1982-03-17March 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on March 17, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS 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.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order.
the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
At 7:34 P.M., the meeting was called to order by
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-81-63. Henry T. and Mamie M. Herring, request to locate a
mobile home on 7.00 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located on Route 601 approximately
one mile north of the intersection of Route 601 and Route 671. Tax Map 8, Parcel 13,
White Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March
i0, 1982.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission as follows:
Request: Mobile Home
Acreage: 7.0 acres
Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Property described as Tax Map 8, Parcel 13, is located on the
west side of Route 601, approximately one mile north of Route 671.
Character of the Area: A non-conforming mobile home exists on this pro-
perty. Portions of the property are visible from two dwellings across
Route 601.
Staff Comment: The existing mobile home, which has been on the property
about twenty years, has been used recently by the applicant as a
vacation home. Now in retirement, the applicant proposes to locate a
newer mobile home on the property and maintain the existing mobile
home for guest and family visit usage.
The existing mobile home is clearly visible from Route 601 and par-
tially visible, due to intervening woods, from two dwellings -- 500
feet southeast and 1,300 feet east. The new mobile home could be
effectively screened from these dwellings and Route 601 either by
locating it directly behind the existing mobile home or towards the
rear of the property in a wooded area. (Originally the applicant
proposed locating the new mobile home between the existing mobile home
and Route 601, to screen the existing mobile home from view. However,
the setback could not be met.)
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following condition:
1) Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of February 2, 1982,
voted to recommend approval with the following two conditions:
1) Removal of the existing mobile home from the property;
2) Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker noted that two letters were received in opposition to this mobile home
special permit, one from Annette F. Patenaude, the second from Mr. John A Dezio, attorney
representing Clara A. Wood Maupin.
There being no questions from the Board, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
opened.
First to speak was Mr. Henry T. Herring, applicant. Mr. Herring said he is retired
and wished to add a new mobile home to his seven acre parcel because the present mobile
home is too small. Mr. Herring said he wished to keep the old mobile home on the property
for his daughter and grandchildren or to rent as additional income. Mr. Herring said he
objects to the additional condition placed on his request by the Planning Commission
because this old mobile home is already paid for and he has no reason to get rid of it.
No one else wished to speak either for or against this request and Mr. Fisher declared
the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher commented that permits are usually approved when
the applicant intends to occupy the mobile home himself. Mr. Fisher added that the Board
has, in the past, denied those permits where the applicant intends to rent the home for
income purposes.
Miss Nash asked if the old mobile home could be left on the property for possibly two
years, while the applicant paid off some of the mortgage on the new home. Mr. Fisher said
he felt such a condition would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Henley said he could under-
stand Mr. Herring's situation, and offered a motion that the special permit be approved
with the condition offered by the planning staff and an additional condition that the old
mobile home be removed after five years. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler.
March 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mrs. Cooke asked if an additional condition could be placed on this permit, that the
older mobile home be repaired and cleaned up. Mr. Henley said that could set a dangerous
precedent, because it could be attempted to apply such a condition to permanent homes.
Miss Nash felt that five years was too long a period of time and that the condition
would be difficult for County staff to enforce. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the Board
had been careful to approve mobile homes as the primary dwelling of the applicant, but
that a mobile home as supplementary income is something which has been avoided. Mr.
Fisher said he has voted against many similar requests, that it is the principle of the
request which he cannot support.
Roll was then called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Butler and Henley.
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve SP-81-63
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. 3. ZMA-82-1. Bruce D. Campbell. Request to rezone 3275 acres zoned
RA, Rural Areas to CO, Commercial Office with proffer limiting use to professional offices.
Property located at intersection of Route 665 and Route 601 with frontage on Route 601 in
Free Union. County Tax Map 29, Parcel 29. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on March 3 and March 10, 1982.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the Planning Commission recommendation
as follows:
Requested Zoning: C0 Commercial Office (Proffer)
Acreage: 3.75 acres
Existing Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 29, Parcel 29, located on the
north side of Route 665 at its intersection with Route 601 at Free
Union.
Character of the Area: This property is vacant pasture, adjoined by
pastureland. Free Union is characterized by small-lot residential and
commercial development. In addition to a post office and non-conforming
country store, special use permits have been approved for a country
store, craft shop, and professional offices..
Comprehensive Plan: Free Union is recommended as a Type II Village in the
Comprehensive Plan. Among development proposals for Type II Villages
is the statement: "location of rural professional services should be
encouraged in village locations."
~plicant's Proffer: The applicant proposes to live and to establish a
medical practice on this property (Commercial Office zoning is re~
quired to permit "professional office" usage). Under the applicant's
proffer~ development of the property would be limited to one dwelling
and nov more than 3,000 square feet of professional office space.
This floor area would be adequate for two additional physicians.
Staff Comment: Staff opinion is that the applicant's proffer would make
the requested zoning consistent with the land use recommendations of
the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has expressed concerns to the applicant
regarding proposed floor area, however. Staff opinion is that maximum
floor area should be based on site capabilities and should also be
consistent with the village scale of development.
At this time the Health Department is reviewing the adequacy of the
site to support such use by septic system. In regard to the village
scale of development (i.e., small business), staff would note that the
Zoning Ordinance provides a maximum floor area of 4,000 square feet
for a "country store". Therefore, staff would recommend that a 3,000
square foot medical clinic would be consistent to the village character.
"February 4, 1982
Mr. Ron Keeler, Planning Department
Albemarle County
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
RE: Dr. Bruce Campbell ZMA-82-1
Dear Ron:
This office represents Dr. Bruce Campbell who has applied to have 3 3/4
acres in Free Union, Virginia re-zoned from RA to CO. Dr. Campbell is
completing his residency in family practice at the Hunterdon Medical Center
in Flemington, New Jersey and wishes to establish a rural family practice
in Free Union.
March 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting~)
1.].9
He has contracted to purchase the 3 3/4 acres in question from Ruth B.
Huff. It is his intention to build a personal residence on the property
where he and his family will live and an adjoining medical office for the
purpose of his family practice.
Dr. Campbell has authorized me to make a proffer wherein he agrees to limit
the use to professional offices if his re-zoning application is granted.
He is also willing to limit the ~e~,~ *professional office portion to a
maximum of 3,000 square feet.
Very truly yours,
(signed) Wendall L. Winn, Jr.
Richmond and Fishburne"
(* Note: the word medical was stricken from the original letter, and the
word professional added, in a correction dated 2-18-82 and initialed RSK.)
Mr. Tucker noted that at its meeting of March 2, 1982, the Planning Commission recom-
mended approval of this proffered rezoning dated February 4, 1982. Mr. Tucker then noted
receipt of a letter dated February 19, 1982, from Mr. G. Stephen Rice of the Thomas Jefferson
Health District regarding soils and septic system (Note: Copy of this letter is on permanent
file in the offic~'~of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). Mr. Fisher said originally
he thought the letter from the Health Department indicated that a soil study had been
completed, but it seems that this is not the correct interpretation. Mr. Tucker said the
letter is only a square footage recommendation of the drainfield needed for the house and
medical facilities. Mr. Tucker also noted that the figures for the drainfield are "based
on the supposition that suitable soil will be found and that all waste will be domestic-
type sewage (i.e., no chemical or industrial waste)." ~
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Wendall L.
Winn, Jr.,~attorney, representing the applicant. Mr. Winn said it is the intention of
the applicant to live on this site and to establish a "family" medical practice. Mr. Winn
indicated that there will be no chemical disposal at the site, and felt the use of this
parcel as Commercial Office is not contrary to recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan
for the Free Union area.
Mr. Fisher asked if Dr. Campbell would be operating a testing laboratory as part of
his medical practice, or have X-Ray machines, etc. on the premises. Mr. Winn said the
only testing he is aware of is the standard urinalysis test, which does not involve
chemicals.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested amending the proffer to state that if the soil tests conducted
by the Health Department prove the soils to be unsatisfactory for a septic system, the
zoning will revert to the present zone. Mr. Winn said he felt that the proffer would not
have to be amended, because if no health department approval is received, the site plan
will not be approved; therefore, no construction could take place. Mr. Lindstrom then
suggested limiting waste disposal in the septic system to normal wastes and restricting
the disposal of chemicals. Again, Mr. Winn said that would be taken care of~during approvals
by the Health Department.
Next to speak was Mr. William S. Roubdabush, who studied the~ site on behalf of Dr.
Campbell. Mr. Roudabush said a soil scientist has not yet studied the site, but he has
used U.S.G.S. soii charts of the area, and according to those charts, the soils are
suitable for septic~drainfields. Mr. Roudabush said there are no slopes on the site over
25% and that there is a stream at the rear of the property. Mr. Roudabush said the property
has adequate space to accommodate a 1,200 square foot residence and 3,000 square foot
office with adequate parking and required septic system. Lastly, Mr. Roudabush said the
site has been examined by the Highway Department and that recommendations for the location
of the entrance will be adhered to. He said no variances will be required if this rezoning
is approved and that pro¥isions of the Runoff Control Ordinance will be adhered to.
Mr. Fisher asked if there will be two separate septic systems, one for the residence
and the second for the office building. Mr. Roudabush said more than likely there would
be two separate systems. Mr. Fisher said each drainfield site would be required to have
an alternate location, and asked if there is area enough to accommodate a total of four
septic systems. Mr. Roudabush said there is ample space to accommodate four separate
systems.
No one else wished to speak either for or against this request,.and Mr. Fisher declared
the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he would support this rezoning with the
proffer as requested. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt Mr. Winn was correct that there could be
no site plan approval without first having approval from the Health Department of the
septic system site or sites. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the location and intended use of
this land would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion was then offered by Mr.
Lindstrom to approve ZMA-82-1 with the proffer dated February 4, 1982, as amended on
February 18, 1982, and initialed by Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, changing the word "medical" to
the word "professional", Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission was. aware of that
amendment. Mr. Tucker said the amendment of February 4,,1982, was done. pr±or to the
Planning Commission hearing on this rezoning. Mr. Winn said the amendment was done following
a telephone conversation between Mr. Keeler and himself, and Mr. Winn said he authorized
the change at that time. ·
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following re'corded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
12.0
March 17_~ ~1982 (Reg~utar Night MeetinF~)
Agenda Stem No. 4. ZMA-82-2. Polly B. Hogshead. Request to rezone 5.75 acres zoned
Village Residential to C-1 with proffer. Property located on Route 737 approximately 300
feet west of Route 20 South in Scottsville. County Tax Map 130A-l, Parcel 70. Scottsville
District. (Advertised on March 3 and March 10, 1982.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission as follows:
Requested Zoning: C-1 Commercial with Proffer
Acreage: 5.75 acres
Existing Zoning: VR Village Residential
Location: Property described as Tax Map 130A, Parcel 70, is located on the
northeast side of Route 737 at Scottsville.
Character of the Area: While this property is bordered by Routes 6, 20 and
737, access to the dwelling is from Route 737, which is a gravel road.
Existing commercial development is located on both sides of Route 20
adjacent to this property. Other properties in the area are zoned VR
and are in residential usage.
Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for low-density residential
use in the Comprehensive Plan. As stated in the past, the land use
recommendations for Scottsville provide for comparatively limited
growth. No new commercial areas are recommended. In some instances,
existing commercial development/zoning was not recognized.
Applicant's Proffer: Under the applicant's proffer, a portion of the
existing dwelling would be used for the following activities:
Sale of fabrics, notions and trims;
Sale of items handcrafted on and off the premises;
Sewing classes.
A maximum 1,200 square feet of floor area would be devoted to these
activities. No new construction or other commercial activity would be
undertaken. Parking would be screened from adjoining properties and
signage would be limited.
Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for low-density
residential development. Staff is unaware of any physical characteristics
of the property which would preclude its development accordingly.
Therefore, staff opinion is that the current VR zoning is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations and staff recommends
denial of this petition.
However, should the Commission and Board choose to approve this
petition, staff would note that the applicant's proffers have been
directed toward limiting the intensity of usage and otherwise attempting
to make the use compatible to the area. Should this petition be
approved, staff would recommend that the proffer letter be resubmitted
incorporating the verbal changes made to the original submittal.
Additional Staff Comment: Some activities proposed by the applicant may be
available under existing zoning. Sewing classes and sale of items
handcrafted on the premises may be permitted under "Home Occupation:
Class B" and/or "Private School". The Zoning Department would need to
evaluate any such proposal, based on intensity of usage.
"March 2, 1982
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Albemarle County Planning Department
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Re: Polly Hogshead - Application for rezoning ZMA-82-2
Dear Mr. Keeler:
This letter is intended to supplant my letter of February 5, 1982,.in order
to incorporate into the Hogshead's proffer the oral changes which have
subsequently been made. Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance, the following conditions are proffered to be applied to
Polly Hogshead's proposed rezoning:
1. The dwelling's present exterior residential appearance will be main-
tained, and no alterations will be made.
2. The dwelling contains 1,196 square feet of living area and a walkout
basement containing the same number of square feet. Of this space, appro-
ximately 800 square feet of the present living area on the first floor will
be devoted to the proposed commercial use as a crafts and fabric shop.
Three hundred fifty-four feet will provide living space for Mr. & Mrs.
Hogshead. The bath, 42 square feet, will serve both the family and their
customers. Four hundred square feet of the basement area would be reserved
for storage and possible future expansion of the business. The balance of
the basement would be utilized for personal storage or living area.
March 17, 1982 [~e~gula~~e~
3. No part of the balance of the acreage in this parcel would be develop~ed
for commercial use.
4. The only commercial use to which the property will be devoted is Mrs.
Hogshead's proposed small shop. She will offer a small selection of fabrics,
notions, and trims from which her customers may purchase or make selections
for items to be handcrafted by Mrs. Hogshead. She will sell her own hand-
crafted items and possibly some consignments of handcrafted items by others.
She will also conduct small sewing classes. Mr. & Mrs. Hogshead will
initially operate the shop alone. They do not anticipate a need to add
even a part-time employee until one or two years in the future. At no time
will they employ more than two full-time employees.
5. Signs to be used in connection with the business will be restricted to
the nameplate on the Hogshead's mailbox, one free-standing business sign
not to exceed 3 square feet, and one wall business sign not to exceed 4
square feet.
6. Ail parking would be on a portion of the propertY which is visually
screened and hidden from all adjacent roads and neighboring properties.
If I can provide any clarification or additional inf0rmation concerning
this proffer, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
(signed) Catherine J. Womack"
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 2, 1982, unanimously voted to approve
this petition subject to the amended proffer of March 2, 1982.
Mr. Fisher said he felt 354 square feet of living space was extremely small, and
questioned the validity of the application because of "unrealistic figures". There being
no further comments or questions from members of the Board, Mr. Fisher declared the public
hearing opened.
First to speak was Mrs. Catherine Womack, attorney, representing the applicants.
Mrs. Womack reviewed the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to this site. Mrs. Womack
noted factors which she felt favored approval of this application; i.e. the Planning
Commission voted to approve this request, there would be no alteration in the appearance
of the home or the neighborhood, the proposed use is no more intensive than other uses
permitted by right, the adjacent property owners favor approval of the application, and
this would offer residents of Scottsville a place to purchase fabrics whereas now the
consumer must travel into Charlottesville to do so. Mrs. Womack presented several photo-
graphs of the home, the surrounding area, approach road and interior business layout.
Miss Nash asked~about approval by the Highway Department. Mrs. Womack said a letter
was received from the Highway Department which recommended "An adequate commercial entrance
will be required to serve this property. Route 737 is a gravel road and due to the
existing alignment has limited sight distance along the existing roadway. This may create
a problem and should be examined closely before details of a site plan are developed."
Mrs. Womack said Mr. Hogshead plans to work on the entrance in order to meet the require-
ments of the Highway Department.
Next to speak was Mr. Bruce Hogshead who presented additional photographs of the
proposed business. Mr. Hogshead said although he and his wife own a small cabin else-
where, this house would be their primary residence. He noted that it is anticipated that
approximately two or three United Parcel deliveries would be made to the home each week,
but that the truck already passes this home so there would be no additional traffic created.
Mr. Hogshead said he anticipates five to ten customer visits per day. Mr. Hogshead said
he and Mrs. Hogshead met with all six of the adjacent property owners, including a trip to
Alexandria to meet with Miss Virginia Moore to assure her that the residential character
of the home would be preserved. He noted further that Miss Moore's greatest concern was
the signage. Mr. Hogshead said the dimensions originally requested in the proffer have
been reduced by one half, and presented photographs of how the signs would be placed at
the residence. Mr. Hogshead said if necessary, he would be willing to change the proffer
to reflect the reduction in the size of the signs.
Mr. Lindstrom said the proffer presented is extremely restrictive, and asked Mr.
Hogshead if he realized this would make the property difficult to sell in the future. Mr.
Hogshead said he was aware of the extreme restrictiveness of the proffer, and said he and
his wife hope to make this their last move. Mr. Lindstrom next asked about the amount of
grading necessary to obtain the required parking. Mr. Hogshead said the parking area will
require almost no grading, and that he intends to landscape that area to make it attractive.
Mr. Hogshead added that the Highway Department is requiring the entrance to be widened by
about ten feet from the present twenty foot width.
Next to speak was Mrs. Cleveland who said she and her husband own the adjacent property.
Mrs. Cleveland said she felt this would be an asset to the community and felt it should be
approved.
No one else wished to speak either for or against this application and Mr. Fisher
declared the public hearing closed.
Miss Nash said originally she was worried about the precedent this application would
set if approved, but since the proffer presented is so restrictive; she offered motion
that ZMA-82-2 be approved with the proffer of March 2, 1982, with the amendment of the
size of the signs in paragraph five to read "Signs to be used in connection with the
business will be restricted to the nameplate on the Hogsheads' mailbox, one free-standing
business sign not to exceed $ 1~ square feet, and one wall business sign not to exceed ~
2 square feet." Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Hogshead if he accepted the amendment to the
proffer as stated by Miss Nash in her motion. Mr. Hogshead said he agreed to amend his
proffer as stated. Mr. Lindstrom then seconded the motion to approve ZMA-82-2 with the
amended proffer. Mr. Fisher said he had serious reservations about approving this request,
March 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
because he felt to rezone this parcel C-1 was a violent shift from the present residential
zone. Mr. Fisher said the proffer was so restrictive that the property would be essentially
unsalable. ~ ......
Mr. Henley said he feels the zoning laws are too restrictive if an application of
this type cannot be approved.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the restrictive nature of the proffer eliminated the
precedent setting effect of the C-1 zoning. Mr. Lindstrom said there will be no major
change to the appearance of the property. Mr. Lindstro~ said this request was very close
to a simple home occupation and that he had no problem approving it as long as the courts
would take the proffer into consideration when determining if the Comprehensive Plan is
being adhered to. Mr. St. John said it is difficult to predict what a court would do, but
that the proffer does indicate the specific conditions of the rezoning which'would have to
be considered case by case.
Mrs. Cooke asked what other types of commercial businesses could locate at this site
if the Hogsheads should leave. Mr. Fisher sgid any type C-1 business could purchase the
property and request a change in the proffer; also, businesses could request rezonings for
adjacent properties stating that a precedent has been set by this rezoning. Mr. Henley
and Mr. Lindstrom disagreed with Mr. Fisher, stating that the proffer is so restrictive
that very few businesses could take over the site. Mr. Lindstrom added that any requests
for changes in the proffer or additional rezoning requests would have to come before the
Board of Supervisors, and could always be denied.
Miss Nash then repeated her motion to approve ZMA-82-2 with the proffer of March 2,
1982, as amended to reflect the change in the size of the signs. Mr. Lindstrom repeated
that he would second the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
Mr. Fisher.
At 9:00 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess.
P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 9:05
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-82-3. Haley, Chisholm & Morris, inc. Request to subdivide
141.10 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas into 21 lots with an average lot size of 6.72 acres, on
property described as County Tax Map 62B2, Parcel 1 (38.68 acres), Parcel 2 (5.0 acres),
County Tax Map 62, Parcel 49C (one tract of 92.01 acres and one tract of 5.41 acres).
Property located off of Route 20 North behind Key West Subdivisio~;onthe western boundary
of the Rivanna River. Rivanna District. (Advertised in ~he Daily Progress on March 3 and
March 10, 1982.)
Mr. Lindstrom stated he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on this request
because his law firm represents this applicant.
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission as follows:
Request: 21 residential lots in accordance with 10.5.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Acreage: 141.10 acres
Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Property described as Tax Map 62B, Parcels 1 and 2, Tax Map 62,
Parcel 49C, located off of Route 20 North behind the existing Key West
Subdivision.
History: A portion of this property was rezoned from A-1 to R-1 in 1969.
Character of the Area: This property varies dramatically from steep,
wooded ridgeland which changes abruptly to open flood plain adjacent
to the Rivanna River. Redbud Creek is to the north. The Rivanna
River is the western boundary with properties across the river zoned
R-4 and R-4/NR (S.L. Williamson for sand and gravel removal). Properties
to ~he east and south are developed as Key West (168 lots; 1.43 acres
average lot size) and Cedar Hills (25 lots; 0.975 acres average lot
size).
Comprehensive Plan: This property is across the Rivanna from the Urban
Area and about a mile north of the Pantops portion of the Urban Area.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area. for agricultural con-
servation with a density of one dwelling unit per five acres.
In regard to scale of development the Comprehensive Plan recommends as
follows:
Conventional Developments - Conventional developments, generally
involving construction of new roads,~are recommended at a scale
between 20-75 units, with larger projects recommended to be
Planned Unit Developments. Developments of this type are to be
discouraged in areas of the County where desired average densities
are lower than one dwelling per acre. In addition to traditional
design improvement standards, developments of this size should
incorporate the following two features:
March 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and
proposed population centers, services, and employment centers.
Travel distance from the property to the Urban Area is over a mile.
The Urban Area is directly across the River from the property.
Access to population centers, services and employment centers is by
major roadways. Staff considers this property to be in proximity and
convenient to the Urban Area.
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital
improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services.
Impact on schools would be slight with a total projected enrollment of
about ten students. Busing of students would be required at all
levels. Students would be bused crosstown to Greer Elementary, Jouett
Middle and Albemarle High Schools.
Fire protection would be provided by the Stony Point and East'Rivanna
volunteer companies and by one City engine. Response time for the
first engine would be about ten minutes.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in
the opinion of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
ao
occasion the need for road improvement;
cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road;
increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road.
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has not indic-
ated that this development would occasion the need for road improve-
ments.
Staff Comment: As proposed on the preliminary subdivision plat, the prime
agricultural soils of the flood plain area would be incorporated in
two large parcels of 21 and 35 acres respectively. Smaller lots would
be developed in the wooded areas as recommended by the Comprehensive
Plan. The average lot size is 6.7 acres, which is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan density of 1 du/5 acres. Staff opinion is that the
proposal is basically consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
intent of the RA district.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing improvements which would
benefit the existing Key West development, which may not be realizable
under by right development. Staff recommends approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Development limited to 21 lots consistent with the preliminary
plat "Section 6 Key West" by R. 0. Snow and R. W. Ray, Inc., dated
February 1, 1982;
2. Compliance with private roads provisions for Key West Drive;
3. Central well approval for the upgrading and extension of the
present Key West system.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 2,
1982, recommended approval of SP-82-3 with the following conditions:
Development limited to 21 lots consistent with the preliminary plat
"Section 6 Key West" by R. 0. Snow and R. W. Ray, Inc., dated Febrmary
t, 1982;
2. Compliance with private roads provisions for Key West Drive;
Central well approval for the upgrading and extension of the present
Key West system;
Cross connect the existing hydrant systems to improve the fireflow and
reliability in Key West;
5. Install a dry hydrant in accordance with NFP~ standards at the lake;
6. Maintain a separation of 100 feet or more between structures;
Provide emergency access from Key West Drive to connect with private
roads, such emergency access to meet Fire Official and County Engineer
approvals.
Mr. Tucker noted receipt of a memorandum from Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Acting County
Engineer, dated March 17, 1982 (NOTE: This memorandum is on permanent file in the office
of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). In this memorandum, Mr. Williams addressed the
water supply and the shortfall of water storage, which he suggests can be made.up with an
additional tank. Mr. Williams notes that the waterlines appear adequate to extend into
Section 6 to serve the proposed 21 lots. Also in this memorandum, Mr. Williams recommends
that the two roads in Section 6 be designed as private roads and that Clark Lane be 18
feet wide.
Mr. Tucker also noted receipt of a letter dated March 16, 1982, from Dolores R.
Conklin, President of the Board of Directors of the Key West Club, Inc., urging the
development of Section 6 as proposed (NOTE: This letter is on permanent file in the
office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). Lastly, a letter dated March 12, 1982,
from Mr. Gary R. Holdren, President of Key West-Cedar Hills Community Association, with an
attached copy of a letter from the Executive Council dated December 8, 1980, and signed~by
March 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mrs. K. D. Reel were received as part of the record. (NOTE: These two letters are on
permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mrs. Reel's
letter speaks against the construction of private roads, requests a connection of Key West
Drive to a State-maintained road, and requests that some area in Section 6 be left as
common ground or park land.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Ed Bain,
attorney, representing the applicant. Mr. Bain said Mr. Tucker did a very complete job of
explaining the request. Mr. Bain said the applicant is willing to do the work as requested
by Mr. Ira Cortez as stated in his memorandum dated March 2, 1982, to Mr. Ron Keeler
(NOTE: This memorandum is on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors). Mr. Bain said that although approximately 92 acres of land have been added
to Section 6, only two additional lots have been added. Mr. Bain noted the main reason is
because a great deal of the 92 acres is in the flood plain area. Mr. Bain agreed to the
conditions recommended for this special permit by the Planning Commission, and noted in
response to a question by Mr. Fisher, that the property is presently owned by John A., Jr.
& Jan H. Schwab & William H. Baldwin, Estate.
No one else, either for or against this petition wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher
declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Fisher reviewed the long history of Key West Subdivision, especially the diffi-
culties caused by the dam and its affect on the road system. Mr. Fisher said originally,
having all the roads in Key West made part of the State System was a major concern of the
property owners, and he asked if that situation had changed. Mr. Schwab said the situation
at Key West has changed drastically since first presented to the Board. Mr. Schwab said
originally there were 99 sites and now there are 18 on the same size parcel. Mr. Schwab
said state maintained roads serving~18 lots is economically impossible. He noted that-a
maintenance agreement is presently being circulated among the property owners and sixteen
of twenty families involved have already agreed to sign. Regarding water, he noted that
the pressure problems which presently exist will be solved by a loop system as well as
storage with an additional tank. Lastly, Mr. Schwab felt the connector road answers the
problem of the dam and emergency vehicles access that was a stumbling block for all these
years.
Mr. Fisher asked what would happen if some of the property owners refused to sign
such a maintenance agreement. Mr. Bain said as yet no one has refused to sign, but not
all property owners have been contaat_edvet~Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John whether or not
the maintenance agreement is adver~F~y~ ~o~igned by all property owners. Mr. St. John
said if the Board made this permit conditional on the fact that all property owners must
sign the maintenance agreement, failure of any property owner to sign the agreement would
mean the special permit remained unapproved. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any con-
ditions which covered the internal roads of Section 6. Mr. Tucker said the subdivision
plat is to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 23 and he felt it unnecessary
to add such a condition. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission will have no
control during subdivision plat review over the present Key West Drive, because that road
already exists. Mr. Michael Boggs of Haley,~ Chisholm and Morris said the issue of the
maintenance agreement for the existing Key West Drive was not discussed at the Planning
Commission meeting. He did not feel there was any intent on the part of the Planning
Commission to deny the entire special permit if any present property owner on Key West
Drive refused to sign such an agreement. Mr. Boggs added that the road will be upgraded
prior to initiating the agreement, and it is hoped that the residents will maintain the
road in that condition in the future. Mr. St. John said it would not be necessary that
all homeowners sign the agreement, but it would be essential that those homeowners that
did sign the agreement complied.
Mr. Fisher asked if the proposed water storage would be adequate. Mr. Tucker said
the well would be drilled and tested in the required manner and that the storage would be
approved by the County Engineer, who, in his memorandum referenced earlier, stated that
8,800 gallons would be required.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to approve SP-82-3 with the seven conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. St. John said he wished a clarification of condition seven so he could accurately
review the homeowners' agreement. Mr. St. John asked if the improvements to Key West
Drive as it exists, will only be to the standard for the number of people presently living
there, not the people anticipated to live in the new part of the subdivision. Mr. Fisher
said he believes the intent is that Key West Drive would serve the people presently living
there plus the one additional lot from the new subdivision. Mr. Bain said actually there
would be no increase in the number of lots served, because although one lot is being added
from the new section 6, one lot from the established subdivision is being removed. Mr.
St. John said the emergency road is not to be built to a standard to carry ordinary
traffic--Mr. Tucker and Mr. Fisher agreed that that is the intent.
Agenda Item No. 6. Amend Section 22.3, Additional Requirements of the C-1 Commercial
DistriCt to correct reference numbers related to Section 21.0, Commercial Districts,
Generally, in the Zoning Ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and
March 10, 1982. )~.~ ~.~,~~ p~u~ ~-~ ~-~ ~,'~.~ ~-~-~
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission as follows:
"On February 2, 1982, at staff request, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend 22.3 Additional Require-
ments of the C-1 Commercial district to correct reference numbers related
to 21.0 Commercial Districts, Generally. During work on the proposed
126
March 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Zoning Ordinance, the Commission felt some flexibility regarding land-
scaping and yard requirements was appropriate in the C-1 district in
village areas and provided that flexibility in 22.3 of the C-1. Subse-
quently, the Board deleted a section of the general requirements for
commercial districts (21.0) and the staff neglected to make corresponding
reference number changes in 22.3.
Staff recommends the following amendment:
22.3
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the requirements contained herein, the require-
ments of section 21.0 commercial districts, generally, shall
apply within all C-1 districts; provided that the commission may
modify, vary or waive the requirements of sections ~ 21.6 and
~ 21.7 in a particilar case upon a finding such action would
be in keeping with the character of the area and that alterna-
tives proposed by the applicant would satisfy public interest at
least to an equivalent degree."
Mr. Tucker noted that the 2~anning Commission on March 2, 1982, recommended adoption
of this amendment as written by the staff.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and there being no one present wishing
to speak either for or against this amendment, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in Section 22.3 as presented in the staff report and
recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called &nd 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. 7. To amend Section 23.0, Commercial Office District, to delete
floor area restriction for dwellings and to amend Section 5.1.21, Dwellings in Commercial
Districts under Section 5.0 Supplementary Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10, 1982.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the Planning Commission recommendation
as follows:
"At staff request, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 2,
1982, adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend Section 23.0 Commercial
Office District to delete floor area restrictions for dwellings, and to
amend Section 5.1.21 Dwellings in Commercial Districts. Dwellings are
permitted in the CO and C-1 districts under certain circumstances subject
to the restrictions of 5.1.21 of the supplementary regulations.
In the CO district, dwellings are provided in a listing of accessory uses
under 23.2.1#6. This provision limits the combined floor area of accessary
uses to not more than twenty percent of the total building area. This
restriction would seem unreasonable when applied to a home practice such as
a physician or attorney where the practice itself may occupy much less
floor area than the residential use.
Staff recommends the following actions:
1)
2)
3)
Delete "Dwellings (reference 5.1.21)" from 23.2.1#6.
Add to 23.2.1 as a separate use: "10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21)".
Amend 5.1.21 as follows:
5.1.21 DWELLINGS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
ae
Dwellings in commercial districts are intended primarily
for owners or employees of establishments including
night watchmen;
Such dwelling may be located individually or in the
same structure as the commercial use, subject to
Albemarle County building official and fire official
approvals. Such dwelling may be a mobile home authorized
in accordance with the requirements of 5.7 TEMPORARY MOBILE
HOME PERMIT;
Not more then one (1) dwelling shall be permitted per
business establishment."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting of March 2, 1982, recommended
adoption of these amendmentS as written by staff in the staff report as presented. Mr.
Tucker noted that the wording regarding authorization of a mobile home was added following
several requests made to the Zoning Administrator, in cases where businesses suddenly
required night watchmen protection and required a facility to house that person.
March 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Jr27
Mr. Fisher asked how long the mobile home would be allowed. Mr. Tucker said it would
be the same as any temporary mobile home permit, that being three years with the option to
extend for two more years. Mr. Fisher said he has misgivings about mobile homes being
allowed in the commercial districts.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to
speak either for or against this proposed amendment, Mr. Fisher declared the public
hearing closed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this would be considered an accessory use. Mr. Tucker said it
would not be considered an accessory use, and this change would correspond with the
provisions in C-1 and HC commercial districts where a dwelling is permitted for this type
use. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a provision for a mobile home is also in the other commercial
districts. Mr. Tucker said these supplementary regulations would apply to all commercial
districts.
Mr. Fisher said he felt three to five years was not very temporary, and felt he would
like more evidence of a real need before opening up all the commercial districts to mobile
homes.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance as presented by the staff and recommended by the Planning Commission with the
deletion of the last sentence in paragraph "b" of Section 5.1.21 reading "Such dwelling
may be a mobile home authorized in accordance with the requirements of 5.7 TEMPORARY
MOBILE HOME PERMIT".
Mr. Henley commented that a temporary mobile home is less expensive than a permanent
home to put in place; that this method could be tried' and always repealed at a later date.
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. There being no further discussion, roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Georgetown Road Walkway. Mr. Fisher said this discussion was
deferred from March 10 in an attempt to talk with several of the property owners and
obtain right-of-way or easements.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has spoken with the attorney representing Mrs. Gay Johnson
Blair Hathaway and was informed that no donation of property or easement would be given to
the county. Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Acting County Engineer, said the attorney for Mr.
Henry H. Bell, said no donation of property would be made, but that this request will be
reconsidered if the County makes an offer to purchase. Mr. Williams said he also con-.
tacted a representative of the Lewis Frimel Company, Inc., said they had visited the site
of the Georgetown West Apartments this morning. Mr. Williams said he received an indi-
cation that the Lewis Frimel Company would agree to an easement with the guarantee that if
Georgetown Road is widened at that location for any reason, the easement will be void; the
easement is not to reduce the amount of land in case of future development on the site;
and lastZy, that both conditions must be met or an easement would not be given.
Mr. Williams said in checking with the County Real Estate office, estimates were
received on the per/acre value of the properties and proportionate costs for easements.
The following figures were'given:
Henry H. Bell
Lewis Frimel Co,
John W. Gilmore
Gay J. B. Hathaway
~:05 acres $603.00
.07 acres 2,243.00
.06 acres 900.00
.06 acres 315.00
$4,061.00
Mr. Williams said, in addition, Mrs. Hathaway has property on Hydraulic Road, and the
Highway Department has negotiated to purchase seventy square feet of land and a temporary
construction easement for a payment of $547.
Mr. Fisher said any further discussion of possible purchase of Property or other
course of action would best be discussed during executive session. Mr. Williams noted
that he does have in hand signed easements from several property owners, and when the plat
is put to record for the R. E. Lee property, an easement will be recorded at that time.
Agenda Item No. 9. Request from Library Board. Mr. Fisher'recognized Mrs. Margaret
Melcher, President of the Board of TrusteeS of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, who
presented a memorandum dated March I0, 1982, regarding a deficit in the 19'81-82 Library
budget. (NOTE: Copy of this memorandum and accompanying documents is on permanent file
in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mrs. Melcher said the Library
Board has been aware of this deficit for a long time, but due to the fact that the figures
were not firm, waited to bring it to the Board of Supervisors' attention. Mrs. Melcher
said the current year's deficit is in the amount of $39,136, and that a deficit in the
amount of $17,369 exists from last year. She stated that Louisa, Nelson and Greene
Counties have funded their share of this deficit which leaves $34,404 for Albemarle County
to appropriate to cover the two years.
Mr. Fisher asked about the Vinegar Hill property and if the money invested in same
will be recovered. Mrs. Melcher said the funds will be recovered; that the paperwork is
in the process to have the City of Charlottesville purchase same. Mrs. Melcher added that
Federal regulations prohibit charging interest on those monies or allowing for inflation.
March 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said funds recovered from the Vinegar Hill project could probably be used
to fund this reported deficit as well as the Scottsville Library project. Mr. Fisher then
spoke of the massive publicity campaign surrounding the deficit in the library budget, and
the public statements that library branches will be closed, etc. Mr. Fisher said he
realized this publicity was released without the knowledge of the Library Board, but
wished to emphasize his extreme annoyance that this was done prior to consulting any of
the governing bodies for possible funding of the deficit. Mr. Fisher said the library
staff responsible for this action should be required to offer a public apology. Mrs.
Melcher said she would take that message back to the Library Board. She said the Library
Board has always tried to work in harmony with the various governing bodies, and hoped
this would not destroy that harmony. Mr. Fisher said the deficit problem will be studied
by the staff and brought back before the Board at a later date.
Agenda Item No. 10a. Appropriation - Grant Fund. Mr. Agnor said this involves two
appropriations, first for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean Community Commission in the
amount of $12,428 (revenues have been received), and the Adolescent Group Project in the
amount of $4,061 (a grant administered through Social Services which is 100% reimbursable
by the State Department of Welfare).
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following two resolutions:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $12,428.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
Grant Fund and Coded to 9302-5840 for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean
Community Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $4,061.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
Grant Fund and Coded to 9302-5850 for Adolescent Group Project.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10b. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor said an appropriation is needed to
pay co~ for an insurance management study of the county government. Mr. Agnor said
proposals have been solicited and four different firms responded. Besides an appropriation
of funds to finance the study, authorization is also needed for the County Executive to
sign an agreement with the successful bidder. This is all being done~in preparation for
the rearrangement of liability coverages which will take place on July 1, 1982.
The second appropriation is in relation to the appointment of a new judge on this
circuit and the resulting need to furnish his office. The total amount is $3,150.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following two resolutions:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $5,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund and coded to 1101-3002.09 for Professional Services Consulting/
Insurance Management Study.
AYES:
NAYS:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $3,150.00~be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund and coded to 2101-7002 for Furniture and Fixtures, Circuit
Court.
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes:
Mr. Henley reported no errors or changes in the Minutes of February 18, 1981, (Afternoon)
and February 19, 1981 (Afternoon).
Mr. Fisher said with regard to the minutes of May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting),
on page 239, first sentence of the third paragraph, should be changed to read "There was
confusion among the Board and so .... "
With regard to the minutes of June 3, 1981 (Afternoon), Mr. Fisher reported no errors
or additions.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had read the minutes of June 17, 1981 (Afternoon) and could
find no errors or changes.
With regard to the minutes of June 17, 1981 (Evening), page 281, third paragraph from
the bottom, the following sentence should read as follows: "Mr. Fisher said he would not
consider deleting that condition until ~e Mr. Parks gave evidence .... "
Mr. Lindstrom reported no errors or changes in the minutes of June 25, 1981.
Miss Nash reported that she had not yet read the minutes of July 15, 1981, either
afternoon or night.
March 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the
minutes of February 18, (Afternoon), February 19, (Afternoon), May 20, (Regular Night),
June 3, (Afternoon), June 17, (Afternoon), June 17, (Regular Night), and June 25, 1981
(Afternoon). 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 On The Agenda.
Mr. Agnor said he would like the Board to consider approval of two lottery permits;
one for St. Anne's Belfield School for a lottery to be held on March 28, 1982, between
2:00 and 6:00 P.M. at the Lower School; and the second for the Crozet Girl Scout Troup
#861 for a lottery permit to be held on April 3, 1982, at 4:00 P.M. at Claudius Crozet
Park.
Motion to approve lottery permits for St. Anne's Belfield School and the Crozet Girl
Scout Troup #861 in accordance with the Board's adopted rules and regulations for issuance
of same was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Agnor summarized Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney's memorandum o~ March 2, 1982, regarding
Scottsville Ballfield Improvements as follows:
"On September 10, 1980, the Board of Supervisors approved an appropriation
of $8,000 for improvements to the softball and baseball facilities in
Scottsville. Of this original appropriation a total of $7,546.16 remains.
We have hesitated in spending these funds due to the uncertainty involved
with the Scottsville Dike Project. It appears now that the Dike project
will begin this spring and will wipe out the three ballfields that we have
been using in Scottsville.
Currently, our Department co-sponsors an Adult Softball League, Little
League and Pony League in the Scottsville area, all of which are in need of
playing space. The Little League and Pony League programs have been
successful in the past due to the various civic organizations and indi-
vidual volunteers who have put in countless hours to develop and direct
these programs. We do not want to see these programs interrupted or
eliminated due to lack of playing space.
We have spoken with Mayor Thacker about this problem and he has assured us
the one ballfield will be restored at the conclusion of the Dike project.
It is our request that we be able to use the funds originally appropriated
to the Scottsville sites, to develop a new field at Walton Middle School
and to make field improvements at the Scottsville Pod and Yancey Elementary
sites. Not only would these funds serve basically the same population as
the original appropriation, but they would also serve to improve fields for
school use as well as community use.
As you know, the softball and baseball seasons are'rapidly approaching and
we would like to do as much of this work as possible in house. Please
advise us as soon as possible if we will be able to make use of the funds
that are presently available in this way."
Mr. Agnor noted that these funds are presently in account Code 9700-7060.54 and that
he is simply requesting the Board's concurrance in the intended change use of the funds;
the account code will remain the same.
Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to authorize the spending
of funds in Code 9700-7060.54 for Scottsville Ballfield Improvements. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom requested that a discussion of setback requirements for well and septic
systems be placed on the April 14, 1982, agenda.
Agenda Item No. 13. At 10:40 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of discussing legal, per-
sonnel and acquisition of property. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
130
March 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 14. At 11:55 P.M., the Board reconvened back into open session.
Motion was immediately offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to 1:30
P.M. on Monday, March 22, 1982, in the Fourth Floor Conference Room for an executive
session to discuss legal matters. 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.
Chairman