HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-15 M.B. 41, Pg. 11
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on April 15, 1992, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Char-
lotte 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 Chief of Planning, Ronald S. Keeler.
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.
Mr. Kevin Cox spoke on behalf of the Jefferson Area Waste Haulers
Association. He said that this Association represents most of the trash
haulers and recyclers in Albemarle County, and the Association would like to
work with the County to continue to provide County customers with the high
level of service that they have been enjoying in collection, disposal and
recycling of their solid waste. He stated that the Association wants to have
a good working relationship with the County staff, the Board of Supervisors
and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. He went on to say that the Association
would like to offer its services, such as trucks, labor and tipping fees, if
necessary, to begin cleaning up some of the illegal dump sites that have been
in the news recently. He said that the haulers do not like the illegal
dumping any more than anybody else, and they want to keep the County the
beautiful place that it is.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Cox had called him this afternoon, which
gave him some time to think about Mr. Cox's proposal. Mr. Bowerman thinks
this is a gracious offer, but he believes that the activity should be coordi-
nated with staff. He commented that staff has some definite ideas about the
illegal sites, once they are cleaned up, as to the owners' responsibility. He
suggested staff work with the haulers and then come back to this Board with a
report. He thinks that the tipping fee costs and the payment by the County
for the items that are picked up should be included in the report.
Mr. Tucker remarked that he had already discussed this matter with Mr.
Cox. He told Mr. Cox that he felt certain the County could cover the tipping
fees. He said Mr. Cox had indicated that the haulers would be willing to
share the cost of the tipping fees.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mo%ion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, se¢onHed by Mr. Bain, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.la, and to accept
the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board for
the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail
for the Month of March, 1992, were approved, as presented, by the vote shown
above.
Item 5.la. Request for amended resolutions abandoning certain sections
of roads, and accepting new sections into the State System of Secondary
Highways:
a) Add the entrance road at Paul H. Cale Elementary School. The Board
adopted the following resolution, by the vote shown above:
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board has constructed a
new route to be used by buses at Paul H. Cale Elementary School~
and
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia provides
for the Virginia Department of Transportation to maintain school
entrance roads on which buses are operated;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following section, as out-
M.B. 41, Pg. 12
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Mee~ihg)
(Page 2)
lined on the attached site plan (on file), be added to the
Secondary Road System pursuant to Section 33.1-68 of the code of
Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the center-
line of the loop circulation road and the edge of the pave-
ment of Route 712, thence in a southeasterly direction 840
feet to station 8+40, the end of the loop circulation road.
.AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 30 foot unobstructed
right-of-way along the requested addition, as outlined on the
attached site plan (on file).
b) Add the entrance road at the new Crozet Elementary School and
abandon the entrance road at the old Crozet Elementary School. The Board
adopted the following resolution, by the vote shown above:
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary
System due to the abandonment of Route 9010 and construction of a
new route;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following section, as out-
lined in green on the attached site plan (on file), be added to
the Secondary Road System pursuant to Section 33.1-68 of the Code
of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the center-
line of the loop circulation road and the edge of pavement
of Route 810, thence in a southeasterly direction 986 feet
to station 9+86, the end of the loop circulation road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following section, as indi-
cated in red, be abandoned in accordance with Section 33.1-155 of
the Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the edge of
pavement of Route 810 and the centerline of the school's
circulation road, thence in a northwesterly direction ap-
proximately 789 feet to station 7+89, the end of the loop
circulation road.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 30 foot unobstructed
right-of-way along the requested addition, as outlined on the
attached site plan (on file).
c) Add the new entrance road at Stony Point Elementary School and
abandon the old entrance road at the same school. The Board adopted the
following resolution, by the vote shown above:
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary
System due to the relocation and construction of Route 9008;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County Virginia that the following section, as
outlined in green on the attached site plan (on file), be added to
the Secondary Road System pursuant to Section 33.1-68 of the Code
of Virginia:
'Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the center-
line of the loop circulation road and the edge of the pave-
ment of Route 20, thence in a southerly direction 526 feet
to station 5+26, the end of the loop circulation road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following section, as indi-
cated in red, be abandoned in accordance with Section 33.1-155 of
the Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the edge of
pavement of Route 20 and the centerline of the school's
circulation road, thence in a southerly direction approxi-
mately 526 feet to station 5+26, the end of the loop circu-
lation road.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 30 foot unobstructed
right-of-way along the requested addition, as outlined on the
attached site plan (on file).
M.B. 41, Pg. 13
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meetifig)
(Page 3)
d) Add the new entrance road at B. F. Yancey Elementary School and
abandon the old entrance road at the same school. The Board adopted the
following resolution, by the vote shown above:
'WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary
System due to the relocation and construction of Route 627;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following section, as
outlined in green on the attached site plan (on file), be added to
the Secondary Road System pursuant to Section 33.1-68 of the Code
of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the center-
line of the loop circulation road and the edge of pavement
of Route 627, thence in an easterly direction 520 feet to
station 5+20, the end of the loop circulation road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following section, as indi-
cated in red, be abandoned in accordance with Section 33.1-155 of
the Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the edge of
pavement of Route 627 and the centerline of the school's
circulation road, thence in an easterly direction approxi-
mately 420 feet to station 4+20, the end of the loop circu-
lation road.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 30 foot unobstructed
right-of-way along the requested addition, as outlined on the
· attached site plan (on file).
Item 5.2. Minutes of the Planning Commission for March 24, March 31 and
April 7, 1992, were received as information.
Item 5.3. Copy of "Water Resources Development in Virginia 1991" as
prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers, was received and filed for
information.
Item 5.4. Monthly Bond Reports from Arbor Crest Apartments for the
Months of December, 1991; January and February, 1992, were received as
information.
Item 5.5. Letter dated April 6, 1992, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, re: Route 240 Guard
rails, received as follows:
"At meetings with the Board of Supervisors in February and March,
the issue of guardrail needed along Route 240 was discussed. As a
result of those discussions, I have reviewed the accident data for
a two and a half year period. The accident data does not show
very many accidents, however, the vast majority involved vehicles
leaving the road. Based upon this fact and the steep drop off
existing along the section in question, I have requested guard-
rail be installed. My request has been approved. Please advise
the Board that guardrail will be installed along Route 240 from
its crossing of Lickinghole Creek to approximately the intersec-
tion with Route 802 as a part of this year's guardrail schedule.
That schedule is due to be advertised in April and should start
work around the middle of June."
Item 5.6. Notice dated March 27, 1992, from the State Corporation
Commission titled, "In the matter of assessment for taxation for the tax year
1991 for Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation," was received for information.
Item 5.7. 1992 First Quarter Building Report, as prepared by the County
Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for informa-
tion.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-91-39. Willie Mae Hoover. Public Hearing on a
request to amend $P-88-86 in order to permit rental of a single-wide mobile
home on 5.0 ac zoned RA. Property on pvt rd on W side of Rt 20 approx 2.7 mi
S of Rt 742. TM102,P1E. Scottsville Dist. (Defer to June 17, 1992.)
Mr. Bowerman announced that the applicant is requesting deferral until
June 17, 1992.
M.B. 41, Pg. 14
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer SP-91-39
until June 17, 1992. Roll was called and the motiOn carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-91-41. Gifford & Rachel Crawford. Public
Hearing on a request to amend SP-91-15 in order to permit rental of a single-
wide mobile home on 2.0 ac zoned RA. Property on N side of Rt 776 approx 3/10
mi W of Rt 664. TM18,P8J. White Hall Dist. (Defer to June 17, 1992.)
Mr. Bowerman announced that there is also a request to defer SP-91-41
until June 17, 1992.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer
SP-91-41 until June 17, 1992. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshallr Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-92-01. Paran United Methodist Church. Public
Hearing on a request to amend SP-89-104 to permit day care/nursery School in
an existing church on E side of Rt 606 approx 0.2 mi N of inters with Rt 29,
property zoned RA & EC. TM21,P16. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1992.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. He noted that a major
issue in the review of the special use permit was the adequacy of Route 606 to
accommodate the additional traffic generated by the church. He added that the
road was widened to 14 feet as part of the church construction. Staff felt
approval of this request would almost triple traffic on a nontolerable gravel
road. Staff opinion is that approval of this request under such circumstances
is inappropriate. Staff may be able to support the request at such time as
Route 606 is improved. Mr. Keeler noted that at this time Route 606 is not
scheduled for any improvements. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of SP-92-
01, but should the Commission and Board choose to approve the request, staff
offers the following conditions:
"1. Compliance with Section 5.16 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center.
It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator
to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the
required license and all renewals thereafter and to
notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expira-
tion, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days
of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by
the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with
the provisions of this ordinance; and
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated
herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Health,
Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state
or federal agency.
2. Enrollment shall be limited to eleven (11) students until
· such time as the septic system is enlarged. Maximum
enrollment shall not exceed twenty (20) students."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 11,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of $P-92-01 subject to the conditions
recommended for approval by the staff, with conditions la and 2 amended as
follows:
No such use shall operate without any required
licenses. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator
a copy of any required licenses (or proof of exemption
from licensure) and all renewals thereafter and to
notify the Zoning Administrator of any license
expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3)
days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
M.B. 41, Pg. 15
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
2. Maximum enrollment shall not exceed twenty (20) students or
such lesser number as may be approved by the Health
Department."
Mr. Bain wondered if a letter could be sent to applicants outlining what
the applicant is allowed to do when his/her permit is approved. He asked if
that is something staff could so that an applicant would not be inadvertently
operating in violation and then apply after the fact.
Mr. Tucker said staff has thought about doing that in the past, but it
could cause some problems. Once some information is provided, there is a
false sense of security from the applicant that these are the only things that
can or cannot be done. He said that the entire Ordinance would have to be
taken into consideration. He went on to say staff has been reluctant to do
this unless there was definitive information that could be given to an appli-
cant which is specific to a certain use in the Ordinance. Mr. Tucker feels
that if anything is left out of the information provided to the applicant, it
would put the County in a defensive situation. He added that it would be
simple to provide the uses that are permitted by right and by special use
permit in a particular district. The applicant could be made aware that there
may be other uses allowed, but the uses would need to be verified by staff.
He asked if he is making himself clear about the problems that might develop
if the staff tries to provide all of the various uses and the items that will
not be permitted.
Mr. Bain said he understood what Mr. Tucker was saying, but still felt
that a statement should be included in the letters of approval to applicants
outlining what the applicant is permitted to do in the district for which the
approval was received. If the applicant has any questions on uses allowed,
contact the Planning Department or the Zoning Department.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. He asked for
comments from the applicant.
Ms. Shelly Shankle, Director of Preschool at Paran United Methodist
Church, said this is a cooperative preschool, which is open three hours for
three mornings per week. She said that 11 children attend the preschool
program, and they range in age from three years to five years of age. She
noted that the parents of these preschoolers are the helpers, and she is the
teacher. This is a small program and low in cost, but it is very beneficial.
She pointed out that the parents cannot afford to drive to Charlottesville and
pay $50 a month for this service. She said the church provides activities and
social functions for residents in this area. She remarked that this is a
wonderful church, and she does not believe that the Board should limit its
activities. She especially does not feel that the Board should limit the
preschool activities.
No one else wished to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-92-01 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None..
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Compliance with Section 5.16 of the Zoning Ordinance:
ae
No such use shall operate without any required
licenses. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator
a copy of any required licenses (or proof of exemption
from licensure) and all renewals thereafter and to
notify the Zoning Administrator of any license
expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3)
days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
be
Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by
the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with
the provisions of this ordinance; and
Ce
These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated
herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Health,
Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state
or federal agency.
M.B. 41, Pg. 16
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meetifig)
(Page 6)
2. Maximum enrollment shall not exceed twenty (20) students or
such lesser number as may be approved by the Health
Department.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-92-02. Harold & Sarah Hensley. Public Hearing
on a request for a Home Occupation-Class B for hauling business involving 3
trucks on property in Oak Hill Subd in SW corner of inters of Pinehurst Court
& Rt 631. Property of 0.3 ac zoned R-2 and lies in EC Dist. TM90A,P24D,Sec
A. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April
7, 1992.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Staff opinion is that
this request more closely resembles a contractor's office and equipment
storage yard which is allowed in the HC, Highway Commercial, district by
special use permit and in the Industrial districts by-right. That is to say
the applicant is seeking relief from home occupation regulations to the extent
that the use would no longer be appropriate to a residential setting. Staff
recommends denial of the request. Staff does note that all adjoining property
owners support the applicant's request.
Mr. Keeler said the home occupation provisions are intended to permit
low intensity commercial activity to occur in residential districts in a
manner subordinate to the residential use of the property. The regulations
governing home occupations are intended to minimize the impact of home
occupations to the point that it is not evident that the occupations are
occurring. Staff opinion is that the proposed use exceeds the scale and
intensity of activities contemplated by the home occupation provisions.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this request, staff offers
the following recommended conditions of approval:
"1. No on-site sales;
2. Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members
who reside on-site;
3.Compliance with the performance standards of Section 4.1.4
of the Zoning Ordinance; and
4. Repair of drainage pipe under the driveway entrance."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 24,
1992, by a vote of five to one, recommended approval of SP-92-02 subject to
the four conditions recommended by staff and the following fifth condition:
"5. Permit will expire two (2) years after date of issuance."
Mr. Keeler noted that at the Commission meeting someone asked the
question of whether this use was grandfathered. At the meeting, Mr. Hensley
stated that he has had as many as ten trucks over a period of 26 years, and he
has lived in several locations in Oak Hill Subdivision. Mr. Keeler said this
issue was discussed by the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney, and
it was determined that this use was not grandfathered. Mr. Keeler went on to
say that during the discussions, the Commission noted that the use had existed
several years without complaint, and there has been no opposition from the
neighbors. He also explained that due to the pending construction on Route
631, the business should not be obtrusive to the area. The Commission felt
the negative aspects could be overcome by the two year limitation.
Mr. Bain asked why a two year limitation was recommended. Mr. Keeler
replied that according to Mr. Hensley one of the trucks belongs to him and two
of the trucks belong to his son. His son lives in an area where the trucks
cannot be parked. Mr. Hensley thinks that his son can find another location
to park his trucks within those two years. Mr. Keeler said the Commissioner
who voted against the application thought the use was not consistent with a
home occupation.
Mr. Marshall commented that this property lies in his district, and
these trucks have been there for as long as he can remember. He knows every-
body in that neighborhood, and nobody has any objection to this request. He
sees no reason why the request should not be approved.
Mr. Bain asked if the issue of whether this use was grandfathered had
been clearly considered by staff and the County Attorney. He noted that one
of the letters in support of this business indicated that this situation
existed in the past. He inquired if staff and the County Attorney are satis-
fied that there was some time lapse when this use was not occurring. Mr.
Keeler informed Mr. Bain that he was not involved with those discussions. To
his knowledge the County Attorney was contacted by the Zoning Department.
Mr. St. John remarked that he does not remember being consulted about
this particular issue. He added, though, that the question of whether the
business could be grandfathered is an element that can be considered at this
meeting, and he does not think that it is grandfathered. The word "grand-
M.B. 41, Pg. 17
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Mee~ihg)
(Page 7)
fathered" means that by having the use in existence prior to any Zoning
Ordinance, the use is exempt from the Zoning Ordinance. If this use was
grandfathered, a special use permit would not be needed, and the applicant
would have the absolute right to continue. He added that by seeking a special
use permit, the applicant puts himself in the posture of admitting, for the
purpose of this application, that the use is not grandfathered.
Mr. Bain pointed out that the applicant could have been cited for this
use, and the request might not have come from the applicant. He said the
could have originated in the Zoning office, and the applicant could be
under duress to make this application. He is, however, not saying that this
is the case with this application.
Mr. St. John agreed that the applicant might be under duress to make an
application if the Zoning Department cited him for this business, but the fact
that the applicant was grandfathered would have nothing to do with the crite-
ria for the issuance or withholding of a special use permit. He said that it
has to be determined whether the applicant has a right to this use, and if the
Zoning Administrator determines that the use is not grandfathered, then this
question needs to be taken to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He pointed out
that a grandfathered use cannot be carried from address to address, even
though it is within the same subdivision. He recalled that Mr. Keeler had
stated that Mr. Hensley indicated he had been conducting this business for
over 20 years at various addresses within Oak Hill Subdivision.
Mr. Keeler said he understands that Mr. Hensley has had trucks in the
development for more than 20 years, but that the hauling business has only
been in existence since the 1980's. He noted that this places the use after
the date of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. St. John reiterated that because the trucks were located in various
places within the subdivision, there is no way that the use can be grand-
fathered.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if he had
any comments.
Mr. HaroLd Hensley, the applicant, came forward to speak. He agrees
that the use is not grandfathered because he has lived in three different
locations in Oak Hill Subdivision. He has lived in the same area for 26
years, but he has not always had a hauling business. He added, though, that
he has always had some kind of business because he has had wreckers, flatbed
trucks and lots of cars. He has never had 10 or 12 trucks at one time, but he
had 10 or 12 cars. He noted that he did not solicit the petition in
support of his application that was given to the Supervisors. The neighbors
circulated the petition. His neighbors do not object to the business because
he keeps his trucks on his own property.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Hensley if he knows how the other 12 property
owners on his street feel. Mr. Hensley replied that he feels as though they
do not object. The trucks were there when most of the newer residents
purchased their properties. Mr. Hensley reiterated that, to his knowledge, no
one objects.
Mrs. Humphris asked why the time limit was set for two years instead of
some other time period. Mr. Hensley answered that he is attempting to sell
his property. In addition his son needs time to find somewhere to move the
trucks.
Mr. St. John inquired if there was any maintenance involved with the
trucks. Mr2 Hensley replied, "yes." He said that he maintains the trucks at
home, and sometimes he makes a mess, but he always cleans up when he finishes
a job. Mr. St. John noted that if Mr. Hensley's son moves his two trucks,
there would only be one truck left there on the site. Mr. Hensley agreed. He
added that if he could find someone to buy it, he would sell his truck now.
Mr. St. John stated that one truck would be an ancillary use and a special use
permit would not be needed. Mr. Hensley commented that he does not intend to
purchase any more trucks for himself.
No one else wished to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Mo%ion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
SP-92-02 subject to the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion.
Mrs. Humphris said she finds this a hard situation with which to deal
because no one wants to cause a businessman problems. She pointed out that
this use is far from what the Zoning Ordinance describes as a home occupation.
She agrees with the staff report "that the applicant is seeking relief from
home occupation regulations to the extent that the use would no longer be
appropriate in a residential setting". She agrees with staff that this use is
more like a contractor's office and an equipment storage yard than it is a
home occupation. She noted that there are three large trucks leaving the
site, sometimes as early as 5:30 a.m., and she does not believe that this is
pleasing to everybody in the neighborhood.
M.B. 41, Pg. 18
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mrs. Hump~ris commented that this business is not something a homeowner
would expect to~findin a. residential neighborhood. A home occupation is
supposed to be out of sight. A home occupation is supposed to be an activity
that is in harmony with a low density residential district. This activity
does not fit into that category. The business involves the storage and
maintenance of trucks outside of a structure, and, therefore, the business
cannot comply with the section of the Ordinance which indicates "that there
should be no change in the outside appearance of buildings or premises".
There is supposed to be no visible evidence of the conduct of such home
occupation, other than one sign. She does not find any language in the
Ordinance that would suggest that this is a normal activity that should be
taking place in a residential area. In addition there are two other drivers
coming onto the site, and three trucks going in and out of the subdivision on
a regular basis early and late in the day. She understands Mr. Hensley's good
intentions. Nevertheless, there are other people in the neighborhood who have
not made their views known. Even though Mr. Hensley is a very likeable
gentleman, the buying and selling of property in that subdivision is bound to
hinge on the existence of this particular occupation. Mrs. Humphris indicated
that she has to agree with staff, because she is unable to identify any
factors within the ordinance that make this a home occupation.
Mr. Marshall said Mr. Hensley has lived in that area for many years.
Mr. Hensley is well-liked by everyone and that is why the neighbors got
together and signed the petition for him. He believes that Mr. Hensley is
telling the truth when he says he intends to move. There is major road
construction going on in the area and he cannot see any reason to cause Mr.
Hensley additional hardship. Mr. Hensley is not asking for anything that has
not already been there for a number of years. Mr. Marshall said if this was a
new request for a similar situation, he would not support it, but the neigh-
bors have been living there with this situation for a long time° When he
drove by Mr. Hensley's house, he saw three trucks sitting behind the house,
and there was nothing else back there, and the trucks were clean.
Mr. Martin said he understands how Mrs. Humphris feels. If this request
was for a new use, he would have reservations about supporting it, but Mr.
Hensley has been in the same neighborhood for a long time and the neighbors
are not complaining. He also supports this request because of the two year
limit.
Mrs. Mumphris asked Mr. Martin his thoughts if Mr. Hensley comes back to
the Board in two years and reports that his son has not been able to remove
the two trucks, and he wants another two years. Mr. Martin answered that
would be a different situation. To him, the two year limit is an important
factor.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he hopes Mr. Hensley is successful in selling
his property, but if it is not sold in two years, he would still support the
business.
Mr. Bain complimented the staff on its report. He thinks the staff
followed the Ordinance and identified the things that the Board had asked to
be identified. He agrees with all of the things the staff pointed out as not
being conducive to R-2 zoning. He agrees with Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin and
in no circumstance would he support this request if it was for a new opera-
tion. He hears from time to time that the applicants before the Board are
good people, but most people are good people, and land use decisions should
not be based upon that fact. In considering this application, he has to con-
sider what will happen in that area in the next year and a half. Mr. Bain
pointed out that for the next two years the whole area is going to be in
turmoil because of the new construction. In addition, Mr. Hensley voluntarily
agreed to the two year limitation. Mr. Bain said he does not want to
encourage this type of use in other parts of the County, but he will support
this request, with the conditions that the Planning Commission recommended.
Mr. Bowerman said he concurs with Mr. Bain comments. He thinks this is
a unique situation.
Mrs. Humphris said she hopes Board members understand that the Ordinance
is not based on the individual, personality or personal knowledge. She wants
it known that in approving this application, Board members understand that
these are special circumstances as far as the location of the property, and
the circumstances over the next two years.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the ~ollowing recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. No on-site sales;
2. Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members
who reside on-site;
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meetihg)
(Page 9)
4e
M.B. 41, Pg. 19
Compliance with the performance standards of Section 4.1.4
of the Zoning Ordinance;
Repair of drainage pipe under the driveway entrance; and
Permit will expire two (2) years after date of issuance.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-92-03. James River Baptist Church. Public
Hearing on a request for a church on 12 acs zoned RA. Property in SW corner
of inters of Rts 737/726. TM130,P35A,35A1. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1992.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Mr. Keeler stated
that a special use permit was approved in 1988 for this use, but there have
been some changes in the posture of this application from the original
request.
Staff opinion is that certain uses such as churches, day cares and
schools contribute to the well being of the community. In this posture, staff
review is confined to issues of physical development while other considera-
tions of appropriateness of the use to a given location is a matter of legis-
lative discretion. Staff has received two letters of objection from the same
property owner. Staff opinion is that the use of the existing structure, as
proposed, should not be detrimental to adjacent properties, the character of
the district will not change and the use should be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of SP-92-03
subject to the following conditions:
"1. Staff approval of sketch plan to include Health Department
approval, Fire Official approval and Virginia Department of
Transportation approval of entrance. Locate parking behind
the existing dwelling;
2. The existing dwelling shall serve not more than a 60-member
congregation and shall have a sanctuary area not to exceed
460 square feet;
3. Expansion or construction of sanctuary area shall be located
at least 300 feet from Route 726 and 140 feet from Route
737. Sanctuary area shall, in no case, exceed 1200 square
feet without an amendment to this special use permit.
Construction of new church shall commence within six years
or approval of the new structure shall expire;
4. Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new
church, the existing building shall cease sanctuary use;
5. The property may not be further divided;
6. Approval is for worship and related church use only. Day
care or other such uses will require an amendment to the
permit;
7. Only those areas required for the church and appurtenant
improvements shall be cleared. All other areas shall remain
in a natural state; and
8. Care shall be taken during construction to minimize grading
and installation of improvements."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 10,
1992, by a vote of six to one, recommended approval of SP-92-03 subject to the
eight conditions recommended by staff, with condition #3 amended and the
following condition #9 added:
"3.
Expansion or construction of sanctuary area shall be located at
least 300 feet from Route 726 and 140 feet from Route 737.
Sanctuary area shall, in no case, exceed 1200 square feet without
an amendment to this special use permit. Construction of new
church shall commence within six years or approval of the new
structure and existing building shall expire;
Access to the church shall be from Route 737 only. Existing
entrance on Route 726 shall be closed.
Mr. Keeler noted that the focus of the Commission's discussion was the
length of the special use permit because the church would not be built right
away. He said that there is a provision in the Ordinance which allows the
Board of Supervisors to approve a special use permit for whatever period of
time that the Board deems to be reasonable. Normally for a permit requiring
construction, the permit is valid for two years. He added that it is known
that this church does not anticipate being under construction in two years, so
the staff recommended a period of six years to be applicable to the new church
M.B. 41, Pg. 20
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
construction. He went on to say that the Planning Commission resolved this
issue by amending condition #3 to recommend the permit be valid for six years.
He explained that the Commissioner who voted against the petition felt it was
premature to allow a six year time frame, and also the same Commissioner
expressed concerns about the lack of public utilities.
Mr. Martin wondered if there could be a problem whereby the foundation
for the church might be built within the six year time period, but construc-
tion of the church might be delayed for another couple of years. Mr. Keeler
replied that there is a provision in the Ordinance which describes commence-
ment of construction to include actual building construction as opposed to
grading the site. He said that the Ordinance also states: "Thereafter the
work shall be prosecuted in good faith." He stated this means an applicant
could not hammer one nail a month for ten years, but it is a subjective
determination by the Zoning Administrator. He added, however, that progress
has to be demonstrated.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Rev. James Jetton, Pastor of the James River Baptist Church, stated that
he does not have much to add, but he would be happy to answer questions. He
said the church owns 12 acres of property which was purchased in 1988 for the
purpose of building a church. He went on to say that the church's congrega-
tion has grown some since that time, but not as fast as had been anticipated.
He said that is why the church group is still unable to construct the church
building. He has since purchased a home and moved out of the house that is on
the property. There is one large room in the house that will suffice for a
sanctuary for the 60 people who are involved with the church. He stated,
however, that there are not 60 people who come to this church every Sunday,
and he noted that the number of actual congregation members each Sunday is
closer to 35 or 40. VDoT has been contacted and approved the plans for
construction of a new driveway. In addition, tentative approval has been
received from the Health Department, although there are still some issues that
are unresolved. He added that a stoop will be built at the back door so that
entry to and from the house will be safer. The congregation is looking
forward to using the house for worship since the old Scottsville School is
presently being used. He said that the Scottsville School is an awkward
arrangement for worship since everything has to be set up and taken down every
Sunday. He stated that Sunday School classes can also be held in the house.
Mr. Richard Shaffer, Co-owner with Gordon Anderson, of the property known
as the Chester Bed and Breakfast, which is directly across the street from the
proposed James River Baptist Church, spoke next. He noted that in December,
1988, his business was represented before this Board as opposing a petition by
the church somewhat similar to the one that is currently before the Board. He
stated that the Board's ultimate disposition of that petition included
several conditions that made its approval acceptable to him. Specifically,
Mr. Shaffer pointed out that the conditions indicated that any church would be
located at least 300 feet from Route 726 and 140 feet from Route 737, with the
entrance to the church being off of Route 737. Also, Mr. Shaffer said the
conditions stated that the current structure would be used~only as a parson-
age.
Mr. Shaffer recalled that at the Planning Commission hearing on this
request, Commissioner Huckle stated that it might be a good idea for the
Commission to give more thought before locating churches in rural areas where
water and sewer could be a potential problem. He said it is obvious that the
Commission and the staff have given little, if any, consideration to this
important matter. He pointed out that the property in question is located in
the Totier Creek watershed area. He added that this Board recently refused a
property owner, whose land is within 200 yards of the church property, the
right to connect to a proposed sewer extension to be located directly across
Route 6 from the owner's land. He noted that the Board's refusal was based
solely on a stated assumption that connection could possibly create too much
development within the watershed area. He asked how the Commission can
justify submitting to this Board a recommendation for approval of a church
with a capacity of up to 60 people, and construction of a church that would
have the capacity of 130 people, and not question the impact on the watershed
area.
Mr. Shaffer emphasized this Board's approval in 1988 of a permit requir-
ing specific setbacks of 300 feet from Route 726 and 140 feet from Route 737.
He said that now the Commission is asking this Board to approve a site of
approximately 115 feet from Route 726, which is one-third the previous minimum
requirement. He asked the Board to not be deluded in thinking in terms of a
temporary sanctuary. He does not believe the church group is any further
along financially in building the actual church than it was three years ago.
He said that approval of this application would be nothing more than a sham if
a church is being located for a minimum of six years in an area that was found
not to be a suitable site in 1988. The Commission is recommending the permit
be approved for six years, and he thinks that is ludicrous. He asked if, in
the past, this Board has ever granted a special use permit which allowed an
individual property owner or contractor a six year period to commence con-
struction. He doubts that this has ever been done. He is appalled that the
Commission would make this recommendation thereby setting a precedent for
future applications. He is further appalled that Mr. Keeler is proposing a
M.B. 41, Pg. 21
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Mee~i'h~)
(Page 11)
six year time frame solel~ to save the petitioner the cost of additional fees
for filing extensions~ He doubts very much that the cost of fees, with
considera-tion for time limits, was established for special use permits as
they relate to new construction. He is aware that the zoning regulations
specifically grant this Board, as a condition of approval, authority to
"impose such alternative time limits as may be reasonable in a particular
case." He does not consider six years to be reasonable in this specific
matter. He asked if this Board would grant his business a special permit with
a six year time limit based solely on the fact that financial resources were
not available to commence construction before that time, or, that his business
wanted to save future filing fees. He doubts it. He stated that is what the
Commission is recommending this Board do in the case of James River Baptist
Church. He does not think that because the petitioner is a church, it should
be entitled to any more preferential treatment than would be accorded to any
other property owner.
In conclusion, Mr. Shaffer stated that if this Board believes the new
structure is acceptable as a church and the location of this property in the
Totier Creek watershed area is of no consequence, then it should approve the
permit. However, Mr. Shaffer asked why this Board does not issue a special
use permit for the use of the existing structure as a permanent church,
thereby eliminating the precedent setting six year time frame. His second
point is that if this Board does have concern regarding the location of the
church, as was exhibited by the conditions imposed on the petition in 1988,
and which his business was able to accept, he sees no justification for
allowing use of the existing structure as a church for a minimum of six years.
He said that the lack of money on the part of a petitioner, or saving future
filing fee costs, should not be deemed justification for this Board to grant
such alternative time limits as would be reasonable in a particular case. He
added that, when the initial permit was approved, the minister did use the
house as a parsonage. He went on to say, however, that he has never known the
parsonage to be used as a church during the past two years. He reiterated
that his property is located across the street from the proposed use.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Bain asked if the existing building is currently being used as a
church. Rev. Jetton remarked that the existing building is being used as a
church only on Wednesday evenings, which started after he moved out of it.
Mr. Marshall asked how many people are in the congregation. Rev. Jetton
answered that there are between 35 and 45 people in the congregation. Next,
Mr. Marshall inquired as to how many people were in the congregation at the
time of the first application. Rev. Jetton responded that there were only 28
people in the congregation the first time he applied for a permit. He stated
that now there are 56 members. He noted that the church property is located
in a business setting; it is across the street from Dansey's Plumbing and
Heating, and the Chester Bed and Breakfast.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Keeler of the six year time limit is unusual for
a special use permit. Mr. Keeler answered that special permits for the
Keswick County Club were approved in 1985, and construction is still continu-
ing there, and the special use permits have been extended. He noted that
under the prior Zoning Ordinance, planned developments were accomplished by
special use permits. He pointed out that Branchlands was approved in 1973 or
1974, and it is still under construction. He said that it is not uncommon for
an applicant to request an extension of a special permit. He stated that in
many cases, the request is simply put on this Board's agenda, and it is not
referred back to the Commission. He then referred to the issue of additional
fees, in this particular case. He said that his recommendation for the six
year period was relative to the problem of possibly two or three expirations
of ~he permit with no guarantee to the applicant that the permit would be
reapproved. He stated that the Commission minutes will attest to the fact
that there was a lot of concern regarding this matter. He pointed out that
the minister had already stipulated he was doubtful if the church could be
built, if a shorter time frame was approved. He added that a time frame such
as this one is uncommon at the time of initial approval, but it has not been
uncommon, as a matter of practice, to renew the permits.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the implications of approving the existing
building for church use with no mention of a new building or six year limit
for construction. Mr. Keeler replied that this would leave the church group
with use of the existing building and no guarantee that a new church could be
constructed.
Mrs. Humphris next inquired, if, after six years have gone by, would the
church group still be able to use the existing building, if the new church is
not built. Mr. Keeler responded that the church group would not be able to
use the existing building beyond the six year period, because the whole permit
would expire.
Mr. Bain pointed out that the two permits involved different things. He
said that the earlier permit did not request the existing structure to be used
for a church because it was going to be used for the parsonage. He went
M.B. 41, Pg. 22
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
on to say that,~nowi the request relates to using he parsonage for church
services, as well as an extension of time for construction of the church.
Mr. St. John stated that he thinks clarification needs to be made because
this is a separate special use permit for the same piece of land. He noted
that the special use permit in 1988 allowed for the building of a church which
never was started. He asked if the request to build the church is being
renewed, or if it being incorporated into the new request to allow the present
dwelling to be used for a church and construction of a new building. Mr.
Keeler replied that the second permit will replace the first permit. The
Zoning Administrator determined that the original special permit has expired.
Mr. Bain wondered about the requirements for the septic drainfield, etc.,
if the existing building is used for church services. He noted that, if this
special use permit is approved, the existing building will be used for
church services on Sundays, as well as during the week nights. Mr. Keeler
replied that if a church is devoted to worship services, the demand would be
approximately the same as it would be for a three to four bedroom dwelling.
He said that there is a peak demand, and it is his understanding that an
oversized septic tank would have a slower release, and would be more appro-
priate than constructing a large drainfield. He reiterated that it is
difficult to compare this situation with a septic field for a family dwelling,
because it works on a peak principle.
Mr. Bain said he is not interested in supporting both options. He noted
that the Health Department's approval relates to using the facility now. He
does not think that regulations for the new church should be tied into this
special use permit until the church is ready to be built. He realizes that in
rural areas church use has been allowed whether or not it is in the area of
the reservoir. He stated that when the group is ready to build a church, it
would then be appropriate to apply for a new special use permit.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Bain thinks approval should be for the existing
structure to accommodate up to 60 people for an unlimited time period and at
such time as the applicants are ready to build the church, they come back with
another request. Mr. Bain responded "yes".
Mr. Perkins asked if this changes the nature of the request. Mr. Bain
responded the application would be for a less intensity. He went on to say
that the church group is requesting use of the existing structure now and a
new church building in the future. He said that his proposal is that the new
church would not be included with this application. Mr. Perkins concurred
with Mr. Bain's comments.
Mr. Martin inquired about the time frame involved with the application.
He noted that use of the existing structure as a church is not favorable to
adjacent property owners as a church. He asked if a time frame for the
building of the church is still needed so there will be some motivation. Mr.
Tucker pointed out that the church congregation is limited to 60 people. Mr.
Bowerman agreed. He said that if the congregation grows as is expected, it
will put a definite limitation on use of the existing structure.
Mr. Bowerman asked Rev. Jetton if he understood the Board's discussion
and if this is an acceptable solution. Rev. Jetton responded that the Commis-
sion made its recommendation because the makeup of the Board may change when
it comes to build the church. He asked Mr. Keeler if he was correct in this
assumption. Mr. Keeler replied that Mr. Blue may have made some comments to
that effect during the Commission meeting. Rev. Jetton stated that the church
may have problems later, if the time frame for building the church is not
included with this application. Mr. Bowerman commented that this would be
true of any situation where an expansion was not anticipated and it would be
the decision of the members who are serving on the Board at that time.
Mr. Marshall asked if this property is included in the proposed boundary
line adjustment for the Town of Scottsville. Rev. Jetton answered that he
does not think so.
At this time, Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
SP-92-03, subject to conditions #1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 recommended by the Plann-
ing Commission.
Mr. Martin asked if a time frame should be included in the motion. He is
thinking that adjacent property owners may not object to a church with a 300
foot setback. He pointed out that the congregation may not grow rapidly, and
the existing building could be in operation for church services for many
years, if there is not a time frame involved.
Mr. Bain commented that he is willing to include in his motion that this
application will be subject to the Board of Supervisors' review five years
from the date of approval. He added that if there is a need for building the
church before that time, church representatives can come back to this Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that is a condition that can be applied to this
application. Mr. Bain responded that this is a special use permit, and this
Board can put whatever conditions on the application that it deems appro-
priate. Mrs. Humphris remarked that five years seems like a long time° She
M.B. 41, Pg. 23
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
suggested that if the Board wants to review the application at a later time,
then perhaps three years would be more appropriate.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that if the property was located in Charlottes-
ville, three years may be reasonable. He said, though, that this property is
located in a slow growth area.
Mr. Bain then suggested that a four year time frame be included in the
motion. He then amended his motion to include the following additional
condition: "This permit shall be advertised for review by the Board of
Supervisors four (4) years from date of approval." As seconder, Mrs. Humphris
agreed,
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Shaffer if the Board's action will be detrimental
to him in any way. Mr. Shaffer had no problem with the recommended
conditions.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Staff approval of sketch plan to include Health Department
approval, Fire Official approval and Virginia Department of
Transportation approval of entrance (please provide the
Board office with a copy of the approved final sketch).
Locate parking behind the existing dwelling;
2o
The existing dwelling shall serve not more than a 60-member
congregation and shall have a sanctuary area not to exceed
460 square feet;
3. The property may not be further divided;
4e
Approval is for worship and related church use only as to
the existing structure. Day care or other such uses will
require an amendment to the permit;
· Only those areas required for the church and appurtenant
improvements shall be cleared. All other areas shall remain
in a natural state;
6e
Access to the church shall be from Rt. 737 only. Existing
entrance on Rt. 726 shall be closed; and
7e
This permit shall be advertised for review by the Board of
Supervisors four (4) years from date of approval.
Agenda Item No. 11. $P-92-05. James & Sue Willis. Public Hearing on a
request to amend SP-90-115 to increase number of students permitted in
existing day care from 30 to 40. Property of 2.5 acs zoned RA & located on S
side of Rt 738 W of & adjacent to Murray School. TM58,P37C2. Samuel Miller
Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1992.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerks
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. He noted that
the State has determined that the building is adequate to accommodate 49
students, but under the BOCA Building Code, it is adequate for 45 students.
Mr. Keeler said the applicant's proposal will not result in any
additional building construction, but will require the installation of three
parking spaces. The increased number of students will increase traffic levels
by 46 vehicle trips per day. It is the opinion of staff that this request is
consistent with $P-90-115 and that the potential negative factors cited in
that report 'have been overcome. Therefore, staff recommends approval of
SP-92-05 subject to the following conditions which are the same as those for
SP-90-115 with the amendment of condition 7 and the modification/deletions of
conditions 1 and 6:
"1. No expansion of the existing building;
2e
Access shall be established at a point as far on the west of
the parcel as will be approved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation;
3e
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commer-
cial entrance permit;
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
No .such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center.
It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Mee%ih~)
(Page 14)
7e
M.B. 41, Pg. 24
to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the
original license and all renewals thereafter and to
notify the Zoning Administrator of any license
expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3)
days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
50
Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by
the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with
the provisions of this ordinance; and
Ce
These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated
herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Health,
Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state
or federal agency.
Administrative approval of site plan;
clcvaticns prcv~c~ in ~ u .... ~ '-~
Enrollment shall be limited to tkirty~,'~' forty (40)
students."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 11,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-05 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff with condition #7 amended as follows:
"7 ·
Enrollment shall be limited to ~Z-~y ...... ~'~n' forty-five (45)
students or such lesser number as may be approved by the
Health Department."
The Commission recommended that condition #6 remain because many of the
other conditions have also been met, and there could be confusion if #6 is
eliminated.
Mr. Bain pointed out some of the other conditions that were not relative
at this time. Mr. Keeler agreed. He said that these are the original condi-
tions, and that #7 is the only condition that involves a change.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing, at this time. He asked if the
applicant had any comments.
Mr. Willis, the applicant, stated that he is a resident of Ivy. He
said that he did not think he needed to add anything unless the Board had
questions concerning the maximum number of children.
There was no further public comment, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Bain remarked that the day care center is adjacent to Murray
Elementary School, and he noted that the request is not for an expansion of
the building. He stated the reason there is room available for more children
is because there are some kitchen services that are no longer needed.
Mr. Bain then offered motion, second,4 by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
SP-92-05, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission,
including condition #6. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. No expansion of the existing building;
Access shall be established at a point as far on the west of
the parcel as will be approved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation;
3e
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commer-
cial entrance permit;
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
ae
No such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center.
It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator
to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the
original license and all renewals thereafter and to
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night M~%i~)
(Page 15)
6o
70
M.B. 41, Pg. 25
notify the Zoning Administrator of any license
expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3)
days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by
the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with
the provisions of this ordinance; and
These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated
herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Health,
Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state
or federal agency.
Administrative approval of site plan;
Building shall be constructed in general accord with
elevations provided in Attachments E and F; and
Enrollment shall be limited to forty-five (45) students or
such lesser number as may be approved by the Health
Department.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-92-06. Blaise Gaston. Public Hearing on a
request for a Home Occupation-Class B to permit custom furniture business in a
proposed structure of 3500 sq ft on 5.9 acs zoned RA on S side of Rt 662
approx 0.5 mi W of Rt 660. TM30,P15C. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1992.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerks
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. He said the applicant
is proposing to construct a new three-story structure of approximately 3500
square feet. The first floor, which would be built into the hillside, will
consist of 750 square feet for storage of household items. The additional 750~
square feet would be used for storage of lumber and mechanical equipment
involved in the making of furniture. The entire second floor, 1500 square
feet, will be used for the shop. The third floor, consisting of approximately
400 square feet, will be used as a painting studio. This will be a hobby use
and not a home occupation.
Mr. Keeler noted that requests for activities similar to that proposed
by the applicant usually averages 738 square feet. This request proposes a
new structure of approximately 3500 square feet of which 2250 square feet will
be used for the conduct of the home occupation. Staff notes that, if
approved, it may be difficult to deny other requests that do not comply with
the provisions of Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff opinion is
that the unfavorable factors outweigh the favorable factors and that this
request is inconsistent with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance,
therefore, staff recommends denial of SP-92-06. Should the Planning Commis-
sion and Board choose to approve this request, staff offers the following
recommended conditions of approval:
"1.
Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members
who reside on-site;
2e
Compliance with the performance standards of Section 4.1.4
of the Zoning Ordinance;
New structure to house the home occupation shall be located
as shown on plat initialed WDF and dated 3/19/92; and
4e
Construction of a commercial entrance to the standards
stated in the February 25, 1992, Virginia Department of
Transportation comments."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 31,
1992, by a vote of three to three, failed to make a recommendation on SP-92-
06. During the review of the request, the Commission stated several concerns.
Conditions to address those concerns are highlighted below. The effect of
this use on the environment, particularly on the reservoir, was a major
concern of the Commission. In an effort to address those concerns, staff has
added conditions requiring Health Department approval and methods of disposal
for waste. The Commission was also concerned that this use, once approved,
would remain and potentially change to a more intensive use should the
applicant ever leave the site. To address that concern, staff has recommended
that approval be limited to the current applicant only. Following is a list
of additional recommended conditions should the Board choose to approve the
request:
"4. Health Department approval;
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night'Me~%in~)
(Page 16)
5.
6.
M.B. 41, Pg. 26
Permit is issued for use by Blaise Gaston only; and
County Engineer approval of method of disposal of all sol-
vents, finishes, paints, lacquers and the like including
clean-up materials/liquids and applicators."
Mr. Keeler said subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, Mr.
Gaston submitted additional information to address some of the issues and
concerns of the Commission. Mr. Keeler added that the Board may want to refer
this application back to the Commission, or Mr. Gaston may want to request
that his application be returned to the Commission. Mr. Keeler pointed out
that the information submitted by Mr. Gaston, in a letter dated April 7, 1992,
addresses the concern about disposal of the residue paints and rags and the
cleaning of brushes. Mr. Keeler said Mr. Gaston also noted that he will not
be able to dispose of any of the materials in the septic system. Mr. Keeler
pointed out that Mr. Gaston contacted Mr. Gary Rice, of the Health Department,
about the use of the new building. Mr. Keeler stated that these are issues
related to environmental concerns. Mr. Keeler remarked that in staff's
opinion the only remaining unresolved issue is the size of the building in
relation to home occupation regulations. Mr. Keeler said Mr. Gaston also
wants to locate an air compressor and a dust vacuum in the area of the home
occupation. Mr. Gaston had intended to locate these two pieces of equipment
outside, but in order to address noise concerns, he agreed to locate them
inside the building. Mr. Keeler went on to say that an engineer is also
present to address the noise concerns.
Mr. Bain asked if locating this equipment inside, particularly relating
to dust collection, is more beneficial than having it outside. Mr. Keeler
responded that the Ordinance requires there be no outside evidence of the
conduct of the home occupation. Mr. Bain next inquired if dust collection
equipment is located outside or inside of woodworking businesses in commercial
and industrial districts. Mr. Keeler answered that it depends on the Building
Code, the Fire Official and the type of equipment. Mr. Bain asked if, from a
noise standpoint, it is best to have certain types of equipment located inside
of buildings. Mr. Keeler replied, "yes." He added this is true as far as
noise is concerned, and it is also true as far as regulations are concerned
that govern home occupations.
Next, Mr. Keeler continued with his description of the proposed building
and said that the total area of 2250 square feet is 50 percent more than the
Ordinance allows. He then described the third floor of the building, which is
a small area of 400 square feet, and would be an art studio, as a hobby for
Mrs. Gaston, and is unrelated to the home occupation. He said that there have
not been many cases where people have requested relief from the conditions
that normally apply to home occupations. Staff feels this raises the question
as to whether or not this is a home occupation, or because the applicant finds
himself unable to comply with the regulations, is this some other type of use
that is more appropriately located in some other district. He explained that
the Ordinance's provisions for home occupations do not limit the type of use
that is involved as long as the person can meet the performance standards that
are in the Ordinance. He added that as long as the area requirements and
other regulations are met, a person can have any type of occupation that he or
she desires. He went on to say that many localities specifically spell out
the type of occupation that can be referred to as a home occupation, and many
areas limit home occupations to few uses. He said the staff is not so much
concerned about the use, but the problem is whether or not the use would no
longer be appropriate to be called a home occupation. He noted that furniture
making is more appropriately located in an industrial zone. He remarked that
it is the staff's opinion that because the proposed building will have a 50
percent greater floor area than allowed, it is inappropriate to term the
business as a home occupation, and it would be more appropriate to locate it
in a district that accommodates furniture making.
Mr. Bain mentioned that there is 750 feet proposed for storage for the
building. He said that suppose some of the lumber is stored in the personal
storage area, and the rest of the space upstairs would involve the storing of
equipment, and nothing was located outside of the building. He mentioned that
if the equipment was moved outside, then there would only be 1500 feet used
for the home occupation. He called attention to Section 5.2.2.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance which includes the actual language. He mentioned that the staff is
considering the clean up equipment as being devoted to the home occupation
operation, which is the staff's interpretation of the Ordinance. Mr. Keeler
replied that if the occupation was not there, then the vacuum, air compressor
and the lumber would not be there. He said this is the staff's analysis of
the situation, because, otherwise, someone could have 50,000 square feet of
storage. He does not believe, however, that this is what is intended in this
case. He went on to say that the staff also identified six other home
occupation applications that are involved with woodworking, and they range
from 150 to 1200 square feet. He said that the average woodworking occupation
is 738 square feet, so this occupation is approximately three times the
average area of the six that the staff was able to identify.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any of the six woodworking occupations have
outside dust collectors or any outside equipment related to the activity on
the inside. He does not recall that this was ever an issue with the other
applications. Mr. Keeler responded that he does not remember if there is any
M.B. 41, Pg. 27
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
outside equipment at the other woodworking sites. Mr. Bowerman commented that
this was probably not discussed, so it is unknown whether or not other
woodworking occupations have outside equipment. He then asked if the intent
of the 1500 square feet limitation in the Ordinance was to deal with the
intensity of the use rather than the nature of the use. He wondered if an
arbitrary square footage was placed on home occupations to try to limit the
scope of the operation, but was not reflective of the fact that there could be
a less intensive use that could require more square footage, because of the
nature of the use. Mr. Keeler replied that it was intended to do both. He
said the notion of home occupation is that it is an accessory use and is an
ancillary use to residential property. He noted that, in this case, there is
a proposed building that is being driven in size by the desired occupation.
He stated that this is a three story building that would likely be difficult
for other uses other than the shop-type of use that is being proposed. He
added that, in the staff's opinion, it is not the normal type of garage/shop
that would be found in a residential area or in rural areas.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Keeler is suggesting that the property should
be subdivided so that the building could be converted at a later time. Mr.
Keeler answered that it may be difficult to convert the building to a
dwelling. Mr. Bowerman commented that barns can be converted, and if the
money is available, just about anything can be done to any structure. He
added that he is trying to understand what the staff is saying. He went on to
ask if, because of the size and nature of the structure, the staff is
suggesting that consideration needs to be given as to whether or not the
parcel could be subdivided to accommodate the structure. Mr. Keeler responded
that Mr. Fritz, of the Planning staff, had considered this possibility, and
Mr. Fritz thinks that a subdivision of the lot is possible. He added, though,
that staff has no idea if there are additional drainfield sites on the
property. He said there were some questions pertaining to topography where
the building is to be located, and since the Commission meeting, this has been
investigated by the Engineering Department. He stated that the property has
less that 25 percent slopes, so there is no problem with the location of the
building. He believes that the proposal is for the plumbing to connect with
the plumbing in the main dwelling. He went on to say that the building will
require plumbing, and it needs to be compatible for an art studio, so it will
also require heat in the winter.
Mr. Marshall stated that he is confused. He said it seems this is being
presented to the Board in the form of a commercial operation. He knows that
Mr. Gaston used to have a commercial operation in the form of a furniture
business, but Mr. Gaston sold his business, and it was Mr. Marshall's under-
standing that Mr. Gaston wanted to pursue his hobby of building certain types
of furniture. He asked where this situation stops being a hobby and becomes a
commercial operation. Mr. Keeler replied that Mr. Gaston has a business
license, and he is engaging in making custom furniture. Mr. Keeler remarked
that the size of the building is the only issue that concerns the staff. He
wondered whether, because of the building's size, the business still remains a
home occupation, or should this matter be considered in another category.
Mr. Marshall commented that Mr. Bowerman has made a good point, and he is
confused as to why there have to be area limitations on home occupations. Mr.
Keeler stated that the size of the building is a convenience for the appli-
cant.
Mr. Keeler said home occupations were originally intended to be subor-
dinate to residential use of the property. Recently, though, in this case and
other cases that did not come before this Board, Mr. Keeler stated that the
staff is not seeing existing buildings being used for home occupations, but,
instead, new buildings are being constructed and designed to accommodate home
occupations. He said the size of the home occupations exceeds the limits
recommended in the Zoning Ordinance, therefore, the staff feels that it is
appropriate to follow an industrial scale use as though the use is going to be
located in an industrial area. He added that this is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and with other uses in
the rural areas. He went on to say that in Mr. Gaston's letter of April 7,
the staff was impressed with Mr. Gaston's closing paragraph. Mr. Keeler read
this paragraph in which Mr. Gaston explained why he needed the space that he
requested.
Mr. Keeler then'offered three summaries to the Board. He said it is
staff's opinion that the proposed building exceeds the area limitations by 50
percent, it is' approximately three times larger than the average woodworking
shop and, therefore, it is inappropriate to term the business as a home
occupation. He added, too, that it would be more appropriate to locate the
business in an industrial area where such shops are permitted. Mr. Keeler's
second analysis is that the area limitations for home occupation of 1500
square feet is inappropriate in all cases, and the Board would be willing to
raise the limitations and not deal with the individual requests that exceed
1500 square feet. He said that this would involve an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance. A third analysis by Mr. Keeler dealt with Mr. Gaston's April 7
letter, and it involves persuading the Board that it is necessary to exceed
the area requirements for this particular business for safety and efficiency
issues, and that this is a compelling reason to increase the area in this
particular case. He noted that this does not mean the Board would not be
faced with similar cases in the future. He gave the scenario of someone who
M.B. 41, Pg. 28
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night ~eeti~)
(Page 18)
builds yachts, who would need the same floor area for the equipment, plus
somewhere inSide to build the yachts.
Mr. Bain asked for the staff's response to Mr. Gaston's letter. Mr.
Keeler responded that he has a limited knowledge of woodworking, but he
understands that when the boards are handled, they need to be the same
thickness, etc. He said that a 16 foot board needs to be run through a
machine and cut, as opposed to two eight foot boards. He added that the
machines are not always precise. He thinks that Mr. Gaston's method of
operating is consistent with custom woodworking, rather than mass production.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Keeler to comment on the building as it fits on
the site. She noted that it can be built into the hillside, and this would
not necessarily be the case in other situations. Mr. Bowerman remarked that
he is also interested in Mr. Keeler's reply, because from the front of the
building, it will look as though there are only two floors. Mr. Keeler
responded that a building can be built in this fashion, within the regulations
of the Ordinance, as long as there are not grades in excess of 25 percent.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she was speaking in terms of the suitability of
the building for the site, and the fact that the building is set into the
hillside. Mr. Marshall asked how this building will affect the aesthetics of
the area. Mr. Keeler replied that, from the front, two stories of the
building will be visible, but from the rear, three stories will be seen. He
pointed out that Mr. Gaston has a model of the building. He said that the
upper story seems to be a cupola in regard to the size of the remainder of the
building. Mr. Bowerman inquired if, from the front, it would look like a one
story building with a cupola on top. Mr. Keeler answered, "yes."
Mr. Bowerman commented that the first issue that needs to be addressed
is the one raised by Mr. Keeler earlier in his discussion as to whether this
Board wants to hear the matter tonight, since there is a substantial change in
information, or whether the Board would like for the Planning Commission to
reconsider it.
Mr. Keeler noted that there are some letters on this issue that were only~-
received today.
Mr. Bain remarked that, according to the Commission minutes, he does not
see that anything has been added substantively that the Commission did not try
to address. He thinks that there is more information available which responds-
to Commission members' comments, but many of the Commissioner's comments were
incorporated into conditions that accompanied the defeated motion. He
mentioned the Health Department approval aspect, and the County Engineer's
approval. Mr. Bain stated that he is inclined to consider the matter tonight,
without sending it back to the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Bain's opinion is the consensus of the Board.
Since there were no objections, Mr. Bowerman stated that the Supervisors would
move forward on this issue tonight.
Since there were no further questions for Mr. Keeler, Mr. Bowerman opened
the public hearing.
Mr. Gaston, the applicant, came forward to speak. He said that he is
impressed with the caring that every single Board and staff member has shown.
He added that this is a complicated issue, and he is unsure what decision he
would make, if he was in the Supervisors' position. Secondly, Mr. Gaston
noted that he would like to respond to the questions relating to dust
collectors. He said that with small shops, dust collecting equipment is
usually placed outside of the shop, and larger shops keep the equipment
inside. He stated that he now has a $70,000 dust collector that is 44 feet
high and is mounted outside. He said that there are all kinds of dust
collectors that smaller shops can use, so there is no problem with putting the
dust collectors inside a shop. Mr. Gaston told Board members that he has been
trained as a furniture designer and builder at the School for American Crafts,
which is in Rochester, New York. He said that this school has a four year
program, and he was there from 1971 until 1975 and graduated with a Bachelor
of Fine Arts Degree. He worked with Shelter Associates after he moved to
Charlottesville, and he built the Shelter's shop in Free Union in 1977 or
1978, and he went through the County's special use permit process, at that
time~ He noted that Shelter Associates' shop is a 2500 square foot wood shop.
He stated that he then set up a furniture studio at the McGuffey Art Center,
which is exactly what he wants to do now. He said that the City of
Charlottesville was subsidizing the studio there, but McGuffey was not big
enough to handle his operation. He went on to say that he sold his business
to his partner last October, and this business is currently located in the Old
Ivy Industries building on Harris Street. He said that this business is using
12,000 square feet of the building, there are 18 employees and large scale
commercial woodworking is done by this company all along the east coast. He
said that the business is very successful, but he was no longer able to do any
woodworking, and that is what he loves to do. He added that he sat in an
office and instructed people as to what they needed to do, and he did not like
it. He stated that he decided he was not going to be miserable any more and
that he was going to do something to change his life.
M.B. 41, Pg. 29
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Gaston said he wants to have a shop at his house, and he wants to
change his entire way of life. He commented that this involves being at home
and not being in a factory environment. He went on to say that most of the
commercial areas that he knows about in this town have no light, windows or
views. He said that commercial areas are not exciting or inspiring places to
be. He remarked that ideas are not easy to come up with, and they take lots
of thinking and soul searching. He pointed out that ideas are especially hard
to come by in a sterile, factory-like environment. He added that he is not
going to say that all of the commercial areas in Charlottesville are this way,
but he has looked through the years, and he has not found any that are not.
He mentioned that the staff members who have come to his house know that he
has a beautiful house and site. He wonders what it would be like to walk out
to his shop and look at the mountains as he is designing furniture. He said
that it really makes a difference. He asked if anyone feels that time needs
to be devoted to problems such as sound, finishes or traffic. He inquired if
Board members are concerned about any problems other than size. He said that
he would be glad to address the problems, and he has a lot of information
available.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that Mr. Gaston address the size of the proposed
building. Mr. Gaston replied that he has spent hours working with cardboard
models to try to get the best use from the space. He emphasized that he is
not building a hobby shop, but, instead, he is building a place where he can
make a living. He added that the building is not a factory. He went on to
say that it is an artist's studio, but instead of an easel, he needs lots of
machinery, and art is the end product. He said that he does not know how to
rationalize.the space, and he has thought about lowering the second floor, and
having a five foot ceiling. He added that he could fit a dust collector in a
five foot height, but he would be hitting his head when he was moving lumber
in and out of the room. He would not want to do that, but if that would make
the application more acceptable to the Board, he would be willing to do it.
He would much prefer to have an eight foot ceiling so that he can stack the
lumber as high as necessary. He remarked that dust collectors are designed
for eight foot ceilings, so he would have to modify one to put it in a room
with a lower ceiling, but that is an option.
Mr. Gaston then mentioned that the Ordinance refers to 1500 square feet~.
but it says nothing about height. He said that he could have a 20 foot tall
building on that site, but the regulations would still require 1500 square
feet, even though there is a 20 foot ceiling. He wonders why he cannot have
the same building and put a floor in it, and he sees this as setting a good
precedent. He said that if he is going to do everything possible to meet all
of the requirements, the business is going to be a plus to the community, a
plus to his family, and it will not harm anyone, as far as he can see. He
added that the only neighbor who will see the building is 100 percent in favor
of it. He noted that the building will not be seen from the road because it
is a quarter of a mile from the road. He said that the only people who would
ever see the building would be a UPS driver, someone who is trespassing or the
one neighbor who is closest to his property. He reiterated that this neighbor
is very much in favor of the building. He mentioned a letter from Mr. Sandy
Schenk in which Mr. Schenk expressed some concerns, but he has had several
long talks with Mr. Schenk and Mr. Schenk is now satisfied. Mr. Gaston
pointed out that the Commission indicated that sound and sight were not
issues, and'Mr. Schenk had wanted to hear that sound would not be a problem
from someone other than Mr. Gaston. Mr. Gaston told Board members that he
hopes they can see a way to approve the request.
Mr. Bain asked how many pieces of equipment will be housed within the
1500 feet. Mr. Gaston replied that he would have ten pieces of equipment
within the 1500 feet. He added that it is a puzzle to try to fit the pieces
of equipment into the space available. He noted that he has two employees,
and one employee has to have a bathroom equipped for handicapped persons, and
there needs to be space for him to move through the area in his wheelchair.
Mr. Gaston then showed the model of the building to Board members. He
noted that the building would have the same finish and trim as the dwelling
house.
Mr. Paul Paige stated that he wanted to speak about Mr. Gaston's studio
as an art studio, as opposed to being a furniture shop. Mr. Paige said that
he has worked for 15 years in cabinet shops and furniture shops and presently
teaches beginning woodworking and cabinet making at Piedmont Virginia
Community College. He noted that Mr. Gaston speaks through his creativity,
and he needs the shop to express himself. He added that Mr. Gaston is placing
himself at significant risk by letting go of a very successful business and
chasing a dream. Mr. Paige stated that Mr. Gaston wants to have a studio that
produces furniture, and he might even consider sculpture, which would be more
closely tied to art. Mr. Paige pointed out that Mr. Gaston makes one-of-a-
kind pieces of furniture, and the aesthetic quality is very high. He compared
Mr. Gaston's work to several famous people. He said that Mr. Gaston needs
time and a place to do his work. He added that Mr. Gaston wants to have his
shop on his property so that he can be more closely tied to his family, and he
wants a place where he can express himself creatively to his fullest
potential. He stated that Mr. Gaston needs to have surroundings that are
conducive to his work process. He said that Mr. Gaston draws a lot on nature,
and it would help him to have the shop next to his house, in a country
M.B. 41, 30
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
environment with:~a~view instead of cinder block walls and no windows. He
added that the home environment works for Mr. Gaston and supports him. Mr.
Paige sees this business as an asset to the community, because Mr. Gaston is a
shining example and model to the youth of the community. Mr. Paige stated
that the PVCC woodworking class is held at the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Technical Education Center (CATEC), and the teacher at CATEC is often times
looking for examples and models in the community to show the carpentry
students what they can aspire to be. Mr. Paige noted that Mr. Gaston is
limited as to the number of people he can employ, but he will still be able to
offer employment to two people in the community. Mr. Paige went on to say
that Mr. Gaston's art work would be available to the community and he would
have shows around town. He said that this would offer inspiration to other
people in the community.
Mr. Paul Gaston, Blaise Gaston's father, wanted to underscore the depths
of the hopes of the whole family that this request will be approved. He
stated that the staff report had raised some questions about whether this was
an appropriate use as it relates to the Ordinance. He said that Blaise Gaston
and Paul Paige have both spoken about the matter, but he would like to add
some comments. He mentioned some of the leading artists in furniture making
in America, and he said that they all have their workshops at home. He said
that none of these people would ever dream of having their workshop in an
industrial site. He remarked that if the types of things that his son wants
to do are considered, his home is the appropriate place to do them. He
recalled a show that his son had at McGuffey some years ago, and a reviewer in
the Daily Progress asked his son where he got the curves that appeared in his
furniture. Mr. Blaise Gaston replied, according to his father, that he
got the curves from living in sight of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Mr. Paul
Gaston said that he asked his son if this is really true, and his son
answered, "yes." Mr. Paul Gaston continued by saying that because his son
grew up in this area and felt a part of the mountains suggests to him the
appropriateness of having the shop at his home, rather than an industrial
site. He hopes that there will be some way to make an exception for his son.
He also knows that his son and his wife hope to have children, and his son
believes that having a shop at his home, would encourage interaction between
the work place and the home place. Mr. Paul Gaston thinks that it is
important for everyone to think about creative ways for this interaction. He
knows that this does not relate to the Ordinance, but he just wanted to convey
his hopes to the Board members.
Mr. Peter Sheeran, an architect, stated that he had not come to this
meeting to speak to this issue, but he had planned to speak about the next
application. He said that he has known Mr. Blaise Gaston for a long time, he
has seen his work and Mr. Gaston has done work for him. Mr. Sheeran commented
that, when he was in architectural school, in a cabinet shop that was too
small, he almost cut off his thumb because he did not have the required 16
feet of space while he was cutting boards. He added that there can never be
enough space in cabinet shops to do the work that is needed. He remarked that
he can see Mr. Gaston's house from property that he owns, and he does not
object to the proposed building. He thinks that Mr. Gaston is an asset to the
community, and he suggested that the Board try to keep him in the community.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing, since there was no
one else who wished to speak.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she finds this to be one of the most
interesting experiences that she has had, recently. She remarked that other
Board members are familiar with how she feels about "things" that are on the
banks of the reservoir. She admitted that when she first started reading
about this application in the staff report and thinking about sound, sight and
protection of the water supply, she was approaching this with fear and
trepidation, and she was not sure where the Board was going to be led. After
reading the Planning Commission minutes and the letters and communications
that were attached to the staff report, she began to feel differently. She
thinks that there is more to this than just a too big building, because, by
this time, she is beginning to see that the problems which were causing her
concern to begin with, are already solved or are in the process of being
solved. She. stated, too, that when she went out to the site, she was really
impressed. She learned, at that time, that this is an art studio and a place
for an artist to work. She noted that Mr. Gaston is not making jewelry, and
he is not working with tiny things. She said he is working with large pieces
of raw materials, and he turns out some rather large objects. She added that
she also learned more about this gentleman,s integrity. She went on to say
that by the time she had finished all of the reading and investigation that
she was capable of doing, she was ready to hear what Mr. Keeler was going to
say in terms of staff background. She was particularly interested in Mr.
Keeler's third scenario. She asked Mr. Keeler to repeat scenario number
three.
Mr. Keeler answered that he would comply with Mrs. Humphris' request, but
after hearing Mr. Gaston's remarks, he would like to add something else. He
recalled that Mr. Gaston had mentioned that he could have a single, 20 foot
high building. Mr. Keeler agreed. He said he believes that Mr. Gaston could
get everything in 1500 square feet if it was possible to stack the boards in a
certain manner. Mr. Keeler believes that he misunderstood Mr. Bowerman's
question about the dust collector and the compressor. He added that this is
M.B. 41, Pg. 31
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21) ~-
mechanical equipment that can be put in a crawl space underneath a building,
and would not count as floor area. He went on to say that Mr. Gaston had said
in his April 7 letter that he is not asking for this area as a convenience,
but he needs the space for safety purposes. Mr. Keeler stated that his third
option was that the Board might be persuaded by the applicant's argument that
it is necessary to exceed the area requirements for safety of his operation,
and the Board finds that as a compelling reason, as opposed to convenience to
the applicant. He explained that, in this scenario, the applicant is saying
that it is unsafe to do what he does in less area than he has requested.
Mrs. Humphris stated that her findings agree with this third option. She
said that unless she had gone and looked at the site, she would not have had
any understanding of how a building of this size could be tucked into a
hillside. She noted that this is a building that Mr. Gaston and his family
will be seeing all the time from their house, and they actually want it to be
a place of beauty. She went on to say that she learned the operation would
take place in an environmentally sound way because of the method of disposal
for which provisions have been made. She also learned that there would not be
problems with traffic, and there would not be a danger to the water supply.
She added, too, that the neighbors did not need to be concerned about sight
and sound.
Mrs. Humphris then moved approval of SP-92-06, subject to the conditions
set out by staff. She then called attention to condition #3 which indicated
that the new building would be located as shown on the initialed plat. She
was under the impression that the exact location had not yet been decided
upon, and that is why she wondered about this particular condition.
Mr. Bain commented that he had understood that several sites had been
considered, but the plat showed the general site.
Mrs. Humphris responded that, if the plat shows the general site, then it
is fine. She thinks that condition #6 is significant because it states that
the permit is to be issued for use by Blaise Gaston only. She had concerns
about the ultimate disposition of the building when she thought about the fact
that Mr. Gaston might decide to move.
Mr. Bain pointed out that the Commission discussed the commercial
entrance, and he believes that Commission members felt this was not necessary
because of the lack of traffic at the site.
Mr. Perkins then seconded the mo%ion and stated that he thinks condition
#4 dealing with the commercial entrance should be eliminated.
Mrs. Humphris concurred that condition #4 should be eliminated from the
conditions of approval.
Mr. Bain stated that the Commission spent a lot of time on this applica-
tion, and there are a lot of pros and cons to the whole aspect of this entire
procedure. He said that the Board really does have to consider individuals
and what they do with their property and how it relates to the Ordinance. He
thinks this is a unique operation. He said that he will support Mr. Gaston's
application. He does not know if the home occupation section of the Ordinance
needs to be examined, and he wondered if there was some way to tie in
businesses that are not factories, but, instead, they are unique or artistic
in nature. He believes that there may well be more of these types of
situations in the community in the future. He then asked staff to look at a
possible amendment to the Ordinance that would allow unique situations of an
artistic nature in the rural areas.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he will support the motion. He said that he
had already told Mr. Gaston that he would support his application. He stated
that what bothers him most is that the Board is getting ready to approve a
request from a man who has a B.A. degree, and the man is in a business that is
producing an art object in Albemarle County. He went on to say that later in
the meeting, there will be some requests from Scottsville District residents,
and he hopes Board members will have the same understanding toward them. He
noted that these people from the Scottsville area do not have a lot of money,
and they may not be artists, but they are citizens of Albemarle County.
Mr. Martin commented that he did not go to see Mr. Gaston's property. He
said that Commission member, Mr. Tom Blue, went out to the property on several
different occasions. Mr. Martin stated that he had lengthy discussions with
Mr. Blue, and Mr. Blue told him about Mr. Gaston's integrity and his reputa-
tion in dealing with environmental sensitivity. Mr. Martin added that Mr.
Blue basically stated that he felt Mr. Gaston was an artist involved with his
profession. Mr. Martin said Mr. Blue indicated this request should be
considered not as a request for a factory but for a studio. Mr. Martin added
that he would be glad to support the request.
Mr. Bain stated that the staff followed the Ordinance, and he has also
heard what the applicant had to say. He thinks that the staff report is an
excellent report, and he hopes the staff understands that the Board basically
agrees with what the staff is saying. He added that in some cases, however,
something arises that is different from other applications. He asked how a
M.B. 41, Pg. 32
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
situation such as this'.~one~can be handled differently, particularly in rural
areas, when it is for a use that truly belongs somewhere else. He said
that guidance for these types of situations is needed.
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff would develop some language and bring it
back to the Board.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
1. Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members
who reside on-site;
2. Compliance with the performance standards of Section 4.1.4
of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. New structure to house the home occupation shall be located
.as shown on plat initialed WDF and dated 3/19/92;
4. Health Department approval;
5. Permit is issued for use by Blaise Gaston only; and
6. County Engineer approval of method of disposal of all
solvents, finishes, paints, lacquers and the like including
clean-up materials/liquids and applicators.
(The Board recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-92-07. Farmington Country Club. Public Hearing
on a request to construct a 30,980 sq ft sports club & a 4830 sq ft storage
facility to supplement existing 4350 sq ft golf maintenance/storage bldg on
approx 28 acs zoned RA. Property on E side of Old Mill Rd approx 500 ft N of
inters with Lake Rd in Farmington Subd. TM60E2,P's 1(part.&2). Samuel Miller
Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1992.)
Mrs. Humphris announced that she does not have a statutory conflict in
dealing with the Farmington Country Club request, but she excused herself from
the discussion because she is a member of the Club.
Mr. Bowerman also disqualified himself from hearing the Farmington
Country Club discussion because his company has rendered a bid for the fitness
area of this project, and he thinks it would be inappropriate for him to vote
on this issue. Ne then turned the meeting over to Mr. Bain, who would act as
Chairman, until Mr. Bowerman's return.
Mr. Marshall noted that he is a member of the Farmington Country Club~
also. Mr. Bain stated that being a member would not create a conflict of
interest in this situation. Mr. Marshall asked if this is the reason Mrs.
Humphris removed herself from the discussion. Mr. St. John and Mr. Bowerman
informed Mr. Marshall that the decision to stay or withdraw is a voluntary
one. Mr. Marshall stated that he would vote honestly on the matter, so he
would like to stay for the presentation.
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner, summarized the staff report which
is on file in the Clerks office and a part of the permanent record of the
Board. Mr. Fritz said the proposed activity represents an intensification of
land use. The area and surrounding areas are currently used for golf mainte-
nance/storage, as well as, a golf course. This request for an indoor sports
facility does not represent a new use in Farmington nor is the new construc-
tion intended to increase membership. Issues of utilities and critical slopes
are adequately addressed. It is the opinion of staff that this use will not
change the character of the area due to existing uses in the area. Staff
recommends approval of SP-92-07 subject to the following condition:
"1. Use of the sports facility shall be for Farmington Country
Club members only."
Mr. Fritz said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 24,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-07 subject to the condition
recommended by staff.
Mr. Fritz said the Commission's main discussion dealt with the provision
of a turnaround on the road, as well as a cross connection between an existing
area of parking and the parking area that is being proposed for the indoor
sports facility.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Fritz to discuss information that was given to the
Board relative to the entrance of the proposed facility. Mr. Fritz commented
that the Department of Transportation is recommending the entrance on Garth
Road be improved. He said that the entrance is currently in the shape of a
"Y," but the staff's recommendation is not to improve that intersection,
M.B. 41, Pg. 33
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meetihg)
(Page 23)
because this request should not increase traffic in Farmington, and would not
put any additional pressures on this entrance nor the entrance on Route 250.
He noted that the necessary improvements to that entrance would involve
grading off site on land that Farmington Country Club has no control.
At this time, Mr. Bain opened the public hearing.
Mr. Peter Sheeran, the architect for the sports facility, stated that he
would address a few points that Mr. Fritz mentioned. He noted that there were
a number of problems with the intersection at Garth Road, but he does not
believe the facility will generate any additional traffic. He added that he
has considered the sight distances that are required by the Department of
Transportation, and they are adequate in one direction, but lacking in another
direction. He went on to say that there are some sight easement rights-of-way
that are unobtainable. He stated that the turnaround issue has been addressed
with staff relating to Old Mill Road, and a couple of alternatives have been
considered. He commented that the revised entrance might work better if it
was a road that had another connection, but in this particular situation, Old
Mill Road is a deadend. He noted that there are two residences there, and
these residents have expressed their concerns about people who might be coming
to use this facility, and who might miss the turnoff into the parking lot, and
turn around in their driveways. He thinks that this is a very legitimate
concern, so he feels the need to work with staff in regard to the initial
turnaround that was submitted. He stated that he has the drawing with him
tonight, if anyone wants to see it. He said that he would be happy to answer
questions. He brought with him the preliminary plans for the building and an
artist's rendering, in three dimensions.
Since Board members had no questions for Mr. Sheeran at this time, Mr.
Bain opened the public hearing.
Ms. Catherine Womack, an attorney representing Philip and Karen Ryder,
noted that Mr. and Mrs. Ryder live on Old Mill Road, which is across the
street from .the proposed facility. She commented that the Ryders are not
opposed to the facility, but she wanted to express the Ryders' concerns, which
they feel have not been adequately addressed by the staff or the applicant.
There has been some discussion about a turnaround. She hoped that all of the
Board members rode down Old Mill Road and looked at the site, because if they
did, they must have turned around in the Ryders' driveway. She stated that if
they did not turn around in the Ryders' driveway, she knows that they were
tempted to do so, because it is the logical thing to do. She explained that
the Ryders' house sets close to the street, there is a circular driveway in
the front of the property, and traffic on that road usually turns around
there. She noted that Old Mill Road is not a big street, there is not room
enough to turn around, and it is a deadend. She said the Ryders are in
support of the original plan that was proposed as part of the site plan which
had a circular drive in front of the facility. If this is not feasible, she
urged that some other type of turnaround be provided. She understands the
staff's position of wanting to minimize the number of road cuts, but under
these circumstances, she thinks that circulation could be improved and traffic
could be kept out of the Ryders' front yard. She pointed out that the Ryders~
yard is not like some properties in Farmington where there are expansive
yards, and if someone turns into the driveway, they would hardly be noticed.
She stated that if a car pulls into the Ryders' driveway, it is within several
feet of their front windows and front door. She asked that a condition be
placed on the approval that some type of turnaround be provided.
Secondly, Ms. Womack mentioned that she understands an agreement has
already been reached on additional screening, other than what is required by
the Ordinance. She noted that although this has been agreed upon, it has not
been officially incorporated anywhere. She said the Ryders are requesting
that six to eight foot trees be planted on the outside of the fence, and it is
her understanding that the applicant has agreed to that. She stated the
Ryders are also concerned about the maintenance facility. She suspects that a
person driving down that road and approaching the maintenance building, would
probably think that it looks out of place, and that it does not belong in this
residential neighborhood. She added that the Ryders would like to see an
opaque gate or screening set inside the gate, so that the unsightly nature of
the maintenance facility is hidden. In discussions with the applicant, the
applicant has indicated that the gate would need to be open a great deal of
the time because there is constant traffic going in and out. She indicated
that she is not asking that the gate be opened and closed, as people go in and
out, but she said the Ryders would like some screening in this facility. She
commented that she has been told the applicant will consider the Ryders~
requests, but the Ryders feel this would be the appropriate place to raise
their concerns and to make sure the requests are incorporated. She then asked
the Board to impose these requests as conditions of approval.
Mr. Bain asked if the issues that Ms. Womack addressed relate to the site
development plan, or the application for the special use permit. Ms. Womack
answered that these issues were raised at the Planning Commission meeting, and
it is her understanding this Board can impose these conditions upon a special
use permit. She added that is why the concerns have been brought before this
Board.
M.B. 41, Pg. 34
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Bain t~iinquired if th~e has been an appeal of the site plan
approval. Ms. Womack.~replied, "no." She noted that these are design features
that have not been approved. She wants to make sure that these features get
more than just consideration. She reiterated that she is requesting these
design features be incorporated as conditions of the special use permit.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bain closed the public hearing.
Mr. Perkins stated that he would like to hear from the architect about
the concerns raised by Ms. Womack. He said it seems to him that these are
reasonable requests.
Mr. Sheeran agreed that the requests are reasonable. He stated that he
has met with both residents at the end of the street, and personally went over
the preliminary site plan with them prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
He thinks the turnaround is an issue that everyone recognizes as a potential
problem, but he believes there is a way it can be worked out. He said there
are a couple of solutions that can be addressed. He went on to say that if
this was a public road being built to State standards, it would be desirable
to minimize road cuts. In this case, however, beyond this facility, there are
only two other residences. He thinks it would be appropriate to have a turn-
around or a small cul-de-sac at the location of this building, with a lane
that extends to the two houses that are already on that road. He said there
are no additional lots beyond that, so he does not see any future development
occurring, beyond that point.
Mr. Sheeran next discussed the second concern involving the screening
with trees. He stated that while the Ordinance may call for four to six foot
trees, he is more than willing to increase the trees to six to eight feet in
size. He pointed out that there is a golf course adgacent to this property,
and he is also concerned about screening and how the landscaping will look.
He noted, though, that study will need to be given to the type of trees that
will be planted because adjacent to the fence where the trees will go, is a
golf green. He said concern has to be shown toward shade from trees and root
systems that might grow under the golf green.
With respect to the gate, Mr. Sheeran said that in talking to the
Manager at Farmington, it is true that while in theory it would be nice to
have a gate, the reality of it is that it would have to be a very wide gate
because there are a number of tractor trailer trucks which have to make
deliveries. He added the gate would be open from dawn, when the grass is cut
in the morning, all day while vehicles such as golf carts and tractors are
coming in and out. He went on to say that, at the end of the day, the last
people who come in are the people who pull in the watering hoses and, at dusk~
the people are putting out the watering devices. He said he is willing to
consider the gate, but he does not feel it is something which can be agreed
upon, at this point, especially in light of the fact that the realities of the
gate would mean that it would be closed from dark until dawn. He does not
think that would create much screening.
Mr. Bain asked if the issue on the turnaround on the original plan
relates to road cuts or critical slopes. Mr. Sheeran replied that the
turnaround issue has nothing to do with slopes. He said, it has been his
experience in dealing with development in the County, that Highway Department
officials always like to minimize road cuts. He stated the Highway Department
also likes to have road cuts spaced as far apart as possible. In this situa-
tion, Mr. Sheeran explained that there was a turnaround which would affect two
road cuts within 50 feet of each other. He added there are two ways of look-
ing at the situation. He said there could be two road cuts spaced along the
road, or the geometry of the island could be slightly reorganized, which would
belsimilar to a cul-de-sac, with a spur coming from it. He has this drawing
with him, if anyone wants to see it.
There were no further questions for the applicant, so Mr. Bain commented
that he would like to hear from staff on the issues that were raised by the
property owners. He agreed with Ms. Womack that this Board can put conditions
on the special use permit, but he wondered about the site plan process. He
knows that the preliminary site plan has been approved, but he wondered how
there can be some certainty from the property owners' position that their
concerns will be addressed, so that this Board will not have to list them
as conditions. He does not like putting site plan conditions on special use
permits, unless it absolutely has to be done.
Mr. Tucker remarked that he believes the preliminary site plan was
approved subject to the special use permit being approved by this Board.
Mr. Bain stated that this was preliminary approval. He asked if any of
these conditions were addressed during the site plan approval.
Mr. Fritz responded that wording has been prepared for those conditions
that address all three of the issues that were raised.
Mr. Bain commented that he thinks the issues need to be addressed, and he
understands they are being addressed. He stated the concern which might be
hard to handle involves the kind and size of trees. He said the applicant is
willing to study this matter, and he hears no objections, except to the fence°
M.B. 41, Pg. 35
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
He is unsure if the~.staff has commented as to whether or not the fence is
appropriate. He does.not know if time should be spent on this matter tonight,
but he thinks it should be addressed before the final site plan approval.
Mr. Keeler suggested it might be more appropriate for the Board to direct
staff to address these conditions and other conditions that are agreeable to
both parties, before approval of the final site plan. He added that if the
Ryders are not satisfied, the Ryders can appeal the final site plan. He
stated that if these conditions are placed on the special use permit and
something else develops, the special use permit is useless.
Mr. Bain agreed. He asked if there was a consensus of the Board to
direct the staff to address the issues before final site plan approval. Board
members responded affirmatively.
At this time, Mr. Martin moved, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-92-07 subject to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission, as
well as to direct staff to examine the provision of a circular drive in front
of the sports facility or some other turnaround; screening to consist of six
to eight foot trees on the outside of the fence; and some kind of opaque gate
or screening set inside the gate at the maintenance facility as possible
solutions to problems raised by the residents on Old Mill Road.
Mr. St. John raised the question as to the enforceability of this one
condition, as well as the practicality of it. He read the condition as it was
shown in the staff report, and pointed out that it relates to the use of the
sports facility as being for Farmington Country Club members only. He won-
dered if guests and families of the members could use the facility. He noted
that the other sports facilities in Farmington are available for tournaments,
etc. He asked why this facility would not have the same rules as all of the
other facilities. He inquired as to what public interest would be served by
approving this condition.
Mr. Bain remarked that he understands this sports facility is not to be
used for commercial activity. He said that if the facility is open for
commercial activities, traffic is increased, and other issues have to be
addressed.
Mr. St. John questioned whether or not the Zoning Administrator can
enforce this condition, even if the wording of the condition is changed to
include guests and families. He said this is a public facility, and it is to
be made a part of the existing facilities at Farmington. He noted that he is
not a member at Farmington, and he is not concerned about this matter at all,
from that respect, but he wonders if conditions should be put on these special
use permits when the County has no power to enforce them.
Mr. Martin suggested that the condition include the words, "country club
members, families and guests." He said he has only been on the Board of
Supervisors for four months, but he has seen this Board deal with several
special use permit conditions that are probably unenforceable. He compared
the situation to a person who is going five miles over the speed limit. He
said that violations usually do not get any attention, unless a person gets
caught.
Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. Martin. He said, however, that his question
relates to whether limits should be placed on the new facility.
Mr. St. John commented that people are going to go to the new facility
for special events, even though they may not be guests of particular members.
He said the people would be guests of the Club for that event.
Mr. Keeler suggested that the wording of the condition be changed to
state that the new facility would operate in the same fashion as the Country
Club, itself. He said this would cover everything, and would be more enforce-
able.
Mr.-Bain pointed out that there could be situations such as a contract
with the University where people could use the facility for a certain period
of time. He said that would increase traffic substantially, and is not what
was intended. He would probably not be able to support the motion, in that
light.
Mr. Sheeran responded that this question was brought out in the Planning
Commission meeting, also. He said his understanding is that this facility
would be used in the same manner as all of the other facilities at Farmington.
He added that there are very specific bylaws that address which members of the
Club can use which facilities. He stated that guest policies are also
addressed in the bylaws such as how many times a week a member may have a
quest. He said the bylaws would have to be changed before a situation with
the University, such as Mr. Bain noted, could occur. He believes that if this
Board wants to have this condition placed on the permit, the best way to
address the situation, is to have the wording of the condition indicate that
this facility will be used in the same manner as the other facilities at
Farmington Country Club, and will be covered under the same bylaws.
M.B. 41, Pg. 36
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. St. Jo~n agreed that this would be better than trying to spell out
who can use the'facility in the condition.
At this time, Mr. Martin amended his motion to approve SP-92-07 with the
condition that use of the sports facility shall be for Farmington Country Club
members, families and guests under the same bylaws of other club facilities in
Farmington. As seconder, Mr. Perkins agreed to the amended motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain.
AYES: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
(The condition of approval is set out in full below:)
1. Use of the sports facility shall be for Farmington Country
Club members, families and guests under the same bylaws of
other club facilities in Farmington.
(Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris returned to the meeting at 9:55 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-92-08. Robert Lee Frazier. Public Hearing on a
request to operate a public garage on 2.0 acs zoned RA located on E side of Rt
795 approx 0.4 mi N of Rt 727. TMl14,P48. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1992.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff, report which is on file in the Clerks
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Mr. Keeler said staff
opinion is that this use will have minimal impact on the area. The applicant
is aware of proper methods of disposal for waste materials and has already
contacted individuals to arrange for disposal of these matters. Based on the
limited on-site impact this use will have and the applicant's provision for
waste disposal, staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
"1. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and
equipping of farm, lawn, gardening or motor vehicles. No
body work or spray-painting of vehicles shall be permitted.
No gasoline sales or sale or rental of vehicles shall be
permitted;
2. All work shall be conducted within the existing garage;
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts and junk
cars. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in
appropriate containers;
4. Not more than two (2) motor vehicles, awaiting repair, shall
be parked on the property outdoors at any time and these
shall be located behind the garage;
Fire and Building Official approval;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial
entrance; and
Hours of operation shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on
Saturday, and no operation of the garage on Sunday."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 10,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-08 subject to the conditions
recommended by staff, condition #6 amended and the following eighth condition:
"6.
Compliance with recommendations described in Virginia
Department of Transportation letter dated February 25, 1992,
except for the last sentence;
8. No employees."
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Frazier if he
wished to speak to the Board.
Mr. Frazier indicated that he had no remarks.
Mr. Bowerman then asked for public comment.
Mr. Kevin Cox urged the Board's support in giving Mr. Frazier the
special use permit, because he said Mr. Frazier provides a valuable service
working on small tractors and lawn mowers. Mr. Cox noted that Mr. Frazier is
located ten miles from downtown Scottsville and 12 miles from Charlottesville.
He added that he is impressed with Mr. Frazier's concern about the proper
handling of liquid oxidants from automobiles. He went on to say that Mr.
Frazier has everything set up to get these liquid oxidants exposed of
properly.
M.B. 41, Pg. 37
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Since there was no further comments from the public, Mr. Bowerman put the
before the Board.
Mr. Marshall commented that Mr. Frazier is not an artist, but he does
provide a service for the people in his district. Mr. Bowerman remarked that
some people would argue that a good mechanic is an artist.
motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall to approve SP-92-08, subject to
the eight conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Perkins stated that he would second the motion. He pointed out that
the request refers to vehicles, and mention has been made that Mr. Frazier
works on lawn mowers. He said that lawn mowers can be anything from a push
mower to a tractor.
Mr. St. John suggested that the words, "motor vehicles" replace the word,
"vehicles," in Condition #4. He said there is a definition in the Virginia
Code concerning motor vehicles.
Mr. Perkins inquired if two regular lawn mowers would be counted as
vehicles waiting for repair, if the words are changed to "motor vehicles."
Mr. St. John replied, "no." He said that he cannot remember the definition of
motor vehicles, but the vehicles would have to have a license from the
Division of Motor Vehicles to qualify as motor vehicles.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that tractors would not be considered motor
vehicles, either, unless they were licensed for the road.
Mr. Bain asked if the word, "motor," is being added to the condition.
Mr. Bowerman replied, "yes." Mr. Bain noted that there are several places
where the word, "motor," should be added. He said that anywhere the
word "vehicles," appears, the word, "motor," should be put in front of it.
Mr. Martin stated that he thinks the wording should stay as it is,
because if it is changed, it will limit Mr. Frazier to working strictly on
motor vehicles.
Mr. Perkins remarked that he did not think that tractors or lawn mowers
should count as a motor vehicle.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff had any concerns about adding the word,
"motor," to any of the conditions which refer to vehicles. Mr. Keeler
responded, "no." He went on to explain that if Mr. Frazier was working only on
farm equipment, such as tractors, this would be an agricultural service
occupation.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the word, "motor," should be inserted in
front of the word, "vehicles," wherever it is shown in the conditions.
Mr. St. John stated that if this is done in Condition ~1, there will be a
problem. He said that this would limit Mr. Frazier to working only on motor
vehicles. Mr. Martin agreed. Mr. St. John suggested that the words, "farm,
lawn and garden equipment or motor vehicles," be used in Condition ~1.
Mr. Bain pointed out that Mr. Keeler had mentioned that a special use
permit is not needed to work on farm equipment. Mr. St. John concurred. He
said that if Mr. Frazier needs a special use permit in order to work on motor
vehicles, the Board would not want to put a condition on the permit that would
not allow him to do something else.
Mr. Martin remarked that he thinks the conditions should be left alone,
because everyone knows what is intended. Mr. Bain disagreed. He said he
thought the conditions should be specific, so that in a few years from now, it
will be clear as to what this Board did.
Mr. Bain commented that he has no problems with Mr. St. John's suggested
language.
Mr. St. John asked if Mr. Frazier works occasionally on construction
equipment as opposed to lawn, garden and farm equipment. Mr. Frazier replied
that he is capable of working on all equipment. Mr. St. John then asked if
Mr. Frazier works on backhoes. Mr. Frazier responded that very seldom will he
have a backhoe to repair. He said that if someone brought him a backhoe, he
could repair it. Mr. St. John commented that backhoes can be used for farm
use. Mr. Frazier responded that most backhoes are used for farm equipment.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and
equipping of farm, lawn, gardening or motor vehicles. No
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
M.B. 41, Pg. 38
20
body work or spray-painting of vehicles shall be permitted.
No gasoline sales or sale or rental of vehicles shall be
permitted;
Ail work shall be conducted within the existing garage;
3e
40
No outside storage of parts including junk parts and junk
cars. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in
appropriate containers;
Not more than two (2) motor vehicles, awaiting repair, shall
be parked on the property outdoors at any time and these
shall be located behind the garage;
5. Fire and Building Official approval;
Compliance with recommendations described in Virginia
Department of Transportation letter dated February 25, 1992,
except for the last sentence (on file);
7e
Hours of operation shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on
Saturday, and no operation of the garage on Sunday; and
8. No employees.
Agenda Item No. 15. SP-92-10. David & Mary Spradlin. Public Hearing
on a request to permit an existing single-wide mobile home to remain on 7.514
ac zoned RA. Property on N side of Rt 620 approx 1.6 mi S of Rt. 795, TM104,
P14F1. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and
April 7, 1992.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerks
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Mr. Keeler said the
current location of the mobile home does not comply with yard requirements of
the RA district. The applicant has stated that the mobile home would be
relocated to an area behind the garage building and would be connected to the
well and septic system installed for the garage. In this location, the mobile
home would be visible from another mobile home. The applicant has stated that
the mobile home would be occupied by his brother. Two letters have been
received in regard to this petition. Should the Commission and Board choose
to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
"1.
The following conditions shall be met within 60 days of
Board of Supervisors' approval of this petition or this
special use permit shall be referred to the Board of
Supervisors for revocation in accordance with Section
31.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance:
ae
The mobile home shall be relocated to an area behind
the rear wall plane of the garage building in such
manner that a portion of the mobile home shall be
within fifty (50) feet of the garage building while
maintaining setback and yard requirements specified
for the Rural Area zone;
b. Albemarle County Building Official approval; and
Virginia Department of Health approval of well and
septic system;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy; and
The mobile home shall be occupied only by the family of
David and Mary Spradlin."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 7,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-10 subject to the conditions
recommended by staff.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing, since Board members had no
questions for Mr. Keeler. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Spradlin if he wished to
speak to the Board.
Mr. Spradlin noted that Mr. Keeler had already told him the conditions
imposed on the special use permit, and he believes that he can meet the three
conditions.
No one else came forward to make public comments, so Mr. Bowerman closed
the public hearing.
M.B. 41, Pg. 39
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meetingi
(Page 29)
At this time, Mr. Marshall moved, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-92-10 subject to the conditions recommended by the Commission. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The following conditions shall be met within 60 days of
Board of Supervisors' approval of this petition or this
special use permit shall be referred to the Board of
Supervisors for revocation in accordance with Section
31.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. The mobile home shall be relocated to an area behind
the rear wall plane of the garage building in such
manner that a portion of the mobile home shall be
within fifty (50) feet of the garage building while
maintaining setback and yard requirements specified
for the Rural Area zone;
b. Albemarle County Building Official approval; and
c. Virginia Department of Health approval of well and
septic system;
2. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy; and
3. The mobile home shall be occupied only by the family of
David and Mary Spradlin.
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: FY 1992-93 Capital Improvements
Program Budget. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7,
1992.)
(Mr. St. John asked to be excused at 10:05 p.m.)
Mr. Tucker made comments about the five year Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) and noted an additional $125,000 expense for the Joint Security Complex
expansion. .He pointed out that there is a savings of $36,000 for Stone-
Robinson Elementary School where there is a substitution of a water line
installation project, which would cost $50,000 instead of the roof replace-
ment. He recalled that additional funding for the Revenue Sharing Program and
the jail expansion will be coming from savings in the current year's Debt
Service, as well as, the refund of $140,000 from the Route 810 project. He
then highlighted the expenditure projects for FY 1992-93.
Under the Administration and Courts section, he mentioned, again, the
regional jail expansion renovation provision. He said funding for that
project is $125,000, but there is additional funding provided for improvement
of the ventilation system, as well as, some electrical renovation in the jail.
He added that the Health Department clinic wing is an 8000 square foot
addition for the clinical section of the Health Department.
He then referred to the Education section of the budget, and he said
that the two largest items there are the new middle school facility and the
Broadus Wood expansion. He added that this is the first phasing of these
projects, but the bulk of the projects will show in FY 1994 budget. He noted
that there will be close to a $9.0 million bond issue at that point. He next
discussed the Stone-Robinson water line installation. He reiterated that this
project was substituted for a roof repair project, because it cOuld be funded
differently. He noted that there have been problems with water at Stone-
Robinson Elementary School for quite some time, and there is an opportunity to
extend a water line a short distance to the line that is being constructed for
the Glenmore Subdivision. He will, in a separate action, request that a
Resolution of Intent be adopted to amend the service area boundaries for the
Albemarle County Service Authority. He said that this amendment would cover
the school as a public facility. He went on to say that the Board can
consider that request in May or June.
Next, Mr. Tucker discussed the Revenue Sharing Program. He said that the
maximum of $500,000 that VDoT offers can be funded, and the recommended
project for revenue sharing funds is the extension of Fifth Street, which
involves the widening of Route 631.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Tucker to explain the request relating to the air
utility truck. Mr. Tucker responded that this is a request from the
Volunteer Fire Department to replace the current air utility truck which is
used where there is a need for a compressor. He said that this truck is taken
to fires, etc., where the air compressor is needed to fight fires° He stated
that the air utility truck that the Volunteer Fire Department is currently
using, is a retrofitted bread truck, and it is in very poor condition.
M.B. 41, Pg. 40
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Bain asked if the County will be receiving the maximum amount of
Revenue Sharing funds. Mr. Tucker replied that will not be known for
another month.
Mr. Tucker next mentioned the Whitewood Road Park improvements, and he
said that Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman served on this committee. He then
noted the Keene Landfill closure amount of $500,000. He said there is one
more year to provide the full funding of the closure of the Keene Landfill.
Mr. Tucker stated that the General Fund appropriation of approximately
$1.4 million relates to $1.0 million that is appropriated annually to the CIP,
and the additional $388,000 will come from the savings that he mentioned
earlier. He went on to say that the borrowed funds relate to the $1.7 million
that will be the bond issue next year.
Mr. Bain asked if the bond issue to which Mr. Tucker referred is a new
bond issue and not a carryover. Mr. Tucker responded that this is a new bond
issue, and he said there are only two or three items in the Education budget
request that are not included in this bond issue. He added that when the bond
is issued, funding will still be done according to this expenditure in the
1992/93 fiscal year, but the bond issue may actually be increased, if the
interest rate is still good, and the Debt Service on the bond can be covered.
He explained that should this happen, the staff will notify the Board during
the Fall before the bond is issued. He then stated that he has no other
comments on the proposed budget, and he recommended its approval.
There were no questions for staff from Board members, so Mr. Bowerman
opened the public hearing.
No one came forward from the public to speak on the proposed budget, so
Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bain asked if the Board needed to take action to approve the budget
at this public hearing. Mr. Tucker said that adoption of the budget by this
Board is scheduled for May 6.
Mr. Bowerman asked what is the action that this Board needs to take at
this meeting. Mr. Tucker replied that the Board only needs to hear the budget
report and have the public hearing, which has already taken place.
Agenda Item No. 17. Report: Sheriff's Request for a Transportation
Officer.
Mr. Tucker stated that during the budget review, a part-time transport
officer was proposed using existing vehicles in the Sheriff's Department for
evening and weekend transports to mental facilities and for other prisoner
transports. He commented that this service is currently performed by the
Police Department after 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and during the entire weekend
period. He said that Police Department officials feel that the part-time
position can sufficiently handle this load. He noted that funds are also
proposed in next year's budget for 50 percent of a Bailiff's position for
Juvenile Court which could be hired in January, 1993. He added that this
money is provided contingent upon City of Charlottesville funding. He pointed
out that the City has not provided money for this funding, but Sheriff Hawkins
has asked for a meeting with Judge Shannon and others. He said that this
matter was reviewed, as it relates to Sheriff Hawkins' request, at the public
hearing last week, He went on to say that this was the first time staff had
heard about it, and it is the staff's feeling that additional work has to be
done, as it relates to manpower allocation for Sheriff Hawkins' recommenda-
tions, before a full-time transport officer is funded. Mr. Tucker said that
it is his intent, with this Board's agreement, to move the share of the
Bailiff's position to this Board's Contingency Fund. He stated that the staff
has already provided for this in the operating budget, which this Board will
hopefully adopt tonight. He commented that this will give the staff time
during the next several months to do a manpower allocation study. He believes
that the staff can do this study in-house, or a request for a study can be
made to the Department of Criminal Justice in Richmond. He stated that
depending upon the recommendation which comes out of the study, there will be
funds to provide the funding as Sheriff Hawkins is requesting or the funds can
be maintained as they are. He remarked that if the meeting with Judge Shannon
indicates that the City will have to cover its prisoners, then the Bailiff's
position will not be needed.
Mr. Bain mentioned following the process through the Compensation Board
and appealing its decisions through the courts. He said that this has been
done in the past, and he wondered if this avenue would be left open. Mr.
Tucker replied that he has not talked to the County Attorney about the matter,
and he would like to do so, and bring the information back to this Board
sometime in May.
Mr. Bain stated that he knows this Board has, once or twice in the past,
supported the Sheriff in this type of endeavor. He believes that when the
State is supposed to provide funding for certain things, and it does not, then
the proper County officials should start the legal process to take the matter
to court.
M.B. 41, Pg. 41
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Bain. He said that if the study should
indicate that additional personnel are needed, then the legal process, to
which Mr. Bain referred, should be undertaken.
The consensus of the Board was that the funds in the FY 1992-93 budget
for the County's share of the bailiff position be placed in the Board's
contingency account and that a manpower allocation analysis be conducted
during the coming fiscal year by either in-house staff or the Department of
Criminal Justice Services to determine the optimum allocation of resources to
help both the Police Department and the Sheriff's Department. If the manpower
allocation analysis determines the Sheriff needs additional personnel, that it
formally support the Sheriff's endeavors with the Compensation Board, and if
necessary, appeal the decision through the County system. The staff is to
discuss this issue with the County Attorney and bring back a report in May.
Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of FY 92-93 County Operating Budget.
Mr. Tucker stated that a resolution is in the Board members' packets
which breaks down the proposed total allocations of the $90,468,258 budget by
major functions. He said that the second sheet attached to the resolution
provides, for information only, a more detailed breakdown of the proposed
allocations by departments and agencies, as well as a summary of the
contingency line-items in the Board's departmental budget. He noted that only
two changes are proposed. One change involves $14,000 for the additional
bailiff which has been transferred from the Sheriff's budget to a contingency
Line-item in the Board's departmental budget. He said that the other change
relates to the contribution to the Emergency Operations Center which has been
reduced by $2333 due to the one percent decrease in the merit pool. He went
on to say that this was offset by a corresponding increase in the Board's
contingency account. He pointed out that the Board's contingency account now
totals $25,151 after all final adjustments have been made. He stated that the
staff believes the Board should have at least $20,000 to $25,000 in a
contingency fund for its use during the fiscal year. He added that the
recommends approval of the FY 1992-93 Operating Budget.
Mr. Martin commented that he has never before been a part of this
particular procedure, and it sounds to him as though decisions have already'
been made. He would, however, still like for the Board to consider the $31.13
for the MACAA program.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Martin to remind the Board members what the money
would do for the MACAA program.
Mr. Martin recalled that MACAA's request had been for $40,283, and the
Board recommended $37,170, which gives MACAA a three percent base line
increase. He feels that $3000 for the MACAA program produces such benefits
and such cost savings, and it is almost insignificant when the whole $90.0
million budget is considered. He said, however, that $3113 means a lot of
services that will not be provided, if the Board does not approve the
additional funding.
Mr. Bowerman asked the staff how the additional $3113 would be specifi-
cally used in the MACAA budget. Ms. Roxanne White, Executive Assistant,
replied that this additional money was not shown for anything specific. She
explained that MACAA had originally requested a ten percent increase in its
budget.
Mr. Bowerman stated that what is currently requested is three percent
above the base amount for MACAA's budget. He asked, however, if the $3113 is
provided, would this mean that MACAA's budget would be ten percent above last
year's base line amount.
Mr. Tucker responded that MACAA officials had indicated that with most of
the programs they normally receive a ten percent increase. He thinks that
this was where the Program Review process had some concerns.
Mr. Bowerman asked what was the largest budget program increase. Mr.
Tucker answered that the budget programs averaged a three percent increase.
Mr. Martin commented that his concern is with the base line increase. He
said that anytime $3000 can make a difference between a three percent increase
and a ten percent increase, it shows that there is a small base line figure
from the beginning. He added that with a small base line figure, and the
kinds of services that MACAA provides, by using a lot of volunteers and
stretching its dollars as much as possible, it is, in his opinion, ridiculous
to argue over $3000. He stated that $3000 means a lot to the MACAA program.
Mr. Bain stated that the same thing could be said about other programs
such as Legal Aid. He said that the amount for Legal Aid could be doubledr
too. He added that the total budget for Legal Aid is $12,000, and another
$12,000 would really be beneficial, in terms of the services it could provide.
He commented that the problem relates to which of the social service areas is
needed the most. He said that all of the social service areas need extra
money, but it cannot be provided to all of them.
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
M.B. 41, Pg. 42
Mr. Martin asked Ms. White if City Council approved the additional
person, in its budget, for the Shelter for Help in Emergency.
Ms. White replied that City Council set aside $3700, which could be used
for increases in salaries or an additional person, but the Council gave the
Shelter the option as to how the money would be used.
Mr. Martin inquired, if the Shelter decides to use the City's allocation
for an additional person, would the County still have money set aside for this
person. Board members responded affirmatively. Mr. Martin asked if the same
situation is true with the SARA program. Ms. White answered that the
additional person was funded by the City for SARA, contingent upon what
happens with the CAP program. She said that City school officials have been
asked to fund the CAP program, and if this happens, the City's general fund
can handle the extra person for SARA. She said, however, that if the school
system does not fund the CAP program, then the additional money, which would
have been used for the SARA program, will be used for the CAP program. She
stated that the matter has not yet been settled.
Mr. Martin remarked that he did not want to belabor the discussion, but
he wanted to see how the other Board members felt about the situation, since
it was a three to three vote when the matter was first discussed.
Mr. Marshall commented that he believes the matter was resolved with a
four to two vote, with himself and Mr. Martin voting in favor of funding the
additional money for MACAA. Mr. Marshall stated that he is still in favor of
giving MACAA the full funding.
Mr. Bain indicated that he would also support a motion in favor of the
MACAA funding.
At this time, mo%ion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall,
to appropriate an additional $3113 to MACAA's budget to bring to their
requested funding level of $40,283.
Mrs. Humphris asked from which category will the additional money be
taken. Mr. Martin suggested that, since it is such a small amount of money~
the additional funding can come out of a the Board's Contingency Reserve.
Mr. Tucker suggested that the money be taken from the Board's Contingency
Fund or the designated reserve of $100,000 that is available.
Mr. Bowerman felt the additional money should come from the reserve fund.
Several Board members agreed with Mr. Bowerman's comments.
Mr. Tucker informed the Board members, that if they so desire, he will
take the $3113 out of the Contingency Reserve that is shown at $100,527. He
noted that the Board is basically approving this budget, but the staff will
have to make some changes.
Mr. Perkins remarked that he will not support the motion. He said that
MACAA does a fine job, but other requests have been denied by this Board. He
added that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and he personally feels that
the County taxpayer needs to get a break this year.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Marshall asked for clarification in regard to the public health nurses
and what they do in the school system. He asked if the County is getting into
the business of supplying public health service in the schools.
Mr. Martin replied that the County has always been in the public health
service business in some form. He added that this is a School Board issue,
and he feels that the best thing the Supervisors can do is to leave the
situation alone. He said that it is a controversial issue, and the School
Board needs to deal with it. He went on to say that this is why the Super-
visors appoint School Board members. He commented that there is no dealing
with the matter, because no matter what happens with the situation, it is
always brought up again in another form.
Mr. Marshall commented that it is his understanding that for this
situation to be legal, the Supervisors have to approve it.
Mr. Bain explained that the school nurse program is not something that is
before this Board tonight. He said that the Supervisors can discuss it as
much as they wish, if they so choose.
Mr. Bowerman stated that this situation could be discussed at the joint
meeting with the School Board in June. He said that there is not a joint
meeting scheduled in May.
Mr. Marshall reiterated that he does not understand the situation.
M.B. 41, Pg. 43
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Tucker responded that there are differences of opinion in terms of
the legality of the situation with the school nurses. He said that the County
Attorney has advised the School Board that its action is legal. He added that
there are others, however, who disagree with the County Attorney.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the matter of the school nurses can be
discussed on June 6, if that is the Board's desire.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he would like to know more about it, and it is
fine with him if the Supervisors discuss the matter with the School Board at
the joint meeting.
At this time, Mr. Bain offered motion to adopt the following Resolution
to approve the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning
July 1, 1992.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that, with the increase in the funding for the
MACAA program, the Community Development section in the budget will be amended
to an amount of $1,727,374. He added that the Contingency Reserve Fund's
amended amount would be $97,414.
Mr. Bain stated that he would include those figures in his motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for
the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1992, be approved as follows:
5
General Government Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Development
Parks, Recreation and Culture
Community Development
County/City Revenue Sharing
Refunds
Capital Improvements
Contingency Reserve
Education - Debt Service
Education - Operations
Total
$ 3,845,643
1,272,681
6,448,216
1,692,592
4,023,923
2,541,908
1,724,261
3,426,000
56,000
1,000,000
100,527
5,195,385
59,141,120
$90,468,256
Mr. Perkins commented that he supported the budget, but he does have
some concerns. He said that it was probably the easiest budget process that
he has seen, and he complimented Mr. Tucker on the job that he and his staff
have done. He added that the picture is certainly improved from what it
seemed to be last October. He went on to say that extra funds were available,
but he is disappointed that they were all spent. He believes that approxi-
mately twelve and one-half people have been added to the County personnel
rolls, and that is not counting the fourteen and one-half additional teachers
in the school system. He thinks that this is the way that bureaucracies are
created, and how they get out of hand. He stated that this has already
happened in the Federal government and probably has happened in the State
government. He reiterated that he is disappointed that some of the extra
funds could not have been given back to the County taxpayers. He remarked
that it seems as though when the money is available, it has to be spent.
Mrs. Humphris responded by saying that if a lot of administrators had
been added, she might tend to agree with Mr. Perkins. Mr. Perkins stated that
he understands what Mrs. Humphris is saying, and he does not want to argue.
He said that it seems that all of the additional people are needed, but
anything can be justified. Mrs. Humphris commented that she felt comfortable
with the justification for the police officers. She said if administrators
were being added, she would have been opposed, and would have been talking
about adding to an ineffective bureaucracy. She went on to say that the
people who are being added will be a direct help to the citizens of this
County. She said that the new employees will not be sitting in an office on
the fourth floor, but, instead, they will be out in the field getting things
done for the County taxpayers who pay for their services. She thinks that the
taxpayers should get what they pay for, and she thinks that this is happening.
Mr. Perkins emphasized that this is the way bureaucracies are created.
He said that Mrs. Humphris has her philosophy and he has his philosophy, but
their philosophies will probably never be the same.
Mr. Tucker thanked staff for the great job they did on the budget. He
said that he had been worried about the outcome of the budget this year, but
M.B. 41, Pg. 44
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
the revenues were better than expected, and the County was fortunate. He
added that he is very appreciative of the staff's work on the budget.
Agenda Item No. 19. Set Tax Rates for 1992.
Mr. Tucker explained to Board members that they are in receipt of a
Resolution recommending for adoption of the tax rates for the tax year 1992,
and he discussed the tax rates with the Supervisors.
Mr. Martin moved adoption of the tax rates as outlined in the following
Resolution. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable
year 1992 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72)
on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars
and Thirty Cents ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Thirty
Cents ($4.30) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value
of machinery and tools; at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One
Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value on mobile homes; and at
Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of public service assessments;' and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle
County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all
taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not
assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing
business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public
Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads
based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Com-
mission and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to
location and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft
under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles
used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code;
except farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household
goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500
through Section 58.1-3508.
Agenda Item No. 20. Appropriation Request: League of Women Voters.
Mr. Tucker stated that the League of Women Voters has urged the County to
be involved with a brochure, or some type of educational material for resi-
dents of Albemarle County, to provide guidance on their septic systems. He
noted that the League has prepared a brochure, which is attached with a cover
memorandum, and is requesting that the County provide a contribution of $240
to cover the printing costs of 5000 brochures. He said the League will be
responsible for distributing the guide to such entities as the Blue Ridge
Home Builders Association, the Board of Realtors, the County's Planning
Department and other community interest groups, such as Welcome Wagon, etc.
He stated staff recommends the Board authorize the $240 from the Board's
contingency fund for this brochure printing.
Mo%ion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the
following resolution to appropriate $240, from the Board's contingency fund,
as reimbursement to the League of Women Voters for the printing of the
brochure entitled, "A Resident's Guide to Septic Systems." Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING OF BROCHURE FOR LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1100089000569000
1100011010999999
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
BOARD OF SUPV-CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
$ 240.00
(240.00)
0.00
Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said he was hoping Joyce Engineering Consultants would be able
to complete some work on a solid waste study so that he could make the Board
aware of the study as it relates to the County tipping fees. He said this
M.B. 41, Pg. 45
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
work has been completed, but because of House Bill 1073 and EPA regulations,
Subtitle D, which deals with the closure and liners of the Landfill, it
appears that the closure of some of the cells and the opening of new cells can
be postponed. He added that the consultants have been able to reduce the
tipping fee from what was originally proposed at $45 to $40. In addition, Mr.
Tucker recalled that the master plan, which has already been submitted to the
Board, had indicated a five to six year plan at a cost of approximately $21.0
million. He said this figure can also be reduced to approximately $18.0
million. He went on to say that the consultants have done some additional
analysis of the life span of the Landfill, and felt that a conservative
estimate at this time is that the Landfill should be of use to the County
until the year 2007, based on the County's population projections as well as
projections that the consultants have done on the solid waste tonnages that
are projected to be coming into the Landfill, plus recycling rates, etc. He
added that some consultants indicated that the Landfill might be available as
much as five years beyond that time. He said that the time span is dependent
upon population growth and the activities that occur in the County and City as
well as recycling activities. He thinks that this is good news. He said that
the staff is proposing a more definitive presentation on this matter, which
will be given to this Board at its next Board of Supervisors/City Council
luncheon in early May.
Next, Mr. Tucker reminded the Supervisors that Mr. Robert Brandenburger,
Assistant County Executive, had prepared a report on solid waste for Board
members a couple of months ago which outlined some direction for the Board to
consider. He said that the meeting of these directives will require some
additional staff work in the form of reports, etc. Mr. Tucker has decided
that there is not enough staff time to spend on these kinds of issues, and he
feels that these issues should not have a staff person working on them for an
hour or so and then coming back to them at a later time. He went on to say
that this project needs someone who can spend quality time, be creative and
provide options and recommendations. He is in the process of hiring someone,
on a part-time basis, to do this work, so that the information can be given
back to this Board in a timely fashion, such as late summer or fall. He
thinks that it is important to move forward with this project and to do it
very quickly. He stated that everything which was included in Mr.
Brandenburger's report relating to enforcement will be considered, as well as
other things. He said County staff is looking at ways to deal with illegal
trash dumps, but this information will come back to this Board, hopefully,
within a month.
Mr. Bain remarked that he will be calling Board members to see when they
can ride with him to look at Route 682. He said the Route 682 project will be
on the May 6 agenda, and he would like to take each Board member out to that
road, so that they will understand the situation. He added that some informa-
tion will be given Board members from the staff, and there will also be repre-
sentatives from VDoT to discuss the situation. He went on to say that the
people who live on Route 682 will also be present at the meeting. He said
that he has had a meeting with these people, and he just wanted to give the
other Supervisors the information that he has accumulated on the project. He
noted that VDoT representatives from Culpeper were present at the first
meeting at Murray Elementary School.
Mr. Bowerman informed the Supervisors that their packets included an
application from Mr. David Emmitt, who would like to serve on the Fiscal
Impact Committee. He said that Mr. Emmitt was late getting the application to
the Supervisors. He noted that Mr. Emmitt had sent him a letter in January,
1992, which he provided to all Board members, requesting that he be able to
participate in such a committee, should one be formed. Mr. Bowerman then
suggested that Mr. Emmitt's application be accepted, even though the deadline
has passed, in light of the fact that Mr. Emmitt had made a formal request to
the Chairman to participate in such a committee. He stated that he is not
asking that Mr. Emmitt be placed on the committee, but, instead, he is asking
that Mr. Emmitt be considered as a committee member, with the other appli-
cants.
Mr. Martin remarked that he has been a strong advocate, since he has been
on this Boardt that if deadlines for applications are extended, then the
positions need to be readvertised. He pointed out that he has no problem with
readvertising. He noted that Mr. Emmitt was his opponent in the election, but
he said that has nothing to do with his decision. He stated that he has
always said that when a deadline is set, it should be strict. He mentioned
that he has recommended Mr. Emmitt for a position on another board.
Mr. Bowerman responded that he is aware of the point that Mr. Martin is
making. Mr. Bowerman added that what he is saying is that Mr. Emmitt thought
that he had applied for the position on this committee with his January 18
letter. He.reiterated that he has enclosed copies in the Supervisors~
packets.
Mr. Martin commented that he can see making an exception if there is a
reason for making one.
M.B. 41, Pg. 46
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Perkins asked what was the date of the deadline. Mr. Bowerman
answered that the deadline for receiving the applications for the Fiscal
Impact Committee was last Friday. He added that the decision would be left up
to the other Board members, but he stated that he had wanted them to know that
Mr. Emmitt had indicated to him that he thought he had already applied. Mr.
Bowerman reiterated that he is suggesting that the application be accepted.
He thinks that this would be fair because Mr. Emmitt sent the Board a
letter in January requesting such an appointment. Mr. Perkins stated that he
would be willing to accept Mr. Emmitt's application because of the circum-
stances.
Mrs. Humphris agreed that she could accept Mr. Emmitt as an applicant,
~use of his earlier letter to the Board.
Mr. Bowerman announced that, if this is acceptable to the Board, Mr.
Emmitt will'be included along with the other applicants for the Fiscal Impact
Committee. Mr. Bowerman then suggested that two hours be set aside at the May
6 day meeting to discuss applications received on the Fiscal Impact Committee.
He thinks that this time should be used to decide which of these people the
Supervisors want to interview. He added that Board and Planning Commission
participation can also be discussed. He went on to say that interviews can be
scheduled for a night meeting in May or carried over to the first day meeting
in June. He said that this can be decided at the May 6 meeting.
Board members indicated that this would be acceptable to them.
Mr. Bowerman next stated that he has a request from Mothers Against Drunk
Drivers (MADD), Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) and Shelter for Help and
Emergency (SHE) for a Proclamation declaring April 26 to May 2 as Crime
Victims' Rights Week in Albemarle County. If the other Board members concur,
he will ask the staff to draft this resolution, and he will sign it.
Board members agreed to this resolution.
Mr. Marshall commented that he is unsure about this Board's procedure
when someone is in the hospital. He thinks, however, that the Supervisors, as
a group, should send flowers or a resolution to Dr. Paskel, School Superinten-
dent, or join in a prayer for him. Mr. Tucker responded that he will coordi-
nate sending flowers to Dr. Paskel from the Board. In addition, he said that
flowers are sent from County Office Building employees when a staff member is
in the hospital. Mr. Bowerman agreed that this would be appropriate.
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn.
There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Bowerman
adjourned the meeting at 10:52 p.m.
~~:-~Chairman