Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-09-26N A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vir- ginia was held on September 26, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officer Present: County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order and asked if any of the Board members would like to hear comments from the staff before voting on the first two matters on the agenda. These were special permit requests from the City of Charlottesville for landfill operations in the County. Mr. John Humphrey read the following letter from the Department of High- ways: "September 26, 1973 Mr. John L. Humphrey County Planner County Office Building Charlottesville', Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Humphrey: The following comments are offered with regard to Route 20 and Route 29 relative to traffic capabilities. Route 20 is a two lane facility which was designed and constructed under standards in effect in the mid 1950's. The grades and alignment are not considered to be inferior but could pose some problems as traffic volumes increase. Route 29 is presently a two lane facility in the area of the Massie site. A contract has been let to four lane this last two lane section and this work should be completed by early 1975. When this facility is completed it will be capable of handling increased traffic loads by the nature of its design. From a traffic standpoint it is my opinion that a four lane facility such as Route 29 will be able to handle increased volumes much better than the two lane facility on Route 20. I would like to point out however that a traffic study will have to be made at either site before a fair evaluation can be made. Very truly yours, (signed) R.G. Warner Resident Engineer" Mr. Fisher said the Board had received a revised soil analysis on the Massey tract. It shows there are approximately 26 acres of soil which are considered to have only slight limitations for landfill use. He said that more than 9-26-73 one-third of that total lies to the southwest Of the ridge nearest to Route 29 and therefore under the plans of Metcalf and Eddy and also those proposed by the County Planner it would not be usable for landfill operations. He said it appeared to him that approximately 10 acres of this cOuld not be used because they lay close to the roadside. Mr. Fisher asked how much of the frontage of this property will be taken by the widening of 29 South. Mr. Humphrey said he was not aware of any additional right of way being taken at this point. Mr. Fisher then asked the City Attorney a question concerning ownership of the property. Mr. Roger Wiley said the City had an option agreement with the owners of the tract on which they gave notice of execution within the time period specified in the option. To date the City has not received a deed for this tract. He said' their attorney in this land transaction assured him that if the City received the special permit the owners would give the deed. They are somewhat reluctant,for the City to have the land if it cannot be used for the intended purpose. Mr. Fisher asked if the City no longer had a contract to purchase or a title to this land. Mr. Wiley said they have an option contract which the City can take steps to execute within the time of the original option. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John if in his mind that satisfied the requirements of having a legal interest in the property. Mr.' St. John replied yes. Mr. Fisher said that before a vote was taken on either site he felt there were a number of conditions that would apply to e~ther site that should be discussed. He had sent copies of some conditions he proposes to the Board members and Mr. Humphrey had also proposed certain conditions on the individual sites. Mr. Carwile said he felt all the Board members had received a memo from the County Planning department dated September 26th and he then read the following into the record: "SUBJECT: Recommended Alternative for Landfill Site The Albemarle County Planning Staff respectively requests your consideration of the following: That in lieu of selecting one of the two sites that are presently before you under Special Permit applications, that consideration be given to the continuing use of the Ivy landfill by the City of Charlottesville for a period not to exceed five (5) years. It is suggested that there be established a committee to pursue the problem of solid waste disposal as it affects the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle, and the University of Virginia. Said agency being charged to report back to the bodies within a year, on the methods, financing and structure of an agency or authority ko administer a regional approach. That the Thomas Jefferson Regional Planning District act as an advisory and staff to the proposed body. An investigation of the laws in the County Ordinances indicate no deterrent to the City continuing the use of' the Ivy landfill. In view of the critical situation regarding access to the landfill at Ivy, it is suggested that the capital outlay involved in the preparation of the two proposed sites, which the City is willing to commit to, be allotted to the improve- ments of Route 637. This improvement would be in conjunction 9-26-73 with the proposed Virginia Department of Highways improvements of Route 637. We realize these are general statements and the actual plans for long term utilization of the Ivy site are not readily available. However, we feel it is the only alternative that is aVailable under the circumstances to the City and to the County of Albemarle." 275 He also read the following from the staff report on the Massey site: "The Ivy landfill would be an ideal location for a joint landfill operation. With more than two hundred acres of useable land still available, the site has a lifetime of more than thirty years with joint usage. The Ivy landfill is also located near enough to the city as no collection truck use impractical. The additi time to and from Ivy, however, will force the and operate two or three more collection truc Route 637 from the Interstate to the landfill to be improved to accommodate the increased t With the landfill and, hopefully in the futur disposal under one authority, the City, Count University of Virginia will have a great deal in the future to change to more advanced meth disposal. t to make city onal driving city to purchase ks. State will also have tuck traffic. a, all waste y, and the of flexibility ~ds of waste With that planning and economic observation presented, the staff is of the opinion that the City should join with the County in utilizing the Ivy Landfill to meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and economic reasoning with the additional objective of involving the third separate juris- diction, the UniverSity of Virginia." Mr. Carwile said he felt that some of these commen to the Board's attention sometime ago, yet it was received a recommendation for an alternative from he was committed to helping the City solve their not feel that a prerequisite of this means that th another landfill in the County. He felt the Board the problems of landfills for all with the interes the City of Charlottesville. He suggested that t~ ts had been brought on this day that they the staff. He said )roblem and he did Board should place of Supervisors must consider ts of its own citizens and e Board consider the use of the Ivy landfill on long term permanent basis authority, ideally an expansion of the Rivanna Aut staff that the capital outlays the City would have would be money that could be expended by the authc to operate a landfill, for the maintenance of the Mr. Wheeler asked if all the Board had had a received this date. Mr. Fisher said the prospect of improving Rt studied. The estimated cost given by the Highway that section from 1-64 to the landfill. At that ~nder the auspices of an hority. He agreed with the to use at another landfill site rity, or whatever vehicle was chosen road to the Ivy landfill site. chance to review the staff report 637 to the Ivy landfill had been Department was $475,000 to improve lme, the Board did not feel this made economical sense. He felt Mr. Carwile was right in stating that the Board made assurances to the citizens of Ivy when this use was instituted as a temporary measure. He said since the Board is under court order there, he feels they must consider carefully what they are going to do and how they will raise the money to 276 9-26-73 proceed if they go in that direction. Mr. Carwile said he was not aware of any assurances given to the citizens of Ivy by the Board and he did not state that. He felt assurances were given by individual members of the Board to citizens not only in Ivy but in other sections of the County with respect to landfills in general. Mr. Fisher said he did not remember the exact terminology but he felt the Board had agreed to give the City only temporary use of the Ivy landfill from January through June. Mr. Wheeler said there is a sizable piece of land at Ivy and the Board may want to use this site in the future, however, at this time Rt. 637 has not been improved and he did not feel this could be accomplished in the near future. He said the Board's agreement with Continental Can for use of this land will expire soon and if this is to be a joint usage the Board may have to condemn the land. He also said if the County and City want to have a joint landfill operation they most likely will need more than one landfill site. Mr. Henley said it was an appealing ideal_but it had a couple of small flaws, namely, time and money. He did not see how these could be overcome. Mr. Thacker said he agreed although he felt Mr. Carwile and the Planning Staff had found another possibility. He said the time was unfortunate, both from the standpoint of not having an opportunity to have reports prepared on the Ivy landfill site and surveys made. He said the road situation is one that prohibits the continued use at this time, although it may have to be considered later in the evening. He felt the idea merits long range consi- deration. Mr. Fisher said he did not know how Rt. 637 could be improved while it is receiving the present traffic usage. Mr. Wood said the conditions Mr. Fisher had forwarded to the Board earlier in the week would apply to any site located in the County. He felt the Board should discuss their basic philosophy for use of any site. The first of Mr. Fisher's conditions is that the use be for five years, but if the Board decides they will approve for five years they have set a pattern. If they decide on a long term site, then he felt this had set a pattern and it would effect which way he voted on which site. He said a solution could not be found in a short time span and he did not feel that five to ten years is long enough for %he Board to find a true solution. Mr. Wood said five years ago the Board went to a temporary site at Ivy and they now knOw it was a mistake. He said if the Board approves a five year situation on any site, in four years they will be considerating the same matter and the Board will have different segments of the County up in arms over the same circumstances. He thought Mr. Carwile had summarized this 3 277 very well. No one will want a landfill a~d he felt the Board needs a permanent solution or a landfill site for a 20 to 25 year minimum time period. If another solution to solid waste disposal is found in the interim, that site could be abandoned or covered over and re-seeded. Mr. Wheeler said the only way to abandon any site-in five or ten years would be to have conditions attached which the Board of Supervisors can control. He said that one of these sites would be eliminated if a 25 year condition were attached because there is not that much usable land. Mr. Wheeler then asked the expected life span of the Massey site. Mr. Guy Agnor said the Massey site had a prospective life of 20 years and the Cason site has an estimated life of ten years. There are additional acres within the Cason tract which could be used for a landfill operation but this tract is not under any type of lease agreement by the City at this time. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Agnor if he had the cost preparation figures for the two sites. Mr. Agnor said for the Cason site it would be $445,035 and for the Massey site, $411,400. Mr. Carwile asked if the County Engineering Department had ever computed what the additional.site preparation costs would be if there were joint usage at the Ivy landfill. Mr. J. H. Bailey replied no. Mr. Agnor said the City had not made calculations on this, but would re- commend that funds to be used for site preparation on the other two sites be channeled toward highway improvements. If the City were allowed continued use of the Ivy landfill the funds that were earmarked for site improvements would have ~to be used for either the installation of a transfer station (at approximately one-half million dollars) or additional trucks which were calculated a number of months ago at two or three. The capital costs of the additional vehicles would have to be approved by City Council. Mr. Thacker asked the travelling distance to the Ivy Landfill site as compared to the Massey site. Mr. Agnor said it had been measured from the City limits as sixteen miles, almost twice the distance to the Massey site. Mr. Wood said .if one-half million dollars is to be invested in either a transfer station or improvements to Route 637, the City could not justify this cost for only a five year period. He felt the Board should decide if approval would be given for five years or longer. Mr. Wheeler said the Cason site only has a ten year life and that is the length of the City's lease. Mr. Fisher said the reason he suggested the term of any landfill for the City be for five years is that is has been his impression over the last year and three-quarters that no one in the City is concerned abou~ this problem except City Council and their staff. He said if there is going to be a serious look at solving this problem there must.be some reason for a cooperative effort 9-26-73 278 to be made to study new methods of solid waste disposal during the next two years; to make a thorough study and recommendations as to a better way, how this should be implemented, what sort of regional body is to be formed to control this and this is the reason the Board of Supervisors should limit the permit. He said he had outlined other proposals also, namely that a resource recovery study committee be appointed jointly by the University of Virginia, the City and the County. The University would have two members, the City would have five members, three of whom would be private citizens and the County would have five members, three of whom would be private citizens. He had also set out several goals in the conditions, such as the cleaning of roads leading to the. landfill site, a complaint procedure and review and he felt these conditions should apply to any sanitary landfill in Albemarle County. Mr. Wheeler said the Board should add a renewal stipulation to any five year condition. He did not believe the City could clean all the roads in the County which lead to a landfill site and felt it was only reasonable to require that they keep the main route cleaned. Mr. Fisher said this was intended for private haulers from the City if they do not follow the same route the City follows. Mr. Wheeler reiterated his original thought. Mr. Wood said to have this amount of discussion over a minor detail at this point was immaterial. He said Mr. Fisher and Mr. Wheeler had just pointed out one of the major problems in approving any permit for only five years. He felt this would cause a continued disruption to the citizens in the County and he did not feel the Board was being fair by saying that they would approve for a five year period and then add a condition that they might renew for an additional period of time. Mr. Wheeler said those were not his words or his intention. Mr. Thacker said the conditions placed on any site would effect the way he voted and he would like to proceed with the vote on the two sites and place the conditions later. Mr. Wood said he felt the conditions posed by Mr. Fisher would pertain to any site. Mr. W~eeler said the Board must get to a vote in some way and he sUggested that whoever made the motion would state his conditions of approval and if the motion was for denial, no conditions would be needed and he asked the pleasure~ of the Board on Special Permit 203. Mr. Wood offered motion to deny SP-203 and. the motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher. Mr. Carwile said he felt it was only fair to tell an applicant why you are denying his request. He said his reservation on the Massey tract was principally related to the traffic situation on Route 29 South coupled with the inopportune timing with respect to initiation of use and the fact that Route 29 South is slated for extensive road widening. He felt this would seriously interrupt the traffic flow and he was also concerned about water quality and water control as presented in Mrs. Deal's report at the original hearing on this matter. Mr. Thacker said he would support the motion to deny. In addition to the reasons given by Mr. Carwile he feels.strongly that any landfill site in the County should benefit the County of Albemarle and its citizens and he could see no benefit to the County at the Massey site. He said this would put two landfill sites within three and one-half miles of each other and this would be a detriment to the County. Mr. Wood said for the record that the reasons given by Mr. Thacker and Mr. Carwile were the reasons he made the motion to deny SP-203. He felt all these were valid objections and were given at the hearing at Red Hill School and they had been lingering in the back of his mind ever since. Mr. Wheeler said the Board could object to this site however there has to be a solution and he could not understand the direction which the Board was taking. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. Mr. Wheeler. The next matter under discussion was SP-281 for the City of CharlOttesville. Mr. Wood said the Board had not clarified the five-year situation before voting on the last petition and he would now like to have clarification before voting on SP-281. He felt that five years is not long enough. He agreed with the recommendation of a resource recovery study commission and felt that this must be accomplished regardless of the action taken tonight and he said it is probably five years too late. He said the Board had made a five year mistake five years ago W~ they went to the Ivy landfill site. '- Mr. Wheeler said after listening to the reasons used to refuse SP-203 he di'd not feel any conditions would be needed for SP-281 because all reasons given apply to that site also. He said he could not believe the Board would vote for a site that has worse conditions. Mr. Wood said his vote would be influenced by a five year or longer condition being attached to the petition. Mr. Fisher asked if he would vote for SP-281 if more than five years were attached to the conditions. Mr. Wood said he would be so inclined. Mr. Fisher said he could not understand Mr. Wood's reasoning since he felt both sites have their problems. He said experts had testified both ways on both sites and this is one of those cases where in a democracy it comes down to what six people sitting here tonight think is the right thing to do at this point in time. He said the landfill committee had investigated sites to the north of the City. since that is were the majority of the growth in the County is at this time. He did not know if the Cason site will service that need but since the landfill sites 2'80 9-26-73 would then be separated he felt these would provide all the population of the City and County Without having to transport refuse to one small area and he felt there are some differences between the two sites. Mr. Wheeler-said Mr. Fisher was right and read the following comparison prepared by the Planning staff: Massey-Cason Landfill Sites Con~parison General Characteristics 1. Travel Distance 2. Travel Time 3. Road conditions: a) Width of Pavement b) Traffic Counts c) Hazards: 1) Bad grades 2) Site Distance .3) Narrow Shoulders d) No. Travel Lanes e) Proposed Travel Lanes 4. Existing Land Use 5. Proposed Land Use 6. Impact on Historic Facilities Massey Cason 11.02 3.3 20 min. 9 min. 24' 20' 5,755-10,340 2,900-13,030 None Yes Good Fair No Yes 2 2 4 2 .~ ~ Rural-Agricultural Rural-Suburban Rural-Agricultural Urban-Suburban Little Extreme Site Characteristics Massey Cason 1. Topography 2. Traffic Count 3. Soils: a) Workability b) Erosive Potential c) Depth 4. Foliage-Tree Cover 5. Screening Potential 6. Entrance Sight Distance 7. Streams, Ground Water & Well Contamination Potential 8. Nearest Home 2-15% 8-40% 5,775 2,900 Good Poor Moderate High Good Poor Little Most of Site Excellent Fair Good Fair Slight w/care 1400' Moderate w/care 600' Mr. Wheeler said the Board had turned down a site which had some good and fair items in it's favor. From the indication the Board is going to vote for a site which has worse conditions and he refused to believe that. Mr. Wood said the Board did not have a motion yet and Mr. Wheeler said that was the indication which he received and he could not believe it. Mr. Wood again asked for clarification on a five year condition. Mr. Fisher said the site is estimated to have only a ten-year life and there is no way that he could consider stipulating 20 years in a motion~ Mr. Carwile then offered motion to deny special permit 281, and motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker in order to hold discussion. He said that the Cason site is not at it's best desirable as a landfill site, however, there had been many conflicting reports on this matter. There were reports which indicated that the Cason site, while it is not particularly good, is at least not as bad as the information contained on the comparison sheet which Mr. Wheeler read and he referred to the report of E.O. Gooch and Associates. He said there is no site in Albemarle County which would receive an excellent rating on all aspects. 281 Mr. Fisher said using the comparison sheet, it shows that travel distance to county citizens and on county roads is more than three tmes as great, and he felt there is as much validity in voting for the Cason site as there is on the other. Mr. Carwile said he felt the Board had been remiss in not further looking into the Ivy site. He said from his inquiries to people in the engineering field and reports from the County staff that it behooves the Board to further explore the possibilities of the Ivy site before the Board votes to put a landfill in another section of the county. Mr. Fisher said your motion is not to defer and Mr. Carwile said the motion was not to defer. Mr. Henley said unless someone could convince him that the Ivy site is usable and the road could be repaired quickly, he could not support that use. He did not feel the County would be able to obtain money from the City for repairs to the road but he felt the Board should give the City an answer since they have applied for a permit for the Cason site. After viewing the Cason property and reading the reports he questioned the wise judgment in approving that permit however, he said if the City felt they could use this site the Board should approve the permit for the Cason site for at least ten years with an option to renew for five additional years. Mro Wheeler asked if there were any further discussion before calling for a vote on SP-281. Mr. Wood said he felt he was being misunderstood. He felt it was a mistake to approve any landfill site for only five years. Mr. Wheeler said that was not under consideration in this motion. Mr. Wood said he was going to vote against the motion because he felt it was a mistake to approve any landfill site for only five years and know that you would renew for an additional five. He felt this was unfai~ to the citizens in any section of the County. Mr. Wheeler said he was certainly going to support the motion and he did not want to support five years and certainly would not support anything longer than than five years. Vote was taken at this point and the vote was as follows: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Thacker. Mr. Wheeler then asked Mr. St. John to advise the Board. Mr. St. John said to let the records show that all the Board members were present and there was a 3-3 tie vote, and that the tie breaker appointed by the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within the last four years is Harry L. Garth. Section 15.1-540 of the Code of Virginia says the Clerk shall record this tie vote and immediately call the tie breaker to come and give a casting vote at this meeting if that be practicable, and if not practicable, this meeting should be adjourned on this question until a date 9-26-73 282 fixed in the minutes of the Board. In the event of a failure to agree upon a date, the Clerk shall fix a date. Mr. St. John said the Clerk should see if it is practicable for Mr. Garth to attend this meeting and whether he comes here tonight or not he ~--n has 30 days in which to advise himself of the nature of the matter on which he is to cast the tie breaking vote. Mr. Thacker said he felt the Board was elected by the citizens to make decisions for the citizens and if they do not make these decisions they have forsaken their duty and he asked Mr. St. John what was the recourse of the Board on reconsideration of a tie vote. Mr. St. John said he thought it was the same as any tie vote on a motion Snd he read from the rules, "any member may move for reconsideration if it is at the same meeting." Mr. Thacke~ asked if that meant the matter would have to be recon- sidered at the same meeting, or at another meeting or date set for reconsideration. Mr. St. John said you must have a motion to reconsider at the same meeting or an adjournment of that meeting. Mr. Thacker offered motion that this Board reconsider the matter of Special Permit 281 at a special meeting to be called at a later date. Mr. Wood said the matter could be reconsidered tonight. Mr. Thacker said he would like to have some time before reconsidering. Mr. St. John said the effect of this motion is to place the original question in the same position that is occupied before it was ever voted upon. Mr. Carwile said you mean the same motion stands. Mr. St. John said it puts it in the exact position which it occupied before the Board voted on it. Mr. Carwile said you feel our rules of procedure give us the leeway to do this even though the Code says that in the event of a tie you shall call in the tie breaker. Mr. St. John said yes I do. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to reconsider the matter of SP-281 at a meeting to be held at 3:00 P.M., Friday. September 28, 1973 in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. None. --] The next item under discussion was a request from the City Manager for an extension~ Motion to of the deadline on a contract allowing the City use of the Ivy landfill site. extend the deadline from September 30, 1973 for 60 days was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded~by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. At this time the Chairman called for public hearings on zoning matters as advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1973: (1) SP-283. Franklin Jones has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on three acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on west side of Route 663, two and one-half miles southeast of Nortonsville. Property is described as County Tax Map 18, Parcel 29A. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey gave the staff's report and stated that the applicant wishes to place a mobile home on his property for the use of a relative. He said the Planning Commission recommended approval for a period of two years with administrative approval thereafter for a period up to five years; a 100-foot setback from the right of way; Health Depart- ment approval; screening left to discretion of the Planning staff along the right of way of the road; and the-permit is to become void if Mr. Jones' sister moves from the site. Mr. Jones brother was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke in opposition. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve SP-283. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. AYES: NAYS: (2) None. SP-284~ Franklin Jones has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to lo~ate a permanent mobile home on 10.9 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated at the intersection of Route 604 and 817. Property is described as County Tax Map 19, Parcel 40A-1. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey gave the staff's report and stated that the applicant wishes to locate a mobile home on his property for the use of a relative. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended a temporary permit of two years with administrative renewal for one additional year; restricted to the.occupancy of Carroll Jones; a 100-foot set- back from the right of way of the public road; and Health Department approval of a septic tank system. No one from the public spoke for or against the petition. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission and approve SP-284. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (3) SP-287. Christopher Taylor. It was ascertained that no one was present in support of this petition, therefore, motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to defer any action on this petition until the next regular zoning meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (4) SP-291. Lorraine M. Schroyer. It was ascertained that no one was present in support of this petition, therefore, motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to defer any action on this petition until the next regular zoning meeting of the Board. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: None. (5) SP-292. Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a second skeet field on 71.5 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on west side of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) about six miles south of Charlottesville. Property is described .as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 84. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said the club is not visible from the road and is surrounded by densely wooded land. There are scattered dwellings along Route 631, with a community of dwellings on small parcels further south. A conditional use permit was granted in September, 1968 for a clubhouse and indoor range and the applicant now wishes to add a second outdoor skeet field. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. At this time, it was ascertained that no one was present for the petitioner, however, since several people were present to voice objections, the Board continued. The first to speak was Mrs. Jan Romer. She said this skeet range is a constant source of irri- tation and she asked that the Board deny this request and recommended that the rifle club select a new location. She gave to the Board a petition containing 71 signatures of persons voicing opposition to .this permit. Mr. Warren Chandler also spoke in opposition. He stated that he had built next to the range and that after 10 o'clock at night there is still shooting. Expansion of this facilitY does not seem wise since there are five new homes being built in the area. He asked that the restrictions placed on their previous permit be enforced and that the Board deny any further expansion. Mrs. Virginia Dwyer and an unidentified lady both expressed opposition, stating that they attended Chestnut Gro've Baptist Church which is located across from this property and they object to the shooting which occurrs on Sunday mo~nings. They asked that the permit be denied. Mrs. Romer said she felt they were using not only target guns but also automatic rifles and this should not be alIowed. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. Humphrey if the conditional use permit issued in 1968 was only for the skeet range. Mr. Humphrey said it was for the skeet range and the indoor range. The other range was existing prior to zoning in Albemarle County. Mr. Henley then offered mo%ion to defer any actiOn on this petition until the next regular zoning meeting of the Boa~rd in order to allow the petitioner to be present. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Wood said he felt that when there is no one present to speak in favor and there are people present to object that it may be a disadvantage to the Board not to vote on the matter tonight. (6) SP-294. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority haS petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate an interceptor sewer line from Albemarle High School pumping station to the existing Meadow Creek interceptor. Jack Jouett and Charlottesville Magisterial Districts. 9-26-73 285 Mr. Humphrey stated that the proposed line will extend from the Albemarle High School pumping station along Route 657 to Route 743, then in a northeasterly direction to Four Seasons, then southeast through Berkeley community, generally following a stream across Route 29 North south of the Branchland's entrance, then in a southerly direction to connect to the existing Meadow Creek interceptor at the city limits. This request i~ for the improvement of the existing line which connects Four Seasons to the Berkeley Treatment plant. The intent is to connect to the Meadow Creek interceptor in order that the surplus from the Four Seasons area can bypass the Berkeley plant. The Berkeley plan will continue to be used in conjunction with the Meadow Creek plant until the new advanced waste treatment plant is completed in five or six years. The Meadow Creek plant is scheduled for updating by April 1, 1974. In addition to the improvement of the existing line, a new line will be created to serve Albemarle High School, Jack Jouett Jr. High School and the proposed northside elementary school. The new line will be sized to serve other development in the area. It is expected that this inter- ceptor line will be completed after the Meadow Creek plant is updated. He s~ated that the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the line as delineated. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey and Mr. George Williams were present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission and approve SP-294. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. (7) SP-295. Ray and Velma Shifflett have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 3.6 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on west side of Route 627 in Porter's Precinct. Property is described as County Tax Map 128A-1, Parcel 35. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr Humphrey gave the staff's report and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval for a period Of' five years and Health Department approval of a septic tank system. Mrs. Shifflett was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. At this time the Chairman called for a public hearing on an amendment to Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4-13.1 relating to dogs by the addition of Georgetown Green as one of those areas designated where dogs may not run at large. Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 12 and September 19, 1973. Mr_. Robert Wood, sponsor of the petition was present. No one from the public spoke against. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to adopt the following amendment: 9-26-73 (4) Georgetown Green as platted and put to record in the Clerk's office of Albemarle County: Section 4, Deed Book 440, Page 93. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and~Wood. None. Mr. Fisher said he had received a call concerning a building permit in West Leigh for Mrs. C. A. Ballard. Mr. Carwile suggested that the Board allow this building permit to be issued. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, however, after numerous questions arose, the motion was withdrawn and this matter was ordered to be placed on the agenda of September 28. Mr. Wheeler said there was another matter which should be discussed. The Board had received information from the staff that they will begin taking applications under the land use tax ordinance on October 1 and they have asked that they be given some direction in which to~proeeed. Mr. Thacker offered motion to have the Land Use Tax Ordinance placed on the agenda for Friday, September 28, 1973 for discussion. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to adjourn this meeting until 3:00 P.M. on September 28, 1973 in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Cha]_rman