Loading...
1977-02-16NFebruary 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) A regular meeting, of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 16, 1977, beginning at 7:80 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottes- ville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. 0pal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher' J. T. Henley, Jr., F. A. Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Connty Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at ?:88 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who asked if there were any items on the agenda which must be deferred becaUse they had not been acted on by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said Agenda Items Number 6, 7 and 8. ~<genda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: An ordinance concerning fees for soil ~°Sion plans; this ordinance will amend and reenact Section ?-4(d) of the Albemarle County Code. (Advertised on February 2, and February 9, 1977~) Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend the County Code by repealing Section t8-43(c), said section concerning fees for soil erosion control plans. (Advertised on Febrnary 2, and February 9, 1977.) Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by the amendment of Section 17-6-6 thereof concerning fees. (Advertised on February 2¥ and February 9, 1977.) Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by'Mr. Roudabush, to defer these public hearings until March 2, 1977. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iaehetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-99-76. Shelter Associates. To locate a professional office on 0.88 acres znned A-1 Agricultural. Property is located on the east side of Route 601, just south of Free Union. County Tax Map 29, Parcel 43, White Hall Magisterial District. (Ad- vertised on February 2, and February 9, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said though designated as a village cluster with a year 2000 population in the Comprehensive Plan, Free Union remains a "cross roads" community. Shelter Associates is the contrae~ purchaser of the site, on which are a single-family dwelling and warehouse as well as some apparently inoperative autos and debris. The applicant slated that the exist- ing structures may be utilized or replaced. There are several single-family dwellings in the vicinity of the site. The existing dwelling or a replacement structure would serve as the design, drafting, and business office for Shelter Associates. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP-99-76 with the following conditions: 1) To be included in site plan approval for SP-100-76. 2) Removal of inoperative autos and debris to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. 3) Approval of appropriate state and local agencies including Building Official and Fire Marshal. 4) No retail sales from the premises. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-100-76. Shelter Associates. To locate a craft shop on 0.88 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is located on the east side of Route 601, just south of Free Union. County Tax Map 29, Parcel 43, White Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised on February 2, and February 9, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said though designated as a village cluster with a year 200~population in the Comprehensive Plan, Free Union remains a "cross roads" community. Shelter Associates is the contract purchaser of the site, on which are a single-family dwelling and warehouse as well as some apparently inoperative autos and debris. The applicant stated that the exist- lng structures may be utilized or replaced. There are several single-family dwellings in the vicinity of the site. The applicant is essentially requesting relocation of a special use permit granted on Parcel 41E at the intersection of Routes 601 and 665. Though the sta~d recommended denial of the petition, both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors chose to approve it. Staff was basically concerned about the potential of this use as a noise nuisance in a small-lot residential area. Other staff concerns .were the small lot size and general appropriateness of the use itself in this area. Though this site is about twice the size of the original site, staff remains concerned over these items, however, no object- ion by residents in the area have been made at this time. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended by~.a 7-1 vote approval of SP-100-76 with the following conditions: 1) Approval of appropriate state and local agencies, including the Building Official and Fire Marshall. 2) Ail woodworking is Lo take place within the existing warehouse or replacement building. No outsmde storage of matermals. 4) Employees working in the building shall be limited to five full-time employees. $) No retail sales from the premises. FebruarlSy_~_~7 (R~ht Meeting) __ 6) A written statement requesting abandonment of SP-536 by both the applicant and Property owner. 7) Site plan approval. 8) In the event the Zoning Administrator determines this use to be a nuisance to the surrounding residential uses, he shall refer this petition to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for further review. 9) Removal of inoperative autos and debris to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Tucker said in discussing condition Number 6 on SP-100-76 with the County Attorney, Mr. St. John feels this is a matter on which the Board can take action tonight since a letter has been received from the owner and the applicant is present. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Staff had recommended that Condition Number 7 read "Site plan approval to include screening from adjacent properties", but the Planning Commission changed this condition because they felt this could be handled at the site plan stage. The Commission also under- stood the applicant is going to expand the acreage around this shop so a requirement for screening would not be appropriate at this time. Dr. Iaehetta asked how the board can tell the applicant how many people he can hire. Mr. St. John said because this effects the size of mhd the traffic to and from the building. This is one condition that is customarily put on speci&l use permits. At this time, the public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. Chris Halstead, said he is a general contractor doing mumtom cabinetry work in this shop and he wants to set up his business office in another building. He had a special permit for another parcel where he was renting but the permit has never been used because he did not want to put money into someone else's building. Presently his office is up the street in the morner of another building. Mr. Henley asked if Condition Number 5 restricting retail sales from the premises was a problem. Mr. Halstead said no. Mr. Henley said he did not feel any screening is needed. The property has been greatly improved in appearance. Mr. Halstead said the old cars have been removed. Dr. Iaehetta asked if the conditions were acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Halstead said yes. They do not limit him in any way and he is interested in staying in the Free Union area. With no one else rising to speak for or against these petitions, the public hearing was closed. :- At this time motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iaehetta, to approve SP-100-76 subject to the Planning Commission's recommendations. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabus~. None. Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve SP-99-76 with the Planning Commission's recommendations. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher then inquired if the applicant was agreeable to the Board abandoning' SP-536. Mr. Halstead said that would be alright since he was unable to put the shop in the build- ing for which the permit was issued and he is not using that special permit. He would rather have it abandoned so it would not be there for the landlord to use. Mr. Tucker said he had a letter from Mr. Caples who said that he had no objections to the abandonment of the permit. Mr'. St. John asked that the record show that the Board had received a request for abandonment of SP-536 from both the owner and the applicant. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iaehetta to accept thesabandonment of?the permit by the owner and the applicant and revocation by the Board of Super3isors of Special Permit 536. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. .NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-102-76. Worrell Newspapers. To locate an accessory dwelling accommodation on 50.5648 acres zoned A-1. Property is located On the south side of Route 250 East at Pantops Mountain. County Tax MaP 78, Parcel 20C, Seottsville and Rivanna Magisterial Districts. (Advertised on FebrUary 2, and February 9,.1977.) Mr. Tucker gave the following .staff report: "This site is a portion of Pantops farm and contains the main house and several outbuildings. This is currently the offices for Worrell Newspapers. The applicant is requesting 4 accessory dwelling accommodations in two (2) structures to house out-of-town employees and clientele, The cottage adjacent to the main house would have one accommodation as well as communal dining and living facilities. Three accommodations are proposed in the silo. February 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) In staff opinion, the accessory dwelling accommodation was intended to be used on the basis of one dwelling unit per commercial or industrial establishment. While approval of this petition would set precedent, staff feels that similar requests may be uncommon. Staff recommends approval only because these accommodations are Closely associated with the business operation of Worrell Newspapers. The Staff recommended the!~following conditions for approval: 1. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies; 2. Approval of Building Official and Fire Marshall. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on February 1, 1977, by a vote of 7-1, recommended that SP-102-76 be denied. They did not feel that this application meets their original intent in providing accessory dwelling accommodations. AT T?i.&~ same meeting, they adopted a resolution of intent to prepare an amendment that would handle this type of operation. Mr. Tucker noted~receipt of the following memorandum from the Zoning Administra- tor, J. Benjamin Dick dated February 8, 1977. "It is the Zoning Administrator's ruling that section 7-1-42 of the B-1 zone appears to be correct and the only provision for the use contemplated 'by Worrell Newspapers, Inc. The definition related to section 7-1-42, see- tion 16-28.1, defines this use by special use permit as follows: Dwelling Accommodation, Accessory: One or more rooms designed to provide living and sleeping accommodations in a structure used primarily for commercial or industrial purposes, or a separate dwelling unit located upon a parcel used primarily for commercial or industrial purposes, the inhabitation of which shall be limited to the proprietor and his family or a bona fide employee of the proprietor or his family. The definition speaks to certain classes of persons who may utilize the accessory dwelling. (The proprietor ora bona fide employee or together with their families.) Worrell Newspaper is aware of this limitation and will seek to support an amendment to allow for persons other than employees and pro- prietors. It is their desire to get this permit for~a spring conference of their employees. The cottage will be connected to the circular brick Structure by breezeway p~s~ant to approved~BOCA Code regulations and plans and therefore, in the Zoning Administrator's opinion, such a construction constitutes one accessory dwelling accommodation with four (4) rooms. A commercial bath and kitchen facilities are to be installed So as to house the Worrell Corporate family'S bona fide employees when they visit the corporate home office." Mr. Dick was present. Mr. Fisher asked if it is ~clear that the ordinance as now written limits this use to proprietors and or their employees. Mr. Dick said yes, it is clear'under the definition of accessory dwelling accommodation that it is limited to the proprietor or a bona fide employee together with his or her family. This is the home office of Worrell Newspapers, so people from all over the United~States come as part of the corporate chain. Mr. Fisher asked about clients. Mr. Dick said this would not be allowed because the ordinance does not cover other than employees. Mr. Fisher said he thought the ordinance restricted this use to an employee. Mr. Dick said he has interpreted the ordinance to mean bona fide employees of Worrell Newspapers. The ordinance said a bo~a ~ fide employee, but who is a bona fide employee of Worrell[ It cOUld be anybody a~ywhere. Mrs. David said the ordinance says a bona fide employee, but it does not say one bona fide employee. Mr. Fisher said he thought that was the intent of the Board when the ordinance was originally amended to allow this use. Dr. Iachetta agreed. Mrs. David sa~d she did not think the present ordinance covers this petition. Mr. Fisher said it appears that an application under the present ordinance for more t than one dwelling unit would be illegal. Mr. St. John said the process by which this appli- cation has come before the Board has been discussed at length by his staff. Originally they were of the opinion that the definition in the ordinance did not fit the situation because it limited the employee to just one employee, either the proprietor and his family or an employee and his family, but the proprietor and his family could be a corporation, and'~that would necessarily mean that the proprietor has to be in the plural. Mr. St. John said he does not think the Zoning Administrator's interpretation is clearly and plainly wrong, although it is argueable,~ The Zoning Administrator, by State statute is assigned the duty of ruling on this sort of application. In this case, the Zoning Administrator has made a ruling and the ruling is binding on all persons unless the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors wants to make an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Super- visors can deny this application for a special permit if it is felt it is not in the public interest, but the question of the definition has been decided and put to rest by the Zoning Administrator's ruling. Mr. Fisher said he remembers the discussion that took.place when this amendment was written. It was clearly his understanding that the intent of the Board was to have a single dwelling unit as accessory to a commercial use. Mr. St. John said he is surprised that this does not come up more often. The Board enacts ordinances and the Zoning ~dministrator has to interpret that ordinance. His interpretation is binding on all unless it is appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Fisher said it seems that under this ruling this petition should be considered on its own merits. Mr. St. John said it is not appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to consider whether this request fits under this definition or not. Sticking strictly to the organizational set up under the law, the permit should be consider- ed on its own merits without regard to the definition because that has already been decided by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Dick discussed the interpretation with him. He recognized that Mr. Dick was not present during the Board's discussion when this amendment was adopted. There- fore the intent of the Board was not available to him per se. Mr. Agnor said he also February 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) thought that bona fide employee was to be someone on the premises for security purposes and this application has nothing to do with that purpose. The definition says one or more rooms and sleeping accommodations, and it says a proprietor., Mr. Agnor said he had indicated to Mr. Dick, as Mr. St. John has said, that the interpretation was his responsibility. Mr. Roudabush said a strict interpretation of this ordinance wmuld mean that the person who occupied these 'quarters could not have overnight guests. Mr. Fisher said when the amendment was enacted, he had reacted to a situation to become more~permissive to meet a need brought to the Board. This is an entirely different purpose than anything the Board considered. However, as he understands the ruling, it is appropriate for the Board to consider the application on its merits and the Board then has the dis- cretion to permit, deny or modify the application. He then called on the applicant to make his presentation. Mr. Dennis Rocker was present on behalf of Worrell Newspapers. He said they feel their application for a special permit under these provisions is unique for the following reasons. 1) There are 52 acres of property and only twenty-six employees; 2) There are several hundred acres surrounding this property, which is presently being used for agricultural purposes; 3) The character of the existing structures is unique for business. The main structure was once a farmhouse and has been remodeled and adapted for business. However it still retains the character of a country home. The accommodations will be used for executive employees 6~f Worrell Newspapers visiting corporate headquarters on business. It is estimated that the accommodations will be used only two or three weeks out of each year. 4) Complet- ion of the facilities will have no impact at all on traffic. The Fire Marshall and the Build lng 0ffieial have already given their tentative approval. The design for the remodeling of the accommodations was prepared by Max Evans although the building plans will have to be certified by a registered engineer. Worrell has already constructed a deceleration lane at the entrance to the property so there will be no traffic hazard. Under special permit pro- visions, the Board is to consider the merits of the request and Mr. Rocker said he feels this situation merits a granting of the permit. He said they intend to abide by whatever pro- visions are put on the special permit and will necessarily limit this to the use of their employees. Originally, they had requested use for clientele, but will now wait until a later amendment is made to the ordinance which will allow such a use. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Steven Phillips said he is a profess~ ional engineer and as the matter of interest asked about sewage disposal in this area. He said he understands Dr. Hurt buil~ a lagoon for Spectrum East. He asked if any expansion of this property would be on a septic tank or tied into that lagoon. Mr. Rocker said he had difficulty answering that question as he was not familiar with the present sewage facilities. Presently the square building is already under a pre-esisting use. It was built as a cottage with bathroom and kitchen facilities and there will be no additional plumbing installed. Presently water is secured from Dr. Hurt. Mr. Roudabush said he did hot~rhave any objections to this request. The property is zoned B-! and this use would have less impact on the whole neighborhood than the higher permitted business use. Mr. Roudabush said he thinks there are probably several more conditions the Board could add, such as limiting the use to employees, limiting the number t~ four accessory dwelling accommodations, and a condition that this permit would be subject to approval by the Health Department. He said he would rather see this type of business use that would not destroy the whole image of the neighborhood since utilities are already there. Mr. F~sher asked if this request was for the temporary use of employees and not a permanent use by employees. Mr. Rocker said yes. Mr-. Fisher said he was afraid if the Board approved this permit with the conditions suggested, that this would become a permanent use by employees of Worrell Newspapers on a year round basis. Mr. Rocker said although they do not contemplate such use, he did not feel it should necessarily be a condition. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve SP-t02-76 with the following conditions: 1) Approval of appropriate state and local agencies including the local Health Department. 2) Approval of Building Official and Fire Marshal. 8) This use is to be on a temporary bagis for employees of Worrell News- papers only. 4) This permit is limited to four accessory dwelling accommodations as requested by the applicant. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Dottier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS:~ None. Agenda I~em No. 5. SP-98-76. James N. Fleming, Flamenco Interprises. To amend SP-537 (a special use permit for a Planned Unit Development). The 114.2 acres involved is zoned A-1 Agricultural and is located on the west side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road.) County Tax Map 45, Parcels 8 and 19, Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Advertised on February 2, and February 9, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said Mr. Fleming has petitioned the Board to amend Special Permit 537, a special permit for a planned community on 114.2 acres zoned A-1 agricultural. The land is located on the west side of Route 743; Hydraulic Road. The property lies within the urban area of Albemarle County as outlined by the Comprehensive Plan. The a~ea in question is wooded and open land, with the terrain's slopes rangmng from 5 to 25%. There are five (5) single-family dwellings, 13 two-story duplexes, and a small mobile home park within close proximity of the property in question. Background: Evergreen Planned Community (SP-587) was approved at a density of 2.5 units per acre subject to conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission, which were subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors (court order attached). Subsequently, February 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) 071 the Board of Supervisors, meeting with the applicant established 18 conditions of approval (memo of May 25, 1976, attached). The applicant has stated that he intends to litigate Condition #12 of this proposal, though this condition has been met in the current proposal. The applicant~is currently requesting amendment for 114.2 acres of the 128.06 acres in the approved plan. Relationship to SP-537: Property (described as Tax Map 45, parcel 18 and referred to in this report as "Parcel 182) consisting of 13.83 acres is not included in this current application. Therefore, Parcel 18 must conform to the approved plan (34 single-family units and conditions of SP-537. Any amendment to a Planned Community should result in a unified, cohesive community in which land uses are located in a complementary manner. Upon review of the current request with respect t© approvals for Parcel 18, staff has the following 1. Uses proposed in the vicinity of Parcel 18 are not detractive; 2. The road network as proposed would leave Parcel 18 a "landlocked" ~ortion of a Planned Community; Hemlock Drive under SP-537 was to connect to the road network in Georgetown Woods providing an internal street system serving bo~h developments. This connection is omitted from the current proposal. Staff Comment: The current proposal is for 260 townhouse units in 26 clusters as compared to 278 mixed housing units on the same portion of the approved plan. Gross density has been reduced from 2.43 units per acre to 2.28 units per acre, resulting in a reduction of projected residential traffic and population, of about 6.5% (Table I). Table I - COMPARATIVE IMPACT STATISTICS Current Previous Current as % of Proposal Proposal Previous Acreage 114.2 114.2 100.0% Dwelling Units 260 278 93.5 Gross Density (du/ac.) 2.28 2.43 93.8 Population 832 890 93.5 Vehicles** 390 417 93.5 Vehicle trips/day** 1820 1946 93.5 Students 173'** 273 ~NA K-5 78 150 6-8 43 62 9-12 52 62 Adjusted to exclude Parcel 18 Residentially generated only Based on enrollment criteria develDped since SP-537 application and employing 1977 adjustment factors. Therefore, enrollment figures for SP-537 and SP-98-76 are not comparable. More significant is the physical design of the current proposal. While earth-disturbing activiiity has been decreased, open space has increased. Combined with the reduction of grading due to the change in housing type, the acreage devoted to roads and parking areas has been reduced about 17% (Table II). Table II - COMPARATIVE LAND USE STATISTICS Residential Roads g Parking Open Space/Recreation Commercial Current Previous % Change Proposal Proposal* 15.76 acres 58.87 -73% 14.88 17.84 -16.6% 81.56 34.84 +134.1% 112.20 111.05 2.00 3.15 114.20 114.20 * Estimate by exclusion of Parcel 18. Parcel 18 represents 10.8% of total land area and acreages were reduced accordingly. This plan reflects 26 townhouse cluster buiiding sites compared to about 50 individual single-family building sites under A-1 Agricultural zoning without Planned Community designation. 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 likely 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 re~iew at this time and remains under the preliminary plan and conditions of SP-537 regardless of the decision on this amendment. Staff recommends approval of this amendment due to the apparent reduction of environmental impact as compared to the approved plan. Mr. Tucker said the Planning CommisSion, on February 1, 1977, bY a vote of 8-0, re- commended that the Board approve SP-98-76 (a preliminary plan) subject to the following conditions: 0 Approval is for 260 townhouse units. In the final approval process, open space is to be dedicated proportional to the number of units approved (13,664 square feet of open space per dwelling unit); Specification of improvements proposed (including park and Playground furniture) for the areas indicated as ~ot lots and recreation. Include the additional tot lot recommended by the staff near Route 657. A tabulation of acreages in tot lots and other recreational areas shall be presented to the Planning Commission prior to final plan approvals; 072 February 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) 10. 11. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. No dwelling unit or parking area shall be located on slopes of 25% or greater. The County Engineer may, after review of appropriate plans and after review of the Betz Study, recommend revision of thls condition prior to final'plan approvals; 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 2-7-0 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; No parking space shall be located further than 100 feet from its appurtenant dwelling unit (as required by Section 11-7-2(1) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance); 0nly those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation areas, pedestrian trails, parking areas, and debris basins are to be located shall be distrubed;~all other land shall remain in its natural state; The commercial area is to be no greater than one and eight-tenths (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 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 Albemarle 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 site 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. Sidewalks shall be located as proposed on the plan except that the sidewalk along Cedar Drive shall be located on the east side of the road. Sidewalks shall be constructed along the frontage of Routes 657 and 743 in compliance with design standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and in locations recommended by the Highway Department with respect to future improvements to these roads; Approval i.s contingent upon the County Engineer's final approval of the following: a) construction specifications fop all parking areas; b) specifications for the sewage pump station access road (joint approval of Albemarle County Service Authority Engineer required); c) soil erosion and sedimentation control devices and overall storm drainage.plan. In the review of these items, the County Engineer shall be guided by the find~ ings and recommendations of the Betz Study; Dedication of 1.3 acres to the Albemarle County School Board to be used in conjunction with other property to be acquired as a school site, if desired by the Albemarle County School Board. Density ~redit will be given for this property. The location of this property shall be presented~to the Planning Department and School Board for approval; 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 developer; 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 the existing water and sewer lines; 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 sewage pump station; Approval is contingent upon adequate available capacity at the Meadowcreek Sewage Treatment Plant; Comply with the following conditions submitted by the City of Charlottesvill~ concerning 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; No dwelling unit, parking area, or recreational area is to be located within the gas pipeline easement; County Attorney's approval of any'deed restrictions or homeowners' association agreements; No site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading plan for this property has been approved; Fifty foot rights-Of-way with appropriate drainage, construction, and slope easements shall be dedication at appropriate locations in order to provide access +m P~I 1R. Th~ ~ometm~e designs of these ri~hts-of-wav are subject to Highway February 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) 21. 22. The locations of and acreages in the various land uses, rights-of-way, and pedestrian 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; The pump and force main shall be adequately sized to serve all units in Evergreen Planned Community including those units shown on Parcel 18 under SP-547 and appropriate water and sewer line easements shall be provided to ser~e Parcel 18. Mr. Fisher said he noted several changes from the Planning Staff's recommendations; namely Number 7, where the commercial area would be increased from 1.5 acres to 1.8 acres; Number 11, that dedication of land to the School Board be acquired as a school site, if desired, by the School Board; and Number 17, no dwelling unit, parking area or recrea~-~onal tree,be located within the gas pipeline easement. He asked if there were any further changes made by the Planning Commission from the Staff's recommendations. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Fisher said he could not tell if these conditions differ from those originally approved by the board for Special Permit $37. Mr. Tucker said there were some changes made due to the changes in the plan itself. However, the original eighteen conditiQns were also incorporated into.these conditions. Mr. Fisher said he had received this date a letter from Mr. George H. Gilliam of the firm of Paxson, Smith, Boyd, Gilliam and Gou!dman, dated February 14, 1977, and he then read the following into the record. "February 14, 1977 Honorable Gerald E. Fisher Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville, Virginia Re: SP-98-76 February 16, 1977 Dear Mr. Chairman: We are attorneys for United Virginia Bank,et al., fee simple owners of the unimproved real property situate on Hydraul~-~ Road in Albemarle County known as the ~Garlick Tract." A portion of this property is zoned R-3 and a small, 11.17 acre parcel is zoned A-1 but subject to SP-537, with a permitted density of 2.5 residential units per acre. United Virginia Bank et al. acquired this property in a foreclosure proceeding. When SP-537 was before the Board, the "Evergreen" development included property owned by James N. Fleming as well as the 11.17 acre parcel now owned by our clients. Mr. Fleming has now instituted procedures to amend SP-537; we understand that the application to amend SP-537 has been assigned the number SP-98-76. The site plan accompanying SP-98-76 does not include the 11.17 acre parcel (known as Parcel 18) owned by our clients. When SP-98-76 was before the Planning Commission on February 1, 1977, the Commission directed that the Fleming property have access to Parcel 18 and that the pump and force ~ains on the Fleming property be adequately sized to serve the units in Parcel 18. In order that the access between Parcel 18 and the remainder of the Evergreen development be well-planned, United Virginia Bank has, as of February 11, 1977, engaged R. O. Snow and Associates to design the access and undertake the other engineering work as directed by the Planning Commission. United Virginia Bank intends to submit an application for an amendment to SP-537 which is in keeping with the Planning Commission's directions on February 1, 1977 when it considered SP-98-76. Our clients feel that SP-98-76 should be considered at the same time as the proposed amendments, which are to be filed within the immediate future, to SP-537 are considered. We have informally discussed this matter with Mr. Fleming, and he has told me that he has no objection to a short delay to enable the Board of Supervisors to consider both of these matters at the same time. We would, therefore, respectfully request that action on SP-98-76 be delayed until the entire Evergreen development (including Parcel 18) can be considered at the same time. Sincerely, (Signed) George H. Gilliam For the Firm" Mr. Fisher asked if this was the same piece of property which the staff report refers to as 18 or 14 acres. Mr. Tucker said yes, this is parcel 18. ~fter receipt of this letter he checked with the County's Real Estate Department and the acreage is as stated in the staff's report. At this time, the public hearing w-~s opened. The first to speak was Mr. James Flemings He said he appreciated the Board considering his application tonight but he hoped that the Board would consider the conditions one at a time. When that occurred he would have input February 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) the Planning Commission had recommended. Mr. Fleming said yes he does. He objects to the use of eminent domain of private property for private use; which is Condition Number 4. Mr. Fleming also objected to Condition Number 8 and Condition Number 9. Next to speak was Mr. Steven Phillips, engineer for Mr. Fleming. He said there was one omission in the staff's report that had to do with a waiver that was requested regarding the 100 foot walking distance to the parking areas. He said because of the geometry and general terrain of the area, it would be a detraction from the development to have a parking lot in front of every unit. His plan shows the parking areas congregated for security reasons. Unfortunately, this required a pedestrian to walk more than I00 feet to his apartment. He asked that the Board consider a possible waiver in this instance. Mr. Tucker said this was brought befOre the Planning Commission, but it is a requirement in the Zoning 0rdinanee under SectiOn 11-7-2(1). It is the staff's opinion that the only waiver that can be granted is through a various application to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Fisher asked if there is some reason why this proposal had been changed since approval was givenchy the Board in 1976. Mr. Phillips said the problem, which was recognized over a year ago, is the fact that the previous plan tore up thirty to forty percent of the land. In an effort to preserve the natural character of the terrain and to also reduce the development expense to his client, the philosophy of a townhouse cluster development makes more sense than individual family structures. With this approach, they also alleviated the problem of sedimentation. The lake disappeared, and the ravines, the natural character, the natural foliage, and the existing timber remain unchanged from what exists today. The build- ing structures are located in areas which are open. It is a plan which his client feels is more amenable to the developmmnt of this particular piece of property. Mr. Fisher asked if there is room on the property to build a debris basin for temporary use if erosion problems occur during construction. Mr. Phillips said the fill over the ravine on the south property line where the creek passes through the property affords the possibility of a sedimentation basin for anything south of Evergreen Drive. The increase in runoff for this development amounts to only eighteen percent over the existing runoff of the existing terrain. Mr. Phillips said there are better ways of dealing with sedimentation by way of dissipating sediment in natural mulch than by trying to collect it in a reservoir. Since the amount of sedimentation in this instance is minimal, he saw no reason to investi- gate the use of sedimentation basins. Mr. Phillips said Virginia Law requires that sedi- mentation be considered for an entire drainage basin. The drainage basin for this area consists of 260 acres of land. That is why a two-acre lake was required for the previous development; it was not because Evergreen was being developed, but because they had to cope with the drainage area of 260 plus acres. Mrs Fleming said on this plan there will be 180 percent open space. The 'coverage will be less than 25 percent and less than'25 percent of~the land will be disturbed. Next to speak was Mr. Tim Lindstrom, representing Citizens for Albemarle and the Albemarle County Taxpayers. He said these organizations wish to register their continued opposition to the granting of this amended application and to the threat that it represents to' a public water supply and a beautiful natural area of the County. These organizations urge the Board to begin immediately to consider the application of conservation zoning for land surrounding the reservoir and to consider remedial action to reduce or eliminate exist- ing sources of pollution in the area. As an individual, Mr. Lindstrom said tonight he is representing these two citizen's groups because the attorney orginally representing same was sued for $5,000,000 by Mr. Fleming who is the developer presenting this app!ieation tonight. This attorney was one of six defendents. Four were~individual citizens simply asserting their constitutional right to speak out against a proposal with which they disagreed. As a result, regardless of the outcome of the trial, they already faced $10,000 in legal expenses and the case is still in a pre-trial sta~e. Mr. Lindstrom noted the lack of attendance at this hearing from groups who have,previously'spoken against this petition. He said in such an atmosphere, which he feels threatens both the public and the Board members, a true public hearing cannot, be held. He said the burden upon this Board to protect the public interest is extremely high because the public does not dare to represent itself. ~ Next to speak was Mr. Paul Stacy. He said that several weeks ago, when he appeared before the Planning Commission to object to this amendment, he had talked individually to all members of the governing board of Citizens of Albemarle about his appearance. A majority of those asked if they could be 'sued personally as a result of consenting to his appearance before the Planning Commission. These people have been and continue to be fearful of litigation because of their opposition to this amendment. Mrs~ Victoria Craw said she has appeared before this Board, City Council and various committees and commissions on subjects of public interest for thirty years~ most of the time speaking for the League of Women Voters or the Civic League. Tonight she speaks solely for herself. Her concern is not just for the potential harm that any development may do to the reservoir, but for the position the Board of Supervisors has been put in by these law suits. She said it would be hard for the Board to make a fair decision, under these conditions, therefore not representing its constituency adequately. Also the threat to which the Board has been subjected can be visited on any member of the community when it is deemed to be effective in reducing opposition to the wishes of one individual. She said the Board must balance a profit venture against unresolved legal suits, the potential danger to the water supply and the danger that the Board's constituents will feel muzzled and impotent. If the Board waits until after the Betz report is received, the matter can be decided in good conscience. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Gilliam if he would like to elaborate further on the letter which was read earlier. Mr. Gilliam said there were three banks who had loaned money to the previous owner of this property. The banks acquired the property about a year ago through a foreclosure sale. The banks are not in the development business but on the other hand have to look after their shareholders and protect what they were compelled to buy. If development takes place on the property next to this parcel, Parcel 18 Will be landlocked unless access~ as suggested by the Planning Commission, ms required. Mr. Fisher asked if the basic request was that action on this petition be delayed until the entire Evergreen development, including Parcel 18, can be considered at the same time. Mr. Gilliam said he had spoken with Mr. February 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) O7,5 Fleming informally and it is his understanding that Mr. Fleming recognizes what the Planning Commission has said and does not object to a delay of short duration so long as it does not prejudice his rights. That is not the bank's intention. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Fleming for his comments. Mr. Fleming said at the Planning Commission meeting, he stated that he was willing to give a paper easement into the adjoin- ing property. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Fleming would agree to a short delay. Mr. Fleming said yes, as long as it does not prejudice his position or jeopardize him in any way. Mr. Lindstrom said he would still urge that the Board defer action on this petition until the matter of litigation is settled. Until such time, there is not an atmosphere conducive to considering this petition objectively. Mr. Fisher said the Board spent many hours working out the conditions on the original permit. Aside from the fact that a delay has been requested by the owners of parcel 18, there is another question which has been in his mind for months. Some of the speakers tonight have alluded to the question of fear. The Board finds itself tonight with a public hearing.requested by the applicant f0~ amending Special Permit 537 and all of the people who have been concerned with the issue are now under suit by the applicant. Furthermore, there is an unnamed person in the suit that according to the news media is an official of Albemarl, County. Aside from any legal questions about procedures, he did not know how the public interest can be served by a public hearing where no one can speak unless they hire an attorney. Mr. Fisher said he feels strongly that the processes of this legislative body are subverted unless a public hearing is free and open to discussion without duress and without intimidation. He did not feel that this can occur until the questions of litigation are put out of the way. Mr. Fisher then asked if the Board wanted to decide whether they would take action, now or wait until after the questions of litigation are settled. Dr. Iachetta said it is his opinion that the Board ought to refuse to take any action until the threat of intimidation is removed. The people are entitled to be he~rd on matters of this kind where long-term implications are far greater than what happens on this one parcel of land. Mr. Dorrier said he does not feel the Board has done anything that could be considered racist. When the Betz study is back, it will give the Board some guidelines on how to pro- tect the reservoir. The applicant has come with an application for a special permit that seems to be an improvement on the initial permit that the Board approved. Since the second application does provide more open space and more clustering of houses, and there are some protective measures for the reservoir, he did not see how the Board could consider not actin~ He asked Mr. St. John if the Board could wait until the new law suits are settled before acting. Mr. St. John said Mr. Lindstrom had written him a letter in January raising a point about statutory conflict of interest. The situation with respect to the Board being intimidated and its judgment being impaired because of personal liability does not create a statutory conflict of interest. This opinion was handed down by Mr. John Dezio, Common- wealth's Attorney. The second 'question is the intimidation of the public as opposed to the intimidation of the governing body that has to make the decision. Does that invalidate the public hearing as a matter of law and constitute a legal bar to a lawful public hearing? The answer to that is no. This kind of intimidation does not render this hearing void. It is not a legal bar to a proper haarlng although there are no cases on this qUestion and Mr. St. John said he has no precedent on which to base his opinion. The other question was, even though this intimidation may not make the meeting a legal nullity, does it give the Board grounds to postpone action. If the board sincerely feels there are facts and opinions and arguments that might be made by members of the public who were not present tonight because of this intimidation, this gives the Board discretion to continue the hearing even if there were not other grounds. Mr. Henley said he personally feels that he has had enough input and is ready to make a decision when the proper time comes. He is not in a hurry to do it tonight. He feels the board should wait and hear the two petitions together, but he did not feel the board should postpone action on this petition indefinitely. Mr. RoUdabush agreed with Mr. HenleY. He felt the Planning Commission has done all they can do in making ~ecommendatlons on this particular piece of property.. He said the plat is obviously better than that previously approved for Mr..Fleming, but he did feel the Board should defer action until a petition on the adjacent property can be heard. Also, a final plan showing the details, with all of the improvements that will be put on this property, will have to be submitted and approved. If new rules are adopted covering the use of the reserv6ir and the abutting lands, the rules that are in effect at the time the application is made, will apply. Mrs. David said quite often a public official feels subject to legal action-cwhen he sits as a member of a board or commission. Mrs. David said she feels differently when citizens appear at a hearing to express themselges. She feels that when citizens are faced with the kind of legal action that is being seen now, there is a real reason for them not to appear. If Mr. Fleming is going t© take this kind of legal action against citizens, then he must alsc accept the fact that the Board is going to wait until the court makes a decision as to who is right before continuing with this petition. There are two immediate reasons for deferral. The fact that the Betz report is almost completed and there are several conditions attached to this application which rely on!~what is coming out of the Betz report. There is also the fact that there is additional property that needs to be developed with this property so the short delay does not seem to be a problem. Mrs. David said she would support a short delay~ for hearing a petition on Parcel 18, but she is also inclined to support a delay Until there is a decision from the court as to who is right on the allegations that haVe been made. Mr. Fisher said it seems there are six people on[~the Board who are willing to grant the delay for Parcel 18 to be applied for and brought to the Board at a later date. He also hears three members of the Board who feel they are ready to make a decision at this time and three members who are not unless the litigation is settled. He felt this petition should be deferred until April. 20, and the matter of continuing the hearing or taking action at that time should be further considered at that time. 076 February 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) At this time motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Dottier, to defer the public hearing on SP-98-76 to April 20, 1977. The motinn carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 10:00 P.M., the Board took a short recess and reconvened at 10:10 P.M. Agenda Item No. 9. Approval of minutes was skipped temporarily. Agenda Item No. 10. Special Appropriation. Request was received from the County Attorney for a $1,600 appropriation to pay for the typing of a transcript on the Fleming trial. He said the money must be paid in advance before the court reporter will start typ- ing. If the bill is less than $1,600 the difference will be refunded. There are others who want copies of this transcript, so the cost will be pro-rated by the court. Motion was then offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,600 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Code 1H-226, Court Reporters and Transcripts, County Attorney's Office. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Lottery Permit Application. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mrs. David, to approve a lottery permit for the Thomas Jefferson Civitan Club based on the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Report of the County Executive for the month of January 1977 was presented as information. Agenda Item No. 9. Approval of Minutes: March 18, September 22 and October 20,?~976 (night)~. Mrs. David noted that on page 98, the second time hydrant number 10028 is listed, it should be hydrant number 10026. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the minutes of March 18, 1976, as amended and to further approve the minutes of September 22 and October 20, 1976, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dottier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher~ Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed: Housing Coordinator's Budget: Mr. Ag~or said the Board had made a $20,000 appropriation from Revenue Sharing Funds as a one-line appropriation with no break- down. When the County agreed to participate in the Section 8~ Rental Housing Program, which begins in April, the Virginia Housing Development Authority, with whom the County is contract lng to administer this program, said they would fund the~Housing Coordinator and his office almost entirely for the first year. After that time, the administrative work slows down and involves mostly reinspection work. Since VHDA is funding a share of the prQgram, 'the County cannot pick up its share with Revenue Sharing monies. He asked that the Board consider appropriating $2,764 from the General Fund for the balance of the fiscal year and eliminate spending Revenue Sharing Funds except for the first month of February. Mr. Agnor said there are a couple of things in the budget which are debatable~ one is the position of a secretary. He is thinking of loaning a secretary (part-time) from another office, and if this is done, VHDA will pick up some of the funding for an existing position. Ail of the costs in the budget are start-up costs, but one item which bothers him is the purchase of a new vehicle. When Mr. Daly came to work, transportation needs were discussed and he was told that a pool car would be available for his use. When VHDA offered to purchase a car, Mr. Agnor asked if it would have to be for the exclusive use of the Housing Coordinator. Mr. Daly is checking this with VHDA. If it can be used as a pool car, that will help to eliminate one car which is scheduled for purchase next year. If it cannot be used as a pool ear, Mr. Agnor said the ear will not be bought. Dr. Iachetta said he did not want to see another car going home at night. Mr. Agnor sai when the new budget is presented, he is recommendi.ng that cars be taken from certain offices and put into a sort of motor pool operation. He will be making a proposal that there be a change in the use of policy of County cars. Mr. Fisher said he was glad to hear this. At this time, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the Housing Coordinator's budget in the amount of $17,466 and to adopt the following resolu~.~ tion: February 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) March 2, 1977 (Afternoon Meetmng-Adjourned from February 16, 1977) AYES: NAYS: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $17,466 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Code 1K, Housing Coordinator. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor said he would hand out tonight the Chamber of Commerce's report on the Convention Bureau which was received late this afternoon. Accompanying this report is only one exhibit which will have to be shared amongst the Board members. Mr. Fisher said the Convention Bureau has requested a joint meeting of the Board and City Council. He asked if the Board would like to have such a joint meeting. The consensus was to try and set up a joint meeting. Claims against the County were examined, allowed and certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged to the following funds: Cafeteria Fund Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account Federal Revenue Sharing Fund General Capital Outlay Fund General Fund Joint Security Complex Fund McIntire Trust Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Sehoo! Fund T~xtbook Rental Fund Town of Scottsville-l% Local Sales Tax Total 56,069.26 10,286.12 4,478.69 25,000.00 40S,754.44 46,786.30 4,142.42 109,617.46 1,084,409.80 2,267.54 128.78 $1,746,940.81 At 10:55 P.M., Mr. Fisher noted that the County Executive had requested an executive session to discuss personnel matters. The Board might also need to discuss litigation and therefore he requested a motion to adjourn into executive session for these purposes. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 12:00 A.M. at which time motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adjourn this meeting until March 2, 1977, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. --Chairman March 2, 1977 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 16, 1977) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 2, 1977, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 16, 1977. Present: Mrs. 0pal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. A. Iachetta, and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officer present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:08 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher. Mr. Fisher recognized that Mrs. David had been installed as President of the Central Virginia Health Systems Agency. Agenda Item No. 2. Presentation of 1977-1978 CoUnty Budget. Mr. Agnor made a formal presentation of the County Budget to the Board. Most of the presentation related to the budget message set out below: Submitted herewith for information and fiscal planning purposes is the proposed 1977- 1978 (FY-78) County budget. As proposed, it is balanced within current revenue resources and existing tax rates. Per your request, it has been prepared in line item form with descriptive narratives. Inventories of vehicles and summaries of personnel, salaries, travel expenses, and capital purchases of furniture, equipment, and vehicles are also provided.