The URL can be used to link to this page

1978-03-01NMarch 1, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned from February 24, 1978) March 1~ 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 098 Agenda Item No. 15. Engineering and Landfills. Present was J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer. Mr. Bailey had prepared the landfill budgets in two ways; first to continue with the present operations at Ivy and Keene landfills, or as an alternative, continue the present operation at the Ivy landfill, change the Keene landfill by removing household waste to the Ivy landfill or such other designated place as the County directs, and also locating a roll-of~ station in the Cismont area. The alternate proposal was drafted as a means of implementing the recommendations of the Solid Waste Committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to go with the alternative proposal, which includes a roll-off station at Cismont. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta~and Lindstrom None. Mr.~Roudabush. 6genda Item No. 21. Bicentennial Commission. category be changed to Bicentennial Center. Agenda Item No. 22. Agenda Item No. 23. Agenda Item No. 24. Agenda Item No. 25. Agenda Item No. 26. It was suggested that the title of this MiScellaneous Telephone Expenses. National Association of Counties - Dues. WVPT Television. (Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 4:04 P.M.) District Home. Involuntary Commitment. The Board also discussed the following items which had hot been listed on the agenda. 1. Soil Survey. 2. Children's Home, Incorporated. 3. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. 4. ~Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport. At 4:15 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 4:31 P.M. the meeting and Mr. Dorrier left.) (Mr. Lindstrom returned to Agenda Item No. 2?. Volunteer Fire Companies. (Mr. Dorrier returned at 4:46 P.M.) There were several people present from the volunteer fire companies requestingthat they be given the amount of money requested, or $20,000 per fire company. (Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 4:50 P.M.) After a short discussion, Mr. Henley offered motion to accept the recommendation of the County Executive in reference to fire companies for an appropriation of $15,000 per company. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. After further discussion, motion was offered by Mr'. Henley to amend his original motion to allow the fire companies $16,000 each. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dottier and carried by the following recorded Vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 28. At $:10 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Motion was offered bY Dr. Iachetta, seconded'by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: MessrS'. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Roudabush. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned. March t, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 1, 1978 at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony IaChetta and C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 7:47 P.M.) Absent: Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; ~eorge R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Mr. Fisher, Chairman, called the meeting to order at P.M., and requested a brief moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-77-45. Dr. Charles W. Hurt. March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 3. SP-77-84 Ruby Wade. To locate .a mobile home on 2.36 acres zoned A-1 Property on northwest side of Route 693, approximately 1/4 mile from intersection of Routes 695 and 693. County Tax Map 85, Parcel 13D, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 17, 1978.) Mr. Tucker said this application was withdrawn before the Planning Commission. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to accept withdrawal of the application without prejudice. Roll was called and motion carried by,the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta None. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Roudabush. ZTA-77-10. Agenda Item No. 4. /Arthur Wyler. Residential General Zone, be amended. Request that density provisions, by right in the R-3 (Deferred from February 1, 1978.) Mr. Tucker reviewed the Planning Staff report as presented at the February 1 meeting. Fisher noted receipt of the following letters all in favor of an increase in density from that in the present ordinance: William T. Stevens of Stevens ~ Company, Realtors Richard Shank, of Richard Shank Associates, Architects Jason J. Eckford, President, Fidelity American Bank William W. Stevens Preston Stallings, President, Blue Ridge Home Building Association C. Stuart Raynor, Alcova Management David W. Cart, Cart Realty Management & Sales, Inc. Mrs. Robert W. Cabaniss, Old Salem Apartments Marcus M. Weinstein, Weinstein Associates g Affiliates Ray V. Long, Consulting Engineer Mary Alice Plummet, Secretary of Citizens for Albemarle, Inc. Mr. Fisher noted that no one was present representing the applicant. He then opened the public hearing. First to speak was Mr. Donald Wagner of the Great Eastern Management Company He said his company handles several hundred apartment units in Albemarle County, of which approximately 90% are nonconforming under the present ordinance. He also supported the amend ment to allow for construction of new apartments zn the County. He concluded by saying he supported 24 units per acre. Mr. Brian Morris said he endorsed the amendment, and felt 24 units per acre was both logical and necessary for growth in the County. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. He summarized by saying the applicant requested 24 units per acre, the Planning Staff recommended 18, and the Planning Commission recommended 20 units per acre. After a brief discussion regarding the difference between the terms "net density" and "gross density", motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to amend and re-enact Section 6-1-23 of the Zoning ~rdinance as recommended by the Planning Commission for 20 units per gross acre; said section 6-1-23 to ~read: "Residential uses having a maximum gross density of twentY ........ dwelling units per acre." Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr.~ Roudabush. Agen'da~Item No. 5. ReSol~ution' of' inten~t, %o amend Section 5-2-1, Section 6-2-1, and Sect±on' 6~'1'-2i(10)of the'ZOning Ord.inanee~i changing the wOr~ "net" in each section to "gross as it 'reIateS to density. CAd~.ertised 'in~t~he~ ©aily '~rggreSs on February 15 and February 22, 1978.) ~ Mr. Fishe~ noted ~hat thfs ~als :tm h~ing the remainder of the ordinance in conformance with 'acti'on!just.' ~a~e~..'Nm ~n~ ~om .the. pUhI~c ~iaked..to apeak either for or against these amendments and. t.he pu~c he~fng ~alS nl~se'd.. Mo~±on.toamend and re-enact the Zoning Ordinance lin Se'c't.'~ors~5~2~Z,i'6~2~'an~ ~l~2~Z~Z.~)~tm read as follows was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: MeSsrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Roudabush. "Section 5-2-1 Category 1: Residential developments served by a central sewer System and a central water supply shall have a maximum gross residential density of 8.5 units per acre. Section 6-2-1 Category 1: Residential developments served by.a central sewer system and a central water supply shall have a maximum.gross~residential density of twenty (20) units per acre; provided, however, that the Board of Supervisors may, by special use permit issued pursuant to Section 11-13 of this ordinance, authorize, in particular cases., residential developments of greater density, not to exceed thirty-four (34) units per acre, upon a finding by the Board that the same will be compatible with the public health, safety, and general welfare and with the character and development of the neighborhood. Section 6-1-21(10) Residential uses having a maximum gross residential density of more than twenty (20) but not more than thirty-four (34-~welting units per acre." Agenda Item No. 6. SP-77-83. David Lee Spradlin. To locate a public garage on 5.514 March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) -100 Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report: "Character of the 'Area This area is rural in nature with parcels of five acres or greater surrounding the site. The Route 620 Market Wh±ch provides gasoline sales is to the west. The structure to house the garage was constructed in 1977 for private uses as a barn. Staff Comment The 620 Market made application in 1977 for two service stalls and to bring the store into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance (sP-77-24, Earl Beach; applicant withdrew). Staff recommended approval since it was an existing use providing service to the area. Since that time, the revised Comprehensive Plan has been adopted, which recommends that in rural areas commercial activities be permitted within the various designated villages. This site is about five miles from the nearest designated village and lies in an area termed "other rural land." indicating a lack of critical elements for protection. Since this request does not comply with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends denial of this petition. However, staff makes the following observations favorable to the petition: (1) The garage is'located towards the center and rear of the property in & low-lying heavily wooded area. The garage is not visible from the road or from existing adjacent residences; (2) The applicant has a petition of support with forty signatures from property owners in the area, .including signatures from owners of lots 3 and 4 and lot 1. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. 0nly one sign located in view of Route 620; 2. Site plan approval; 3. Building Inspections approval as a commercial use; 4. No automobile sales; 5. Approval is not for automobile graveyard as defined in Section 16-8 of Zoning Ordinance; 6. Notification to the Fire Inspector if spray painting is contemplated; 7. Existing wooded areas to remain in a natural state; 8. Approval of other appropriate state and local agencies." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at their meeting on February 14, 1978, recommend- ed unanimous approval with the staff's conditions. Mr. Spradlin was present, and he said he did not intend to spray paint, and that if he ever expanded, it would only be an additional 24' x 24'. The applicant's father said if ex- pansion was found to be necessary, they would come back through the proper channels. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing. Mr. Dorrier said he knew the family, and felt their intentions were good. He noted that this request had unanimous support of the neighbors and entire community in the Woodridge area. He said the present building is located off the highway and well screened. He then offered motion to approve this request with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, adding Condition No. 9 to read: "Total building area limited to 2500 square feet" Mr. Lihdstrom said he could not support this because he felt it important to retain the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan. Motion was then seconded by Dr. Iaehetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution of intent to repeal Appendix: Residential Townhouse Cluster of the Albemarle County Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and to amend Article 5, R-2 Residential and Article 6, R-3 Residential sections of the Zoning Ordinance as they pertain to townhouses. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 15 and February 22, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report: "1. Repeal Townhouse Ordinance (Section 14 of the Subdivision Ordinance) 2. Redefine Section 16-79 SETBACK as follows: Section 16-79 SETBACK. The minimum distance by which 'any building or structure must be separated from ~e-f~e~-~e~-~e~ any street, road or access right-of-way. 3. Redefine Section 16-89 TOWNHOUSE as follows: Section 16-89 TOWNHOUSE. One (1) of a series of f~em-~A~ee-4~-~e-~e~-~8~ attached s~ngle-family dwelling units: under single or multiple ownership, separated from one another by continuous vertical walls without openings from basement floor to roof. 101 March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Amend Section 5-1-12 (Uses Permitted in R-2) and Section 6-1-16 (Uses Permitted in R-3) to read: Section 5-1-12 Townhouses Section 6-1-16 Townhouses rather than, "Residential townhouse clusters, in accordance with the provisions of the Townhouse Ordinance of Albemarle County, as the same may be amended." Amend Section 5-2-1 (Area Regulations in R-2) to read: Section 5-2-1 Category 1: Residential developments served by a central sewer system and a central water supply shall have a maximum ne~ gross residential density of 8.5 units per acre. 6. Amend Section 5-3 SETBACK REGULATIONS (in R-2) as follows: Section 5-3-1 Ail structures, except signs advertising sale or rent of the property, shall be located thirty (30) feet or more from any street right-of-way. Section 5-3-2 In addition, townhouse dwellings Shall be located ten ('10)'feet or more from the front lot line. 7. Amend Section 6-3 SETBACK REGULATIONS (in R-3) as follows: Section 6-2-1 Ail structures, except signs advertising sale or rent of the property, shall be located thirty (30) feet or more from any street right-of-way. Section 6-3-2 In addition, townhouse dwellings shall be located ten (10) feet or more from the front 10't' l'ine. 8. Add Secti:on 5-4-2 and 6-4-3 under FRONTAGE REGULATIONS (in R-2 and R-3); Section 5-4-2 and 6-4-3 For each dWelling unit in a townhouse development, there shall be a lot width of twenty (20) feet or more for interior lots and forty (40) feet or more for end lots. 9. Amend Section 5-5-1 (Side Yards in R-2) to read: Section 5-5-1 The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be ten (10) feet or more. For a two-family or townhouse dwelling, the side yard shall be a-m~im~m-ef ten (10) feet or more at each end of each structure. In any case in which there is more than one main structure, other than townhouses, on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet between such main structures. 10. Amend Section 5-5-2 (Rear Yards in R-2) to read: Section 5- 5-2 Each main structure shall have a rear yard ofothirty-five (35) feet or more. Townhouse dwellings shall have'.g~rear'yard 'o'f 'twenty ('2'0) feet or more. In any case in which'there is more'than''one~ ~ain 'st~met- ute other than townhouses on any parcel, there' s'ha'l'l''b'e''a ~i'n'im~m of twenty (20) feet between such main structures. 11. Amend Section 6-5-1 (Side Yards in R-3) to read: Section 6-5-1 The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be ten (10) feet or more, except that the side yard for main structures thirty-f{ve (35) feet or more in height, shall be increased one (1) foot or more for each additional foot of building height over thirty-five (35) feet up to a maximum required side yard which shall be not more t~an fifty (50) feet· For a two-family or townhouse dwelling, the side yard shall be ten (10) feet or ~ore''at' each ~e'n'd ~of 'e'aoh'stm~UOt~u~e. ~n any case in which there is more than one main s'fru'Ct'ure Other than townhouses on any parcel, there shall be a minimum Of twenty '(20) feet between such main structures· 12. Amend Section 6-5-2 (Rear Yards in R-S) to read: Section 6-5-2 Each main structure shall have a rear yard of twenty-five (25) feet or more, except that the rear yard for main structures thirty-five (35) feet or more in height, shall be increased one (1) foot or more for each additional foot of building height over thirty-five (35) feet up to the maximum required rear yard which shall not be more than fifty (50) feet. Townhouse dwellings shall have a rear yard of twenty (20) feet or more. In any case in which there is more than one main structure other than townhOuses on anv Qarcel, there shall be March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 13. Add Section 5-7-4 and 6-8-4 under SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CORNER LOTS (in R-2 and R-3): Section 5-7-4 and 6-8,-4 Special provisions for corner IOts'shall not apply to townhouse developments. 14. Amend Section 6-6-1 (Coverage and density regulations in R-3) to read: Section 6-6-1 There shall be no height limit for permitted buildings; provided that any such building over thirty-five (35) feet in height, with their accessory buildings, may cover not more than tWenty-five percent (25%) of the gross lot area, ... ~-~e~a~e~-~a~-~-a~y-~-~e~e~a~-~w~e~e-e~o~e~ Townhouse dwellings may be erected up to thirty-five (35)'feet in height. 15. Add Section 5-8 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS and add Section 6-9 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS: Section 5-8-1 and 6-9-1 No more than seventy-five percent ('75%)of the gross site area shall be developed With 'Ioqs',' b~iIdings, streets and off-site parking. Section 5-8-2 and 6-9-2 Minimum distances between townhouse building groups shall be: Thirty (30) feet front-to-side or side-to-side; Forty (40) feet side-to-rear; Fifty (50) feet rear-to-rear." Mr. Fisher commented that these amendments seemed too massive to be handled in one~meet- ing, and that possibly an afternoon work session should be held. He then declared the public hearing opened, but requested the Board not to take any final action tonight. No one from the public was present to speak either for or against this request. Mr. Fisher requested a motion to defer action on th~se amendments to March 29, 1978. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. The Board recessed at 8:32 P.M. and reconvened at 8:45 P.M. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-76. James N. Fleming, Flamenco Enterprises. To amend SP-537 (a special use permit for a Planned U~it Development). The 114.2 acres involved i~ zoned A-1 Agricultural and is located on the west side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Ro~d). County Tax Map 45 Parcels 8 and 19, Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 15 and February 22, 1978.) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-77-11. Mulberry Corporation. To amend Sp-537 (a planned Unit Development). The 13.83 acres is zoned A-1 Agricultural and located on the west side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road). County Tax Map 45, Parcel 18. Jack Jouett District. (Advertis- ed in the Daily Progress on February 15 and February 22, 1978.) The following discussion is a complete transcript of the proceedings which occurred at this meeting: "Gerald Fisher: ,,I call the meeting back to order, the next ~±em on the agenda is number eight, Special Permit 98-76 James N. Fleming and Flamenco Enterprises, Inc. This has been a matter, this property and parts of this property have been before this Board on a number of occasions. It was the result of Special Permit #537 it was approved for these properties and an adjacent property in April of 1976 through a consent order in the Western District Court of Virginia and that SPecial Permit was ratified by this Board and a series of workshops were held in May of 1976 at which the conditions were worked out. That Special Permit #537 stands approved. It is subject by the consent order to all the ordinances that the County has in relation to the protection of the reservoir. We have before us an application for a new Special Permit on what is a substantial part of the original property that was under Special Permit #537. This matter was before the Board in February, 1977.!t was deferred until I believe April of 1977 so that the property that is under the ownership or name of the Mulberry Corporation which had been an original part of SP-537 could be brought along so that it would not be left out, having been separated from the original SP-537. At that time, following the public hearing, this Board decided that a full and free public discussion had not been held. There was an air of intimidation that caused this Board to defer action until suits against private 'citizens could be res61ved. Those suits have be.~dismissed,e . . we have a letter from the Court--the Western District Court indicating that ~.ms~prelmmmnary finding. For that reason, we have put this matter back on our agenda for hearing tonight. We have with it as agenda item nine, Speci&l Permit 77-11 for the Mulberry Corporation, Which is I believe, de- signed to conform to the planning for the SP-98-76. Mr. Tucker, please correct any place that I was wrong if you can, then go forward." Robert Tucker: "Okay, I'll go ahead and put up 77-11 now, what is referred to at times as Parcel 18. It goes right here like this connecting to Evergreen. Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate some of the background; Evergreen Planned Community, SP-537, was approved at a density of 2 1/2 units per acre subject to conditions of approval recommended by the Plann~n~ 103 March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Commission which were subject to modification by this Board. Subsequently the Board, meeting with the applica~nt,established 18 conditions of approval. The applicant stated that he in- tends to litigate Condition number 12 of this proposal, though this condition has been met in his current plan here. The applicant is currentlY requesting an amendment for 114.2 acres of the original 128.06 acres. The difference in that is the Parcel 18 that we just pinned up. Relationship to SP-537, property (described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 18 and referred to in this report as "Parcel 18") consisting of 13.83 acres is not included in this current appli- cation. Therefore, Parcel 18 must conform to the approved plan (34 single-family units) and conditions of SP-$37. Any amendment to the Planned Community should result ina~a unified, cohesive community in which land uses are located in a complementary manner. Upon review of the current request with respect to approvals for parcel 18, the staff has the following comments: 1. Uses proposed in the vicinity of Parcel 18 are not detractive; 2. The road network as proposed would leave Parcel 18 a "landlocked" portion of a Planned Community; 3. Hemlock Drive under SP-537 was to connect to the road network in Georgetown Woods providing an internal street system serving both developments. This connection is omitted from the current proposal. The current proposal is for 260 ~ownhouse units in 26 clusters as compared to 278 mixed housing units on the same portion of the approved plan. Gross density has been reduced in this plan from 2.43 units per acre to 2.28 units per acre, resulting in a reduction of pro= jetted residential traffic and population, of about 6.5%. We give those comparative impact statistics between the current proposal and the previous SP-537, as there have been consider- able decreases in gross density, population, vehicles, vehicle trips per day as well as student population. More significant is the physical design of the current proposal. While earth-disturbing ~ctivity has been decreased, open space has increased. Combined with the reduction of gradin~ due to the change in housing type, the acreage devoted to roads and parking areas has been re. duced about 17%. We also give comparative land use statistics showing that. This plan reflects 26 townhouse cluster building sites compared to about 50 individual single-family building sites under A-1 Agricultural zoning without Planned Community designa- tion. Open space has been increased about 130 percent. This is due primarily to townhouse clustering and smaller lots and the abandonment of the larger lot single-family design of the original plan. Though staff has no supportive data, chemical impact on the reservoir is likeZ ly to be less due to the reduction of acreage in individually-owned and cultivated lawn and paved areas; however omitted from this proposal is the debris and sedimentation control lake. Staff would emphasize that Parcel 18 is not under review at this time and remains under the preliminary plan and conditions of SP-$37 regardless of the decision on this amendment. What I will do, Mr. Chairman, as you all have I think in your packet a copy of amended con- ditions that we have suggested due to the runoff control ordinance, and so forth, that we feel clarifies some of the original conditions of approval. I'll go through those..." Gerald Fisher: "Just a minute now. This is something that has been developed since?" Robert Tucker: sent out to you." "Yes sir, it is dated February 23rd of this year. It should have been George St. John: "I understood'the Clerk was going to put them before you all tonight." Robert Tucker: "Okay sir, I'll just go through all the conditions, but speak to those that we are suggesting amending. Approval is for 260 townhouse units. In the final approval process, open space is to be dedicated proportional to the number of units approved,that being (13,664 square feet of open space per dwelling unit); Specification of improvements proposed (including park and playground furniture) for the areas indicated as tot lots and recreation. Include the additional tot lot remommended by the staff near Route 65?. A tabulation of acreages in tot lots and other recreational areas shall be presented to the Planning Commission prior to plan approvals; (and this is a recommended amendment and it reads as follows) No dwelling unit or parking area shall be located on slopes of 25% or greater. (What we are suggesting deleting, which we feel is redundant is that) The County Engineer may, after revmew of appropriate plans and after review of the Betz Study, recommend revision of this condition prior to final plan approvals; (of course the County Engineer would be reviewing this anyhow since he is the runoff control official and would be reviewing it under those requirements.) A 100-foot tree buffer of common open space shall be maintained along the property line of Shack Mountain. No development is to take place within this buffer. Ail other minimum building setbacks from adjacent properties are to be as required under Section 2-7-9 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; (As we indicated before, Mr. Chairman, that condition is on here~-~he applicant has shown that the setback has beei adhered to. There is at least 100 feet or more between that property line.)" Gerald Fisher: "Now this--the language common open space, is that in common ownership?" Robert Tucker: "Yes sir. The common open space we refer to is part of the common land that everyone in the community would have access to. Okay... (we have recommended deleting completely, and I'll read that to you) No parking shall be located further than 100 feet from its appurtenant dwelling unit (as re- quested by Section 11-7-2(1) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance); (the reason for that deletion is that recently the Planning Commission and this Board adopted an March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) amendment to that which would give the Planning Commission discretionary powers over determining whether or not that distance between the dwelling unit and parking space could be increased.) (This is an amended condition as well) Only those areas where a structure, utilities streets, sidewalks, recreation areas, pedestrian trails, parking areas, and (we have added this) runoff control measures and debris basins are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; (we have only added runoff control measures to that) The commercial area is to be no greater than one and eight-ten~s (1.8) acres of land, including parking areas, but exclusive of internal access roads; Construction of all internal streets is to comply to the recommendations of the Virginia Department of Highways. No access to or from Route 657 (that is Lambs Road) will be permitted, except for emergency vehicle use, until such time as the Highway Department determines that Route 657 has been upgraded to the extent to safely accommodate the increased traffic which would result from this development and from the connection to Route 743. Dedication of right-of-way of twenty-five (25) feet from the centerline along Routes 657 and 743 is required (Section 18-8 of the Albe- marle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance). Reservation, measured from respective centerlines, shall be forty (40) feet along Route 657 and forty-five (45) feet along Route 743 as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. Improvement of sight distance and construction of turn lane on Route 743 to the specifications of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; Ail sidewalks adjacent to existing or proposed public roads shall be constructed to design specifications of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportatinn. Sidewalks shall be located as proposed on the plan except that the sidewalk along C~dar Drive shall be located on the east side of the road. Sidewalks shall be con- structed along the frontage of Routes 657 and 743 in compliance with design standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and in locations recommend- ed by the Highway Department with respect to future improvements to these roads; 10. .(!We have an amendment to) Approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's final approval of the following; a) b) c) construction specifications for all parking areas; specifications for the sewage pump station access road (joint approval of Albemarle County Service Authority Engineer required); soil erosion and sedimentation control devices and overall storm drainage plan. (and we have deleted the following) In the review of these items, the County Engineer shall be guided by the findings and recommendations of the Betz Study~ (the reason for that deletion is the same as under number three. He of course would have to review that as the runoff control official). 11. (This deals with the dedication of school ~moperty in conjunction with..." George St. John: "When you said you deleted the recommendation--guided by the findings and recommendations of the Betz Study shouldn't you substitute something in there referring to the runoff control ordinance Bob, I know you have that down in paragraph 19 in the site plan stage--"no site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading plan for this property has been approved; but in 10c, you are striking out the part where the County Engineer should be guided by the Betz study. Should there at that point be reference to the runoff control ordinance?" Robert Tucker: "I have no..I think there would be no problem in doing thaw it might be redundant. I think he would have to do that anyhow." Gerald Fisher: "Well, let's consider this now, we are talking about the County Engineer, but the designation here is runoff control official so it possibly belongs somewhere else. Under another condition." George St. John: "Well you have condition 19 which we haven't come to yet, and ....... so see if you are satisfied with that language when you get to it." Gerald Fisher: "Alright." Robert Tucker: "Mr. Chairman this number 11, as I was about to get into is the dedi- cation of the school site, and I would like to take a few minutes and explain something to you that we have just discovered in the last couple of days; that is, when this site was being reviewed for dedication of a school site we took into account not only the Evergreen site, and parts of parcet.~t3,_ and Georgetown Woods, which is immediately south of this property, or located north of this site plan. ~This is zoned R-3 property. Gerald Fisher: "It is south, right?" Robert Tucker: "Yes, see this is north, at the top." Gerald Fisher: "The top, let's get that straight." Robert Tucker: "What I was about to say is that I have discussed this with the County Engineer. These calculations for the school site and the school enrollment, was determined based on the density of this plan and the maximum density under the zoning that that site has (that property is presently zoned R-3). In discussing this with the County Engineer it is his opinion that this site, R-3 property, cannot be developed at the maximum density. We have a plan that was presented to the Planning Commission approximately a month ago and that plan indicated that they were only intending to develop this at 8 1/2 units per acre rather than the 20 units per acre that they now would have by right. In discussing this with the County Engineer, he felt that it would be very--almost impossible that they could even develop it at 20 units per acre and it would be very difficult for them to develop it at 8 1/2 units per acre. What I am getting down to is that the school enrollment figures are going to be lower March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Gerald Fisher: "What are you saying then is that there is going to have to be a re- calculation with the impact on the area before a determination could be made to'~see how much land would be needed for a school?" Robert Tucker: "Well, actually what I am saying is that these sites, State Law requires that you can only/~e~ta share. With the reduction in that density that we found out from the County Engineer, these sites cannot or will not be able to require a school site because they will not have an adequate population for school. They require 800 students for a 13 acre site. If Georgetown Woods were developed at its potential of say 15 units per acre and Evergreen was developed as it is proposed you would barely make that. Actually it comes out to about 733 students, but with the redUction in the density that the County Engineer feels is going to happen to that R-3 property it will not come anywhere close to a school site." Gerald Fisher: "Is that all of the R-3 property in that area?" Robert Tucker: Road yes." "Well, it is all of the property in that general area, south of Hydrauli( Gerald Fisher: "Well, how many students do you estimate from the George~own Woods, Parcel 18 and the new proposal that we have before us?" Robert Tucker: "Just Parcel 18 and this proposal?" Gerald Fisher: "No, that whole area? How many people do you think now it is going to have. You said it is not 800, what is it?" Robert Tucker: "I was not able to do that this afternoon, because we don't know exactly what density that land can be developed at." Gerald Fisher: "It is an unresolved question." Robert Tucker: "Yes. I'm just saying that it is going to be substantially less than a school site...than you can require for a school site." Gerald Fisher: "Alright, let's proceed now. We know there is a reduction in density of the adjacent property, probably, although that has not been approved yet." Robert Tucker: "That's right. Okay; condition 12 12. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to provide all water and sewer facilities including such off-site facilities as may be necessitated by this development; 12. Approval is contingent upon the Albemarle County Service Authority's final approval of the complete water and sewer plans including plans for the proposed connections to existing water and sewer lines; 14. Approval is contingent upon the Albemarle County~Service Authority's acceptance of the following: a) the dedication of water and sewer lines; b) the dedication of the sewage pump station access road; c) the responsibility of operation and maintenance of the sewe~ge pump station; 15. Approval is contingent upon adequate available capacity at the Meadowcreek Sewage Treatment Plant; 16. Comply with the following conditions submitted by the City of Charlottesville con- cerning the gas pipeline easement: a) the contours on the plan indicate some grading and excavation on the easement, the plans for which have not been completed. These grading plans must be available for review and approval by the City of Charlottesville prior to commencement of the work; b) reasonable ingress and egress to the full length of the forty foot easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must be assured; 17. No dwelling unit is to be located within the gas pipeline easement; 18. County Attorney's approval of any deed restrictions or homeowner's association agreements; 19. (We have amended, Mr. Chairman.) No site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading plan or runoff control plan for this property has been approved; (we've added~Or~runoff control plan.) 20. Fifty foot rights-of-way with appropriate drainage, construction, and slope ease- ments shall be dedicated at appropriate locations mn order to provide access to Parcel 18. The geometric designs of these rights-of-way are subject to Highway Department approval; 21. The locations of and acreages'in the various land uses, rights-of-way, and pedestrie ways as indicated on the preliminary plan shall be adhered to, except in respect to those changes necessitated by conditions of approval of this petition. Submit two (2) copies of a revised plan reflecting conditions setforth in this petition. 2¸2 . The pump and force main shall be adequate in size to serve all units in the Ever- green Planned Community, including those units shown in Parcel 18 under SP-537 and appropriate water and sewer line easements shall be provided to serve Parcel 18. March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Chairman, we have a letter from the County Engineer, or runoff control official con- ~'cerning i!~is review of Evergreen, and he states "I have examined the planned Evergreen dated November 30, 1976 which was prepared by Stephen A. Phillips and on which the planning staff has added slope information. Appendix A of the Albemarle County Soil Erosion Sedimentation Control Ordinance, guidelines for development in the watershed of the South~Rivanna River Res- ervoir states that on slopes of 25% or greater, no building, grading for excavation activity, except such activity as shall be necessary for the construction and/Or installation of utili~ ties and/or roads shalll be permitted. There appear to be six units in Phase II and seven~ units in Phase III which are effected by this provision since the slope data were derived from the geological survey map of the area, these sites should be field checked to see if they are actually in violation. I have also made rough measurements and calculations of soil and phosphorus losses under post development conditions. I found that these losses may be meduced to the maximum value allowed through retention of run-off and secure 75% reduction of settle- able solids. Since the guidelines of the soil erosion control ordinance allow for this degree of treatment, it is my opinion that the plan can be developed to the densities shown in com- pliance with the runoff control ordinance." Gerald Fisher: "Is a..does that statement indicate that~i!Mr. Bailey ha~ done a complete analysis of this property?" Robert Tucker: "No." Gerald Fisher: "Read the exact language one more time. come up with this statement?" What does he say he has done to Robert Tucker: "Okay, it says he has made rough measurements and calculations of soil and phosphorus losses under post development conditions. I find that these losses may be re- duced to the maximum values allowed through retention of runoff to secure 75% reduction of settleable solids. It goes further to say that since the guidelines of the ~oil erosion control ordinance allow for this degree of treatment, it is his opinion that it could be de- veloped at this density." Gerald Fisher: "Alright. That is based on preliminary analysis and opinion. Okay." F. Anthony Iachetta: means by this density?'J "Is reference served Bob for 2.28 units per acre. Is this what he Robert Tucker: "To the density they are proposing here, which is the 2.28, yes." Gerald Fisher: "Does that complete your report?" Robert Tucker: "Yes, that is all I have. Gerald Fisher: have a comment? "Do Board members have any questions of Mr. Tucker? Mr. St. John, do you George St. John: "I haven't seen that letter from Mr. Bailey, I don't know...does that mean that there will be a dam lake like there was shown on SP-$377" Robert Tucker: "He indicates that there would be..have to be some retention of the runoff. He doesn't go into any specifics as to what measures must be-taken to retain that runoff." George St. John: "The only way you can retain runoff is with some sort of impoundment." Robert Tucker: "You can have underground impoundments, which would not be visible to you Gerald Fisher: "Further questions of Mr. Tucker? F. Anthony Iachetta: "I have one Mr. Chairman. What is the status of Condition #4. I remember correctly, the appl±cant had neve~ agreed to that in our discussions with him earlier. Is that now a condition as part of this application." If George St. John: "If I understood correctly, they have complied with it in that plan. They never agreed to it when it was part of SP-$37, but they have incorporated it in that plan if I understood Mr. Tucker correctly. They are here if I am wrong." Gerald Fisher: "Further questions? Alright, I have received two letters very recently on this matter. We have voluminous files of letters I guess over the past hearings. I have one from Mr. Frederick D. Nichols, calling to the Board's attention that the area around Shack Mountain may be developed, it would change the character of this important architectual monument, and you know the house is on the Historic Virginia Landmarks Register as well as the National Register of Historic Places. Some history is given and he states it is regarded as one of the most important houses in this area. We do hope that every effort will be made fo preserve this outstanding example of Virginia architecture. We also have a letter from Mr. Gerald G. Poindexter dated February 27, 1978 addressed to me, it says "Mr. Fleming, for the owners of the Evergreen tracts, has requested that I advise you that the property owners are aware of the hearing set for March 1, 1978 but that they have no further presentations to make. It is their position that all required presentations were made before the Board on or before April 20, 1977 through the appearances before you and the public of the owners and their engineers, etc. and that it would be unfair to them to ask them to make the same presentations again; all previous appearances are already a part of the public record. The owners are very much interested in knowing whether the so-called "Run-off ordinance" is believed by the County to apply to and be restrictive upon the future development of the Evergreen tract or is this property in a sense, "Grandfathered" in the face of the federal court order of April, 1976, previous approval of the preliminary plans by your Board, etc." I think there is no question. "Respectfully, Gerald G. P~indexter" I don't anticipate a presentation by the applicant. If there are no further questions by Board members or the staff, we will open the public hearing at this time. I think I should point out one further piece of information, smnce this application was originally joined with the Parcel 18, which 107 March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) has been tacked on here and is now under separate ownership, perhaps i~ always was. I have received a letter dated March[[l, 1978 today from Mr. George H. Gilliam "Dear Mr. Chairman~ We are attorneys for United Virginia Bank, owner of the so-called "Garlick Tract" on Hydraulic Road in Albemarle ~C0unty. The Bank is applicant for SP-77-11 pending before the Board. In reliance upon my conversation with Mr. St. John, memorialized in the attached copy of my letter to him, t~e Bank has decided to withdraw its application for SP-77-11 and to revert to the land use permitted under SP-$37. United Virginia Bank wants to point out that it does not believe the road and utility alignment set forth in Mr. Fleming's requested SP-76-98 matches with the road and utility alignment on Parcel 18 (the United Virginia Bank portion of the land covered by SP-537). However, beyond making that observation, the Bank takes no position on Mr. Fleming's appli- cation for SP-76-98." I thought that I should make that letter public so that those people who wish to speak would realize that what we apparently now have i~s a request for an amendment...would you come and remove Parcel 18 now...lets see what would be left. You don't have underlying that ~he map for SP-537. Are those drawn to the same scale? (Mr. Tucker places maps on corkboard)" Robert Tucker: "Parcel 18, it is hard for you to see, I was looking for the color copy that pointed it out a little bit better. Here is Evergreen Drive, you see this drive right here. Parcel 18 comes down in this fashion here up to here, so you've got these units in here, this street that connects in here to Evergreen Drive, Spruce Court then the property line runs along this street like that." Gerald Fisher: "Alright is it..it is my assumption then that~if Parcel 18 is again severed and goes back to its original approval that the roads would not align with anything under the application that we have now from Mr. Fleming and Flamenco." Robert Tucker: URight. There would be no provisions for connections as shown on 537 for Evergrean Drive or this street up here, I think it is Laurel Drive." Gerald Fisher: "Then would Parcel 18 be effectively landlocked?" Robert Tucker: "As far as the Planned Community is concerned, it is landlocked, of course it is part or owned by the Georgetown Woods." George St. John: "It is not landlocked if you follow the conditions set out by the Planning Commission because condition #20 requires a connection. Condition #20 is not shown on this picture, if you follow it, there will be adequate access to that parcel." Gerald Fisher: "Okay, With those preliminary statements, I want to open the public hearing at' this point and hear the views of anyone that wishes to speak for or against this application. Who would like to speak first? Alright sir, Mr. Poindexter." Gerald G. Poindexter: "Mr. Chairman, I want to ask two questions, if answered, would help with the public discussion, and that is in addition to the letter from me to you dated February 27th, I wrote all of the Board members in private explaining that as far as the applicant is concerned the situation today is just the same as it was on April 20th, 1977 concerning litigation, and what we refer to is the fact that the intervene.-of appeal is still pending in the Fourth Circuit, in fact arguments are scheduled for March 9th and that is an appeal from the original decision in this case occurring...the original decision was the settlement order was entered on April 26, 1976, and after that, as you well know two citizens groups attempted to reopen the case and the District Court denied their attempt those cases-- I mean those denials were appealed to the Fourth Circuit, they are still down there. The other thing is that on February 13th by order and opinion, Judge Turk dismissed the so-called conspiracy suit that Mr. Fleming had brought against Mr. and Mrs. Moore and other persons here in the community. However, Mr. Fleming has notified you that he intends to appeal that decision to the Fourth Circuit. And the other matter is that there are still two cases in the local courts brought by Mr. Moore against Mr. Fleming which stem directly from this whole affair. In case, Mr. Fleming has a judgement against him in the amount of $110,000 tha% case is still pending in Judge Berry's court. The other case, which also cites an alleg~e~ liable, there has been no decision that case is still with the court..the Charlottesville Circuit Court. So it would be our opinion that as far as litigation is concerned the situation remains unchanged from April 20th when you last considered this matter. And, the other comment or question, is could we have benefit before the public comments of the exchange between Mr. Gilliam and Mr. St. John which was referred in Mr. Gilliam's letter to, I believe you. Would you read that letter also?" Gerald Fisher: "The...I don't have before me the letter that you wrote the one that you referred to first. Do you have a copy of that?" Gerald Poindexter: "I asked the Clerk to send them to all six members of the Board." Gerald Fisher: "Yes, I don't have that copy with me." Gerald Poindexter: "Would you make that a part of the records also?" Gerald Fisher: "We will make it a part of the record, but I need to check the languaEe of that, since you have referred to it, I think I should read it. Do you have it Mr. St. John?" George St. John: "It is under date of February 8th, 1978 I think that is the one Mr. Poindexter is talking about." Gerald Fisher: "Yes, this is a letter addressed to me dated February 8, 1978: "I have seen Mrs. Gloekner's letter to Mr. Fleming (Mrs. Glockner is on our Planning staff) dated February 7, 1978 and I also have a copy of an article which appeared in the Charlottesville Daily Progress on February 2, 1978 captioned "Fleming Will Get Hearing". The thrust of the March 1~, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) article is that the Board of Supervisors intends to take up "amendments" to Mr. Fleming's Evergreen plan on Wednesday, Mamch 1, 1978. I am also told that you were similarly quoted by a local radio station. Previ6usly we have been advised by County Officials that the Board of Supervisors has refused to reconsider Evergreen because of ongoing litigation initiated by Mr. Fleming. Mr. Fleming wants]?you to know that he intends to appeal ~udge Tu~k's decision in favor of the defendants mn James Fleming versus Bedford Moore et al, and is maRing plans to that effect. We have not yet received the Judge's order dismissing our claim and his written opinion in support of same. So far as Mr. Fleming is concerned the litigation you previously found so offensive continues to be ongoing. Yours truly, Gerald G. Poindexter" The question that comes to my mind is whether that letter itself is intended to cause people who tend to speak to have some concern as to whether they are going to be sued, but we'll see." Jeffrey Haddon: "My name is Jeffrey Haddon, and I'm a citizen of Albemarle County Jack Jouett District, and Ii~.m here to speak on behalf of the organization Citizens for Albemarle. You all know that Citizens for Albemarle has a long record of concern and involvement in efforts to protect the land and water and natural resources around the County. I stand to reaffirm that position tonight. Citizens for Albemarle is on record as being opposed to the development in question, because we feel the development as it has been proposed will result in serious deleterious consequences to the water supply of Albemarle County, and the City of Charlottesville. I wish to reaffirm our opposition to the Fleming Tract Development for all of the reasons that have been stated so many times in the past, I will spare you repeti~ tion of all of these,a~guments, but I would rather raise three questions that Citizens of Albemarle feel are pertinent to the very difficult decision You face. I think in one sense . or another, each of these has already come up tonight. First of all it is our understanding that the current proposal does not take into account the new xmunoff control ordinance. We understand further that it is the obligation of the developer to present evidence of conform- ity as a condition for approval. The question we would raise, is whether it is appropriate to take action before the developer fulfills this obligation. What was reported earlier was a preliminary report by a County Engineer, Mr. Bailey, it is his opinion, that I believe, six units on one section and I believe it was seven-on another one would be effected by the 25% slope and grading portion of that ordinance. Moreover, his opinion on other matters is not based on a full study but rather as noted, on opinion. Given the nature of this permit, we would wonder if it would not be necessary to repeat this whole process hearing at some future time at such time as the plan is in conformity with the runoff ordinance, and wonder if it might not be appropriate to defer it until such time as this evidence is already in hand. We are a~preciative of the Board's wish and desire to put this whole issue behind them, but we wonder if in fact if the stated assumptions with regard to the runoff control ordinance are correct, if it.real~y is possible to put this issue to rest on this evening. The second question we would like to raise pertains to the litigation that is pending against Mr. Haviland, Mr. Ja~en and Mr. Moore. As it has been stated, the Board initially deferred action on the case until the litigation ~gainst the parties haves been settled. We would simply like to remind you that we are still within the 30 day time limit in which Mr. Fleming may appeal, and you just read into the record a letter indicating his intent to do so. Therefore, we would like to ask whether or not the Board in taking action if they are to do so, would not be backing down on that earlier decision,and the answer to us seems quite obviously yes. Then we would like to know~why you have reversed or revised your earlier committment. The third issue I would like to raise is related to the second. Is it not true that each and every one of you Board members are still laboring under a conflict of interest. How is it possible for you to fulfill your oaths of office and faithfully execute your duty to represent the citizens which elected you, when you yourselves are operating under personal threats of contempt of court. Is it not true that the gun (as one of you' has put it) is still to your heads. We rec0gnize, lw~at t~emendous pressure you all 'are' Under, and we are grateful for your courage and dedicated public service. But, given the failure of the developer to prepare plans to demonstrate conformity of the runoff ordinance, given the litigation that is still pending, and given that you all labor under what some of us view as a most serious conflict of interest; would it not be better to defer the case one more time until some of these issues have been resolved. Thank you Mr. Chairman." Gerald Fisher: ~'Some of those questions have obviously got to be directed at you and/or Mr. Tucker, and that is the question "is runoff control design a prerequisite ~o the approval of the special permit?" That is the question that Dr. Haddon just raised. George St. John: "Well, I'll answer that Mr. Tucker and if he doesn't agm~, he can state how he thinks this works. In my judgement, the special use permit stage ms not quite an application which receives the final scrutiny of the runoff controls under the runoff control ordinance. You don't want to mislead an applicant for a special use permit by ignoring the fact that there is a runoff control ordinance, and approving something at this stage which maybe would be absolutely impossible to construct, when you get to site plan approval, and I don't think we are ~oi~g that here, because, the conditions..if you follow the recommendations are that it is being spelled out now in these conditions and the site plan will be subject to the runoff control ordinance. So, the applicant is being put on notice of this, and the engineer, the mnnoff control officer has given a preliminary scrutiny of the plan, and has given a preliminary opinion that the rmnnoff control ordinance will not prohibitively interfere with the implementation of this plan. But, I don't feel like you should withhold the decision on this special use permit until the plan has been run through the runoff control ordinance process completely, I think that would be putting the cart before the horse. You have to atart somewhere. The applicant certainly doesn't want to go through the technicality of the runoff control review until he has preliminary approval of the concept, and that ms what this is." Gerald Fisher: for approval?" "At what point then, does..is the applicant required to provide a plan George St. John: "We just enacted a new amendment to the ordinance, which says that... he has to file a preliminary site plan and that will receive review by the runoff control officer. So your first step is site plan process." March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) George $.t. John: not accurate." "Yes. I would like Mr. Tucker's input on that if anything I said is Robert Tucker: "I don't have anything to add, Mr. Chairman. I concur with Mr. St. John Gerald Fisher: "Alright, now the other questions are matters that the Board itself are going to have to deal with; not purely legal matters. We will have to defer our answer on -that for awhile sir. Who would like to speak next? Yes." A. Patton Janssen: "Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I'm Pat Janssen a citizen of 'Albemarle County and I am here tonight on behalf of the Albemarle Connty Taxpayer~ to present their views now and not to reiterate all the views of the past, but to bring them to your attention. Representatives of Albemarle County Taxpayers, Inc. have conveyed to the Board of Supervisors on numerous occasions the great concern of its membership for the protection of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The eutrophication of this major public water supply ~ogether with last summer's drought supplied all the evidence needed to show how critical and important the protection of this reservoir really is. Common sense should tell us that development does not do anything to purify the water in the reservoir. The cost of replacing the South Fork Reservoir would be an enormous burden for the citizens of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville to bear. Citizens participation in public hearings relevan~ ~ to development adjacent to the reservoir came to a virtual standstill last year subsequent to the filing of a federal court suit by a developer against five county citizens. At the Board of Supervisors meeting on April 20, 1977, the Board voted to defer hearings on The Evergreen development "until the litigation has been dissolved (sic)..pending the settlement of litigation." Since the com- plainant has 30 days in which to file an appeal, the litigation is still pending until March 13. We therefore urge the Board to defer any consideration of this application until the litigation has been resolved in accordance with the April 20 decision. Respectfully submitt- ed, Albemarle County Taxpayers, Inc. Thank you." Gerald Fisher: "Who would like to speak next?" Lawrence Whitlock: "Members of the Board of Supervisors, I'm Lawrence Whitlock, I represent the Jefferson Park Avenue Neighborhood Association here in the City of Charlottes- ville. Since we in the City of Charlottesville, are effected by any impact on the water supply in the County, we would like to express our support for the runoff control ordinance and we would that any development in this watershed area, which would not conform to that ordinance or which would requmre a change in that ordinance without good cause, be opposed in the public interest." Victoria Craw: "I have to be guilty to repetition, but it is very short. Over a year ago, on February 16th, I urged you gentlemen to defer any decision on Evergreen..I did so because you were~put in the impossible position of trying to be objective, while your personal financial security was in jeopardy. That threat has not as yet been lifted, in fact, it has been prolonged by the petitioner. As you have had to wait for its resolution, so should he on action on his request~T[he long drawn out litigation was his idea, not yours. Thank you." Gerald G. Poindexter: "I just want to know quickly, could we have the letter from Mr. St. John and Mr. Gilliam?" Mary Alice Plummer: "My name is Mary Alice Plummer, I'm a housewife and citizen of Albemarle County, and I should like to say that I hope that you can defer this matter. It seems that it is not appropriate to make these decisions...I mean I think that for bOth parties. For Mr. Fleming's proposal and for your position as well. Thank you." Frances Lee: "I'm Frances Lee, I live in Nortonsville on this .~ide of the line. I would repeat the same thing, I question how you can hear this when you are going to court yourselve~ and you would be influenced by that court case coming up next week." Richard Pietsch:"I'm RichardPi~ch3f far away Crozet, and last April, you men reached a very reasonable and fair decision to put things off, hold them off until the litigation was finally completed and out of the way, and as we; as we have learned tonight, the climate is better, but the clouds are not all gone. So I am puzzled at_any thought of trying to rush things through. ~What's the hurry, this is no time to thro~w in the towel and run when things are getting tough! Now a little over a hundred years ago the city of Petersburg was under siege for almost a year and they hung on as things got tougher, and a little over a hundred years ago, the city of Paris was under siege for 4 1/2 months and at the brink of starvation surrounded by Germans, and in World War II, the city of LenZngrad was under siege once again by the Germans for I don't know how many years, and really, things were tough,~and they didn't give u~ they hung on. So, I think in this case I hope you people won't throw in the towel, there is light at the end of the tunnel, so hang on,stay with it." Gerald G. Poindexter: "Mr. Chairman, may I ask some questions of Planning, directed at Mr. Tucker? Would the runoff control ordinance apply to the plan as originally approved in I believe May of 1976. SP-537." Gerald Fisher: "We would refer that to the attorney, rather than the planner." George St. John: "Our position is shown in George Gilliam's letter. The answer is yes. Gerald G. Poindexter: "So it applies to Georgetown Woods." George St. John: Rivanna Reservoir." "It applies to everybody. Every piece of land in the watershed of the March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 110' Gerald G. Poindexter: "Are there any exceptions to this? Are any properties exempted from it? For example, there was an amendment to the so-called runoff ordinance mn I believe October, and category six was added, I believe that is previously approved subdivisions? What is it?" Robert Tucker: "Plats" Gerald Fisher: "Do you have the language of that amendment before you." Gerald G. Poindexter: "No one has the runoff control ordinance?" George St. John: "What the answer is is that all land in a similarly situated status of this property before the Board is subject to the runoff control ordinance. The ordinance itself, if you read the ordinance itself, it spells out the things that it applies to and the things it doesn't apply to." Timothy Lindstrom: "That is what we want to know now, did we not address this with the. project and it was stated that unless all permits have been issued required from the project, the runoff control ordinance applies, and that case, they were shy building permits which they had delayed in getting, and we denied them.." Gerald G. Poindexter: "There is no such thing as vested right?" Timothy Lindstrom: "Not as I understand it?" Robert Tucker: "There were two amendments adopted on October 19th, if you would like me to read them..basically, one says number six and development for which all necessary per- mits have been issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance (any permits)." George St. John: "Site plan approvals, any and every permit." Gerald Fisher: last." "Specifically the building permit is of course the key one, is left to Timothy Lindstrom: "That was the matter which came before the Board. Specifically a case where all permits had been issued, except four building permits and the Board held it in con~Bnction with the County Attorney that this was not an exception. That they could not enjoy an exception from the ordinance." Gerald G. Poindexter: Any sizeable development?" "Has anyone been able to comply with the ordinance at this point? Gerald Fisher: "What is a sizeable development?" Gerald G. Poindexter: "Over 25 Knits?" Gerald Fisher: "I don't know, Mr. Tucker, have there been any permits granted under the runoff control ordinance, projects of more than 25 units? Do you know the answer to that question." Robert Tucker: "No sir, I don't know the answer to that question." Gerald Fisher: "Anyone else that wishes to speak? Alright, this letter that was written from Mr. Gilliam of the law firm Paxson,Smith, Boyd, Gilliam and Gouldman, P.C. to Mr. George St. John, County Attorney, no copies are shown, but Mr. Poindexter has indicated that he ms aware of this letter it reads this way dated March 1, 1978. "The purpose of this letter is to memorialize our telephone conservation of this morning. We are attorneys for United Virginia Bank, owner of the so-called Garlick Tract on Hydraulic Road in Albemarle County. A portion of the Garlick Tract ("Parcel 18") is subject to SP-537, which covers the so-called Evergreen project. In late 1976, the owner of Evergreen sought to amend SP-$37 and has pending before the Board of Supervisors a request for SP-76-98 which would amend SP-537 as it applies to the Fleming property but not as it applies to the United Virginia Bank property (known as Parcel 18). In early 1977, United Virginia Bank filed for SP-77-tl, an amendment to SP-$37 as to Parcel 18. I inquired of ~ou today whether, in the event the request for SP-77-11 were withdrawn by the Bank or denied by the Board, the permitted land use of Parcel 18 would be as permitted under SP-$37. You responded that if SP-77-11 were withdrawn or defeated, the owner of Parcel 18 could use that property as permitted under SP-537. I also inquired as to the effect of the eighteen month provision in Section 11-13-3 of the Zoning Ordinance. You stated that it is the County's position that SP-$37 is "grand- fathered", i.e., not subject to the eighteen month provision. You stated that this opinion had been rendered previously to Mr. Fleming by the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Dick. You also stated that if SP-7?-ll were approved, SP-$37 would be superceded and the eighteen month provision would be effective as to SP-77-11. You further stated that i~ is the County's position that the reservoir protection ordinance does apply to all special use permits, including those granted prior to the passage of the ordinance, such as SP-537. I stated that I was certain you understood that such might not be the position of our client. ~At the ~time we talked, I did not know what position our client would want to take on SP-77-1!. However, in reliance on the foregoing, our client has decided to withdraw SPL'77-11 as shown by the attached letter to Gerry Fisher.'~'~ End of letter. You might say there has been a flurry of activity. Alright, there are no further comments on the request, SP-98 ?6, I think we ~hould go forward now with the ~agen~a item that follows that SP-7?-ll from Mulberry CorPoration, which was united with the 111. March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) previous request in 1977, 'and which we haVe carried forward together. The request to with- draw~this special permit requires action by this B6ard to approve or deny. Mr. Tucker, would you go forward with the staff report on this request." Robert Tucker: "Mr. Chairman, again background is basically the same as we had given earlier, I'll just go right .into the staff comment. Staff favors this plan over SP-537 for the following reasons: 1. Acreage in open space and recreation has more than doubled; 2. The change from single-family units to townhouse units will reduce earth-disturbing activity; 3. Though staff has no supportive data, chemical impact on the reservoir is likely to be less due to the reduction of acreage in individually-owned and cultivated lawn. Staff recommends approval of this amendment due to the apparent reduction of environ- mental impact. The following are recommended conditions of approval for SP-77-11 developed with consideration to the 18 conditions of approval of SP-537 and in relation to the pending SP-98-76. Again, we made some amendments basically the same amendments as suggested in SP-98-76 that I read to you earlier; I will go through those conditions of approval, as re- commended by the Planning Commission unanimously on April 5, 1977. 1. Approval is for 34 townhouse units. In the final approval process, open space is to be dedicated proportional to the number of units approved (11,236 square feet per unit); 2. Specification of improvements proposed (including park and playground furniture) for the areas indicated as tot lots and recreation; 3. Amended to read as follows. No dwelling unit or parking area shall be located on slopes of 25% or greater. And delete the sentence which reads...The County Engineer ~:~..~: may~'~afteri:~review'.~of,'~pp~opria~eopl~s-~.and~.~after_~r~e~of ~he~Betz.as~u~y~,'r~e~mmend revision of~this:~condition prior to final plan approvals; 4. Also amended. 0nly those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation areas, pedestrian, trails, parking areas, and we've added here runoff control measures, debris basins are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; 5. Construction of all internal streets to comply to the recommendations of the Virgini~ Department of Highways and Transportation; 6. Ail sidewalks adjacent to proposed public roads shall be constructed to design specifications of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Staff recommends a pedestrian walkway be located along the south side of Oakcrest Court, subject to approval of design specifications by the County Engineer and homeowners' agreement for maintenance. 7. We amended to read. Approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's final approval of: a) construction specifications for all parking areas; b) soil erosion and sedimentation control devices and overall storm drainage plans; and we deleted the following. In review of these items, the County Engineer shall be guided by the findings and recommendations of the Betz Study. It's the something we referred to a moment ago. 9. Approval is contingent upon the Albemarle County Service Authority's a) approval of complete water and sewer plans; b) acceptance of dedication of water and sewer lines. Approval is 'contingent upon adequate available capacity at the Meadowcreek STP; Comply with the following conditions submitted by the City of Charlottesville concerning the gas pipeline easement (Note: As quoted in SP-~37): a) the contours on the plan indicate some grading and excavation on the easement the plans for which have not been completed. These grading plans must be available for review and approval by the City of Charlottesville prior to commencement of the work; b) reasonable ingress and egress to the full length of the forty foot easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must be assured; No dwelling unit is to be located within the gas pipeline easement; County Attorney's approval of any deed restrictions or homeowners' association agreements; We've made an amendment to this. No site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading plan and we've added and runoff control permit for this property has been approved; The locations of and acreages in the various land uses, rights-of-way, and pedestria~ ways as indicated on the preliminary plan shall be adhered to, except in respect to those changes necessitated by conditions of approval of this petition. Submit two (2) copies of a revised plan reflecting conditions setforth in this petition. While the properties under SP-98-76 and SP-77-11 are under separate ownership, it is the intent of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in approving these applications that Evergreen Planned Community be viewed as a unit in subsequent procedures. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. There is a note here, the Planning Commission took no action to recommend staff condition number eight which dealt with the dedication pending reconsideration of this matter by the school board. After the Planning Commission met, the School Board did, and I think yo~ have the response in here from~th'em. They did request a school site on these properties, amd we have set forth a prorata share that I explained further that might be altered due to the runoff control ordinance. Gerald Fisher: "Alright, are there persons present who wish to speak on the application SP-77-117 For or against? Is the applicant or any -~.' .~ of the applicant present'? Ther~ r~p~esen~zve · is none." James Fleming: "I thought he withdrew that application?" Gerald Fisher: "Mr. Fleming, we have been presented a letter this afternoon at 4:15 P.M where they requested that it be withdraw~ this Board has not permitted that to happen yet. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for or against this application? If not, the public March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) hearing is closed. Well, we have before us a number of possible alternatives. In regard to SP-98-76 for a major portion of this property, it appears that we could approve with con- ditions to be worked out, we could deny it, we could defer action. On the application for SP-77-11 it appears to me that all three of those alternatives are available, and there is a fourth alternative of permitting it to be withdrawn. Now, the question that comes before us is the question is whether or not these applications can be severed, having been originally united under SP-537 and approved that way. If indeed they are, whether one can be approved with one form of layout and the other in a different one such a fashion that they do not interrelate in the interest of good planning." ~ Timothy Lindstrom: "Let me explain something first to the audience, in case I seem un- duly jittery, I have one of the more acute forms of whatever it is that is going around these days. I think there is a prior matter that we need to address, it has been addressed by the audience, it was addressed last year, and there are basically three considerations in con- junction with that. The first, I think calls for an opinion by Mr. St. John. We are now subject to a TwofMillion dollar contempt suit for having deferred this matter the last time. That is different in nature from the conspiracy suit which was brought, which named a John Doe who could have been anyone in the County. It is now specifically aile~d in this contempt suit that members of this Board are subject both in their official capacity and in their individual capacities. And my first question is for Mr. St. John, his opinion as to whether or not the conflict of interest statute has any legal bearing on this matter, and would determine whether the Board should act or not. Gerald Fisher: ~Mr. St. John?" George St. John: "I'm not the official answerer of that question. That is for the Commonwealth's Attorney under this statute, but just as an advisory matter, my opinion is that the conflict of interest statute does not apply, and you do not have a legal conflict of interest in this matter." Gerald Fisher: "Mr. Lindstrom, now he's indicated that if you really want an opinion on this, you would ask the Commonwealth's Attorney of Albemarle County, Mr. Dezio." Timothy Lindstrom: "Yes, I've been through this before." Gerald Fisher: "Do you wish to pursue that formally?" Timothy Lindstrom: "Well, I have to say, that to be consistent with my understanding of the law, and this is a different situation than the one that the Commonwealth's Attorney addressed the last time, that I think the Board would be well advised to have that. We are now specifically named in a suit. We have been threatened with contempt which means that we might go to jail, which in many peoples minds is a more severe question than being assessed some damages. I think that we have an obligation, perhaps a legal duty to seek that opinion of the Commonwealth's Attorney. I as an individual, once before as an attorney, sought that opinion with respect to a conspiracy suit, but I believe this is a different situation, and I would request that we do that, or if you need a motion, I would so move." Joseph Henley: "May I react to this statement?" Gerald Fisher: "Certainly Mr. Henley." Timothy Lindstrom: "Let me explain one thing first Mr. Henley, I think there are two levels of this decision, there is ~ legal question here, and then..if you get past the legal question and it is determined that there ms no legal conflict, then there ms a personal question, as to whether the individUals on the Board feel that they themselves can act objectively. What I'm addressing now is the first question, the legal aspect of it." Joseph Henley: "Well, I'm not sure this applies to the legal, but if you think that I can't make a fair and impartial decision because I'm being sued, I don't understand how I can make a fair and impartial decision if I'm sitting mn jail or if i'm free; why ~on't I have vengence on my mind for hi~m suing me and carrying me through all this? I think you are jumping out of the pot into the 'fire. Timo~thy Lindstrom: "My question is really the legal question involved and it has to do with whether this Board has a material financial interest in the decision it is making tonight I think that, if I'm not ineo.rrect is the gist of the language in the statute. I haven't looked at it in quite some time." Gerald Fisher: "Well, one portion of that definition on material financial interest, is as it relates to the income of an individual here it says $5,000 as I recall. I don't know what bearing that has, and I think if you want a final opinion, you are going to have to go to the Commonwealth's Attorney and present the issues here.." Timothy Lindstrom: "Well, do I need to make a motion? make a decision on that." Can we do that so the Board can Gerald Ffaher: "Well, if you are going to do that, then you are obviously going to defer action on one or both of these matters until you find that out." George St. John: "I don't think this statute means that you have a financial interest in the outcome of a suit. The statute applies if you have a material financial interest in the outcome of this decision before you." Gerald Fisher: "Whether we make money or something viable like that." George S~. John: "And, again, I'm not preempting the Commonwealth's Attorney and I'm not advising you not to get his opinion, but I can't imagine his giving an opinion that you have a material financial interest which is in conflict with the process you are going through now. I don't see how he could possibly say that the conflict of interest act applies to this situation." 1t3 March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Timothy Lindstrom: "Well I wish that Mr. St. John had not said that he was not the offi- cial, although I know that this is a statutory matter, because I would like to have the matte~ resolved before the Board tonight. Since the question has been posed the way it has, I feel an obligation to make a motion..and I'm not even sure, Mr. St. John, I think you can advise on this, do we do this by motion or is this something that is done in a different way?" George St. John: "This is something for each person to do under the statutes, you..it is an individual matter, and each person. Of course his decision in response to one of you would apply to all as ms generally situated, but you don't need any motion to do this." Timothy Lindstrom: "Let me... George St. John: "If you need to defer this in order to do that you would need a motion before you can do that." Timothy Lindstrom: "I move that this matter be deferred until such time as we have been able to obtain from the Commonwealth's Attorney an opinion on the conflict of interest statute pertaining to the question of deferral, which is very much before us tonight." Gerald Fisher: "Well, you've heard the motion.." Lindsay Dorrier: "Mr. Chairman, I would just like to react to what he said." Timothy Lindstrom: "I think we have a problem here." Gerald Fisher: "Well, he wants to address it before he seconds it." Lindsay Dottier: "Well, I would just like to say that I don't feel that I have any material financial interest and I think we are going to find that out from the Commonwealth's Attorney, and I think Mr. St. John's analysis is correct and I just don't feel that I personally have any conflict of interest. Therefore, I don't see any reason to defer it for that reason. If there is another reason to defer it that we haven't discussed I would be willing to do that, but I think I know the answer that Mr. Dezio is going to give; that is just my feeling." Gerald Fisher: "Well, there are some other issues of course, that have..were asked." Timothy Lindstrom: "Well, I would prefer since I made the motion that we move on with this motion before we address those issues." Gerald Fisher: "Is there a second to Mr. Lindstrom's motinn?" Joseph Henley: "Would you repeat the motion?" Timothy Lindstrom: "I move that we defer action on SP-98-76 until such time as we have been able to obtain formal opinion from the Commonwealth's Attorney as to whether or not the provisions of the Virginia Conflict of interest statute apply to this Board and preclude its acting because of conflict of interest." it. Joseph Henley: "I don't plan to support it, but if you want to vote on it, I'll second But I think you'll get the same opinion if nobody seconds it." Timothy Lindstrom: "Well, why don't you go ahead and second it." Joseph Henley: "I'll second it, because I've done this before, because if they make a motion they are sincere in what they are doing." Timothy Lindstrom: your motion?" "I'm not fooling around, Mr. Henley. You are going to vote against Joseph Henley: "I told you, it's not my motion, so we could have a vote on it." Gerald-Fisher: "It's been mo-ved and seconded now let's have some discussion here." Timothy Lindstrom: "I just want to clarify. I think that we have a number of issues that could get very complicated if we try to address all of those in this discussion. I don't mean to step out of line..." F. Anthony Iachetta: already is complicated." "I think it already is Tim, it's not going to get better, it Timothy Lindstrom: "It can be simplified if we take it one step at a time." Gerald Fisher: "Okay, there were other matters, and I want to bring these up, because I want these to be considered prior to taking action. One question that was raised is "is the question of litigation over?" Well, I think the answer to that is obviously that it is not, we have indication in writing from Mr. Poindexter, and other indications from the news media that this indeed may continue." Timothy Lindstrom: "Excuse, with all due deference, and I don't mean to be sticky, mayb~ it is my stomach, that is bothering me, but I think that the discussion under the rules which we operate, and I may be wrong, needs to be germane to the motion, and I would request, I guess, a ruling of the chair whether the chairs discussion is germane to the motion." Gerald Fisher: "You know what answer you're going to get from the chair." Timothy Lindstrom: "I don't mean to ignom those, and I plan to deal with them in turn, but I feel that we can deal with this matter very simply on this level and then move on to the next level. We might have some troukle discussing other aspects of it because there are other possibilities of contradiction." March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 114 ! Gerald Fisher: "The trouble is is that if this vot~ passes, you may have precluded me from talking about some other things on my mind so for that reason it is germane." Timothy Lindstrom: others matters?" "Well, is there a point on the agenda here, where we can take up Gerald Fisher: "Just a minute Mr. Lindstrom. You'll get a vote, just a minute. And the other question that was before us some time ago was the question of the air of intimida- tion, the fact that one or two people came to speak ~efore this Board, and those that did, came with some obvious fear. That was the only way I could describe the way I say people who stood before this Board with papers in their hands shaking out of fear. I saw less evidence of that tonight from where I sit, and more people spoke, and from that standpoint, I think that that is not as great an issue on ['my mind as it was a year ~go. Alright, now, back to this question. There is a motion on the floor, and a second to defer action on SP-98-76 only pending an opinion from the Commonwealth's Attorney as to the effects of the conflict of interests act on this Board's action. Is there further discussion?" Joseph Henley: of interest." "I don't plan to support it, because I don't feel that I have a conflict Lindsay Dottier: of interest." "I don't plan to support it, because I don't feel that I have a confli~ F. Anthony Iachetta: "That is not the question that has been raised. conflict of interest, not do you feel you have one." This is a legal Lindsay Dorrier: "Well, I don't think there is a legal conflict of interest and I think the Commonwealth's Attorney will say so." Joseph Henley: "I think if you think you've got one, you are supposed to go to the Commonwealth's Attorney and get his opinion. I don't think you have to go to him on every case to find out whether you have a conflict of interest." Gerald Fisher: "Have you finished your statements? We will take a two minute recess. (10:15 P.M.) (Meeting reconvened at 10:25 P.M.) Any further statements." F. Anthony Iachetta: "Mr. Chairman, I have been hesitant to say something with respect to Mr. Lindstrom's motion, because the question hadn't really come up before in our thoughts about this matter; I suppose because nobody raised it. I'm trying to sort out in my own mind whether we are dealing with a case of..are we going to cut and run personally speaking, or are we going to try and resolve what I think ms a legal point. In view of the fact that there is one suit that the citizens have brought that is now before the Circuit as referred to earlier, where some of our constituents have felt that we had acted under a clnud; I would like to have the legal point resolved, so that this action would not in fact be taken under a cloud, and it is on that basis, that I'll support Mr. Lindstrom's motion. Not on the basis that I feel any conflict; I feel perfectly capable of resolving the issue before us in terms of what I deem to be the right or wrong of it, but I'd rather not do that and still open the door to still another suit on whether we are acting properly under the law. And I must admit, there are times when I get sick to death with lawyers, especially since you get five of them together, you ask one question, you get five different answers. On the other hand, my own profession is the same way. Maroon ten ~ngineers on an island and you'll get ten opinions as to what we should do first,. ~f~or survival purposes, so it is perfectly consistent in that respect. Now I know there are a lot of people who are sick to death with the whole issue for a lot of different reasons, and it would be nmce to resolve it tonight, one way or another; but we have waited this long and I think until we get that legal opinion we ought not to proceed to resolve it tonight. I'm in favor of Tim's motion." Gerald Fisher: "Mr. Lindstrom, is it the intent of your motion that the Board would request from the Commonwealth's Attorney one op±nion." Timothy Lindstrom: "Yes." Gerald Fisher: "Alright, let me ask this question, if your motion passes, what is your intent with respect~with SP-??-ll? Timothy Lindstrom: "I don't believe that that matter is effected by any conflict of interest, because no one, that is~the applicant has brought any suits against the Board." Gerald Fisher: "Then that leaves me with a problem because I feel that the two have been united by-the applicants in the original request for SP-537 and I'm concerned with chang- ing one without considering what effect that has on the other." Timothy Lindstrom: "Yes, you are correct on that point." Gerald Fisher: "Now if you are saying that you want to defer." Timothy Lindstrom: "They were originally ~nder common control .... " Joseph Henley: "Are you going to defer this to a certain date, indefinitely, or what are we going to do?" Timothy Lindstrom: "I think we would have to defer it pending an immediate approach to the Commonwealth's Attorney, and reschedule it for as soon after we have gotten that opinion. If he says we have no conflict then we Wau!d have to reschedule immediately, if he says there is~that is another matter. But, my intent is that we move expeditiously to get that opinion and then proceed from there." Gerald Fisher: "Mr. St. John, would you defer to a date certain?" George St. John: "Would I prefer?" Gerald Fisher: "For any particular reason, do you think we can get this particular ooinion from the Commonwea]th'~ At~n~ ~n ~ m~**~_ " !15 March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) clarified on what legal opinion it is that he is waiting f~r. opinion?' Is it the Commonwealth Attorne5 F. Anthony Iachetta: "Yes, Tim has raised, what I gather is a purely legal question. have no problem personally." I George St. John: "Well, I think if it is deferred, it should be deferred to a date certain. I haven't advised that it be deferred you understand." Gerald Fisher: "I'm aware of that. The Board hasn't decided to defer it either." George St. John: "I haven't advised one way or the other at all. that you have a legal conflict of interest." I just don't think Timothy Lindstrom: "Well, I have to second Dr. Iachetta's point. Just to be repeti- tious, I feel that there is a cloud created by the facts in this case, and the cloud calls foz a legal opinion, not the personal opinion of any member of this Board; that is a totally different matter. My feelings about that are separate. But it calls for a legal opinion under a very specific statute, and I think for us to go ahead and act during the pendency of a two million dollar contempt suit, or defer the matter that is now before us is sufficiently confusing to require the opinion of the Commonwealth's Attorney before we move forward on this matter. I feel that if we do not, we haven't done all that is required to treat this matter." George St. John: "I would like to raise something, that I think may have been over- looked that is the only reason I'm raising it. I'm not tr~ing to argue with anybody or advocate how you vote, but I think that it is fair that at some point you would..will be asked why this wasn~t asked of the Commonwealth's Attorney before now? Lindsay Dorrier: "That is the question that I have. If we were really interested in this question of conflict of interest, we put this on our agenda a month ago, and we could have asked at that time for this opinion." Timothy Lindstrom: "I don't know if you have a copy of my letter,but I suspect that the reason it has not been raised before now is because it hasn't been addressed until now. I did not have the opinion that I was going to raise it just until about two days ago and that was the b'ody of the letter that I sent to the members of the Board here, explaining my feel- ings about it. I guess it is obvious that having had experience with this statute before, I would have been the obvious person to this question if it were to be raised by anyone. That explanation doesn't have legal bearing, but." Gerald Fisher: I would prefer, and ask that you amend your motion to defer it to a date Joseph Henley: defer it again." "I'd defer it to the next meeting and if we don't get the decision, Gerald Fisher: "Alright defer it to March 8th." Timothy Li~ndstrom: "I accept that amendment." Gerald Fisher: "I would like for you;to ask for you to include also an amendment for Special Permit 77-11 be deferred so they can be considered simultaneously." Timothy Lindstrom: "I accept that." Lindsay Dorrier: "March the 8th?" Timothy Lindstrom: "Mr. Henley do you accept the amendments?" Joseph Henley: "I think you are going to have to call on Dr. Iachetta." George St. John: "Is it the intent that everything you all need for a decision except for this opinion has been put into the record now, and ~!1 you are going to do is get this opinion and then decide on March 8th.!' Timothy Lindstrom: "Well the intent is to get this legal opinion and find out whether the Commonwealth's Attorney believes we can go forward and at that point, we will have to determine what action wa will be able to take. I don't think we can bind ourselves as to what we can do at that ti-me." George St. John: "Then you are going to hear mome..." Timothy Lindstrom: "Input you mean?" George St. John: "From the staff from the public, or from the applicant." Gerald Fisher: "Well, I think this Board is in the position of approving this that we've got to do some more work on the conditions and I think that that will apply, some staff input perhaps some other input, I don't know; the applicants or others. But I don't want to foreclose.." Timothy Lindstrom: "I don't know why there can't be some use made of this time.." George St. John: "I just think the record ought to be clear, and the people involved ought to know where it stands as of this time as of this moment.." Gerald Fisher: "If there is any further information that you think you are going to need, I guess that is the question." S March 1, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) George St. John: "If the motion does pass, then you can discuss that, but if someone.. those involved ought to know where the matter s~ands." Timothy Lindstrom: "Well, it is not the intent of my motion to preclude anything like that, or any r~quest from the staff or anything like that." Jo~Dph Henley: "I'll accept the amendment, but I'm not going to support the motion." Lindsay Dorrier: "When on the 8th would this be heard? during the night ~ime session." During the daytime session or Gerald Fisher: "Daytime." Lindsay Dorrier: "Well, I think after considering this matter, it was my feeling that it shouldn't be deferred, but I think if it is only going to be a week's deferral to get this opinion and we are going to move forward with all the information we have here a week from now, I think I could go along with that. I accept the County Attorney's opinion that we don't have the legal conflict of interest, and I feel that we don't have a legal conflict of interest, but if the rest of the Board feels that we do need the Cbmmonwealth Attorney's opinion, and that we are going to be acting under a cloud if we don't have it, well I'm not going to object and hold up the decision because other Board members feel strongly about it; so I'll support it." Gerald Fisher: "Any further discussion? Call the roll." Linda Leake (Clerk): Mr. Dorrier - Aye; Mr. Fisher - Aye; M~[ Henley - Nay; Dr. Iachett~ Aye; Mr. Lindstrom - Aye. ~ Gerald Fisher: evidence." "Now is there any further information, any further reaearch, any further Joseph Henley: "I think Mr. Lindstrom had three things, he might bring up the other two so we won't have to confront those the next ~ime." Timothy Lindstrom: "Well, I think that all we are in a legal position to do right now is to refer questions we might have ri[ght now about the specifics of the plan to staff." Joseph Henley: "Well, I was thinking that maybe if you had something that would defer it again next time I thought it would be a good time to take it up." Timothy Lindstrom: "I don't want to blow all my deferrals at the same time." Gerald Fisher: "Alright, this matter has been deferred until March 8th. It will be set on the agenda by the Clerk in conjunction with the Chairman. Anything further on this matter?" The Board recessed at 10:35 P.M. and reconvened at 10:37 P.M. Agenda Item No. 10. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor presented the application of the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company for the calendar year 1978. Motion for approval in accordance with the Board's adopted r~les for issuance of such permits was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 11. At 10:45 P.M., motion to adjourn to March $, 1978, at ?:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. ~h~ir'man March $, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from March 1, 1978) An adjourned meeting o~ the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March $, 1978, beginning at ?:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from March 1, 1978. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arriving at 7:32 P.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Deputy County Attorney, Frederick W. Payne. The meeting was called to order at ?:10 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Dr. Iachetta immediately offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss litigation. The