1977-04-06NApril 6, 1977 (Regular-Night'Meeting) ~
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on April 6, 1977, beginning at 7:30 P. M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse,
Virginia.
Present: Mrs, 0pal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Gerald E.~ Fisher, J.
T. Henley, Jr,, F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St.
John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher·
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P. M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-77-01. Frazier~Bell. (Deferred from March 16, 19.77.)
Character of the Area
This area is primarily residential in Character. Springfield subdivision (~ acre
average lot size) is to the east and several single-family dwellings are to the
south. Properties to the north and west are undeveloped. Commercial uses exist
at the other three quadrants of the Route 29 North and Route 649 intersection,
Existing Zoning in the Area
Properties in the other three intersection quadrants are zoned B-1. In the north-
eastern quadrant and bordering the subject proper~y on the west are 92 acres of
vacant B-1 properties. Springfield is RS-1 Suburban residential and properties
on the south of Route 649 are A-1 Agriculture (map to be presented at public'
hearings).
Comprehensive plan
The Comprehensive Plan shows this property in the North Rivanna cluster and indi-
cates low-density residential use for this north-eaStern quadrant of the Route 29
North-Route 649 intersection. The remaining three quadrants are indicated for
commercial uses.
Staff Comment
The staff recommends denial of this petition for-the following reasons:
The request is not'in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Staff opinion is that the Route 29 North corridor is commercially over-zone~;
About 92 acres of vacant commercial property exist in the immediate vicinity
of this site;
Staff is opposed to further encroachment of commercial zoning adjacent to an
established residential area; ~'
Route 29 North is currently under study in terms of traffic congestion. Staff
is reluctant to support any increase in traffic-intensive zoning at this time.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission acted on this petition last night, however,
prior to that time, Mr. Bell had written requesting that this property be rezoned to.commer-
cial office instead of the B-1 zoning originally requested. Mr. ~Tueker said even in light.
of Mr. Bell's request for a change, the staff still feels that the five reasons listed in
the staff report would hold true for commercial office zoning with the exception of number 4
Commercial office zoning would provide a buffer; this was an original intent of the County
zone to provide a buffer between more intense uses and residentially zoned property. The
Planning Commission on April 5, 1977, by a vote of 6/2, recommended to the Board that the re.
quest for ZMA-77-01 be approved for commercial office zoning. The two dissenting Votes felt
the rezoning request was prematUre. Mr. Tucker also noted a letter from the North Hollymead
Full Gospel Church an adjoining property owner who objects to the rezoning.
Mr. Bell was present· He said this is~his mother's property. This request is made at
this time because the County has this 7.29 acres of A-1 land zoned at $65,300, The only
improvements are a small insignificant garage and a cinderblock cottage about 10 ft. x 30 ft
which is in poor condition. Mr. Fisher said the Board could not consider an appraisal in
making a zoning decision. Mr. Bell contended that the property is appraised as if it were
already B-1 land and he felt this was ludicrous. He said this property can never be used
for residential use. The back side of the property has a stream and for the most part can-
not be developed. A total of six houses would be all the property would hold. If the land
were rezoned to commercial office, it would act as a buffer between the Church and the
residential properties on the other side. He said he has several people who might be inter-
ested in this type of use and none of these uses would add significantly to the traffic
patterns in the area.
At this time the public hearing was opened· With no one from the public rising to spec]
for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Roudabush commented that this was not the proper place to bring complaints about
taxes. He said based on his knowledge of this property and the other lands along Route 29
North, he tends to feel that it would be best to encourage a little more depth of zoning
rather than so 'much length. If there is a problem with traffic on Route 29 now, an increase
in depth would allow a lot of the future develppment of property to grow away from the high-
way and give room for parallel roads for access. Mr. Fisher said he wo~ld support that
contention if there were a parallel applicat%on to reduce zoning on Route 29 North, but the
Board does not have that. This application would simply add to commercial zoning, and he
could not support the petition. Mr. Roudabush asked the recommendations of the Comprehensiw
Plan for use of this land. Mr. Tucker said three quadrants at the intersection of 29 and
649 were already being used commercially at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
April 6, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
The consultants did not recognize the zoning on the fourth quadrant and by doing this were
saying that quadrant should be downzoned. Mr. Henley said he could not rationalize that.
Mrs. David agreed with Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher said the Comprehensive Plan is the official
guide of the County. If the Board is going to vote against recommendations in the Compre-
hensive Plan, they must find some cause for that action.
At this time Mr. Roudabush offered motion to accept the recommendations of the Planning
Commission and to approve ZMA-77-01 for commercial office zoning.. The motion was seconded
by Mrs. David. Dr. Iachetta said he could not support the motion since there was no need
shown for this zoning at this time. The roll was called and the motion failed by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Henley and Roudabush.
Messrs. Dottier, Fisher and Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 3. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution
of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning~0rdinance by rezoning the following parcels
from RS-1 Residential to A-1 Agricultnral: County Tax Map 94, Parcels 29B, 31, 30, 25A, 26A,
26B, 26, 27B, 27A, 28A, 28 and 27; County Tax Map ~95, Parcel 16, 16A and 16B. Rivanna
Magisterial District. (Advertised on March 23 and March 30, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker said on January 19, 1977, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolu-
tion of intent to rezone the following parcels from RS-1 Residential Suburban
to A-1 Agriculture:
County Tax Map 94, Parcels 29B, 30, 31, 25A, 26, 26A, 26B, 27, 27A, 27B, 28, 28A
County Tax Map 95, Parcels 16, 16A, 16B
These properties were rezoned from A-I to RS-1 through petition of ten property
owners in April, 1970 (ZMA-114; staff report attached). The only properties
approaching the 1-acre lot size are the subdivisions of Woodsedge (39 lots),
Section 94B, and Tax Map 94, Parcel 28 (2 lots). Other properties zoned RS-1
exceed the minimum 2-acre lot size of the A-1 zone.
Staff recommends the properties as listed in the Board resolution be rezoned
from RS-1 to A-1 for the following reasons:
I. The Health Department has recommended a minimum of 60,000 square feet per
dwelling unit where central water and sewer is not available. RS-1 zoning
in this area does not comply with this recommendation;
2. The Comprehensive Plan recommends conservation use in this area with a
density of one unit per $ acres. This property was rezoned from A-1 to
RS-1 prmor to adoption of the plan.
"February 24, 1977
Mr. Ron Keeler
Assistant Director of Planning
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Keeler:
In regard to your letter and attached map of Boyd's Tavern area dated
February 14, 1977, the following comments from the health department, I hope
will be helpful to you.
In the yellow area you show on the map, there is quite a bit of shale rock.
This shale varies in the degree that it will absorb water or .p~rcolate. However,
our experience with some of the types of shale in this area has not been too sat-
isfactory. As a matter of fact, smx requests for septic tank permits in Pine Run
Subdivision, which is in this yellow area, were turned down because of water table
problems and poor percolation. I will mark this area in red on your map and re-
turn it to you. Also, on nearly all other lots in this area we are adding nearly
4'00 sq. feet more drainfield to take care of poor soil conditions.
So far we have received no complaints about malfunctioning septic systems in
this area, but most of the houses are fairly new.
You have requested information about the sail capabilities for wells in this
section, but our department has no information about well yields because private
wells do not come under our jurisdiction.
In conclusion, I feel that to increase the lot sizes in this area by chang-
ing the zoning from RS-1 to A-1 Agricultural, would certainly be beneficial to
the health department in locating proper septic systems. I hope this is the
information you need.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
John Z. Collins
Sanitarian
Thomas Jefferson Dist. Health Dept2'
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission recommends unanimously approval of this
rezoning.
APril 6, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Mr. Roudabush said several months ago when this matter first came up, Mr. Huff who is
present tonight, made a request for a special permit so he could keep cows and horses on
his property, but found it was zoned RS-1. Mr. Roudabush had personally contacted most of
the owners in the area and those he had spoken with were in favor of rezoning the properties
back to A-I, ~ith the exception of one couple who owned two parcels of land and who indicat-
ed that they were split 50/50 on the question.
Mr. Huff said he had talked to several new property owners in the area. He feels that
with the percolation in the area, this will keep the area from growing and the A-! zoning
will help the County in the long run.
At this time the public hearing was opened.
the petition, the public hearing was closed.
With no one rising to speak for or against
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iaehetta to accept the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and to rezone the properties described above from
RS-1 to A-1. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed: Mr. Huff said he would like to withdraw request ZTA-76-09 without pre-
judice. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, secmnded by Mr. Roudabush, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Items No. 4 and 5 were skipped temporarily.
Agenda Item No. 6. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution
of intent to amend Section 18-7 of the Albemarle County Code, known as the Albemarle County
Lan~ Subdivision and Development Ordinance, concerning private contracts. (Advertised on
March 23 and March 30, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker said the Board of Supervisors on February 2, 1977, adopted a Resolution of
Intent to amend the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development 0rdinance,-~o give
the Planning Commission authority to require that certain provisions be made for the cost
and maintenance of certain facilities, and to insure that the County is not, and Will not,
be held responsible for these facilities. (See Resolution set out on page 54, Minute
Book 15.)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment with
the wording as set out on page 54. Mr. St. John noted that the words, "or replacement",
were left out of the Resolution of Intent, sent to the Planning Commission.
At this time the public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak for or against
the proposed amendment, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to amend and re-enact Chapter 18, Section 18-~ of
the Albemarle County Code, as set out below:
Section 18-7. Relation of Chapter to Private Contracts.
This chapter bears no relation to any private easement, covenant,
agreement or restriction, nor is the responsibility of enforcing a
private easement, covenant, agreement or restriction implied herein
toany public official. When this chapter calls for more restrictive
standards than are required by private contract, the provisions of
this chapter shall control. In the case of any plat on which is
shown any'road, sewerage or water supply system, or other feature,
improvement, facility or element, not to be maintained by any public
agency, which is designed to serve or to be used by more than one
lot on such plat, the commission may require, as a prerequisite to
approval of such plat, that provision be made for the payment of the
costs of construction, maintenance, upkeep or replacement of such
facilities to be borne ratably by the owners of lots to te served
by or to use the same. Such provision shall be made by instrument
of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
CounTy and shall plainly state on its face that the costs of
construction, maintenance, upkeep or replacement of such facilities
will not be borne by the county, the Commonwealth of Virginia or
any other public agency.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a Resolution
of Intent to amend the A-I Agricultural Zone to provide for two-family dwellings as the
use-by-right on a minimum lot size of four acres and to repeal Section 2-1-25(34) of the
Zoning Ordinance, which provides for two-family dwellings by Special Use Permit on a
minimum lot size of two acres. (Advertised on March 23 and March 30, 1977.)
April 6, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker gave ther~following Staff Report:
On January 11, 1977, upon staff request, the Planning Commission resolved to
amend the A-1 Agriculture Zone to provide for two-family dwellings as a use
by right on a minimum lot size of four (4) acres and to repeal Section 2-1-25(34)
which provides for two-family dwellings by special use permit on two (2) acres.
The two major aspects of this proposal are: 1) the change from a two-acre to
a four-acre requirement; 2) the change from~-~a use by special use permit to a
use by right.
Change from two-acre to four-acre requirement
1. The Health Department has recommended (and the Subdivision Ordinance has
been amended accordingly) a minimum of 60,000 square feet (approximately 1%
acres) per dwelling unit where central water and sewer are not available.
Under current provisions, two-family dwellings are permitted at a density
of one unit per acre.
2. While we have not supporting data, staff opinion is that the increased area
requirements will cause the two-family dwelling to be less attractive for
rental purposes.
3. Of the 31 special permit applications to date, 17 have been for parcels
of 4 acres or greater.
4. Increasing the area requirements to 4 acres will reduce the number of
parcels available significantly. This type of housing would no longer be
available to the small property owner.
Change from a Use ~y Special. Permit to a Use by Right
1. Repeal of this special permit requirement would reduce the Planning
Commission, Board of Supervisors, and staff time spent in review.
2. Staff opinion is that two-family dwellings by right would not destroy
the character of the A-1 zone. To the contrary, a two-family dwelling
is less disruptive than two single-family units.
3. As a use by right, other than site plan, there would be no review or
public comment.
4. As a provision by right, the two-family dwelling may become a more
attractive alternative to the mobile home in various situations.
The following are four alternative actions the Commission and Board may wish
to consider:
Alternatives -- By Right By Special Permit
#1
(current
provisio~ 2 acres
#2 4 acres
#3 4 acres
#4 4 acres 2 acres
Mr. Tucker said the staff favors recommendation number 3, however at the planning
Commission meeting on March 8, 1977, the Planning Commission by unanimous vote, recommended
a fifth alternative as follows: The A-1 Agricultural Zone be amended to provide for
two-family dwellings as a use by rig~ton a minimum lot size of five acres and to repeal
Section 2-1-25(34) of the Zoning Ordinance, which provides for two-family dwellings by
Special Use Permit on a minimum lot size of two acres.
At thfs time the pubIic hearing was opened.
the amendment, the public hearing was closed.
With 'no one present to speak for or against
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to amend the A-! Z~ne to provide for tw~-family
dwellings as a use by right on a minimum lot size of four acres and to repeal Section
2-1-25(34) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Henley did not want to do away with the Special Permit provisions for two-family
dwellings on two acres. Mr. Fisher said that provision doubles the density in the A-1 Zone.
It has been a contradiction in the Zoning 0rdinanee because two separate single-family
dwellings are not allowed on two acres in the A-1 Zone, and this creates a problem. Mr.
Henley said his problem was in calling a two-family dwelling, two-dwelling units. He felt
there are times when this would be compatible in the A-I Zone. Mr. Dottier said duplexes
are cheaper to build and would not be separate dwellings.
Mr. Fisher said this came to the Board because of a similar request heard recently. The
Board approved a similar request for a dwelling on two acres and there was no hardship shown.
He felt that approval was in conflict With the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Roudabush said allowing
two families on two acres in special instances, will help ~elieve the housing problem. It is
more economical to put two families in one structure. Mr. Fisher said this is still zoning
to a higher density. This amendment would make it easier to build this type of unit when
there is adequate acreage to comply with zoning, and would not creame a density above what
the Zoning Ordinance permits. Mr. Roudabush said the Board could not approve spot zoning,
but could approve such requests through special permit provisions. Mr. Henley said there
are a number of two-family dwellings in the County that do not create problems and he could
not support the motion. No second was received.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to amend the A-I Agmicultura! Zone by adding Section
2-1-28 to provide for two-family dwellings as a use by right on a minimum lot size of four
acres. This motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
April 6, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
128
Mr. Fisher disagreed that the Board had not repealed Section 2-1-25(34) which provides
for two-family dwellings by Special Use Permit on a minimum lot size of two acres. He agree¢
with the amendment just adopted, but felt that leaving the special permit provision is
totally inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. He said this was the only place in the
Zoning Ordinance where residential zoning is in conflict. After a short discussion of Mr.
Fisher's objections, no action was taken by the Board ~o repeal Section 2-1-25(34) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 4. Request from the Parks Committee. Present was Mrs. Katie Burney,
Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission, who presented the following request:
March 21, 1977
After extensive consideration of current park and recreation needs, the
Commission is requesting you to appropriate $64,500 as follows:
I. Tennis Courts
Reconstruction of four (4) courts at Albemarle High School to include
regrading, compaction, addition of aggregate, asphalt prime,
two inches plant mix and Chevron G-6 colorcoat with lines. $20,500
II. Comfort Stations
1. Mint Springs Valley Park
The existing restroom facility was constructed four years ago
of untreated wood and, hence, is beginning to deteriorate.
The building was also designed for warm weather use with no
provision for adding adequate insulation and hea~ing to
convert to year-round use.
Proposal is to construct a year-round cinderblock building
on the existing site.
$16,000
To allow for cold weather usage, it is also necessary to
construct a shelter over existing above-ground storage
and pressure tanM~ and pumps.
2,000
2. Chris Greene Lake Park
The existing restroom facility located adjacent to the picnic
shelter area was also constructed four years ago of untreated
wood and is deteriorating. This deterioration has been
accelerated by high usage and the location of this building in
a drainage area. This facility was also grossly underdesigned
and does not aecomodate the number of persons using the picnic
shelters. In calendar year 1976 over 100 groups reserved picnic
Shelter #1 during the months April through October. The average
size of each group was 64 persons, but it was not uncommon to have
groups of 150-300 persons. The largest group totaled 500 persons.
It should also be noted that Shelter #2 is also served by this
restroom facility, but since the use of this shelter does not
require a reservation, no figures are available.
Proposal is to tear down the existing restroom and relocate it
out of the drainage area, closer to Shelter #1. The building
will be of the same design as the Mint Springs structure,
designed for year-round use.
$16,000
Also necessary is the relocation of utility lines.
$ 1,000
III.Discretionary Funds
The Parks and Recreation Commission has received several requests
for assistance from community groups in which the Commission has
felt that it could significantly enhance the recreational
opportunities available to County residence for a very small
commitment of County resources.
In most eases, support of these requests would require the expenditure
of funds not currently appropriated; in other cases, the use of
existing Parks Department personnel and equipment would suffice.
The, Commission is, therefore, requesting the Board of Supervisors to
appropriate $3,000 to $5,000 to be used by the Commission as
discretionary funds and to give the Commission the authority
to use Parks Department resources on property other than that
managed by the Parks Department.
$3,000 - 5,000
Examples of requests to date:
-Woodbrook P.T.0. request that the County match $2500 raised
by P.T.O. to improve playground facilities and landscaping
on school grounds.
-Northside Little League request that the County assist in preparing
:.baseball fields at Hollymead School for the Little League season.
-Glendower Community Center request for assistance in upgrading
recreational facilities at the center.
APril 6, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
IV. Shelter - Mint Springs Park
During the calendar year 1976, 108 groups reserved the picnic
shelter at Mint Springs. Average group size was 54 persons with
crowds of 150 to 200 not unusual. The Commission feels that an
additional shelter is warranted and is requesting that the Board
appropriate $4000 as seed money, the balance to be raised through
civic group donations.
4,000
Mrs. Burney said the Parks Commission hopes to serve the Board of Supervisors and the
Citizens of the County by examining matters.that concern parks and recreation; to be able to
spend the time necessary to analyze these matters in order to give the Board sound advice on
how to solve problems. They have tried to be farsighted and spent a lot of time discussing,
analyzing and gathering data and trying to find a way to get the most for the money for the
citizen~ of the County. She said there are times when~it is more efficient to invest money
in order not to spend money in trying to solve maintenance problems, and that is what the
capital improvements budget encompasses.
Mr. Fisher said he felt it was too late in the year to consider new projects for the
next fiscal budget year. Mr. Henley said he has made it known in the past that he felt
school facilities should be used for recreational purposes during the year and during the
summer, but he felt the Board needed a more in-depth plan and the cost of such a plan. He
could not support the request tonight until he looks at a plan for the total County.
Mrs. Burney said the Commission has done costs analysis. They have been working on a
master plan for parks and recreation. County facilities are used by the citizens. It does
not seem to be using the facilities efficiently to offer them without comfort stations
during certain periods of the year.
Mr. Henley said he felt the School Board had let the tennis courts deteriorate more
than they should. Mrs. Burney said the School Board said they do not have funds to upgrade
the tennis courts. Mr. Henley said he was amazed that in four years the comfort stations
could have deteriorated. Mr. Robert Sampson said the one at Chris Greene is built in a
drainage area. For three years, they have been trying t~ remedy this situation. Mr. Henley
said he did not support making these year-round facilities. Mint Springs was designed to be
a nature kind of park and he could see no reasons for a comfort station to be open in the
winter, and he did not think the County can afford to provide such service. He,also dis-
agreed with the request for discretionary funds.
Mr. Roudabush said he was in favor of the request concerning tennis courts. Eventually,
the County will have to either replace these through the school budget or some other budget.
He could support reconstruction of those at this time, but it is too late in the season to
start projects such as Comfort stations, because this would be disruptive of the parks use
this year. He suggested that this request be put into the capital improvements budget.
Dr. Iachetta said the proposed new physical education facilities~ at Albemarle High
School involved the tennis courts. Before committing himSelf to repair of tennis courts at
that site, he would suggest that someone contact the Superintendent of Schools to find out if
the tennis courts must be relocated or if they will be part of the planning for the new
facilities. He was strongly in favor of spending money at Woodbrook and Hollymead to make
the playing fields'better.
Mr. Roudabush suggested that those two items be pulled out and cost figures he.derived.
As far as the request for discretionary funds, he asked that the Parks Commission draft some
specific proposals with cost figures.
Mr. Dorrier said he was familiar With the Glendower Community Center near Keene. A
group of'members from the Community Center met with the Parks Commission several weeks ago
and made a request for a small amount of money to help reconstruct a field. He would support
that item and he commended the Parks Commission for bringing the request. He asked if the
proposals for neighborhood parks will be coming to the Board soon. Mrs. Burney said that is
included in the parks five-year master plan.
Mr. Fisher said the County has been making improvements to the parks from revenue
sharing funds. A public hearing is required before that can be done. There is no problem
with putting the request into the revenue sharing budget and letting the Board decide on
Priorities, however the Board must have concurrence from the School Board before making
improvements to properties owned by them. Dr. Iachetta felt the Board should request the
School Board to include the tennis courts in the planning for new physical education facili~
ties. Mr. Fisher said he would prefer to make an independent inspection of the facilities
before voting.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dottier, that the Pabks
Commission come back to the Board with specific proposals for improvememts at Woodbrook,
Hollymead and the Glendower Community Center. The motion carried by the foIlowing recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to notify the School
Board of the request for funding to reconstruct the four tennis courts at Albemarle High
School and to ask them to respond mhd advise the Board as to their intention for planning for
these tennis courts in the planning for the new physical education facilities. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and ROudabush.
None.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to include the request
for Mint Springs Valley Park and Chris Greene Lake Park in the revenue sharing public!~hearlng
April 6, !@77'(Regular-Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 5. Report from Rann Preserve Committee. -No report was given.
A~enda Item No. 8. Lottery Permit. On motion by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta,
a lottery permit was issued to the Greenwood Community Center for the calendar year 1977, in
accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Dottier.
Agenda Item No. 9. Resolution: Part-time Deputies. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley,
seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution; said resolution to be mailed
to the State Compensation Board:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby concur in the request of the Albemarle County
Sheriff for fourteen part-time deputies to serve without compensation.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Dottier.
Agenda Item No. 10. AcknoWledge resignation of Dr. George Moore.
"March 28, 1977
Mr. Guy Agnor
Albemarle County Executive
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Mr. Agnor:
This letter will serve to offer my mesignation as Director of the
District'Health Department effective May 31, 1977. I shall accept a
faculty position at the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond on July 1.
T~ challenge of the new appointment is to devote time and energy to
education and research in preventive medicine. The move, at this time,
represents a logical step in my lifelong career in public health.
The seven years served in the district health department have been
both enjoyable and re~arding. As t look back, I need only say that you
and others of the community have given the health department all possible
support to have accomplished so much in protecting and maintaining the
public health. I leave with some regrets for there is still much to do
and hopefully, my successor will be in a position to carry the mission of
public health further.
Thank you for all you have done to help make your health department
so responsmve to the needs of the people.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
George Moore, M.D."
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to acknowledge receipt of said letter; to
express the Board's regrets at Dr. Moorers leaving the County and to eXpress the Board's
appreciation for the outstanding job~'that he had done during the'time he spent in Albemarle
County. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iaehetta, and carried by the following recorded vote
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 11. Letter from Zoning Administrator.
"Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
J. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator
Re: Request by Lawrence E. Moore to Void Zoning of His Property
April 6, 1977
Action Requested:
The Board of Supervisors affirm by resolution, or by other appropriate
action as recommended by Mr. George St. John, County Attorney, the Zoning
Administrator's ruling that ZMP-230 is null and void and that Tax Map 128A-
(2)-2 be noted on the official zoning map as A-1.
Upon What Evidence is Action Requested:
The ZMP-230 application was signed and filed by Ray A. Moore as owner
to rezone from A-1 to RS-i, Tax Map 128A-[2)-2. Mr. Ray A. Moore is now
deceased. His brother, Lawrence E. Moore, Jr. who is the present owner,
ApriI 6, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
has sworn by affidavit that his brother was not the lawful owner nor did his
brother have the authority or permission to apply fDr rezoning of Lawrence
Moore's land. Real estate records do not show Ray Moore as a landowner.
Lawrence Moore lives and works in Richmond and is~the recorded landowner.
The rezoning was obtained without his prior knowledge.
Land Plan and Layout:
The RS-1 parcel is surrounded by A-1 land and is a two acre parcel
located in Esmont. The. Zoning Administrator spoke with the Director of
Planning and he feels the RS-1 designation is spot zoning. The RS-1 re-
zoning request was apparently based on locating a living unit per acre;
a house and a mobile home in which Ray Moore once lived.
Comment:
The application, based on Lawrence Moore's affidavit, is null and
void and therefore the Board's action of rezoning would be subject to
attack if not, in'the opinion of Fred Payne, null and void. Having
consulted with Fred, the ZOning Administrator officially takes the zoning
application and he is empowered to declare the application proper or
improper. The Zoning Administrator has ruled the application null and
void based on Lawrence Moore's affidavit and staff research. ~ Fred's advice
was that the Board be so advised and decide whether or not they should
affirm the ~uling for a precautionary measure. Since the original appli-
cant is deceased, the Zoning Administrator believes the "precaution" may be
unnecessary if not Senseless.
The practicality of the matter seems to dictate nothing more than a
Zoning Administrator's ruling. Nonetheless, Mr. St. John should be consulted
whether or not legally the Board of Supervisors should require additional
action2'
Mr. St. John said he did not think a rezoning, even though the application may have been
improper, can be voided until the Board or court takes some action to rezone the land. Mrs.
David asked why Mr. Moore did not just apply for a rezoning. Mr. St. John said he did and he
did not know why the Planning Commission took a position that the rezoning was not needed,
but that the previous zoning was voided. Mr. St. John said that anytime the Board is in
session and a quorum is present, even if an advertisement is not correct, or an application
is not correct, or not signed by the proper person, the action cannot~b~ voided. This needs
some corrective action.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of SuPervisors of Albemarle County, virginia,
does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map by rezon-
lng Tax Map 128A(2), Parcel 2 from RS-1 Residential to A-1 Agricultural; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board does request the Albemarle County
Planning Commission to hold a Public hearing on this resolution and to make
recommendations on same to the Board of Supervisors.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded
vo~e:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Rnudabush.
NAYS-:-~. None-~ ....
Not Docketed: Mrs. David asked that someone write to the Dogwood Festival giving the
names of the Board members who would be riding in the parade.
Mrs. David asked if any member of the Board would appear before the Highway Commission
on the 15th to speak about problems on Route 29 North. It was noted that Mr. Roudabush and
Dr. Iachetta would attend that meeting.
Dr. Iachetta said the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company needs a piece of equipment,
such as old engine number 10, for training purposes. He felt it would be helpful if the
Board supported their request to use this piece of fire equipment. Motion was offered by Mr
Henley, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, uniting with ~m~n~i~l?~i~n~e~n~ C~mpa~yi~n~.~ ~!a
requesting loan of engine number 10 for training purposes. The motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote: .'
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Claims against the County for the month of March 1977 were examined, a~lowed and certi-
fied to the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds:
General Fund ~
School Fund
Cafeteria Fund
Textbook Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
Town of Scottsville 1% local sales tax
497,704.87
1~.056,784.75
83,335.02
588.52
60,182.21
1,428.11
51,137.29
3,433.06
112.40
Total - $1,754,706.23
April 6, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
At 10:10 P. M., motion was offered by Dr. Iaehetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adjourn
this meeting until April 7, 1977, at 4:00 P. M. in the County Executive's Conference Room
on the fourth floor 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.
~2n~airman