Loading...
1977-06-01NJune 1, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 1, 1977, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (arriving at 7:30 P.M.) and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Planner, Robert W. Tucker Jr.; and County Attorney, George R. St. John. A~enda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:27 P.M. by Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item la. located on Rio Road. Robert C. Riffle. Request to operate a billiard parlor on property (Deferred from April 20, 1977.) Mr. Tucker noted that on May 3, 1977, Mr. Riffle had requested before the Planning Commission that this petition be withdrawn without prejudice. Motion to this effect was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta.and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-77-06. Daniel A. and Lorene L. Robinson. To rezone 81.4 acres from A:i Agricultural to RPN/R-1. Property is located off Route 654 (Barracks Road) on the northeast side behind Montvue Subdivision and Jack Jouett School. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 77. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 18 and May 25, 1977.) Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning CommiSsion has not yet acted on this petition. was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to defer this public hearing until July 20, 1977. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: Motio: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3. S. TA-77-01. George W. Clark. (Deferred from April 20, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said the following staff report was presented to the Planning Commission on March 8, 1977: "George W. Clark has petitioned the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to amend the A-1 Agricultural zone to provide for abbatoirs as a use by special permit. Abbatoir is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as "a commercial slaughterhouse" and is provided by special use permit in the M-2 General Industrial zone. Staff opinion is that an abbatoir is a heavy industrial use inappropriate in the A-1 zone and reoommends denial of this requested amendment. Enumerated reasons are as follows: 1. Staff opinion is that this use is adequately provided for in the M-2 zone. 2. The request is not in compliance with the statement of intent of the A-1 zone "to discourage random scattering of commercial and industrial uses." 3. Such an operation requires a high level of water, sewer, and solid waste disposal usage~. Such facilities are generally not provided in the A-1 zone. 4. Slaughterhouses are nuisance industries occasioning heavy trucking and odor problems. After reviewing the staff's recommendations, the Planning Commission had requested them to consult neighboring counties as to their zoning regulations for this type of operation. In Fluvanna County, custom butchering is allowed as a use by special permit in the A-1 zone. In Orange and Louisa counties both have conditions attached to the permit limiting the number of head per week that can be slaughtered. On April 12, 1977, the Planning Commission again deferred this matter until May 10 so the staff could draw up a definition for a custom slaughterhouse. At its meeting of April 12, 1977, ~he Planning Commission deferred this item and directed the staff to develop a definition of "custom slaughterhouse'' and to include in the definition minimum area and setback requirements. While staff remains of the opinion that the ~paeial requirements are most appropria- tely handled in the public hearing process on a case-by-case basis, spacial requirements have been included in the proposed special permit provision. Section 16-80-20 SLAUGHTERHOUSE, CUSTOM. An establishment f6r the slaughter of cettle, sheep, swine, goats, or equines; provided that: a) Such establishment is operated solely as a service; b) No sale of livestock, or livestock products capable of use as human food shall occur on or from the premises, provided that blood, bond, viscera, hides, and other products which normally have not been considered as products of the meat food industry or which are naturally inedible by humans may be sold from the premises. For the purposes of this provision, the term "livestock"- shall mean any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines, whether live or dead; c) Slaughter or preparation bf poultry shall not be permitted. Section 2-1-25(18) Custom Slaughterhouse: The intent of this provision in the A-1 Agricultural district is to permit such use as a service to the June 1, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) surrounding agricultural, residential, and other uses. An area of 10 acres or more shall be required. Ail major uses including livestock holding pens shall be setback from any property line a distance of 300 feet or more. At the May 10th meeting the Planning Commission recommended unanimously that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to include Section 2-1-25(30.1) entitled, Custom Slaughterhouse, as a use by special permit and that the ordinance be amended to include the following definition. Section 16-80.20 Slaughterhouse, Custom. An establishment for the slaughter of livestock, including cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and other animals, other than fowl, as a service and from which there is sold no meat or other product of such ~laughter, other than inedible materials generated as waste and/or byproducts of such slaughter, including, but not limited to, blood, bone, viscera, hides, etc., which may be sold for purposes of removal from the site and/or sanitary disposal.~i Mr. Tucker said there were several letters received in opposition to this request and also a petition from the residents of the county who are in favor of a custom slaughterhouse. Mr. Gale Pickford was present to represent Mr. Clark. He referr'ed to comments from the staff report that this use is adequately provided for in the M-2 zone by special use permit. He said in the years since zoning has been in effect in Albemarle County, only three parcels have been zoned M-2. It is not possible ~o find M-2 land for these purposes. Mr. Clark is requesting that the Zoning Ordinance be amended because he feels this is an agricultural serw The staff has said the request is not in compliance with the statement ~f~intent for the A-1 Zone. He noted that the statement of intent notes that the A-1 Zone is to preserve and promo~ farming and kindred rural occupations; a slaughterhouse fits in that definition. The staff also noted that the operation will require a high level of water, sewage and solid waste disposal facilities that are generally not provided in the A-1 Zone. Virginia Code Section 3.~3~5- 3.1-385, is a whole section on sanitary requirements for slaughterhouses. Anyone who operates a slaughterhouse has to meet those requirements and violation is a criminal offense. In addition to the criminal sections, there is also the Virginia Meat and Poultry Inspections Act, Section 3.1-884.17(C), that provides for inspections through the State Department of Agriculture. Mr. Clark plans on providing service to people who raise livestock, and also to people in the grocery business who might buy cattle and bring them there for processing and return over their counter. The definition that is recommended is one Mr. Clark can abide by. Mr. Pickford asked the Board of Supervisors to consider allowing sales over the counter ~dn order to make this venture more economically feasible. The Planning Commission did not allow this in their conditions because they felt the operation might become too commercial. Dr. Friedman, of the Meat and Poultry Inspection Service, was present and discussed the types of inspections required by the State Department of Agriculture. Mrs. David said she had a problem with the last part of the definition which said, "which may be sold for purposes of removal from the site and/or sanitary disposal". She asked if these byproducts are sold for sanitary disposal. Dr. Friedman said they are sold for rendering, not for sanitary disposal. Mrs. David said the Planning Commission discussed the possibility that this operation might slaughter horses for use as pet food and become a very large operation. Dr. Friedman said this would not be possible. Horses cannot be slaughtered in places where animals for consumption are slaughtered. The definition is not ~i~ accordance with State law. Mrs. David asked if the definition wa~-limited to cattle, sheep, swine, and ~oats, if that would be in accordance with the law. Dr. Friedman sai~ yes. Mrs. David asked if "other animals" included fowl, horses or mules. Dr. Friedman said a separate establishment can be used for slaughter of these but not the same facility. Mr. Tucker said the word "other animals" can be removed from the definition. Mr. Henley said fowl are usually slaughtered in August and he did not see any reason to eliminate the word "fowl". Mr. Tucker said th$ Commission was concerned about the disposal of feathers. This could beco~ a problem in drain fields. Dr. Friedman said provisions can be made for disposing of these properly without causing any problems. Mr. Pickford said at the Planning Commission, he had raised a question about inedible materials and asked that the definition be changed to "inedible for humans" so that the byproducts cout~ be sold economically. At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak for o~ against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said the second staff report drafted dated May 10, proposed both a definition and a statement of intent; and the Planning Commission has apparently dropped the statement of intent. He asked why. Mr. Tucker said this was basically because the Commission can regulate the size of the parcel for a slaughterhouse, at the time a special permit is applied for. If such a provision is placed i~ the ordinance, the applicant could pursue a variance prior to coming to the Planning Commissi¢ and thus prevent the Commission from increasing acreage or setback requirements. The Plannin~ Commission was concerned about this and wantsd the applicant to be aware that they would not favor this type of use on just two acres. Mr. Fisher said citizens in'his district have been concerned about this application, fee~ that if the Zoning Ordinance is amended to allow this use, that applications could come in for about 90 percent of the county. He feels this must be a carefully worded ordinance. Mrs. David said she had sat through the hearings before the Planning Commission. She felt it would be possible to change the definition and act on it tonight. She offered the following wording: "Slaughterhouse, custom. An establishment for the slaughter of livestock, including cattle, Sheep, swine, goats and poultry as a service and from which there is sold no meat or other product of such slaughter, other than materials generally considered inedible for humans, and which are generated as waste and/or byproducts of such slaughter, in61uding, but not limited to blood, bone, viscera, hides, etc., which may be sold for purposes of removal from the site. ,, lng June 1, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) Mrs. David then offered motion to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding Section 2-1-25(30 slaughterhouse, custom, as a use by special permit in the A-1 Zone, including the definition for Section 16-80-20, which Mrs. David had just proposed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. D6r~er, F!sher~ Hefllay~and Roudabush. Ur. Iachetta (who said he is opposed to creating more special permits). Agenda Item No. 4. SP-77-07. Joel and Nancy Schneider. (Public hearing deferred from April 20, 1977.) Although the applicant was not present, there were many people present to speak to this petition, therefore, the Board proceeded. Mr. Tucker said this request is for the stabling of light horses on approximately 1/2 acre of graund zoned R-1. The property is situated between the cul-de-sac of a residential street and the Route 250 Bypass. The average lot size of Canterbury Hills is approximately 1/2 acre. The applicant proposes to maintain a horse on the lot and ride on Belfield School property to the west. Access would be through the wooded area adjacent to the U.S. Route 250 Bypass. The applicant currently has two dogs and a goat on this property. The staff felt that this request is inappropriate due to the density of the development in the area and therefore recommended denial. On May 3, 1977, by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission also recommended denial of this permit. Mr. Tucker noted that there had been numerous letters received in opposition to the request from the ~esidents in Canterbury Hill~ and also a petition signed by 19~ persons. (Petitions on file in the Planning Commission office.) At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Deets said he was present to represent 155 lot owners in Canterbury Hills. Eighty-eight percent of persons contacted opp¢ this petition. He said although this use is allowed by special permit, he did not think that in the urban area it is compatible With the n~ghborhood. He checked with a representa- tive of Belfield School and found there is no way that Dr~ Schneider will be permitted to exercise his horse on those premises. He asked that the petition be denied. Also speaking in opposition w~re Marvin Boswell, Harold Deaner, Everette Monto, Frank Blaisdell and A1 Jordan. Standing to show their opposition to this petition were about 17 persons. Mr. Henley said he felt it had been the practice of the Board to defer a public hearing one time when the applicant is not present. He did not want to see all of these people come to the next Board meeting so said he would support the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iach~tta, seconded by Mrs. David, to defer action on this petition until June 15, with the applicant-being renotified of the date. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 8:35 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 8:40 P.M. Agenda Item No. 5. Tb amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (Section 17-5-19) the Albemarle County Code (Section 18-39(n) ) as each of these pertain to sidewalks curb and gutter. (Notice of this public hearing was published in The Daily Progress on May 18 and May 25, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the following Staff Report: "Staff Opinion - Report of Sidewalk Committee The report of the Sidewalk Committee is in response to amendments to the SUb. division and Zoning Ordinances recommended to the Board of Supervisors by unanimous vote of the Planning Commission on October 26, 1976. In consideration 5f that report, the Board has referred the amendments back to the Commission for further review. The main conclusion of the rePort is that the amendments should be amended to incorporate more criteria for the~requiring of sidewalks. Staff is opposed to that position for the following reasons: (1) In adopting policy toward sidewglks on. August 10, 1976, and subsequently when considering the. sidewa!k a~endments, the Commission clearly ~esired a great deal of flexibility in ~equiring sidewalks. Eoth amendments were tailored to this desire: (a) "Sidewalks and pedestrian reasonable satisfaction "provided further that th( hereof whenever the Commi~ requirements would not be Staff opinion is that this wording i aspects enumerated in the Sidewalk C( environmental impact; location with (2) Staff would caution as to b'eing and waiver of sidewalks requiren recommendations of the Sidewalk when low-cost housing (as defin~ item in the amendments would te~ defensive in requiring sidewalks a ~.ajor means of travel. LikewJ ~alkways shall be provided to the the Planning Commission...," and; Commission may waive the requirements sion determines that to apply such in the best interest of the County..." clearly broad enough to consider such ,mmittee report as: costs to the homeowner; 'espect to foot-traffic generators. too definitive in the criteria for application ~ents. For example, in reviewing the Committee (page 8), item #6 suggests waiver d by HUD) is proposed. Incorporating this d to put the Staff and Commission on the in such a development where walking may be se, such a orovision would tend to indicate In summary, staff would recommend the (2) that sidewalk requirements would not be waived for developments not defined by HUD as low-cost housing. Therefore, staff opinion is that Commission flexibility may be reduced by increasing criteria for applY±ng and waiving sidewalk requirements. Further, as the amendments currently read, th~ applicant would have to demonstrate that sidewalks were not desirable iN a proposed development (2 units/acre or greater) rather than the staff defending the several criteria as proposed such as foot-traffic generator, a vague ter~ quantifiably. (3) Subdivision development at a density of two units/~ cre can only occur where central or public water and sewer are av&ilable - the U~ban Area, and in the future, Crozet and Hollymead. Ail three of these areas are or will be we~l endowed with foot-traffic generators. Further, the Com rehensive Plan states that "neighborhood centers should be located within wal~ing distance of most residents." Staff opinion is that, given these conditions, new developments where sidewalk requirements would apply would generally be located within the recommended proXimity of foot-traffic generators, existing or future. following actions~by the Commission: to the Board of the proposed amendments Reaffirm previous recommendation regarding sidewalks; Amend policy statement of August 10, 1976, concerning sidewalks to acknowledge the recommendations of the Sidewalk Committee which the Planning Commission deems to be of merit. This po$icy statement would serve as a general guide to developers in preparing plans for review by the Commission, but would not have the legal ra~ complications (as indicated above) of amending the these recommendations. Such action would indicate these recommendations in future deliberations." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at their meeting on took the following action: "1) Reaffirmed their previous recommendation to the Boa~ of the proposed amendments regarding sidewalks; aifications and ordinances to reflect consideration of May 10, 1977, by unanimous vote, ~d of Supervisors Amended the policy statement of August 10 1976, concerning sidewalks to acknowledge that the recommendations o~ the sidewalk committee (listed on page 8 of the Revised Report of the SideWalk Committeei are of merit. This policy statement is to serve as a general guide to developers in preparing plans for review by the ~ommiss~on, but does not have the legal ramifications and complications of amending the ©rdim~nces ~o reflect these recommendations.~ Mr. Tucker then read the proposed amendments as recomme~ "Ail sidewalks and curbs and gutters proposed to be acce by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportati in accordance with the construction standards of the Vi~ Highways and Transportation and shall conform to the pr~ of the Code of Virginia (1950,), as amended. Ail other . shall conform to ~15.1-381 of the Code of Virginia (1951 be of material, specifications and design approved by Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways shall be provided to ' faction of the Planning Commission in residential subdi~ density of two (2) or more dwelling units per acre; pro' the Commission may require sidewalks in residential dew density and in commercial and industrial developments shall determine that the same are reasonably necessary health, safety and Welfare and that the need therefor i generated by the proposed development; and provided fur~ Commi~s~on may waive the r~quirements hereof whenever that to apply such requirements would not be in the bes' County o~ when the Commission finds that, due to topogr~ features, sidewalks or walkways are not appropriate. ~ded by the committee r~port. ~ted for maintenance ~n shall be built ~ginia Department of ~visions of ~15.1-381 ~idewalks and walkways )), as amended, and shall ~e County Engineer. ~he reasonable satis- ~isions of a proposed ~ided, however, that ,~lopments of lesser ~enever the Commission ~o protect the public subst ant ially her that the ~e Commission determines interest of the ~phic or other physical Mr. Fisher said it s.eems the Board is back where they w~re last October when these amendments were first proposed by the Planning Commission~. ~ Mr.' Tucker said y~s~ ex'cept' that the r~commendationa of the Sidewalk Committee would be incorporated into the Planning Commission's policy for sidewalks. The public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Sidewalk Committee. He said he was disappointed that the P1 again to adopt the ordinance as previously submitted. Ail w~ report of the Sidewalk Committee as a guideline. The Commit~ opposed to any ordinance requiring sidewalks, however, they have not been'politically palatable, and went about writing ground as a compromise. They did not feel density itself sh mining if sidewalks would be required. The committee felt tl required, ordinances should be amended to give specific guid to refer to. The recommendations in the report took into co~ Committee did not feel the community wants sidewalks and als involved. Mr. Rotgin concluded by saying, if it is the Boar, ]huck Rotgin, a member of the ~nning Commission has recommended ~re glad they did accept the ~ee was a citizen panel who was ?elt this recommendation would report to establish a middle ~uld be the sole criteria for det~ ~at if sidewalks are to be lines for the Planning Commissio~ ~sideration the fact that the the negative factor of the cost 's pleasure to adopt this ordinance, he would urge that they be specific~ as to when si ewalks would be required, and limit the latitude of the Planning Commission, especially wh~re areas are less than two lots per acre. If the width of a road is increased and sidewalks are added, there will be a lot more impervious surface and this will increase storm watar ~unoff both in volume and velocity This will require off-site drainage and cause problems in r~ght-of-way acquisition. Next to speak was ~Mr. Randy Wade on behalf of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association. He noted that several members of the association were present ~o~ight to signify their stand on what he had to say. He also was a member of the Sidewalk Committee and the Committee was June 1, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) said he would like to have some flexibility in planning developments. This ordinance will impose on that flexibility if the Planning Commission has the latitude which the amendment grants. The amendment gives discretionary powers that are not necessary or desirable. He suggested that the wording of the amendment be changed where it states, "sidewalks and pedestrian walkways shall be provided," to "sidewalks and pedestrian walkways may be provided"; and at the end of that sentence where it states, "provided however that the Commission may require sidewalks in residential developments of lesser density," to strike that language. Mr. Tom Forloines said he agrees with what Mr. Wade said. These recommendations are set up so the Planning Commission will have guidelines to consider, but most of the time the developer will not know what to expect. He feels that something more definite is needed. He disagreed with the recommendation of the Committee which said that when low cost housing as defined by HUD is proposed, requirements could be wai~ed. He felt that these areas would have the highest density in the County and there would be more children in the area, therefore sidewalks would be needed. Generally he felt the ordinance will hurt the general public on the cost of housing, and he felt that when there is a density of two lots per acre or more, that sidewalks on one side should be sufficient. He requested that instead of stating, "sidewalks and pedestrian walkways may be provided~,'' the sente, nce should say, "sidewalks and pedestrian walkways may be provided on one or both sides of the street".~ This would give the Planning Commission discretion to choose. With no one else rising to speak for or against the amendment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush and Mr.' Fisher both agreed to the changes in the amendment as suggested by Mr. Wade and Mr. Forloines. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John about changing '~'shatl" to "may." Mr. St. John said this would give the Planning Commission flexibility. They don't have any choice but to requ±re sidewalks, under certain circumstances, the way the amendment is drafted. They have been requiring sidewalks, particularly in commercial areas, under the Site Plan Ordinance. For a while, they had no authority to do this at all. They may have implied authority under the general site plan approval, but this was not spelled out. To say they may have power, clarifies that power, and is a help to the general posture of the ordinance. Mr. F±sher asked about the last sentence of the amendment, stating that the Planning Commission may waive requirements. Mr. St. John said the language is not needed. When the Board authorizes them to waive requirements, they are speaking only as to when they are required to impose conditions of sidewalks. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mrs. David, to amend and re-enaCt the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (Section 17-5-19), and the Albemarle County Cod~ (Section 18-39(~) ), as set out below~ BE ZT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby amend and reenact Article 17, Section 17-5-19 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to read as follows: Provision shall be made for sidewalks and pedestrian walkways which will enable pedestrians to walk safely and conveninetly between buildings on the site and from the site to adjacent property. When feasible, pedestrian underpasses or overpasses are to be encouraged in conjunction with major vehicular routes. Provision shall be made where appropriate for pedestrian walkways in relation to private and public areas of recreation and open space, e.g., s~hools, parks, gardens and areas of sim~ta~inatmre. ~onnoc~on shall be -made~wherever possible of all walkways and bicycle ways with similar facilities on adjacent developments. Ail sidewalks and curbs and gutters proposed to be acce~ted for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation shall be built in accordance with the construction standards of the Virginia Department Of Highways and Transportation and shall conform to the provision of Section 15.1-381 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. All other sidewalks and walkways shall conform to section 15.1-381 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and shall be of m~terial, specifications and design approved by the county engineer. Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways may be required on one or both sides of streets to the reasonable satisfaction of the commission in residential subdivisions of a proposed density of two or more dwelling units per acre and in commercial and industrial developments whenever the commission shall determine that the same are reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and that the need therefor ~is substantially generated by the proposed development. BE iT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby amend and reenact Chapter 18, Division 6, Section 18-39(n) of the Albemarle County Code, Required Minimum Improvements - Public Streets, to read as follows: S~dewalks, curb ~and gutteri ~ AI~ sida~alks and curbs and gutters proposed to be accepted for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation shall be built in accordance with the construction standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and shall conform to the provisions of Section 15.1-381 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Ail other sidewalks and walkways shall conform to Section 15.1-381 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and shall be of material, specifications and design approved by the county engineer. Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways may be required on one or both sides of streets to the reasonable satisfaction of the commission in residential subdivisions of a proposed density of two or more dwelling units per acre and in commercial and industrial developments whenever the commission shall determine that the same are reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and that the need therefor is substantially generated by the June 1, 19~ The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the foll AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachel None. 77 (Regular - Night Meeting) owing recorded vote: ta and Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 6. Resolution of intent to amend Sect regarding general language and the definition of subdivision Progress on May 18, and May 25, 1977.) Mr. Tucker noted tha not yet ac~ed on this resolution of intent. Motion was offe~ by Mr. Roudabush, to defer this public hearing to July 20, 1! the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iache~ None. on 18-2 of the County Code, (Advertised in The Daily the Planning Commission has ed by Dr. Iachetta, seconded 77. Motion was carried by ta and Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 7. "May 21, 1977 Application for a Central Well Permit: Forest Lodge Water Company. The Board of Supervisors Albemarle County, Virginia County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Forest Lodge Water Company, Inc. Dear Mrs. David and Gentlemen: I am writing on behalf of the Forest Lodge Water Cz request the Board's approval for the corporation to opel a central well system and water delivery system to serw 21 connections. The Health Department has taken primacy over the e~ system serving thirteen connections around the property Lodge across from the proposed Whittington subdivision. a 48 hour test the capacity of the well is 10.5 gpm or @ ~ gpm per connection. Storage facilities consist of gal. hydromatic tank. The Health Department is current an operation permit for the system for 21 connections ( source capacity.) This would allow for the thirteen ex~ plus eight additional connections in Whittington. This be to us by June 15, 1977 at the latest. If there are any questions concerning the operatio~ the inspection or evaluation of the system, Mr. Charles P. E. District Engineer with the Bureau of Sanitary Eng[ Regional Office of the State Health Department would be Phone 703-463-7156. Thank you. "i~EMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 24, 1977 Lettie E. Neher J. Ashley Williams Forest Lodge Water Company - Central Well Per I made an inspection of the testing of the well for the Company as you requested in your memo of May 4, 1977. as well number 9, located on the Forest Lodge property, 11-13, in accordance with the Central Well Policy of th be pumping 10.2 gallons per minute at the end of the re~ I would recommend, with the County's allocation rate of mpany, Inc. to ~ate and maintain , at this time, isting water known as Forest Based upon !1 connections [uel 7,000 _y processing .imited by _sting connections permit should ~s permit or to Armentrout, .neering, Lexington glad to help you. Forest Lode Water Company, Inc. By: (Signed) Sue B. ~inor, Agent" nit Forest Lodge Water Phe well, identified was tested on May County and found to uired 48 hours test. '0.5 gallons per minute per dwelling unit, the well system be limited to serving 21 dwelling units. This is also the number the State Health Department is ~llowing in,their permit for the well. ~ Your assistance in having this put on the Board's agenda as soon as possible would be greatly appreciated." Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant has a central well p being served. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Fisher asked if the St. John said State law has required approval of water supp since the early 1950's. He has heard that this system, and which is owned by the applicant, is being operated illegall has been made to the State Corporation Commission for acer as well as an application to the County, to legalize the to ~rmit for the 13 units presently existing system is illegal. Mr. _y systems by the governing body the larger system in the area at this time, but an applicatio tificate of necessity and conveni tal system.. This area is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Albemarle County Servi~e Authority,.but this system predated the time when the Service Authority was formed. H~wever, Mr.. St. John said he did not have enough information at this time to advise whether ~he Board, the Service Authority, or both, should take a position before the State Corporation Commission on the application ~ce, June 1, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) 2OO Mr. Fisher said since this application refers to Well #9, he Huestions whether this well is part of a larger system. Mr. Tom Sinclair was present and said the two ~systems are not interconnected. Mr. St. John Said he had seen a map which was prepared for I. J. Breeden and it showed that all of the pipes in this area are interconnected. Mr. Sinclair said he thought Mr. St. John was referring to a "proposed" scheme for development drawn by Roy Parks and Environmental Interface. Mr. Sinclair said there are eight wells in the~big system, but ~.only five are in operation. Some of these wells which serve Oak Hill and $outhwood, were dug 40 years ago. Mr. Agnor said he had asked the relationship of Well #9 and the request for a larger system which will come to the Board in the future. The County Engineer's Office said this is a separate system which will eventually become part of the larger system. At this time, the applicant's only interest is to legitimize the operation of this one well. Mr. Fisher said the Board has before it a map showing a larger well and distribution system, and further development for the applicant in the same vicinity. It is obvious that the Board is dealing with only part of what will be a much larger water system. Mr. Agnor said the reason this is on the Board's agenda is to make provision for houses which are presently occupied or under construction and for which public water supply permits have been issued by the Health Department. Approval of this well can be conditioned so it will not become part of a larger system until the matter is brought back for further approval by the Board. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any request from the Albemar.le County Service Authority asking for a deferral of this matter. Mr. Agnor said he had a memo from Mr. E. E. Thompson, Executive Director, in which he states that "after conferring with the County Engineering and Planning Department and our attorney, I realize that I have not had enough time, nor do I have sufficient facts to comment at this time." Mr. Agnor said the territory of the Service Authority is split by Route 631 so the new lots to be served are outside.,.of the Service Authority's jurisdictional boundaries. Mr. Fisher said he would like to ~give the Service Authority a period of time in which to make comments. Dr. Iachetta asked if there is an application for a Residential Planned Neighborhood before the Planning Commission. on this same property. Mr. Agnor said yes; but the RPN is outside of the jurisdictional area of the Service Authority. Mr. Sinclair said the applicant had cut off the frontage lots on Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631) and afterwards decided that was not a good way to develop the property. He then decided to develop an RPN and incorporate those frontage lots (about 16) into the RPN. The problem now is that there are people who have bought lots, built homes, and they cannot get a certificate of occupancy from the County because of the lack of availability of water. Mr. Tucker said at a meeting of the Site Review Committee, Mr. David Breeden indicated that he planned to serve these lots from a central water system. He was told that in order to do this he would have to get approval from the County. He said since he had,two-acre lots, he could install individual wells and septic tanks and the Planning Commission included this as a condition of approval. However, the lots were then sold indicating that the lots would be served with public water. Mr. Agnor said the people who obtained building permits had a certificate from the Health Department saying there was an approved water system. They were issued building permits on this basis. Mr. Dottier said he did not think the Board could penalize the people who have relied on the applicant. Dr. Iachetta suggested that the Board resolve this matter by just allowing 21 connections on this well. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, suggested as a compromise that the Board allow only the number of connections needed to supply the houses already constructed or occupied. Mr. John Moore said he has built a house on Lot t in Whittington. The lady who bought the lot, bought same because it was to be served by public water. She paid to have lines installed for public water service. The house is finished, the lady is in a motel, her furniture is on a truck, and she is unable to get a certificate of occupancy from the Counvy. At this point, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve the application of Forest Lodge Water Company for a central well permit, with the proviso that the number of units approved be limited to only those houses currently under construction or which had building permits issued as of June 1, 1977,. or a maximum number of 21 connections. Those units are as follows 1) Existing cottages and homes on the Forest Lodge property; five connections. 2) Lots in Forest Lodge Subdivision, Section 1, Block A, Lots 1 through 8; eight connections. 3) Lots in Whittington, Section 1, Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8; six connections. Total 19 connections. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dottier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Dr. Iachetta said he had received a telephone call today from Mr. Robert Newcomb of the Virginia Highway Safety Division. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission studied whether Planning District 10 should be put under the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program, which is a program to get drunk drivers off the highways. From the results of this study, they feel it should be and the Highway Safety Division now wants to know if Albemarle County would like to be the governing body to administer the program. The program requires that the County add three people to the payroll; a director, a secretary and one caseworker. Salaries and expenses of these people would be completely funded by the Highway Safety Division for the first year. The second and third years the County would be fully reimbursed for the cost of labor. If the program does not become self-sustaining at the end of the third year, the program is dropped. This program takes the driver apprehended for driving under the influence and gives him an opportunity to participate in the pragram. People who are chargeable under the blood test law can voluntarily participate and if they do, they pay a fee of 3200. That fee is what makes the program self-supporting. The County would have to incur costs at the beginning of the program, but eventually would be fully reimbursed. Dr. Iachetta asked if the Board wanted to become involved in this program. June 1, 197? (Regular - Night Meeting) Mr. Dorrier said Dr. Mohr spoke to the Mental Health Chapter X Board recently on a proposal which would set up the same type of unit at the Chancellor Street operation. Dr.~. Mohr indicated that he could run the same program cheaper than the State. Dr. Iachetta said this program is administered and funded entirely from highway trust funds. Mr. Agnor said a similar program has been in operation in the community for some time. The judges of the various courts have been prime movers in getting this program started. The localities wen~ ahead with the program and it has been so successful that they now want to expand it to other counties. Mr. Fisher said he was not ready to give his approval of this program. X~ would like to see if another jurisdiction in the Planning District would like to take on this program. Mr-~-Dottier said he had received a request from the Fire Marshal ~for installation of~a fire hydrant at Holiday Inn South. Mr. Reynolds stated that there is money left from the Revenue Sharing Funds appropriated for this purpose. Mr. Agnor said he had planned to discuss the final report on fire hydrants at the June 8th meeting and the utilization of the remaining funds. Mr. St. John noted that he had given to the Board a drafted reply to a letter from Gerald G. Poindexter, attorney for James N. Fleming, and asked if he could have authorization to send this letter. "A copy has been delivered to me of the letter sent by you to the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County under date of May 20, threatening them with a criminal contempt proceeding in the U.S. District Court if they do not approve your clients' amended plan within thirty days. At its meeting on June 1, I was authorized by the Board to answer your letter. The Board does not intend to reconsider or reverse the action it took on or about April 20, 1977, because it is apparent to them that your action in filing a suit alleging conspiracy against most, if not all, of the citizens who spoke against your proposal in public hearings, and then in delaying and keeping pending this suit instead of prosecuting it, constitutes a trans- parent attempt to use the U.S. District Court as an instrument of intimidation to silence the public, rather than as a forum for litigation of your alleged grievances. You have established a pattern of filing suits resulting in large attorneys' fees against citizens who speak in opposition to your demands, and of making threats of such suits, without any apparent basis whatsoever, and the Board believes this last letter of yours is another example of this pattern. The Board believes that the public has in fact been intimidated by these maneuvers, as evidenced by the absence of public input at the recent hearings, and that legitimate public hearings are impossible in this atmosphere. The Board has no interest in influencing any pending litigation in which it is not involved, but it is interested in preserving freedom of speech at its public hearings. This application now pending before the Board has nothing to do with Judge Turk's order of April 26, 1976, and the Board has in no way violated that order. The Betz study now completed in no way justifies relaxation of the regulations for protection of the Reservoir, but that factor is not involved in the Board's present position either. It is your attempt to silence the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle County through what the Board has inescapably concluded to be an abuse of the legal process, that constrained the Board to take its action on April 20. We will in fact welcome the opportunity to lay the facts of this matter before the Court, and if you are inclined to initiate any proceedings of the type referred to in your letter, you are urged not to wait thirty days, but to do so immediately. By copies of this letter and your letter, I am informing Judge Turk of the Board's position, and I request we be allowed to participate in selecting the dates for any hearing. CC: Honorable James C. Turk Edward R. Slaughter, Jr., Esquire E. G. Tremblay, Esquire James B. Murray, Jr., Esquire C. Timothy Lindstrom, Esquire" Motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to authorize Mr. St. John' to mail this reply. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Roudabush asked that the record show that he did not receive a copy of Mr. Poindexter's letter. (Note: No copy of this letter was received by the Clerk for the"file.) At 11:22 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.