Loading...
1980-01-02 Af$~rnoon Meeting--Ad January 2~1980 (ff~m~D~e~mber 1~, 197 December 19, 1979 (Regular Night) ida Item No. 12. Adjourn. At 11:30 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn to January 2, 1980 at 1:30 P.M. Roll was called, aotion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ssrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. )ne. Januauy 2, 1980 (Afternoon--Adjourned from December .journed meeting of the Board of SuperViSors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was onuary 2, 1980, at 1:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County .lding, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from December 19, ~nt: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta and Miss Ellen Nash and Mr. [abush. Lt: Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr. and C. Timothy Lindstrom. ~ers Present: Lty Attorney. Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. la Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:40 P.M. by Mr. Gerald E. Lairman. la Item No. 2. At 1:42 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by ~ta, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel and legal matters. ~alled and the motion carr'ied by the following recorded vote: ~srs. Fisher, Iachetta and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ~e. Iessrs. H. enley and Lindstrom. ~oard reconvened at 7:30 P.M. and January 2, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) iular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held ~ 2, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, ~nt: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. ~t: None. January 2, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 5. Set meeting times, dates and places for calendar year 1980. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Llndstrom, to continue the same as that used in 1979. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following reco~ vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Rules of Procedure. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, sc by Mr. Lindstrom, to readopt the Rules of Procedure presently in use. Roll was calZ the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing. Amend and Reenact Section 4-19 of the At! County Code to include Key West and Cedar Hills Subdivision as one of those areas wi dogs are not permitted to run at large. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on Decem] and December 27, 1979.) Mr. Fisher said a group of homeowners in Key West and Cedar Hills Subdivision 1 requested that the area be included under the County's ordinance as an area where d~ prohibited from running at large. He understands the homeowners are now requesting of this public hearing for three months in order to permit some cooperative arrange] be worked out by the property owners. Mr. Fisher said if that was the desire of th~ he certainly supported the request. He then requested that the representative from Homeowners Association come forward to formally make the request. Mrs'. Ilene Rutschow, resident of Key West and spokeswoman for the group, was p~ Since the request was submitted, residents in Key West have made a cooperative effo~ resolve the problem at a community level instead of having a dog ordinance. Theref citizens request a three month deferral provided the original petition remains befo~ Board. With no one else presaumt to speak, Mr. Fisher accepted the request and requeste motion to defer the public hearing to April 2, 1980. Motion to this effect was off Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Appointments. Mr. Fisher said the Board has been discussing in executive session appointment various boards and commissions specifically the School Board and Planning Commissio Mr. Lindstrom said the way the County Ordinance is presently written the terms three School Board members representing districts and the at large member all expir same date. Because of this, there is a possibility of having four new members on t School Board appointed right in the middle of working on the School Budget. In ord provide continuity, he offered motion to amend Article I, Section 2.1 of the Albema County Code so that the term of the at large member will expire on June 30 of the s year of his appointment rather than on December 31; this amendment to be advertised January 2, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting~ il June 30, 1980. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Dr. Iachetta supported the t noted the proposed procedure was not to his liking. Roll was t~hen called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ~e. Fisher then noted that there are vacancies on the Planning Commission for four representatives. Miss Nash nominated Mr. Corwith Davis, gr. to represent the le District; with said term expiring on December 31, 1983. Dr. Iachetta nominated P. ~ Bowerman to represent the Charlottesville District; with said term expiring er 31, 1981. Mr. Henley nominated Colonel William R. Washington to represent the 1 District; with said term expiring on December 31, 1983. Mr. Roudabush nominated a R. McCann to represent the Rivanna District; with said term expiring on December Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to appoint the above persons for the terms to the Planning Commission. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried llowing recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ~e. ~a Item No. 8. SP-79-64. Douglas S. Thropp, Jr. Locate a mobile home on 20 ~d A-1. Property is located south of Route 665 near Free Union. County Tax Map 1 4. White Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on 20 and December 27, 1979.) ~oudabush abstained because the firm he is associated with did the survey. ~ober6 W Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and presented the following ~rt: ~est: Mobile Home ~ge: 20 acres ~g: A-1 Agricultural ~ion: Tax Map 30, Parcel 4, approximately two miles east of Free Union on Route 665. ~cter of the Area: Route 665 in this area is b~rdered by open farmland alternating with forest. The topography is comprised of rolling hills and semi-level ridges interspersed with swales and streams. The applicant's propert~ has access from Route 665 across a ridge. The property line is approximately 1500 feet from the roa and is planted with a border of deciduous trees across its entire length. The combi ridge and tree line comprise a substantial visual buffer between Route 665 and the proposed location of the mobile home. One single family residence, recently totally destroyed by fire, was located between the applicant's property and the roadway. If rebuilt, one could see this property from that residence. As far as could be determined by an inspection made on the applicant's property, no other residence is within sight distance o~ the proposed location of the mobile home. Though the property itself has been cleared, the surrounding land on the west, south and east is densely wooded. Report: Applicant proposes to locate a mobile home Just to the east of his existing, on-site roadway which runs approximately through the center of his propert This site of the roadway slopes off into a small swale which in turn leads to a stream off-site. Applicant has already applied for and received a setback variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for this location. Januar~ 2,_ _. _~980 (ge~ular Ni6h~ Meeting) Mr. Landess said Mr. Ken Houtz had earlier objected to the mobile home by lette October 23, 1979. A Letter dated January 2, 1980 from Mr. Ken Houtz indicates withd of the objection. He then presented some pictures of the property. Mr. Landess pod out that the letter of objection from the fourteen residents is basically from owne~ the Hickory Ridge Subdivision which is a mile down Route 665 from this property. M~ Landess also noted it would be about a year before the temporary mobile home can be from the property. Mr. Douglas Thropp, applicant, was present. He said he applied to Veterans Ad~ for a house loan and was turned down because he was starting a new business of growJ vegetables on this property. He noted that his preference was to live in a permane~ dwelling, not a trailer. Because of the nature of his business, there can only be ~ minute interruption in the operation of the greenhouse. With the devices being usec this business, an employee must live on the farm. He noted his loan with Farmers Hz Administration is for a family farm. The Administration will not make a loan if thc is not a member of the family. If there was a permanent home on the property the z~ ordinance would allow him to have tenant housing on the property. Mr. Thropp said ] living in the temporary mobile home because he can not get financing for a house at time. The farm operation is 100% financed. He has to submit figures from his firs~ of operation before VA will grant him a mortgage. Once a permanent home exists, he have one tenant unit on the property. Mr. Thropp noted that the activities on the i the buildings cannot be seen from Route 665. Mr. Thropp presented to the Board a m~ (handrawn in various colors) showing the locations of the existing mobile home and proposed mobile home. Speaking next was Mr. Banks, owner of the property adjoining Mr. Thropp on the and the owner of the recently burned out single family dwelling mentioned in the st report. He noted that he did not object to the request. Mrs. Anne Dixon, owner of the parcel, across Route 665 from where the right of enters Route 665, spoke next in opposition. She distributed a map to the Board ind parcels of the property owners who objected to placement of the mobile home. She n letter received from Mrs. Mary Lee, co-owner of Parcel 5.directly behind the subjec stating objection to the mobile home because she felt it would reduce the value of property and be unsightly. Mrs. Dixon noted that there is not another mobile home area. She felt this would set a precedent and open the door for more mobile homes area. She was flabbergasted that Mr. Banks had withdrawn his objection since she h called him and he had objected so strongly. She felt since he had changed his mind would be requesting a mobile home. Mrs. Dixon said she thinks Mr. Thropp is in the estate business and she did not feel this was his real business. She felt Mr. Th~ requesting that the owners in the area reduce their property values and felt someon into business show make sacrifices. She felt Mr. Thropp got Mr. Julian Catterton t withdraw his objection by harrassing him. She understood the original application four mobile homes. She questioned if he got this one what would stop him from gett another and another. She also mentioned that on her property there is a house whic rents to a friend and it is on the original site of the Michie Tavern. In May, 197 Piedmont Envir6nmental Council made a study of all historical areas and her rented was included on that list. Mrs Dixon noted her understanding of the new zoning or was to have orderly growth, in the County and she does not feel that allowing this ~ home in the area is orderly growth. Mr. Banks noted his resentment at the implications Mrs. Dixon had made. indicated to anyone his plans to place a mobile home on his property. He ne Mr. H. P. Birckhead, owner of property behind .Mr. Thropp,. was present and did object to the request. However, he did request deferral since there is a dispute ¢ me left on the site when the house is completed. He also noted that the site is le from Route 665 and Mrs. Dixon'is a good distance from the sl-te. Mr. Fisher his concern over which site was most desirable. Mr. Tucker said the mobile home ited according to the requirements of Section 1~4'2 of the Zoning Ordinance. If ria for setbacks and the location as set forth in the ordinance are met, then it make any difference to the zoning administrator which location is chosen. Mr. id the Board has never sited a mobile home on a parcel of land before. Mr. Fisher rned about having twenty acres and the possibility of such being subdivided and e home being moved all over the site. Mr. Henley did not care which site was t would say the mobile home should be located on the site marked in orange since he location Mr. Thropp wants. Mr.~Henley then offered motion to approve SP-79-64 condition of the Planning Commission. With no second, being made the motion died. Iachetta was puzzled about the right of way dispute. The Board did not feel that concern. Mr. Lindstrom said if Mr. Thropp's operation was underway and no more mobile home was neede~d on the site, this public hearing would not have been necessar~ e could have one mobile home for a tenant by right in conjunction with an agriculturs Tucker said as long as Mr. Thropp lives in the temporary mobile home, he does not permit. If his house was built and he wanted a mobile home for a relative or an ~al employee, a permit would b'e issued administratively. Mr. Lin~strom said it ~ due to.financial difficulties, Mr. Thropp had'to follow this procedure. Therefore ~ object to the request and did not feel any precedent was being set set be~cause distinguishable situation. He then offered motion to approve SP-79-64 with the of the Planning Commission. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher would ?t the motion since the motion did not indicate a location for the mobile home. ~rom then amended his motion by adding a second condition to read: "This special ~lies to the mobile home location shown in orang~ on the drawing submitted by the on January 2, 1980. (Copy of which is on file in the Clerk's Office.)" Mr. ~epted the amendment. Mr. Fisher said he would support this mo~ion in this form. ~hen called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded ~srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. ~e. Mr. Roudabush. toudabush returned to the meeting at 9'05 P.M. !a Item N©. 9. ZMA-79-41. Martha B. Bacon. R~ne about 0.6 acre from R-2 to B- ~d in Greenfie!ds Subdivision east of Route 631. (Deferred from DeCember 19, 'ucker presented the following staff report: .ested Zoning: B-1 Business ge: Approximately 0.~ acres ing Zoning: R-2 Residential. ion: Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 150 and 151 is located on Greenfie] Court off Rio Road. cter of the Area: Parcel 149 is developed with an apartment/dance studio building and is zoned R-3. ~'Parcel 163, housing an electronics firm, was rezoned from R-2 to B-1 in 1978 (ZMA-78-06). Parcels 160, 161, 164, 165, and 166 house an office comple and were rezoned from R-2 to B-1 in 197~ (ZMA-308). Parcel 167 was zoned from R-2 t CO in 1976 (ZMA-76-03). The mobile home park on parcel 173 and other properties in the immediate vicinity are zoned R-2 Residential, This property slopes shar~l~ from The public hearing was opened. Mr. Larry McElwain, attorney representing Mrs. was present. Mr. McElwain said the applicant's original request was for B-1. Howe the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant amended her request to rezone the p~ CO. He noted that Mrs. Bacon has applied for a dealership to sell log houses and ~ like to have a model home on this site. This operation will generate minimal traf£ because it is not a retail establishment per se. Prospective buyers would come to model house and go over the layouts within the context of the building itself. Mat would not be delivered to the site; but from the plant to the building site itself. been pointed out, the neighborhood is contemplated as a transitional area and Mr. M felt this structure is in compliance with the transitional nature. The structure w single detached residential dwelling. He felt the request would benefit the neighb by helping the development in the area which is stagnanted at this time. Mr. McElw the road serving part of the lots under this request is good. Zf approval is grant did not object to a requirement for the road to be brought up to certain standards the two lots. He felt this would give the Board an opportunity to attack the probl is presently bad and will apparently continue in its present state of chaos. Mr. M noted the subject property slopes and a drainage problems does exist. Mr. Fisher's concern was to rezone this property to standard commerical as req by the applicant. The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium-density residential and area is surrounded by residential. Mr. Fisher asked if the intent was to use both for the one structure. Mr. McElwain said yes, the model home site would be on the line of the two properties. Mr. Fisher asked if that created any problems. Mr. Tu said it could and the two properties may have to be combined. Mr. Lindstrom noted requested rezoning was amended at the Planning Commission meeting from B-1 to CO an, is allowable when a lesser density is involved. With no one else present to speak for or against the matter, the public hearinl closed. Mr. Roudabush was familiar with the property and aware of the fact that it is ~ piece of property to develop due to the severe drainage problems. He was uncertain residential use could be accommodated. He felt with the allowable density in an R-~ more problems would be contributed to the area than this business would contribute. felt a CO use was the best impact on the neighborhood and be more compatible to the the area. He did not feel the Comprehensive Plan had gone into such finite detail where exactly uses should begin and stop. Dr. Iachetta agreed since he had viewed with Mr. Roudabush. However, one problem.he had was the meaning of transitional zon~ Mr. Tucker said the staff report was based on the original request for B-1. The ne~ ordinance has recommended CO for the lots along Rio Road and medium-density residenl behind that. Dr. Iachetta felt the question of where the building will be located for site plan approval. ~He then offered motion to approve ZMA-7~i1 as recommended ~ Planning Commission for CO zoning. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstr¢ supported the motion since he felt a commerical office use would be less intensive t residential. His concerns of following the Comprehensive Plan are allayed by the fs this is a transitional designation which he did not think is inconsistent with the o designation of the area. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same cart the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.