Loading...
1974-09-259-25-74 !95 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on September 25, 197~ at 7:47 p.m. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. ~ Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, T.-M. Batchelor, Jr., and County Attorney, George R. St. John. (Mr. Thacker abstaining during discussion of the following matter). (1) The Chairman called the meeting to order. The first item on the agenda was the matter of a tie vote reached at the September 19, 197~, meeting on an Ordinance to vacave a portion of Colthurst Drive. Mr. Wood said he had called the Planning Office on Monday to see if there is anyway this problem can be solved without vacating that right-of,way; possibly by physically closing the road now and keeping a reservation in the right-of-way. Then, if in future years the adjoining property owner wants to develop his land and the right-of-way is needed for traffic flow and emergency services, the reservation would be there to use. In the meantime, this would solve the problem with parking and debris and also vandalism of County property. He said Mr. St. John had drafted a resolution for Board consideration. Mr. St. John said he did not understand Mr. Wood's proposal at the time he drafted the resolution. If the Board wants to physically close the road, this can be done under their police powers. The County retains the fee in the road and does not need to keep a reservation. This would require that a resolution be adopted ~at a later time ~o open the road again to public traffic. In order to deed the road to the adjoining landowners, the County would need to retain a reservation and he did not think this can be done since this amounts to a vacation of the plat with a reservation to reinstate the plat at a later time. Even if the plat is not vacated, the road can still be chained so it cannot be used, however, he understands this is made impossible because adjoining l~a~-d~n~ are using the road as a private driveway and want to keep it that way. Mr. Wheeler said it seems as though the County is faced with either vacating or not vacating the road. Mr. Carwile said anyone who is familiar with Colthurst Subdivision should be aware that if through traffic from the 250-Route 29 By Pass comes through Colthurst by a connecting road from the Faulconer~property, it would severely destroy the character of that Subdivision. He did nov feel that if the Board had thought about this at the time Cotthurst Subdivision was approved that thav Board would have been in favor of this. The roads in Colthurst were initially developed as private roads and were voluntarily brought into the State System. The Faulconer property has sufficient access from other roads. It has no problem with access vo the State Highway System or public roads. He urged the Board to adopt the ordinance vacating this Strip of land. Mr. Wheeler said the Board should forget about Colthurst Subdivision and the Faulconer property. He felt Mr. Carwile was saying that once a subdivision is built there should be.~only one way to get in and no circulation from any adjoining properties. That is not what the zoning ordinance requires and not what the Board is requiring from other people. If the Board follows~this reasoning, they are doing a complete turn around. Mr. Carwile said he understood Mr. Wheeler was saying the Board can draft one rule that is good for all occasions and he does not think the Board can do this. Mr. Henley asked if the ordinance to vacate that right-of-way is not adopted at this time if it can be done when and if a problem develops. Mr. St. John said it would require a differenv procedure if lots have been sold. Mr. Wood said this was the reason for his suggestion. He would like to solve the immediate problem and then if the adjoining property is developed~to deal with the problem of through traffic at the time the demand is put upon the land. Mr. Henley said he did not see why people parking and throwing trash should be such a big problem when people are living right on the road. Vote was taken, at this time, on the previous motion to ~adopt an ordinance as advertised on August 30 and September 6, 1974 to vacave a portion of Colthurst Drive. The motion was defeated by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile and Fisher. NAYS: Messrs. Henley, Wheeler and Wood. ABSTAINING: Mr. Thacker. At this time the Chairman called for a public hearing.*see below (2) SP-409. Frances H. Roberts has,.appi~ad for a Special Permit to locate a mobile home on ~.6 acres Of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of State Route 250 East just west of its intersection with State Route 744. Property is further described as County Tax Map 80, Parcel 58. Rivanna ~remainder of sentence Magisterial District. ~s advertised in the Daily Progress on August 19 and August 26, 1974. Mr. Humphrey said this area is rural in nature and the subject parcel is wooded with large deciduous and non-deciduous trees. There is a small, old abandoned structure on the property clearly visible from Route 250E. An access road to the Old Route 250 forms the eastern boundary of the property. This also gives access to several Single-family dwellings located to the south of subject property. The applicant (Louise Scott) is presently in violation of the Albemarle Cbunty Zoning Ordinance at another location and the matter has been referred to the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission was recommending denial of this 9-25-74 9-25-74 application because placement of the mobile home would drastically change the character of the area. Also because of the objections of adjoining owners and the inability to provide screening from adjoining properties. This application was brought to the Board of Supervisors by virtue of two letters receiv~!~ in the Planning Office stating that they did not want a mobile home in this area. Mr. Wheeler said he had been one of those who requested that this permit be brought to the Board. Mrs. Louise Scott, the applicant, was present. She said she owns her home. She did not realize that a mobile home permit was required until she talked to Mr. Evans of the Planning Department. After she talked to Mr. Evans and Mrs. Miller she received a letter with her $20.00 saying that she did not have a permit. Mr. Wheeler asked how long ago this had been. She said approximately one month. He asked her how long her mobile home had been in place. She said approximately one year. Mr. Wheeler said he had been complaining about that mobile home for a year. Mrs. Scott said she did not know she needed a permit until she had talked to Mr. Evans. She must have a place to put her mobile home. Mr. Ray Guthrie was present objecting to issuance of this permit. He said he lives directly across from this mobile home and feels that it will deface his property and be an eyesore to the surrounding properties. Mr. Humphrey said a permit was issued to a lineal relative, however, the mobile home no longer complied with regulations and became in violation. Mrs. Frances Roberts, the owner of the property, said she had purchased this land in order to build a home. However, she had plenty of property and could put her house somewhere else or could change the location of the mobile home. She was trying to help out this lady and could not put her out onto the street. Another unidentified gentleman spoke objecting to the placement of this mobile home. Mr. Henley asked if there is any location on the property where the mobile home can be placed and properly screened. Mr. Robert Tucker, Assistant County Pt~nner, said only the western most portion of the land has been cleared. The eastern part is still in its natural state and the mobile home could probably be screened in that area. Mr. Wheeler asked if the mobile home were placed on the rear portion of the land if it would not be in view of houses on the old road. Mr. Tucker said yes. There are two houses on old Route 250. If the mobile home were placed on that side of the property, it would be in view of those houses. There is an access road that forms the eastern boundary of the property and a mobile home could possibly be put in that area and screened. Mr. Wheeler said the property in question belongs to Mrs. Roberts. Mrs. Scott is Mrs. Roberts 198 sister. He did not know the answer but he knew that the trailer had been in violation for over a year. Mr. Carwile then offered motion to approve SP-~09 subject to the conditions of the staff and further that the siting of the trailer be subject to the approval of the staff taking into account the desire to screen the mobile home from residents in the area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Wheeler said if that is done it will put the mobile home too far away from water and ~wer. He asked if the well is on the front of the property. Mrs. Roberts said the well is on the front of the property, however, she can drill another well because she will need to drill a well for her house. Mr. Humphrey said Mrs. Roberts had presented a certificate from the Health Department saying that the land will perk. Mr. Wood said not tool'_long ago the Board had an application for a mobile home in the area. There was such a violent reaction that it caused the rezoning of 30 to 40 acres around that property so there could be no mobile home. While he is sympathetic to the problem of having a home, he knows there are no trailers in the area and granting of this permit could cause serious problems. Therefore, he could not support the motion to approve. Mr. Wheeler said he was concerned t.hat when you move the home from~the front of the property away from 250 you move it closer to houses on .the old road. Mr. Henley asked if the Planning Commission had looked at the property. Mr. Tucker said several members had been out and viewed the site. Mr. Humphrey said the motion for denial came to the Board by a 7-0 vote. This reqmest had been heard on two different occasions by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wheeler, at this time, called for a vote on the motion to approve. The vote began as follows: Aye: Mr. Carwi!e. Nay: Mr. Fisher. Mr. Henley said if someone has four or five acres of land they ought to be able to locate a mobile home on the property without any problem. He is not familiar with the area and feels he should rely on t. he two members of the Board who are. He parsona!ly wo~ld be in favor of issuing the permit but if the other Board members feel it is extremely bad, he was still undecided about the vote. Mr. Wheeler said even though the vote had begun he thought it would be okay to defer action so the Board could review the site. When this was first brought up, he had thought the mobile home would be located on another piece of property acrDss the road. He really did not think the mobile home can be put on this property and adequately screened. Mr. Thacker said he was not familiar with the area. Mr. Henley said he would be glad to v~ew the property. Mr. Carwile then withdrew his motion. Motion was then offered by Mr. Fisher to defer any further action on this matter until October 9, 1974, in order to allow the Board members time to make 9-25-74 9~-25-74 a sight review of the property. The motion was seconded by Mr~ Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. At this time, the Chairman called for a public hearing on amendments to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as advertised in the Daily Progress on September 4 and September 11, 1974: !. A new use under the Special Permit provisions of Article Two to read~ 2-1-25(24.1) Business executive offices on a minimum acreage of 15 acres in which are employed a maximum of 15 persons. 2. A new definition to read: 16-14.1 Business executive office: The office of a person, firm, corporation or other entity charged with the management of any commercial enterprise, the use of which office does not customar±ly entail direct contact with the public and which does not involve the sale, rental, supply, manufacture, repair or other processing of goods or services for public consumption. 3. A new definition to read: 16-68.1 Professional Office: The office of a person engaged in any occupation, vocation or calling, not purely commercial, mechanical or agricultural, in which a professed knowledge or skill ia some department of science or learning is used in its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising or guidin~ them in serving their interests or welfare through the practice of an act founded thereon. Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission recommends adoption of definition 2-1-25(24.1) with the following wording: 2-1-25(24.1). Executive offices on a minimum acreage of 15 acres in which are regularly employed a maximum of 15 persons; provided that one additional regular employee, up t~o a maximum of 25, may be employed in subject office for each two (2) acres of additional land area. Mr. Humphrey said this recommendation comes to the Board by a 6-1 vote of the Planning Commission. The concern of the one dissenting member was that he felt the word "regularly" should be eliminated. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission also recommends adoption of Section 16-14~1 with the following wording: 16-14.1. Executive office: The office of a person, firm, corporation or other entity charged with the management of any commercial enterprise or non-profit activity, the use of which office does not customarily entail direct contact with the public on the premises and which does not involve the sale, rental, supply, manufacture, repair of or other processing of goods or serviaes for public consumption. The Planning Commission recommends approval of definition 16-68.1 with wording as advervised. Mr. Humphrey said these have been reviewed by the County Attorney's office and passed by the Planning Commission. Definition 16-14.1 and 16-68.1 were recommended for approval unanimously. The Planning Commission did receive two communications; one from the applicant's attorney and one from Citizens for Albemarle with suggested wording. Some of the wordings suggested by Citizens for Albemarle has been included. Mr. Wheeler opened the public hearing and the first to speak was Mr. Ken Haviland speaking for Citizens for Albemarle. He read the following prepared statement: "STATEMENT TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGARDING A PROPOSED NEW USE UNDER THE SPECIAL PERMITS PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE TWO (2). (BUSINESS EXECUTIVE OFFICES) We respectfully su~gesv that the above mentioned proposed new use be amended to read as follows: Business executive offices, headquarters of non-profit foundations, or facilities for scholarly research organizations on a minimum of fifteen (15) acres, subject to the following conditions: (1) Offices to be housed in a former residence or an existing building of historic or architectural interest, without additions or major external modifications. (2) The building, together with driveways, parking areas, service areas, and outbuildings, is not to occupy more than one-fifth of the total acreage of the permit. The remaining acreage is to be kept in open space or agricultural use, as a buffer to neighboring property. --~ (3) The number of employees regularly in the building not to exceed fifteen (15) for the first fifteen (15) acres, inceasing by one (1) employee per two acres up to twenty (20) employees for twenty-five (25) acres, and then by one (1) employee per five (5) additional acres. (4) An exception to the minimum acreage requirement may be made in that a permit may be granted if the acreage is the same as was attached to the building on September 1, 1974, provided that the number of employees does not exceed (1) per acre, or a total of fifteen. Commemts:~ ~We ha'He taken the view that there is no established right or precedent for permitting executive offices on land zoned for agriculture or other low density use. However, the'. prosyect of finding a way to encourage the preservation of large estates in return for granting this right should certainly be considered. We believe that there is no justification for permitting this use in new buildings, Therefore the restriction to old buildings is essential. We have set limits on total numbers of employees in the hope that this will prevent undue congestion on the roads, while still offering an inducement to set aside large acreages. However, the exception suggested (4) should encourage the use of certain estates in the county, yet discourage the practice of selling off all the land around existing buildings before applying for this use." Mr. Haviland said Citizens for Albemarle feel that without these provisions being tied to existing buildings this would lead to proliferation of buildings all over the County and this is not an agricultural usa.~ If the definitions are not tied to existing buildings, they would oppose adoption of these amendments. Mr. Clyde Gouldman, attorney for the applicant, was present. He said his client supports the definition and use as amended by the Planning Commission and recommended to the Board. The last line of 16-14.1 would apply to almost any business for profit. He suggested that the words "on the premises" be added at the end of that sentence. He said they have no ~ ~-'~ objection to mentioning existing structures. Mrs. Victoria ~aw sa~d the Civic League supports Citizens for Albemarle recommendations with wording on existing structures and adding facilities for research and non-profit organizations. Mr. Max Evans said he is ganerally in agreement with the amendments from a planning point of view. He reminded the Board that it is important to remember that this is a special permit and protection of the public is guaranteed by the close reading of each case and the imposition of as many requirements as the Board deems necessary. Mrs. Elizabeth Rosenblum spoke next. She said this brings a new use to the A-1 zone and it really does not serve the residents of the area. Even though it is desirable, it should be looked at carefully. She has discussed t~his with the County Attorney's office an~-~ though it is desirable to preserve old homes she is not sure that legally the Board can tie~ this to an existing structure. Also, if someone had 15 regular employees and 15 part-time employees this would be different because of traffic, etc., since under the proposed definition, the part-time people would not be included in the head counv. She asked ho~ many people are too many. 9-25-74 201 It has been suggested that the definition be changed to 25. She felt 25 are too many. Mrs. Rosenblum urged the Board to reduce the maximum number of employees under consideration, and if the maximum is raised to keep it at 20. She urged the Board to be conservative in whatever they adopt tonight and to cha~ge the Planning Staff-and the Planning Commission to look at this new use and see exactly what categories it does fit in and under what controls. There is a possibility the more limited agricultural uses of the proposed zoning ordinance may not be suited to this use. Mrs. Frances Martin spoke next. She said as a resident of an A-1 zone and living~next to the Worrell property, she would have no objection~to the use, but she asked the Board to be more specific about this particular use since she feels the agricultUral area needed more protection from abuse of this use than any of the other uses allowed. At this time, Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed and asked if the Board members wanted to discuss suggestions made by Citizens for Albemarle. Mr. Carwile said;the~.addition~of existing buildings to the definition could preserve the agricultural atmosphere Hhis amendment to the ordinance is designed to encourage and is one reason there is so much support for the amendment. However, he also is concerned about the legality that this be an existing building and asked for the County Attorney's opinion. Mr. St. John said he does not think this would be workable legally. Who would decide if an existing building is of historical or architectural interest. Mr. Thacker asked if the Board could ±~gnore that and say t~is goes into an existing structure. Mr. St. John asked how old an'existing structure would have to be; could it be only six months old? If someone said they wanted to build you would be denying them the right for this use in saying they had to buy a structure that was at least six months old. If the Board just says an "existing structure" it conjures up visions of an historical or architecturally interesting building and he did not think the amendment would work out that way. Mr. Wheeler said if this use is tied to an existing building, the building would probably not be satisfactory and would need to be remodeled or enlarged. The Board is wrestling with something that has a lot of dangers. The question to decide is whether or not this use should be allowed in the agricultural zone. Mr. Fisher said when this problem came to the Board in August, he understood that this particular proposal (SP-374) was for an entire farm or estate of 100 acres or more, and in return for getting this use the balance of the property would remain in agricultural use. Recently, he has heard that-thiS is not the case, no commitments have been made on the balance of the property. He has reservations about taking 15 acres out of the middle of a large estate, alZ0wing this use, and then allowing other uses on the balance of the property. The ~ 9-25-74 202 estate is not the same as it was because most of the property has been used for other purposes. If the Board is going to grant an exception, it should be intended to preserve the entire area as much as possible. If that is the case, then the suggestion that the buildings, as well as the driveways, parking areas, service areas, and outbuildings not occupy more than one-fifth of the total acreage with remaining acreage to be kept in open space or agricultural use as a buffer to neighboring property seemed to be an effective guideline for protecting the area. Mr. Wheeler said while there has been support for this amenHment, at least 50% of the people calling him feel that once this is done the remaining land will not be available for subdivisions. This is not true. He said people misunderstand the purpose of this amendment. If this is allowed on 15 acres, then the remainder of the land will be left for whatever comes in the future. With this amendment, anyone could purchase 15 acres and put up a new building and he did not feel this is what the Board wants to encourage. Mr. Fisher said this is under special permit provision and it can be argued that any permit can be denied. But, whenever the Board puts into the ordinance a new use under a special permit provision, it is a guideline for people to use and the Board will be misleading the citizens, if they turn down anything that does not meet this. Mr. Wheeler said when the application originally came to the Board, the County Planner did not feel this was~compatible use in the A-1 area. He feels this would be an open invitation. Mr. Henley said if the amendment cannot be tied to an existing building, he does not think the Board can control the rest of the land. Mr. Humphrey said this was discussed by the Planning Commission. He suggested and Commission members agreed that in the broad guidelines of things to consider such things as buffer strips can be implied; taking into consideration each case on its own merit. Mr. Wheeler asked how many acres are in this piece of land. Mr. Evans said there are 119 acres. Mr. Wheeler asked if 15 acres are cut not of this parcel if the remaining 104 acres would go into a buffer~~ zone. Mr. HumPhrey said that is not what he meant. The Board would have an opportunity to establish a buffer. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Humphrey's opinion, as County Planner, of this amendment. Mr. Humphrey said he does not feel it fits into the agricultural zone even though~ it has been made less out of character by the restrictions recommended. Mr. Fisher asked if a person with 100 acres applied for this use and just wanted to use 15 acres around an existing structure if the Board would have the right to specify use of the property outside of the 15 acres under the special permit process. Mr. Humphrey said he did not think the Board has this right and had stated so at the original hearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said it becomes a question of whether or not the 15 acres has been subdivided 9-25-74 203 from the rest of the parcel or whether it is a piece of total acreage. Mr. Thacker said if this is made a condition of this use, the property would be subdivided before any special permit is ever applied for. Motion was then offered by Mr. Wood to approve the three amendments as sent to the Board by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwite. Mr. Carwile said he could see some merit in paragraph 2 of the recommendations of Citizens for Albemarle and asked Mr. St. John if it would be a permissible addition in light of the advertisement for this public hearing. Mr. St. John said that could be added as part of the ordinance. Mr. Carwile asked Mr. Wood if he would accept as part of the special permit section 2-1-25(24.1) that wording. Mr. Wood indicated yes. Mr. Carwile then amended his second to include paragraph 2 which reads as follows: The building, together with driveways, parking areas, service areas, and outbuildings, is not to occupy more than one-fifth (1/5) of the total acreage of the permit. The remaining acreage is to be kept in open space or agricultural use, as a buffer to neighboring property. Mr. Wood accepted this amendment to his motion. Mr. Fisher said with a total 15 acre parcel, the total acreage of the driveways, parking areas, Outbuildings, etc., would not cover more than a three acre area and that was not very restrictive. Mr. Henley said he could not support the amendment. He feels it was just another business and it is not correct for the A-1 district. Mr. Wheeler said he had wrestled with this problem He can not support allowing this on estates in Albemarle County. He asked what would happen if this gets to be a good idea and there are applications for 25 or 30 spread out over the County. He said it can be argued that this is a special permit and it can be denied. But, once a use is allowed the pressure will be on the Board to turn it down. Mr. Wheeler said he can sMmpathize with this particular applicant. However, looking beyond this applicant, the Board has just passed the Land Use Tax Ordinance to help preserve farm and open spaces. To start in this direction is an indication to split them up. Mr. Thacker said he agrees. Although he sympathizes with this applicant on the usage for this particular parcel of land, when looking at the overall welfare of the County, he is afraid this opens just one more door. Mr. Carwile said this is a door Mr. Thacker has the right to control by voting no when there is a motion for approval of subsequent special use permits on other properties. He does not think the Board can draw one rule which will be desirable for all properties, or for all instances. It is the concensus that for the particular piece of property the Board is discussing, this is a desirable use and he agrees. The proposed use of the property is more desirable than the likely 2O4 9-25-7~ Subdivision of the property which the Board will see if they do not approve something like this. If the use of this property is a good use it should not be precluded by saying that at some future dates the Board may have more applications than they care to handle or have applications in areas that on the face of those applications they could not approve. The Board has the freedom to vote against a special use depending on the intent of the motion. What the Board is discussing is something intended to preserve the agricultural atmosphere of outlying areas around the city if handled properly. If it is abused, it could be a problem. Mr. Wheeler said he still did not agree. The Board is only putting 15 acres under a special permit. The rest can be used by the applicant for other purposes. He asked how the Board could contr~l~the rest of the property. Mr. Henley said if the Board approves this, he feels their "no" vote is gone. Mr. Wheeler said he had heard no one say what is intended for the rest of the property except for the "time being" they intended to use it as agricultural. The "time being" could be any time up to next week. Mr. Carwile said he had not heard any time limit, but there are a good many citizens who will be greatly affected by the proposed use of this property. Because he understands that they have spent a great deal of time looking into the prospective purchaser of the property and feels they have satisfied themselves as to the good faith and intent of the contract purchaser or they would not ~e here tonight supporting this type of provision restricted as it is. Mr. Wood Said he would like to see these amendments approved as they are for two reasons. He has seen a site plan for Round Hill brought in for a subdivision into small lots with septic tanks and wells. The County has numerous problems with these. Also, he has seen the Board get into boxes such as this when they had no way to deny a use such as this. This is the reason they amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow use permits where the Board could turn them down and say no. He is not hesitant about this use being on this property. He fee'ls it would be of benefit to the neighborhood as opposed to what could be placed there. He said the Board would still have the discretionary power to vote on a special use permit. If the Board votes down this motion, they will be making a serious mistake. Mr. Thacker said this would take a relatively small agricultural acreage, allow corporate or executive offices, and there would be no protection for the surrounding areage. He would support such-~.a use if the aoreage ware large enough to preserve a certain amount of open space. However, it would need to be a substantial area for him to support the motion. Mr. Thacker then offered a substitute motion to,adopt Section 2-1-25(24.1) executive offices as stated below: 205 2-1-25(24.1). Executive offices on a minimum acreage of 100 acres in which are employed a maximum of 15 persons; provided that one additional employee, up to a maximum of 25, may be employed in subject office for each two acres of additional land area. The building, together with driveways, parking areas, service areas, and outbuildings, is not to occupy more than two acres of the total acreage of the permit. The remaining acreage is to be kept in open space or agricultural use, as a buffer to neighboring property. Mr. Thacker said if the Board uses 100 acres anybody wishing to utilize a special permit under this provision must be sincere and he feels this gives a fair area to be kept as open space. Mr. Wheeler said he felt in order to allow this use in an agricHltural zone, there must be rather drastic restrictions and he felt this is what Mr. Thacker is saying. The substitute motion was then seconded by Mr. Fisher. Mr. Wood said if the Board is going to amend to such a magnitude it will prohibit this particular use from going on that property. He said the applicant should be given time to say whether he can or cannot use the property with these restrictions since there would be no use making the amendments if this thing is not to come abouv. Mr. Fisher said a distinction should be made that this is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance since there is no application before the Board on which they can vote tonight. Mr. Wood said if the Board is going to restrict this to such a point that it cannot be used, he felt the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to preclude executive officers in the County. He th©ught the Board should just say they do not want executive officers in the County and not beat around the bUsh. Mr. Gouldman said he could not give an opinion as to what his client can or cannot do with respect to the substitute motion. They have scheduled before the Board of Supervisors a public hearing on October 9 on a special permit application. He asked that the Board defer this until that time so that he could~ get a d.ecent answer from his client. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. St. John if the Board can legally amend this provision without readvertising. Mr. St. John said yes. This is not a change in the zoning map. The Board can make changes in the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission, but can not enlarge the application without readvertisement. Mr. Humphrey said if this matter is deferred, the Planning Commission will have to defer any action they plan to take on October 7. Mr. Wood said it only makes good sense that with such a drastic change that the Board ask for some input to see if it will or will not work. If it is going to be so restrictive that this applicant cannot use the permit, there will_never be another application. Before voting, he would like to see if it will work because he cannot support the motion as it stands. Mr. Wheeler then called for a vote on the motion which was as follows: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: Mr. Henley and Mr. Wood. (Mr. Henley said this was betterr~ than the first motion.but he still considered this to be al.~business use and felt it should be in a business zone.) ~f~_~~ Hotion was then offered by Mr. ~I__~o_ to adopt the definition of Section 16-14-1 and 16-68.1 as approved and recommended by the Planning Commissien. The motien was seconded by Hr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Woad. NAYS: Nene. Mr. HaNk Tiffany was present to discuss Special Permit 261 which was granted PatPicia Ann's Country Store. He said same peepte in the Ceunty had complained ~hat~this store does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance ef Albemarle County. He was arrested and summoned to appear in court hewever, this matter has net been heard~at this date. He came tonight to say that he disagrees with the issuance of the criminal warrant. Mr. Wheeler stopped Mr. Tiffany to ask who issued this warrant. Mr. Humphrey said it was issued by the Zoning Administrator with the agreement of the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. Mr. St. John said the Board has nothing to do with a criminal warrant. Mr. Wheeler said the Board has no control in this matter and they will not discuss it. Mr. Tiffany said he hoped the Board would not move so hastily. When this Board grants a permit based on a special use that is presented to the Board in good faith and then ralying on that permit, personal funds in excess of $100,000 are invested this applicant should not later be subjected to any form of disciplinary action or harrassment by a member off,he County staff. He is here tonight because on september 2nd or 3rd, a Planning Commission hearing was held for the purpose of requesting a rezoning of the property to B-1 for whatever the Board originally said could go there. A transcript of the ori~inal hearing shows that the proposal was for a country store just like, or similar to, the one at the foot of the mountain. There was considerable discussion at that hearing and the Counvy Attorney stated that various items could be carried; antiques, reproductions, hams, special~ty~ocer~es, prints, crafts and homemade items. Mr. Tiffany said this new permit will not be heard tonight because of an error in printing by the newspaper. This is a matter of great concern. Hewants this heard promptly. For that reason, he has individually asked members of this Board to come to the place of business, look at it personally, and decide whether or not it actually does conform with what was presen~edh~ot~he Board originally. Mr. Wheeler said this new permit request is not before the Board tonight. When it comes before the ~oard, it will be heard but the Board will not discuss it tonight. Mr. Tiffany said he is here tonight to distribute a transcript of the 207. original hearing on SP-261. In the original hearings, testimony of his wife as to what would be placed on the property was not audible on the tape. The Clerk had to rely on her notes and would be willing to tell the Board what his wife had said as to whether a grocery store was going there or not. Mr. Wheeler said it is not what somebody said was going there but what the zoning ordinance allows to go there. Mr. Fisher said it was not the duty of the Board of Supervisors to visit every site in the County to see if it complies with a special permit. They employ a zoning administrator for this. Mr. Wood said he would be willing to l~ok at the store if there is this much controversy on the special permit. A request from the County EXecutive to hold an executive session to discuss personnel matters was withdrawn from the agenda. At approximately 9:20 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher to adjourn this meeting until September 26, 1974, at 7:30 p.~. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. CHAIRMAN