Loading...
1974-12-11N12-11-74 3 8 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held at 7:30 p.m. on December 11, 1974, in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. ~-,~a~e~ese~Mes~~t~ar~aFv2Garw~iGe~al~E~a~s~er~~ J2e~ieHen~y, 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. Before dealing with items from the formal agenda, Mr. Wheeler asked the Clerk to read the following letter to the Board: "December~.~ 1974 Mr. Gordon Wheeler, Chairman Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Gordon: Please excuse my delay in answering your letter of October 29, 1974. Actually I had almost finished an answer when certain matters came up causing a delay. I will answer your letter in the very near future. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Charles R. Haugh Commonwealth's ~ttorney Albemarle County" Mr. Wheeler, making reference to the above letter, stated that at a Board meeting held in October the Board requested the Commonwealth's Attorney to meet with them to discuss matters relative to enforcement of certain ordinances. Hopefully a meeting will be arranged in the near future. The first thing discussed was Georgetown Road. Mr. Wood presented to the Board a petition submitted to him, and, signed by approximately 300 citizens, requesting correction of the curve ~n G~orgetown Road. ~The petition has previously been presented to the Board of Supervisors and to the Highway Safety Commission. Due to efforts of ~he Highway Department, and some of the property owners, most of the problems relating to the petition have been solved. He asked that the petition be made a part of the Board's permaneat records. (!) SP-422. Bruce L. Browne. (Deferred from October 23 and November 13, 1974.) Mr. Humphrey stated that the applicant is requesting two changes to the originally approved SP-272. First, the applicant wishes to retain ownership of the barn and horse stable~area (a.61 ac. as outlined) rather than deeding this area to the homeowner, s a~sociation as had originally been planned. The reason for this is that HUD requires any developer who is involved in interstate ('Night) land sales to deed over to the homeowner's assocation al! common areas after two (2) or more lots have been sold. The applicant had intended to do this but only after approximately 50% of the lots had been sold. The applicant intends to allow membership to those within the Hickory Ridge Planned Community for the use of the stables. Through this procedure the applicant feels that he would be able to maintain the barn and stable facilities which could nov be accomplished by a small number in the homeowners association. The second item involves a 50 foot right of way over a common, open'space area to connect with an already proposed street. A horseback trail which is ~presently indicated over the common open space involved would remain within this proposed 50 foot right of way. The western edge of lot 5 which amounts to 0.069 acres would be taken by the 50 foot right of way as well as 0.39 acres from the common open space. The total acreage taken out of~oommon open space by these two changes would be 5.069 acres. The total acreage of common open space under the original plan amounts to 187 acres. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the change as requested, with the following conditions: 1) The Homeow~er-'s Association will have an option to purchase the barn and stable facilities if they desire; 2) the new street to be constructed in accordance with State Highway specifications so it may be accepted into the State secondary system; 3) the horseback trail is to remain within the right- of-way of the proposed new street. 4) Final approval of the changes in the Homeowners Association and the deed restrictions by the County Attorney's Office. Mr. Fisher noted that condition number one of the Staff's Report was dropped by the Planning Commission. "Membership to the barn and stable facilities are for the exclusive use of the residents of Hickory Ridge Planned Community." He asked if a bond is being held for completion of the other roads. Mr. Humphrey said a bond will be required for all the roads. Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., was present to represent Mr. Browne. He said they are requesting a minor change in a road because Mr. Browne has been unable to purchase the adjoining property. Zn order to sell lots, Mr. Browne must sell out-of-state. To do this he must qualify with the Office of Interstate Land Sales, Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD required that he make a change in his statement of subdivision, articles of incorporation and by-laws of the homeowners association. This will require that he change the amount of open space deeded to the homeowners. In order to do that he wants to transfer~ the barn area out of open space and have the barn titled in the name of a corporation which will run the stable facility. In order to qualify with HUD, he must sell his lots totally unencumbered and not increase the burden on future lot purchasers. He must relinquish 12-11-74 (Night) 385 his rights to the homeowners within three years regardless of how many lots have been sold. Mr. Browne has a substantial investmenv in the barn itself and the related equipment. He would be unable to turn over this type of an investment to a small number of lot owners three years from now. Mr. St. John said the request complies with both the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, said Mr. Browne will transfer a the barn to a corporation that will be/separate corporation and which will own and maintain the barn. At that time, the Homeowners Association will receive a 20-year option on the property and a price will be set by three appraisers. Mr. St. John said this is a change in concept. He was not sure the County Attorney's Office should review the change and give an opinion on whether to approve or not approve the developer's financial plans. However, they have reviewed the documents and find that the homeowner's agreements are now more flexible than before. The Homeowners, at tha~itime of transfer, will be composed of the homeOwners at that time. Originally the stables were to be used by the Homeowners, but under this concept the corporation will operate the stables and community riding facilities will be available. Mr. Thacker sai~ this appears to be a separate commercial venture, separate from the planned unit development itself. He asked if this requires a separate permit. Mr. St. John said it is part of the overall concept of the PUD. Mr. Wood said he was concerned that the original concept of the PUD was to include riding facilities and small lots and clusters and now to take the riding facilities away would seem to be setting a precedent for further requests to lower the amount of open.spaoe. Mr. St. John said the density of the overall development will not be changed. The stable facilities are still subject to the Conditions laid down b~-the Board in the original approval of the PUD. Mr. Henley asked if the riding facilities are unsuccessful, if the developer could change that area into a shopping center. Mr. St. John said the approval of every homeowner at that time would be required plus the approval of the governing body. Mr. Carwile said he was concerned that the Board of Supervisors is becoming involved in dictating contractural terms. Mr. Murray noted their sole purpose in being present tonight is to meet federal requirements and to give the prospective lot purchasers more protection as consumers and more voice in the development of the property. Mr. Carwile said he has always felt that any recreational facilities connected with a project of this type should be voluntary for the homeowners, not mandatory. 12-11-74 (Night) Mr. St. John asked Mr. Murray if the developer is contracturally bound to keep t~he riding facilities open to the homeowners for 20 years or as long as they wish to use same. Mr. Murray said there is no contract as such, but in three years the homeowners will control all of the open space surrounding the barn, to therefore effectively controlling use of the barn. The developer will have?lease space for riding trails. At this point, Mr. Carwile offered motion to approve SP-422 with the conditions recommended by the Ptanning Commission. This motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (Note: Mr. Carwile abstaining during discussion and vote on the following matter.) (2) SP-425. Eugene R. Clothier. (Action on this petition was deferred from October 23 and November 13, 1974.) Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission suggests that the Board take, action on the special use even though the subdivision plat is not complete at this time. The applicant has submitted a new, revised site plan which shows "Lot 3" containing 40,000 square feet. The original plat indicated only 30,000 square feet and it was noted at the hearing on October 23 that this lot would not meet the minimum lot requirements when public utilities are not available. This lot complies with minimum conditions when public water is available. The Health Department has approved a septic tank for domestic waste, but there will have to be another approval from the Health Department, with concurrence of the State Water Control Board, for disposal of commercial wastes from the runs, etc. Mr. Fisher asked why the Board was being asked to act on the petition at this time. Mr. Humphrey said he had informed the Planning Commission that the Board wanted to see an approved subdivision plat, however, the Commission did not feel they could acv on the subdivision plat last Monday night because the plat lacked certain things which have now been added. The Commission understood that the applicant must close on the property by December 15 and to accommodate him they have suggested that the Board take action on the special use, not the subdivision plat itself. Mr. Fisher said this new lot #3 is now about 9/10ths of an acre. Lot #2 is much smaller than that. Mr. Humphrey said at present there is an existing, recorded lot of .58 acres, which is equal to Lot 2, located.in the northwest corner of the property. In order to accommodate a future right of way back to the residue of the property or Lot 4, the surveyor cut into the existing recorded lot #2 and caused the changing of its shape. The area is not less than originally recorded, however, it is still a substandard lot. Mr. Wheeler reminded the Board that the Board~is being asked to act only on the 12-11-74 special use. conditions: (Night) He asked Mr. Humphrey to read the Planning Commission's Mr. Humphrey read the following: 1) Health Department approval. 2) Site Plan approval, with soundproofing of the facility. No interior sound to be heard within 100 feet of the exterior walls of the building. 3) Establish and maintain an adequate tree buffer from any adjacent resident. 4) Removal of all existing accessory buildings and equipment from the veterinary building site. 5) Treatment of small animals only. 6) Ail animal runs and boarding of animals to be enclosed within the building. Mr. Roger S. Martin, was present to represent Dr. Clothier. He said at the previous hearing, the Board was concerned that the applicant would nov be able to meet subdivision ordinance requirements and sent the request back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has said that Lot #3 on the revised plat looks fine, but it causes problem with Lot #2. He contended that the Zoning Ordinance does not require Subdivision Ordinance approval before approval of the special permit. He said the applicant has as many approvals as possible, at this time, from the Health Department. He has a statement from the Albemarle County Service Authority, the Virginia Electric and Power Company and feels he can work out any problems on the plat with the Planning Commission. Dr. Clothier received an extension of his option until December 31. At this time he does not want to go to the expense of receiving approval from other agencies and he:~would,~like-the Board~to.~r~e if on~_the}mer~ts of the petition, contingent on his working out problems on the subdivision of the land with the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John pointed outte the Board that there is a common ownership between Tract 4 and Lot 1 show on the plat. Tract 4 is 16.94 acres. Lot 1 as drawn on the plat is a pipestem lot and it does nov state on the plat how wide this pipe stem is or show that it is dedicated for public use. This is a pipestem outlet for a large tract of land and this is a question the Board might address. Mr. Payne said Mr. Martin had previously stated that this strip would be dedicated, bht this would have to be a restricted street because there are not three lots sold and the highway department would not accept the street. Mr. Thacker noted that there could be more than 3 lots sold. Mr. St. John said the way the plat is drawn, neither the owner of lots 2 or 3 would have a right to use this strip unless the owner agreed. They would have to use Rio Road. Since the plat is not drawn to scale he just wanted to 387 12-11-74 point ~out~that Tract 4 would be a very large area served by a pipestem. Mr. Martin said originally they had filed the request on the total 3.10 acre tract. It would be better for all, and give more flexibility, if the Board would approve the request for the total tract, and hopefully get the subdivision as drawn approved by the Plannin~ Commission. There is a possibility that the owner woHld run the road down the side of the parcel. Mr. St. John said he agreed that the Board did not need to have all approvals before them before granting a special use, however that is a different question from granting a special use when the Board does not know the boundaries of the land on which the special use will go. Mr. Wood said he attended the Planning Commission meeting on Monday night and he felt they were hesitant about sending the request back to the Board, however, the time element on the option was interjected several times. He had questions about a substandard subdivision and he could not vote for the permit in any case because of the history of the area. The Board denied a Mrs. Haney, within 100 feet of having a mobile hone on her property for her son. Also within the last year the Board denied a request for a professional office building directly across the street. Mr. Wood then offered motion to deny SP-425. ~r. Thacker said for the purpose of discussion, he would second the morion. He did not feel the special permit is properly before the Board at this time. This is a matter of having a proper subdivision and a special permit application tied to that subdivision. Mr. Henley asked if the Board would have to vote on the subdivision at a later time. Mr. ~heeler said this is a Planning Commission function~. The Board has to decide if they will approve the special use on 4~0,000 square feet and the applicant will then have to work out the subdivision of the land with the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher questioned the Health Department approval for septic tank and f~d for human waste only, what is to be done with animal waste? Mr. Humphrey noted a separate system would have to be installed and approved by the Health Department. In other words a duel system. Mr. Fisher said if the Planning Commission approves a subdivision simi!ar~ to this with Lot 2 being changed from a non-standard lot to another non-standard lot they would have to make a finding that this was an improvement on the general use of the property. Mr. Payne said this would have to come back to the Board for approval. The Board is the body which must approve a sub-standard subdivision. Mr. Fisher said he was not ready to compound the problem further by taking a substandard lot and turniQg_~t into another substandard lot.. He cannot see that this is in the best interest of the public. This permit is not properly before the Board until there is an approved subdivision plat. He was not prepared to approve a special permit on the total three acres without knowing where the hospital will be located. Mr. Fisher said if he must vote on this permit tonight he will (Night) 12-11-74 (N~ght) 389 have to support the motion for denial. Mr. Wheeler said the original request was for a special permit anywhere on the three acres. If that 'was approved, the applicant must then receive approval from the Planning Commission for a site plan. The Board did not want to approve the request on that basis and returned the request to the Planning Co~m~ission for subdivision approval. The applicant has now returned and said he will put the hospital on 40,000 square feet and the Board still does not like that. Mr. Thacker said that was not entirely right, the applicant has said he will put the hospital on 40,000 square feet if the subdivision of t~ property is approved. He felt the approval of the subdivision should take place first. Mr. Thacker said he is concerned about the road and the 17 acres to the rear of this property. Mr. Henley said if the Board approves the special permit, the applicgnt muSt still seek approval of the Planning Commission on the subdivision of land and he could see no reason not to approve. Mr. Batchelor asked if the applicant came in with a subdivision plat showing only 40,000 square feet and did not show either Lot 1 or Lot 3, the road or the residual acreage, if the Planning Commission would have to approve the plat. Mr. Humphrey said it would not be approved unless the other lots shown were vacated because this subdivision would then landlock other acreage and would give improper access to the other property. Mr. Wheeler said the Board should either approve or disapprove the permit and let the applicant proceed from there. Mr. Thacker said before calling for the vote, he felt the applicant should be advised that he has a choice of taking a chance on a vote, and if denied, waiting for a year to reapply or withdrawing the permit without prejudice End resubmitting the application at any time. After some futher discussion, Mr. Wood's motion to~deny SP-425 was voted on, an~ carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Henley and Mr. Wheeler. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. (3) SP-431. Stockton Creek. (Deferred from November 13, 1974)~ Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission has not acted on the request, and asked that this request be deferred until January. Mr. Wheeler suggested that since this has been back and forth between the Board and the Planning Commission and deferred many times, he recommended that it be withdrawn without prejudice and resubmitted. 12-11-74 (Night) 3 Mr. Fisher noted it should be placed in the record that a representative of the applicant has agreed for the request to be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. Wood put forth motion that the request be withdrawn without prejudice, ~ l this was seconded by Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fred Payne said he had told the Planning Commission he did not feel the request was properly before them. The applicant was to submit an amended application and has not done that. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: ..~ AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. I NAYS: None. (4) Next on the agenda was the Moore Brothers, ~Inc. Site Plan. Mr. Humphrey noted that the special permit request for a concrete mixing plant, had been withdrawn. This request is to rearrange their originally approved site plan. They wish to "invert" the structures. Both the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff recommend approval. After discussion and photo viewing of the proposed site, Mr. Fisher made a motion to deny the request. No second was received to this motion, and it was called dead by Mr. Wheeler. A new motion was submitted by Mr. Carwite to approve the revised site plan with original conditions still in effect and this was seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following ~ote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. * See Below. (5) SP-435. James N. Fleming, Flamenco Enterprises, Inc., and Four Seasons West have .petitioned~the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a Planned Community on 128.06 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of State Route 743 (Hydraulic Road), and east side of State Route 657 (Lamb's Road). Property is further described as County Tax Map 45, Parcels 8, SA, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 19, or par~s thereof; and County Tax Map 44, Parcel 35B. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey informed the Board that this request will have to be carried over to the January meeting, as the Planning Commission has not acted on the request. Mr. Wood made the motion to defer this item un~il the 4th Wednesday night in January (22nd). The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker, and ~ar~ed by the --~ following recorded vo~e: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. *The Board continued with public hearings on zoning matters advertised in the Daily Progress on November 15 and November 20, 1974: 12-11-74 (Night) (6) ZMP-313. Alvin N. Brooks has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 5.4 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Resid.~ntial. Property is si6uated on the west side of State Route 742 (Avon Street Extended) near its intersection with State Route 20 South. Property is further described as County Tax Map 90, Parcel 30. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said this area can be considered suburban in nature with scattered single-family development, a nursery, and a church located in the vicinity. The Comprehensive Plan calls for light industry and research-type facilities to be located across from the proposed rezoning. The property in question is suggested for park or conservation land. The applicant wishes to subdivide his property equally between himself and two sons--thus necessitating a rezoning. The lot sizes in the immediate area of this parcel range from 0.11 acres to 12.63 acres. There is one parcel located approximately 700 feet north of the property in question already zoned RS-1. The staff feels the rezoning of this property would be compatible to the surrounding area and recommends approval. The staff also noted that while one acre density is allowable under RS-1 zoning, the minimum lot size that can be subdivided is 1.5 acres since neither public water nor public sewer is available. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mr. Brooks was present. No one from the public spoke for or against this petition. Mr. Thacker noted that he felt the request was proper and made motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve ZMP-313. The motion was seconded~by Mr. Fisher and was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (7) ZMP-314. Mary Carter Lee has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 3.5 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the north side of State Route 791, about t~ miles north of Miller School. Property is further described as County Tax Map 72, Parcel 26. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said this property is rural in nature with one dwelling located on the property and three conventional dwellings and one mobile home in the immediate area. The property is partially wooded with some pasture land. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that this~area be maintained as Agricultural with a two acre density. This property is presently owned by the mother of the appl~icant. In 1967, the applicant was given title to one acre of land by her mother; however, that acre was never surveyed or recorded. The applicant, therefore, is requesting rezoning. There are nine parcels zoned R-1 along Route 635 approximately 1000 feet from the proposed rezoning. Surrounding parcels range from one acre to 20 acres. While 12-11-74 ( ight) 2 the staff can see no adverse effect upon re~ning this property, the following facts still remain: (1) To rezone this property would be spot zoning; (2) could set a precedent for this area; and (3) This zoning ~ Such a rezoning does not fit the density~ density/proposed by the Comprehensive Plan. The staff recommends denial but ~ the Planning Commission recommended approval as requested. A spokesman for Mrs~ Lee stated the additional 1/2 acre is available and that it would be used for the building of a home. No one else from the public spoke for or against this petition. ~ Mr. Fisher said it should be included in the record, that there was an affidavit for transfer of this one acre of land dated August 15, 1967. This predates zoning in the County and since the applicant felt there were two lots there he felt rezoning is a legitimate way to deal with this. He then offered motion to approve ZMP-314 as recommended by the Planning Commission. 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. (8) SP-436. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate~,,an interceptor Sanitary Sewer along Moore's Creek. Propert~ in the County which is affected is described as County Tax Map Magisterial 44 andr45 7 and 9~(S6o~sville and Samuel Miller District--~ Z6, Parcel 28~ County Tax Map 77, Parcels 4, 5, and 6~ and County Tax Map 77E (1), Parcel 1. Property which lies part~a~tly~in the C©~.yi~ which is affected is described as City Tax Map 60, Parcel 325, City Plat number 1264~-21; and City Plat number 1264A-23. Samuel Miller an'd Scottsville Magisterial Districts. ~.s~p~ said this interceptor line will he located in some areas that could be considered rural while other areas can~be considered suburban in nature. Much of the sewer line will be located within the corporate limits of Charlottesville. The interceptor line is a gravity line which is a par~ of the initial phase of the Regional Water Quality Management Plan for Charlottesville-Albemarle County. It ties into an already existing gravity line in which the effluent will ultimately ~ be treated by the Moore'~s Creek Treatment Pla~ The general plans and alignment of this facility have been previously approved by the Commission under a Master Plan for sewer service in the urban area. ~ The Planning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions: 1) Reseedi~g of all disturbed areas and maintenance of areas for one year after placement of interceptor. 2) Grading permit must be obtained from Zoning Department. Mr. George Williams and Mr. Harry Marshall were present in support of the petition. ~ No one from the public spoke for or against. There being no discussion, Mr. Carwile offered motion for approval with recommendations as set forth by the Planning 12-11-74 (Night) Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (9) SP-439. Robert R. Patterson has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate an indoor tennis club on 4.29 acres zoned R-2 Residential. Property is situated on the east side of Rt. 743 (Hydraulic Road), approximately 0.5 miles north of Albemarle High School. Property is further described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 14, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said this area is suburban in character with a construction firm, service station, cemetery and several single-family dwellings in the immediate vicinity. The property directly across from this proposed site is vacant, open land. The applicant is proposing a tennis club to be located on Hydraulic Road near Albemarle High School. The tennis club will include five (5) indoor and five (5) outdoor tennis courts plus squash courts and a club house. The land area between Hydraulic Road and U. S. 29 North, within which the proposed tennis club is To be located, is projected to be one of the most densely populated areas in the urban area. Due to the projected density of 14,000 persons or 20 persons per acre for this area, and the fact that only four (4) public tennis courts are~available at Albemarle High School, plus the courts at Four Seasons Racquet Club, the staff felt any additional recreational facilities in this area would be compatible and warranted. He said the Planning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions: (1) Approval of site p~an. (2) Indirect lighting, directed away from Hydraulic Road and adjoining property. (3) Sufficient set-back of facilities to a~c~d~ widening of Hydraulic Road. (~) Hours not to exceed 11:00 P.M. for outdoor operations. (5) Submittal of a planting Plan. (6) Ten foot building set-back and 20 foot open court set-back or 10 foot set-back with proven sound-deadening fence. Mr. Patterson was present in support of the petition. He said the reason for objections received by the Planning Commission is the close proximity of this proposal to the property line, but, he will work out a site plan which will satisfy the adjoining property owners. The outdoor lighting is behind the building and will not affect traffic on Hydraulic Road. No o~e from the public spoke for or against the petition. Mr. Carwile informed the Board of opposition of Mrs. Garlick, neighboring property owner. Mr. Wood said when the Planning Commission discussed condition #6, they had talked about either a 10 foot buffer~zone or a barrier fence in lieu of the buffer zone. Zt was felt that a sound-barrier fence would accomplish more than 393 12-11-74 (Night) 4 just 10 feet of open space, however, the condition was approved as read by Mr. Humphrey. There is no setback requirement in this zone except for single-family dwellings. To require both the setback and the fencing will probably eliminate some of the tennis courts or the building will have to be moved back and made smaller. Mr. Humphrey said that was correct. There is no setback required in this zone, by the Zoning Ordinance,?except for single-family structures. Mr. Wheeler said this property has non, conforming commerical on both sides. Mr. Thacker said he questions whether the property is large enough to contain this use. The existing zoning is R-2,~ but the usage is non-conforming commercial. He asked if there is any residential property adjoining. Mr. Humphrey said there is residential to the ~ear of the property. Mr. Thacker said it disturbs him that the Board would allow construction of a use under a special use permit that would not be allowed with proper zoning. He then moved for approval, with a 20 foot setback. Mr. Henley said he would prefer to have the fence instead of the 20 feet. Mr. Thacker said he would prefer to have both and amended his motion to include the first fi~e conditions of the Planning Commission with a 20 foot setback adjacent to residential properties and a sound-proof fence. Mr. Henley said this is not adjacent to residential property. Mr. Thacker said it is residentially zoned. Mr. Henley said it is not used as such. At this point the motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher. Mr. Wood immediately offered a substitute motion to approve SP-439 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. He did not feel the additional 10 feet would make any difference. Second to the substitute motion w~s made by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile; Henley, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Thacker. After a two minute recess, the Board continued with the agenda and discussion of Zoning Ordinance relative to Off-Street Parking Requirements~deferred from October 23, 1974. Fred Payne essenvially stated ~hat~the~ardinamo. e-~onsists of is a review by the planning commission, and what was done was to add an appeal provision. Mr. Thacker asked the criteria for the establishment of the number of parking spaces. Mr. Humphrey stated that certain off-street parking requirements were approved by the Board about three or four~months ago with a recommendation that Sections 11-7-7 (27), (28), (32) and (38) be sent back and redrafted. Mr. Thacker was concerned that s~andards~should be established, so the Planning Commission will know what the maximum number of parking spaces could be so they can reduce same. if advisable; but as he interprets the ordinance, Virginia Statutes 395 provide this review. Mr. Payne said this procedure is not covered by statute, and it is the procedure which is being adopted. Mr. Humphrey stated there are three or four standards which can be used, but never less than two parking spaces, and consideration for a space for every two employees plus one space for every 500 square feet. Discussion continued as to a standard number of spaces which should be allowed for parking per square feet of floor space in retail stores. Mr. Humphrey mentioned a figure of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space. Mr. Wheeler asked the Board for deferral, and Mr. Thacker put forth the motion for deferral until Wednesday, January 8, 1975. This motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded yore: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, ~hacker, Wheeler and Wood. N~YS: None. A referendum having been held on the "Sunday Closing Laws" and the results of that referendum having been certified by the Judge of the Circuit Court, motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to advertise for a public hearing on January 16, 1975, at 10:00 A.M. in the Board Room, an ordinance to declare that pursuant to Section 18.1-363.1 of the Code of Virginia which have no force or effect within the County of Albemarle, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-29.5. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. As requested by Spotswood Connelly in a letter to the Zoning Administrator motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to include fire extinguisher sales and services and sales and services of safety and security products in both B-1 Business and M-1 Industrial; and FURTHER requests the Planning Commissi~on to hold public hearing on said proposals to amend the County Zoning Ordinance and report back to this Board at the earliest possible date. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mrs. Ruth Miller, Zoning Administrator, was not in attendance to present Zoning Violations Report to the Board. It was decided to defer until December 19th meeting so Mrs. Miller could be present for discussion purposes. Closed Circuit Television System for Regional Jail'was next to be discussed. Mr. Batchelor noted that a ruling has been received from the State Compensation Board, stating they will participate in the purchase of the Closed 12-~1-74 (Night) 396 Circuit T.V. Since the County is actinH as Fiscal Agent for the Regional Jail, an appropriation must be authorized by the Board so payment can be made to Motorola. Motion was made by Mr. Carwile, and seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $78,234.01 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Regional Jail Fund for purchase of a closed circuit television system, said appropriation to be coded to 190-420. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Henley made a nomination To the Housing Board for consideration by the Board. His nominee was Mr. John English, who works for Wimmer's Inc. This nomination and motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Next on the agenda was a special appr'opriation for the Sheriff's office. Mr. Batchelor stated a Federal Grant has been received in the amount of $2,147.00.~ to be used for police equipment. Motion to adopt the following resolution was made by Mr. Wood: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $2,147.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund for purchase of police equipment by the Sher±ff's office, said appropriation to be coded to 6A-409. The foregoing mation was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Next subject of discussion was personal property tax refumd to W. Sterling Carter, Rudolph W. May and Alfred J. Olinde, T/A Stony Point Farm and W. Sterling Carter and Roy D. Bradley for farm machinery used in poultry farming. Mr. St. John noted there was a question as to who owns the equipment. If the equipment is not personally owned by the poultry farmers, then the tax would be valid as capital merchants tax instead of personal property. This matter was left~-in'Mr. ASt.r~John's hands to find out exactly who owns the equipment. Once this information is obtained, the Board will reconsider the matter. ~ Mr. Wood at this point made a request that the Board look at a site plan for West Gate Phase 3 at the December 19 meeting. Mr. Henley seconded Mr. Wood's 397 motion request, which was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. At 10:15 p.m. motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood to adjourn this meeting until December 17, 1974, at Piedmont Community College for a joint meeting with City Council and staff members of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to discuss the possibility of conducting a study of the South Rivanna River Reservoir. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, He~ley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None.