1976-08-04August 4, 1976
A regular meeting 'of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on August 4, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F.
Anthony Iachetta, and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: Mrs. Opal D. David.
Officers Present: ~r. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. !. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher.
ZMP-08-76.
Agenda Item No. 2. /Edward R. Jackson. (Deferred from June 16, 1976.)
Mr. Robert Tucker, ~irector of Planning, said this was deferred from June 16, 1976 by the
Board so the staff could review the land use capabilities of the area along 29 South .as
recommended by the Planning Commission. The study area boundaries are f~rmed by Interstate
64 to the north; the east and west boundaries are parallel to U.S. 29 and measured approximatel
1200 feet from the centerline of U.S. 29; and the southern boundary terminates the study
area in the Red Hill vicinity where the distance between U.S. 29 and the Southern Railway
increases substantially. The staff analyzed three major physical characteristics in the
area which were the existing land use, soils and the topography as it relates to building
snitability The existing land use is primarily forest and grassland. Even though s2ngle-
family detached units and farm complexes are sparse they encompass the majority of physical
development along 29 South. Within the study area is one industry, Gleco Mills and three
commercial establishments. The second characteristic analyzed was soil ~ypes. Most of the
soil is not suited for intense development but is for forestry and orchards. The depth to
bedrock in most of the soil is shallow and therefore, septic tank and drainfields are
limited. The reason for these shallow soils is the mountains and steep relief of the area.
Alluvial soils are found along stream valleys, which have very poor drainage since they
saturated much of the time. The staff also analyzed the topography as to suitability for
building. This was broken down into five categories; very steep/rock, moderate slope,
buildable areas, lowland/floodplain, and narrow shape which are found between Route 29 and
the railroad. The very steep/rocky area is land rising steeply-away from the highway and
may be solid rock which has been blasted to allow for the construction of the road. In
these areas access and development would be very difficult if not impossible. The moderate
slope i~are~i~her~the~-~r~ain~:do~s~no~a~ily lend itself t~:~development. Access and
development would require extensive grading and the land generally rises away from the
highway. The buiidable areas are gently sloping to level; access and development would
require moderate amount of site preparation. Generally there is not a large grade change
between these buildable areas and Route 29 or another access road. The lowland/floodplain
area is where Route 29 South runs parallel to Moores Creek and other branches almost the
entire-length of the study area. This creates grade change which makes access from Route
29 nearly impossible. In some cases, development could occur with'extensive filling. The
most extreme areas are near Hickory Hill where Moores Creek runs along a narrow strip
between Route 29 and the railroad; south of Route 745 and also near Gleco Mills where
construction of Route 29 has created a severe grade change on the east side. The last
characteristic studied was narrow shape which is caused by the close proximity of Route 29
and the railroad~ The land is physically divided into a long narrow strip, which coupled
with extreme topography, makes development and access difficult. Mr. Tucker said in analyzing
the strip between Route 29 South and the Southern Railroad, the staff is of the opinion
that this strip has potential in the A-1 zone for the following uses: Uses Permitted by Right,
Single-family detached dwellings, conservation and preservation, Home Occupationr-Class
A, Mobile homes, and single-family detached dwellings - rental; Use by Special Permit, animal
hospitals, fire stations and rescue squads, public garage, ~eneral stores, gift, craft~.
and antique shops, horse trailer salesr-~?imi~ed, c~m~ero.~a~)kennels, professional offices,
two-family dwellings, and agricultural service occupation. 2A~t.hn~Eh~ the staff indicates
these potential uses, they are not suggesting their appropriateness to any specigic parcel.
As outlined, consideration oF.~seils$<~:.topography and access egress may further limit use of
individual parcels, both in terms of the economic feasilibity of development and in terms
of the general health, safety and welfare of the public. The staff emphasized the following:
1. Of the potential uses listed, several are generally high-value commercial uses; 2.
Site development costs for the study area will generally be extensive due to topographic
features including grade differential, steepness of slope, presence of streams, presence of
rock. Soil conditions may prohibit septic systems. The Health Department requires septic
fields to be a minimum of fifty feet from a stream. The Highway Department may require
deceleration and acceleration lanes for commercial type uses. COmbined with parking
these factors will limit uses regardless of zoning; 3. U.S. Route 29 South, excepting
Interstate 64, is the only major access to Charlottesville which remains uncompromised by
development. Extending development beyond the bypass would reduce the effectiveness of'~both
the bypass and Route 29 South as major volume movers and could reduce the safety of these
routes. Since the study area is physically defined as a narrow strip, development could
occur only in strip fashion which is clearly in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. In
conclusion, several of the potential uses presently provided for in the A-1 zone are of a
commercial nature and are comparable to uses provided for in the B-1 Business Zone. Since
there already exists approximately 67 acres of vacant commercially zoned land in the immediate
area, it is the staff's opinion that to rezone any additional land to commercial in this
area would be overzoning. The P~ning Commission voted to deny this petition based on the
staff's recommendations.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Representing the applicant was Mr. David
Wood. He said this request for rezoning was made because the present zoning is tantamount
to a deprecation of any use of the property. This strip of land is narrow and there is a cree
between the highway and the railroad. Residential development is impossible due to the
property being located on a main arterial highway and adjoining a railroad. The uses
permitted by right are inappropriate and the special permit uses, if realistically evaluated,
would also be~inappropriate. Most of the B-1 zoned land !~%~e~are~is~hapographically unusabl
This property is only appropriate for business since it is close to the 1-64 interchange.
There is adequate area between the creek and the highway for commercial use and it could
328
August 4, 1976
With no one else desiring to speak, the public hearing was closed.
The Board then discussed the problem of setting a precedent if this rezoning~was
approved. Mr. Henley said even though he had reservations about thDs request, he also had
reservations about the establishment of this area as a scenic route. At this time, Dr.
Iachetta offered motion to deny ZMP-08-76 based on the Staff's recommendations. Mr. Henley
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMP-04-76. Double C Corporation. (Deferred~lfrom July 7, 1976.)
Mr. Fisher said several letters had been received since July 7,
1976-1 One was from
the Fire Marshal dated July 27, 1976 in which the water requirements were amended for fire
protection for-the development. Also, letter from Mr. William H. Muller, III, attorney for~
the Westmoreland Community Association was received. He noted that this petition had been
deferred in order for the applicant to investigate further fire protection and site evaluatior
At this time, the public hearing was reopened.
The applicant Mr. Ronald D. Carter was present. He said the RPN district was intended
to promote the economical and efficient use of land and this project was designed in that
manner. At this time, he presented slides showing the c~mpatibility of this development with
thin, surrounding area. At the conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Carter said he wanted to
show the citizens that townhouses are not as they are visualized. He did not feel the
subject property can be developed into single-family residences. Because of a swale on the
property only a small portion can be developed. The majority is wooded; thus, the units
would be on wooded sites. He also noted a two-hundred foot buffer between Westmoreland and .~
this area. ~f~ ~
Speaking next was Mr. Randy Hicks. He/~ssisted Mr. Carter in the preparation of the
slides and the diagrams and felt the design presented will preserve the natural state of
the land.
Mr. Carte~ did not feel fire hydrants should be required on this particular piece of
property because there is not adequate water right beside the land. By tying onto the
existing lines in Woodbrook and Northfields-Carrsbrook, 980 gallons per minute can be
obtained. He wrote to the Insurance Services Offices in Richmond and was informed that
this office has no requirements for fire protection. He also found that ~he required
fire flow for buildings is dependent on several things; one is the type of construction.
Buildings of fire-resistive construction in lieu of frame or'ordinary construction would
reduce the fire flow requirements. -A townhouse unit can be designed so that 980 gallons of
water a minute is adequate~ Mr. Thompson of the Albemarle County Service Authority has
said there is adequate sewer capacity in the area. Mr. Carter said the line runs by
gravity through Carrsbrook and goes to the Meadowcreek Plant. The capacity is limited by
the ~'f~ci~'~n~:~plant. Once the A~T plant is opened, the capacity will be
doubled for this area.
'Next to speak was Mr. William Muller. He read into the record the following letter
from the Wastmoreland Community Association regarding Rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan:
"TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
FROM: William H. Muller, III, Attorney for Westmoreland Community Association
SUBJECT: Rezoning request of Double C. Co~Doration for Westmoreland Manor
Development--Rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan
It appears from rulings in recent Virginia Supreme Court cases that the time
is drawing to a close when Boards of Supervisors can make zoning decisions without
basing such decisions in a large part on a predetermined set of standards that
are encompassed by the Master Plan. The status the Plan carries haS risen to a
point where it must be actively considered in the de~ision-making process.
Landowners, developers and Supervisors must have something upon which they can hang
their hats. If a proposed zoning change is within thesPian, the Board can have
confidence in knowing that some intelligent and thoughif~l work has already been
done in terms of the density issue. Its members need not apply the same degree of
strict standards to the proposed change as they would if such a change was in
contradiction to the Plan. The effort can be centered on the technical and
aesthetic proposals of the~site p~an. However, a real legal difficulty is presented
when the proposed change contradicts the zoning as envisioned by the Plan. The
courts are saying now that to vary from the Plan the Board must do so only by
consistent application of standards. This requirement suggests that the Board must
adopt a set of standards or criteria that would be applicab~e in the decision-making
process that are not subjective or illusive, but concrete. To vary from the Plan
in one instance and adhere~to~it in another without scrutiny of the criteria for
variance is asking for legal action by an aggrieved developer or adjacent landowner.
-(See generally Fairfax County v. Williams, 216 Va. 49, 59 (1975)).
The Comprehensive Plan enables people to have certain expectations when they
purchase a piece of real estate in Albemarle County. To deprive people of these
expectations can amount to a taking that might have legal repercussions much as if
a zoning decision were deemed arbitrary and capricious. People pay for expectations
and they are certainly entitled to careful scrutiny beforeLha~i~g them cancelled.
The precedent the Board sets with the Westmoreland Manor proposal will dictate
the type of decisions the Board will ~e~maki~g in the future. If thei~Board now varies
from the Plan it will be tying its hands for the future~situation when it desires
to stand on the Plan's recommendations. The very concept of the Comprehensive
Plan's status requires the Board to ~pply a strict set of standards when a developer
wishes to vary from its density recommendations. It only makes sense that the
August 4, 1976
329
his project will have and the loss to the County that would result if the
Plan were strictly adhered to. There certainly must be more than a showing
that the developer has met the technical requirements of the subdivision
ordinance and that his project would not cause any major difficulties in
terms of services. On the contrary, he must show h~w his plan would solve the
County's problems in a given area.
ItLis not our opinion here that the zoning requested by Double C.
Corporation would be illegal if granted, but it is our contention that granting
such a variance will dictate the criteria that must be used when future
developers wish to vary from the Plan's recommendations. There is no factor
before the Board that would satisfy the special standards that should exist.
The Board, if allowing thl~ development through, would have much trouble
saying to the next one: "Well, this request is contrary to the Master Plan
and therefore must be denied." The Plan would come to have no purpose and,
therefore, be a costly waste. Now is the time for the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County to, develop the kind of orderly and specific standards
that will enable consistent decision-making in the-future with regard to the
Comprehensive Plan and to make application of those standards clear on the
record. If this duty and obligation is carried out, the proposal for
Westmoreland Manor must be denied as not satisfying the most minimum of
those standards.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed)
W. H. Muller, III"
Mr. William Blucher spoke next. He did not feel the applicant ha~ answered the
two points for which this request was deferred.
Mr. H. I. Taylor, a resident of Northfields, said he is still in opposition to
this request because he does not see any benefit to the existing developments in the area.
Next to speak was Mr. Michael. He spoke in opposition.
With no one else desiring to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker to review the recommenda~imns of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Tucker reviewed the conditions set out in Minute Book 14, page 293. He then said the
Service Authority has indicated they will not agree to condition #6 which is for a cost-
sharing agreement between the developer and the ~uthority for a .8 mile connecting water
line.
Dr. Iachetta did not feel RPN zones should be located everywhere in the County just
because it is an allowed use in the Zoning Ordinance. Because the density of this
development is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and because it is not
consistent with the one family dwellings in the area, he offeredm motion to deny~this
request. Mr. Henley seconded the motion.
Mr. Dottier felt the plan presented was good. Even though high denzity townhouses are
needed, he was not sure this is the best site. He did have reservations about denying
the request.
Mr. Roudabush felt the plan adapts itself well to the land. He did not feel water
and sewer were deficient enough to deny the request. He did feel access to the site should
be through Route 652 so as to keep construction traffic out of Westmoreland. He did agree
with the inconsistency of this housing with the neighborhood. His concern is that this
property is surrounded by the Southern Railroad, Rio Road, ROute 29 North and the Rivanna
River. In this area, 250 acres remain to be developed.~ He suggested asking the
Planning Commission to review the Comprehensive Plan as to the ~Uture of the 250 acres
undeveloped in order~to make a determination as to whether an R~N development is compatible
with that block of land. If it is compatible, the proposed densities should be determined
within the total area. .
Mr. Fisher said the Comprehensive ~lan is now in the process of being revised. Mr.
Tucker said such a study could not be done right away with the workload of the planning
department. He noted the planning staff is pointing out areas ~o the consu!tants which
are under more pressure than other areas. Mr.?~iBh~r said the maximum density in the
Comprehensive Plan is for one dwelling unit per acre and the applicant has requested 2.5
units per acre. Mr. Dorrier said he could have supported the request if the applicant had
~greed to the recommendation of the Planning Commission of two units per acre. ~ ~
At this time, roll was called on the motion and ~he motion to deny ZMP-04-?6 carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NONE.
Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-41-76. Cecil Gardner. (Deferred ~romJ~ly 7, 1976).
.~i~ ~sher read the following letter into the record:
"July 29, 1976
Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
33O
August 4, 1976
Re: SP-41-76
_:~ Cecil Gardner
Dear Miss Neher:
As you know, we are legal counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Cecil
Gardner and represent them in their application for a special
permit currently pending before the Board of Supervisors for
consideration at the August 4 meeting. On behalf of the Gardners,
we hereby request that the application for a special permit be
withdrawn permanently.
Should you or any of the Board members or other County
officials have any questions regarding this request or
withdrawal, please feel free to contact me.
Sincer~ely,
(Signed)
James B. Murray, Jr."
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to allow withdrawala~f SP-41-76 without
prejudice. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. Sa. Woodbrook Subdivision: Resolution requesting that roads in
Section l0 be taken into the State Secondary System of Highways.
Mr. Agnor said by authorization of the Board, he had executed an agreement with
Equitable Life Insurance Company for improvements in Section 10 of Woodbrook. The work in
Section 10 has been completed and inspected this date by the State Highway Department.
Mr. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer said the Highway Department needs a resolution
in order to process the papers to accept the road into the system. At this~time, motion
was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following roads in Section l0 in Woodbrook
Subdivision:
Beginning at station 13+38.02 on Eastbrook Drive, a i?~._~_
point common to the centerline intersection of Eastbrook
Drive and Parkwood Place (St. Route 1414) station 5+64.33, as
shown on the plan and profile of Eastbrook Drive revised dated
March 10, 1976, as prepared by W. S. Roudabush and Associates;
thence with Eastbrook Drive in a northeasterly and southwesterly
direction 1485.06 feet to station 28~2~.08, a point common to the
centerline intersection of Eastbrook Drive and Idlewood Road
(St. Route 1415) station 13+31.75, the end Of Eastbrook Drive
in Section 10 of Woodbrook Subdivision.
Beginning at station 0+00 on Eastbrook Court, a point
common to the centerline intersection of Eastbrook Court and
Eastbrook Drive station 21+83.15, as shown on the plan and profile
of Eastbrook Court revised dated March 10, 1976, as prepared by
W. S. Roudabush and Associates; thence with Eastbrook Court in
a southwesterly direction 250 feet to station 2+50, the end of
Eastbrook Court in Section l0 of Woodbrook Subdivision.
'...~BE~'ZT:'~HRTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as
recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 560, page 116.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 5b. Woodbrook Subdivision: Request to lift building permit moratorium.
Mr. Agnor rec~mmmnded..~lifting the building'permit moratorium in Section 10 of Woodbrook
Subdivision since the highway improvements have been made. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to
this effect. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following~reco~ded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 6. Resolution of Intent:
by adding a definition of a "hardware stQre"
Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
The followin~ wordin~ was suggested as a
August 4, 1976
.AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ZONIN~i~ORDINANCE BY ADDING A DEFINITION OF THE TERM HARDWARE STORE
BE IT ORDAINED~:Dy the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it hereby is,
amended by the addition thereto of a Section 16-40.2 as follows:
16-40.2 HARDWARE STORE: A retail store in which are sold
prim~arily items made of metal, such as too~s, locks, hinges,
electrical and plumbing supplies, screws, nails and the like,
together with other items and materials associated therewi2h
including, but not limited to paint, adhesives, lumber, brick
and other building supplies; spor$ing goods; the operation
of which store may involve such outside storage of materials
as shall be reasonably complementary and incidental-to-the
use of the. enclosed sales area.
Mr. Dorrier said this request was a result of ZMA-11-76, W. F. Paulett and Son. He
felt the Zoning Ordinance needs an interim category between manufacturing and business.
He did not consider W~.Fm~-;~aulett and Son a manufacturer but the request was for M-1
zoning since pipes and lumber were stored outside. He felt this stretches the definition
of manufacturing. It is unfair to require one applicant to have M-1 zoning and allow
similar businesses to exist in a B-1 zone. Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, had
suggested to him including the definition of a hardware store which would allow for the
storage of brick, lumber and other hardware supplies. Mr. St. John felt the proposed
definition is legal and would allow storing of materials incidenta~l to a business outside
of the main building. Mr. Tucker noted the controversy which arose was because of the
outside storage and this is only permissible in M-1 zones. Mr. St. John felt most hardware
stores sell sporting goods and this should be included. Mr. Dorrier felt some restriction
should be placed on the size of the store. Mr. St. John said under the present B-1
zoning, hardware stores are permitted by right. Dr. Iachetta felt the operation at Lowe's
and Phillip's is different. Phillips has a large woodworking and shop area and manufactures
woodwork items on the site. B~w~s~_only stocks materials. Phillips is in the M-1 zone
and Lowes is in B-1. He also felt the definition of a building supply yard should be
redefined. Mr. Tucker said there is no existing definition for a hardware store in the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. St. John said the Zoning Ordinance already has some requirements
for permitted uses in the B-1 zone. As a matter of right, there is already outside
storage for the B-1 zone; providing, there is some sort of enclosure. He felt the basic
reason the Zoning Administrator requested W. F. Paulett ~and Son to have M-1 zoning was
because one of the uses specifically enumerated in the M-1 zone is "a building material
sales yard." He felt the Paulett operation was more this than a hardware store. Discussion
then followed on whether the two operations mentioned were erroneously zoned or if Paulett's
should be allowed to operate in the existing zoning. Dr. Iachetta asked how this situation
could be resolved. Mr. St. John said either a definition can be enacted or it can be
left for the Zoning Administrator's interpretation. Dr. Iachetta felt the definition of
a building supply operation could be easier to define than to create a definition for a
hardware store. Mr. ~orrier suggested referring this to the Planning Commission for
their recommendation. Mr. St. John suggested referring the definition of building supply
yard as opposed to a hardware store. The consensus of the Board was to refer both definition~
to the Planning Commission for their recommendations. Mr. Dorrier offered motion to refer
the definition of a building supply yard as opposed to a hardware store to the Planning
Commission for their recommendation. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 7. Cancel Board Meetings of August 18 and September 1, 1976.
Mr. Roudabush offered motion to cancel these meetings. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: January 28 (afternoon meeting), April 14,
April 16, April 20, April 21 (afternoon meeting) April 21 (night meeting), and May 19,
1976.
Motion was offered by Dr. iachetta to defer this item to August ll, 1976.
was seconded by Mr. Dottier and carried by the following recorded vote: ~:i:
The motion
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, IaChetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 9. Resolution: Set a policy for deferral of public hearings.
Mr. Fisher felt some policy was needed because of the number of last minute requests
being made for deferral of items. After discussion, the Board felt the current procedure;
that of deEerring a public hearing one time, either at the applicant's request or because
the applicant was not present, should remain; thus, no action was taken.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. James E. Moore, Assistant
Attorney General,~ regarding legal action taken by local governments on Planning District
33£
August 4, 1976
Mr. Fisher noted a request received from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for
a lake restoration study of the South Rivanna Reservoir. This was presented to the
Planning District Commission for funding!n the amount of $84,495.00 which will be matched
by federal funding. He felt these applications should be presented to the locality,
in summary form, before being given to state or federal agencies.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. C. E. Anderson, Chairman of the Resource
Recovery Commission stating the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency for a
grant in the amount of $50,000.00.
A request was received from the State Crime Commission for a lia~ion to be appointed
to serve on a sub-committee working on crime problems and prevention. Mr. Fisher asked
Mr. Dottier to serve as the Board's representative. Mr. Dorrier accepted the appointment.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from the State Water Control Board in reference
to a hearing on August 24, 1976, for providing interested persons an opportunity to express
their views concerning project priority lists for recipients of federal financial assistance
for construction of wastewater treatment works. Mr. Agnor said the priorities established
are satisfactory to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority who will have representatives
present at the hearing.
Letter was also received from the Richmond Times Dispatch and Newsleader concerning
the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. Penalties are being imposed for violations of
this act.
Mr. Dorrier presented a letter received from Ms. Alice LaVoie, dated July 18, 1976,
regarding business license tax for selling yearbooks from her home. She would like to
discuss this with the Board and Mr. Dottier asked that same be placed on the agenda
and Ms. La¥oie notified of the time.
Mr. Agnor brought to the Board's attention that a certificate of occupancy moratorium
on Section l0 of Woodbrook should be lifted since earlier action had been taken to lift
the building permit moratorium on Section 10.~ Dr. Iachetta offered motion to lift the
certificate of occupany moratorium on Section~of Wood~.ro~k. Mr. Roudabush seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mrs. David.
At 10:35 P.M. and at the request of the Chairman, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush~-
to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Motion~was seconded by Mr.
Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT:~ Mrs. David.
The Board reconvened at 11:00 P.M. and immediately adjourned.
~n~AIRMAN