Loading...
1981-06-17June 17, 1981 (Afternoon, Adjourned from June 10, 1981) June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 2 77 On June 17, 1981, at 2:00 P.M., the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, held an adjourned meeting in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from June 10, 1981. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley. OFFICER PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance and George R. St. John, County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. Gerald E. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 2:06 P.M., by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Executive Session. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn. and immediately adjourned. At 4:05 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 17, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, L~yton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant to the 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, Gerald E. Fisher. At 7:32 P.M., the meeting was called to order by Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-8!-22. Willoughby Corporation petition to amend the original Planned Unit Development for Willoughby to locate 154 duplex units on 19 acres with a gross density of 3.42 dwelling units per acre, with 24 acres in open space and two acres in roads. Located on south side of Harris Road in Willoughby off of Fifth Street Extended. County Tax Map 76M(2), portions of Parcels 5A, 5B, 6B, 6A, 7 and 8. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1981. NOTE: This agenda item was advertised as SP-8i-20, and the designation was changed at the request of the Planning Department.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff Report as follows: Request: Amend S?-534 (original Willoughby PUD) Acreage: 45.0 acres Location: Property described as Parcels 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7 and 8, on Tax Map 76M(2), in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The site is located on the south side of Harris Road in Willoughby off of Fifth Street Extended. History: S?-534--The original PUD was approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 22, 1976. The application was for 720 dwelling units (mixed type). SP-79-48--This amendment to a portion of SP-534 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 7, 1979. SP-80-76--This plan amended 68 single family units in SP-79-48 to 128 duplex units. Willoughby~ Section 3, Final Plat--This plat for 61 lots on a por'tion of what was approved in SP-79-48 was approved by the Planning Commis- sion on July 22, 1980. 278 June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Urban Area/Neighborhood Four, recom- mended for medium density residential (5-10 dwelling units per acre). School Impact: The total projected school enrollment is approximately 71 students. The School Board representative noted that this impact would require three additional teaching positions and two additional buses, depending upon the actual distribution of students among the schools. He also noted that the overcrowding at Albemarle High School would be increased. Proposal: This proposal is to amend the previously approved townhouse units (SP-534) to provide 154 duplex units. Land Use Summary: Acreage Units Gross Density Open Space Percentage of Open Space Acres in Roads Acres in Lots 45.0 acres 154 duplex units 3.42 dwelling units per acre 24.0 acres 50% open space 2.0 acres 19.0 acres This plan proposes to complete the amendment of the previously approved townhouse and garden apartment units on the north side of Moore's Creek to duplex units (and some single family units in Phase I). The following table summarizes the previous approvals. SP-534 SP-79-48 SP-80-76 Totals in County land with Proposed amendments and previously SP-81-20 approved SP-534 Acreage 135.0 48.0 27.0 45.0 Approximately 135.0 Number of Units 720 135' 128 154 609** Gross Density 5.3 3.6 4.7 3.4 4.5 * Sixty-eight of these single family units were amended (SP-80-76) to 128 duplexes. ** There are 260 units still approved on County land and 17.0 acres in commercial land. Staff Comment: Off the northwest side of Moore's Creek, the original PUD shows 260 apartment units and 17.0 acres of commercial land. These land uses are still approved and one of the access points is between Phase I and the currently proposed Phase III. Staff has recommended that the right-of-way be shown on this plan and dedicated on the final plat. Construction of the roadway into this area will be required when the commercial area and apartment units are developed. Conditions approved for SP-80-76 required that an updated plan showing all of the approved uses on County land be submitted. This has not been provided to date and is recommended here. The original PUD showed several recreational areas on the plan. Phases I and II have been approved with pedestrian trails through the open space. Staff has made several suggestions for active recreational uses to meet the 50 square feet per unit requirement in the Ordinance. The following uses are suggested as a guideline for providing re- creational facilities on the site: - Basketball half-courts (30' x 30' for 900 square feet each) - Playing fields - Tot lots (20' x 20' for 400 square feet each)(minimum of two recommended) - Volleyball court (60' x 30' for 1,800 square feet) - Benches/picnic area (approximately 20' x 20') Approximately 17,450 square feet of recreational space is required for Phases I and II and proposed Phase III. The approved pedestrian trails will use some of the required square footage. Staff feels that active recreation space should be provided for the number of units approved. It can be located throughout the open space in the three phases. Staff has recommended that the uses be approved by the staff prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission. The County Engineer has made a recommendation for the road plans in a letter written to Mr. Roy Parks on May 20, 1981. The options for construction of the roads are in three parts. The first option is to build the roads to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards. The second is an alternative to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards prepared by the Assistant County Engineer, which includes tertiary road standards. The third option is to allow all roads but Canary Lane and Harris Road to be designed with wide shoulders and grass-lined swales. The County Engineer does not recommend this option, since it would require constant inspections and would be difficult to enforce. He also recommended in this option that if drainage or erosion problems result, the County should be able to require that the roads be upgraded to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards. The County Engineer recommended that one of the first two options be allowed. The Planning Commission approved option I and revised the road widths. June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) · ' 279 Staff feels that it may be desirable for a landscaped strip (four feet) to be located between joint driveways. The Zoning Ordinance requires that evidence be provided that an adequate building site is available on each lot. The preliminary layout provided by the applicant shows that most lots will have building sites. Staff has recommended, however., that a new layout be provided when the lots have been surveyed. SP-534 was approved with a gross density of 5.3 dwelling units per acre with 720 units on approximately 135 acres. The overall gross density with this proposal and the previously approved applications is 4.5 dwelling units per acre with 609 units on approximately 135 acres. Staff recommends approval of this application with the following conditions: 1. ApproVal is for a maximum of 154 duplex units on 45.0 acres. Location and acreages shall remain substantially the same as the approved plan (except where revisions are required to meet conditions contained herein). Open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved on a final plat. 2. Amend the overall PUD master plan to reflect all changes, approved land uses, road alignment, recreational uses, etc. Submit three copies to the Planning Department prior to final plat submittal for Phases II and III. 3. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation approval of road plans for acceptance by the State (Part I or II, as referenced in J. Ashley Williams' letter of May 20, 1981, to Roy Parks), to include sidewalks on the northern sides of Harris Road and Canary Lane. These comments will be amended to reflect tertiary road standards in option #2. 4. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Provisions prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission. 5. Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service Authority. 6. Note a right-of-way of sufficient width to serve as access to the commercial and residential uses across Moore's Creek from Phases I, II, and III and reduce the open space by that amount. The right-of- way shaZ1 be dedicated to public use on the final plat. Construction of the access will be required at the time the remainder of the PUD is developed. 7. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreement to include the maintenance of recreational equipment, open space, drainage and appur- tenant structures. 8. No grading shall occur prior to final plat approval. 9. Staff approval of active recreational facilities to comply with the 50 square feet per unit requirement in the Zoning Ordinance prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat. 10. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. 11. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow. 12. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance. 13. 0nly those areas where roads, utilities, buildings, or other improvements are located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. 14. Evidence of an adequate building site on each lot shall be provided prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat. 15. No buildings shall be constructed on slopes greater than twenty- five percent (25%). 16. Removal of temporary package treatment plant prior to final plat approval of affected lots. (Lots 16. & 17) 17. Revise the plan to allow for two (2) parking spaces per unit. Driveway entrance locations for each lot will be reviewed with the final road plans. 28o "May 20, 1981 Mr. Roy Parks E.I. Design Associates 801 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 RE: Willoughby Phase 2 and 3 - Road Sections Dear Roy: Reference is made to the plans you sent me for the layout and road sections for Phase III of Willoughby. I have made a traffic analysis of this section and section two and designed the roads in three different ways on the accompanying report. Part I shows the design in accordance with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation subdivision standards. Part ZI is an alternate proposal I offered, to have both Harris Road and Canary Lane thirty-six feet wide for the entire length. Part III is a second proposal I offered, which gave some latitude to construct the small cul-de-sacs to the design standard of Phase I with a list of con- ditions. My recommendation to you and the Planning Commission is to go with Part I or II. I do not agree with your design of Phase I, so I do not want to even recommend Part III; however, I did inculde it as a proposal to cut the cost of curbing and storm sewers. With the number of complaints I and the Highway Department, not to mention the Zoning Department, have received from the road work in Phase I, I hope you can appreciate why I cannot support the Part III proposal. Please contact me if you want to discuss this further. Respectfully, (signed) J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer" Mr. Tucker noted that at its meeting on June 9, 1981, the Albemarle County Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of ZMA-81-22 to the Board of Supervisors, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 154 duplex units on 45.0 acres. Location and acreages shall remain substantially the same as the approved plan (except where revisions are required to meet conditions contained herein). Open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved on a final plat. 2. Amend the overall PUD master plan to reflect all changes, approved land uses, road alignment, recreational uses, etc. Submit three copies to the Planning Department prior to final plat submittal for Phases II and III. 3. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans for acceptance by the State in accordance with the following: I. VDH&T Subdivision Road Standards (Modified by Planning Commission 6/9/81) A Harris Road From existing portion to A: 36' Face to Face Cat. V Pavement 50' Right-of-Way From A to B: 36' Face to Face Cat. IV Pavement 50' Right-of-Way From B to C: 36' Face to Face Cat. III Pavement 50' Right-of-Way From C to end of cul-de-sac: 36' Face to Face Cat. I Pavement 50' Right-of-Way Sidewalk and curb combination along north side of road with curbing on south side. S-5 surface course. On-street parking allowed. B Canary Lane From Harris Road to A: 30' Face to Face Cat. III Pavement 50' Right-of-Way From A to end of cul-de-sac: 30' Face to Face Cat. I Pavement 50' Right-of-Way June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Sidewalk and curb combination on west side of road with curbing on east side. surface course. On-street parking allowed. S-5 C Roads 1-4 and 6-10 30' Face to Face Cat. I Pavement 40' Right-of-Way Road 5: 30' Face to Face Cat. II Pavement 40' Right-of-Way Curbing on both sides of'road. S-5 surface course. On-street parking allowed. 4. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Provisions prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission. 5. Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service Authority. 6. Note a right-of-way of sufficient width to serve as access to the commercial and residential uses across Moore's Creek from Phases I, II, and III and reduce the open space by that amount. The right-of-way shall be dedicated to public use on the final plat. Construction of the access will be required at the time the remainder of the PUD is developed. 7. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the maintenance of recreational equipment, open space, drainage and appurtenant structures. 8. No grading shall occur prior to final plat approval. 9. Staff approval of active recreational facilities to comply with the 50 square feet per unit requirement in the Zoning Ordinance prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat. 10. 11. Albemarle ~COunty Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow. 12. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance. 13. Only those areas where roads, utilities, buildings, or other improvements are located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. 14. Evidence of an adequate building site on each lot shall be provided prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat. 15. (25%). No buildings shall be constructed on slopes greater than twenty-five percent 16. Removal of temporary package treatment plant prior to final plat approval of affected lots. 17. Revise the plan to allow for two parking spaces per unit. Driveway entrance locations for each lot will be reviewed with the final road plans. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first.to speak was Mr. Roy Parks representing the applicant. Mr. Parks asked about condition #6 regarding the right-of-way as access to the commercial and residential uses across Moores Creek. Mr. Parks said the developers of Willoughby do not wish to construct a bridge connecting the residential properties with the commercial properties across Moores Creek, because of the extreme cost--approximately $750,000. Mr. Parks said this would raise the purchase price of lots and homes far above their apparent worth. Mr. Parks Said there is already access to the proposed commercial area and asked if the requirement for a bridge could be deleted. Mr. Fisher asked if the alternate access to the commercial area is a dedicated public road, or a private road. Mr. Parks saidi.~e~D~o~. Mr. Fisher said he would not consider deletmng that condmtmon untml he-gave evmdence that there ms legal access to the com- mercial area of the proposed Willoughby. Mr. Parks next spoke about the conditions regarding roads. He requested the Board to remove the condition requiring curb and gutter, stating that it would be financially impossible. Mr. Parks presented photographs of Phase I, where the method of grassy swales was used, indicating the initial attempt which failed and caused erosion problems, and the later successful attempt. Mr. Parks assured the Board that the road would be constructed to State standards as far as right-of-way and paved width, etc., but that the only way this project is financially feasible is to use the grassy swales. Mr. Parks next took exception to condition 3C, which requires a 30 foot road with 40 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Parks felt Canary Road should have a 22 foot paved surface with a grassy swale and sidewalk on one side; all the other roads should have a 20 foot paved surface. Mr. Parks said Harris Road, where it has not yet been built, should be 22 feet with grassy swales and a five foot sidewalk. Mr. Parks felt these standards were fair and that the con- ditions recommended by the staff and the Planning Commission were excessive. Mr. Lindstrom asked why standard Highway Department requirements are not called for in this development. Mr. Tucker said there is some latitude available, and the County Engineer felt it appropriate in this instance. Mr. Fisher said this seems to require some additional comments from the Highway Department and the County Engineer before any decision can be made. Mr. Fisher suggested this item be deferred to July 8, 1981, when everyone could be present. Dr. Iachetta said basically Mr. Parks wants to use rural road standards in an urban area location. June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Wade Tremblay spoke next and said the difference in costs between grassy swales and finished curb and gutter is approximately $1200 per unit. Mr. Trembtay said finished curb and gutter would also create more stormwater runoff and therefore require additional detention ponds, again at additional expense. There was no one else present wishing to speak either for or against this application. Mr. Fisher said the major issues are the roads, whether or not there is public dedicated access to the commercial area whereby the developer could eliminate the bridge across Moores Creek; second, the Highway Department comments on the possible reduction of road standards. Mr. Fisher suggested that the public hearing be continued to July 8, 1981. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to see a comparison of the maintenance costs of the grassy swales versus full curb and gutter for long term usage. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to defer this matter to July 8, 1981 and have the County Engineer and representative from the Highway Department present to answer the aforementioned questions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-81-17. S. G. Spangler Farm Supply, Inc. Request to rezone 2.573 acres currently zoned Village Residential to Highway Commercial. Located on Route 20 South in Scottsville, approximately 1,200 feet north of the intersection of Route 20 and Route 726. County Tax Map 130, Parcel 48. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1981.) Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-81-18. Samuel G. and Judith A. Spangler. Petition to rezone 1.022 acres currently zoned Village Residential to Highway Commercial. Located on Route 20 South in Scottsville, approximately 1,400 feet north of the intersection of Route 20 and Route 726. County Tax Map 130, Parcel 49. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1981.) Mr. Tucker presented the staff report which covered both ZMA-81-17 and ZMA-81-t8 simultaneously. Requested Zoning: HC Highway Commercial Acreage: 3.595 acres Existing Zoning: VR Village Residential Location: Properties are located on the east side of Route 20 South, about 1,500 feet north of Route 726. Character of the Area: This property contains a farm supply business and a State Inspection garage (Parcel 48 is developed with buildings; Parcel 49 is a storage area). The nearest dwelling is about 600 feet to the west across Route 20 South. Other properties in the area are generally larger parcels. Route 20 South is a designated Scenic Highway. This property is within the Totier Creek Reservoir watershed. Comprehensive Plan: The land use plan for the Scottsville town area provides for only limited growth. In addition, not all existing businesses and residential developments are recognized, and the plan makes no provision for additional commercial development. While this property is within the town area as shown in the plan, the commercial use of the property is not recognized. Staff Comment: The statement of intent of the Highway Commercial dist~ct states that these zones should "be established on major highways within the urban area and communities in the Comprehensive Plan." Since feed and seed stores, machinery sales and service, and repair garages are not permitted in the C-1 zone, which is the commercial district intended for designated villages, staff recommended the applicant request Highway Commercial. Staff opinion is that the farm supply and State Inspection garage uses provide a service to the southern part of the County. Appropriate zoning would permit expan- sion of these uses. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-81-17 and ZMA- 81-18. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2, 1981, unanimous voted to recommend approval of ZMA-81-17, but recommended denial of ZMA-81-18. Mr. Tucker noted that it has just been realized today that because of the required setback of the Scenic Highway designation, and the setback requirements of the Highway Commercial zone, and the depth of Parcel 49, the buildable area remaining would only be approximately 20 feet in width. Mr. Tucker noted also that questions were raised at the Planning Commission hearing by an area resident, Ms. Anne Bruce Dorrier as follows: "1. What rights did Mr. Spangler receive for growth and development of the Farm Supply business when he purchased this business? 2. Have all the zoning requirements that apply to his business been observed? 3. Are all the requirements regarding the storage of poisonous chemicals (liquid fertilizer) being met?" June 17~(Regular Ni h~~ Z83 The following letter was received in response from Mr. Robert E. Vaughn, Director of Inspections/Zoning Administrator, dated June 12, 1981: "In reply t© the three questions you have asked, the zoning staff has researched the history of the subject business and has determined the following answer to your questions: 1. Our records show the first zoning and building permit issued on this business in the name of Spangler to be dated March 1, 1971, Permit No. 71- 100, issued to Sam G. Spangler, III for proposed use as Feed and Seed Store including farm equipment and liquid fertilizer facilities with a plan attached showing three large tanks, approved by J. M. Goldsmith, Zoning Administrator. We show a second permit issued August 17, 1976, to Spangter Farm Supply, Tax Map 130, Parcel 48, (Permit No. 76-689 AC) for the construction of an addition to an existing building (the addition shown on the plan was 18' x 70') with a proposed use indicated as an office and a large storage or stockroom. This permit was approved by Mr. Dick, Zoning Administrator. The last permit issued on this parcel is dated May 8, 1978, for enclosing an existing pole shed for storage. 2. Ail of the permits were approved.by the Zoning Administrator, which indicates compliance with the zoning requirements. 3. Mr. Ira Cortez, County Fire Prevention Officer, advises that the storage facilities are inspected by him on a regular schedule and do comply with the County Fire Prevention Code." Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a petition signed by nine citizens which reads~as follows: "We, the undersigned, who are residents and property owners in the near vicinitY of Parcels 48 and 49, County Tax Map 130, Scottsville Magisterial District, do hereby voice our objection to the rezoning of these sa±d parcels of land from VR, Village Residential to HC, Highway Commercial." Mr. Fisher said he received a letter from the applicant dated June 5, 1981, questioning the BOard's actions in December, 1980, in establishing the village residential zone. Mr. Fisher asked how similar properties were treated at the time of adoption of the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Tucker said most villages and community areas were recognized if a com- mercial use was already established. Mr. Tucker noted that this property was not zoned commercial and therefore was not recognized commercial at the time the new zoning ordinance was adoPted. Mr. Fisher asked for comments on the possible impact to the Totier Creek Watershed. Mr. Tucker said some area was left in village residential, but that most of the area designated village residential and industrial was deleted in order to protect the Totier Creek Watershed. Mr. LindStrom asked if the site plan will include the entire parcel or only that portion subject to change. Mr. Tucker said a site plan would include only that portion of the parcel subject to change. Mr. Lindstrom next asked if in other cases where existing commercial operations were recognized, were some adjoining parcels also recognized to have that same zoning. Mr. Tucker said only the parcel where the actual establishment was located was recognized as commercial zoning. J Dr. Iachetta asked if the present use was a use by right in the old A-1 zone. Mr. Tucker said that was the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator at the time, that this type business was a proper "agri-business" use, and was allowed in this zone by right. Mr. Linds~rom asked if Mr. Spangler's property were rezoned, if it could be added to the list on the zoning map, indicating that this business existed prior to the adoption of the new zoning map and therefore is not inconsistent spot zoning. Mr. St. John said yes it could be added to that list. Miss Nash said since this property is on a scenic highway, any improvements planned by Mr. Spangler would have to conform to scenic highway requirements. Mr. Tucker said that was correct, although Mr. Spangler could request a waiver. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Samuel Spangler. Mr. Spangler first described the appearance of several of the adjoining pro- perties. He indicated his property is approximately 800 feet from the Scottsville Shopping Center, which was constructed on property formerly owned by Mr. Ed Dorrier. According to Mr. Spangler, Mr. Dorrier lives within 200 feet of the shopping center, but is one of those parties objecting to the rezoning of his property. Mr. Spangler said he has made considerable improvements to the property since it was first purchased. He noted that he presently meets all the County's fire safety regulations, as well as recent inspections by OSHA and the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr.' Spangler said there is a chain linked fence around the entire two parcels, and that the rezoning of one parcel without the other will do him no good. Mr. Fisher, Mr, Lindstrom and Mr. Spangler next discussed how there could be any use of the smaller parcel, considering the amount of setback required under the scenic highway designation. Mr. Spangler said although there is very limited footage remaining after meeting the setback requirements, he can use a small amount for building, and use the remaining for limited parking or some similar use. Next to speak was Mr. W. D. Morris of Maple Hill Farm. Mr. Morris said he feels Mr. Spangler's farm supply operation is a great service to the farms in the Scottsvitle area, and without such service, the farms which create the beautiful scenery along Route 20 would not exist. He added that he felt Mr. Spangler did a very commendable job in keeping the ooeration oresentable in aooearance. June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Paul ?eatross spoke next, representing Mr. & Mrs., Gordon Dorrier. Mr. Peatross disputed Mr. Spangler's claim to an established right to this type of commercial zoning. Mr. Peatross claimed that this property should be zoned Village Residential in order to be conforming, and that the VR zone does allow for this type agri-business by special permit. Mr. Peatross said he felt if the HC zone is granted, Mr. Spangler will use that zoning to obtain a setback waiver from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. ?eatross said if the HC zoning is granted in this instance, it will set a precedent and create spot zoning in this area. Mr. Peatross concluded by requesting the Board to deny this request. Mr. Spangler took exception to Mr. Peatross' comments, and noted statements made in the staff report and by the Planning Commission that this use was appropriate in this area. Mr. Fisher said there are differences of opinion on this matter. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Miss Nash asked the amount of property remaining on the large parcel behind the present buildings. Mr. Spangler said the lot is approximately 400 feet in depth, and that there is approximately 100 feet behind the tanks at the rear of the property remaining unused. Mr. Fisher asked how Mr. Spangler proposed to use the smaller parcel without obtaining variances from setback requirements. Mr. McCann said he does not have to build on that parcel, but he could use it for parking or a road or such, and do the construction on the larger parcel. Mr. Spangler said he could use the 20 foot wide piece of land (remaining after meeting the setback requirements) to construct a garage type building or warehouse type structure. Mr. Spangler said primarily he wishes to use the smaller parcel for farm equipment display. Mr. Fisher asked if that would be allowed. Mr. Tucker said that is allowed,.but a 50 foot setback must be adhered to in order to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem with rezoning the larger parcel to Highway Commercial because, in his opinion, this would be treating this land the same as so many other parcels which were granted zoning inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan at the time of adoption of the new zoning ordinance, because of the already existing use. Mr. Lindstrom added that he does have reservations about rezoning the smaller, adjoining parcel because it would be a significant change from present policy. Mr. Henley said this meets the definition of the Highway Commercial zone and he could not understand why it should not be allowed. Mr. McCann said the Board has already rezoned parcels similar to this (Mr. McCann said he was referring to the Hop-In Store request on Hydraulic Road). Mr. McCann said it did not make sense to force a farm type business into the Urban area in order to preserve the scenery along this highway. Mr. McCann said a farm business should be allowed to locate near its customers. He said he spoke to many people in that area, and received the reaction that it is a valuable asset to the community. Mr. Henley said farm supply businesses are getting fewer and fewer, and the remaining ones are getting larger and larger. Mr. Henley said many farmers (including himself) purchase from Mr. Spangler. Miss Nash said she feels he serves a real need in his community, but felt only the large parcel should be allowed to be rezoned. Miss Nash said if the smaller parcel is rezoned it will make a mockery of the zoning ordinance, and create another Route 29 North situation along Route 20. Mr. McCann offered motion to approve the rezoning of both parcels (ZMA-81-17 and ZMA- 81-18) to the requested Highway Commercial zone. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher said if a single vote is taken, a denial would defeat both applications. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. McCann would not prefer two separate votes. Mr. McCann said he would prefer a single vote. Dr. Iachetta said he can understand the objections of the neighbors, not against Mr. Spangler's operation, but the fact that the HC zone allows many other type businesses which the neighbors find objectionable. Mr. McCann said there is no area in Scottsville where the HC designation would be allowed. Mr. Fisher said since the HC zone is the only zone in which this agricultural business can be allowed, he could support the rezoning of the large, already established parcel. Mr. Fisher said he could not, however, support the rezoning of the smaller parcel, since it does not allow sufficient usable land without special waivers, and would set a pre- cedent, therefore, he could not support the motion as stated. Mr. Henley said Mr. Spangler is presently using the smaller parcel to support a holding, pond for his present operation. Mr. Lindstrom asked when the holding pond was installed. Mr. Spangler stated in 1979. Mr. Lindstrom asked if both lots were covered in the letter by Mr. J. Benjamin Dick (Zoning Administrator at that time), in considering this a conforming use in the agricultural district. Mr. St. John said the letter states lot number 48, which is the larger of the two lots. Mr. Lindstrom said he would consider the holding pond an existing accessory use, and felt that if it were allowed asa use by right under the old A-1 zoning, that this Board should allow it as a use by right under the requested HC zoning. Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned that this applicant be treated the same way as others who have come before the Board in a similar position. Dr. Iachetta said he felt the rights allowed by the Zoning Administrator should be preserved, and apparently he felt at that time that this was a proper use by right. Dr. Iachetta added that he did not like opening up the entire Highway Commercial zone for anything else that might appear in the future on this parcel. Mr. Lindstrom said there was never any question about future use of the property during similar discussions. Mr. St. John said there is one other distinction about this smaller parcel, in that it probably has no other viable use except as part of this farm supply business. Mr. St. John continued that in looking at the Comprehensive Plan, "that Scottsville has the attributes of a regional center, providing shopping and various other services to residents of nearby Fluvanna, Buckingham and Nelson Counties .... " Mr. St. John said it was his opinion that Scottsville should be classified with the urban and community areas for purposes of a decision like this, rather than being considered a village. He added that it was a legitimate dis- tinction. June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Z85 Mr. Lindstrom said he will support the motion because he believes this area needs this service and he supports it since he feels it will not set a precedent. Mr. Lindstrom said since the one acre parcel has the pond, which is an essential part of the business on the larger parcel, it would be consistent with the policy followed during enactment of the new Zoning Ordinance and it should be treated in the same manner on the zoning map. Dr. Iachetta said he also would support the motion simply because it preserves by right what has already been established. Miss Nash said she would support the rezoning of the large parcel, but could not support the rezoning of the smaller adjoining parcel, as she felt it would be spot zoning. Mr. Fisher said he felt the same as Miss Nash, and that the small parcel cannot be used in any way without first obtaining a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. McCann if he would add to his motion that this rezoning be shown o~he zoning map as being according to its existing use. Mr. McCann said he had no problem with that request. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash. At 9:40 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a five minute recess. 9:48 P.M. The meeting reconvened at Agenda Item No. 5. SP-81-18. Claude W. Cotten. Petition for authorization to add a small private school on rear of property (existing building) on 40.84 acres in the RA District, in accordance with Section 10.2.2(5) of the Zoning Ordinance. Located on Route 20 North in Stony Point just beyond Stony Point School. County Tax Map 48, Parcel 15. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report as follows: Request: Private school (10.2.2.5) Acreage: 40.84 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 48, Parcel 15, is located on the north side of Route 20 North, about 1,800 feet east of Route 600 at Stony Point. Character of the Area: A single-family dwelling is located near Route 20 North. An existing religious meeting hall, a portion of which would be used for the school, is located about 1,500 feet north of Route 20 in a wooded area. The closest dwelling to the meeting hall is about 950 feet away. Comprehensive Plan: This property is located within the Stony Point village as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Community and institutional uses are recommended by the Plan to be located in village areas. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to operate a private school for a maximum of 25 students in grade equivalents K - 8. The school would be in session the normal school year. Since accreditation would not be sought, State review would be minimal, relying primarily on local approvals. The meeting hall was under construction prior to County building permit requirements and therefore, construction was not .reviewed. However, recent reviews by the Director of Inspections, Fire Official, and Health Department have been made at the request of the applicant. The existing kitchen would be used for the school; most kitchen equipment would remain. Restrooms are located in a separate building adjacent to the meeting hall. Staff opinion is that a private school would not be obtrusive in the area. Staff's main concern is the safety of the building. However, local reviews indicate the building can be satisfactorily improved. Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire and Building Official approvals of the building for use as a school; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance to Route 20 North and County Engineer approval of paving specifications for entrance road and parking areas; 3. Fire Official approval of exterior safety features such as emergency vehicular access and fire lanes; 4. Written Health Department approval to include review of water supply for potability and adequaay of restroom ~acilities. 5. Enrollment shall not exceed 25 students. Note: With these conditions of approval, staff recommends waiver of a site plan in accordance with 32.2.2. :.,. ,286 June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting~ Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 2, 1981, unanimously voted to recommend approval of this petition to the Board of Supervisors, with the five conditions as stated in the staff report; and that a waiver of the site plan requirement be granted in accordance with Section 32.2.2. Mr. Fisher asked if the condition requiring health department approval of the water supply and restroom facilities is intended to include septic tank and drainfields. Mr. Tucker said it is not clear. Mr. Fisher asked if any report has yet been received from the building inspections department regarding the necessary improvements. Mr. Tucker said he has not yet received a report regarding the necessary improvements. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Cotten. Mr. Cotten said he was representing his brother. Mr. Cotten said the main hall and restrooms were constructed prior to building permit requirements, but that the back room and kitchen area were constructed under a building permit and passed all required inspec- tions. Mr. Cotten said it is proposed to join the restroom facility with the school room area. He noted that the application states classes for children in grades K-8, but added that some higher level classes may be taught; he emphasized that the total number of pupils will not exceed twenty-five. No one else was present wishing to speak either for or against this application, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve this special permit subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-81-21. Mary H. Leavell. Petition for authorization to locate a tennis facility (non-public) on 85 acres in the RA District, in accordance with Section 10.2.2(4) of the Zoning Ordinance. LoCated in the Ivy area on Route 787, approx- imately 2/10ths of a mite from the intersection of Routes 708 and 787 west. County Tax Map 57, Parcel 51. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report as follows: Request: Acreage: Tennis facility (10.2.2.4) 86.516 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 51, is located on the southwest side of Route 787, about 0.2 mile from its intersection with Route 708. Character of the Area: This property contains three dwellings, one of which is vacanv. The tennis court has been constructed adjacent to the main house. Limited parking is available. The main dwelling and tennis court have access to Route 787. The other two dwellings are served by a separate entrance. The tennis court is not visible from the public road. It appears that the court is visible from one dwelling in the area. Staff Comment: As can be seen in the applicant's brochure and written description, the applicant would provide 15 to 20 hours of tennis lessons per week to an enrollment of 25 to 30 students. Staff opinion is that a limited use as described by the applicant would not be incompatible to the area. (A community-oriented swimming pool was recently approved in Ivy Woods subdivision.) However, staff would make the following observations: 1) As development has occurred in the area, the Highway Department has received increasing complaints about the condition of the roads. Yet, as can be seen from this application, from the Ivy Woods swimming pool application, and from continued residential construction in the area, traffic increase is being caused by existing and new residents along these same roads; 2) Generally speaking, conditions of approval intended to limit intensity of usage based on limited membership or membership from a geographic area are difficult to enforce, particularly when the use is of a commercial nature; 3) Staff has consistently recommended in the past that a use of a commercial nature in the Rural Areas should be viewed on the basis of service to the area in which the use is located. Practically speaking, in this case, appropriate limitations on physical development would, in staff opinion, limit the intensity of the proposed use. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve ~this application, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) Limitation of one tennis court; 2) Not more than 21 hours of lessons per week, limited to Monday through Friday, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.; /? June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 28l 3) The court shall not be open to the general public. This permit issued to allow only private lessons as described in Condition #2; 4) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the entrance. Staff approval of parking facilities. Note: Condition #4 is intended to relieve the applicant of the requirement of a site plan in accordance with 32.2.2, which permits such waiver in certain cases. Currently the majority of this property is under preferential tax- ation, which would be lost if the special use permit is applied to the entire tract. Staff would recommend that, if approved, the special use permit be applied to two acres of the property, exclusive of any dwellings. This area should be described by plat with appropriate metes and bounds. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 2, 1981, unani- mously voted to recommend approval with the following conditions: !) Limitation of one tennis court; 2) Not more than 21 hours of lessons per week, limited to Monday through Friday, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and on Saturday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; 3) The court shall not be open to the general public. This permit issued to allow only private lessons as described in Condition #2; 4) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the entrance. Staff approval of parking facilities; 5) No artificial lighting for tennis; 6) Special use permit to be applied to two acres of the property, exclusive of any dwellings, and this area is to be described by plat with appropriate metes and bounds and shown to the Planning Department within thirty days of June 2, 1981. Mr. Tucker noted that the applicant has already complied with condition six as required by the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta asked why this was not reviewed as a home occupation. Mr. Tucker said he did not know, that the Zoning Administrator had worked with Mrs. Leavell on this application. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mrs. Mary Leavell who read a statement to the board stating her desire to teach 15 to 20 hours of tennis classes per week. She noted that the majority of the students she expects will probably come from the immediate vicinity. She stated that ~her husband's parents have owned this property for approximately twelve years, and that she is certified as a pro- fessional tennis instructor of the highest ranking. She noted to Dr. Iachetta that the reason this is not before the Board as a home occupation, is due to the size of the tennis court, that being more than 1500 square feet. Mr. Tucker noted that two letters have been received in opposition to the use of this tennis court for public lessons. Mr. Tucker said a letter was received from Dr. and Mrs. Victor H. Engelhard of Route 10, Box 56A, Charlottesville, which stated in essence that such use is not suited to the character of the neighborhood, and that the Engelhards are concerned about the condition of Route 682 and Route 708 which are the main access roads to the facility. Mr. Fisher highlighted the second letter which was received from Mr. and Mrs. Thomas F. Kelsey. Mr. Fisher said the Kelsey's object to this tennis facility is for three basic reasons: 1. Increased vehicular traffic on Route 787. 2. Increased noise level caused by vehicles and humans involved with the tennis academy. ~ ~ 3. Safety and security of the surrounding property and children who are not actually receiving tennis instruction. Special-emphasis on the safety of small children wandering too close to a pond located on the Kelsey property approximately 500 feet from the proposed site of the tennis court. Mrs. Leavell said she has no intention of using any amplified equipment to aid in her communication with the students. Also, there will be adequate supervision to insure that no one (especially a small child) can stray far enough, to cause personal injury. Dr. Iachetta asked how many children would be taught at one time. Mrs. Leavetl said no more than five or six. She commented that she had no problem with the hours of operation as set by the Planning Commission. Mr.'Fisher said he could see no problem with this request, since the size of the parcel would allow a more intensive use of the property. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to approve Special Permit 81-21 with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. FiSher, Henley,.Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing to amend and reenact Section 14-11 of the Albemarle County COde concerning the fees charged for the use of parks, recreational areas and swimming facilities. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1981.) Mr. Fisher noted that this ordinance was adopted on an emergency basis in May, and is before the Board of Supervisors tonight for adoption as a permanent ordinance. 'Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to speak either for or against this proposed ordinance, Mr. Fisher declared~the public, hearing closed. Motion was immediately offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the ordinance as follows: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 14-11 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING THE FEES CHARGED FOR THE USE OF PARKS, RECREATIONAL AREAS AND SWIMMING FACILITIES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the County Code be, and it hereby is, amended, in Section 14-11 thereof, as follows: Section 14-11. Same--Fees. (a) Pursuant to the authority~granted by Section 15,1-526 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, there is hereby imposed by the County the following rates and charges for the use of parks, recreational areas and swimming facilities under the county's jurisdiction: (1) Daily rates, swimming: a. Adults (13 years and older) one dollar and seventy-five cents per day county residents; two dollars per day noncounty residents. b. Children (4-12 years of age) one dollar per day county residents; one dollar and twenty-five cents per day noncounty residents. c. Children (under 4 years of age), free. (2) Season rates, swimming: a. Adults (13 years and older) twenty-five dollars county residents; thirty dollars noncounty residents. b. Children (4-12) years of age) fifteen dollars county residents; twenty dollars noncounty residents. c. Family (parents and children residing in the same household) fifty dollars county residents; sixty dollars non- county residents. d. After July 15, these rates are reduced by one-half. (3) Picnic Shelter Reservation Fees: a. Groups under 50; $10 per event. b. Groups 50---100; $20 per event. c. Groups 100---150; $30 per event. de of 150. Reservations will not be made for groups in excess (b) The foregoing rates may be changed from time to time by the board of supervisors. A copy of rates shall be posted at points where such fees are to be collected. Fees for rental of county-owned boats, and recreation programs or activities, shall be determined by order of the County Executive. (c) No person shall be permitted to use facilities for which fees are charged as aforementioned without first having paid the same; however, the foregoing charges may be suspended by order of a county official so desig- nated by the County Executive. No fees paid under this section shall be refunded. Passes issued on payment of such fees shall not be transferable. Roll was called and the motion to adopt the ordinance as presented carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Route 29 North Transit Service Contract. Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant to the County Executive, was present and stated that she did not have the contract available today because of a delay in the City Attorney's office. Mrs. Moon stated that Mr. Agnor has been in touch with the City Manager, Cole Hendrix, and Mr. Hendrix has requested that this contract be continued on an admintrative basis or a mileage basis week to' week until the contract is signed. Mr. Fisher asked if this was for the new trunk line service. Mrs. Moon said that was correct. Mr. Fisher said he would hope that it would be presented to the Board at the July 1, 1981 meeting. June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 1-289 Agenda Item No. 9. swimming pools. Discussion: Ordinance regulating security of private residential Mr. St. John stated that the ordinance he has written is a hybrid of the Code of Virginia and the BOCA Building Code. Mr. St. John said the Building Code allows more latitude in construction, but the State code allows the enactment of such an ordinance to be retroactive. Mr. St. John said he has written this ordinance in the way he felt the Board of Supervisors int~ended in response to a request from a citizen. Mr. Fisher asked if this type of ordinance is in use in many other localities in Virginia. Mr. St. John said this type of ordinance has been enacted in many urban loca- lities, and most ordinances have severe penalties for noncompliance. Present at the meeting was Mrs. Peggy McGee, a resident of Jefferson Village. Mrs. McGee said she is the citizen who wrote the original letter requesting this ordinance. She said it is a real danger, especially to small children, to allow swimming pools without requiring some kind of fencing as protection. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any way to write the ordinance so it will apply to the urban and developing areas of the county and not apply to the very rural areas. Mr. St. John said that can be done by exempting pools which are more than a certain distance from neighboring homes. Mr. St. John said it was his understanding that to insure a pool without a fence is very expensive, and that those high insurance rates would make up for the cost of a fence. Mr. St. John said all pools constructed sin~e the adoption of the BOCA Code are required to have a fence or a building permit is not issued. Dr. Iachetta said he could only remember one drowning incident in Albemarle County° Mr. Henley said if someone can afford to build a swimming pool, they can afford to install a fence. Mr. McCann said he would want a fence if he owned a pool, but he expressed a problem with a pool similar to a busy street, saying that it is the liability of the parents to watch the children, not the neighbors to protect against that possibility. Mr. McCann said he felt if the parents don't want their child to wander off, then their property should be fenced. Mr. Fisher said he would hate to wait until someone drowns before such an ordinance is enacted, and felt it should at least be brought to a public hearing. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to advertise for public hearing on July 8, 1981, an ordinance concerning the fencing of swimming pools (to be known as Section 13-23.1 of the Albemarle County Code). The roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. .. Agenda Item No. 10. Set public hearing date to amend Gold and Silver Ordinance. Mr. St. John said the General Assembly has enacted legislation which covers points which our ordinance does not contain,- Mr. St. John said the City of Charlottesville has already adopted these changes, and he felt the ordinance in the County should coincide. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to set July 8, 1981, as the date t~o hold public hearing on this proposed ordinance amendment. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Appropriation: Reroofing-Joint Health Facility. read a memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones dated June 10, 1981 as follows: Mrs. Moon "An invoice dated June 1 for architect fees from James R. Boyd, was pre- sented today for payment by the County Engineer. The invoice was for a. 9% fee on an estimated construction cost of $26,000 which amounts to $2,340 on an estimated basis. Approximately 70% of the architectural work is com- plete for the reroofing of the Joint Health Department Facility. One-half of all costs are payable by the City, with an equal amount due by the County. There has been no appropriation made for this project. There.fore., an appropriation from the General Fund to Code 9700-7060.94 in the amount of $1,170 is requested. Once bids have been received, an additional appro- priation will have to be made to cover the construction costs as well as to adjust the amount of the architect's fees. Since this is a capital pro- ject, the unexpended balance will carry over at the end of Fiscal Year 1981." Mrs. Moon indicated that the City of Charlottesville has already appropriated its share of $1,170. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,170 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Code 9700-7060.94, Reroofing Joint Health Facility. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. -'290 June 17, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation: Jarman Gap Road. memorandum from Mr. Melvin Breeden, dated June 16, 1981: Mrs. Moon read the following "On November 7, 1980, the Finance office was advised by the Planning Department that the bond for Jarman Gap Estates road was in default and that the funds in the amount of $7,000 should be deposited to the County of_ Albemarle. This action was taken on January 5, 1981, and the $7,000 was deposited to the General Fund (Account #11401.020). A request has been received from Mr. J. Ashley Williams that $5,921 of this money be paid to Dudley Paving for work completed. In order to do this an. appropriation is required. The appropriation should be in the amount of the full $7,000_since the work is almost complete and final payment will require approximately $1,000. The expenditure code for this will be 9700- 7070.50." Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $7,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Code 9700-7070.50 for the Jarman Gap Estates Road. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. St. John read a resolution which he asked the Board to consider for adoption as follows: BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that pursuant to Code Section 24.1-73 of the Code of Virginia, the County ~ttorney is directed to file on behalf of this Board a petition to the Judge of the Circuit Court for Albemarle County requesting a writ of special election returnable to the date of the November,~ 1981, General Election, declaring that a vacancy exists for the position of supervisor for the Rivanna Magisterial District. Ordering a special election to fill this vacancy and setting September 8, 1981, as the deadline for filing of qualification papers by all candidates for this position. Mr. St. John said this is not the petition which must still be prepared in proper legal form. Motion for adoption of the resolution was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher said he wished to use this opportunity to note that Mrs. June T. Moon will be retiring from the County at the end of this month. Mr. Fisher noted that she has been an outstanding employee and has a long service record. Mr. Fisher requested the Board to pass a resolution in appreciation of Mrs. Moon. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, June Thomas Moon, having been a faithful and dedicated employee of Albemarle County for thirty-nine years, has announced her retirement from County service effective July 31, 1981; and WHEREAS, during these thirty-nine years of dedicated service, she has performed various duties too numerous to Ii'st, the most prominent of which include serving as secretary to eight County Executives, as Clerk to the Board of Supervisors for twenty-five years, and as administrative assistant to the present County Executive; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby publicly recognize June Thomas Moon for her years of outstanding service and dedication to the citizens of Albemarle County and thanks her for being far more than an employee, but also a friend to all. Roll was called and the motion to adopt the resolution as presented,, carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. At 10:50 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a motion to adjourn this meeting to June 25, 1981, at 4:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AyEs: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None.