Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-12-12 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on Decem~er'12, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. ~n tke 'Albemarle Count~ Cou~tkQu~e, 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. Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order. The first item under discussion was SP-292 for the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club. Action on this matter was deferred from October 10, 1973. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, read the following letter into the record: ,November 21, 1973 Mr. Richard E. Carter 435 Park Street Charlottesville 22901 Dear Mr. Carter: In reply to your letter of 9 November 1973, the Board of Trustees of the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club has authorized me to advise you concerning our proposed hours of operation of our range on Old Lynchburg Road. They are: Lower Range (Outdoor rifle and pistol) 8:00 a.m. to sunset, Monday through Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to sunset on Sunday, in cooperation with the Church. Skeet Field 8:00 a.m. to sunset, Monday through Saturday, except on Wednesday from April through.September, inclusive, when the range is open to the public until 10:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. to sunset on Sunday Sunday Exception Occasionally matches will occur on Sundays in which event the date and time of operation will be coordinated with the Church so as to fall on their least active Sundays and then to cease shooting for one hour for services. We feel that this is a reasonable schedule that will meet the Church's requirements and is in conformance with practices at several other ranges where Churches and populated areas are near their facilities. During the week there are only a couple of shooters on the rifle and/or pistol ranges at one time before 5:00 p.m. You can expect as many as six to twelve on occasion in the evenings during mild weather. Skeet fields permit only one shooter to fire at a time per field. With the second field no more than two shotguns could be fired simultaneously. Saturdays and Sundays are the only days that many members can use the range because of work schedules. In many cases Saturdays are also work days. Serious rifle work such as developing accuracy loads, checking bedding effects, sighting-in and target practice necessitates firing in the morning and the evening to reduce shadow, heat wave and wind effects. Sincerely yours, (Signed) H. I. Taylor Member, Board of Trustees" Mr. Fisher said he felt it was the position of the Board to try to resolve some of the conflict which exists in this matter. Since these conditions were recom- mended by one of the parties to the conflict, he asked that the Board be allowed to 12-12-73 hear reaction from other people involved as to whether they felt these are reasonable conditions. Mrs. Romer said these new hours would not help the situation at all. Another lady, unidentified, said if shooting started at 1:00 p.m. on Sundays, there would still be problems during night services at the Chruch. be no shooting on Sundays. Mr. Dave Stokes said he was opposed to shooting on Sundays. He said the people ~- in this section have complained about all shooting and they asked that the Board consider the commUnity first. Mr. Rod Shannon said he owned property near the Club and he asked that there be no second skeet~ field and there be no shooting on Sundays. Mr. Wheeler said he had contacted Mr. Carter to see if the Club would consider different hours and he was informed that they would not. Mr. Fisher asked if in a situation where the applicant wishes to expand existing facilities and the citizens in the area wish to curtail the total operation, if the Board can impose conditions on the total operation and let the Club accept those conditions or not.build the second skeet field. Mr. St. John said the Board cannot impoSe conditions on the range as it exists now, but they can say the Club will have to accede to certain conditions on the total operation or they will not grant a permit for a second skeet field. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned about the operation of this facility on Sunday mornings. He said the Sunday exceptions will have to be coordinated with the Church. The conditions given did not say how this will be resolved when there are events at the Church which cannot be programmed a month or more in advance. If matches have been scheduled and there is a funeral, there is no way this can be scheduled in advance. Mr. Henley suggested that the conditions contain a statement that there would be no firing during funerals. Mr. Fisher felt the statement concerning Sunday exceptions is vague. He then offered motion that the Board allow construction of a second skeet field range on condition that there be no operation on Sunday mornings until 1:00 p.m on any of the rifle pistol or skeet fields. That the hours of operation for other days he as set out above. That the Sunday matches be limited to three per year and that on notification from the Church as to funerals, that there will be a cease fire for two hours at the arranged time. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile. After a short discussion of the hours of operation, Mr. Fisher restated his motion that the Board allow construction of a second skeet field range, conditioned on the following hours of operation: a) Lower Range (Outdoor rifle, pistol). 1) 8:00 A.M. to sunset, Monday through Saturday. She asked that there b) 2) 1:00 P.M. to sunset on Sunday, in cooperation with the Chestnut Grove Baptist Church. Skeet Field. 1) 8:00 A.M. to sunset, Monday through Saturday. Except, on Wednesday from April through September, inclusive, when the range is open to the public until 9:00 P.M. 2) 1:30 P.M. to sunset on Sunday. c) Sunday Exceptions (Maximum - three per year). 1) 2) 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Matches will be scheduled so as to fall on the least active Sunday of the Chestnut Grove Baptist Church and then the club will be required to cease shooting for one hour for services. d) When notified by the Church that a funeral is being con- ducted, there will be a cease fire of all operations for two hours. This motion was. seconded by Mr. Wood and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Thacker. The next item under discussion was request for SP-304 for T. J. Snead. Public hearing on this petition was continued from November 28, 1973. Mr. Humphrey said this matter was continued from the November meeting in order to allow for an investigation of the four mobile homes which now exist on the property. He then read the following communication into the record: "December 7, 1973 TO: John L. Humphrey FROM: Ruth Miller, Andy Evans, and Donnie Woodson SUBJECT: Detailed investigation involving MHP's issued to T. J. Snead On December 3, 1973, at approximately 12:30 P.M., Donnie Woodson visited property owned by T. J. Snead on Route 784, approximately one mile north from Stony Point further described as County Tax Map 48, Parcel 6. At that time, he spoke with Mrs. Robert Newman, occupant of mobile home $1. Mrs. Newman informed Mr. Woodson that she and her husband are renting the mobile home from Mr. Snead and are not related to him. On December 6, 1973, at 7:14 p.m., Mr. Donnie Woodson and Mr. Andy Evans visited the subject property again and spoke to Mrs. Larry Snead, daughter-in-law of Mr. T. J. Snead, and occupant of mobile home $3. They found that permit #MHP-246 as issued for #3 on May 18, 1972. Mrs. Snead informed them that all three mobile homes are on separate septic tank systems. No one was at home in mobile home $2, therefore, Mr. Woodson and Mr. Evans proceeded to Mr. T. J. Snead's home. It was determined that MHP$248 was issued on 5/18/72 for David Morris, stepson of Mr. Snead Who occupies mobile home ~2 part time. It was further determined that MHP~247 was issued on 5/18/72 for Barbara Snead, daughter of Mr. Snead; that the mobile home (referred to as $1), is presently occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Newman under a six months lease and Barbara plans to return to occupy that mobile home .when the six month lease expires. Mr. Snead stated that the fourth trailer is unoccupied at present but he plans to move his nephew into it; that the nephew will be working part time on the farm in return for housing. 5 12-12-73 42i No permit has been issued for trailer ~4, however, Mr. Snead has made application for a special use permit." Mr. Humphrey said that there are three mobile homes now in existence and occupied. Two were issued on the basis of the lineal relative provisions. The fourth is SP-304 under discussion. The Planning Commission recommended approval by a 7-0 vote, with one abstaining for a five-year period, with a 150 feet setback from Route 784 and Health Department approval for a septic tank system. Mr. Wheeler asked if trailer ~1 is in violation of the' zoning ordinance. Mr. Humphrey said yes, that is the one being leased for six months. Mr. Wood asked if there Were some reason why this was being leased for only six months. Mr. Snead said his daughter had moved out of the mobile home with plans to move into a home at Zion's Crossroads. However, they had been unable to get electricity run across the property and when this lease expires they want to move back. He said he had bought a license to rent for six months. Mr. Wheeler asked what ~ype of license he bought. Mr. Snead said he did not know, but he had paid $20 for a license to rent a mobile home. Mr. Batchelor asked Mr. Snead when he made application for the license. Mr Snead said a man had called him, asked if he were going to rent the mobile home and told him he must buy a license. He brought a check to the County Building, left it with the switchboard operator and the license was mailed to him. Mr. Wheeler said he would like to see a copy of the license. He said the Board had asked Mr. Snead at the public hearing in November if there were members of his family living in these three trailers and he remembered Mr. Snead had answered in the affirmative. Mr. Snead said he had been asked if the permits were issued for members of his family and they were. Mr. Wood said if there were a mix-up, he would like to see it straightened out as soon as possible. He said the Board had been approving such permits and he felt the request is legitimate. Mr. Wheeler said it was not the policy of this Board to approve permits for rental purposes and he did not expect to support the application. Mr. Henley said the application is for five years and he felt it should only be for one or two years. Mr. Wood said that was no problem. He offered motion to approve the application, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and with the additional stipulation that the permit be renewed annually. Mr. Fisher said he interpreted the intent of this provision in the zoning ordinance to be for one or two lineal permits or agricultural uses and he felt that free use of a trailer in exchange for services is the same as a rental contract. Mr. Carwile offered second to Mr. Wood's motion. Vote was taken and the motion ~-- carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Thacker and Mr. Wheeler. SP-306. Rachel A. Brown. Public hearing on this petition was deferred from 422 November 28, 1973. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission had recommended denial since it was not their policy to grant a special permit involving uses where there are deed restrictions which prohibit same. Mr. Lloyd Smith, was present to represent Mrs. Brown. He said this use was not detrimental to the character or development of the adjacent property. Mrs. Brown was present and read a prepared statement. Mr. Noel Stevens said he knew of eight houses in Farmington which have similar situations and he felt this would have no adverse effect on the value of the neighbor- hood. Mr. Smith said the deed restriction is a matter for the courts and not the job of the Board of Supervisors to enforce. He said this whole matter is a neighborhood squabble with a lot of petty bickering. Mr. Eaton Brooks asked Mr. St. John if he felt the Board can consider that there are restrictive covenants. He said if the attorney for the petitioner feels they can go to court on these restrictions, they should. Mr. St. John said that the decision of the Board in granting or denying special permits would have no effect on any court decision. If the Board granted the permit, then anyone who wants to go to court to enforce the covenants would have that prerogative. He said the Board was not bound to deny the permit because there are restrictions. Mr. Wheeler said permits of this type for rental which he had supported in the past had not been in the same situation and had been on larger acreages. He felt that if the Board granted this permit, it would cause others to apply for similar permits and would change the character of this subdivision. Mr. Wood. said he did not think he had ever voted against deed restrictions. He always felt that they take precedence over zoning. He said if the deed restrictions are to challenged, it is not up to the Board to cause them to be challenged. He offered motion to deny SP-306. Mr. Fisher said he had lived in a subdivision which did change from single to multi-family through a similar process and he felt approval of this permit would be detrimental to this subdivision. He gave second to Mr. Wood's motion. Vote was taken as follows: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and WoOd. NAYS: Mr. Carwile. The next item under discussion was a request from Elijah Agee for a 50 feet access easement to serve a division of Tax Map 121, Parcel 127, consisting of Lots A, B, and the residual acreage. This land is off of State Route 715 and shown on plat drawn by Mackie Engineering Co., designated as Drawing No. ~t12 and da~ed May 16, 1973. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and recommend approval subject to the easement serving only lots A and B and the 12-12-73 423 residual acreage. The 50 feet right of way, shown on the plat, is not to constitute a subdivision-of the entire parcel 29 on Tax Map 121. This would be an access ease- ment and not a restricted road. Motion to approve this request as recommended by the Planning Commission was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The next item was a request for a 50 feet access easement to serve Parcels C and D, a portion of Tax Map 45, Parcel 59A, as show on plat of Mackie Engineering Company, drawing No. 4083-1 and dated March 7, 1973 for BLB Corporation. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommended that the 50 feet right of way indicated on the plat, be approved as an access easement as opposed to a dedicated restricted road. They also recommended that the right of way be for the exclusive use of Parcels C and D. Motion to approve this request as recommended by the Planning Commission was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. ~'~ Mr. Humphrey said the next request involves a subdivision known as Brinnington. The request was for a restricted road for two lots, however, a moratorium was estab- lished by the Board on restricted road requests and the applicant has submitted final pla~s and now shows the proposed road as a joint access easement as opposed to a dedicated restricted road. The Planning Commission has recommended that this be approved as a restricted road, not an access easement, governed by the existing subdivision ordinance and with the Class A standards for restricted roads. The Planning Commission recommended the restricted road be approved to serve four lots, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Mr. Wheeler said this subdivision is already planned for 20 lots and he felt the Board should either approve or deny the request for an access easement and let the owners apply for a restricted road. Mr. Carwile offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the request for a joint access easement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Request was received from Clarence McClure for a special appropriation of $25,000 for preliminary.~lans for a western high school. Mr. Thacker asked that this matter be deferred. Mr. Batchelor said the staff has been studying the taking over of the operation 424 12-12-73 of the sanitary landfills by county staff. He requested that the Board approve the negotiation of the present landfill operator contracts on the present level of payment. Motion was Joffered by Mr. Thacker to extend the two contracts, on the present level of payment, until June 30, 1974. 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. Wheeler said the Board was notified some time ago that Mr. George Palmer had requested that he be relieved of his duties as Chairman of the Rivananna Water and Sewer Authority on December 30. Upon motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher, the Clerk was ordered to write Mr. Palmer noting that the Board had accepted his resignation and expressing the appreciation of this Board and the community for services rendered to same. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. As a replacement for Mr. Palmer, Mr. Wheeler said he and the Mayor recommend the appointment of Lawrence Quarles to fill out the unexpired term. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Wheeler said there will be a meeting in Abingdon on December 17, and in Roanoke on December 18, by the State Water Control Board, regarding the Ground Water Act of 1973, there will also be a meeting on December 19 regarding the Water Resources policy. Mr. Wheeler said he had received a letter from Bill Clover asking that he dis- qualify himself on any further action on a petition for a special permit on Collina. Mr. Clover also asked that he offer motion to reconsider vote taken on this petition. He said he would not disqualify himself and he would not offer motion to reconsider. He asked if any member of the Board would like to offer such a motion. No one. spoke. Mr. Wheeler said.he had received a copy of a letter from Allen Kindrick, required by the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act, stating that he is construction project manager of R. E. Lee & Sons and they will be bidding on renovations to the Levy Opera House. Mr. Kindrick stated that he does not hold any ownership or interest in the company and does not have a conflict of interest. Mr. Wheeler said he had received a letter from the Ivy Citizens Association stating that they were not in any way responsible for the conflict of interest statement left on the Board table at the November 28, 1973, meeting. Mr. Wheeler said Albemarle High School has presented an Albemarle County Youth and Government day proposal and they have asked that the Board members make comments. 12-12-73 425 At 9:34 P.M., Mr. Wheeler said the Board had legal matters, concerning landfills and tax reassessments, to discuss with the county attorney and he asked that the ~'~ Board adjourn into executive session. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened at 10:20 P.M. Upon motion by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher, this meeting was adjourned Motion until December 19, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Chairman