Loading...
1974-03-068 3-6-74 Pursuant to the following notice, which was'hand delivered on March 1, 1974, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, met in special session at 3:00 P.M. on March 6, 1974, in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, with ~ the following members: 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. "This is to give notice of special meeting called by Mr. Gerald E. Fisher and Mr. ii Gordon L. Wheeler for the purpose of holding a public work session on the 1974-75 County Budget, hearing zoning petitions advertised for March 6, and making appointments to certain boards and commissions." "Messrs. Fisher and Wheeler have asked that this meeting begin at 3:00 P.M. on Wednesday, March 6, 1974, in the Board Room of the County Office Building and will then adjourn to the Albemarle County Courthouse for the purpose of hearing zoning petitions at 7:30 P.M." The Chairman called the meeting to order and made several announcements: 1) there will be a luncheon meeting at the Livestock Market on March 13, 1974, at 12:30 P.M., all members of the Board have been invited; 2) the Board of Supervisors have been served with a suit from citizens of Crozet challenging the dog leash law; 3) there will be a report from the Library Site Selection Committee at the next meeting of the Board; ~ 4) City Council will be present later tonight to discuss the energy crisis with the Board of Supervisors; 5) the Chairman asked the Board to hold another work session on the budget on Wednesday, March 13, 1974, at 3:00 P.M. The Board continued with a public work session on the 1974-75 County Budget. Mr. Wheeler left the meeting at 5:30 P.M., and Mr. Thacker assumed his duties as Chairman. At 5:45 P.M., the Board recessed for supper and reconvened in the Albemarle County Courthouse at 7:30 P.M. The COunty Attorney joined the meeting at this time. Also present were members of City Council, Mayor Francis Fife, Mr. George Gilliam, Mrs. Jill Rinehart, and Mr. Mitchell Van Yahres. Mr. Thacker explained that City Council was present at this time to discuss the ~ energy crisis. He called on Bern Ewert, Deputy City Manager, for a report. Mr. Ewert explained that the City, during the last two weeks, had compiled a list of opening hours for filling stations, and they will update this list each week. They have also asked the dealers if there were a regulation on opening hours, which hours they would be interested in. He said that there had been a meeting of the Energy Board earlier '1 in the day, and he asked that Lloyd'Wood give a report on this. ~ Mr. Wood explained that the Energy Board's main objective has been to take some action to shorten the lines caused by the energy crisis. The Energy Board has met two times with dealers from the City and County. Their first objective was to see if they could get some dealers to open early in the morning and in the late after- noon after working hours. Their first defeat was to find that the energy crisis is real. They had found that many of the dealers only have enough gas to stay open 25 minutes to two hours a day. They had asked the dealers to go back to their station operaltors to see what could be done. The Energy Board met this morning, and they had been advised that most stations will try to open at 7:00 A.M. to service the general public from 7:00 A.M. until 8:00 A.M. This does not mean that there will be 40 to 50 stations open at 7:00 A.M., but they will try to have as many open as possible. Once they shut off their daily allotment at 8:00 A.M., or thereafter, they will service their commercial accounts. He said by servicing their commercial accounts during the -day, the~lines should diminish. This is a short range solution that the committee has arrived at. Mr. Wood said the dealers have been most cooperative, and the Energy Board asks the citizens to cooperate with the dealers. He said that this plan can take effect if the Board of Supervisors and City Council take action tonight. Mr. Wood asked the citizens to comply with the half tank regulation and said if the citizens will comply with these regulations, there is no need for panic. However, the Energy Board has said that this is an interim solution. He said there is a fuel shortage in Charlottesville-Albemarle, but the dealer's do intend to service the total area, not just the City. Mr. Wood said the next step will be to go to Richmond, or whatever source is available, to get back the allocation which has been lost in this area through the closing of service stations. Mayor Fife said that several members of City Council went to Washington, D.C. to meet with and talk to this localities' three Congressmen. He received a call from one of Senator Byrd's aides this morning in which he stated they had talked to Mr. Simon yesterday, and he was impressed with the fact that there are localities, such as Char- lottesville, that have a special problem because of the student population. He said because of the nature of a student population there is an extra demand for fuel. He felt the Congressmen had not realized this fact. Mayor Fife said to help with this situation~ they have suggested to the dealers that a uniform type of sign be displayed to let the citizens know when they will be open. They had found that the dealers want to cooperate, however, it was his understanding that because of the Governor's Execu- tive Order, the dealers need the two governing bodies to pass a resolution requesting that they have stipulated hours. There is some question about the legality of the deal- ers doing this themsslves. Mr. Wood then offered the following resolutiOn: WHEREAS, in compliance with the Governor's Executive Order ~2, and at the request of the Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, participating stations will be open Monday through Friday at posted hours; Commercial accounts only will be served Monday through Friday from 8:30 A.M. as long as daily allotments will allow; 0 3-6-74 No gasoline shall .be placed ~in the tank of"any motor vehicle unless such tank is less that one-half full as shown by the gasoline gauge on the vehicle, and such gasoline gauge is operating; If a gasoline gauge indicator touches any part of the one- half full mark, it shall be deemed to be one-half full; On the odd numbered calendar days of any month, no gas- oline shall be placed in the tank of any motor vehicle having a Virginia license plate unless the only or last digit on such license plate is 1, 3, 5, 7, or 9. On the even numbered calendar days of any month, no gasoline shall be placed in the tank of any motor vehicle bearing a Virginia license plate unless the only or last digit on such license plate is 2, 4, 6, 8, or 0; The provisions of the above paragraph shall not apply on the 31st day of any month on which day motor vehicles having less than one-half tank of gasoline, as shown by an operating gasoline gauge on the motor vehicle, may be supplied without regard to license plate number. This is a short-term solution pointed at reducing the lines at service stations and to insure that everyone gets his fair share of fuel. All possible steps must be taken to conserve energy. The energy board offers the following suggestions: Car pools wherever possible. Use public transportation. Use school bus in lieu of driving children to and from school. Consolidate trips. Reduce speed. Inflate tires to maximum air pressur~ called for by tire manufacturers. Check air filter at least once a .month. Poor tuning, jack rabbit starts, oversize tires and excessive speeds are also causes of increased consumption. Motion to adopt the foregoing resolution was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Wood said this was not the end of the work of the Energy Board; they will be calling future meetings to discuss other measures for the conservation of fuel. It has been brought to their attention by Mr. Smith that there will be a shortage in electricity, and they will be discussing measures for air conditioning, etc., during the summer months. At this time, City Council left the meeting. Mr. Thacker announced that last week the County Executive and four members of the Board of Supervisors had attended the National Association of County Officials Legisla- tive Conference in Washington, D.C. They had discussed the energy crisis, along with other items, with Congressman Robinson. He said that hopefully since this matter was being attacked by the City and the County this will bring some relief. At this time, the Board continued with public hearings on zoning matters as adver- tised in The Daily Progress on February 13 and February 20, 1974. Mr. Robert Tucker, Assistant County Planner, was present. (1) ZMP-291. Ski Land of Charlottesville, Inc. Deferred from February 13, 1974. Mr. Tucker read the following le~tter into the ~Dc~o~d.:~ ~ ~ "Mr. Gordon Wheeler, 'Chairman 'Board of Supervisors Sir: Ski Land of Charlottesville, Inc. herewith withdraws its application for rezoning, pen~ing before you. We concurrently are withdrawing an application for a special use permit previously submitted to the Planning Commission. At the time of application we were operating near capacity on most weekends and expansion seemed appropriate. Since the gasoline shortage, operations, while satisfactory, are not enough to warrant expansion. I apologize for taking up your busy time, but hope you can appreciate the planning problems of a novel venture in these uncertain times. Sincerely, (signed) Robert T. Vandell cc: John Humphrey" As requested, motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to allow the petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. ~BSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. (2) ZMP-292- . Ferrell Smith. Public hearing on this matter had been continued from , further February 13, 1974. Mr. Tucker read the following letter asking for a/continuance: "March 5, 1974 Board of Supervisors Albemarle County, Virginia Gentlemen: We respectfully request a continuance on the request of Floyd smith for the rezoning of his property on Star Route 769, Foot Hill Farms Road, until your meeting later this month.. We find it necessary to survey this property first to determine the exact location prior to receiving the Sanitarian's approval. Sincerely, BETTER LIVING, INC. (signed) B. F. Walker Modular Homes Department" As requested, motion was offered by Mr~ Fisher to defer any further action on this peti- tion until March 27. The'motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried -by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. (3) SP-319. William R. Wood. Action on this matter had been continued from February 13, 1974. Mr. Wood was present. Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval with no more than two horses on the pre- 3-6-74 ~o one - --- ' - ~-~:-.~ spoke~-/-ua=~- ' against. mises at any one time. Mr. Fisher offer- ed motion to approve SP-319 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, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. (4) UP-74-01. Dr. Charles William Hurt has petitioned the Albemarle County BOard of Supervisors to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, with the addition of Section 8-1-27(13), to allow asphalt plants in the M-1 Industrial zone with a Special Use Permit. Mr. Carwile abstained from the following discussion. Mr. Tucker ga~e the staff's report: This application by a property owner has been submitted to the County as authorized under Article 11-4, Uses Not Provided For. The applicant's petition states he is desirous of amending the permitted use section ing plants under a sPecia~ Permit provision. Under the current'-zoning ordinance such u.se.w~_iS~20nty~.pe~m~ed.~in an.~M_21~ne ~i-th~.spe~..i~l~.~e.lp~rmi~. ~ ..... ~-~ ~.~c-?.~/~ The sta%ement~of intent~fortAe~M-lrzone~reads-as'.fo~ows:~C~'~The'~ri~r~sp~Do~e~of this district is to permit certain industries, which do not in any way detract from residential, desirability, to locate in an~area.-adjacent to residential uses. The limitation on (or provisions relating to) height of building, horse power, heating, flammable liquids or explosives, controlling emission of fumes, odors and/or noise, landscaping, and the number of persons employed are imposed to protect and foster adjacent residential desirability while permitting industries to locate near a labor supply." The statement of intent for Article 9, "Industrial, General District M-2," in which the proposed use is now permitted reads as follows: "The primary purpose of this district is to establish an area where the principle use of land is for the heavy commercial and industrial operations, which may create some nuisance, and which are not properly associated with, nor particularly compatible with residential, institutional, and neighborhood commercial service establishments. The specific intent of this district is to: a) encourag~e the constructmon of and the continual use of the land for heavy commercial and industrial purposes; b) prohibit residential and neighborhood commercial use of the land and to pro- hibit any other use which would substantially interfere with the development, continuation or expansion of commercial or industrial uses in the district; c) to encourage the discontinuance of the existing uses that would not be per- mitted as new uses under the provision of this ordinance. Such uses that have been placed in the M-2 zone are: blacksmith shops, boiler shops, coal and wood yards, moving and storage facilities, petroleum storage, saw mills and planing mills, truck terminals, warehouse facilities, wood preserving operations. Under the special permit provision in the M-2 Zone, we find such uses as abat- toirs; acid manufacturing; asphalt mixing plants; brick manufacturing; cement, lime, and gypsum manufacturing; concrete mixing plants; crushed stone opera- tions; fertilizer manufacturing; junk yards; paper and pulp manufacturing; etc." No new M-2 zoning has been granted in Albemarle County since adoption of zoning in Albemarle County. There have been approximately eight applications made for this zone during the past six years. Four of these applications have been for quarries which were in conjunction with the construction of 1-64. All M-2 zon- ings as of this date have been denied by virtue of the so-called nuisance value of uses permitted in the M-2. This history and policy of the County,'regarding M-2 zoning was related to the applicant to assist him in determining the right apprOach, in his opinion, in providing for this use in the County. The staff noted that the applicant is desirous of placing an asphalt mixing plant on pro- perty located in the Woolen Mills area, presently zoned M-1. However, the approval of this amendment would permit such uses in all M-1 zones, regardless of their location in the County. The impact of an asphalt mixing plant is basically heavy truck traffic and smoke emissions. A secondary impact would be the visual aspects of such a facility. The staff observation relative to the cost of asphalt in Albemarle County, not considering the so-called energy crisis, is that there is presently only one asphalt firm in the County. The staff is of the opinion that to have a 3 second firm will assist in providing competition and, hopefully, lower the cost of the material for consumers of asphalt in this area. Any use of such a facil- ity will be governed by regulations for the control and abatement of air pol- lution, issued March 17, 1972, by the State Air Pollution Control Board. The staff noted that the intent of the M~i zone would dictate that the proposed use as a permitted use by right would not be compatible in the M-1 zone where it abuts residential use. However, added controls and conditions could be applisd to the use undsr the Special Use Provisions. It appears that the proposed use could comply with the intent of the M-2 zone, but this'zone is not suited to be located near or adjacent to residential or commercial zones.. Therefore, the staff suggested that the County~ and the applicant find ~t~emselves in a~ situation that appears to be uns~l~able. The staff concluded that such a use is supplemental to and compatible with an area now being utilized for a quarry and had suggested that this is probably the only sOlution available to the applicant. They made this suggestion because if the plant is located in an existing area being quarried, the source of aggregate is readily at hand thereby precluding additional truck traffic bringing raw mater- ial into the site. This would, hopefully, reduce the overall cost of the opera- tion with a result of savings to the consumer. The asphalt mixing or batch plant is an accessory use of the quarry and .would be better located on such a facility when considering the general welfare, health, and safety of the general public. The staff had studied the revised zoning ordinance as prepared by the Planning Commission and found that it is the apparent intent of the Commission to permit asphalt plants on~ in the new IG Industrial General which is comparable to the existing M-2. 5~. Tucker ended by saying that the Planning Commission denied this request on the basis that it would not meet the intent of the M-1 zone, much of which is located adjacent to residential property. Mr. Tucker said he had also received letters from Citizens for Albemarle, and from Mr. Huja of the City Planning Department, both objecting to this request. Mr. Robert Boyle was present to represent Dr. Hurt. He said he was prepared to show film slides on this project and also to give opinions about the pollution factor. Mr. Boyle said he was in total agreement with what the Planning staff had said. He felt this was an excellent report. He was also in substantial agreement with what the Planning Commission had said about the M-1 zone. He felt this was a situation which could only be remedied by the Board. He said there is only one asphalt producer in the area. It can only benefit the users of asphalt to have another plant. It would also benefit the taxpayers in the County. He said this is Dr. Hurt's petition, and he tech- nically represents Dr. Hurt, however, he actually represents Mr. William Moore, an asphalt producer. He said that asphalt involves no more than a mixing process; there is no petroleum manufacturing. He said there was a time when the production of ashpalt concrete was a dirty, noisy, smoky business. It is no longer that. He said Mr. Burns, from Richmond,. was present to testify to this fact. State regulations are very stiff. Mr. Boyle said they had shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Zoning Appeals that with the new processes asphalt concrete can be created with less pollutants than those allowed in the City. This is an expensive operation. .It costs much to control the pollution. Howe~er, there is no smoke or dust, only steam, and it meets noise, dust, odor, and fumes requirements. He said if the Board accepted what had been said, he would hope that they would try to understand the predicament in which the applicant finds himself. There are M-2 zones in the County, .. primarily in &nd around quarries. He said in this area, there are two operating quarries. He said when there is an exist- 4 · 3-6-74 lng asphalt plant in .a quarry, there is an agreement made that there will not be another asphalt plant allowed there, and that agreement has been made in the local case. There is no other M, 2 land to his knowledge, except for a piece of land on Route 29N. He said -since the Martin-Marietta Quarry on Route 29 is not in operation, -and they do not plan to go into operation, they have not been able to buy that property. He said there have been eight applications for M-2 zoning made in this County since the zoning ordinance went into effect, and none have been granted. He said if the Board allows a special permit for an asphalt plant in an M-1 zone, the Board still has the right to grant: or deny that permit. He did not feel the County would hurt itself or diminish their posi- tion in allowing this use. He said that Mr. Moore was present and would speak to the Board. Mr. Thacker asked if the Board would care to see the films which Mr. Boyle has men- tioned. Mr. Fisher said he ~might be mistaken, but he felt Mr. Boyle was contending that the County zoning ordinance prohibits any additional asphalt plants. Mr.. Boyle said no, not as the ordinance is written. However, there is no land available in the already zoned M-2 zone, and the other lands that would be available are too far from stone, unless the County changes their position on rezoning A-l, M-l, etc., to M-2. He said the applicant puts this problem to the Board hoping that the Board will see the benefit to be derived by having another asphalt plant in the County. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant was contending that there is no M-2 zoning in the County or only that he had been unable to purchase it. Mr. Boyle said there was no M-2 land on which he could locate this asphalt plant. There has been no M-2 zoning created since the zoning ordinance went into effect ~in the County~ Mr. Fisher said it seemed to. him that it was a question of the availability of land which is zoned properly rather than the particular nature of the plant itself. He asked if this was correct. Mr. Boyle said basically that was correct. Mr. Fisher said if that was the case, the Board should attack that part of the question rather than the nature of the plant, which would eliminate the necessity of viewing the filmstrip. Mr. P. W. Moore, President of Moore Brothers Co., Inc., said his company has a pro- ject on Route 29, south of 1-64, which will require 45,000 tons of bituminous concrete. They would like to move a plant into this area and mix this themselves. This would create competition. He said they had been in this business for several years, and have experienced personnel. Most areas have two or three concrete producers, and they would like to stay in this area after completion of this project. Mr. Fisher asked if the project was the four-laning of Route 29 South. Mr. Moore said yes. They have already started grading, and will start'putting down the bituminous mix in late July. Mr. Fisher asked where they would be hauling the mix from in July as he felt that would be too soon to have a plant installed in the area. Mr. Moore said if they had a location, they could have a plant installed in 30 days. Mr. Wood said he bad'seen the filmstrip at the Planning Commission meeting, and he asked~if the plant which they would like to install was exactly the same as that one shown in the film. Mr. Moore. said he was not sure. He thought that the filmstrip showed a 6- ton batch plant~ and theirs would be a 4- ton. Mr. Fisher said he did not think the plant was a. pertinent question at this time, but whether what Mr. Moore intended to do was with= in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Thacker then called on the public for comments. The first'to speak was Mr. Bob Heller of Citizens for Albemarle. He said in addition to the letter addressed to the Planning Commission, he would also like the following letter put in the record to show that they support the Planning Commis-,~ ~ sion's r~ecommendation. March ,'Citizens for Albemarle supports the recommendation of the Albemarle County Planning Commission and opposes the proposed amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance which would,allow asphalt plants in the M-1 Industri- al zone with a Special Use Permit. The heavy industrial use of land for asphalt plants would be completely inconsistent with the statement of intent for the M-1 Industrial district in the current ordinance. It should be noted that in the Revised Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, asphalt plants would be allowed with a Special Use Permit only in the Industrial General District, which is the district for heavy commercial and.,industrial operations. We strongly believe that asphalt plants should be classified as heavy industrial use of land and should remain only in the M-2 Industrial-District of the current ordinance and in the Industrial General District of the pro- posed Revised Zoning Ordinance for Albemarle County. (signed) Roy M. Patterson, President Citizens for Albemarle" Mrs. Marion Rabinowitz, President of the League of Women Voters of Charlottes- ville and Albemarle County, read the following statement: "March 6, 1974 The League of Women Voters is concerned that the proposed amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which would allow asphalt plants in an M-l, Industrial District with a Special Use Permit, would make it unde- sirable to place M-1 zoning adjacent to residential areas. The heavy indus- trial use of land for an asphalt plant, even with a Special Use Permit, .would not be consistent with..the statement of intent for the M~i Industrial Zone and would not.be compatible with any residential development. We support the recommendation of the Albemarle County Planning Commis- sion, and we urge that you deny this amendment to the Albemarle County Zon- ing Ordinance." Mr. Ryan Goddin said he lived on Market Street next to the Woolen Mills. He said the County owns about three quarters of a mile of that road; the rest is in the City. There are only three short streets in that section, and he understood from the meeting that he attended that there will be a hundred trucks a day. Also, this asphalt plant would be located in between two cemeteries, and he felt that there should be some consideration given to the citizens. Mr. J. L. Lively said he owned the Sunrise Trailer Park and 'there are some All residents have expressed objections ten houses also located in this area. against '~is request. Mr. Thacker said he felt the request before the Board this ewening was only to amend the County zoning ordinance, not any particular parcel of property or the use of that property. Mr. Fisher also stated that if this amendment to the zoning ordi- 3-6-74 nance is passed, there is no guarantee that a special permit will be issued~on any .said site. That would be a separate matter. Mr. Fisher/the case that has-been presented is one where the proponent is claiming that there is a restriction of free enterprise. He said he was not able to resolve that contention. He believed this to be a matter of some legal question which the Board should address, and he asked that Mr. St. John give an opinion on this, or if he needed time, to defer action until Mr. St. John could give an opinion. Mr. St. John said there was no need to take any more time. He was not sure this was what the proponents are claiming. The fact that there is only one asphalt plant in the community is a coincidence so far as they are concerned. There has not been any conscious or unconscious action by the governing body, or the Planning Commission, to protect the business which does exist, and the zoning ordinance was not set up for that purpose. The fact that they can't find land could be said about any business. There is no question of stifling competition; it is coincidental to the situation. Mr. Wood agreed with Mr. St. John. He did not feel that was the real question. The real question was a planning matter', and if the Board should grant the applicant his wishes, and change the zoning ordinance, this would open up all existing M-1 la.nd. He felt it was wrong to change the whole concept of the ordinance. He has no objec- tions to an additional asphalt plant. Maybe one is needed. He felt the Board should deal with that particular use on a particular tract of land at the given time. The Board should., through the zoning ordinance, protect the people who live in the County, where this particular use goes rather than to open this up, County wide. Mr. St. John said they were not taking that position. They want this to be as a special permit in M-1 as it now is in M-2. Mr. St. John said on the question of sti~ fling competition, you would not be able to exclude a third or even a fourth asphalt plant if they. were granted this one on the grounds that you thought two were enough in Albemarle County, That would be stifling competition as much as the fact that there happens to be only one in the County at the present time. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the only issue that he saw was if the Board of Supervisors wants to allow M-1 to be opened up with a special use permit for asphalt plants. Mr. St. John said that was correct. However, if the reason for doing this is that although the use belongs in the M-2 zone there is no M-2 ~land in the County, then every other use which belongs in the M-2 zone in the present ordinance, could also make that same claim. Mr. Fisher said there are many other questions besides the pollution of the plant. The question of traffic, the type of traffic, and the hours of use may be one of the major reasons why this was included only in the M-2 zone originally, because it was considered a heavy industry from that standpoint. He asked Fir. Tucker if there was any- thing in the new zoning ordinance, and/or the adoption of a new zoning map, which would bear on this request within this calendar year. 3-6-74 Mr~-Tucker said that the IG, or heavy industry, in the new zoning ordinance which compares to M-2, allows asphalt plants with a special use permit. The only area of land which has been mentioned that may be rezoned, or could be rezoned, is the land near the lumber mill at Yancey's Mill. This might fit into an M-2 zone and is the only one which is being considered. Mr. St. John said M-2 is for industry which should not be near residential zones. The .M~i allows industries which can and should be right next to a residential zone and would not be detrimental. Mr. Fisher said on that basis, this is not the sort of industry that should be located adjacent to a.residential area, and if that is what the staff is recommending to the Board, he would have to concur with the recommendations of the staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to accept the recommendations of the Planning Department and to deny request for UP-74-01. The motion was seConded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. ABSTAINING:. Mr. Carwile. (5) ZMP=294. India R. Whiting has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super~ visors to rezone 3.697 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the west side of Route 708, and the south side of the C & O Railway, about 2 miles west of Ivy. Property is further described as_,County Tax Map 58, Parcel 13, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said that the property is situated on the west side of Route 708, near its intersection with the C & O Railroad, about two miles west of. Ivy. There are about 14 modest, single-family dwellings located in this area on lots which have been previo~usly subdivided. The lots range in size from 0.3 to 6.0 acres, with an average size of about 1.5 acres. The subject property contains one frame dwelling. There are about 1.69 acres, five-hundred feet north of this property which are zoned' RS-1 residential~ 4.39 acres, eight-hundred feet to the South, zoned RS-1 residen- tial, and further north, on Route 738, 12 acres ar~ also zoned RS-1 residential. The comprehensive plan shows this area is on the fringes of the Ivy cluster. Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval. Mr. Whiting was present in support of this petition. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission and approve ZMP-294. The motion was seconded by Mr.~Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. 3-6-74 (6) ZMP-295. Monticello Home Builders, Inc., has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 6.3 acres from, A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the west side of Route 704, about one and one-fourth miles south of Keene. Property is further described as County Tax Map 121, Parcel 39, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker stated that the property is situated on the west side of Route 704, about one mile south of Keene, and one mile north of the Keene landfill. The parcels of land along Route 704 range in size from 0.5 acres to 141 acres, with an average size of about ten acres. This area is rural in character with scattered dwelling units. The subject property is vacant and wooded. Route 704 is a dirt road with an all weather surface. The majority of parcels in the immediate area average approx- imately six acres. The comprehensive plan suggests this area for conservation uses. The staff had commented that no County action relative to establishment of a zone other than agricultural has been taken to indicate a firm delineation of the village of Keene. This parcel is approximately 3500 feet south of the general line. The Commission ~.? and. Board of Supervisors are confronted with establishing policy with reference to the extent of the Keene village cluster. According to the study indi- cating productivity of this area for agricultural uses, the soils are rated as being generally better suited for pasture or forest than for crop land. In other words, the soils are not the best for crop land but have value as forest land. Village centers are to have a potential population of 3000 to 5000 persons. Keene has been suggested to have a maximum, of 3000, or approximately 1000 dwelling units. The staff was of the opinion that this parcel is beyond the intent where the cluster should be, and should remain in the agricultural zone with its two,acre minimum lot size. Mr. Tucker stated that t~he Planning Commission had recommended denial of the petition. Mr. Buddy Bolton from Monticello Home Builders was present in support of the peti- tion. He said that when they had bought this property they thought it was 6.3 acres, and had hoped to divide it into four lots. Now they find that there are only 5.5 acres. There will be three lots of approximately 1.8 acres each. The purpose of this request is to make lots available for Farmers Home Administration applicants in order to build homes for moderate and low-income families. He asked that the Board approve this request and said that if the Board wanted to condition their being only three lots, he would accept that condition. Mr. Fisher said the Board can not condition rezonings. If this were approved, there could be five lots on this land. Mr. Bolton said it was their intent to only put three lots herel They could not build a safe, level road.and stay within the $2000 FHa. limit. Mr. Fisher asked if they intended to build the road to State standards. Mr. Bolton said no, they did not. Mr. Wood asked if Mr. Bolton could arrange FHA financing on only a one-acre lot. Mr. Bolton said he did not think they could. FHA likes for them to stay close to the present requirements. Mr. Bolton said they have about 20 applicants, who have been approved by FHA, on a waiting list. No one from the public spoke for or against the petition. Mr. Wood said he realized that this is about two-tenths of an acre shy of the requirements; however, knowing some- 3-6-74 thing about the area, and something about FHA, and the need that is there, he could not think about voting against this request. Mr. Wood then offered motion %o approve ZMP-295. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following record- ed vote: AYES: Messers. Carwile, Fisher (Mr. Fisher prefaced his vote by saying there is such an urgent need in the County for houses selling at this price that he was willing to bend his better judgement on the comprehensive plan on this particular application), Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. (7) ZMP-296. Monticello Home Builders, Inc. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 4.37 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the west side of Route 744, at the intersection of Interstate 64, about one and one-half miles east of Shadwell. Property is further described as County Tax Map 80, Parcel 44. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker stated that this property is situated ~on the west side of Route 744 at its intersection with 1-64, about one mile from the Keswick Country Club. Route 250 East intersects Route 744 near the subject property. Route 744 is generally developed in modest, single-family dwellings on small lots. The lots range in size from 0.33 acres to llacres. The subject property was divided into two parts by the Interstate. The part which lies to the north contains one single-family dwelling. The larger part which lies to the south of 1-64 is vacant and largely wooded. The property immediately south, fronting on Route 250, has two occupied dwellings, one mObile home, and an unoccupied, dilapidated house. Route 744 is a paved road. Mr. Tucker said two separate parcels of land zoned RS-1 residential exist in the Keswick area, each containing about two acres. One is at the terminius of Route 685, the other is at the intersection of Route 685 and Route 616. The comprehensive plan -shows this property is situated in the center of the recommended Keswick cluster. To the north of 1-64 a medium density is suggested. The area to the south is suggested as the central business district of Keswick. The staff had commented that if the Keswick cluster develops as generally proposed in the comprehensive plan, this area is better suited for the cen~er of the commercial activity~ How- ever, the established pattern is single-family residential, and they felt the exist- ing pattern should be recognized. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission recommended approval. No one from the public spoke for or against the petition. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to approve ZMP-296. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Wheeler. 5¸9 0 3-6-74 (8) SP-321. Herbert and Gertrude Scott have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on ten acres zoned.A-1 Agri- cultural. Property is Situated on the east. side-of Route 627 at Porter's Precinct. Property is further described as County Tax Map 120, Parcel 44~ Scottsville Magisterial District. ~Mr. Tucker said the property is situated at' the end of Route-826 on the east of Route 627 at Porter's. Route 826 is developed-in single family dwellings. There are, presently, about 12 such dwellings. This property is located at the end of the State- maintained road and is presently wooded and vacant. Mr. Tucker stated that the Plan- ning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) a~100-foot set back from Route 826; 2) the permit to be good for five years; 3) County Building Official approval; and 4) screening - leave as much screening as possible between the mobile home and the road. Mrs. Scott was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to approve as recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Mr. Fisher said the County Attorney had recently brought to the Board's atten- tion that in the granting of special permits on mobile homes it should be specifically spelled out that this permit is issued to this applicant only, and the permit is non- transferable. Mr. Wood said he would add this as an amendment to his motion. The motion was then seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried~by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. (9) SP-322. David W. Moore has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a veterinary office on part of 6.05 acres zoned A-1 Agri- cultural (Planned Community). Property is situated on the west side of Four Seasons Drive and the south side of Route 631 (Rio Road). Property is further described as County Tax Map 61-X(1), Parcel 2, part thereof. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said the proposed veterinary offices are to be located in the 'commer- cial mall of Four Seasons. This area adjoins the patio house sections across Four Seasons Drive and the apartment section to the south. There are presently several shops and offices occupying the main building, including an import shop, beauty shop, house plant shop, pet shop, and ceramics shop. Also included in the commerical area is a restaurant and a convenience food store. This area of Four Seasons also adjoins construction offices, and single family homes, all on Rio Road. mobile home park, Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the permit with the following conditions: 1) treatment of small animals only; 2) no boarding of animals on the premises (sick animals only to stay overnight); and 3)sound-proof walls. Dr. Moore was present ~n support of ~the petition. Mr. Fisher quesHioned the words "small" and "sick animals" in the conditions. Mr. Wood said this had been dis- cussed at the Planning Commission meeting, and he felt Dr. Moore could answer any questions. Dr. Moore said that small animals are pets, as'opposed to lire'stock. He does not treat anything that cannot be treated in the office. He does not treat equine, 3-6-74 cattle, sheep, or swine. Mr. Fisher asked how he would determine if an animal were sick. Dr. Moore said those who would require further treatment. Mr. Fisher said he could not see how this condition can be enforced if it is not more specific. He said the overnight keeping of sick animals is not anything the County can verify. Dr. Moore said there would be no boarding of animals. Motion was then offered by Mr. Wood to approve ~SP-322 as recommended by the Pla~ing Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr~ He~ley. Mr. Fisher said he felt the conditions were worthless as presented. He said if the conditions can~nOt be defined, then add a condition for administrative approval if complaints are received. This would then come back to the Board within a reason- able period of time. Mr. Henley said he felt that with the condition that the walls be sounduproof there will be no problem. Mr. Fisher said he could not support the motion as it stood. Mr. Thacker then called for a vote on the motion, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, and Wood. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Thacker. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler~. (10) SP-323. Samuel F. Byers, Jr. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 3..08 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 649 (Proffit Road), about one mile north of Proffit. Property is further described as County Tax Map 46, Parcel 33, (part thereof). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said that access to the subject property is by a dirt road known as Old Burnt Mill Road. This road presently serves one dwelling. The surrounding area is wooded. There are no other houses in view of the site. There is a Boy Scout retreat area located on this road. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP-323 with the following conditions: 1) a five-year period; 2) 30-foot setback from the access road; and 3) Building Official approval. Mr. Byers was present. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to approve SP-323 as recommended by the Planning Commission with the added condition that this permit is issued only to-Samuel F.'Byers, Jr. and is non- ~$ans~erable. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following ~r~.corded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. (11) SP-324. Charles and Dianne Durham have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home-on 10.53'acres zoned A-1 Agri- cultural. Property is situated on the east~side of Route 740~ near its intersection with Route 22. Property is further deScribed as County Tax Map 65, Parcel 102A. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said there presently exists on the property a dilapidated house. Upon field inspection, there were also two mobile homes located there. One permit was issued in 1970 under MHP-117 to Russell and Alice Breeden, the owners of the property. 3-6-74 The other mobile.~home was placed there by the applicant, a nephew of the landowner, prior to any approval. The applicant has. been notified that his mobile home is pre- sently in violation of the zoning Ordinance. Route 740 is developed in single-family homes. There are four mobile homes in addition to the other two i~ the immediate area. The subject property is partially cleared where the applicant's mobile home is located. The prOperty opposite is wooded. Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission recom- mended approval based on the following conditions': 1) County Building Official approv- al; 2) two years approved with yearly administrative approval for a total of five years subject to conditions being satisfied; 3) screening along Route 740; and 4) a 100-foot setback. Mr. Tucker also noted that this matter has been turned over to the Commonwealth's Attorney. Mr. Fisher asked what he meant by this. Mr. Tucker said that any time a violation is found, the Zoning Administrator must turn this matter over to the Common- wealth's Attorney in order to have a warrant served on the violator. M'r.. Fisher asked if this permit is intended to legalize the trailer that is already existing. Mr. Tucker said yes, if it is approved. Mr. Durham said that Russell Breeden is his uncle. He has his trailer on this pro- perty and only comes to this area three or four times a year. He asked him to live on the property to guard the trailer. Mr. Thacker asked if Mr. Durham owns the land on which this trailer sets, and Mr. Durham said he did not. Mr.. Fisher said if this matter has been turned over to the Commonwealth's Attorney, and the Board should approve this trailer, would it be possible that he would continue to prosecute this case on the basis of a prior violation. Mr. St. John said he could not speak for the Commonwealth's Attor- ney, but he would think that the fact that the Board had approved this permit would influence him. He woUld weigh this as to whether he wanted to prosecute it or have the judge do in any punishment for this violation. Mr. Fisher said as he understood it, the applicant does not own this land, and does not own the trailer. Mr. Durham said no, he did own the trailer. Mr. Fisher said he felt this is a rental agreement without transfer of funds, and the fact that the trailer is there in violation leads him to believe that this permit should not be approved. Mr. Thacker asked who moved the trailer onto the property. Mr. Durham said that Charlie Kingrea had moved the trailer for him. Mr. Batchelor asked if he had owned the trailer prior to its being moved onto this property. Mr. Durham said Ko, he had bought this from a private person. Mr. Wood said this was discussed at the Planning Commission, not having ownership of the property, but owning the trailer, and the Planning Com- mission saw fit to recommend approval. ~hey did take measures to protect what the Board is trying to do by putting a two year limit on the permit. Mr. Wood said he could not find anything wrong with it. He then offered motion to approve as recom- mended by the Planning Commission with the added condition that the permit is issued to this applicant on~ly and is non-transferable. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: 3-6-74 AYES: NAYS: Messrs, Carwile, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. Mr. Fisher (Mr. Fisher said he believes that if the Board continues to approve everything done in violation of County ordinances then the County ordinances will not mean anything.) ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. (12) SP-327. Lawrence Hackney has petitioned the Albemarle ~County Board of Super- visors to locate a mobile home on one acre zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east. side of Route 616 adjacent to the C & O Railway. Property is further described as County Tax Map 80,~ Parcel 155. Rivanna Magistrial District. Mr. Tucker said this property is one of many such small parcels in the Keswick area. The subject property contains a one-room building which may have been used as a dwelling or for storage. The property is largely cleared with pines along the rail- road. There are about ten other houses and two mobile homes in the immediate area. Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this petition conditioned on the following: 1) County Building Official approval; 2) the existing building is to be used for storage only or torn down; 3) a 100 foot setback; 4) screen- ing along Route 616; and 5) a five year limit, at the end of which it will come back before the Commission. Mr. Hackney was present in support of the petition. He said that they have alr.eady started the screening, and have a place for a septic tank. There w.ill be no problems in complying with the conditions placed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher asked if Fir. Hackney would live in this trailer. Mr. Hackney said it would be used when his family comes to visit. It will not be used by any strangers anyone looking for a place to rent. Mr. Wood then offered motion to approve SP-327 as recommended by the Planning Commission, and with the added condition that this permit is issued to this applicant only and is non-transferable. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messers, Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. The next item on the agenda was a request from Werner Hausler of Cogswell- Hausler Associates asking for a reconsideration of a vote taken on SP-308. Mr. Carwile stated that he would not participate in this discussion. He did not represent the applicant, but he did represent a person from whom the applicant had obtained an option for purchase of a portion of the property in the subject appli- cation. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. St. John what avenues were open to the Board in this matter. Mr. St. John said under the present rules that exist, a motion to reconsider can only be made at the same meeting or adjourned meeting at which the action was taken. This is not the next meetin'g. Someone must offer motion to suspend the rules 3-6-74 of this body, and-after suspending the ~rules, a motion can be made to reconsider. If that passes, the Board~can reconsider. Somewhere along the line the Board would have to give public notice that this is to be put on the agenda before hearing this case on it's merits. Mr. Fisher said what was on the agenda is a request from the applicant that the Board hear his reasons for wanting the Board to reconsider this. Mr. Werner Hausler was present. He understood that since the first hearing the master plan has been reviewed and certain parts of the plan ha~e been reeempha- sized by certain officials to the public in general. He asked for a reconsideration based on the following: 1) at some time in the future there mu~st be development in the east of'the County; 2) they do respect the wish for privacy by landowners of estates and farms in the immediate vicinity; 3) they have attempted to provide qual- ity construction 'design; 4) the tax input of this planned community would benefit the County in general; and 5) they do not want to use the already approved R-3 zon- ing to maximum saturation unless this is the only way in which they can recover their investment to date in the overall plan. Mr. Hausler said in their-study of the over- all land use program they were guided by the planning staff and met early planning department requirements. He said their studies reveal a chance to extend County or authority water to this area if it proves economically feasible. They propose to do this although there may be other alternatives available if approval is received. Their original plans for sewage disposal suggested a tertiary system which would meet efflu- ent standards for several years. Mr. Hausler said the applicants wish to have their company, their names, amd personal endeavors linked only to quality. He felt that since the first hearing of this petition, the few controversial points have been cleared. He requested the Board to reconsider application for SP-308 at the earliest possible date, still subject to an approved approach for water and sewer. Mr-.-F~isher said whether Cogswell-Hausler built a planned unit development or built on the existing R-3 land, they would still have to receive approval from the State Water Control Board for a sewage treatment system. He asked if this approval has been receiwed. Mr. Hausler said no. The first step was to obtain conceptual approval from the Board. They ~adsubmitted initial specifications on their system and have discussed these with the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher'said to his knowledge no such plants have been approved in this area for several years~ He asked if Mr. Hausler knew of any. Mr. Hausler said the State Water Control Board has approved t-reatment plants. The latest plant approved was for the Sheridan motel, however, it is not of the quality which they propose. Their plant meets or exceeds that which is generally requested. Mr. Fisher said that was not the question. There has been a general moratorium on all types of these plants, for several years. He asked if Mr. Hausler had received any indication from the State. Water Control Board that they are willing to drop that moratorium. Mr. Hausler said they have said they will process any application that is submitted, subject to obtaining the Board's 3-6-74 approval, and have stated they will approve the application if it meets their standards. Mr. Fisher asked~.Mr. Batchelor if he had heard anything about this. Mr. Batchelor said he had received an indication that they would approve plans after tentative approval was given by the County, but he felt this was a lever used to force the'County and the City into the formation of the Rivanna Authority rather than to discount small public systems through the County. Mr. Hausler said the plans submitted for a tertiary system would be for an interim ~system subject to this later being tied into a system that the County itself would build. At that time, the permanent plant would be disconnected and the com- munity would be tied to a general County-wide system. Mr.~ Fisher said he had been reviewing plans for sewer systems for the past year or so and he felt that what Mr. Hausler called an interim plant would be more or less permanent. Mr. Hausler said it would in fact be a permanent system, but there would be an agreement that when a fully operating County system is ready t~he system would be disconnected. Mr. Batchelor said this is an agreement which the Service Authority has requested of all such systems in order to avoid buying small ~ private systems as they have in the past. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Hausler if firm plans have been drawn for the ownership and operation of this plant that might exist for ten or fifteen years. Mr. Hausler said there was a stipulation in the special permit that they make a service agreement to be sure that the system is maintained up to standards. Mr. Henley asked if it were legal to require that the system be given, at some future date, to the Service Authority. Mr. St. John said this is part of the rules and regulations of the-Service Authority. If the applicant is considering extending the Service Authority's water lines, even at his own expense, out to this area, this involves permanent, perpetual maintenance by the Service Authority, and an obligation by them to perpetually supply water. They do not have to do this. Secondly, this is outside of the Service Authority's jurisdictional area. This does not present any problem since the County can require that the plant, -tertiary or secondary sewage- treatment plant, shall become the property of the County for the benefit of the Ser- vice Authority and the County can turn this over to the Service Authority at the appropriate time in the future. There is nothing that can be done about that if the applicant wants to agree to it in order to obtain approval for the development~ Before the Board approves anything, they should realize ~that either the County, the Service Authority, or the developer, will be obliged to maintain the system. In which case, the Board would need some means to insure that it is maintained. If the system went bad, there would be people living there and .no way to cut off the effluent. Mr. Hausler said it is the nature of a tertiary system that it needs a full 3-6-74 maintenance program. It would not be left unattended. Mr. St. John said the fact that the developer will build a plant does not solve the problem, but creates~a problem. He said Mr. Hausler would need a commitment from the Service Authority before building the lines. The Service Authority .would have to either accept the system and provide it with water after it is installed by the developer, or the Board would need a means to insure maintenance of the sewer and water systems. Mr. Henley asked how the one piece of land received R-3 zoning in the beginning. Mr. Batchelor said when the original zoning map was drawn, requests were taken from citizens as to what they wanted and very few changes were made by the Planning Com- mission or the Board of Supervisors. He said there are spots of zoning all over Albemarle County which resulted from that concept~. Mr. St. John said he did not think the State Water Control Board will allow a tertiary or any other kind .of sewage plant to serve this size development without requiring some assurance of perpetual maintenance. Mr. Hausler said part of the con- ditions placed on this special permit request by the Planning Commission was that there must be some agreement. He understoOd that the water and sewer problems are subject to a very detailed analysis and further approval by the County. He said initially they are dealing with a septic system. Mr. St. John said this would be true whether or not the Board approved a planned unit development ~or Cogswell- Hausler developed the R=~ land. Mr. Hausler said yes, but with just the R-3 they could go directly to the full set of stipulations regarding water and sewer without this interim conceptual approval. Mr. Fisher asked what Mr. Hausler meant by this. Mr. Hausler said because the zoning already exists. Mr. Fish.er said he understood this, but the maintenance of the system is still the same. Mr. Fisher said his point in asking these questions is that the applicant has come back to the Board saying that he does not want to develop the R-3 land that exists, but will be forced to do so if the Board does not grant this special permit. He felt there is still the unsolved question of whether or not the State Water-Control Board will approve any not system, or the Rivanna Authority will maintain the system. He said he did/see at this point that it is certain that the R-3 land can be developed. Mr. St. John said apparently Mr. Hausler has recognized the obstacles that exist, but in using the R-3 land he would not have to get any preliminary approval before going to the Water Control Board. He could go to the Service Authority and if they will let him extend the water lines without first obtaining the Board's pre- liminary approval, it would then be a question of whether or not they would undertake this burden. Mr. Fisher said he understood this, but the question of developing the R-3 is almost an implied threat that if the Board does not consider the planned unit, he will develop the R, 3 and it was not clear to him what they will be able to do either. He said there have been a number of citizens involved in the discussion of this and he would like to hear comments from citizens of that area. 3-6-74 A Mr. Coles said there had been several hearings on this, but he had?~not recezved any notice of this meeting until late this afternoon. He did not think it would be fair to the citizens to suspend the rules without giving the citizens notice. He said the citizens have lost confidence with some of the County's officials, and he did not feel it would be fair to act on this request again so soon. Mr. Coles said when Mr. Hausler mentioned the tax base, it opened up the merits of the total project. He mentioned the Urban Institute study on Hollymead and said he felt this project will be expensive in the way of schools, fire protection, etc., and this was not just a question of water and sewer. Mr. Thacker said the Board was only considering whether or not to allow the peti- tioner to make another presentation. If the Board decides to allow this, the petition would be advertised for a public hearing at another meeting. Mr. Fisher said he did not think the Planning staff had been asked for a recom- mendation b.ecause the requeSt to reconsider was addressed to the Board. He felt the matter boils down to a matter of density, and.it was his personal feeling that the Board must decide if they want 200 or~ a possible 300 to 500 units. This is a differ- ent question from the water and sewer question. Mr. Wood said it had been approximately four months since this request originally came to the Board and normally the Board requires people to wait a year before they can bring the same petition back. He said the applicant's problems with the State Water Control Board on water and sewer will probably require a year to work out. He did not believe this will be a simple problem to solve. Mr4 Wood said he was in favor of letting things take their normal course, since the petitioner has a right to come back in one year. Mr. Henley said he felt as Mr. Wood does. However, if someone had strong objec- tions, he would not object to rehearing the petition. Mr. Fisher asked if any action were needed if the Board intended to let their previous action stand. Mr. St. John said unless the Board enacts a resolution by a ~majori~y of those voting affirmatively to suspend the rules and then enacts another motion to rehear the case, it will not be reheard. If the Board does nothing, then the status quo stands. Mr. Thacker asked if anyone would like to make such a motion to suspend the rules. No one spoke. Mr. Thacker announced that the request was therefore denied. Mr. Thacker said Mr. Wheeler had asked that appointments to the Historic Land- marks Commission be carried over to another meeting. Mr-. Henley offered the name of Walter F. Perkins, an area forester for Westvaco and a graduate of VPI, for appointment as a member of the Piedmont Community College Board of Directors. Mr. Wood offered the name of Dr. Robert S. Brown, Headmaster of Blue Ridge School, for appointment as a member of the Piedmont Community College Board of Directors. Mr. Fisher offered motion to appoint these persons to fill the terms of 3-6-74 Mr. James B. Murray and the Reverend John A. Wright, Jr., both of whom had resigned, Mr. Perkins to fill the term of Mr. Murray, Said term expiring on June 30, 1977, and Dr. Brown ~oifi'lt~.the~9~mi~ ~vC'~.W~i~h~.~.' ~,1 The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and /whose term expired on June 30, 1976.,/ carried by the following recorded vote: -~ AYES: Messrs. Carwile Fisher Henley· Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to advertise for public hearings on March 27, 1974, to include ~our Sersons under Section 4-13-1, Article II, Chapter 4 of the ~ County Code, to be advertised for 7:30 P.M.; and Earlysville Heights to be included under the same section, to be advertised for 7:45 P.M. Mr. Car.wile asked if the Board should await the outcome of the Crozet suit before advertising anymore public hearings on this dog leash law. Mr. St. John said the suit may not be heard until fall. Mr. Batchelor asked~if the request is for just the townhouse section of Four Seasons. Mr. Wood said it is for the entire subdivision. Mrs. Batchelor asked that the Board hear comments from the County Attorney before adding fuel to an oncoming fire. Mr. St. John said it has been challenged and the Board. knew it could be. He said the Board should not hold up on any of these petitions until the outcome of the Crozet ~uit, because they do not know when it will be heard. He thought all of the other areas under this law will be governed by the outcome of the Crozet suit, but th% Board should not be influenced by the fact that the Crozet suit is on file. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Wood~and carried by the following record- ed vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Batchelor said he had received a request from the City Manager today to sign a letter requesting~ that the City of Charlottesville be designated as a prime sponsor in the comprehensive employment and training act of Title I. He told the City Manager that the County has spent money getting versed in this, and he would.not recommend to the Board of Supervisors that Charlottesville be the prime sponsor· but would recommend that Charlottesville/Albemarle be the prime sponsors. He said the County has used some of these funds in .the past. It will be heavily used in the future. If the County does not take this action, .the State will be the prime sponsors, and the County will.have to ~ go to Richmond to justify their programs. This cuts out the middleman and will, hope- fully· put the County in a better position. He recommended this to the Board. After a short discussion, it was the concensus of the Board that insufficient information was presented. Mr. Fisher requested that this be put on the agenda for March 13. 3-6-74 Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to adjourn this meeting until March 13, 1974, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board RoOm, for a public work session on the 1974-75 budget. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. Chairman