Loading...
1974-04-104-10-74 143 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 10, 1.974, at 7:20 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., and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: Mr. Gordon L. Wheeler. Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney. The meeting was called to order by the ~ice-Chairman, Mr. William Thacker. The first item on the agenda was discussion of the Levy Opera House and its proposed use as a juvenile and domestic relations court facility. Mr. Batchelor said it had been indicated to him that there might be members of the public presen~ to speak about this matter. Since no one was present, Mr. Carwile offered motion to carry this matter over the the next meeting of the Board. He said the revised bid sub~±t~ed to the County and the City by R. E. Lee and Sons will be held open until April 23. He felt the staff and the Board need more time to investigate the advisability of entering ~nto the contract. Mr. Carwile's motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. St. John to clarify the Board's position in negotiating with R. E. Lee & Sons since the City has already voted to accept the contract. Mr; St. John said it is within the power and right of the Board to negotiate on any basis they consider to be in the best interest of'the County. -Mr. Wood questioned tying the motion to April 23 or the next meeting of the Board. He said this has been discussed thoroughly and he felt all were in agreement that the cost is exhorbitant. He said the Board and City Council should have-discussed the contract in a joint meeting since they are speaking of an expenditure~of $300,000 to $400,000. He was not ready to commi~ County money to thi. s project, especially since he had first heard of City Council's vote on the radio. He said City Council owes this Board an answer to why they took such action, on a joint venture, with this amount of money involved, without consulting the Board first. Since there is a possibility of finding other m~nies to renovate this building~ this should be explored. He said when there is a joint venture, it is the responsibility of City Council to vote on this matter in a joint meeting. Mr. Carwile did not agree that th6;]vote should be taken in a joint meeting. Mr. Wood said since this also involves County taxpayer's money, it should at least be discussed in a joint meeting. He felt the bids were tremendously high in all respects. He was not ready to vote on this because the Board had been given an ultimatn~ He ~as not impressed ~i~h Council's action in this matter. Mr. Carwile called for t~e question and the vote was recorded as follows: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. The next item under discussion was SP-330, Sarah M. Wolford, which had been deferred from March 27,A!974. Mr. Humphrey again gave the staff's report and ended by stating that the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 144 1) placement of the mobile home at the northern end of the property; 2) a 100-foo~ setback from Route 29 South and a minimum setback of 30 feet from the Southern Railroad right of way; 3) screening along Route 29 South; 4) building official approval; 5) the permit to be granted for five years, at the end of which time the applicant must reapply; 6) removal of the existing house from the property ~hich was agreed to at the Planning Commission hearing); and 7) this permit is issued to Sarah M. Wolford arid is non- transferrable. Mrs. Wolford's grandmother was present to represent her in this matter. She said Mrs. Wolford w~'sh~sLt~move a trailer onto this property sometime in the future. She will live in the trailer until she can build a home. Mr. Fisher asked if she were speaking of a few weeks. She replied no. Mrs. Wolford's hub:band presently works on a job in North Carolina and they will not move to Albemarle County for a year. Mr. Fisher felt that when Mrs. Wolford has firm pla~s, the Board could take aeti6nx~at that time. Mr. Henley asked what type of work Mr~ W~f6md&doe~a~She said he operates heavy equipment, Mr. Henley said it takes a long time to get these applications approved and he could see nothing wrong with the request. Mr. Fisher asked if the property can be Mr. Bob Tucker said yes, if the trailer is placed on the northern Mr. Wood offered motion to approve SP-330 as recommended by the Th~!motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following adequately screened. end of the property. Planning Commission,. recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: None. Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. (Mr. Carwile abstaining during the discussion of the following two zoning petitions.) These petitions were advertised for this public hearing in the Daily Progress on March 20, and March 27, 1974: (1) ZMP-285. Southland Corporation has peti~i6ned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to rezone .591 acres (25,747 square feet) from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property is situated on the south side of Route 649, near its intersection with Route 29 North. Property is further described as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 36, (part thereof). Charlottesville Magisterial District. (2) ZMP-290. North Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors to rezone .S49 acres (23,928~square feet) from A-1 Agricultural to B-! Business. Property is situated on the south side of Route 649, near its intersection with Route 29 North. Property is further described as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 36 (part thereof). Charlottesville Magisterial District.' Mr. Humphrey said these properties are situated on the south side of Route 649 (Proffit Road) near its intersection with Route 29 North. Property for ZMP-286 is located on the east side and property for ZMP-290 is located on the west side of a 60-foot driveway which has been constructed with a gravel surface. This is an area undergoing transition. The property has been graded and cleared. An enclosed pole barn has been constructed on the same parcel and is now being used as a storage facility. The area to the south, also zoned A-1 Agricultural, was oriEinally meant to comprise~ Hollymead Phase II. It is largely vacant. To the east, zoned A-i, the land is developed in single-family units. Jefferson Village is zoned R-1 Residential. On the north side of Proffit Road are more 4-10-74 scattered, sing~-family residences. Small areas are zoned R-1 and RS-I; and 57 acres across from Jefferson Village, zoned RS-i, is a proposed subdivision, Terrybrook. At the intersection of Route 29 North and Route 649, the four quadrants are zoned B-t Business; developed in offices and proposed commercial space to the northwest; proposed temporary bank to the southwest; motel and carpet sales to the southeast; and vacant tm~ the northeast. The staff noted that the four quadrants of the intersection are zoned B-i and there is a large tract of land comprising 13.75 acres, zoned B-I, directly across from this site which is vacant. There is a total of 103.5976 acres of B-1 zoned land, all within 800 feet of this property. Only 4.87 acres of this land is being utilized. The staff suggested that there is an abundance of vacant B-t land in the area without additional zoning to B-1. Further, the granting of this segment will establish an area which will continue the antiquated approval of commercial development in strip zoning. Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission in their consideration of these two parcels became involved in the revamping of the new zoning map. Their original hear- ing was deferred for 60 days in order for the staff to evaluate the best and highest use of this land in the future under an ideal situation. In other words, whether there for this area should ~be any commercial zone at all. The staff prepared a map/in conjunction with the Planning Commission's work sessions on the new zoning ordinance. The staff, in doing this, did not take into consideration any of the commercial zoning that exists on Route 29 North, but stayed within this particular quadrant. In this area will be placed a temporary bank. There is also a garage, the J. H. Williams Office domplex, service station, a general store and gift Shop, a commercial carpet place and a motel. They used this in trying to project the future commercial use of the quadrant. The outcome was a concentration of compact commercial at this intersection. This. would imply the elimia nation of all business passed this point. This was presented to the Planning Commission, however, at the present time, the Planning Commission is recommending approval 6f the B-I zoning for these two parcels. There was qui~e a bi±i~o£fdiscussion that the area should be developed as a compact shopping center. This proposal is for two small lots Commission only. During their discussion, the Planning/alluded to the future development under site control, and stated that it was their intent to see that no access to these parcels is provided from Route 649, but basically, through an internal road system. Mr. Fisher asked for a clarification of the statement about access. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission felt that in the interest of safety for all involved that access not be from Route 649 into the property, but only from an internal road or driveway. Mr. Thacker asked if the internal road shown on the plat is one of the main roads through Hotlymead. Mr. Humphrey said yes. This is one of many which have been graded, but still unapproved as far as being included in the. State system. He said there is no guarantee that the alignment will ever be approved at thi-s location. He did not know the Planning Commission's intent in recommending approval. It was stated that if the County was starting new, it would be the staff's proposal that starting at ~-10-7~ 146 the airport, for the number of people who--live on Route 649 and that part of the ~orth Rivanna cluster, that this area constitutes enough land to have another Barracks Road type shopping centem. The staff did not indicate they would recommend continuance of -~ this commercial zone to the north. Mr. Fisher asked if the staff has changed their original recommendation. Mr. Humphrey said the staff feels tha~ this is piecemeal zoning, but the Planning Commission felt this could be worked in as long as access is obtained from an internal road and not from Route 649. The Planning Commission did consider rezoning this entire area at this time, but this was discounted and it will be considered in the proposed zoning o. rdinance. ~ Mr. J±m Hill was present to represent the petitioner. He said they have been working on ~this since last October. Ther~_was~noncer~fthat there be no access from Proffit Road, therefore, they had changed all the lots around so everything wi~lf.comee off of this internal road. He said this had been worked ou~ to the best advantage of that area. No one from the public spoke for or ag~st the pe~±L~n. Mr. Humphrey said ZMP-285 is considered Lot No. 1 and he understands there is an immediate use for the 10t as a convenience store. Mr. Henley asked if he understood tha~ the road as indicated on the plat may not be approved ~t~th~loe~i~ncsh6wn. Mr. Humphrey said this is an unimproved or essentially a private driveway. When final plans are submitted, the staff may feel this road should be located elsewhere. That has yet to ~ be determined. This ~ocation was based on preliminary plans which have never been ~ approved. Mr. Henley felt the road should have a definite, approval location. Mr. Humphrey said at the present time the r~ad is part of the residue of Parcel 36. Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission had spoken in favor of this zone, but from the staff's comments, it sounds as though part of this was based on correcting existing zoning that is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. From the presentation, it sounded as if the County would do this because they wanted to do something else, and he was confused about the County's position in this. Mr. Humphrey said he was also somewhat confused. The 'staff was instructed to give an ideal situation, taking into consideration what is already in existence, and they did this. This particular area~ has not been totally approved in work sessions on the new zoning map and the Planning Commission did not specify What they intend to do with this area. Mr. Wood said the Planning Commission had discussed this at several hearings. He ~ 1 said the Planning Commission recognized the fact that they do not want all of this area incc~mmercial zoning. There was an argument that this entrance not be on Route 649 so this development could not spread to the corner. They were most emphatic about ~o~ng from a ~ to a 70-foot right of way with the entrance off of that right of way i'nstead of ~ Route 649. They realized that it is possible that this road will be the entrance into some phase of the Hol~ymead development. He said the Planning Commission is not makfng a commitment to any vast amount of commercial zoning in this area. They also recognize that this type of convenience store is not necessarily the type that locates in a major shopping center. Mr. Wood said the Planning CommiSsion's first recommendation was not to 147 app~¥eethis rezoning. Certain commitments were made on the si~e plan and it took several meetings to obtain this approval. Mr. Humphrey s~id this received unanimou~ approval by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. Dr. Catlin felt it should be zoned B-1 particularly when it has a ~pecific use. The Commission did feel this is piecemeal, but as long. as access can be obtained from an interal road system it will alleviate one of the major problems with strip commercial; that being direct access onto a main road. Mr. Fisher said he was bothered by the fact that the road ~hat is a majom part of this consideration do~ not exist in any official capacity, and will not until some plan for that area comes for official approval. ~hen such a request is made, if this end of the road is tied down,it may restrict the amount of input f~om the County concerning large pieces of ~&nd further south. The question of the road and how much land-will be zoned commercial at this point have not been decided. He said it would be proper for the zoning map changes to be made for the total quadrant and then allow this to be developed in conjunction with the rest of Ho!lymead. He said it was too early to make a decision on this zoning. He felt the original staff recommendation was correct. Mr. Wood said if the property owner is w~Iing to commit a 70-foot right of way between these two parcels, not knowing if he will ever receive approval for that property, he would undertake this at his own risk. There is no guarantee that the County will ever approve this right of way in the future. Mr. Wood did not feel this would constitute strip zoning on Route 649. Mr. Henley felt the owner would have a good lever to keep the County from changing if they ever found this zoning was in error. Mr. Wood said the Board has taken actions in the past to do what needed to be done. H~ did ~eetathe~B~ard is eommitting themselves to anything in particulari Mr. Henley asked if the Planning staffusaw anything wrong with the location of the road shown on the plat. Mr. Humphrey said he had looked at the plans for Phase II of Hollymead over a year ago and at the time he thought the road should be east of its~present location in order to remove it further from Route 29 North. Mr. Henley asked the distance from this road to Route 29. Mr. Humphmey said approximately 500 feet. Mr. Wood said if the road was~moved ~0 the east,away from Route 29, it would only eneourage more commercial development between that road and 29. He asked if Mr. Humphrey expected more commercial development between the internal road and the 500 feet toward Route 29. Mr. Humphrey said only if the land developed in high density. Mr. Wood said this would have to be very high density. He felt the location of the road is a logical extension of the road?and this use, a convenience or necessity store, is a logical use for Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Fisher still felt the request was premature. He said zoning for commercial purposes is important for the development of that area Of the County. ~-hen the new ~ning map is ready, if there is some correction,or deficiency ~hat exists, he will be willing to support the zoning of this quadrant in a manner that will support the comprehensive plan. In this case,it has not been determined that the road is in the right plane and is not part of the overall 148 plan for the area. Mr. Fisher offered motion that the Board accept the recommendations of the Planning Staff and not the Planning Commission, and deny ZMP-285. Mr. Wood said the Planning Staff now feels this may fit in with the zoning in that area. This was accomplished after many meetings and many changes in the plans. There is a need for a convenience store now, and it_may be 20 years before an overall plan is developed for this area. He said he could not support the motion. Mr. Henley said if the developer-wants to develop this commercially, the Board should have been ~ivenii~orm~±~on on other than these two lots. He offered second to Mr. Fisher's motion. Mr. Thacker asked the staff's recommendation at. the present time. Mr. Humphrey said they still feel this is piecemeal and strip'.zoning. Mr. Wood reminded the Board that the Planning Commission spent many hours and deferred this item many times. He said if the Board continued on their present course of action, they should return this petition to the Planning Commission and ask if they had not made a mistake in their recommendation. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Thacker. NAYS: Mr. Wood. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. Motion was then offered by Mr. Fisher to accept the recommendation of the Planning Staff and not the Planning Commission and deny request for ZMP-290. The motion was seqonded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded Vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Thacker. NAYS: Mr. Wood. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. The Board continued with a public hearing as advertised in the Daily Progress on March 19 and March 27~ 1974, to consider the establishment of flood ~lain limits as delineated in reports prepared by the U.S. Corp of Engineers. 1) James River - from Howardsville to Scottsville in Albemarle County. Report dated November, 1973. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission had conducted their public hearing on this matter and recommended approval of the James River study as prepared by the Corp of Engineers and based on profiles bound into the report. He said that the owner of Hatton Farms had come to the office and asked the staff what could be done to remove islands in the James R~ver which revert water onto farm lands. This creates an erosion problem, The Plannfng St.aff has communicated with the Corp of Engineers to see if anything can be done with the ch~n~ization in this area. Next Tuesday there will be a representative of the Corp here to discuss this matter. Mr. Henley asked if he was talking about moving these bars. Mr. Humphrey said some of these were created by recent floods. This has nothing to do with the major bars which have existed for a long time. This problem also exists in other~ pemts of the County. Mr. Fisher said he would be skeptical about removing these bars since this may cause problems somewhere else. 4-10-74 Mr. Humphrey said they would check this to see if there is a cost-benefit in dollars. A Mr. Butler said if this were done for the James, i~ would be in conflict With othem parts of the County which also have the same problem. Mr. Henley asked exactly what the Board is doing in this matter. Mr. Humphrey said they are establishing the 100-year flood limit as defined by the generalized maps and profile sheets in the booklet presented. Once these are established there can be no new construction for residential or commercial purposes within those flood limits under existing conditions. A property owner can apply for a fill permit, stating the limits of the fill and other information. This would be presented to the County and will be reviewed by the Corp~of Engineers to see if this will cause flooding upstream. It will also be reviewed by the County Engineer. Anything built will have to be at least one-foot above, the established 100-year flood plain. Mr. Thacker asked what happens to the Town of Scottsville in any action this Board takes on this matter. Mr. Humphrey said they h~ve already adopted their own flood ordinances and copies of this report have been given to them. This ordinance will not apply unless they ask the Board of Supervisors to have it applied to the Town of Scottsville. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission had received any oppositian to this study. Mr. Humphrey said no. Motion was then offered by Mr. Wood to adopt the James River Study from Howardsv~lle to Scottsville, as prepared by the U.S. Corp of Engineers, report dated November, 1973. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. CarwiIe, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. 2) Mechunk Creek - between Cobham ink,Albemarle County and U.S. Route 250 at the Fluvanna County line. Report dated November, 1973. Mr. Humphrey said there has been only one major comment about this flood study and that is from Mr. Robert Musselman. The Board has been furnished with a copy of his letter. ~hd ~his ha~ also been forwarded to Mr. John Philpot. Mm.~[Philpot stated that upon receipt of the letter he wi~l~icommunication with Mr. Musselman regarding his comments. Mr. Humphrey said the 100-year flood plain has been based on engineering methods considering a given amount of rain in ~a~ certain period of time. Also, taking into consideration the history of Mechunk Creek from newspaper accoun~ and the stream g~ging that is available throughout the County. Mr. Philpot said they will review their~ information and if this flood study is adopted tonight and any inadequa~es~ are found, they will be glad to submit a repart saying that there are inadequacies. But, Mr. Philpot stands©on the report as it is presented tonight. Mr. HUmphrey said the Planning Commission also recommends this flood plain study be adopted. Mr. Robert Musselman was present to speak in opposition. He feels strongly, as indicated in ~is letter, that this proposal is not based on any factual information. The information was taken from locations in surrounding areas and counties~ Mone along this creek. They have arbitrarily dmewn a set of lines~within which nothing can be s-~10-74 built. Mr. Musselman has no argum'ent with the idea of prever~ng construction in the direct channel of a flood, but a binding restriction should be based on fact and not on assumptions. He ~said there was not enough detailed information to restrict the use of this much property; on his land this would be between 10% and 20% of the total acreage. He feels the maps are not precise enough to tell exactly how much of his land will be effected. He said if the Corp of Engineers is going to check further into the matter, the Board should wait to adopt this ordinance. Mr. Marzano asked how property is assessed with/the flood plain. If 10% to 20% would not be of be~4fit for anything, that part of the property should be assessed at a dffferent rate. not Mr. Fisher said most of the land being talked about is/in the floodway but in the land designated for flood plains. An owner can build with the flood plain, however, he would have to be sure that construction is high enough that a flood will not cause damage to life and pmoperty. Mr. Musselman said he understands there is no distinction in the county ordinance between a flood plain and the floodway. Mr. Humphrey said both the City and the County are interested in establishing with/~e flood plain a floodway where the water highest velocity of/would be. Both jurisdictions have requested, through the State Division of Water Conservation, to have floodway studies performed. The Corp of Engineers have stated that they will review any project proposed in the flood plain to ascertain what part might be in the floodway. Ail of this engineering data is in a computer. How- ever it takes additional information, such as the watershed above a given project, to ascertain, where the floodway would be. Until the floodways have been established, this will have to b.e done on a piecemeal basis by the Corp of Engineers od any local engineer who might try to ascertain where the floodway would be. Mr. Humphrey said plans for the new Holiday Inn,at the corner of Fifth street extended, were sent to the Corp of Engineers to find if fill operations 'in the floodway would cause flooding further upstream. This was reviewed by the Corp and the plans were sent back with a statement that this is in the backwater area and the plans were approved. Mr. Fisher asked if the line of demar~ cation between the floodway and the balance of the flood plain could be determined on individual cases since this has not yet been established. Mr. Humphrey said yes. This will be determined on each case until such time as the floodway study is completed. Mr. Wood said if this is to be done piecemeal the Board had just made a mistake and should go back ahd reconsider the study just adopted for the James River. Mr. Hump. hrey~ said he did not feel this was a mistake. The County might be able to use revenue sharing money to hire a local engineer to prepare this study and also the watershed studies required. Mr. Musselman asked if there is a copy of the proposed ordinance available. Mr. Humphrey said the ordinance is already in the zoning ordinance. It was adopted over a year ago. Mr. Musselman,' asked if the Board proposed to act on only the designation of an area within a given zoning classification. Mr. Humphrey said yes. The enabling ~-lO-7a legislation within the zoning ordinance was adopted a year or more ago. Part of the requirements in that ordinance was that any report accepted, such as the Corp of Engineers Report', or any other engineering report, or the Soil survey which is now being prepared, would have to be the subject of a public hearing before this was i placed on the zoning map. Mr. Wood said the record would substantiate the fact that he had voted against the ordinance for this very reason. Although he is in favor of a flood plain ordinance, he thought the County went about it in the wrong way. They adopted an ordinance which had no meaning and was not tied to a map, therefore, no property owner in the Comnty knew how his land would be effected. Mr. Musselman still felt this study was based on no facts from within that area. Mr. Fisher said the projections are not based on either Agnes or Camille alone but are a statistical projection of a larger flood than either of those. Mr. Humphrey said there was additional computation beyond the one-hundred year flood which is several feet higher. Mr. Butler said the flood plain ordinance is a good idea. He lives in that area. He would not want anyone to buy or build in that area if they did not know what the flood wate~can do. ~He showed the Corp~of Engineers some high water marks when they the adoption of were making their study. Mis main concern is one of taxes, and whether/this o~inance will reduce same. An unidentified lady asked the Board to table this matter until they know what they are doing. Mr. Fisher said even though the Corp~of Engineers has said they will review their information, the odds against their changing anything are pretty high. He felt if they have made an error, it will be corrected and the Board will accept that change. He said the Board had taken action on this ordinance in order to prevent damage to property and loss of life. Mr, Fisher then offered motion to adopt the Mechunk Creek flood plain study and profits as set out in U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Report dated November, 197'3. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. The next item before the Board was a request for additional subdivision along an existing restricted road on property known as Ridgefietd, located near Bedford Hills subdivision, off of Route 743. The additional subdivision 'will increase four parcels to six parcels. Action on this request was deferred from March 13, 1974. Mr. Humphrey said there have been two plats presented with reference to this pro- posal. One of these plats is dated July, 1971, and involved the extension of Bridal Path Drive to a 50-foot restricted road. This was approved with a total of four lots. The application now before the Board is to ~xtend that approval from four to six lots as indicated on a plat dated January, 1974. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the request. 152 Mr. Henley asked if this is a state road. Mr. Humphrey said no, it is a restricted road. None of the roads existing in Bedford Hills are in the~state system. They are roads all privately maintained. Bedfomd Hills/are used as access to this subdivision. Mr. William Roudabush was present to represent the owner. He said the road is not being extended. The road is the same as that approved in December, 1971. The number of lots on this road are being increased from four to six. Mr. Roudabush said this road cannot be made a part of the State system because it does not connect to any State road and cannot connect to any State road. Ail of the roads between this road and the State road are privately maintained. Ail ~ lots are vacant at the present time. There are no residences. The owner has agreed to draw an agreement for the maintenance of the road. This would become the responsibility of the six lot owners involved. Mr. Fisher said the Board's policy requires that this be an incorporation. He asked if this work has been done. Mr. Roudabush said an agreement has been drawn and submitted to the County Attorney. Mr. Fisher said he only wanted to make sure that the owner understands that the Board's policy requires a corporation for the maintenance of these roads. Mr. St. John said the model documents which the Planning Office has recommended to developersasking for restricted roads contain a corporate structure. But, these have nevem been put into an ordinance. They are part of the Subdivision Ordinance which is now in the hands of the City. Mr. Thacker said ~everal weeks ago the Board received a memo from Mr. St. John in which he recommended deed restrictions in place of this corporate structure, but the Board has not taken any action on the memo. Mr. Roudabush said such a policy would be bad since a corporate structure is more apt to be abolished and there would be no protection for the homeowner or the County. He said as a layman he felt a restrictive covenant is bind- ing on the owner and more forceful than any corporate structure. present Mr. Thacker asked the/situtation with respect to maintenance of the roads in Be~ord Hills. Mr. Roudabush said the developer handles the bulk of the work. Mr. Thacker said the request before the Board this evening is not for a restricted road, but an extension of a road that was approved in 1971. He said it would be difficult to go back and require some type of homeowner's association of these six owners on a relatively undefinable section of road. Mr. Fisher asked if it is reasonable to assume that in the future this road will get traffic from other property. -Mr. Roudabush said this is a reasonable assumption, however, ~ the subdivision ordinance requires that any further subdivision involving use of this road be brought to the Planning Commission and the Board for approval and conditions. Mr. Fisher said there could be a considerable amount of development here before the County adopts the new ordinance. He feels the same as he did when the last such request came to the Board and some members felt there was an existing condition. That road was also being extended and he was in disagreement with that requesti~ He said it is not proper to continue to add on .to existing restricted roads, since this makes ~the Board's policy essentially worthless. Mr. Carwile asked what construction standards will be used for the new portion of the road. Mr. Roudabush said the developer will adhere to the current standards for restricted roads. Mr. Carwile then offered motion that the subdivision plat presented to the Board showing six lots, be approved subject to adhereing to the standards imposed in the restricted roads policy that has been adopted by the Board. Mr. Henley aak~d if ~ny of the roads in this section will be brought into the State system. Mr. Roudabush said he is not familiar with the roads involved,'however, he understands that the developer is trying to get some of the roads in Bedford Hilis-~into the State system. Mr. Fisher said if all of these roads could be brought into the State system so there would be a maximum of ten dwelling units on any restricted road, he would be willing to vote for this. He said there are already 30 or more units on restricted roads and adding more ~raffic will increase the problems. Mr. Roudabush asked what he meant by restricted roads. Mr. Fisher said all the roads in this section are now restricted roads. Mr. Roudabush said not by definition. Mr. Fisher said yes. They are not State maintained. Mr. Roudabush said they are not States.maintained but they were never requested to be approved as restricted roads. They were approved before there was any ordinance similiari~tO this ordinance. Mr. Humphrey said they are private roads which is one step below restricted. M~. Fisher said as tbng as they are all privately maintained he could not support the motion. Mr. Henley then gave second to the motion and it carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker and Wood. Mr. Fisher. Mr. Lee M. Hall was present to request that the Board of Supervisors run an eight- inch water line from the City/County Jail property, south on Route 742 and norvh on Route 20 to Wilson Trucking Corporation. He presented to the Board a petition signed by 55 residents of the area. Mr. Hall said although he has enough water for consumption and sewage disposal, there is a great shortage of water on the lower part of Route 742 for fire protection. ~he petitioners have money invested in their businesses and they do pay county taxes.. Mr. Thacker said this Board does not Subsidize the Albemarle County Service Authority. This is a self-supporting operation. It is their decision as to whether or not to install water and sewer in any particular area. This depends on the availability of water and sewer and the revenue to be derived from the installation. He said the Board can only pass this request on to the Service Authority and askd that they take action. Mr. Thacker said the water line has been extended out Avon Street to service the new jail, the Community College and the new Armory. He was not certain how this was accom~[ plished. Mr. Wood said the City did this as part of their site preparation~cos~s for the Community College. He said based on past history, if the water line is extended, the cost of this extension will have to be borne by the property owners receiving the service. 1'5'4 4-10-74 Mr. Hall said the City has recently run a line to the new Holiday Inn on Fifth Street Extended. The cost was split 50-50. Mr. Wood said it has been a long standing policy of the City to extend their lines into the County because of annexation procedures.-- This is not the policy of the Service Authority. Mr. Hall said he does not want to ~ see the County annexed but he feels that in order to keep the City out of the County, the-.County must provide more services to the citizens. Mr. Thacker said this area is developing rapidly. Hopefully, in the near future, the Service Authority will be able to extend lines into that area. However, he could ~ not vote .to use general funds of the County for benefit of just a few taxpayers. Mr. Hall said 55 taxpayers are not just a few people. He asked that the Board pass this on to Mr. Jones and have him visit every landowner and report back to the Board. Mr. Batehelor said there is no need to.visit these 55 people since they have shown a desire for water and sewage services. The Board could order a report on the cost of this extension, however, this Board has no authority in this matter unless they want to expend general fund revenues. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Hall shoUld~'~ go to the Service Authority with this request to extend the line'. This is a matter between the property owners and the Service Authority. He is not willing, to commit general fund monies to this. Mr. Carwile offered motion to refer this matter to the Service Authority for their consideration, and to request that the Executive Director contact Mr. Hall. He also -- asked that the Service Authority keep the~Board advised of their considerations in this~ ~ matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. At this time, the Board took a two-minute recess. The Board continued with discussion of a possible amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-14, Administrative Permit-Mobile Home. Mr. Humphrey explained that this amendment would assist the Planning Commission and the Board by eliminating the numerous special permit requests for mobile homes. (Staff report on this matter is set out in the minutes of March ,27, 1974.) Mr. Thacker asked if the present planning staff can handle this additional work. Mr. Humphrey said for the present time. Mr. Fisher felt this amendment would save the s~eff time. Mr. Humphrey said it will also open the staff up for more' criticism. He said the Planning Commission is r. eady to go to public hearing with this proposal but would appreciate having Board comments first. Mr. Fisher said in the seventh paragraph it states that a notification sign should be posted by the applicant on the right of way. It gives only three weeks in which for someone to object. He said thi, s section should state when the sign should be posted and how long it should stay ~ posted. There is nothing in the list of conditions about the approval of septic systems. Miss Mary Joy White said condition No. 1, building official approval, covers this. 4-10-74 155 Mr. St. John said this cannot be called a special permit. There is no provision in the body of the Zoning Ordinance for any permit other than as a matter of right or a special permit. Mr. Batchelor said he has grave reservations about putting this work on the staff and letting them make decisions even though there are no objections at the time. He said these public hearings should be delegated to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr.S~J6hn said this is set out this way in the enabling legislation. The County's present method is an exception. Mr. Wood said this has been of great concern to everyone, but the staff wiI1 not be making a decision. They will be given a set of guidelines on which to approve and these are the same conditions the Board of Supervisors has been imposing on mobile homes for y~ars. This is intended to save the time of the Board and the Plan- ning Commission in granting these permits and it will not add an additional burden to the staff. Mr. Carwile asked if any members of the Board or the Planning Commission can register an objection to the placement of a g~ven mobile home. Mr. St. John said if they are notified of the case. He said anything of this type is innovative and the Board can expect to be challenged and if they are the ordinance can be amendad at that time. Mr. Carwil~e said since this does state that the adjacent property owners will be notified and this will also be advertised in the legal section of the paper, anyone would have the right to object. Mr. St. John sai4 the Board and the Planning Commission can request a formal notification. Mr. Thacker said ~there is one other aspect to the considered and' tha~ is the matter of the applicant. This system could ease the applicants waiting time by one-third to one-fourth. Mr. Carwile said he would rather~-see this tried by the staff than the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Wood offered motion to adopt the following resolution of intent: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle'County, Virginia,intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by the addition under Article MI of Section 11-14 entitled "Special Mobile Homer Permit," which shall provide for administrative approval of mobile homes in certain cases and further request the Planning Commission to hold public hearing one. said proposal to amend the County Zoning Ordinance and report back to this Board at the earliest possible date. Mr. Fisher said he had not finished with his .comments. In about the ~-2th para- graph where it makes a statement about construction of a permanent home, he said it would be much simplier to just say that upon any occupancy of any permanent housing that the mobile home would have to be moved from the propertY. He feels very strongly about mobile homes being applied for under this permit and then becoming rental units. He would like to see the applicant sign a statement that he alone would live in this of mobile home as his only home and if he moved out/the mobile home, no one else could occupy that home. Mr. St. John said this would be a statement on the application that he signs. Thi~ is already in the Zoning Ordinance. 2156 4-10-74 Mr. Carwile suggested that in paragraph 7, in the sentence which begins "In the event of an objection", that the words from an adjacent property owner be stricken. He then gave second to the motion and it carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Wood offered motion to advertise for a public hearing on May 22, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. an amendment to section 4-13-!, Chapter n, Article II, of the Albemarle~-County Code, by the addition of Westmoreland Subdivision as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile. ~ Mrs. Joan Graves said she felt it would be better if the Board established some policy on how many people should sign petition in favor, etc. of the dog leash laws. Mr. Wood said this was thoroughly discussed with the Westmoreland homeowners. He had told them the Board would consider the petitions on the fact that there are 90 homes in Westmoreland. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Thacker said Mrs. Graves has a good point. He too would like to see the Board establish some standard or percentage of homeowners to sign these pe~i6ns~ The next item before the Board was a proposed amendment and repeal of Article 15A-9-1 --~ and Article 15A-9-2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinmnce. Mr. Humphrey said the Board ~j passed a resolution of intent on this amendment on March 27, 1974. The Planning Commission has presented several approaches to preclude further erection of billboards, general advertising and location signs as defined in the County Zoning Ordinance. They feel this p~oposal is more equitable than amortization. Localities have done this in bOth ways. (The wording for this proposed amendment is set out in the minutes~of March 27, 1974.) Mr. Fisher asked about a sentence under 15A-9-2, Removal of Sign~, where it states that "if a sign is structurally unsafe or endangers the safety of a structure or premises of the public that the Zoning Administrator shall order such sign to be made safe to comply with this ordinance." He asked if this meant that anyone who spots a sign he feels is unsaf~_~eo, ul~.mep~ this to the Zoning Adminstrator and then the Zoning Administrator must then notify the owner that the sign must be upgraded. Mr. Humphrey said yes. It must be investigated. The owner~!~must be notified to upgrade the sign and if he does not he must be ordered to take the sign down. Mr. Carwile asked Mr. St. John if a property owner has a right to appeal 'such a decision ~o the Board of Zoning Appeals and then through the Circuit Court. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. St. John said he has had reservations about this ordinance but has looked into ~ the matter and now feels that five years is about the minimum amount of time that can be required. He said ~he Virginia Code has a section which says that vested ri~hts s~a~l not be impaired. This has been tested in other states which have this same statement 4-10-74 157 and it has been upheld as being a reasonable length of time. Mr. Fisher asked to what signs 'this ordinance would apply. Mr. Humphrey said th~s refermsto location signs. Only three or four of these have been issued since the terminology was changed. Ail other signs have been in place seven years or longer and are of the old billboard or advertising type signs. Mr. Fisher asked about some smaller Signs, located on 250 West, which have been put up in recent years. Mr. Humphrey said they would all be classified as location or general advertising signs. He said this does not refer to business signs ~t all. He said Section 15A-9-1(a) refers to small business sigms. The owner may wish to alter one of these and if he does, he would have to bring it into compliance. This would be mostly on setback from the right of way. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to mefer this matter to the Planning Commission for advertising and public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. Application for a lottery permit was received from the Albemarle High School Boosters Club for a one-time event to be operated on April 5, !97~ between the hours of 7:30 P.M. and il:00 P.M. Mr. Fisher said there had been a statement on the radio that the Board of Supervisors was going to meet last week and the applicant thought this application would have been acted on before this meeting. Mr. Fisher had told this person that even though-.':the Board would not meet, he felt the application should sti.ll be turned in to the Board and he then offered motion to approve this lottery permit. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. Mr. Fisher said he has talked to Mr. Wheeler about th~se~_~ottery permits and they feel that the Board should probably set up some guidelines for issuance of same of they meet all requirments. Mr. St. John said he would check the enabling legislation to see if these permits can be issued other than by the governing body. In accordance with Virginia Code Section 29-184.2 and on motion by Mr. Carwile, Mr. Herman H. Dorrier, was expiring on June 30, 1975. following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: appointed as a deputy dog warden for a one-year term The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker. None~ Mr. Wood. 2 '8 4-10-7a Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED~BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, that $17,251 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund for expenditures as follows': Sanitary Landill No. 1 - $16,781 and Sanitary Landfill No. 2 - $~70, and expenditure~ of these funds is hereby~approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $974.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund for payment of premium on Workmen's Compensation Insurance, said amount to be coded to 1F-213A, and expenditure of these funds is hereby approved. The m~ion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. Motion was then offered by Mr. Carwile to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County desires to retain the firm of Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson, Richmond, Virginia, as its bond counsel in connection with the issuance and sale of approximately $6,500,000 School Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has received a disclosure by HuntOn, Williams, Gay & Gibson pursuant to Virginia Code Sections 2.1-349(a)(2) and (b)(5), being part of the Virginia Conflict of Interests Act, of certain members and associates of such firm, and spouses of members and associates, who serve governmental agencies other than the County; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson, Richmond, Virginia, shall be retained as bond counsel in connection with the issuance and sale of approxi- mately $6,500,000 School Bonds. 2. The agreement to retain Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson as bond counsel is a contract for legal services which, in the judgment of the Board of Supervisors, in the public interest should not be acquired through competitive bidding. 3. This resolution shall be filed as a matter of public record with the minutes of this meeting. STATEMENT OF "INTERESTS" IN GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES BY MEMBERS OR ASSOCIATES (OR THEIR WIVES) OF HUNTON, WILLIAMS, GAY & GIBSON Name of Partner or Associate Agency Relationship Lewis T. Booker Robert P. Buford Robert P. Buford Joseph C. Carter:,~. ~r~ James M. Christman City of Richmond School Board University of Virginia City of Richmond School Board Richmond Public Library Board Virginia Commonwealth University Health Sciences Division Vice Chairman Member, Board of Visitors Son, Robert P. Buford, IV, is employed as substitute teacher ~hairman ~ Wife, Carole W. Christman, is employed as illustrator for Visual Education Dept. 159' Name of Partner or Associate Agency E. Milton Farley, III Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority Relationship Wife, Joan Farley, is a commissioner George C. Freeman, Jr. University of Virginia Wife, Anne H. Freeman, is employed as instructor George D. Gibson Virginia Commission on Arts and Humanities Member Allen C. Goolsby,III Richmond Community Mental Health Member, Board of DirectOrs; and Mental Retardation Services Treasurer Board Allen C. Goolsby,III Attorney General of Virginia Wife, Katherine L. Goolsby, is employed as Assistant Attorney General George H. Hettrick Virginia Port Authority Vice Chairman; Chairman of Executive Committee Thierry J. Liverman City of Richmond School Board Wife, Molly A. Liverman, is employed as librarian. Thomas J. Manley Virginia Department of Welfare and Institutions Wife, Joan W. Manley, is employed~ as State Supervisor of Group Homes, Youth Services Division H. Merrill Pasco State Council on Higher Education in Virginia Member Randolph F. Totten City of Richmond School Board Wife, Virginia H. Totten, is employed as a teacher Harry J. Warthen, !Ii Attorney General of Virginia Wife, Sally T. Warthen, is employed asJAssistant Attorney General Mr. Carwile's motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, H~'nley and Thaoker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. Mr. St. John said all steps have been taken in the matter of school bonds. The Judge has entered a final order which makes this a matter of permanent record that the school bond referendum was properly conducted. This is an accomplished fact and action can be taken ay any time to have the bonds issued. Mr. St. John reported that in the matter of a declaratory judgment on Virginia Code Section 58-811, he has now found that the County must have a protagonist. Mr. Carwile suggested that this be carried over to the next meeting of the Board. A letter was received from Edgar N. Garnett giving his resignation as a member of the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors.. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to appoint Mr. Elvin E. Thompson, Jr., Assistant Division Accounting Manager of VEPCO, to fill this unexpired term which runs until April 16, 1977. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. 4-10-74 Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher ordering the Clemk to write Mr. Garnett a letter acceptin~ his resignation with regret. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and ?hacker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. The next item on the agenda was adoption of a resolution concerning the Joint Security Complex. Mr. Thacker recommended that this be postponed until the next regular meeting of the Board. Mr. Thacker said it has been brought to his attention by Mr. Robert Sampson that there is one item in the budget which the Board had not acted on. This is a request from the Piedmont Virginia Community College ~for planning and engineering for recre~i6nal facilities. After a short discussion, it was a general concensus of the Board that this item be left in the budget until after the public hearing. Motion was then offered by Mr. Fisher to adjourn this meeting until 4:00 P.M. on April 17, 1974, in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None.