Loading...
1974-04-24N4- 24-~74 (~Night) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 24, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William L. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney. Mr. Wheeler said before he began the regular agenda he would like to give to the County Attorney a subpoena which was served on him for land for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The first item on the agenda was discussion of a proposal to renovate the Levy Opera House for use as a juvenile and domestic relations court facility. Mr. Wheeler asked for a report from the Space Committee. Mr. Thacker said the committee had met on Monday morning with members of City Council, Judge Zehler, Mr. Daniels, Mr, Lambert, of the firm of Laramore and Lambert, and Mr. Kessler of R. E. Lee & Sons, the low and only bidder on this project. The committee discussed the information received by the Board at their meeting on April 18. Apparently, not all of that information was completely correct. The committee has now been given information that the Levy Opera House will be adequate to house the juvenile court and probabionary staff for some ten years. Although a great of deal of consideration was given to other alternatives the committee feels that restoration of the Levy Opera House to its original function is not feasible at this time. Particularly from the county's standpoint. The City has the same feeling. The committee feels that any alternative plans would be far more expensive, perhaps twice the cost of restoration and renovation of the Levy Opera House as a court facility. In view of this, the committee recommends to the Board that the Levy Opera House be used as a court facility. Mr. Fisher said since the time the committee was charged with the responsibility of looking at the Levy Opera House to see if it would be suitable for a juvenile court, it has become obvious that both the County's jail property and the City's McGuffey School property will be vacated from their present usage. He-asked if the committee had any information that either of these properties could be developed as a court facility. Mr. Thacker said the committee didnot address themselves specifically to either site. However, 't~e jail site is relatively small and is also an historic location. The McGuffey site has been studied by the committee formed to select a site for the regional library and the Space Committee has been unable to determine disposition of the property by the City. Mr. Wood said the jail site is larger than the Levy Opera House si~e. Mr. Thacker said the site itself is larger, however, the Committee does not feel the Levy will be adequate for a long term but does feel that it would be adequate for the next ten years. At that-'time, additional space will have to be found. This would not necessarily cause relocation of the Court. Personally, he felt any replanning, 2OO especially with design work, would delay the start of this project by six or eight additional months. With the cost of construction rising as it is, this would present a considerably larger sum for the cost of construction. While the cost of renovating the Levy is expensive, it is not as expensive as the cost of building a new building. Unit costs, on a nationwide average, indicate that the ~ost of court facilities is running at $50 a square foot, where the cost of r~novating the Levy is approximately $40 a square foot. Mr. Fisher said during disucssions it was said that the cost of renovating would be so high that a new building could be built f~r less. He said he is somewhat confused. Mr. Thacker said he had not heard this speculation. Based on the information he has received, the cost;% new building would be higher. Mr. Wheeler then opened the floor for comments f~om the public and asked that only new information be presented. Mr. Maphis said Mr. Daniels had told the Board last week that the facility as planned would house his present staff, but no expansion of same. Mr. Maphis said with the County and City growing, the juvenile court will be out of date before they ever get into this facility. Mr. Maphis said he had posed a question at the end of last week's meeting about matching funds if the Levy were turned over to the Friends of the Levy Opera House. He did not receive a satisfactory answer and immediately wrote Mr. Fishburne. He has since had a reply. Mr. Fishburne has said that since this building is~part of the Albemarle County Courthouse Historical District, it is eligible for matching funds, no matter who owns the building. The to~al amount that could be obtained would be limited by the total amount available for Virginia. Mr. Maphis said if the House were turned back to the Perry Foundation and subsequently turned over to the Friends of the Levy Opera House, they could obtain approximately $125,000 to begin the restoration. This amount would take care of the facade and the bracing needed. This is the last building in the historic district that can be saved for posterity and he asked that the Board consider this. Mrs. Eliot Clark spoke again. She said Miss Virginia Moore, a member of the Site Selection Committee for the Regional Library, has stated that the McGuffey School property is not considered feasible for the library. Mrs. Clark felt the court facility could be placed on that property. The next to speak was an unidentified lady. She stated that she is very much interested in old Charlottesville. Her father was the first judge in Charlottesville. She asked if it would be possible, when the old jail is no longer in use, to move the City parking lot to that site, and build the juvenile court in the present parking lot. She felt this would be a much~more suitable facility next to Jackson's statue. She ~mmged the Board to save the Levy Opera House for the children of the community. She said the Levy Opera House had once been a place of happiness and she asked that it not be turned into a place of sorrow. Mr. Wheeler said the Board had heard the history of the Levy Opera House before and he asked that the public confine their remarks to items which are new. Another gentlemen asked if the committee had considered if it were feasible to renovate a building of this significance, with the power to attract outside public and private money, into a facility which cannot attract people from the outside. Mr. Thacker said he did not think this aspect had b~en discussed. The committee was charged with studying the feasibility of utilizing the building as a juvenile and domestic relations court and had made their recommendation based on that charge only. The gentlemen said evidently the record does not show there ~as been any consideration given to the tourism that will be lost. Mr. Thacker said every possibility had been discussed and he did not feel that factor had been ignored. Another gentlemen said he did not know what had happened at the last meeting but he understandgthere are quite a few people interested in the preservation and renovation of the Opera House for its original use. He did not think the needs of the probation staff will be solved in any way by restoration of the Opera House for that use. He said if the Friends of the Levy Opera House can raise $300,000~$350,000 at no expense to the taxpayers, he would urge the Board to consider this as a possibility. Mr. Frederick Hartt said he has been interested, since he came to Charlottesville, in helping to save what little is left of the historic district. The Levy Opera House · is an architectUral gem, with classic proportions. It ranks high among historic places. It would be tragic if the building were allowed to revert to a use at variance with its original purpose. The building can and should he restored. On the outside it would look exactly as it did. On the inside it still contains enough of the old structure to lend a reasonable amount to restoration. There is no doubt in his mind that this kind of building is needed since there is no place in Charlottesville, except the University of Virginia auditoriums, where groups can meet for concerts, chamber operas, etc. This building restored to its original purpose would not only be a beautiful thing of which the City could be proud, but it could also become a cultural center for Charlottesville- Albemarle. He asked the Board to give strong consideration before taking any vote to turn the building over to a use that would damage the building itself and also be without any real value to the cultural life of the County. An unidentified gentleman asked the present square footage being used by the present juvenile court as opposed to the square footage that would be available for the next through restoration of the ten years / the proposed/Levy Opera House. Mr. Wheeler said it is estimated to be less than one-half of what would be in the Levy. Mr..Wood said this subject has been before the Board on two previous occasions. At the first meeting, there was no discussion. It was postponed until the meeting last Thursday and there was very limited discussion ...... The Chairman mentioned earlier that the history of the Opera House had been presented, and he questioned whether there has been thorough public participation. Although he agreed that the Board needs to limit the 202 4-24-74 ('Night) amount"~f time used for this discussion, he asked that the Chairman permit some of the citizens present to speak to this subject since it is very controversial. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Chairman's request to have comments kept to new infor- mation was in order, however, if there was someone present who felt they had not had a chance to speak, they should be allowed to do so. Mr. Carwile.agreed. Mr. Thacker said the history of the Levy Opera House was presented to the Board last Thursday. There have also been written and verbal materials and numerous articles in the newspapers. Mr. Henley concurred with Mr Fisher Mr Wheeler said it was the concensus of the Board tha~ they would hear only new material, but that did not preclude anyone who felt they had information that the Board has not heard. Mrs. Clarke said she was not aware that the full history of the Levy Opera House was presented last Thursday. (She gave some historical facts which the Clerk did not understand, nor were. they discernible on the tape of this meeting). An unidentified gentlemen said that Mr. James Dearing of the Music Department of the University of Virginia was to speak tonight, but was unable to be present. However, he-did speak to City Council and some of his remarks may have been unknown to the Board. In Sweden, an opera house was restored after 150 years as another use, and this has been quite successful. He said when people think about opera houses, they usually think only of the great opera houses. Actually many of the same age as the Levy were of this same size. Only one percent of repertory or chamber operas are touched upon because opera houses are not of a suitable size. Mrs. Brilla Ting, a member of the Albemarle Chapter of the D.A.R., said she knows that the wom~n of the community are called upon to do a number of things in the community and she asked that some consideration be given so that they can have a place of their own. Mr. Ed Davis said he only knows that there is an Opera House and there is a need for a juvenile and domestic court facility in the City. He now lives in Charlottesville and pays taxes.here and this may be a reasonable use for his tax money. Mr. Davis said he moved to Charlottesville because he was looking for good schools and a nice place to stay. He said he frankly did not know ~Wh'ere the Levy Opera House is located, but if it to is a piece of the 1850's and there .is something about / be done with it without anyone knowing about it, he would suggest that all of Charlottesville have Something to say about this. .He said he realizes that this concern is a little late, but he asked that the Board take a look and try to hold on to some of the good things of the past than cannot be considered in dollars and cents. Mr.~ Wheeler said that while Mr. Davis has just become aware of the Levy Opera'House today, members of the Board have'been aware of the situation for two years. It is not something new that just happened today. An unidentified man said he has just bought a house in the downtown section of Charlottesville because he wants to live within a walking distance of the theatres, restaurants, etc. He is interested in restoration of the Levy as an opera house as he would like fk~rthere to be people on the streets at night in order to keep the streets safe. 4-24-"/4 (Ni9~) 203 An unidentified man said that each month he ~:pends a lot of money restoring his house and his pride extends also to the City. He would also like to see the Levy restored as an opera house. He said the-public looks to all public officers for confidence. Mr. Fisher said he is not an expert in either the field of history or the field of music. However, while traveling in countries that have a history going back over 2000 years, he was able to sense a pride in a culture that does not exist today. He felt the committee had studied what they were told to study and did a very good job. The Board does have a direct-responsibility to provide for the court, v.Howe~er; the Board is at a point in history where they have to consider whether what they are going to do as an expedient measure is in the best interest of the community and whether there are alternatives.. He felt there are other alternatives for the court, although they are not clear at this time, and there is not another alternative for the people who feel the Opera House should be restored as an opera house. For this reason, Mr. Fisher said, he feels the Friends of the Levy Opera House should be given the opportunity to see if they can raise the necessary funds. If not, the City and County can use it for another purpose. It has been said that aboUt 90%'of ~the.Older~structures~in~Charlottesville:} have already been destroyed and Mr. Fisher did not think the Board should vote to do this if the building can be restored. Mr. Carwile said he served as one of the members of the committee studying this matter. They were charged with the decision as to whether this-building could be used as a court facility. This committee was formed shortly after the Perry Foundation approached the City Council and the Board of Supervisors to see if the governing bodies would accept the Levy Opera House for public purposes. Soon thereafter it was stated that the building could be used for a juvenile court and the exterior be restored to its original design, insofar as possible. At that time the general public commended the Board and Council for trying to restore the building in this limited fashion, especially in light of other plans for use of the building as a restaurant. Mr. Carwile said he had sympathy for those who want to restore the Opera House as an opera house, however, he said it is unfortunate that the public did not organize at an earlier time and suggest alternatives. Now, the City and County are faced with a pressing need for facilities for the juvenile court. The space presently being used is leased. Notice has been given by the landlord .that the lease will not be renewed on a long term basis. After a great deal of investigation and meetings with the Judge, the committee decided that the facility could very well be used as a juvenile court and the exterior restored. He said while he is sympathetic to the cries he hears from the ~public, when he looks at the County budget and the capital requests, the cost of a new court on a new site seem to be too high. Mr. Carwile said he cannot justify the commitment of public funds for restoration ~f the Opera House as an opera house nor can he justify the expenditure of additional sums to construct on another site in Court Square. 204 4-24-74 (night) Mr. Carwile then offered motion to accept the revised bid of R. E. Lee in the amount of $431,194 for restoration of the Levy Opera House as a juvenile and domestic relations court facility. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker. Mr. Thacker said he concurred with Mr. Carwile in many of his remarks. He said he has given this matter a great deal of thought and this resoration will at least preserve the Levy Opera House. At the time the building was purchased by the Perry Foundation and given to the City and the County, there was talk of demolishing the building. Mr. Wood said he could not support the motion. It is not just a matter, as stated in the motion, of committing local tax funds for restoration of the Opera House. It has been thoroughly stated by members of the public present tonight that the funds would come from other sources. The County and City would then have a truly historic landmark and an opera house that would be operative. Mr. Wood said i.n ~.i'~.~ speaking about a juvenile court the community needs to go first class. If the Board gives the proper attention to a juvenile court, it is an expenditure that will return to the community many times the number of dollars spent. Mr. Wood said if the Board voted in favor of the mo~ion they would being two injustices. One would be a halfway attempt to restore the Opera House and the second would be a halfway attempt to support the juvenile court. He said this is not the way he wants to expend tax. dollars. Mr. Wood said he feels the Levy Opera House can be restored for its original use with almost no taxpayers dollars and he said he would not vote on this expenditure of County taxpayers money. Mr. Henley said he did not plan to support the motion. He felt this is too much money to spend on something that will not be adequate for ten years and he also would like to see the building restored as an opera house, if at all possible. Mr. Wheeler said the Board has a responsibility to the juvenile court. While he is sympathetic toward allowing the citizens an opportunity to restore the building, it is not a sure thing. The building and its use is a responsibility of the Board and City Council. This is a joint building and the Board has certain responsibilities to the donor. Mr. Wheeler said he would support the motion. Mr. Thacker said there were several items of which the Board should be made aware. The bid was opened in January. During discussions of the low, and only bid, the committee has been able to convince the contractor not to withdraw that.bid. The contractor has now agreed to retain their previous bid with only one small increase in the electrical sub-contracting work. The City and the County have received a letter from R. E. Lee & Sons stating the latest date they can honor the proposal. That date is today, April 24, 1974. Should the Board not reach a decision tonight, and a tie vote is a defeat of using this building as a juvenile court, this will result in a considerable increase in the cost. If the tie-breaker should vote to defeat the motion, he would also be voting to expend a minimum of $550,000 for a new building. 4-24-74 (night) Mr. Carwile said in response to Mr. Wood's statements about not doing justice to the Court, at the committee meeting held before City Council voted on the matter, and at the meeting held this last Monday, Judge Zehler had reaffirmed his preference for the Court to go into the opera house and he does feel that the building will be adequate for the court and probationary staff for some time to come. Mr. Carwile said to the extent that the Board has been led to believe otherwise, it is unfortunate. Mr. Wheeler asked Judge Zehler, who was present, to speak to the adequacy of the building for a juvenile court facility. Judge Zehler said it was unfortunate that this had developed into a tug of war. He did not want to be involved in the controversey about what is best for Charlottes- ville or Albemarle. However, from his standpoint, the building is adequate to house the juvenile court facilities. This matter has been studied, with the architect, for two years. The location of the buil~ Judge Zehler said there is a misunde~ Board votes to use this building for to its original condition on the out: Court Square. A court room would no' is large enough for the needs of the Mr. Fisher said he has been con, facilities at this location. Judge situation at their present location. continue to do so. Mr. Thacker said ting a parking facility which will h~ will relieve the parking situation ~ Mr. Carwile said it is importan- motion on the floor will cause a gre~ the future.. Mr. Henley asked when ti January. Mr. Henley said the Board rising. He felt it must have been a the bid for this length of time. He to renovate when the building can be realizes that this will probably cos~ additional funds would give a facili~ ting is good as far as accessibility is concerned. 3standing concerning the work to be done. If the a juvenile facility, the building will be restored ~ide and he felt it will be a valuable addition to be incompatible with Court Square and the building juvenile court. ~erned for some time that there are no parking ;ehler said the juvenile court now has the same Most people use public parking lotS and would the City is presently in the proceSs of construc- .ye several hundred parking spaces. Hopefully this some extent. for the Board to realize that a defeat of the .ter expenditure for juvenile court facilities in ~e bid was opened. Mr. Thacker said it was in ~s often discussed how constructiOn costs are rather fat bid for the contractor to have held could not.justify spending this amount of money used for~riginal purpose. Mr. Henley said he the County more money, but the expenditure of y that would be adequate for a longer period of time. Mr. Wheeler said in order to have a larger building with greater space, there would be space that would not be used for ten years. He questioned whether the County can afford to provide space that far in the future. Mr. Wheeler said the Board has discussed this and they must accept their responsibility. If they vote to go to another location this will require the purcha set this project back at least one ye se of a site, hiring an architect, etc. and will ar. He said the Board must realize the consequences and he then called for a vote on the motion to accept the bid of R. E. Lee. was recorded as follows: AYES: NAYS: The vote Messrs. Carwile, Thacker and Wheeler. Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Wood. (Mr. Wood prefaced his motion by stating that as a member of the Board of Supervisors he did accept his responsibility and could not vote to expend County taxpayers monies on a project that he felt would be doing a half- way job in two directions.) Mr. Wheeler said the motion was tied. He asked the County Attorney if it was correct to instruct the Clerk to call the tie breaker. Mr., St. John said yesf the Clerk should notify the tie breaker immediately upon a tie vote. At 8:40 P.M. the Board took a two-minute recess. When the Board reconvened, the Clerk announced that she had called the tie breaker, Mr. Harry L. Garth, duly appointed by the Judge of the Circuit Court on June 9, 1971, and the order for appointment being recorded in Law Order Book 60, at page 352, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Mr. Garth was not a home, but the Clerk was advised that he would return at 9:00 P.M. Mr. Wheeler then directed that the Board should continue with other items on the agenda until approximately 9:00 P.M. The next item was a discussion of the location of a comfort station to be built at Beaver Creek Lake. Mr. Robert Sampson, Director of Parks, said several Board members have viewed the site and it has been agreed to relocate the facility-on a hill' above the previously designated location. Motion to approve this change in plans was offered by Mr. Wood and seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Thacker asked if this will require additional costs. Mr. Sampson said he did not believe it will. This change will delete the requirement for an injector sewer. The bid will be renegotiated with the low bidder. Mr. Thacker asked that a report be made to the Board, after renegotiation, if any additional cost is involved. The vote was taken at this point and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. At this time, the Board continued with public hearings on zoning matters as advertised in the Daily Progress on April 3 and April 10, 1974: (1) ZMP-300. J. T., Jr. and Elizabeth B. Sandridge have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.50 acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-1 Residential. Property is situated on the south side of RoUte 691 about 1/2 mile west of its intersection with Route 240 in Crozet. Property is further described as County Tax Map 55, Parcel 70F. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said access to the property is by a 15 foot dirt road. There are nine single-family dwelling units and two mobile homes in the immediate area. To the north of the property is open pasture land. Lots in the immediate area range from one-half to .two acre parcels. The Comprehensive Plan for Crozet indicates a design capacity of 20,000 persons. The area in question is proposed for medium density ~residential or about 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The staff recommended approval of this rezoning 4-24-74 (night) 207 feeling the request is in keeping with present developmental patterns of the area and the proposals in the Comprehensive Plan. Water is available on Jarman~s Gap Road and the health department has stated that the soil is good for septic systems. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning CommiSsion has recommended approval of this request. Mr. Fisher asked how many dwelling units can be built on this lot if served by public water and private sewer. Mr. Humphrey said, with health department approval, about four. These would be 12,500 sq. ft. lots. Mr. Wheeler asked if this would be in line with the Board's last request to the health department. Mr. Humphrey said no. That request was for 40,000 sqoft. The minimum square footage in the ordinance is 20,000. Mr. Wheeler asked if the health department has been approving septic systems for lots of 12,500 sq. ft. Mr. Humphrey said not to his knowledge. Mr. Fisher asked the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Humphrey stated that they have recom- mended approval. Mr. Sandridge was present in support of his request. No one from the pUblic spoke for or against the petition. Mr. Thacker asked the staff's feeling about four dwelling units being served by a 1000 foot long, 15 foot wide, right of way. Mr. Humphrey said it would not be in keeping with policy for this type of density within a subdivision. There are already numerous houses existing on private roads in this area. Mr. Thacker asked if Mr. Humphrey had considered RS-1 zoning for this parcel. Mr. Humphrey said yes, it had been considered since there is already existing RS-1 zoning in the area, however, the staff felt the R-1 would fit in since the health department foresees no problems in approving septic systems. Mr. Sandridge said he has applied for this zoning which would allow construction of four houses, however, if he builts at all, he will probably not build but two houses. At the present time, he has plans to build only one dwelling. There are two mobile homes across the road from this parcel presently using the 15 foot right of way and about a quarter of a mile away there is one house. That is all the traffic presently using the road. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission had considered this request in relation to the new zoning map and they will be suggesting this area for one-half acre density. Mr. Thacker said he would be more comfortable with RS-1 zoning, but the size of the lot would limit this to one unit. Mr. Wood said the Planning Commission felt two houses would be compatible even though there is a possibility that Mr. Sandridge could build four. Mr. Henley said Mr. Sandridge is in a bind because RS-1 will not fit in and this is the only thing that will. He then offered motion to approve ZMP-300. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood. Mr. Fisher said he could sympathize with Mr. Sandridge, but he has not been voting for septic tanks on small lots. If the Board rezones this parcel to R-1 and provides the possibility for~ four units and no longer have any control over the situation, there may be significant problems. He said the Crozet area will probably get public sewer, but not in the immediate future. If Mr. Sandridge only plans to build one house on this parcel, ~he can do this wi~ the existing zoning and Mr. Fisher said he could not vote for small lots with septic tanks. At the time public sewer is available, Mr. Sandridge can ask the Board to rezone this parcel to a higher density. Mr. Wheeler suggested that Mr. Humphrey again state to the health department that it is not the policy of this Board to allow septic tanks on lots of 12,500 square feet. Mr. Humphrey said this stipulation is in the new Subdivision Ordinance, but he did not think the Health Department is aware that this is in effect at this time. Mr. Wheeler said representatives of the health department had appeared before the Board and requested this. He did not think it is unreasonable to ask them to follow the policy of the Board. Mr. Wheeler said if Mr. Humphrey would so advise the health department, he would support the motion. Mr. Carwile inquired about the zoning of the surrounding properties. Mr. Humphrey said all of Crozet is zoned R-2. The surrounding area is A-l, with numerous non- conforming lo%s already in. existence. Mr. Fisher said he thought the new Subdivision Ordinance sets 60,000 sq. ft. for lots with no public water and sewer facilities and 40,000 sq. ft. for lots with only one available. He thought this was the policy on which the Board has been making decisions. Mr. Carwile said he felt this was the policy expressed to Mr. Chevacci and Dr. Moore. Mr. St. John said he did not think that was the policy being used by the health department during the interim period until the new ordinance is adopted. They are using a standard of 20,000 sq. ft. where the Board shows 40,000 sq. ft. in'the new ordinance. Mr. Wheeler said during the interim period he could live With nothing below 20,000 sq. ft. which would limit this lot to about three houses. He %hen called for a vote on the motion to approve ZMP-300. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: (2) Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Thacker. SP-329. Edwin G. Lee, Jr. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to locate a duplex on 64 acres zoned A'i Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 633, about one mile east of Covesville. Property is further described as County Tax Map 109, Parcel 59, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Wheeler said he had received a letter from Mr. Lee asking that this petition be withdrawn without prejudice. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. At 9:07 P.M. the Board recessed in order to allow time for the Clerk to contact the tie breaker. The Board reconvened at 9:18 P.M., still not having contacted Mr. Garth. (3) SP-309. Dr. Charles W. Hurt has petitioned the'Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to locate a planned community on 200.84 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side off'Route 20 South and on the east side of Route 742, Avon St. Extended, about one mile south of Charlottesville. Property is further described as County Tax Map 91, Parcel 2. Scottsville Magisterial District. (Note: Mr. Carwile abstained during discussion of this petition.) Mr. Humphrey said this request had been before the Planning Commission for 60 days for redrafting of the original Petition which called for 714 units. The staff had been instructed to help the engineer and Dr. Hurt create a more imaginative design. (Note: At this time, the Clerk left the meeting to take a telephone call from the tie breaker.) Mr. Humphrey said,the staff has now received soil reports which were not available at the first Planning Commission hearing. About one-third of the area is conducive to septic tanks. The rest has limitations because of soil depth. Mr. Humphrey then read the staff's report into the record. Applicants' Revised Proposal Area leased to Tandem School Lake and Open Space Road rights-of-way Shopping area Single family Townhouse Apartments Institutions Private club grounds Total 21.77 acres 65.27 acres 10.40 acres 6.60 acres 29.00 acres 15.80 acres 22.00 acres 19.50 acres 10.50 acres 200.84 acres 330 apartment units 91 townhouse units 40 single-family units 461 total residential units Densities Single family 40 units/29 acres = 1.38 units/acres or 1 unit/.73 acre Townhouse 91 units/15.8 acres = 5.8 units/acre Apartments 330 units/22 acres = 15.00 units/acre Total residential density (excluding commercial) 461 units/194.24, acres = 2.37 units/acre Impact of Applicants' Revised prOposal Single family 3.2 persons/unit x 40 units = 128.0 persons 1.5 vehicles/unit x 40 units = 60.0 vehicles 7.0 vehicle trips/day/unit x 40 units = 280 vehicle trips/day 0.9 children/unit x 40 units = 36 children (8 junior high, 8 senior high, 20 elementary) Townhouses 3.2 persons/unit x 91 units = 29.1.2 persons 1.5 vehicles/unit x 91 units = 136.5 vehicles 7.0 vehicle trips/day/unit x 91 units = 637 vehicle trips/day 0.9 children/unit x 91 units = 72 children (18 junior high, 8 senior high, 46 elementary) Apartments 2.6 persons/unit x 330 units = 858 persons 1.2 vehicles/unit x 330 units = 396 vehicles 7.0 vehicle trips/day/unit x 330 units = 2310 vehicle trips/day 0.6 children/unit x 330 units = 198 children (44 junior high, 44 senior high, 110 elementary) Totals 1280.4 persons 592.5 vehicles 3227.0 vehicle trips/day 315.9 children (70 junior high, 70 senior high, 176 elementary) 210 4-24-74 (night) Staff Comment .- Revised Plan Hillcrest Planned Community The applicant, has revised his plan in regards to land use in the following manner: Commercial area has been reduced from 33 acres to 6.6 acres. This is in com- pliance with the staff's recommendation of no more than 10 acres located inter- nally or on the northern extremity on Route 742'. The single-family units have been rearranged so that most lots enter onto cul- de-sacs rather than the main road. The staff recommends that the:existing road, shown on the revised plan, which serves six single-family lots directly, become a cul-de-sac, and the main road follow the alignment shown on the grading plan. This will eliminate the hairpin turn now shown, as well as curb cuts on the main road. The apartments and townhouses are now situated near Route 742 and have access from that road without traversing the single-family development. However, Interstate 64 traffic will use the Route 20 entrance. The shopping area no longer abuts single-family development. The revised plan shows open area adjacent to each residential zone. With reference to public sewer and its availability the following is submitted as as summary of a public hearing conducted by the Virginia State Water Control Board on September 27 and 28, 1973. This public hearing was held to consider the sewer problems of Albemarle County and Charlottesville and possible solutions. This project known as Hillcrest drains to the Moores' Creek Treatment Plant. Said plant's capacity rating is 2.53 million gallons per day. The Stare'Water Control Board has recorded treatment at the plant at 3.07 million gallons per day.. The Board has directed that Moores' Creek Plant be brought up to certification before any.consideration will be given to the modification of said plant beyond the 3.07 m.g.d. -Attempts to bring this plant into .certification has a target date of July 30, 1974. In conversation with the County's representative on the Rivanna Sewer .and Water Authority, it was ascertained that is is doubtful this date will be met. Moores' Creek which will cater to the The proposed single treatment facility on needs of Charlottesville and Albemarle County is scheduled for comul, etion in the 1-atter part of 1978 or early part of 1979 as of this writing. This is approximately a five to six-year time period. Prior to the completion of the new facility modifications can be made to the existinq plant, however, that modification will not take place until it has been brought into certification under existing conditions. Any modification after certification will cater only to existing commitments. Several of those commitments which have a high priority are the facilities of the University of Virginia, Sherwood Manor., Holiday Inn, Albemarle Green Apartments and Willoughby. There are others. This means that this project, Hillcrest, could not be served in the next three years. Ultimately it could be served within three to six years. This is today's projection. The planning staff is of the opinion ~hat this project is premature-on, the basis of uncertainly of public sewer. It should be noted that the State Water Control Board has stated it would not talk about any modification'of'Moores' Creek Plant until the existing plant becomes certified· The density has been reduced from 4.25 units/acre to 2..37 units/acre (excluding commercial). This is in compliance with the density suggested eventually for this area in the Comprehensive Plan (2.5 dwelling units/acre). Soil Report United Stated Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 202 County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902 January 3, 1974 Subject: Evaluation of land for Planned Unit Development SP-309, '~Hillcrest" Requested by Albemarle County Planning Department Location of Property: This parcel is situated between Route 20 and Route 742, approximat.ely one mile south of the Charlottesville City limits. 4-24-74 (night) 211 Setting: This property consists primaril'y'Of'.~e~sidual upland soils of the Piedmont, formed mainly from the underlying greenstone rock. There are two main creeks or branches which dissect the property. Flood plains along these streams are narrow to medium in width. Following is a brief identification of the soils found on this property, a table showing degrees of limiations of the various soil mapping units, an explanation of the degrees of limitations, and a soil sur~ey map on the scale of 1"=1320' This report is based on the soil survey form on Aerial Photos DIY-2FF-216 during the month of December, 1973. The soil survey and the following report were made by Earl H. Brunger, Soil Scientist with the Soil Conservation Service. Soils on this site 2 Congaree silt loam (0 to 2% slopes) This is a brown flood plain soil. While it is mainly well-drained, it is subject to frequent overflow. 4 Cheavaela silt loam (0 to 2% slopes) Cheavaela - Congaree silt loams (0 to 2% slopes) These are moderately well to somewhat poorly drained flood plain soils subject to frequent overflow. 13B Starr loam (2 to 7% slopes) 'These are well-drained colluvial soils occupying gently sloping areas along small drainageways. These soils generally have seasonal high water tables at 30 to 48 inches below the surface. They are subject to seepage and runoff water from higher lying areas. 42B Myersville sil.t loam (2.'.to 7% slopes) 42C Myersville silt loam (7 to 15% slopes) These are brown, well-drained upland soils With yellowish red clay loam subsoils, Underlying this soil at depths of 25 to 50 inches is weathered greenstone. It has moderate permeability. 43C Catoctin stony silt loam (7 to 15% slopes) 143C Catoctin silt loam (7 to 15% slopes) 143D Catoctin silt loam (.15 to 25% slopes) These. are shallow,-excessively drained soils. The surface soil is brown silt loam or stony silt loam averaging about 11 inches in thick- ness. Below this may. be a thin yellowish brown silt loam material grading to hard green'stone at depths of 20 to 40 inches. The stony silt loam is generally more shallow to bedrock than the silt loam. 49B Rabun clay loam (2 to 7% slopes) 49C Rabun.clay loam (7 to 15% slopes) These are moderately deep to deep, well-drained soils on gently sloping to sloping ridgetops and sideslopes. The surface soil is dark reddish, brown clay loam 3 to 7 inches thick. The subsoil is a firm, dark red clay grading into weathered greenstone at depths of 30 to 60 inches. It has moderate permeability. 53B Orange silt loam (2 to 7% slopes) 53C Orange silt loam (7 to 15% slopes) These are somewhat poOrly to moderately well-drained soils on gently sloping to sloping ridgetops and sideslopes. They have light olive brown silt loam surface layers from 8 to 13 inches thick. The sub- soil is yellowish brown and light olive brown, very sticky, very plastic clay, grading into weathered basic rock at depths of 36 to 44 inches. Depth to hard rock ranges from 40 to 60 inches. Perme- ability is very slow. 54C3 Rabun clay (7 to 15% slopes) 54D3 Rabun clay (15 to 25% slopes) These are moderately deep to deep, well-drained soils on sloping and moderately steep topography.. The surface soils is dark reddish brown or dark red clay. The subsoil is a firm, dark red clay grading into weathered greenstone at depths of 30 to 60 inches. It has moderate permeability. 205C3 Dyke clay loam (7 to 15% slopes) This is a deep, well-drained soil on sloping topography. The surface soil is dark reddish brown clay loam 3 to 7 inches thick. The sub- soil is a firm dark red clay 30 to 60 inches deep. Underneath this is partially weathered greenstone rock material. It has moderate permeability. _:. 4.-24U74 (night) 2!2 Soils are rated in three degrees of limitations: slight, moderate and severe Sl!.ght limitations: Soil and site characteristics are such that there are essentially no limitations to use. Moderate limitations: Soil and/or site characteristics are such that they impose limitations to use that should be recognized and evaluated prior to use. Such limitations can generally be corrected or modified by design or through installation of practices designed to overcome the limitations. Severe limitations: Soil and/or site characteristcs present limitations to use that are generally both difficult and expensive to overcome. A severe rating indicates that other sites, if available, should be considered for use. Limitations for use Map Septic Tank Dwellings Dwellings Local Roads No. Soil Name Disposal Fields with basements without basements aDx~ streets 2 4 Congaree silt loam (0 to 2% slopes) severe-flooding severe-flooding severe-flooding severe-flood~, g Cheavaela silt loam severe-flooding (0 to 2% slopes) severe- flooding severe-flooding severe-floodin9 Cheavaela-congaree silt loam (0 to 2% slopes) severe-flooding severe-flooding severe-flooding severe-floodin9 13B Starr loam (2 to 7% slopes) 42B Myersville silt loam (2 to 7% slopes) severe-occasional, severe'occasional flooding-seasonal flooding-seasonal high water table high water table severe-occasional flooding severe-occasional ' flooding moderate-moderate moderate-moderate permeability shrink-swell moderate-moderate shrink-swell moderate-moderate shrink-swell 42C MyerSVille silt loam (7 to 15% slopes) moderate-slope moderate moderate-slope moderate moderate-slope moderate moderate-slope moderate 43C Catoctin stony silt severe-shallow loam to bedro.ck (7 to 15% .slopes) stoniness severe-shallow to bedrock stoniness severe-shallow to bedrock stoniness moderate-depth to bedrock stoniness 49B Raybun clay loam (2 to 7% slopes) 49C Rabunclay loam (7 to 15% slopes) moderate-moderate,moderate-moderate permeability shrink-swell moderate-moderate moderate-slope permeability moderate shrink- swell moderate-moderate shrink-swell moderate-slope moderate shrink- swell moderate-moderate shrink-swell moderate-slope moderate shrink- swell 53B Orange silt loam (2 to 7% slopes) severe-slow permeability depth to water table severe-high shrink-swell depth to water table severe-high shrink-swell depth towater table severe-high shrink-swell poor drainage 53C Orange siltloam (7 to 15% slopes) severe-slow permeability depth to water table. severe-high shrink-sw~ll depth to water table severe-high shrink-swell depth to water table severe,high shrink-swell poor drainage 54C3 Rabun clay (7 to 15% slopes) moderate-slope mod~ate permeabi li ty 54D3 Rabun clay (15 to 25% slopes) severe-slope moderate-slope moderate shrink- swell moderate-slope moderate shrink-- swell moderate-slope moderate shrink- swell severe-slope severe-slope severe-slope 143CCatoctin silt loam (7 to 15% slopes) severe-depth to bedrock severe-depth to bedrock slope moderate-depth to bedrock slope moderate-depth to bedrock 143D Catoctin' silt loam (15 to 25% slopes) 205C3 Dyke clay loam (7 to 15% slopes) Cut and fill not rated Note: severe-slope severe-slope depth to. bedrock depthto bedrock moderate-slope moderate-slope moderate moderate permeability shrink-swell All soil names are tentative severe-slope moderate-slope moderate shrink-swell severe-slope moderate-slope moderate shrink-swell 4-24-7i4 (ni{~h t) 213 ,x-.'/-~< ~.. ¢ 3 .;~ ~. ,. ; ~-. :. ;'.~.':, ~ ''~:,~,~ . ,,:.~:.., .%.'t~ .:- .¥, · ;~. ....... · ; '.. -. ~.~' ~ '.~ . ~. , :..',. '..-.,..,.., : '.. · .-,: .. ..... ~.:... ',' ..',.- r-,'. , ', ...' ~'", ' I '~"-,,¢, ,'~ ?.° ~:d,1 '~,-',~,-~<Y.:-."-x, ,':',',' ..'-,..:.': · , .~ ,.-;..--~ ... .... ., .:. ' . . .: , ., , .. ,..... y.x... · :... '~..'., ,,:-.-. .- : · j, ,' . - .... 4' -- ".x"% '."%/' Planned Uni% ~evelopment-Hillcres% ...... .:.~:., .,. ." ~. Albemarle county, Virginia -:-,~:". '~,. ' -, -, ,, Soil Survey by '~, Soil Conservation Service :.' '- - : ~:', ';; '~"' "',~ ', ,~a'?'--/ ' Scale 1"=1320, ..F~;..~:.,'.~... : t~;.~. ~..-~'~ ;, ":~..~','~,.,'-'- ,.;'/-.,-' ~,: ~,,,.. .":-,..'· .........., . - - ' · ' ..... --..- ...' · ........ . .' , . , .: - . , . -., .... ~ ~.--...,- -, ..,, o .,..,* ;.'...- .:;..~.~,.. '~,.' ..:.*., .: · - - .-.'-. · ~ · ,c."...." "~. ,' .-, '....~.- · '~ .- . -. · ":-'.,f,..,,,. . ...... ~ 'W. .,';"""?..,.,.. .............. '~: ,,'"> .""- ::.', h. :,~ ;, ..... · ',i-,">'-':~;*-' ,I.......,,,/., ;.;,-... ..-~-~ . .- -~., ,-.:... - .. .'.~.,........, :.,.,:: .-..,...' :..., .., ,., ...- ,:~.. ..t;'c:~....;.''~. .~,...'., ;',2~.' '1. ' ' "~',' ', " ' i' " '~ , '." -" "I' ' ...-,:,., ,..:..-.~..~,,¢.,;.~ ~ '~',,. ':,., . .':,:.~..,-. -~. '.~ .':..~. ;':,,','. .... · ..~:....~. , .."-..~¥~ ; ,. r,' -'. . · - . ,. - .. _.-,/.. .~ * .. · ~, '. . · ~;,'A '. ~";~';"-.~ '..'N,, .' ¥; '"- J; .... ' -N'~ : /...<,Ft-,.. ~ ,,."-,-' ~'~ '.. '-'; ., . ,'- - ;,.~. ,~,,.,~ ,, ..'/ ,. ":.,.,. '~ ' '. . 'r ,. ., ,,;.~L, ,.,':',r~ ..:,j! .... . .\,, ..... · .,:,'-, .., ,-2: "-': · . k' · ]' .' · ",,...- . .~.a-- ,, . , ~, ,', · ~,,.: , , ~ · ; · . . / ", - '?qZ.,..::' ..'~',". ~',. ':.," :' ~ '.- .,' .,"v';" '~ . '. .... ,, :'., :!',',, .,~ ; .z . · ', ":,'.",':h:~_" ~;'; ,. 'u'>~'.,'.,:'"~-"-',:,','-:;t;',,'~',.?';', ";'~ ,- ' -"" ~',k",~: "'" ~: ," .' , ' '" ' '"' · · -.r-,.'~ ..."' ' .' .'"' '-- '. .'.,"-: .... ' '-: ~, '. ' , · '~"' .-,~' t.' " . ,~.,:,-" · ',.'/ ~,"~',~, -'.'~.'.';'.',~'..',j~-;" . · '~.',.?.:,.. ,,. '," .~.~,~,.-' ',, ,,"-'.-,c -, ; · .' t."', ':,," .... ,"' - .,,, '" / '"-.'"';-. '",,'-"",-,.."~' . :,.';,'- '' ,":.,.' ' .,~C.... ,, ' "'~'.." '"' ;.' ' '.'-' ~' '.'' · Conditions of app,,oval Land use control (1) Compliance with the general land use concept noted on a plat dated February, 1974, entitled Development Plan "Hillcrest" marked received by the Planning Office date 2-21-74, as modified relative to the cul-de-sac of an existing road, as noted. (2) Submittal of appropriate subdivision plats as required under the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance. Submittal of site plan as required by the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Submittal of highway approval plans prior to any development taking place. 4~24-7~ (night) (3) A detailed master plan showing trunk/collector and lateral sewer and water lines, storm water lines and structures. Bicycle and pedestrian ways to be submitted~ to the Planning Office prior to any development taking place. (4) Adherence to the density in the appropriate areas as indicated on the general land use concept plan noted in item 1. The density is not to exceed 2.57/units gross acre exclusive of the area leased to Tandem 'School. (5) Homeowners' Association. agreement using the uniform documents as adopted by the -Board of Supervisors. (6) Approval of the impoundment facility, which retains the existing lake, by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, as being adequate according to their standards. (7) That the area indicated for private club and recreation use in the amount of 10 acres be for the use and enjoyment of those who reside within the development as a non-profit operation. (8) That only that.area indicated on the Soil Analysis Report dated January 3, 1974, prepared by Mr. Earl Brunger, Soil Scientist, be developed on septic tanks. The remaining areas are to await-the availability of sewer/service capacity as may be granted by the-Albemarle~County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. (9) Any approval of the plan or subsequent plans, plats-, or site plans does not constitute a guarantee of water or sewer service-by the Albemarle County Service Authority or the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. (1.0) All necessary easements for utilities shall be deeded to the Albemarle County Service Authority. (11) That prior to.construction of roads which are to be brought into t-he state system, road plans will be approved by the Highway Department. No roads are to be built until construction bond i.s established with the County. The right of way is to be established with the approval of the Highway Department for the road extending from Route 720 to Route 742. The Albemarle County Service Authority is preparing a policy on which sewer connections may be distributed during the interim period in which the AWT plant is. to be designed and built. Such a policy will require a developer to schedule his needs and to build accordingly. At this moment, none can say what capacity will be available in'the old Moores' Creek plant. Mr; Humphrey said the Planning Commission is recommending approval of the proposal deviating from the staff's recommendation. However, they had modified condition ~7 to state that the density for the overall property is not to be tied to the {~-~-acres nor ~h~ 6.6 acres of commerciali This drops the density of the request to 415'units. The Planning Commission also placed a condition that any approval of this application be for no longer than four years. If nothing is developed in that period of time, the request is to be returned to the Planning Commission and the Board for reconsideration. Mr. Wheeler interrupted to state that the tie breaker was on his way to this meeting. Mr. Humphrey said the staff had considered the capability of the sewer plants that now serwe this area. There are to be interim improvements made to the Moores' Creek plant, hopefully by 1975. However, those improvements are to take care of only the existing overload. Any expansion is tied to the AWT plant which is to be constructed and in operation in 1979. Mr. Humphrey said he has communicated with the Director of the Service Authority and these dates have not changed. There may or may not be capacity available after the interim improvements. If the~e is any capacity available during the interim period, it'will be allotted areas on a first-come, first- served basis. The staff feels this request is premature because sewer facilities will not be available, until 1979 or 1980. This was the basis used by the staff and the Planning Commission in recommending that the permit be for only four years. 225 Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning CommisSiOn was recommending that no development take place without public sewerage. Mr. Humphrey said yes. There is a possibility that single,family residences can be built where the soils are acceptable, however, the higher density areas cannot~be developed. Mr. Wheeler asked if the Planning Commission had stated that no development could take place with septic tanks. Mr. Humphrey. said they had not so stated. This comment was made by the staff. Mr. Fisher said he thought the Planning Commission had recommended that no development take place without public sewer and he asked if that was wrong. Mr. Humphrey read: "it is further suggested that with preliminary approval, no construction be started until public sewer and water are available unless construction is started before four years, if not, the petition would have to come back to the Board and Planning.Commission for further approval. Mr. Wheeler asked if the staff was recommending that one area could be developed with septic tanks and the Planning Commission was recommending nothing in the way of septic systems. Mr. Humphrey said the staff has suggested that there is only one area available. Mr. Wheeler said the Board then has two recommendations. Mr. Thacker asked the source of a water supply. Mr. Humphrey said water is available on Route 742, in front of the Piedmont College. A trunk line would have to be extended into the area. Mr. Thacker asked if the Planning Commission had based their recommendation on the use of public water. Mr. Humphrey said yes. Mr. Thacker asked if the size of an average single-family lot was approximately .73 acres. Mr. Humphrey said there are 29 acres involved and the distribution would be approximately 1.3 units per acre. Dr. Hurt was present in support of the petition. He said he would prefer to hear comments from the public and he would then answer any questions posed. The first to speak was Mr. John Smart. Speaking for the Farm Bureau he posed two questions: (1) is this development necessary; and (2) will it pay its own way? He said the Directors of the Farm Bureau realize there is a private school on the property, but not all the people living there will send their children to this school. They also oppose approval of the application until public water and sewer are available. Mr. Smart said speaking personally, if the Board allows this development, he feels that it must be screened so it cannot, be seen from the Community College. Route 20 is a beautiful highway and he objects to ruining the scenic view. He asked if Mr. Humphrey had stated that the application was approved by the Thomas Jefferson Soil Conservation District. Mr. Humphrey said no, it was recommended that the site be reviewed by the Soil Conservation Service and their recommendations be adhered to if the impoundment was not in compliance. Mr. Smart said this proposal, to his knowledge, has never been presented to the Board of the District, but they would be glad to listen to the proposal. He understands that it is difficul~to find water in this area and since there is no public sewerage available, he personally objects, along with the Directors of the Farm Bureau, to approval of this request. 4-24-74 (night) Mrs. Jean Beagle said she lives on Route 20-South. Charlottesville is a lovely area and she asked the Board to keep in mind that if they keep stacking people on people the area will have pollution of water and the air. stack up as intensified areas are added. She said these things Mrs. John Smart said she lives across the road from this property. They had kept their farm so they could keep the area rural and she objects.to approval of this petition. Mr. Wheeler noted that the Board had received a letter from Mrs. Joan Graves: "2208 Dominion Drive Charlottesville, Va. April 24, 1974 22901 To the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Gentlemen: As the Board of Supervisors is asked to consider yet another Planned Community, I should like to submit the following questions: Is it reasonable for the Board to take action on any proposal of such impact unless it adopts strong guidelines to bolster an ambiguously worded ordinance? For instance, at what stage in the consideration of a Planned Community is final approval given? Will the Hillcrest plan as presented and modified tonight represent the final approved Master Plan of Development if the Board so decided? Does this mean that the Subdivision regulations concerning lot size, roads, and water and sewage facilities are no longer applicable to this development? If final approval is not granted until the submission of a ten acre section showing~compliance with all the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, will the Board make this decision? Will all subsequent site plans and subdivisions come to the Board? e Is it reasonable for the Board to be asked to take action on any development of this size offering multi-family residences, when no commitment can be made on the availability of public water and sewage? The Planning Commission formed a committee to study questions relating to Planned Communities, but disbanded it when the Branchlands proposal was withdrawn, and questions of this nature have arisen with other Planned Communities. So, perhaps, these should be resolved before further action is taken. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Joan Graves" No one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Wheeler called on Dr. Hurt for comments. Dr. Hurt said this plan complies with the Planning Commission's approved plan for the County. Some people feel that an attractive development creates people, however, this is not the case. He said that each time he attends a Board meeting there are people present requesting approval of mobile home permits. Dr. Hurt said this proposal will not destroy the agricultural land of the County as much as two- acre lots scattered all over ths County. This land is served very well by the highway system. If the people would think about this more, they would realize that this is the type of development they should support. 4-24-74 (n~ght) 2i7 Mr. Wheeler said unless someone had fUrther questions, he would suggest that this matter be deferred until May 8 and at that· time the public hearing be continued. He said he had discussed this with Dr. Hurt and it was agreeable with him to give the Board members more time to get answers to a~ny questions they might have. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to continue this public hearing until May 8, 197-4. was seconded by Mr. Wood. and camried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. (4) The motion SP-334. Estelle Smith has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 3.76 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 635, about one-half mile west of its inter- section with Route 691. Property is further described as County Tax Map 84, Parcel 60A. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said this area maintains a rural character with large open pasture lands. There are five single-family dwellings in the immediate area and the Holy Cross Episcopal Church. Large trees are located along Route 635 and the stream adjacent to the property. Mr. Humphrey said it was indicated at the Planning Commission hearing that this would be a temporary mobile home. He ended by stating that the Planning Commission recommended approval based on the following conditions: ~1) a..minimum setback of 100 feet from Route 635. (2) County building official approval. (3) The petition is granted to the applicant only and is not transferrable. (4) Screening to be determined by the Planning Department. (5) The permit is granted for a period of five years. Mr. Wilson Smith was present to represent his mother. He said she would be building a permanent home on this location within two to three years. Mr. Fisher asked if the mobile home would be moved when the home is completed. Mr. Smith said yes. Mr. Fisher said he would have no objections to the petition if he could be sure the mobile home would be removed if a permanent dwelling is completed i~ les~ than five years. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to approve SP-334 as recommended by the Planning Commission and with the added stipulation that the mobile home be removed from the property when a permanent dwelling is completed, or at the end of five years, whichever occurs first. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (5) SP-337. M. L. Hensley has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to locate a mobile home on 27 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Ro'ute 729, about 1 3/4 miles south of Nix. Property is further described as County Tax Map 105, Parcel 8 (part thereof). Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said the area is rural in character and is heavily wooded. There is a single-family dwelling adjacent to the north and south of the subject property. An open field is across from the property. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission recom- mended approval based on the following conditions: 218 (1) Building official approval. (2) Removal of as few trees as possible surrounding the mobile home site. (3) A minimum ~setback of 100 feet from Route 729. (4) This petition is granted only to the applicant and is not transferrable. (5) This permit is granted for five years only. build. vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Hensley was present. He said he had changed his mind and has decided to build a home on this lot. Mr. Thacker asked if he will be building the house immediately instead of placing the mobile home on the property. Mr. Hensley said yes he would like to do this. Mr. Wheeler said he had no objection to approving this permit with the conditions stated and if Mr. Hensley decided to build, the permit will then be voided. No one from the public spoke for or against the petition. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to approve SP-337 with the conditions stated by the Planning Commission and subject to the mobile home being removed from the property at the time a home is ready for occupancy, should Mr. Hensley decide to The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. At 9:54 P.M., Mr. Harry Garth arrived at the meeting. .Mr. Wheeler thanked Mr. Garth for coming tonight. He said the Board had asked that he attend this meeting because the motion that would be presented to him was based upon a contract thatJwill expire at midnight tonight. Mr. Wheeler advised Mr. Garth that under Virginia Code Section 15.1-540, he .had 30 days in which to cast his vote. Mr. Wheeler then asked the Clerk to read the motion for Mr. Garth. "The motion was to accept the revised bid of R. E. Lee & Sons for restoration of the Levy Opera House as a juvenile and domestic relations court facility." Mr. Carwile said the revised bid is in the amount of $431,194. Mr. Garth said he would like to be apprised of what had happened earlier in the meeting. Mr. Wheeler said the Board has been made aware that there are those who feel the building should be restored as the Levy Opera House and not used as a juvenile court. The vote showed three members of the Board supporting that idea. Mr. Wheeler said there is a need for a juvenile court facility. This building was donated to the City and the County more than two years ago. Since that time, a committee of City and County officials has been studying the question of a use for the building. They hired an architect and their proposal was put out to bid. City Council has approved that bid. He asked if other Board members would like to give a brief resume of the situation. Mr. Fisher said a study committee was formed some months ago to look at the suitability of the building for a juvenile court facility. He said that some. of the controversy has been reported in the newspapers. Mr. Fisher said he had voted against the motion to accept the bid and prOceed witk construction of a court in that 4-24-74 (night) 219 facility with the intent of allowing citiZens to raise funds for the restoration from sources other than County or City treasuries. These funds would be used to restore the building for use as a cultural facility for opera, for music, for drama, etc. He said the court does have the option of locating in another facility or a new facility can be constructed. But, the Opera House can only be built on that one site. He said he is willing to give the citizens an opportunity to raise funds for the restoration. This is a complex question and one with which the Board has struggled for some time. Mr. Wheeler said it has taken two years from the start of this project to get to this point. There has to be a juvenile court facility for this area. To find another site and get to this point will require an additional two years. He said the bid under dicussion is over $431,000 and the building was given to the County and City. To go to another location will probably require an expenditure of twice this amount. While he is sympathetic to those wanting to restore the Opera House, the cost to get back to this point would be very high. The bid was opened in January. In order to keep the bid open, the County and. City have had to agree to an increase in cost. Mr. Wheeler said Mr. Fisher .had wery ably presented the position of those not suPporting the motion.but he felt that those who did support the motion were considering the cost to the taxpayers; also the necessity for this juvenile court facility. Mr. Wood said he would like to state his own position. He said the Board is dealing with an expenditure of taxpayers money for a contract which City Council has already approved. If the Board should support the motion and go with this bid, he felt they would be doing so under pressure since it has been stated that ! if the bid is not accepted tonight it~ut of the window forever. He said this does not bother him. There was only one bidder. He felt this was bid at an adverse time. If the project were rebid, it is possible that the low bid could be less than $431,000. Nev.ertheless, if the Board votes to approve this, they are voting to do an injustice in two ways. They would supposedly be restoring the Levy Opera House, but at the end of the restoration there would not be a Levy Opera House or an historical landmark. Secondly, the Board would be doing an injustice to the juvenile court. It has been said that this facility would not be adequate for future housing of the court and probation offices. It has been said that this would be less than ten years. Mr. Wood said he sincerely believes that it is wrong to spend a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers money and do an injustice in two ways. He would rather let this bid go by and let the citizens who are interested raise the money and restore the Opera House at no cost.to the County taxpayers. If it cost more to provide a juvenile court facility, he would rather see the Board take the responsibility to provide an adequate facility. If, in doing this, they can save half a dozen children from being permanently on the rolls of the state taxpayers they will have saved the County more than half a million dollars. Mr. Wood said he voted against the motion because he feels it is unwise to spend County taxpayers money to do an injustice in two ways. Mr. Carwile said he had made the motion to accept the bid. He served as a member'of the City/County committee. As to the adequacy of the facility, Judge Zehler has stated that it will be adequate and he prefers the Levy ~Opera House as a court instead of a new facility. Mr. Carwile said if the Board does not use this building as a juvenile court the cost to the City and the County to provide a court at another site will far exceed the cost presented at this time. While he is in sympathy with those wishing to~ restore the Levy Opera House, he cannot justify the increased expenditure that will be reqUired for a juvenile facility at another site. Mr. Wheeler said the main issue in.his mind is whether or not the building is adequate. There is no question that it will be adequate for the court. The question of adequacy came from the probation side. The probation officer has stated that in a few years he will have additional staff. Mr. Wheeler felt this additional staff could be housed in a small building close to this facility. He said this building belongs to the City and the County. If this building is not used as a juvenile court, then any other use made of the building will have to be a joint use. If the City and County cannot find a suitable joint use, there is a possibility the building would be returned to the donor. Mr. Henley said the Board had an architect study the building. He remembered someone saying that-they almost had to tear it down and Start over again because of the way it was built. The main reason he had voted against this use was because the Board was told last week that in ten years it would not be adequate for other than the court. It was also stated that the court must have records with which to work and this would necessitate going back and forth if the probation staff is housed elsewhere. Mr. Henley did not think this much money should be spent to renovate a.building that the Board knows will not be adequate for any length of time. He realizes that it will cost more to build what he thinks should be built. If the Board approves this use, he feels they will be converting a building that could be used for its original purpose and spending a lot of money to do it. Mr. Henley said he also would like to see the building preserved. However, his main reason for voting against the motion was that he felt the cost does not justify the means. Mr~ Thacker said he also served on the committee. He has wrestled with this problem for a considerable length of time. He is in sympathy with the people wanting to restore the building as an opera house. But, he said, as he sits on this Board he can see no way for public funds to be utilized for this purpose. The County has many other high priority needs. He realizes that the figure presented is high but is convinced that if the Board does not utilize this building for a juvenile court facility they will expend twice as much~money for a court at another location. Mr. Thacker said the court does need additional space. He said Mr. Wood had commented that this was not a favorable bid and-he would like to respond. This type of work is such that there are not many people who are willing to bid. It is a very difficult 4-24-74 (Hight) 221 type of work to bid and a premium has to~aid ~for th±s type of work. The price of renovating the Levy Opera House, based on documents submitted, is approximately $40 a square foot. Information he has seen, for recent products of a similar nature, but on a much large size project, show a cost of $45-$46 a square foot. Even if construction began tomorrow, the building might be outdated as a juvenile court before the work is completed because the needs of the facility are based on State guidelines and not County guidelines. Based on all these factors he voted for the motion to proceed with renovation of~the Opera House as a juvenile court facility. He felt this would be in the best interest of the County's taxpayers. Mr. Fisher said the statements made that another facility would cost twice as much are purely speculative. No other options have been priced at this time. He said the Board has before them one bid and the question is whether they accept that bid or look for other alternatives. Mr. Wheeler said the Board~has a gift of land and a building. They would have to purchase anything else to be used for the future. Mr. Wheeler said he thought Mr. Garth realizes that this matter has been given considerable thought. Mr. Wood said there were a lot of people present tonight who have made present- ations to the Board and who have followed this matter all the way. They have anxiously waited and he felt Mr. Garth might want to hear three or four of them and their reasons for asking the Board to vote against this bid. Mr. Wheeler said that was a decision for Mr. Garth to make. Mr. Garth said he would not mind hearing comments but did not want this thing to run on too long. He said the fact that there is only one bid bothers him greatly. In his business that is a bad policy, and even worse when spending public funds. Mr. Wheeler said the committee had shared that concern, however, they were hesitant to rebid the project feeling the.bid would go up and not down. Mr. Thacker said this was a concern of.his and the entire committee and also this entire Board. He alluded to this earlier when he said this type of renovation is very difficult. The size of this job would preclude a number of smaller contractors. The type of work would possibly preclude others. This is not the type of work that out-of-town contractors would bid because of the amount of supervision required. This project was publicly advertised and he said the architect made every effort to obtain other bids. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Garth is he would like to hear any of the spokesmen present. Mr. Garth suggested that a total of 15 minutes be allowed for public comments. Mrs. Eliot Clarke spoke again. She said the Levy Opera House represents the cultural history of the town. In the 19th century, some of the greatest musicians and singers in the world performed there. It would be the only restored opera house in Virginia. In Abigail, South Carolina, a town of only 10,000 people, they have restored an opera house and it is now used for performance of national plays. If the Levy Opera House is ~estored as a court, this community will loose its history. She said Charlottesville has many old homes but there is little left of the heritage of the people. ~ An unidentified lady said she would speak again for the young people of the community. When this first came to City Council, the young people had gone to them saying that they were interested in this restoration as an opera house. A juvenile court can be built almost anywhere and she suggested that it be built in the parking lot located across from the City Courthouse and the parking lot be put where the old County Jail is now located when that building is vacated. She said so much of the community's heritage is gone and she asked that the Board think of the heritage for their children and.grandchildren and not destroy what the community has. Mr. Frederic Hartt said he is Chairman of the Art Department at ~the University. He is concerned~with the seriousness of the whole problem. When he first heard about the proposed renovation, it was said that the exterior would be restored. He said the exterior was fine and can~be restored exactly as seen in old photographs, but this would be only a shell. The interior w©uld not meet the cultural needs of the community.- Only at the University of Virginia, a considerable distance from the center of the City, is there an auditorium where chamber music, chamber operas, etc. can be p~esented. This building could serve the cultural life of Charlottesville. It would be a place to go, other than the movies, and could possibly bring back to the City some of the cultural aspects ~nich it has lost over a period of time. An unidentified gentlemen said the Chairman of the Music Department at the University of Virginia had given a very interesting report to City Council. He has said that an opera house can~pay for itself. This is a matter of record before City Council and could ~be checked with them. Mr. Garth asked if a decision was needed tonight. Mr. Wheeler said the Board has been discussing this for over two years and has not made a~decision. He would not ask Mr. Garth to make a decision tonight .unless that.was his desire. Mr. Garth said there has been a great deal of information in the newspapers about the Opera House. He said he is not a great opera fan and will not be swayed by whether or not it is the proper thing to renovate this as.an opera house. If it is to be used as an opera house he would hate to think that Albemarle County would put up the money to pay for this. The County is struggling to make e~ds meet. Mr. Wheeler said this same sentiment has been expressed by each member of this Board. Mr. Garth said he has given this a lot of thought but not with this in mind or he would have been out of town tonight. He did not think there would be any advantage in waiting to make a decision since he has given this matter a lot of thought. He said there-will be a lot of unhappy people, and hopefully, a lot of happy people and he asked how the Board would like to have this decision made. 4-24-74 (night) 223 Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. St. John if there were any legal requirements to be met. Mr. St. John said no. This will be a public vote. Mr. Henley asked that the motion be restated. Mr, Wheeler said the motion is to accept the bid to use the Levy Opera House as a juvenile court. Mr. Garth said instead of making it that way he would like to make it a little bit plainer and he said "I would be opposed to the use of the Opera House as a juvenile court." He was interrupted by applause. Mr. Garth said he would like to say one more thing. He did not want anybody to thank him for what he had said because what he had said was exactly the way he felt, and it is purely a matter of business all the way through. It could be one way just as well as~the other way. Mr. Garth said he hoped he had not stepped on too.~many toes and he felt he had made the right decision. He said he was not an opera lover and he did not attend~operas. If some day, however, they get the thing going, he just may attend. Mr. Wheeler asked that the record show the vote as "no". He then thanked Mr. Garth for coming to the meeting an~d making.the decision. The Board took a short recess and then continued with the advertised public hearings. (6) SP-338. Harry W. and Mary~R. Wheeler have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate an antique, craft and gift shop on 77.30 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 20 North, about 1 1/4 miles north of Route 250 East. Property is further described as County Tax Map 62, Parcel 31. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said.this property is the site of George Rogers Clark birth. The existing, restored, cabin located on the property is surrounded by.pastureland. The property slopes down to the Rivanna River and is visible from Penn Park. Buena Vista is adjacent to the north of the property and multi-family units are adjacent to the south. Across Route 20 from the property is cropland. Presently there exists gravelled parking area for approximately 20 automobiles. The applicant presently~ expects to sell only pen quills. Mr Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommends approval based on the following conditions: (1) ~No other buildings are to be built and the structures on the site restricted to only the building seen in photograph No. 2. (2) Restricted to one identification sign of the historic area on the gateway, not larger than four square feet, said sign can state this message: George Rogers Clark Museum, opening and closing times. (3) The permit is currently issued to the applicant and is not transferrable. (4) Sales confined within ~the building. (.5) No manufacturing on the site and it is restricted to the selling of antiques, crafts and gift items and incidental foods and drinks'. (6) For a period of five years, with administrative review yearly. At the end of five years, it will have to come back before the Commission. Mr. Humphrey said he understood from the applicant that they will be charging admission for upkeep. There will also be some automatic machinery which may be needed by the touring public and there may be some sale of pen quills, etc. This is the baSis on which this has come to the Board, not on the fact that they will be charging admission, but that there may be some sale of antiques,, crafts and gift items. Mrs. Wheeler was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion was offered by -Mr. Wood to approve SP-338 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messr,s. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (7) SP-340. Michael B. Stewart has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to.locate a mobile home on 5.08 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 727 about one mile north of Blenheim. Property is further described as County Tax Map 103, Parcel 16 (part thereof). Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said this property is a portion of Quandary Farm which is made up primarily of large, pipe-stemmed lots. Lots ar~e open field areas along the access road and there are no houses visible from the subject property. On November 8, 1972, the applicant was given approval by the Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on a tract adjacent to the property presently being requested. The former special permit was granted ~for a maximum of two years. Mr, Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommends approwal subject to the following conditions: (1) Granting of the permit, for a two y~ar!_period with one year administrative approval thereafter. The extension of one year would be given unless the administrator is concerned about the effect or change that may come about in the area. (2) County building official approval. (3) The permit is granted to this applicant only and is not transferrable. (4) A~30-foot setback~ from the access road. (5) The voiding of SP-210,. referred to earlier, since it has been ascertained that the applicant has decided not to use that property for placement of the mobile home. Mr. Stewart was present. He said he has bought additional acreage and now has a 50-foot frontage all the way to the highway. This was one of the things the Board was concerned about when he was present before. Mr. Fisher asked if he intended to move a trailer from one lot to the other. Mr. Stewart said no, he had ~ever placed the mobile home on the lot. No one from the public spoke for or against the petition. Mr. Thacker asked if this request was for a temporary mobile home. Mr. Stewart said he would like to have the permit for five years, until he can afford to build a house. He said there are 100 acres behind his parcel which cannot be developed because he owns 'a 50-foot right of way all the way through the development. Mr. Thacker said not necessarily, the developer had developed this on a pipe-stem lot scheme. There are about eight 25-foot stems running through the development out to Route 727. Mr. Thacker said he is concerned about parking a mobile home in the middle of a subdivision. If Mr. Stewart requested this as a temporary mobile home while he constructs a permanent home, he-could not find fault with the~request. to support the Planning Commission's recommendation. However, he was hesitant 4-24-74 (night) 225 Mr. Stewart ~said there are no houses build'in Quandary Farm and it is a quarter of a mile to the closest house. Mr, Henley said all of the lots seem to be a fairly good size. Mr. Thacker said the land in question is all on top of a ridge. Mr. Stewart said there is a tree line which separates his 15 acres from the rest of the area. Mr. Fisher asked if a 30-foot setback would place the mobile home behind the tree line. Mr. Thacker said he is also concerned that there are several mobile homes in Quandary which are perhaps located there in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He asked Mr. Humphrey to check into this matter since he did not recall of any other mobile home permits being granted in this area. Mr. Humphrey said there are three MHP's which have been granted. Mr. Henley said he could not see anything wrong with this for five years on this large tract of land. If Mr. Stewart has just bought the land, and used most of his money, he will probably not be able to save money for a home in less than five years. Mr. Thacker said he would have no objection to a temporary permit, however, he did not think that five years is temporary. He invited Mr. Henley to go out and view the tract of land, if he did not think ~the mobile home would be visible f~om the rest of Quandary. Mr. Henley said being visible did not bother him. Mr. Wood said he has been to Quandary Farms and driven all through the property. He said if the Board could encourage all mobile homes be placed on 15 acres that would be a good thing. Mr. Thacker said he agreed with this, but not in the middle of a subdivision. He said he was agreeable to approving a two-year permit. Mr. Henley said there are not but two parcels in the whole subdivision that have less than ten acres. Mr. Wheeler said he understood Mr. Thacker's concern, but would support the granting of the permit for two years. Mr. Thacker Offered motion to grant the permit on the basis of the Planning Commission'ssrecommendation with the exception that the permit be for a maximum of two years. If, in less than the two-year period, a permanent home is built on this lot, the mobile home is to be removed upon occupancy of the permanent home. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile. Mr. Wood asked if the motion stated that the permit could be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and extended for one additional year. Mr. Thacker said yes. Mr. Wood said he did not like that very much. He felt the one additional year was too restrictive. If Mr. Stewart does a good honest job in the first two years, comes back for a review by the Board, Mr. Wood said the permit should be granted on the basis of that Board of Supervisors at that time. Mr. Thacker then amended his motion to eliminate the one additional year stipulation and asked that the permit come back to the Board at the end of two years by reapplication. Mr~ Wheeler said he did not know if Mr. Wood realized it, but they had just taken one year away from the approval. Mr. Wood said he realized this. The Board.of Supervisors at that time may 226 want to review the permit for one year, two years or maybe even for five years. Mr. Henley said the Board usually approves these permits for five years and he could..see no difference with this .one. Mr. Stewart said he did not see any difference. Mr. Thacker said they are not permits for mobile .homes in the middle of a subdivision. Vote was taken.at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and~.Wheeler. NAYS: (8) SP-342. Mr. & Mrs. M. H. Harris have petitioned the Albemarle County ~Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile.home on 6.02 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 20 South about six miles~south of Charlottesville. Property is further described as County Tax Map 102, Parcel 22 (part thereof). Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said the area is semi-rural in nature with single-family development along State Route 20 South. The property in question is not ~isible from Route 20 and is accessible by a gravelled road. There presently exists a single-family dwelling adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission has recommended approval, by unanimous vote, with the following conditions: (1) Screening to the satisfaction of the Planning staff. (2) Long axle of the trailer to be trimmed. (3) Granted for one year, with two annual administrative renewals, if progress is being made toward the construction of a house. (4) This permit is issued to M. H. Harris only~and is not tranSferrable. (5) Building official approval for location and hookups. Mr. Humphrey said this matter was heard by the Planning Commission on two different occasions. There was quite a bit of opposition presented. However, at the last meeting, the Planning Commission did recommend unanimous approval. Mr. Harris was present. He said he had ~not realized that there would be a time limit placed on the permit. They plan to use the trailer as a temporary dwelling until they can build a house. The trailer will be out of the sight of Route 20. He does own the property. Mr. Thacker asked when he planned to build. Mr. Harris said in about five years. If this permit is not for that length of time, they will not buy a trailer or use the permit at all. Mr. Wheeler said he had received a letter from Dr. James C. Andrews and read the following into the record: "April 23, 1974 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Attention: Miss Neher Dear Sirs: I am unable to attend the Thursday night meeting (April 25th) of the Board of Supervisors. However, I would like to go on record as opposing the location of a trailer home on Route 20, South, two miles below our home. 4-24-74 (night) Route 20 has been designated as a Scenic Highway. It is my feeling that hit or miss location of trailer homes detracts from the beauty of this route which has become a major tourist route, especially since the opening of Interstate 64. Yours very truly, (Signed) James C. Andrews, M.D." There was a lady present representing Mr. Dan R. Williams. She said he feels the approval of a mobile home on this site will bring the value of this property down. Mr. Humphrey also gave to the Board a petition containing the signatures of 24 persons living on Route 20 South, all expressing opposition to this request. Mr. Forrest R. Marshall was present. He said there would be no way that he could not see the trailer from his home on top of the mountain, Marshall Manor. There are already two trailers on properties below his' and they are very offensive to him. He said he has owned this land for thirty years and has waited for many years until he could afford to build the type of house that he now has there. He feels that if the Board allows a trailer to go on this piece of property this will be a long and drawn out affair. Mr. Marshall did not think Mr, Harris will be able to build a home in five years. Rec~ntly~_.Marshall has spent approximately $150,000 installing roads and getting his land in shape for sale, and he feels that the people buying this land will also feel that a trailer is offensive. Mr. Richard Brock said he owns some property immediately across Route ~20 from the Williams'. He said he has both aesthetic and practical objections to placing a mobile home on this property. He is sure that he will be able to see the trailer from Route 20 and the value of his property may decrease. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Harris had stated that is the permit is for any time period less than five years, it will not be used. Mr. Harris said if it is granted for a shorter period of time, he will have to begin construction in three years and he cannot make such a guarantee. Mr. Thacker said he would be willing to support a temporary permit, but does not feel that five years is temporary or that a mobile home is compatible with~.the area. Mr. Wheeler said he would not support this petition at all. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to deny SP-342. The motion was seconded, by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Carwile and Mr. Henley. (9) SP-310. W. M. Collins. (Public hearing on this zoning petition was advertised on April 5 and April 12, 1974, in the Daily Progress'.) W. M. Collins has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate an addition to a mobile home park on 4.11 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated~on the west side of Route 706, about one mile north of its intersection with Route 708. Property is further described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 23A. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated that this petition was advertised by order of the Board to reconsider their previous action in denying this permit on February 13, 1974. 4- 2.4-74 .(night) Mr. Humphrey again gave the,staff's report, listed the previous conditions of approval noted by the Planning Commission and in general brought the Board up-to-date on this petition. Mr. Collins was present in support of his request. ~ Mr. ~r~T~Dorman said the screening that was called for is very poor, ineffectual, lackadasial and stop-dash; as is the total operation. There is one row of pines, four or five feet apart. 25% have blown over, 30% have lost their needles, and the few that are standing are seedy looking. ~ Mr. Wheeler said he had voted no the last. time and expected to vote no again. ~ Mr. Wood said he visited the si~e today and what Mr. Dorman said was about the truth, except there are two rows of trees. He drove into the trailer park and it certainly is.not in keeping with that area. He voted no the first time and could see no reason to change his vote. He then offered motion to deny SP-310 and order that the two mobile homes located there illegally be removed within 90 days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley a~d carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. 'Carwile, ~Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Application for a lottery permit was received from. the ScottsVilte P.T~A. for games to be played on May 18, 1974, from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Motion to approve this lottery permit was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried ~ by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Wheeler reminded the Board that the Albemarle High School Youth and Government Day will be held on May 1, 1974. Mr. Wheeler asked that the Board members be ready by May 8, 1974, to appoint two members to Joint Jail committee. for the month of April, 1974, Claims against the County/amounting to $1,651,709.70 were received, allowed, and certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following accounts: General Fund General Operating Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund Textbook Rental Fund School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund General Operating-Capital Outlay Fund Commonwealth of Virginia: Current Credit Account Town of Scottsville: Local Sales Tax $ 1,537.50 307,029.96 1,017,002.70 28,583.93 1,368.69 260,274.82 28,112.50 7.,~594.23 205.37 $1,651,709.70 Upon motion by Mr. Thacker, at 11:30 P.M., seconded by Mr. Fisher, this meeting was adjourned until 4:00 P.M. on May 8, 1974, in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: 229 AYES: N~YS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher', Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and~Wood. None. Chairman