Loading...
1983-12-07December 7, 1983 (Regular Night Me,ting) 45.1 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 7, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, ¥irginia. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B..Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-83-7. John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. Request to rezone not more than ten acres (currently zoned PRD) designated "Farm Tract" to Rural Areas, RA. Property known as Wavertree Hall PRD and located east of intersection of Routes 691 and 637. County Tax Map 70, Parcels 39 and 39D. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1983.) SP-83-38. John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. Request to locate a country inn and restaurant on property described in ZMA-83-7. County Tax Map 70, Parcels 39 and 39D. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1983.) SP-83-39. John L. Wildermuth. Request for home occupation for consulting engineering practice in 1,500 square feet of block dairy barn on property described in ZMA-83-7. County Tax Map 70, Parcel 39. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1983.) Mr. Fisher said a letter dated November 28, 1983 has been received from the applicants requesting postponement of the above three petitions to January 18, 1984 (Copy of this letter is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Fisher asked if anyone from the public was present to speak for or against these petitions. Hearing no reply, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to defer ZMA-83-7, SP-83-38 and SP-83-39, to January 18, 1984, as requested by the applicants. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-83-74. Dennis Minetos. Request to locate used car lot on 3.474 a zoned C-t. Property located 600 feet south of Woodbrook Shopping Center on Route 29 North. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 104A. Charlottesville District. Mr. Fisher said the applicant had requested an indefinite deferral which was unanimously granted by the Planning Commission at its meeting on November t0, 1983. He asked if an indefinite deferral means the petition will remain in limbo for years. Mr. Tucker said yes, but if the Board wishes, it may defer this petition to a date in February or March. Mr. Fisher had no problem with deferral for three or six months, but was concerned that without a definite date, the files would remain open and the petition would then come under the rules and regulations in effect at the time the application was filed. Mr. Fisher asked if the application would automatically be defunct if the application is not brought back within a year. Mr. St. John said normally a petition is withdrawn without prejudice in that case. Mr. Tucker said the applicant would have to request withdrawal. He further noted that if an item is readvertised, another fee is charged for the advertisement and adjacent property owners are renotified. The procedure is basically the same as for an original application. After a brief discussion, Mr. St. John suggested that the item be removed from the Board's agenda until same is ready for consideration. Mr. Tucker said the petition will remain active with the Planning Commission. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to remove SP-83-74 from the Board's agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke~ Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-83-79. Otis Lee and Margaret K. Morris. Request to locate a mobile home on 2.705 acres plus 1.311 acres under contract (total 4.016 acres) zoned Rural Areas, RA. Located on east side of Route 601, about 1/2 mile south Of 21n~rsection with Route 667. County Tax Map 017, Parcels 25D and 25B (part of). White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 25, 1983.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: l'~equestq Acreag_e:_ Zoning.' Location: Mobile Home 4.016 acres RA, Rural Areas Property described as Tax Map 17, Parcel 25B (part) and Parcel 25D is located on the east side of Route 601 about 1/2 mile south of Route 667. 452 December 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Character of the Area: A single-family dwelling exists on this open property. The mobile home proposed to be located north of the dwelling would be visible from Route 601. Staff Comment: Complaint regarding this mobile home is from developers of Buck Mountain PUD. This development is about 3,000 feet north of the proposed mobile home location. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Note': The applicant has been placed on notice that future subdivision of this property may not be achievable under current regulations." Mr. Tucker said the note is the result of the requirement that twenty-five feet of land be dedicated from the centerline of the road when subdividing property. With that dedication, the land may be reduced below four acres and less than that amount cannot be subdivided. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on December 6, 1983 unanimously recommended approval of SP-83-79 with the one condition set out in the staff report. Miss Nash asked if the objections came from the owners of the small lots along Route 667. Mr. Tucker said yes, that those lots are part of the Buck Mountain PUD. The public hearing was opened. had no comments. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Morris were present and Mr. Roy Bailey, owner of the property, was present and offered no objection. Mr. Percy Lawrence, property owner in the immediate area, was present and urged approval of the petition. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands this mobile home is to be used by the applicant's son. Someone in the audience indicated that was correct. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to.approve SP-83-79 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-83-72. Melvin T. Dixon. Request to subdivide 9.77 acres zoned Rural Areas into two parcels of 3.5 and 6.25 acres. Located on west side of Route 665, 900 feet west of intersection of Routes 665 and 662. County Tax Map 30, Parcel 35. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1983.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "~e.quest: To divide 9.77 acres into parcels of approximately 3.5 acres and 6.27 acres. ~ RA Ru~ral Areas Location: Property described as County Tax Map 30, Parcel 35, White Hall District is located on the north side of Route 665~near Hickory Ridge PUD. Immediate Environs and Existing Characteristics: This area has rolling topography with open grassland and pockets of wooded areas. are approximately thirty single-family dwelling units within a one-half mile radius. The majority of the parcels within a one-half mile radius are five acres or greater. The property in question is open grassland and wooded, and drains into Buck Mountain Creek which is located nearby. A pond also exists on the property. There ~omPrehensive Plan Recommendations: This property is located within the Rural Areas identified in the Land Use plan and within the South Fork Rivanna River Impoundment Watershed. This property will, in the f~ .... 3~.iE~ture, drain into the proposed Buck Mountain Creek Impoundment. Residential density standards in the Comprehensive Plan recommend one dwelling unit per ten acres for those lands located in drinking water impoundment watersheds. D$cember 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) 453 Staff Comment: The division of this parcel would be the sixth division of the parent tract, thus necessitating a special use permit. A portion of the proposed six-acre parcel is located within ~the proposed 100 foot setback easement of a tributary stream to the proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir. This easement would not impact the proposed building site of the lot. In reviewing this parcel with regard to the special use permit criteria in the Rural Areas District, staff offers the following comment: 1 and 2. No soils information has been submitted for the parcel presently under consideration; however, the Soil Conservation Service noted on an adjacent property (Hickory Ridge) that the soils in the area consist of deep, well-drained loam, located on the ridges and a shallow soil with rock at 20 - 40 inches found on the steeper slopes. Actual suitablility for agricultural or forestal production is not known. 3. This property is presently not under preferential land use taxation and County files do not indicate that the property has ever been in a commercial agricultural or forestal use. 4. This property does not appear to be in or within one mile of a commercial agricultural or forestal area. However, even if it were located within such an area, the creation of one lot would probably not have any detrimental effect on the character of the area. 5. Within a one mile radius of this property, approximately forty-one lots are five or less acres in size and forty lots are over five acres. The existing lots in the Hickory Ridge Subdivision account for thirty of the lots which are less than five acres in size. The majority of large lots in the area are over twenty acres in size. 6. The nearest population center is over two miles away (Earlysville). 7. Impact on schools will be slight with one additional lot. 8. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has noted that the proposed parcels would be served by individual entrances. 9. In addition to the above eight criteria, a special use permit for property located within the boundaries of a drinking water impoundment watershed should also consider a number of factors. These factors outlined by Section 10.5.2.1(9) of the Zoning Ordinance deal with environmental impacts such as filtration of sediment, erodability of area soils, alteration of existing topography and vegetative cover, etc. Information regarding these factors has not been addressed by the applicant. While the criteria above does not, under this proposal, conclusively support or reject the division contemplated by the applicant, staff is of the opinion that the Comprehensive Plan density standards should be given special emphasis. Not only is the property within the watershed of the County's major source of drinking water supply, but will in the future be very near the proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir. For t~e above stated reasons and the potential precedent which could be set for future divisions within the immediate environs of a drinking water impoundment, staff recommends denial. Should the Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors choose' to approve this special use permit, staff would recommend the following condition: No earth disturbing activity shall occur within 100 feet of any tributary of Buck Mountain Creek." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 10, 1983, recommende( denial by a 2 to 2 vote. Due to that vote, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a resolution expressing its inability to form a majority opinion on this petition and forwarded the petition to the Board without a recommendation. The Commission members favoring approval of the special use permit felt that due to a pond being located on one of the lots, any development or construction on that lot would drain directly into the pond before getting into Buck Mountain Creek. Also, because the reservoir is contemplated so far in the future, there would be little affect on this additional lot. The members voting for denial did so because the density criteria recommended in the Comprehensive Plan is one dwelling unit per ten acres, so a potential precedent could be set by approval of this petition. Mr. Tucker then reviewed a copy of the subdivision plat noting the configuration of the lots. In particular, Mr. Tucker pointed out the location of the pond and noted that all of the drainage is toward the pond and away from the State road. Mr. Tucker also pointed out that access is across the dam of the particular pond and noted that the required building site has already been defined. Mr. Fisher said with the pond and the road setbacks, there does not appear to be enough space for a house and two septic drainfield systems. Mr. Tucker said there is enough area for construction of the dwelling outside of the setback from the road on the front and the dwelling will not encroach upon December 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) the setback from the pond. However, he could not state that the area is adequate or that the soils are adequate because the subdivision plat has not been through the review process and studies have to be compiled for that determination. Mr. Mel Dixon, the applicant, was present and said both sites have received preliminary approval. Miss Nash asked the size of the other four lots in this particular area. Mr. Dixon said the average size is almost eight acres. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Mel Dixon said both of the parcels meet the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances pertaining to gross density, lot size, road frontage and building site~. Preliminary approval has been received for the highway entrances and septic drainfields on both lots. Mr. Dixon said a lot of information was not submitted for criteria #9 of the staff report because it was not felt to be necessary at this time. He also did not feel the addition of this lot, which will drain into the lake already on the property and which will have a satisfactory septic system, will have any affect on either the existing or the future water supply. He is aware of the lot size recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for water supply drainage areas, but that plan specifically allows deviation from the recommendations and he quoted the following statement "Since there will be situations where certain scales of the development will permit variation. Mr.. Dixon said the important word is "scale". The size of this development is the smallest that could be done. Mr. Dixon said this development began two years ago with a tract consisting of forty-seven acres and if this petition is approved, there will be a total of six lots with an average size of eight acres per lot and approximately twenty of the forty-seven acres drains into the existing lake. In summary, Mr. Dixon said due to the small scale of this division, the existence of a lake on the property to act as a sediment basin for almost half of the property and all of the additional lot being added, and the insignificant impact of one additional dwelling unit, in his opinion this division is within the legal ramifications of the ordinances as well as the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, he did not feel this approval would establish any precedent. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he accepts the staff recommendation of denial considering the amount of acreage involved, the area that has not yet developed, and the fact that there have already been five divisions by right per parcel. Miss Nash Said the three acres appear to consist primarily of the pond. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. .Mr. Fisher felt the existing five lots constitute a substantial use of the property and that no area is more sensitive than one draining into existing or future water supplies. Therefore, he accepts the staff recommendation for denial of this petition. Mrs. Cooke said considering the discussion on the Buck Mountain reservoir and the measures taken to protect same, she also accepts the staff recommendation for denial. Miss Nash did not feel there is any reason for the three acre division and she felt it basically ruins the whole plan. Therefore, she too agrees with the recommendation for denial by the staff. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to deny SP-83-72. Mr. Henley disagreed with the staff recommendation and the comments made by the other Board members because the owner of the forty-seven acres knew about the provision for five development rights and should have divided the property accordingly. He did not feel the extra lot creates any problem for the reservoir, but he said he will support the motion of denial because of the five development rights which was known by the applicant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-83-76. Page J. McGee. Request to build bridge over creek to private residence on 421.222 acres zoned Rural Areas. Located in Free Union, south side of Route 668 and west side of Route 671. County Tax Map 16, Parcel 6. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1983.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: To construct a bridge within the floodway of Ward's Creek to serve a private residence, in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1(2) of the Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance. 421.22 acres Property described as County Tax Map 16, Parcel 6, White Hall Magisterial District is located on the south side of Route 668 approximately three and one-half miles east of Mount Fair. Immediate Environs and Existing Characteristics: This area is mountainous with steeP terrain. The majority of the tract is wooded with some open grassland. Large tracts of land surround this parcel and residential development is sparse. CqmpM.~hensive Plan Recommendations: This area is located within the Rural Areas designation of the Land Use Plan and a residential density of one dwelling unit per ten acres is recommended. Acreage:_ Location,: December 7, 1983 ~Regular Night Meeting) 455 Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to construct a bridge within the floodway of Ward's Creek to serve a proposed private residence. Ward's Creek is approximately ten feet wide and is not canoeable. The County Engineer is currently working with the applicant's contractor; however, no plans have been submitted to date. Staff is of the opinion that with the recommended conditions, the proposed bridge: - would not be of substantial detriment to adjoining property; - would not substantially change the character of the area; - would be in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and with public health, safety and welfare. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; County Engineer to be mindful of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comments in their letter dated October 21, 1983." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 10, 1983, unanimously recommended approval of SP-83-76 with the above two conditions and the addition of the words "guided by Watershed Management Official" between "approval" and "of" in condition #1. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Page McGee, applicant, was present. Mr. McGee said he had attempted to do everything in accordance with the County's ordinances and had gone to a great deal of expense in having a certified engineer work with the County Engineer's requirements. Mr. McGee noted that Ward's Creek runs parallel with Route 668 and for the entire frontage of the property and is only fifty yards off the road. Mr. McGee said the only way to get to his property is to cross the creek. He plans to build a new home and does not desire to ford the creek to get onto his property. Mr. Fisher asked if this is the only access. Mr. McGee said there is road frontage on Route 668 but the creek has to be crossed to get to the majority of his property. Mr. Lindstrom said it appea~s from a plat in the Board's packet, that the property is made up of two parcels. Mr. McGee said that is not accurate and pointed out that originally there were six hundred acres, but the open land containing two hundred and twenty-five acres was sold. Mr. Charles McGrady, contractor for the applicant, was present and noted that Dr. David Morris, a private consulting engineer at the University did the watershed study and computed the runoff on the ten-year flood basis recommended by the County Engineer, and also did computation for a one hundred year flood which was not requested. According to the information on the one hundred year flood basis, the highway could be under a foot or so of water but there was no problem with a ten-year flood. Mr. McGrady then explained plans for the bridge and noted that the design is over the maximum for a ten year flood and allows eight feet of water. The structure of the bridge is to consist of enough steel to support three loaded cement trucks which is between seventy and eighty thousand pounds. Mr. McGrady said the nature of the site is such that a couple of steel stringers would be a flimsy structure as far as wear over a period of time, so four steel beams are being used. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher recognized Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, and asked if he had any comments. Mr. Elrod said he has no problem with the analysis or computations and noted that a considerable amount of work has been done by the applicant. The computations indicate that a ten year storm would create only a two and one-half foot increase in elevation of the water. Mr. Elrod said he has visited the site. Based on the report from Dr. Morris he feels the concern of the highway department regarding the bridge blocking the flow of the water and backing out into the state road should be resolved. An increase in the flood depth of a one hundred year flood is only about five and one-half feet. However, Mr. Elrod said he is concerned about what might happen upstream, in particular, where the increased flood height would cross the property line onto upstream property. He has discussed this with Dr. Morris and recommended that more survey information be submitted. Dr. Morris has agreed. Mr. Elrod said if the only property affected is that of Mr. McGee, then he supports approval of this petition. Mr. Elrod further noted that after approval of the special permit, the ordinance requires that the County Engineer issue a landfill permit since this project will require filling out to the bridge across the watercourse. One of the requirements of the ordinance is that no fill shall be placed in the floodway, which is part of the one hundred year floodplain so as to increase the depth of flow more than one foot. Mr. ElrOd felt that if the flood depth is increased only on the McGee property and no other property is affected, then there is no problem. Mr. Elrod said other than desiring to know precisely what the effect will be on upstream owners, he had no objections to issuance of the special permit. If the five and one-half foot increase is determined to cause a three foot increase on a property owner upstream, then the bridge may have to be widened to get more flood capacity. Mr. Fisher said there are two properties upstream from this property. He asked if these properties have structUres of any kind. Mr. McGee said one property does, but the structure is approximately 1500 to 2000 feet away from the road. Mr. Elrod did not feel any of the structures would be affected. The creek is on a good grade and the land on either side of the creek goes up steeply so the amount of land to be affected is not significant even if the increase were fifteen feet. However, he did feel information should be submitted on his concern of the effect to any upstream property owners in order to be consistent with the ordinance. 456 December 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. McGee has any intent of subdividing any of this property in the future. Mr. McGee said he has no intent at this time to subdivide. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this property contains several parcels. Mr. McGee said he owns parcels 6 and 7. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-83-76 with the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. He noted concern about the report from the Highway Department, but said their concern seems to have been resolved. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. (Conditions of approval are as follows: County Engineer approval, guided by Watershed Management Official, of bridge and construction activity in flood plain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; County Engineer to be mindful of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comments in their letter dated October 21, 1983.) Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-83-I7. Douglas and Della Marsh. Request to rezone 1.77 acres from Rural Areas to R-2. Located between Browns Cove and Mount Fair on Route 810. County Tax Map 14, Parcel 29B. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1983.) Mr. Lindstrom said his firm represents the applicant and although no one from his firm is present tonight on the petition, he will abstain. Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Existing Zoning: RA Rural Areas p~oposed Zoning: R-2 Residential ~ 1.77 acres Location: Property described as County Tax Map 14, Parcel 29B White Hall Magisterial District, is located contingous to the Doyles River and Route 810 approximately one and one-half miles north of Mount Fair. Immediate Environs and Existing Characteristics: This area is mountainous with deciduous woodland and open grassland. The Doyles River forms the eastern boundary of the property and Route 810 bisects the property leaving approximately one-half of an acre located between Route 810 and Doyles River. There are approximately twenty~dwelling units located within a one-half mile radius of the property in question. There presently exists on the parcel in question one country store, two single-family detached dwelling units and one mobile home. Ail of these uses are located on the west side of Route 810 on approximately one to one and one-half acres of land. Cp~prehensive Plan Recommendations: This area is located within the South Fork Rivanna River Impoundment Watershed and is identified as Rural Areas in the Land Use Plan. Table 24 entitled 'Recommended Residential Density Standards' indicates that land located in impoundment watersheds should have a residential density of one dwelling unit per ten acres. Staff Comment: The property in question is owned by the applicant's father, who resides in one of the single-family dwellings. The applicant's sister resides in the mobile home. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property in order to take title to the other single-family dwelling. The parcel, as developed, is nonconforming with regard to the country store, density regulations of the Rural Areas District and the area regulations for well and drainfield of the Zoning Ordinance. ~Staff recommends denial of the rezoning for the following reasons: - The proposed zoning is in conflict with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan; - To rezone the property would be spot zoning and could set a precedent for future rezonings in the area; - To rezone would require variances and/or waivers from the Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning Commission from the area require- ments for well and drainfield and frontage regulations; and - Any division of the property could make the residue parcel more nonconforming than what presently exists." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 10, 1983, by a vote of 3 to 0, with one abstention, recommended denial of ZMA~83~!7. December 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) 4.'5 7 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Douglas Marsh, applicant, was present and said about two months ago his wife called a County department and after explaining their intentions, she was informed that an application should be made for R-2 zoning. He noted that he has received approval for septic system and well on the site. After contacti'ng his attorney, variances have been applied for. Therefore, Mr. Marsh said perhaps this petition should be dropped. He again restated that this rezoning petition was what an employee of the County suggested. Mr. Marsh said the only reason his father-in-law is selling the land is because of financial problems. Mr. Henley asked if any land adjacent to this parcel could be purchased. Mr. Marsh said he has tried without success to purchase another acre adjacent to this property. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked if additional development would be allowed on this lot without public water if same i.s approved for R-2. Mr. Tucker said the Zoning Department determined that R-2 was necessary in order to make the four existing uses conforming. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that hardship exists, if a division would be allowed under the existing zoning. Mr. Tucker said if the variance requested is on area regulations of the RA district, legally that can be done, but he had never felt that is an appropriate action. Mr. Fisher said if the Board approves the petition, other uses on the property will have all the rights of the R-2 district. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr. Henley said this is an unusual situation. The division will not make any difference to anyone in the immediate area and this couple will have their own home. He personally did not feel this would cause any problem because the dwelling already is in existence. Mr. Fisher said since that is the case, he would prefer to wait and see if a variance of area regulations is granted. Mr. St. John said the applicant seems to be indicating desire to withdraw the petition. Mr. Marsh said that is correct. Mr. Henley then offered motion to allow withdrawal of ZMA-83-17 without prejudice as requested by the applicant. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 8:35 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-83-4. Amend Section 32.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance as related to membership of Site Plan Review Committee. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1983.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: ".O~igi~: Watershed Management Official, Planning Staff P~pose: To incorporate the Watershed Management Official as a member of the - Site Plan Review Committee. Staff Comment: While authority exists to seek comment from the Watershed Management Official regarding development proposals, official membership on the Site Plan Review Committee is deemed appropriate. This is amplified by possible increase of authority for the Site Plan Review Committee under current 'streamlining' proposals. Section 32.7.2 - There is hereby created a site plan review committee composed of a representative of the Albemarle County planning department, the Albemarle County engineer's office, the Albemarle County Service Authority, the watershed management official., the Albemarle County fire official, the ¥irginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, and the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service ..... Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on November I0, 1983, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-83-4 as proposed by the staff. Mr. Fisher said the Watershed Management Official has been employed for a number of years and asked if he has participated in the Site Plan Review meetings before this time. Mr. Tucker said his comments has been solicited in letter form on various proposals. It is felt that his comments would be valuable to the Commission along with the County Engineer's comments since they jointly review proposals. Mr. Fisher asked the meaning of the comment in the staff report regarding possible increase of authority for the Site Plan Review Committee. Mr. Tucker said over the past several months, the Planning Commission has encouraged~the Site Review Committee to take more leadership in reviewing plans and when the Committee feels the plan is improper and needs to be deferred in order to obtain more details for the Commission's review, the Commission has supported that action. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the proposed amendment, the public hearing was closed. 4 5'8 December 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting~) no. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any urgency adopting this amendment. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Fisher suggested that the amendment be effective on January 1, 1984. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve ZTA-83-4 as recommended by the Planning Commission by adopting the following ordinance to be effective January 1, 1984. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote': AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 32.7.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 32.7.2 There is hereby created a site plan review committee composed of a representative of the Albemarle County planning department, the Albemarle County engineer's office, the Albemarle County Service Authority, the watershed management official, the Albemarle County fire official, the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, and the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. In addition, two members of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, to be designated by the chairman thereof, shall serve as ex-officio members of this committee. The committee shall have the power to make rules for the regulation of its business, subject to the approval of the commission. AND FURTHER ORDAINED that this amendment shall be effective on and after January 1, 1984. Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-83-5. Public Hearing' Amend Section 4.13.2 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to limitation on parking/storage of inoperable vehicles. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1983.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Origin:_ Request originates from the Zoning Division. ~rpos.e:. To provide consistency between language of 4.13.2 and definition of 'inoperable vehicle'. Staff Comment: Discrepancy currently exists between the language.of 4.13.2 and the definition of 'inoperable vehicle'. This problem could be corrected by deletion of the last sentence of Section 4.13.2. Section 4.13.2 LIMITATION ON PARKING/STORAGE OF INOPERABLE VEHICLES~ E~. No inoperable vehicle shall be se located on any agricultural or residential district so as to be visible from a public road or adjoining property. Not more than two (2) such vehicles shall be located on any such lot regardless of location. ~-~e~e~e-~e~ ~e~~-e~e~-~ee~e-~a~e~-a~-~e~ee~e~-~a~a~e~-ee~ea~e ae-~e~e~-~-¥~~a-~aw-eha~-~e-ee~e~e~-ae-a~-~e~e~a~e-~eh~e~e~" Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 10, 1983, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-83-5 as recommended by the staff. Mr. Tucker said basically the only change is deletion of the last sentence. However, the word "or" could be inserted in the sentence to read ". . . plates and or inspection . . ." Mr. Henley said many times farm vehicles do not have license plates and he asked if this is a violation. Mr. Fisher said farm vehicles are not required by Virginia law to have license plates. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the proposed amendment, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to approve ZTA-83-5 as recommended by the Planning Commission by adopting the following ordinance to be effective on January !, 1984. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 4.13.2, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: .13.2 LIMITATION ON PARKING/STORAGE OF INOPERABLE VEHICLES No inoperable vehicle shall be located on any agricultural or residential district so as to be visible from a public road or adjoining property. Not more than two (2) such vehicles shall be located on any such lot regardless of location. AND FURTHER ORDAINED that this amendment shall be effective on and after January 1, 1984. December 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) 459 Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Request to set public hearing to amend Section 2-49 ~. t-het.~DA~©rdinance to add airports and office and support facilities, and Section 2-52 to increase the number of bond issuances to eleven. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board not get into the substance of the request this evening but rather just schedule the public hearing for the amendments to the Industrial Development Authority Ordinance. Mr. Agnor recommended the public hearing be scheduled for December 21, 1983. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to advertise for public hearing on December 21, 1983, amendments to Sections 2-49 and 2¥~2.~f~he~dustrial Development Authority Ordinance. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 11. 1983 (Afternoon). Approval of Minutes: September 7, September 21 and October 5, Mr. Lindstrom said he read the minutes for September 7, 1983 and noted the following corrections on page 345, eighth paragraph, fourth sentence, insert the words "the urban area along" between "and" and "Hydraulic", with same to read as follows: "He believed the Board felt, and the County Attorney agreed that it was reasonable to draw a boundary line between the watershed and the. urban area alon~ Hydraulic Road since it is the most prominent geographic feature in the area". The fifth sentence to be corrected by inserting "which forms the actual boundary of the watershed" between "line" and "would" with same to read as follows: "To determine the exact location of the ridge line which forms the actual boundary of the watershed would be difficult". Mr. Lindstrom also requested that t-~ ~r~' "'total" betwe'e~ ,,--~w ~nd "amount" in the sixth sentence be deleted and the word "small" be inserted in its place; sentence to read: "Considering the small amount of.. . " In the eighth sentence, delete the words "that fact" and insert the words "these f~cts" between "Given" and "and"; sentence to read: "Given these facts and the ,! staff report .... Mr. Lindstrom said at the beginning of Agenda Item 5 on the bottom of page 345, he was shown as leaving the room but was never shown as returning. Therefore, he requested his return be noted before the beginning of Agenda Item 7 on page 346. Mr. Lindstrom noted that no information has been received regarding the City's use of the bookmobile as its registration facility (see page 353). Therefore, he requested a response. Miss Nash and Mr. Henley had both read the minutes assigned for September 21, 1983 and reported no errors. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of October 5, 1983 (Afternoon) and reported finding no errors. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the minutes of September 7, 1983 as corrected and September 21 and October 5, 1983, as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom commented on a memorandum from Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the School Board, regarding items for a joint discussion with the Board. He is concerned that this discussion has been scheduled for December 15, 1983 because there will obviously be new School Board members and two new Board members on January 1, 1984. He has spoken with his School Board appointee, Dr. Charles Tolbert, about this meeting and Dr. Tolbert does not feel that the meeting is urgent and can wait until the new members have been appointed and taken office. Mr. Lindstrom said if the meeting is for discussion purposes only, that is one thing, but if action is to be taken on budget or capital improvement items, then he would prefer to wait for the new members. Mr. Fisher said Mrs. Haden had sent him a message that the School Board wanted to meet in December. He had related to her that the Board had decided not to meet with the Planning Commission until after the first of the year and he felt the same should be done for the School Board. However, she felt the meeting was urgent in order that bids could be let for construction of two school projects in May and the School Board needs to know the financial situation of both. Mrs. Cooke said she met with her representative, Mr. Charles Armstrong, and he did not feel there was urgency to meet before the first of the year. Miss Nash asked if revenues will be known so that a decision can be made before the end of the year. Mr. Agnor said it would be best to wait until after January. Mr. Lindstrom suggested the meeting not be held until January; convey this to Mrs. Haden and if there is urgency then respond back to the Board for further consideration. After a brief discussion, it was the mutual feeling that this meeting should wait until after January 1, 1984. Mr. Fisher suggested this item be placed on the regular meeting of January 11, 1984 for discussion. 46o December 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting~ Mr. Fisher said there was recently an article in a Richmond newspaper about changes in the school basic aid formula. He gathers that persons in this area ha~ing a 22~01 zip code have been counted as having personal income in the City. The higher the personal income attributed to the City the less state money the City receives for schools. If the formula is adjusted so that people with a 22901 zip code who live in the County have that income attributed to the County, then the County's personal income level will increase; the City's will decrease, and as a result, the City will get more state basic aid money and the County will get less. It was stated in this article that "preliminary figures show that Albemarle County will experience at least twenty percent revision in its estimated total personal income". He did not think that means a twenty percent change in funds, but he did feel that more information is necessary to assist the staff in making budget estimates for Fiscal Year 1984-85. Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Personnel. Mr. St. John requested an executive session to include personnel matters and legal matters regarding the Starks case, police force case, legal aspects of the hotel project on Route 29 North, and the 0akhill Water Company situation. At 9:05 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel and legal matters as requested by the County Attorney. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 10:35 P.M. Agenda Item No. 15. was adjourned. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting