Loading...
1977-08-17NAugust 17, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 17, 1977, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Board Members Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. Officers Present: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to order. meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman, called the Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-77-15. Frank Kessler and Joe Wright~ III. To rezone 14.68 acre from R-2 to RPN/R-1. Property at the end of Wilder Drive; bounded on the north by Meadow Creek. County Tax Map 61, Parcels 198, 199, 200 and 201. Charlottesville and Rivanna Distric (Public Hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3 and August 10, 1977.) Mr. Fisher noted that action on this petitio~ was deferred by the Planning Commission until September 6, 1977, and requested deferral by the Board. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer the'public hearing until September 21, 1977 Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3. ZTA-77-05. Gelletly Properties, Inc. To amend Article 9, General Industrial District, M-2, to provide for travel trailer sales and services as a use by right. (Public Hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3, and August 10, 1977.) Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission had deferred action on this request until August 23, 1977. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, for the Board to defer the public hearing until September 7, 1977. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend Article 3, Article 4, Article 5, Article 7, Article 7.1, Article 8 and Article 9 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as they relate to minimum area requirement~ (Advertised for public hearing in the Daily Progress on August 3, and August 10, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission deferred action on this petition until September 13, 1977. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer the public hearing on this petition until September 21, 1977. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. ZTA-77-02. To amend the setback requirements of the CO Commercial Office, B-1 Business District and A-1 Agricultural zones of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit location of telephone booths within the required setback, but no closer to the road than the established right-of-way. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3 and August 10, 1977.) The County Planning Staff's report was read by Mr. Tucker: "The Central Telephone Company of Virginia is pevitioning the Board of Supervisors to amend the A-! AgricultUral, CO Commer42al Office, and B-1 General Business zones to permit telephone booths within the required building setback. The Zoning Administrator has ruled that telephone booths (unlike poles, etc.) are "business structures" which must meet the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In add.ition to general aspects of health, safety, and general welfare, the building setback in a zone serves the following specific functions: 1. Reduce public costs of relocation/condemnation by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for highway improvements; 2. Control manmade obstruction (physical; visual; sight-distance impair- ment) in roadway corridors. In order for the staff to support such amendments, the following provisions would be necessary: 1. Virginia Department of Highways end Transportation would bear no responsibility or cost for relocation/condemnation of phone booths located within the setbacks. 2. To distinguish phone booths from any other business operation, such booths would be equipped for emergency service (911 cr operator access without coins), and would clearly be a service to the traveling public. Add to Sections 2-3, 7-3, and 7.1-5 the following amendments: Telephone booths may be located within the required setback but no closer to (a) Such booths shall be equipped with an emergency service system; (b) No costs or responsibility for relocation or r~moval including condemnation shall be borne by the Commonwealth of Virginia o~ any ~ther public agency; (c) The location of such structures shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator after consultation with the Virginia Depart- ment of Highways and Transportation.~'' Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission on June 14, 1977 recommended approval by adding the following language to Section 2-3, 7-~3 and 7.1-5: "Public telephone booths may be located within the required setback, but no closer to any street than the existing right-of-way line or right-of-way reservation line, provided that: (a) Such booths shall be equipped for emergency service to the public without prior payment; The location of every such booth shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator to ensure that the same will not adversely affect the safety of the adjacent highway; Every such booth shall be subject to relocation, at the expense of the owner, whenever such relocation shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator to be reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare or whenever the same shall be necessary to accommodate the widening of the adjacent highway." Mr. Ronald Thacker, the Coin Manager for this region of Centel was present. He stated that he felt it would best serve the public interest if telephone booths were allowed to be placed closer to the edge~of the road, and not at the presently required distance of 35 - 40 feet. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to amend and reenact the Zoning Ordinance by adding under the A-1 zone, Sections 2-3; under the B-1 zone, Section 7-3; and under the CO zone, Section 7.1-5, the wording recommended by the Planning Commission as set out above. Roll was called, and motion carried by the folto~ng recorded vote: AYES: NAY S: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, !achetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend the setback requirements of the scenic highway designation to permit telephone booths to be located within the required setback, but no closer to the highway then the established right-of-way. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3, and August 10, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the County Planning staff's report. "On Jun8 14, 1977, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend the setback requirements of Article 18 Scenic Highway Designation to permit telephone booths .to be located within the required setback but no closer to the highway than the established rig~t-of-way. This resolution resulted from a"~oning text amendment by Centel. He said that the Planning Commission at its meeting August 2, 1977, by unanimous vote, recommended that~Section 18-3-1 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to read as follows: "Telephone booths may be located within the required setback but no closer to any street than the existing right-of-way line or right-of-way reservation line, provided that: (a) Such booths shall be equipped with an emergency service system; (b) No oosts or responsibility for relocation or removal including condemnation shall be borne by the Commonwealth of Virginia or any other public agency; (c) The location of such structures shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator after consultation with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation." No one from the public ~ished to speak regarding this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to amend and reenact Section 18-~-'1 of the Doning ~rdinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-77-16. Rivanna Estates Limited Partnership. To rezone 91.7 acres from B-1 Business (about five acres) and A-1 Agricu2tural (remainder) to R-3 Residentia[ (83.9 acres) and B-1 Business (7.8 acres). Property on east side of Route 29 North near Piney Mountain. C~unty Tax Map 33, Parcel 1, and Parcel iD (parts thereof) Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3, and August 10, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the Counvy Planning Staff's report: "Location: Property, described as Tax Map 33, Parcel 1, part thereof, and Parcel iD, part thereof, is located on the east side of U.S. 29 North approximately 1 mile north of the North Fork of the Rivanna River. Character of the Area This Bite is a portion of about a 900 acre farm owned by the applicant. The property is both open pasture and wooded and generally rolling topography. Several large ponds exist on the farm'. Badger-Powhatan and Camelot are major developments in the area, the remainder being rural in character. Existing Zoning in the Area As described in a recent staff study for Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, zoning in the area is as follows (map to be presented at public hearing): Zoning A-1 Agriculture R-1 Residential R-3 Residential B-1 Business M-1 Industrial Tstal Area 5OO 142 29 164 Vacant Area (scattered development) 121 29 6O 114 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan proposes agricultural use for this area. Badger- Powhatan, Camelot, and the zoning described ~bove (except A-i) are not recognized in the Plan. Comparative Impact Statistics Existing Proposed Zoning Zoning dwellings 37 1426 population 118 3708 vehicle trips/day 2250 13,100 water consumption(~esidential only)ll,'800 370,800 ~tudents ~-5 11 275 6-8 6 146 9-12 7 165 Total 2~ 5~-6 Staff Comment The applicant proposes to develop this property in a fashion similar to the VueLund RPN plan both in terms of density and use. As staff has indicated in the past, such representations Should not be considered in a tradit~ional rezoning, therefore, the impact statistics presented in this report are based on maximum development permitted in the requested zone. (R-3 is requested because of dwelling unit type; B-! is requested for the central building.) Water service to the site would be from a 12-inch main which parallels Route 29 North on the east side. The possible expansion of the Camelot sewage treatment plant is currently under study by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and A~emarle County Service Authority. Aspects of this application which are favorable and unfavorable are as follows: Favorable 1. Water, sewer and highway facilities exist in the area (improvements may be necessary); 2. Other urban-type zoning exists in the area; 3. For a retirement ~illage, this site offers a rural, bucolic character, buffered from Route 29 North and other incompatible uses. Unfavorable This request is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Alan which recommends agricultural use for this area. Staff has not supported higher density zoning outside of the designated growth centers; Approval of this request would set precedent ~r similar requests in areas recommended for agricultural use; While there is significant intensive zoning in the area, most acreage is undeveloped and therefore the County still has opportunity to bring this area into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Tucker not~d~that-~th~ Planning G'Om~issi~ on August 2, 1977, by a vote of 7-0-1 recommended denial of this request. Mr. Tucker then read a letter received from Mr. and Mrs. Curtis Amburn stating their opposition: "Route 8 Greenfield Trailer Court #4 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 July 29, 1977 Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Director of PI'arming Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Request for ZMA-77-16 Dear Mr. Tucker: Thank you for notifying us of Rivanna Estates Ltd. Partnership's request "---to rezone 91.7 acres from B-1 Business (about 5 acres) and A-1 Agricultural (remainder) to R-3 Residential (83.9'~acres) and B-1 Business (7.8 acres)." As adjoining property owners, we are opposed to the request in that R-3 Residential zoning allows extensive development of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. We feel this type development is ±ncomp~tib~e with the rural character of the neighborhood which was a major factor in our consideration when we bought property for a home in the area. Also, this requested rezoning is~not~in line with the county's Comprehensive Plan as we understand it. We trust our objection will be considered at the Planning Commissions's public hearing scheduled for August 2. Thank you very much. Very truly yours, (Signed) Curtis W. and Barbara M. Amburn" Mr. Tucker said a letter was also received from the Highway Department. "July 27, 1977 ZMA-77-16. Rivanna Estates Limited Partnership - This rezoning request could generate an additional 10,000 vehicles per day above the existing potential. No additional crossovers would be allowed in this area of Route 29. Turn lanes to the existing cross- overs may be required. Commercial entrances with proper length turn lanes will be required. Any plan of development would have to be weighed on its own impact. " Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, the first to speak was Mr. Fred Russell, an attorney representing the applicant. Mr. Russell said the planned development would totally accommodate the elderly resident including 400 hospital beds, library, recreation, et He further noted that the community is planned to be totally self-sufficient. He said the Planning Commission recommended denial because they were confused about procedures. If this project is undesirable, the Board does not need to discuss same, hut if the project is desirable, then, possibly the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to allow for retirement villages in this A-1 zone. He also suggested that the rezoning be approved with a condition uch as returning with the final site plan by 1979. Mr. Max Evans, project engineer, then described the site and proposed layout of the planned community. Mr. Russell requested the Board to make a~s speedy a decision as possible, as the applican is under a very tight f~ancial schedule. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he has read through the material presented and studied the proposal, but felt he could not support a rezoning request which is contrary to recommendations in the present Comprehensive Plan. Also, Virginia law does not permit the granting of conditional rezonings. Mrs. David said some syecial considerations should be made in this case, as there ara no provisions in the present Zoning Ordinance to accommodate retirement villages. Dr. Iachetta said he personally viewed the property and said he favors~ the idea of a retirement village being located on the property, but a straight rezoning to R-3 would make the property available for all uses by right in the R-3 zone without any guarantee that this-pro~ose~ development would take place. He added that he saw no reason why the applicant could not resubmit an application under the RPN designation. Considerable discussion ensued regarding the possibility of this project being considere under RPN zoning. Mr. F~sher asked the County Attorney his opinion. Mr. Frederick Payne said he based his opinion on the Vueland application. H~ feint this~'type of development does fit the definition of RPN, as th~s application is primarily for residential, having other uses within it designed to serve those residences. He then said this development does not fit the P.U.D. concep~ as~a BHD~s-~o~ceiv~ to have industries a~d jobs within in, and requires a minimum of 100 acres. He c~ntinued to say that no PUD presently in Albemarle County truly fits that definition, but if the acreage on this p~t~t~0n~was sufficient, this application probably would fit that type of zone. Mr. Payne then gave his opinion on conditional/contract zoning. He said that if the Board granted the rezoning with certain conditions as suggested by the applicant, he felt those conditions would be void and unenforceable. Mr. Fisher said he could not support the project as a straight rezoning, but would reconsider it as a RPN or PUD. Mrs. David fe~t the ~oning ©rdinance should be amended to accommodate this type of facility, and Dr. Iachetta said to rewrite the Zoning Ordinance aga~ would only take more time and complicate matters further. He suggested the applicant reapply under RPN or PUD and come back to the Board. Mr. Dorrier said he could not go along with a straight rezoning either, but felt the applicant should be given an idea as to what type of application the Board would favor August 17, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) (i.e. RPN or PUD). Mr. Henley said he felt this development belongs in an RPN zone. After some further discussion between the applicant 'and the Board ov~ the possibility of reapplying for an RPN, Mrs. David offered motion to approve ZMA-77-16, to be effective two months from the date of tonight's meeting; at which time it would be subject to the existing terms of the ~oning ©rdinance. She added that this would allow time to place the application under an~ame~d~en~ ~she will propose, placing this type of application under a special permit procedure. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Dr. Iachetta said he was against bending the rules when he f$tt there already were rules governing this type of situation; namely RPN. Mr. Henley also said he would not support the motion, and asked Mr. Tucker how long it would take to have "hospital" placed into the definition of "institution" in the RPN zone. Mr. Tucker said if the applicant reapplied unde~ the RPN, the change in definition could be advertised for a public hearing at the same time and be back before the Board in mid-October. Mr. Roudabush said he also felt the definition should be clarified, but that he could not support the motion as it stands. Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Mr~ Dorrier. Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Zachetta and Roudabush. Motion was then offered by Dr. !achetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and deny the application for ZMA-77-i6. called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: Roll was AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, iachetta and Roudabush. Mrs. David and Mr. Dorrier. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution of intent: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend Article 19, Residential Planned Neighborhood section of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by defining life-care centers and including same as a use by right under the RPN zone; and FURTHER RESOLVED t~Hat the Albemarle County Planning Commission is hereby directed to hold public hearings on this amendment with a report to the Board as soon as possible~ FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors hereby requests that ~ecommendations be made as to whether l~fe-care centers should be allowed in the A-1 Agricultural District as a use by special permit. Motion was accepted by Dr. Iachetta. follo~ing recorded vote: Roll was called, and motion carried by the AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 9:17 P.M., the Chairman called a short recess. Meeting was reconvened at 9:28 P.M. Agenda item No. 8. SP-77-42. Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. To locat~ a fire station on 14.27 acres zoned B-1 Business. Property on west side of Route 29 North opposite Woodbrook Subdivision. CSunty Tax Map 45, Parcel 93A. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in t~e Daily Progress on August 3 and August 10, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the staff report. "Character of the Area This is the site of Coggins Motors, which was before the Commission last year. The site is developed with a garage structure which would house the fire truc. k. Mobile homes are currently on the site which is used as overflow storage for Oakwood Mobile Homes which is adjacent t~ the north. A veterinary is adjacent on the south. Staff Comment The applicant wishes to use this site as a temporary location for the fire department while permanent facilities are under construction on the Berkmar site. (Special use permit and site plan approval are required for the site on Berkman Drive. This 2-3 month process has not been initiated to date.) Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: t. Approval is for one year from date of Board of Supervisors approval; 2. Highway Department approval to include appropriate warning signs or devices on Route 29 North; 3. Temporary Highway Department envrance permit to restrict use of entrance to fire department needs." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on August 2, 1977, voted to approve SP-77-42 with only the first t~o conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Ed Cord, president of the Seminole Trail Fire Company, said they had no objections to the one year t~m:e limit, as they considered this location a temporary site; any other No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this application, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to approve SP-77-42 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-77-~6. Dale ~urtis Hogue and Carolyn J. Hogue. To locate a gi~ craft and antique shop on 248.87 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property on east side of Rout 231 about 5ne-fourth mile from intersection of Route 740. County Tax Map 66, Parcel 3A. Rivanna District. ~Advertised for public hearing in the Daily Progress on August 3, and August 10, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the County staff report. "Character of the Area This area is characterized by large, established estates. Castle Hill, across from the site, has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places and has-been ~s. ignated as a Virginia Historic Landmark. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan proposes this area for conservation use. The plan al.so recognizes several historic sites along Route 22 and 231 (page 10). Staff Comment The applicant proposes to operate an antique shop in the basement of her dwelling with no employees. The applicant desires to be open to the general public on weekends until the business is established at which time the shop would be operated by appointment only. The applicant would be dealing in high-value, specialty ~tems. Antique and gift shops have been a problem to the County inrthe past, especially those in proximity to historic sites. However, staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal with appropriate conditions would make this use unobtrusive in the area. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: Open to the general public on Saturdays and Sundays only for a period of one year from approval by the Board of Supervisors. Thereafter, to be operated ~y appointment only; e Limited to one sign not exceeding four square feet in area. This sign is to be removed one year ~from approval by the Board of Supervisors; 3. Limited to the basement of the dwelling. 4. No employees." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on August 2, 1977, unanimously voted to recomme~ approval with conditions #!, 3, and 4 as recommended by the staff, but changing #2 to read: "No signs advertising the ~ift, craft, and antique store;" Ms. Carolyn Hogue, one of the applicants, sa~d it would not be a tourist shop for Castle Hill, but a private antique, ~ift shop which would only solicit customers through advertiseme in magazines and newspapers; there would be no highway sign. She then requested the shop be open on Wednesdays and Saturdays (not Sunday as originally requested). Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Otto G. Stolz as follows: "August 8, 1977 Board of Supervisors County Office Building Court Square Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 RE: Request for SP-77-46 to be Considered at August 17 Meeting. Dear Supervisors: This is in response to the notice dated July 13 concerning the above referenced request of Dale and Carolyn J. Hogue. I am the owner of a 160 acre parcel on Route 231 contiguous, in part, to the ~ubject property. i am strongly opposed to the request. The area in which the proposed gift, craft and antique store would be located is a unique area of historiaal significance. The shop is directly across from Castle Hill, which i~ ~n the National Historic Register and is in an area of great historical significance. Obviously, the proposal to locate the shop in this area is to gain a commer- cial profit from the historical attraction of the area. The proposed ~hop would destroy the unspoiled nature of this area, and would become the initial thrust of commercial activity ~hich would destroy the character o£ the area. ts August 17, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) Furthermore, the proposed commercial shop is totally inconsistent with the existing agricultural zoning of this area. The increased traffic and associated signs, litter, visual and noise pollution, and disruption would significantly reduce the market value of adjacent land. I purchased my property on the basis of the existing agricultural zoning. No reasonable planning objective is served by granting such a special exception to a commercial venture which makes no positive contribution to the area and significantly undermines the aesthetic, environmental, historical, and agricultural character of the area. Finally, in the event this ~pecial use were granted it would be difficult, if not impossible, to deny other ~equests in the area for other commercial establishments on adjoining land for the purpose of benefitting from the historical attraction of Castle Hill and the surrounding area. The conditions recommended by the Planning Commission significantly reduce the objectionable nature of the request. However, thay are not adequate to warrant approval of the request. Thee ~n~rea~ed traffic and the dangers of commercial encroachment fr~m this base require that the request be completely denied. There is no rat'i'oKa't' p'l'anning justification served by allowing any aommercial ~e'n't'~re's' 'i~ this historical area. Since I will be unable to personally attend the hearings, I request that this letter be made a part of the formal record on this matter and be introduced at the public hearings of the Board of Supervisors.. Very truly yours, (signed) Otto G..Stolz Attorney-at-Law" Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Hogue if she agreed to the conditions by the Planning Commission. She said she did not have any objections to the conditions. No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Roudabush offered motion to approve SP-77-46 with the conditions recomme~ by the Planning Commission, changing the condition #1 to read "Open to the general public on Saturdays and Wednesdays only for a period of one year from approval by the Board of Supervisors. Theregfter, to be operated by appointment only;" 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. 10. ~TA-77-06. The Crutchfield Corporation. To amend Article 8, Limited Industrial District, M-i, to~provide for warehousing as a use by right. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3, and August 10, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the County staff report: '~he Crutchfield Corporation is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to amend Ar.ticte 18 Limited IndUstrial District to provide for warehousing as a use by right. The M-1 zone is intended to permit uses "whidh do not in any way detract from residential desirability, to locate in any area adjacent to residential uses. Staff opinion is that unregulated warehousing may be unwise and therefore has developed a provision limiting such use in terms of area and the types of items which may be warehoused. Goods which may be warehoused are those which may be assembled and manufactured by right and therefore should not be hazardous to adjacent properties. Staff recommends the following amendment: Section 8-1-33 Warehousing of goods which may be manufactured, assembled, compounded, processed, treated, or packaged by right under Section 8-!,~-provided that the net storage area shall not exceed 50,000 cubic feet." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on August 2, 1977, by unanimous vote recommended denial of the~amendment requested. Mr. Tucker then read the following letter from the Board of Citizens for Albemarle, Inc.: "Reference: ZTA-77-06 Request for warehousing as a use by right as amendment of M-1 zone, Crutchfie!d Corporation To: Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman, and members of the Board of Supervisors, Albemarle CGunty We would like to urge the Board of Supervisors to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the request for amendment of the M-1 zone to permit warehousing by right. We feel that uses by right in our only light industry zone should be limited to those consistent with the goals of the zone. In our view the Board of Supervisors should retain control over the location of heavier uses and the power to impose conditions to protect existing uses in the neighborhood. We feel warehousing in many cases would constitute such uses. (Signed) Martha M. Selden for the Board Of Citizens for Albemarle, Inc." Mr. Tucker noted that Agenda Item No. 10 and No. 11 were submitted simultaneously in thc event the first request was denied. Mr. Bill Crutchfield was present, and said he did not wish to pursue the amendment ~o Article 8 if the Board wished to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission. He said he was satisfied with the recommendation b~ the Planning Commission-.to allow his warehouse under a special use permit (Board Agenda Item No. 11)[ No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. ~$mdabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the request for ZTA-77-06. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 1!. SP-77-47. The Cretchfield Corporation. T6 locate a warehouse on 8.258 acres zoned Industrial Limited (M-i) pursuant to Section 8-1-27(10). Property on east side of Route 606 across from Cardinal Airlines. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 17B. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3, and August 10, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the County staff report. "character of the Area This property is heavily wooded. A single-family dwelling/office .has been constructed and the pond is under reconstruction. Four rental units exist to the west of the property. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for industrial use. opinion is that this request complies with the plan. Staff Staff Comment The applicant proposed a 10,000 square foot Uuilding which would house offices, manufacturing, and warehousing of electronics equipment (see attachment). The applicant expects 2-3 package truck trips/day and a one tractor trailer delivery per month. The applicant expects to employ 10-12 persons. Staff recommends approval subject to the following condition: 1. Site plan approval (if required by Article 17)." Mr. Tucker said the PtaHH~ Commission reccmmended unanimously to approve the applicat with the one condition recommended by the staff. The applicant was present. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and the public hearing was closed by Mr. Fisher. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the request for SP-77-47, as recommend by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vo' AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Request from John Moore for consideration of connecti~on to Oakhill Central Water System. Mr. Agnor read the following memorandum to the Board of Supervisors: "August 17, 1977 TO: FROM: RE: BOard of Supervisors Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive ~equest 5f John Moore to Connect to Oak Hill Well Water System Mr. Moore has a site plan for a quadraplex on Lot 25 in the Oak Hill Subdivision. The site plan is scheduled for Planning Commission review on August 23. At~a meeting of the Site Plan Review Committee held on July tl, it was noted that the well system needed to be reviewed to determine whether the four units could be served by the system. The'Planning staff comments on the site plan report to the Planning Commission includes that as a recommendation. The well system is currently under a connection moratorium imposed recently by the State Health Department until additional storage is provided and put into service by the owner(s). The system encompassing Oak Hill Subdivision and Southwood Mobile Homes carries a single State n ,d permit, and no County permit. To date, no application for a County permit has been initiated by the owner(s). The County staff has been directed to make certain that the owner(s) are advised of the County permit requirement, and that the initiation of the application cannot be made by the County staff, or by a lot owner desiring a connection. It is recommended that Mr. Moore be advised the connection to the system ~waits action by the systems' owner,s) with subsequent lifting of the State impcsed moratorium, and determination through County permit procedures of the capability of the system to serve additional aonnections. His alternative may be to examine the feasibility of digging his own well(s)." This memorandum was for the Board's information only, and no action was required. Agenda Item No. 13. Refund of Season Passes at Mint Springs Park. his memorandum to the Board dated August 12, 1977: Mr. Agnor read "With the closing of Mint Springs Park, it was announced that season passes could be used at Chris Greene Lake. Several citizens have recently contacted the Parks Director requesting refunds of a proprotionate cost of their season passes because Chris Greene Lake was not a suitable substitute to them due to its distance from their homes. The condition of the water at Mint Springs has continued to deteriorate from laboratory tests of samples, and the lake is lower than it was when closed. It is therefore doubtful that Mint Springs will reopen soon, if at all, this season (the season ends Labor Day). Permission is requested to announce that season passes issued ~ at Mint Springs may be returned for a pro-rata refund from the date of closing to the end of the season, and authority for the Director of Finance to process the ~efunds forwarded by the Director of Parks and Recreation is also requested. It will be clearly explained that the refund process is due to the unexpected closing of the park." Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabus~ to approve Mr. Agnor's request to issue refunds. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, F~sher, Henley, Eachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mrs. Jane Saunier of the Jordan Development Corporation, also a copy of the by=laws, the membership list, copy of the articles of incorporation and a financial statement; items which were to be made a part of the records of the August 3rd meeting Claims against the County for the month of August, 1977, were examined, allowed and certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds: Exp. by Funds for the Month of August 1977: Commonwealth ~f Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Rental Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund General Operating - Capital Outlay Fund McIntire Trust Fund a,167.15 429,180.52 475,795.91 35,507.82 11,813.90 46,689.09 139.03 --0-- 425.00 $ 1,003,718.42 There being no further discussion, at 10:05 P.M. Mr. Fisher requested a motion to adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, September 7, 1977, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and ~arried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudahush. None.