Loading...
1976-07-21N / July 21, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) 317 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 21, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. 0pal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor; County Attorney, George R. St. JOhn; and Director of Planning, Robert Tucker. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Agenda Item No. 2. Lottery Permit Application: Quarry Scuba Club. No one was present to make this request, therefore this item was deferred until such time as the applicant could be present. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-46-76. Donald L. Reid. To locate a mobile home on 11.3 acres zoned A-1. Property on the west side of Route 649 approximately 1.5 miles north of Proffit near Jefferson Village Subdivision. County Tax Map 46, Parcel 30A, Charlottesville and Rivanna Magisterial Districts. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 22 and July 1, 1976.) Mr. Tucker said this area is rural in character with several single-family dwellings located nearby. The property is adjacent to and south of Jefferson Village. The applicant's request is to locate a mobile home approximately 200 feet from his residence. His son is to occupy the mobile home while attending graduate school at the University of Virginia. The mobile home is to be located in a heavily wooded area approximately 200 feet from Route 649. The existing vegetation will not be disturbed and this natural screening will prevent the mobile home from being visible to adjacent property owners. The Planning Commission recommen~ by a 6/1 vote, approval of the petition with the following conditions: Minimum setback~from Route 649 right-of-way of 100 feet; Minimum side and rear yard setback of thirty-five feet; Only the land needed for the location of the mobile home, septic drainfield and driveway shall be disturbed; Skirting around mobile home from base of mobile home to ground level; Approval by appropriate state and local agencies; and Mobile home shall be located on property only for duration of the son's educational endeavors at the University of Virginia. Mr. Reid was present in support of the application. He said a driveway which has been on the property for 30 years will be used, therefore no land will be disturbed. He is also investigating the possibility of installing underground utilities. There is a small knoll between the mobile home and Jefferson Village and he believes this is a legitimate use for~ empty land. No one from the public spoke for or against this request. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Reid if the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission are acceptable. Mr. Reid said he doubts that #6 is legally enforceable, but he did not object to any of the conditions. Mr. Henley asked if #6 is legally enforceable. Mr. St. John said he has doubts that it is. Mr. Fisher felt that if the applicant, as a condition, agrees to-the conditions before the permit is granted, the Board has reason to expect that the conditions will be carried out. Mr. St. John said normally a special permit runs with the land, however if the applicant agrees to the condition and nothing'unforeseeable happens, the condition could be enforced. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve SP-46-76, with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Items No. 4 & 5 (applications for mobile homes-August Schwarzenboeck, Jr. and Albert Schwarzenboeck) had been deleted from the agenda because opposition to placement of these mobile homes had been withdrawn and both were approved administratively. At this time the Board continued with public hearings on zoning matters as advertised in The Daily Progress on June 22 and July l, 1976. Agenda Item No. 5a. ZMA-11-76. W. F. Paulett & Son, Inc. To rezone 2.186 acres from B-1 Business and R-1 Residential to M-1 Industrial. Property located on south side of Route 6. County Tax Map 130-A-l, Parcels 64 and 65, both parts thereof Scottsville Magisterial District. ' Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report. He said "the properties to the south and west are developed in single-family residential use. Properties on the north side of Route 6 consist of a paving company and the Scottsville Shopping Center. The B-1 zoned property to the east is undeveloped. The Comprehensive Plan indicates medium density residential use for this property. The Scottsville on the James plan prepared by Balzer and Associates and adopted by the Town of Scottsville indicates the proposed Riverside Drive in proximity to this property. The B-1 zoning in this area was established in 1972 following severe flooding in the Town of Scottsville to permit relocation of threatened businesses. The applicant, his business recently razed by fire, is seeking this rezoning to permit reestablishment of his business in an area not subject to flooding. The staff is concerned about the location of such use adjacent to developed residential areas. The staff suggests that the Comprehensive Plan indicates an area appropriate for such use and that this area is currently less developed residentially. The staff, therefore, recommends denial of this petition, however, does recognize hardship in this case similar to that of the past B-1 rezoning in the area. If the Planning Commission and the Board of Sun~v~ ~~ +~ ....... ~ 318 July 21, 1976 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends by a 6/2 vote, approval of the request. He then noted a number of petitions and letters in opposition to this request. (Copies were not furnished to the Clerk.) At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. David Wood repre- senting the Applicant. He said this is a true hardship case. Paulett was incorporated as a business in 1914 and has been a good citizen of the community since that time. Paulett was devastated by a number of floods and then in February, 1976 the entire business was burned to the ground. This is the reason the petition is before the Board tonight. At the present time, Paulett is operating out of a filling station close to its previous location. The materials they sell are located in the service station and in barns and sheds and in outlying areas in premises which have been rented temporarily. Across from this site is Payne Paving which has heavy trucks, asphalt and earth moving equipment; also Holt Oil Company which contains two large oil tanks. Across the intersection is Smith Chevrolet. Mr. Wood said this area was zoned B-1 in 1972 so as to provide an area where the merchants in the flooded downtown area could relocate. Paulett wants to develop a hardware and building supply business in the area. The building would be metal and 80 feet x 200 feet. It would have offices on one end, also retail hardware sales and millwork. In the middle of the lot would be a shed 90 feet x 30 feet for the storage of lumber. On the far eastern end of the lot would be outside storage of bricks, pipe, cinderblock, etc. This area would be screened by security opaque fence. Mr. Wood said the Zoning Ordinance provides for hardware stores in a B-1 zone and he feels the applicant falls into that category, however, a building materials sales yard is allowed only in the M-1 zone. Mr. Wood said he feels a building materials sales yard is similar to Barnes Lumber Company and is different from this business which is similar to Charlottesville Hardware Company which is located in a B-t zone. The Zoning Administrator has said that Pauiett.should be located in an M-1 zone and that is the reason for this request. Mr. Wood said this petition has been endorsed by over 200 persons who use the business. The most affected neighbor is Mr. Ambrose Payne and he has asked that the permit be granted. The next most affected is Mrs. Marshall, who has signed in opposition, but because of the screening the applicant proposes, the use will not have an adverse effect on Mrs. Marshall. At the Planning Commission hearing, there were about 10 persons appearing in opposition, but Mr. Wood said he understands that list has grown. Only the Clevelands, Mrs. Chapman, Mrs. Marshall and Mrs. Boggs could be adversely affected. Ail of the others live a distance from the property and out of sight of this location. Mr. Wood said if the Board feels it would be improper to rezone the R-1 area~and the Board so suggests the applicant will request the owner of the property to sell two acres totally within the B-1 district, since the applicant feels he should be in a B-1 zone. If the Board feels the applicant should be in M-i, then the applicant requests that two acres be rezoned to M-1 so his business can be relocated. Paulett desires to stay in Scottsville and there is nm M-1 land in Scottsville for this business. Ail of the B-1 land in the area is within the ~down- town district and is in the flood plain which is not a desirable area for relocation. It is not possible to relocate on either side of Route 20 because of topography. Mr. Wood closed by urging the Board to grant such zoning as the Board feels is needed by the appIicant. ~ Mr. Roudabush asked if there is any zoning in effect in the Town of Scottsville. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Wood said he had assumed that since the Town is shown on County maps different colors that there was zoning, however there is no other land available for this business in the Town.  Mr. Payne said he did not feel anything should be put on this property. kep clean since it is a nice place. It should be Mr..Chester Baker said he does not live in the area but owns land in the Scottsville area. He feels Paulett has been an asset to the community and feels they deserve to relocate in an area where they have been doing business. Mr. Pierson Scott said he lives five miles away. He felt this decision should have been made several years ago when the shopping center located adjacent to this property. He understands the shopping center is largely vacant and this business would help to develop this area. He felt a majority of people who live in the area are in favor of this business because it renders service to the residents. Mr. Haden Anderson said he is a partner in W. F. Paulett & Son. He said it seems the opposition is using Paulett to accomplish what should have been done when the shopping center located here. Paulett is only trying to get back in business. Ail the petitions being circulated are causing hard feelings in the~community. He felt that if everyone in Scottsville District was canvassed, probably 90% would support this location. Mr. Slate Dabney was present to represent the shopping center. He said in 1972 a decision was made to rezone the land on which the shopping center is now located plus the land which is being discussed tonight. This is a commercial area. A lot of the comments made here tonight will come from people who are dissatisfied with the shopping center and find it unattractive. Mr. Dabney said he has been instructed by the shopping center to resolve these problems but there is not enough money at the present time. He said Paulett will not be a merchant controlled by the shopping center. No one has expressed dissatisfacti with Paulett's operation. Any thought given to down-zoning the land to what it was before 1972 is ridiculous, if the Board looks at the whole area they will realize that the request tonight should be granted. Mr. James Gladwin of L. White, Inc. a general contractor in Charlottesville, said he has made a proposal to Paulett for their new facility. He has looked at this site and finds it is ideal for their type of business. There are already other commercial uses in the area a~d he asked that the Board look with favor on this application. Mr. Forbes Reback was present to represent a number of property owners in the area opposed to this request. He said hi~s clients are represented by a committee composed of Rev. Sheene, Miss Moore and Mrs. Summers. He handed to the Board an additional petition signed- by 30 persons in opposition to this request. ~r. ZRebagk said.they are not proposing to hurt Paulett or drag personalities into the issue, but they feel a mistake was made in 1972~ by the predecessor Board and should be corrected. If you look to the east and north from this property, you see the shopping center and the Chevrolet sales and garage. But, if you look to the south and west you see well-kept residential properties. Mr. Reback said this area is in transition and the Board should rely on the adopted Comprehensive'Plan. The July 21, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) 319' has not been amended. Further to the west, the Plan shows a light industrial area in the vicinity of Uniroyal. His clients are not trying to preclude Paulett from building in the Scottsville area, but they do not believe a building materials sales and storage yard should be put in a residential area. Mr. Reback then read into the record his letter dated July 21, 1976, requesting a review of ZMP-244 and a request for resolution of intention to amend: "On September 27, 1972, your predecessors in office approved ZMP-244 which was the application of NB Mortgage Corporation, a corporation affiliated with the National Bank and Trust Company of Charlottesville, to rezone a parcel of land containing about seven acres then belonging to Mr. and Mrs. E. Ambrose Payne and an adjoining parcel of about nine acres belonging to Edward L. Dorrier from A-1 to B-1 to accomodate a shopping center. In support of the application, NB Mortgage Corporation exhibited elaborate architectural renderings and landscape designs and emphasized the necessity of moving the businesses of Scottsville to higher ground in view of the recent flooding. NB Mortgage Corporation never built the shopping center as represented. Instead it sold the newly rezoned land to a new corporation calling itself Scottsville Shopping Center, Inc., and that corporation constructed on the Dorrier tract north of Route 6 a shopping center vastly inferior in design and landscaping to the one originally shown and the people of Albemarle have been the losers ever since. In four years, only one downtown Scottsville business, the True-Value Hardware Store, has relocated in the shopping center. In fact, the new Balzar and Associates study for Scottsville indicates that few Scottsville businesses can afford to so relocate and a new approach toward flood control rather than escape has been initiated. In light of these developments and in a less emotion-charged atmosphere my clients, a group of homeowners in the vicinity of the still undeveloped Payne tract on the south side of Route 6, now ask you to review the zoning action taken by your predecessors and to downzone the former Payne tract of approximately seven acres to R-1 in conformity to the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County which clearly delineates this parcel for medium density residential uses. On behalf of my clients, I request and urge the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution of intention to amend the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County pursuant to Section 14-1-2 thereof to correct what now appears to have been a mistake in light of changed circumstances since 1972." Mr. Reback said approval of the request to rezone the small two-plus acre parcel to M-1 would constitute spot zoning. His clients are also opposed to rezoning of the main tract from B-1 to M-1. The County's Planning Staff has recommended denial of the petition and in support of that recommendation said there is other land already zoned M-1 in the Scottsville area that could be used to accomodate this business. The County's Zoning Ordinance has a definition of a hardware store, which was obviously taken from the dictionary, and Mr. Reback said he feels the use made bY ?aulett at their present location clearly constitutes an M-1 use. The word "hardship" is used in the Zoning Ordinance only in connection with variances and he did not feel this is a factor that should be considered in this case. Mr. Reback said there are other less residentially developable sites where this business could be relocated. He then brought the Board's attention to several applicable sections of the Comprehensive Plan. He said the bulk of this land lies in an area the Town of Scottsville may wish to annex at some time in the future. Route 6 and Route 20 have both been designated as scenic highways. He ended by stating that this is basically a residential area which has some commercial uses which are recognized in the Comprehensive Plan and he finds no legitimate reason to expand the_commercial zone in this area. Rev. Clifford Sheene said he is not a property owner, but a resident in the area. The issue is not Paulett, but the principal of spot zoning as opposed to planned zoning for orderly and creative growth. The Zoning Ordinance was written to protect the citizens from such attempts at spot zoning for convenience sake or for emotional reasons. He said an error was made in 1972 and he does not see why the error should be further compounded with zoning that makes the area even less desirable to residential uses. The zoning in 1972 was made for ~o~Ona! reasons and a majority of the property owners directly adjacent are opposed to this request. He said the appropriateness of the land in this area for M-1 was not explored by the Planning Commission~atlthe~r~public.~hearing; only the hardship of the applicant. He did not feel that any of this area is appropriate for M-1 zoning. Mr. Gilbert Somers said he is a resident in this area. Mr. Wood has said that this is a borderline case between M-1 and B-1. This may or may not be true, but a zoning change is still being requested. There is no guarantee that Paulett will stay in business or ever build on this property. A borderline case of light manufacturing to heavy manufacturing could move in and change the area even further. People living adjacent to M-1 land could not sell their homes for fair market value and most likely would sell to another M-1 use. Mr. Somers said he did not think a zoning change that is so permanent should be made without more ~thought and more listening on the part of the two sides. Miss Virginia Moore said it has been assumed here tonight that only those who live directly adjacent would be affected. That is not true. This is a nice residential area and if the quality is degraded, all the houses will be affected. Miss Moore said she does not believe anyone who lives in a nice residential area would want a lumber company set down in their midst. The argument that the residents should not mind because there is already a shopping center in the area is a false argument. Miss Moore said she opposed the shopping center but withdrew her objections when she was shown the beautiful pictures of federal style buildings with beautiful landscaping. The residents wanted to help the merchants who had been hurt by the floods. Everyone now knows that this did not help and they feel betrayed and do not want anymore of the same. ~The people who argue in favor are not affected. Paulett needs a place to relocate and they prefer this location even though 20 or 30 people would be hurt. She asked that the request be denied. Mrs. Cleveland said she owns two homes across the road on Route 726. She said this use 320 July 21, 1976 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mrs. Marshall said she agrees that the residential property in the area will depreciate in value and she does not want to see a nice piece of ground turned into a business use. She asked that the Board make a visual inspection of the property. Mr. H. H. Parr said he has never seen a lumber yard in any shopping center in the country, particularly in a residential section. Mr. G. B. Cleveland said the residents of this area felt sorry for the merchants in 1972 and went along with the rezoning. He asked if anyone on the Board would want a lumber yard right next to his house. At this time, Mr. Reback said there were many present in opposition who did not parti- cularly want to speak. Mr. Fisher asked those present in opposition to stand; between 27 and 30 persons. Mr. Edward Ambrose Payne said he was the original owner of the property in question. He said he would rather have an M-1 use like Paulett rather than a B-1 use such as a hot dog stand. He said the opposition does not realize that if this petition is denied, the land is still zoned B-1. Mr. Wood said a number of the people who had spoken tonight are not affected by this proposal. Mr. Reback urged the Board to take into consideration his request for a resolution to downzone the whole property. Mr. Fisher said some of the comments made tonight are correct. The rezoning was made in 1972 to help the merchants of Scottsville after the flood. The Board also was shown a number of lovely drawings. Mr. Fisher said he was shocked to see what actually developed on the property and for this reason feels the Board should not consider drawings, but only the absolute use of land under the Zoning Ordinance when hearing such requests. He then asked Mr. Tucker to read all of the uses allowed in an M-1 zone by right and by special permit. At the conclusion oK this, Mr. Fisher said he is not saying the request is invalid. It is the responsibility of the Board to review and make a decision. He asked where the M-1 land alluded to tonight is located in the Scottsville area. Mr. Tucker said the staff did not say there is any M-1 zoning in the area. There is land that is less developed residentially that is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for light industry. This is basically in the area north of Uniroyal. Mr. Dorrier said this is a tough issue. He has met with a number of people on both sides of the question. He also visited the site with the owner in the hope of reaching a compromise, but could not. He has sympathy for the owners of Paulett. This business began in 1914 and until the fire was probably the largest taxpayer in the Town and highly respected During the rezoning hearing in 1972, Mr. Humphrey stated that the B-1 zoning was in keeping with the County's Comprehensive Plan for the Scottsville cluster. Mr. Dorrier said he found the B-1 area under consideration tonight is actually designated as residential. The citizens did not oppose the rezoning of the 16 acres on September 22, 1972, because they thought they would get what was shown to them and designated on the plan for the shopping center. What has actually been built is not in keeping with that plan. Mr. Dorrier did not feel that Pautett's operation would be detrimental to the area or poorly run~. but that is not the issue before the Board. He has doubts about putting this business next to and in front of residenc~ where the property owners are opposed. Mr'~ Dorrier~said he has difficulty with a request for M-1 zoning in an area shown as residential in the Comprehensive Plan. He felt a more suitabt~ tract of land for this business is available at a location between Routes 6 and 20 where the area is not as heavily populated and where the property owners have said they would not oppose location of the business. Dr. Iachetta said he felt a rezoning of this property would lead to further rezonings. He felt this is a case where property was prematurely zoned out of A-1 to B-1 on the sup- position that business would occupy the land in a reasonable time. This has not occurred and Dr. Iachetta said he could not support the request for M-1. Mr. Roudabush said he looked at Paulett's business in it's present location and did not see any lumber processing machinery in operation. The site looks similar to that of Dart Drug Home Services, Phillip's, Lowe's and Moore's which are on B-1 lands. Mr. Roudabush said if this business, as it exists, could be accommodated on B-1 land, it might pacify some of the fears people have about what might happen to the rest of the land. It is probably an err< in the County's ordinance that this business is not allowed in the B-1 zone. He was surprise~ at the inconsistencies that have gone on in the past allowing such other businesses in B-I, however, those decisions were made by an individual in interpreting the Zoning Ordinance where one Zoning Administrator said'the use was allowed in B-1 and another Zoning Admini- strator said the use was not allowed in B-1. He did not know if the former decisions were discussed with the County Attorney, but felt that if those decisions to allow other similar businesses in the B-1 zone were correct, the Board had no decision to make tonight. Mr. Fisher said he felt there were two questions. Whether or not the Board will rezone this land to M-1 and the interpretation of the ordinance and how that should be handled. Mr. Roudabush said he felt the questions should be discussed in the reverse order. He was concerned that the Board treat all owners of B-1 lands equal in every instance. Mr. St. John said outside storage envisioned in the B-1 zone is ancillary or adjunct to the business that goes on inside the store; it is an accessory to the main business and must be enclosed under the B-1 definition. Outside storage referred to in M-1 specifically refers to a material sales yard. If this is a traditional hardware store which stores goods outside as an accessory to the sales which take place in the store and the storage area is fenced, it is a B-1 use. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board should have an analysis of uses which have been allowe~ and denied by the Zoning Administrator in the B-1 zone. Mr. St. John said the Board of Supervisors is not the proper forum to interpret its own Zoning Ordinance. This is th~ function of the Zoning Administrator and if someone does not agree with his interpretation, the matter should be taken to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Roudabush said the Board can still recognize that there have been inconsistencies in interpretation of the ordinance. The Board's alternative would be to amend the ordinance to allow this use in B-1. Mr. Fisher r July 21, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) 321 with the people that they were deceived. She felt that a business like Pau!ett's might help to save the crossroads but realizes that the issue is not whether this is a hardship case, but whether the Board is going to live with its own regulations. It seems the Board has to say it cannot approve M-1 zoning for this property, but there is also a very real question as to whether or not the Board should not back up and rezone the property to its original zoning. Mr. Henley said he could not vote to zone any R-1 property to M-I, but would be agreeable to zoning two-plus acres to M-1. Mr. Roudabush said he felt the Zoning Ordinance has too much of a gap between the B and M categories. There are not enough categories to take care of the things that need to be sandwiched in between. At this point, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to deny ZMA-1!-76. by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: The motion was seconded AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 9:53 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:05 P.M. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-36-76. Wakefield Kennel, Inc. and Barry G. Dofflemyer. To expand an existing commercial kennel on 16.87 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural under Article 2-1- 25(19.3) of the Zoning Ordinance. Property located on northwest side of Route 660, one- fourth mile northwest of intersection at Earlysville. County Tax Map 31, Parcel 47A, Rivanna District. Mr. Tucker said the immediate vicinity is heavily wooded and is undeveloped with only two dwellings located within one thousand feet of the site, excluding subject property. Earlysville Heights is approximately one-fourth mile from the site. The Wakefield Kennel is adjacent to the Earlysville Village cluster in an area proposed for agricultural use. The applicant wishes to bring the existing kennel into conformity so the use may be expanded. The kennel currently has 42 double-occupancy runs and would be expanded by 26 runs in order to reduce the double-occupancy condition. The use is not visible from surrounding dwellings. ~. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends approval, by a 7/0 vote, with the following conditions: Expansion limited to 26 runs as proposed on the site sketch. A minimum of nine parking spaces to be provided. Dogs shall be enclosed within the building for specified hours at night. Hours of operation to be 6:00 A.M. - 10:00 P.M. Mr. Tucker said the staff had returned to the Planning Commissi~nf&~r~>a~a~Ificatinn of Condition #4. This should be part of #3 which should read: "Dogs shall be enclosed within the building for specified hours at night, in other words, 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M." Mr. Doff!emyer was present in support of the petition. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Dofflemye understood that the intent of Condition #3 was for noise reduction. Mr. Dofflemyer said he understood this, but felt it is not satisfactory to have animals enclosed in an area where there is no ventilation. He felt it is'virtually impossible to soundproof such an operation and felt it would be detrimental to his business. It was not stated by the Planning Commissiol that this stipulation was for soundproofing. Mr. Tucker said there would be no other reason to have the dogs enclosed. Mr. Dofflemyer said he currently houses all animals inside at night for noise and safety reasons, but said he feels noises of this type are compatible with an agricultural setting. Mr. Forbes Reback said he felt it would be a hardship to have animals in an entirely closed area, particularly during the summer. He lives within one-quarter mile of Mr. ~ Dofflemyer's operation and does not hear any noise from same. Mr. Fisher suggested that Condition #3 be reworded to say "Dogs shall be kept inside of the building between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve SP-36-76 with conditions # 1 and #2 recommended by the Planning Commission; elimination of Condition #~4; and rephrasing Condition #3 to read: "Dogs shall be kept within the building between the specified hours at night of 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M." The motion was seconded by Mrs. David. Dr. Iachetta said he would like the record to show that 15 years ago he helped engineer a vivarium in the basement of a 'building at the University of Virginia. This houses about 4-0 animals and it is possible to sound treat and odor treat such facilities. It just depends on how much money is to be spent. It is not necessary for kennels to be a nuisance. The motion then carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-06-76. James E. Brewer. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for Home Occupation-Class A, by right, in the R-1 Residential zone and to amend the statement of intent of the R-1 Residential zone. Mr. Tucker said the Statement of Intent of the R-1 zone has remained unaltered since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969. The staff feels the statement was responsive to 'conditions existing at that time. Since~the adoption of the ordinance, the status of home occupation has been clarified through amendment. Home Occupation, Class A, is currently a use by right in the A-1 zone and all residential zones except R-1. The planning staff can find no unique qualities in the R-1 zone which would distinguish this zone from other residential zones in which Home Occupation, Class A, is permitted by right. The staff feels this use would be unobtrusive in any residential zone. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 8/0, recommended approval of the petition as follows: July 21, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) zone, by de~etion of the words "No home occupations and" from the final sentence. Amend Article 4, Residential, Limited, R-1 zone, to provide for Home Occupation, Class A, as a use by right. Article 4-1-15, Home Occupation~ Class A. Mr. Brewer was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion was then offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to approve ZTA-06- 76 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Brewer then requested withdrawal without prejudice of SP-40-76, application for a Home Occupation, Class A, which had been filed in the event the Board did not approve the foregoing application as a use by right. Motion to allow the petition to be withdrawn without prejudice was offered by Dr. Iachetta, 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. 8. SP-41-76. Cecil Gardner. To locate a public garage for storage of antique automobiles on 16 acres zoned A-1 under Article 2-1-25(12) of the Zoning Ordinance. Property located on Route 600 approximately one and one-half miles from Cismont. County Tax Map 65, Parcel 20, Rivanna District. Mr. Fisher said the following letter had been received this date: "July 21, 1976 Miss Lettie Neher, Clerk Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Re: SP-4i-76 Cecil Gardner Dear Miss Neher: We were retained this morning by Mr. and Mrs. Cecil Gardner to represent them before the Board of Supervisors in their application for a special permit. It is our understanding that the hearing is scheduled for this evening and it would be impossible for us to study all that is involved in their request as well as alternatives available to the Gardners in lieu of the request by this evening. Therefore we respectfully request that the matter be deferred until the August 4th Board meeting at which time we will appear and speak to the proposal. There is a slight possibility that we may propose to the Gardners an ~alternate solution to their problem which might result in withdrawal of their request for the permit. We feel that with this possibility, remote as it might be, deferral of this evening's scheduled hearing would be warranted. Please convey this request to the Board, with our apologies to the Board and any members of the public who might show up this evening, for any inconvenience this last minute request might cause. Sincerely, (Signed) James B. Murray, Jr." Mr. Fisher said this matter had been advertised and the public hearing would be held. Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report. "The area is primarly undeveloped and heavily wooded. Two dwellings exist within one-quarter mile of the property; the closest located approxi- mately 800 feet away. This application results from discussions between the applicant and the Zoning Administrator concerning Zoning Violation V-76-1i. The applicant purchased the property in late 1968 and has since amassed numerous inoperable autos and trucks, scrap metal, old signs, lumber, and other building materials. Since the violation citation, the applicant states he had 19 autos removed and is preparing to have another 30 autos removed. Currently, the junkyard covers approximately one to one and one-half acres behind the dwellin It is not visible from the roadway or other dwellings in the area. The complaint resulting in this citation was from Mrs. Darlene Samselt who is not an adjacent property owner. The applicant proposes to restore antique autos for sale as semi-retirement income. He proposes to maintain 15 autos on the property, five of which would be housed in a barn currently under construction. No employees are foreseen at this time. The public garage provision in the A-1 zone has been of concern to the County due to difficulties in past cases. The staff feels a public garage should provide service appropria' to and supportive of the area in which it is located. Furthermore, such use being a commercil service should be located in a cluster area as designated in the Comprehensive Pla~. This property is located on the fringe of the Cismont cluster, however, the proposed use would not provide service to the area and in staff opinion is not supportive of the A-! zone which is intended to provide for agriculture and kindred occupations and to discourage random scatteri~ of commercial uses. The staff therefore recommends denial of the petition." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, by a 7/1 vote, also recommends denial of SP-41-76 because they did not feel the application was properly before them. They did not feel the operation is a public garage~ but simply a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. e Lg July 21, 1076 (Regular - Night Meeting) Mr. Gary McGee was present to represent Mrs. Cameron and Mrs. Richardson, adjoining property owners. This is a wooded, residential area and they object to the connotations of a public garage. Mr. McGee said if the Board visited the site, they would find this to be an automobile graveyard and he asked that the petition be denied. Mr. Ben Dick, Zoning Administrator, said he had triced to get pictures of the operation this afternoon but was denied access to the property. Mr. Fisher said the applicant was not present, neither was his attorney. He did not feel the public hearing should be deferred since the matter had been properly advertised and the applican~ notified of this hearing. Mr. Roudabush also felt the matter should not be deferred and offered motion to deny SP-41-76. T~e motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. St. John said he had reservations about taking such action. The Board is in receipt of a letter from the applicant's attorney and Mr. Gardner Probably denied access to the property at his attorney's advice. Mr. Henley felt the Board should defer at least one time since if the applicant were ill and unable to attend this meeting, the matter would be deferred. Mr. St. John said a year or so ago, the Board had a different policy and would not hear a petition unless the applicant was present. Mr. Roudabush then withdrew his motion. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David to defer any action on this petition until August 4, 1976. The 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-45-76. James E. Woods and Frank Lane Hereford, III. To locate a wholesale and retail tile distributorship on 30,384 square feet zoned M-1. Property in the Rio Road area just off U.S. Route 29 North between Phillips Lumber Co. and Charlottesville Hardware. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 120B, Char!ottesvi.lle District. Mr. Tucker said the property directly adjoining is developed as Phillips Building Supply. The parcel to the north is developed with a single-family residence. The property to the northwest is developed as Charlottesville Hardware and the properties to the west and south are undeveloped. While the Comprehensive Plan designated this area for high-density residential development, existing development and zoning negate this designation. The staff views the proposed use as supportive and complementary t.o the building supply uses existing in the vicinity. The Planning Commission, by a 7/0 vote, recommends approval of the petition with the following conditions: Approval of appropriate state and local agencies. Ail storage to be enclosed. Site plan approval. Mr. Tucker noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Raymond R. Phillips, reading in part: "The road which they intend to use is owned jointly by property owners on each side of the road. When we requested Site plan approval last year, we were required to improve this road to a 20 foot width and hard-surface to a point at our back entrance. We agreed to maintain the road because there were two houses which used this road and we did not mind absorbing the cost of maintenance. However, since this application is for commercial property, I feel the intended owners should help maintain the road to which we have made improvements." Mr. and Mrs. Wood were present in support of the petition. spoke for or against. No one else from the public During the discussion, it was noted that this matter had been advertised as Parcel 120B, M-1 zoning while the staff report showed this as Parcel 120-I, B-1 zoning. It was noted that Mr. Payne had advised the Planning Commission that this would not void the public hearing. (Clerks' note: Staff report showed the correct parcel and zoning.) Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve SP-45-76 with the conditions of the Planning Commission and with the further stipulation that along with submission of a site plan, an executed joint maintenance agreement between Mr. Phillips and Mr. Wood for the joint use and maintenance of the road, is to be submitted to the Planning Commission. The 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 had been changed to Agenda Item No. 5a (W. F. Paulett & Son) and heard earlier in the evening. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-47-76. Willoughby Corporation. To amend SP-534 to provide for a tertiary package treatment plant on 141.415 acres zoned A-1. Property on east side of 5th Street near 1-64. County Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4C,1; and Tax Map 76M(2), Parcels SA, 5B, 5B-l, 6B and 7. Scottsville District. Agenda Item No. 12. SP-53~. Willoughby Corporation. (Continued from the meeting of December 10, 1975, at which time, this petition was deferred indefinitely; until positive recertification of the Moore's Creek Treatment Plant is received.) Since the petition for SP-534 was heard by the previous Board of Supervisors, Mr. Tucker presented the staff's report on that petition; same being set out on pages 411-4.12 of Minute Book 13. Mr. Tucker then proceeded with the staff report on SP-47-76. "On December 9, 1975, the Planning Commission approved SP-534, the PUD application for Willoughby, subject to 18 conditions. Condition #4 324 July 21, 1976 i~iRegular-Night Meeting) capacity to Moore's Creek Sewage Treatment Plant.' On December 10, 1975, the Board of Supervisors deferred action on the request 'until recerti- fication of the Moore's Creek Sewer Treatment Plant is received from the State Water Control Board.' On March 15, 1976, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority voted 'to restrict the introduction of additional flows to the Moore's Creek Plant until such time as capacity can be obtained at the Moore's Creek facility by completion of the advanced wastewater treatment plant projected to be complete in 1979.' The State Water Control Board has not recertified the Moore's Creek Sewer Treatment Plant. In this request, the applicant is seeking relief from Condition #4 of SP-534 and is requesting to be permitted to serve the Willoughby Development with an interim tertiary package treatment plant. This 40,000 wastewater treatment plant would be phased out upon completion of the advanced wastewater plant." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended bY unanimous vote approval with the following conditions to replace Condition #4 recommendad for SP-534: Corps of Engineers review and approval of any development within the flood plain of Moore's Creek. Site plan approval. Approval of county engineer, State Water Control Board and other appropriate federal, state and local agencies. Package treatment plant is to be operated and maintained bY the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority pursuant to contract approval by the County Attorney and the County Engineer. Ail water and sewer lines are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority and access easements to be provided to all said utilities to be adequate in the opinion of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Applicant shall provide a written statement from the Albemarle County Zoning Administrator stating that soil erosion is controlled to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and that continuing efforts are being made to control soil erosion. Package treatment plant is to be phased out when adequate sewage capacity is available. Dr. Iachetta said he was surprised that the School Board had not requested a school site reservation. Mr. Tucker said the School Board had adopted a resolution stating that no site was necessary. Since this property is adjacent to the City Limits there is no other land in the area that could be combined with such a school site reservation. Also, this project, by itself, will not support a whole elementary school. Mr. Fisher said Condition #6 just read does not mention the question of sewer connection charges. He was concerned that steps be taken to insure that everyone is aware that eventual~ these connections fees will have to be paid. Mr. Bob Leyton and Mr. Joseph Ryan were present to represent the applicant. hearing was opened. No one rose to speak and the public hearing was closed. The public Dr. Iachetta said he understood condition #6 just read was a requirement of the State Water Control Board. He would like to see this changed to read: "Package treatment plant is to be phased out when the advanced wastewater treatment plant has sewage capacity available" so there is no question as to when this should take place. Mr. St. John suggested stating "Package treatment plant is to be phased out, dismantled and removed, when adequate sewage capacity~is made available by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority." Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve SP-534 with the.18 conditions listed on pages 411-412, Minute Book 13, meeting of December 10, 1975, but substituting for Conditiol No. 4 in that listing, the six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission for SP-47-76 and listed in letter signed by Jane Gloeckner, dated July 21, 1976, further amending the language of Item No. 6 in that letter to read: "Package treatment plant is to be phased out, dismantled and removed when adequate sewage capacity is made available by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority." Thelmotion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. (CLERK'S NOTE: THE ENTIRE SET OF CONDITIONS AS ADOPTED FOR APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION ARE SET OUT BELOW:) Maintain the proposed density of 5.3 dwelling units per acra (gross). Approval from State Highway Department concerning internal street rights- of-way and cross sections. Corps of Engineers review and approval of any developmen6, i.e., residential, commercial, and streets, within the flood plain limits. Tertiary package sewage treatment plant as follows: a) Corps of Engineers review and approval of any development within the flood plain of Moore's Creek. b) Site plan approval. c) Approval of County Engineer, State Water Control Board and other. appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. d) Package treatment plant is to be operated and maintained by the .Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority pursuant to contract approved by the County Attorney and the County Engineer. Ail water and sewer lines are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority and access easements to be provided to all said utilities to be adequate in the opinion of the Albemarle County Service Authority. e) Applicant shall provide a written statement from the Albemarle County. Zoning Administrator stating that soil erosion is controlled to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and that continuing efforts are being made to control soil erosion. July 21, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Submit to the Albemarle County Service Authority an estimate by stages of the capacities that will be expected on an annual basis~ Open space and recreation plan to be submitted for approval by the County Department of Planning indicating recreation equipment and facilities proposed. Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service Authority. This approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's approval. Ail streets to be constructed with sidewalks. County Attorney's review of any deed restrictions or homeowners' association agreements. No site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading plan for this property has been approved. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation areas, nature and bike trails, parking areas, and debris basins are to be placed shall be disturbed; all other lands shall remain in a natural state. The commercial area shall be limited to 17 acres gross area in Albemarle County. Bike trails are to be developed in keeping with the concept received and accepted by the Planning Commission under a study entitled "Bikeway Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia" dated "Fall, 1975" prepared by Albemarle County Department of Planning. Present erosion problems to be corrected to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator before any further approvals required hereafter are given. Ail internal roads serving this development are to meet the standards of the Virginia Department of Highways for inclusion into the Highway System of Virginia. The generalized land use plan, showing the location of the types of single- family and multi-family development and commercial areas and the access to these areas from the internal road system shall be adhered to. The Land Use Plan referred to is that described as Exhibit "A", prepared by Environmental Interface and marked "Received, 11/26/75" and color coded and signed by John L. Humphrey, Director of Planning. Due to the fact that the Albemarle County School Board, through resolution, stated that no school reservation is warranted, the Albemarle County Planning Commission concurs w±th their resolution. Not Docketed. Mr. Forbes Reback was still present to request that the Board put on an ~nda discussion of his request made earlier in the meeting for a downzoning of property in Scottsville. (The former Payne tract of approximately seven acres.) Mrs. David said since the County is presently involved in a revision of the Comprehensive Plan this request might wait and be considered at a later date. Mr. Dorrier said it is possible a mistake was made when this property was rezoned in 1972 and he felt the request should be considered. Mr. Fisher suggested August 11 for this matter. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to defer hearing Mr. Reback's request and to place same on the agenda for August 11, 1976. The 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. 13. received as information. Report of the County Executive for the month of June, 1976, was Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: January 21, 1976. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve these minutes with one correction: Page 475, under agenda item No. 3, changer"larger culvert" to "retention basin". The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Resolution: Attorney for Hartwell Clarke. Mr. Agnor noted that when Mr. Herbert Pickford was appointed Judge for the Corporation Court he had to resign as Mr'. Clarke's attorney, It is recommended that Mr. Paul Peatross be appointed in his stead. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that as of July 9, 1976, Paul M. Peatross, Esquire, is employed by the County of Albemarle as counsel for Hartwell P. Clarke to defend the said Hartwell P. Clarke, former Zoning Administrator, in the civil suit now pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia under the style of United Land Corporation of America~ et al v. Clarke and St. John. 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. Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to reappoint Mr. Donn Bent as a member of the Advisory Council on Aging for a term which began on June 1, 1976 and ends on June 1, 1978. The 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. 326 July 21, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a communication from Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc. stating that the State Corporation Commission (Case No. 19508) has suspended enforcement of their proposed schedules of rates and charges for sixty days beginning May 5, 1976. Mr. Agnor said he has received a response from the Postal Service in reference to questions posed per their letter offering the downtown Post Office Building for sale to the County. The following questions were asked: 1) Can the General Services Administration move out of the building in less than three years? This question has been passed to GSA and the County should receive an early response. 2) Can the downtown postal station be moved out of the building? They have said the County will get their total cooperation. 3) Can the County make a feasibility study of the building and have access to the plans for the building? This request has been granted and Mr. Scribner is anxious to get started. An appropriation of $4,000 is needed and there will be a proviso in the agreement with the consultant that a report will be furnished to the Board before phase 2 is begun. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $4,000 be, and the same ~ereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 18B.3 for a feasibility study of the use of the Downtown Post Office Building as a Regional Library. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: At 12:12 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Henley seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel and legal matters. The motion carried by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened at 1:00 A.M. Mr. Fisher announced that he has appointed Mrs. David and Messrs. Agnor, Roudabush and Iachetta to a joint committee with the School Board to study the use of McIntire School and the purchase of additional property. Claims against the County were examined, allowed, and certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds: General Fund School Fund School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund Cafeteria Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account Town of Scottsville-l% Local Sales Tax Total $ 518,566.10 669,465.67 236,282.00 59,735.74 59,143.48 24,037.94 1,318.02 100.92 $ 1,568,649.87 At 1:10 A.M., the meeting was adjourned.