Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-19July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) OOO9..58 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 19, 1995, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin and Mr. Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. OFFICERS PRESENT: Deputy County Executive, Richard E. Huff, II; County Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and, Chief of Planning, Ronald S. Keeler. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. There were none. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.3 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. Item 5.la. Appropriation: A. T. Williams Service Road (Route 29 North), $29,268, (Form #95005). It was noted that the County entered into an agreement with Mr. A. T. Williams dated April 7, 1994, for the construction of certain improvements in connection with the service road to access Tax Map 45B1, Parcel 05-OA-10. These improvements are to be performed by the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation (VDOT) as part of the Route 29 North improvements. Mr. Williams is to pay the construction cost for this work as stated in the agreement. On May 31, 1995, VDOT awarded a contract for the improvements to Route 29 between Rio Road and the South Fork Rivanna River; this section includes the service road. A check in the amount of $29,268 has been received from Mr. A. T. Williams to cover the cost of the service road. By the recorded vote shown above, the following resolution of appropria- tion was adopted. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95005 FUND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: A T WILLIAMS SERVICE ROAD AGREEMENT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1901041000950030 SERVICE ROAD-A T WILLIAMS TOTAL REVENUE 2901018000189908 DESCRIPTION SERVICE ROAD-A T WILLIAMS TOTAL AMOUNT $29,268.00 $29,268.00 AMOUNT $29,268.00 $29,268.00 Item 5.lb. VRS Early Retirement Program, $358,185, (Form #95007). It was noted that in 1994, the School Board elected to participate in the early retirement option offered by the Virginia Retirement System (VRS). At that time, they also elected the twenty-year payment option. In an effort to reduce the cost of this election, two efforts are being made. The first is to make payments based on a ten-year schedule instead of the twenty elected. The second is to make the payment in July of each fiscal year instead of June as required to further reduce the eight percent interest cost. Funds for FY 1995-96 in the amount of $358,185 were budgeted in the School Fund to be transferred to the Debt Service Fund, however, this item was not appropriated in the Debt Service Fund, This needs to be done at this time. By the recorded vote shown above, the following resolution of appropria- tion was adopted. July 19, 1995 (Regular Night (Page 2) APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95007 FUND: DEBT 000 59 PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 1995-96 VRS EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1990068000910110 VRS EARLY RETIREMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $358,185.00 $358,185.00 REVENUE 2990051000512011 DESCRIPTION VRS EARLY RETIREMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $358,185.00 $358,185.00 Item 5.2. Resolution designating Robert W. Tucker, Jr., as agent of the Board of Supervisors for purposes of obtaining Federal financial assistance under the Disaster Relief Act, due to the recent flooding in the County. By the recorded vote shown above, the following resolution was adopted. DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Execu- tive, is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of the Board of County Supervisors, Albemarle County, Virginia, a public entity established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, this application and to file it in the appropriate State office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance under the Disaster Relief Act (Public Law 288, 93rd Congress) or otherwise available from the President's Disaster Relief Fund. FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, a public entity established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the State and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for all matters pertaining to such Federal disaster assistance, the assurances and agreements printed on the reverse side hereof. Item 5.3. Resolution to accept Woodcreek Drive in Woodcreek Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. As requested by the County Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted by the recorded vote set out above. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street in Woodcreek Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 19, 1995, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the road in Woodcreek Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 19, 1995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease- ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transport at ion. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 1) W~6dcr~ ~'!~ ~r~ ~'~:~ t~ ~age· of pavement of State Route 20, to the end of the cul-de-sac pavement as shown on a plat recorded 8-26-93 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1336, page 565, showing a 50 foot right-of-way, length 0.6 mile. Total length - 0.6 mile Item 5.4. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for June 27, 1995, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 6. Appeal: SDP-94-067. Virginia Oil Minor Site Plan Amendment. Proposal to locate a ±1150 sq ft car wash bldg on approx 1.25 ac znd PD-MC & EC. Property on SE corner of Rolkin Court and Rt 250 E inters. TM78,P73A. Rivanna Dist. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer SDP-94-067, per the applicant's request, until August 2, 1995. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-95-07. Rio Associates Limited Partnership. Public Hearing on a request to amend ZMA-88-06 in order to modify proffers limiting vehicle trip generation on property located on W sd of Rt 29 between Rt 29 & Berkmar Dr. Site recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1 by Comprehensive Plan. TM45,P109. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1995.) Mr. Keeler said this petition has been indefinitely deferred by the Planning Commission. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to indefinitely defer ZMA-95-07 until work has been completed by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-95-16. The Covenant School. Public Hearing on a request for a private school on 9.0 ac zoned CO located on E sd of Rt 780 S of 1-64. TM76,P46F. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1995.) Mr. Ron Keeler gave the staff report which described a request to operate a private school for 400 students on nine acres with Commercial Office zoning. He noted that this property is located on the east side of Route 780 just south of 1-64, and is the site of the former Mountainwood Treatment Center. He said that public comment at the Planning Commission meeting was in support of the proposal, and he presented to the Board a petition with 144 signatures supportin~ the request. He went on to say that he believes the signatures are of parents of the students. He stated that the Planning Commission, on June 27, 1995, unanimously recommended approval of this request, subject to the three conditions as outlined by staff. Mrs. Humphris inquired about a VDOT recommendation that sight easements will be required of 350 feet on each side of the entrance, and the vegetation along this embankment will need to be kept at a minimum height to achieve sight distance. She wondered if this requirement needs to be made a condi- tion. Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, replied that this sight easement is actually on the school's property, and the owners have agreed to do that work. He added that this has to be done periodically to maintain sight distance, as the vegetation continues to grow. He explained that there is no sight easement on any other property. There were no further questions for the staff, so at 7:10 p.m., Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Mr. Frank Cox commented that his firm was retained by the Covenant School's Board of Directors, last year, to do educational programming, as well as some facilities evaluations. Their overall goal was to find an opportune property onto which the school could expand over the next ten years. The last ten years have been phenomenal from a standpoint of institutional growth. Mr. Cox said his firm looked at 20 or 25 different properties both in the City and the County. Presently the school is located in the old McIntire High School campus; the facility is owned by the Covenant School. The limits of this location have been stretched, and the academic programming of the school dictates that there be an upper and a lower school. It was his firm's objective to find another property which would be good for three to five years for a lower school facility while the Board undertakes master planning work. July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) · The Mountainwood facility staDds QUt ~as.the proper facility, from a qualifica- tions standpOint. His fir~ d~:'~'~'Work in the late 1980s when Mountainwood was expanded, and the building which the school proposes to occupy is the new expansion building. It was occupied only a short time in 1992. The building has been Vacant ever since. His firm has worked with County staff which helped to develop the best way to do some interior retro- fit. Mr. Cox said there is no proposal to change any exterior elements of the school. There is already twice the amount of parking necessary for a 400 student school. The traffic impact studies tested the facility for 500 students, and traffic analysis and highway capacity manual intersectional models were developed. It was determined that all future traffic movements would be rated at a good level of service. From the standpoint of physical and environmental impacts, this is an all around prime site for this particu- lar use. Me stated that the Covenant School Board is.working through some of the technical issues, as well as the conditions imposed by County staff and VDOT. These recommendations are commended by the Covenant School Board of Directors, and they are wholeheartedly endorsed. He then introduced Mr. William B. Copeland who has been Headmaster of The Covenant School for the last five years. Mr. Copeland said it has been his privilege to be associated with the school. He said the school has just celebrated its tenth anniversary as an independent day school, and they have experienced unprecedented growth. The school started with 55 children ten years ago, and it is anticipated that there will be an enrollment of 620 students by the beginning of this school year. The school is proposing to house kindergarten through sixth grade at the Mountainwood site. The building can be easily outfitted for the school's needs and it meets all building codes. Ne commented that this building gives the Covenant School the opportunity to grow and to move the academic program forward as the need arises. There were no questions for Mr. Copeland, and no one else came forward to speak. At 7:15 p.m., Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing. Mr. Marshall stated that he will support the application because he thinks it is a good use for the building. He then offered mo%ion to approve SP-95-16 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Perkins called attention to Condition Number Three relating to the provision of left and right turn lanes prior to commencement of school. Me asked if the word "commencement" means the school's graduation next spring, or when school starts this fall. He thinks this condition needs to be worded differently. Mr. Keeler indicated that this condition refers to the beginning of school. Mr. Perkins suggested that Condition No. 3 be reworded to state: "Prior to the ccm~cnccmcnt start of tkc school, left and right turn lanes shall be provided as required or a__s recommended by the Department of Transportation." Mr. Marshall and Mrs. Humphris agreed to this change. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Mrs. Thomas. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Use is limited to 400 students; 3e Any expansion of the building, parking or provision of athletic fields shall require amendment of this request; Prior to the start of school, left and right turn lanes shall be provided as required or as recommended by the Department of Transportation. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-95-08. George W. Clark. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 7 ac from RA to VR. Property in NE corner of inters of Rt 29/Rt 779. Site is recommended for Village Residential in the Village of North Garden by the Comprehensive Plan. TM87,P35D. Samuel Miller Dist. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1995.) Mr. Keeler summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a permanent part of the records of the Board of County Supervisors. Me said that on, June 27, 1995, by a vote of 3-2, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the petition subject to one proffer dated 6/12/95 and signed by George W. Clark. This approval was also based on the understanding of the Planning Commission, as stated by the applicant at their meeting, that access would be limited to Route 779 for all new dwellings. July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~62 (Page 5) Mr. Fritz said the request was made in order to allow for a four-lot subdivision. He said that during~initial review of the application, the staff recommended denial. Since that time the applicant has addressed their concerns so staff is able to support the request. The applicant has provided a proffer that addresses the issue of a suitable water supply, which is similar to proffers used for other properties in North Garden. The staff's other concern was in regard to access. The original proposal limited the access for Lots One and Four to Route 779, but it allowed Lots Two and Three to have access to Route 29 at an existing crossover. Increased usage of any entrance off of Route 29 is of concern to the staff. The applicant seeks to retain use of this entrance because it provides for farm access to property on the south side of Route 29. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has provided an additional proffer which limits Lots One, Two and Four to using Route 779, and limits the use of the Route 29 entrance to Lot Three only. This will require a minor r~vision to the plat. He emphasized that staff now recommends approval of this request subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers dated June 30, 1995. Mrs. Humphris said if all new dwellings (according to the Planning Commission) should access Route 779, what is to prevent the newhouse on Lot Three from accessing Route 29 since the road is all ready there. Mr. Fritz responded that Lot Three cannot accommodate another house. There is an existing house on Lot Three. Mrs. Humphris asked what would prevent Lot Two from having unofficial access to Route 29. Mr. Keeler replied that, as the plat and lot line are currently drawn, there is a 30-foot joint access between the two lots. The lot line would have to be redrawn. Mr. Fritz noted that this was discussed during the Planning Commission meeting and the new proffer addresses this issue. The subdivision plat will contain a note which limits Lots One, Two and Four to accessing Route 779 only, and any access of those lots to Route 29 will be a violation. If there is a violation of the proffer, appropriate steps would be taken as allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance. He also noted that the proffers would be enforced as a zoning requirement. There were no further questions, so at 7:21 p.m., Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Mr. Leroy Yancey, representing the applicant, Mr. George Clark, stated that the staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the plan, and have given their recommendation for approval. For this reason, he feels he can keep his remarks very brief, although he will be present to answer questions. He said there are three division rights on this property, and the applicant is only asking for one additional lot. A soil scientist was hired to test all four lots for septic fields. The results were approved by the Health Depart- ment. There is an existing well serving Lot Three, and it is an adequate well. Another well has been drilled on the site just to test for adequacy, and that well furnishes eight gallons of water per minute. He mentioned the proffers which had been given. Mr. Yancey said that in the early 1900s, Route 29 was constructed where Route 779 is currently located, and it cut the family farm in half. In the mid-1960s, Route 29 was made into a four-lane highway, and this cut the farm in half again. He explained that Mr. Clark's brother owns property on the west side of Route 779, and another brother owns property on the east side of Route 29. For the past 30 years they have carried farm equipment straight across the northbound lane of Route 29 through the crossover, and across the southbound lane into Mr. Clark's driveway to get to the property on the other side of Route 779. Mr. Yancey emphasized that for this reason, it is undesir- able to close the entrance which serves Lot Three since closing this entrance to farm machinery would require that the family go approximately one-third of a mile further to get to the other side of Route 779, and that could create a very dangerous situation. This is why the proffer indicates that Lots One, Two and Four are to enter Route 779 and Lot Three will keep its present entrance. The lot line is being redrawn so that Lot Two would be in violation if Route 29 was accessed. He mentioned that considerable time, effort and money was put into satisfying all of the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. For this reason, the applicant is anticipating a favorable vote. No one else came forward to speak, so at 7:25 p.m., Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve ZMA-95-08 as recommended by the Planning Commission subject to the two proffers submitted by the applicant in a letter dated June 30, 1995. Mrs. Numphris mentioned that Mrs. Thomas could not be present for this meeting but had written to the Supervisors about the water quantity proffer and the road access stipulation. Mrs. Humphris also remarked that Mrs. Thomas had mentioned something in her memo about the character of the houses that would be built. Mr. Yancey responded that he has agreed with the neighbors that the development will be consistent with the standards of the neighboring subdivision. With no further comments being made, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: July 19, 1995 (Regular Night M~e%ihg) (Page 6) 000163 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: None. Mrs. Thomas. (Note: The proffer is set out in full below.) PROFFER FORM Date: 6-20-95 ZMA~ 95-08 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 87, Parcel 35D 7 Acres to be rezoned from RA to VR Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) The applicant shall drill wells and these wells shall be subject to pump tests and shall meet the specific requirements of the Engineering Department, and the Department will make a determination based on the results of adequate or inadequate groundwater to supply the development. This determination (veri- fication of suitable water supply) will be made prior to approval of the final plat. In the event that adequate water supply cannot be verified not more than three (3) parcels/dwellings shall be permitted. (2) Lots 1, 2, and 4 as shown on a plat by Roger Ray dated April 13, 1995, and revised May 22, 1995, shall have all access restricted to Route 779. These lots shall have no direct access to Route 29. Lot 3 may continue to use the existing entrance on Route 29 and Route 779. (Signed) George W. Clark June 30, 1995 Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-95-09. Sam Enterprises. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 82 ac from R-1 to R-4 located on N sd of Rt 250 approx 0.6 mi E of Rt 250/Rt 240 inters at Brownsville. Site is recommended for low density residential in the Community of Crozet by the Comprehensive Plan. TM56, P96&108. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1995.) Mr. Keeler informed the Board that this is a proposal to rezone 82 acres from R-1 (one dwelling unit per acre) to R-4 (four dwelling units per acre), with proffers. This property is located on Route 250 between the Blue Ridge Building Supply store and the Route 635 intersection in the Crozet Community. A general plan of development has been provided for the Board, with the major features of the plan being proffered. The number of units is proffered to be limited to 190 units with a maximum lot size being established to help prevent under-utilization of the Growth Area. The proposed development would be served by public water and sewer and by public roads. Staff recommends approval of this request, but he noted that approval of this petition is no guarantee of approval of the special use permit. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 27, 1995, unanimously recommended approval of the request, with acceptance of the applicant's six proffers. Mr. Keeler called attention to the first two sentences in the first proffer, which he said should only be one sentence. He said that this was simply a clerical error, and he indicated that the correction has been verified with the applicant. Mrs. Humphris asked about the fifth proffer relative to the possibility of a four-lane road being constructed within the reserved area which shall be clearly disclosed in the subdivision covenants and restrictions and on the subdivision plat for all lots adjacent to the 240/250 connector reserved area. She mentioned Forest Lakes and the Meadow Creek Parkway, and said the problem is not just with the adjacent lots. The residents in Forest Lakes have indicated that they were not fully aware of the prospect of the Meadow Creek Parkway. She wondered why, then, should this proffer only be limited to the adjacent lots to the connector reserved area. Mr. Keeler responded that the applicant may be agreeable to changing this proffer to include all lots in the development. Mrs. Humphris next mentioned that VDOT officials have indicated that right and left turn lanes will be required, and most likely a traffic signal will need to be installed by the developer in the future. She said this doesn't coincide with the staff's report. She wondered at what level this comes into play, and who makes the developer responsible for the expense of the installation of the light. Mr. Keeler answered that in cases of proffered or planned developments, VDOT officials have taken the position that they can incorporate the installation by the developer of the traffic signal with the initial entrance permit. He mentioned that this was done at Glenmore. July 19, 1995 (Regular Night M~eting) (Page 7) 000.164 Mrs. Humphris said staff recommended including a statement to the effect that if this rezoning is approved, there is no guarantee or implication that a special use permit will be granted for a road crossing Lickinghole Creek to access the rear of the parcel. She asked why the Planning Commission did not include this in any of its conditions. Mr. Keeler replied that Mr. Ron Lilley, Planner, in the staff's report had written "The road crossing Licking- hole Creek to access the rear of this parcel would require a special use permit under current regulations, and it should be made clear that if this rezoning is approved, there is no guarantee or implication that such a special use permit would be granted. Staff recommends including a statement to that effect with any approval action on this request." Mr. Keeler said he thinks it would be wise for the Supervisors to include this statement in their action. It would not appear as a condition, but would show as part of this Board's action on this request. There were no further questions for Mr. Keeler, so Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Mr. Ed Campbell, a surveyor with Roudabush, Gale and Associates, said his firm has been retained to represent Sam Enterprises. He has no presenta- tion beyond the staff report, but he can answer any technical questions the Board members might have. At the Planning Commission meeting, there was some confusion about the connector road. He said it is not the intent of this developer to build a connector road. The applicant is proffering a 120-foot right-of-way from Route 250 to the end of this property. This is approximate- ly a seven and one-half acre proffer that is taken out of the applicant's property. The road the applicant would build beyond the interior of subdivi- sion roads, would depend on traffic counts and would be just to the standard that is necessary for this development. There is no intention at all of ever building a road across Lickinghole Creek. A corridor is just being created for the County, if that is what the County officials desire. There is no intention of developing the I5 or so acres on the north side of Lickinghole Creek. Access for that acreage will have to come through another place which is not part of this proposed development. It is part of the rezoning, but it is not part of the development, because the cost of trying to get a road across Lickinghole Creek is prohibitive. He wanted to clear up this misinfor- mation, and he emphasized that the applicant does not intend to build a four- lane divided highway. Mr. Campbell said the managing partner of Sam Enter- prises is also present if the Supervisors wish to talk about the development plans beyond the technical points. Next, Mrs. Humphris asked someone to address Proffer Number Five, and the problem that she had mentioned earlier involving the four-lane road. Mr. Campbell responded that Mrs. Humphris may be confusing this proffer with some of the others. He called attention to Proffer Number Six which indicates that the owner or homeowners association will plant, at such time as the potential Route 240/250 connector road is built, two rows of white pine trees 15 feet on center along both edges of the potential Route 240/250 connector road right- of-way, only in areas contiguous with single-family attached or detached dwellings as is shown on the plan. Mrs. Humphris indicated that she is talking about Proffer Number Five and not Proffer Number Six. Mr. Campbell replied that he understands Mrs. Humphris is referring to the terminology, "adjacent to the corridor." He thinks the idea for Proffer Number Five was to clearly lay out in the cove- nants and restrictions that the corridor is in place. This corridor will go with all the lots regardless of where they lay in the subdivision. Mrs. Humphris read, again, Proffer Number Five, where it indicated that the four-lane road, which will be constructed within the reserved area shall be clearly disclosed for all lots adjacent to the connector reserved area. Mr. Larry Davis responded that this might become an issue if these lots were platted and put to record with separate covenants for the lots that are adjacent to the connector reserved area. If this is not the applicant's intent, then he sees no problem. Mr. Campbell said that is not the applicant's intent, and he indicated that this is probably a misprint in the proffer. He sees Mrs. Humphris' concern and he suggested that the last part of the sentence be deleted. He explained that this is not intended to be just for lots which are adjacent to the corridor. Mrs. Humphris asked if it would be agreeable if a period is put after the word, "plat," in Proffer Number Five. Mr. Campbell replied, "yes." Mr. Davis stated that if the proffer is changed, this change will have to be initialed by the landowner prior to this Board's action. Mr. Campbell wondered if the change in the sentence to which he had referred earlier in Proffer Number One had to be initialed, also. Mr. Davis answered affirmatively. He went on to say that when he was reviewing the proffers, Proffer Number One says that the property will be dedicated for the 120-foot strip of land without compensation. He noted that Proffer Number Two states that the Greenway will be dedicated, but it doesn't add the words "without compensation." He said the word "dedicate" clearly means without compensation. He commented that this is incongruent between the two proffers, and he would want this to be clarified in the record so that there is no misunderstanding that the dedication under Proffer Number Two is also without compensation. July 19, 1995 (Regular Night M~etifig) O00~6~ (Page 8) Mr. Bowerman wondered if the apPlicant is planning to access the property at the location of the 120-foot strip of land at Route 250. Mr. Campbell replied, "yes." Mr. Bowerman asked if all of the access roads serving the development are coming from a smaller road within that right-of-way. Mr. Campbell answered that there are only two interior roads, and they access the corridor in order to get to Route 250. He added that there is no other outlet onto Route 250. Mr. Bowerman next inquired if the roads in the development would tie into the connector road, if one is constructed in the future. Mr. Campbell responded, "yes." At 7:43 p.m., Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing, since no one else came forward to speak Mr. Perkins remarked that the Planning Commission minutes mentioned the concerns about the connector road. He wants to echo Mr. Jenkins' comments which was that he did not think it is the desire of the community to have a super highway on Route 240 to Route 250. Mr. Perkins said he thinks a two- lane type of residential street would be all that will ever be needed there because it is going to be going through residential areas. Me understands the concern of the County and VDOT officials, as far as the necessity for having the 120-foot driveway dedicated. He emphasized, however, that it doesn't mean that somebody is going to rush out and build it. Mrs. Humphris asked if someone would go to the map and show her exactly what the last sentence of the first proffer means. She quoted from this proffer that, "no residential driveways will access directly into the 120 foot right-of-way with the exception of the relocation access to Tax Map 56-96A." Mr. Keeler pointed out the meaning of this proffer on the map. Mr. Davis notified the Board of Supervisor's Chairman that the applicant had handed him revised proffers. He said there has been a clarification of Proffer Number One which indicates that the two sentences, as shown in the Supervisor's information, has been changed to one sentence. He added that a second correction to Proffer Five has also been made. Mrs. Mumphris stated that the staff and the Planning Commission did a good job on this matter, and the pros and cons were clearly spelled out. She understands the people who oppose this request. She pointed out that every- body has to understand that the County is growing and there are growth areas, and that is where growth needs to go. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve ZMA-95-09 subject to the proffers submitted by the applicant in a letter dated June 15, 1995, and as amended by the applicant at the meeting on July 19, 1995. (The amendments are: In Proffer No. 1, delete period in between sentence 1 and sentence 2 so that the sentence will read: "Owner will reserve a 120 foot strip of land in the approximate location shown on the plan as 'Potential 240/250 Connector Road' and will dedicate upon demand of the County, this reserved area to public use without compensation." In Proffer No. 5, delete the words "for all lots adjacent to the 240/25 connector reserved area" at the end of the sentence.) The Board added that this approval does not guarantee or imply that a special use permit will be granted for a road crossing Lickinghole Creek to access the rear of this property. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. (Note: The proffer reads as follows.) PROFFER STATE~: IN SUPPORT OF REZONING P-~Q~$T DATE: June 15, 1995 RE: ZMA-95-9 TAX MAP 56 PARCEL 96 AND TAX MAP 56 PARCEL 108 81.83 ACRES TO BE REZONED FROM R-1 to R-4 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby volun- tarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning re- quested. References in these conditions to "the plan" are to the attached plan titled "General Development Plan" and dated April 24, 1995, with revisions through June 13, 1995. July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Owner will reserve a 120 foot strip of land in the approxi- mate location shown on the plan as "Potential 240/250 Con- nector Road" and will dedicate upon demand of the County, this reserved area to public use without c°mpensation. Reservation of the reserved area shall not be deemed to prohibit the owner from constructing roadways in the re- served area in a manner which would not interfere with future construction of the connector road, or making other temporary use of the reserved area not inconsistent with such construction. No residential driveways will access directly into the 120 foot right-of-way with the exception of the relocation access to Tax Map 56-96A. Owner will reserve a 50-foot wide "Greenway" along each side of Lickinghole Creek as shown on the plan within the bound- aries of Tax Map 56, Parcel 96. The owner does not proffer to maintain the Greenway, but rather the Greenway Area, at such time as the County of Albemarle commits to establish and maintain a public area, park or pathway, and assumes responsibility for maintenance thereof, will upon request of Albemarle County, be dedicated by the owner(s) or its suc- cessors to the County, subject to the right of use for residents living on the property. The proffer shall not be interpreted to prohibit the location of utilities, storm sewer or stormwater control devices or easements in the Greenwayo Development will be limited to a maximum of 190 single- family attached, detached and townhouses units. These units will be located approximately in the areas shown on the plan. The maximum average lot size will be 15,000 square feet. 4e Internal. roads on the property will be located approximately as shown on the plan. Additional internal roads will be located pursuant to normal subdivision review. Se The possibility that a four-lane road will be constructed within the reserved area shall be clearly disclosed in the subdivision covenants and restrictions and on the subdivi- sion plat. The owner or Home Owners Association will plant, at such time the "potential 240/250 connector road" is built, two rows of white pine trees 15 feet on center (four to five feet tall) along both edges of the "potential 240/250 con- nector road" right-of-way only in areas contiguous with single family attached or detached as is shown on the plan. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-95-19. Gabriele & Eugenia Rausse. Public Hearing on a request for a stream crossing in the flood plain of Slate Quarry Creek. ProPerty of approx 76 ac is zoned RA & is located on E sd of Rt 627 approx 1.1 mi S Rt 795. TM103,P43K. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1995.) Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which indicated that this request involves a proposal to construct a low water stream crossing in the flood plain in serve a 76 acre tract of land in order to build a dwelling unit. He gave the location of this property and said the staff, as well as the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 11, 1995, by a vote of 5/1, recommend approval of the request, subject to six conditions. He explained that the first five conditions are basically dealing with the flood plain, and the sixth condition indicates that all future divisions of Tax Map 103, Parcel 43K, shall use this stream crossing for access to Route 627. He said that there was some discussion in the Planning Commission meeting about this condition, but it was not changed. He said it might be clearer if it said "All future divisions seeking access to Route 627 shall use this stream crossing." He stated that Mrs. Rausse does not intend to fully subdivide this property. Mrs. Humphris asked how many division rights there are with this parcel. Mr. Keeler replied that there are six or seven division rights available on this property. ~ At 7:50 p.m., Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Mrs. Eugenia Rausse, the applicant, stated that she is proposing to build a single house, as well as a single driveway, across Slate Quarry Creek. The only thing exceptional about this request is the fee that she was charged and the amount of delay she has been put through with her plans to build this house. She stated that it is a very small creek, and she is not developing the property, nor is she proposing to develop it. She said that she is only asking to build a driveway. Mr. Perkins said the Board is not prepared to discuss the fee tonight. Mrs. Rausse said she is paying the same fee as someone building houses for 100 families. Apparently crossing a flood plain is always a major issue. She July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) v~vv'~v' (Page 10) does not know how the Supervisors can address this problem, but she feels the fee is excessive. No one else came forward to make comments, so Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Mo%ion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-95-19 as recommended by the Planning Commission subject to the six condi- tions. Mrs. Humphris said she understands Mrs. Rausse has stated her inten- tions, but no matter what Mrs. Rausse's intentions are, she might not always be the owner of the property. Someone else might one day own the property, and County officials have to be mindful of the potential for things happening in the future. She thinks the Planning Commission did an excellent job of asking all of the pertinent questions about the design of the low water stream crossing and the credentials of the person proposing the crossing, as well as what would happen in the event of flooding. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Marshall, as a matter of clarification, to include in his motion the amended Condition Number Six, as mentioned by Mr. Keeler. Mr. Marshall agreed to amend Condition No. 6 to read: "All future divisions "~ ................................ ~ .~ access to Route 627~ shall use this stream crossinq." Mr. Martin also agreed. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, and Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Water Resource Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment; Albemarle County Engineering approval of the final driveway and culvert crossing plans. These plans must clearly show the before and after construction one hundred year flood elevations and boundaries. The limits of the Water Resource Protection Areas (WRPA) Buffer must be shown and labelled; Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance With Federal and State agencies regulating activities af- fecting wetlands and water courses; Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations. These computations must demonstrate compliance with sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan or single family erosion control agreement; All future divisions seeking access to Route 627 shall use this stream crossing. * * * * Mr. Perkins told Mrs. Rausse that he is sorry for the delays she had experienced, but fees are supposed to reflect the cost of an application. Mrs. Rausse asked if all of the applications cost the same. Mr. Perkins replied, "no." He said that Mr. Keeler or Mr. Huff can address this matter much better than he can. Mr. Keeler stated that the fee for a stream crossing is comparatively high to other fees because it requires analysis by the Engineering Department. He said that the engineering analysis is the same for each stream crossing. Agenda Item No. 12. SP-95-25. Wendall Wood/United Land Corp. Public Hearing on a request to establish a mobile home park on property of approx 57 acres zoned R-15 is located on E sd of Rt 606 approx 0.6 mi S of Rt 649. TM32, P50,53,54,55&56. This site is recommended for High Density Residential (10.01-34 du/ac) in the Community of Hollymead. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1995.) Mr. Keeler stated that Mr. Fritz is going to present Mr. Wood's request to the Supervisors. He noted that on July 18, 1995, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3/2, recommended approval of the petition subject to conditions. Mr. Keeler noted that once Mr. Fritz completes his presentation, he (Mr. Keel,r) has some additional information which has been received since last night. Mr. Fritz summarized the staff's report and indicated that this particu- lar request is for approval of a special use permit for a mobile home park. He informed the Supervisors that this Board approved SP-93-13, which autho- rized the Mobile Home Park on July 14, 1993. Approval of that permit expired O00 .G8 : July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) on July 14, 1995, because of delays the applicant experienced. Staff reviewed this request to determine if there have been any negative changes in circum- stances since the 1993 approval, and found none. The only identified change in circumstance is the adoption of a revised Airport Master Plan which reduced the Airport noise impact area so that none of this property is affected. He went on to say that staff recommended approval of this request subject to the nine conditions outlined in its report to the Planning Commission. A tenth condition was added by the Planning Commission. That condition would result in the expiration of this approval on January 1, 1996, in the event that the activity has not commenced by that date. Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Fritz had contacted Airport representatives this morning regarding aircraft accidents. They said these types of accidents are so infrequent that records are not kept. Mr. Keeler said he would like to make some comments relating to mobile home parks and comments which were made at last night's Planning Commission meeting. In 1986 a study was done of mobile home parks in the County, as well as mobile homes in general. At that time, a need was identified for 250 spaces. This was due to the fact that some parks had either been discontinued or were about to be discontinued. There were some comments made saying the proposed park will be isolated from other communities. Since 1986, because of the need for mobile home parks, staff has talked with numerous developers about possible locations for parks and suggested that they test certain areas. He thinks it would be difficult to locate a mobile home park adjacent to Earlysville Forest or Forest Lakes based on responses developers have received over the last ten years. As to the design of the park, Mr. Keeler said that mobile home parks in the County have improved under the current mobile home park provisions. Someone questioned the adequacy of the design standards, and it was estab- lished that mobile home parks require higher design standards than convention- al dwellings. One of the recommendations in the Housing Committee's ad hoc report was that site requirements and regulations for mobile home park subdivisions be reviewed and standardized to make them subject to the same requirements as any other subdivision. It was brought out last night that at the time the original permit was approved, it was proffered that if the mobile home park was not established the zoning would revert to Rural Areas (RA). He stated that Mr. Davis informed the Commissioners that the zoning could not just revert to RA because this Board would have to take action to rezone the property. He said that originally there were three proffers,, and he read these proffers. He agreed with Mr. Davis that any time zoning changes, it can only change by a legislative act. He added, though, that one of the proffers that he read enables this Board, if this petition is disapproved, to rezone the property to RA. Mrs. Humphris inquired if there is any new State law which prevents this Board from downzoning the property. Mr. Davis answered that there is nothing new in State law since the time this proffer was accepted. He said this is an unusual proffer, and it would be the County's position that it is binding on the developer's part, and the developer would not oppose the downzoning. The requirements for downzoning are different from those for a normal zoning action in that the Board would have to follow more stringent standards to justify downzoning than under normal circumstances. He added that given this proffer those factors would not have to be identified by the Board members if they chose to rezone this property. There were no further questions for the staff from Board members, so Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. He said that since there was an extensive discussion at last night's Planning Commission meeting, he probably should put a limit on tonight's comments, and he asked if the other Supervisors had any feelings about this matter. He then asked how much time the applicant would need to make his presentation. Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant~ stated that he will need no longer than ten minutes. Mr. Perkins responded that he was going to limit the opposing comments to a total of 30 minutes. Mr. Wood said this petition was approved two years ago. He would like to explain the reason for the delay. Once the application was filed, the County requested that he have ownership of a tiny piece of land about 300 square feet in size, as opposed to the easement he already had in hand. He needs this easement in order to get to Route 606. This required him to go to the Airport Authority and make a request to purchase that land in December, 1993. The local Airport Board met and approved his request and then sent it to the FAA. He noted that there is a letter in the County files which states that this request was made in December, and he finally received ownership of that land the following September. It took nine months to receive ownership of the land. Mr. Wood said the application was in total limbo at that time, and he could not move forward with any other process until this hurdle had been cleared. When the deed was acquired in September, he began working again with County staff. At a Technical Review Committee meeting, after he had been told by VDOT staff that the speed limit on Route 606 was 45 miles per hour (mph), he was informed that the design criteria for 45 mph is incorrect. He noted that there was no speed limit sign from the entrance to the Airport to the end of the runway, which is approximately a mile for that section of roadway. The road from Route 29 to the Airport is posted at 40 mph, and going from the 3uly 19, 1995 (Regular N2ght Meeting) (Page 12) Airport to garlysville, it i~ posted at 40 mph. However, VDOT officials had no record of a sign ever being posted on this particular section of road. He stated that under Virginia law, when there is no sign posted, the speed limit is deemed to be 55 mph. VDOT officials thought the speed limit was 45 mph, and they thought there had been such a sign posted, but there were no records of it. Since there were no records in the files of that speed limit ever being posted, a study had to be done. He requested this study in December, 1994, and approval was received on March 17, 1995. For four and one-half months, the application was stopped again, and could not move forward through the process. He noted that during this two-year process, those two problems delayed the project one year and three months, and none of it was because of a mistake on his part. He stated that he owns the piece of property, and the Airport and FAA approved the sale of the small piece of land. Both groups knew what he was planning to do, and they did not view the mobile home park as a problem. There was just a time factor involved. Highway Department staff, after four months of study, posted the road in April of this year at a speed of 45 mph, which met the criteria for his project. Mr. Wood said he has approvals from the Albemarle County Service Authority for all of the permitting process, and the only approval he does not have is from the County's Engineering Department, but he does have a letter from this department stating that staff members will sign the final plat with certain conditions which are mostly technical in nature relating to flows and calculations on the storm retention ponds and drainage pipes, etc. For all practical purposes, he believes that within a week these problems should be taken care of because new information has been submitted to meet these requirements. Mr. Wood reiterated that these delays were not brought on by anything he did. He noted that he has pipe on the job site that was delivered in anticipation of beginning work three months ago, because he was expecting approvals. Mr. Wood said he would like to mention a couple of things brought up in meetings, because rumors can travel fast. Yesterday's newspaper made some profound statements that he did not have certain items, which he does have. He stated that the newspaper also indicated that United Land contributed $250,000 to the Airport. He has been questioned about this statement, the implication being that he was trying to get a commitment from the County. He assured the press and the public that there has been no deal made, and he pointed out that the Supervisors know this is true. This was a contribution his company made when sewage was running out of the ground at the Airport, and sewer service was needed there. The line is 10,000 feet long, which is almost two miles, and approximately 7,000 feet of the line went through his land. It was obvious that he wanted to see the line go through, and the Airport did not have total funding. The Albemarle County Service Authority did not have the money, so he guaranteed to do the job at a fixed price, because he is in that type of business. He noted that the price came in (with the contribution of his easements), at $250,000 below the nearest bid. He wanted to explain this because he didn't particularly care for the rumors that he had bought a deal. He reiterated that he knows the Board members know differently, but he thinks the public and press should know what really happened. Affordable housing was the next issue addressed by Mr. Wood. He heard last night that this was not going to be affordable housing. He then made quotes as of today's date, by indicating that the houses in this park will range in price from $19,000 to $38,000. He said "doublewides" will also be available. For a $20,000 unit bought in today's market, the rate today is varying between nine and one-half and ten and three-quarters percent for interest. This range depends on how much the down payment is. At five percent down, the rate is ten percent. For a 15-year loan, the payment is $202.00 per month. The rent at the mobile home park is $165.00 per month, which makes a total cost of $365.00 per month for a $20,000 unit. He thinks a $25,000 unit will be the average, and the total payment for owning the home, as well as park rent, is $430.00 a month, including water, sewer and trash collection. These people will have no expenses other than their electric bill, which runs anywhere from $50.00 to $85.00 per month depending upon the size of the home. The total monthly payment for a $30,000 unit is $470. Another issue that was mentioned related to depreciation of homes. This home, at that rate, is paid for in 15 years, and most homes are paid for in 30 years. He has a mobile home park in Verona, Virginia, that will be in place 32 years in August. He checked there yesterday, and there were sixteen homes in that park which are over 25 years old. This disproves the statement that mobile homes don't last. He noted that one of the mobile homes was there the day the park opened, and the same tenant is living in it. Most of the time, the mobile home doesn't move, but the people sell it and move on. This provides people shelter at a very affordable price. Mr. Wood said he gets upset when he hears the word "trailer," and he heard that word a lot at last night's meeting. The first ones he dealt with had wheels, and they probably could be called house trailers. However, today's mobile home is not a trailer by the definition in the Virginia Code of Laws. They are manufactured housing, and these houses meet the same standards as houses in Forest Lakes, Glenmore and Earlysville Forest. These houses have the same codes, and, in two cases, have a higher standard of code. The insulation factor that has to be met requires a rating of R-30 in the ceiling, R-22 in the floor, and R-15 in the walls. This is not required in residential housing. These houses also have to meet a Hurricane-2 status which is a wind of 120 miles per hour, and this is not required in residential housing. These homes have been upgraded over the years from trailers to manufactured housing, 000, 170 July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) and there is no difference in the St~nd~r~ these houses are bUilt to compared to regular houses. Next, Mr. Wood said people are saying the Airport area is not a good location for the mobile home park. He has been in this business for 35 years, and his livelihood depends upon him picking good locations. He relies on his ability to pick the sites, he is happy with the sites, and this proposed site would be a great location. There are shopping and schools close to the site. Recreation at Chris Green Lake is close, as well as most of the jobs in that area. This is where he thinks affordable housing should be located. Proximi- ty to the Airport is not an issue. He mentioned the $250,000 to $300,000. homes that are located in such places as Bedford Hills. Me pointed out that the Supervisors have a plan showing the Airport's new approach zone. The noise factor extends out from the runway, and it is not close to the proposed site. Bedford Hills is on the border and closer than the mobile home park to the noise factor, and he reiterated that the Bedford Hills homes are much more expensive. He does not think this is an issue. He mentioned that at last night's meeting he was told this was subsidized housing, and that he was being subsidized. He wishes he was being subsidized, but he emphasized that he is not under any such program. If he is wrong about this project, he is the loser, and if this is a bad location, then he is the loser. The people who move into the mobile home park will certainly see where they are coming when they move in because they will have to drive by the Airport. If people think it is a bad location, they will not locate there. This is his risk, and there is no public money involved. He will risk his reputation that it is not a bad location, but if it is, then he is the one that loses. This is his risk factor as private enterprise. Mr. Wood said that at last night's meeting it was pointed out how close the mobile homes will be to each other. He said they are 30 feet apart, and he stated that the Subdivision Ordinance in residential areas has a regulation of 12 feet. He mentioned Briarwood, which has six-foot side yards, and he emphasized that there will be no mobile home within 30 feet of another, which is according to the ordinance for mobile homes. There will be less than four units to an acre, and Briarwood has 12 units to an acre. The comments about the denseness of this mobile home park are erroneous. The distance between houses is less at Forest Lakes, and this seems to be the standard to which people are referring. Mr. Wood then talked about the safety factor. He is being required by VDOT to widen and put in a deceleration lane, an acceleration lane, and a stacking lane on Route 606. Me is going to have Route 606 widened at this interchange, grade both sides of the road for sight distance and have a stacking lane going south where cars can stop, and other traffic can continue to Earlysville. From a safety standpoint, the road will actually be improved at his expense. This mobile home park has fire hydrants and no home is more than 275 feet from a fire hydrant. Two off-street parking places are being provided for every mobile home, and this is not required in a standard subdivision. Recreational parking is also required should someone have a camper or a boat, and this type of parking is also being provided. He ended his remarks by saying that he would be glad to answer any questions. At 8:31 p.m., Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. He said that he would like to hold the public remarks to 30 minutes, and he asked the speakers to try to make their comments as brief as possible so everyone will have a chance to speak Mr. Donald Hemmer said he lives in Bedford Hills. He is concerned about the impact on property values in his subdivision, as well as other nearby subdivisions. He is also concerned about traffic on Route 743 during rush hours, because it is horrible now. Ms. Lisa Harman, Vice President of the Earlysville Area Resident's League, commented that she was asked by the League's Executive Board to come to this hearing. She presented a survey last summer to the Supervisors, and indicated she would leave another copy. She wanted to go over five areas in the survey, which included nine percent of the residents of Earlysville (see Earlysville Area Residents' League Survey Results dated May, 1994). She said this survey indicated that 89 percent of the residents were opposed to mobile homes. The majority favored single-family dwellings as the type of residen- tial development they would support. Public schools were the main County service about which people were concerned. She emphasized that it was the number of children that was questioned, and not their economic background. Ms. Harman then said she was going to speak for herself at this point, and not for the League. She realizes people need a place to live. She wondered if the best that can be done by the County in terms of affordable housing, is to put people in a mobile home park near an airport. She recalled that Mr. Wood has indicated that this is an ideal location. She asked how many people in this room would choose to live beside an airport, or would they choose somewhere else. She said that the people who buy these mobile homes obviously don't have that choice, and unfortunately this may be where they will be located. Mr. Terry Schultz, an Earlysville resident, remarked that he chairs the Earlysville Transportation Committee, and he thinks the issue has to be addressed from a different perspective. He complimented the applicant on presenting a good case for his mobile home park, but Mr. Schultz said he was July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~7~ (Page 14) not sure this is the issue. The issue is really one of land use versus whether or not it is a good mobile home park. There are a number of citizens at this meeting from the Earlysville area, although not all of them will speak tonight. He asked that these people stand and be counted (the Clerk counted 20 people). He then read from a memo to the Board of Supervisors (see memo from Terry Schultz, dated July 19, 1995, to the Board of Supervisors, in which he expressed his Committee's concerns about the mobile home park. Ms. Denise Gaines said she lives in Earlysville, and she attended last night's Planning Commission meeting. After examining the latest site plan of the proposed mobile home park, she had a number of questions which she addressed to the Planning Commission, but she went home without answers. She does not think enough thought has been given to the people who are going to live in the mobile home park and actually use the facility. The recreation area, which is at the southern edge of the park, has an intermittent stream flowing through the middle of this area. This stream is shown on the prelimi- nary site plan and on the U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Map, but it is not shown on the current plan. She went to see the stream the other day, and she found some water in it. She asked why this stream is not shown on the current map. Ms. Gaines said her next question relates to the playground and the tot lots. She said one tot lot is located at the edge of the stream to which she just referred and across from the dead-end of a road designated as Road G on the plan. To access the tot lot from this road one has to cross the stream. There is another access road from the western edge of the recreational area, however, it may not be convenient for everybody. Also, the tot lot at the northeast corner of the development is located between the parking lot for recreational vehicles and a stormwater detention area. She said this is an unfortunate location because access is through the parking lot. She sees two hazards for small unaccompanied children. The water in the stormwater detention area is a great attraction and a possible safety problem. The other risk relates to the parking lot itself. Children should not be playing among vehicles which may be maneuvering or backing up. She asked if this problem is going to be addressed by the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Gaines next referred to roads marked "F" and "G" which end at the recreational area. These roads are only 20 feet wide and have no turning areas at the dead ends. She asked how drivers will turn around when the private parking spaces are occupied by cars. She went to the Verona Mobile Home Park and saw many homes had two more cars around them. She sees a possibility for congestion from cars backing up to get out of the street and not being able to turn around. She pointed out that all of this is very close to one of the tot lots. Ms. Gaines said these are matters which can be corrected, but she wanted to mention them because they show that not enough thought was given to the people who are going to live there and actually use the facilities. She then called attention to the emergency access road. She said residential areas with 50 or more units are required to have two access roads to a public road. She said this requirement has been waived for this mobile home park. She mentioned that a future gravel road between the mobile homes sales area on Route 29 and the park, which is intended to serve only for transport of mobile homes, is to be considered an emergency access from Route 29. She wondered how anyone can guarantee that such an uncontrolled and unused road will be free of obstacles at all times, or that the person with the key who will unlock the chain that prevents unauthorized use can be found at the time of an emergency. She mentioned the special vulnerability of mobile homes to fire and wind storms, even though Mr. Wood has indicated that they are now built to higher specifications. Nevertheless, Ms. Gaines stated that it seems the requirement for two direct connections to public streets should not be waived. On the contrary, she suggested that extraordinary care should be taken to assure free access at all times to emergency equipment coming from Charlottesville by way of Route 29. Next, Ms. Gaines inquired if there is any problem with ownership of the land. She mentioned that the County tax assessor's office informed her that Tax Map 32, Parcel 50, has ~two owners, neither one of whom has clear title to the land. She noted that one owner is the NYC Land Trust and the other is Mr. Eddie T. Southard, who has been paying his share of taxes regularly and has been cited by the Zoning Department as an owner and violator for cutting trees on the property. She said Mr. Southard is present at this meeting, and he has various documents with him to show his position relating to this property. She said this seems to her to be an important question to resolve, and she wondered why the public was not informed about this problem, or why her question was not answered last night. She wondered if the Board of Supervi- sors is aware of the problem of ownership. Ms. Gaines said her main question relates to whether or not the whole project has been conceived in good faith. Certainly all of the requirements have been met, but she thinks that little has been done to create a truly humane environment for the people who are going to buy and occupy the mobile homes in this park. In view of the many open questions which remain to be answered, she urged the Supervisors individually and collectively to take some time to study the site plan carefully, use some imagination and ask how it would be to live at that location. She wondered if there will be trees and shade, as well as how people will get from one point to another. She asked the Board of Supervisors not to rush into a quick approval tonight. She said there is the opportunity to reconsider the whole concept of this particular mobile home park. The pervasive air of temporariness will not make for a very (Page 15) stable or thriving community. She stated that everybody has been told that mobile home parks come and go, and they have to be replaced. She thinks this is very temporary housing for some working people who deserve better. She, again, asked the Board to reconsider this matter. Mr. Eddie Southard said he brings the Supervisors and the people in the audience greetings from Johnson City, New York, which is where he lives. He said that he is a Virginian, he owns property here, and he bought Lot 50 and Lot 50A for James A. Southard, his father. He still owns a six-acre interest in Lots 50 and 50A. He looked the site over this morning, and Lot 50A has a swath, as wide as this room, down the middle of the two acres. All line fences have been destroyed. He has been told that he went to school with Mr. Wendell Wood, but he doesn't ever remember going to school with him. He went to school with Harrison Wood, and he knew the elder Harrison Wood. Mr. $outhard added that he went to Broadus Wood High School. Mr. Southard explained that in 1939 the property was purchased with the help of George Gilmore, an attorney in Charlottesville, by his uncle, Jack Birckhead, who is married to his aunt. The two-acre plot was purchased from Gilbert and Janie Tyree, who are black people. They had a house on it, and that is where their parents lived. In 1941, the bill for that property was paid. He said he paid for the fences himself. He joined the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1939 in Charlottesville, and he went to White Hall camp, until that closed. He was then transferred to New Castle, Virginia, and from there to a place between Wytheville and Bluefield. He sent $25 home to his parents, and they paid their mortgage with that money. His mother asked what she was going to do with all of that money, and he replied that she should spend it on herself, except for what she would pay for the property. He also suggested that she and his dad go to town to a movie. Mr. Southard said since he has been here, he has been hearing that Mr. Wood owns all of Lot 50 and Plot 50A, and he emphasized that Mr. Wood does not. He reiterated that he has a six-acre interest in that property, but the property is a mess. He was asked if he pays his taxes, and he indicated that he does. He then commented that he has some pictures that he took of the property today. He said he has tax bills from 1994 where $99 was paid by his brother at Stanardsville and himself to NYC. The tax bill is from Albemarle County, and it was paid, and the remainder was sent to NYC. He said that at one time, his brother, James, sold his six-acre interest to the NYC people. He added that he can't figure out what NYC means, and he thought maybe it represented some tax people from New York City. He does not know if it is the same as United Land Company. He emphasized that United Land Company might own a lot of property, but it does not own all of Lot 50, because he has tax bills to show that each year on time, and without having to pay any extra money, his tax bills for Lots 50 and 50A are paid. He thanked the Supervisors for this opportunity to speak to them, and he said that it is nice to actually see them. He mentioned that he has had a lot of running around to do here in this building, so he knows that it is a good building. He said that if there is anything else that he can help with, he would be glad to do so. Mr. William Sipe, a resident of Earlysville, informed the Board members that he was going to omit approximately half of what he had planned to say. His main concern relates to the roads and the traffic flow as they pertain to the mobile home park. He recalled that several years ago the initial entrance to the mobile home park was to be on Route 29 North, and not on Route 606. Mr. Wood has said that this is how it was first proposed, but subsequently, the road was moved to Route 606 as a second choice. Mr. $ipe said he finds this to be is unacceptable. Route 743 is not even shown on the map relating to this issue. Route 29, Route 649 and Route 606 are the only routes shown. He recalled that Mr. Perkins said he thought the project should have access to Route 29 North, as well as Route 606, and that the primary access should be from Route 29 North (Mr. Sipe said he is referring to quotations from the Board of Supervisors minutes dated July 14, 1993). Mr. Sipe said during the discussion relating to affordable housing, access to Route 29 North was one of the things Mr. Wood used to get the Board's approval. Now, there is an even more serious problem with traffic. The current location is noted to be six-tenths of a mile south of Route 649 on Route 606. Vehicles would have to travel Route 29 North to Route 649, travel Route 649 to Route 606, turn left onto Route 606 and go six-tenths of a mile to enter the mobile home park. This entrance is at a very sharp bend in the road. The shortest route commonly used by Airport traffic, including taxis, shuttle buses, limousines, passenger cars, trucks, small and large, is as follows: travel Route 743 to Route 606, then three-tenths of a mile north to the sharp bend in the road to enter the park. He commented that this latter route from Charlottesville to the proposed park is over three miles shorter than going by Route 29 North. Route 743 is narrow, curvy, dangerous and has been designated a "hazardous road" by VDOT. There have been several serious accidents so far this year, with one death. He recommended that all of the Supervisors take a drive on Route 743, if they haven't been on that road recently. The traffic is increasing daily, and it is a serious problem. In addition, there will be hundreds of cars going to and coming from the mobile home park. The estimate is that there will be two to three vehicles per mobile home, and this will contribute to the hazards of driving. He does not think anybody in the room will be around to see a larger or new Route 743, because he does not think that this will happen in his lifetime. To improve Route 743 would be a tremendous undertaking with all of its curves and unusual topography. It is four miles from the "Rock Store"to Route 606, and to 3uly 19, ~995 (Regular ~ight Meeting) (Page 16) ~:~i:~.~i: Earlysville it is 6.2 miles, so improvements would be costly. He is afraid citizens have been misled and lack knowledge of the inaccessibility and inappropriateness of the roads. The roads are definitely not accessible and they are not appropriate. He believes this issue should be thoroughly discussed among the Supervisors, especially the use of Route 743 and the entrance to the mobile home park. He cannot support a new special use permit. Mr. Charles Trachta announced that he was submitting into the record a letter from the President and Vice President of the Raintree Homeowner's Association, because they could not be present at this meeting. He said he is Vice President of the Woodbrook Community Association, and his Association is supporting the Earlysville homeowners in their opposition to Mr. Wood's proposal to establish a mobile home park at the Charlottesville Airport. New information was brought to the Board last night, not just by the community, but by this Board's own staff. 'He thinks this new information should be reviewed,~and both sides should be~given the chance to agree with it or rebut it with facts. He emphasized that 24 hours is not enough time to do this, and he wondered why it is so imperative that a vote be taken tonight. Two years ago when this issue first came up, the communities in northern Albemarle were not organized. They are now, and they are joining with each other to show this Board they are concerned about what is happening, not only in their own immediate area, but over the whole County. Mr. Trachta said he got involved with his community association because he believes it is not just his right to be involved, but it is his duty. He pointed out that he is a retired New York City police officer, and he has worked in the low income areas of Manhattan and Brooklyn. He has seen first hand what can happen when government does not listen to its people, and when land developers are allowed to make their fortunes by preying on the poor. Since becoming involved with his community, as well as with the community in Earlysville, he has constantly been apprised on two of the County's issues, the Comprehensive Plan and low income housing. In regard to the Comprehensive Plan, he pointed out that Mr. Wood's proposal does not fit into the original plan. If the people of the County must accept the growth, especially in industrial and commercial areas, then the Board must also accept this plan and return Mr. Wood's parcel to a neighborhood service area. As for low income housing, he believes the low income families of this County would rather deal with someone they can trust rather than one who is licking his lips while looking at their purses. He went on to say that Mr. Wood is attempting to show himself politically correct by creating this park, but the truth is, he is not. Mr. Wood is not willing to build permanent, affordable housing for low income families, something which, in fact, is what they really need. These people don't need temporary housing, they need real housing where roots can be put down. Even if Mr. Wood wants to give families a place to start, why is it that he will only agree to 15 years, and not 50 years? He said it is because in 15 years the University of Virginia Industrial Park will be built, and then Mr. Wood can make his profit. Mr. Trachta pleaded with this Board to show a little compassion and find a way that permanent affordable housing can be provided, and not just a temporary fix. He said a place is needed where these families can become a part of their communities, and where they will be safe. He is opposed to this proposal not because it involves mobile homes, but for two real consider- ations. First, he is opposed because the situation is only temporary. Secondly, he is opposed because of the unsafe location. What Mr. Wood is creating, besides a financial windfall for himself, is an area to hide away low-income families...~ He told the Supervisors to look at the proposal, which is in front of them in print. He commented that Mr. Wood is planning on gathering up 200 or more families to be segregated in that spot. Who else but the poor would accept subjecting their families to this isolation, the lack of community, the noise pollution and danger of being at the end of an air strip, as well as the lack of normal things which others take for granted. Mr. Trachta said that all of the problems on which he has touched, along with others such as no public transportation and poor roads, are reasons why this area was originally slated in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial service use and not any type of residential use. He then mentioned a remark Mr. Blue made at last night's Planning Commission meeting, just before he cast the deciding vote. He said Mr. Blue stated that this is not the most ideal place for a mobile home park, but the County has to take what it can get. Mr. Trachta asked this Board to take the next step and deny the proposal. He said that instead of accepting a bad solution to the County's housing problems, the Supervisors should start tonight to find a correct one. Mr. Smedley Butler, a resident of Earlysville, commented that he is a member of the Earlysville Area Residents League. He noted that he is a former banker. He has been in touch with a couple of bankers today, as well as someone on the Charlottesville/Albemarle Board of Realtors. He found that there are currently 40+ homes available for sale within Albemarle County and Charlottesville in the $75,000 range and below. On a $75,000 home, this would be approximately $422 a month in mortgage payments in terms of a 30-year mortgage, with a five percent down payment. He emphasized that this is a solution for low-income housing. It allows families to own houses and build equity, and as they move up the scale, they will be able to sell the houses and get something back. This is better than a mobile home and a rented piece of ground which is building no type of equity, and after 15 years the people are out. He thinks low-income housing is being done in a lot better way by July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) such groups as Habitat for Humanity, as well as fixing up some of the older homes. There are affordable homes in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Mr. Butler mentioned that the County commissioned a study, which was completed by the University Of Virginia last year, and the results of that study were overwhelming. The residents of Albemarle County came out in favor of slow, steady growth and they want no high density residential. One thing that was overwhelming was that County residents wanted no more growth on Route 29 North. The County has the results of that survey. He ended his remarks by saying that to approve something such as this, is disregarding what County residents have said they want. Mr. Wayne Elliott noted that he lives in Northfields, which is a good distance from where the proposed mobile home park will be located. He came to this meeting to bring a letter from the President of Northfield Owners Association, which is in opposition to the park. He left a copy of the letter with Mr. Bowerman and with the Clerk to the Board. If there is a question about the ownership of the land, it seems to him that the suggestion that this issue be postponed is a good one. The answer to this suggestion should be fairly obvious. He recalled something that was said by a County staff member indicating that in the past there has been a problem with the discontinuance of mobile home parks. He suggested that it is because all of a sudden the parks become unprofitable, and this happens because they deteriorate. Building a new mobile home park won't solve the problem of a park eventually becoming unprofitable and the developer deciding to do something else. In this particular case, there will be 236 families who all of a sudden will have to find another place to move. They will own their mobile homes, so they will have to be towed to some other location. This seems to him to be an important consideration and one which supports a negative vote on this matter. Second, Mr. Elliott recalled that at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Blue, in apparent recognition that the traffic problem and is getting worse every day on Route 29, as well as in the northern part of the County, stated that he wished the required road network would precede development, but it doesn't. Mr. Elliott said it never will, unless somebody starts slowing development down. The Supervisors and the other governing bodies have a duty to decide when enough is enough. Mr. Elliott indicated that at this point, he thinks the County is right at the edge of "enough being enough." Mr. John Macdonald, Chairman of the Transportation and Land Use Commit- tee of Forest Lakes, commented that he is speaking for the Forest Lakes community. He noted that Mrs. Cynthia Hash, a member of this same committee, faxed a memo to the Supervisors and Planning Commissioners. She could not be at this meeting tonight, but she wanted to add some comments. Mr. Macdonald said Forest Lakes residents are in the designated growth area and they are concerned about what goes on in that growth area. He is present tonight because the mobile home park is proposed for the Hollymead designated growth area. As a part of this growth area, the residents expect something back from the County. The residents expect County officials to provide leadership to maintain the attractiveness of the designated growth area. He has serious concerns regarding the mobile home park. There was a reference to these concerns made at last night's meeting, as well as tonight. The older mobile homes which exist in Albemarle have some serious problems. He looked at four of them, and they deteriorate so fast it is shocking, but he thinks it has something to do with design. He doesn't think the mobile homes were designed correctly, but CountH~ staff indicated this is because they are so old. Staff also indicates that since 1986, there have been ordinances in place and building permits, so mobile homes should not deteriorate so rapidly. He is unsure if he would believe that 100 percent. He noted that the fact has to be faced that the mobile homes which are on the market in Albemarle County are not very attractive. Mr. Macdonald then mentioned that the residents are concerned about the temporary nature of this project. If the American dream is going to be given to people, which means home ownership, why are they not being given the right to buy the land for whatever term necessary. He inquired as to why this use is to be temporary in nature. He doesn't understand this when the matter is put into the context of home ownership being the American dream. If these new homes are so good and they last so long, as Mr. Wood pointed out, why is there a 15-year limit? Mr. Macdonald mentioned his Committee's third concern. He has already referred to the attractiveness of the designated growth area, and why these older homes look so bad. A couple of the reasons are that they are stacked one after another in a row. It looks as though this site plan is following that same routine. He is unsure what control the Supervisors have over that, and maybe it is just left up to the developer. Some lessons could also be learned from what was done at Forest Lakes. there are a lot of good things at Forest Lakes, although he is not saying the whole County has to look like Forest Lakes. County officials should take some of these good things and in scale apply them to every new development in Albemarle County. in Forest Lakes, there are common area breaks between small clusters of homes. He does not know if this is practical in a mobile home park, but it certainly should be given strong consideration by whoever is designing this mobile home park. In the site plan for this park, there is one small common area running between mobile homes which are stacked on both sides of the road, and there are no clusters separated by common areas. He is unsure if this means a lot of July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 0 00175 (Page 18) expense for the deVeloper, but it C~r%ainly WOuld add to the attractiveness of this park. Speaking about his final concern, Mr. Macdonald said he would like to comment about the future idea of rezoning some property from rural to commer- cial on Route 29 in order to put in a mobile homes sales area. This runs counter to what his community would like to see. In the existing Comprehen- sive Plan, County officials had the wisdom to specify that from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Hollymead, there Should be a green area on both sides of the road, permitting a nice corridor for the entrance into Charlottesville. For the new Comprehensive Plan, the residents in his area were going to propose the same thing for the property on the west side beyond Nollymead all the way up to Airport Road, knowing it can't be done on the east side because there is the Forest Lakes development, McDonald's and a shopping center already located there. The proposed plan is incongruous with his Committee's idea, and he would recommend strongly against permitting a sales outlet on Route 29. If the Supervisors will consider this matter, they will see the attractiveness of keeping this area as green as possible. Ne mentioned that there is an access road from the mobile home park to Route 29 to the sales area. Even if the sales area is not built, that access road is still there. He is concerned about foot traffic going across Route 29, and that will certainly increase. He asked that the Supervisors think about how this safety issue can be handled, assuming that the mobile home park is approved. He thinks people will run across Route 29 to get to McDonald's and the Forest Lakes Shopping Center. Ms. Karen Strickland, from Earlysville, remarked that in her two years of watching this Board, she has never seen a public hearing restricted to a certain amount of time. She couldn't believe her ears when the speakers' time was restricted to 30 minutes. This is the one time that the public can have its say. A lot of people planned what they were going to say, and to be told that the Supervisors don't want to hear it, is an insult. She went on to say that two years ago, members of the public were told that the decision relating to this project had been made, and they were too late. Now, the people are told that the supervisors don't want to hear what they have to say. She emphasized that she is appalled by that, and she thinks that this could be the problem with the whole mobile home park issue. It was "fast-tracked" and rushed through. She pointed out that three times the County staff has studied this issue, and the staff has always indicated that it is and inappropriate use for this area. She added that three times, the Board of Supervisors has asked that the issue be considered again. She asked if the Board of Supervi- sors has gotten into the business of planning and not listening to the staff. She stated that the people say the project is not right, yet, it keeps being considered. Ms. Strickland said she objects to this park because the housing is only 1200 feet away from the end of a runway that is surrounded by industrial land. Any type of housing put into this type of situation is temporary. This situation creates all of the problems with home ownership, but none of the benefits. It is too large a scale for Earlysville. The largest community in Earlysville is Earlysville Forest with 191 lots and only 131 homes in it. The remainder of the communities are between five and 40 families. A community's values are seen by how it treats its low-income citizens. Isolating them in a huge development surrounded by industrial land at the end of a runway, as an interim use of land, is not the way people should be treated. She said this doesn't reflect her values, and she hopes it doesn't reflect the values of the Supervisors. ............. Mr. Kevin Cox stated that he is'overwhelmed by all of the concern for low-income housing he has heard tonight. He thinks he will probably see a new movement where neighborhood associations will all get together and start funding programs such as CHIP and working to supply nonprofit housing. The concern expressed tonight for these poor people who will have to live in these mobile homes overwhelms him. He then referred to growth management, where one gentleman tonight had indicated that enough is enough, and it is time to say no. This gentleman doesn't realize that the Supervisors can't say no. There are state and federal laws which limit local officials as to what they can do. Right now there is good cause to suggest that the issue involving exclusionary zoning is being pushed. If he had his way, he would put a moratorium on all building permits that have been issued since June of 1963, but he knows that this is impractical and impossible. He mentioned that he moved here in May of 1963. Mr. Cox said that no matter what local officials do, people are going to live here. The impact of birth management has not slowed down population growth at all. The people who will live in these mobile homes are going to live in Albemarle County. They may live in substandard housing, or in rental units and apartments, but they will more than likely live in this County. They are also going to send their children to Albemarle County Schools, whether or not they live in this park. He then rebutted the argument that mobile homes in this particular park do not constitute affordable housing. He made a few calls today, and he got three different quotes. The terms were all the same; five percent down, 10.75 percent interest, and a 15-year mortgage. This is interesting, because this is the life of the proffer. Ne mentioned that Buckrim's has a mobile home of 1120 square feet, and the monthly payments coupled with the lot rental of $160 a month, amounts to a monthly total of $437 a month. Oakwood has a mobile home that has 980 square feet~ and monthly payments, along with lot rental, amounted to $362 a month. Clayton has a July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) mobile home that has 980 square feet which totaled $370 a month. He pointed out that a decent, clean three-bedrO6m, two-bath apartment in Albemarle County, minus utilities, cannot be rented for that much money. He said that if renting is the option, and if a person rented a $370 three-bedroom, two- bath apartment, that person would have to go to the Otis Lee Rental Agency, because he or she would be renting a slum. He said that for many people the mobile home is a very affordable option, it is better than rent, and it is better than anything in a slum. He emphasized that Mr. Wood does not operate slums. Mr. Cox mentioned that the Supervisors heard from Reuben Clark and others a couple of years ago when this issue first came up, and they indicated how nice the park is in Verona. It is a very nice park, and it affords its residents a very fine quality of life. He asked the Supervisors to allow this proposed mobile park to be built. He is not asking that another Crozet Crossing be subsidized, and he is not asking for a dime of federal money. He requested that Mr. Wood just be allowed to provide this very affordable housing. No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. Mrs. Humphris said she would like to mention a matter which has been bothering her for years. She appreciates Mr. Wood mentioning what has been referred to as his contribution by some people in the form of a vicious rumor. On behalf of all of the Board members she does not appreciate this rumor. She researched to find out where this rumor could have possibly started. She indicated that she saw in the print media during the last two days that in exchange for this zoning, Mr. Wood extended a sewer line for $250,000. Mr. Wood did not do anything in exchange for anything. In reviewing the minutes of July 14, 1993, at the bottom of Page 26, it is recorded that, "Mr. Wood said he wanted to briefly respond to a couple of items to clear up what he considers to be a misinterpretation. He realizes the Supervisors are aware of his $250,000 contribution, but the public obviously is not, and he would like to clarify it. This money was in the form of a contribution to build a sewer line that his company constructed out to the Airport. The Airport is con- trolled by the FAA. It was not a donation to the FAA. Mr. Wood said he has faith that the Supervisors can decipher the statements made." Mrs. Humphris went on to say that she could not then decipher the statements made, and at another meeting, she recalled having a public discus- sion with Mr. Wood about this matter. She has been able to determine that Mr. Wood bid on construction of the sewer line. It was a very low bid, which she thinks he obviously did because he wanted it built very badly. She pointed out that his bid was $269,711. The best she can figure out is that Mr. Wood considers that this constituted a contribution from him for this work because the next lowest bid was $405,681. In her mind, this was done in his best interest, and it was a business contract. She said Mr. Wood seems to think that the other $114,000 is the value of the easements he granted over his property through which the sewer line was built giving his property a very increased value. The value of this easement was probably about $3,000, and at the most, no more than $10,000. This is the only way she has been able to determine why Mr. Wood has claimed that he made a contribution of $250,000. No one did anything in return for anything else for Mr. Wood, and no one bought anything from Mr. Wood. Although she was very pleased to hear Mr. Wood address the issue tonight, he still mentioned the contribution that he made in connection with the Airport. She then made the comment to Mr. Wood directly that she will never accept the statement that he made any contribution to anything. She believes he made a business contract for $269,711. She remarked that it is very discouraging to see in print that this zoning was done in exchange for something, and she emphasized that it absolutely was not. Mr. Perkins responded to the speaker who was agitated because the speakers' time was limited, and he noted that he has restricted the time for public comments on other occasions. If the speakers would limit themselves to the item being discussed, then time would be no problem. He added that there are some speakers who talk about a lot of things that are different from the agenda item that is before the Board. He pointed out that the Supervisors have stayed at meetings until 11:30 p.m. or 12:30 a.m. because the people talk about so many different things. Mrs. Humphris agreed. She recalled that the July 14, 1995, meeting ended at 1:01 a.m. when this same subject was discussed. Mr. Perkins stated that it is hard for the Supervisors to concentrate on the comments that the speakers are making when the meetings run for such a long time. He noted that comments are limited at budget public hearings. He reiterated that tonight was not the first time that comments have been restricted, and it probably won't be the last. Mr. Marshall asked that the County Attorney clarify the ownership issue. Mr. Davis said there was a question raised about ownership, and the Zoning Administrator investigated it. As a result, there is a letter from an attorney who gave a title opinion as to the ownership of that property. The attorney has assured County staff that Mr. Wood does have the proper ownership interest to make this application. County staff receives applications for zoning and other matters, but the staff does not do a title search. This would not be practical under the circumstances. Staff relies on people July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meetigg) (Page 20) 000 77 swearing in the application that they own the property. In this case, staff went one step further. For the Supervisors' purposes, they are in the proper position to act on this tonight, and they need to realize that Mr. Wood has the proper ownership interest to make this application. Anybody who disagrees with that can file a lawsuit to acquire title of the property. This could prevent Mr. Wood from moving forward, if that person should take the matter to the courts. He emphasized that he does not think the issue is unsettled as far as the County is concerned. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he would like to go back to 1986 where this issue is concerned. He is the only member of the Board of Supervisors who served on the Planning Commission during that period of time, and he dealt with the very issues that this Board is faced with tonight. At that time there were a number of mobile home parks in the County that went out of business, and there was a scarcity of places where mobile home parks could be sited. The Planning Commission assembled a very strict Subdivision Ordinance which dealt with mobile home parks, off-street parking, screening and buffer- ing, the type of road and the way it had to be constructed, as well as separation of dwelling units and a lot of the issues the development community was concerned about because of the severe restrictions. He did not want to talk against any of the mobile home parks which were around at that time, because they were developed when there were no ordinances to govern them. These mobile homes were virtually situated "on top of one another", there was no screening or buffering, and there was no opportunity for outbuildings or storage. The Subdivision Ordinance includes provisions for outbuildings, and how they are to be constructed, and where they will be located. Mr. Bowerman said one of the things discussed at that time, when affordable housing was mentioned was the fact that mobile homes and mobile home parks, by their very nature, are temporary. Mobile home parks are a transitional use. When a mobile home park is sited with any density, there has to be public water and sewer available. As soon as public water and sewer are discussed, an area is involved that is in close proximity, or it is in an urban area and land prices are very high because of that fact. If utilities are not currently available, then they are extended to the site. Mobile home park sites don't become unprofitable, because all the landowner is doing is renting the land to tenants who come and go with their mobile homes. What happens is that the land becomes too valuable to use as a mobile home park, and it redevelops into a higher use. This is the fourth or fifth mobile home park application that has come before him since he has been dealing with such issues. None of them have been approved, and the arguments that were heard about the other locations were the same as the arguments heard tonight. The last one was close to Forest Lakes, before Forest Lakes existed. That proposed location didn't have utilities, but he noted that Mr. Wood's location does have utilities. The problems associated with Mr. Wood's site are manageable, and the 15 years was this Board's guarantee that it would be the minimal length of time that this park existed to provide affordable housing. People who buy these mobile homes are working class people who make their own choice as to whether or not they live in a substandard product in Albemarle County or elsewhere, and they make their choices as to whether they live in an apartment or a mobile home. This is their choice as long as they can afford to do it. Currently, they don't have an opportunity to exercise that choice because there is a very scarce supply of affordable housing below the $50,000 range. Mr. Bowerman said he is impressed with the neighborhood associations and their ability to organize. Ten years ago, when he was on the Planning Commis- sion, if six of the neighborhood associations had been organized, all of them would have been at a Board meeting speaking against Earlysville Forest. He noted that people from Bedford Hills spoke against Earlysville Forest, as well as other members of the community, when that development was brought forward. Those issues related to the proximity to the Airport and traffic on Route 743. He said it was a segregated community in the middle of the rural area with 195 homes, and there was nothing there before except scattered site housing and housing in "downtown" Earlysville. The slow and moderate growth that this community has experienced, which is one and one-half percent a year, is the very type of growth which probably allowed 90 percent of the people in this room, including himself, to live here. Without that growth, none of the people in this room would be here, except for the residents who were born in Albemarle County. He said he thought most of the Supervisors would agree with that remark. Mr. Bowerman went on to say he moved to Albemarle County in 1977, and he was living in a subdivision while he was a member of the Planning Commission. He added that the people in his subdivision opposed the subdivision which went in directly behind them. The Westmoreland Subdivision residents opposed the Fieldbrook Subdivision because it detracted from their quality of life. He said this was to be a subdivision which had the same house sizes and the same lot sizes as the subdivision in which they lived. He remarked that manufac- tured mobile home owners are not criminals and they are not bums. He said that 60 percent of the people don't want to live in apartments. He added that he is from a working class family, and he lived in an apartment. He grew up in an affluent community, and he was the person in school who didn't have any new clothes. He gained a lot from being in that community, because he learned that other children and families in that school had different types of life styles, and he decided that he would like to emulate them. By the grace of God and his abilities, he was able to do that. He emphasized that he will not foreclose the opportunity for others to make those same choices. He respects July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) the opinions that were voiced tonight, and he heard what the people said. understands why the people said what they did, and he understands their concerns, but he simply disagrees with the decisions at which they have arrived. He Mr. Martin commented that Mr. Bowerman has already mentioned a lot of what he would have said. He thinks the issue is an issue of traffic, although if the traffic situation is considered, there is probably not a place in Albemarle County where this mobile home park could be located where the same traffic issues wouldn't exist. He said traffic issues are no greater problem in this location than they would be in almost any other location. Albemarle County is filled with roads that are intolerable, and he doesn't think traffic is really an issue, although it is a legitimate issue for discussion. Affordable housing is a legitimate issue, and it is a legitimate goal in this County. He understands people who want to have no growth or very slow growth. Most of the people wouldn't be in this room if someone had had the ability 25, 30 or 40 years ago to demand that there be no growth. He is also aware, having served on the Board of Supervisors for four years and the School Board for four or five years, that just about every single proposal is talked against by the people who live close to where it is being proposed. He stated that it never seems as bad, after the people move in. He mentioned that Forest Lakes South is literally backed up to a mobile home park, and he pointed out the value of a house and property in Forest Lakes South. He wondered how this proposed mobile home park, across the street and fairly isolated, could drop the value of property when Forest Lakes South was built right around a mobile home park. He noted that he lives on Proffit Road, and within a two-mile radius of where he lives, there are at least three mobile home parks. These are not parks that were built to the standards to which Mr. Wood will have to adhere, and they are not parks which were built with the rules and regulations that are now in place. He has moved twice in the Route 29 North area, and each time he has moved, he moved near a mobile home park. Mr. Martin said the whole issue of the proposed park being a terrible place where poor folks will have to live bothers him. Everybody makes choices as to where they will live, and the people who buy at Forest Lakes South, immediately behind the mobile home park, are making that choice. The people who will live in this proposed mobile home park will make that choice, and they will make that choice based on their current situation. Many of them are renters, and everybody knows what renting means. He pointed out that he is not talking against renters, because he has rented himself. When he was renting, his father kept reminding him that he was throwing away money. He actually moved into one of Mr. Wood's lower income houses at Briarwood, which gave him the ability to make a profit and move into another home. There is no difference in the people who will be buying these mobile homes and moving there. The issue of affordable housing is an important one. He went on to say that many of the people who will be going into these mobile homes are people who have actually lived in Albemarle County all of their lives. This is one thing that he keeps reminding himself of, as a member of this Board of Supervisors. He mentioned that Mr. Marshall and Mrs. Mumphris are from Albemarle County, and they have always lived here. He is an import, as are most of the people in this room. If he is going to call himself a member of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, then he has got to remember those people who were living here long before he was, who may not have the education to be able to get a job to afford the average cost of a home, which is $135,000 to $140,000. He has got to continue to remember those people, and this is an opportunity to do so. Mr. Martin said that whether or not it is a golden opportunity, a good opportunity, or a poor opportunity, it is an opportunity for people to have home ownership. He added that whether or not this home will depreciate, it is still better than just paying rent. He pointed out that when rent is paid for 15 years, and the person leaves, the deposit is usually kept to pay for certain damages. There is nothing to show for the money that has been paid for rental property. He commented that he was in support of this project two years ago, and he continues to strongly support it. He thinks it is a good idea, he has no problem with the location, and he thinks the homes are needed. He said that people need to realize that all residents have to live. As long as Albemarle County remains a place where people want to move, then every time a person moves here, the value of property based on supply and demand increas- es another notch, and it keeps increasing. He is concerned about those people who have lived here all of their lives who can no longer afford to buy a piece of property in the County where their families have been for generations and generations. He stated that the question is asked as to why this is happen- ing. It is because of the growth in Albemarle County, and he asked who is creating that growth. He explained that he was helping to create it in 1973. Mr. Bowerman was helping to create it in 1976, and most of the other people in the room created some of this growth. He said that everybody played a part in that growth, and there has to be a place for everybody in Albemarle County to live. That growth can't be stopped, because if growth could be stopped, it would have been stopped before 1973 when he came here. At this point, motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-95-25 as recommended by the Planning Commission subject to ten conditions. Mrs. Humphris commented that Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman have spoken with a tremendous amount of eloquence, and they certainly expressed her feel- ings. When she was preparing for this meeting, she went through all of her notes and records from the Comprehensive Plan amendment that preceded the July 19, 1995 (Regular'Night Meeting) (Page 22) . rezoning and special permit with which this Board is dealing tonight. She read the notes she had~made at that final meeting and found that not much is different. The neighborhood associations~made known a lot of twists to things that this Board perhaps had not heard before but, overall, the comments followed what was heard when this issue was dealt with two years ago. At that time, this was a difficult decision for her, because she had to decide whether the positives outweighed the negatives. She said that they did then, and they do now. If somebody else had come forth with an idea to provide this amount of affordable housing over all of these years, County officials would have been grateful. She said that nobody else did, and nobody else stated that they had a piece of land, and they would provide affordable housing. It would be nice if everybody could live as comfortably as most everybody in this room, but the facts of life are that they can't, and she thinks this project is little enough to do to make that kind of housing available to people who are starting out. She said she will support the motion. Mr. Marshall pointed out that he is a local person, and he is rapidly reaching retirement age. He remembers when this was a small community, and now it is a big one, and he has been considering other places to.live when he retires. He would like to turn the clock back to the 1940s and still ride up and down Main Street, anddo all of the other things that he did then, but that won't happen. He has children and a lot of family who live in this community, who have one way or another, survived. He remembers his father buying land and selling it in Albemarle County, where he now lives, for 50 cents an acre. If they had sold land for five dollars an acre, they would have thought they were rich. 'He mentioned that sometimes 100 acres would be traded for a pair of mules. He said the County has changed a lot, and Mr. Wood remembers the things to which he is referring. Mr. Marshall then brought out the fact that he and Mr. Wood share the same great grandparents, and although they are related, they are not closely related. Mr. Marshall said there needs to be a place for all of the citizens to live in this community. He sympathizes with people who have come here from somewhere else, and they think they have found a place that is one way, but then they find that it is another. He added that he has used this experience in looking at other places where he might want to go to retire. When he finds an area that is attractive, and it is an area where people want to live, everybody wants to go there, and there will be the same problems. He empha- sized that people who are elected to office have to represent everybody in the community, and he stated that the other Supervisors have done a good job in explaining why they have to vote the way that they do. It is not that they are not sympathetic with the people who came to this meeting, as well as to what they are saying. He stated that if these people were sitting in the Supervisors' seats, they would find that if they believe in God, and if they believe in people, then they would have to vote the way that the Supervisors are going to vote tonight. He said he believes this from the bottom of his heart. Mr. Perkins asked for an opinion as to why no direct connection to Route 29 can be made without amendments to this permit. Mr. Fritz responded that this was done when the original special use permit and rezoning requests were heard. Mr. Wood does not own property which can obtain access to a crossover on Route 29, either at the Hollymead signal or the Forest Lakes signal. The Department of Transportation officials recommended strongly against the introduction of any new entrances onto Route 29 that would propose a new crossover, which was part of the original application. There was also a question as to where the entrance would be located. This is the extent of his immediate recall on that issue. Mr. Bowerman inquired as to whether it has been contemplated that eventually, through negotiation between the people whose properties front Route 29, there will be some sort of internal access road to serve all of these properties. Mr. Fritz answered affirmatively. He explained that this proposal came after this issue was pursued at the time of the rezoning. He said the layout of the mobile home park is such that it would accommodate the ultimate design of a parallel roadway to Route 29. Mr. Perkins asked if there is the possibility that there will be access to Route 29 some time in the future. Mr. Fritz responded that there is the possibility that there will be access to a signalized intersection on Route 29. Mrs. Humphris called attention to Cynthia Hash's FAX to Mr. Martin that was received today, and she said that the Supervisors need to make some comments regarding Mrs. Hash's concerns. She noted that some of these concerns have already been handled, some will be taken care of at site plan review and some of them are dealt with in County ordinances. Mr. Martin noted that he just received Ms. Hash's FAX prior to this meeting. He said some of Mrs. Gaines' comments also need attention regarding the recreational area, and the intermittent stream. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the final site plan will go to the Plan~ing Commission for approval, and Mrs. Hash's and Mrs. Gaines' concerns will be taken to the Commission for its consideration. Staff will also talk to both of these ladies, in the interim, and discuss their concerns. July 19, 1995 (Regula~i~.~ight Meeting) (Page 23) Mr. Perkins asked the Clerk to call the roll, since there was no further discussion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Deletion/relocation of all lots within fifty (50) feet of an adjacent parcel; 2e 5o Planning Commission approval of final site plan; Staff approval of all mobile home units proposed for loca- tion within the mobile home park to ensure compliance with the acoustical performance standards of Section 30.2.5; Staff approval of private road maintenance agreements at such time as the property may be subdivided; Maintenance of recreation facilities shall be the responsi- bility of the property owner in accord with Section 4.16.3.2; 7e No direct connection to Route 29 shall be made without amendment of this permit; Provision of conventional "T" intersection with Route 606 constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Trans- portation requirements. Access is shown on a plan initial- ized "WDF" dated 7/8/93; No plan development shall be submitted for review until the necessary easements and/or right-of-way acquisition for the Route 606 entrance have been obtained; Provision of access to Tax Map 32, Parcel 46; Approval of the special use permit shall expire on January 1, 1996, unless the use or activity is commenced in accord with Section 31.2.4.4 prior to January 1, 1996. Agenda Item No. 13. Selection of Board members to serve on Compensation Plan study. Mr. Huff stated that the Supervisors have a memo included in their packets inquiring if the Board is prepared to confirm its earlier decision to use a two-member subcommittee from this Board and the School Board on the Pay Classification Study. He said it was the understanding, from earlier discus- sions, that the Board of Supervisors Chairman would serve on the subcommittee along with one other supervisor member. He added that as an update, six responses to the proposal request have been received, and the staff committee has reviewed and begun to prioritize these proposals. Over the next week, the staff committee will check references and try to understand better the scope of the proposals. This packet of six proposals, along with the staff commit- tee's rationale, will be brought to the subcommittee members to see how they want to proceed to interview and engage the services of one of the consul- tants. Mr. Bowerman said he would serve on the subcommittee of the Pay Classi- fication Study. Mr. Huff inquired if there was any desire by the full Board to interview the applicants, or would the Board members prefer for the subcommittee to conduct the interviews and bring the Board its recommendation. Board members indicated that they were agreeable to letting the subcommittee conduct the interviews and then bring its recommendation back to the Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Huff said there is pending legislation before the House Committee on Commerce, which is chaired by Congressman Thomas Bliley, that preempts state and local building codes (and all other local regulations) applicable to cellular radio telephone towers. The bill would allow the construction of many towers throughout the country for the next generation of cellular phones, so-called "personal communications services (PCS)." PCS requires towers that are close together (some communities have been told that the towers must be within one-half mile of each other, with each tower in line of sight to adjacent towers). The effect on community property values from preempting the zoning on such towers, especially in residential areas, could be substantial. The effect on public safety if such towers are exempted from building codes is equally severe. In July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) addition, this bill gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) "exclu- sive Federal jurisdiction" over 'satellite dishes, which the satellite industry contends preempts all local zoning, building codes and other regulations applicable to such dishes. This would result in major safety concerns embodied in current and future building and zoning codes being preempted, along with the consequent impact on property values and visual blight. Mr. Huff said that many national organizations representing local governments have taken active roles in opposing these amendments and support- ing an amendment that will protect the rights of local government. He recommended that the Board adopt a resolution opposing Sections 107 and 243 of House Resolution 1555. Mo%ion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the following resolution to oppose sections 107 and 243 of House Resolution 1555, the Telecommunications Act of 1995. The Chairman will also send a letter to Chairman Bliley and to both Congressmen expressing concern over the profound negative impact this legislation would have on the County. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE SECTIONS 107 AND 243 OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 1555, THE T~ECOI~IUNICATIONS ACT OF 1995 W~EREAS, Sections 107 and 243 of H.R. 1555, the Telecommuni- cations Act of 1995, would strip Albemarle County and other local governments throughout the United States of their authority to control the location, height, or lighting of transmission towers used for cellular telephone communication, and; W~EREAS, Albemarle County has a reasonable review procedure which balances the interests of the industry and the public in the siting of these increasingly numerous towers, and; WHEREAS, the significant interest of the citizens of Albe- marle County in insuring that such towers are reasonably located should not be sacrificed to industry convenience, and; WHEREAS, throughout this Congress the emphasis has been upon returning power to localities and states, and; WHEREAS, these provisions of H.R. 1555 represent a dramatic inappropriate reversal of this policy in a manner which will be resented by citizens and localities; THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to formally oppose Sections 107 and 243 of H.R. 1555 and to urge Chairman Bliley and the members of the House Committee on Commerce, as well as the Congress, to reconsider and withdraw these provisions from the Act. Next, Mr. Huff mentioned the City's recent action on a resolution which would go to the State Corrections Board. He said City officials approved a resolution this week, and a copy of it has been sent to the County. This resolution recommends a 115 bed expansion to the regional jail and authorizes City staff to move forward with the necessary steps to form a Jail Authority. Mr. Davis has drafted a resolution for this Board's consideration which will put the County on similar record, if that is this Board's desire. Mrs. Humphris remarked that she is pleased that City Council has taken this action. The addition of 115 cells is better than nothing. She thinks all of the Supervisors are convinced that the full expansion is needed, but 115 cells helps a lot. It needs to be realized that when the Jail Board representatives go to Richmond to meet with the State Board of Corrections on August 8, 1995, that there will not be the documentation for which they will be asked, because this has been done in such a last minute fashion. The Jail Board has no other meetings planned for this month, so there is no way to get the professional information that is needed. She said that 115 beds is not going to be half of the cost. It is going to be more than half of the cost it would be for double the amount of beds. These are going to be very expensive jail cells because the total project is not going to be done in one plan. Additional funds for planning for 115 cells will have to be put forward if the State Board of Corrections allows this part of the expansion to be done. She pointed out that there are no dollar figures available, and the agreement for the Authority is not yet in place, but it is good that the City officials are ready to enter into a Jail Authority agreement. It is not known for what levels of security the jail cells will have to be built, so there are a lot of questions, and money will be needed for an additional planning study. She does not know what the outcome will be on August 8, but she hopes the State Board of Corrections will allow the 115 cell expansion. July 19, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) 000:1.82 Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the following resolution requesting the amount of $15+ million to renovate and expand the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Board has requested approval of a $15+ million project to renovate and expand the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on April 5, 1995, voted to support the $15+ million renovation and expansion project; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council adopted a resolu- tion on May 15, 1995, supporting the $4.8 million renovation component of the renovation and expansion project and adopted a resolution on July 17, 1995 supporting construction of additional new bed space in an amount not to exceed 115 beds; and WHEREAS, no part of the project can proceed without concur- rence of the County and City; and WHEREAS, it is in the public's interest to proceed as expeditiously as possible with at least the renovation and expan- sion components of the project approved by the City; and WHEREAS, to secure state funding for the $4.8 million renovation and 115 cell expansion project, the Jail Board must receive approval for the project from the State Board of Correc- tions and meet other deadlines and requirements specified in Title 53.1 of the Code of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby requests that the Albemarle- Charlottesville Regional Jail Board take all necessary steps to proceed with the $4.8 million renovation component and a 115 cell expansion of the renovation and expansion project for the Albe- marle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex and to qualify the project for state funding pursuant to Title 53.1 of the Code of Virginia. Mrs. Humphris next thanked everybody who took care of the community service boards contract. She said that apparently this was being worked on even before she mentioned the matter to this Board. Evidently the staff people in Albemarle County did what people around the state are doing, which is to oppose the clause indicating that the state will participate in the appointment of a new executive director if that became necessary. Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Huff for his very excellent update on the E-911 system, especially pointing out to the public that all of the blunders of the contractor will not be paid for by the County taxpayers, but were paid for in the contract. Mr. Marshall provided the Clerk with his new Charlottesville address, which is 2356 Scottsville Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902. Agenda Item No. 14a. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 10:00 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to go,into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding a specific legal matter concerning reversion; a specific legal matter concerning a Zoning Ordinance violation; and, a specific legal matter regarding a contract. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. July 19, 1995 (Regular~Night Meeting) (Page 26) Agenda Item No. 14b. ~Certify Executive Session. At 10:46 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mrs. Humphris that the Board certify that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Thomas. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned. C~ai~an