1974-06-12A6-12'74
Pursuant. to the following notice, which was hand delivered on June 6,
1974, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, met in special
session at 4:00 P.M. on June 12, 1974, in the Board Room of the County
Office Building, with the following members present: Messrs. Stuart F.
Carwile, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and
Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. (Mr. Wood arriving at 4:35 P.M.). Absent: Mr, Gerald E.
Fisher.
"Mr. Gordon L. Wheeler and Mr. Stuart F. Carwile have requested a
special meeting of the Board of Supervisors for 4:00 P.M. on
Wednesday, June 12, 1974, in order to go into executive session
to discuss legal matters."
The meeting was called to order at 4:20 P.M. Mr~. Wheeler stated to
those members of the public who were present that this meeting had been
called to discuss the order which was entered in the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in reference to the two l~andfill applications of the City.
He said the Board was going to discuss this in executive session. The City
has asked that public hearings be scheduled on these two landfill sites by
July 20. However, the Board does not believe these hearings can be scheduled
by that date, but will be scheduled shortly therafter.
Mr. Edwin Lee said he is an unofficial spokesman for the residents of
Route 29 South. They attended the meeting held at Red Hill School on SP-203
and they are concerned about this request. There was recently an exception
made for an asphalt plant in their section of the County. They have been
watching closely t.he fire at the Ivy Landfill site and are concerned about
placing a landfill in their district. The residents on 29 South feel that
when there are exceptions made, they happen in their section of the County
and they want to bring this to the attention of the Board.
Mr. St. John suggested that the following communications be madea part
of the record:
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE,
Plaintiff
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, et als,
Defendants
DECREE REMANDING CAUSE WITH DIRECTIONS
Case #782C
This cause came on again to be heard upon the papers formerly
read, upon the exhibits admitted pursuant to the Pre-Trial Order
and to Rule 4:11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia,
upon the Motion for Summary Judgment heretofore filed by Anne E.
Woods, Lucretia Derrick Woods, Maria Cooper Woods and L. K. Woods,
Intervenors, and upon the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
pursuant to Rule 3:18 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, hereto-
fore filed by the City of Charlottesville; and the cause was
argued by counsel.
300
6-12-74
(Afternoon)
Summary judgment is now granted upon the following terms and
conditions:
(!) In deviating from the procedural rules and the substantive
provisions~of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance with respect
to special use permits, and applications therefor, and in failing
to make positive findings either for or against the two special
use permit applications filed by the City of Charlottesville, one
_~being~on~August~-!,.~1972, with respect to the Massey site and the
other in June 1973, with respect to the Cason site, the Albemarle
County~Board o,f Supervisors has acted arbitrarily and capriaio.usly
and the action of the Board in denying those applications is
hereby set aside, and those special use permit applications,
numbered 203 and 281 are hereby remanded to the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County for further~prompt action not inconsistent
with the terms hereaf.
(2) The Court being mindful of the overriding public interest
with respect to the City's need for a sanitary landfill retains
this case on the docket pending~ action by the County Board of
Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors is directed to complete
its action and to report to this Court by way of positive written
findings its actions with regard to each application, either
approving or disapproving the same, not later than the opening day
of the October term of this Court and should the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County pursuant to a proper reconsideration of appli-
cations No. 203 and 281 deny both such applications, said Board
shall, not later than the opening day Of the October term of this
Court, select another site for use by the City which would reasonably
comply w±th the needs of the ~ity with regard to acquisition,
preparation, maintenance, operation and hauling dis.tance and which
would comply with the requirements of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance and State Law, and should the Board of Supervisors
commence any investigation or studies ~as to alternate sites, they
shall forthwith advise the City and shall promptly make available
for inspection and copying all written studies, reports, evaluations,
objections and comments thereon in the records and files under the
control of- the County, and should the City find such.proposed
sites objectionable the City is granted leave to petition this
Court for further hearing thereon, and further, as a general
guide, should an alternate site be sought by the County Board of
Supervisors, the area in which the proposed site is located shall
be a distance of not more than 10 miles from the center of the
City of Charlottesville except that.where as much as three-fourths
of said distance is by existing four lane highway, such distance
may be as much as 12 miles.
(3) If requested by any inter'ested party as to either or
both of the pending special use permit applications a prompt, full
and complete hearing shall be accorded the City, the intervenors
and other interested persons or parties as defined under the
Zoning Ordinance, for the purpose of proffering additional evidence.
The Court makes no finding however, as to what further hearings
are required under the law in acting upon either or both of such
applications, but directs that all such hearings shall conform to
the requirements of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and
State Law to the extent applicable.
The exceptions and objections of all counsel with respect to
the Court's granting or denying the Motions for Summary Judgment,
previously~filed or made orally and to the terms of this order
including the sketch proffered by complainants, filed hereby and
marked rejected, are hereby noted. In accordance with the appli-
cable rules of procedure~ the endorsement of this order by all
counsel is dispensed with.
Enter: 6/7/74
(Signed) David F. Berry, Judge
302
"June 10, 1974
Misa Lettie Neher, Clerk
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Re:
City of Charlottesville v. Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors - Special Use Permit Application No. 203
Dear Miss Neher:
Pursuant to the Order of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County entered in the above styled case on June 7th, a copy of
which is attached, the City of Charlottesville hereby requests
that the Board of Supervisors schedule a public hearing on Special
Use Permit Application No. 203 in order that the City and other
interested parties may proffer additional evidence as permitted
by such Court Order.
.Because of the time constraint imposed by the Court Order and
the possibility that the summer vacation season may interfere with
the availability of witnesses, we respectfully request that the
Board schedule this hearing on or before July 20th. I will be
happy to confer with you about any questions which may anise
pertaining to the public notice and advert±sement requirements.
(Signed) Roger C. Wiley, Jr.
City Attorney"
"June 10, 1974
Miss Lettie Neher, Clerk
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
County Office Building
CharlottesviZle, Virginia
Re: C~ty of Charlottesville v. Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors - Special Use Pemit Application No. 281
Dear Miss Neher:
Pursuant to the Order of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County entered in the above styled case on June 7th, the City of
Charlottesville h~reby requests the Board of Supervisors to
schedule a public hearing on Special Use Permit Application No.
281 to allow the City of Charlottesville and other interested
parties to proffer additional evidence thereon as permitted by
such Court Order.
In view of the fact that this application was made subsequent
to Application No. 203, it would seem appropriate that this
hearing be scheduled after the additional hearing which the City
has requested in that proceeding.
(Signed) Roger C. Wiley, Jr.
City Attorney"
Mr. T. K. Wood asked if these public hearings are necessary. Mr. St. John
said the Judge had stated on June 6 that he would not rule on the hearings
required by the Zoning Ordinance. However, at the time he signed this order
on June 7, he stated that no matter what the Ordinance requires, the County
should allow the City to request public hearings. The County objected to this
based on the fact that the City has already had full public hearings on these
applications and all documents presented are in the permanent record and transcripts
are available for each of these meetings. This will give the City another chance
to submit &ddit~onal engineering data. There is no need to involve the County
Planning Commission. If the City intends to put on this additional evidence, it
is preferred that it be at a public hearing instead of in front of the Court. Mr.
6-12-74
( Afternoon )
St. John said he did not feel the situation requires another public hearing, but
the Judge required this or the County will be in contempt of Court.
At 4:30 P.M., Mr. Carwile offered motion to adjourn into .executive session
to discuss legal matters with counsel. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M.
Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman