Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-08December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) O00g?5 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 8, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. There were none. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Hum- phris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.5 and 5.6 and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Item 5.1. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for October 14, 1993, received for information. Item 5.2. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for November 9, 1993, was received for information. Item 5.3. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority for October 25, 1993, received for information. Item 5.4. Letter dated November 29, 1993, from Mr. Nelson J. Shaw, Area Forester, Albemarle County, Department of Forestry, re: notice that Tax Map 136, Parcel 29, appears to have a small infestation of Southern Pine Beetle, received for information. Item 5.5. Appoint Mr. Richard E. Huff, II, Deputy County Executive, to the PACC-Tech Committee to replace Mr. Robert B. Brandenburger. By the recorded vote shown above, Mr. Huff was appointed to the PACC-Tech Committee. Item 5.6. Appoint Mr. Pete Craddock to the Milton Airport Study Advisory Committee to replace Mr. Gerald Dixon. By the recorded vote shown above, Mr. Craddock was appointed to the Milton Airport Study Advisory Committee. Agenda Item No. 6. Discussion: Corville Farm Subdivision, central well system, request for funding (deferred from December 1, 1993). Mr. Tucker said the request for funding was discussed at the last Board meeting. The discussion was deferred until this meeting to allow Mr. Casero to be present and to address specific issues such as whether certain alterna- tives had been explored. Mr. Joseph Casero first thanked the Board for the sensitivity it has shown towards this matter on behalf of a small number of constituents. One of the alternatives mentioned was cracking which is an attempt to extract a formation to induce a greater flow. Mr. Hank Tiffany, the previous owner, tried that method on the well located below the subdivision and it was an absolute, total failure. The formation is extremely tight. He was told the flow of the well when it went out of service was approximately eight gallons per minute. There is no reason to believe that the flow would be less. The Virginia Department of Health also verified the eight gallons per minute as continual flow. He thinks that the system which has been outlined, and concurred by the County Engineer, along with the storage capacity of all the wells should provide sufficient water for the foreseeable future. This also means that by cutting back on the pumping rate from the other two wells, there will be some degree of recharge. The extreme pumping rate from the other two wells is the problem for the draw-down which has been ongoing for a number of December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 000276 years. The formation is extremely hard rock and there are few fissures and cavities which would bring in additional water. Cracking is not the answer in this case. He believes that removal of the old pump, installation of a 30 stage unit with check valves within the system to prevent pressure losses and additional storage capacity would provide the added volume and would solve the problem. Mr. Bain asked what is the current storage capacity. Mr. Casero said there is currently one, 5000 gallon tank which is in good condition and normally kept at seven-eights full. Lately this tank has only been three- quarters full with both wells operating at full speed. Mr. Bain asked how large is the additional storage tank and if that tank is estimated in the cost. Mr. Casero said the storage capacity of the additional tank is between 500 and 800 gallons. Mrs. Humphris said it seems to her that if the Board grants this request due to the financial circumstance of the residents, the income levels of the residents should be documented so that if a similar situation arises in the future, the Board can justify not having set a precedent. The two important issues are the income levels of the residents and the statement by Mr. Casero that he has paid out all that he can afford to pay. She thinks those two issues need to be documented. This assistance should also be with the under- standing that it is one-time only. Mr. Bain asked if the Board could use County tax records on the assessed values of the homes to document this as a means of providing affordable housing. Mr. St. John said he believes one of the reasons this subdivision was approved had to do with providing affordable housing in the Greenwood area. Mr. Tucker said staff can look at the real estate appraisals on the properties and show the assessed values. At this time there was a consensus of the Board to defer further action on this request until December 15, 1993, to allow staff time to draft a resolution to allow the Board to move forward on the request for funding assistance to Mr. Casero. The resolution should include the reasons for the request, the affordable housing issue, efforts made thus far by Mr. Casero and document the exception to the income levels. (Mr. Martin left the meeting at 7:19 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on a request from A. G. Dillard to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) to include Tax Map 79, Parcel 4P, located in Hunter's Hall Subdivision, for water service. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 24 and December 1, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg said when the Board set this request for public hearing, it requested more information on the implications of the designation. The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) indicated that it can provide this service if requested by the Board, but the designation would require a unique rating for charges which would have to be determined, initially, on a case-by- case basis. The ACSA does not currently charge for use of water for fire protection through fire hydrants. It has no existing individual service for fire suppression. The only precedent for service to provide fire protection was the Board's adoption of a policy (October 9, 1991) allowing fire hydrants on existing water lines in the Rural Areas that are outside of the ACSA's service area boundaries. By existing Comprehensive Plan policy, any service area change outside of designated growth areas should be made only when property is adjacent to existing lines and public health and safety is endangered. The Plan also warns that extension of utilities to the Rural Areas can increase development pressures. The Board, in setting this public hearing, determined that water service for fire suppression may address a public health or safety concern. Since this request will not cause extension of water lines into new develop- ment areas, the potential for increased development pressure from this request is minimal. Mr. Cilimberg said it is possible that similar requests could be received in the future (the nearby United Parcel building currently has a sprinkler system). The ACSA can provide the service and an appropriate rating for charges, therefore, staff can recommend approval of this request for "water only to existing structures" for fire suppression only. Mrs. Humphris asked if the structure has already been remodeled. Mr. Cilimberg said there have been some work towards the remodeling. Mrs. Humphris asked when the building permit was issued. Mr. Cilimberg did not know; but said the Inspections Department indicated the need for the sprinkler system when it was reviewing the additional work to the building. Mrs. Humphris wanted to know if the remodeling had begun before the building permit was issued, therefore, this request is after the fact. Mr. Cilimberg again said some the work had been started, but he did not know if the work had been completed. Mrs. Humphris noted that the Inspections Department stated that the applicant had been strongly encouraged by Inspections to put in a sprin- kler system. There is a difference between "requiring" and "strongly encour- December 8, 1993 (Regular Night'Meeting) (Page 3) aging". Mr. Cilimberg said there are mechanisms to address fire codes, other than sprinklers. Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Alan G. Dillard said his main concern with not being able to connect to public water is ~he cost of a storage tank. He received a rough estimate of approximately $40,000 for the cost of a storage tank. It is his under- standing that a storage tank is not nearly as reliable as connecting to public water. He also does not think a tank should be required when there is a water line running through the property. He asked that the Board vote favorably for the request. Mr. Tom Trevillian, the engineer, said there are other alternatives, such as a substance that can be sprayed on the walls to make the steel beams resistent to flames, but that would do nothing for the firemen in the building fighting a fire. That does not stop or put out the fire. The estimated cost of a tank and pump is approximately $40,000. There is a chance a pump system would not work, when needed, if it had not been used for several years. All pumps operate off electricity. If a fire was the result of an electrical breakdown, there would be no system. He thinks for the safety of the employ- ees and fire prevention personnel in the County, the most reasonable choice would be allow connection to water. Mrs. Humphris asked about the sequence of events and whether the renovations were complete. Mr. Dillard said they started the building renova- tions and as they got into the details thought the County needed to be involved. Inspections then .indicated that the renovations would require a sprinkler system. Mrs. Humphris asked if the system was "strongly encouraged" or "required". Mr. Trevillian said the Inspections Department "strongly recommended". Mrs. Humphris asked how long the renovations have been ongoing. Mr. Dillard said the renovations were started in September and lasted about 30 to 45 days. Mrs. Humphris asked when was a building permit issued. Mr. Trevill- ian said the applicant has not applied for a building permit. Mr. Marshall asked how many people would work in the building. Mr. Dillard responded that ten people would work in the building. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Ms. Pat Napoleon, a life-long resident of Keswick, said the Comprehen- sive Plan visions for the Village of Rivanna expressly restricts use of water lines recently installed along Route 250 East. The Plan states: "Areas north of Interstate-64 have historic, scenic significance to the County and region, including possible designation of a rural historical district and have large acreage in agricultural/forestal districts. To further preserve and protect these resources, water lines should be sized to serve the Village and Stone Robinson School only. Capacity shall be reserved for a potential new school in the Village until such time as determined that the school is not neces- sary.'' Allowing the requested amendment to the jurisdictional areas would be contrary to this and other provisions of the Plan. Approval of this request would lead to the proliferation of connections and development along the route of this water line which the residents of Keswick feared when Glenmore was first proposed, and which they were repeatedly assured by the Board would be prevented. She asked that the Board show the residents they can rely on the Plan and the assurances of the Board by denying this application. Ms. Treva Cromwell, speaking for the League of Women Voters, presented a statement (copy on file) strongly urging the Board to deny the request to amend the service area boundaries to include water service to this property. The League does not feel that lower costs only to a land owner should be a criterion for granting use of public water. Secondly, the staff report' clearly shows this request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which warns that extension of utilities to Rural Areas can produce pressures for development. This water line along Route 250 East and its potential for development was a major issue during most of 1989 when the Glenmore proposal for residential development was being debated. There was fear on the part of many residents of that area that the presence of a water line would bring pressures for tap-ins and spur development. The residents were assured that the Service Authority's jurisdictional area would be limited to the growth area. Limiting the service area is the key to preventing strip development along Route 250. Therefore, expanding the Service Authority's jurisdictional area is the first step in weakening the commitment to resist development pressures. The League does not agree with the staff's statement that the potential for increased development from this particular request is minimal. Approval of this request would set a precedent and would undoubtedly trigger other requests, not only along this water line, but along other water lines in the County. Ms. Cromwell said that in 1989, the League supported the village designation, but warned that the League was concerned about the increased pressure for strip development along that corridor. Only if firm boundaries are set now does the County have a chance to resist those pressures. The County did set firm boundaries by restricting the Service Authority's juris- dictional area to tke designated growth area. The League strongly urges the Board to support that policy by denying this request tonight. December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 000 78 Ms. Lisa Glass, speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), presented a statement (copy on file). PEC regards this application as having potentially significant ramifications to the entire Route 250 East corridor, but does not think there is enough information in the record to take a position, other than to recommend that the Board defer action on this request until more information is provided. PEC needs to know how the Board would treat requests from other landowners adjacent to this line for water service, if this were approved; would the Board be able to deny requests from these other landowners, if this request is approved; does the applicant have other means of fire suppression available and how have other existing uses in this area satisfied their need for fire suppression; would the cost of this service and the connections be paid solely by the applicant or would it be subsidized by the existing customers of the Service Authority; and is it practical to limit the applicant's use to fire suppression only or would granting this request allow the use for other purposes. Ms. Glass said because of the likelihood that other landowners along this line would also try to gain access to this line, and because this could significantly change the nature of development along Route 250 East from that recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, PEC recommends deferral on this application until a comprehensive assessment of the effect of this decision can be made. Ms. Glass said her understanding is that the applicant applied for a building permit yesterday and there are other alternatives besides a sprinkler. Ms. Sarah Lee Hames, a resident of Keswick, said when Glenmore was approved by the Board, the residents were assured that the use of the water line required by Glenmore would be restricted to use by Glenmore and Stone Robinson School. One of the reasons there was such opposition to the Glenmore development was because of this water line and the potential increase in development along Route 250. If this application is approved, this will be the first in a long line of applications and would turn this section of Route 250 East into a commercial strip. She drives that road on a daily basis and is disappointed and saddened to see the strip of commercial development going east now like it is on Route 29 North. She asked that the Board not set this precedent. The time to stop commercial stripping of this road is now by denying this application. The other businesses in the area have managed to solve their problem with a sprinkler system. There are other alternatives that should be considered before allowing the applicant to connect to public water. Mr. John Embree, a resident of Shadwell, said the Board must hold to the Comprehensive Plan if the Plan is to have any meaning. Every effort should be made to minimize additional development. Allowing this applicant to connect to the water line would set a precedent. Other requests for more intense use of this area would result. The increase in development is inevitable once this precedent is set. He asked that the request be denied. There being no other comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mrs. Humphris said she was disappointed in the change in staff's position between their memorandum to the Board of November 3 and the memoran- dum of December 8. On November 3, staff's position was that this capacity should be reserved for the potential new school and the village, or until a school was determined to not be necessary. The staff also felt that service to this parcel was not consistent with the intent of the Plan and could set a precedent for allowing water service to other parcels along this corridor. The staff provided a strong recommendation to not proceed to public hearing for water service to this parcel. The staff's memo of December 8 uses as its logic for changing and recommending this jurisdictional area change the fact that the Board, in deciding to go to this public hearing, determined that water service for fire suppression may address a public health and safety concern. She cannot follow that logic because she thought the reason they went to public hearing was to hear from the public on what the public wanted. She prefers the original assessment that this could set a precedent. Hearing the statement from the League, takes her back to 1989 when the Board was discussing the extension of that water line to the Village of Rivanna and the potential for future growth. She sat out in the audience and heard over and over again from the then members of this Board that there need be no fear, that this was firm, that this water line would not be used for stripping development along Route 250 East, and the people out there were protected. She is concerned as to why the applicant moved forward with a renovation project without getting a building permit. Alternatives should have been investigated at the on-set, not after the fact. She feels the Board was correct in 1989 when it stated the purpose of that water line out. She thinks there has been no change of circumstance to change that position and she hopes this Board will keep the faith with the people and let them know that they can trust the Board to do the right thing. The right thing is not to make an exception for the benefit of one individual. Mr. Martin said he disagrees with Mrs. Humphris about disappointment in staff. He thinks staff did the right thing which was to look at this as a safety issue that could be applied to other places. He thinks that is the only reason for this request to go to public hearing. He agrees with Mrs. Humphris that it is important to preserve the capacity for what might be another school and there were some assurances from the Board that the use of this water line would be prohibited for safety and health uses only. December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 000279 Mr. Martin then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to deny the request for water service only to Tax Map 79, Parcel 4P, located in Hunter's Hall Subdivision. Mr. Perkins asked if there are fire hydrants along Route 250. Mr.'J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the ACSA, said in the area that is within the jurisdictional area, there is a fire hydrant at least every 800 feet. In the area outside the jurisdictional area, they are there when the property owner elects to pay for them and have them installed. He does not believe there is a hydrant at this intersection. Mr. Bain said he will support the motion. This could be a safety issue but there are ways of addressing the issue other than allowing this connec- tion. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about the health and safety issue. is concerned about the type of system used at UPS. He cannot see the Board opening this line up to any new development or to anyone else but to have a building that is already there is a different issue. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Martin. NAYS: Mr. Marshall (Mr. Martin left the meeting at 7:55 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(c) known as the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District" to add parcels located on Rt 621, Rt 612 and Rt 20N. The proposed addition contains 135.188 ac. in 8 parcels. The proposed time period is the same as for the original district, or 10 years from October 13, 1993. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 24 and December 1, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 9, 1993, recommended by a 4-1 vote, approval of the request with the exception of the Rushton property (Tax Map 63, Parcel 14I) for which an application had not been received, with the understanding that the life estate/ownership question on the Casaday property would be resolved before the recommendation came back to the Board of Supervisors. The application for Rushton was received following the Planning Commission meeting, and since it was not possible to resolve the life estate question definitively, the Casaday property was withdrawn following agreement between the applicant, staff, zoning administrator and deputy county attorney. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Ms. Lisa Glass, representing the Piedmont Environment Council (PEC), said PEC supports agricultural/forestal districts and asked the Board to support the application. There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bain said in reading the Planning Commission's minutes some of the discussion was that an agricultural/forestal district might tend to devalue property. He asked if staff had looked at that aspect in any detail. Mr. Cilimberg said that is not something staff had been asked to study. He thinks the conversation with the Commission had more to do with the affect an agricultural/forestal district designation had on adjacent properties that might choose to intensify uses by special permit. Staff is supposed to take into consideration the existence of an agricultural/forestal district in evaluating a special permit. Mr. Bain said he thinks that is something that needs to be looked at as the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed. Mr. Marshall said he will support the additional parcels in this district but he is concerned about people moving into the County and subdivid- ing parcels of land in 21 acre lots, building a house and then getting into an agricultural/foresta'l district. He feels that when the Board reviews the Comprehensive Plan it needs to seriously look at the acreage to see what it is doing to the rural areas. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(c), the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District" to add 135.188 acres contained in eight parcels, for the same time period as the original district, or ten years from October 13, 1993. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 000280 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS IN SECTION 2.1-4, DISTRICTS DESCRIBED BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of Albemarle be amended and reenacted in subsection (c) known as the "Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District" by the addition of parcels, all 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, 30F, 30G, 4lA, 41Al. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-93-26. Kermit & Ellen Roberts. Public Hearing on a request for a home occupation-Class B to permit a one chair barber shop. Property consists of 128.25 ac zoned RA & is located on a pvt rd approx 0.45 mi E of Rt 663 & 600 ft N of the Rt 664/Rt 663 inters. TM9,P24. White Hall Dist. (Property is not located in designated growth area.) {Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and Nove~ber 29, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is filed as part of the permanent records of the Board. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 9, 1993, by a vote of 4-2, recommended approval of SP-93-26 subject to conditions. Mr. St. John said his impression from reading the minutes of the Planning Commission was that the Commission felt if this barber chair was in the home instead of in an accessory building, that it would be by-right use. He and the Zoning Administrator both disagree with that interpretation. He base his opinion on Section 5.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that "... No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation and greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood .... " The Chairman a'sked the applicant for comments. Mr. Kermit Roberts said he knows that he does not have adequate site distance, but there is nothing he can do about it. He has tried to purchase property from his neighbors, but they have not been willing to sell. He was a barber in Charlottesville for 28 years. He purchased the home place from his father 15 years ago and started farming. It got to the point where he could not maintain the farming opera- tion and the barber shop, but he could not make a living from farming. He has provided staff with traffic counts taken on two separate occasions. There are times when he is in and out of his property with heavy equipment more often than people coming to get hair cut. This farm has been in his family since the 1920s. There is nothing he can do about the site distance if the people are not willing to sell him the property. To his knowledge there has never been an accident at this location. The people who come and get a hair cut know the conditions and know that they have to be careful entering and exiting the site. He asked the people present in support of his application to stand (eleven people stood). The public hearing was opened. Mr. Keith Ford said the barber shop is good for the neighborhood. The residents do not have to fight traffic trying to come to Charlottesville. This is not a large business; it is like a little hill-billy country club that everyone gathers at. The driveway may not be ideal, but there have not been any accidents. Mr. Joe Shaver said Mr. Roberts has been cutting his hair since he became a barber. He has no problem going in and out of the driveway with his truck and trailers. ' There is a lot more visibility coming out of Mr. Roberts road than it is coming out of the lower parking lot of the County Office Building where school buses park on McIntire Road and block the site distance. He thinks people just need to be careful because they know there is a site distance problem. He asked the Board to approve the request. Mr. Gary Hagermeyer said he also supports the request. He does not think regulations were intended to keep someone like Mr. Roberts from operat- ing a small business on his family farm. He should be commended for wanting to operate the farm. He asked the Board to support the request. (Mr. Martin returned at 8:25 p.m.) Mr. Jimmy Bibb said there is not a lot of vehicles coming and going. Mr. Roberts is a good barber. This is not a large operation and it serves a good purpose. He asked the Board to approve the request. Mr. George Mahanes said he also has been going to Mr. Roberts to get a hair cut for a number of years. He thinks it is a lot safer to go to Mr. Roberts place than to come into Charlottesville. He thinks it would be an injustice to deny this operation and he asked the Board to support it. December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 'O00ES'l Mr. J. B. Morris said there are no speed limit signs between the intersection of Route 664 and Route 663 coming back towards Chestnut Grove Church. There is a caution sign which indicates 40 mph. In the absence of speed limit signs one might assume that the speed limit is 55 mph. A~ything above 35 mph on tha~ section of road is hazardous to the public and should be brought to the attention of the Highway Department. There has never been an accident at Mr. Roberts driveway but there have been accidents at the inter- section. He thinks the main issue is not Mr. Roberts site distance but the speed limit that should be imposed on that section of road. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Perkins said he also thinks the key issue is the speed limit. Mr. Perkins then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-93-26 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, changing the time in Condition ~1 to be from 3:00 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain and Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below: Approval is for a one-chair barber shop with operational hours and days limited to 3:00 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays; 2 o Combine parcels into one tract by deed. No subsequent subdivision (including family division) nor establishment of any additional dwellings shall be permitted unless this special use permit is abandoned (Restoration of parcels shall be permitted without compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.); 3. Compliance with Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-93-27. David A. Currier. Public Hearing on a request for a home occupation-Class B to permit an artist's studio utilizing an accessory structure which does not meet the required setbacks for a primary structure. Property consists of 2.0 ac zoned RA & is located on W side of Rt 678 approx 0.7 mi W of Rt 678/Rt 601 inters. TM29,P69E. White Hall Dist. (Property is not located in designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1993.) (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 8:33 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is filed with the permanent records of the Board. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 9, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to conditions. Mr. Bain asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Currier said he had nothing to add. The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-93-27 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bain, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Setback requirements of Section 5.2.2.1(b) is hereby modi- fied to allow usage of existing shed structure; 2 o Compliance with all other provisions of Section 5.2 includ- ing improvement of sight distance at entrance (5.2.1) as recommended by Virginia Department of Transportation. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-93-30. Grayson Vaughn (applicant); Rio Road Limited Partnership. Public Hearing on a request for a commercial recreation establishment to allow slot car racing on 22.87 acs zoned PD-SC. Property in Albemarle Square. TM61,P123. Charlottesville Dist. Site is recommended for Community Service. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1993.) (Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting aG 8:35 p.m.) (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:35 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is filed as a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said the Planning Commission, at its December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 000282 meeting on November 9, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to conditions. Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Vaughn had no comments. The public hearing was opened. There being no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-93-30, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) No alcohol sales; Use is limited to 1649 Seminole Trail; Commercial recreation uses shall be limited to slot car racing and video games. Agenda Item No. 12. CPA-93-06. Neighborhood Three Study. Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, re: the recommen- dations of the Neighborhood Three Study Committee to guide future development within Neighborhood Three. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 9, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of CPA-93-06 as recommended by staff to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the following statement as a recommendation in the Neighborhood Three Profile, at the beginning of the Neighborhood Three Study Document itself: Consider the recommendations of the Neighborhood Three Study as a guide for development. Adoption of this study as a guide does not constitute a commitment by the County toward the funding of proposed projects or programs outlined. Possible funding may only occur after the full impact of a project or program in regards to all capital, personnel and operating costs are fully understood. Also, all projects and programs recommended in this Study must be properly evaluated and prioritized relative to all other County projects in terms of possible funding. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 8:41 p.m.) The public hearing was opened. There being no public comments, the public hearing was close. Mr. Martin commended the people who worked on the study saying they did a good job reflecting the attitudes and sentiments of the residents. Mr. Bowerman asked about the relationship between this amendment and amendments that are a part of the Comprehensive Plan review. Mr. Cilimberg said this amendment focused on design quality issues that supplement the land use recommendations and major infrastructure recommendations in the Plan. Staff does not plan to do any more of these until review of the Plan, but committees will continue to be formed to work on general land use issues. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve CPA-93-06 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the statement set out above as a recommendation in the Neighborhood Three Profile. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: May 13(A), No~ember 4, December 2 and December 9, 1992; March 15(A) and May 12, 1993. Mr. Bowerman had read December 2, 1992 (Pages 1 - 15 at item #12) and December 9, 1992, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bain had read December 2, 1992 (Pages 15 at Item #12 to the end) and found them to be in order. Mr. Martin had read November 4, 1992, and found them to be in order. Mr. Marshall had read March 15(A), 1993, and found them to be in order. December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000283 Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker asked Board members to return any notebooks they had left from last year's budget so they can be reused this year. Mr. Perkins mentioned a letter he had received from Whitney and Rosemary Critzer concerning the renaming of Critzer Shop Road. The Board requested staff to prepare a letter, for the Chairman's signature, expressing the Board's opposition to renaming Critzer Shop Road as Patrick Henry Highway. Mr. Bain reported on a hearing held by V DoT concerning the improvement project for Route 682. His impression from the meeting was that the residents who were opposed to certain parts of the project were impressed with the degree to which VDoT had gone to minimize the design speed and address other concerns. Agenda Item No. 14a. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. At 8:53 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 14b. Certify Executive Session. At 9:30 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the following certificate 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 and 2.1-344.A.7 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformi- ty 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: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Martin and Mr. Bain. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned. Chairman