Loading...
1974-07-107-10-74 391 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 10, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. in th~Albemarle County Courthouse, Char- lottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile; J. T. Henley, Jr.; Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. AbSent: Mr. Gerald E. Fisher. Officer present: Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney. The Chairman introduced Mr. Joel Cochran, Mr. Luth~er Higginbotham and Dr. W. M. Wallenborn, members of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad. Recently, the Town of Scottsvi!le has made plans to establish a separate rescue squad to cover an eight-mile radius-from the Town. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad has on numerous occasions offered zo the Town, if they will become members of this squad, an ambulance and equipment, training, etc. This would give them the advantage of using the doctors and obtaining the same training now offered to the Charlottesville Squad. The Board of Directors of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad has vmted~ in opposition .~o~ s~para%e~ money rai~ing ~un~_ They al~o feel it i.s~unfa±r to'the .people in Scottsville to give up what the Charlottesville unit provides. They asked for the Board's opinion of this situation. Mr. Wheeler said the Board will have to refer this to the County Attorney since they do not know their legal status at this time. Mr. Thacker said he has talked with a number of people in Scottsville who have indicated an interest in starting a separate unit. Scottsville is remote from Charlottesville and if there is enough demand this would be an ideal situation. br. Watlenborn said he understood the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad obtained their franchise from the Board of Supervisors and if that is right that would preempt this unit. He said the Charlottesville unit has the best equipment in the State of Virginia. They furnish members training at the University Emergency Room and in the cardiac unit. He commended Scottsville for their willingness to start such a unit, but said he felt this would fragmenv Charlottesville's efforts. Mr. Wheeler said he did not know what conditions this Boamd imposed in setting the service areas of the Rescue Squad and suggested that this matter be included on the agenda of July 25 and a representative of the Scottsville Rescue Squad be ~vited to attend that meeting. The Board continued with discussion of amendments to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Public hearing on these amendments was held on June 26, 1974~ and action was deferred until this date. 1) Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Henley to adopt the following amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The motion carried by the following~recorded vote: AYES: Messrs: Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood NAYS: None ABSENT: Mr. Fisher William C. Thacker, Jr.; © 7 - t 0-7 4 Section 11-14 SPECIAL MOBILE HOME PERMIT Section 11-14-1 Procedure This section provides for administrative approval of all individual mobile homes in certain cases. In all other cases, mobile home applications shall be pro- cessed under the general special use provisions. Mobile Home Permits may be authorized, administratively, for i~ndividual mobile homes by the Agent for the Board of Supervisors. This can only be accomplished upon finding by the staff of the Albemarle County Planning and Zoning Department that the mobile home will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The Mobile Home Permit shall not be transferred. Should the applicant Choose to relocate the mobile home on property other than that specified in the original permit, that permit shall be terminated and that applicant shall be required to obtain a new Mobile Home Permit. A Mobile Home Permit shall be granted by the Agent for the Board.~of Supervisors only after: (1) an on-site inspection has been made by the staff of the Albemarle County Planning and Zoning Department with the applicant; and (2) no objection has been filed with the Department of Planning and Zoning. Any bona fide objection must be in written form, and shall be filed within three weeks of the date of notification. Adjacent property owners ahall be notified by certified letter of any Mobile Home Permit application. Each member of the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall be notified. Public notification of the application shall be made in the daily newspaper under the "legal notice~' section. Also a notification sign shall be posted by the applicant on the right-of-way line of the property and the nearest state right-of-way on which the mobile home is to be located for a period of fourteen ('~4') days prior to the issuance of an admin- istratively~pproved Mobile Home Permit. In the event of any objection from a citizen, Planning Commissioner or Board of Supervisor~ or the applicant disagrees with the Conditions placed upon him by the staff, the Mobile Home Permit shall be heard by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors after notice as provided in Section 15.1-431 of the State Code, as amended and under Article 11-13 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Section 11-14-2 Conditions of Approval The following conditions shall be met by the applicatn subsequant to the admin- istrative granting of a Mobile Home Permit and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (1) Albemarle County Building Official approval. (2) The applicatn and/or owner of the subject land must certify as to the intent for locating the mobile home. No renting of an individual mobile home should be permitted. The mobile home must be occupied by a lineal relative, bonafide agriculture employee, or by the owner of the land on which it is located. (3) Minimum Frontage Setback. (a) one hundred (100) feet from the right-of-way of any state maintained road; except in the case, as deemed by the Planning and Zoning staff of unusual circumstances which may pose an undue hardhsip upon the applicant. In any case, the minimum setback shall be seventy-five (75) feet. (b) sixty (60)feet from the right,of-way of all other types of roads. (4) Minimum sid~ and rear year setback. (a) requirements shall be the same setback provisions as prescribed for the zone in which the mobile home is to be located. (5) Adequate screening from the road and adjacent properties shall be provided and maintained by existing trees or supplemental planting as may be deter- mined by the Planning and Zoning staff. (6) Skirting around mobile home from ground level to the base of the mobile home. (7) Acknowledge, that the permit is not transferable. Each mobile home space shall have a minimum lot area of two (2) acres. A Special Mobile Home Permit under this section shall be valid for a period of five years, after which time, the applicatn may reapply for a new Mobile Home Permit. Section 11-14-3 Temporary Mobile Home Permit Temporary Mobile Home Permits may be authorized by the Agent for the Board of Supervisors for less than five years, provided that the mobile Home is used only as an interim means of housing during the construction of a permanent sing~e- 7-10-74 393 family house. Upon occupancy of the permanent housing unit, the mobile home shall be removed within thirty-(30) days. Temporary Mobile Home Permits shall be sub- ject to all of the above required conditions, except "3a" under "Minimum Frontage Setback" which will be determined by the Planning and Zoning staff. Section 11-14-4 Construction Office Trailer Permit Construction Office Trailer Permits in conjunction with a proposed development other than highway improvements may be authorized by the Agent for the Board of Supervisors for temporary use. The Construction Office Trailer must be removed from the site at the termination of the construction. (2) Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker, to adopt the following amendmants to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in lieu of amendments advertised for Sections 5-1, 6-1 and New Article 16: 11-15 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDOMINIUMS ll-15-1 Definitions For purposes of this section the meaning of all terms shall be con- trolled by Section 55-79.41 of the Code of Virginia. 11-15-2 Where permitted: Condominiums shall be permitted in all zones in which is permitted any physically identical development; provided that site plan approval shall be required for any condominium development. 11-15-3 Compliance with Ordinance: Ail condominiums and the use thereof shall in all respects comply with the provisions~of this ordinance, and no vested rights shall be created upon the conversion to condo- miniums of the use thereof if either the condominium or the use thereof does not conform to the provisions of this ordinance. Except as otherwise specified, provisions of this ordinance applicable to condominiums shall be those provisions applicable to physically identical developments. AYES: The motion carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler, and Wood NAYS: None ABSENT: Mr. Fisher 3) Amend Article 2, Agriculture Zone; amend Article 3, RS-1 Zone; amend Article 4, R-1 Zone; and amend Article 5, R-2 Zone, to provide for single-family rental units two or less, by right; and for single-family rental units, three or more, with special permit and site plan approval, provided density is maintained as provided in Articles 2-2, 3-2, 4-2 and 5-2, Area Requirements. Mr. Humphrey stated that these amendments were proposed to help obtain some control over the numerous rental units now being provided in the County; to provide, by right, rental units in all residential zones provided they meet total density requirements stated in the various zones. Anything beyond two would require a special permit and site plan approval. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the amendments as presented. Henley: Does this only apply to new construction? Humphrey: Yes, in the new ordinance. But, this has been a problem. This is not rectroactive. Carwile: What is the present status in the agricultural zone? Humphrey: The ordinance only refers to single-family dwellings. It does not specify rental units and does not say for-sale, but leaves this open to intrepre~tion. Thacker: On unsubdivided property? Humphrey: Yes. Now we require site plans for apartments and for single-family dwellings, subdivision control, but for single-family rental, which is now in the ordinance, nothing. If subdivided, it would come under the Subdivision Ordinance. 394 Henley: If you had tenant houses and rented these, does this apply? Humphrey: If they are already built, it does not. Thacker: If you want to build five buildings that would be occupied by employees on a farm, would this apply? Humphrey: You would need a special permit. between agricultural activities. The Ordinance does not differentiate Thacker: These would not be rental units. Carwile: I cannot see becoming involved in a special use permit procedure in this situation. I question this where the density is permitted. I feel we have adequate controls under site plan approval, but should be certain as to what you can do with less discretion under the Zoning Ordinance. Humphrey: I do not disagree totally. But there may be occasions where rental units attract those who may not tend to care for their property as opposed to ownership. In those cases you may wish to impose certain conditions such as screening. Experience has been such as the student population, where there are five to six cars and the impact is different. John Wolfe: I agree with site plan approval but see no need to obtain a special permit as long as the density requirements are met. Wheeler: There is a lot of property being developed in Albemarle County with 50 to 100 acres and you get 25 to 40 units. If you are not concerned about having or are not concerned about adjacent property owners, you do not need this. But I am concerned about these things. Wood: The water already comes to us. Carwite: The water already comes to us. Thacker: On central systems, not on individual wells. St. John: The Planning Commission had a legitimate concern. But I am leery of any case where you put something under a special use permit provision which you cannot deny. This is the same thing that happened in the condomi~ms. I recommended to Mr. Humphrey and the Planning Staff that they require a special use permit for condominiums, and they d~d. But, when it got to the Planning Commission I told them they were wrong in doing this. It occurred to me that a special use permit implies not only thetrightg but the'~duty to deny something unless it fits into four provisions in the Zoning Ordinance; that it will not adversely affect surrounding land, it is in keeping with the uses already in existence there, so forth. When you put something under a special permit when~ is stated in another part of the ordinance that you have an absolute right to this use if you comply with density, etc., this is inconsistent. I am afraid that you will mess up the entire special use section of the Zoning Ordinance. A special use implies the right to deny, not just to control. I do not believe you can deny, under the Other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, you cannot deny a single-family rental unit in an A-1 zone if it is on two acres of land or more and when you put this under a special permit, you are saying you can deny it. This is a problem. I would like to see more control than you have through the Site Plan Ordinance as we have it now. I am afraid you wilt be opening up Pandora's Box if you put this under a special permit, or something that is given as a matter of right under a special permit. I would like for John to have a chance to state his thoughts. Humphrey: I feel these two uses are different and rental property does have some nuisance value when compared to a single-family home with ownership. Do you St. John: Z feel if you put this under a special permit, and then you have an applicant and you get a lot of objections from surrounding neighbors, do you feel that this Board would have the power to deny that application for a special permit when it says in the Ordinance that this is a use by a matter of right? Humphrey: I see little difference between this and the mobile home question. St. John: are. Mobile homes are not a matter of right, but single-family residences Humphrey: If that's the problem, wh~ not put single-family residances for sale only, as a matter of right. St. John: If you do that then my objections would be removed. Carwile: You can't zone on a basis of whether it's for sale or rent. an economic discrimination and there have been cases on that. This is 395 Wheeler: I do not feel the Planning commission, when they considered this, had your legal opinion Mr. St. John and they should have. St. John: If they did, I agreed at the time. I have to say what I think now. I did.not pass on this. This is the first time I have thought about this. But, I did do this on condominiums. Wheeler: it might be wise to send this back to the Planning Commission for further thought. Carwile: I suggest that the Board go ahead with what we have here as to site plan approval requirements and leave out the phrase "with special permit and" Humphrey: We need something now. Carwile:/ I offe~'..motion to amend Article 2, Agriculture Zone~ amend'Article 3, RS-1 zone; amend Article ~, R-1 zone~ and amend Article 5, ~R-2 zone, to provide for single - family rental units~ two or less, by right~ and single-family rental units, three or more, with site plan approval provided the density is maintained as ~rovided in Article 2-2, 3-2, 4-2 and 5-2, Area Requirments~ said amendments to he-known as Section 2-1-26, Section 3-1-13, Section 4-1-13, and Section 5-1-16. Thacker: I second the motion. Henley: What authority does that give you under the site plan? you guidance on the rules? Do you have any say so on site plans? Does that give Humphrey: We hope so. Similar considerations would be given to this as would be given to an apartment project, commercial building, etc. Henley: you do then? If the developer does not want to do what you recommend, what will Humphrey: If it not acceptable, he can appeal it to the. appropriate agency and thenon to court. St. John: People have threated to do that. You required sidewalks one time on a site plan and the developer said he could not do that, but he did not go to court and installed the sidewalks. Thacker: granted? No building permit could be issued until site plan approval had been Carwile: By you or the courts? Wood: Are you recommending that the balance of it be sent back? Humphrey: Yes, the special permit provisions. Wood: I really do not object to it but in a way I do. I can see in the way this is written and the way it went through the Planning Commission the first time, that this could possibly...the rental units we have now are serving a need for housing and that we have got a shortage of...and I can see this as a possible means on which to exclude that. I do not think we 'need to go that way. What we are doing here tonight may possibly be all we need because i can see us getting tied un in a knot when somebody comes in and... Wheeler: Ail we are doing here tonight is passing the site plan, nothing else. Wood: I understand that. all we need. This is my personal observation. This is possibly Humphrey: We will explain to the Planning Commission your concern. thus advises, we may stop here. If Mr. St. John St. John: There is no legal effect to it's going back. another change without it's going back. They can recommend Wheeler: We want the Planning Commission to have the advantage of the comments from you that we have had so that they will understand the reactions of the Board. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher 396 _0-74 (Mr. Wheeler abstaining during disucssion of the following matter. assumed his duties as Chairman.) Mr. Tha~ker Mr. John Wolfe was present to request a restricted road for M±dway Farms. Property described as Parcel 36, Tax Map 72, and shown on plat drawn by William S. Roudabush, Jr. and Associates and dated May 24, 1974. (Plat on Page 397.) Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal and docs recommend approval conditioned upon HighwaY Department approval of the entrance on State Route 791 and deed restrictions being .reviewed by the County Attorney. has aow reviewed these restrictions and has said they do comply. Mr. St. John Wolfe: I have tried to comply with all rules and regulations in the lay out of these lots. St. John: This road goes through two parcels to be subdivided. I recommend that on the plat there be a provision that no further residential lots be subdivided as appurtentant to that road. I-understand.-that this is the understanding of the developer also and he does not to plan to put any further residential lots on that road. Wood: If we do that, there is already a 50-foot access to the other side of this entrance... St. John: It's on a public road there. Wood: and then you still have Parcel C owned by the same corporation. not then requiring another entrance onto this road over there. Are yo~ St. John: That is not really a road. That is an old County road which is now grown up and they end State maintenance at that fork. You do not have any out except for this neck right here. Wood: We are not then landlocking that parcel, are we? When he develops this, which obviously if the same corporation does it, there are some plans for it, it is going to be developed. What is going to be the entrance and access to that property? St. John: We want to be sure it is not on this road here. have to maintain it. That these people Humphrey: This is the property, Mr. Wolfe, in and around, comprising the residue of the. property of the corporation known as Parcel C. There may be inquiries regarding that a'nd what the plans might be and where the access might be, if developed. Wolfe: I understand that oHly 10 lots should have access on that restricted road and there are no plans to do other than that. I do not kmow how the residue will be developed but the propert~ does not lend itself to be/~ up into two-acre lots. However it is developed, I do not think it will be developed .... I can see a possibility of wanting to cross that restricted road. This is just a possibility. I do not have any firm plans., I might want to get from one side to the other without using the restricted road. Henley: Why go all the way back to the back with your 10 lots? Wolfe: That is mere the best land is. This is the only area which lends itself to being cut up into lots. The rest does not lend itself to sale of two-acre lots. St. John: If a developer wants to landlock himself, it is not our job to tell him he cannot do that. He can landlock himself and if he ever wants to develop anymore of that land, and he has the right of way to do it, he would have to go to the expense. of putting it into the State Highway System. If they would not take it in, or their requirements are for a wider right of way, he has landlocked himself. Henley: How binding is this thing you are recommending putt±~g on the d~ed? Humphrey: That would have to go on the plat. St. John: policy. I suppose another subsequent board of supervisors could nullify the Wood: Had the policy b. een not 10 but 20, would you have put 20 lots in there? Wolfe: No. I can only get 10 on that property. Wood: How many acres remain in Parcel C? Wolfe: 40 acres. 7-10-74 ! O$~NE RS APPROVAL .~. A~ "EREB~ TE"DERED FOR D~iCATION TO PUBLIC USE. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONc~,iR~ I -BOARD OF~ D~TE I WO ~VERLY CORP, >ARCEL "C"' 210.00 LOT I 2.20 Ac. LOT ~ 2.26 Ac. LOT 5 ' '~,.,, 2.27 Ac. ?T 2 2. U~l Ac. % ,.:,. LOT $ 2.26 Ac, LOT 6 3.28 Ac. LOT 9 2.00 LOT 8 2.02 A LOT 7 2.00 Ac, LO~ lO ~ ~ 2.00'Ac, ND[CATESAREA OF .RESTRICTED-ROAD Wood; Zs the terrain steep? Wolfe: Some, near the entrance road is not so steep, but it does not lend itself to being divided into lots. If I do anything with it, I will build single-family rental units on it. Wood: It has been mentioned that you do.not have any furt'her plans for its, that you go ahead and place that in a common area such as we have done in other subdivisions such as Peacock Hill and keep open. If it is your true intention of just starting t0 lots, would you object to that being put in common usage for those 10 lots? A common ground. Wolfe: I do indeed. I think the buyers olf the 10 lots are getting a pretty good deal, let along dedicating the remaining 40 acres to this. Thacker: What is your pleasure? Henley: I cannot see voting for !0 lots stuck back in the back unless he wants to put in a State road. Wood: Me too. I do~ not object to the 10 lots, but to run a restricted road all the way through the property to get to those is just an obvious step if'~-we'gi~e-- you 10 now a~d-~.th~"you.wilt~dome back to some-~ther'r, board.o~superv±sors--wiIl'~say we air~ady-ug~ve?him t~so we'will let'fiim hook on now too. If we are going to approve it, I have no objection to going ahead and putting the road in'to State standards and require it to be taken in. Henley: Carwil$: That is my feeling. I agree. Wood: Unless the whole tract is going to be committed. If you are going to commit the whole thing to this development, with this as common ground, and you have the economics worked out so you can do that, with a restricted road servicing it, then I think that meets the true intent of the policy of the Board, otherwise, I think it is just a progression of something we do not want. 72i0'74 Thacker; As I understand it, this request is to have a subdivision of 10 lots with no restrictions on the balance of the property. It is up to us to either approve or deny this request. Wood: I do not want to fiat out deny if it can be worked Out for State maintenance of the road. I do not see any objection to those two-acre lots. Thacker: If we go to State-maintained roads,'~the restricted road question is moot. I assume this is A-1 so the two-acre lots would qualify for a subdivision and already has been approved for all necessary subdivision. Humphrey: Basically, this is a restricted road question. Thacker: If he wants to go with roads built to State standards, he can go ahead with the subdivision. Carwile: I mo~e that th±s request for a restricted road for Midway Subdivision be denied. The reason for my'motionless that.~the pattern'~of;~.development~'of Parcel C and the other acreage under common ownership is uncertain. The information provided by Mr. Wolfe with respect to perhaps crossing the restricted road with another road and the development of the remaining part of it as rental units would then result in more than 10 units being served by a restricted road and would not meet with the ~tent of the Board's policy. Henley: I second the motion. Wolfe: I said I hoped I would not be denied the possibility of crossing the restricted road with another road. I have another route to this property from an existing road without anything crossing the restricted road. That is just a contingency looking a long way into the future. There is no requirement. I would not have to cros~..~hi~.restricted road. I. could come out of a~existing road Vote was taken at this point and the motion for denial carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwite, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Wheeler. ~ ABSENT: Mr. Fisher Mr. John Humphrey read the following communication: "June 19, 1977' Board of Supervisors Room 400 County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Gentlemen: The Board of Zoning Appeals at its meeting of Tuesday~ June 18~ 1974, instructed me to respectfully request that your board consider amending Section 11-7 through 11-8-4 o.f the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by requesting the Planning Commission to hold the necessary public hearings to consider the adoption of Article 29, "General Provisions for Off-Street Parking" as set forth in the proposed new zoning ordinance. This request is based on the fact that in recent months the Board has held public hearings to cons±der many variance requests to permit applicants to provide parking spaces based on the requirements of the proposed ordinance in variance to those required in the present ordinance. The staff has concurred in the Board's granting of the off-street parking variances. The Board is of the opinion that the proposed off-street parking requirements are more realistic than those in the present ordinance and the staff agrees. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Ruth Miller Secretary to Board of Zoning Appeals and Zoning Administrator" 7-20-74 Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, doth propose to amend ~£f~stre~t park~n~ requirei~ ments i~ the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; and FURTHER requests the Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said proposals to amend the Zoning Ordinance and to report back to this Board at the earliest possible date. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Mrs. Arline Burrus was present to request the Board to set a hearing date to amend Article 4, Section 4-13-1, Chapter II of the Albemarle County Code to include Hessian Hills and Knollwood under the Dog Leash Law. Signed petitions were presented to the Board. ~ Mr. Carwile asked if signatures had been obtained from residents of Hessian Hills on Old Georgetown Road. Mrs. Burrus said yes. Mr~ Carwile suggested that the public hearing also include the apartments in Hessian Hills. Mr. Wood said he has not been contacted by anyone in Hessian Hills stating that there is a problem in that area, but did not mind setting a public hearing date. He suggested that this be set for a date after summer vacations and then offered motion to set this public hearing for September 11, 19~74, at 7:30 P.M. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. CarwA!e, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. The Chairman announced that the regular Board meeting of July 18, 1974, had been cancelled and rescheduled for July 25, 197L, at 9:00~ A.M. in the Board Room. Complying with a request from the City Manager, Mr. Henley offered motion to extend the agreement between the City and the County of Albemarle for the use of the County Landfill at Ivy until the first Monday in October, 1974. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile. Mr. Thacker said the County and the City ~have been without a contract for three or four months and he could see no reason to vote for the motion. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Thacker. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Mr. Wheeler said the Board needs to set a hearing date for the Water Quality Management Plan - Phase I, before August 8. He suggested that this be held on July 25, 1974, at 2:00 PoM. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Hentey, Thacker, Whe$1er and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Miss Page Godsey was present to make the following recommendation on implementation of the Land Use Tax Ordinance: 1 - Use three soil capability classes of Good, Medium and Fair for classifying all applications. 2 - Hire a Field Examiner to make on-site soil classifications for all applications. 3 - Hire one additional Clerk immediately to aid in preparing applications. (Miss Godsey noted that additional permanent or temporary clerks may be needed to be added at a future time, especially if it is anticipated that temporary help may be needed for the month preceding the November 1 filing deadline.) 4 - As soon as the second Clerk is trained, take steps (flyers, news releases, etc.) to be sure that all potential applicants receive information on land use assessment and to answer the most frequently asked questions. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to approve the foregoing recommendations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, T~acker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. ~t was ordered that a request from the State Board of Elections concerning the establishment of a central absentee voter election district be carried over to July 25 and the Chairman of the Electoral Board be present to explain this request. Mr. Wheeler said the staff had furnished a report on low-income housing. He met with Miss Godsey, Steve Colonago and the president of FHA and drew an outline of duties of a Housing Board. He asked that the Board of Supervisors be prepared to make appointments to this Board by August 1. Mr. Wheeler said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has formed an Advisory Council on Aging and read the following letter ±nto the record: "July 3, 1974 Mr. Gordon Wheeler, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Wheeler: Thank you for taking time to talk with me about the Commission's plan to improve services to older citizens in our area, and for your advice on persons from Albemarle who would be helpful in this planning task. I am enclosing a list of persons who have agreed to serve on a task force and assist your representatives to the Commission's Advisory Council on Aging to investigate needs and make recommendations to improve the quality of life for older citizens. Additional names will be added to this list as the task force gets under way. A notice of the first meeting is also enclosed. The group will keep the Board informed of its work, would be pleased if Board members wished to participate, and hopes to hold a public hearing during August to gain input into its recommendations which will be due in September. Sincerely, (Signed) Jane M. Saunier Planner for the Aging" 7-10-74 Albemarle County Representatives to Advisory Council on ~ging: Dr. F~rank W. Finger, Mrs. Nancy Joyner, Mr. Charles H. Smith, Sr. Albemarle County Task Force: Ms. Elizabeth Andrews, VPI H'ome-D. emonm'~ration Agent~ Ms. Imogene Bunn, Director, Public Health Nursing; _Mr. Metro Evanch~%k, Department of Social Services Mr. John O. Higginson, Mr. Edgar Paige, Rev. Sara A. Payne Mr. Wheeler said he had recently met with members of the Virginia Advisory Legislative Council's sub-committee appointed to study surface mining of minerals, othe~ than coal, end laws governing same. Members of~the committee, along with John Humphrey, Rob,~tTucker and himself, had review/~e Rivanna Quarry at Shadwell. They do not believe proper controls have been placed on the closing of such quarries. There are a number of old quarries and mines in the County which have been closed for years and this committee has asked that the County make an inventory of these. He asked that the Board members give some thought to this question so it can be discussed at a later time. Mr. Wheeler said he had met last night with representatives of the Virginia Association of Counties and the Municipal League. They are employing consultants to fight/the proposed Virginia Electric and Power Company increases and he will make a report on their findings at a later date. Mr. Wheeler said he had received a communication from Mr. Allan Kindrick, in accordance with the Virginia Conflict of Interest statute, stating that he is project manager for R. E. Lee and Sons and they will be submitting a bid on the addition to the Courthouse. Mr. Wood said he had received a Call today from Mr. Buddy Smith. The recently adopted State Building Code requires that all underground gas tanks have a one and one-half inch vent. The 550 gallon "~ta~k' ~±s'~ serviced by local delivery trucks which use only a one and one-quarter inch ho~se. Mr. Smith does nov see the reasoning behind requiring a one and one-half inch vent. ~'.He does not mind complying with this regulation but does not know how to go about getting these cha~nged and this is a State code. Mr. Humphrey said he will ask the Building Inspector to see if others in the County have encountered this problem and then to contact Mr. Smith. Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Chairm~n