1978-06-21N316
June 21, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June 14, 1978)
June 21 1-~r-~gh~ Meeting~
Mr. Lindstrom offered m0timn that the Board approve the basic concept of the plan
presented. If the vote for the motion is favorable, they go on to vote on the specific
conditions of the special permit. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. St. John
recommended against taking such vote, and recommended the Chairman just take a poll of the
Baard. Mr. Lindstrom withdrew his motion. Mr. Lindstrom then offered the following motion;
to deny the application for SP-78-15 as proposed. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
Messrs. Henley and Roudabush.
Dr. Iachetta commented that this application was too big and too early in this location.
Mr. Dorrier said it was a difficult decision because the plan had a great deal of merit, but
he couldn't support the plan because of the location and the proposed industry on the site.
Mr. Lindstrom hoped the Board would seriously restudy the Planned Unit Development part of
the Zoning Ordinance before one is approved that is seriously inadequate.
Agenda Item No. 6. Mr. Fisher noted the time has run out for the remainder of the
agenda, but ha requested a motion to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters.
Motion to this effect was offered at 5:45 P.M. by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned.
June 21, 1978.(Regular-Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on June 21, 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, C. Timothy Lindstrom and ~. S. Roudabush.
Officers present: Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney and Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., Director of Planning; also Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant, sittinE in for
the Cmunty Executive.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to order:
the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
The meeting ~as called to order at 7:30 P.M. by
Agenda Item No. 4.
Meeting Dates:
(from the June 21, 1978, Afternoon Agenda.)
Discussion of July
Mr. Fisher said a survey indicated that a quorum would not be present for the meeting
of July 19th, but that all Board members could be present at an alternate date of August 7,
1978, which is a Monday night. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Roudabush, to cancel the meeting of July 19, 1978, and advertise all public hearings
scheduled for that night for August 7, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse.
Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-78-06.Caleb N. Stowe. To amend Article 7, Business General
District (B-i) to permit the following by special use permit: "Receiving and storage of
electronic components for distribution, including testing and limited assembly of premanu-
factured components." (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 7 and June 14, 1978.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-78-29. Caleb Stowe Associates, Ltd. Receiving and storage of
electronic components for distribution including testing and limited assembly of premanu-
factured components on 4.5 acres zoned B-1 Business. Property is located on the south
side of Rio Road at Berkmar Drive (Charlottesville Hardware). County Tax Map 45, Parcel
102A. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on jUne 7
and June 14, 1978.)
Mr. Fisher read the following letter received from Sandy H. Lambert, III, representing
the applicant, requesting withdrawal of ZTA-78-06 and SP-78-29 without prejudice.
"June 21, 1978
Mr. Robert W. Tucker Jr.
Director of Planning, Planning Department
County of Albemarle
414 East Market Street,
Charlottesville, Virginia 11901
Re: ZTA-78-06 to Amend Article 7
SP-78-29 Charlottesville Hardware Property
Dear Mr. Tucker:
June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
317
"As previously indicated to you, I am on behalf of Caleb N. Stowe, request-
ing the withdrawal of the subject zoning test amendment and special permit
applications which are scheduled for public hearings and consideration this
evening by the Board of Supervisors.
In doing so I would like to confirm those reasons which Mr. Stowe am~ I
previously discussed with you. Our application for the amendment and special
permit were premised on a particular tenant for the subject property, which, by
their specific use of the building without alteration of the site and archi-
tectual character, would have been a desirable use of the property in terms of
land use and economic viability for both the owners and the community. Despite
what Mr. Stowe considered a strong commitment to the leasing of the property,
that specific tenant has decided upon an alternative location.
Whi~e we continue to believe that the proposed limited assembly use is
compatible in the B-1 District under the review process and controls of a
special permit, we feel that in the absence of the specific tenant, whose use
of the building we could assure by the lease under consideration, that both
the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission will concur with the request-
ed withdrawal.
We appreciate the efforts of your staff and the Planning Commission in the
consideration of the proposed amendment and special permit on our behalf as
well as the behalf of the community. I would emphasize that we feel that the
withdrawal is requested out of respect for the efforts of those involved,
including the community as a whole.
In part the withdrawal request further recognizes that the County will be
considering a revised zoning ordinance this Fall in which the B-1 District uses,
as well as the overly exclusive wording of uses in various districts, will be
reviewed. Without a specific tenant, we believe this will be the time to
consider where lighter than industrial uses might be located in districts where
availability of existing or developable sites is conducive to such uses either
by right or special permit. Whenever possible both Mr. Stowe and I will support
this desirable and needed review of the Zoning Ordinance.
In closing, I again express our appreciation for the time and effort~sof
your staff in the subject matter.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Sandy H. Lambert III"
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to accept the request
of the applicant and grant a withdrawal without prejudice. Roll was called, and motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-78-04. Robert David Rosson. (Deferred frmm May 17, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report:
Character of the Area
To the west is vacant property and the Rockfish Gap Country Store. Single-family
dwellings are to the east and south. Property to the north is undeveloped. Route
250 West has been designated an Albemarle County scenic Highway. A non-conforming
log operation, two mobile homes, and a single-family dwelling exist on this property.
The average lot size in Blue Ridge Acres is 0.768 acres.
Comprehensive Plan
This area is recommended for Agricultural Conservation.
Staff Comment
In April, 1971, the Board of Supervisors, by resolution, zoned the platted portions
of Blue Ridge Acres and Parcel 52A from A-1 to RS-1. The staff report for ZMP-160
indicated that such rezoning was for the purpose of excluding mobile homes and was
contrary to the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. (This rezoning ~as
similar to that which took place at Boyd's TAvern, the objective apparently being
the exclusion of mobile homes.) At a later date (ZMA-329, August, 1975), parcel 52A
was zoned back to A-1 to permit continued farming activities.
This applicant is currently requesting rezoning back to A-1 to permit the continuance
of and to make legal the recent expansion of the logging operation. In addition,
his mother (owner of Parcels 94 and 95) wishes to continue the keeping of fowl and
livestock and to request a mobile home for the applicant's sister. None of these
activities are permitted within the RS-1 zone.
Staff makes the following observations:
Recent establishment of the large metal shed on parcel 3, whether due to in-
sufficient information submitted by the applicant or clerical error by the
Inspections Department, constitutes unlawful expansion of a non-conforming
use. As indicated by the Zoning Administrator, rezoning of this property
could make this use conforming (either ~y right of by special permit) and a
control to
site plan would be required. This woul~ provide the County in
what is, in staff opinion, a currently dangerous and unsightly situation.
318
June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Staff disagrees with the County action of 1971 rezo~ing this property to RS-1
sinee it is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and apparently was based on
property owners' desires to exclude mobile homes from the area.
In phone conversation, the Health Department indicated that septic permits had
been denied in portions of this subdivision and that those lots fronting on
Route 250 West and 796 were particularly questionable (The Health Department
denied two permit~applications by Mr. Rosson).
Though rezoning this property would leave an isolated lot zoned RS-1 (lot 1),
staff recommends approval of this petition.
The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, as was done in the case of the
RS-1 zoning in the Boyd's Tavern area, may wish to consider rezoning Blue Ridge
Acres to A-1 Agriculture, due to its conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
recommendations.
Mr. Tucker noted that on May 9, 1978, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended
to approve ZMA-78-04 as recommended by the staff.
Mr. Rosson was present, but had no comments to make to the Board. No one from the
public wished to speak either for or against this petition and Mr. Fisher declared the
public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to
accept the recommendation of the~lanning Commission to approve. Roll was called, and
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No.. 3. SP-78-18. Bearing Technology, Inc. (Deferred from May 17, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report:
Request:
Acreage:
Zon±ng:
Locatimn:
Engineering and light manufacturing
· 2 acres
~-1 Business
Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C part, is located off Route
738 near Dettor, Edwards, and Morris, west of Ivy.
Character of the Area
This property is located on the south side of the access road serving the Tull
Manufacturing Company, which branches off eastward from the main Dettor, Edwards,
and Morris access road. This property is heavily wooded.
Comprehensive Plan
This property is within the western limits of the designated Ivy village.
proposed as a larger Type I Village with commercial and Industrial uses.
Ivy is
Staff Report
This property was included under a previous application (SP-244, Herbert Tull) for a
similar use. Minutes of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors indicate
that ~here was discussion at that time as to whether such use was provided for and
appropriate to the B-1 zone. It is the current opinion of the Planning and Zoning
Departments that such use is neither provided for nor appropriate to the B-1 General
Business District. The currently proposed use involving laB.he and milling work is
a manufacturing use appropriate to industrial zoning. Staff opinion is that an
error was made in approval of the' previous application in the B-1 zone. The Zoning
Administrator has indicated that if a second approval of such use is granted, that
he will have no alternative but to advise the public that manufacturing (machine
shop, welding, babbitting) is permitted in the B-1 Zone. (In the case of Paulette
Hardware Company, the court, according to the Zoning Administrator, indicated that
the three previous approvals of supply yards at hardware stores established such use
in the B-1 zone and that it could not be attributed to error or mistake in inter-
pretation as it might have been had such use been approved only once.)
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose~to approve this
petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Site plan approval;
2. Not more than 20 employees, including the applicants;
3. No outside storage;
4. Ail design, construction, and testing activity to be done inside the proposed
buildings;
5. There shall be no noxious noises or odors emitted from the site.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended denial with a tie vote o& 4-4.
Mr. Fisher asked about the staff comment that engineering and light manufacturing are
not allowed in a B-1 Zone ~y either right or special permit. Mr. Tucker said the applicant
felt the proposed use could fit under the headings of either professional office, machinery
sales and service, and wholesaling or processing.
At 7:54 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Dr.
David Lewis, the applicant. He said there would be no customers visiting the building, and
that their product would not be manufactured in an assembly line fashion; only special
orders would be taken. He said they looked for M-1 or M-2 property, but could find none
suitable for their purposes.
June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting).
319
No one else wished to speak either for or ~gainst this application, and Mr. Fisher
declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he felt the B-1 zone should not be
expanded to include the requested use, because if it is opened up to this type bu~ness,
a precedent has been set.
Dr. Iachett.a said he was of the opposite opinion from Mr. Fisher in that this
business does not involve regular manufacturing of a product. He noted that an e~gineer-
ing office would be acceptable in a B-1 zone, and since the manufacture of a finished
product is secondary in this business, it should be allowed.
Following some discussion among Board members, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve SP-78-18. Mr. Fisher said he felt it would be a
drastic mistake for the Board to approve this application. Mr. Henley said he would con-
sider amending the B-1 to include this use. Mr. Fisher said he felt this application
should not have been accepted by the Zoni~ Administrator in the first place, and should
have~a~y~been~at~oWed as atrezoning. Mr. St. John said the Zoning Administrator had no
legal right to refuse the application, whether he felt it proper or not.
Mr. Roudabush said he also could not support this use under the present application,
and that if the applicant wished to reapply in some other zone he would reconsider his
decision. Roll was then called, and the motion failed by the following recording vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Iachetta.
Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
Mr. Fisher noted that under the Board's rules of procedure a tie vote is a denial.
Mr. St. John told the applicant he could apply for a zoning text amendment under Section
11-4 of the Zoning Ordinance to try and include any use not provided for in the B-1 zone.
Agenda Item No. 4. Resolution of Intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
to provide for Industrial parks in Albemarle County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
June 7 and June 14, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker said this resolution would not be handled by the Planning Commission until
their meeting of July 11, 1978, and recommended the Board of Supervisors defer action
until their meeting of September 6, 1978. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded
by Mr. Roudabush, to defer this public hearing to September 6, 1978. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public hearing on intent to amend and reenact Section 4-19 of the
Albemarle County Code to include Carrsbrook Subdivision as one of those areas where dogs
are not permitted to run at large. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 7' and
June 14, 1978.)
Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant, presented the petition. She stated that
of 119 homes, 89 families signed the petition in favor of a leash law, and 30 homes re-
fused; giving a total of 75% in favor of the law. Mr. Fisher read the following letter
received from Dr. and Mrs. Willian Van Hoose.
"June 19, 1978
~Albemarle~Gounty Board of Supervisors
~ounty Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Sirs:
We have changed our minds and want our names removed from the petition
supporting a dog leash law in Carrsbrook.
Every pet dog in our area should not be punished just because there was
one supposed outlaw in the neighborhood, who actually no longer resides
here.
Therefore, since the cause gor the petition has been removed, we feel
the petition should be dropped.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Dr'. William Van Hoose and Hazel Van Hoose"
Mr. Fisher then read a letter from Mrs. Edward L. Freeman requesting her name be re-
moved from the petition in support of the leash law:
"June 19, 1978
Albemarle Count~ Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Being called upon to sign a dog leash petition, Shortly after the death of
my hmsband, I didn't give much thought to the after effects of it until later.
Therefore, I want my name removed from the list supporting a leash law. ~i~n.g
3£0
June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
The reason for the petition (a large dog in the neighborhood) has been removed
because the family has moved away from our area.
I have lived on Indian Spring Road for fourteen years and had a pet dog for
twelve years and we never once had any problems from other pets. Besides,
since I am alone I find it very comforting to know there are dogs on the
loose in the area. Strangely enough though~ I rarely see any of them.
Living in a wooded area like we do there have been occassions when copper-
head snakes and others have been spotted and killed in the area. If our
few large dogs are tied, we will become overrun with snakes, ground moles
and such. Give me a dog any day compared to trying to get rid of the snakes.
Mainly, many animals suffer unnecessarily because they are tied. Be it
either heat or cold. It brings to mind the little dog who froze to death
in the city because he was tied to a car bumper and could not find shelter
for himself. Heaven forbid!
I can understand in the city it is a necessary law--but here in our area,
not yet!
Very sincerely,
(Signed) Mrs. Edward L. Freeman"
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Dr. James Moore.
Dr. Moore presented the petitions to the Board, saying he had no tales of. horror created
by stray dogs, but that all who signed the petition did so with ready acceptance of its
terms even though they themselves may be dog owners.
Mrs. Richard Arthur said she was one of ten people who circulated the petitions, and
she estimated that approximately eight of every ten who signed are dog owners.
Mr. Lee R. Lucas said dogs have destroyed his garden even before the plants were
sprouted properly. He added that although dog owners have the right 'to own dogs, they do
not have the right to allow their dog to destroy other neighbors property.
Mrs. Janice Creasy said unfriendly dogs have roamed in packs throughout the area. She
said she has lost bushes~etc., and therefore supports the petition.
Mr. E. B. Loftin said he once owned a dog and kept it in his own yard and would expect
other dog owners to show the same courtesy to their neighbors. Since they do not, he
supports the leash law.
Ms. Doris Moore said she had two large dogs jump on her while she was out walking a few
weeks earlier. She feels they should be restrained by the leash 'law.
Mr. Thomas McQueeney said he felt roaming dogs presented a traffic hazard.
Dr. Iachetta requested a show of hands of all those in favor who were also dog owners.
Mr. Fisher then asked for a show of hands for those opposed. (Clerk's Note': About half
and half.)
Mrs. Joan Barnachi said she spoke on behalf of the children in the community who owned
dogs. She felt it was unfair to keep their dogs so restrained or to ask the hume owners to
fence in as much as three acres in order to corral their dogs.
Mr. Robert Musselman said the basic problem is caused by only two or three dogs, and
not every dog in the community. He felt the petition was presented unfairly, as he was
told that over 80% of the people had already signed in favor, therefore he should also sign.
Mr. Richard Joseph said they moved to Carrsbrook 15 years ago to keep their dogs from
'being killed in traffic. He hoped that their dog would still be allowed to run freely on
his own property.
Mr. Willie Williams said children had done several hundred doll~s worth of damage to
his property, and after the purchase of a small dog there has been less of a problem. He
also said that if the leash law is imposed, that it should also affect cats, as they do as
much damage to property and other animals as dogs.
Mrs. John Allen said she was representing six neighborhood children whO owned pets
they wished to be allowed to run free. She added that the reason they mov'ed to the County
was to have a pet-they Could allow to run free.
Mrs. Connie said each name on the petition did not represent an entire family. She
then presented a counter-petition to the Chairman. (Petition signed bY 35 persons.)
Mr. Ray Hunt said he was Opposed to enactment of the leash 'law and that he felt the
manner in which the petition was circulated grossly misrepresented the feelings of the
community.
Mr. James Grabmon said he would rather have the minor annoyances than have a rash of
robberies as in other communities.
A young girl said her dog patrols their property, and does not abuse its freedom by
trespassing onto other properties.
Mr. Guy Bernachi said that the number of people with dogs relative to the number of
people without dogs should determine that those without dogs should do the fencing of their
yards, and not those with dogs.
June 21,1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Ms. Benzenski also felt those without dogs should do the fencing. Mr. Musselman said
a number of people opposed to the leash law did not have a chance to sign the counter-peti-
tion. Mr. Fisher declared a recess at 9:00 P.M., and suggested that anyone wishing to sign
either petition do so during the recess.
Meeting was reconvened at 9:07 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed,
and summarized his opinion by saying that he was in favor of the_leash law. Dr. Iachetta~
said he was~a property owner, who also had a dog and children, but that property must be
protected. He then offered motion to adopt the following ~dinance, Motion was seconded
by Mr. Dorrier. Messrs. Dorrier, Lindstrom and Roudabush 'ail agreed that the law should
be imposed at this time, because if there were no probtem the people would never have
requested this hearing. They also felt that after a trial period, if things do ~ot work
outs possibly the law could be repealed.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Alb'emarle~County, Virginia,
that Chapter 4, Article II, Division 2, Section 4-19 of the Albemarle County Code
be amended and reenacted by the addition of the'following area as one of those
areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large:
(2O)
Carrsbrook Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court in Deed Boom 357~ page 55; Deed
Bood 361, page 127; Deed Book 376, page 224; Deed_Book 380,
pages 249, 251 and 253; Deed Book 384, page 27; Deed Book 387,
page 469.
At 9:15 P.M., roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing on intent to amend and reenact Section 4-19 of
the Albemarle County Code to include Deerwood Subdivision as one of those areas where dogs
are not permitted to run at large. (Advertised inthhe Daily Progress on June 7 and June 14,
1978.)
Mrs. Moon presented a petition requesting adoption of this ordinance, and noted that
there were 61 signatures. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to
speak was Mr. Paul Dupree who said he started the petition.. He said 39 of 45 homes signed
in favor of the petition. He said most of the families have already begun restraining
their dogs in anticipation of the enactment of the leash law.
Mr. Carrol Turner said he was in favor of the law because his wife had been attacked
twice and his own dog was attacked while it was chained in their yard.
Mr. Clyde Dobbs said he did not want to spend $1~000 to put up a fence to keep some-
one else's dog out. He wished to see the law passed.
Mr. Richard Lambert said he was tired 0E-picking up garbage cans knocked over by
stray dogs, and that he was in favor of the petition.
No one in opposition wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the following
ordinance:
Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Chapter 4, Article II, Division 2, Section 4-19 of the Albemarle County
Code be amended and reenacted by the addition of the following area as one of
those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large:
(21)
Deerwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of
the circuit court in Deed Book 426, page 457; Deed Book 455,
page 16.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-Z8-08. J. W. Wright, Jr. and Frank Kessler. To amend
ZMA-77-16 (a plan for a Residential Planned Neighborhood R-1)~ The 14.68 acres of property
is located at the end of Wilder Drive, bounded on the north by Meadow Creek. County Tax
Map 61, Parcel 198, 199, 200, and 201. Charlottesville and Rivanna Magisterial Districts.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 7 and June 14, 1978.)
Mr. Roudabush said he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on this item as he
has done survey work on this property.
Mr. Robert Tucker read the planning staff's report:
Location:
Between Meadow Creek and the city limits just east of Park Street
Extended and at the end of Wilder Drive in the 8ity.
Acreage: 14.462 acres
Existing Zoning: RPN/R~i
Requested Zoning: RPN/R-1
June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
History
The Planning Commission previously approved a similar application to this one on
September 13, 1977, subject to nine conditions. Subsequently, the same appli-
cation was approved on September 21, 1977 by the Board o£ Supervisors subject to
the same conditions. Subsequent to that, the Planning Commission approved the
Wildwood Final Plat on October 27, 1977, subject to 11 conditions, and the
Charlottesville City P~anning Commission approved the plat on November 9, 1977.
Existing Zoning in the Area
Wildwood and Idtewood Subdivision are zoned R-1 Resi. dential in the city and
Woodhaven Subdivision is zoned R-2 in the City. Properties to the north are
zoned R-2 Residential with the exception of the Cochran's Mill Antique Store
which is zoned B-1 Business. Densities allowed in these zones are as follows:
City of Charlottesville Zones
R-1 Residential
R-2 Residential
Wildwood Subdivision
Idlewo0d Subdivision
Density (du/ac~r'e)
5.4
12.1 (single-family attached)
7.3 (single-family detached)
4 du/acre
5 du/acre
Albemarle County
R-2 Residential
6.0 (townhouse)
5.3 (single-family detached)
8.4 (duplex)
Applicant's Proposed RPN/R-1
2.43 du's/gross acre
7.06 du's/net acre
As can be seen in the chart above, the proposed density of the requested RPN/R-1
designation is considerably less than the existing R-2 zoning allowed on the site,
and is much less than densities allowed in adjaCent properties.
Applicant's Revised Proposal
The applicant is proposing only a slight revision of the approved Wildwood RPN/R-1
plan. The changes are: (1) the total number of dwelling units has been reduced
from 37 to 35; and (2) the interior roads are no longer to be state' maintained;
instead they will be private roads with t~enecessary homeowner's-mainte'nance agree-
ments as required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
Comprehensive Plan Conformance
The Comprehensive Plan recommends this property for park/flood plain usage. At
the time the Comprehensive Plan was developed, the Army Corps of' Engineers flood
plain study for Meadow Creek was not available. Staff has reVieWed this site in
the context of the Corps' Study and the criteria established for conservation of
stream valleys and found that the majority of the Wilder Tract Plan is in com-
pliance in terms of areas to be developed and areas to remain open space. It
appears, however, that at least three of the proposed building sites will infringe
on slopes which are in excess of 25% and thus violate the Comprehensive Plan's
recQmmendations against any building on slopes 25% or greater.
Staff Comment
)
The applicant is proposing to locate 35 single-family dwelling units on this site
at a gross density of one dwelling per 2.43 acres, and maintaining more 'than 55%
of the site in common area. Three]tot lots are shown in the common area. The
remainder of the common area would remain wooded and would contain that portion
of the site in the 100 year flood plain.
In staff opinion, the RPN/R-1 approach as presented in the preliminary plat is
appropriate to this site. Steep slopes and flood plain have, with 'the' exception
of the three lots mentioned above, been respected and the common area is more
than twice that required under the RPN designation. In addition', the s2aff has
recommended that the applicant construct and provide an easement for' a bicycle
trail along the Meadow Creek frontage.
Furthermore, the proposed density of development is less than one-half the
potential density allowed under existing zoning. However, the maximum potential
density under the existing R-2 zoning (8.4 du/acre) is probably not possible due
to the steep terrain of the site. In the staff,s opinion, the proposed density
would be harmonious with surrounding development.
The reason this amendment is back before you is that when the road plans were
drawn up certain~vertical and horizontal sight distance requirements of the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation could not be met without a
drastic regrading of the site. Rather than regrade the site, the developer has
chosen to develop using private roads.
The staff has no objection to the development of this property with private roads.
It should be noted that although the "private roads" requirements of' the Sub-
division Ordinance call for an 18-foot wide prime and ~ouble seal surface, that
the developer has indicated that the roads would meet Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation pavement and design standards with the exception of
vertical and hQrizontal sight distance.
June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
323
Impact Analysis
Acreage
Density
Total Dwelling units
Population
School Enrollment
Vehicle Trips/day
14.462
2.430 du/acre gross
35.0OO
112.000
24.500 students
245.000
School Enrollment
K-5
6-8
9,12
TOTAL
10.290 students
5.706 students
6.790 students
22.785 students
Summary of Proposed Land Uses
Acres % of Site
Residential lots ~ 34.3%
Streets 1.449 10.0%
Common Area 8.050 55.6%
Total 14.462 100.0%
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
No dwelling units are to be built on slopes of 25% or greater without
County Engineering Department approval of site work;
Water and sewer facilities to be approved by, and dedicated to, the
Albemarle County Service Authority;
3. County Engineering Department approval of private roads' specifications;
County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for common spaces,
recreational facilities, and private roads;
5. Grading permit required prior to subdivision approval;
Dedication to Albemarle County of a 15-foot wide strip for future con-
struction of a bycicle and pedestrian trail as shown on plan received
September 12, 1977;
Uses in the flood plain of Meadow Creek shall comply to Article 9A of
the Zoning Ordinance;
Removal of cul-de-sac at Cottonwood Road and restoration of disturbed
areas.
Mr. Lindstrom asked to abstain from this discussion also, as he t~D had some connection
with the plat of this property.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on May 23, 1978, gave conditional approval,
with the eight conditions recommended by the staff and the following added conditions:
Wildwood Court and Cottonwood Road shall have street lights similar to those
on the existing Cottonwood Road;
10. Ail utilities are to be located underground;
11.
Connection of roadways and sidewalks to Cottonwood Road as well as removal of
the existing cul-de-sac shall be done at the applicant's expense;
12. Staff approval of tot lot location and equipment.
Mr. Claude Cotton, the developer, said nothing different would be done, except that the
sight distance would not be the same as required by the State Department of Highways. He
felt that during the winter months, the residents would get better service if a private
snow plow is called in, than if they wait for state forces.
No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
closed. Mr. Fisher said he felt 35 lots on a private road were too many. Mr. Henley said
he would be willing to support this request for private roads, but that he would not support
every request presented, unless they had similarly good reasons. Mr. Dorrier asked if the
ordinance contained different requirements for a development containing more than 35 lots.
Mr. St. John said the only requirement that is different is in materials used for actual
construction of the road; not the alignment or the grade.
Following some debate as to why Mr. Cotton could not meet the sight distance require-
ments so the development's roads co~uld be taken into the State system, motion was offered
by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to approve ZMA-78-08 with the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, but changing to read: condition #3 to read:
"County Engineering Department approval of private road specifications and inspection to
insure specifications are met."; also adding a condition #13 to raad: "Roads to be con-
structed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportations standards as to width,
pavement depth and curve requirements."
Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
ABSTAINING: Messrs. Lindstrom and Roudabush.
324
June 21, 1978-(Regular-Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-78-05. Wendell W. Wood. To permit aircraft assembly plants
in the M-1 Industrial Zone as a use by right. (Advertised. in the Daily Progress on June 7
and June 14, 1978.)
No one was present to represent Mr. Wood, therefore, motion was offered by Mr.
Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to defer this public hearing until July 5, 1978, and
to notify the applicant that action will be taken at that time. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:~
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-78-28. Charles W. Hurt. For a Day Nursery pursuant to
Section 6-1-21(2) of the County Zoning Ordinance on 2.909 acres zoned R-3 Residential.
Property is located on the south side of Whitewood Road at the corner of Whitewood Road
and Greenbrier Drive. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 29C. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 7 and June 14, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker presented the County Planning Staff's report:
Character of the Area
This area is primarily in multi-family development with Jefferson Towne, West-
field, Club, and Whitewood Apartments and recent approvals for Camelia Gardens
and Copperfields.
Applicant's Proposal
This applicant proposes to erect a structure to serve as a day nursery for 125
children. Staff estimates from the applicant'~s proposal and considering state
licensing requirements, at least 13 employees will be necessary.
Staff Comment
While the staff has no objection to a use of this nature in this location, the
staff is concerned about the intensity and impact of this proposal (the actual
acreage involved in 1.07 acres as opposed to 2.909 acres' in the Original appli-
cation). Comparative traffic generation ~rom a 1.07 acres site' is as follows:
Use
R-3 Residential (20 du/acre)
R-3 Residential (34 du/acre)
CO Commercial Office
B-1 Business
Proposed Day Nursery
VTPD People
153 55
263 94
161
642
540 138
While this facility would be located in a densely developed area, the child per
dwelling ratio'~:is lower for multi-family development and at least one apartment
in the area does not permit children. Therefore, staff assumes that ali enroll-
ment will arrive by automobile and has employed four vtpd per child. Two vtpd
per employee was employed. These calculations exclude the possibility of more
than one child delivered per automobile. Likewise, service traffic is excluded.
Staff makes the following comments:
Traffic volume generated by the day nursery would he mo.re 'akin to' that generat-
ed by B-1 development than R-3 development. The nature of' such 'traffic would
be basically peak hour. However, other traffic-intensive uses such as libraries,
swimming and tennis clubs, hospitals, and various types of schools are permitted
in the R-3 district;
There would be about 47% more people on this site under the proposal than if
the site were developed at the maximum R-3 density of 34 units per acre. While
a comparison of child care and residential "pepple" density may not be appropriate,
it should be noted that a child care facility can represent a major portion of
a child's daytime environment. One approach would be to require the same
Child-to-site area ratio as is provided in public schools, however, the ability
of private enterprise vs. government to absorb site development and maintenance
costs should be considered as well as the fact that much of a public school site
is underused or unused. (In elementary schools in Albemarle County, the 1977
average site area ratio was 2515 square feet/student asacompared to 373 square
feet/child in this request. New elementary schools would provide about 708
squ~re feet/student.) If licensing by the Virginia Department of Welfare is
required as a condition of approval, the applicant would have to comply with
minimal spatial requirements of that agency (in addition to indoor requirements,
75 square feet of outdoor play area is required per child on the playfield at
one time).
Conclusion
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to increase the lot
area to a size where the "people" density would be comparable to R-3 Residential
(34 dwelling units/acre), a lot area of 1.65 acres would be required. To reduce
traffic impact to a per acre level comparable to R-3, a 2.18 acre site would be
necessary.
If the applicant demonstrates that the proposed site has adequate area for this use
(to include landscaping and buffering from adjoining properties) and receives state
licensure, the staff has no objection to the requested 1.07 acre lot area. In con-
sidering the intensity and impact of this request, note that day nurseries are pro-
vided for only in the R-2 and R-3 Residential, RPN, and CO Commercial Office
districts, which are comparatively high value properties. Additionally, child care
June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
uses, whether publically or privately operated, are generally considered as
community facilities in planning literature.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. Enrollment limited to 125 children or that number approved by the Virginia
Department of Welfare, whichever is less;
No other use may be made of this property without amendment of this special
use permit~;~
Site plan approval to include landscaping and buffering from adjoining
properties;
Licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center.
In the event of license expiration, suspension, or revocation, the Zoning
Administrator shall refer this petition to the Board of Supervisors for
public hearing after notice pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of
Virginia. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to transmit to
the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals
thereafter and to notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expira-
tion, suspension, or renovation within three days of such event. Failure
to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions Of
this special use permit;
Approval of approPriate federal, state, and local a~encies. Conditions
stated are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to
preclude application of requirements and regulations of the Virginia
Department of Welfare or any other agency;
Inspection of the premises at leaSt twice annually by the Albemarle County
Fire Official including at least one unannounced inspection.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commi. ssion recommended, by ~a'vote of 7-0-2, approval
of this request subject to the six conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Ms. Dorothy Davis
one of the applicants, who stated that they are very experienced in taking care of young
children, and that they hope to receive a license from the State Department of Education
to include kindergarten classes in their day-care facility.
No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom noted there was a discrepancy in
the acreage listed in the advertisement and that listed in the staff's report. He recommend
ed a seventh condition that "approval be for a lot of 1.07 acres in size." With this
addition, he offered motion for approval of the request with the six conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission and #7 as stated. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAys:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said the subject of the Clean Air ~ct of 1977 and the
responsibility of the County to enforce it has been brought to his attention.~ He noted
that the City is interested in studying ~his matter and $15~000 in Federal money may be
a~aitable for use by the Planning District in making such a study. Dr. Iachetta said the
City and the County should first see what the law means to the govermments at the local
level, then decide what action they wish to take. He felt the County has.enough citizens
and workers who are expert in this area to avoid using the Planning District staff and
paying a bill of $15,000. Mr. Tucker said he and Mr. Agnor had &ttended a conference in
Fredericksburg last week regarding this new law, and he noted that its potential effect
on the County and the country will 'be extraordinary. He suggested that something be done
now to better understand the new law and how the County will be able to cope with it.
Mr. Henley said he could not support spending $15,000 in this manner and offered motion
not to support the suggestion of the Charlottesville City Council to spend $15,000 to have
the Thomas Jefferson planning Di,strict Commission conduct a study regarding the 1977 Clean
Air Act. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Fisher commented that the law would be in full effect in the
very near future, and that the County does not know anything as to how it will effeCt them
directly.
Agenda Item No. 12. Authorize Chairman to accept Post Office Deed. Motion was offered
by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville have
entered into an agreement with the United States Postal'Service to purchase
that property known as the Downtown Post Office for $250,000·00;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that
Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is authorized to
accept on behalf of the County of Albemarle the deed conveying thelDowntown
Post Office property to the City of Charlottesville and the County of
Albemarle;
June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Le~tie E. Neher, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County is hereby authorized to affix the seal
of the County of Albemarle to the deed and to attest thereto.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Authorize Chairman to accept Lane High School Deed.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. R~udabush, to adopt the following
resolution:
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has entered into an agreement with the
City of Charlottesville and the City of Charlottesville School Board to
purchase the Lane High School property for $800,000.00;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that
Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, is hereby authorized
on behalf of the County of Albemarle to accept the deed conveying the Lane
High School property to the County of Albemarle;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County is hereby authorized to affix the seal of
the County of Albemarle to the deed and to attest thereto.
Roll was called and ~he-~.motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14a. Appoint County Attorney and Deputy County Attorneys:
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded b~-'Mr. Henley, to reappoint Mr. George R.
St. John as County Attorney for a period of one year beginning July 1, 1978. and to reappoint
Mr. Frederick W. Payne and Mr. James M. Bowling, IV as Deputy county Attorneys for the same
term. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14b. Appointment: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to reappoint Mrs.. Jane
Biltonen of 217 Brentwood Road, Charlottesville, to a new term which Will expire on June 1,
1981. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier.~ FiSher, Henley, Eachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriations:
Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, was present. He requested that special appropria~'~
tions in the amount of $11,717 be made for the following purposes:
General District Court: There were an excessive amount of blood tests on drunken
driving cases and the insurance premium on the nurses who administer these tests
was increased. There were also minor increases on service contracts for some
special office equipment. An appropriation of $750.00 i~ needed.
Sheriff's Department: False arrest insurance premiums have doubled during the
past two years. These premiums exceed the appropriation by.$2,~67..Also the
maintenance of vehicles is about $2,500 higher than est~imated. An appropriation
of $5,967 is needed.
Involuntary Commitment: The cost of hearings on these petitions has more than
doubled. Every person committed must have a rehearing every six months. Each
hearing has a judge's fee, attorney's fee and a docto'r"s fee'. This is all
local money. An appropriation of $5,000 .is needed.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $11,717 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and coded as follows:
5B General District Court 750.00
6A Sheriff's Department 5,967.00
18B10 Involuntary Commitment 5,000.00
Roll was called and the motion carried'by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
327
Mr. Jones next requested an appropriation in the amount of $400,000 from the Federal
Revenue Sharing Funds for the purchase of the Lane High School Building. Currently there
is $600,000 appropriated and the purchase price is only $800;000. However, it is felt
that adequate money should be available to begin roof repairs in July. Motion was offered
by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. ROudabush, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $400,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Revenue Sharing
Fund and coded to 47-184A, Administrative and Court Buildings.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Do~rier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Transfers.
Mr. Ray Jones requested that he be allowed to transfer $15,373 from Code iF, Salary
Adjustments, to the following codes to cover cost of merit increases for the fiscal year:
4A-109 Compensation of Assistants $ 3,070.00
6A-i02 Compensation of Sheriff 227.00
6A-105 tCompensation of Deputies 5,080.00
6A-106 Compensation of Dispatchers 3,077.00
6A-109 Compensation of Secretaries 100.00
10A-102 Compensation of Engineer 65.00
10A-109 Compensation of Assistants 217.00
10E-102 Compensation of Planning Director 607.00
10E-109 Compensation of Assistants 2,435.00
10E-i~0 Compensation of Supervisory Persons 495.00
Motion to approve the above transfers was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr.
Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed: Report from Space Committee. Mr. Roudabush reported that a meeting
was held with a number of architectural firms who are interested in the renovation of
Lane High School. He noted that interviews were held with four firms. He then recommend-
ed that the County Executive be authorized to negotiate a contract with the firm of
Stainback and Scribner and that such contract be brought to the Board of Su~_ervisors
for review and approval. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachet'ta and carried by the follow-
ing ~ecorded vote:
AYES:~ Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 5. (From the Afternoon Session). Regional Jail Expenses for the
month of May. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve a
supplemental request to the DepaDtment of Corrections for reimbursement of salary for
the paramedic supervisor. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor noted receipt of lease for the Regional Health Department
located at 1138 Rose Hill Drive in the City of Charlottesville. The lease is for one year
beginning July 1, 1978, and all terms except the rental fee are identical to the lease
presently in effect. Under this lease the Health Department will pay the City/County
$1,350 quarterly because of the additional space just added to this facility. Mr. Agnor
requested authority to sign this lease on behalf of the County.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, authorizing the County
Executive to execute the document when the form of same is approved by the County Attorney.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
At 11:00 P.M. motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to go
into executive session to discuss property acquisition. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
At 11:15 P.M., the Board returned from executive session, and motion to adopt the
following resolution was offered by Dr. Iachetta.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does hereby offer to purchase from David J. Wood, Jr. and Joseph M. Wood, II,
partners trading as Berkeley Partners, for $175,000.00, that certain parcel of
land in Albemarle County, Virginia, containing 77,777 square feet, more or less,
lying on the west side of Berkmar Drive, lying north of that parcel described as
Parcel "Y" on plat of Frank A. Gregg, dated June, 1978, which Parcel "Y" was
June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
AYES:
NAYS:
recently given by the Woods to the County of Albemarle, extending around to an
easterly extension of the northern boundary of Block 4 of Berkeley Subdivision.
The ~arcel by Berkmar Drive on the east, by ?~rcel "Y" on the south, by Berkeley
Subdivision on the west, and by the easterly extension of the northern boundary
of Block 4 of Berkeley Subdivision on the north. The Woods shall be responsible
for preparing a proper survey of the property. This ofger shall be good for 30
days and is contingent upon title being found marketable in the manner provided
by law.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:'
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. At 11:20 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Dr. Iachetta, to adjourn this meeting to July 5, 1978, at 4:00 P.M. in the' Board Room.
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
-- - (./Chairman
Roll