1974-03-27N218
3-27-74 ('night)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on March 27, 1974, at 7:45 P.M. in the Albemarle' County Courthouse, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia.
Present- Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley., Jr.,
William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Absent: None.
Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney.
At 7:45 P.M. the Board conducted a public hearing, as advertised'in the Daily Progress
on March 15 and March 22, 1974, to amend and re-enact Section 4-13-1, Chapter 4,
Article II, of the Albemarle County Code, relating to dogs, by the addition of Four
Seasons as one of those areas designated where dogs are prohibited from running at large.
First to speak was David L. Hake, President, Four Seasons Townhouse Association.
He said that on February 12, 1974, he had sent a letter to Mr. Wood asking that this
area be included under the County dog leash law. There are 160 houses on 20 acres.
The Association had obtained the signatures of 183 residents on a petition. This
represents 79% of the homes occupied in Four Seasons and 76% of the adult residents.
Mr. Daley Craig has also requested that the apartment-commercial-recreational areas
of Four Seasons be included.
Next to speak was George Larkin, President, Patio House Association. He said that
in January the Association sent out a questionnaire~and had received 36 replies. They
now have 56 signatures on a petition. This represents 65% of the currently occupied
patio houses.
Mr. Bob Roper, representing the Woodlake Corporation, also spoke. He said they also
endorse efforts to have this leash law enacted. Woodlake Corporation owns 300 homes
in the apartment section.
Mr. James Wiley said the dogs are beginnigg to run in packs, and have done damage
to the tennis courts. He said the sitation grows worse each day.
in Four Seasons who was
Mr. George Telvis said there was a child/bitten and chased by a pack of dogs.
He called the Sheriff, but could not identify the owner, therefore the Sheriff said
he could do nothing about the situation.
Mr. Wood said he had spoken with the property owners of Four Seasons. He said this
was one of the primary examples why the .Board of Supervisors asked the General Assembly
to grant them the authority to place cOmmunities of high-density development under this
law where dogs should not be allowed to run at large as opposed to rural areas where
dogs 'should be allowed to run at large. Mr. Wood then offered motion to amend and reenact
Section 4-13-1, Chapter 4, Article II, of the Albemarle County Code by the addition of
Four Seasons, as described below:
Area 9. Four Seasons as platted and put to record in the Clerk's Office of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 467, page 378 and Deed Book 481, page 417.
Mr. Wood's motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile' and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
3-2~-74 (night)
The Board continued with a public hearing, as advertised on March 15 and March 22,
1974, in'the Daily Progress, to amend and re-enact Section 4-13-1, Chapter 4, Article II,
of the Albemarle County Code relating to dogs by the addition of Earlysville Heights
Subdivision, as one of those areas designated where dogs are prohibited from running at
large.
Mr. Hubert Collidge said he had a petition which contained the signatures of owners
of 18 of the 28 occupied homes. He said there is a problem with dogs running at large
and the situation grows worse. He feels this is the proper' time to enact this ordinance.
an
He said although Earlysville Heights is not as dense as Four Seasons, it is not/open
area, and the rights of owners and children should take precedent.
Mr. Bob Horan said he has lived in Earlysville Heights for five years and the
situation has grown steadily worse. Dogs do run in packs. One of his neighbors had
a cat killed by dogs and he felt the ordinance should be enacted before the situation
becomes worse.
Mr. Wheeler asked if the dogs causing the problem belong to people living in Earlys-
ville Heights. A gentlemen replied that most of the dogs belong to owners residing
in the subdivision.
Mr. Jim Bernhardt said he agreed with the first two gentlemen speaking. Some dogs
in the area have no tags, and do run in packs. They have fought in his yard at night.
He felt this was minor compared to what might happen to a child and he felt the people do
need this additional protection.
Mrs. William Sullivan spoke in opposition. She felt that most of the dogs running
at large are from outside of the Earlysville Height area. Most owners in the subdivision
have small dogs. She did not understand how this leash law will keep the stray dogs
our of Earlysville Heights.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. St. John how the County can handle dogs that come from outside
of the leash law area. Mr. St. John said if the law is valid at all, persons that live
outside the area are also subject to the same sanctions, if they allow their dogs to
run loose in a designated area, regardless of whether they live outside of the area
or not.
Mr. Batchelor said the Dog Warden has said several times that there is a problem
with people who abandon deer dogs after hunting season. Mr. Wheeler said ,the citizens
should call the Dog Warden and have these dogs picked up.
.Mr. Wood offered motion to amend and re-enact Section 4-13-1, Chapa~r 4, Article II,
of the Albemarle County Code, by the addition of Earlysville He~ights, as described below:
Area 10. Earlysville Heights Subdivision. as platted and put to
record in the Clerk's Office of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 452, page 165, and Deed Book 491, page 3.
Mr. Wood said this was a similar situation to what has occured where he lives,
near the City limits. He said if his dog goes across the City line, it is picked up and
he must pay a fine to get the dog back.
Mr. Thacker said he would second the motion for purposes of discussion, which did not
mean that he would support the motion.
i2'0
Mr. Thacker said he felt there was one point here which makes the situation
different from that in other areas. There are only 18 of the 28 owners in the sub-
division who have signed the peition, approximately 64%. He felt this was rather
low. He preferred to see more people requesting control before voting in favor Of
the amendment for Earlysville Heights.
Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. CarWile, Henley, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: Mr. Thacker.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
The next item under discussion was ZMP-292 for Ferrell Smith. Mr. Wheeler said he
had received a letter from Better Living, Inc., asking that the peition be withdrawn
since they have checked and the land is not suitable for a septic system. Motion to
allow the petition to be withdrawn without prejudice was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded
by Mr. Thacker, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The next item before the Board was petition SP-253 for Frank Folsom Smith. Action
on this petiton had been deferred from January 23, 1974. Mr. Humphrey stated that this
matter had been deferred in order to obtain additional information on the water and
sewerage systems. Also, legal instruments and well-test information. He said this
information had been received and reviewed by the County Engineer and Health Department.
The legal instruments have been reviewed by the County Attorney. He read the following
memorandum from the County Engineer into the record:
March 25, 19 74
Memo To:
From:
Subject:
John L. Humphrey
J. Harvey Bailey
Peacock Hill Water and Sewer
Mr. McQuade of John McNair and Associates brought in the additional data that
we requested in our meeting of some two weeks ago and discussed it with me.
The following additional comments are made on the proposed sewage and water
systems for the Peacock Hill development:
Test data on an additional well and a schedule of operation were delivered.
The well was subjected to a 72-hour test. It's flow stabilized at
28 g.p.m, after 36 hours.
The total flow from the two wells if 66 g.p.m. We recommend the allowance
of 0.5 g.p.m, per dwelling for a possible total of 132 equivalent house
connections.
Because the concentration of manganese is above the allowable limit
recommended by the state, provision should be made for treatment equipment.
It would be well to anticipate iron may also have to be removed and
provide space and plumbing for the necessary equipment.
The organization for the operation of the water and sewer systems should
be described in the covenants accompanying the recordation of the
development.
We agree that fire protection through the water system is imPractical. The
hydrants mentioned in operation of the water system are in reality blow-off
devices. A map showing ponds for fire protection demonstrates what storage
capacity is available. Although this map does not show it, each pond will
have a service road, loading area and facilities for the rapid loading of
water tank trucks, such as the local volunteer fire companies commonly use.
These improvements should be made a part of the approved plans.
3-27-74 (night)
121
Sewerage. The multiple septic tank system for sewage disposal is the method
we earlier recommended for this area. Additional soil tests have been made
since the first review. We are pleased to note that the drainage fields are
located remote and down grade from the wells. Also, the developer is showing
a total of 16.8 acres available for use to serve the cluster areas initially,
with a back-up of 18.1 acres replacement. The average dwelling requires
2400 sq. ft. of drainage field. This would allow better than 15 dwellings
per acre, so that there is apparantly room for two replacements. These areas
should be properly marked and preserved for use as drain fields.
Some interested persons have inquired about the possible danger of ground-
water pollution from so extensive drain fields as are contemplated in this
development. We have asked the opinion of some knowledgeable people in the
groundwater field. They were of the opinion that groundwater movement in a
situation such as this is extremely unlikely to produce a hazard to any
well that is beyond the limits set by the Health Department in such cases.
We are in.agreement with the proposed schedule of maintenance of both the water and
sewer systems ."
Mr. Humphrey said he had also received a letter from Mr. Homer Chevacci, Chief of
the Environmental Health Division of the local Health Department, in which he stated that
after reviewing soil studies and perk tests made by Gooch and Associates and the State
Health Department that he finds the soil suitable for. a subsurface drain field.
Mr. Wheeler asked if Mr. Humphrey had stated that the wells would produce only
1/2 g.p.m. Mr. Humphrey said yes. Mr. Henley asked if this 'is enough for the complete
development. Mr. Humphrey said no, this is for approximately 132 units out of a total
of 190. Mr. Batchelor asked how many units would be served if this were based on 1 g.p.m.
Mr. Humphrey replied that this would serve 66 units, however, they the applicant has
requested approval for only 88 units in phase I.
Mr. St. John said he had received documents from Mr. Middleditch. These included
restrictive covenants, to be recorded as a corporate charter, and by-laws. He said he
wrote a letter and questioned certain things. At the last meeting it was suggested that
the sewer service, the water service, and possibly restricted roads, be handled by a
homeowner's association and that this not be a public service company. He now under-
stands that the water will be a public service corporation. If it is, he would no longer
have any reason to suggest how it would organized since it will be subject to rules..' Of
the State Corporation Commission. That charter was not presented to him and the home-
owner's assocation did not say anything about how the sewerage would be handled. He
said there will be sepa~rate septic fields, and that each Will have more than one family
using it. It must, therefore, be made clear as to how this will be handled, but it must
be spelled out in the homeowner's association. Mr. St. John said he felt the Board's
main concern was the matter of restricted roads.
Mr. Wheeler said the Board is not approving restricted roads. Mr. St. John said if
restricted roads are requested later,,~control or maintenance of these roads should be
spelled out now. Mr. Wheeler said the Board should not lead the applicant into believing
that they will allow restricted roads. Mr. St. John said the main reason documents of
this type are sent to his office is so he can review procedures for restricted roads.
If there is not a homeowner's association to be involved in the water and sewer, the County
would have no function in reviewing these documents. Mr. Wheeler asked the other Board
members if they had given any thought to approving restricted roads for this development.
i22
Mr. Fisher said'he did not believe that was part of the request.
Mr. Leigh Middleditch, attorney for the developer, was present. He said at the
January meeting the Board had laid down five points which were to be worked out with
County staff and all of these related strictly to water and sewer. The documents he
presented to Mr. St. John, which also .included documents relating to the overall sub-
division, were sent as information only. The only documents being presented tonight,
relate to the water and sewer. The water~ and sewer will both be within the public
utility which they will present to the State Corporation Commission. The SCC has the
duty to assure that there is reasonable service at reasonable rates within the areas to
be served. There are also statutes which authorize the SCC to correct any service the
State deems not to be reasonable for the future. The single-family units will have
their own septic fields, but will be tied into the public service company by a contract.
The public service company will have the right to supervise the location of the fields
and the right to inspect and maintain these.
Mr. St. John said he found nothing wrong with the documents delivered tO him. How-
ever, Mr. Middleditch had stated in a letter that the road system will be presented
at a subsequent meeting of the Board, together with the site plan, and a final draft
of the association documents. He said if there are to be restricted roads, he could
see nothing wrong with the homeowner's association documents, but, 'if they plan to
apply for restricted roads, the matter should be discussed at this time.
Mr. Middleditch said they had not come prepared to discuss anything other than the
water and sewer, which they thought was the main concern of the Board at the last meeting.
Mr. Wheeler said unless the Board changed their restricted roads policy, there would
be no restricted roads. He then opened the floor for comments from the public.
Mrs..Frances Martin commended the developer for having a meeting with citizens of
the area. Since that meeting these citizens have discussed the proposal in depth with
independent engineers and they have assured the citizens that this is a good plan. On
the basis of what these citizens have seen, they feel the Board will approva the system,
since they feel this type of system will become popular in counties in order to avoid
collision with the S~ate Water Control Board. The likelihood of polluting ground water
is not very possible, however, since there is no absolute assurance, and the only way to
assure this is by rock testing and boring throughout the whole area, they ask the Board
'~to consider making this a part of procedures in the future.
Mr. Powhatan Baber, from Ivy, spoke next. He said at the January meeting he under-
stood the Board to say they will not be satisfied with less than a one-gallon per minute
flow, per unit, for this development. Since the proposat will supply only one-half
g.p.m., he wondered if the Board had changed their minds. His only concern with the
development is the water aspect and the fact that the tests were carried out after a
very rainy season. He asked that the various phases of this project be reviewed
individually in order to given enough time to test how the wells in operation are
servicing the units which have been built.
3-27-74 (night) ~
i2 3'
Mr. John O. Higginson asked if the statement made by Mr. Humphrey from a
geologist was a fact, or opinion, as to what the drawdown'~ on this well would
do to the water in the area.
Mr. Humphrey said the only information he had was given to him by Mr. Bailey, County
Engineer, and a letter from Mr. Robert S. Young, President, North American Exploration,
Inc., and he read the following into the record:
"March 20, 19 74
Re:
Peacock Hill Wells
Mr. Richard G. McQuate, P.E.
John McNair & Associates
Consulting Engineers
Dear Mr. McQuate:
I have received the pump test and drawdown data on wells #3 and #5 from
Mr. Moore, a copy of which is attached hereto, and I am pleased to report
that these data support my prediction that pumping either well would have no
significant affect, in terms of drawdown, on the other.
As pointed out in a pevious report (9/18/73), all of the wells drilled
to date on the Peacock Hill property are in the Lovingston monzonite-
granodiorite gneiss. The physical characteristics of this rock are such
that its inherent porosity-permeability, in terms of groundwater storage and
transmission, are fundamentally zero. Groundwater systems are developed in
relatively local areas through secondary porosity-permeability resulting
from joints, shear zones or shattering in bedrock. Consequently, in order
that one well, in this area, have a significant drawdown affect on another
well, they must both be in the same fracture zone and in very close proxim--
ity (a maximum of a few hundred feet). Mr. Moore's data support the fore-
going statement.
Both wells #3 and #5 are located at the intersection of two or more
fracture traces, but they do share a mutual trace. If the zone of influence
created by pumping either well is to be extensive, it would immediately be
reflected by a lowering of the static level in the other well. After pump-
ing well #5 for 72 hours, the water level in well #3 was lowered only five
inches from static level. During the same test period,..well #i, on the
eastern side of the property, Showed no change in static level. As wells
#3 and #5 are only some 800 feet apart and do Share one fracture zone, the
drawdown data show that pumping any well on the Peacock Hill property will
have no significant affect on any other well in this general area, even-if
it was to be located on the same water-bearing structure. The statistical
odds that pumping the Peacock Hill wells will affect the yield or static
level of any well one mile distant are so low that they cannot be realisti-
cally calculated.
Should.you have any questions on the foregoing, please contact me at
your convenience.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Robert S. Young
President"
"March 15, 19 74
Mr. Robert Young
North American Exploration, Inc.
Charlottesville, Va.
Subject: Wells at Peacock Hill
Dear Mr. Young:
After testing well #3 for 52 hours, well was furnishing 38 g.p.m, at a
well level of 206 feet. The well leveled off after 36 hours at 206 feet
with 38~g.p.m.
The test on well #5 was run for 72 hours. After 36 hours, it had
leveled off at 28 g.p.m, at a 290 foot water level."
3-27-74 (night)
124
"Well f~3 had a drawdown of 4 inches and well fJl did not
have any drawdown.
Mr. Young, we hope the above is the information you desired;
however, if you have further questions please do not hesitate ~to
contact us.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Lanny L. Moore,
Manager
C. R~ Moore Well Drilling Co., Inc."
Mr. Frank Smith, the developer, spoke next. He said the recommendation of the
County Engineer was originally for 1/3 gallon per minute per unit. There are conditions
under central metering where the State Health Department recommends 1/2 gallon per
minute. They are not trying to force any one issue at this time, and have only asked
for approval for 38 units on the first plat. They will come back to the Board for
additional approvals in the future. This first approval will given them three or
four years to see how the wells test, and during that time they will know the amount of
water emitted from the septic tanks. He feels that the experience factor will speak for
itself.
Mr. Wheeler said in his years as a member of the Board, he has heard numerous
recommendations from engineers and others; all made in g~od faith.,/. However, when the
water situation became serious, those people had come to the Board and said things happen.
He said as lOng as he is a member of the Board, he will not vote for approval of less
than one-gallon per minute, per unit. He felt there would be adequate water for 38
dwelling units, however, he wanted to make it clear at this time what position he will
take in the future.
Mr. Fisher said he shared the Chairman's concern about the water, and felt this
should be left at one-gallon per minut@. He felt this matter had been deferred so
the Board could s. ee-what kind of legal instruments had been drawn to handle the
responsibility if the wells go dry. He had not seen any documents and ~Jid not under-
stand what the public service corporation would do. He was reluctant to approva2 this
until he knew the citizens who would live there are reasonably protected and that they
can ban together to solve their problems, if and when they occur. He ~also wanted to
be sure the County will be protected so the citizens at large will not have to pick up
this bill.
Mr. St. John said this public service corporation does have a public responsibility.
They cannot just go out of business. However, no matter what type of system, there is
no assurance it will not go dry. The County would not be responsible except as they are
responsible to all citizens in all matters. There is no law which states that the County
would have to furnish water to this development. There are no documents that can be
drawn and no organization that can be formed to remedy this if the Board allows a develop-
ment where, after the fact, there is found ~ is not enough water in the g~ound or the
water table to supply the development. With respect to the documentS,~ Mr. St. John said
they were as good as any he had seen and he could find no improvements to be made in them.
3-27-74 (night)
Mr. Wheeler said it has been his experience that if something goes wrong, even
thought the County Attorney said the County does not have the responsibility and is
not liable to furnish water, that the Board would feel responsible and probably try
to do something about the situation. It concerned him to approve something that may
eventually cause problems. The County has had quite a number of problems with well
systems.
Mr. Thacker said that 1/2 g.p.m, flow is very low and he was not sure that one
g.p.m, is adequate. He asked Mr. St. John the best method to provide for adequacy of
the utility system andwh~h~r this s~ho~ld be a public service corporation or by home-
owner's agreements. Mr. St. John said a' public service corporation would be the best
since it would be controlled by the State Corporation Commission. If the homeowners
want to go out of business, they can just drop that corporation. The citizens would
have better protection ~ith.,~a-system of this size being a public utility. They would
be accountable to the State Corporation Commission, and their activities would be
reviewed periodically. Mr. St. John felt the law requires the water to be a public
service corporation when it serves fifty people. He said the Board could require this
precedent to approval of these 38 units. With respect, to the sewer system, the Board
could also require this to be under the jurisdiction of a public service corporation,
although he had never seen a system composed of individual septic tanks which were in
turn under the ~jurisdiction of a public service corporation. He felt this would be
more feasible if the State Corporation Commission would approve same. He said it is
understood by the developer that alt the septic system will eventually become a public
system, and at the time it would have be under a public service corporation.
Mr. Wheeler said he felt the Board should require-a ,one-gallon per minute water
flow. Mr. Fisher asked if the ponds for fire protection presently exist. Mr. Smith
said no. Mr. Fisher asked if the developer intends to build roads which the County
Engineer has suggested so fire trucks could get to the ponds for water in emergencies.
Mr. Smith said they would provide access. Mr. Fisher said that this evidently was not
the final approval for the 38 units. Mr. Humphrey said no, they would still have. to
come back and g~ through subdivision ordinance and townhouse ordinance controls and
the site plan for recreational ar~eas would have to be approved when same is contemplated.
Mr. Thacker then offered motion to approve SP-253 conditioned upon the following
ins truments:
(1) Exhibit A - Drawing entitled "Water System Master Plan" with revision
dates 12/10/73, 1/15/74, and 3/12/74.
(2) Exhibit B - Drawing entitled "Sewerage Master Plan" with revision dates
12/10/73, 1/15/74, and 3/20/74.
(3) EXhibit C - Drawing entitled "Ponds for Fire Protection and Siltation
Control."
(4)EXhibit D Booklet presented to the Planning staff entitled "Peacock
Hill Water and Sewerage System" dated 3/27/74.
(5) EXhibit E Drawing ent±tled "Prototype Sewerage Disposal Systems"
and the following Conditions: (6) that the water and sewer be established under a
3-27-74 (night)
public service utility and this approval tonight be limited to 38 dwelling units; and
(7) necessary access to proposed ponds indicated on the drawing entitled "Bonds,
etc." ~ provided by the developer before construction of any unit.
Mr. Batchelor said if the Board is to establish a policy to limit approval to
one-gallon per minute until a study shows that the water flow can be less, it Should
be stated at this time. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Thacker if he would add that stipulation
to his motion. Mr. Thacker amended his motion to include that the Board hereby
establishes a policy for water of one-gallon per minute, per dwelling unit, unless
adequate proof is provided to the Board that the limit should be lowered. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Thacker said he would like to clarify his motion by stating that the Board
has establiShed the water requirement of one-gallon per minute, per dwelling unit,
unless evidence is presented to lower that requirement. However, if adequate proof
is furnished the Board to require a larger water flow, it is his intent to support
that in approval of following phases. Mr. Smith asked if this changed the 38 dwelling
units which the Boamd~.permitted. Mr. Thacker said no, that approval will remain at 38.
The one-gallon per minute is to indicate the intent of the Board to require at least
one-gallon per minute for all future phases.
Mr. Middleditch said there was a resolution included in the package of documents
presented to Mr. St. John earlier. They had been referred to a statute in the Code
which requires the governing body to give approval for application for a
where there zs 'a water and sewer authority such as the Rivanna Authority.
utility
Mr. Fisher then read the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Peacock Hill Planned Unit Development has heretofore
received approval from the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
conditioned, inter alia, on the approval under separate permit of
a central well system and sewage disposal system (the "utilities
systems" herein); See SP-253 as approved June 27, 1973
WHEREAS, it has been proposed in conjunction with said permit that
a public~ service company, known as the Peacock Hill Service Company,
be chartered for the furnishing of such water and sewage servi'c~es;
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has no desire to operate such
utilities systems to be installed at the Peacock Hill Planned Unit
Development, either itself or through a political subdivision, and
has been and is at the present time unwilling to assume any
obligation to do so;
NOW', THEREFORE, be it resolved, that pursuant to Virginia Code
856-265.3, the County of Albemarle authorized the organization of a
Virginia public service corporation to operate the ntilities systems
in the Peacock Hill Planned Unit Development and authorizes such
corporation's application to the State Corporation Commission for a
certificate of public convenience and necessity; and that the Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized to communicate this
approval to the State Corporation Commission;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the separate permit for such utilities systems
is hereby granted subject to the granting of the corporation's application
for such certificate of public convenience and necessity by the State
Corporation Commission.
Mr. Fisher said the resolution referred onlY to approval given on June 27, 1973,
and did not refer to any action taken by the Board tonight or to the number of units
which will be permitted. Mr. Middleditch said the action of June 27 granted the PUD
conditioned on eight separate items. One of those was that the water and sewer be
approved under a separate special permit. He said the statute governing this requires
them to obtain a resolution similar to this one in order to proceed with application
for a public utility. Mr. St. John said the purpose of this resolution is to allow
another authority, instead of the Board of Supervisors, to exercise final authority
in this matter. Mr. Batchelor said if the State Corporation Commission gave permission
to serve 1,000 units, they would be allowed to build no more units than had been allowed
on the special permit.
Mr. Carwile offered motion to adopt the resolution, as read, including the date,
March 27, 1974, in the wor'iding. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: MeSsrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
At this time the Board continued with public hearings on zoning matters as advertised
in the Daily Progress on March 6 and March 13, 1974:
(1) ZMP-297. Lydia C. Leake has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to
rezone 20 acres from A-1 Agricultural to M-1 Industrial. Property is
situated on the east side of Route 649 and the west aide of the Southern
Railway at Proffit. Property is further described as Connty Tax Map 46,
Parcel 38 (part thereof). Rivanna Magisterial DiStrict.
(Mr. Fisher abstaining during the following discussion of this request.) Mr. Humphrey
gave the staff's report stating that the subject property is wooded and vacant with the
Southern Railway forming the western boundary. There are five, singt~-family residences
located in the immediate area. The area adjacent to the north is zoned Mai Manufac-
turing and contains 78 acres, however, only 24 acres of this area is being used for
industrial purposes (Automated Structures). The remaining 54 acres are vacant. The
topography is varied with some extreme slopes near the right~of-way of the Southern
Railway. The comprehensive plan indicates this parcel to be in an area suggested for
RS-1 development and does not recognize the abutting M-1 acreage, but does recognize
the existing area presently housing the building component facility. This property
is one step away from infringing ~on an established residential setting. However, since
the M-1 zone was established not only to stand alone as a separate area, but to locate
near residential areas, the staff was of the opinion that' it could fit into the area.
The staff also noted that to rezone any further land east of this property could result
in disr. uption of the Proffit area as a residential setting. Mr. Humphrey said the Plan-
ning Commission had deferred action on this matter at their firSt hearing and made a
fi&ld trip to inspect the property and surrounding area. The Planning Commission now
recommends denial feeling that the request is premature and there is not adequate
wate~ and sewer or roads.
128 3-27-74 (night)
Mr. Paul Peatross was present to represent Mrs. Leake. He said Mrs. Leake owns
all of parcel 38, which constitutes 39.39 acres and also owns three acres ~across
Proffit Road. The 20 acres in question is all timber land, and is separated by
fences on the north and the south and bound on the north and the south by the railroad
and State Route 649. The topography of the land makes it difficult for her to sell
this property for residential purposes. She desires to have this rezoned to M-I. and
has a prospective buyer, Mr.. Claude Cotten. Mr. Cotten has planned to create an industrial
park on this property. He already owns the land to the north of this property which
is already zoned M-1. He would like to put this land to some us~e and wants to add this
20 acres because the topography would make a better layout for an indUstrial park.
Mrs. Leake would be the adjoining landowner and she has no objection to his plans. The
Planning Commission in their consideration of the request stndied water and sewer and
the roads .~ Mr. '~P.~at~Oss said the Property would not be developed overnight and there
is a possibility that at some time in the future public water will be available. It was
also brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that the roads in this area
are not adequate for the development of M-1. However, he said the roads are .a problem
which will have to be corrected in the future. The industrial park will have an internal
road system. Automated Structures has to use Route 649 into Proffit in order to get to
the railroad track. The internal road system within this industrial park will eliminate
some of these problems.
Mr. Max Evans, designer of the park, was present. He said they had studied the
topography of this land for an industrial park development. They feel a better internal
circulatiOn can be obtained if the entire site is developed. T-here would be two major
entrances into the property, and with this acreage added, there would be a better situation
regarding a railroad siding on this site.
Mrs. Wheeler asked how many acres are involved in the land which is already zoned M-1.
Mr. Evans said there are approximately 47 acres, Mr. Wheeler asked how many of these
acres are being used at the present time. Mr. Evans said there are none developed at the
present time. Mr. Wheeler then opened the floor for public comments.
Mrs. Kitty Fisher presented to the Board a petition containing tl~e ~signatures of
160 residents of Proffit Road, all signing in opposition to the request. They based
their request on the fact that the raw materials come in by rail, but go out by trailer
truck along Route 649 which is very narrow and overloaded with traffic. They also
object to the noise and the pollution of such use of this land. She ~said the ~Southern
Railroad had taken away their railroad siding in the area and the citizens ask that
the Board .deny the request for this petition.
Mr. Wood said he is familiar with the area and the road conditions. He has had
numerous complaints about the situation as it presently exists. He felt this is not
the proper time to rezone this land to M-1. Someday this area may be conducive as an
industrial park because of the closeness of the railroad, however, at the present time,
this would open up an additional area and let in certain industries in the M-1 zone that
the Board may not want there at this particular time. He then offered motion to deny
3-27-74 (night) !29
Mr. Wheeler said he agreed with Mr. Wood and also considered the fact that there
are alr~ady~'over 40 acres in the area zoned M-1. He did not feel this rezoning would
be in the .best interest of the community.
Mr. Wood's motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker. Mr. Henley asked if the railroad
spur is already at that particular point. Mr. Evans said no. Vote was taken at this
point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Fisher.
(2) ZMP-29 8.
Mr. and Mrs. William Keith Woodard have petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to rezone 2.0 acres from Aal Agricultural to RS-1
Residential. Property is situated on the east side of Route 657,
(Lamb's Road). Property is further described as County Tax Map 45,
Parcel 19B, 19C, 20, (Part thereof). Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey gave the staff's report stating that-duplexes are presently developed to
the north of the subject property, as R-2 Residential. The area located to the south
of the property in question is wooded and vacant and zoned R-3 Residential. Across
the street from the property the land is zoned A-l~Agricultural and is also wooded and
vacant. The subject property now contains two single-family dwellings. Another single-
family ~welling, not included in this request, is located to the rear of the property
in question. Mr. Humphrey said this parcel has been before the Commission and the Board
of Supervisors on several occasions as requests for R-1 or R-2 zoning. In June, 1972,
the Commission had recommended RS-1 in lien of the R-1. The one-acre zone (RS-i) meets
the objective of the comprehensive plan for this immediate area. Mr. Humphrey s&id the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the RS-1 request.
Mr. Woodard was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke ~for
or against. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to accept the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and approve ZMP-298. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. WoOd.
(3) ZMP-299. Robert L. Trainum has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to rezone .51 acre from R-3 Residential to B-1 Business. Property is
situated on the north side of Route 631 (Stagecoach Road) near its inter-
section with Interstate 64. Property is further described as County Tax
Map 76, Parcels 54J(1) and 54J(2). Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey g~ve the staff's report. He stated that the property is situated on the
north side of Route 631 and south of its intersection with Interstate 64. The subject
property is located to the rear of a residence owned by the applicant. Shedlike structures
with various types of small machinery are located on the property as well as a fenced
in area for a horse. Adjacent property to the north is at present densely wooded with
pine and zoned B-1. Adjacent to the east is the Southside Christian Church w~ich is
zoned R-3. There exists 0.12 acres of land, with steep topography, zoned B-1 and
located adjacent to the south. To the south of Route 631, Stagecoach Road, is Oak Hill
130
3-27-74 (night)
Subdivision. It is developed as single-family residential and zoned R~-3. There are
several duplexes-located to the north of Route 631 and west of the subject property.
This parcel is .a narrow piece of land sandwiched between B-1 to the north and south
and R-3 zoning to the east and west. The staff is of the opinion that this is
compatible with existing zoning. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommended
appro'val of ZMP-299..
Mr. Trainum was present. No one from the public spoke for or against the petition.
Mr. Carwile ~ffered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and approve. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried ~by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Mood.
(4) SP-326. Michael and Elizabeth Garstang have petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to locate a stable and tack room on 5.715 acres zoned
R-1 Residential. Property is situated on the south side of Glenaire
Drive in Glenaire Subdivision. Property is further described as County
Tax ,Map 57B, Parcel 45A. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey said the subject property is located in Glenaire Subdivision on the south
side of Glenaire Drive, Route 771. This is a quiet residential subdivision of iow-
density development. The subject property is located in a valley area and is well-
s.'c~ened with tall cedars. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommended
approval of SP-326 with a limit of four hors'es, at any one time, on the property.
If this use becomes a nuisance, it could be brought back to the Board of Supervisors
for review.
Mrs. Garstang was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke
for or against.
Mr. Fisher said several of Mrs! Garstang's neighbors have talked to him about this
request. They have no objection to her having four horses for her private use, but they
are concerned that in the future she may rent these horses and turn this into a semi~
commercial venture. He asked Mrs. Garstang if~ she planned to build one or two structures.
Mrs. Garstang said there would be only one structure. Mr. Fisher asked if it would be
acceptable if the Board included in the conditions that this would not be used for any
commer.cial use. Mrs. Garstang indicated yes. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to approve
SP-326 with the following conditions: 1) that there will be no more than four horse~ on
this property at any one time; 2) thiS permit is approved for the private use and
enjoyment of the present property owner only; and 3) thatif this use becomes a nuisance,
it should be brought back to the Board immediately, for review. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Carwile.
Mr. Thacker asked if there are any other special permits allowing stabling of horses
in Glenaire Subdivision at this time. Mr. Humphrey said he could not recall any others.
Mrs. Garstang said there are other horses in the subdivision. Mr. Wheeler said he
expected to be consistent and vote against this as he has voted against those for
3-27-74 (night)
applicants in Wes~ Leigh Subdivision. He will continue to vote against these requests
in subdivisions. He said that to continue to approve these would be detrimental to the
area in the future. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, ian:d'~Henley.
NAYS: Mr. Thacker and Mr. Wheeler.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
(5) SP-330. Sarah M. Wolford has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to locate a mobile home on 4.79 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property
is situated on the east side .of Route 29 South, and the west side of the
Southern Railway, about one mile south of Covesville. Property is
further described as County Tax Map 108, Parcel 36. Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey said he had received a letter from Mrs. Wolford saying that due to
circumstances beyond her control she was not able to be in Charlottesville for the
meeting on March 28 concerning SP-330. She had asked her uncle, Jack Toms, to attend
the meeting in her absence. It was ascertained that Mr. Toms was not present, but
since there was someone present to oppose the petition, the Board continued.
Mr. Humphrley said the property is situated on the east side of Route 29 South and
adjacent to the Southern Railway. It is approximately 1.5 miles north of the Nelson
County line. The subject property contains heavy growth of brush and small pine. There
are several single-family residences in the immediate area. The northern end of the
area is approximately 300 feet wide and tapers to appro-~
southern end where the topography is much more exteme.
Commission recommended approval of SP-330, with the fol
of the mobile home at the northern end of the property;
Route 29 south, a minimum setback of thirty-five feet t(
Railroad right o."f':way; 3) screening provided along Rout~
approval; 5) the permit is granted for a period of five
will have to reapply; 6) removal of existing house on ti
agreed to at the Planning Commission hearing; ~and 7) thJ
M. W61ford and is not transferrable.
Mrs. L. C. Powell said~e was present to represent
She said her mother has general objections, mainly that
it reduces your options for land use and it also might
imately 150 feet at the
Mr. Humphrey said the Planning
.owing conditions: 1) placement
2) a 100 foot setback from
the rear from the-Southern
29 south; 4) building official
years at which time the applicant
Le property ~hich the applicant
~s permit is issued to Sarah
Ler mother, Mrs. C. B. Morris.
when a mobile home is erected
~educe the value of the pmoperty.
She said last year there was an applicatiOn before the ~oard of Supervisors for the
purchase of a small acreage to be used for a mobile hom
this would be the second mobile home in that area. She
Office and found that the master plan shows this as a c~
mother wished to register an objection to the gr~anting
Mr. Wheeler said since the petitioner was not prese
misunderstanding about the date of this hearing, that h
this be deferred~
April 10, 19 74.
This permit was approved and
recently visited the Planning
)nservation zone. She said her
)f this petition.
~t, and evidently there was a
would recommend that action on
Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to defer this matter until
The motion Was seconded by Mr. Fisher and ~arried by the following
3~27-74 (night)
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
(6) SP-331. Jimmy M. Stargell has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of SuperVisors
to locate a duplex on 96 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated
on the west side of Route 630, about 3.5 miles from its intersection with
Route 717. Property is further described as County Tax Map 119, Parcel 7.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey said this area maintains a rural environment with three single-family
dwellings on large lots in the immediate area. The property presently contains a barn, -~J
a small wood frame accessory building, and the two-story,¥~woOd, frame dwelling, which is
being requested for conversion into a duplex. The structure is approximately 25 feet
by 50 feet and is located 40 feet from Route 630 and about 300 feet from the nearest
occupied single-family dwelling which is owned by the brother of the applicant. There
are many large hardwoods and cedars located ara'und the structure. The applicant intends
to live in one portion of the duplex during the summer months and rent the other portio, n
of the duplex year round. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the application as long as the property is listed in the ownership of this applicant.
Mr. Wheeler said this sounded like an unreasonable condition. Mr. St. John said such
a condition would be unenforceable.
Mrs. Stargell was present. She said they had recently inherited this property and
did not intend to live on the property year round, but they did not want the property to
remain vacant because of vandalism. No one from the public spoke for or against the
petition.
Mr. Thacker offered motion to approve SP-331~without the Planning Commission's
recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
(7)SP-332. Stephen K. Crickenberger has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to locate a temporary mobile home on 3.018 acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 606,
near Chris Greene Lake entrance road. Property is further described
as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 7 (part thereof). Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Mr. Humphrey said there are several single-family residences located along Route 606 on
one to three-:acre lots. There is presently being constructed a single-family residence
on an adjacent lot to the east of the property. The property contains some hardwood
and pine and is located approximately 440 feet from Route 606 with access provided
by a 20 foot right of way. Mr. Humphrey said at the Planning CoL~,~ission hearing it
was determined that the mobile home would be rented to someone other than-the applicant
and the Planning Co~mnission recommended denial of SP-332.
3-27-74 (night)
2.33
Mr. Crickenberger was present. He asked that the petition be withdrawn.
Mr. Bill Dancey said he had come to express opposition and this was based solely
on the fact that the lot,as drawn, has no legal access. The twenty-foot right of way
shown on the plot was deeded to the previous owner and stated only that it was deeded
with general warranty and title. Mr. Wheeler asked if Mr. Dancey had any objections
to the petition being withdrawn. Mr. Dancey replied no.
Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to allow the petitioner to withdraw his request for
The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded
SP-332.
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
Mr. David Crickenberger was present.
He said he had received a letter on March 6,
1974, which gave him thirty days in which to remove from his property a mobile home which
he has.'been storing for six weeks for a David Shorts. He said the mobile home is not
being lived in and there is no service hooked to the trailer. He has been told that this
is a violation for him to store this trailer on his property until such time as Mr. Shorts
can make arrangements to move same. At Mr. Wheeler's suggestion, he we~.t to the Zoning
Office and got copies of the ruling and he Could find nothing in the ordinance which says
he cannot store a mobile home on his property. He fe~ls his rights as a p.roperty owner
and a friend of Mr. Shorts are being infcinged upon, Mr. Wheeler said he had given a
copy of the letter Mr. Crickenberger received, to Mr~ St. John,= He felt that i~ Mr.
Crickenberger is to challenge the opinion of the Zoning Administrator that he must go
to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. St. John said the Zoning Administrator is probably
right about the status of the law, however, he did not object to looking into the matter
and would send Mr. Crickenberger an answer to his question. Mr. Shorts said he had
gone to the Zoning Office and obtained copies of the rulings pertaining to mobile homes
and could find nothing that gave any indication that it was against the law to store a
mobile home on private property. Mr. Wheeler said Mr. St. John will look into the matter
and if his opinion is different from that of the Zoning Adminstrator, he will adv±se
her of same. Mr. Shorts said he felt the't'aw should state this matter clearly so if
will not come up again. Mr. Humphrey said the Zoning Ordinance is prohibitive. If it
does not state that a mobile home can be store, it is prohibited.
The next item before the Board was a report on administrative approval policy
on special permits:
*Article 11-14. ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT-MOBILE HOME.
Article 11-14-1. Special Mobile Home Permit.
This section provides for administrative approval of mobile homes in certain cases. In
all other cases, mobile home applications shall be processed under the general special
use provisions.
Special Mobile Home Permits may be authorized, administratively, for an individual
mobile home by the Agent for the Board of Supervisors. This can only be accomplished
234
3-27- 74 (ni'ght)
upon finding by the staff of the Albemarle County Planning and Zoning Department that
the mobile home will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance.
The Special Mobile Home Pez-mit shall not be transferred. Should the applicant choose
to relocate the mobile home on property other than that specified in the original permit,
that permit shall be terminated and the applicant shall be required to obtain a new
Special Mobile Home Permit.
A Sp,ecial Mobile Home Permit shall be granted by the Agent for the Board of Supervisors
only after:
(1) an on site inspection has been made by the staff of the~Albemarle County Planning
and Zoning Department with the applicant; and
(2) no objection has been filed with the Department of Planning and Zoning. Any bona
fide objection must be in written form, and shall be filed within three weeks of the
date of notification.
Adjacent property owners shall be notified by certified letter of any Special Mobile Home
Permit application. Public notification of the application shall be made in the daily
newspaper under the "legal notice" section. Also a notification sign shall be posted
by the applicant on the right-of-way line~-of the property on which the-mobile home is to
be located. In the event of an objection from an adjacent property owner or the applicant
disagrees with the conditions placed upon him by the staff, the Special Mobile Home
Permit shall then be heard by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors after
notice as provided in Section 15.1-431 of the State Code, as amended.
The follOwing conditions shall be met by the applicant subsequent to the granting of a
Special Mobile Home Permit and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
(1) Albemarle County Building Official approval.
(2) The applicant or a full-time agricultural employee must reside in the mobile home and
the applicant must own the land himself.
(3) Minimum Frontage Setback:
(a)
one hundred (t00) feet from the right-of-Way of any state-maintained road;
except in the case, as deemed by the Planning and Zoning staff, of unusual
circumstances which may pose an undue hardship upon the applicant. In any
case, the minimum~setback shall be seventy-five (75) feet.
(b) sixty (60) feet from the right-of-way of all other types of roads.
(4) Minimum side and rear yard setback:
(a)
requirements shall be the same setback provisions as prescribed for the zone
in which the mobile home is to be located.
(5) Adequate screenings from the road and adjacent properties shall be provided by
existing trees or supplemental planting as may be determined by the Planning
and Zoning staff.
A maximum of two mobile homes shall be permitted on any one parcel.
shall have a minimum area of two (2) acres.
Each mobile home
A Special Mobile Home Permit under this section shall be valid for a period of five
years, after which time, the applicant may reapply for a new Special Mobile Home Permit.
Temporary Mobile Home Permits may be authorized by the Agent for the Board of Super-
visors for less than five years, provided that the mobile home is used only as an interim
means of housing during the construction of a permanent, single-family house. Once
construction of the permanent housing unit is completed, the mobile home shall be
removed within thirty (30) days. Temporary SPecial Mobile Home Permits shall be subject
, a)"
to all of the above required conditions except "3( under "Minimum Frontage Setback"
which will be determined by the Planning and Zoning staff.
Emergency mobile home permits may be authorized by the Agent for the Board of Super-
visors, due to destruction of a permanent house. A permit can be issued in this event
not to exceed 12 months. An Emergency Mobile Home Permit may be exempt from conditions
(2) and (5) as prescribed abOve.
Construction Office Trailer Permits may be authorized by the Agent for the Board of
Supervisors for temporary use as prescribed in Article 16-21 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
*Note: If this amendment is adopted, revisions shall be needed in Articles 2-1-25(32) and 16-21, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
3-27-74 (night)
Mr. Wheeler said the Board would t.ake under advisement the mat.ter of amending the
Zoning Ordinance to include Article 11-14-1.
Mr. Humphrey presented to the Board a proposed amendment and repeal of Article
!5A- 9-'l~andl 15A- 9- 2 of .the' ~Alb~emarle ~ C-ount~ ~ZOn%ng Oc, dinance:
*Purpose of Amendment
The purpose of the following is to amend 15A-9-1 and 15A-9-2 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinanne to preclue further erection of billboards, general advertising and
location signs as defined in the County Zoning Ordinance.
Proposed Amendment
15A-9-1. Non Conforming Signs and DisContinuance is to read as follows:
a)
Any sign existing prior to the adoption of this ordinance/amendment,
and not conforming to the terms of this ordinance, is hereby declared
a non-conforming sign and may not be altered, reworded, or'replaced
unless said sign conforms to the requirements of this ordinance.
Upon the cessation or termination of a particular use on a parcel of
real property, the owner thereof shall within ninety (90) days of
cessation or termination remove all non-conforming signs. If the
owner shall fail to comply with this requirement, then written notice
shall be given by the Administrator to the owner advising of the
violation. If such signs are then not removed within ten (10) days,
the Administrator shall cause such removal and charge the cost to the
owner of the premises.
b)
Any billboard, location or general advertising sign in existence at the
time of the effective date of this ordinance which becomes non-conforming
shall be removed or made conforming within 5 years of the adoption of
this amendment, but no later than August 31, 1979.
15A-9-2. Removal of Signs is to read as follows:
Whenever a sign becomes structurally unsafe or endangers the Safety of a
structure or premises or the public, the Zoning Administrator shall order
such sign to be made safe or comply with this ordinance. The Administrator
or his designee shall remove or cause to be removed at the owner's or
tenants expense ahy sign erected or maintained in conflict with these
regulations if the owner or lessee of either the site or the sign fails
to correct the violation within 30 days after rec'eiving written notice
of violation from the administrator or his designee. Removal of a sign
by the Administrator or his designee 's~hall not affect any proceedings
instituted prior to removal of such sign.
*To accomplish the purpose of the above amendments Articles 15A-1-4; 15A-6-7;
15A-7,7; 15A-8-7 are to be deleted as permitted signs.
Mr. Humphrey said the above wording has been drafted by the Planning Commission and they
would now like to know the feeling of the Board before they proceed with public hearings.
Mr. Car~ile said he would like to see this amendment advertised.
offered motion to authorize the Planning Commission to proceed.
by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
Mr. Henley then
The motion was seconded
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that' .the Board 'of County Sup'e~visors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, intends to amend Article 16-59 of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the
definition of a mobile home and further requests the Planning
Commission to hold public hearing on said proposal to amend
the County's Zoning Ordinance and report back to this Board
at the earliest date possible.
3-27-74 (night)
Mr. Thacker's motion was seconded by Mr'. Fisher and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
Upon motion by Mr. Thacker, the Clerk was ordered to advertise the abandonment
of a section of Old Route 53, approximately .1700 of a mile in length, ail of this
road lying between properties owned by Blue Ridge Sanatorium. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
At 10:23 P.M., Mr. Carwile offered motion to adjourn this meeting until March 28,
1974, at 3:00 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood
Ch airman