Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-10-2433O 10~24-73 An adjourned meeting of the BOard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 24, 1973, at 4:00 P.M. in the Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from October 18, 1973. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order and said this meeting had been called on at the request of Mr. Wood and/behalf of Mr. Daley Craig. Mr. Craig said he had recently learned, by reading a letter from the County to the State Water Control Board, that the County may not intend to treat all county citizens equally in regard to sewage, when that capacity is available. He asked if that is the position of this Board. Mr. Wheeler said it is not the policy of the Board to treat citizens differently. He asked Mr. Craig if he had any other comments to make to the Board. Mr. Craig said that statement met his needs. Mr. Benton Patterson said he came to this meeting at this suggestion of Mr. Carwile. He owns property at the intersection of Rts. 631 and 743. He bought this property already zoned with the hope that in the near future sewage would be availabte~ this, six or seven years ago.~ In January, 1972, he requested, and put on notice, the Albemarle County Service Authority, for a hook up to seweage services. Mr. Patterson said he had also come as a concerned citizen and a property owner who had for many years paid taxes in Albemarle County. He felt that when taxes are paid the citizen should receive something in return, such as sewerage and other facilities. He said the citizens need firm answers and some conclusions on this question. Mr. Wheeler asked along what specific line. Mr. Patterson said on the question of sewerage. He read a letter which he had written to Mr. Ray Jones requesting sewerage facilities on Lot 6, Parcel 11, Tax Map 45, Parcel 24, Tax Map 45 and Parcel 22-23a, Tax Map 45. Mr. Wheeler asked if Mr. Jones had replied to this letter. Mr. Patterson said yes, he had had full cooperation from Mr. Jones. Mr. Wheeler said this Board and the Albemarle County Service Authority have been ing working with their engineers toward find/additional sewage capacity that will last for two or three years. He said after it was indicated.by the State Water Control Board that a regional plan for this area was desired, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was~formed. Now, this area is served by that authority. One bid was opened yesterday to provide sewer capacity for this area. He said the City and County are faced with the fact that the present system is overloaded and until such time as the present facilities can be upgraded and a new plant built, there will not be any sewage capacity for anyone. 331 ~Mr. Jones said he had talked with Mr. Patterson about these connections in November or December of 1971. At the time, the Albemarle County Service Authority had plans for a sewer line by Albemarle High School to the Berkeley plant and Powelt's Creek. In the spring of 1972, the State Water Control Board said the County and City must create one entity. Yesterday the Rivanna Authority took bids on a segment of lines in that area. To date no contracts have been let for bids to increase the sew~e.~. in capacity/this area. Earlier in the spring, with respresentatives of the City, the County, the State Water Control Board and the State Health Department present, the City and County were instructed' to practice restraint on sewer hook ups in this area. We were told not to expand anything beyond the presently existing sewer lines. Mr. Jones said no traps have been opened in this area in the past year, only were there are existing sewer l~nes. Mr. Batchelor said the bids which were opened yesterday were for only a portion of what had been anticipated would be put out to bid-in March, 1972. The whole sewage problem has been a series of delays and negotations with the State Water Control Board and the State Health Department, and at this time, we.are further'behind than we were a year ago. He said that it had been anticipated that the upgrading of the Meadow Creek plant would provide an additional 5.2 million gallons per day. Now the State Health Department is restricting this to 800,000 gallons per day or less. The~Cou~ty has taken a cautious attitude since we have come close to having a moratorium imposed on sewage connections. disposal The Rivanna Authority is trying to get as much sewage/as possible into the ar~a under discussion and the south part of the City. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. St. John to outline the powers of th.e Albemarle County Service Authority.concerning water and sew~ facilities. Mr. St. John said there are a long list of powers and duties of the Service Authority and he was not prepared to outline these at this time. However, the control of and respon- sibility for the operation of water and sewer facilities and expansion of these facilities are one of their powers. Their powers and responsibilities include what had-been discussed today with respect to the problems concerning availability of sew~g~fs facilities. Mr. Wheeler said the Board of Supervisors have the authority to establish juris- dictional areas for the Service Authority and within those areas they may carry out those functions within their designated powers and authority. The Board of Supervisors cannot grant water or sewer taps. Mr. Patterson asked if the next segment of the plan is for Albemarle High School and that-portion of land which lies across the road from the school. Mr. Jones said the bid opened yesterday w.~m:, for less than !0,000 feet of line and a pumping station on the school property. He said that the portion of the line on the northwest side of the property in front of the high school is a force main which was installed at the direction of the State Health Department. He said when they allowed expansion of the high school in 1969, they had told the County that they must connect to public sewage and-th~s is the purpose of the force main. t0-24-73 332 Mr. Batchelor said there is a sand filter pIa~T at the high school which is inadequate. Mr. Clyde Gouldman said he realizes that there is a scarity of sewage services, and during this period there must be restraint exercised. He said it was not clear to him under what type of guidelines the Service Authority is working. they are taking requests for sewage connections on a first come first served basis. Mr. Gouldman said at a meeting held in May certain areas were designated for sewage service. Some of the people at this meeting are outside of that committed area and this is where the question comes of wanting to be treated equally. Mr. Wheeler said he felt the instructions from the State Water Control Board had been to practice restraintS-He.was led to belie~-that'-~the County~.and~-City have no sewage capacity at this time. Mr. Gouldman said he realizes that there is no capacity at this time, but that there will be capacity in the future and he was asking for a commitment on that capacity even though he knew it would be limited. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Jones how the Service Authority is treating applications now. Mr. Jones said the Service Authority will not act on any requests~until they know how much additional capacity there will be. Mr. Wood asked if the Service Authority was acting under a self imposed moratorium. Mrs. Jones said the Service Authority is granting hook ups to vacant lots in Berkeley and Four Seasons where there is now an existing subdivision. They are not extending into new tracts of land. Mr. Wheeler said the State Water Control Board had implied that if the County and City did not impose a moratorium, only connecting single ldts, that they would take action and impose a moratorium. Mr. Carwile said he understood from the State Water Control Board that the City and the County must limit new sewage facilities to serving only places that already have sewer lines in the ground. Mr. Batchelor said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority had met with 'the State Water Control Board on the 30th to report on what had been committed by the City and County and to plan for sewage facilities in this area. They are trying to obtain as many directions as possible from the State Water Control Board. Mr. Wheeler asked how the Service Authority would handle commitments when the capacity is available. Mr~ ~Batchelor said this has not been determined. ~Mr. Jones said they are not sure at this time if there will be any additional capacity. Improvements must be made to the existing plant and then there will have to be a performance period to see if these improvements work. After that,if'there is additional capacity, the total capacity for the area will be distributed between the County and the County. The Service Authority's Board does not feel they can make any commitments until this happens. In northern Virginia, 333 Mr. Patterson asked if those applying officially would be the first served when the capacity is available. Mr. Batchetor said these questions could not be answered at this time since no policy has been established by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. son Mr. B. B. Wood/said he heard this matter cameup from a request by Daley Craig to have 80 connections transferred from the south side to the north side of Hydraulic Road. Mr. Jones had written to the State Water Control Board and inferred that the'-south side of Hydraulic Road, or the committed area, would be favored. He asked that the Board establish a policy that when there is sewage capacity this will be given on a first come basis. He said to do otherwise seemed to be arbritary. Mr. Wheeler again stated that there is no sewage capacity. He said the State Water opinion, Control Board, s /under which we are operating at this time, said that service cannot be extended outside of the present areas. When there is capacity available, the Service Authority will have to establish a policy as to how they will ~handte the issuing of this capacity. Mr. St. John said he did not see how the Service Authority could issue sewage connections on~.a first come, first served basis, without regard to topography and location. He said if someone on the far reachs of the County applied for sewage first, that would not mean that they would receive sewage facilities. He said there is no mention in th~se minutes that the Board has considered or mentioned topography or location and these must be considered. There is no law requiring sewage allocations be made on a first come basis. He said no sewer main can be extended ia this county without the Planning Commission's recommendation and approval by the Board that this is in conformity with the comprehensive plan. This is the first step. After receiving this approval from the Planning Commission, that the development is suitable for public utilities, then it is a question of capacity. He said this is where these gentlemen.~stand. He said Mr. Craig had been issued approval by the Planning Commission and this Board subject to obtaining sewage facilities. He'felt it wo~ld be a mistake to say there is a pure policy of first come, first served. He said this would not work. Mr. Wheeler said this policy would have to be made by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Batchetor said this would not be an easy decision to make, since this could determine who would develop their property first. Mr. Gouldman said he understood that when there is not enough sewer capacity, it is difficult to divide the limited capacity. Mr. St. John said the law states that people situated similarly must be treated the same as far as possible. Mr. Patterson said all those attending this meeting are situated simi~&~y on Hydraulic Road. Mr. Wheeler said it is his feeling that when the Service Authority has capacity, all will be treated fairly. 3,34 10~2q-~73 Mr. Gouldman said he did not mean to imply otherwise. Mr. Wheeler said that was the feeling he received. Mr. Gouldman said two weeks ago, a commitment for sewage was granted. the circumstances may be different and they may be a reason for doing this. ville Shopping World Limited was given a commitment subject to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's regulations. He said he only wanted to make sure that during this interim period, when there is no capacity, that all would be treated equally. Mr. Jones said that the big difference was the fact that there is an existing sewer line in the ground completely through this property at this time. It was in the ground at the time the application was made. Beyond that poin~ there is no sewer line. There was a resolution passed by the Albemarle County Service Authority that this would be permitted only with approval of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the State Water Control Board and the State Health Department. Mr. Gouldman said in this time of fighting for limited capacity, the sewer line being in the ground is not the problem. These gentlemen would be willing to put a sewer line in the ground along side of this property. The allocation of capacity is the difficulty. Mr. St. John said the law has an automatic effect on the rights and obligations of a people adjacent to ~ on land were there is a sewer line. It changes the rights and obligations in the whole area by installing a new main in the ground. Mr. James Fleming said his land connects to that of Daley Crai~ but his land is on the wrong side of the road. He felt that capacity down the road is capacity no matter.where the line is in the ground' Mr~ Wheeler said he did not think the Albemarle County Servide Authority had any capacity except for a few vacant lots. Mr. Allen Cooper said he had read the letter and it seemed to him that the State Water Control Board would decide if the line is extended across Hydraulic Road. Mr. Jones said after the October 11 meeting of the Service Authority, this whole issue had been referred to the State Water Control Board. Mr. Batchelor said it would not be fair to say that they~will make the determination on this matter. They will tell the Service AuthOrity if the Service Authority can make a decision. The ultimate decision where they have jurisdiction will be made by the Albemarle County Serv~e~uthority. The question posed to the Water Control Board was whether or not the Service Authority can swap taps that have been applied for and received for one area and open a new area. The Water Control Board had replied that this was a difficult question and had been referred to the Attorney General. Mr. Gouldman said he did not want the possibility of switching taps to become er involved in the requests today. He said they are talking about the broad/question of whether sewage facilities can be expanded into this area. Mr. Wheeler said the Service Authority will have toJmake a decision based on capacity, financing, etc. This Board designates an area and it is their responsibility He said Charlottes- 10-2~-73 335 to serve that area. He said this Board would be concerned if they thought that any Board or Commission would discriminate. He said this was not the case. Mr. craig said that apparently this is the case. He said he was granted site plan approval in February on the condition that the Service Authority would not be responsibile for furnishing sewer service until such time as the overloaded conditions of the Berkeley Plant were resolved. Now in the letter of October 15 to the State Water Control Board a deal was made by the County that they would not service that area as they had indicated they would. Mr. Wheeler said he did not understand what Mr. Craig meant by Saying the County had made a deal. Mr. Craig said he understood that the Service Authority would service one side of the road and not the other. Mr. Wheeler asked who had made this deal. Mr. Craig said from the reading the letter from Mr. Batchelor, Mr. Jones and Mr. St. John that this was arranged~ Mr. Jones sa&d there had been no deal. The State Water Control Board said that the Service Authority should practice restraint and limit sewage connections to where there are existing sewer lines. Mr. Craig said that the commitment in February had said that the developer should extend the lines at his own cost. He said he could have done this in March. However, at that time, he did not know that this deal would be made in May. He did not know that he should proceed with all due hasteto extend those lines in order to get ahead of this deal. Mr. Jones said it was his understanding that the Service Authority would only service existing lots where there is a sewer line and not expand beyond om to the other side of the road. He said there are existing sewer lines on the south side of the road. Mr. Thacker said there seemed to be confusion as to what the State Water Control Board had ordered. There was no deal made. The Albemarle County Service Authority had been told that they must restrict new hook ups or the State Water Control Board would impose a moratorium. He said that no tax reven~es support the Albemarle County Service Authority. There have been funds loaned to the Service Authority. Mr. Wood said he understood what Mr. Patterson had said about taxes. He had paid for many years taxes on a valuable piece of land with zoning that requires public utilies. He felt Mr. Patterson was talking only about avaiias±lity of sewage facilities. He said the Board does have responsibility in this matter and if the Service Authority is servicing a school on one side of the road and there is common usage on sewer, the Board should have some clarification on this question. Mr. Wheeler said he had gone to a meeting in Richmond where Mr. George Palmer had presented the overall plans of the Rivanna Authority and the State Water Control Board had warned of the penalties they could impose if their conditions were not complied with. Mr. Craig said he had received approval before that meeting~ ~ha~_he was ~eCerring to had probably happened in May. 336 20-24-73 Mr. Wood said in looking at the map of that area, he could see Mr. Craig's concern. Mr. Wheeler said he also could.see the concern, however, he did not know how the~e can be any capacity until the plants are upgraded and the Rivanna Authority receives additional capacity. Mr. Craig said that+while the plants are being upgraded and the County is giving capacity commitments subject to the plants/being mncreased, his land is on the opposite side of the road from the existing lines and he is not receiving a commitment. He asked for equal treatement as a citizen of the County. Mr. Wheeler asked that Mr. Craig refer to the Albemarle County Service Authority and not the county. is Mr. Craig said his plans were approved by the Planning Commissi6n, which/an also advisory board, and/in the conditions was a recommendation of the Albemarle County Service Authority as to sewage. One condition'stated that he would extend lines to that area and the other condition was that the overloaded condition of the Berkeley plant.be alleviated and he proceeded with his plans based on this approval. Now, in October he had learned that in May an arrangement or deal was made with the State Water Control Board and it appears that this was made without consideration of the County's commitment to him in February. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Craig if he had dis. cussed this with the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Craig said he had discussed this with both Mr. Batchelor and Mr. Jones. Mr, Batchelor said this had been discussed by the Albemarle County Service Authority's Board of Directors. When Mr. Craig had asked that 80 taps be transferred from Four Seasons East to Four Seasons West, he had told the Service Authority that they could not do this because of the commitment made to the Water Control Board in May. He said that was the reason that body had requested the State Water Control Board to give them guidance in the transferring '!'of the 80 units. Mr. Carwile said he was confused as to what commitment was made to Mr. Cmaig in February with respect to sewer facilities for Four Seasons West. Mr. Gouldman said there was a condition attached to the site plan approval that came indirectly from the Service 'A?u~,~o~,i~.y. It was anticipated that if the overloaded conditions of the Berkely plant were resolved they would receive a commitment on sewage. Now they are lead to believe that the Service Authority is going in another direction and resolving the Berkeley problem will not put them in the committed area. Mr. Carwile asked if the modifications to the Meadow Creek plant are made and tested certificate is then issued by the State Water Control Board that there~ and supplemental is excess capacity,if the Rivanna Authority would not be able to then expand the lines and also the areas served. 10-24-73 337 Mr. Batche!or said if the 5.2 million g.p.d, had been certified for the Meadow Creek Plant as originally anticipated, there would not have been a pr~b!em in getting sewage facilities to the area under discussion. He said unless the 800,000 g.p.d, is obtained there will not be enough sewage in that drainage area to take care of the anticipated amount of demand that will be there before December of 1977 when the new plant will be completed. He said the Albemarle County Service Authority will have to decide where, who and how they are are going to limit service to those properties that might be served. Mr. Carwile said from all the information he had seen from the State Water Control Board, if Albemarle County had not chosen to live under the mestraints dictated in May, there would have been a sewer moratorium in effect now. He said although he could sympathize with the predicament these gentlemen are faced with, this was not a decision made by the County. He said a deal is something negotiated and thi's was not negotiated. Mr. Carwite did say that he felt the Service Authority should address the question of adopting a policy on the allocation of capacity and/so doing hear from those present tOday. Mr. Wheeler said it might be advantageous to hold a meeting in the near future with the Albemarle County Service Authority Board. He said he felt they are trying to be fair to everyone and will in the future. They have not had the capacity to fill all needs. Mr. Fisher encouraged the Service Authority to try to generate a policy on how they will allocate the capacity when it is available. Mr. Wood asked how we lost the 800,000 gallons per day~' Mr. Batchelor said the design of the Meadow Creek Sewer Plant was rated for 40 pounds o~ BOD or demand on dissolved oxygen. This plant was built at a time when theplans went to the State Health Department and the plant was rated. Thereafter, it was rerated each year. One year, because the load in the original plant had changed from the original design, it was changed down to 29.8 BOD. At that time, no one thought about this change since the City assumed that any modifications they were able to make to the Meadow Creek plant would get them back to the 40 pounds of BOD. The engineers worked toward that point and will get the 5.2 million g.p.d., however, the State Water Control Board has said the plant is only rated at 29.8 and we cannot put more than that into the plant. The Rivanna Authority and the State Health Department both agree that the rating should to court be at 40. Mr. Batchelor said that no one dares take the Water Control Board/over this point for fear they will hold up approval on the 29.8 rating. He said that four months ago there was no doubt in the mind of any of the staff members that when the plant modified that there would be adequate sewage facilities for the entire community. Mr. Craig said he had based his plans on this and it now puts him in a difficult position'. Mr. Wheeler said it is his understanding that they hope to have the plant upgraded by this time next year. Mr. Craig said the county did make a commitment to him. Mr. Wheeler said it did not seem like a commitment to him. 10~24-73 Mr. Craig said he had accepted that condition because he understood that the upgrading was in the process at that time. Mr. Wheeler said the Service Authority cannot let contractors proceed until approval is received from the State Water Control Board and he asked if this approval had been received. Mr. Batchelor said that last week they were to have been approved at anytime. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Craig had a letter from the Service Authority stating that a commitment had been made. Mr. Gouldman said no. Mr. Fisher read the conditions of approval on Mr. Craig's site plan and said that the-statement included there did not seem to be a commitment. Mr. Craig said the condition~ read "until such time as the overloaded conditions of the Berkeley Sewer Plant are resolved". He said at the time all were guessing as to ~hen this would happen, however, on this basis, he accepted that condition and proceeded with his plans. Mr. Wheeler said from the indications that he had received, this would not happen until some time next fall. Mr. Carwile said he understood that Mr. Craig wanted assurances that once these circumstances are resolved that he will be on the list of people who will be served. Mr. Thacker asked if these commitments were handled through written applications for sewer connections~ Mr. Jones said yes; through written requests to the Service Authority Board. Mr. Thacker asked if Mr. Craig had made a written application. Mr. Jones said yes. Mr.~Gouldman said the Service Authority Board had probably not digested the application in full. It was only when they saw the letter of October 15 that they realized there may be a problem and the application was filed only last week. Mr. Craig said there had been correspondence on this matter since 1969. Mr. Wheeler said it would be beneficial to have a meeting with the Service Authority to be brought up to date on their information. Mr. Wood felt the meeting should include the Service Authority, State Water Control Board, the property owners in the whole area under discussion and Mr. Batchelor. He said if all of these people held a meeting, he felt something could be resolved, otherwise, it would be just a matter of writing letters back and forth to each other. Mr. Wheeler said he felt this would be the case until the plants are upgraded. would Mr.~ Patterson felt it/be essential to formulate a policy at this meeting. Mr. Wheeler said he was not indicating that a meeting would be held and the Service Authority would issue any policy at that time. ~i~ Mr. Patterson requested that they at least think about formulating a policy. in He said they will have to decide/which direction they are going before they act on any requests. 10-24-73 339 Mr. Wood felt the Board could benefit from such a meeting. Mr. Batchelor did not think they would have any answers To these questions until such mime as they know fQmwh~a~ capacity tHe_plant will:.be approved. He said,at that times there will be a debate as to how this will be allocated. Mr. Wheeler said it is the concensus of this Board that in the near future a meeting pmesent be set with the Service Authority and those gentlemen~are to notified of that meetimg. Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M. 340 10-24-73 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 24, 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., [ l William C~ Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney. The first item on the agenda was a report on Greenbrier Drive and Stromberg-Carl- [ son's request for Industrial Access Funds. (Mr. Carwile abstaining during the following discussion.) Mr. Humphrey said he had received on yesterday a cost estimate from the Highway Department for Greenbrier, Peyton and a small portion of Commonwealth Drive, plus the industrial access entrance to the Stromberg-Carlson plant. This totaled $57,255.56. He said when the staff evaluated these figures they found that for some reason the Highway Department had broken the costs into shares for Stromberg, the State and others. These should have been all state. Mr. Humphrey said he calculated the cost ~at $25,259.24 for the state and $31,996.32 for others. He said it appeared that in connection with Peyton Drive, the Highway Department had included curb and gutter in the cost estimate. Mr. James M. Hill was present to represent Dr. Hurt. He said that at the last -- meeting of the committee appointed to-study this matter they had agreed to draw a docume]j in which they would agree to share 50% of the cost. He said that in the state's estimate they feel that on Peyton Drive there would be $10-$11,000 that would not be required, the estimate should be $43,116.04 and they agree to pay or keep their bond at 50% of that cost. Mr. Hill said that there is presently a $23,676.00 bond and they do not need any additional bond to cover their share of the cost to bring these roads to state standards. He showed to the Board a draft of the agreement drawn in this matter. Mr. Batchelor said part of this, and it will be part of Exhibit A,. is for sidewalks, a continuance of what Dr. Hurt has already-installed. This is not an eligible item for Industrial Access Funds. Mm. Thacker said the Highway Department shows $22,070.50 for Peyton Drive or $10,414.30 more than the. State share. He asked if this is the price of the sidewalks and gutters, j Mr. Batchelor said the bond which the County now holds is to make sure that these roads are brought up to state standards. Industrial access funds will take over, but, in the meantime, the County has to continue to hold the total amount of the bond until the state says they are eligible for Industrial Ac~cess Funds. The agreement before ~ the Board tonight says Dr. Hurt will put up one-half of the total amount, at the time ~ this job is let for bids. The County cannot let him have any part of the bond back until the contract is signed, his share paid, or until the County knows that the state will participate in the cost of the project. Mr. Fisher asked what value of bonds should''be held until that time. Mr. Batchelor said one-half of the cost is all that can legally be required. Mr. Wheeler asked about the status of the bond° Mr. Batchelor said ~ha check which has been in contention for several months is now in the form of certificates of deposit and cash and he has returned Dr. Hurt's personal check. Mr. Batchelor said that Exhibit A is not attached to the agreement tonight, however, if the Board approves the agreement it should be stated in the resolution that the chairman would not sign until Exhibit A is furnished satisfactory to the staff and the chairman. Mr. Wheeler asked what is supposed to be included in Exhibit A. Mr. Batchelor said this would set out the designated roads and what it does not cover, Dr. Hurt will pay for. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. St. John if he had looked at the agreement and Mr. St. John replied yes. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. Batchelor if he was talking about $23,000 or $32,000 for the bond. Mr. Batchelor said he did not ask Dr. Hur more because'this Mr. Thacker said he felt the Board has Ghat right a~l~he /thought this was what the committee had discussed and agreed to. Mr. Batchelor said he was not at the com- mittee meeting. Mr. Thacker said in that meeting the committee'had decided that Dr. Hurt should furnish a binding agreement to share 50% of the cost and also update the bond issued in 1969. He felt the curbs and gutters along Peyton Drive should be included in this agreement also. Mr. Hill said Dr. Hurt intends to install the sidewalk and gutter although it is not a state requirement. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Hill if Dr. Hurt was not aqree£n9 to install these even though it is not a requirement and had also agreed to pay the total cost of these over and above his 50% share of the upgrading of the other roads. Mr. Hill replied yes. He said the Highway Department had taken their estimate from the plans that Dr. Hurt had submitted and these plans show curb and gutter or sidewalks. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. Humphrey if curb and gutter would be required along Peyton Drive in lieu of sidewalks in order to satisfy state requirements. Mr. Hill said you did not need any. Mr. Wood asked if sidewalks were already installed and Dr; Hurt intended to carry these through the development. Mr. Hill replied yes. Mr. Humphrey said Planning Commission policy, that was considered on Monday night, may indicate intent to be sure that sidewalks are considered for the entire area. Mr. Wood asked if there were a-breakdown on Stromberg's portion as well as the other portion so it would be one package. Mr. Hill said there was a breakdown in the estimate. Mr. Fisher said the breakdown does define the streets. He asked if that had been drafted and agreed to by all parties. Mr. Batchelor said it had been agreed to, it had not been drafted. He did feel there was a dispute over what it was, sidewalks, curb and gutter and those roads that are in the agreement. Mr. Thacker said he felt this 3z 2 10-24-73 was basically what the committee had discussed. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to approve the agreement and to adopt the following resolution for Industrial Access Funds. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood. WHEREAS, request has been received from Stromberg-Carlson Corporation for improvements under Industrial Access Law and a representative of said Corporation has appeared at this meeting and reviewed plans for such improvements; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of this Board that improvements as requested are needed due to the expansion of said Corporation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways be and is hereby requested to allocate Industrial Access Funds for improvements as set out below and shown on Exhibit A which is made a part of this request: Beginning at station 8+16.50, a point in the center of Greenbrier Drive 816.50 feet west of the U.S. Route 29 right-of-way, as shown on the plan and profile of Greenbrier Drive dated January 10, 1965, prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman; thence, with Greenbrier Drive in a northwesterly direction 382 feet to station 11+98.50, the intersection with Peyton Drive, equals station 0-30 of the plan and profile of Peyton Drive revision dated November 29, 1971, prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman; thence, with Peyton Drive, in a southwesterly and westerly direction 907.16 feet to station 8+77.16, the intersection with Commonwealth, equals station 24+80 of the plan and profile of Commonwealth Drive dated January 6, 1972, prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman;: thence, with Commonwealth Drive in a south- westerly direction 420 feet to station 20+60, the end of the Industrial Access Road. Mr. Fisher asked once again about the bonds. Mr. Batchelor said that one of the certificates of deposit is for all of the Hollymead road and it will be held until that road is taken into the state system. He said that essentially the roads in Phase I of Hollymead are finished. The other two certificates have been transferred to the area which is under discussion tonight and they will be held until bids are taken and accepted for this job. At that time, everyone's obligation is finished, except the Highway Department's. Mr. Fisher said the agreement did state that Dr. Hurt would pay 50% of the bid price. He wondered if the bond would be sufficient to cover the inflation factor from the time of the estimate to the bid. Mr. Thacker asked for a status report of the Hollymead road. Mr. Batchelor said the Board had voted to take into the Secondary System the main road into the school. Mr. Hill said there are some auxiliary roads which need valley gutters and this work will be completed in about 30 days. Mr. Batchelor said the County is holding a $10,000 bond which will be more than enough to cover this work. Mr. Humphrey said all the auxiliary roads have been paved. He did not know if the Highway Department had made a final inspection, but, subject to the final guttering it will be close to state standards. Mr. Batchelor said these roads have been constructed to a better specification than 10-24-73 ~'~ ~ ~ .~equired by the Highway Department and the Board of Supervisors. They were to be asph~lt~-~ roads, but, they are bituminous concrete. At this time, Mr. Wheeler called for a vote on the motion and it carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. Mr. Bud Jamerson, plant manager of Stromberg-Carlson thanked the Board of Super- visors saying that Stromberg-Carlson is concerned about the safety of their personnel and they do appreciate the action taken by the Board of Supervisors this night. Mr. Carwile made a report from the joint city-county jail committee. He said they had met on October 17 to discuss the problems of the operation of the new joint security complex. The committee had voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council and the Board of Supervisors several items. He said that one of the problems they had found with the structure of how they operate the new city-county joint security complex and jail is a provision that exists in the present Virginia Code that states that a regional jail can only hold prisoners who have already been sentenced and cannot hold those awaiting sentence. The Jail committee recommended the following: 1. That the two governing bodies request the General Assembly to amend Sections 53-206.1 to 53-206.12 to allow the City and County to operate a joint jail for both unsentenced and sentenced prisoners. The committee recommended that the General Assembly do this both as special and regular legislation. 2.That a professional penologist be employed to operate the the joint jail. 3. That a joint Jail Board be established as the governing authority for the jail. This Board to be composed of the County Executive, the City Manager, the County Sheriff, the City Sheriff and one person jointlY appointed by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. 4. That the proposed'board select the professional penologist as soon as possible. He said the penologist would have to be employed by Sheriff Bailey until special legislation has been enacted. He said that with the exception of Sheriff Bailey, who declined to vote, it was unanimously voted to recommend to City CoUncil and the Board of Supervisors that Sheriff Bailey be designated the person %o officially operate the jail until special legislation establishing a joint jail board can be secured from the General Assembly. It was agreed that the County Executive and the City working with the two sheriffs, would construct a budget for the Manager, joint jail. He said that either he or Mr. Fisher would be happy to answer any questions the Board had. Mr. Richard Jones, Offender Aid and Restoration, asked if the committee or George Bailey would select the administrator of the jail. Mr. Carwile said it was agreed by the City/County committee that the County Executive, the City Manager and the two sheriffs would serve as a committee to proceed with interviews and hiring of a penologist. The actual hiring of the person would technically be left to George Bailey. 10-24-73 344 Mr. Johns asked if the committee would come to-a concensus or agreement and then present the nominees to George Bailey. Mr. Carwile said he felt that technically George Bailey would have the final say, however, it was the concensus of all present, including George Bailey, that it would be a committee choice. After legislation is received from the General Assembly, he can be hired by the joint jail board. Mr. Fisher said until such time as special legislation is approved, Sheriff Bailey will have legal jurisdiction over the jail and the Board that is proposed will be an advisory board to him. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to adopt the recommendations of the joint jail committee. 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. Mr. Batchelor said that there are now two projects in progress at the Airport. One is for land rk and the other is resurfacing of the runway. He asked the Board to authorize the Chairman to execute an agreement between the City/County/ Airport Board which would transfer responsibility of these two projects to the Airport Board since they technically have jurisdiction at the Airport. Mr. Fisher asked if this were based on the assumption that the Airport Board would be able to raise more money in the future. Mr. Batchelor said this agreement had nothing to do with raising revenue, it only has to do with repairs to the runway and grading applications that the City/ County have made to FAA. Mr. Fisher asked if it were true, as reported in the press, that the Airport Board has voted to raise feeS, retroactively, on the carrier using the Airport. 'Mr Batchelor said yes they had voted to do this, however, the landing fee part of the contract with Piedmont A~rlines had expired some time ago. The Airport Board had voted to make the new contract retroactive to the date the old contract expired. Mr. Thacker asked if the Board had appropriated funds for these projects. Mr. Batchelor said yes and the bids on the resurfacing of the runway were lower than the amount anticipated. Mr. Wood then offered motion to authorize the chairman to sign the following agreement: This ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT, made this day of 19 between the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (hereinafter called the-City and County) and the Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport Board, a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the provisions of Pars. 5.1-35 and 5.1-36 of the Code .of Virginia (1950), as amended (hereinafter called the "Board"). 10-24-73 WHEREAS, the City and County has heretofore, by a deed dated and recorded in the Office of the County Clerk, conveyed to the Board all of the airport properties belonging to the City and County subject to the approval of the Federal Aviation Administration: WHEREAS, the Board desires the City and County to obtain approval of said transfer by the Federal Aviation Administration and in order for the City and County to do so, the Board must assume all of the obligations of the City and County contained in Agreements with the Federal Aviation Administration; WHEREAS, the obligations of the City and County to the Federal Aviation Administration are set forth in Grant Agreements for Federal-aid Airports Program (FAAP) Projects No. 9-44-016-0301, 9-44-'016-0802, 9-44-016-6003, 9-44r016-C604, 9-44-016-C905, 9-44-016-7006, and Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) Projects No. 8-51-0004-01-72 and A-51-0004-01-72. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that for and in consideration of the City and County obtaining written approval of the Federal Aviation Administration, the Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport Board, does hereby expressly assume and agree to keep and perform all covenants, assurances, conditions, commitments and obligations according to the terms and pro- visions recited in each of the aforesaid instruments with the same effect as though the Board were the party in privity with the Federal Aviation Administration under said instruments. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and City and County have caused their corporate names to be signed and their corporate seals to be affixed hereunto on the day and year hereinabove set forth. Mr. Fisher said he was not quite sure why this is being handled in this manner instead of the way it has been handled in the past. He said he had not seen the agreement the Board was being asked to approve and had received no background information on the agreement. Mr. Batchelor said he had received a call early this morning that FAA must have this agreement signed immediately. He had discussed this with the City Manager and they both agreed that this was not the way they wished to present matters to their respective Boards. He said he had' sent a copy of the agreement to Mr. St. John immediately upon receipt of same. Mr. Carwile asked if the property at the Airport has been deeded to the Airport Board. Mr. Batchelor said it has not been. Mr. Fisher asked if this is just a lease contract. Mr. Batchelor said that is his understanding. Mr. Fisher then gave second to Mr. Mr. Wood's motion. Mr. Thacker asked when the property has to be deeded to the Airport Board. Mr. St. John said this would probably have to be done before FAA gives any final approval. 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. 345 10-24-73 346 At this time, the Chairman called for public hearings on'zoning matters as advertised in the Daily Progress on October 3 and October 10, 1973: (1) ZMP-283. Acme Visible Records has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 36.42 acres of land from M-1 Industrial to A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on south side of the C & 0 Railway, about 3/4 mile east of Crozet. Property is des- cribed as County Tax Map 56, Parcel 94. White Hall Magisterial DiStrict. Mr. Humphrey gave the staff's report stating that M-1 industrial zoning abuts the property to the west and north, de~eloped as Morton Frozen Foods and Acme Visible Records. The remainder of the surrounding property is zoned A-1 agric- ultural. Crozet, to the west, is largely R-2 residential. The subject property is designated on the Crozet cluster plan, as suitable for heavy industry. The staff did not find fault with this request and assumed that it was for tax purposes, however, he stated that if rezoned to A-1 agricultural, it would be hard to have it ever rezoned to M-1 later if they found the need to do so. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission noted that at present there is a lagoon on the site which services Acme and on the basis of the staff report and the comprehensive plan in that it is presently being utilized to some degree north of the road, the Planning Commission recommended denial unanimously by those members present. During the Planning Commission's public hearing, it was broughft out that there is presently a parking lot located on this land, however, Acme's representative had stated t'hat they planned to relocate that parking lot. Mr. Verlin W.. Baker, representing Acme, said it had been brought out at the Planning Commission's public hearing that the lake is being used for industrial processing and he did not dispute this at that hearing, however, he has checked and found that waste water from the paint shop which is put into the lake is clear water. He said the assumption of the Commission that this rezoning request is for tax purposes is true. They had been informed by the Board of Assessors that ~this would be the only way to receive any tax relief. Mr. Wood said he asked the gentlemen at the Planning Commission's hearing on Monday night if he had checked with the real estate office to see what the difference in taxes would be and he asked him if he had done this. Mr. Baker indicated no. Mr. Henley said he did not feel the Board of ~ssessors should tax the land behind the railroad track as high as the property on the other side. He said if this is the only way for them to bring their taxes down he would be willing to vote for the rezoning. He said there was no way they could use the property for anything else because there is no access to it. Mr. Batchelor said he did not think that would be the case. If the Board wanted to rezone for tax purposes they should have the Board of Assessors come to the Board meeting. He said the Board is discussing only land use. Mr. Wood said he did not dispute that someone might' have stated that to Mr. Baker. Mr. Wheeler said he did not think this was a valid way to reduce taxes and .2 ]0-24-73 it is not a reason for the Board to start considering in zoning cases. Mr. Henley questioned whether this is a valid industrial site. Mr. Wood said it was bought out at the Planning' Commission hearing that they are using the pond or lake as a processing catch basin for the paint shop and they were also using the parking lot on the other side of the railroad track. He felt this makes a valid zoning for this piece of prOperty. Mr. Carwile asked if the parking iot is still being used by Acme. Mr. Humphrey said this was the indication at the Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Carwile asked if the Board rezoned back to A-1 what the status of the property would be. Mr. Humphrey said it would be a non-conforming use or activity. Mr. Wood offered motion to deny ZMP-283. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. ZMP-284. AYES: NAYS: (2) Lawrence E. Hund and Charles M. Manning have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 2.34 acres of land from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business. Property is situated on east side of Route 743, Hydraulic Road, at the intersection of Route 657, LamB's Road. Property is described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 27. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey gave the staff's report stating that R-2 residential zoning exists to the north and south; R-2 residential to the east along the south side of Whitewood Road; B-1 business on the north side of Whitewood Road which is partially developed as a general store on Route 743; M-1 industrial to the northwest across Route 743 developed as United Parcel Service; and A-1 agricultural west across Route 743, developed as Albemarle High School. B-1 business zoning also occurs farther south along Route 743 at the intersection of Georgetown Road. The comprehensive plan shows this area as being designated for mixed, medium and high density residential uses. The plan proposes a neighborhood commercial center north of the site. Another such center is shown at the intersection of Route 743 an~d 631. Commercial type office is designated only along Route 29 North between Hydraulic and Rio Road. He said the staff was opposed to any further commercilization of Hydraulic and Rio Roads under the pre,sent one-zone commercial approach with it's broad usage. The staff was also of the opinion that doctors and professional offices could locate in the area providing services for the potential high density area. They felt a C-O office zone would have less of an impact on the area. They did not recommend the B-1 zone for this property because of the abundance of vacant B-1 zoning. He said that he had recently received letters from the applicants and he read the following into the record: "september 26, 1973 County of Albemarle, Virginia Office of Planning and Zoning 411 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Parcel 27, County Tax Map 61 Gentlemen: 10-24-73 34'8 At the present time we have an option on a piece of land designated as parcel 27 on county tax map 61. Our research seems to indicate that this would be an ideal location for a dental office. The proximity to the schools, the ~"Northward" growth trend of the city and county, the residential density, and the esthetic value of the property itself all tend to confirm our ideas. We are interested in constructing a dental building 'on this site. We wish to operate an office as efficiently and effectively as possible in order to better serve our patients. We have found no existing office space for sale or lease that is functionally and esthetically suited to our needs. Cost, insufficient space, and inadequate parking are some of the disadvantages. Of primary consid- eration is the need for proper interior design related to space utilization, traffic patterns, plumbing, and such characteristics unique to professional dental offices. Our basic plan for this wooded lot with both front and rear views of the mountains is to construct a dental building in harmony with.the natural setting. Esthetics is paramount: not only for the benefit of our patients and ourselves but also for our neighbors and the area in general. The size of the lot (2.34 acres) has several advantages: adequate parking, preservation of trees, and the potential for one or more professional buildings to form a uniquely attractive dental-medical professional complex. The cost of the land is reasonable and would allow us to allocate sufficient funds for the construction of both a beautiful and functional professional building. The Hydraulic Road area has been subject to rapid growth, increased traffic, and utility inadequacy. Under these considerations, a dental building would be the most desirable construction on this site. Such a building would provide convenience of services to the growing area. A dental office would contribute minimum traffic problems in comparison with other types~of businesses, or high density residential complexes. Our utility requirements, including water and sewer, would be~minimal and are or will be readily available for our needs. We feel we have done a thorough investigation. Be have sought the advice of qualified professionals such as Realtors, an experienced architect and a qualified appraiser and will further consult with these and others to make this adventure a reality. We also need your help. We respectfully request rezoning of this property from R2 to B1. It is our sincere desire to be worthy contributors to the progress and growth of the Charlottesville-Albemarle business community. Very truly yours, (signed) L. E. Hund, D.D.S. (signed) Charles M. Manning, D.D.S." "September 27, 1973 Mr. John H~umphrey, County Planner Albemarle County Planning Office County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Re: ZMP No. 284 Dear Mr. Humphrey: The undersigned are contract purchasers of a parcel of land on Hydraulic Road which is the subject of the above zoning map petition. We are purchasing the property in order to build a medical office building. As you are aware under the existing County Zoning Ordinance this requires that the zoning classification be "Business." We also understand that Albemarle County is in the process of considering a new zoning ordinance which would include a zoning category called "Commercial, Office District." In order to facilitate.our obtaining the proper zoning under the present ordi- nance in order that our plans will not be delayed pending consideration and adoption of the new county zoning ordinance, we are willing, as is the Seller, to in~clude in the deed conveying the property to us the following provision: "The use of the property hereby conveyed shall be restricted to: Offices for business or professional use and clinics without facilities for the overnight care of patients. This restriction shall terminate at such time as the County of Albemarle hereafter adopts a revised or amended zoning ordinance containing a business or commercial office district zone and the property is thereafter rezoned to such a business or commercial office district zone. Upon the happening of both of the above events the use of t.he property hereby conveyed shall thereafter be solely determined by reference 'to the property's then existing zoning claSsification.'' We hope that our willingness to so restrict the use of the property will 10-24-73 facilitate a favorable consideration of our perdition. Very truly yours, (signed) Lawrence E. Hund, D.D.S. (signed) Charles M. Manning, D.D.S." Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission was recommending that the Board consider granting B-l, subject to a proper agreement, satisfactory to the County Attorney, provided, it is legal and proper to work out a deed restriction to tie this land to restricted office use. Mr. Fisher asked if this proposal had been given to the County Attorney for his recommendations. Mr. Humphrey said not to his knowledge. He said that in the State of Virginia, the Board cannot condition rezonings. There would have to be some sort of deed restriction set up prior to the Board's taking action. Mr. St. John said he did not quite understand. It seemed to him as though there would be a condition put on the rezoning, obstensibly through a deed. He said if this could be done through the rezoning, that would be the proper way. Since this cannot be done, it has been recommended that the Board include it on a deed. He said there is a problem here since all parties in interest to the deed restriction or all of those interested in the land can unite and remove that restriction at any time. Mr. St. John said he had not had a chance to study this in depth and he was not sure what could be accomplished by this deed restriction. Mr. Wheeler said he felt the Board was faced with either rezoning the land or denying this request. Dr. Larry Hund was present in support of the petition. He said the letters were self-explanatory. A site plan would-still have to be approved and he had not been aware that the deed reStriction could be removed 'at any time. He asked if that would be by all of the adjacent property owners. Mr. St. John said whoever the restriction was for the benefit of. He said he did not feel that you could have a deed restriction that ran to the benefit of the County Board of Supervisors instead of to some other piece of land. It would have to run to the benefit of some individual. Dr. Hund said there were anumber of pieces of land adjacent to this property which were already zoned business. Mrs. Frances Martin said at the Planning Commission hearing Mr. McClure had reco~de~ that the County be made a party to the restrictions in the deed with the i orce them. Mr. WoOd~aid. the question came up as to how you could enforce the restriction ~ ~ and thins was Mr. McClure's suggestion, that the County be made a party to the agree- I::~'~ ment. He ~as not sure ~f this is what the Board really needs. He thought th~s might ~ ~ become a ~prad~ice in rezonings and he felt that what the applicant desires to do 'on '~¢;'~:;~'~%' (~'~ plus~ ~cres is an asset to the neighborhood It w211 reduce the o~erall ,~ de~s:ity s~%nce the land is already zoned for town houses. He did not see that any- /,. , thing wh~c~-~enefits,the county should not be rezoned. He said Dr. Hund and Dr. 349 Manning have a substantial interest in the land and have staked their future in the land. He thought it was the Board's duty to accept their intent. Mr. Wood then offered motion to approve ZMP-284. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker. No one from the public rose to speak for or against this petition. Mr. Fisher asked if when the new zoning ordinance is adopted, with the map, the planning staff and the Planning Commission might not suggest that this be brought under some designation with a more limited use then the present A-1 or B-1. Mr. Humphrey said yes, he felt this was indicated in the staff's report. Vote was taken at this poin~ and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (3) SP-296. Warren L. Coats, Jr. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a basement apartment on 8.27 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on south side of Route 641, about 1.2 miles west of Route 29 North. Property is described as County Tax Map 20, Parcel 28A. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey gave the staff's report stating that the area is largely wooded with large tracts and sparse residential development. This area is designated for agri- cultural density. In the staff comment;~ he said that the new zoning ordinance will make a provision for this type of request for an accessory living unit. The staff recommended approval conditioned upon the residence retaining the appearance of a single-family unit and health department approval. He said the Planning Commission: recomme.nded approval with the staff's conditions. Mr.-Coats was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against. Mr. Carwile offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approved SP-296. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (4) SP-298. Ralph Dammann has petitioned the Albemarle County Board :of Super- visors to locate an apartment in a house on 11.22 acres of land zoned ~-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side Of Route 20 North about 3/4 mile north of Eastham. Property is' described as County Tax Map 63, Parcel 30A, (part thereof). Rivanna Magisterial District. (Mr. Fisher abstaining during the following discussion.) Mr. Humphrey stated that the area is rural in large tracts, with sparse resi- dential development. The subject property has been subdivided from a t.arffer tract which contains:one residence. The site for the proposed residence is tO be,~located Route 20. Access is by means of an easement ac~'~'.s~s the larger about 1000 feet from tract. Th~s area ~s designated for agr.~cultural densitv on the c-omDrehensive~ plan . , , ', . ~ ,, He %hen , stated %ha% %he applicant had ~nd~cated that th~s w~ll be for a tempo use. The staff reco~ended approval conditioned upon health de~aremen~ a~p 10-24-73 351 Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to a five year limitation and health department approval. Mr. Dammann said he was present to speak for his son. This was a five year request and the house was so designed that the part that will be rented out will become a part of the actual house at a later date. Mr. J.K. Byerly, an adjacent property owner, asked that the Board grant this request. Mr. Carwile offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approved SP-298. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. AYES: NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: (5) SP-300. Mr. Fisher. John Snead has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 6.11 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on east side of Route 721, about 3/4 mile north of intersection with Route 6. Property is described as County Tax Map 126, Parcel 22A(1) and 22A(3). Scotts- ville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey advised the Board that Mr. Snead had called just a few minutes earlier and said he could not be present. He did not give any reasons. Mr. Humphrey said this in essence involved reapproval of an old conditional permit that Mr. Snead had received some time ago to.'place two mobile homes on this six acres of land, which also contains Mr. Snead"s home. Since that time, one of the two mobile homes has been removed. It is now required that he reapply. He said he understood that Mr. Snead was supplying land rent free to an elderly couple as the justification for the request. It was in essence some sort of rental arrangement although it appeared to be rent free. Mr. Thacker asked if the mobile home is in place and Mr. Humphrey said no, it was not, at this time. Mr. Batchelor asked why he had to reapply. Mr. Humphrey said there was a two year approach on the approval and it was never made use of. Mr. Wheeler asked the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Humphrey said they recommended approval. Mr. Wheeler asked if anyone were present to speak to the petition and no one rose. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to defer this matter until the next zoning meeting of the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The next two items were discussed as one: (6) SP-301. Fred L. Cobbs has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- -visors to locate a permanent, mob Agricultural. Property is situa about 1/2 mile south of its inte is described as County Tax Map 1 Magisterial District. [le home on 60.t acres zoned A-1 ted on east side of Route 626, ~section with Route 735. Property 3, Parcel 75. Scottsville 10-24-73 352 (7) SP-302. Vernard W.. Hurt has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to locate a permanent mobile home on 60.1 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on east side of Route 626, about 1/2 mile south of its intersection with Route 735. Property is described as County Tax Map 133, Parcel 75. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said the subject property is largely open field. The property across Route 626 is wooded and the nearest house is three-quarters of a mile east and one-half mile west. There is a vacant commercial structure located in front of the mobile home site about 30 feet from Route 626. The applicants were issued emergency flood permits for mobile homes on July 6, 1972. The permits have expired and the applicants were notified that they must reapply for special permits. Both of these mobile homes are located at least 100 feet from Route 626. He said that at the Planning Commission meeting several people had appeared to represent the petitioners and they had stated that these were hardship cases, and neither Mr. Cobbs or Mr. Hurt could find other living quarters. The Commission was informed that one receives welfare and the other a small pension. He said the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP-301 for a period of five years with approval admini- stratively each year, and that the applicant live in the trailer. He said the Planning Commission recommended the same conditions for SP-302. The owner of the property had asked that the conditions be tied to his giving permission each year for reapproval. There-was a gentlemen present to represent the petitioners, however, he did not identify himself. No one from the public rose to speak for or against. Mr. Batchelor asked how the Board could legislate a year to year proposition with the agreement of the property owner. Mr. Wood said the only way to do this would be to tie it to these people in this hardship case. Mr. Fisher said unless there was an agreement, it really should not be before the Board because these people do not own the land at all and have no lease agreement. Mr. Wood offered motion to approve both SP-301 and SP-302 with the condition that Mr. Cobbs and Mr. Hurt live in these trailerS and approval be for a period of five years. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. AYES: NAYS: (8) None. SP-303. Donald Tucker has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to locate a barn for horses on 4.59 acres of land zoned R-1 residential. Property is situated on south side of Williston Drive in West Leigh Subdivision. Property is described as County Tax Map 59C:1, Parcel 33 and 32. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said this was a quiet residential area on large lots. The appli- cants lot in Section 2 has frontage on West Leigh Lake. The area is largely open. The applicants property is clearly visible to other homes on Williston Drive and Emerson Drive. There exists an exercise ring for horses, and a small stable with 10-24-73 three horses, visible on Emerson Drive. West Leigh also contains Ivy Creek Stable on West Leigh Drive. He said the applicant proposes to construct a stable behind his residence. The west, side yard is a large, cleared area which has been fenced. He said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to a limitation of no more than four horses at one time on the site. Mr. Tucker was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to approve with the condi- tions as stated. The motion was seconded by ~Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The next item under discussion was SP-291 for Lorraine M. Schroyer. This matter was deferred from September 26 because the applicant was not present. She~had been notified by the Planning department that this matter would be discussed tonight and she was not present. The Chairman asked Mr. St. John how long this matter could be carried forward and he said indefinitely. Claims against the County in the amount of $1,676,217.42 were presented, examined and allowed and certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds: General Fund General Operating Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund Textbook Rental Fund School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund General Operating-Capital Outlay Fund Town of Scottsville-Local Sales Tax (1%) Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account Total $ .00 373,865.68 886,088.50 19,496.96 15,255.99 295,031.66 85,431.90 195.40 851.33 $1,676,217.42 Upon proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M.