Loading...
1976-01-14N January 2, 1976 January 9, 1976 January 14, 1976 (Afternaon) January 14, 1976 (Night) The Board reconve~,~~4~.M. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn tSi~m~~until 12:00 noon January 9 1976, at the Ramada Inn on Route 29 North. Motion carried: ~r ~~ ' AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. 453 January 9, 1976 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 9, 1976, at 12:00 Noon at the Ramada Inn, Route 29 North, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from January 2, 1976. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Acting Officers Present: County Executive, J. Harvey Bailey; County Planner, John Humphrey;/County Engineer, J..~shley Williams, and Assistant County Planner, Robert Tucker. · he ~urpose o~ this meeting was ~o ~ear co]~T~ents on the B~l~er Re~ort for the Flood Management and Revitalization of the Town of Scottsville, Present were members of the Scottsville Town Council. At 1:30 P.M. the Board took a bus tour to Scottsville returning to Charlottesville at 3:~~. The Board reconvened in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, ~ Charlottesville, at 4:15 P.M. with the County Attorney, George R. St. John, present at this time. The meeting was called back to order and the Chairman entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss matters under litigation. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 9:30 P.M. Upon motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, this meeting was adjourned until January 14, 1976, at 2:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; The motion carried: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. ~~/~ ~ /~~~ %~h~airman January 14, 1976 (Afternoon) .c._ An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 14, 1976, at 2:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting .being adjourned from Janaury 9, 1976. PRESENT: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. ABSENT: None. The meeting was called to order at 2:33 P.M. The Chairman entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters relating to appointments to the School Board, the Albemarle County Planning Commission and a county executive. Motion to this effect was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M. Upon proper mo~ion, the meetin~wasnadjourned. Chairman January 14, 1976 (Night~) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 14, 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 William S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, J. Harvey Bailey; Assistant to the County Executive, Robert P. Sampson; County Attorney, George R. St. John; Deputy County Attorney, Frederick Payne; and Zoning Administrator, Hartwell P. Clarke. No. 1) Discussion: Moratoria, South Rivanna River Reservoir. Mr. Fisher called the meeting to order and said he would like to make a statement concerning events leading up to the placing of this item on the agenda for this meeting. On Thursday, January 8, Mr. Fisher said he had been called by the County Attorney's Office and asked to meet with the County Attorney. He had this meeting on Thursday afternoon and was placed in a position of either calling or not calling a special meeting of the Board to consider legal matters. This decision belonged in the hands of the Board. On Friday, January 9 the Board was to hold an adjourned meeting to go with members of the town council of Scotts- ville to view the proposed reconstruction project. This was the only scheduled item on that agenda, however, upon returning from Scottsville about four o'clock, the Board voted itself into executive session to discuss matters of pending litigation, particularly those relating to properties in the vicinity of the South Rivanna River Reservoir. Mr. Fisher said he took full responsibility for this action since there seemed to be no other way the Board could discuss p~nding litigation without divulging every alternative the Board might consider. No decision was reached at that meeting, but he had decided that the issue must be addressed by the Board in a public session and he had requested that this item be placed on tonight's agendal After this decision was made, the press was notified that the agenda had been changed to include this item. There was not adequate time to give full notice of a legal public hearing. Mr. Fisher said that the Board would heari~from county staff members and the County Attorney, but not from those citizens present. On the basis of discussions held during the executive session, the County Attorney had been requested to draft an ordinance for consideration. This ordinance was hand-delivered to the Board members yesterday but has not been discussed by the Board. Problems with the current soil erosion and subdivision ordinances were part of the consideration by Board members. The Zoning Administrator had brought these difficulties to the Board's attention. Mr. Fisher said if a mo~ion is forthcoming after discussion, it wilI be for an emergency measure which can only be extended after notification and proper public hearing before the Board. Mr. Dorrier said he had asked the Commonwealth's Attorney for an opinion as to conflict of interest since he is in a laW firm which represents property owners with land in the watershed area around the reservoir. A letter has been received from the Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney in which is said that under Section 2.1-352 of the Code of Virginia, any officer of any governmental agency or advisory agency who knows that he has a material financial interest in any transaction, not of general application, in which the officer may be in any way concerned, shall disclose su%h interest to the governing body and disqualify himself from voting or participating in any official action thereon. The Commonwealth Attorney's Office has said that any discussion or consideration of an ordinance requiring a moratorium in an area around the reservoir is a matter of general application. Mr. Dorrier said he~u_~t~Dr~e~nd is bound by a code of professional ethics which is much stricter than the Virginma ~on~t~ Interests Act. Since his laW firm has clients who would be directly affected by any action taken tonight on this question, he would abstain from the discussion. (Mr. Dorrier filed with the Clerk a letter from Mr. James E. Treakle, Jr., Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, dated January 14, 1976, on his question of possible conflict of interest.) Mr. Hartwell Clarke said he would explain to the Board members the procedure used to consider permits for erosion control. The Zoning Administrator has 21 days in which to study soil erosion plans to see that items required by the Soil Erosion Ordinance and Handbook are on the plans. These plans are then sent to the Soil Erosion Advisory Committee for recommendations. The plans are then returned to the Zoning Administrator who must determine if the surety bond will be adequate to protect the County's interest. On the first plans received for property on the reservoir, it'was found that the plans and specifications included permanent measures that would require permanent maintenance. The State enabling legislation carries provisions for permanent soil erosion measures, but bonding procedures set out in that legislation do not allow the county to permanently bond these measures. This fact was brouEht to the. attention of the Board on Friday and at that time they had asked Mr. Clarke to give a report at the January'~h meeting on any other problems encountered in administering the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Mr. Cla~e sai~,, that report is pertinent and he proceeded to read as follows: "In response to the Board's request for a report on changes that might be advisable in the Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance, a detailed report, with supporting data, was mailed to each member of the Board on January 5, 1976. This is a simplified version of that report covering the main problems but no~ the minor housekeeping troubles. The most serious problem is caused by a section of State law which requires that the bond or surety be refunded with 60 days of the completion of the land- disturbing activities. The bond is posted to provide the resources to apply the necessary conservation measures when violations occur and the developer fails to take action. After the bond is released, there appears to be no practical way to protect the County when the new owners or homeowners association are financially unable to provide the measures that may become necessary in the future to protect the Reservoir. These measures might include installation for storm water treatment and maintenance of permanent erosion control facilities such as sediment basins which must be dredged out periodically for an indefinite period. If an-erosion problem occurs-after the bond has been released, the procedures outlined in the county's ordinance could prove to be too time-consuming to provide the necessary protection. A written notice is required and the owner has seven days in which to submit an erosion control plan. If the plan is unworkable, revisions, arguments, an appeal the Board of Supervisors and a further appeal to the Circuit Court could delay preventative measures for months. The County ordinance allows the Zoning Administrator to revoke an erosion o~n~ro~?~Per~it if an owner or developer refuses to cooperate, but it does not provide a procedure for use of the bond money to correct the problem." Mr. Fisher said the Board had received a letter from Mr. John H. Crowe, Siltation Specialist for the State Water Control Board, dated November 21, 1975, and he read the following into the record: "The issue of the pollution problems associated with medium and high-density development around the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir has recently come to my attention. It appears that your situation is extremely similar to the difficulties which the Occoquan Reservoir has and is experiencing. I suggest January 14, 1976 (Night) over the past three years in the Occoquan Watershed. There is enough information available to assist the Supervisor's in arriving at an intelligent conclusion. Our data suggests that the long-term pollution problems associated with development adjacent to a water-supply reservoir are severe enough to warrant doWnzoning to a more acceptable level of development. I therefore suggest that your County utilize hindsight and learn from the mistakes we have made in the Occoquan Reservoir. If I can be of assistance, do not hesitate to~Canta~t ~e." Mr. J. H. Bailey said he had prepared a memorandum for the Board on the proposed moratorium and asked to read same into the reCord: "January 14, 1976 It seems to me, upon due reflection, that ! have not made known to you my view of the moratorium proposed for the protection of the South Rivanna Reservoir. Indeed, I'had to do some reflecting after the Board's meeting on Friday, January 9, in order to reach a conclusion. My-view is that the imposition of a moratorium would be ill-advised. following reasons for this opinion: I offer the 1. A moratorium now will have no beneficial effect on the study of the water quality of the reservoir now in progress. 2. The apparent defect in the enabling legistion, under which the county's soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance is drafted, cannot be expected to adversely effect the reservoir study. 3. A more comprehensive ordinance should supersede the present sOil erosion ordinance, particularly that portion of the ordinance which is geared to the nee-ds of the reservoir, once the study is completed and the consultant's recommendations received. 4. The passage of a moratorium ordinance will disrupt the county and greatly diminish the ability of the Board of Supervisors in the conduct of the County's affairs. 5. The County Attorney can be expect~e~ to defend such an ordinance from attack through the courts and would certainly be accorded a fair chance of prevailing. How- ever, it could be better for the County were the ordinance struck down as quickly as possible." Mr. Bailey said he was a member of the committee appointed by the Board in August, 1975, that worked on the existing portion of the Soil Erosion Ordinance having to do with special measures for protecting the Reservoir. That committee knew the reservoir was ~mtrophic, but felt there is a lack of specific knowledge to protect the Reservoir until the study has been made and recommendations from that study have been made. The completion of the study is possibly four or five months away. The consultant for the study was given 14 months before he would have to make recommendations. The committee did not think the controls recommended would allow an amount of development which would effect the results of the study. Mr. Bailey said he feels any moratorium will be challenged by one or more persons in court. This will take away from the time the Board can devote to other matters. At the same time, it will also have an adverse effect on the business community. Mr. Bailey also suggested that the Board add up the costs of a moratorium versus the damage that could be done to the reservoir without a moratorium. Mr. Roudabush said he understands that State law requires that any erosio~ problem be correctSd by law regardless of how long the problem has been in existence. He asked if this were sufficient to take care of any violations of permanent erosion control devices. Mr Bailey said the Zoning Administrator has said there is a mechanism available, but it ~ requires such a protracted procedure to enforce that there could be considerable damage to the Reservoir while compelling compliance. The County's present ordinances are addressed to erosion and sedimentation controls. The committee felt that the disturbance of the land is the principal culprit and this must be controlled. If any community is established in this area, erosion problems would subside, but other problems would come forth. The committee expects the consultant making the study to make recommendations on these matters. Mr. Roudabush asked if recommendations were made for permanent controls if those recommendations could be enforced. Mr. Bailey said ordinances would have to be devised by the Board to cover any situation. At this time, there is no way to tell what recommendations will be made by the consultant. These may be simple recommendations, but they may also call for heroic measures. Mr. Clarke said Section 5-2 of the existing Soil Erosion Ordinance covers almost any soil erosion complaint, however, the only remedy for the C~unty if ~ person who does not voluntarily correct a soil erosion problem is through Section 10 which requires that the Zoning Administrator proceed through the courts. Mr. Clarke said this procedure does not correct the soil erosion problem. A better solution will be presented to the Board at their meeting of January 15, in which a new provision has been drafted which would allow the County to use posted bond money to make the necessary corrections. Mr. Fisher said he has been concerned with enforcement of the Soil Erosion Ordinance. There have been cases of soil erosion which have existed for several years without any correction. He asked if any of these cases have been decided through the courts. Mr. Clarke said he has mailed approximately 100 letters citing people for violations of the ordinance. Prior to adoption of the existing ordinance, four or five cases were taken to court. The County won one case which was subsequently appealed. The new ordinance is much stronger and of the I00 persons cited under the new ordinance, every person is following the corrective procedures which have been agreed to. Mr. Bailey said the presenv ordinance does not apply to such types of pollution as over-ferti- lization, animal wastes or lead compounds from vehicles. It is expected that these will be addressed in a new ordinance after the consultant's have finished their work. Mr. Fisher said the present ordinance evidently is adequate for soil erosion violations during the construction ~ase but has no measures which ~rotect a~ainst the lon~-ran~e ~roblems of chemical 4~ ganuary 14, 1976 (Night) Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker for zoning categories and densities allowed in the reservoir area. Mr. Tucker said for the entire watershed, there are about 25 acres of M-1 zoning, 160 acres of R-2 zoning, 175 acres of R-3 zoning, 150 acres of B-1 zoning, and 200 acres under the RTM zone, for a total of 868 acres within the watershed. The R-2 zone allows up to eight units per acre if developed in duplexes, but 'R-3 allows in excess of 40 units per acre. Much of the higher density zoning lies around the reservoir. Dr. Iachetta said he had made a study of the 230 acres bounded by Hydraulic Road, Rio Road and the SPCA Road. There are three parcels of that acreage already zoned R-3 containing 66.5 acres. R- 3 permits 40 units per acre. Conservatively estimating 3.2 people per unit would give a potential 8,512 people in that zoning category. The remainder of that 230 acres, or' 163.5 acres, is cUrrently zoned R-2. Using a conservative 5.3 units per acre, with 3.2 people per unit, gives a total of 2,773 people, or a total for that 230 acres of 11,285 people on the east shore of the reservoir. ~r. Iachetta said that number is significant particularly in light of comments in a letter from Mr. Ronald E. Conner dated September 2, 1975, in which he says: "as stated above, this department (State Health Department) does not recommend development along this reservoir." A communique from the State Water Control Board dated November 21, 1975, (from Mr. John Crowe and set out in full above) is even more forceful. Dr. Iachetta said he would regret the Board's not addressing the many problems in regard to the reservoir because any action taken by the Board might be adjudicated. He is convinced that errors of the past cannot continue until they become irrevocable. The right to present zoning has been established in the minds of certain landowners. Having conveyed that right erroneously requires that the Board now examine that right before it is exercised to the detriment of the reservoir. Dr. Iachetta said he does not think of a moratorium as a permanent solution. The Board must decide if the present zoning is in error and if they decide it is what should be done until the study of the reservoir is completed. The Board must decide what can be done as a long term solution or as an alternative, find another way to supply potable water. Mr. Fisher then asked the County Attorney to present the ordinance which was drafted at the request of the Board. Mr. St. John read the following into the record: ORDINANCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE QUALITY OF WATER IN THE SOUTH RIVANNA RIVER RESERVOIR WHEREAS, the South Rivanna River Reservoir is a resource of great value to the people of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County is concerned about the continued vi'ability of the said reservoir; and WHEREAS, a study of the said Reservoir is now being made, by Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc., at the instance of the Board of Supervisors, the Council of the City of Charlottesville, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and at a cost of approximately $140,000.00, which study is to be completed on or about December 31, 1976, and the Board is concerned lest development in the drainage ba'sin of the said reservoir during the pendency of the said study should result in irrepar'able damage to the reservoir; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 1975, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle CounTy enacted an ordinance designed to protect the quality of water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir, which ordinance was originally enacted as an emergency measure and was thereafter, on October 22, 1975, after proper notice and public hearing, reenacted as a permanent measure; and WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with substantial evidence that development in the drainage basin of the said reservoir is likely to result in the pollution of the water therein and the destruction thereof as a practical water supply source despite the enactment of the afore- mentioned ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Board is of the opinion that further measures are necessary to ensure the continued viability of the said reservoir and, in particular, to ensure that the aforementioned study w~ll not be pre- judiced by pollution occasioned by continued development in the watershed of the said reservoir; NOW~, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County as follows: 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this ordinance is to protect against and minimize the pollution-and eutrophication of the South Rivanna River Reservoir resulting from development in the drainage bas±n thereof on an interim basis pending the completion o£ studies designed to determine the effect of such development upon the reservoir. It is hereby found by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County as a matter of legislative determination that this ordinance is necessary to prevent pollution of the reservoir and to protect health, safety and welfare of the people of Albemarle County. 2. DEFINITIONS For purposes of .this ordinance, the following terms shall be defined as follows: (Mr. St. John said he was going to read a new Section 2A which had been drafted since the Board members received their copy of this ordinance.) a. Permit: The term "permit" shall be construed to include any building permit, erosion control permit, or flood plain permit~which January 14, 1976 (~Ni'ght] b. Drainage Basin: The term "drainage basin" shall be construed to mean that portion of Albemarle County lying within the watershed of the South Rivanna River and bounded by an arc having a radius of five (5) miles as measured from the water supply intake pipe of the said reservoir. A map labeled "South Rivanna River Reservoir Drainage Basin", showing the boundaries as herein described, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. c. Development: The term "development" shall mean any construction, external repair, land-disturbing activity, grading, road building, or other activity resulting in a change of the physical character of any parcel of land, except as herein otherwise, expressly provided. 3. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS No permit shall be issued for any development in the drainage basin of the South Rivanna River Reservoir until such time as the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County shall have determined that such develop- ment will have no substantial adverse effect on the said reservoir or on the quality of the water therein. 4. EXEMPTIONS Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following shall be exempt from the effect of this ordinance: a¸. other than road building, relating to any single family detachec located upon a lot having a minimum area of one (1) acre; the construction, repair, enlargement, or other activity dwelling b. the repair and/or reconstruction of any structure repair and/or reconstruction is necessitated by forces beyond of the owner of such structure, which repair and/or reconstruct be necesaary to prevent a clearly demonstrable hardship approac confiscation or a situation dangerous to the public health, saf~ welfare, and which repair and/or reconstruction will, in the opJ the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, have no significant the quality of water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir; c. the tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultu cultural or forest crops or products or engineering operations Section 21-2(c) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. d. Nothing in this section shall be construed to pe issuance of any permit for any land-disturbing activity as defi~ Albemarle County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; pa notwithstanding~ any provision of law to the contrary, any acti~ for the elimination of any condition which constitutes a danger public health, safety, and welfare may be carried out as otherw~ by law. 5. CONSTRUCTION This ordinance is declared to be remedial in nature a~ tective of a paramount public interest and Shall be liberally c( to effectuate its purposes. 6. SEVERABILITY Should any section or any provision of this ordinance by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of this or~ as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so held to b~ 7. EFFECTIVE DATE An emergency being found to exist, this ordinance sha effect immediately. The Clerk is ~hereby ordered to give notice by Section 15.1-504 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended Board of Supervisors intends to enact the foregoing as a perma~ in accordance with law. Mr. St. John said he would like to discuss the change rec( The former definition was construed to include any permit whic! board, commission, committee, officer or employee of Albemarle ment. Th~ has ~e~ changed to apply only to erosion control plain permits. ~e~f~els th~s definition will accomplish what of the proposed ordinance, and will make clearer the fact that the police powers of the Board of Supervisors with respect to rather than being an ordinance under existing zoning powers. Mr. Roudabush asked if statements in Sections 3 and 4B th~ the Board of Supervisors before certain things can happen mean~ make a request to the Board. Mr. St. John said this applies o2 a structure, and not to new construction. Certain ot~er items from the ordinance. Mr. St. John discussed the exemptions lis~ would like to read into the record certain resolutions to be c~ ordinance. He said this ordinance is not going to allgw develo~ second step of any action taken tonight would be to review the Plan for the area in question. The Board cannot take away an for any purpose which is allowed. which he control on shall hing ~ty and nion of .mpact on 'al, horti- Lnder mit the ~ed in the ~ovided that, ~ity necessary to the _se provided ~d pro- ~nstrued be held )therwise ~inance invalid. 1 take as required that the ent measure ,t ' ~ tt mmended in the definition~r permit . is required to be issued by any County as a prerequisite to develop- ~ermits, building permits, or flood .s set forth' in the "purpose section" this ordinance is being enacted under ~rotection of a public water supply ~t determinations have to be made by that each applicant will have to ly to repair andZor reconstruction of mentioned in Paragraph 4 are exempted ~ed under Paragraph 4 and then said he ~nsidered along with adoption of this ~ment in the area described, but the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive _ndividual's right to use his property M~. Roudabush asked what purpose would be served by including in this moratorium, nonconforming lots o~re~o~d tha~t can be used now or in the future. Mr. St. John said the Board is acknowledging 458 January 14, 1976 [Night) density development wilkes, an accomplished fact and the Board's decision-making power with respect to the reservoir will b~°~losed~orever. Dr. Iachetta asked if the five-mile arc shown on the map presented tonight, could be adjusted to include a road network that closely approximates that five-mile radius. He said, to some people, it would be more clearly defined in that manner. Mr. St. John said he could not answer since he was not familiar-'with the topography of the land. Because a road is shown, does not have anything to do with the effect of building in the reservoir area. He did not know if such a change would diminish the defensibility of the moratorium. Mr. St. John then read into the record the following resolutions for consideration by the Board~-. ~ RESOLUTIO~N NO. 1 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the Board intends to amend Section 3-12 of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance as follows: 3-1~ EROSION CONTROL: No final subdivision plat shall be approved by the governing body, or its agent, unless and until the subdivider shall have obtained an erosion control permit pursuant to the Albemarle CoUnty Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance or shall present satisfactory evidence that no such permit is required. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this matter be, and it is hereby, referred to the Albemarle County Planning Commission for its recommen- dation, such recommendation to be made as soon as public hearings may be held in accordance with law. RESOLUTION NO. 2 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the Albemarle County Planning Commission be, and it hereby is, directed to review the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan and to prepare an amendment thereto relating to that portion of the County lying in the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir and bounded by an arc having a radius of five (5) miles as measured from the water supply intake pipe of the South Rivanna River Reservoir. RESOLUTION NO. 3 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the Board intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map to provide that only uses permitted in the A-1 Agricultural District shall be permitted in that portion of the County lying in the water- shed of the South Rivanna River and bounded by an arc having a radius of five (5) miles as measured from the water supply intake pipe of the South Rivanna River Reservoir; and Dr.~I'~ta questioned the wording "as measured from the water supply intake pipe of the South ~a~ma~ver Reservoir." He felt this was the intake pipe for the plant and not the reservoir. Mr St John asked Mr Bailey i~~p~s adequately defined. Mr. Bailey said if the wording was changed to read: "as measurem zrom vne water supply intake pipe of the South Rivanna River Reservoir Dam" there would be no misunderstanding. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. George Williams, Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to comment on this language. Mr. Williams said the intake pipe is in a structure that is adjacent to the dam and the raw water pumping station at the dam. These can be defined as a specific point on a map. Mr. St. John said the second resolution he read was in answer to a question posed to him on whether the Board could request the Planning Commission to review and prepare an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to provide for either agricultural or conservation uses around the reservoir. He said the only logical amendment to accomplish any kind of protection to the reservoir is this suggestion and he feels it is a proper request. Mrs. David asked if the resolutions are adopted tonight, if the. proposals contained therein can be accomplished in a short period of time. Mr. St. John said the Planning Commission has 60 days in which to make their review. The Planning Commission and this Board are empowered by statute to review the Comprehensive Plan and to suggest and then enact amendments on a part of the Plan as opposed to review of the total Plan. Mr. Henley said he has always felt the Board should enact some form of a moratorium until the Betz study is completed. However, he is not sure about changing zoning before the problem is known. Mr. St. John said if the Betz study shows that high-density development in this area is no problem, then the zoning can be changed back to its original and the Comprehensive Plan can be changed. Practically speaking, this may be a financial hardship on landowners, but it is possible. If a moratorium is enacted for the full length of the Betz study, estimated at 14 months originally, there may be a period of time during which litigation will take place. The County will have to defend a status in which there is one set of laws forbidding high-density development in an area and another law which gives the right to this development. This is inconsistent and the laws are in conflict with each other. The Judge, during a case on the previous ordinance, had made the statement that this gives him trouble. It may not be impossible to defend, but it is difficult. Mr. Henley said he felt if the land were ever down-zoned, the property owners would have a problem in having the original zoning restored. Dr. Iachetta said if the Board enacts this resolution they are requesting the Planning Commission to make a review. That review will be conducted according to legal procedures and there will be public hearings. That review may or may not result in recommendations in accordance to what has been suggested. The public will have every opportunity to make its input during that number of public hearings. January 14, 1976 (Night) Mr. Henley said he always likes to have a good reason for doing anything. He has good reasons for supporting a moratorium, but cannot find any reason to support down-zoning at this time. Mr. Fisher said if the ordinance and all of the resolutions are adopted tonight, this will set up a minimum of five public hearings. Unless some action is taken tonight, the Board will not have an opportunity to conduct any useful public hearings on the question. Mr. Roudabush said he is as concerned as any other citizen in the County about the condition of the Rivanna Reservoir. He is concerned about the credibility of the County in proposing this action after having gone through this same procedure several months ago. At that time, a panel of experts, with technical input, was impaneled. They came back with a solution which they felt was acceptable. Citizens have p~oceeded to make commitments based on the credibility of the County. If there is a problem with the existing ordinance, this should be amended. Mr. Roudabush said he has been given no basis for a moratorium; no technical evaluation, no reports, no new studies, and no progress reports from Betz Engineers. The County Executive does not think a moratorium is justified. There has been no change in the situation except the composition of the Board of Supervisors. The area being considered for a moratorium is an arbitrary area; a line drawn on the map. It is based only on enabling ~egislation from the State Code. If drastic ~ ~gu~d to be necessary and reasonable. action is to be taken, it should be taken only i~i~_~. ~ ' ' d S er There is no large scale development in the watershe~ a~ 6~ms tmme. The Rmvanna Water an ew Authority has not requested this action nor has the City of Charlottesville. Both of these.~eople have equal interests in the problem. Mr. Roudabush said he has recently read a report made~he~-?~ the Ecological Sciences division of EPA. There are many problems pointed out in that report which~ have not been adequately addressed. There is information in the report that indicates that there are known point sources of pollution which would not be corrected by this moratorium. Potential pollution from the agricultural areas abo~e this watershed will still be coming into the Reservoir. Known points of pollution will not be cut off. When the study of the watershed and the Reservoir are completed, Mr. Roudabush said he will be one of the first people to endorse implementation of any recommendations contained in that report. M~s. David said there are many people who believe the reservoir was built in the wrong place. Unfortunately that is a mistake that cannot be corrected. Many believe the original high-density zoning around the reservoir was a mistake. The statements in Mr. Crowe's letter of November 21 are the most persuasive statements the Board has in hand. The Board has only been in office for two weeks and although she has received help from people on both si~es of the question, she feels that the Board members are in a situation of expressing their personal views. Even Mr. Bailey, who sat on the technical committee, introduced his memorandum by saying this ~s his view. He has also said that there are no measures pending for protection of the reservoir against urban development Mrs. David said it does not make sense to allow urban de~e!opment and then try to design protective measures. As long as it is felt that urban development near a water supply is not desirable, it would make sense to stop and wait until the Betz ~report is completed. Mrs. David said although some people may have difficulties as a result of any moratorium, she feels she has a commitment to support same. Dr. Iachetta said he has reviewed the material mentioned by Mr. Roudabush. As is often the case, he disagrees with a fellow professional engineer. This just emphasizes the imperfect nature of engineering. Speaking about the committee, Dr. Iachetta said two of the so-called experts ha~e essentially recanted on their own action. The letters from Mr. Conner and Mr. Crowe were received after the other ordinance was enacted. On the State level, they represent the two agencies which are most responsible for assuring that there is quality, potable water. They, along with Dr. Browne from Betz Environmental Engineers, represented the only true expertise on the committee. Dr. Iachetta said it is not his intent to cause anybody needless inconYenien'ce in the pursuit of his or her activity, but he sees no way to critically examine the situation that pervails relative to long-term use of the reservoir. He feels it is necessary to take this very drastic action in the absence of any hard engineering evidence that development will not have a detrimental effect on the reservoir. Mr. Fisher said this issue has consumed the time and energy of many people for the last~ six months. It is not a question on which the facts cannot be debated. Therefore, he is not certain that the soil erosion measures written into the ordinance last year are adequate for other than short-term protection during the construction phase of development. If the Board allows development to occur and then finds out at the end of the year that this was a mistake, that mistake will be difficult to correct. If the Board halts development and then finds that it was unnecessary, that can be corrected. For these reasons, and in an effort to protect the public's interest in the reservoir, he supports adoption of the ordinance. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to adopt the ordinance set out on Page 456 entitled "Ordinance for the Protection of the Quality of Water in the South Rivanna Reservoir". The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Iachetta. NAYS: Mr. Roudabush. ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt Resolution No. 2 as set our on Page 458 directing the Planning Commission to review the Albemarl~ County Comprehensive Plan and to prepare an amendment thereto. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Iachetta. NAYS: Mr. Roudabush. ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier. Mrs. David then offered motion to adopt Resolution~No. 3 as set out on Page 458 atating that the Board i~ends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map in the area of the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir. The motion was seconded by Dr. Zachetta who asked &f this amendment would allow planned unit developments in the A-1 zone. Mr. St. John said they are not allowed as a matter of right, but this would still allow any applicant to appear before the Board and make such a request. Mr. Henley said he does not necessarily intend to amend the Zoning Map, but he is willing to hold a public hearing on the question. Mr. St. John said the State statute requires the Board to initiate this procedure before it can be referred to the Planning Commission for recommendations. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: 46O January 14, 1976 [Night) Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to adopt Resolution No. I as set out on Page 458 stating the Board's intent to amend Section 3-12 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by~ the following recorded vote: ~. c~r ~ - AYES: Mrs. Davil and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier. Mr. Clarke said he had mailed to the Board members on January 5 suggested amendments to the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Although these amendments are not necessarily of an emergency nature, he asked when the Board would consider setting a public hearing on same. Mrs. David then offered motion that any action on this request be postponed until the regular meeting of January 15. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier. At 9:50 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:01 P.M. Not Docketed. ZMP-338. Richard Cogan. Public hearing deferred from December 10, 1975. Mr. Tucker said this petition had been withdrawn before the Planning Commission and no further action was required. Mr St. John concurred. Mr. Fisher asked for a motion to allow this petition to be withdrawn without prejudice. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. 2) SP-468. James R. Armstrong. (Public hearing on this petition was continued from December 10, I975.) Mr. Fisher said this matter is new to four members of the Board bh~yth~y have been furnished with the complete record on this special permit. (Mr. Dorrier said he had represented Mr. Armstrong in action before the previous Board and would abstain because of a possible conflict of interest.) (Note: A complete verbatim transcript of this hearing is on file in the office Of the Clerk to the Board.) Mr. Tucker read into the record the following chronological record: "On November 22, 1972, the County Board of Supervisors approved a request by Mr. Armstrong to locate a garage on 0.39 acres with the following conditions: Not more than six vehicles which are in Mr. Armstrong's care for repair, maintenance or restoration, be garaged overnight on the property at any one time; Any vehicles which are on site for repair, maintenance or restoration be located in a specifically designated parking area approved by the Planning Staff and this area be screened from public view as approved by the Planning Staff. 3. This special permit is not transferrable; This special permit shall become void if the use of the property creates a public nuisance in the opinion of the Board of Supervisors from the stand- point of appearance or excessive noise created; Bond in the amount of $300 be posted to clear the site if this special permit becomes voided or the property vacated. In May, 1975, Mr. Armstrong requested, through the special use permit procedure, that the County reconsider the condition~ which limited the number of cars which can be repaired at any one time and the screening requirement. On May 28, 1975, the Board of Supervisors again approved the special permit changing the limitation of the number of cars to read: Not more than six vehicles to be left outside overnight and the existing landscaping shall be maintained. Ail of the other conditions were to be maintained. During the latter part of 1975, this petition was litigated before the Circuit Court of Albemarle County which remanded the special use permit back to the Board of Supervisors to reconsider the limitation on the number of cars to be left outside overnight. The Court stated that this condition was unreasonable. On December 10, 1975, the Board of Supervisors reheard this special permit and the staff at that time offered an alternate condition to read: No junk cars to be kept on the property unless inside an enclosed structure. The Board of Supervisors deferred action from December 10, 1975, until tonight." Dr. Iachetta asked if there are any specific statements on the approval concerning the type of screening to be used. Mr. Tucker said the Staff had recommended that this be evergreen trees, but the applicant had stated this caused a hardship because of the sap which might fall on newly painted cars. Dr. Iachetta asked if there was any type of a sketch in the files relative to Mr. Armstrong's work space. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Armstrong had requested the amended pe.rmit in May of 1975 because of the Zoning Administrator's attempts to enforce the original conditions placed on the permit, because of complaints, or both. January 14, 1976 {Night) 481 Mr. Hartwell Clarke, Zoning Administrator, said he had written, the following letter to Mr. Armstrong on March 10, 1975: "Mr. Woodson, zoning inspector, visited your shop recently and talked to you regarding possible zoning violations. I read a copy of the conditions attached to the granting of your permit and a copy is enclosed. We also enclose a copy of the Planning Staff's recommendation dated June 21, 1973. Mr. Woodson stated that you had six customer cars and four of your own parked outside at the garage when he made'his inspection. He further stated that the white pines had not been planted because you did not want to make it easy for vandals to strip your cars. We have two complaints in this office regarding this matter and one of the nearby owners had a witness to confirm that upon their visit to your shop there were 20 cars parked. This owner plans to petition the Board of Supervisors to have your shop and the grounds declared a common nuisance under Section 4 of the Planning Commission's conditions dated November 27. You stated to Mr. Woodson that you would be glad to return to the Board of Supervisors. Since the matter appears to be headed that way anyway, this seems to be the best solution. Please call Miss Neher and ask to be put on the agenda and we can settle this once and for all." Mr. Fisher said since this special permit was remanded to the Board of Supervisors by the Circuit Court, he would ask the County Attorney to tell the Board what their options are before continuing with the public hearing. Mr. St. John said the Board has several options: 1) Take no action, in which case all of the conditions listed in the decree will be in effect. Those conditions are: No. 2~ existing landscaping be maintained; No. 37 this special p~rmit is not transferrable; No. 4. this special permit shall become void if the use of the property creates a nuisance in the opinion of the Board of Supervisors from the standpoint of appearance or excessive noise created; and No. 5. bond in the amount of $300.00. 2) The Board can revoke the permit on the grounds that the permit would not have been issued originally if the Board~had not felt the applicant would comply with the conditions attached to same; or ) ~3 hold a public hearing on the question of whether or not this garage is a public nuisance, which is the purpose of this meeting tonight. Mr. St. John said Mr. Armstrong's attorney has filed a motion to remove the condition relating to the public nuisance aspect of the permit. At this point, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. First to speak was Mr. John T. Camblos, attorney for Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Camblos said Mr. Armstrong had been agreeable to all of the conditions in the Court Order until the Board meeting of December 10, 1975, when a motion was made to dec~are this garage a public nuisance without hearing any evidence. Mr. Armstrong does not inten~.,t~9_mai~tain va public-nuisance. In a court of law, this probably would not be found to be a publicC~~e. The condition states that this is an "opinion" of the Board of Supervisors without any limitation as to what controls that opinion. Mr. Camblos said it has been cited that numerous complaints have been received. He understands that a member of the ~lanning Commission went out to view the site, but evidently did not gm at night because th~ condition stricken by the Court on the number of cars that~ could be parked outside was a condition for night hours and not daytime hours. Mr. Armstrong does not intend to keep junk cars on the property or to keep cars ~o~.~pose of robbing them~of parts to put on other cars. The applicant cannot completely control t~nUmber of cars parked on his property. People often bring cars at night and park them for repair work the next day. Mr. Camblos urged the Board to go along with the spirit an~ the fairness of Judge Berry's decision and continue Mr. Armstrong's permit with reasonable restrictions imposed.~ Mr. St. John said ~he~m-&~d~d one furthe~ option which he had not mentioned. Th~ Board could reimpose Condition #! on the limitation of cars, but setting this at a higher number. Mrs. A~mstrong read letters from Helen H. Douglas, Margaret G. Payne and Frances Payne, all stating ~that they had no objections to the Armstrong's Garage. (These letters are in the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.) Mrs. Armstrong said she feels there has been a great deal of misunderstanding on all sides. They try to. keep the grounds neat, the noise down and be considerate of their neighbors. Mr. John Arbaugh said he knows it takes a lot of planning and skill to keep a small business going. There have been louder, rougher and dirtier businesses ~he~elthe~garage is presently situated. This is a needed business in the community. Mr. Bill Rucker said he has attended many of these meetings. He said there are three businesses in Esmont; a store, a garage and a post office. At all of these places there are often more than six cars parked. He does not think the Armstrong's garage is a public nuisance, but a necessity. Mr. Camblos said there were still several other people present to speak for Mr. Armstrong. Because of the lateness of the hour, Mr. Fisher asked that those in support of the petitioner stand. The ~ClerM counted approximately 20 people. Mr. Camb!os said that four of the six adjoinin~ neighbors support Mr. Armstrong. Dr. Iachetta asked what percentage of Mr. -Armstrong's work is concerned~with body work. Mr. Armstrong said about 40% is body work, 40% is mechanical and 20% i~ on farm equipment and lawn mowers. Mr. Henley asked how many employees worked in the garage when the first permit was granted in 1972. Mr. Armstrong sa±d there is only one full-time person, himself, and one-part time, his son. Mr. David Wood, attorney for those in oppostion to this request, spoke next. He said he represents 13 residents in Esmont. He noted that none of those speaking for Mr. Armstrong live closer then one ~mile to the garage. This petition has been before the Board on two different occasions~ Both times the County's staff has said the use is not compatible with the area. The Planning Commission has also said the us~ is not compatible. The Court has specifically confirmed the fourth restriction which thatBoa~dB~t~iai~Ya~$a~haSohe~this permit. Esmont is a residential neighborhood at the present time. Mr. Wood said the most objectionable aspect of this garage is its appearance. It has all sorts of vehicles, trucks, tractors, cars, sitting in front of it. It has everything that goes with an automobile repair shop sitting around it. When this matter initially came before the Board, it was felt that there should be screening. The applicant planted ~ *~o+ ~ ,.,~h ~ ~,~ =h~a 12 ~ah~ t~ll, so the screenin~ is nexli~ible. 46'2 January 14, 1976 (Night) The second objection is to the noise which emanates from the garage during the day, during the evening, Saturdays and Sundays. Two of the adjoining owners are elderly ladies who are continually exposed to this noise. The third objection is the odor from the paint shop. Mr. Wood said this garage is a nuisance. It is objectionable to the residents. It is not compatible with the uses in the neigborhood and he requested that this permit be revoked. Mr. Hunter Tapscott was present to speak for his mother, Mrs. Florence Tapscott. Her property directly adjoins this property. Mr. Tapscott said, in light of the Board meeting tonight, the property has been cleaned up just recently. However, this is not its uSual cond±tion~ Mr. Tapscott said he is concerned because the hammering and beating in the paint shop.can dictate the hours his mother can sleep. Mr. Matt Murray said he lives about 300 yards from the garage. Esmont is a quiet, peaceful, quaint little community with the exception of this garage. He noted that it is out of character with a residential area and has an adverse effect on its neighbors. Mr. Murray feels the garage depreciates the value of his property. Mr. William'Heath noted that Mr. Armstrong had bought the property after having obtained his special permit for same in 1972. Therefore, Mr. Armstrong knew the conditions of approval before purchasing the property. Mr. Gilbert Gough said he is 100% for Mr. Armstrong. garage and the noise does not bother him. He does not live very far from the Mr. Armstrong said Mr. Murray had just purchased his property six months ago and the garage was in full operation at that time. Dr. Iachetta noted that he and Mrs. David had driven to Esmont this afternoon to see the garage. He said in reading the history of this petition, he felt that the original request intended that the body work of the shop would be incidential to restoration of old cars. He asked if that a correct interpretation. Mr. Armstrong said that was correct, but he is now several years behind in old car restoration because of the day to day work of repairs. Mrs. David asked the legal definition of "nuisance" Mr. St. John said a nuisance is something that is detrimental to the health and welfare of the population. ~ Mr. Henley said there is a garage in his district which employs four full-time people and he does not remember ever seeing over five or six cars parked there overnight. Mr. Armstrong said a one-man operation does not have the option of taking care of repairs and emergencies and getting the cars off of the lot. Mr. Henley said he would be willing tm reinstate Condition #1 adding a couple of cars if that would relieve the hardship. Mr. Fisher asked how many cars can be put into the garage. Mr. Armstrong said it will hold one full-size car and~one antique car. He has one and one-half car spaces. Mr. Fisher said the revision mad~'to the permit by the Board in May of 1975 changed the number of cars from the two to be stored inside, to two inside and six outside for a total of eight. Mr. Armstrong said the Board assumed that his one, new, car stall would hold five cars and that this would give him a total capacity for 11 vehicles. Mr. Fisher said the conditions on the original permit said that not more than six vehicles should be garaged overnight, but practically speaking, did that not limit Mr. Armstrong to a total of two. Mr. Armstrong said the condition on the first permit was a bit foggy. He was allowed to have six cars on the property overnight, although the condition was written as being "garaged overnight" Mr. Fisher said he had participated in the language on that first permit an~ it was his intent that the cars be kept inside. Mr. Armstrong said the Planning Commission never interpreted the original permit to say six cars inside. Mr. Fisher said a special permitZis a way of granting to people a right they do not normally have under the Zoning Ordinance. It has been his impression that when conditions are laid down by the Board and the applicant accepts the permit, he is bound by those conditions. When this applicant went for three years without complying with the original conditions, had those conditions revised by the Board to relieve a contended hardship, and then went to Circuit Court to say the~conditions were unreasonable, this creates serious difficulty with him on future special permits. If the Board cannot ~n~orca~the~6~n~t~o~s~mp~sed, ~t jeopardizes the whole special permit procedure. Mr. Roudabush said the garage is on 39/100th of an acre or about 17,000 square feet. He has looked at the site. Much of it is taken up with a steep slope and the building. He suggested that if the Board continues this permit that the operation be limited to the 39/100th of an acre for which the permit was granted° Mr. Roudabush said in reading the history of this case, he noted that the Board did not impose any site plan requirement on the permit. The Board is therefore talking about something for which there is no-picture of how the improvements are arranged on the property or how much parking can be placed on the property. He sa~d this was a serious mistake on the f~rst approval. Also there were no hours of operation imposed on this garage. Mr. David Wood said there is a strip of land approximately 60 or 70 feet wide by about 200 feet long which runs the entire length of Mr. Armstrong's property. Many cars park on this railroad right of way because the railroad no longer asserts any ownership~over this land. Mrs. Armstrong said they have never intentionally parked any cars' on this property. Occasionally a customer leaves his car there until it can be mo~ed over onto the garage property. Mr. Roudabush said he would like to see conditions 2, 3, 4, and 5 from the original permit reimposed on this permit, that the special permit require approval of a site plan by the Planning Commission and that possibly 7:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M., Monday through Saturday, be imposed as hours and days of operation. Mr. Henley felt these hours were too restrictive and recommended 6:00 A~M. to 9:00 P.M~ and said he would like to see Condition #1 reimposed, but with a different number of cars. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley did not think that a site plan for thi§ piece of land would obtain site plan approval from the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John did not think the Board could lawfully require a site plan at this time since it was not originally requested. Mr. Robert Tucker said if a site plan-is required, the applicant will have to meet the parking requirements in the present Zoning Ordinance. Mr. J. H. Bailey said it is meaningless ~or the Board to speak of the number of cars on this particular piece of land when there is no drawing to show the shape,of the land or the circumstances which control. ~l~h~Board can say is as many cars as this piece of land will accommodate. Mr. Fisher said he is not willing to support any further relaxation of the conditions on this permit. January 14, 1976 (Night) 4'63 Mr. Henley then offered motion to reapprove S?-468, changing Condition No. 1 to eight vehicles and reimposing conditions 2, 3, 4, and 5. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Board could request the applicant to furnish the Board with a site plan of the property, showing the area available for the things being considered, the size of the building, the location of the building, the area on the site available for parking, storage, and so forth, in order that the Board might better see the problem and then take action at a later date. Mr. Fisher felt this was a reasonable request. Dr. Iachetta asked if the Board, either singly~a~o~$~tlV$~y~hads~any assurance that iF a new set of conditions are placed on this permit that they will be honored. Mr. Fisher said he felt the history of this case indicates that there is no such assurance. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion that the Board defer any action on this request until February 11, 1976, and that the applicant be requested to furnish the Board a working drawing setting forth the size and dimensions of the property, the improvements thereon, with areas that are available for the various types of uses that Mr. Armstrong co~templates as necessary for his operation, and that the drawing be to scale. Mr. Fisher noted that this drawing should be in the hands of the Planning Staff by February 1 in order for them to have an opportunity to make comments. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher noted that when the Board took action earlier tonight to adopt an eme~gen~Yamrd~m~memafor the protection of the quality of water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir that they had not ordered this ordinance advertised for a public hearing. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to advertise same for February 4, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier 3) Rules of Procedure. It was the concensus of the Board that because of the lateness of the hour that this matter should be rescheduled. Mr. Leigh Middleditch asked to be heard first. He said in fairness to all citizens of the County, when the Board considers enactment of any emergency measure such as the ordinance adopted tonight, public discussion in advance of adopting same should not be precluded. He said if public discussion is to be precluded, it should be an unanimous decision of the Board. Lottery Permit Applications: a) Crozet Volunteer Fire Department. Upon motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, a lottery permit for the calendar year 197~ was approved based on the Board's adopted policy for such permits. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. b) East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. Upon motion by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, a lottery permit for the calendar year 1976 was approved based on the Board's adopted policy for issuance of such permi.ts. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. c) Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. Upon motion by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, a lottery permit for the calendar year 1976 was approved based on the Board's adopted policy for the issuance of such permits. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. 5). Appointments: a) Student Drug Survey Ad-Hoc Committee. Mr. Fisher said Mr. John~Sessoms, Assistant Principal at Albemarle High SchoOl has recommended Miss' Marjorie Lynn King for this appointment. Miss King lives at 176 Bitternut Lane and is an eleventh grade student at Albemarle. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta and seconded by Mrs. David to appoint Miss King to this Committee The motion carried by the vote which follows: ' AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, FiSher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. b) Mental Health & Retardation Services Board. Mr. Fisher noted that a letter had been received from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Mental Health Association recommending Mr. Alfred A. DOfflemyer to fill the vacancy on this Board created when the term of Mrs. Grace Ordel expired on December 31, 1975. Motion to appoint Mr. Dofflemyer to this Board for a term of three years expiring on December 31, 1978, was offered by Dr. Iachetta. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier who noted that he had served with Mr. Dofflemyer on the Mental Health Association Board. Mr. Dofflemyer is knowledgea~et~;m ~e field of mental health and has recently served as Vice-President of the Virginia Association of Mental Health for this region. He said Mr. Dofflemyer would be a 8:4 January 14, 1976 CNi~ht) tremendous asset on this Board. The motion then carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Not ©oc:k~ted. Mr. Joe Birckhead asked the status of the request he had made at the Deaember 18 meeting of the Board concerning the Building Znspections Department. Mr. Fisher said he feels this is a matter of internal operations of the Building'Department~. The new Board has not had an opportunity to review the request or the Department. In general he felt it would be best to hire the new county executive first and let that person and the Board review~the matter before making any recommendations. Mr. Fisher said there will be no public hearing held on the request until the Board has had a chance to check the complaints received. At 12:05 A.M., the meeting was adjourned. ~hairman