Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-06-09June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) ooo a9 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 9, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 7:08 p.m.), Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 7:07 p.m.), Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris (arrived at 7:09 p.m.), Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. (arrived at 7:12 p.m.), Charles S. Martin (arrived at 7:10 p.m.) and Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 7:07 p.m.). 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 7:10 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 accept the items on the consent agenda for information. (Note: Discussion concerning individual items has been placed with those agenda items.) 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. Item 5.1. Letter dated May 28, 1993, from Mrs. Constance R. Kincheloe, Commonwealth Transportation Board, re: Extension of Berkmar Drive, Albemarle County, was received as follows: "May 28, 1993 Mr. David P. Bowerman, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Bowerman: Subject: Extension of Berkmar Drive, Albemarle County This is with reference to your inquiry relating to the use of federal funds to extend Berkmar Drive, which, when completed, would considerably relieve traffic congestion on Route 29 north of Charlottesville. The Department has already approached the Federal Highway Adminis- tration with this proposed funding effort; however~ we were informed that if federal funds were used on this parallel exten- sion, they could not be used to make any improvements to Route 29. It appears that an effort is being made by property owners to donate the right of way, therefore decreasing the total estimated cost of the extension. This is certainly a positive fiscal move. The only alternative funding solution remaining at this time is to have the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors include this improvement in their Secondary Six-Year Construction Program as a state funded project. Sincerely, (Signed) Constance R. Kincheloe" Mrs. Humphris referred to Paragraph 2 of Mrs. Kincheloe's letter and found it curious, and had a question as to what that paragraph means. She said the County Executive's staff is in the processing of checking on that wording. Mr. Bowerman said he had spoken with Mrs. Kincheloe. The question was whether funds that would be used for temporary access to Route 29 during the reconstruction could be diverted to another use for a permanent construction June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Me~%in~) (Page 4) (Note: 1. 2. The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Special use permit is issued to the applicant only; The use shall be in accord with the Keswick Helistop site plan dated March 22, 1993, and last reviewed April 27, 1993; No fuel storage on site; No lighting shall be allowed as part of this approval. Any future requests for lighting will require amendment to this special use permit and must be approved by the Board of Supervisors along with the Architectural Review Board; Department of Engineering approval of erosion control plan if necessary; Approval/registration by/with the FAA and Virginia Depart- ment of Aviation; 7. Compliance with Section 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and 8. Helicopter trips limited to 10 per week. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-93-10. Crown Orchard Company. Public Hearing on a request for a 60 ft tower & equipment bldg for use by WVIR-TV adjacent to existing WVIR tower & bldg on Carter's Mtn. Property on S sd of Rt 53. TM91, P28. Scottsville Dist. (Public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 11, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of this petition with conditions. Mr. Cilimberg noted that a letter was received this week from Mr. Richard B. Lillich of Heidelberg, Germany, an adjacent property owner, objecting to location of this tower based on it being an aesthetic eyesore in this historic area. Mr. Bain asked if this tower is not close to other towers. Mr. Cilim- berg said that within a few hundred feet in either direction, there are multiple towers. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Sid Shumate, Director of Engineering at WVIR, was present to represent the applicant. He said their main tower is the tallest at 305 feet, and their 20 foot tower is the second shortest. He said they are having trouble getting their signal out because of the height of the trees. That is the main reason for the increase in height. Their main tower is loaded to the point that there is no more room for new equipment to be placed on it. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to approve SP-93-10 with the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. 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.) me Tower height not to exceed 65 feet. Tower to be located as shown on Attachment C initialed "WDF" and dated 4/29/93 (on file); and Department of Engineering approval of tower design to ensure that in the event of collapse the tower falls within the leased area. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-93-11. James & Becky Johnston. Public Hearing on a request for additional development right to allow creation of a 5+ ac lot for a family member leaving residue parcel of approx 62 ac. Property on W sd of Rt 649 approx 1.3 mi W of Rt 20. Property in Fall Fields Subd (under SP-84-38) is zoned RA. TM47,P8. Rivanna Dist. (Public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg said this property is adjacent to the Fall Fields Subdivi- sion which was approved under SP-84-38. The lot would be cut from the farm tract that was the residue left from the Fall Fields Subdivision. The purpose of this division is to create a lot for a family member. When SP-84-38 was approved it permitted the reconfiguration of the development potential of the 000 43 June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) property, but did not~ authorize more lots~than could have been achieved under conventional, by-right development. The original parcel of 110 acres COuld have been divided into five development rights (four lots of 21 acres or great), but eight lots of less than 21 acres and the farm parcel were allowed by SP-84-38. No further subdivision rights exist. Mr. Cilimberg said that noted in the report are three other requests for additional development rights involving family members. A permit for Lois Beckwith was approved based on a prior County administrative error, the purpose was to provide independent housing for an elderly family member. A permit for James E. Clark was approved based in part on sensitivity to the request being for family members. The third request was for Allen and Edna Dunbar to allow for an additional development lot for a family member on property where all of the development rights had been approved for previous family members. The request was for the third generation of the family. Mr. Cilimberg said the permit request from the Johnstons is different from the Dunbar request in that this is the first division for family members. Their development rights were exhausted through a commercial subdivision. There was no intent in that subdivision to provide for family members. Mr. Cilimberg said there were two votes taken by the Planning Commis- sion. There was a vote to deny, and that motion failed due to a tie vote. The denial was based on a finding that the applicant's justification did not meet criteria set forth for the issuance of a special use permit. There was then a motion to approve, and that motion failed by a tie vote also. That motion cited concern over rural areas subdivision allowances as they are being limited to family types of subdivision. They also felt the applicants may not have been aware of the regulations applying to family members when they applied for the original subdivision approval. Since the Planning Commission failed to reach a consensus, this request is passed to the Board with no recommendation. At this point, the public hearing was opened. Mr. James Johnston was present. He said there are already hoUses on Lots 4 and 1. Lots 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been bought by his next door neighbor, the Watsons. There are no houses on any of those lots. Lot 2 was bought, but no house was built, and now there is a "for sale" sign on the lot. Mr. Johnston said when they planned a commercial subdivision (this was done to alleviate some of their acute financial distress), they did not think they would be prevented from ever sharing their property with their family. He thought a commercial subdivision and a family subdivision were different. Mr. Johnston said he has a daughter who likes the piece of property requested, and that is One reason it was not included in the commercial subdivision. She would like to build a house there. She is a professional in Boston and would like to move back to Albemarle County. They request that the Board grant them a special use permit which would allow them to give their daughter a five-acre lot on property which is now wooded, and which would remain wooded except for the house site itself. Mrs. Humphris said a letter dated May 19, 1993, from Mr. Watson indi- cates that the Johnstons have another lot which could be used for their daughter. She asked if that is true. Mr. JohnSton said there is a lot Which is not in Fall Fields, but is a separate parcel which fronts on Lot 6. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is contiguous to the 65 acres. Mr. Johnston said there is a two-acre lot there which is contiguous. Their 65 acres includes a hay field and this piece of property was bought several years ago in order to simplify the entrance to their property, but it is an entirely separate parcel. That parcel has been on the market for some time. Its qualities are entirely different from those on the piece of property they want to give their daughter. His daughter would like to live protected and not be beside the road. Mr. Johnston said the special use permit originally granted, was special only in the sense that is allowed them to develop what they thought was a more appropriate use of agricultural land and a more conservative use of their property. The Board at that time seemed to agree. Mr. Johnston does not feel it was special in the sense that they asked for any additional lots at all. They only asked to be able to put them in a situation they felt would be more attractive and be a lesser impact because it would take less arable land. Mr. Bowerman asked if is it possible to combine the two-acre parcel with the existing parcel, and subdivide the six-acre parcel leaving the same number of development rights. This would essentially be exchanging one less desir- able parcel for one more desirable parcel and still be in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a mechanism to accomplish that. Mr. Cilimberg said the driveway would have to separated because it is not a public road. Mr. Bowerman said there is a buildable two-acre lot. Mr. Cilimberg said that would be a combination and the rest of the property is subject to a special use permit, so Mr. Johnston would still need a special use permit amendment. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bowerman is saying to take the development right from the two-acre piece of property. He asked if that could not be a condi- tion of this special use permit. Mr. St. John said the Board has done this before. There is no transfer of development rights in the Commonwealth of June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~44 (Page 6) Virginia, so you can't just trah~fe~ t~ development right from one parcel to another even though they are owned by the same person. Mr. Martin asked if the Board could not just make it a condition on a special use permit. Mr. St. John said the applicant would have to agree first. If he did not agree to it, it is not something the Board can impose on him. This has been done before, and he believes it can be done exactly as Mr. Bowerman described it if Mr. Johnston voluntarily gives up the right to build on that lot across the road, and makes that a part of the rest of the farm as a condition to induce the Board to grant the special use permit for that other lot. Mrs. Humphris said in the Planning Commission's minutes, Mrs. Huckle had made a suggestion that the logical solution would be to trade subdivision rights. She asked if the Planning Commission had discussed the suggestion. Mr. Cilimberg said "no". Mr. Martin asked Mr. Johnston if he would like to comment on what the Board has been discussing. Mr. Johnston said he is not sure he understands it all. Me would need to talk with his lawyer, who is not present tonight. Mr. St. John then went to the map on the board and explained to Mr. Johnston what the Board was contemplating. If Mr. Johnston is willing to say into the record that in return for the Board granting him a special use permit for the piece of property for his daughter's use, he will take the two acres off the market and make it a part of the record that the two-acre lot is not entitled to having any house built on it, and that it will become part and parcel of the residue of the farm in perpetuity, there is a mechanism for documents to accomplish that. The Board cannot impose that as a condition. Mr. Johnston must agree to it at this meeting. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Johnston if this is something he would be interest- ed in doing after talking to his attorney. Mr. Johnston said he had hoped that he would be able to sell that lot. If they sell that lot, they could pay for the road. Mr. Bowerman said this is something the Board would not undertake tonight because Mr. Johnston would need an opportunity to discuss it with his lawyer. If Mr. Johnston wants to do that, the Board can defer action until a later date. If Mr. Johnston does not want to consider this suggestions the Board needs to know that now. Mr. Johnston said it is an opportunity, and he would like to have the opportunity to wait. Obviously, it is not what he and his wife had in mind. They did not know the possibility existed. It seemed that the simpler thing was to ask the Board for a permit for his daughter. They would like to be able to give a part of the "old home place" to their daughter, and this parcel is not the part that she would like to have. If this is the only way that they can do it, they probably could "go for that". Mr. Martin asked if a vote is taken tonight, and the vote is negative, what that will do in terms of it getting before the Board in a modified form. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Johnston would have to reapply with a different propos- al, or the Board could reconsider. If the Board contemplates any other potential action, the best thing to do is to defer. Mr. Johnston said as a small point, the drawing is not quite correct. It is not a serious matter, but the portion they are asking to give their daughter is not as great as what is shown on the map. There is an interest- ing, historical, geographical feature that is on the Rivanna River. It is called Kudjo's Rock, and it overlooks the North Fork of the Rivanna River. Mr. Watson owns half of it, and he owns half of it. They had never intended to let that go. The remainder of the parcel is very steep and not fit for building anyway. It adjoins the bottom land and is still part of the proper- ty. Ms. Jane Long with the firm of Taylor & Zunka, was present to represent Mr. Watson who opposes the issuance of this special use permit. When the subdivision plat was approved for Fall Fields in 1985, all of the Johnston's development rights were exhausted. They received the full benefit of the development rights the County allowed on their property at the time by doing a commercial, residential development. That was less then 10 years ago. The Johnstons had a daughter at the time, and they could have made provisions for her at that time. In fact, the subdivision was done by a special use permit in order to let the lots be of a smaller size than was permitted. She understands this is something Mr. Johnston could not do today without putting the residue into a rural preservation easement. Second, the plat was approved by the County, put to record, and lots marketed and sold pursuant to that recorded plat. Purchasers relied upon that plat, including Mr. and Mrs. Watson. That plat says on its face that there will be no further division of the residue without issuance of a special use permit. She urged the Board to remain sensitive to the kind of reliance the public puts on this type of language. Third, she would like to comment on the public hearing before the Planning Commission. There was a lot of comment about Mr. Watson's involve- ment in Fall Fields Subdivision, and the fact that he has bought five of the lots right along the ridge line. There were comments about Mr. Watson wanting to close that road, and that Mr. Watson and Mr. Johnston were not getting along, and even that Mr. Watson had an abrasive attorney. These types of things are completely irrelevant to the determination that this Board has to make. June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000145 (Page 7) Ms. Long said':'~il bY Mr. JohnSton in accordance with the plat that was approved. He received the economic benefit of that development, and it does not matter if Mr. Watson bought them, or someone else bought them. Ms. Long said she does not think the Planning Commission properly considered the criteria required to be considered before issuance of a special use permit. There were two tie votes, but the votes in favor of granting the permit were not based on a finding that the criteria were met, but rather on comments that the existing Zoning Ordinance and the existing Comprehensive Plan are not what they should be. She urged the Board to not make that kind of consideration, but rather that the application be based on the law as it currently exists, not as we may want it to be, and not to make this case some kind of special example to force a change in the Comprehensive Plan. She said the Zoning Ordinance has to be considered; there are eight technical criteria. The County has a professional planning staff which gave a detailed report analyzing each of these criteria. The staff recommended denial of this special use permit. Ms. Long said in this case, given the detailed analysis, the staff's report should be given great weight, and their recommendation followed. Mr. Watson said it has been a long travail buying lots one or two at a time while relying on the County's ordinances to protect his privacy, and the rural character where he lives. He lives right below Lots 5 and 6 which are on a high ridge right on their property lines. His property is called Glen Echo because it actually does echo along the top of that ridge down into the valley. He has canoed down the River a number of times and the few things that are on the River are set way back. He does not really want to own lots 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, but he recognizes the rights of Mr. Johnston to develop his property as he sees fit. Me feels this goes way beyond what is reasonable. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Johnston if he would care to speak again. Mr. Johnston said Mr. Watson's house is actually directly north of Lot 4. The plan was drawn to protect the occupants of that house at the time. They made Lot 3 so these people could buy one lot if they wanted to, and that was all. Any house built there would not be visible from the River and the lot does not drain into the River. That is the portion which is so steep that it was excluded. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowerman said he was initially inclined to look for some way to accommodate Mr. Johnston's request. After Mr. Watson's attorney spoke, the point was clearly made that there has been complete consideration throughout this process by both Mr. Watson and Mr. Johnston to the original subdivision that was done in 1984. Mr. Watson agreed to buy and Mr. Johnston agreed to sell and there was an understanding of this subdivision. At this point, to even consider changing it when at any given point in time Mr. Johnston could have elected to retain a parcel for his own use, and his daughter's use, speaks directly to the issue. He has no motivation to look for an exception and try to create an additional lot when all the subdivision rights have been used. Mr. Martin said he came tonight wanting to support the request (he had already talked to Mr. Johnston about this request), but at this point he is at a loss. From what he has heard, Mr. Johnston would not have enough votes to gain approval, no matter how he votes. Mr. Marshall said if Mr. Watson had bought that property and incorporat- ed it into his present farm and put it in land use, he might be inclined to support Mr. Johnston. His sympathy leans with Mr. Johnston because he has a similar piece of property and five children and he wants to redivide it. In light of the fact that Mr. Watson paid as much as he did for those lots~ and is paying taxes on those lots the way they are, he has to side with Mr. Watson. Mr. Martin said he hates to see 62 acres of property and a person cannot even give their child five acres. Mr. Marshall agreed. Mr. Bowerman said there has been ample opportunity to accomplish that. Mr. Martin said there was the opportunity, and Mr. Watson does not have that land in land use taxation. Mr. Marshall said it would have been an easier decision for him if the land had been bought by someone other than Mr. Watson. Mr. Bain said it is a tough question as it always is. There have been other cases, and he voted against the last one that came before the Board. He realized later that he should not have (Dunbar), because it had all been family. This is a different situation because there have been lot sales. Mro Bain then offered motion to deny SP-93-11 for the reasons the staff gave, and in addition, the comments that have been made tonight. Mr. Perkins said he will not support the motion. He would, however, support giving Mr. Johnston the opportunity to trade the development right he has with the two-acre lot, whether the Board defers tonight, or the petition is killed so he can start all over again. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Numphris who said she had not commented yet. It has been especially difficult for her because she knows the Johnstone and knows what good people they are. She searched hard for a good reason to June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000146 (Page 8) allow this, but based on the cri~erla the B6ard is sUppoSed to use' she could not find any unique circumstance, so could not find any reason to do it. Mr. Martin said he will oppose this motion because opposing it will not make a difference, and he has not made up his mind. He would be interested in looking at some type of proffer for using that two-acre lot, joining it with the residue property, but frankly what he is hearing right now is that there would still be a three-three vote even on that. Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Martin thinks there is a 3/3 vote for transfer- ring. Mr. Martin said he thinks Mr. Bowerman said he could not support even the transfer. Mr. Bowerman said he would not after getting all the informa- tion about what has transpired. Mr. Marshall said he is an advocate for being able to subdivide land and give it to his children. But, also, if a man had to go out and buy that land, and pay those taxes to protect his interest based on the law, how could he vote against him? He couldn't do it. At this time, Mr. Bowerman asked for a call of the roll. The motion to deny the request, carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: Mr. Martin. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Perkins if he meant to vote "yes". Mr. Perkins said that is correct. He said he could not support this request, but he could support the other proposal. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on AN ORDINANCE amending and reenact- ing certain sections in Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, in the Code of Albemarle. Section 12-8.2(c) shall be amended to change the charge to $25.00 for a check returned for insufficient funds. Section 12-8.2(f) will be amended to change the State Code reference. Section 12.21.1, "Violations", will be amended to allow all law enforcement officers to issue citations, summonses, warrants, parking tickets or uniform traffic summonses for cars not displaying county vehicle decals, with the fine for violation being set at $25.00 if paid within 48 hours, and at $50.00 if paid 48 hours after issuance. (Public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 1993.) Mr. Tucker summarized the need for these ordinance amendments. The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to adopt the ordinance as advertised, effective July 1, 1993. Mrs. Humphris gave second. 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. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) AN ORDINANCE TO A~END AND REENACT ARTICLE I AND ARTICLE V OF CHAPTER 12 "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC" OF THE CODE OF ALBEF.%RLE IN CERTAIN SECTIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 12-8.2(c) and 12-8.2(f) be amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 12-8.2. Same--Enforcement of parking regulations; notice of violations; waiver of trial; contesting charges; penal- ties. (c) Whenever the fines are paid by mail, the responsibility for receipt of the payment by the director of finance shall lie with the registered owner of the vehicle parked in violation. Payment may be made by personal check; provided, that if such check is returned for insufficient funds, the vehicle owner shall remain liable for the parking violations, and shall likewise be subject to a service charge of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for processing the returned check. (f) Any vehicle owner who fails to respond to a notice of violation, either by paying the stipulated fines or by filing a request for review or hearing with the director of finance within June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000147 (Page 9) ten days, shall be subject to summons and arrest pursuant to section 46.2-941 of the Code of Virginia. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Section 12-21.1 of Chapter V, County Vehicle Licenses, be amended and reenacted to read as follows: * * * * Sec° 12-21.1. Violations: Law enforcement officers may issue citations, summonses, warrants, parking tickets or uniform traffic summonses for viola- tions. A violation of this ordinance may not be discharged by payment of a fine except upon presentation of satisfactory evi- dence that the required license has been obtained. The procedure for enforcement of this section and penalties for violation thereof shall be as provided in section 12-8.2, except that fines as provided in section 12-8.2(e) shall be as follows: If paid within forty-eight (48) hours If paid after forty-eight (48) hours $25.00 50.00 This ordinance shall be in effect on and after July 1, 1993. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Request from George Clark to reconsid- er ZMA-92-13 (deferred from June 2, 1993). Mr. Bowerman said this discussion was deferred from last week. Mr. Cilimberg said a letter was received today from Mr. Clark. He asks the Board to reconsider his Village Residential zoning request with a proffer that "no more than 36 lots are to be developed at no less than two-acres in size, and all of those lots are to be located outside of the area of the flood plain for the Hardware River, and no lots are to be developed along Route 712." Mr. Cilimberg said there should be a new conceptual plan presented before this petition would be considered by this Board again. At least it is in writing now. Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be a special permit request. Mr. Cilimberg said "no", it would be a VR rezoning with proffers. The other proffers are as they were originally presented, and are submitted for the Board's reconsideration. Mr. St. John said the procedure for this Board to take involves three steps. First, it must suspend its Rules of Procedure. If there is a vote to reconsider, then the petition must be advertised for a public hearing. The proffers and the schematic design should be in the Planning Office for review by interested parties at the same time as it is being advertised. On rehear- ing, the Board can do anything it could have done when the matter was origi- nally before the Board. The Board cannot do anything that it could not have done when it was originally before the Board. In other words, when this request was originally before the Board, the Board could have granted what was applied for, any rezoning less intense than that (this is not a commercial or industrial rezoning so intense is synonymous with density), so, therefore, on rehearing the Board can approve what was asked for (52 lots) or anything less, including what is in this latest letter. That will require a rezoning because there is no mechanism under the County's ordinance except a rezoning by which it can be accomplished. The applicant has already proffered the limitation, the Board could not impose this limitation of density on the applicant if he didn't proffer it. Having proffered it, the bottom line is that the Board can do what he has asked for here on rehearing. Mr. Bain said this is the "way to go". It is something, given the letter before the Board tonight, that current ordinances don't really permit the Board to do, not the rural preservation, but the RPN. It really doesn't fit anywhere under the zoning ordinance that would work. Here, there would be development, and there would be two-acre lots for the well and septic through- out. If it were done, it would be a VR with proffer that does not increase the density of the two-acre lots. Mr. Bain moved to suspend the Board's Rules of Procedure on ZMA-92-13. The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. 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. Motion was immediately made by Mr. Bain to reconsider ZMA-92-13 and to set the public hearing for July 14, 1993. He sees no reason for it to go back through the Planning Commission. June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000148 (Page 10) Mr. Bowerman asked if July 14 gave staff enough time for advertising, etc. Mr. Tucker said there is already quite a full schedule for that night. It was noted that Mr. Martin and Mrs. Humphris will both be away on July 21, 1993. Mr. Bain said he does not believe this petition will take a long time period on the agenda. Mr. St. John said the apPlicant must have the schematic here at the time the advertisement appears in the newspaper. This motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. 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. 11. Work Session on Recycling Ordinance (deferred from June 2, 1993). (Mr. Martin left the room at 8:30 p.m.) Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, said a report was presented last September that encompassed nine studies. Each of the case studies required mandatory collection services. Three of the case studies indicated subsidizes from $2.50 to $1.30 per household were used, but all were phased out over a period of time. Four municipalities in those case studies marketed the recyclables. Staff then prepared an implementation plan that came to the Board in late November. In several informal, and five announced meetings with the hauling community, 17 of the businesses were represented at these meet- ings. Of those persons in the business of collecting trash in the County, 13 are already offering the bagged, co-mingled program; and five are offering newspaper recycling. In these meetings, the proposed ordinance was edited and re-edited. It has been reviewed by the Deputy County Attorney. Ms. Higgins said the ordinance was composed using citizen input gathered through organizations the Board will probably be hearing from, and at the Home Show. There was a desire expressed to have convenient, residential recycling at the curb. The Board has before it the final version of Article I which basically replaces definitions, and a new Article III regarding recycling. One significant portion of the ordinance is that businesses which do no use haulers for recycling in the County (these are large businesses who go direct outside of the County), must report on an annual basis their recycling activity. Of the 17 people who received a notice, four have called in and asked questions about their responsibility, and there has been no objections raised to that part of the ordinance. Ms. Higgins said in the overview the Board was provided, it mentions that licensing will insure more consistent recycling and establish a level playing field for the private haulers (for the 13 who offer recycling, they are competing in a field with haulers who do not offer that service, so there is unfair competition). It would increase participation rates and allow for a promotional, educational uniformity through the County to increase the rate of recycling. Mr. Bain asked if staff has any figures about the haulers who do not offer recycling and how many households they serve. Ms. Higgins said the largest haulers in the County are offering recycling. The ones who are not are a small percentage. The ones who got into it voluntarily are floundering, and there has been some indication that they may not continue since it has been done on a voluntary basis. Mrs. Humphris asked for a comment suggested by the League of Women Voters that the service be provided at no extra charge to the customer. Ms. Higgins referred the Board to Section 16-15(a) of the proposed ordinance. The wording says the hauler shall collect the material if the County resident chooses to participate consistent with the recycling program. Staff avoided putting any wording in the ordinance to say how services are priced. The believe the market will set that price. (Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 8:37 p.m.) Mr. Marshall asked if there is a limit set on what can be charged. Higgins said that is usually set by the market. It is a very competitive business. Ms. Mrs. Humphris asked why mixed paper is excluded from the recycling. Ms. Higgins said the County put out to bid newspapers and mixed paper which goes into the McIntire Center which is different from the newspaper collection. Recently there had been an indication that the market for newspaper was turning.around. The quality of the paper is directly related to the revenue it generates. Mrs. Humphris said the mixed paper collection at McIntire is very popular. Mr. Bob McKenzie said the mixed paper that is collected at McIntire is the lowest of grades. It is composed of all junk mail. That is the riskiest part of the program. It would be foolish to start the program offering too much and then have to stop it. It is easier to add things if the market proves strong enough, than to re-educate the consumer. Most recycling programs (certainly, most curbside programs), limit their materials. Mrs. Humphris said that will not keep a huge quantity of material out of the June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 000:1.49 landfill, so it is cost versus desire to limit what goes into the landfill. Mr. McKenzie said it is easier to monitor the quantity under the materials proposed for the haulers to collect. They will be collecting the non-paper materials in a translucent bag so it will be easy for them to see any contami- . nation° Newspaper will be collected in a paper bag and that will also be easy to look in. When you get into mixed paper, it is difficult to see what other types of junk might be included. It would be difficult to keep any kind of quality control. Mr. Bowerman said what is being collected is not going to the landfill. Mr. McKenzie said that is true. Mr. Bain said it does not go to the County's landfill. Mr. McKenzie said he understands that it goes to Rock 10 which is a paperboard manufacturer in Lynchburg. Other than that, he thinks it would be different is this were a widely accepted material in this area, but he understands that it is only the people who deal with Bryant Salvage who are able to do this. The one thing not collected at McIntire is plastic. Mr. Bain asked if the County has the capability at the landfill to take these materials. Ms. Higgins said at this time the hauler can collect at curbside the blue translucent bag and deposit it at either Coiner's Scrap Yard in a container the County has provided, or at the landfill in a container the County has provided. As part of the implementation plan sent to the Board earlier, staff will have the drop-off point modified at Ivy so it is safe for people to pull their cars over to that area and deposit a cO-mingled bag. This is for people who already take their trash to the landfill. They are not seeking to attract more people to the landfill. These will be people who do not normally use a hauler and carry their individual trash to the landfill anyway. Mr. Bain said he had a person ask when these containers will be ready to be used° Ms. Higgins said they have been asked why they cannot use the container which is already on site. The reason is one of accessibility and safety of vehicles. Staff is working with Joyce Engineering on a lay-out because it involves modifications to the retaining wall. The other thing asked about concerns plastics. The reason they are not accepted at McIntire is that the cost for plastics alone when bid out was $268/ton. The reason is the amount of space that the weight occupies is so great that the materials would have to bailed. Transportation costs are great because when you make a trip you want to haul a greater weight. Through the County's program, plastics do go to Preston Coiner's, and that is also true for the City's program. Mr. Bowerman asked the cost for recycling plastics. Ms. Higgins said it was bid as a package (including steel, glass, etc.) and it is $96/ton for co- mingled, $18/ton for newspaper, but that is based on the number of trips made to pick up those tonnages. Mr. Bain said based on what the Board has heard, it had discussed giving a subsidy° That is out for this coming year because it was not budgeted. In lieu of that, he asked what Ms. Higgins has heard. Ms. Higgins said that in some of the localities studied, there was a subsidy to help cover initial capital costs, and that was phased out over a period of time. There are significant capital costs for haulers to convert equipment to make it usable, and to be able to separate at the curb the trash from the recyclables. There is already some tip fee avoidance (newspaper is a good way to divert ton- nages), so the hauler does not have to pay $41/ton effective July 1~ on any recyclables taken off of the truck before it crosses the scales° The County has taken on the responsibility to handle and market the recyclables. The County will be providing promotional and educational material to the haulers and there will be a place where the haulers can put their stamp. They will also be provided with hangers, and posters will be put up in groceries stores. In the studies mentioned earlier, only four of the localities handled the recyclables. In the other programs, it was the responsibility of the haulers to handle the recyclables. It is an implied subsidy. They would like a direct subsidy, but there is a guarantee that over time this equipment will be used. Ms. Higgins said that after the last meeting where the subsidy was discussed, she called several of the largest haulers, and basically the consensus was that the ordinance is good and regardless of the subsidy it is supported by the haulers who give services to the highest percentage of residents. Mr. Bowerman asked for comments from the public. Mr. Randy Layman said Ms. Higgins did take a survey of all of the haulers, and most indicated they would like to do something. That was based on the assumption that there would be an ordinance in effect. The members of his association did a survey also, and it was 100 percent for "getting on with it." There has been a lot of discussion lately that this ordinance will not "level the playing field". Mr. Bain asked why it would not. Mr° Layman said it has to do with how the ordinance is enforced. He thinks it is possible to force him out of business using the enforcement procedures in this ordinance. Ms. Higgins'said in response to earlier concerns expressed about the ordinance just saying "permit" or "no permit" to operate the business, Section 16-22 was added called "penalties". It sets out a series of increasing fines with the limit being $2000. There would be a lot of negative reinforcement if June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000'~0 (Page 12) the ordinance were violated long before a person would be "put out of busi- ness.'' It would be expensive for them not to follow the rules. Ms. Higgins said the haulers are looking at the "little guy" who voluntarily picks up recycling, but the recycling doesn't go to the landfill. She said they have thought about having tracking devices at the Ivy Landfill to have indicators for each person coming through. She is not saying that a hauler would have to deposit recycling to keep their permit because there could be someone serving a rural part of the County, and their customers will not recycle. The County does not intend to penalize a hauler for this. An important issue is enforcement. There is already some money in the budget for this item. Ms. Higgins said there are many different structures for what the haulers charge. There are some haulers who do not charge extra for recycling, and there are some who have been charging extra all along and have many customers who are willing to pay the extra amount. It is based on competi- tion~ and it is very complicated. Mr. Layman said some haulers are reluctant to begin these programs, and others went ahead and offered the programs free. There is no way to start another business, operate another truck, hire another employee, and operate for nothing. That is not possible. Mr. Layman said he just bought another hauler operating on a small basis who could not continue in business the way he had it set up. He was trying to offer some of the things that are being discussed. Mr. Martin said he was not indicating that the service should be free, but if you say everyone has to offer it free, that means that everybody raises their price. At that point, the customer would have a choice of recycling and paying extra, or not recycling and paying the same each month. Ms. Higgins said there are several haulers who, before the County talked about recycling newspapers, collected newspapers to offer another service in order to get more customers. They took the papers to McIntire and blocked the container there for significant periods of time. Their subsidy was to avoid the tip fee for putting newspapers in the landfill. Mr. Bowerman said the County may have to offer a subsidy in order to get voluntary compliance on the part of those dumping illegally, in order to get recyclables recycled, and in order to get a higher participation rate in the program. Mr. Bain asked if the staff knows what percent of customers are current- ly recycling. Mr. Layman said he did a survey recently, and 75 percent of the homes in a given area were involved in recycling. He had a 54 percent set out rate, a 9.8 pounds per set out weight. That was just in one neighborhood, and in another neighborhood there could be a zero participation rate. His overall percentage is between 25 and 30 percent. Mr. Bain said some are concerned that unless the County enacts an ordinance, the haulers will stop offering the service. Mr. Layman said he does not believe that is true. He believes that as long as he offers the program, other haulers will also. But, the haulers do not have any guarantee that the County will backup their efforts. When Andrea Trank wrote her report, there was some income from recyclables. Now, you must pay to get rid of the same materials. Ms. Higgins said the market is changing, and there are still some revenues associated with certain materials. As a supply develops, then markets will come to the area. She talked with several of the largest haulers in the County, and they indicated that if the County is going to have this program, there should also be an ordinance so everybody in the business would have to do the same thing. Mr. Bowerman suggested the Board advertise the ordinance for a public hearing. Mr. Bain asked the County Attorney to look at adding an appeal procedure in the ordinance. Is there a way to put in, without a comprehensive recycling ordinance, an ordinance that would just require the haulers to take their materials to the landfill? Ms. Higgins said that is what this ordinance does. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Board has to do something. Mr. Marshall said the Board should be looking at the compactor such as the one they saw in Waynesboro. Mr. Bowerman said that is a whole other issue, and solid waste disposal is a major issue in this locality. He thinks the Board has to give some direction to the industry and citizens in terms of what it wants to do. Mr. Tucker said staff followed an ordinance which they thought the private haulers supported in order to have some type of "level playing field". Now the haulers have rethought that and have a different thought. Staff told the Board all of this last November, and staff has gone through this and tried to work with the haulers and now that has evidently changed. The issue of reporting is still a very valid issue, and that part of this should be done even if nothing else is done. The public hearing on the ordinance is set for next week, and he suggested that the Board go ahead and hear what the public has to say. Mr. Martin offered motion that the Board hold a public hearing on this ordinance, and the Board can take time beyond that to make a decision. Mr. June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) ' 000 1.51 Bain said no motion is needed; the ordinance has already been advertised. said to not compare the CoUnty's efforts to those of the City. They are entirely different programs. He Agenda Item No. lla. Visitors Center Contract, appoint Board member to committee to review. Mr. Tucker said there is a five-year contract for lease of the Visitors Center, and Since that contract is presently in its fourth year, it has been suggested that representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, the City and the County look at the contract before it expires next year. Mr. Martin said he would like to do this since it gives an opportunity to meet some people he doesn't know. There was a consensus that Mr. Martin would be the County's representative. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: March 4, April 8 and April 15, 1992; May 5, 1993. Mr. Martin had read April 15, 1992, pages 15 (#12) to the end, and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins had read March 4, 1992, pages 16 (#11) to page 31, and turned in a couple of typographical errors. Mrs. Numphris had read May 5, 1993, pages 12 (#17b) to the end, and handed typographical errors to the Clerk. Mr. Martin said he sees typographical errors occasionally, but did not think they were important enough to correct. Mrs. Humphris said one of her corrections was a "Mrs. Martin said." She thought he might like to have that corrected for posterity. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the minutes which had been read. 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. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board go ahead and make appointments before going into executive session. For the Advisory Council on Aging, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to reappoint Mrs. Betty L. Newell and Mr. Robert J. Walters, Jr. to new terms which will expire on June 1, 1995. For the BOCA Code Board of Appeals, motion was offered by Mr. Bain to reappoint Mr. Tom Trevillian and Ms. Diane Jackson to new terms which will expire on August 21, 1998. For the Children and Youth Commission, motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to reappoint Ms. Blanche R. Steppe to a new term which will expire on June 30, 1996. For the Community Services Board, motion was offered by Mr. Martin to reappoint Ms. Lois Ann Brown and Mr. Ralph Ross to new terms which will expire on June 30, 1996. For the Industrial Development Authority, to represent the White Hall District, motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to reappoint Mr. Arthur H. Baker to a new term which will expire on January 19, 1997. For the University of Virginia's non-voting member on the Albemarle County Planning Commission, motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to reappoint Mr. Harry W. Porter, Jr. to a term which will expire on December 31, 1993. For the Social Services Board, to represent the Rivanna District, motion was offered by Mr. Martin to appoint Ms. Patricia H. Ewers to a term which will expire on December 31, 1995. This appointee replaces Mr. Joseph Basil Young who had resigned. For the Regional Disability Services Board, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to appoint Ms. Karen Morris to a term which will expire on July 1, 1995. Ail of the foregoing motions were seconded by Mr. Bain. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) O00 SZ AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Mr. Tucker said that last night the Planning Commission discussed with Parks and Recreation staff members, the question of the entrance fees charged at County parks. The Planning Commission is recommending the elimination of fees for youth under the age of 18 and the elimination of non-resident fees to City residents° That loss of revenue would be about $36,520. Mr. Tucker said he discussed the matter briefly with the City Manager because part of the Commission's recommendation was that any action on the part of this Board to eliminate fees be based on similar action being taken by City Council. The City Manager indicated it would be some time before Council would be able to discuss the question. Mr. Mullaney has indicated that there would be other issues to deal with. Some people have already bought passes to the parks. Refunds would have to be made. Issues regarding swimming lessons, etc. would need to be discussed. This can be put on the July 7 agenda for further discussion. Mr. Bowerman said there are some major issues involved here, and they also deal with the potential consolidation of County and City facilities which staff is already looking at. There is a cost to the County. Mr. Martin suggested the Board take a quick look at this next week. Mr. Bowerman said next week is not the time to schedule this. Mr. Bain said that realistically this could not be put into effect until next summer anyway. Mr. Bowerman said the City will have revenue losses also. Mr. Perkins said the "Computer Committee", is going to Beaver Dam School somewhere near Bumpass on the morning of June 15, to see a demonstration. All Board members are invited. Mr. Bowerman asked if this whole idea will not involve a lot of money. He asked if the person promoting this has any interest in computer materials or supplies. Mr. Perkins said he did not know. Mr. Bowerman said he thought the County's Data Processing Department and the Schools were looking at this issue, and the Schools had not made a decision as to what they wanted to spend. Obviously they are good programs which provide a benefit to the kids. He does not have to be convinced of the usefulness of these in the right environment. Mr. Perkins said he is just informing the Board about the trip. Apparently IBM set this up and apparently this Beaver Dam School is ahead of Albemarle County in using computers in the classrooms. He told them he would invite this Board, and the individual members can invite their representative on the School Board. Mr. Martin said that on June 26 at the Sheraton, there is an all-day workshop of the virginia Institute for Developmental Disabilities. He thought a lot of this was part of the new State Comprehensive Services Act. He has now been told that it is not, and he is inviting the Board members to attend. Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain to adjourn into executive session under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.1 to discuss personnel. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. 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. Certify Executive Session. At 10:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following certification of executive meeting: 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 June 9, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 000 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: NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphrls, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURINOMEETING: None Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn to June 16, 1993, 6:30 P.M. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adjourn this meeting until June 16, 1993, at 6:30 p.m. in Room 7. 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. Chairman