Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1976-12-01N
December 1, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from November 17, 1976) December 1, 1976 (Night-Regular Meeting) Agenda Item No. 9~ Adjournment. Mr. Fisher said a Board member has asked for an executive session to discuss personnel matters. Motion to adjourn into executive session was offered by Dr. Iachetta at 6:02 P.M., seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned the meeting which had begun at 3:00 P.M. December I, 1976 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the ~Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 1, 1976, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottes- ville, 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, .~0bert. W. ~cker~v~. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. la. ~MA~?-76. Edward C. Dudley, Sr. To rezone 3.84 acres and 0.6 acres from A-1 Agricultural to M-1 Industrial Limited. Property on east side of Avon Street Extended, just north of Hall Brothers. County Tax Map 90, Parcels 35B and 35E. Charlottes- ville Magisterial District. (Advertised only on November 17, 1976.) Agenda Item No. lb. SP-85-76. Edward C. Dudley, Sr. To locate a warehouse for storage on 3.84 acres and 0.6 acres, proposed for M-1 zoning - currently zoned A-1 Agricultur Property on east side of Avon Street Extended, just north of Hall Brothers. County Tax Map 9 Parcels 35B and 35E. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised only on November ~17, 1976.) The applicant was not present,t Mr. Fisher said he understands that theSe application,s may not be properly b~fore the Board because Mr. Dudley~s not the so!~ owner of the property Mr.~St.~.~John said since this question was raised, his office had tried to search the title to the property. As far as they can ascertain, 6he property stands in the name of Eva W. Dudley. If Mrs. Dudley is dead and ther~is more than one heir, the application is not proper~y before the Board. Mr. Dudley has been requested to fur~ish this information, but has not responded to correspondence. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not he~rd these requests yet. Motion was then offered by Dr. ~Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to defer these applications until January 5, 1977. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David-and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing SP-84-76. Charles R. Baber. To locate a turkey shoot on.161.70 acres. Property on east side of Route 626 &~Ut 200 feet south of Route 735. Property zoned A-1 Agricultural. County Tax Map 133, parcels 75 and 75A; County Tax Map 134, Parcel 10A. Scottsvi!le Magisterial District. (Advertised on November 17 and November 24, 1976.) Mr. Tucker said this area is rural, characterized by large parcels. Property across Route 626 has been cleared. The C & 0 Railroad ~ounds the property to the south. One residence is visib~_from the proposed site; this dwelling is approximately one-quarter of a mile from the site. Adjacent to the proposed shooting range on th~ subject property are~ two mobile homes and an abandoned grocery. The appllcant's dwelling is located at the end of the driveway which run~ next to the proposed shooting range. The applicant proposes to operate the turkey shoot for profit each year from November 1 through the Christmas holidays on Fridaymnights. The shooting range is proposed in a newly-cleared area adjacent to the abandoned Payne's store. As the a2.tual shooting matches would be conducted at night, lighting would be required. While the staff was hesitant to recommend any shooting range for approval that is not enclosed, the Planning Commission on November 23, 1976, unanimously recommended approval with the following conditions: (1) The location and design of the shooting range be approved by the Albemarle County Sheriff to include specification of safety devices. (2) Annual review by the~ zoning administrator to insure the range is maintained as approved. (3) Firearms limited to shotguns with loadings approved by the Sheriff. (4) This shall be a seasonal use limited to the months of September through December. The shoot may be held during daylight hours (specified) on Saturdays only, provided in~:~o case shall a shoot be held on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. (5) No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on the premises during shooting matches. (6) ~his a~roval shall be ~imited s~a~n~]]v ~ ~a~h~ ~ ~~ December i, I976 (Regular Night Meeting) (7) If, in the opinion of the Board of Supervisors this becomes a public nuisance, or, if any of the conditions are violated, the permit may be revoked. Mr. Baber was preSent.';i~ He~ag~eed with the Planning Commissions' conditions of approval No one from the public spoke for or against the application. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-84-76 with the conditions recommended'by the Planning Commission. The motion passed by the record~ vote which follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David:?~and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing: SP-88-76. ViCtor R. Ray. To ~ocate a shooting match on 3.86 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property located on south side of Route 738, north of Ivy Pulp Wood. County Tax Map 58A(1)~ Parcel 2. Samuel Miller Magisterial District (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and · November 24, 1976.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not acted on this petition. The applicant was not present. Mr. Fisher said he knew there were members of the public present to speak, but since the P~anning Commission has not acted the Board has received no recommendations on this petition. If no one objected, he would ask~ithat the matter be de£erred to December No objections were raised. MotiOn was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to defer this public hearing to December 15, 1976. The motion carried by the.recorded vote which follows: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. C. Edward Good. Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: ZMA-!8-76./ To rezone 1.496 acres from R-2 Residential to CO Commercial Office. Property on east s~de of Rio Road~adjacent to the rail- road bridge. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 153A, Rivanna ~nd Charlottesville Magisterial Districts. (Notice of this public hearing was advertis~d~n the Daily Progress on November 1 and November 24, 1976.) ~' Mr. Tucker said this vacant property is bordered to the west by the Southern FailrOad, to the south by the Voc Tech S~hoo~iand to the east by undeveloped property under the ownership of the First Assembly of God. R-1 residential properties abut this site to the south and east. Three parcels across ~io Road are zoned B-1 business. The long, narrow shape of this parcel, its proximity to the railroad, the topography, the',~i~rade d~fferential to Rio Road, and the sight distance limitations caused by the~i:bridge on Rio Road present -severe limitations to the development of this site. The ~taff feels that i~'~this request is approved, development would be further complicated by the setback requirements of the commercial office zone. The staff has advised the applicant that approval of this petition will in no way indicate subsequent approval of a site plan. However, in the staff's opinion, commercial office zoning on this property would not ~e in conflict with surrounding develop- m~t and depending on the use, may complement the Voc Tech SchoOl. The staff is aware that the First Assembly of God Church is currently planning for the development of its property. In terms of highway safety and in terms of development cost benefits to~.both parties, the staff has suggested that a shared entrance and parking facilities be Considered byii~the applicant and the church. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on November 23,~i~976, by unanimous vote, recom~ mended, unanimously, that this request be approved, but they did recognize the difficulti~ with the exit/entrance. Mr. Tucker a~so noted receipt of a letter from S. Huja, City Planner, who stated that he does not feel this Use will be compatible with the single-family residences in the area. Mr. Good was present. He said this property is bordered by a church end, the Voc Tech school; both of these uses are allowed in the CO commercial office zone. The property was considered fOr B-1 zoning in the past and the applicant did'have a high~ay entrance permit at that tim~. The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Ro~dabush then offered motion to approve ZMA-18-76 as recommended by the Plannin Commission. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vo AYES: Mrs. David.and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, !achetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopte, a resolution of intent to amend the B-1 business zone of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinanc, to include the following general amendment: "Section 7-1-47. Retail Stores and shops in compliance with the Stereo, S'Intent of the B-1 Business District." (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 197.6.) Mr. Tucker said on October 19, 1976, the Albemarle County P!an~ing Commission resolved to review provisions of the B-1 Business District with the intent of amending "~ses by Right" to make general provision for retail stores and shops. The B-1 Business Zone contains provisions for specific retail businesses; however, no general "ea~h-all" provision for retail business exists. On November 23, i97~, by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission recomended that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to include Section:ii'7-1-47 as set Out above. e: December 1, 1976 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker also noted receipt of a letter from Citizens for Albemarle, signed by Dorothy Speidel, saying they are concerned that this amendment to the ordinance might open the door to heavy retail uses in the B-1 zone. She reminded-the Board that there is a controversy over the location of Paulett (ZMA-11-76) in the B-! zone although the clearly states that building material sales yards are uses permitted in the M-1 zone and not the B-1 zone. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission did not intend to speak to the Paulett case in recommending this amendment. This came about because new shops at Albemarle Square Shopping Center - stationery store, tobacconist, and similar shops - are not provided for in the ordinance. The Planning Commission recommends that shops of this type be provided for in this manner, rather than amending the ordinance to include each individual use. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Gilbert Sommers said as the ordinance is presently written, it is vague. This amendment makes it more so. In the ?aulett case, one zoning administrator interpreted the ordinance in one manner, while another zoning a~ministrator interpreted it in a different manner. The ordinance should be clarified so it is not subject to interpretation by the reader. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dorrier asked what happened to the Board's request for a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the terms "hardware store" and "building material sales yard"? (Note: See pages 330-331, Minute Book 14.) Mr. Tucker said he understands the Paulett case is~stil! being litigated and the Planning Commission will not consider the request until the matter is settled. Mrs. David said she is in favor of general statements when related to.a definition. She suggested the following wording: "Retail stores and shops in compliance with the Statement of Intent of the B-1 Business district and the definition of retail stores and shops contained in this ordinance." She said this might help to reassure the people who are involved in the Pautett case. She did not think it is sensible to name a whole lot or uses and then go into a general category. Mr. St. John said there is a legal problem with the concept of listing some retail uses and not listing others. It is useful to have a list of authorized uses;for illustrative purposes. However, the adoption of this amendment will not affect the outcome of the Paulett case. Mo~ion was then offered by Mrs. David to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adopting new Section 7-1-47, as follows: "Retail stores and shops in compliance~with the Statement of Intent of the B-1 Business district, and the definition oflretail stores and shops contained in this ordinance." The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:~ Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS- None. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend Article 17, Site Development Plan section of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for administrative approval of those site plans in which no objections are filed with the director of planning; all other site plans will be processed through the Planning Commission. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised on November 17 and November 24, 1976.) J Mr. Tucker said pursuant to the Planning Commission's resolution of intent concerning the proposed amendment to Article 17, the staff recommended the following changes: 1. Section 17-3-2: Add the following sentence: Notice shall also be sent to all members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 2. Amend Section 17-7, Procedure, to read as follows: 17-7 PROCEDURE 17-7-i 17-7-2 17-7-3 17-7-4 Applications for site development plan approval shall be submitted to the Albemarle County Planning Department. ~ There is hereby created a site plan review committee composed~of a repre- sentative of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, the Albemarle County Planning Department, the Albemarle County Engineer's Office, the Albemarle County Service Authority, and the Albemarle County Fire Marshal' Office. In addition, two members of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, to be designated by the Chairman thereof, shall serve as ex-officio members of this committee. The committee shall have the power to make rules for the regulation of its business, subject to the approval of the Pl'anning Commission The Albemarle County Planning Department shall transmit all applications for site development plan approval to the committee for its review. The committee shall review all such applications for technical compliance with the provisions hereof. Upon completion of its review, the committee shall make recommendations to the Director of Planning. Upon receipt of the final site plan and the Committee's recommendations, the Director of Planning shall determine if the plan is in compliance with this Article. If he determines that it is not so in compliance, he shall notify the applicant of his reasons for such~determination, and request that. the plan be made to comply. If the applicant shall fail to comply with such request, the Director~of Planning may disapprove the application. In the event that the applicant desires a review of the disapproval of the Director 488 December 1, 1976 (Regular-Nigh~ Meeting) of Planning, he may request review of his application by the Planning Commission by filing a written request therefor with the Director of Planning within ten days of.such disapproval. Upon receipt of such request, the Director of Planning shall forthwith transmit the plan, along with his comments and recommendations, to the Planning Commission for action. 17-7-5 If the Director of Planning determines that the plan is in compliance with this Article, and if there is no written objection to the plan from any adjacent owner or member of the Planning Commission or Board of~Supervisors, the Director of Planning shall approve the plan. If, however, there is any such written objection, the Director of Planning shall forthwith transmit the plan to the Planning Commission for action, whether or not he himself considers it to be in compliance. 17-7-6 If the site plan is transmitted to the Commission for action, the Commission shall approve or disapprove the application within sixty calendar days from the date of the application. In so doing, the Commission shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the site plan review committee and the Director of Planning. In addition, it may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. Any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, nothing in this Article shall be construed to prevent the Commission from deferring consideration of any application on the ground that the applicant shall have failed to comply with the provisions of this Article, or to attend any meeting of the Commission whereat such application is to be considered. 17-7-7 Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Planning Commission in the administration of this Article may demand a review of the application by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request therefor in writing with the Albemarle County Planning Department within ten calendar days of the date of such decision. The Board may affirm,.reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the Commission. In so doing, the Board shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the site plan review con~ittee and the Planning Commission. In addition, it may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. For purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, persons required to be notified pursuant to Section 17-3-2 Of this Article and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof. The governing body reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions of the Commission made in the administration of this Article which, in its discretion, it shall deem necessary to the proper administration hereof. Amend Section 17-4-36 under Specific Items to be Shown, to read as follows: 17-4-36 Signature panels shall be provided for the Chairman and Secretary of the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said the procedure outlined in these amendments is very similar to the present site plan procedure with the following exceptions: If a site plan is satisfactory to the Director of Planning and no objections from adjacent property owners are received, the plan can be approved. If objections are received on a particular site plan, whether or not it is satisfactory to the Director of Planning, or if the applicant disagrees with the Director of Planning concerning his plan, the Planning Commission shall review said site plan. The staff suggested two alternatives concerning a timetable for review: Alternative No. 1 would allow 18 days for public response and Alternative No. 2 would allow 11 days for public response. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at their meeting on November 23, 1976, by a vote of 6/2/1, ma~e the following recommendations: t~!~ 1~ ii/Amand~mg~eti~n 17-3-2 as recommended by the staff· 2. Amend Section 17-7, Procedure, as recommended by the staff, but with one change: ~ Section 17-7-2 should be amended to include a representative from the Virginia Department of Health as part of the site plan review committee. 3. Recommended Alternative No. 1 which allows 18 days fro public response. Mr.. Tucker then noted receipt of a letter from Citizens from Albemarle. He also read the following letter from the League of Women Voters, dated December 1, 1976. "The League of Women Voters urges you to leave Article 17 as written. We believe the Planning Commission, which has been carefully appointed to represent the views of a broad spectrum of County residents, should review all site plans. The view- points of'the Commissioners often provide valuable additions to those of the technical experts and the adjacent property owners. Albemarle County is experiencing growth and much building. This is not the time t° provide a less thorough review of site plans .... Our first point is that Commission review is valuable. Second, putting site plan review into committee review will make citizen contribution more difficult· The committee would undoubtedly hold its meetings during working hours when most citizens would find it difficult to attend· . . There are unresolved problems of public notification; who has standing as an aggrieved party; and the fact that one must make a written statement ... in order to get the review before the Commission. This latter provision would turn any helpful citizen comments into those of a sworn adversary and takes more determination than most citizens December 1, 1976 (Regular-Night Meeting) 489 committee ~hird, if the/~becomes the place for citizen contribution, the committee meetings will become onerous for the professionals sitting on it. Attendance is already sporadic. The Planning Commission is the logical place for citizen aOntribution .... If applicants would use the present committee and would take care of all clerical and technical requirements there, ... the review by the Planning Commission would not take much commission time and yet be a forum for citizen contribution. If you decide to amend the ordinance to provide for administrative approval in some cases, we ask you to consider the following points: 1) It is essential that large-scale developments which have an impact on the community, such as planned unit developments, high-density residential and commercial developments, be reviewed by the Planning Commission. In such cases, a written report containing comments and recommendations of the Site Plan Review Committee should be available for review by the Planning Commission and the public. 2) What would constitute an "objection"? Would the staff consider an unresolved question on the part of an adjacent property owner or of an unadjacent property owner or a request to bring the matter before the Planning Commission to be reason enough for bringing it to the Commission? ~ 3) Would interested citizens be able to ask questions at meetings of the Site Plan Review Committee? 4) If the change is made, the general public will need to know of the site plan applications. It would be essential to add notification of Site Plan Review Committee meetings and their agendas to the monthly advertisements in the Daily Progress. 5) We spoke to the Planning Commission regarding the length of time for an objection to be registered and appreciate the Commission's extending that time to the 18 days proposed in the amendment proposal ... before you tonight." Mr. Tucker referred to suggestion No. 1 in the above letter. He said the overall master plan for a planned unit development would be part of the application and would come to the Planning Commission and the Board, although the final site plan may not. Mr. Tucker said anytime a plan was presented for high-density or commercial development that would have an affect on the community, he would ~eel more comfortable having this plan reviewed by the Planning Commission, but adjacent property owners would not be allowed to ask questions at the meeting; the only place for. their input being at the site review committee meeting. Mr. Fisher said when Article 17 was first adopted, the Planning Commission was opposed to delegating this authority to the site review committee. He asked why this is now being proposed. Mr. Tucker said one of the main reasons is to give the Planning Commission more time for planning. Mr. Fisher said if the amendment is approved, the technical review committee would have to hold hearings of record. This would be another type of hearing, the records of Which the County would have to maintain because this would be the final approval of the application. Mr. St. John noted that there is no statutory requirement for a public hearing on site plan approval. Mr. Fisher said he feels that adjacent property owners know more about traffic problems, water problems, etc. and should know, before construction begins, what is being approved that will affect them. Mr. St. John said to require that every site plan receive this type of hearing will create a tremendous backlog ofwork. Dr. Iachetta said he did not agree with just notifying adjacent property owners. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Gibert Sommers said objections to a plan should not be limited to just those from adjacent property owners. .One reason for~ approving these at Planning Commission meetings is so any interested citizen can stand up and speak. Ms. Sally Thomas, speaking for the League of Women Voters, reiterated points made in the letter above: 1) Planning Commission review is valuable; 2) the committee would probably hold its meetings during working hours and it would be difficult for citizens to attend these meetings; and 3) Planning Comm±ssion meetings are the logical place for citizen comments. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush said he did not see a great deal of difference between this proposal and the present procedure. If it a good p!an and no one objects, the Planning Commission will not have to waste their time in reviewing same. Mr. Dorrier asked, if the Planning Commission has time to review every plan. Mrs. David said site plan review is the most time-consuming of their duties.. She said she has respect for the people who are concerned about this change, but does not feel it is of major importan, A great deal of emotionalism has gone into this on both sides and this question has achieved an importance it does not deserve. Mr. Fisher said he feels the Planning Commission is a citizen commission appointed by the Board to review development for the County. Taking this process out of their hands and putting it into the hands of a technical committee is not correct. Mr. Fisher said he does not see any compelling reason to change the present procedure unless the Planning Commission can put together a record showing that they are spending a great number of hours each month reviewing site plans. !¥!'? ili~Mr. Henley asked how much time this change would save the applicants. Mr. Tucker said the applicant would not be saving any time. If an objection were filed, it might take even l~ng~r to complete the review. December 1, 1976 (Regular-Night Meeting) Dr. Iachetta said the whole reason for having a citizen commission is to guarantee that at the local level of government, we are still at a touching distance. He did not see that the Planning Commission Will save much time and unless there is a substantial savings in time for both the staff and the Planning Commission, the losing of public comments might be of more serious consequence. Mr. Henley said he is fed up with "County Red Tape" and he is all for cutting it out, but it does not look like this will help the Planning Commission. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commissio~ as set out above, with the addition of the requirement that public notice be published (similar to the present policy of notification for all Planning Commission me'etings) and that notice be given to adjacent land owners in the same manner as is presently being done. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Tucker asked that the effective date of this amendment be set at January 1, 1977, in order that the staff might complete preparing rules and procedures for the technical committee. Mr. Roudabush then amended his motion to include this provision; Mr. Henley agreed. Mr. Agnor said a question was raised about the fact that Section 17-7-5 only allows objections to be take~ fr~m adj:~cen~property~ow~ers,oetc. He said if these reviews are to be publicized, the Board might want to include a provision so that any citizen could make an objection. Mr. Roudabush then amended his motion to include the word "citizen" in Section 17-7-5, first paragraph. Mr. Henley agreed to this change. Roll call began as follows: Mrs. David requested that she be skipped. AYES: Mr. Henley and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier (Mr. Dorrier said the Board needs all the citizen input it can get. He would like to see the Planning Commission do more planning and if this amendment would assure that, he~woUid?vote:~for it, but he did not think it will help that situation.); Fisher; Iachetta;and Mrs. David. (Mrs. David said she had supported this amendment in work sessions with the Planning Commission and feels that it is administratively desirable. Mrs. David said she does not see the hazards in changing this procedure that some of her colleague~ on the Board see, and she does not feel the hazards will be as great as they think. Under the circumstances, since her vote would not change the outcome of this question, she would vote with them.) The motion to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for administrative approval of certain site plans was defeated. At 9:15 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:27 P.M. Agenda I~em No.-7'..Public Hearing: The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend Section 10-1; repeal Section 10-5, 10-6, and 10-7; amend Section 11-13; and repeal Article 12, to be replaced with Article 12.1. These sections and articles involve the nonconforming uses section, Board of Zoning Appeals section and the Special Use Permit Section of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised on November 17 and November 24, 1976.) Mr. Tucker said these amendments have been prepared by the County Attorney's Office in order to clarify and specify the requirements and standards of Section 11-13 and Article i0 as well as broaden the authority of the Board of Supervisors under these sections. Article 12.1 has been proposed for amendment because of changes in State statutes and to eliminate the provision of Special Exception because of an existing conflict between two sections of this ordinance, i.e., one section states that the Board of Zoning Appeals has the authority to make special exceptions while in another section the Board of Supervisors is given that authority. Mr. St. John said Section 11-3-2, should be changed to read" shall be deemed a recommendation of approval." The last line in that section also needs to be clarified. After a short~dis'cussion, it was agreed that the last line in Section 11-13-2 should read: "Notification sign shall be posted by the applicant upon the subject property and adjacent to the nearest state highway at the point of access to the subject property for a period of twenty-one days prior to the first public hearing of the Planning Commission." At this time, the public hearing was opened. hearing was closed. With no one rising to speak, the public Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following ordinances. was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: The motion AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 10-1, 10-3, 10-~, 10-5, 10-6, ~ND 10-7, AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 10-1-5 and 10-2 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE. ~ BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Article 10 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be amended and reenacted as set out below: 10-1 Continuation ARTICLE 10 NONCONFORMING USES 10-1-1 Any use, activity, lot or structure, laWfully in existence on the effective date of this ordinance, which does not conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which 49j. December 1, 1976 (Regular-Night Meeting) 10-1-2 10-1-3 10-1-4 10-1-5 10-2 lO-3 10-4 10-5 10-5-1 10-5-2 10-6 10-6-1 10-7 iO-7-i 10-7-2 the same is situated may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this article. No change in title to any property subject to the provisions of this article, including but not limited to, the demise, renewal, expiration, termination or modification of any leasehold interest, shall impair the nonconforming status of such property. Any such use, activity or structure which is discontinued for more than two,years shall be deemed abandoned and shall thereafter conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which the same is situated. Whenever any such use, activity or structure is changed to a more restricted nonconforming use, activity or structure, the original use shall be deemed abandoned. Repealed Repealed Repairs and Maintenance On any building devoted in whole or in part to any non'conforming use, work may be done on ordinary repairs or on repair or replace- ment of non-bearing walls, fixtures, wiring or plumbing, to such extent ~hat the structure is kept in a usable condition. Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any structure or part thereof declared to be unsafe by any official charged with prompting public safety, upon order of such official. Changes In District Boundaries Whenever the boundaries of a district are changed, any uses of land or buildings which become non6onforming as a result of such change shall become subject to the provisions of this article. Expansion and Enlargment. The use of any building or structure shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the distribt in which the same is situated whenever such building or structure is enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered. nonconforming activity may be extended throughout any part of a ~structure~which~s~ar~anged~or~de~i~ned~o~ su~h~tDi~it~at the timeof enactment of this ordinance. Nonconforming Lots Any lot of record at the time of the adoption 6f this ordinance which is less in area and/or width than the minimum required by this ordinance may be used in a manner consistent with the uses permitted for a lot having the minimum area and/or width so required; provided, that the rear, side and front setback requirements of this ordinance shall be maintained; and provided further that no such use shall be permitted which is determined by the zoning administrator to constitute a danger to the public health, safety and general welfare. For purposes of this section, any lot shown on a preliminary or final subdivision plat which was approved by the proper authority of the county in accorance with law prior to April 15, 1968, and which plat was subsequently recorded in due course, shall be deemed to be a lot of record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. Restoration or Replacement If a nonconforming structure or a structure the use of which is nonconforming shall be destroyed or damaged in any manner to the extent that the cost of restoration to its condition before such destruction or damage shall exceed seventy-five percent of the total replacement or restoration cost of such structure, the same may be repaired and/or reconstructed only if such structure and the use thereof shall conformto the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which such structure is situated. Whenever any nonconforming structure or structure the use of which is nonconforming is damaged as a result of factors beyond the control of the owner and/or occupant thereof to a lesser extent than that set forth in section 10-7-1 hereof, such structure may be repaired and/or reconstructed and the nonconforming use thereof continued as provided in this article provided that such repair and/or reconstruction shall be commenced within twelve months and complefed within twenty-four months from the date of such damage. December 1, 1976 (Regular-Night Meeting) lO-7-3 lo-7-4 The value of the land on which such structure is situated shall not be considered in the determination of the cost of reconstruction and/or restoration as provided in section 10-7-1 hereof. Any nonconforming structure actually used as a single-family dwelling or any historic structure which shall be destroyed or damaged may be restored or replaced regardless of the percentage of destruction thereof. For purposes of this section, the term "historic structure" shall be deemed to include ~ny strUcture which is determined by the zoning administrator to be of unusual historic, cultural or artistic significance or any historic landmark designated as such by the governing body or the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 11-13 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AS SET OUT BELOW 11-13 11-13-1 11-13-2 11-13-3 11-13-4 SPECIAL USE PERMITS The governing body hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special exceptions and use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the governing body that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Application for a special use permit shall be made by the filing thereof by the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property with the zoning administrator, together with a £~e in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00), except in the case of a permit for the location of an individual mobile home which fee shall be twenty dollars ($20.00), to cover the cost of the expenses incident to the processing thereof. No such permit shall be issued unless the governing body shall have referred the application therefor to the commission for its recommendations. Failure of the commission to report within ninety days after the first meeting of the commission after the application has been referred to the commission shall be deemed a recommendation of approval. No such permit shall be issued .except after notice and hearing as provided by section 15.1-431 of the code. Also a notification sign shall be posted by the applicant upon the subject property and adjacent to the nearest state highway at the point of access to the subject property for a period of twenty-one days prior to the first public hearing of the commission. The governing body may impose upon any such permit such conditions relating to the use for which such permit is granted as it maY deem necessary in the public interest and may require a bond with surety or other approved security to ensure that the conditions so imposed shall be complied with. Such conditions shall relate to the purposes of this ordinance, including, but not limited to, the prevention of smoke, dust, noiSe, traffic congestion, flood and/or other hazardous, deleterious or otherwise undesirable substance or condition; the provision of adequate police and fire protection, transportation, water, sewerage, drainage, recreation, landscaping and/or screening or buffering; the e~stablishment of special requirements relating to the building setbacks, front, side and rear yards, off-street parking, ingress and egress, hours of operation, outside storage of materials, duration and intensity of use, building height and/or other particular aspects of occupancy or use. Except as the governing body may otherwise specifically provide in a particular case, any condition imposed under the authority of this section shall be deemed to be essential to and nonseverable from the issuance of the permit itself. Any permit issued pursuant to this. ordinance may be revoked by the governing body, after notice and hearing pursuant to section 15.1-431 of the code, for willful noncompliance with this ordinance or any conditions imposed under the authority of this section. In the event that the use, structure or activity for which any such permit is issued shall not be commenced within eighteen months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder.shall thereupon terminate. For purposes of this section, the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of sUch permit within~eighteen months from the date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one year. Any use, structure or activity lawfully in existence on the effective date of this ordinance which would be permitted under the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which it is located by the issuance of a special use permit may December !, 1976 (Regular-Night Meeting) 493 be continued~ provided, however, that such use, structure or activity shall not be expanded or enlarged beyond the boundaries of the parcel or parcels of land on which it was located on the effective date of this ordinance; and provided further that if any such use, structure or activity shall be discontinued for a period exceeding two years, the same shall conform in all respects to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which it is located. Whenever the boundaries of any district are changed, any use, structure or activity which shall therefore become nonconforming as a result of such change through want of a required special use permit, shall be subject to the provisions of this section. AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL ARTICLE 12 AND TO ADOPT NEW ARTICLE 12.1 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, AS SET OUT BELOW: BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Article 12, Provision for Appeal, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is repealed as of December 1, 1976; BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Article 12.1, Board of Zoning Appeals is hereby adopted as of December 1, 1976, and incorporated into the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as set out below: ARTICLE 12.1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 12.1-1 Board of Zoning .Appeals, Appointment and Organization 12.1-1,1 A board of zoning appeals, consisting of five members, shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of section 15.1-494, of the code, and shall have such powers and duties as set forth in section 15.1-495 of the code. 12.1-1.2 Within the limits of funds appropriated by the governing body, the board may employ or contract for such secretaries, clerks, legal counsel, consultants and other technical and clerical services as the board may deem necessary for transaction of its business. 12.1-1.3 Members of the board shall receive such compensation as may be authorized by the governing body, from time to time, by ordinance or resolution. Any board member may be removed for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office, or for other just cause, by the court Which appointed him, after hearing held after at least fifteen days notice. 12.1-1.5 The board shall have the authority to request the opinion, advice or other aid of any officer, employee, board, bureau or commission of the county within the scope of his or its respective competence. 12.1-1.6 The board of zoning appeals may, from time to time, adopt such rules and regulations consistent with the ordinances of the county and the laws of the commonwealth as it may deem necessary to carry out the duties imposed by this ordinance. The meetings of the board shall be held at the call of its chairman or at such times as a quorum of the board may determine. The board shall choose annually its own chairman and vice-chairman who shall act in the absence of the chairman. The chairman, or, in his absence, the acting chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. The board shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon each question, or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such ~fact. Ail records of official actions shall become part of the permanent records of the board. A quorum shall be a majority of all the members of the board. 12.1-2 Powers and Duties of the Board of Zoning Appeal~s The board of zoning appeals shall have the following powers and duties in accordance with section 15.1-495 of the code: 12.1-2.1 To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the admini- stration or enforcement of this ordinance or of any regulation adopted pursuant hereto. 12.1-2.2 To authorize upon appeal or original application in specific cases such variance from the terms of this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when, owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions will result in unnecessary hardship; provided that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, as follows: When a property owner can show that his property was acquired in good faith and whereby reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the effective date of this ordinance, or whereby reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary 494 December 1, 1976 (Regular-Night Meeting) 12.1-2.3 12.1-2.4 12.1-2.5 12.1-2.6 12.1-2.7 12.1-3 12.1-4 12.1-5 i2.i-5.1 situation or condition of sUch piece of property, or of the use or development of property immediately-adjacent thereto, the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would effec- tively prohibit or unreasonably restrict ithe use of the property or where the board is satisfied, upon the evidence heard by it, that the granting of such variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation, as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant,. provided that all variances shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and ~urpose of this ordinance. No such variance shall be authorized by the board unless it finds: (a) that the strict application of this ordinance would produce undue hardship; (b) that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and (c) that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. No such variance shall be authorized except after notice and hearing as required by section 15.1-431 of the code. No variance shall be authorized unless the Board finds that the condition or situation of the property concerned or the intended use of the property is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. In authorizing a variance the board may impose such conditions regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed structure or use as it may deem necessary in the public. interest, and may require a guarantee or bond to insure that the conditions imposed are being and will continue to be complied with. To hear and decide appeals from the decision of the zoning administrator. To hear and decide applications for interpretation of the zoning map where there is any uncertainty as t© the loc.ation of a district boundary. After notice to the owners of the property affected by any such question, and after public hearing with notice as required by section 15.1-431 of the code, the board may interpret the map in such way as to carry out the intent and the purpose of the ordinance for the particular section or district in question. The board shall not have the power, however, to rezone property or substantially to change the locations of district boundaries as established by this ordinance and the zoning map. App.eal to the Board of Zoning Appeals Appeal to the board may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the county affected by any decision of the zoning administrator. Such appeal shall be taken within thirty days after the decision appealed from by filing with the zoning administrator, and with the board, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The zoning administrator shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. An appeal shal! stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the zoning administrator certifies to the board that by reason of facts stated in the certificate a stay would in his opinion cause imminent peril to life or property, in which case proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order granted by the board or by~ a court of record, on application and on notice to the zoning administrator and for good cause shown. Applications for Variances Applications for variances may be made by any property owner, tenant, government official, department, board or bureau. Such application shall be made to the zoning administrator in accordance with the provisions of this article and with rules adopted by the board. The application and accompanying maps, plans or other information shall be transmitted promptly to the secretary of the board who shall place the matter.on the docket to be acted on by the board. No such variance shall be authorized except after notice and hearing as required by section 15.1-431 of the code. The zoning administrator shall also transmit a copy of the application to the commission which may send a-recommendation to the board or appear as a party at the hearing. Procedure Appeals and applications for variances shall be filed with the zoning administrator, together With a fee of twenty dollars ($20.00) to cover the cost of the processing of such appeal or application. December 1, 1976 (Regular-Ni~ht?~.~Meeting) 12.1-5.2 The board shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of an application or appeal, give public notice thereof pursuant to section 15.1-431 of the code, as well as due notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same within sixty days. In exercising its powers, the board may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may ~odify the'order, requirement,.decision, or determination appealed ~rom.' The concurringvote'of three members shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision, or deter- mination of an .administrative officer or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is required to pass under the ordinance or to effect any variance from this ordinance. 12.1-6 Decision of Board of Zoning App.ea!s Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of zoning appeals, or any taxpayer or any officer, department, board, or bureau of the county may prlesent to the circuit court of the county a petition specifying the grounds on which aggrieved within thirty days after the filling of the decision in the office of the board, which petition shall proceed in accordance with section 15.1-497 of the code; Agenda Item No. 8 was skipped temporarily. ~ Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: To review a proposed subdivision ordinance for the Town of Gordonsville; said ordinance to apply within a portion of Albemarle County. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 1976..) Mr. Tucker said on October 1, 1976, the staff received notification from the Town Attorney of Gordonsville that the Town Council was contemplating extension of jurisdiction of its proposed subdivision ordinance a distance of two miles beyond its corporate which would affect properties in Albemarle County.' Subsequently, the staff reviewed the proposed ordinance and discussed various potential institutional options available to the Town and County to effectuate such agreement. The staff recommended that if ~h~ Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors determined that subdivision review by Gordonsville would be appropriate, an agreement similar to that existing with Charlottesville should be provid~ (This would be provided by an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance through adding Section 9.1 - Concurrent Jurisdiction of the Town of Gordonsville and the County of Albemarle). Such agreement would be characterized by the following: The County ordinance would apply exclusively in the subject area. Review by the Town would be in the context of the "legitimate interest of the Town of Gordonsville with respect to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the citizens thereof. In certain cases, disputed disapproval or conditional approval would be resolved by the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. This arrangement of concurrent jurisdiction would require subdivision approval by both localities, providing each locality an opportunity to insure that the interests of its citizens have been represented. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting held on November 16, 1976, voted unanimously to recommend that the Board nov approve the application for the proposed subdivision ordinance of the Town of Gordonsville to apply to any portion of Albemarle County. The Commission also rejected the alternative proposal of the staff to amend the County's Subdivision Ordinance to permit review by the Town of Gordonsville of subdivision plats for land in a portion of the County. The Commission based these recommendations on its feeling that the public interest is adequately protected by the County's existing development control ordinance-- zohing~ subdivision, soil erosion, etc. - and that any review by the Town of Gordonsville would serve no useful purpose and would impose an unneces~ burden on the citizens of Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker said he had received a letter from the Town Attorney for Gordonsville, Mr. Ulysses P. Joyner, Jr., on November 17, the day after the Planning Commission voted on this request. In the letter it was stated that the Gordonsville Planning Commission, on November 15, 1976, approved subdivision regulations, but deleted that portion which would require review within a two-mile limit. This would basically delete any portion of Albemarle County from their review and would cover only the Town of Gordonsville. Mr. Joyner then stated that the Gordonsville Town Council had deferred any action on the subdivision ordinance until January 17, 1977. At this point, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Alfred J. Lawson said he lives in the area of Albemarle County that would be affected by adoption of this provision. He asked what right the Town of Gordonsville has to tell him what to do with his property. He said he was glad to live in Albemarle County even if the taxes are high. Mr. Fisher said this is part of State legislation and is an antiquated law dealing with annexation proceedings. The town is permitted to have some control over what goes on around it assuming that at some future time, the town may want to annex that territory. Mr. Fisher said he hopes the~Town of Gordonsville is not considering annexing Albemarle County, but it could happen under existing State law. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission and disapprove the request from the Town of Gordonsvil!e. The motion was seconde by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. December 1, 1976 (Regular-Night Meeting) The Board returned to Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: To amend Section 2-3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; Setback Requirements in the A-1 zone. Mr. Tucker said on October 27, 1976, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to amend Section 2-3 in order to eliminate an influx of variances due to the increased building setback of seventy-five feet in the A-1 zone. The Planning Commission, at its meeting held November 23, 1976, voted unanimously to recommend the following addition to Section 2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance: Any structure located in this district which was lawfully in existence prior to October 21, 1976, and which is nonconforming solely in that it is located within seventy-five feet of any street, road or access easement as hereinabove provided, may be expanded, enlarged or extended as if it were a conforming structure~ provided, however, that such expansion, enlargement or extension shall not extend beyond the present front building line. The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was close( Mr. Henley said if this change is made, it appears that any sign erected will have to be 75 feet from the highway. The White Hall Ruritan Club is replacing their sign and this will place the sign about 10 feet behind the building. If you want to add a front porch to a structure, it cannot be put on the back of the structure and. be called a front porch. Mr. Henley said he is ready to re~urn to the 30 foot setback for the A-1 zone. Mr. Roudabush said in thinking about this amendment, there are a lot of subdivisions where the bu'i~ldings are set down on the 30-foot building line. If there are vacant lots, the next person building will have to set his house back 75 feet. Mr. Tucker said the zoning administrator has ruled that on lots of record, platted with a 30-foot building setback, the building can be placed on that 30-foot line. Mr. Fisher said since the Board adopted the first amendment on October 20, there ha~e bee~ numerous people wanting to expand existing structures and the new 75-foot setback makes the structure nonconforming. This amendment would allow any nonconforming structure within that 75 feet to be expanded or enlarged on the back of the structure. The question about signs is a separate matter unless the Board redefines "structure" again. Mr. Henley said when this was adopted, he thought "structure" meant "building structure", but evidently it covers everything Dr. Iachetta said he did not see the restriction on adding to the front of a building as being a particular problem because any nonconforming structure is probably closer than 75 feet to the road anyway. The problem with signs is different. Mr. Fisher said this amendment will relieve some of the pressures caused by the Board when they amended the ordinance to increase the setback. He asked if the committee composed of Mr. Henley, Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Tucker, would review this amendment again. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any urgency in making this amendment. Mr. Tucker said there are about 15 variances being held pending the outcome of this question. Mr. Dorrier said S~nce this is the third amendment made in the last few months, he wondered whatYvalue the amendment will have. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to amend and reenact Section 2-3 of the Albemarle Coynty Zoning Ordinance with the addition of the wording recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the above motion carried by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: Mr. Dorrier. (Mr. Dorrier said he feels a person should be allowed to build onto the f~ of?his dwelling without having to obtain a variance.) Mr. FiSher said he had received a request from the Si~n Study Commission. They held thei~ first meeting on November 16 and discussed the fact that their job is more difficult because tl County keeps making changes in sign requirements. They have asked that any new sign law or amendment be channeled to the Sign Commission for their information, study and evaluation. NOT DOCKETED: Mr. Fisher noted receipt of an invitation to a Senior Citizens Christmas Party to be held at First United Methodist Church on December 10, 1976. This party is being sponsored by the West End Social Club, R.S.V.P., the City Parks and Recreation Department, VPI-SU Extension Service and the Monticello Community Action Agency. Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter from Mr. Robert Merrill asking that the Board request the General Assembly t( define "fair market value". He asked that~.the County Attorney and County Director of Assess- ments review the request. Mr. Fisher said the "Plain Talk Committee" met and will probably recommend simplification of language in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said the Virginia Association of Counties is holding regional meetings on their legislative package. He asked for a volunteer from the Board to attend the meeting being held in Harrisonburg on December 9. Mrs. David said she had received a letter from Mr. Bedford Moore advising that Shack Mountain has been placed on the National Landmarks Register. Mr. Dorrier said he had received a letter from Mr. Charlie Yost tendering his resignation as a member of the Equalization Board. Mr. Dorrier said a representative of Citizens for Albemarle has invited the Board to attend their meeting on D~cember 9 at which time they will be discussing the Betz Environmental Engineers report on the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoi~ Dr. Iachetta said he has received several requests from his constituents about noise. He asked if the Board should consider some type of nuisance ordinance. Mr. St. John said no ordinance is needed to abate a nuisance. Citizens already have a remedy through the courts. Dr. Iachetta said the recent fire at Hessian Hills Apartments and the fire in Berkeley Subdivision today both point out the urgency to decide what the County will do about fire services in the urban area. There is a new group which has organized to start a volunteer company in that section of the County. Mr. Fisher said the Board is to discuss a report from the Fire Committee at the meeting on December 8, 197~. He did not feel a final response can be made immediately. At 10:53 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. -4_ mt