Loading...
1980-10-01October 1~ 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 1, 1980, 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, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. At 7:34 P.M. Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, called the meeting to order, and requested a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-80-53. Frank L. Hereford. Petition for a contractor's office and equipment and material storage yard on 1.790 acres zoned B-1. Located on the west side of Rio Road beside the Phillips Building Supply Company. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 120K. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1980.) Mr. Tucker said this special permit was not heard by the Planning Commission, and requested this be deferred to November 5, 1980. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer this item to November 5, 1980. 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. SP-80-55A. Charles Edward Younger. Request to locate a mobile home on 5.80 acres zoned A-1. Property located on west side of Route 795 approximately two miles north of Scottsville. Tax Map 123, Parcel 9, Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 22, 1980.) Mr. Tucker noted that the applicant did not appear at the Planning Commission hearing and requested this item be deferred to the meeting of October 15, 1980. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer this item to the meeting of October 15, 1980. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Request: Ivy Creek Foundation. Mr. Paul Saunier, Jr., President of the Ivy Creek Foundation, said this request is parallel with the request approved by the Board of Supervisors in May, 1979, for the shared acquisition of 16.35 acres of ecologically valuable land to be added to the 81.5 acres already approved by the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle. Mr. Saunier said the Charlottesville City Council has already approved this additional request. Mr. Saunier said acquisition of this 16.35 acres will finalize the Ivy Creek Natural Area because it makes the boundaries defensible. Mr. Saunier presented maps showing the location of the acreage as well as special features which make it ecologically special and desirable as part of this natural area. Mr. Saunier said settling ponds will be placed along the streams of Martin's Branch which will aid in the prevention of sedimentation at that point into the reservoir. He said if this grant is not approved by the State, then this request will cost the County nothing. If it is approved, an additional $8,000 over and above the original $37,750 which was approved in October, will secure the purchase of this valuable land. Mr. Fisher said this endeavor is one of the finest efforts by a private citizens group he has ever seen, and said he fully supports this acquisition. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the request to participate in the purchase of this property. Mr. Henley said he would like to specify in the motion that no money be appropriated unless this subsidy is approved by the State. Mr. Lindstrom said he agreed to that, and Dr. Iachetta concurred. Roll was then called and motion to accept the recommendation for the purchase of 16.35 acres as an addition to the Ivy Creek Natural Area, carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-80-16. Thomas E. Worrell, Jr. Request for an RPN/A-1 on 215 acres zoned R-1. _Located off the end of Broomley Road north of Flordon and west of Earmington. County Tax Map 59, Parcel 27.' Samuel'Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progre~ss on September 17 and September 24, 1980.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows: Requested Zoning: RPN/A-1 Existing Zoning: R-1 Residential Acreage: 215.0 acres Location: Property described as Tax Map 59, Parcel 27; located off the north side of Route 250 West and Route 677 with primary access through Flordon on Broomley Road. October 1, 1'980 (Regular Night Meeting) character of the Area: Flordon is located to the south of the site and Farmington is to the east. Other parcels bordering the site are undeveloped parcels or farms. The topography is gently rolling with the steeper areas within the proposed open space. The site is largely open with some scattered wooded areas. Ivy Creek runs along the northern (northwestern) boundary of the site. Existing Zoning in the Area: Flordon and Farmington are Zoned R-1 Resi- dential. Adjacent parcels to the east and south are zoned R-1 and parcels to the north and west are zoned A-1. History: The Farmington West Preliminary Subdivision plat was withdrawn in April, 1978, at the applicant's request. This proposal was for 78 lots with an average size of one acre, reserving 65 acres for future development. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural/Conservation Area with a recommended density of one dwelling unit/five acres. Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that the soils on the ridges and gentle slopes are deep and well-drained, but may have moderate limitations for septic systems because of a high clay content. Soils on the steeper slopes are shallow and excessively drained with severe limitations for septic systems. Comparative Impact Statistics: Dwellings Population Vehicle Trips/Day School Children Est. Land to be Developed Existing R-1 RPN/A-1 approx. 184 approx. 164 33 620 808.4 102.3 1,400 1,148 231 114 93J48 18.81 approx. 184 acres* 164,0 acres** 215.0 acres *Acreage used in R-1 calculations is 215.0 acres less 11 acres in roads (5%) and 20 acres in lowland/floodplain. **Acreage excludes 11 acres in roads, 20 acres in lowland/floodplain and 20 acres in 25% or greater slope. Land Use Date: Number of Lots Total Area Est. Area in Lots Est. Area in Open Space Gross Density Net Density Gross Density Permitted 33 215.0 acres 91.5 acres 110.0 acres 6.5 acres/unit 2.7 acres/unit 2.0 acres/unit R?N Proposal: The applicant is proposing 33 lots with access on private roads from Broomley Road in Flordon and three lots having access to Farmington Country Club on Brook Road, The parcels are proposed to be served by individual wells and septic systems. Staff Comment: The 1978 traffic count on this section of Route 677 from Route 250West to Route 676 (approx. 3.7 miles) is 448 vehicle trips per day. The road is~.~rra~t~y listed as non-tolerable. Staff is concerned about the means of access into the site. It does not appear that Broomley Road through Flordon is adequate at this time to handle the traffic which would be created by this development. The County Engineer has recommended that Broomley Road be upgraded to minimum state standards. The deed to the property provides for three lots to have access to Farmington on Brook Road. This access is not intended as a through road. Ail other traffic for these three lots (including delivery and construction vehicles and access to public roads) must use the main road in the proposed development. Public water is available to this site. A 12-inch water main runs along the northwest border of the site along Ivy Creek. It was recommended by the County Engineer that the proposed development utilize public water. However, the density proposed does not warrant the public water connection. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors may want to consider providing access to the Dure property (40+ acres) and Watterson pro- perty (120+ acres) t~ the north of the site through the proposed roads. The two properties currently have access on a 10-15 foot wide right-of-way which crosses over the proposed RPN. One of the property owners with access on this right-of-way has written a letter requesting access be provided on the roads proposed in the RPN. In the past, it has not been the Commission or Board's policy to require a developer to provide access into an adjacent property but staff brings it to their attention for consideration. Staff recommends approval of this application for the following reasons: The plan appears to be compatible with development in the sur- rounding area; October 1, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) The plan is in compliance with the density recommendations of the Agricultural/Conservation area in the Comprehensive Plan. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 33 single family lots. Location and acreages shall comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in substantial accordance with the number of lots approved; 2. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances; 3. County Engineer approval of improvements to Broomley Road in compliance with Section 18-36 of the Subdivision Ordinance, prior to final approval as necessitated by this development; 4. County Engineer approval of interior road plans prior to final approval; 5. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the maintenance of roads, open space, lakes, drainage and appurtenant structures and the use of open space for septic drainfields if neces- sary and where permitted; 6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance of Broomley Road into Route 677; 7. Health Department approval of two septic field locations for each lot prior to final approval; 8. Fire Official approval of dry hydrant prior to final approval; 9. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans to serve the development, if required. Mr. Tucker said at its meeting of September 16, 1980, the Albemarle County Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of ZMA-80-16 subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 33 single family lots. Location and acreages shall comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in substantial accordance with the number of lots approved; 2. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances; 3. County Engineer review of improvements to Broomley Road in compliance with Section 18-36 of the Subdivision Ordinance, prior to final approval as necessitated by this development; final road standards subject to Planning Commission approval in final plat review; 4. County Engineer approval of interior road plans prior to final Planning Commission approval; 5. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the maintenance of roads, open space, lakes, drainage and appurtenant struc- tures and the use of open space for septic drainfields if necessary and where permitted; 6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance of Broomley Road into Route 677; 7. Fire Official approval of dry hydrant prior to final approval; 8. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans to serve the development, if required; 9. Show on subdivision plat provision for private road connection to serve properties currently served by the old Durrette Road; 10. Survey of C & 0 Railway bridge to determine current capacity and safe load as part of subdivision plat; 11. Safety record of bridge to be made available to Planning Commission prior to Planning Commission review of the plat. Mr. Tucker said at that Planning Commission meeting, Commission member David Bowerman added a clarification to condition 9, stating that the Commission could not require the applicant to grant access over the proposed right-of-way to surrounding property owners. He added that the provision for a connection was there should the applicant and these property owners reach an agreement in the future. Mr. Tucker said a letter has been received from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation as requested in condition 10, regarding current capacity and safe load of the C & O Railway bridge. Mr. Tucker noted that the present capacity is eight tons and the bridge slightly more than 15 feet wide. No safety information was given in that letter. Mr. Fisher asked what could be done by the Planning Commission at the subdivision stage, if the bridge does prove unsafe. Mr. Tucker said it has happened that the Planning Commission has turned down subdivision requests due to unsafe road conditions, but said possibly Mr. St. John could speak to that question. Mr. Tucker noted receipt of several letters from area property owners, but added that most were either present or represented at the meeting tonight. October 1~ 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher said the problem that he sees with this RPN request is that there are several properties in this area which are undeveloped and the question of access and maintenance of roads is the main matter of concern. He said if there is a road through Ftordon Subdivision to this proposed RPN, how will an enforceable maintenance agreement be established between all users of that road. He added that in ten years time, battles over payment of road maintenance fees may become significant. Mr. Fisher said it seemed unlikely that all property owners in Flordon would agree to sign maintenance agreements. He also noted that using private roads for this RPN would require a waiver of subdivision standards requiring roads serving a development of this size to be public roads. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the status of right-of-way for Broomley Road. Mr. Tucker said much of it is an easement, but that there is adequate right-of-way for a two lane road. Mr. St. John said he might be wrong, but it was his opinion that Broomley Road had been dedicated to public use. Mr. Fisher said maybe the answer to that question will come out in the public hearing. Mr. Fisher then noted the receipt of a considerable number of communications from the highway dePartment, health department, the co~unty engineer's office, private citizens and adjoining property owners. (NOTE: all letters received in regard to this petition are on permanent file in the office of.the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, who said basically what is being requested is a downzoning of this property. Mr. Evans described the property, indicating the location of open space and streams. He noted that figures confirmed by the Planning Department show an average lot size in the area of 2.6 acres. He noted that the existing approach road from Broomley Road was purchased by Mr. Worrell from the Farmington Corporation, noting the private drive from the Worrell property to Brook Road. Mr. Evans said it is in the deed agreement that connection over this private drive would be avail- able for any three single-family residences. He said during meetings held with neigh- boring property owners that a card gate be installed on this private drive, and~mosv likely Mr. Worrell, would reserve access for his parents, his children and himself. He noted that dealings regarding the easement across the Worrell property across the Field- stone Property and into the Dure and Watterson properties would be a strictly private agreement. Mr. Evans said there will be a homeowners agreement for maintenance of the roads and open space. Regarding the entrance over Broomley Road, Mr. Evans said a field survey was done from the railroad bridge to Blackwood Road and it was noted that the pavement width is 18 feet from the bridge to Flordon Drive; from Flordon Drive to Tangle- wood, the width varies from 14 to 16 feet; from Tanglewood through the first curve, the width is 12 to 14 feet; and from Blackwood Road back, the width is surface treated but only 12 to 14 feet wide. He noted that preliminary talks with property owners along Broomley Road in Flordon have been held and noted their concern for keeping the road in its present state so as to disrupt the landscape features along the road as little as possible. Mr. Evans said that the topography and landscape features of the road are such that although a state-maintained road is possible, the applicant is seeking a private road with a width of 18 feet. Mr. Fisher asked if this wi.ll meet the county private road standards. Mr. Evans said computations made by the County Engineer based on the existing standards recommends 20 to 22 feet. Mr. Evans said in studying the area, 18 feet is better suited to the existing vegetation and topography. Mr. Fisher asked about main- tenance agreements. Mr. Evans said an agreement has been drawn up between Flordon re- sidents and Mr. Worrell to cover road maintenance. Mr. Evans added that if future develop- ment occurs further down Broomley Road, those future developers will have to further widen the access road, and possibly renegotiate the maintenance agreement. Mr. Li~dstrom asked if Mr. Worrell would be willing to accept a restriction on the road to use by 33 lots. Mr. Evans said he would have to talk with Mr. Rooker, but felt it would not be possible to impose such a restriction. Mr. Kendrick Dure, representing his mother, Katherine M. Dure, owner of a 41 acre adjoining parcel presented a brief history of the area and stated that because of the R-1 zoning classification, development in this area is assured, that a road connection between Barracks Road and Ballard Road is inevitable and the bottleneck which will occur at the C & 0 Railroad Bridge will have to be worked out between the County and the Highway Depart- ment. Mr. Dure said in a Supreme Court decision of 1895, a 10 to 15 foot easement called the "Old Du~r~e Road" was granted as a right-of-way access to the Dure and Watterson properties. Mr. Dure said he is seeking access through the Worrell RPN for his mother's property and cited sections of the Subdivision Ordinance which he felt entitled him to this access. Mr. Dure said the Planning Commission recommended their condition nine in relation to his request, but said he wished to expand that condition as follows: Show on subdivision plat provision for 60 foot private road connection to serve as access to properties currently served by the old Durrette Road; Eliminate one of the parallel roads from the end of Broomley Road (North) to the Dure property line; c. Show Durrette Road as a 15 foot right-of-way. Consideration be given to an additional exit to Route 677 (Ballard Road) through parcel 7B, TM-59 (Watterson Property). Mr. Dure then requested the elimination of one of the parallel roads, either the proposed Worrell Road or the Durrette Road right-of-way, claiming this will eliminate excessive congestion and will force the landowners to negotiate additional accesses which will allow for the orderly development of parcels further north of Mr. Worrell's parcel. Mr. Dure said he is willing to relinquish the Durrette right-of-way if access over Mr. Worretl's roads is allowed. Thirdly, Mr. Dure requested an additional exit which would begin at the Worrell property, cross Mr. Watterson's property (Parcel 59-7B), and join Route 677, Ballard Road. He said this would greatly reduce the traffic through Flordon. He said these roads should all be constructed to State standards. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Dure if he would be willing'to share in the cost of building the roads he has suggested. Mr. Dure said when he comes before the Board with a plan capable of defining what his traffic impact will be, he will contribute to theJ¢ost of road improvements, but not until then. October 1, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. F. T. Unger, President of the Farmington Property OWners Association, noted his memorandum to the Planning Commission dated September 16, 1980 (NOTE: Copy of this memorandum is on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). He said the major concern of the Farmington property owners was the lack of security that will be caused by Mr. Worrell being granted access for three residents over Brook Road to the Farmington Country Club property. He suggested this will cause a hazard to members of that Country Club, and also that any type security gate suggested by Mr. Evans would be ineffective unless manned 24 hours a day. Mr. Unger said he would like to see the Brook Road access limited to those three Worrell p~rcels which are contiguous to the Farmington Country Club property. Mrs. Richard Peters spoke next, and stated that the way the present plan has been presented, anyone can gain access to Farmington via the proposed Brook Road access. She next presented a letter to the Board of Supervisors from Mrs. Irene H. Spieden_dated August 11, 1980, which read: "I have recently learned of the proposed development of the Worrell pro- perty which is next to mine. This is to remind you that at the time of a previous proposal, it was established by the surveyors sent by the Planning Board that no building could be placed above the stream which runs along my property and which empties into Ivy Creek. I would also remind you that my property line goes to the center of the existing road and the right-of-way is for limited access only." Mrs. Peters presented photographs showing the 10 foot right-of-way which Mr. Dure spoke of, and concluded by saying she disagreed with Mr.-Evans that~the average lot size in the area was 2.6 acres. ~ Mr. H. Y. Charbonnier said he lives on Brookhill Road, and would like to see a ~ personal guarantee from Mr. Worrell that only three families will use the Brook Road access. He indicated that without such guarantee, he felt use of this access would con- tinually increase until such time as it became a public thoroughfare. Next to speak was Mr. paul Peatross, representing 70 residents of the Flordon Sub- division. Mr. Peatross said these residents wholeheartedly support the proposed plan because it is more compatible with the subdivision of Flordon. Mr. Peatross said these homeowners are also in favor of the proposed road improvements offered by Mr. Worrell, because he offers to widen the road without removal of the major trees and vegetation on the road, while not infringing further on present property lines. Mr. Peatross said residents of Flordon have held meetings and have decided that a road maintenance agreement is necessary and wish to formalize such an agreement for the maintenance of all the roads within Flordon, then when such an agreement is completed, another~agreement will be negotiated with Mr. Worrell whereby he will contribute to the maintenance of Broomley Road. He requested that the Board not allow the through connection of Broomley Road through the Worrell Property into the Dure and Watterson properties, because it is against the section in the Subdivision Ordinance, which states "discourage through streets in residential subdivisions." Mr. Fisher asked how Mr. Peatross proposed to make the main- tenance agreement binding. Mr. Peatross said that although he does not expect to get 100% participation in financing the maintenance of roads, he has been assured-by the majority of homeowners that they will be willing to absorb that amount. Mr. Fisher said that sounded like a very short term solution, and said that with the very real possibility of substantial additional development along Broomley Road, the problem of Broomley Road being too narrow will only increase. Mr. Fisher said before he will vote on this request, he would like to see those agreements in order to be convinced. Next to speak was Mr. E. Gerald Tremblay who said he is a resident of Broomley Road in Flordon Subdivision. He said he feels Mr. Worrell's plan is the best plan ever pre- sented for the use of that land, because it is for only 33 lots rather than the number which could be developed under the current zoning. Mr.' Tremblay said he felt the widening of Broomley Road as proposed by Mr. Worrell is very generous and most adequate for the proposed use. Mr. Tremblay next noted that he felt M~. Dure and Mr. Watterson were seeking a free ride from Mr. Worrell in requesting the connection of their right-of-way with Mr. Worrell's proposed road. He said such connection would greatly increase the value of the Dure and Watterson properties, andhe felt such access should be privately negotiated and paid for. Mrs. Shirley Benton said she has just constructed a home on Broomley Road, and hoped that the Board would allow the 18 foot width as proposed by Mr. Worrelt. Next to speak was Mr. John S. Watterson who said not only does he own an adjoining parcel to Mr. Worrell's and Mr. Dure's, but a small parcel to the west of Mr. Worrell's were he would like to see an additional access road constructed in order to provide for better ingress and egress to the area~. Mr. Watterson referred to his letter of September 24, 1980, to the Planning Commission, (NOTE: This letter is on~ permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors) which discussed this proposed road. Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, attorney representing Mr. Thomas E. Worrell, Jr., said he was bothered by Mr. Fisher's statement that he would like to see the road maintenance agree- ments before making any decision on this R?N. He said the usual order i~s to approve the rezoning and have the County Attorney review and approve all su~hagreements. Mr. Fisher said this is not a normal development, as there are already many property owners along this road, and there is no formal agreement for the maintenance of the road. Mr. Rooker next said he felt it inappropriate for the Board to become involved in private contracts regarding access to private roads (i.e. Brook Road). Mr. Rooker added that Mr. Worrell has only the very best intentions of honorin~ this agreement for limited'access. There being no further comments, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Rooker if his client would be willing to limit the use of~ Broomley Road to only those 33 lots. Mr. Rooker said he was not sure if there would be any objec- tion to such a limitation. October 1, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher said this application for development poses a dilemma which may prove very hard to deal with. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see this matter deferred to 2:30 p.m. on October 15, 1980. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to have the County Attorney look into the following matters: The status of all rights-of'way involved on Broomtey Road pertaining to the rights of the general public to have access. Can a State Standard road~be bu±lt within that established right-of- way. Where does the Old Durrett~ Road go once it exits the Worrell property and heads toward Ballard Road. Mr. Fisher said he wants to see the agreements which are being agreed to by the people of Flordon and the agreement being drafted by Mr. Rooker for joint maintenance of Broomley Road by Mr. Worrell and the residents of Flordon. Dr. Iachetta said he would like the Engineering staff to provide figures ~n the cost of maintenance in relation to the number of vehicle trips per day, and how those maintenance costs have increased over the last four years. Dr. Iachetta said a time will come when the cost to maintain roads will far exceed the ability of residents to pay those costs. Mr. Fisher said the road width requirements recommended by the County Engineer's office seem to far exceed those requested by the residents. He said he does not feel the Board has the right to waive those requirements. Mr. Fisher then requested a list of the properties included in the total served when the road width was calculated, so the Board can determine if those calculations included~only Flordon and Worrell or additional parcels for future development. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer this discussion of ZMA-80-16 until October 15, 1980, at 2:30 p.m. Roli was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. At 10:18 p.m., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess. 10:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at ~a Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-80-17. Robert C. Walker. Request for an RPN/A-1 on 38.6 acres zoned A-1. Located on the east side of Route 743, northeast of the intersection with Route 676, adjacent to the Rivanna Reservoir. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 31. Jack Jouett District· (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1980.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report and Planning Commission recommendations as follows: Requested Zoning: RPN/A-1 Existin$ Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Acreage: 38.6 (applied for); (36.3 used in calculations) Location: Tax Map 45, Parcel 31, Jack Jouett Magisterial District; located on the southeast side of Route 743 northeast of its intersection with Route 676 and adjacent to the Rivanna Reservoir. Character of the Area: The site is bordered to the south by the Rivanna Reservoir. Lake Hills Subdivision is located north of the site and other parcels surrounding the site range from 2+ to 5+ acres. Ail surrounding land is zoned A-1 Agricultural and the Reservoir area is zoned Conservation. The topography is gently rolling with few severe slopes. The steepest areas are in the proposed open space. The site is mostly wooded with a mix of deciduous and non-deciduous trees except on the front portion of the site (see woodline on plan). History: A division of a 4.25 acre parcel was administratively approved on October 31, 1979 which left 38.6 acres residue. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The site is in the area designated as Agricultural/Conservation with a recommended density of one unit per five acres. Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports the following information on soils on the site: "Soils in this area consist of Cecil and Appling fine sandy loam on the ridges and gentle slopes. These are deep and well-drained soils. On the steep slopes along the Reservoir, Louisburg sandy loam is found. This soil has hard rock less than 48 inches and would have severe limitations for septic tank drainfields." Condition of the Roads Serving the Site: This section of Route 743, from Route 676 to Route 844, carries 3,535 vtpd and is currently listed as non-tolerable in width and alignment. RPN Proposal: The applicant proposes 18 lots with 60,000 square feet in each and 9.65 acres in open space. The access is proposed as a private road. No public facilities are available. ? October 180~_~Q_~~ula~ Comparative Impact Statistics: Existing A-1 RPN/A-1 Acreage 35.76 acres* 29.76 acres** 36.30 acres Dwellings 17 lots 14 lots 18 lots Population 55.43 43.4 55.80 ~Vehicle trips/day 119.0 98 126.0 School Children 9.69 7.98 10.26 * Acreage used does not include acreage of land to be dedicated to public use (.54 acres). ** 36.3 acres less 0.54 acre (to be dedicated) and 25% slope (approximately 6 acres). Land Use Data: Number of Lots Total Acreage Total Lot Area Total Open Space Area in Private Road Easements Area to be dedicated/public use Proposed Gross Density Gross Density Permitted Lot Size 18 lots 36.3 acres 24.80 acres 9.65 (27%) acres 1.31 acres 0.54 acres 0.5 units/acre 0.5 units/acre 60,000 square feet Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for a five-acre density. Staff has, however, supported applications that do not comply with the plan if the density is comparable to existing zoning if certain criteria are present. The proposed plan appears to protect the environmentally sensitive areas of the site as most of the swales and streams are located in the open space. Also, there is~an open space buffer along the Rivanna Reservoir. As the comparative impact statistics show, about 17 lots could be realized in the 36.30 acres (used to calculate the RPN proposal) with the existing zoning. Staff feels that the 18 lots proposed does not significantly alter the above density and protects the sensitive areas. · Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this application, staff recommends the following conditions. Recommended Conditions of Approval: Application is for a maximum of 18 single family lots. Location and acreages shall comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in substantial accordance with the number of lots approved; NO grading shall occur until final subdivision approval; Compliance with the Runoff Control and Soil Erosion Ordinances; County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the maintenance of roads, open space, drainage and appurtenant struc- tures, and the use of open space for septic drainfields where permitted and if necessary, and with special attention given to protection of the buffer on the Rivanna Reservoir; Only those areas where structures, roads, utilities, or other improvements are located shall be disturbed; all~other~land~.shall remain in its natural state; County Engineer approval of private road plans prior to final approval; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial entrance prior to final approval; 8. Health Department approval of two septic field locations for each lot prior to final approval; 9. No buildings shall be located on 25% or greater slopes. Mr. Tucker noted, that on September 16, 1980, the Planning Commission voted and tied on this request, so it comes to the Board with no recommendation. Mr. Fisher asked the likely net number of lots if this land were developed as a conventional subdivision.. Mr. Tucker said it would most likely be 17 lots. Mr. Fisher asked who was present to speak for Mr. Walker. Mr. Max Evans was present representing Mr. Walker, and he presented maps showing the lot layout along with an overlay showing the beneficial effects of lot grouping with regard to the reservoir. He noted that all the houses and septic fields will fall outside the 100-year flood level plus 200 foot setback. Mr. Evans said Mr. Ed Gooch, soil scientist, tested all sites and has stated there are good locations for septic fields. Mr. Evans said the RPN plan was chosen because of the location on the reservoir and the ability to provide a buffer. He noted that roads within this RPN will be pr±vate roads with a homeowner, s. agreement for both the maintenance of the roads and the open space. Mr. Evans noted the excellent tree 3OO October 1, 19~0 (Regular Night Meeting) cover of the area, and said that the spacing of these trees will allow the construction of homes with minimal removal of those trees. He said estimated plans of impervious surface for homes, driveways, patios, etc., showed that approximately 3% of the development would have impervious surface; well within the limits of the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. Evans said some grading and removal of vegetation will take place in order to facilitate the sight distance along the entrance road to this proposed development. He said these adjustments to the land create sight distances which more than meet the requirements of the Highway Department. He said that the layout of the road and the location of the swales should do an excellent job in intercepting the runoff from this property and properties from the north. Miss Nash asked how Mr. Evans proposed to locate lots on the opposite side of the ravine. Mr. Evans said three culverts are to be installed and filled which will allow crossing of the ravine and draHnage swales. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak from the public was Mrs. Peggy King of the League of Women Voters. Mrs. King said she is happy to see the additionally wide buffer proposed along the reservoir, and added that she would like to see a statement placed in the homeowners agreement restricting the removal of vegetation along the waters edge of the.reservoir. Mr. Robert C. Walker spoke next saying he has managed the woods in this area for over thirty years, and he specifically chose an RPN becaUse he would retain control over the woods and the removal of trees. He assured the Board of Supervisors that a very minimum of trees would be removed. He said he hoped the Board would approve his application because he feels it is a far better plan than a simple subdivision, which he is allowed by right. Next to speak was Mr. Joseph S. Richie, a resident of Four Seasons, and owner of an adjacent lot to this development. He said he could see no reason for disapproval as it seemed to be an excellent plan. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher stated his concern about the figures used to obtain the percent of impervious surface required by the runoff control ordinance. Mr. Fisher said roads and driveways were not counted as impervious surface because they will not be blacktop but gravel. He then asked if gravel has the same degree of perviousness as grass. Dr. Iachetta said gravel is about 50% less pervious than grass. Dr. Iachetta added that he has thought for some time that the 5% exclusion should be eliminated between the first ridgeline and the water of the reservoir, but since that is not part of the present Runoff Control ordinance, he feels this plan as presented does an excellent job of protecting the reservoir. Mr. McCann said he feels this plan does a better job of protecting the reservoir than a straight subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see one restriction added to the homeowners association agreement, that being that the buffer shown along the reservoir remain in its original natural condition. Mr. Fisher said he was not sure he cared for that wording, as its "natural condition" might be eroded with dead trees, etc. Mr. Fisher pointed out condition number five which recommends that all other land shall remain in its natural state. Mr. Lindstrom said he interpreted that to refer to the construction phase of this development. Mr. Lindstrom said possibly condition number four could be amended to cover this area. Mr. St. John said that could be done. Mr. Lindstrom recommended this wording for condition #4 "County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the maintenance of roads, open space, drainage and appurtenant structures, with special attention given to protection of the natural buffer on the Rivanna Reservoir;". Dr. Iachetta recommended the addition of the words "or septic fields" be added to condition number nine. He said according to the soil reports the lots have sufficient quality soil to maintain two septic drainfields each. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZMA-80-17 with the nine con- ditions recommended by the Planning staff but with the changes in conditions four and nine as discussed. 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. (NOTE: At 11:15 P.M., Mr. Henley left the meeting and did not return.) Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-80-15. Woodrow Campbell. Request to rezone 7.2 acres from A-1 to RS-1. Located southeast of Route 717 approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Albe- rene. County Tax Map lllA(2), Parcel 11; and Tax Map 111, Parcel 62. Scottsville Dis- trict. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1980.) Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff report along with recommendations of the Planning Commission as follows: Requested Zoning: RS-1 Residential Suburban Acreage: 7.2 acres Existing Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map lllA2, Parcel 11, and Tax Map 111, Parcel 62, is located on the east side of Route 717 about one mile south of its intersection with Route 712. Character of the Area: This site is currently vacant. This area is rural in character though some small lot development exists. Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for agricultural- conservation with a density of one dwelling per five acres. The closest~designated village is North Garden, about five miles from the site. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that a density of one dwelling/acre is appropriate to villages and other growth areas.~ Since this site is remote from growth areas, staff opinion is that the request does not comply with~the Comprehensive Plan and therefore recommends denial of this petition. ~ Mr. Tucker noted that on September 16, 1980, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial to the Board. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Woodrow Campbell who presented a petition containing 98 signatures of local residents who support this request. He said he wishes to construct one bedroom cottages for both young people and the elderly at prices they can afford. He said this has been denied by the Planning Commission, and hoped the Board would see the positive beneficial side and approve this request. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this application, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he wished to state for the record receipt of two letters in opposition to this proposal from Patricia B. Wallens, an adjacent property Owner ,and Dr. Jeffrey H. McCormack. (NOTE: These letters and the petition spoken of by Mr. Campbell are on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Lindstrom said since the Comprehensive Plan does not indicate this area for growth, he cannot justify approval of this request. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to deny this rezoning request. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Dr. Iachetta said he agreed especially since the Planning Commission was unanimous in its vote to deny. Miss Nash said nothing was said about the water and septic systems, and said she felt this would be an added difficulty in such a proposed development. Mr. Campbell said his plan would be to use three existing springs and wells. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion to deny carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-80-18. Roy Wheeler Realty Co. Request to rezone 2.907 acres from A-1 to CO. Located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Routes 754 and 250A. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 24, part thereof. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 1980.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report and the Planning Commission recommendations as follows: Requested Zoning: CO Commercial Office Acreage: 2.907 acres (Parcel "A" - 2.142 acres; Parcel "B? - 0,.765 acres) Existing Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 24 (part thereof) is~ bounded by Route 601 (01d Ivy Road), Route 250A by-pass, and a by-pass exit ramp. Character of the Area: Bounded on the perimeter by three state roads and with Route~.U~55 as a divider, this property is in two isolated, sites. A stream runs through the larger Parcel "A" from the Route 250A by- pass to Route 855. On Parcel B, the stream runs along the Route 855 property line. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan (Neighborhood 7 land use plan) recommends low density residential use in this area. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to locate a real estate office on Parcel B and to locate an office building with lease space on Parcel A. The applicant proposes to use public water. Public sewer is available at the John Deere site to the west and at the old Terrace Bowl site to the southeast, however, connection to these lines is complicated by physical barriers. (The Planning Commission would determine if sewer is "reasonably available" at site plan review. the alternative, the applicant would provide septic facilities on Parcel "A" to serve both Parcels "A" & "B"). In The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that: "from previous review of zoning requests in this area, it is anticipated that there will be a heavy traffic flow between this site and the University along Route 601. Direct access to the University is restricted by a narrow railroad underpass on Route 601 and on the ramp to Route 250. Unless it can be shown that the vast majority af traffic destined for this site will use the ramps from the bypass, the Department recommends that no zoning be approved which will increase the traffic from this site. If rezoning is approved, it is recommended that access to the site be restricted to Route 855. 302 /© Staff opinion is that, while the applicant can guarantee that access be restricted to Route 855, a demonstration that the majority of traffic to the site would access from the bypass would be difficult, since the exact character of the possible lessors is unknown. Staff opinion is that with the exception of real estate offices, University students are not likely to frequent office uses with the same re- gularity as the general population. An aspect to consider in this particular case is whether or not the existing zoning provides for "reasonable use" of the property. Staff opinion is that this property is not conducive to many of the A-1 uses including residential use. Of the A-1 uses which may be appropriate, some are more traffic intensive (and University-oriented) than the CO uses (i.e. - general store; public garage). Staff recommends approval of this petition for the following reasons: Commercial Office zoning is the least intensive zoning district which provides a range of reasonable uses; While CO uses would increase traffic on Route 601, some of the uses in A-1 which would be appropriate to this property are more traffic intensive and more University-oriented in nature, there- fore CO could have less impact on Route 601 than existing A-1 zoning; The proposed zoning map shows CO for this property; Staff opinion, upon more detailed review, is that this property is not suited to low-density residential as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. This petition is a conventional rezoning petition. No proffers have been presented to date. Staff is concerned about the more traffic- intensive uses of the CO zone and about limiting access to Route 855. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 16, 1980, voted unanimously that if a proffer to eliminate banks and savings and loan institutions from the uses permitted in the CO district were made part of the petition, they would recommend approval of the petition, and would recommend denial with no proffer. Mr. Tucker said a proffer has since been received, dated September 25, 1980, as follows: "Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Request for ZMA-80-18 Gentlemen: In regard to a petition by Roy Wheeler Realty Company for a zoning map amendment on property owned by P.H. Faulconer Estate, the applicant wishes to proffer that the use permitted in the District not included banks and savings and loan institutions. In addition, the applicant proffers that access to the sites would be restricted to Route 885. Sincerely, (signed) David S. Callaghan" Board members commented about the small size of the parcels in question, noting setback distances and water and sewer hookups. Mr. Fisher said it will be difficult to place a building on the land and maintain the proper setbacks. Mr. Tucker said water and sewer lines are available, but sewer hookup cannot be made until the new treatment plant is completed. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Jason Eckford, representing the applicant. Mr. Eckford said these parcels are not suitable for residential use, but well-suited for this type commercial venture. He estimated there would be 246 vehicle trips per day from this proposed use onto a road that presently only has 382 vehicle trips per day as calculated by the Highway Department. He said this site will be for offices of Roy Wheeler Realty only. Mr. Eckford further noted that since sewer lines are not presently available, he has discussed the possibility of septic drainfields with the Health Department. He indicated that only one drainfield would be required to handle both parcels, and that no pumping would be necessary. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned-about building anything on parcel B because of its size, especially with the volume of traffic on the access roads. Mr. Eckford said the proposed building will be approximately 4,000 square feet and two stories high. Mr. Fisher and Mr. McCann stated their concern about the possibility of increased traffic, noting the statement by the Highway Department about not increasing traffic at this location. Mr. Eckford said he felt the volume of traffic visiting this site will be very small. Next to speak was Mrs. Joan Graves, who stated her concern about the use of Parcel B. She said that if a drainfield were placed on this site, it would require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, and felt this was against the County's established policy. // October 1, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) 3O: Mr. Rey Berry said everyday when he drops his children off at school, he has checked out the possibility of sight obstruction created by a building as proposed by Mr. Eckford. Mr. Berry said he is of the opinion that any building structure of two stories or less, will not create any obstruction of sight distance even if built to within ten feet of the road. A Mr. Shank spoke regarding this rezoning, but his comments could not be heard. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed, and Mr. Lindstrom said he agreed with the Highway Department that Parcel B is too small for any reasonable use. He said Parcel A is substantial enough to handle the utilities, so would only be willing to rezone Parcel A. Mr. Fisher questioned Mr. Lindstrom asking if he felt a two-acre parcel in the A-1 zone was too small to use for agriculture. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt this parcel was different, because it is surrounded on all sides by major roads. Mr. McCann said he saw no problem with allowing Parcel B to hookup to a septic system established on Parcel A. He said the man is entitled to the use of his land. Mr. Lindstrom said the problem of utilities is real. Miss Nash said she felt the Highway Department was very shortsighted when they planned this configuration, and felt the possibility of changing the present road structure is not very good. Mr. Fisher said if this parcel is changed to a CO zone, it will be starting a new direction for commercial zoning off Route 250. He stated that he would follow the recom- mendation of the Comprehensive Plan and the Highway~Department because he cannot see intensifying the use on this parcel. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to have more information from the Highway Department on this petition. Dr. Iachetta suggested deferring this request until October 8 when Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Highway Department will be present. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer action on this item until October 8, 1980, in order to receive comments from the Highway Department. 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. 9. Legislative requests for Virginia Association of Counties. Mr. Fisher presented six resolutions, which if supported by this Board, will be forwarded to the Virginia Association of Counties for support before the next session of the ~irginia General Assembly. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to support the following five resolutions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the members of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County are elected biennially for four-year terms by the qualified voters of six magisterial districts; and WHEREAS, the term of office of some members of the Board of Super- visors expires December 31, 1981, with election for these offices set for the second Tuesday in November, 1981; and WHEREAS, numerous other counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia have adopted staggered terms of office for their boards of supervisors, many of whose terms of office will expire December 31, 1981, with elections for these offices set for the second Tuesday in November, 1981; and WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 5, of the Constitution of Virginia mandates that the Board of Supervisors in 1981 reapportion the represen- tation in the governing body of Albemarle County &mong the magisterial districts; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors will rely upon the final census figures of the 1980 United States Census to do the reapportionment; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors now has doubts as to when it will receive final census figures; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 24.1-166 now requires all independent candidates for office of the board of supervisors to declare their candi- dacy by the time the polls are closed the day the primary election is held, the second Tuesday in June. Virginia Code 24.1-184 further requires that a candidate for a primary election must qualify not more than seventy-five days nor less than sixty days before the date of the primary election. Finally, Virginia Code Section-24.1-172 provides that if a party nominee is to be nominated by convention, the convention must be held within the thirty-two days immediately preceding the primary; and 304 Octo=ber 1, 1980= (Regular Ni_~ht Meeting] WHEREAS, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973, et seq., requires that prior to enforcement of any change affecting voting, the jurisdiction that has enacted or seeks to administer the change must make the Attorney General a proper submission of the change to which no lawful objection is interposed. The Voting Rights Act also requires that the Attorney General has sixty days after submission of the change to interpose an objection; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believes that the sum command of all the above is that the Board must reapportion the representation in the governing body among the magisterial districts early in 1981 and the Board has doubts whether it is possible to accomplish this task; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Albe- marle County that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia hereby is memorialized to amend the election laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide a final deadline for the declaration of candidacy for office of the board of supervisors on the second Tuesday of September, 1981. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville have formed and are operating a regional jail, the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex, pursuan~ to Chapter 7.1 of Title 53 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia at its last session in its 1980 Appropriations Act provided that the Commonwealth shall pay 100% of salaries of the superintendents or jailers of regional jails; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County desires that jail boards of regional jails clearly shall have the discretion to set the salaries of jail superintendents or jailers at an amount less than that set by the Compensation Board for sheriffs and their deputies when the jail administrator or jailer is not a sheriff or his deputy; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Albe- marle County that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia hereby is memorialized to amend and re-enact Virginia Code Section 53- 206.12, as follows: Section 53-206.12. Payment of salaries of superintendents or jailers. The Commonwealth shall pay one hundred percent of the salaries of the superintendents or jailers of such jails. Such salaries shall be paid in equal monthly installments. Such salaries shall be paid in the manner provided in Article 9 (Sec. 14.1-70 et seq.) of Chapter 1 of Title 14.1 and such article shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to superintendents or jailers of such jails; provided, however, that such regional jail or jail boards shall have the authority to pay the salaries of superintendents or jailers at such jails who are not sheriffs or their deputies at an amount less than the salaries set and paid in the manner provided in Article 9 (Sec. 14.1-70 et seq.) of Chapter 1 of Title 14.1. RESOLUTION REQUESTING AMENDMENT OF VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 58-964 TO SET INTEREST ON LOCAL TAXES NOT PAID AT A RATE EQUAL TO THE RATE OF INTEREST ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 6621 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby memori- alized to amend and re-enact Virginia Code Section 58-9'64 to provide that interest on local taxes not paid shall be payable at a rate equal to the October 1,_ 1980 ~Reg_ular Night Meeting) 305 rate of interest established pursuant to Section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, as of the date of assessment for the period between the due date and the date of full payment. In this regard, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County requests that Virginia Code Section 58-964 be amended and be enacted as follows: Section 58-964. Interest on taxes not paid. Interest at a rate equal to the rate of interest established pursuant to Section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, from the first day following the day such taxes are due, shall be collected upon the principal and penalties of all such taxes and levies then remaining unpaid, which penalty and interest shall be collected and accounted for by the officers charged with the duty of collecting such taxes or levies, along with the principal sum thereof. But this section shall not apply to local levies in any city or town when penalty or interest on such levies is regulated by its charter or by other special provisions of law. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is imposing the local service charge on the University properties owned by the,State of-Virginia for 1980, pursuant to an ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors in accordance to the Code of Virginia Section 58-16.2; and WHEREAS, Section 4-9.14 of the Appropriations Act of the 1980 General Assembly mandates that no state agency nor the Governor shall include any requests or recommendations for appropriations in the Executive Budget for use of public funds to pay local service charges in any biennium beginning July 1, 1982; and WHEREAS, this will cause a substantial loss in revenue to Albemarle County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albe- marle County that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia hereby is memorialized to amend Section 4-19.14 of the Appropriations Act to reinstate local service charges on tax exempt properties. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that in the event House Bill 599, adopted in 1979, is not duly funded, then the General Assembly is requested to reinstate the moratorium on annexation. The following resolution received a separate vote by the Board of Supervisors at the request of Mr. Layton R. McCann. Mr. McCann said he did not feel he was ready to support such a resolution: 30B October 1, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) WHEREAS, local governments, as a result of judicial decisions, are experiencing difficulty in managing the timing and requirements for public improvements necessitated by land developments; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Code of Virginia, in Sections 15.1-466 and 15.1-491.2 are needed to alleviate this difficulty; and WHEREAS, there is now pending before the General Assembly of Virginia certain legislation to effect such amendments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, that the Honorable Thomas J. Michie, Jrt, the Honorable James B. Murray, the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal League, be and they hereby are, memorialized and requested to support the passage of such legislation. Motion for approval of this resolution was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. McCann. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 11. At 12:29 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn to October 6, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., in the CounTy Executive's Confer- ence Room. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Chairman