HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-17
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
000066
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on August 17, 1994, beginning at 7:00 P.M., Room 7, County
office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Walter F.
Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and Director of Planning, Ronald S. Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 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 no other matters from the public.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mrs. Thomas, seconded
by Mrs. Humphris, Items 5.1 and 5.2 on the consent agenda were approved and
the remaining items were accepted for information. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Common-
wealth's Attorney, Sheriff~ Regional Jail, and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the
month of July, 1994, were approved, by the above recorded vote.
Item 5.2. Proclamation designating the week of August 28 through
September 3, 1994 as "Albemarle County Fair Week", was adopted, by the above
recorded vote. Mr. Perkins presented the following p~oclamation to Mr. Steven
Meeks of the Albemarle County Fair Board:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAiR WEEK
WHEREAS,
for the past 13 years, the Albemarle County Fair has
entertained tens of thousands of guests during its
annual production; and
WHEREAS,
the Albemarle County Fair is unique in many ways,
founded by a group of community spirited people who
wanted something special for their neighbors and
friends to enjoy and enrich their lives. The theme
has always emphasized the County's agricultural and
forestal heritage; and
WHEREAS,
the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation
operated by dedicated volunteer, officers and direc-
tors; and
WHEREAS,
the Albemarle County Fair offers an atmosphere condu-
cive to families and their children. A friendly,
safe, carefree atmosphere is the hallmark of the
event. Unique in the state in that all food and drink
is sold by local non-profit organizations as an oppor-
tunity for them to raise monies for their worthwhile
programs; and
WHEREAS,
the Albemarle County Fair supports agricultural and
rural lifestyles, offers exhibits of home-art skills,
crops, large livestock, small livestock and poultry,
with competitions in livestock and numerous other farm
skills, and nightly entertainment for all to enjoy;
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby
proclaim the week of
AUGUST 28, 1994 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 3, 1994
as
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night
(Page 2)
000067
and urge all citizens to actively partici-
pate in the scheduled activities and pro-
grams sponsored and supported by the more
than 250 volunteers, public and area busi-
nesses.
Item 5.3. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for July 26 and
August 2, 1994, were received for information.
Item 5.4. Notice of application filed with the State Corporation
Commission by Appalachian Power Company for Approval of an Experimental Demand
Side Management Program; SCC Case No. PUE940041, was received for information.
Item 5.5. Copy of letter to Mr. S. L. Key, Inc., from Amelia G.
McCulley, Zoning Administrator, Official Determination of Number of Parcels -
D-94-04 (Section 10.3.1), Tax Map 112, Parcels 1 and lA shown as one boundary
(property of Gary Robert Moon), was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-94-20. Clark Broadcasting Co. Public Hearing on
a request to amend conditions of SP-91-25 to permit 3 meter satellite receiv-
ing dishes. Property consists of 1.2 ac zoned PD-SC & EC at NE inters of Rt
29N & Rio Rd. Site recommended for Regional Service in Comprehensive Plan.
TM61,P123A. Charlottesville Dist. (Deferred from August 10, 1994.) (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on July 25 and August 1, 1994.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Staff reviewed the
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and
recommended approval subject to three conditions. Mr. Keeler said the
Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 12, 1994, unanimously recommended
approval of SP-94-20 subject to the three conditions suggested by staff.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. The General Sales Manager for
Clark Broadcasting Company said she was present on behalf of the engineer.
She would answer any questions Board members may have.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-
94-20 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion:
1. Approval is limited to two, three meter or less diameter
dishes;
2. Dishes shall be painted same color as building; and
3. Dishes to be located as shown on Attachment dated August 21,
1991, initialed W.D.F. (copy on file).
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reordain
the County Code in Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs, Section 4-
19, In certain areas, to prohibit dogs from running at large in Shadwell
Estates and Milton Heights Subdivisions. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
August 1 and August 8, 1994.)
Mr. Tucker said this hearing is to consider a request to include Milton
Heights and Shadwell Estates Subdivisions under the County's leash law
ordinance. Both of these subdivisions are located south of Route 250 East.
Mr. F. R. Bowie prepared this request and is present to respond to any
questions from Board members. Shadwell Estates Subdivision has 93.3 percent
of its residents in support of this request, and 88.9 percent of the residents
of Milton Heights are in support.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing.
Mro Bowie said he lives in Keswick in the Rivanna District.
petition was also signed by dog owners in support of this action.
happy to answer questions from Board members.
He said the
He would be
No one else wished to speak, so Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reordain the County Code in Chapter 4, Animals and
Fowl, Article II, Dogs, Section 4-19, In certain areas, to prohibit dogs from
running at large in Shadwell Estates and Milton Heights Subdivisions. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night
(Page 3)
AYES:
NAYS:
000068
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Ma~s~haiil Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORD. NO. 94-4(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4
ANIMALS AND FOWL,
ARTICLE 2, DOGS, DIVISION 2, RUNNING AT LARGE,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article 2,
Dogs, Division 2, Running at Large, is hereby amended and reor-
dained by amending section 4-19, In certain areas, as follows:
ARTICLE II. Doqs.
Division 2. Runninq at Larqe.
Sec. 4-19. In certain areas.
(31)
(32)
Milton Heights Subdivision as platted and recorded in
the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the
County, in Deed Book 343, page 64.
Shadwell Estates Subdivision as platted and recorded
in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the
County, in Deed book 339, page 458.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-94-21. Reid or Jessica W. Nagle. Public Hearing
on a request to construct a bridge in the flood plain of an unnamed tributary
of the Doyles River. Located on E sd of Rt 810/Rt 673 inters. TM15,P19.
White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 1 and August 8,
1994.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Staff reviewed the
request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and
recommended approval subject to eight conditions. Mr. Keeler said the
Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 26, 1994, unanimously recommended
approval of SP-94-21 subject to the eight conditions suggested by staff.
Mr. Perkins asked why the title for this agenda item mentions states "an
unnamed tributary of the Doyles River" Mrs. Thomas said the proposed stream
crossing is a replacement of the crossing of an unnamed tributary. She agreed
that the sentence in the agenda item seemed incorrect. Mr. Perkins said he
was concerned that the language relating to the public hearing was incorrect,
and he wondered if it had any effect on the advertisement. Mr. Davis said the
public hearing was properly advertised.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Steve Driver, of McKee Carson, Inc., said he was present to repre-
sent the applicant. The unnamed tributary is the stream which flows into the
Doyles River across the existing driveway. The watershed area is approxi-
mately 260 to 270 acres. The Nagles have had difficulty getting into and out
of their driveway. In studying the situation, it was determined that the
current driveway is inadequate and will flood under typical thunder storm
conditions. There is a 15 inch pipe currently being used because this is a
low level driveway and the land is flat. To provide an adequate driveway for
ten year storm regulations, a series of large culverts would have to be
installed and the driveway raised about five feet in elevation. Based on the
proximity of neighboring property this measure is not recommended. If an
embankment was created, the adjacent properties would be flooded under extreme
storm conditions. Bridging the Doyles River is the most sensible alternative
in terms of safety to neighboring properties. The bridge would have a span of
approximately 35 feet and no work would be done in the stream bed of the
Doyles River. The bridge would cross in the vicinity of Slam Gate Road. Mr.
Driver said he discovered, after talking with some of the residents in the
area, that Route 810 stays above the 100 year flood plain, so it would afford
the neighbors access into and out of their properties.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the Nagle's driveway was built to any particular
design standards. Mr. Driver said there are no design standards for drive-
ways. He added that with the current driveway, there would be an estimated
eight inches of water crossing it with a two year storm. Even during smaller
storms water crosses the driveway. The Nagles are concerned about the safety
of their young child.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing.
000069
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night ~ing)
(Page 4)
Mrs. Humphris offered moti°n, ~e~ofided by Mrs. Thomas, to approve
SP-94-21 subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance
onto Route 810;
2. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design;
3. Department of Engineering approval of hydrologic and hydrau-
lic computations;
4. Department of Engineering approval of Grading Plan;
5. Department of Engineering approval of Erosion Control Plan
if greater than 10,000 square feet of area is disturbed;
6. Water Resource Manager approval of Water Quality Impact
Assessment;
7. Proof of compliance with applicable Federal and State per-
mitting requirements regulating activities in perennial
streams; and
8. All divisions of Tax Map 15, Parcel 19, shall utilize the
proposed stream crossing.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed. At this time several people in the audience informed the
Board that they could not hear the proceedings. After determining that a
large group of people were present for Agenda Item Nos. 9 and 11, the Board
decided to take up Agenda Item No. 10 and then move into the Auditorium for
the remaining agenda items.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-94-11. George Clark. Public Hearing on a
request to amend proffers of ZMA-92-13 to allow realignment of entrance to Rt
712. Property, described as TM87P's 57C&66-76 inclusive and TM99,P's 109-116
inclusive, is located in SE corner of inters of Rt 712 & Rt 760. Zoned VR
with proffers. Site located in designated growth area (Village of North
Garden) and recommended for VR (1 dwelling unit per acre). (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on August 1 and August 8, 1994.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Staff reviewed the
request for compliance with ZMA-92-13 and SP-93-02 and recommended approval of
the request to eliminate proffer #3 of ZMA-92-13. Mr. Keeler said the
Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 9, 1994, unanimously recommended
approval of ZMA-94-11 to delete the existing proffer ~3 of ZMA-92-13 and
replace with additional language.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. A. L. Yancey represented the applicant. He described how the
original entrance had been just a conceptual plan and later determined that it
was not the best location. After engineering was completed, it was decided
that it would be better for the project if the road was moved about 500 feet.
VDoT has done traffic counts at the proposed entrance to Route 712 and the
results were acceptable. He explained that the fill reduction over the river
will be drastically reduced as will the length of the box culverts.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Perkins closed the public
hearing.
Mrs. Thomas said in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting one
member of the Commission commented that, "What makes this attractive to me is
the fact that it is more sensitive, it goes with the lay of the land and will
contribute to there being less fill in that area." She said that statement
summarizes the situation. Mrs. Thomas then offered motion, seconded by Mr.
Martin, to approve ZMA-94-11 to delete the existing proffer #3 of
ZMA-92-13 and replace it with the following language:
Access to the property shall be limited to a single point on Route
712. Emergency access not limited by the previous sentence.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Page 5)
(Not Docketed. At 7:34 p.m. the Board recessed.
in the Auditorium at 7:40 p.m.
oooo .,o
The Board reconvened
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-94-05. Hillcrest Land Trust. Public Hearing on
a request to rezone 14.56 ac from R-1 to PD-SC. Located on E sd of Rt 742
approx 300 ft S of inters of Mill Creek Dr. Site recommended for high density
residential in Comprehensive Plan. TM91,P2(part). Scottsville Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 1 and August 8, 1994.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Staff reviewed the
request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Section 8.0 Planned
Development, Generally and 25.0 Planned Development-Shopping Center of the
zoning Ordinance and recommended approval subject to acceptance of agreements
by the applicant. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on
July 26, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-94-05 subject to the
acceptance of the applicant's agreements.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there was mention of a traffic light at the
intersection of Route 742 and Mill Creek Drive. Mr. Keeler said he does not
believe the issue was discussed. He added that the final design for the
connector road has not been completed and no decision has been made about Mill
Creek Drive because it was originally intended to connect to Fifth Street. He
does not think the intersection would warrant a traffic light due to traffic
generated by a shopping center.
Mr. Marshall asked if staff has received other requests to rezone
property along Avon Street to commercial. Mr. Keeler replied, "no." Mr.
Marshall said when the property in Mill Creek was down zoned, the idea was to
look for other property for commercial use. He asked if anyone has come
forward with any proposals. Mr. Keeler said staff in Community Development
looked at several sites, including the subject property. He read the staff's
comments: "Should the Board of Supervisors approve this rezoning, the Compre-
hensive Plan Land Use Plan for Neighborhood Four would be amended as a part of
the ongoing Comprehensive Plan review process to reflect community service
use." This means that if the rezoning is approved, this area will be shown in
the plan as the area for community service for the neighborhood. To his
knowledge, no one has come forward with a rezoning application.
Board members had no other questions for Mr. Keeler, so Mr. Perkins
opened the public hearing.
Ms. Denise LaCour, President of Denico Development Company, said her
partner, Mr. Rip Cathcart, is one of the applicants for the rezoning request.
There are actually 11.9 acres available for commercial development, but she
does not anticipate all 11.9 acres will be developed immediately. She expects
the project will be phased as the demand warrants. The applicant is hoping to
attract a small grocery store, drug store, video rental, pizza delivery, dry
cleaners pickup, bank or office development. The applicant also hopes to
attract medical offices and possibly a satellite clinic, such as Martha
Jefferson Hospital has at Albemarle Square, or a day care center. There will
be a 35 foot vegetative buffer along the road frontage of the property which
is a recommendation made by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). She said
the site is conducive to development, there is public water and sewer avail-
able and there are no critical slopes on the site.
Ms. LaCour said in July, 1993, at the request of the owners in Mill
Creek, the commercially designated land was down zoned to medium density
residential by the Board. This put the applicant in a dilemma because in the
plan for Neighborhood Four there was no land designated commercial. The Board
recognized that dilemma and instructed staff to find a suitable replacement
site during its review of the Comprehensive Plan. Four sites have been
evaluated and this is one of those sites. She thinks this site is superior to
the other sites because of the connector road which will be built from Route
20 to Route 742. The fact that the Board instructed staff to find a replace-
ment site indicates that a shopping center will be located in this area in the
future. This is a designated growth area and if the residential growth is
going to be sustained, there needs to be commercial development. Many of the
residents would like to see commercial development now because it takes a lot
of time to go into the City of Charlottesville to shop. If this request is
approved tonight, it will be a year and a half, at the minimum, before a
facility will be available to the people in the area. In that time, if the
growth rate in Neighborhood Four is sustained, there will be more than 1,000
residential dwelling units in this area and no commercial development. She
handed to the Board petitions signed by 122 individuals from Mill Creek and
Mill Creek South supporting the rezoning request.
Ms. LaCour said a traffic study has been submitted which indicates that
the proposed development would not warrant a traffic light at the intersec-
tion. However, when the connector road is built it is expected that a traffic
light will be needed. The size of the proposed project is 78,400 square feet
whereas the original Mill Creek commercial area was only 60,000 square feet.
Either she and/or Mr. Cathcart have met with various members of the homeowners
associations in Mill Creek, Mill Creek South and Mill Creek Village Homes, and
have tried to discuss the concerns. A primary concern is the traffic the
shopping center would generate. In response to that concern, the applicant
has agreed to proffer out 14 uses which are customarily allowed in a PD-SC.
O000?l
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night ~eetlng)
(Page 6)
The applicant wants to provide a shopping center to serve the shopping needs
of the immediate communities. Another concern is visual impact. Most of the
development will be retail one-story buildings, so there will not be any
three, four or five-story buildings. This will minimize visual impact. There
was some concern expressed about the architectural integrity of what might be
built in the shopping center. Mr. Cathcart is a responsible developer. He
developed Lakeside, which at buildout will be 348 units, and is located north
of the proposed development. Phase One of Lakeside is 148 units and is an
$8,000,000 investment, so there will not be anything shoddy built on this
property. Also, this property is located in an entrance corridor and falls
under the direction of the ARB.
Ms. LaCour then addressed some inaccuracies in a letter which had been
circulated to some of the residents of Mill Creek. This property is designat-
ed high density residential area which means that 495 units can be developed
on it. The letter states that the residents will not have any control over
what is developed on the site. The applicant has proffered out 14 of the
uses. This letter mentions construction activity being ongoing for six to ten
years. Buildout will be from six to ten years. The letter states that the
shopping center will lower property values. She does not think this comment
has merit because in 1986 when the Mill Creek PUD was approved, 6.8 acres were
zoned for commercial use. All of the homes in Mill Creek were built after
that property was zoned for commercial use so everyone should have been aware
of this zoning. Ms. LaCour said this shopping center will add to the tax base
of the County without hurting the structure of the County. A teacher at Cale
Elementary School stated that the school is overflowing and she was concerned
about additional residential development. Commercial development will not tax
the school system. After buildout of this project, it is anticipated that 80
to 150 jobs will be created. She then requested the Board to approve the
applicant's request for a rezoning.
Mr. Glenn Reynolds, a homeowner in Mill Creek Village Homes, which is
across the road from the proposed shopping center property, said his house is
within sight distance. He is 34 years old and just bought his first home
seven months ago. He bought a home in Mill Creek to get away from commer-
cialization and all the problems that it brings to residential communities.
When he researched the zoning and future plans for the land near this subdivi-
sion, he was not told or shown anything to indicate that a shopping center
would be located nearby. If he had known of this proposal, he would still be
renting a house on Fontaine Avenue. A shopping center in this area will be
convenient for people living in Scottsville or in the Belmont section of
Charlottesville. He asked if the people in Mill Creek should have to pay for
someone else convenience. A shopping center in the area will be convenient
for people renting apartments in Mr. Cathcart's new complex. The people in
Mill Creek own their homes and this is their community. The homeowners will
be the ones to ultimately pay the highest price for this proposal, financially
and emotionally. He was directly involved with the petition presented to the
Board opposing this request. He thinks that any decision by the Supervisors
should be in the best interest of the residents of Mill Creek. He is con-
cerned about the attitude that although a shopping center would be bad for the
community, it would be better than a low income housing project. He person-
ally believes this idea was originated by Mr. Cathcart as a way to frighten
the residents and bully them into supporting him. No one knows what will
become of that property. It is up to the residents of Mill Creek as a
community to control what happens to the neighborhood and to make sure that
democracy works. He asked the Supervisors to say "no" to this rezoning
request. A vote of "no" means "no" to more traffic, "no" to more noise, "no"
to more crime, and "no" to the destruction of the neighborhood's character
which was there long before thoughts of a shopping center occurred. There are
80 residences in the Village Homes section and the majority of these homeown-
ers signed the petition against the rezoning. The other sections of Mill
Creek will not be as adversely affected by this project. The community does
not need or want a shopping center.
Mr. Reynolds then referred to Ms. LaCour's comments. First, the
homeowners do not want a major intersection near their homes. The proposed
store is 33,000 square feet; this is no small store. It was mentioned that
3300 vehicle trips will be going to this commercial development which is a lot
more than 495 cars to a residential development. With regard to property
values, there are homes in this neighborhood that are only 62 feet from the
road. If turn lanes are installed, these homes will be even closer to the
road.
Mr. Ted Fortune said he lives directly across from the proposed site in
Village Homes. His house is 62 feet from the road. His main concern is Avon
Street Extended. Between 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., the traffic is horrendous.
There is a lot of noise, congestion and horns blowing. At about 5:30 p.m.,
B.F.I. trucks go to their depot at the south end of Avon Street. They drive
through this neighborhood at 60 to 70 miles per hour leaving behind diesel
fumes. Avon Street is the only road in the County that has a 55 mile per hour
speed limit directly before a 25 mile per hour school zone. He asked if
service vehicles, tractor trailers and beverage trucks were included in the
traffic study for the proposed shopping center. In the mornings he has
trouble pullin9 out onto Avon Street from Mill Creek Drive because there is so
much traffic from Route 20 traveling into Charlottesville. He does not think
Avon Street was intended to be a short cut into the Route 20. If Avon Street
is widened and VI)oT is allowed a 25-foot right-of-way, it would put his house
37 feet from the road and about eight feet from the property line. It is his
000072
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
understanding that a convenience store and a fast food restaurant are proposed
for the shopping center. The plans show the store and restaurant located
directly behind his house. If convenience shopping is desired, then people
should consider that within a ten minute or less drive from Mill Creek, there
is the Downtown Mall, Pantops Shopping Center, Willoughby Square, Estes IGA,
FoodKing IGA, FoodPlus IGA and at least a dozen convenience or grocery stores
on Avon Street, as well as gas stations. The people in Village Homes are
willing to do whatever is necessary to keep from jeopardizing their property
values and their quality of life. He urged the Supervisors to vote "no" to
the rezoning request and save the community. He gave the Clerk of the Board a
petition with 76 signatures in opposition to the rezoning.
Mr. Stuart Gardener, a resident of Mill Creek South and President of the
Homeowners Association, said he spent a lot of time talking to people about
the issues. The Mill Creek South Homeowners Association Board unanimously
supports this proposal. The only people in this neighborhood who expressed
opposition are anti-growth. Mill Creek South is located further down the road
from where this shopping center is proposed to be built. This support is
contingent on there being strict ARB regulations. This shopping center will
be used by local people for quick and convenient shopping. When he asked
people in the neighborhood where they shopped, seven out of ten people
responded Giant or Kroger. These people do not go to the Food Lion on Fifth
Street and they do not like shopping in the City. There are a lot of people
who drive to Route 29 North for their shopping needs. Mr. Gardiner said he
personally supports the shopping center as long as there are rigid and strict
architectural controls.
Mr. Dan Vest, a homeowner in Mill Creek South, said he is in favor of
the rezoning request because the services are needed. He has to travel to
Route 29 North to find a decent place to shop. His residence is the first one
in Mill Creek South and it is close to the road. When he bought his home he
knew how close it was to the road, and he feels that the Village Homes resi-
dents should feel the same way. The land is going to be developed and he knew
that when he bought his home. This shopping center will also generate jobs in
the County.
Mr. Michael Matthews, a resident of Mill Creek North and a member of the
Mill Creek North Board, said he appreciates the developers coming to the
neighborhood and presenting the plans. This speaks to a certain amount of
credibility and willingness to work with the neighbors. Personally, he
supports this rezoning effort. Services are needed in that area. He works in
the downtown area, but he does not shop there. He would like a convenient
place to shop and he would like to be able to pick up a pizza on his way home.
He thinks planned services are beneficial to a community. He knew when he
bought his home that this area was slated for growth. He thinks this is more
a benefit to the Mill Creek community than another 500-unit apartment complex.
He is a little concerned about the appearance of the shopping center, but the
ARB will deal with that issue. He is concerned about the type of uses in the
shopping centers. He personally supports the project and thinks it is consis-
tent with the needs of the area.
Mr. Robert Tobey said he lives at 1654 Shady Grove Court in Mill Creek
South, and he is present on behalf of the applicant. A shopping center is
needed in this area. He is frustrated and tired of driving to Route 29 North
in order to rent a movie, grocery shop, etc. He thinks this use is more
desirable than a high density residential development which would generate at
a minimum 500 vehicle trips per day. This is a designated growth area. He
cannot think of a compelling reason not to approve the rezoning request.
Ms. Diane Dale said she lives on Graystone Court in Mill Creek North.
She is not directly affected by this project, but she thinks that all of the
neighborhoods are affected in some way. She is concerned about the overall
planning process, the land use pattern and the history. A good job has been
done in developing these neighborhoods in Mill Creek. This is a successful
community and that is why it is growing. A lot of that success was based on a
commitment of quality from Craig Builders and an overall comprehensive
planning approach. The original retail concept was for a neighborhood service
area and this proposal exceeds the recommendations for a neighborhood center.
This proposal is double in size, scale and intensity of use. The additional
traffic will significantly affect the quality of life of the people in Village
Homes. The project will visually impact the neighborhood. The project's
compatibility with the residences need to be considered. She believes that a
change this drastic should be considered as part of the review of the Compre-
hensive Plan. In response to comments about people shopping in stores on
Route 29, people shop in those stores because they are looking for the super
grocery stores with full services. That is not the type store being proposed
in this shopping center.
Mr. Mike Brown said he lives at 2384 Gristmill Drive in Mill Creek
North. He supports the request. In 1990 when he moved to Mill Creek, he was
told by Craig Builders that there would be a shopping center. He has been
looking forward to this for four years.
Ms. Naomi Aiken said she lives at 227 Flagstone Terrace in Mill Creek
North. She supports the proposed development, but she concerned about her
children's safety when crossing the street. She asked that consideration be
given to the need for sidewalks, a traffic light and some other road crossing.
She wants a shopping center where she can go to quickly.
AUgUSt 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) 000073
(Page 8)
Mr. Jim Delberty, a resident of 1336 Creekside Drive, said he is the
newest homeowner in Mill Creek Village Homes. A major factor in the selection
of his home was the closeness to the City yet he was in a country atmosphere.
He moved to Mill Creek for the peace and quiet. His sense of security is at
risk with the proposed development. He cannot believe that anybody would
think that traffic would not increase for a 78,000 square feet development.
This is a huge area. It is optimistic to think that the people who are going
to use the shopping center will come exclusively from the neighboring subdivi-
sions. Another consideration is that increased traffic leads to increased
crimes in the area.
Mr. David Shaw, a resident of Mill Creek Village Homes, said he lives
across the road from the proposed development. He needs to clarify a state-
ment that he made at the Planning Commission meeting. He approached the
Commission a couple of weeks ago about this issue and the minutes from that
meeting are misleading when it comes to his statement.. He is a Board member
for Village Homes in Mill Creek. The night he appeared before the Commission
he made it clear that he was representing only himself and he was not repre-
senting the Homeowners Association or that Board. He, personally, is in
support of this development. This area is prime for a shopping center which
will help increase the value of his home. A shopping center in the area would
be convenient and make the area more attractive to potential home buyers.
This present property owner is determined to sell this land. He likes the
ability to have some control over what is going on the site. He agrees that
traffic is a problem and he feels badly for the homeowners whose land backs up
to Avon Street. He also feels that the shopping center and the traffic do not
go hand-in-hand. Motorists are already traveling too fast on Avon Street and
that does not have anything to do with this rezoning request. He thinks the
rezoning and eventual shopping center will cause consideration be given to the
traffic situation on Avon Street and reduction of the speed there. He is
confident after talking with the developer that the project will be attrac-
tive.
Mr. Keeler said he believes he has confused the issue of the traffic
figures. The total traffic generated from a commercial development would be
approximately 5200 (2600 in and out of the development) vehicle trips per day.
The actual increase in volume is not predictable. The traffic which would be
generated if the property were developed high density, would be 3465 trips per
day.
Ms. Mary McHarman, a new homeowner in the Mill Creek Village Homes, said
she supports the rezoning.
Mr. David Schuibba, a resident of the Village Homes at Mill Creek, said
he lives across the street from the proposed rezoned area. He said the
convenience of having a food store down the street from Mill Creek does not
mean that it will be used as a grocery store. The people in these communities
are already doing their shopping at the large, more inexpensive stores, and he
does not believe thy will change that pattern. If the people were interested
in changing stores, there is a Food Lion approximately two or three miles up
the road. He wondered about the type of stores that will go into the shopping
center. Ail of the uses that could go into this shopping center are minutes
away. He does not think the neighborhood need this shopping center.
Mr. John Christopher said he moved to Mill Creek approximately three
years ago from the City because it is aesthetically pleasing and convenient to
the City with a slight touch of country. There is no development other than
Craig Lumber Company and the National Guard Armory in the area. Someone had
mentioned the potential increase in crime, but he pointed out that crime has
already reached the neighborhood. A few nights ago the police apprehended
someone who had been robbing the residences. He does not think the people who
are opposing the development are anti-growth or anti-progressive. He thinks
there are a lot of unanswered questions which need to be considered prior to
granting this change in zoning. At this time, he is opposed to the rezoning
request.
Mr. Christian Ramsburg, a resident of Willow Lake on Route 20 South next
to Piedmont Community College, said he is not against the development, but if
this center is to serve Neighborhood Four, he thinks it merits more than just
a rezoning. He thinks it merits a comprehensive examination. At this time,
he is not be in favor of this development or this rezoning.
Ms. Theresa Reynolds, a homeowner in Village Homes in Mill Creek, said
she would like more information on the time frame of the construction of the
project, the proposed connector road and the amount of increased traffic.
Ms. Emily West said she lives in Village Homes in Mill Creek. She is
opposed to the rezoning because of the anticipated traffic generated by the
proposal.
Ms. Sue Fortune said she is a homeowner in Village Homes in Mill Creek
North and she is against the proposed shopping center.
Ms. Anne Fisher said she lives at 6 Ridgeview Circle in Mill Creek. She
realizes this area of the County might need more commercial shopping, but she
does not think it should be close to residential property. She does not think
a shopping center should interfere with the neighborhoods. A little more
thought should be given to this proposal.
000074
Ausust 17, 1994 (Resular Nisht Meetins)
(Page 9)
Ms. Amy Coleman said she is a homeowner in Village Homes in Mill Creek
North and she is against the shopping center.
Mr. Jeff Coleman, a homeowner in Village Homes said his home backs up to
Avon Street as does many of his neighbors. He is concerned about traffic,
lighting and the distance of his home from the shopping center. He thinks the
opinions of the homeowners in Village Homes should be taken more seriously
than the other residents. He and his neighbors are the ones who will have to
look out the back door of the shopping center.
Mr. Charlie Biles, a homeowner in Village Homes in Mill Creek, said he
is opposed to the project. He asked all of the people in the audience who
were opposed to stand (approximately 18 people responded).
Ms. Barbara Shepherd said she is a homeowner in Mill Creek South and she
supports the rezoning for the shopping center. She likes the convenience it
will provide.
At this time, Mr. Perkins asked Ms. LaCour if she had anything else to
say and she indicated that she did not.
There being no other persons to speak, Mr. Perkins closed the public
hearing.
Mrs. Thomas said lighting was not specifically mentioned in the staff
report by the ARB. Mr. Keeler said the site plan ordinance requires lighting
be directed away from residential areas and from public roads. The ARB design
standards require incandescent lighting and requires lighting be directed
downward on site. The staff usually receives a plan showing a footprint of
the intensity of lighting when the site plan is received. The building facade
is also addressed when the site plan is received. At this time, staff
addresses issues relating to layout of the property and buffering.
Mr. Marshall said he has lived in this area probably longer than anyone
in this room and he has a fairly decent home a short distance from Mill Creek.
He does not travel Avon Street in the mornings because he would have to go
through Charlottesville and stop at traffic lights to get to his drugstore.
When he closes his store at 9:00 p.m., there is not much traffic therefore he
drives Avon Street to go home. He is usually tired and lackadaisical, and
cars pass him on Avon Street driving extremely fast. He agrees that something
needs to be done about the speed limit. The issue in this rezoning, for him,
is that he wants the neighborhood to be a mixture. There are some low income
housing, some moderate income housing and some large undeveloped parcels of
land across the road from Mill Creek. He does not want only low income
housing in the southern part of the County. He believes the property should
remain neighborhood service and not be a large shopping center. He believes
it would destroy the neighborhood to build a large shopping center on this
property.
Mrs. Humphris said she can understand why the people who live in that
area want the convenience of being able to go to the grocery store, pick up a
pizza or go to the video store. There is a need for these services in the
area, but she does not think this is the way to do it. She is not sure this
is the appropriate location or the appropriate size for this project. She
thinks all the options should be carefully considered and a decision based on
the whole picture instead of just what is offered to this Board. She thinks
the Board needs to acknowledge that some homeowners would be harmed by
approving this project just to provide convenience for others.
Mr. Bowerman said in the staff report there is a sentence which states
that, "Given the level of development occurring and anticipated in this
neighborhood, the square footage of commercial proposed in this rezoning
appears to be a reasonable request and consistent with the extent and scale
of commercial previously designated in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan and the
original Mill Creek zoning (proposed 78,000; Mill Creek commercial approved
for 60,000 square feet total)." The Board may not approve this commercial
use, but it is evident that commercial uses are needed in that area. Commer-
cial uses adjacent to residential areas are a fairly well-established concept
for limiting traffic and keeping communities together. If this request is
denied, he does not want to leave the impression that he, personally, does not
feel there are commercial uses which are appropriate in the area.
Mr. Martin concurred with Mr. Bowerman. The Board has been moving
towards planned developments where there are commercial services provided for
use by the residents. He heard a lot of people talking about shopping
patterns. He and his wife used to go into the City every two weeks to grocery
shop. They do not make that trip now because of the convenience of shopping
near their home.
Mrs. Thomas said following the Comprehensive Plan process generally is
the best way to go about making a major change such as this. She does not
want anyone to think that if that process is followed, the proposal that is
before the Board is acceptable. There is a lot to be said in favor of having
this type of development at an intersection, but for consistency, it is better
to go through the Comprehensive Plan process.
Mr. Perkins said before he could support this plan, he would have to see
a larger buffer area. He is concerned about the Village Homes being close to
AUgUSt 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) 000075
(Page 10)
Avon Street Extended. If the road is widened to four lanes, the people will
almost literally be sitting in the road. He thinks a much wider buffer should
be reserved in case there is a road built and to provide more screening.
Mr. Marshall said he feels the same as Mr. Perkins. He could support a
smaller area for commercial use, but not a shopping center this large because
of the impact it would have on the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Marshall then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to deny
ZMA-94-05. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed: At 9:05 p.m., the Board recessed and then reconvened at
9:20 p.m., in the Auditorium.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-94-12. Todd Shields. Public Hearing on a
request to establish commercial recreational facility on 6.0 ac zoned
Located on S sd of Rt 649 approx 700 ft W of Rt 29 on boundary of areas recom-
mended for regional service & office service in Community of Hollymead.
TM32,P41H1. (Deferred from July 13, 1994.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on August 1 and August 8, 1994.)
Mr. Perkins said he and Mr. Marshall were not present at the July 13,
1994, meeting when the discussion on SP-94-12 was first held. It is his
understanding that the public hearing was not closed, so he will begin at
that point. He said it is not necessary to repeat statements that have
already been made. He and Mr. Marshall understand the issue. He then asked
Mr. Martin if he would like to make some comments about the meeting he had
with a group of citizens on Saturday, August~13.
Mr. Martin said he thinks it is fair to limit this discussion because
there has already been a public hearing on the issue. With regard to the
meeting on August 13, Mr. Martin said the majority of people at the meeting
were opposed to the recreational facility but there were people who spoke in
support of the facility. There were also people there in support of the
facility who became intimidated and talked to him after the meeting, or on the
telephone, to say that they were afraid to speak because they expected a bad
reaction from the people who were opposing the facility.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Keeler if he had anything to add at this time.
Mr. Keeler said the Supervisors have received new material today.
Included with this material is a memo from Police Chief, John Miller, and the
Engineering Department. When the Board begins its discussion of conditions,
he would like an opportunity to speak to the conditions which have been
recommended by the Planning Commission.
At this time, Mr. Perkins reopened the public hearing and he asked the
applicant to come forward.
Mr. Richard Milnor said he and his partner, Mr. Rick Carter, represent
Mr. Todd Shields, the applicant for the AdventureLand Family Fun Park. He
will explore some of the additional facts which have been developed as a
result of the prior public hearing. The proposed project is a multi-million-
dollar, state-of- the art facility, and it will be architecturally compatible
and approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). This project will be an
asset to the community and will provide recreational alternatives to families.
It is a use whose time has come and surveys indicate that such facilities are
popular. He expects that tonight petitions containing a number of names
opposed to the project and a number of people from that area may speak against
it. However, that does not mean there are not a lot of people in favor of the
project. Petitions have some value. At the conclusion of his talk, he will
hand in approximately 500 names of persons in support of the project, some
from Forest Lakes, and the remainder from the Charlottesville and Albemarle
area, which is the area to be served by this family park. He also expects
petitions representing views of the opposing side. As with any petition, it
has to be taken lightly because it is unknown how the names were obtained.
Many opinions have been expressed and misinformation can be given on both
sides of an issue.
Mr. Milnor emphasized that there will be no alcohol sales or consumption
of alcohol on the premises, but this is not an issue. Uses are specifically
limited to the go-kart track, batting cages, miniature golf, arcade, bumper
boats~ skating rink and children's play area. There is no ferris wheel or
anything of that nature contemplated or permitted. The Virginia Department of
Transportation has addressed the traffic issue.
Mr. Milnor mentioned some of the things which have developed since the
last hearing, and all of these things corroborate the fine job done by the
Planning staff in its report which ultimately resulted in the unanimous
recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission.
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
O000 G
Mr. Milnor called attention to the criteria recognized in the ordinance
for approval of this permit. All of these items have been submitted. He said
Ms. Carolyn Shears, an appraiser with Appraisal Group, Inc., submitted an
opinion in a letter dated August 11, 1994, after examining the plan in detail.
Her opinion was that the proposed family entertainment center would not have
an adverse effect on property values of existing residences in the immediate
vicinity. Ms. Shears specifically notes that in the case of the Forest Lakes
Subdivision, it may ultimately result in an increase in those property values,
based on the plans that she has seen. Ms. Shears indicated that she saw no
reason why the proposed family recreation center would have an adverse effect
on the value of residences located in nearby subdivisions such as Deerwood.
Ms. Shears is a recognized and certified MAI appraiser. Her conclusion
supports the findings that the proposed facility will not be a detriment to
adjacent property. Also, some adjacent property owners have already expressed
their approval of this proposal.
Mr. Milnor said some are concerned that a "spectacle" is being created.
The ARB has already addressed this concern. The facility is not on Route 29
and the Appraisal Group report addresses this fact. Some thought this is not
the right type of use and there should be some use for this property which
would create career jobs. These jobs will be good jobs and people will work
at these jobs and learn the value of working. These people should not be
told that their job is not worth having. He is not saying this application
should be approved because the project will create jobs, although jobs will be
created because of the project, but these jobs should not be demeaned.
Mr. Milnor mentioned an issue raised about an increase in crime and
security. The letter of July 8, 1994, previously introduced by Cost of
Wisconsin, Inc., indicates that there is not a problem with this type of
family entertainment center. The County has done research and Chief Miller
has submitted a report. The first page of the report was addressed in a prior
memo. This memo referred to possibilities of traffic which were addressed by
~-DoT. He mentioned pedestrian traffic, and he said there had been speculation
that people would be trying to cross the street to get to the facility. Chief
Miller has noted that if there is food on site, as is planned, then that
reduces this possibility. Mr. Milnor noted the eating facilities located in
the Forest Lakes Shopping Center, and he said it might be possible for someone
to walk from the shopping center to the family fun center, but he does not
think there are any facts to demonstrate this would occur. He called atten-
tion to Chief Miller's letter dated August 16, 1994, in which Chief Miller
checked three specific experiences of other police agencies. He said the
police did not report any particular problems but it was noted that security
needs were handled by the entertainment company as is proposed in this case.
He said Chief Miller also noted Albemarle County's experiences with Kegler's
Bowling Alley because his office has gotten negative calls. Mr. Milnor noted
that Chief Miller stated that if alcohol is not served at the proposed family
entertainment center, then he would not expect the same types of problems to
occur. Mr. Milnor said this is what has been mandated and it is a condition
to which the applicant has agreed. Since there will be no alcohol sales or
consumption on the premises, the Chief does not envision a problem related to
alcohol.
Mr. Milnor said Chief Miller acknowledged that development in any area
of the County will lead to an increased need for police officers. He is sure
Chief Miller will ask for these additional police officers when they are
needed and will produce figures to show the need. As far as this particular
project is concerned, Mr. Milnor said Chief Miller noted that the Police
Department is prepared to meet any challenges which occur as a result of any
approved site development. The Chief does not envision that this single site
will substantially increase the Police Department's work load. With respect
to security, Mr. Milnor emphasized that the applicant has stated that he
plans, during peak hours, to have either off-duty State police or Albemarle
County policemen on duty. In addition, he has explored and received a
proposal from Kevin Smith, of SC Security. Mr. Smith has talked with Mr.
Shields and evaluated his plans and feels that he and/or the off-duty Albe-
marle County or State police can provide the security necessary to act as a
deterrent. It is not in Mr. Shields' interest to have a facility which in any
way places people's health, safety or welfare in jeopardy. Mr. Shields
proposes to do whatever he can to make sure that health and safety are
preserved. The facts presented from the investigation by the Chief demon-
strate that security should not be a concern.
Mr. Milnor said there has been some analysis relating to the issue of
noise. Sound is not going to be an issue, but if it is, it can be addressed
by this Board with conditions. A noise ordinance is already in existence in
Albemarle County and he noted that as distance is doubled, sound is reduced by
six decibels. This is not his area of expertise but it is something of which
the applicant is cognizant. One of the objections raised related to noise and
a church nearby, but closer to the Airport. There is no desire on the part of
the applicant to disturb any church services. He called attention to the
sketch which is attached to the staff's report. The area where the church is
located is closer to the Airport and in between the family fun center and the
church itself is on industrially-zoned property. The adjacent property owners
are not objecting to that zoning on the property. The proposed facility is
compatible with the area and it is a beneficial use.
Mr. Milnor said no facts have been presented to show that granting a
permit for the proposed facility would violate any of the criteria upon which
oooo
August 17~ 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
the Board is required to base its decision. The family entertainment center
will be of benefit to this community and it will be an additional recreational
source. Everyone may not choose to go there but almost 500 people have
indicated that they will support it and want to go to it. Mr. Milnor said on
behalf of the applicant and himself and his three boys who live in the Samuel
Miller District, he would like to see approval of this project. He then asked
if he could reserve a few minutes to respond to any new comments or concerns
which might arise during this public hearing.
Mr. Jack McDonald, President of the Forest Lakes Community Association,
was the first speaker. Mr. McDonald said at last month's meeting he presented
a lengthy list of reasons why a huge percentage of the population of the
northern area of the County was opposed to this project. He asked if those
reasons could be accepted as part of the record.
Mr. McDonald asked Board members to envision a canvas depicting the
different neighborhoods such as the Proffit Road area, where there are
approximately 70 to 100 homes, as well as Forest Lakes with 600 homes and
Hollymead with 200 homes. This makes a total of 900 to 1000 homes in that
area. On the other side of the canvas there is a proposed amusement park,
which is an enticement for young people. Within the 1000 homes it is estimat-
ed that there are approximately 300 young people, ages 11 through 17, and if
this proposal is placed on this site it will be a major enticement to bring
those young people to that entertainment center. The problem is that down the
middle of this area there is a four-lane road with a 55 miles per hour speed
limit and it is heavily traveled by big trucks. Some of the people who are
proponents of the project say this is a matter of parental control and they
are right. Most people will agree that most parents would say to their
children, "Don't cross the road." Most people also know that many of those
young people will cross the road through peer pressure or through the fact
that the child was successful in doing it once. He has not gotten a copy of
Chief Miller's current letter and he does not know anyone else who has a copy
of the letter except for the applicant's counsel. He was told that Chief
Miller makes reference in this letter to children crossing that road. This
matter has also been referenced in the letters of June 13 and July 13 from the
Police Department.
Mr. McDonald said when this amusement park is put on the ground, it will
be vital and dynamic and it will grow, evolve and change. Certain businesses
will be attracted to the area by the amusement park and it will repel certain
businesses. This is the nature of the game. The amusement park will attract
businesses which want to play off of the youth market, the teen market and the
fun family market. There are two things these businesses have in common.
They do not spend money to improve aesthetics. They are generally crowded
with merchandise and things are put out front. Racks are actually put out
into the street and that is also what souvenir shops do. This is how these
type of shops generate their business and there is nothing wrong with that,
but it creates a certain aura. These types of businesses pay very low wages;
this was indirectly alluded to by the counsel for Mr. Shields. There is
nothing wrong with a low paying job when a person has no job or if it is a
young person trying to make his or her way into the business world.
Mr. McDonald said~that to take the entrance corridor and fill it with
that kind of project is the wrong thing to do. That is what he thinks will
happen. He reiterated that while the amusement park may attract some busi-
nesses it will repel others because these businesses do not want the troubles
associated with late night young adult places, parking for their employees, or
problems with their building, inventory or equipment. He thinks the single
act of taking this amusement park and putting it on this piece of property
will start many problems. The choice is clear to him and it is for this
reason that he urges the Supervisors to vote in opposition to the amusement
park. He then asked the people who agree with him and object to the proposed
project, to stand (approximately 50 people stood).
Rev. Thomas N. Houston, Pastor of Laurel Hill Baptist Church, which is
located on Airport Road, said one of the reasons his church group was not
represented at the first public hearing in July was because few, if any, of
the church congregation knew that the issue was coming up for a vote until
that day. This could be the congregation's fault for not reading the proper
newspaper, however, this is why he is present tonight. He and some of the
folks in his congregation have gone through everything that has been written
about this project two or three times, and have talked to Mr. Shields and Mr.
Martin. Rev. Houston said he presented this matter to the church membership
at a business meeting and the project was discussed. These people~discussed
concerns about problems in the past in other areas such as the skating rink
that was closed and the arcade at Fashion Square Mall which was also closed.
He is not positive of the real reasons as to why these places closed but the
reasons that he heard were that problems had developed. A skating rink is
proposed for this entertainment center as well as an arcade. All of these
things were discussed and four or five reasons were brought out as to why the
church members felt they needed to protest an amusement park adjacent to the
church. He submitted a letter to both Mr. Perkins and Mr. Martin and he hopes
that these two gentlemen have circulated the letter to the entire Board.
Since their meeting members of the church have thought of other issues and if
they have an opportunity, they will present them to this Board. He asked for
the members of Laurel Hill Baptist Church to stand; the other interested
congregation members were at Wednesday night's prayer meeting (approximately
15 people stood).
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
He then read his letter, dated August 11, 1994 (copy on file), to the
Board in which he listed five main concerns his congregation has about the
proposed amusement park: 1) A general disbelief that 20 or 30 go-karts would
not create a noise problem, especially during church service (his church is
1000 feet from the property line of the amusement park); 2) If this is a
family-oriented amusement park, why would it stay open until 1:00 A.M. on
weekends? Even the large parks such as Kings Dominion close by 10:00 P.M.
(the church has services on Sunday and Wednesday nights); 3) Fear of alcohol
and drug use by the people who frequent such places. It was stated that at
least two skating rinks have been closed for that reason (two State troopers
in the congregation adamantly oppose the amusement park believing people who
drink alcoholic beverages in the general area of the amusement park will not
be controllable even if they are not drinking in the park, itself); 4) No real
assurance that vandalism and unauthorized use of the church parking lot for
lovers and after closing get-togethers would not increase (there has already
been vandalism in the area and there have been some things stolen from the
church) and 5) Fear of what would happen in the future if the park should
expand toward our property line or on the other hand~ if the park was not
successful, would it become a rundown eyesore. Rev. Houston asked how many of
his church members were in favor of the amusement park. No one responded and
he asked Board members to take note of this fact.
Mr. Lloyd Smith said he lives on Airport Road approximately 400 yards
from where the proposed amusement park will be located. He has lived in the
same place for 39 years and he has worked hard for his little house. He
attends Laurel Hill Baptist Church. He recalled all of the bottles, beer cans
and trash that he picks up on the road in the mornings. He was sitting in his
carport today and a person pulled into the driveway, turned around in the
field and drove back to Route 649. His grandchildren were with h~m at the
time and they asked what happened to the person. Mr. Smith stated that he
replied to his grandchildren that he supposed the man was in a hurry. He
added that approximately 20 minutes later a car came all the way up to the
house turned around and went back very fast down his driveway. He used to cut
hay on the land that is being proposed for the amusement park. Developments
have grown so fast that now it takes ten minutes to get across the road to get
the mail. It is getting worse all the time and he is getting too old to move
from his home. This project will add lots more traffic to the traffic already
on Airport Road. None of the Supervisors live on Airport Road and they do not
hear the noise from the traffic at 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 midnight. He has
called Chief Miller and asked him to have somebody sit in his driveway to
check traffic on this road. A policeman on a motorcycle came out and checked
the traffic for awhile and said something would be done about it. To date
nothing has been done. The speed was supposed to be decreased to 45 miles per
hour but this has not been done either. Mr. Smith said he does not want this
amusement park constructed in this area. It will add a lot of traffic so that
he will be unable to even get to his mailbox. His mailbox usually gets
knocked down every two months. Now his mailbox has a big place on the side of
it where someone hit it with a stick or rock and he plans to call the Post
Office to see if he can put up a piece of plywood with his name on it.
Alcohol might not be sold at the amusement park but if people want beer, they
will buy it and take it with them. If people want to go somewhere and park,
they are going to park whether it is in his driveway or somewhere else. This
situation will keep getting worse.
Referring to Mr. Milnor, Mr. Smith said he does not know where this
gentleman got 500 signatures of people who want the amusement park. He could
guarantee that there are not many people who live on Airport Road or adjacent
to it who signed a petition in favor of the project. If there are a lot of
people living in this area who are in favor of the amusement park, then he
would like to see them. He thanked the Supervisors for listening and asked
them to stop and think that if they lived on Airport Road, would they want
this amusement park in their front yard.
Mr. Bob Miller said he is a resident of Forest Lakes. He wrote Mr.
Martin two weeks ago expressing concern about the proposed AdventureLand
Family Fun Park. His main reason for opposition is that he has documentation
to support his belief that many teens and pre-teens from the Forest Lakes and
Hollymead subdivisions would cross Route 29 to attend such a park. He also
had stated as a reason for opposition, the willingness of children to accede
to peer pressure. His reason for making such a statement is based on two
facts. He has been practicing orthodontics for the past seven years in this
community which is a profession that requires an understanding of teenage
decision-making. He is the father of two boys, ages four and twelve, and he
has seen first hand the effects of peer pressure. He has coached youth soccer
for the past six years. There is a soccer field in Forest Lakes behind the
Food Lion and almost all of the eight to twelve year olds he has coached live
in either Forest Lakes or Hollymead and ride their bikes to practice. After
soccer practice some of the children do not go straight home. Some go to the
pools the drugstore, or the Food Lion to get a drink, and they generally go in
groups. He believes these children would ride their bikes across Route 29 if
the proposed park existed, based on what he has observed of children's
behavior. Parental control is a weak argument for debate in a potentially
disastrous situation even though it is safe to assume that no parent would
allow a child to cross Route 29 by foot or bicycle.
Mr. Miller said that scientific and educational literature is flooded
with articles on peer pressure, minor delinquent behavior and risk-taking.
classifies crossing Route 29 against a parents will as risk-taking. The
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
000079
literature overwhelmingly supports the fact that even though most ten to
fifteen year olds resist peer misconduct, defined as breaking the law and
minor delinquent behavior, they are extremely susceptible to peer involvement,
which is best described as hanging out with friends and doing what they do
even if it is against their parents' wills. Teens are more likely to misbe-
have and take risks in the absence of their parents or adult supervision. Mr.
Miller said each member of the Board has an important vote to cast tonight and
he hopes the Supervisors will think of the 150 plus children, from ten to
fifteen years of age, in the Forest Lakes and Hollymead communities. Most of
the children come from families whose parents would not allow them to cross
Route 29, but they will, on occasion, take risks and make mistakes. He hopes
those risks do not include crossing Route 29 to spend an allowance after
soccer practice or a trip to the pool because of the alluring existence of a
favorite arcade game or a go-kart. The risk could and probably eventually
would result in a fatal traffic pedestrian injury.
A person whose name was not identifiable said he is a resident of Forest
Lakes and is opposed to the amusement park. He thinks the fun park should be
placed as far as possible from residential areas. There are a number of large
shopping centers in the County and some of these have defunct businesses, such
as the former A & P business. He suggested that the amusement park be put
there or some place where there would not be objection from local residents.
The emphasis should be placed on large commercial areas because with smaller
commercial areas, there will still be objections from people. He believes
this type of business in a shopping area or a large commercial area would be
compatible to existing businesses. He moved here from Omaha, Nebraska. In
Omaha there was an amusement park that did not serve alcohol but it has now
been closed. There were a lot of problems with the police and in one very
severe case the police actually had to retreat because of a gang activity. He
reiterated that no alcohol was served at that amusement park, but the park did
have a ferris wheel.
Mr. John MacDonald, a resident of Forest Lakes, said he has just turned
in petitions against the proposal signed by residents of Forest Lakes and
Deerwood Subdivisions. There are 496 total signatures on the petitions with
445 signatures coming from Forest Lakes and 51 from Deerwood. These two
communities are directly involved and he thinks the signatures on the peti-
tions have quite a bit of validity as opposed to petitions in favor of this
proposal. He knows that the Supervisors are skeptical of petitions because
petitions can be manipulated. He pointed out that the petitions he turned in
were not manipulated and he emphasized four points which he said would prove
this fact. First, this was done in the short period of time between August
3, 1994 and August 10, 1994. Second, as of August 3, 1994, when the peti-
tions were started, all of the residents had received letters from Mr.
Shields, the applicant, and Mr. Jack McDonald, President of Forest Lakes
Community Association, in which they stated their positions on important
issues. He did not have to say that there was absolutely no agreement between
Mr. Shields and Mr. McDonald. It was more or less a vote for these two men as
far as which one the residents believed. Hopefully all of the residents read
these letters and formed an opinion either for or against the project. The
language of the petition is basically neutral, and he read the language to the
Board.
Mr. MacDonald said the petition was not done in a highly organized way.
Two or three volunteers were requested from each neighborhood to collect
signatures and it was not centrally organized. If there had been more time
and organization, more signatures could probably have been obtained. He
mentioned that in the details of the petition sheets there are some interest-
ing facts. There are some neighborhoods where 90 percent of the people signed
the petition against this proposal. Someone might say that these neighbor-
hoods could have an above average profile of age compared to all of Forest
Lakes. He suggested that the Supervisors look at the three largest neighbor-
hoods, which are Steeplechase, Richfield and Heather Glen. These neighbor-
hoods have a total of 174 homes and they have a low age level of occupants.
He noted that 64 percent of the people in these three neighborhoods signed
against AdventureLand Family Fun Park. Some people might wonder about the
other 36 percent and he pointed out that volunteers were trying to collect
these signatures after they got home from work. The signatures were collected
in a seven-day period and perhaps some people were not home and they were
missed. He also added that ten percent of the homes, at any time period, are
for sale or the ownership is changing. These people are difficult to find at
home, some of the houses are empty, and some people have basically no opinion
about something they do not know about, if they have just moved to this area.
Many people are on vacation in August so people could not be contacted in five
or six percent of the homes.
Mr. MacDonald then talked about the Deerwood neighborhood and said that
70 percent of the people signed petitions against the project. In summary,
Mr. MacDonald said there was little support for this project in Forest Lakes
and Deerwood. He estimated that probably ten percent of the people are in
favor of this project, and he added that if the applicant's petitions show
something different, he would like to see them.
Ms. Carole Roman remarked that she wanted to make a comment about the
previous speaker and the survey which was passed around in Forest Lakes. She
thinks a lot of people signed against the Family Fun Park because of scare
tactics that were used by the people circulating letters about it that were
false. Visions were painted of things that will not be a part of this park.
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
000080
A lot of concerns were given to the residents pertaining to property values
declining and the possibility of their children being tempted to cross Route
29. She agreed that there is a lot of peer pressure and children do things
that they should not do such as crossing Route 29 when their parents have told
them not to do so. Children are faced with peer pressure and all kinds of
decisions through school and everywhere they go. It is up to the child to
make good decisions with their parents' support. She was never included in a
survey and she lives in Steeplechase in Forest Lakes. She and her family are
in temporary housing but she is building a house in Earlysville. She has
lived in the Charlottesville area for 17 years, the first seven of those years
she lived near the Airport. For years she had hoped that when her children
became teenagers, there would be something fun for them to do. She told her
children she would come to this meeting to say that she is in support of the
park. The community needs it and if it cannot be done at this location, then
a suitable place should be found. Property values are going to be affected
only if something ugly comes to that property. This is high density commer-
cial property and it can be zoned for many things. She has been to family fun
parks in other parts of Virginia. They are beautifully landscaped and they
are a lot of fun for toddlers and families, and she would love to be able to
take her family there, as well as friends from out of town. She feels this
fun park is desperately needed. She admitted that there could be some
drinking problems, as well as drug problems. She would like to think that the
County police can help control these types of problems as they do in other
locations. She hopes the Supervisors will make the decision to approve the
fun park. (Mr. Bowerman left the room at 9:08 p.m.)
Mr. Bob Hull, an adjacent property owner, said he has talked extensively
with Mr. Todd Shields about this project. He is confident that he is able and
is planning to have a first-rate facility. The majority of the people who
have spoken tonight probably do not have children or young folks at home to be
concerned about (some people in the audience disagreed). Mr. Hull said the
facility will be a family park but it is not just limited to family. It will
include teenagers who are out by themselves and one thing that everyone can
count on is that young people are going to be somewhere doing something. He
would like to see them at a place such as this where there is a structured
activity. This could be a way to keep young children from ruining mailboxes
and car windshields. He asked the Board for its support of the request. (Mr.
Bowerman returned at 9:10 p.m.)
A lady whose name was unidentifiable remarked that she will soon be a
former resident of Forest Lakes. She has a ten year old son and a two year
old daughter. She then read a statement on behalf of her family, as follows:
"Over three years ago, we relocated our family to Albemarle County, after an
extensive review of a number of communities on the East Coast. At that time
we felt that the Charlottesville area met all our criteria, such as a lower
cost of living, a good education for our children and the availability of
family-oriented leisure activities. The only area that we have been disap-
pointed in is the variety of family entertainment available in Albemarle
County. That is one of the main reasons that we have decided to relocate
elsewhere in the State. We urge you as a Board to consider the importance of
providing families with young children, as well as the youth of our community,
with more choices for family entertainment. Mr. Shields' proposal comes at a
time when communities are being urged to develop more youth-oriented activi-
ties. The proposed AdventureLand will provide a wide choice of entertainment
for our young people at no cost to the taxpayers of this County. By voting in
favor of this project, you will send an important message to the young people
of this County and that is a message of concern and care about their leisure
time activities." She thanked the Board for this opportunity to speak.
Another lady whose name was unidentifiable stated that she had not
planned to speak tonight but she was hurt by the remark that the surveyors in
Steeplechase were misleading people. She is a two-year resident of Char-
lottesville. She quit her job and followed her husband here, and she has a
real investment in this community. She is not leaving her house or Forest
Lakes in the foreseeable future. It is economically not feasible for her
family to leave the area, so she really cares what happens in her neighbor-
hood. She got more actively involved with this issue when she found out that
there had been an ad in the yellow pages for the Family Fun Park for the last
year. She assumes that originally the recorded message was for previous
proposals to have the location further south on Route 29, however if the
number is called now, the message will say that if a person is in support of
this proposal that person should attend this meeting. She found this message
devious since the ad had to be in place as of last September. She was also
one of the individuals who helped to circulate the petitions in Steeplechase
where she lives. She was asked to participate since she was opposed to the
park. She responded by saying that she was going on a camping vacation, but
would see what she could do. She collected 30 to 40 signatures within a two-
hour period. This included standing on many porches discussing this project
and development of the Route 29 corridor. A lot of the discussion did not
necessarily involve the teens and the noise. She said the property is
commercially zoned and the people in that area expect development. It is
already known that there will be a McDonald's in the area; its sign is already
in place. There is a shopping center serving the local community. There is a
dry cleaners as well as a dentist's office. This shopping center serves the
local community surrounding its neighborhoods. The proposed recreational
facility, however, does not serve the local community. The facility will
serve the greater Albemarle community as well as a multi-county group of
people. This facility will draw people from 30 to 45 miles away. She told
000081
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
the Supervisors that if they feel they have to vote positively for this
facility to consider the operating hours. The proposed closing hours are
11:00 p.m. for weekdays, and 1:00 a.m. for the weekends. This is not family
fun time and she asked that the Supervisors cut the hours back severely. This
land is not being developed for the local area and she asked the Supervisors
to keep this in mind.
Mr. Perkins said the public hearing has been going on for well over an
hour and he is going to close it after another ten minutes. Some of the
speakers are repeating the same statements and some statements are completely
irrelevant to the issue. He would leave it up to the speakers as far as the
length of time that they can talk. They can talk for the suggested one minute
or they can take all the time they want, which will mean that others will not
be able to express their opinions.
Mr. John Haire said he is against approving this proposal. His reason
is based upon personal experience with a similar situation in another state.
He was president of a homeowners association for eight years and had the
problem of dealing with a recreational facility called the Family Fun Arena.
His association members were before the Board of Supervisors every year until
midnight on one issue or another. He noted that properties change hands and
they run into difficulties generating the type of revenue required to fund a
multi-million dollar family fun operation. Anyone who thinks the return on a
multi-million dollar investment can be recuperated without having a facility
that is going to attract people has not had the experience he had. He then
asked what is an arcade. When the revenue stops flowing at a rate that brings
the return on the investment the applicant will be back before this Board for
something else. The choice will be that the facility close and be an eyesore
or the Board will allow the applicant to do something else. He feels the
applicant would be before the Board of Supervisors over and over again. If
the Supervisors approve the project, they will be creating a headache for
themselves as well as for the community, which will go on into the next
century.
Mr. Byron Dalton said he has lived in Forest Lakes since it opened.
Most of the people who live in Forest Lakes are in decision-making jobs and
they are not very easily scared or intimidated. He has a six year old child
and a three year old child. He does not need this park and it does not look
good to him. He grew up in Tennessee near a park such as this one and it was
not a good experience. It has been repeated over and over again that the
family fun park is a place for children to go and a place for children to go
is needed. This is true, however, he does not believe this facility is it. A
group of people have been left out and this group of people are the children.
He has seen it here and he saw it in Tennessee that facilities such as the
proposed fun park is a place for children to be left behind. The fun park,
from which he got his experience, went from a fun park for families to attend
to a place where children were left, and the adults went somewhere else and
then came back and picked the children up a few hours later. These children
were not supervised. There will be some families there, but there will also
be a large number of children without any supervision and they are there to
find their own entertainment. He is not saying that children are inherently
bad, but kids are kids and they have been known not to behave responsibly.
Even the judiciary system supports that. Mr. Dalton concluded by emphasizing
that the large group of children who won't be supervised need to also be
considered because the facility will be used as a babysitting service. The
Supervisors have heard a lot of points and counterpoints, such as noise and no
noise, crime and no crime. Common sense will tell one that this is a business
and it exists for the profit of a few owners. It is not some wonderful gift
for the residents of Albemarle County. It is more like a Trojan horse because
it is attractive and beautiful on the outside but on the inside there are a
lot of problems for the community. Mr. Shields said his market area was from
zero to five miles around this park. Most of this area is represented here
tonight and these people do not want the park. The residents in this area are
not against progress but much work has been done by this Board and by other
people to bring in industries which will give the area stable jobs, a good tax
base and more of a market area. The proposed project is not such an item.
This is a growth area which, by definition, has water and sewer. There is
not a lot of growth area and the County cannot afford to waste a good growth
area on a facility such as this one. It just does not make sense.
Ms. Robin Ward, a resident of Charlottesville, said she is in support of
AdventureLand. She thinks it provides the community with fun, and an afford-
able and diverse type of entertainment that can be enjoyed by people of all
ages, including the area's youth, teenagers, students, people in their
thirties, or shortly approaching that age, families, and perhaps those senior
citizens who have not forgotten their youth and might enjoy a game of minia-
ture golf on a Sunday afternoon.
Mr. Tom Coffman said he lives in the Camelot Subdivision and he is in
favor of the proposed park. He feels as though this is a discussion of Disney
World but it is only a family fun center. A place for families and children
to go is desperately needed. He was able to get over 100 signatures in favor
of the proposed center since Mr. Martin's meeting on Saturday. He would
guarantee that if he had more time, he could have gotten well over 1000
signatures in support of the project. He respectfully asked the supervisors
to vote for the County of Albemarle and not for the County of Forest Lakes.
000082
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Ms. Amanda Harvey, a resident of Charlottesville, said she has been
listening to the opposition to this project and she feels it is overwhelmingly
against growth. It is naive to live in Charlottesville and not expect growth.
She is supportive of AdventureLand and she thinks it will be beneficial for
Charlottesville.
Mr. Jerome O'Neill, a resident of Forest Lakes, asked the Supervisors to
come back to basics. A location is involved and not the substance, and it is
understandable that people are emotionally upset about providing their
children a place to play. He emphasized that the people are asking the
Supervisors to find a location where this type of facility will work for
everyone and not just for those who want to leave their children there and
walk away from them. People will not leave their children at such a facility
at 10:00 p.m. He continued by saying that 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight and
8:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m. does not lend itself to family fun recreation.
Mr. Mark Spankel asked the Supervisors to vote their consciences on the
basis of how this proposal meets the requirements that have been set forth
for the way the County does business. The reason he says this is because he
wants to let the Supervisors know what happened after the last meeting. In
his mailbox, he received a letter from the person calling himself president of
the neighborhood association by which he is represented. This letter demeaned
him, called him a cohort of Mr. Shields because he supported him, and named a
neighbor of his in the letter, and put it in everybody's mailbox. He has a
lot of friends in the neighborhood and he works with a lot of their children,
and others have worked with his child. They are all neighbors and he is sorry
this has become a divisive issue in the neighborhood. It has become a
disaster in people's relationships because instead of looking at what people
are saying people are being attacked. What people are saying is not being
considered and neither is the business at hand. He is disheartened with this
situation. He asked the Supervisors to clear the debris and vote on the
proposal, as they have researched it.
At 10:42 p.m., Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin said this is a difficult decision. There is a large segment
of people in the County in support of the fun park contrary to what some
people believe. The percentage of support is probably between 35 and 65
percent. Everybody knows that when someone is opposed to something, the
opposition seems to have more vigor and emotion. He wants to hear comments
from other Board members, but he is trying to decide whether or not this
situation rises to the level of being an issue that is important for Albemarle
County. If it is not an issue that is important for Albemarle County, then he
feels he needs to represent his constituents, and his constituents have been
loud and clear in their feelings on the issue.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Shields about the Planning Commission's condi-
tion concerning the sale and consumption of alcohol. She said this is of
concern to her as it is to most people in the County. She wondered if there
could be a condition on any approval that there would be no sale or consump-
tion of alcoholic beverages at any time, whether or not the park is open to
the public, or in use by a private party. Mr. Shields replied that he has no
problem with that suggestion. Next, Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Shields if there
was a way to bar possession of alcohol in the parking lot, or within the park.
She certainly thinks this should be a condition. Mr. Shields replied that he
sees no problem with making that a condition. The staff may be able to
address the issue of open alcoholic containers in the parking lot. He
understands that alcohol is not permitted and this would be posted on the
premises. The park's security people would patrol the parking lots to make
sure there was no possession of alcohol and people would be prosecuted who did
bring alcohol on the premises. He feels that with the park's security
program, this can be addressed and it would not be an issue.
Mrs. Humphris then addressed the hours of operation. She mentioned that
from Sunday through Thursday, the proposed hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00
midnight; and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. She asked
if the business would still be viable if the hours were shortened. Mr.
Shields responded that the business would not be affected if the hours were
shortened. This is something that he will certainly consider if those are the
concerns of the community. The proposed hours are not set yet. When he
approached the Planning staff, the hours were still to be determined and he
was not sure if the park would open at 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. He knew how
similar facilities functioned and he wondered if a private corporation wanted
to rent it before the normal hours of operation if this would be possible
without violating the permit. It was suggested that the maximum hour range be
approved and the hours adjusted from that point. He would not be averse to
adjusting the hours if that is a concern. He emphasized that it certainly
would not affect the viability of the project.
Mrs. Humphris said she noticed in the information the Board received
tonight a memo to Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, from Mr. Jack Kelsey, County
Engineering Department, relating to sound levels. She said there was a
recommendation in the memo that prior to preliminary site plan approval, a
site specific sound study be performed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 4.14.1, and that sound barriers of a design acceptable to the ARB be
provided. She asked if it would be possible to comply with such a condition.
Mr. Shields replied, "yes." He has talked extensively with County staff.
The report is based on 50 feet from the noise source and the different reports
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
00008,
and studies have been examined. Mr. Kelsey apparently feels that in order to
satisfy any possible concern, a sound study be done at the time the site plan
is presented for approval.
Mrs. Humphris said she has researched this matter carefully, as one of
the speakers had said he hoped the Supervisors would do. She has been doing
research ever since the first proposal for such a park was made to the Board.
She believes a lot of the things being said about this proposal are popular
perceptions and are not based on fact. This location on Airport Road would be
a suitable site for a proposal such as Mr. Shields is making, given some
changes in the conditions. She does not think the fun park will destroy
property values and she does not think that Mr. Shields would allow it to be a
place where people consuming drugs and alcohol could loiter. She thinks Mr.
Shields is a serious developer and he has a fine reputation in what he has
developed here and in other places. She believes this proposal is something
she can support but, if and when she does support the request, it will be
with the suggested changes in the conditions. She agrees with the gentleman
who said the developer would be back in front of this Board when things do not
go well. If she votes for this park, everyone can rest assured that there
will be no coming back to her for anything different. She added that as far
as she is concerned there will never be any alcohol sales or later hours or
anything more than this present proposal. If this developer thinks this park
is not economically viable, he had better say so now. If there is a problem,
there will not be any help from her later, should the developer come back to
this Board asking for permission to have alcohol on the premises or longer
hours, or anything else to make the park more profitable. She reiterated that
if this proposal is not the proposal by which the developer can live, then it
will not have her support.
Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Keeler had any comments to add to the discus-
sion. Mr. Keeler replied that his comments related to the sound situation but
Mrs. Humphris had already covered it.
Mrs. Thomas said she appreciates everybody in this room sitting through
this hearing. Unlike the hearing that just preceded this one, there are some
significant differences. First, this is not the first area chosen or the
first proposal for this park. Although she was not on the Board at the time
this Board looked at other areas and regarded the impact on those areas.
This proposal matches the Comprehensive Plan, it has the right kind of
setback, and Architectural Review Board approval. It is market-driven to be
attractive and it is certainly a matter of judgment as to whether it will keep
good industry away. She does not think the park will be worse than an
automobile repair shop, mobile home sales or things that could go into this
area without a special use permit. She has had many conversations with people
who feel this will bring in a bad element. She and Mr. Perkins are probably
the only ones on the Board with children around the age of some of the young
people who spoke this evening. She thinks people who like to go out and do
things at 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. are not by definition a bad element. The
college students who are looking for something to do without alcohol still
want to do things at 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m., and she does not regard this as
an undesirable element. She thinks it is only fair to ask what has been the
experience in this community with anything slightly approaching this issue, in
terms of spill over of problems into surrounding neighborhoods. She has had
her mailbox vandalized three times and her street sign broken down within the
last couple of months. She knows how annoying vandalism is and she lives a
long way from any attractive nuisance. She mentioned TJ's and Kegler's,
places that sell liquor. They are distinct from this request but they were
major trouble spots in this community. She also asked the police about spill
over into the neighborhoods where these businesses are located. The answer
was that there was no spill over into the neighborhoods which are located much
closer to these places than the neighborhoods will be to the proposed park.
Mrs. Thomas said this park will not have liquor and she thinks it will
be distinctly different. This point was significant to her because if she
had found that there was spill over into the neighborhoods, it would have
influenced her greatly. She was also concerned about noise, although it is
not being suggested that this park be put into a quiet rural area but rather
an area that is acquainted with the noise of trucks and airplanes. She is
much more comfortable with the condition that there be a noise level "sound"
study. She said that sound studies were a part of the proposals which were in
other areas. She is also influenced by the unanimous support of the Planning
Commission and she will vote in favor of the proposal with the suggested
conditions, and, particularly, with the added condition relating to the sound
study.
Mr. Martin said before the Supervisors get into debating the hours of
operation or alcohol consumption, he would like to make a motion that
SP-94-12, as proposed by Todd Shields, be denied.
Mr. Marshall said he would second the motion in order to continue the
discussion. He has not made up his mind as to how he will vote.
Mr. Martin said if the request is not denied, then he feels as Mrs.
Humphris does, and he will want to discuss some of the conditions so that the
approval is tightened considerably. He has been over and over this issue and
he also feels as Mrs. Thomas does for all of the reasons she has stated. If
this matter is considered as a property rights issue, then he does not see the
hardship that a lot of people see. On the other hand, he is also elected to
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
represent his constituents. He Wants to do so especially if this is an issue
not in the best interests of all of Albemarle County. He does not see this
use as something Albemarle County needs and, because of this, he feels he
needs to represent his constituents who are affected and are adamantly
opposed. He came to this meeting leaning in that direction but undecided and
waiting to be convinced. If there is support for this park, then he would
like to make sure everything that is possible is done to make sure the people
in Deerwood Subdivision and at the Laurel Hill Baptist Church in particular,
are protected. Even though it is said the sound cannot get to these areas, it
seems reasonable that the sound will get there when conditions are right.
Mr. Bowerman said this is the fourth request of this nature and he was
opposed to the first three. Up until three weeks before the night of the
first public hearing, there had been no opposition expressed. He thought a
location had finally been found for this use in Albemarle County. The first
request was denied because it was too close to a school and next to a poten-
tial residential area. The second application was denied because it was
somewhat close to a residential area but it was also unable to get Archite-
ctural Review Board approval for the use which was immediately adjacent to
Route 29. The third application was denied because it was less than 200 feet
from a proposed 140-unit residential apartment complex and 700 feet from an
established residential area. This proposed park would be remote from any
residential area, it is in a commercial area and it seems to meet the condi-
tions from a land use point of view for approval. It is unfortunate that this
has become such an emotional issue for the residents of Forest Lakes, Holly-
mead and Deerwood because he knows there are citizens in those areas who feel
differently about it, and it has gotten personal. He has business relation-
ships with people in this room on both sides of this issue and when people are
in a retail business they cannot win with an issue such as this. This does
not bother him. If this application is approved tonight, with conditions,
then it is approved with conditions. He added, however, that if the applica-
tion is denied tonight, then he thinks a Zoning Text Amendment should immedi-
ately be undertaken which would either prohibit the use or allow the use under
strict guidelines the Board of Supervisors set and put in writing. Then a
public hearing would be held on the ZTA that would establish once and for all
whether this use would be allowed in this community.
Mr. Bowerman said when it is an emotional issue, which is what has
happened at this meeting tonight, the situation loses hands down. However, as
a land issue, as stated by Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris, it does not lose.
Neither the go-karts nor the noise were issues tonight. The issue was the use
and the issue with most of the people who spoke was the perception that this
use in this location or any other location is inappropriate. This is not a
land use decision issue unless it is desirable to remove such a facility from
the ordinance or condition it in such a way that it is much more restrictive
than the current special use permit application. He does not know what should
be considered as far as hours are concerned but he thinks the hours should be
considered.
Mr. Martin said he would like to have a vote on his motion before hours
etc., are considered. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Martin is calling the ques-
tion. Mr. Martin replied that he does not want to call the question until Mr.
Perkins and Mr. Marshall have had a chance to voice their opinions. Before
the Board decides on any particular conditions he would like to have a vote on
his motion for denial.
Mr. Marshall agreed that it is an emotional issue. He will support Mr.
Martin's motion because it is in his district. However, if the vote was on a
land use issue, then he would support Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris. This
matter needs to be clarified. He cannot make up his mind as to what he is
voting on and he needs to know. Mrs. Humphris said she would not vote just
because of emotions. Mr. Marshall said he is not only talking about emotions.
He is talking about a man who lives in a district, knows his people, was
elected by the people and expects those people to support him. He believes in
that. If this reflects Mr. Martin's motion, then he is supportive of that
motion.
Mr. Bowerman said it has to be decided whether or not this is reason
enough to either support or deny an application which is based on the County's
Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Humphris noted that the legal aspect has to be
considered. Mr. Marshall remarked that this is what he wants someone to
explain to him. He asked for guidance from the County Attorney.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Supervisors have two responsibilities.
The first and foremost responsibility, in his opinion, is to the County. The
Supervisors then have a responsibility to the constituents who elected them.
First and foremost the County has a representative form of government where
the Supervisors are selected to do what is in the best interest of Albemarle
County. If something is not in the best interest of Albemarle County,
however, then he thinks it can be considered as a democracy, where hands are
counted. He has made a decision that he is doing this as a democracy, and he
is doing it because he does not think that it is an issue in the best interest
of Albemarle County. He is saying that if it does not rise to that level, he
will handle this situation as a democracy and represent his constituents.
Mr. Perkins said he will support Mr. Martin's motion. If everything is
based on zoning and the Comprehensive Plan, then the decision has already been
made. He also has constituents who live close by and he has had no support
000085
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
for the park from the people in the Earlysville area. Albemarle County can do
without this facility. There might be other proposals for this same type of
facility in another area or this same application could come back at some
future time. If Albemarle County does not get an amusement park, Albemarle
County will go on. He thinks it is important that a Supervisor try to
represent his or her constituents.
Mr. Marshall inquired if Mr. Perkins and Mr. Martin think that by
supporting this facility, they would be infringing upon the rights of their
constituents, as far as a good quality of life is concerned. He asked if this
is the reason they will not support the application. Mr. Martin responded
that he has been clear as to why he will not support the amusement park. Mr.
Perkins said Mr. Bowerman pointed out that several similar requests have been
denied because of areas that were zoned for residential use. Several speakers
stated that they live on Airport Road and he wondered what the amusement park
would do for their lifestyle. He asked how such a facility would impact these
people. The people must realize that they live in an area that is slated for
growth and it is a place that is going to change very rapidly. He thinks
pressures will come to bear so they will have to sell their homes eventually
because the price will be so enticing that they will be forced to do it.
Mr. Davis said that perhaps he could help with the legal parameters so
that the Board could articulate its decision. This is clearly a land use
matter that is before the Board. The Zoning Ordinance is based on the health,
safety and welfare of the community, and those are the factors to be taken
into consideration when land use decisions are made, particularly with a
special use permit. There are two items which the courts would consider in
reviewing this decision. One item relates to whether or not the special use
that is proposed is a reasonable use for this site. There is criteria in the
ordinance that can be used to evaluate this item. The Board also needs to
consider if there are uses permitted by right on the property which are
reasonable. The decision of the Board, if it is to deny this special use
permit, can be supported in the courts as long as one of two things exist.
First, the special use would have to be found to be fairly debatable as to
whether or not it is an unreasonable use. The second item is whether there
are permitted uses by right which are reasonable so that the landowner could
put his property to use without special permission. In making this decision
the Board needs to articulate a finding one way or the other that the special
use is not reasonable under the circumstances, or there are reasonable uses of
the property which are permitted by right.
Mr. Marshall said he would support Mr. Martin's motion.
Mr. Perkins called for a vote on the motion. Roll was called and the
motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
At this time, Mr. Martin said he would like to direct the discussion
back to Mrs. Humphris' conversation concerning the sale of alcohol, hours of
operation and the noise study.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like to have a condition which would state
that there would be no alcohol possession, sales or consumption, at any time,
and that the hours of operation would be limited on Sunday to Thursday from
8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and Friday and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00
midnight. She would also like to add a sixth condition concerning noise, as
recommended by the Engineering Department.
Mr. Martin suggested that some thought be given to Laurel Hill Baptist
Church and the fact that its regular Sunday morning service is usually
finished by 12:00 noon. Mrs. Humphris was agreeable to Mr. Martin's sugges-
tion that the Sunday hours for the fun park be changed to be 12:00 noon to
11:00 p.m.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mrs. Humphris to repeat her suggestion of the hours
of operation, other than Sunday. Mrs. Humphris repeated these hours and
remarked that she believes there are some people out until 12:00 midnight on
Saturdays who are not causing problems. Mr. Martin said if the park was
closed at 12:00 midnight, there would probably be other places open for those
few people who might cause problems. Mrs. Humphris concurred. She said
these few people can go to the other places, wherever that might be.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the requirements for this use in this zoning
district for setbacks and buffering from adjacent uses. Mr. Keeler answered
that there are no setback requirements from adjacent commercial or industrial
districts but there are setbacks from adjacent residential and agricultural
districts~ There is also a differential in the noise levels that are permit-
ted. The study would be done in two parts with one study being done at the
property lines. The other study would be done at the nearest residential or
agricultural zoning area. Mr. Bowerman asked if the closest residence, which
is a single family residence, is approximately 800 feet from the proposed
park. Mr. Keeler replied, "yes."
Mrs. Humphris asked if Board members wished to add to the conditions
which she proposed. Mr. Martin wondered about the security aspect. He asked
if this is an appropriate condition. Mr. Bowerman responded that the condi-
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
000086
tion could indicate that security had to be provided. Mrs. Humphris asked how
a condition relating to security should be stated. Mr. Bowerman said the
Board has required a provision of security with other special permits. Mrs.
Humphris asked how this provision can be required. Mr. Bowerman answered that
the Board would have to add a condition that security personnel be on-site
during operating hours. Sometimes the number of security personnel has been
defined but he does not think that needs to be done at this time. He added
that Mr. Davis could probably suggest some language for a condition. Mrs.
Thomas mentioned that the applicant has given the Board the security informa-
tion in the materials that were given to the Supervisors today.
Mr. Davis explained that there was a letter which was distributed to
Board members which suggested that the applicant intends to have uniformed
security on site. He said a condition could state that "there shall be a
uniformed security guard on site". Mrs. Humphris pointed out that the
information refers to weekends and holidays for security personnel. Mr. Davis
responded that Board members would need to determine when they wanted the
security guards on site. The hours and days can be specified. Mr. Bowerman
said he thinks it would be appropriate if a security guard started in the
afternoon and stayed until the closing hour. Me did not think it would be
necessary to have a security guard present in the morning.
Mrs. Humphris asked what time in the afternoon should the security guard
start working. Mr. Shields informed the Supervisors that he would have no
objection to having a security guard present from 6:00 p.m. until closing time
on holidays and weekends. Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Bowerman is expecting
that there will be a security guard at the facility every day. She noted that
Mr. Shields is only talking about weekends and holidays.
Mr. Bowerman said one of the concerns expressed by the public, which is
a public safety issue is the question of disorderly conduct on the site and
people spilling over onto adjacent properties. If this use is allowed, he
thinks an adequate allowance should be made for security. He cannot come up
with the exact requirements, but he thinks they should be appropriate to the
use and perhaps to the day of the week and the time of the yea~.
Mr. Martin asked if the security situation could relate to weekends and
holidays with a number of calls to the police as a trigger for more security.
He does not think the Supervisors want this matter coming back to them. Mr.
Bowerman suggested that a security guard be at the facility at 6:00 p.m. until
closing, or if it gets dark earlier than 6:00 p.m., then a security guard
would be on site from dark until closing, Monday through Sunday. Mr. Martin
concurred. Mr. Bowerman said this is one of the concerns which have been
expressed. He thinks it is legitimate that this Board deal with it. Mrs.
Humphris inquired if security would be provided every day from dark until
closing. Mr. Bowerman answered affirmatively. He emphasized that security
should be provided from dark until closing even if it should get dark earlier
than 6:00 p.m. Mrs. Humphris asked the other Supervisors to help her with the
wording of this condition. She has already included the language that
security be provided at the facility every day from 6:00 p.m. until closing.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the sentence close with the words, "unless
darkness occurs before 6:00 p.m, and then security will be provided from dark
until closing." He heard someone from the public ask how many security
guards would be involved. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks security should involve
as many people as necessary depending upon the size of the operation and the
number of people who are there, so that problems will not occur. Mrs. Thomas
mentioned that the words, "appropriate security program," have been used
relative to this issue. Mr. Davis suggested that the number of security
guards could be dealt with by saying that the number of security guards shall
be determined by the Albemarle County Chief of Police as he deems appropriate.
Mr. Martin said that sounds reasonable.
Mrs. Humphris then clarified the condition by saying that the applicant
would provide appropriate security to be determined by the Albemarle County
Police Chief, from 6:00 p.m..until closing daily, Monday through Sunday,
unless darkness occurs before 6:00 p.m., and then the time will be from
darkness until closing. The wording is awkward and the Supervisors could
probably do better on another occasion but not at this late hour.
Mr. Martin said if someone is proposing a motion in favor of this
amusement park, he still intends to vote in opposition and the Board may still
end up with a tie vote.
Mrs. Humphris said she understands Mr. Martin's position but it is worth
the effort to decide on the conditions.
Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Davis has any problems with the wording of the
condition relating to security. Mr. Davis said he thinks the language of the
condition is clear.
At this time, Mrs. Humphris moved approval of SP-94-12, for Todd
Shields, subject to seven conditions, which include the Planning Commission's
five conditions, a sixth condition dealing with noise, provided by the County
Engineering Department, and a seventh condition relating to security, which
would require the applicant to provide appropriate security to be determined
by the Albemarle County Police Chief which will be available from 6:00 p.m.
until closing Monday through Sunday, unless darkness occurs before 6:00 p.m.,
and then security will be provided from darkness until closing. Mr. Davis
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
suggested one minor change. He called attention to Condition Number Two
relative to the uses. He said that one use set forth is for an arcade and one
of the speakers tonight questioned the definition of an arcade. Arcade is not
defined in the County's ordinance but an amusement center is what was
intended. He suggested that the word, "arcade," be replaced with the words,
"amusement center," so that there will be no doubt as to what is intended.
Mrs. Humphris then amended her motion to substitute the words, "amuse-
ment center," for the word, "arcade," in the listing of uses for Condition
Number Two. Mrs. Thomas suggested that Mrs. Humphris inform the audience that
the conditions in her motion include the points about liquor sales and hours.
She said that the audience did not know what was included in the first five
conditions. Mrs. Humphris then read the Planning Commission's five conditions
that she included in her motion and she described the regulations relating to
alcohol and the hours of operation, etc. She then discussed the sixth and
seventh condition which were added at this meeting relating to a site specific
sound study and the provision of security personnel. Mrs. Thomas seconded the
motion.
Mr. Bowerman said that, personally, he has a problem with the use.
However, he is going to support the motion. At the last meeting, it was
pointed out that it was necessary to provide more than a popularity contest as
to reasons for opposing an application. By supporting this motion with these
conditions, he thinks this is an appropriate use at that location. Mr.
Marshall asked if it is an appropriate use at that location if it infringes
upon the rights of those who live there, namely the gentleman who spoke to-
night. Mr. Bowerman responded that this is a land use decision and using the
ordinance as a guide, he has determined in his own mind that it is an appro-
priate use even allowing for what he thinks to be excessive conditions.
Mr. Marshall said he has always considered the ordinance to be a guide
for the Supervisors and it is not law, but it is the best guide that is
available. He has always supported it as long as it does not infringe upon
the rights of others. Mr. Bowerman replied that Mr. Marshall has also said
that a use cannot infringe upon the rights of a property owner, so Mr.
Marshall must be saying that this is not an appropriate use. Mr. Marshall
noted that the applicant does not own the property, yet. He is trying to
purchase the property but only if he can get the proper use approved. If the
applicant had owned the property for a while, he would be more inclined to
support him. Mr. Shields is a businessman who wants to come into an area and
upset an area, and he (Mr. Marshall) will have to consider that. Mr. Bowerman
said that this is irrelevant. Mr. Marshall said he does not understand the
irrelevance of the issue. If the man had owned the property and had a use
established and had paid taxes on it for years, and then wanted to use the
property for such a facility, then he would be more inclined to support him,
regardless of what the neighbors think because he was there first. In this
case, Mr. Marshall pointed out that the neighbors were there first. He is
leaving it up to the other two Supervisors to decide because this issue
relates to their constituents. This is the way he considers such issues in
his district and he tries to support the Supervisors in the other districts
even though sometimes he does not agree with them. The Supervisors were
elected by those people in that area to represent them.
Roll was called at this time and the motion failed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins.
Mr. Bowerman asked the Chairman if there was an alternative motion.
Mrs. Humphris said she does not see where there is room for a compromise. She
considers a vote in favor of approval of the special use permit to be the
technically correct thing to do. She does not think this is an unreasonable
project to be located in that area. It is a long way from the residential
area except for one gentleman who spoke early in the meeting. This gentleman
already has problems and she does not think that they will be exacerbated by
the presence of this project. She thinks this is a reasonable use for that
land and she thinks this is the correct land use decision for this Board to
make.
Mr. Martin said it is difficult for him to argue about this issue. Even
though he voted in opposition to the motion, he thinks that Mr. Perkins is the
one who has provided a legal reason for the motion to fail and that reason is
health and safety. Mr. Martin said he (Mr. Martin) did not provide such a
reason. He has provided his personal reasons and that is simply that he feels
the need to represent his constituents in this particular issue. This is
probably not a legal reason so it is difficult for him to do more than simply
say that he is trying to represent his constituents and his constituents have
said overwhelmingly that they are against the project.
Mrs. Thomas said this must be one of the strangest votes this Board has
taken because people think there is a growth and no growth breakdown on this
Board. The three who have voted for this project are generally regarded as
being opposed to new and progressive things in this community. She stated,
though, that she thinks the three Supervisors are being consistent in that
they are following the Comprehensive Plan, they are making an appropriate land
use decision and they are talking about reasonable use of the land.
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) 0000~S
(Page 23)
Mr. Perkins stated that if this is how such decisions are made by this
Board, then most of the decisions have already been made. The property owners
would be doing such things by right and they would not be asking for a
special use permit. This is the difference because it is a use that requires
a special use permit. He went on to say that he, Mr. Martin and Mr. Marshall
feel that because of other compromises, it is not a usage that is acceptable
in that area.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not think the Supervisors have to justify
their actions. They did what they thought was right and it is done.
Mr. Martin explained to the audience that basically what occurred was
the motion to deny the AdventureLand proposal failed on a three to three tie
vote. He said there was then an attempt to work out some compromise language
in a motion made to pass the AdventureLand proposal, and that motion failed on
a tie vote. He said that it is a dead issue. Mr. Bowerman commented that the
special use permit was defeated.
Mr. Perkins said the special use permit failed on a three to three tie
vote.
Agenda Item No. 12a. Appropriation: Department of Criminal Justice
Services (DCJS) Grant - $33,056 (Form #940003).
Mr. Tucker explained that the County received a grant from the Department
of Criminal Justice Services in the amount of $24,792, and it requires a
matching grant from the locality of $8264. This grant is for development of a
comprehensive crime prevention network in the community.
Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $33,056. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1994/95
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR DCJS COMMUNITY CRIME
PREVENTION
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1152029404110000
1152029404312700
1152029404550000
1152029404600100
1152029404800100
SALARY-REGULAR $18,916.00
CONSULTANT 867.00
TRAVEL 500.00
SUPPLIES 1,362.00
EQUIPMENT 11,411.00
TOTAL $33,056.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2152033000330404
2152029404800100
DCJS GRANT-ANTI DRUG
TRANSFER GENERAL FUND
TOTAL
$24,792.00
8,264.00
$33,056.00
Agenda Item No. 12b. Appropriation: Section 8 Housing Program -
$1,624,019 (Form #940004).
Mr. Tucker said this appropriation request is in the amount of $1,624,019
for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program. This Program is an ongoing
rental assistance program offered by the Federal Department of Housing and
Urban Development. The Section 8-001 Program, which is funded through June
2002, provides housing assistance with 178 subsidies. The Section 8-002 Grant
Program provides 34 housing vouchers and the Section 8-003 Program provides
housing assistance for 35 units.
Mr. Perkins asked if this appropriation was for the Whitewood Road
project. Mr. Tucker answered, "no," although part of the funding for the
Whitewood Road project is included in this appropriation, but the appropria-
tion includes all of the rental subsidy housing vouchers.
Mrs. Humphris offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $1,624,019. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1994/95
FI/ND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR SECTION 8 HOUSING MODERATE
REHAB GRANT
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
000089
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1122781920300205
1122781920312800
1122781920579001
1122781920579002
1122781920579003
1122781920579004
1122781921300205
1122781921312800
1122781921579001
1122781921579003
1122781921579004
1122781900300205
1122781900800100
1122781922579001
1122781922579002
1122781922579003
1122781922579004
1122781922300205
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
AUDIT
HOUSING ASSISTANCE
VACANCY LOSS
DAMAGE/UNPAID RENT
UTILITY REIMBURSEMENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
AUDIT
HOUSING ASSISTANCE
DAMAGE/UNPAID RENT
UTILITY REIMBURSEMENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
$ 92,977 00
400 00
969,204 00
3,200 00
1,100 00
18,800 00
19,037.00
200.00
232,692.00
2,100.00
6,100.00
1,000.00
PRELIMINARY EQUIPMENT EXPENSE 8,625.00
HOUSING ASSISTANCE 251,571.00
VACANCY LOSS 800.00
DAMAGE/UNPAID RENT 300.00
UTILITY REIMBURSEMENTS 4,900.00
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE 11,013.00
TOTAL $1,624,019.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2122733000330015
2122733000330016
2122733000330017
SECTION 8-001 GRANT
SECTION 8-002 GRANT
SECTION 8-003 GRANT
TOTAL
$1,085,681.00
260,129.00
278,209.00
$1,624,019.00
Agenda Item No. 12c. Appropriation: Murray High School - $35,000 (Form
#940005).
Mr. Tucker said this appropriation request is for renovation projects at
Murray High School in the amount of $35,000. The School Board plans to
maintain the alternative high school at this location. Current funding does
not include the cost of $35,000 to air condition this space and install a
public address system which would completely modernize the room and make it
fully functional for graduations, assemblies, etc.
Mrs. Humphris offered motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $35,000. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1994/95
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR MURRAY PUBLIC ADDRESS
SYSTEM AND AIR CONDITIONER
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900060303800901
MURRAY-BUILDING RENOVATIONS
TOTAL
$35,000.00
$35,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900051000510100
CIP FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$35,000.00
$35,OOO.OO
Agenda Item No. 12a. Discussion: Thomas Jefferson Economic Development
Regional Partnership.
Mr. Martin said he would like to defer the discussion on this item.
Mrs. Humphris said she asked that this item be put on the agenda because
the representative on the Steering Committee has to take Albemarle County's
position on the regional partnership to a meeting on August 22. It seems to
her that this Board needs to have a discussion and state its position before
this issue goes forward. She thinks the Supervisors need to give this
proposal a lot of careful thought before anything else is done on it. The
Supervisors said, when they made a small amendment to its position on economic
development two years ago, that nothing more would be done about Albemarle
County's Economic Development Policy until the Comprehensive Plan review. Now
this Board is on the brink of doing something that is totally contrary to that
decision and contrary to the current economic development policy. She does
not think that anything should be done until the Board take time to discuss
the specific draft plan that is being proposed. This either needs to be done
tonight or before the Board's representative is allowed to go to another
meeting where he will be stating Albemarle County's position.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Tucker what will happen if he goes back to the
meeting without any direction from this Board. He wondered if the time frame
is such that a decision has to be made immediately. Mr. Tucker said the
Steering Committee is seeking input the localities in the region. If he does
not receive a reaction from this Board, then the County would have no input on
0000 )0
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
changes made to the draft plan. The draft plan would be forwarded to the
other localities in the region and this Board would then be asked to take a
position. He believes Mrs. Humphris is suggesting that this Board would
prefer not to take a position until after the review of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Bowerman said if Mr. Tucker receives no reaction from the Supervisors
tonight, then this Board would have no position. Mr. Tucker concurred. He
recalled that representatives have been before the Board requesting that the
Supervisors show some interest and support in joining the partnership and be a
part of the partnership in developing the draft. This is what has been done
and the next step is to see if this Board will buy into the plan from a
financial perspective, effective July 1, 1995.
Mr. Martin asked if it would be agreeable with the Supervisors to not
discuss this issue tonight. He does not feel he can handle the sort of
discussion needed on this issue. He is not at his best this late at night and
the previous public hearing was particularly draining for him. He would
rather Mr. Tucker go to the next meeting without direction from this Board,
and then the Supervisors can discuss this matter at their next Board meeting.
Mr. Perkins agreed.
Mr. Tucker said after this issue is reviewed by the Steering Committee,
it will go back to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Mr.
Perkins and Mrs. Thomas, who are on the Commission, will see the draft before
it goes out to the localities. Mr. Bowerman said the draft would go back to
the TJPDC without this Board's endorsement or any comment. Mr. Tucker
replied, "yes".
Mrs. Humphris said her position on this issue has not changed and will
not change. She carefully reviewed this proposal and she believes it is not
something Albemarle County citizens want. She will oppose this to the utmost
because she believes the citizens are telling the Supervisors not to put their
tax dollars into promoting growth in Albemarle County which is what this
proposal will do. She thinks the matter needs to be discussed in depth so
that there is no question in anybody's mind where this is leading. Regardless
of whether the County agrees to contribute $10 or $10,000, she thinks it will
result in using taxpayers' dollars to promote something in the County which
they do not want. She wants it clear that even though the Board is not
stating a position, it does not mean that she approves the proposal in any
way.
Mr. Martin said he wants to make it clear that just because Mrs. Humphris
has spoken she is not necessarily speaking for the whole Board. Mrs. Humphris
pointed out that she, very carefully, stated that one member of the Board was
not in favor of this proposal. Mr. Bowerman said he supports Mrs. Humphris'
position.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks this matter needs further discussion by the
Supervisors, but she is not at her best at this hour of the night. She urged
all of the Board members to examine the proposal, particularly the first three
years and to note what is actually being requested. She wonders if it takes
$200,000 to find out if the present businesses are happy and whether that
would be done better using a committee with advice from the agricultural and
forestal industry on what it would take to keep them a viable segment of the
economy.
At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to defer the discussion of the
Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Regional Partnership until the Board's
meeting on September 7, 1994. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion.
Mr. Perkins said the partnership is a new approach and it is different
from anything that has been done in the past. It deserves a close examination
and this Board cannot wait put everything on hold until the review of the
Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Humphris said she is ready to make a decision on
this proposal tonight. She does not have to wait for the review of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD~
Mrs. Thomas said she and Mrs. Humphris attended the Local Government
Officials Conference (LGOC). They heard that the Homestead is expected to
fill up early this year and the Supervisors are urged to immediately get in
reservations for the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) annual meeting in
November.
Mr. Martin said there is a vacancy on the Jordan Development corporation,
and he (Mr. Martin) was asked by the Supervisors to approach Mr. Jerry Jones
August 17, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
O0009 t
about this vacancy. Mr. Martin then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas,
to appoint Mr. Jerry Jones to the Jordan Development Corporation, with the
term to expire on August 13, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
At 11:50 p.m., Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board go into Executive
Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) (3) of the Code of Virginia to discuss
acquisition of property for a public road. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins', Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
At 11:57 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was
offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following
Certification of Executive Session:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma-
tive recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires
a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that
such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia
law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each
member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs Marshall, Martin, Perkins,
Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to August 24, 1994, 7:00 p.m., Room 5/6,
for Joint Meeting with Planning Commission.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to
adjourn to August 24, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., for a joint meeting with the
Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Chairman