were not there five years ago. Five years ago the Board of Supervisors told him that the mobile home would have to be moved. However, it was located by Mr. Paulett and they have let it stay there to keep from having arguments among the neighbors. He would~ object to the mobile home being placed anywhere other than where the Planning Commission has stated. Mr. Wheeler asked if Mr. Lively was saying that the request was denied by the ?.~,~ Board when it was before them five years ago. Mr. Lively said they had legal counsel at that time. The mobile home was supposed to have been brought back to their attention and they were never asked if they approved of the mobile home. Mr. Wheeler asked that a copy of the old minutes be furnished to each board member. Mr. Wood then offered motion to defer any further discussion of this matter until August 28, 1974. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES- Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (10) SP-371. Herbert McDaniel.has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 80:.1~ ~res zoned A-1 Agricultural Property is situated on the north side of Route 605, approximately 1~ miles northwest of Advance Mills. Property is further described as County Tax Map 20, Parcel 1. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mrs. Scala said this area is rural in nature with four single family dwellings and one mobile home in the immediate area. The subject property contains dense~ forest and pasture land. The property in question presently contains one single family dwelling and accessory buildings. Mr. McDaniel told the Planning Commission that. he wants to live in the mobile home so he can repair the house, specifically the floors. But said 6 ~ 8=14- 74 he would prefer to live in the mobile home and rent the house. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) County building official approval. 2) Screening from Route 605. 3) Minimum setback of 600 feet from Route 605. 4) Skirting around mobile home from ground to base of mobile home. 5) Time limit of two years, with one year administrative approval. The administrative approval for the one additional year will be granted only if the intent is being met at the time of review. 6) This permit is issued only to the applicant and is not transferrable. Mr. McDaniel was present in support of the petition. Mr. Wheeler asked if he were going to live in the mobile home while he-was repairing the house and then move into the house. Mr. McDaniel said he would rather live in the trailer and rent the house. Mr. Wheeler said he would not support such a request. He would be happy to help provide Mr. McDaniel with a home but he would not support trailers for rent. He asked Mr. McDaniel if he could not continue to live in the home while it was being repaired. Mr. McDaniel said no. He has been repairing the home ever since he bought it ten years ago. Mr. Thacker said he could find nothing wrong with Mr. McDaniel living in the mobile home while repairs are being made to the house.but it has been a policy of this Board not to grant mobile home permits for mobile homes to be rented outside of mobile home parks. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. McDaniel if he understood that the Planning Commission was recommending the permit to be approved for two years with one additional year and at the end of that time, the trailer would have to be moved. Mr. McDaniel said if he could not get the permit for longer than three years that he did not want it. Mr. Thacker said the maximum length of time the Board has been granting special permits is for five years. Mr. Fisher said he agrees with the Planning Commission that this period of time is long enough, maybe too long. Since the applicant has-stated that two years are not going to be long enough, he feels the permit will not serve the applicant'~s needs. He then offered motion to deny application for SP-371. Mr. Carwile said he did not think the Board was qualified to judge the applicant's needs. Mr. Fisher then withdrew the motion. Mr. Wheeler said he did not mind supporting the application for the three year limit. If Mr. McDaniel chooses not to use the permit, that is his choice. Mr. Thacker rthen offered motion to approve SP-371 as recommended by the Planning Commission and with the following added condition: At anytime during the three years approval that the house is occupied, the mobile home is to be moved from the property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote~ AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. 8-14~74 /~ (11) SP-374. T. Eugene Worrell has p~titioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate professional offices on 4.4 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated west of Route 743 between Hydraulic Road and the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport. Property is further described as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 44. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mrs. Scala said this petition has not been acted on by the Planning Commission and asked that it be deferred. Motion was offered by ~. Carwile to~earry this public hearing forward to August 28, 1974. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler. and Wood. NAYS: None. (12) SP-375. Snow Man, Incorporated has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to allow a wholesale operation to be located on the northwest side of Commonwealth Drive zoned B-1 Business. Property is further described as County Tax Map 61W, Parcel 12. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mrs. Scala said this property is located on the west side of Commonwealth Drive near the CFM Office Building. Property is presently vacant with professional offices and an ice skating rink nearby. The property directly across from this property is vacant. The applicant wishes to use the property for parking and loading of ice cream vending trucks. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) Parking area and driveway to be covered wit~g~dust,proof su~face~ 2)~ Maximum number of trucks limited to ten (as suggested by t~e applicant). 3) Screening from Commonwealth Drive with two rows of evergreens six feet high on 10 foot centers. 4) County Building Official approval of electrical outlets for refrigerated vehicles. 5) Time limit of one (1) year, after which a new special use permit must be obtained'~ 6) This permit be issued to ~he appli6ant and is non-transferrable. 7) The operation~-muSt~he closed by 12:00 midnight. Mr. Johnson was present in support of the request. No one from the public spoke for or against. After a short discussion of the location of this property, Mr. Wood said he did not object but he has received alot of complaints and would like to make a sight review of the property before voting on this matter. Motion was then offered by Mr. Thacker to defer action until August 28, 1974. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (13) SP-377. James A. and Corina M. Garrison have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to allow a mobile home to be located on 2.065 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on th~ north side of Route 672 about ~ mile northeast of Doylesville. Property is further described as County Tax Map 27, Parcel 3 (part thereof). White Hall Magisterial District. Mrs. Scala said this area is rural in nature with woods and~-~p~s~ure land. There are several single family dwellings along Route 672. The Planning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions: 1) County Building Official approval. 2) Minimum setback of 100 feet from Route 672. 3) Screening from Route 672, approved by the Planning staff. 4) Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile home. 5) Time limit of five years. 6) ~,T~is permit~ i~s issued_, only ~to .thee appl~i~ant and is not transferrable. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Fisher to approve SP-377 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (14) SP-378. Elmer C. and Della H. Martin have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 10.92 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the northwest side of Route 618 about ~ mile east of Woodridge. Property is further described as County Tax Map 115, Parcel 47C. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mrs. Scala said the area is rural in character and wooded. There are two other mobile homes in the Woodridge area. The Planning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions: 1) County Building Official approval. 2) Minimum setback of 100 feet from Route 618. 3) Removal of as few trees as necessary. 4) Skirting around both mobile homes from ground level to base of mobile home. 5) Five year time limit. 6) This permit is issued to the applicant and is not transferrable. 7) The mobile homes are limited to the occupancy o~ sing,~e family and the~wo trailer~should be a maximum of 16 feet apart ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~/~z~ ~,~ ~-~ ~~ Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwile to approve SP-378 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (15) Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees have requested the Board of Supervisors to approve a request for a carnival to be held from August 26, 1974 through September 7, 1974 to be located on Route 250 East. Property zoned B-1 Business is described as County Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D. Rivanna Magisterial District. Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on August 9, 1974. (Mr. Carwile abstaining during discussion of the following matter.) Mrs. Scala said if the petition is approved the Planning staff recommends that ther.e be no parking on Route 250 East and a deputy be hired to help control traffic. 8-14-74 67 Mr. William E. Lawrence was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Henley to approve application for a fun,,~ fair by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees with conditions recommended by the Planning staff. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:38 P.M. CHAIRMAN