Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-04-26NlO0 A regular meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held at the Albemarle County Court House on the 26th of April, 1972, at 7:30 P.M. 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,. Upon motion by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker, the.following resolution was adopted by the ~following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. WHEREAS, the State Water Control Board in its Minute 49 has required the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville to create an authority or other institutional arrangement which would obtain the ownership, and operation of all existing City and County water and sewerage systems, as a condition precedent to allocating any additional grants to the City and County; and WHEREAS,~the County~of Albemarle is cognizant of the necessity and expedience required in the formation of a regional entity; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is willing to form such a regional entity; and WHEREAS, the formation of such a regional entity must be on an equitable basis; and WHEREAS, the County and the City have been conducting negotiations to the end of the formation of the regional entity; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has unilaterally suspended such negotiations; MOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the County of Albemarle does hereby ratify and affirm its willingness to form a regional entity as required by the State Water Control Board on an equitable basis; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle as an indica- tion of its willingness to form such regional entity does hereby adopt as a statement of intent the attached resolution captioned: "CONCURRENT RESOLUTION SIGNIFYING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY TO CREATE A WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY UNDER THE VIRGINIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHDRITIES ACT AAtD SETTING FORTH ITS ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION." 101 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle in order to facilitate and expedite the formation of a regional entity does hereby request the State Water Control Board to arbitrate and resolve the differences between Albemarle County and the City of Charlottes- ville, and does further request theCity of Charlottesville to s~bmit to such artibtation by the State Water Control Board. CONCURREN~ RESOLUTION SIGNIFYING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY~' OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY TO CREATE A WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY UNDER THE VIRGINIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITIES ACT AND SETTING FORTH ITS ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION. WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville owns and operates water supply and sewage treatment facilities which furnish water and provide sewage disposal for all of the City and certain outlying areas and Albemarle County, acting through Albemarle County Service Authority, owns and operates- water supply and sewage treatment facilities which furnish water~ and provide sewage disposal for certain areas in the County; and WHEREAS, the state Water Control Board has imposed a moratorium on the construction of new facilities and the enlargement~ bf existing facilities for sewage ~reatment on the Rivanna River Basin pending the development and implementation of an approved .plan; and WHEREAS, the State Water Control Board has tentatively approved Federal and State grants to the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County aggregating approximately $13,000,000 for sewage treatment facilities but has advised the City and the County that as a condition to receipt of %he major portion of-such grant funds the City and the County'shall designate or establish a single political entity to speak for both the City and the County and it has been determined that this can best be accomplished by an authority to be created by the City and the County pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (Chapter~28, Title 15.1,- Code of Virginia of 1950, as~amended) (the Act); and ~WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County recognize that substantially all of their sources of water supply are-located on the Rivanna River Basin and that effluent from their sewage treatment facilities is being diScharged into'.that same basin, which is a matter of concern not only to theCity and ~the County but also_to the State Water Control Board and the State Department of Health, and it-is therefore considered desirable to place the responsibility for Water supply for the City and the County in the hands of the same political entity having responsibility for sewage treatment facilities; i02 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF-ALBEMARLE COUNTY, IN SEPARATE MEETINGS ASSEMBLED: ~ Section 1. The Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby signify their intention to create a water and sewerL authority pursuant to the Actl to be known as "Rivanna Water and sewer Authority." Section 2. The purpose for Which the Authority is to be formed is stated in its Articles of Incorporation hereinafter set forth. Section 3. The Articles of Incorporation of the Authority shall be as~foltows~. -? ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AU~T~HORITY The Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County having signified 'their intention to create an Authority pursuant to the virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (Chat~ar 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended), which shall be a public body p~litic and corporate, hereby certify: (a,)~. The name of the Authority shall be "Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority" and the address of its principal office shall be Charlottesville, Vir~nia. (b) The names of the incorporating pOlitical subdivisions - are the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. (c) The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a board of five members consisting of the four persons holding the offices, from time to time, of city Manager and Director of Public Works of the City ~of Charlott~ville and CountYExecutive and County Engineer of Albemarle County and a fifth person appointed by the concurrent action of the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. The names and .addresses of the first members are as follows: Name Cole Hendrix Guy B. Agnor, Jr. .T.M. Batchelor, Jr. J. Harvey Bailey The terms of~.the members of the board serving as such by virtue of their offices with the City and the County shall expire upon their ceasing to'hOld such offices. Any person hereafter holding any such Address 1946 Michael Place, Charlottesville, Virginia 605 East Main'Street, Charlottesville~ Virginia 3-505 Marlboro Court, Charlottesville, Virginia Rio Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 103 office shall automatically succeed to the membership of his predecessor in such office on'the board of the Authority. The initial term of the appointed member shall expire on May 1, 19'74, and his successor shall be ~pointed for a term of two years, except that a vacancy Shall be filled only for the ~unexpired term. The appointed member shall hold office until his successor has been appointed and qualifies and he shall be eligible for reappointment to suCceed himself. The appointed member shall receive ~uch sompensation not to exceed $1,800 per year as the Board of the Authority may determine, but those members who are employees of the City or the County shall serve without compensation. Each member shall be reimbursed the amount of his actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties. (d) The purpose for which the Authority is to be formed is to acquire, finance, construct, operate and maintain facilities for developing a supply of potable water for the City of Charlottesville-and Albemarle County and for the abatement of pollution resulting from sewage in the Rivanna River Basin, including sources of water supply, water intakes, reservoirs, filtration and purification plants, pumping stations, trans- mission lines and storage facilities, sewerage trunk or interceptor lines and pumping stations and waste water treatment facilities, together with '~all appurtenant equipment and appliances necessary or suitable therefor and all properties, rights, easements or franchises relating thereto and deemed necessary or convenient by the Authority for their operation. The Authority may contract with the City, the County, any sanitary district thereof or any authority therein created pursuant to the Act, to furnish water and to treat sewage delivered to its facilities upon such terms as the Authority shall determine; provided, however, that any such contract shall include as parties thereto the City and the County (or any agency of the County designated for that purpose by its Board of County Supervisors). The Authority is expressly prohibited from contracting with any other party desiring service in the City or theCounty, except upon the written consent of the City or County, (or any agency of the County designated for that purpose by its Board of County Supervisors), respectively, (e) The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by the State Auditor of Public Accour~ or an independent certified public accountant at the end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. i04 Pending completion of the necessary engineering studies and estimates, it is not .p~mcticable to set forth herein preliminary- estimates of capital costs and'initial rates for ~ervices of proposed projects, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle-County have caused~these Articles of IncOrporation to be eXecuted;~by their presiding officers in the-name of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, respectively. (SEAL) ATTEST: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE By Mayor Clerk (SEAL) ATTEST: ALBEMARLE COUNTY By Chairman, Board of County Supervisors Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Section 4. The first members of the Board of the Authority shall be those persons specified in the Articles of Incorporation. Their terms of office shall begin on the date of issuance to the Authority of a certificate of incorporation by the State Corporation Commission and shall expire as specified in the Articles of Incorporation. The appointed member shall receive such compensation not to exceed $1,800 per year as the Board of the Authority may determine, but those members who are employees of the City or the County shall serve without compensation. Each member shall be reimbursed the amount of his actual e~penses necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties. Section 5. The proper officers of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Articles of Incorporation in substantially the form set forth above, to cause the executed Articles of Incorporation to be filed with the State COrporation Commission on or before the date of ~the earlier of the public hearings required by Section 6 hereof, together with proof of publication of the notices of such public hearings, and to do all things necessary and appropriate for the creation of the Authority. Section 6. Public hearings shall be held on this resolution by the Council of the City of Charlottesville at 7:30 P.M. on May 8, 1972, in its council chamber in City Hall and by the Board of County Supervisors '3 of Albemarle County at 7:30 P.M. on May 8, 1972, in the-court room of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. Immediately following such public hearings o~-any-adjournment thereof, each governing body~shall cause to be filed with the State Corporation Commission a record of-,the proceedings thereof, wDich shall indicate whether such governing body called for a referendum pursuant to Section 15.1-1244 of the Act. A copy of this resolution~shall published one time at least ten'days prior to the date of such public hearings.in The Daily Progress, a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, preceded by a notice as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS" "Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held as set out below on the following concurrent resolution heretofore adopted by the County of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County signifying their inte~tion to create a water and sewer authority as set out therein." CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE · 1972 Mayor (SEAL) Adopted ATTEST: Clerk (SEAL) Adopted ATTEST: · 1972 Clerk, Board of County Supervisors ALBEMARLE COUNTY By. Chairman, Board of County Supervisors At 7:40 P.M. the Chairman called for public hearings on zoning reques~as advertised in the Daily Progress on April 13 and April 20, ~1972. (1) ZMP-202. Application of Harold Whitlow to rezone 1.0 acre from A-1 Agriculture to RS-1 Residential. Property is located on the north side of the C&O Railroad right-of-way on an unnamed road approximately 1/2 mile north of Route 691. Property is described as County Tax Map 55, Parcel 25A ~part thereofl. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that there is no way this parcel could be construed to be a part of the Crozet Community cluster. The staff would consider this request to be spot zoning in the tru~sense of the word. Although the staff understands the situation of Mr. Thurston (owner of the property) in his desire to accommodate his family, the staff cannot in good conscience recommend this rezoning request since it would be in direct conflict with adopted policies and objectives as it relates to spot zoning and conservation and the trend it might create for additional zoning p~titions in this area. 106 The Planning Commission had recommended, unanimously, denial of this petition. Mr. Whitlow was present in support of his application. Mr. CarWile stated that he had severe problems in hiS own mind about telling an individual attempting to assist in housing 'his ~'amily that it could not be permitted and he thought this Should be taken into account in this zoning request. In view of the Planning Commission recommendation, Mr. Fisher made a motion to deny this request. the vote was as follows: AYES: -NAYS: Motion having been seconded by Mr. Thacker, None. Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. Mr. Wood stated that at times you have to take family into consideration if it does not hinder anyone and rights of way can be wc~ked out. Motion f~or approval of this petition was offered by Mr. car~ile, however, he stated that he did not View this particular rezoning request as setting a precedent for spot zoning because it involved a family relationship. Motion having been seconded byMr. Henley, the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: (2) Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. ZMP, 204. Samuel D., Jr. and Barbara B. Stokes. Petition to rezone 2.25 acres from A-1 Agriculture to R-2 Residential. Property is located on the west side of Route 631 approximately one mile south of its inter- section with Route706. Property is described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 53D, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that the property is in an area completely zoned A-1 Agriculture with one exception, that being a one acre tract zoned RS-1. Property is just north of an area of communiqy interest with subdivision of land Prior to zoning have taken place. The average lot size if 5.0 acres with a range of one acre to 60 acres. In his staff comment he advised thatrecently a zoning petition for RS-1 zoning was denied just north of this parcel at the intersection or-Routes 706 and 631 as being out of character with the area. He also stated that the R-2 zoning is'completely out'of Character with the area and certainly not in [COmpliance with the Comprehensive Plan. It would not be in the ~est interest of the County as it relates to the impact of spot zoning and the trend it would create and the cost to the County as a result of being an impacted area. Mr. Humphrey stated that Mrs. Stokes should have applied for a special · doe use permit for a one duplex unit Whi'ch~.~" nog require rezoning but only approMal of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had recommended, unanimouslys denial of this petition. Mrs. Stokes was present in support of the petitio~ Mr. Henley made a motion that the ~ecommendations of the ~lanning Commission be followed and the petition denied. The motion having been seconded by Mr. Carwile, the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, He-nley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. 107 NAYS: None. (3) ZMP-208. L. E. Bunch. Petition to rezone 2.515 acres from A-1 Agriculture to B-1 Business. Property is located on the north side of Route 692 approximately 300 feet east of its intersection ~ith Route 29 South, known as Cross Roads. Property is described as County Tax Map 99, Parcel 5, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. ~ Mr. Humphrey gave the following report. This property abutts an existing General Store which has frontage on Route 29. A Post Office and filling station exist across Route 692 from the subject property. Thereare several dwellings in the immediate area. The nearest is located to the north and east of each property. The entire area is zoned A-1 Agriculture. The property has 336.97 feet of frontage on Route 692. Mr. Humphrey stated that while everything would appear to be in order to receive Commerical development, the staff is concerned about there not being suffici~t land involved to make any commercial expansion availat~ with respect to access, parking and later additions. He also stated that there should be a minimum of five acres involved and the five acres should be the master plan for the alternate, relative Go access parking and generallayout. This petition had passed the Planning Commission with a vote of seven voting in favor, one objecting and one abstaining. Mr. S. P. Higginbotham, attorney, appeared on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Bunch. Mrs. Bunch stated that she had turned in several letters and a petition signed by 300 people in favor of her petition. Dr. Drash, Mr. M. Y. Sutherland, Mr. A. E.. Cutrigh%, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Samuel Paige appeared against the petition. Mr. Henley made motion to approve and same having been seconded by Mr. Thacker, same was passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. - (4) ZMP-209. Arley E.- and Patsie H. Cutright. Petition to rezone' 4.91 scres from A-1 Agriculture to R-2 Residential. Property is located on the south side of Route 711 at its intersection with Route 29 South in the Red Hill area. Property is described asCounty Tax Map 87, Parcel 51, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that the area is rural in character. One R-2 zone exists to the north across Route 711. With one exception, the parcels of land in the area are four acres or more. Sparse single family houses exist in the area. One duplex exists in the aforementioned R-2 zone. In his staff report Mr, Humphrey stated t~at pre~ious petitions in this area, including the hearing on the existing R-2 zone, had been considered premature in this area. At the time the-existing R-2 zone was heard there did not exist the provision of a Special Permit .for duplexes or two family units in the A-1 zone. At that time the Commission and Board were of the opinion that there was a need to provide for this type housing in appropriate areas and did find this area conducive to some mixture of..housing units. ~ile'-the R-2 zone was approved reluctantly by some members of both bodies, they felt another approach was needed to assist in supplying thisneed. At that time on the County's own motion an amendment was initiated and subsequently appr.oved providing duplex structures in an A-1 zone on two acre minimum lots with. SpeCial i08 Permit approval. The staff is of the opinion that this should be the process in providing two'family dwellings as opposed to granting R-2 zoning which will only mushroom as to the number of requests. If this trend does occur, the County in the future will find itself involVed in providing~utilities to meet a problem relative-tomalfunctioningseptic systems. The Planning Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the R-2 zone. Mr. Cutright was present' in favor of his~petition. Mr. Ashby, Mr. Thurston, Mr. curtis and Mr. Morris appeared in opposition. Mr. Fisher made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny this petition4 The motion having been seconded by Mr. Henley, the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher~ Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (5) ZMP211 - M. W. Worley. Petition to rezone 2.8 acres from A-1 Agriculture to R-1 Residential. Property is located on the we'st side of Route 785 approximately 1/8 mile north of its intersed/.on with Route 649. Property is described as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 29 (Part thereof), Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey reported that the staff recommends that the R-1 zone in light of the present adopted policy WoUld not be in keeping~with the objectives for future development in this area, relative to density 'and the use of Septic Systems. At best, the area should be considered for~a density not to exceed~the average 'of one dwelling unit per acre. The staff ~ecommends RS-1 zoning. Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission, unanimously, recommended approval as requested, that being for R-1 zoning. Mr. Wood made a motion to approvelthe petition as requested for R-1 zoning. 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. (6) ZMP-2t3.J~ John R. Dorrier.- Petition to rezone 3.61 acres from A-~i Agriculture to RS-1 Residential. Property is located on west side .of Route .20 North approximately one mile from Charlottesville City Limits. PDoperty is described as County Tax Map 62, Parcels 24B and 31A~ Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that the subject property is situated between suburban residential development (Key West) and urban development (Route 2'50 area- Pantops). The property presently contains one four unit apartment structure. · wo additionatfour unit apartment Structures exist to the immediate west with no single family dwellings on property immediately south. Large acreage abounds in the immediate area4 The property is well above the grade of Route 20. Mr. Humphrey reported that the staff found the request to be in keeping with the intent of the-plan as adopted. The apartment structure is presently non-confOrming and will continue to be non-conforming under the request as petitioned. Mr. HumPhrey stated that the ~lanning Commission had unanimously recommended approval. Mr. Wood made a motion to follow the 109 recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve this petition. Same having been seconded by Mr. Carwile, the motion cart,led by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and'Wood; AYES: NAYS: (7) None. - ZMP-214. David Roach. withdrawn. Mr. Humphrey stated that'this petition had been (8) ZMP-215. Harley Easter & Ashby Kennon. Petition to rezone 15 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RS~I Residential. Prq0erty is situated off Route 675 (Lake Albemarle Road). Property is described as County Tax Map 41, Parcel 66 (part thereof) and County Tax Map 4lA, Lots 171 through 190~ Lots 142 through 147 and Lots 152, 163 and 164, White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that RS-1 zoning, approved in 1969~, exists to the immediate north. A-1 zoning exists~in all other directions. Phase I of Westover Hills Subdivision located within the RS-1 zone is presently under development. Lake Albemarle Subdivision, located to the south and east of the property, has but a few structures. The'lot sizes in Albemarle Lake Subdivision are non-conforming and in many cases less than 20,000 square feet. The general character of the area is r~ral with surburban two acre and one acre development now occurring. A subdivision fronting on Ro%the 675 exists with nine lots recorded, hav~ing 10t sizes ranging from 1~06 to 1.87 acres. In his-staff report, Mrs. Humphrey stat~ed that a part of :this request' involves minimum' non-conforming and probl~m'lots in Albemarle Lake Subdivision. In, addition, the Board has established policylregarding the immediate area by virtue~ or'granting RS-1 in' the immediate area. The rediMision of the area would tend to upgrade the previous subdivision.. On this basis the staff wou~ suggest approval relative to past Board policy~ Large five acre o3 more lots would be more in keeping with the residential objectives of the plan, however, the proposal contemplated would-assist ~in correcting a. problem-~relative to a greater density potential~under the r~corded subdivision. We-would hope any approval would tend to encourage., an upgrading of the existing subdivision~ Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval. Mr. Easter appeared in support of his petition. No one appeared in opposition. Upon motion by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker, the petition was approved by the following recorded vote: ~.- AYES: NAYS: (9) Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood~ None. -~ ZMP-216'. Harley Easter & Ashby Kennon. Petition t'o rezone 9.95 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RS-1 Residential. P~operty is situated on west side of Route-729 just north of Route 53.. Property ~i.s descr'ibed~ as County Tax Map 93, Parcel 45, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that the subject property contains one dwelling. Nine dwellings and one church exist in the immediate area. Ten or more dwellings exist just west of the immediate area of the request. There are several small ~ots~ containing a little over one-half acres. Some eight parcels have from one acre to two acres. The i10 small parcel subdivision that has,taken place has. occurred to the west. The remainder of the area cOntains larger parcels ranging from four acres up to over 100 acres. A-1 zoning exists for ~everal mi~s surrounding the property, Mr. Humphrey's staff report was as follows: The generalized soil map indicates the parcel to be in an area which has slight to moderate limitatiOns for septic systems. The generalized Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates this area conducive to the Village Concept. Village objective within the plan reads as follows: "Villages should serve as smaller activity centers to complement the communities and to service outlying areas. 1) Within each village there should be a village center which Would Provide shopping and community facilities. 2) A village should be served by a small package ~ewage treatment.plant and public water, when feasibility is assured by~pula~ion ~rowth,~ 3) Each village should provide a site for a county elementary school, located near the village center." It would appear that the large lot (one acre) develoI~nent in villages without public sewer and water is appropriate in view of recent Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor positive action on similar requests in other village conceptional areas. The staff would'suggest that percolation tests be accomplished on the parcel as an indication of the potential in obtaining individual well systems on the property. Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval. Mr. Wood made a 'motion for approval as recommended by the Planning Conm%issi~n, however, he stated that it was becoming more difficult to justify the use of septic systems on one acre lotS. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None'. (10) SP-161. Charles Baker. To allow a permanent mobile home on 4.'5 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture. Property is located off west side of Route 606 approximately 1 1/4 miles south of its interesection with Route 641. Property is described as County Tax Map 21, Parcel 13D, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Baker appeared in support of his petition. No one appeared in op~sitia~' ~-~.?~ ~'~ Mr. Humphrey stated that the Staff recommended normal Health Department approval of a septic system. He stated that the B~!anning Commission had recommended approval with condition as stated above. Mr. Wood made a motion that the recommendation of the ~lanning Commission be accepted. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: NAY S: (~) Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. SP-162. Charlie & Jackqualyn Sandridge, To allow a permanent mobile 111 home on 2.85 acres zoned A~i Agriculture. Property is located off south side of Rout~e 61-4 approximately 3/4 mile east of its inter-section with Route 674. Property is described as COunty Tax Map.26, Parcel 56B, White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Sandridge appeared in behalf of the petition. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Humphrey advised the the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to Health Department approval of a septic system. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood, recommendation of the Planning Commission was accepted. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: (12) Messrs.' Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. SP-164. Stewart Kenny. To allow a permanent mobile home on approximately 2.0 acres zoned A-l, Agriculture. Property is located on east side of Route 616, approximately 1/2 mile from its intersection with Route 22 at Keswick. Property is described as County Tax Map 80, Parcel 157, Rivanna Magisterial District. Stipulated. Commbsion. vote: AYES: NAYS: NoRe. (14) Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. CUP-150. Walter Cushman. Petition to install a central well water ~supply to serve a subdivision, to be known as "Eeriwether Hills" in the Ivy area. Property is located on the southeast side of Route 678, just north of Route 250 West, Property is described as County Tax Map 58, Parcel 87, Samuel Miller District. Mr. Humphrey read a letter from~Mr. Cushman stating capabilities of the well. Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application No one appeared in support of the petition. Mr. Humphrey advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to Health Department approval of a se~ic system. On motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker, recommendation of the Planning Commission was accepted. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (13) SP-165. George O. Davis, Jr. To allow stabling facilities for light horses and ponies on two acres zoned. R-1 Residential. Property is described asCounty Tax Map 59C(1), Section 2, Lot 28, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. is Mr. Humphrey stated that this request/to house one or more horses on a lot in West Leigh Subdivision on a vacant 2.0 acre lot adjoining a lot in the ownership of the applicant. The property is located in Section 2 of West Leigh and is bounded tF Emerson Drive and Lake Loch Leigh. The nearest home is that of the applicant. The lot immediately east of the subject property is vacant. He stated that the Planning Staff would recommend that the stabling facility be located 125 feet from the property line dividing lots 28 and 27 and setback from the lake a distance of 200 feet, and review by Health Department. They also recommended keeping the stable along the east property line and screening in that area and stable be limited to thr-ee or less ponies. Mr. Davis was present in support of his petition. The Planning Commission recommended approval-with conditions as Motion was offered by Fisher to accept recommendations of the Planning Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and passed by the following recorded 112 as submitted for 52 dwelling units, subject to.additional storage. They requested as a condition that pipe material be same as that used by the Service Authority for possible tie-in to County system being servi~d by Service Authority in this area. The staff would also like the Board to consider possibility that at some future date the system be turned over to the Service Authority for operation and maint~ ance. Mr. Fred Landes, Attorney, and Mr. Cushman'appeared on behalf of the petition. Motion was made by Mr. Fisher to defer action on this petition until May 8. Motion having been seconded by Mr. Thacker, the motion carriedby the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. On request of the Chairman, this meeting was adjourned until May 8, 19727 at ~:30 P.M. in the ~Albe mar~.le C'~unty~ C~gur~ Hi~o~_u~.s e ~ motion being made by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker, and adopted by the following ~ecorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Chairman