Loading...
1976-11-17N464 November 17, 1976 (Regular Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 17, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher~ J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert Tucker. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-79-76. Evelyn Wood..Deferred from October 20 and November 3, 1976. The applicant was not present at this time so this agenda item was passed over temporarily. Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing- ,,A.~resolution of intent to amend-the R-3 Residential zone to provide for a densit-y of ~u/un~s per acre oy right, and a density up to 34 units per acre by special use permit. (Advertised on November 3 and November 10, 1976.) Mr. Tucker said on Sept'ember 21, 1976~ the Planning Commission adopted a resolution :~f intent to amend the provisions of the R-3 Residential General District to provide a maximum residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre by right and a maximum residential density of 34 dwelling units per acres by special use permit. Such provision would bring the "by right" density of the R-3 zone into conformance with the high density residential areas recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. A maximum density of 34 units per acre by special permit would require approval of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 11-13. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission approved the amendments as set out below: Amend Section 6-1 under uses by right AND uses by special permit by adoption of the following: Under Article 6, Residential, General, District R-3, Uses Permitted: Add Section 6-1-23 to read: Residential uses having a maximum net residential density of twenty (20) but not more than thirty-four (34) dwelling units per acre. Under Article 6, Residential, General, District R-3, Uses Allowed with a Special Use Permit Only: Add Section 6-1-21(10) to read: Residential uses having a maximum ney residential density Of more than twenty (20) but not more than thirty-four (34) dwelling units per acre. Repeal all provisions of Section 6-2, Area Regulations, and adopt the following: Section 6-~-1 Category !: Residential developments served by a central sewer -system and a central water supply shall have a maximum net residential density of twenty (20) units per acre; provided, however, that the board of supervisors may, by special use permit issued pursuant to Section 11-13 of this ordinance, authorize, in particular cases, residential .developments of greater density, not to exceed thirty-four (34) units per acre, upon a finding by the board that the same will be compatible with the public health, safety and general welfare and with the character and development of the neighborhood. Section 6-2-2 Category 2: Residential developments served by either a central sewer system or a central water supply shall provide a minimum area of forty-thousand (40,000) square feet per dwelling unit. Section 6~2-3 Category 3: Residential developments served by neither a central sewer system nor a central water supply shall provide a minimum area of sixty- thousand (60,000) square feet per dwelling unit. Section 6-2-4 In the case of unusual soil conditions or other physical factors which may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood and upon the recommendation of the Virginia Department of Health, the planning commission may increase area requirements specified under Section 6-2. Add the following definitions to the Zoning Ordinance: Section 16-72.1 Residential Area (Gross). within a residential development. The total area of land and water Section 16-72.2 Residential Area (net). That area of land and water within a development designed for residential, open space, and recreational purposes and unoccupied by streets or parking areas; provided that individual private driveways accessory to residential uses shall not be considered streets or parking areas. Section 16-72.3 Residential Density (Gross). The total number of dwelling units within a development divided by the gross residential area and expressed in dwelli~g units per acre. Section 16-72.,~ Residential Density (Net). The total number of dwelling units within a deve~opm~-~ ~ by the net residential area and expressed in dwelling units per acre. Mr. Tucker then read into the record the following letter from the League of Women voters: November 17, 1976 (Regular Meeting) "November 17, 1976 To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Re: Amendments to Density Provisions, R-3 Residential General District Before you make any decision on amending the density provisions of the R-3 zone, we would ask that you consider whether these amendments would further the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and what possible legal ramifications of the proposed changes might be. We would caution against acting before the following specific points have been given careful consideration. While we approve of the attempt to decrease R-3 density from the presently allowable 34 dwelling units/acre, we question whether 20 units/acre is the best choice for a new density figure. The present Comprehensive Plan recommends an average density of 15 dwelling units/acre for high density development in the urban area and the communities. If you amend the ordinance to allow a density of 20 units/acre by right and 34 units/acre by Special Use Permit, how could this objective of the Comprehensive Plan conceivably be realized? Until the revision of the Plan is completed, any change in the ordinance should conform to the present Plan. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to designate a lower density by right in order to achieve an average density of 15 units/acre? Secondly, if an increase in density to 34 units/acre by Special Use Permit is provided for in the R-3 zone, we wonder what specific criteria would be used in determining whether such a permit should be granted? On what grounds could one be denied? Finally, we wonder if the Special Use Permit route is the appropriate one for providing for higher density. Perhaps it would be preferable to have a separate zone for higher density medium rise developments. We thought that the three separate multi-family zones provided for in the proposed zoning ordinance, allowing 12, 20, and 30 units/acre respectively, provided a desirable range of choice. We hope you will Consider these questions and observations before you make your decision. Thank you." The public hearing was opened. closed. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was Mrs. David said she supports the proposed amendments and then read the following "I would like to point out that the Statement of Intent for Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance, Residential, General District, R-3, indicates it is intended to be composed of "quiet, medium density uses, plus certain open areas where similar development appears likely to occur" but, "not completely residential as it includes public and semi-public institutional and other related uses." The Comprehensive Plan defines medium density as two to four dwelling units per acre and high density as five to twenty dwelling units per acre. Since this proposed amendment brings the density between 20 and 34 dwelling units per acre under special permit constraints, it seems to me it is a desirable change, but the whole package, that is, medium density as opposed to 34 dwelling units per acre is internally inconsistent. I think it is somewhat misleading in that the Statement of Intent does not indicate that this is an area in which you can have duplexes and multi-family dwellings, although that comes out later in the uses by right and the uses by special permit." Mrs. David then recommended that the following amendments be made to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Amend Section 6-1-11 which now~says only "multiple family dwel!in by adding "having a net residential density of not more than 20 dwelling units per acre." Change Section 6-1-21(10) to read: "Multiple family dwellings having a net residential density of more than 20, but not more than 34 dwelling units per acre." Change Section 6-2-1, Category 1, to read: "Multi-family dwellings served by a central sewer system and a central water supply shall have a maximum net residential density of 20 units per acre; provided, however, that the board of supervisors may, by special permit" (omit "issued pursuant to " (omit "in particular cases ") "residential Section 11-13 of this ordinance,") "authorize, , developments of greater density, not to exceed 34 units per acre." and omit "upon a finding by the board that the same will be compatible with the public health, safety and general welfare and with the character and development of the neighborhood." Mrs. David pointed out that the definitions which are recommended for addition to the Zoning Ordinance are being introduced as sub-hea~ings under "required open space". This comes about because all definitions in the ordinance have been numbered. Mrs. David also questioned the~necessity for defining words that have a dictionary definition. She then suggested changing Residential Area Gross to read: "The total acreage of land and water within a defined area designated for residential development" because in a planned unit development there are both residential and commercial areas and the densities are set by the residential areas and not by the total acreage. Mrs° David recommended that Residential Area Net be changed to read: "That area of land and water within a gross residential area designat~ for residential, open space, and recreational purposes and unoccupied by streets or parking areas available to the general public." Mr. Fisher asked if these changes had been discussed with the Planning Commission or the County Attorney. Mrs. David said no. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned that with this many changes and without having these bh~nges in writing and without same having been reviewed by the County Attorney and the Planning Commission that the Board would not be able to take action on these amendments tonight. Mrs. David said she would then withdraw her objections because she felt the Board should take action tonight. She then offered motion to adopt amendments as advertised and set out at the beginning of this discussion. 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. 48,6 November 17, 1976 (Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: ZMA-16-76. Wendell Wood. To rezone 17.74 acres from R-2 Residential to R-3 Residential and 0.84 acres from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business. Property on south side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) near its intersection with Route 631 and abutting the Four Seasons property on the southwest side. County Tax Map 61, Parcels 9 and 12, Charlottesville and Jack Jouett Magisterial Districts. ~Advertised Nov. 3 & Nov.10, 1976) Mr.-Tucker said "To the northeast of the property is Crenshaw's Mobile Homes and .the Four Seasons Planned Community. The subject property borders the Union Ridge Church on three.sides. Across Route 743 at its intersection with Route 631 is a small food store. Other residential properties in the immediate vicinity are undeveloped as is the subject property. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a mixture of medium and high density residential uses in the area as well as a neighborhood shopping center and elementary school. Greenbrier Drive is proposed to extend from Route 29 North through the subject property to intersect with Route 631 and Route 743. The area bounded by Routes 631 and 743 on the west and Route 29 North on the east is recommended for approximately 4850 dwelling units in the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of the applicant's previous request, staff had calculated a development potential of '5800 dwelling units under existing zoning in this area. Under the proposed recent amendment to the R-3 zone, staff has calculated development potential to be approximately 4000 dwelling units, therefore, ~the current request is within the limits of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Request for B-1 Business - The staff recommends denial of the request for B-1 business based on the following: (1) There are approximately 12.5 acres of undeveloped B-1 zoned properties at the intersection of Whitewood Road and Route 743 which, in staff Opinion, is more than adequate to accommodate the neighborhood shopping area indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. (2) A c0mmeroial use exists at the intersection of Routes 631 and 743 which is in compliance with the Plan. The staff recommends against further compromise of traffic safety at this intersection by introducing B-1 zoning on the east side of Route 743. Sight distance in this area is poor complicating access to Route 743 from the subject property. Request for R-3 Residential General -~ In the staff's opinion, the density requested of 20 units per acre is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore, the staff supports this density. However, as stated in an earlier review, the staff would favor an RPN designation rather than the traditional R-3 description requested. Reasons for this are as follows: (i) Advantage to the applicant - The RPN designation provides for flexibility of design, clustering of units, and a variety of housing types which could reduce development costs. (2) Open Space - The RPN designation contains open space requirements which the staff believes desirable in a proposal of this magnitude. Density credit is given the applicant for provision of open space. A brief study by Planning Department interns this summer indicated this general portion of the Urban Area to be of top priority for the provision of recreation/open space amenities. (3) The Intersection of Routes 631 and 743 - Residentially generated traffic under the applicant's request would increase flow on Route 743 by approximately 2100 trips/day or 35% (1974 traffic counts). As stated previously, sight distance is poor in this area. This issue could be addressed in the RPN review prior to granting increased density in this area. (4) Greenbrier Drive. As stated previously, the Comprehensive Plan recommends the extension of Greenbrier Drive through this property to the intersection of Routes 631 and 743. This issue could be addressed in the RPN review prior to granting increased density in this area. Comparative Impact Statistics Density Total dwelling units Population School-aged children Vehicles (Residential use only) Vehicle trips/day (Residential only) Water consumption (gallons per day) Existing Zoning R-2 (Duplex) Requested Zoning R-3 8.4 units/acre 20 units/acre 133 302 425 785 90 124 199 452 929 2,114 13,300 92,300 School-Aged Children Kindergarten - 5th 6th -.8th 9th - 12th 41 58 23 3i 27 35 91 124 Mr. T~¢ker then read t.he following letter from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: 487 November 17, 1976 (Night Meeting) "November 1, 1976 County of Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Rezoning Application ZMA-16-76 Attention: Mr. Robert W. Tucker Dear Mr. Tucker: Attached, you will find Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Staff Report concerning Rezoning Application ZMA-16-76 and plan sheets for the planned improvement on Hydraulic Road, Project: 0743-002-153,C501. The two alternatives listed, I feel, are self-explanatory as to the position of the Department. Mr. D. S. Roosevelt and/or myself plan to be in attendance at the rezoning hearing should any further questions arise. Very truly yours, (Signed) W.B. Coburn, Jr. Assistant Resident Engineer" "V. D. H. T. STAFF REPORT REZONING APPLICATION ZMA-16-76 WENDELL WOOD Existing Zoning - 18 58 Acres R-2 Proposed Zoning - 17.74 Acres R-3 0.84 Acres B-1 The subject tract of land is located in the southwest quadrant of the Hydraulic Road (Route 743) and Rio Road (Route 631) intersection with frontage on both roads. This intersection is congested and has heavy turning movements. The Department has a programmed project for the upgrading of Hydraulic Road. The project is presently in the design stage. Our project designation is 0743-002-153,C501. Attached are Plan Sheets 14 and 15 which cover the subject projerty. should be noted that the Hydraulic Road - Rio Road intersection has been redesigned and channe!ized to accommodate existing congestion and turning movements. It The following are two (2) alternative proposals for your consideration: ALTERNATIVE I It is noted that Albemarle County in its 1970 Comprehensive Plan indicates a local collector street built on a 60 foot - 80 foot right of way extending Greenbrier Drive from its present terminus to the intersection of Rio Road and Hydraulic Road, completing a full four-way intersection at this point~ This appears to be the proper time for the County to begin completing this street. If the County wishes to follow this plan, the Highway Department stands ready to redesign the intersection of Rio Road and Hydraulic Road to a full four-way crossing intersection. It would appear proper for the developer to dedicate the necessary right of way along Hydraulic Road and Rio Road and construct' the portion of the new street on his property. Access to the remainder of the property would be off the new street. No additional access to Hydraulic Road would be permitted. The Highway Department would not object to rezoning of the remainder of the property. ALTERNATIVE I! If the subject property is developed in accordance with the existing R-2 classification, an additional 929 vehicles per day will be generated onto the secondary roads. If developed in accordance with the requested classification, 2200 vehicles per day will be generated. Due to the critical location, we feel the increase will not be to the best interest of the traveling public of Albemarle County; therefore, we recommend the retention of the existing zoning classification. If the Planning Commission chooses to allow the rezoning request, we recommend that the entire 18.58 acres be reclassified to the R-3 district, thereby disallowing the requested B-1 classification. We would also suggest that the entire tract be provided access to Hydraulic Road at the location shown on the attached Plan Sheet 14 near the existing gas line easement. No access points should be located in the channelized Hydraulic Road - Rio Road intersection. Further, as a condition of upgrading the land use of the subject property and thereby enhancing the value, we feel it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to dedicate the needed right of way for the above mentioned highway project in accordance with the attached plans." Mr. Tucker ended by stating that the~Planning Commission, on November 9, 1976, by unanimous vote, recommended denial of this request. 468 November 17, 1976 (Night Meeting) At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was the applicant, Mr. Wendell Wood, who said the property is located in an area that is predominately R-3. A 12" sewer line was installed in this area about a year ago, and there is water and a gas line also on the proper~y. There are also schools in the area. Of the adjoining property owners, only the Mormon Church has expressed any opposition. Rezoning of this property was denied by the Board several years ago. This denial was taken to Court and the Judge ruled that the application should be brought back to the Board. Mr. Wood said no one has ever approached him about plans for Greenbrier Drive. Also, he is requesting B-1 zoning on only about 3/4th of an acre which is dislocated from the remainder of the property and which is not desirable for residential use. Mr. Roudabush asked if Mr. Wood had considered R?N/R-3 as an alternative. Mr. Wood said no. Mr. Roudabush asked if the property were rezoned and the Comprehensive Plan indicated a continuation of Greenbrier Drive to Routes 743 and 631, if the implementation of that road would be included in Mr. Wood's plan for development. Mr. Wood said he has not seen any plans for the road. Mr. Tucker said no plans have been drawn. Mr. Wood said he would be glad to work with somebody to design the road. Next to speak was Mr. Lewis Thompson a member of the Mormon Church and a resident of Four Seasons. On behalf of the Church, he expressed opposition to this rezoning based on increased traffic congestion. Ms. Dorothy Speidel read the following statement for Citizens for Albemarle: "It is our understanding that in the area bounded by 29 North, Hydraulic Road and Rio Road, there exists today 129 undeveloped acres zoned R-3 and 93 undeveloped acres zoned R-2; including the applicant's. If Mr. Wood's request is granted, there would be little chance of denying the R-3 designation to the rest of the R-2 land. The 93 acres at R-3 designation would generate 1080 more dwelling units (and using the 2.6 factor the planning department uses for the number of residents in R-3), 2800 more people than if the land remained R-2. We urge you to deny this petition. First, the Comprehensive Plan recommends a mixture of medium and high density in this area and is already over-balanced towards R-3. Second, if the area described above is developed as zoned, it will be an area with all the attendant problems of such development. The addition of 2800 more residents will aggravate these problems which include, among others, the problem of traffic safety. We feel that this County has a duty not to grant rezonings that will cause increased traffic on County roads that are already hazardous or that will be hazardous when developed as presently zoned." Mr. Rodney Nicely, a member of the Mormon Church, said there was a representative of the Highway Department at the Planning Commission meeting who stated that it may be six to eight years before reconstruction of Hydraulic Road is completed. The Church has a substantial investment in its building and there are meetings at the Church several times each week. He asked that the traffic problems be considered. Mr. Roudabush said the Board has seen the preliminary plans for improvement of Hydraulic Road. The time schedule may not be as long as mentioned. Mr. Mark Harrison said he lives on Hydraulic Road. There are already three convenience stores on Hydaulic. He asked that the Board keep the traffic safety of the area in mind. Mr. Fisher said the improvements to Hydraulic road are a major priority and most of the road improvement funds for the Secondary Road System are going into that project for five or six years. The road is so heavily traveled at this time that the Board has agreed to use general county funds for s~dewa!ks. This is the first time that Albemarle County has ever made such a commitment. The Comprehensive Plan, ~hich is presently being used as a guide, is designed and based on a population for the year 2000. Not all of the densities shown on the maps have to be granted immediately just because they are on the map. There are already lands zoned R-2 and R-3 in this area. Dr. Iachetta said he can find no compelling reason from a community standpoint to rezone either parcel and then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny request for ZMA-16-76. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David. Mr. Fisher asked for a history of this zoning request. Mr. St. John said in 1971 or thereabouts (he was not County Attorney at that time) a similar zoning petition was denied. Judge Berry sent the matter back to the Board of Supervisors to be reconsidered procedurally, but gave no guidelines. At that time it was a common practice for the Board to reconsider denials. Mr. Wood's attorney, Mr. Puryear, showed the Judge two or three reconsiderations that had taken place during that time and the Judge said in order to treat Mr. Wood equally, the Board should hear Mr. Wood's request for a rehearing. Mrs. David said that in terms of good planning, the Board should not make this change. Mr. Roudabush said the zoning in this area jumps from R-2 to R-3 to B-1 so he did not think an argument can be made for consistent good planning. In the whole area the zoning has been haphazard and this property is caught between three tracts of land either zoned for,~r!?~J~ being used for, high-density residential development. Utilities were not available when other lands in the area were zoned for R-3 and now utilities are available. Mr. Roudabush said he had difficu!ty~ separating this tract of land from other tracts of ~amd~iin~!!ith~ area a~e zoned R-3. Mr. Fisher said that would mean that every parcel of land in the area that is bordered by R-3 would have a right to be considered favorably for R-3. He is not sure the whole area should be zoned for the highest residential densities. The fact that there is a mix of R-2, R-3 and B-1 means that not all Parcels'are the same~ November 17, 1976 (Night Meeting) Mr. Roudabush said there is no logical pattern as to why one is zoned one way and others are zoned differently. Mrs. David said the Comprehensive Plan calls for a mix of densities in the area. Mr. Dorrier said he objects to the proposal on the basis of densities. The area is already highly populated and there is vacant B-1 land in the area. ~Although the property may be proper for B-1 in the future, this does not seem the time to rezone. At this time, roll was~alled on the motion and same carried by the vote which follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 9:13 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:20 P.M. They again took up agenda Item No. 2. SP-79-76. Evelyn Wood. (Deferred from November 3, 1976.) Mr. Fisher said although he had made numerous calls and visits to Mrs. Wood's home he had been unable to talk with Mrs. Wood. He did speak with Mrs. Wood's doctor because she is claiming a hardship due to chronic eczema. After talking with her doctor, Mr. Fisher said he does not believe the eczema condition is serious enough to constitute a hardship condition that should override zoning conditions. He did, finally, see where the mobile home would be placed on the property. He understands that Mrs. Roberts presently lives in a mobile home ~ which is in a mobile home park. This type of arrangement is what the County has been trying to encourage so as to discourage the random scattering of mobile homes throughout the County. Mr. Fisher said he had visited a number of the persons who appeared in opposition to place- ment of this mobile home and he does not believe that the mobile home will be visible, thus, does not feel that either side has a compelling case and would recommend that the Board deny this request. Mrs. David asked if the utilites for this mobile home are not already in place. Mr. Fisher said he understands there is a septic field in place and the well which serves the dwelling on this property will be tapped for the mobile home, Mr. Henley said he has never lived in a trailer court and would not want to live in one, but he can understand someone with an opportunity to have more room wanting to move out. He said he finds nothing wrong with a mother wanting her daughter to live nearby and would support the request. Dr. Iachetta asked if the Board has a legal right to deny this request. Mr. St. John said this application is in an area where the decision is within the Board's judgment. The law does not say the Board must decide for the applicant, but it also does not say the Board must find against the applicant. Mr. Dorrier said if the application is denied, the grounds would have to be that the mobile home is not compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. St. John said it must be found that the mobile home is incompatible, will depreciate neighboring properties and is not in accord with the neighborhood. Either way, the Court:~would not substitute its judgement for that of the Board. In order to do that, it has to be a clear case where the Board had no evidence on which to make a decision. Dr. Iachetta said since there is a mobile home on the adjoining parcel of land, he did not think the Board can now say there cannot be a mobile home on this parcel. Mrs. David said she believes the other mobile home has been there for a long time; maybe predating zoning in the County. Mr. St. John said if that is the case, a discrimination argument would not exist. Mrs. David noted several passages from the Zoning Ordinance which are to be used when approving special permits; namely that the use shall not change the character of the area in which the use is located. She said the Board must decide if the character of the neighborhoo, is sat by the mobile home on the adjoining property or the homes that look down on the mobile home. _~he Zoning Ordinance also states that the use shall not affect adversely the use of neighboring properties. She said there is no reason to think that will happen. It comes down to finding that the mobile home will not be in character and harmony with the neighborho~ Mr. Fisher said that is usually the contention of all neighbors when the Board hears requests for mobile home permits. Mr. Henley said he did not know how that could happen if all the neighbors are against it; nobody else is going to put a trailer there so one trailer is not going to change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Dorrier said the staff report states that the mobile home will be placed where a previous mobile home was located which indicates that there is a precedent already set. Mr. Roudabush said he did not feel anyone must show a hardship in order to locate a mobile home in the County and did not feel the question is germaine to the issue. He said h~ could not vote for a mobile home in one part of the County and deny another where the cir- cumstances are not that different. Since there was a mobile home on this property previously and there is another mobile home in the neighborhood, and because of the family relationship, he would not vote against the request. Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve SP-7-76 with the three conditions recommended by the staff: (1) Mobile home to be located where a mobile home was previously located on the property using existing water facilities and septic drainfield. (2) Approval of appropriate state and local agencies. (3) Skirting around the mobile home from ground level to the base of the mobile home. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta said about a year ago a person wanted to place a mobile home on p~operty adjoining his property, right on his property line and where it could be seen. He came to the conclusion that he could not deny this person a place to live and he would support this request. is Mr. Fisher said he agrees with that, but this/not a question of not having a place to live. The mobile home is now in a mobile home park and the County has been trying to 470 November 17, 1976 (Night Meeting~ Mrs. David said almost everytime there has been a discussion about mobile homes, it has been the feeling that they should-not be scattered at random, but there is nothing in any stated policy or ordinance that denies them. Mr. Fisher said there is no specific permission needed to go in mobile home parks and that is an encouragement. Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Fisher was suggesting that people d© something they don't want to do. At this point, roii~ was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and RoudabUsh. NAYS: Mr~F~isher. Agenda Item No. 5. ZTA-Z6-09. Osborn L. Huff. To amend the RS-1 zone Of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide'for livestock.by special use permit..(Advertised on November 3 and November !0, 1976.) Mr. Tucker said the staff has reviewed the Statement of Intent of the RS-1 zone and found this request not in keeping with the intent when compared to the definition of livesto The staff feels provision for the maintenance of livestock is not compatible with the minimum lot size as provided in this zone (40,000 square feet minimum; 43,560 square feet average) and therefore recommended denial of the request. The Planning Commission on November 9, 1976, by a unanimous vote, also recommendedOdenial. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Huff had also applied concurrently for a special use permit in the event this amendment was approved (SP- 69-76) and at the Planning Commission meeting requested withdrawal of the petition without prejudice; which request was granted. Mr. Tucker said the area in question is near Boyd's Tavern. Normally, the Planning Commission would entertain a motion to rezone Mr. Huff's · property to A-i, but since he is in an area surrounded by other RS-1 properties, the Commi~ would like to advise the Board that they would entertain the possible rezoning of the entire area from RS-1 to A-l, There are approximately 45 lots in the area which are developed as RS-! and would not conform to the A-1 zone because of lot size. This land was rezoned to soon after~RS~l was added to the Zoning Ordinance; probably in 1969. Mr. Huff was present in support of the petition. He said he bought his four acre tract because it had water and he wanted to raise a steer to kill each year. He said the Planning Commission had recommended that he try for this amendment to the ordinance rather than requesting a rezoning of the property since that would be spot zoning. Mr. Fisher said it appears that the zoning in this area may be a mistake since most of the land is not being used for medium density use. It seems to be premature to have that land zoned for uses it is not being puttto~. Mr. Huff said a lot of the land in this area is not suitable for one acre development because it will not support a septic field. He had trouble siting his septic field. Mr. Henley said he would be in favor of rezoning Mr. Huff's property. Mr. Roudabush said he was afraid the Board would be in trouble if they tried to rezone more than Mr. Huff's property. He suggested that Mr. Huff get some of the other property owners involved to join him in making an application for a rezoning. At this time, the public hearing was opened. No one rose to speak for or against the petition. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to defer this public hearing until the third Wednesday in January so that Mr. Roudabush might have a chance to contact property owners in the area and find their feelings on having the entire area, not presently developed as RS-I, rezoned to A-1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-71-76. Howard L. Hamilton. To locate a public riding stable on 219' acres zoned A-1. Property located approximately 200 yards southwest of the intersection of Routes 601 and 829. County Tax Map 29, Parcel 76, White Hall and Jack Jouett Magisterial Districts. (Adverti'sed on November 3 and November 10, 1976.~) Mr. Tucker said the subject property is sparsely wooded, rolling hills. The property is developed in riding rings, paddocks and stable. A recently developed parking area can accommodate more than 30 autos. Barracks Stud Farm #2 is located on the opposite side of Route 601. Other properties in the immediate vicinity are sparsely developed. The Compre- hensive Plan indicates agricultural uses in this area. Membership at Foxfield Farm is approximately 50 persons. About 60 horses are on the farm; some 30 of which are boarded. This use has recently been relocated from the site of the Foxfield Turf Course. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on November 9, by unanimous vote, recommended approval with the following conditions: (1) Planning Commission approval of a site plan. (2) Health Department approval in accordance with requirements for commercial uses. (3) Repair and maintenance of fencing to prevent horses from roaming on public right of way. (4) No permanent facilities for sale of goods to public. The applicant was present in support of the petition. No one else appeared to speak eit er for or against the petition. The public hearing was closed and Mrs. David offered motion to approve SP-71-76 with the conditions recommended by 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. November 17, 1976 (Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 7. SP-81-76. Harry W. and Mary R. Wheeler. To amend SP-338 (a special use permit for an antique, craft, and gift shop). This would give relief from Condition No. 1. of SP-338. The George Rogers Clark Museum is zoned A-1 and is located on Route 20 North adjoining Buena Vista. County Tax Map 62, Parcel 31, Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised on November 3 and November 10, 1976.) Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report: LOCATION: Property is located on the west side of Route 20 North approximately 1.5 miles north of its intersection with Route 250 East. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The existing restored cabin located on the George Rogers Clark birth site is surrounded by pasture!and. The property slopes down to the Rivanna River and is visible from Penn Park. Buena Vista is adjacent to the north of the subject property and multi-family units are adjacent to the south. Across Route 20 from the property is cropland. STAFF COMMENT: On April 24, 1974, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-338 establishing the George Rogers Clark Museum subject to the following conditions: (1) Restricted to only the building seen in photo on file. (2) Restricted to one four-square foot identification sign at gate at entrance. (3) Issued to applicant only and non-transferrable. (4) Sales confined within building on George Rogers Clark birth site. (5) No manufacturing on site. Restricted to selling of crafts, antiques, gift items and incidential foods and drinks. (6) For a period of five years, with administrative review each year during that five years, at the end of which time it would have to come back before the Commission. On September 16, 1976, the Building Inspections Department issued a Stop Work Order to the applicant who was constructing additions to the Museum without a building permit and in violation of Condition #1 of SP-338. Subsequently, the applicant is requesting relief from Condition #I of original approval. Resultant inspection of the site by the Zoning Department revealed violation of Conditions #1, #2 and #4 of SP-338 (see memo on?fit~). A chemical privy has been located on the site for public use. Also, the applicant advertises at the entrance "FREE SPRING WATER" for public consumption. This water source has not been tested or approved by the Virginia Department of Health as fit for human consumption. The spring is located downhill from a cattle pasture. In staff opinion, with the exception of the spring water for public use, the applicant's violations do not represent significant threat to the general health, safety and welfare. However, the applicant has displayed disregard of the special permit conditions and building permit regulations. Two of the three proposed additions to the building were near completion when the Stop Work Order was issued, therefore, the staff would recommend waiver of Condition #1 if it is determined not to revoke SP-338. In staff opinion, this operation is clearly a commercial venture, therefore, staff would recommend the restatement of and additions to the conditions of approval of SP-338." Mr. Tucker said on November 9, 1976, the Planning Commission, by unanimous vote, approval of the application, with the following conditions: (i) The building shall be constructed as indicated on plans marked "Received, September 19, 1976" and initialed "RSK". In addition, the applicant shall provide restroom facilities to be approved by the Virginia Department of Health. These facilities may be housed in a separate structure. The Zoning Administrator shall review and approve plans for these facilities to insure harmony with the existing structure. No other structures shall be constructed or located on the site without approval of the Zoning Administrator a~ter review to insure compliance with the intent of this special permit approval. (2) Any water supply used for public consumption shall first be approved by the Virginia Department of Health as a public drinking supply. (3) There shall be only one sign on the site, exclusive of the DAR Marker, admission sign, closing sign and no smoking sign. This sign shall be limited to an area of four-square feet. The Zoning Administrator shall approve the location and design of this identification sign. For the purposes of this special permit, "sign" shall mean any pennant, lighting, plastic spinners and the like. (4) This special permit has been issued to the applicant only and is non-transferrable. (5) Ail sales and display of items for sale shall be confined to the interior of the building. (6) There shall be no manufacturing on the site. Sales shall be restricted to craft and gift items, antiques, and incidential food and drink. (7) Compliance with Conditions #1, #2, and #3 to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator within six months of the date of approval of SP-81-76. (8) The Zoning Administrator shall review this site for compliance with conditions of approval six months after the date of approval. Following that inspection, the Zoning Administrator shall review the site annually. 472 November 17, 1976 (Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker noted a letter received in the Planning Department from John Haskell requesti~ that this permit be scrutinized carefully in the future for compliance with conditions. Mr. Fisher said the question before the Board is whether or not, on the basis of non- compliance with conditions on the original permit, to revoke that permit or to approve a new permit with other conditions. The applicants were present. Mrs. Wheeler referred to Condition # 1 and said that since the Planning Commission meeting she has talked with Mr. Collins at the Health Department and he said that the chemical toilet, as a temporary facility, is okay. If the County requires that a permanent facility be installed, she did not think they can justify the expense on the number of visitors coming to the Museum. Mr. Collins said they cannot offer spring water for public consumption because it is an open spring. She has taken down that sign and had this statement removed from the advertisements. She asked that the Board let them continue operation of the Museum as it presently stands and with the chemical toilet. Mr. Fisher said when a special permit is granted, the applicant accepts the conditions placed on same by the Board. To disregard those conditions ~uts the Board in a position of deciding whether or not to revoke the existing permit. He asked what assurance the Board would have that conditions would be complied with in the future. Mrs. Wheeler said her husband is the one who disregarded the conditions. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Wheeler to state for the record that if the Board approves this permit_he will abide by any conditions placed on same. After several short exchanges, Mr. Wheeler agreed to abide by any conditions placed on approval. Mrs. Wheeler asked that a condition not be placed on approval requiring permanent restroom facilities. She did not believe these facilities are essential to their operation. After further discussion, Mr. Roudabush offered motion to approve SP-81-76 as recommended by the Planning Commission, but changing Condition #1 to read: "The building shall be constructed as indicated on plans marked "Received September 19, 1976" and initialled "RSK". In addition, if the applicant chooses to provide restroom facilities, these facilities shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health. These facilities may be housed in a separate structure. The zoning administrator shall review and approve plans for these facilities to insure harmony with the existing structure. No other structures shall be constructed or located on the site without approval of the zoning administrator after review to insure compliance with the intent of this special permit approval." 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. 8. Discussion: Scottsville' request for water and sewer grant funds. Mayor Raymon Thacker was present. He said the Town is requesting funds from the Economic Development Administration to upgrade the water and sewer system located mainly in the Town, but with some of the system in Albemarle County. Funds requested, in their order of priority are as follows: (1) Replacement of present water lines in Town (2) Replacement or renewal of sanitary sewer lines in Town (3) Extend sewer lines to Shopping Center in County (4) Extend water line to Shopping Center subdivision in County (5) Extend water line to Stony Point subdivision in County Total Funds Requested $ 107,679 153,725 88,66O 48,119 109,109 $ 507,292 Before this application can be filed, the Town must obtain approval from the Board for the filing of the application. It must also have an A-95 review by the Planning District Commission and be reviewed by several other organizations. After a short discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to support the request of the Scottsville Town Council for funds from the Economic Development Administration and to authorize the County Executive to send a letter expressing the Board's endorsement of the application. 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. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said he is having problems with applications such as the one just discussed coming to the Planning District Commission without the County's members of that Commission being notified in advance. Mayor Thacker said there will be a pre-applicatio for HUD funds for water and sewer improvements coming in soon since this pre-application must be filed by January 7, 1977. Mr. Fisher said when the Planning District Commission received a request from the Town of Scottsville for an ambulance, he had asked that the matter be deferred until he had a char to speak with the Mayor. He asked if the ambulance will be used to serve only the southern -part of the County. Mayor Thacker said it will serve part of Albemarle, the Town of Scottsv~ and part of Buckingham County. Mr. Fisher asked why the ambulance would be titled to the Town instead of the County. Mayor Thacker said a representative from the State Highway Safety Coramission had advised him that it must titled in the name of the Town. When he received a $!0,000 grant from the Federal government, that was also a Federal regulation. The Town wilt take title to the ambulance and lease it to the Rescue Squad for $1.00 a year. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board had any objections to the Planning District Commission making favorable comments on th~s application. There were no objections. Agenda Item No. 9. Land Use AsseSsment Values. To be heard at a later date. .g e Lle November 17, 1976 (Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 1'0. Appointment: Committee to Study Waste Collection System. Mr. Fisher appointed the following members: Mrs. Treva W. Cromwell and Messrs. Charles M. Rotgin, Jr., J. Harvey Bailey, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., F. A. Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. He said this committee should try to find a compromise to the system which was proposed and rejected by the Board this year and make a report to the Board by February 15 so funding can be considered during work sessions for next year's budget. Not Docketed: The following persons were nominated for membership on the Industrial Development Authority. Mrs. David nominated Mr. Donald A. Holden. Mr. Dorrier nominated Mr. William Douglas White. Mr. Henley nominated Mr. Homer M. Sandridge. Dr. Iachetta nominated Mr. Raymond L. Bell. Mr. Roudabush nominated Mr. Preston E. Morris. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to appoint these persons to the Board of Directors of the Indudstrial Develo ment Authority. 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. (Note: Mr. Fisher to make his appointment at a later date.) Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: September 15, 1976 (afternoon), September 16 and October 13, 1976. There being a statement in the September 16 minutes that was not clear, motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the minutes of September 15 (afternoon) and October 13, 1976, as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. (Note: Mr. Fisher asked that approval of minutes not be included as an agenda item on night agendas.) Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: purchase of the Rann Preserve. Application to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation for Mr. Fisher said a joint committee of City Council and Board members has been meeting to discuss this proposal. (Note: See Minutes of April 7, 1976, pages 130-131 of Minute Book 14). He had asked the Parks Committee to look at this proposal and make a recommendation. Following is their reply: "November 4, 1976 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman, Board of Supervisors Kathleen Burney, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission The Nature Conservancy Proposal At the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of October 25, 1976, the Nature Conservancy proposal to the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle was discussed. The Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors proceed with application to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation for funds to purchase the Rann Preserve on the Rivanna Reservoir. We feel that this land would best be used as an educational nature facility with woodland trails. If the area is properly developed at first, it would require little maintenance. In addi~n~ to constructing educational trails, it would be important to develop additional boat access, picnic area, thirty car parking lot, and a comfort station (NO tot lot) at an estimated total cost of $30,000. Eventually, a park naturalist would be hired. A house already exists on the property which could be used as a warden-naturalist residence. This is an excellent opportunity to acquire a park close to the urban area at an extremely low cost to the County. We feel that the County should proceed with application to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation." Mr. Fisher then asked for a report from the Committee. Mrs. David said she felt it would be best to have the report in executive session and at 11:10 P.M. offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss acquisition of property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 11:30 P.M. Mrs. David offered motion to act favorably on the recommendation of the Albemarle County Parks Committee to join with the City of Charlottesvil in taking steps to acquire the Rann Preserve on the Rivanna River; to adopt the joint draft resolution relating to the acquisition of the Rann Preserve and application for financial assistance in connection therewith; and to fill in the blank in the seventh paragraph of said resolution the figure of $70,000 as the maximum amount available from each jurisdiction for matching funds. Dr. Iachetta asked if Mrs. David would include in the motion a statement that the Board also requests the City of Charlottesville to include the approximately 38 acres adjacent to this property as part of the proposal; with this contiguous property being jointly owned and administered so as to make a 96 acre, more or less, contiguous tract of land. Mr. Fisher asked if this had been discussed by the joint committee. Dr. Iachetta said he thought the committee had agreed to this. Mrs. David said she did not remember. Mr. Agnor said he thought the committee had agreed. Mrs. David said she felt this was an unhappy way to go into this kind of a~reement. She felt it would be better to say "and further to note that it 474 November 17, 1976 (Night Meeting) Ivy Creek." Mrs. David then amendedlher-_moti~n to include this statement. seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: The motion was AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. JOINT RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE RANN PRESERVE AND APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation provides funds to assist political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia in acquiring and developing open space and park lands; and WHEREAS, there is an urgent need within the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community to preserve open space lands for present and future recreational use; and WHEREAS, the property owned by the Nature Conservancy, containing approximately 80 acres, adjacent to the Rivanna Reservoir and State Routes 743 and 676 in Albemarle County, which is sometimes referred to as the Rann Preserve, is deemed to be of high priority for acquisition and preservation as open space land; and WHEREAS, in order to attain funding assistance for this project it is required that each political subdivision provide a proportionate share of the cost thereof; and WHEREAS, the proposed project would be funded in the ratio of fifty percent from the Virginia Commission o~ Outdoor Recreation, twenty-five percent from the County of Albemarle, and twenty-five percent from the City of Charlottesville; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle and the Council of the City of Charlottesville that the County Executive and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to furnish such information and materials as may be necessary to make application to the appropriate State and Federal agencies for funding of the acquisition of the aforesaid property; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors and City Council give their assurances that the funds required as the respective proportionate shares of the County and City in the funding of such projects will be provided, up to a maximum of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) from each jurisdiction; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville will abide by all applicable State and Federal regulations governing the expenditure of such funds to be provi, ded by the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation of the United States Department of the Interior and the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation are respectfully requested to assist in the prompt approval and funding of the acquisition of the Rann Preserve, in order to provide the benefits of a permanent open space area in the vicinity of the Rivanna Reservoir for the benefit of the citizens of the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following communications: (1) A letter from the Chamber of Commerce requesting a joint City Council/Board meeting in January. A letter from David Carr, Chairman of the County Planning Commission, saying he has appointed Dr. James Moore and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner to the Broomley Road Committee. (Mr. Fisher and Mr. Roudabush also agreed to serve on this committee.) (3) A letter from Ulysses P. Joyner, Jr., President of the Constitution Highway Association, expressing apprecation for the Board's appropriation. Notice of a public hearing by the State Water Control Board on the Upper James River Basin Water Quality Management Plan which is scheduled for Tuesday, December 21, 1976, 7:30 P.M., Piedmont Community College. (5) A letter from the Jack Jouett students who attended the November 3rd meeting° Mr. Agnor said the Albemarle County Service Authority is to lease the upstairs port,on of the Jailor's house for $3.50 a square foot. The lease was drawn by the County Attorney for 493 square feet of space for a 44 month lease to coincide with the Service AuthoritY's present lease. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush authorizing the Chairman to sign this lease. 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. November 17, 1976 (Night Meeting) 475 LEASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this ~Tth day of November, 1976, by and between ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as Lessor, and the ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY, hereinafter referred to as Lessee. WI TNE S SE TH : WHEREAS, Lessee has exercised its option pursuant to paragraph 13 of an agreement between Lessor and Lessee, dated May 29, 1975, to lease the remaining office space contained in the Jailer's house; and WHEREAS, the Lessor and the Lessee, pursuant to paragraph 13(c) of the May 29, 1975, lease agreement, have determined that the annual rent for the office space on the second floor of the Jailer's house, consisting of approximately 493 square feet, shall be $3.50 per square foot; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises hereinafter set out and mutually agreed upon, Lessor does hereby lease and demise unto the Lessee for a term of 44 months the following premises: The space located in that building known as the "Jailer's house", off the intersection of Park Street and East High Street, consisting of approxi- mately 493 square feet belonging to said Lessor, constituting all of the office space on the second floor. 1. The rent for the 44 month term of this lease shall be Six Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Six and 76Z100 ($6,326.76) or $3.50 per square foot payable in 44 monthly installments of one hundred forty three and 79/100 ($143,79) each beginning December i0, 1976, with a similar amount due on the same date of each month thereafter with the final installment being due July 10, 1980. 2. Lessor covenants that it will be responsible for all water and utility bills, including heating and air conditioning expenses, gas bills, and electric bills, for the length of the lease.. Lessor shall be responsible for supplying janitorial services and shall further be responsible for replacement of light bulbs, floor tiling, and window panes which may be in need of replacement, for the length of the lease. 3. Lessor covenants to maintain the premises, keeping the premises in good repair, including repair of all heating and air conditioning mechanisms, plumbing~ electrical systems, carpentry which may prove necessary, for the length of the lease. 4. Lessor shall be responsible for meeting all federal, state and local health, safety, and building requirements concerning the renovation of the premises and the use of the premises by the Lessee. 5. Lessor covenants with the Lessee for its peaceful possession and quiet enjoyment of the demised premises during the term of this lease. 6. Lessee covenants to save the Lessor harmless from all loss, costs, damages and expenses of any kind whatsoever arising out of any accident, damage or injury, or any claim, suit or action for damage or entry from any and every cause whatever, either to person or property occurring in or upon the leased premises in connection with the use or occupation of the premises by the Lessee. 7. The Lessor covenants that it will maintain its own fire and extended coverage insurance on the building in question and that such insurance will not accrue to the benefit of the Lessee. In the event the leased premises are destroyed by fire or other casualty during the 44 month term of this lease, such that they are not tenable, it shall be optional with the Lessor as to whether or not to repair the demised premises. But Lessor shall provide Lessee alternative office space with equal or greater contiguous floor space than said office space in the Jailer's house, adequate for Lessee to carry out its public duties while Lessor decides, within 90 days from the date of any fire or other casualty, whether or not to repair the demised premises. If Lessor decides to repair the premises within the 90 day period, it shall provide Lessee with alternative office space with equal or greater floor space than said office space in the Jailer's house until such time as repairs on the Jailer's house are effectuated. If Lessor decides not to repair the premises, or makes no decision within 90 days from the date of any fire or other casualty, it shall provide Lessee with alternative office space, having equal or greater contiguous floor space than said office space in the Jailer's house, adequate for Lessee to carry out its public duties, and pay all rental costs of said alternative office space upon the same terms and conditions herein set forth, including all water and gas, electricity, and other utility bills, heating and air conditioning expenses, all janitorial services, and three parking spaces, until such time as said 44 month period from the commencement of this lease is terminated. 8. The commencement date of this lease shall be November 1, 1976. 9. At the end of 44 months from the commencement of this lease, Lessee shall have the option to extend this lease for separate and successive periods of one year each by giving written notice of each one year renewal at least three months prior to the expiration of the then current lease term, upon the same terms and conditions herein set forth, except that the rent for the extension of the lease beyond the initial 44 month term shall be determined by agreement as hereinafter provided. If the Lessee exercises its option to extend the lease beyond the J~q ~ mo~h ~p~m_ ~h~ ~nn~] ~ ~n~ ah~ 476 November 17, 1976 (Night Meeting) County Service Authority, the Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, and the County Executive of Albemarle County, who shall meet for said purpose within one month after the Lessee has exercised its option to extend this lease. If these parties are unable to agree among themselves as to the fair rental'vaiue of the premises, for the purpose of fixing the annual rent for the renewal term, they promptly shall select a competent real estate' appraiser, who, after consultation with the parties, shall set the annual rent for the renewal term which shall be binding on the Lessor and the Lessee. The renewal lease shall contain the same conditions as those contained in this lease, except as to annual rent. 10. Lessee shall not sublet the demised premises or any Portion thereof without the written consent of the Lessor. 11. It is further agreed that no waiver or any breach of any covenant, condition, or agreement herein contained shall operate as a waiver thereof on any subsequent breach thereof. 12. This lease is subject to the terms of an order of the Judge of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, entered May 16, 1975, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor has caused this lease to be executed in its behalf by Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman of its Board of.Supervisors, and its seal to be affixed and attested to by Lettie E. Neher, its Clerk, and Lessee has caused this instrument to be executed on its behalf by Myron E. Tremain, its Chairman, and its seal to be affixed and attested to by E. E. Thompson, Jr., its Executive Director and Secretary. Mr. Fisher asked for a report on the Reservoir Study Mr. Agnor said Mr. George William of the Rivanna Authority had called him'today and said the Betz Report will not be readY to distribute to the Citizens Advisory Panel meeting on December 9th as originally stated. It will now be early January before the report is released. The Rivanna Board has directed Mr. Williams to distribute copies to the Board and City Council~at the same time as they are distributed to the Advisory Panel. This delay has occurred because one portion of the comput. program is not functioning and the computer program must be revised Mr. Fisher said the existi'ng ordinance expires on December 31 of this year. He asked if a public hearing should be scheduled to consider extension of that ordinance while ~wai~ing. for the Betz Report. After a short discussion, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. D0rrier, to advertise for a public hearing on December 8, 1976, a~ 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, the Board's intent to reenact ArtiCle 2, Chapter 7 of the Albemarle County Code, entitled, "Protection of the Quality of Water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir" until June 30, 1977. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, HenleY, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Claims against the County for the month of November, 1976, were examined, allowed and certified to the Director of Finance and charged against t.he following funds: General Fund School Fund Cafeteria Fund Textbook Fund General Operating-Capital Outlay Fund School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Commonwealth of Virginia - Current Credit Account Town of Scottsville-l% Local Sales Tax $ 508,592.44 1,078,320.61 2,411.74 4,524.76 7',50.0.00 233,528.70 52,833.58 9,422.11 720.60 107.50 $ 1,897,962.04 Agenda Item No.' 13. At midnight, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn thiS meeting until 3:00 P.M. on December 1, 1976, in the Board Room of the County Office BUilding. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and MeSsrs.. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Ch~rman r