Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-11000228 May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 11, 1994, 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, 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 and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 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. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humph- ris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.la and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Regional Jail, Commonwealth's Attorney and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the month of April, 1994. By the recorded vote shown above, these statements were approved as presented. Item 5.la. Resolution on Unfunded Mandates. By the recorded vote shown above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION REQUESTING SENATOR CHARLES S. ROBB TO CO-SPONSOR S. 993 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES WHEREAS, S. 993 has been introduced in the Senate of the United States by the Honorable Dick Kempthorne of Idaho; and WHEREAS, Senator Kempthorne's S. 993 will require the federal government to pay for the mandates that they impose on state and local governments and establish a fiscal note process so that when Congress votes on various measures affecting state and local governments, the members of Congress are aware of the fiscal impact; and WHEREAS, S. 993 is the most significant and far-reaching unfunded mandates legislation ever introduced by the Congress of the United States; and WHEREAS, as of May 1, 1994, Senator Kempthorne's bill had received 54 out of 100 Senate co-sponsors; and WHEREAS, Senator John Warner of Virginia has already dis- played his commitment to this issue by signing on to S. 993; and WHEREAS, although Senator Charles Robb has communicated his concern about unfunded mandates and has indicated that he "fully endorses the concept of identifying and restricting unfunded federal mandates," to date he has declined to co-sponsor S. 993; and WHEREAS, a recent NACo survey estimated that a minimum of 12 percent of local budgets support unfunded federal mandates; and WHEREAS, unfunded federal mandates regularly force tax increases and/or service cutbacks, restrict the rights of state and local voters and officials to determine their own priorities, and allow the Congress to avoid direct responsibility for increas- ing taxes; and WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States guarantees a federal, state and local partnership and unfunded federal mandates undermine the responsibility of the state and local level; and May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) 000229 W~EREAS, S. 993 is endorSed by the National Association of Counties, the United States Congress of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National School Boards Association, the National Governors Association, the Council of State Governments, and the National Conference of State Legislators; and WI4EREAS, reduction and elimination of unfunded mandates is the number one priority of the Virginia Association of Counties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervi- sors of Albemarle County, Virginia, requests Senator Charles Robb to demonstrate his concern about unfunded mandates to the local governments of the Commonwealth of Virginia by co-sponsorship of S. 993. Item 5.2. Copy of memorandum dated April 27, 1994, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, from Ms. Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering, re: Alternate 10 Alignment/Berkmar Drive North, received for information as follows: "Recently V DoT provided an aerial plan view of the revised align- ment being considered for Alternate 10. Both the north end and south end segments are under consideration for revision. The segment of Alternate 10 starting just west of Agnor-Hurt Elemen- tary School and travelling north to the terminus at Route 29 with respect to the Berkmar Drive North Extension CIP was reviewed. This north end segment is substantially parallel to and between the new Berkmar Drive section and SPCA Road. At a point behind Jim Price Chevrolet, Alternate 10 overlaps SPCA Road then contin- ues north on the west side of the Sheraton, across the river, then turns east to intersect Route 29 at the same location as the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway. The Alternate 10 alignment, as shown, does not directly impact the Berkmar Drive alignment. Regardless, there are several properties that front on the west side of Berkmar Drive that will be signifi- cantly impacted. The SPCA property will be cut into two parcels. With a right-of-way varying from 100 to 200 feet wide, Alternate 10 will just fit between SPCA Road and Berkmar Drive at the point behind Jim Price Chevrolet. It may be the best design for Alter- nate 10 to be contiguous with Berkmar Drive and not leave an unusable strip of land between the two right-of-ways. There are several cemeteries in the vicinity that must be considered and may affect the feasibility. As I understand, VDoT either is or has hired a consultant to evaluate the revised alignment but no further information has been made available. In the meantime, I anticipate that several property owners that have supported the Berkmar Drive project in a cooperative manner may request special consideration for interim use of parcels that will front the new road and are in the path of Alternate 10." Item 5.3. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for April 12, 1994, received for information. Item 5.4. Letter dated April 26, 1994, from Ms. Mary Ann Wilson, Acting State Coordinator, Department of Housing and Urban Development, re: notice of reorganization, received for information. Item 5.5. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for March 28, 1994, received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation. Mr. Perkins presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Ms. Elly Tucker for her service on the Children and Youth Commission. Ms. Tucker served on the Children and Youth Commission from November 14, 1990, through June 30, 1993. Ms. Tucker was one of the original County appointees. Throughout her tenure on the Commission, Ms. Tucker was an energetic advocate for children and youth in the Charlottesville/Albemarle community. She served on several subcommittees including childcare and the needs assessment process for the Comprehensive Plan. Ms Tucker was instrumental in the development of the town forums for the Comprehensive Plan for children and youth. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-70.01 to receive comments on the Fiscal Years 1994/95-1999/2000 Six Year Secondary Road Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 25 and May 2, 1994.) Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public on this item, the public hearing was closed. May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) 000: , 0 Mrs. Humphris referred to a memorandum the Board received at its April 6, 1994, meeting that the County would receive an additional $1,624,360 during this six year period. From reviewing the construction program estimated allocations she found that although the County received an additional $2.9 million in federal funds, the County's allocation from the state was reduced by approximately $1.3 million. She wanted to know why the state reduced its allocation. Mr. Roosevelt said the information concerning the additional monies the County would receive and the construction program estimated allocations are charts that were generated by his office. The estimated allocations chart is a comparison of new allocations versus old allocations. This listing sepa- rates the funds for each year within the budget into three categories; new surface treatment or gravel road improvements, projects that are eligible for federal aid, and other money which is state aid. The column showing federal aid does not mean those are federal funds designated for use in Albemarle County. That column shows funds that are going to projects for federal aid. As the projects go through the preliminary engineering and program process, the Department will determine whether federal aid can be applied to them. Mrs. Humphris again questioned the estimated allocations for federal funds. Mr. Roosevelt said the information shown is provided to the Secondary Roads Division so they can confirm that the six year financial plan allocates the minimum amount of funds to gravel road improvements, and this information lets them know how much of each year's allocation can be programmed for federal projects. One of the functions of the Secondary Roads Division is to make sure that there are enough federally eligible projects so as to be certain to use all available federal funds each year. He again said that the figures shown in the column under federal funds are not funds allocated to Albemarle County; that is the amount for projects that are eligible for federal funds. The only figure that is a true allocation is the figure shown in the "total" column. The three columns are reporting information from him to the Secondary Roads Division so they can keep track of the different categories of funds. Mrs. Humphris asked what is the correct amount for Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not have that information, but will get it to the Board. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board is going to go with the estimate that was provided at the May 4 Board meeting for Meadow Creek. Mr. Roosevelt said the Six Year Plan is actually two documents; it is the county's priority list and it is a financial spreadsheet. In that financial spreadsheet he has estimated the cost of the Meadow Creek Parkway at approximately $10.0 million. If additional information shows that the cost of Meadow Creek is different from what was provided to the Board, then the financial portion of the plan can be modified and would not affect the priority list. The purpose of this public hearing is to adopt a priority list and after that list is adopted, his function is to fund those priorities in the order in which the Board has designated. He agrees that the Board should have accurate information on the cost of each of these projects. The differ- ence between $5.0 million and $10.0 million can determine where the Board wants to put a priority. He will get the information on Meadow Creek to the Board. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the FY 1994-95 through FY 1999-2000 Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Mr. Martin said he will support the motion, but he hopes that during the next year, the Board needs to think about increasing the amount of money it allocates to gravel road improvements rather than providing the minimum. He also added that $17.5 million is a lot of money to build the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 and it does not make sense if those T- connectors into Forest Lakes and Hollymead are not going to be built. That is another issue the Board needs to discuss. Also, during the next year, he will try to improve the location of Route 649, Airport Road, on the priority list. He thinks the Board needs to look at moving that project up on the priority list. At this time roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Mr. Roosevelt informed the Board that the Department completed its regular six month inspection on the Moorman's River Bridge at Millington. During that inspection additional deterioration was discovered. The Bridge Engineer indicated that he can support only a one ton weight limit on that bridge. The Department closed the bridge at 2:00 p.m. today. He met with the Bridge Engineer at the site. It appears after investigation and his closer review that the Department can make some repairs which, if the materials are available, can be done as early as Friday. Hopefully the bridge can open again by Friday afternoon at its old limit of three tons. Without belaboring the point, he thinks the county has "dodged the bullet" He fully expects the next time the Department does an inspection it will find other deterioration which will probably run them through the same routine of having to make May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) 000231 emergency repairs. He can see from reviewing the pictures made during this inspection there is full scale deterioration occurring on the bridge, which at this time is more rust than steel. He would be glad to meet with any of the Board members to discuss in more detail the inspection report and the pic- tures. (The adopted Plan is set out in full on the next two pages:) 000;~3;~ May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (:Page 5) O0 ,~, , ~, ,&~&, , '&& ~§~o~§~§oo§oo§§oo§§§~.~.§oo§~.o~ ~ oo oo oo oo oooooOOOO~.~.~.o~.O~.o o N May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 6) Izzzzz~wwmmmm~mzzzzzzzz1 ~ / oooooooooooooooooo ~ /ooxxxooooooooooooooooo~i ooozaa 000;834 May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 7) Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Section 2-1, Number, Appointment, etc., of Members of School Board to implement the election framework for the School Board and to establish the number of School Board members to be elected. There are two alternatives being considered: Alternative #1 proposes to establish seven members with one member being elected from each election district and one member being elected at-large; and Alternative ~2 proposes to establish six members with one member being elected from each election district and abolish- ing the at-large member's position effective December 31, 1995. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 25 and May 2, 1994.) Mr. Davis said adoption of either of the two alternative advertised for public input would implement an elected school board. One question that has been raised is whether the Board has the authority to eliminate the at-large position prior to the first election of the school board. He has researched this issue and consulted with the Attorney General's office. It is the Attorney General's office opinion, of which he concurs, that the Board has the legal authority to eliminate the at-large position. This issue was specifi- cally raised by the United States Justice Department in its review of the state's Voting Rights Act submittal on enabling legislation for elected school boards. As part of that review, the state Attorney General's office opined that such an at-large position could be, at the local jurisdiction's discre- tion, eliminated prior to the election. Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Ms. Karen Strickland, a resident of Earlysville, asked why the Board is considering eliminating the at-large position from the school board. Mr. Perkins said some Board members felt it would be difficult for a person to manage a campaign county-wide and that such a campaign would be expensive. Mrs. Humphris said another important reason is that seven members on the school board has caused some significant problems when one member is absent. Currently if one of the school board members is absent and there is a tie vote, then the school board cannot deal with that item until at a later meeting when all seven members are present. However, if there were six members on the school board, it would not have to operate under that rule. In her opinion that is significant because it can hold up the business of the school board on important issues. Mr. Martin said with six members on this Board there are times that there is no resolution of an item because of a three to three tie vote. There may be closure of the issue, but there is no definitive answer. Mrs. Humphris said this Board is able to move ahead, but the school board is not. Mr. Marshall said he has not made up his mind which way to vote but he is leaning towards Alternative #2. He agrees that it is expensive to run a campaign county-wide and he thinks the expense will result in a special inter- est group getting control. He does not think that is in the best interest of the citizens of the County. Although it has not worked out that way, he feels the seventh member was created so there would be a minority on the school board. He thinks there would be more of an opportunity for a minority to get elected to the school board by concentrating on one particular district. Mr. James Butler, representing the Albemarle Branch of the NAACP, said there have been several discussions within the group and with other citizens in the County. The NAACP recommends that the Board adopt Alternative 1. The system used through the years has proven to be unsatisfactory to a number of citizens who are concerned about the education of the children. He personally feels that this is one of the most important issues in the County. He has lived in this county since 1953 and since that time he has been involved with many activities and committees related to education. He has helped raise five children who were a part of this system. He feels that each group that lives in a multi-cultural society needs to be represented, needs to work together and needs to see that the children are properly educated. He feels that the at-large representative needs to remain on the school board. He can under- stand the concern of the cost to run a campaign, but he also understands that to get something, one must pay for it. If a minority cannot get the money to wage a campaign, then that person does not deserve the position. He believes that the people in the county are fair minded and will seriously consider any candidate running for the school board. He urged the Board to keep the seventh member on the school board. Mr. Rollin Stanton said he is concerned about the actions of this Board. He noted in the minutes of April 6, 1994, a considerable amount of time was spent on the issue related to the composition of the school board. Last November the voters said they wanted an elected school board, which at that time the membership on the school board was seven. It seems to him the voters have spoken. He does not understand the Board's decision to use valuable meeting time to fix something that is not broken. He does not think the seventh member on the school board represents an impediment to its function. OOO2,35 May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) He does not think a six member board versus a seven member board could do a better job with coming up with a balanced budget or a budget that the citizens could understand. It appears to him that the only thing that six members versus seven members will do is save the county taxpayers about $3000 a year. He noted that three of the Board members are concerned about the at-large candidate, i.e., the unfair burden on candidates who must run at-large as opposed to candidates running in magisterial districts. He does not think there is a comparison. All candidates running for the at-large seat will have the same playing field. Regarding special interest groups, he thinks there are some special interests groups that should have the opportunity to support a candidate. A minority candidate would be great and that is a simple way to do it. There may be a candidate who wants to spend the money on a county-wide election. This is an important position. The school board must decide how to spend 70 percent of the county's budget and then pass that on to this Board. A seven-member school board has been in existence since 1972. If there had been a compelling reason for six members, then a change would have been made in the last 22 years. He urged this Board to leave the makeup of the school board the way it is. Mention was made that if seven members are not present and there is a tie vote, nothing gets done. Maybe that is the way it should be done. Maybe too many decisions are made when the board is shorthanded. He thinks it would be imprudent, improper and maybe illegal to eliminate this position. His other concern has to do with the minutes of the meetings of Board proceedings. It takes anywhere from three to four weeks to get a copy of the minutes of Board meetings. The minutes of the meetings are not available until long after the public hearings are held. Me asked that the Board try to find a way whereby the minutes of the meetings, whether School Board or Board of Supervisors are available by Friday of the week of the meeting. Mr. John Carter, a resident of Earlysville, suggested that it might be a good idea for the Board of Supervisors' office to record on tape a particular subject matter that someone is interested in and sell the tape to them. It both puzzles and perturbs him that this Board is considering reducing the size of the present school board by eliminating the at-large position. For more than 20 years the Board could have eliminated that position, but it chose not to. He challenges anyone to find in the present law where it states the Board can change the composition of the present appointed school board. The new law does not state the Board can do this. The purpose of the law is that when the people voted for an elected school board, they would have in place a school board exactly like the one appointed. Unless the Attorney General of Virginia reverses his 1990 opinion, the Board can abolish a duly elected at-large member of the school board in 1998. The issue is not what the old law says, it is what the new law requires. Ms. Sara Reynolds, said she agrees with Mr. Stanton that when the referendum was put on the ballot, it referred to the current makeup of the school board. She does not think the cost to run a campaign county-wide should be an issue. She does think there could be some inherent problems when one-half of the school board is appointed and the other one-half is elected. She agrees that the current makeup of the school board should remain in place. Ms. Shirley Chapman, a resident of the Rivanna District, suggested that the Board retain the seventh at-large member. She served on the committee that made the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to add this seventh member. She continues to feel that a minority has a better chance at being elected when there are seven members on the school board. Mr. Marshall said in 1972 the Board added the at-large position to the school board so there would be a minority. That is what he is trying to maintain. He does not want some special interest group getting control of that position. His point is that 14 percent of the population in Albemarle County is minority. He contends that a minority would have a better chance at election in one of the magisterial districts if all of the efforts are concentrated there. Mrs. Chapman said in order for any candidate to win, he or she will need votes from everyone, not just the minority vote. Mr. Martin said although he does not think there is any direct correla- tion, the at-large position was created for a certain purpose. There are a lot of people in the community who fought for that position and they are upset to see it eliminated even though it will be an elected position. There is no district in this county where a candidate would be able to get just the black vote and win the election; the candidate needs votes from everyone. There will probably be three or four special interest groups with candidates. All the candidates will be running on an even playing field. He does not think the Board should take away something that the people fought for. Each candidate will need to get the support of white, black, young, old, rich, etc., because that is the only way he or she will win. Mr. John Carter then added that if a quality candidate runs, he or she will win. May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) 000236 Mrs. Karen Strickland again addressed the Board. Mrs. Strickland said the reasons she has heard from the Board to eliminate the seventh member are issues that should be the decision of the person running for election. She is in support of maintaining a seven member school board. She thinks democracy is based on as much representation as possible. There is an opportunity for more opinions to be expressed with seven members. Hopefully the six members would address the needs of their districts, and the seventh member would look at the interest of the whole county. Thus far she does not see much validity in the reasons she has heard to eliminate the seventh member. At this time, there being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Martin said he thinks if the Board looks at this issue rationally and looks at the pros and cons, there is no major difference in having six or seven members on the school board. On the other hand there are people with strong emotional feelings. If there is no major difference, then why not do what the people want. He cannot understand the Board voting against what the citizens obviously want unless there is a rational and concrete reason that is in the best interest of the entire county. He then offered motion to adopt an Ordinance (Alternative 1) to amend and reordain Chapter 2 of the Code of Albemarle to implement the election framework for the School Board and to establish the number of School Board members to be elected. Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. She felt strongly that the Board should have this public hearing and have both options set out before the public because this is an important decision. She was hoping tonight to hear arguments on the pros and cons and was disappointed that so much time was spent simply chastising the Board for what it was doing as opposed to provid- ing those pros and cons. She is glad the Board had this hearing and discus- sion, and thinks it is exactly the way issues should be taken to a public hearing. She is concerned that the at-large position may seem to give that person a different sort of weight on the school board, but that is something the school board will handle. She is willing to go with what has been a consensus of the group this evening. Mrs. Humphris said it disturbs her to hear implications that Board members had ulterior motives in discussions leading up to this public hearing. She does not think any of these Board members have a personal stake in whether there are six or seven members on the school board. The Board was merely trying to wrestle with a problem that is facing localities all over the state. She still believes there will be concerns in terms of time, effort and cost for the at-large candidates. She is also concerned about the perception that the at-large position will wield more power because of its position. She totally disagrees with the idea that the magisterial district representatives on the school board should give their attention to their own district and not to the county at-large and leave that to the at-large member. She believes that every member on the school board, no matter how appointed or elected, is responsible for dealing with all the problems of this county, not just limiting their work to their district. It is shortsighted to think in those terms. If the people believe this is the best way to get a minority on the school board, then she will respect their judgement. Mr. Marshall said he came into this meeting with his mind one way and now he is moving in another direction. He wants to make sure that there is minority representation on the school board. He thinks it is important that all of the citizens are represented. He will support the motion. Mr. Bowerman said he was leaning towards six members because he did not see any benefit to the seventh member. Mr. Martin has made a good point. He can support seven members because he thinks if there are groups that have an interest in that position, regardless of the difficulty of the election, they should be given the opportunity. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (The adopted Ordinance is set out in full below:) An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 2, Administration Article I, IN GENERAL, of the Code of Albemarle BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, In General, is hereby amended and reordained by amend- 000237 May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) ing Section 2-1, Number, appointment, etc. of members of school board, as follows: Sec. 2-1. School board. The school board of the county shall be composed of seven (7) members elected by the voters of the county. One member shall be a resident of each election district, and shall be elected by the voters of that election district, and one member shall be a resident of the county at-large, and shall be elected by the voters of the county at-large. School board members shall be elected for four-year terms; the term of each member elected by election district shall be coterminous with the term of the board of supervisors member for that district. The initial election shall be held pursuant to Section 22.1-57.3 of the Code of Virgin- ia. The existing appointed school board members shall continue in office until their elected replacements take office pursuant to Section 22.1-57.3 of the Code of Virginia. Any vacancy in the office of an elected school board member shall be filled pursuant to Sections 24.2-226 and 24.2-227 of the Code of Virginia. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(c) of the Code of Albemarle known as the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District" The proposed addition consists of 178.090 acs located between Rt 610 & Rt 612 off Rt 20N described as TM63,P28. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 25 and May 2, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file with the permanent records of the Board. He noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 12, 1994, by a vote of 6/1, recommended the inclusion of Tax Map 63, Parcels 28 and 28A back into the Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District. The reason for the dissenting vote was the possibility that the Planning Commission may want to expand the Urban Growth Area to the Eastham District area during the upcoming Comprehensive Plan review. Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. There being no one present to speak to this item, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt an Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(c) of the Code of Albemarle known as the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District". Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (The adopted Ordinance is set out in full below:) An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Section 2.1-4(c) of the Code of Albemarle known as the "Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District" BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4, subsection (c) of the Code of Albemarle, known as the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District, be amend and reenacted to read as follows: (c) The district known as the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 63, parcels 1, IA, iAI, 2, 4, 14G, 14H, 14I, 26, 26A, 27, 28, 28A, 30F, 30G, 4lA, 41Al. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-94-05. Peter Goebel. Public Hearing on a request for a Home Occupation Class B for a tinsmith/coppersmith on 1.2 acs zoned RA. Located on W sd of Rt 691 approx 300 ft N of Rt 684. TM54,P34(part) . White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 25 and May 2, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file with the permanent records of the Board. He noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 12, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of SP-94-05 subject to one condition. Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Mr. Peter Goebel, the applicant, said he had no comments, but would answer any questions Board members had. 000238 May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) There being no one else from the public to speak concerning this item, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-94-05 subject to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (Set out below is the condition of approval: 1. Compliance with Section 5.2.2.1. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-94-08. Virginia Rowing. Public Hearing on a request to construct a boat house, adjacent parking & relocate a boat dock for a boating athletic facility on 5.584 acs zoned PA. Located on E sd of Rt 676 approx 0.38 mi N of Rt 676/Rt 743 inters. TM45,Ps6D&6D2. Jack Jouett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 25 and May 2, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file with the permanent records of the Board. He noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 12, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of SP-94-08 subject to seven conditions. Mrs. Humphris asked how the recommendations made by the Water Resources Manager relate to this special permit and how those recommendations are enforced. Mr. Cilimberg said the recommended conditions of approval for the special permit included recommendations from the Engineering Department and those recommended by the Water Resources Manager. Some of the recommendations are related to operations on the Reservoir which are separately enforced through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and are not directly related to this proposal. Mr. Tucker added that those recommendations refer to the actual use on the water and this request is for the use on the site. Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Mr. Kevin Sauer, the applicant, said he had no comments, but would answer any questions Board members had. There being no one else from the public to speak concerning this item, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-94-08 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (Set out below are the conditions of approval:) Development shall be in general accord with the plan titled "Proposed UVA Rowing Assoc., Boathouse" and initialed WDF 3/31/94 (copy on file); 2 o The new boathouse shall be similar in facade to a single- family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other struc- ture normally expected in a rural area; Design of walkway shall be approved by the Water Resource Manager; Provision of a permanent diversion berm to direct runoff from the proposed development to the existing pond; Provision of a single row of screening trees adjacent to the parking area adjacent to Tax Map 45, Parcels 5D3 and 5D4; Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new boathouse, the following shall be completed: Cutting of all trees and brush growing on the existing dam; b. Unclogging the principal spillway of the dam; Ail existing dirt/gravel roads for which no upgrade is proposed shall be abandoned and permanent vegetation in- stalled. 000239 May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) Agenda Item No. 12. SP-94-09. Mt. Carmel Church. Public Hearing on a request for an addition of approx 322 sq ft on 2.0 ac zoned RA. Located on W sd of Rt 810 about a mile N of Mountfair. TM14,P31B. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 25 and May 2, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file with the permanent records of the Board. He noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 12, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of SP-94-09 subject to two conditions. Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Mr. Don Nobles, representing the applicant, said this is a grassroots church which has been in existence for 100 years. The church needs a place to entertain people during homecoming. They only have a shed and when it rains everybody has to run into the church. The church also serves the needy and elderly with meals, and needs somewhere to prepare the meals once a month. He asked for the Board's approval. A person who did not identify himself said the church people want to be able to eat inside a building and not eat outside. He asked that the Board support the request. There being no one else from the public to speak concerning this item, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-94-09 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (Set out below are the conditions of approval:) 1. Church expansion limited to not more than 350 square feet; 2 o Usage of the church to be limited to worship and related services only. Use of the church for non-congregational activities such as a day care, youth groups, food services and the like, shall warrant amendment of this special use permit. Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 24(A) and December 1, 1993; and April Ii(A), 1994. Mr. Martin had read the minutes of March 24(A), 1993, and December 1, 1993, and found them both to be in order. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of April ii(A), 1994 and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker said the Board recently offered the University of Virginia an opportunity to participate on the Housing Committee. Today he received a recommendation from Mr. Leonard Sandridge to appoint Mr. Richard Kovatch, Assistant Vice President for Business Operations, which also includes the responsibility of the Housing Division at the University of Virginia. Mr. Bowerman offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint Mr. Richard A. Kovatch, to the Albemarle Housing Committee, with said term to expire on December 31, 1994. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Mr. Perkins said he has talked to several people, including Mr. Lloyd Wood, who have asked that this Board reconsider SP-93-34, Putt-Putt Golf & Games. He has talked to the County Attorney about this issue. Mr. Wood would 000;840 May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) like to bring this request back before the Board with some modifications, specifically the elimination of the go-karts. The procedure needed by this Board is to suspend its Rules of Procedure. Mr. Marshall then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, that the Board suspend Rule F7 of the Board's Rules of Procedure so that the Board may consider rescinding a vote previously taken by the Board on a special permit (SP-93-34; Putt-Putt Golf & Games). Mrs. Humphris said she will not support the motion to suspend the Board's rules. She thinks that would start the Board off on a never-ending saga of requests to suspend the rules and then to reconsider items. She talked to Mr. Wood at length before that meeting and even suggested to him the possibility of him excluding the go-karts from his proposal. Mr. Wood had every opportunity during the meeting to do that; he did not want to do so. She thinks Mr. Wood should follow proper procedure and if he wants to bring this request before the Board again, wait until the proper time. She thinks it would be a big mistake to suspend the Board's rules. There is no compel- ling reason to do so. Mr. Bowerman concurred. In December this issue was brought up at the request of AdventureLand, and there was no motion to suspend the Board's rules for exactly the same reason mentioned by Mrs. Humphris. At that time Adven- tureLand wanted to bring back their request with a different underlying zoning. Even if this request were to come back to the Board in a modified form, as long as it had the same items in it, he would have the same concerns, and would not support it. He was concerned about items other than the go- karts. He will not support the motion to suspend the Board's rules. Mr. Martin said he supports the motion because the Board had a large public hearing, a lot of people spoke and by far 95 percent of the people spoke against the go-karts. A couple of people mentioned the batting cages and some people asked questions about the bumper boats. It is not his feeling that the Board should take action tonight. The public should have the opportunity to hear what is now being proposed. Since the applicant has modified his proposal to get rid of an objection that 95 percent of the people had, he thinks the Board should rehear the request. Mrs. Humphris said if the Board does this, because there is no overrid- ing reason to do it, the Board is setting a precedent for other applicants to make the same request. Mr. Wood knew before the meeting that he would have a better chance if he omitted the go-karts; he had an opportunity to do so during the meeting; he chose not to, and she does not think he should be given any special privilege now. She feels strongly about this issue. Mr. Marshall said he brought the issue of omitting the go-karts during the meeting, and Mr. Bowerman said he would still not support the request. Mr. Davis said he has examined the issue of whether the one year delay applies to special use permits. He has not had an opportunity to talk to the Zoning Administrator, but his review of the ordinance seems to reveal that the delay only applies to zoning map amendments and not to special use permits. This issue is addressed in two different sections of the Zoning Ordinance and that one year delay applies only to zoning map amendments. The State Code clearly enables the Board to adopt a time limit for special use permits but it does not appear that the Board has adopted the language. If the applicant chooses to reapply, he thinks he could do that without waiting, but it would require submittal of a new application and fee. Mr. Bowerman again said he does not think the Board would be able to get its business done if it does this. Mr. Martin said the Board has suspended its rules before on other requests. Mr. Bowerman said the Board suspended its rules due to a lawsuit on a request in Crozet when the court system ruled that the Board had to change its action. The Board also suspended its rules for an application in North Garden because the applicant came up with a plan that accommodated something that could be done by-right and was a better plan than what came in as the original request. In addition, the Supervisor from the district brought the request before the Board. Mrs. Thomas said she is interested in the County Attorney's opinion that there is no reason this could not come through the regular process. If the Board suspends its rules, it is essentially saying that the Board will allow an amended proposal to go through the Planning staff, Planning Commission and come to the Board; and as it turns out the Board does not have to suspend its rules for that to happen. The difference is the fee and the precedent set by the Board to suspend its rules. She is not opposed to the applicant being able to bring back a changed proposal before the Board in less than a years' time, but it sounds like he can do that. 00024:1 May 11, 1994 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) Mr. Martin said he thinks the scope of the applicant's change is grounds for suspending the Board's rules. If there is a process the applicant can do this and not wait a whole year, he would prefer that process. Mr. Perkins said he thinks Mr. Wood felt that if he (Mr. Perkins) had been present at the meeting, he could have made a difference in the outcome. He thought there was a lot of public support for this request. He has received a lot of letters, telephone calls and there have been many letters to the editor. There was and still is a lot of support for this proposal. He thinks the majority of the people in Albemarle County are looking for this type entertainment for their children. Mrs. Humphris said the Board has to look at issues other than what people are writing to the editor. The people who are writing letters to the editor are looking at fun; this Board is looking at an obligation. One of the Board's major obligations is the apartment complex that is scheduled for construction next to this property. The Board should not be arguing this issue at this time, but the Board cannot make a judgement based on what would be fun. At this time, roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Marshall and Martin. NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Chairman