Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-13May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) M.B. 41, Pg. 101 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 13, 1992, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Mr. Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. There were none. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Hum- phris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Item 5.1 on the consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items on the consenu agenda as information. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bain. Item 5.1. Doyle's River Flood Damage. The following letter dated April 29, 1992, from Mr. John R. Pflug, Jr., to Messrs Gordon Yager, District Conservationist, and J. W. Peyton Robertson, Jr., Water Resources Manager, was recemved: "Thank you so much for meeting me at my 'Headquarters' Farm last Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. After discussing the flooding of the Doyles River with you, I feel compelled to set forth for the record that I am concerned for the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of my Manager's house, as well as the equipment and/or occupants in my barn, during times of flooding of the Doyles River like those in November, 1985 and on April 20 and 21, 1992. It is my opinion, after talking to you both, that boulders and rocks from the stream bed need to be stacked along my side of the stream bed at the two (2) areas we, viewed last Monday, where it was obvious the River had flooded it's banks. It is also obvious that others before us have seen the same wisdom in doing so, since most of the River on my side is currently stacked with rocks. Please accept this letter as notice to both of you that I wish the following to be implemented at your earliest conveniences. Make such reports as are necessary to the proper authorities as to the extent of the damage caused by this most recent storm. Provide all paperwork necessary to me and/or Mr. Ripper, and/or any other landowners whose signatures are necessary to permit repair work to commence within, hopefully, the next 30 to 60 days. Immediately make any and all applications or allocations for necessary funds for accomplishing such work. I am enclosing a map indicating the two (2) areas I feel need your attention." By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to make a request through the Soil Conservation Service for flood protection assistance for Mr. John R. Pflug, Jr., Item 5.2. Copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for April 21 1992 was received as information. ' ' Item 5.3. Copy of letter dated April 30, 1992, from Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Roger Ray entitled "Official May 13, 1992 (Regular Night (Page 2) M.B. 41, Pg. 102 Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 30, Parcel 21; Property of Grace H. Price", was received as information. Item 5.4. Letter dated April 24, 1992, from Ms. Mary Ann E. G. Wilson, Manager, Richmond Office of U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, re: Report on Audit of Section 8 Housing Office for period July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991, was received as information. Item 5.5. Copy of memorandum dated April 30, 1992, from Ms. Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator, re: "Interpretation of Condition #8 of Approval on SP-90-99 for Rappahannock Electric Cooperative,,, was received as information. Item 5.6. Copy of the Draft for Public Comment Public Health Assessment written for the Greenwood Chemical Company, Newtown, National Priorities List site, received from the State Department of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substan- ces, was received as information. Mr. Cilimberg noted that Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7 were from the same applicant. Mr. Bowerman suggested the Board hear staff reports on both items and then take separate actions. Board members concurred. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-91-71. Unity Church in Charlottesville (Appl); David Allen~ (Owner). To construct a 300 seat church with offices, fellowship hall & educational facilities on 5.0 ac zoned RA. Property on W side of Rt 743 approx 900 ft N of Whitewood Rd. TM61,P4. Jack Jouett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 28 and May 5, 1992.) Agenda Item No. 7. SP-92-09. David D. Allen. For day care for 25 children on 5.0 ac zoned RA on W side of Rt 743 approx 900 ft N of Whitewood Rd. TM61,P4. Jack Jouett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 28 and May 5, 1992.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff reports for SP-91-71 and SP-92-09 which are on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Mr. Cilimberg pointed ouE that the proposed church site is located in the South Fork Rivanna River water supply watershed. In response to staff's request, the applicant submitted a sketch plan to demonstrate feasibi- lity for future development of the site (copy on file). In addition, the applicant submitted a letter which outlines the proposal (copy on file). Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends approval of SP-92-71 subject to the following conditions: Adult Education classes not incidental to Sunday service shall not exceed three per week and shall not exceed 20 people per class; 2. The property may not be further divided; The interim sanctuary shall not exceed 150 person seating capacity and shall conver5 to a fellowship hall at issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 300 seat sanctuary; Construction of the 300 seat sanctuary shall commence within four years or approval for the new structure shall expire. Construction of the 150 seat sanctuary shall commence within two years of approval of the special use permit or approval for the structure shall expire; 5o There shall be only one residential dwelling on this property; Planning Commission approval of site plan; Reservation of land for additional right-of-way to accommo- date road improvements as outlined in VDoT letter dated January 16, 1992; Expansion of any use or construction not outlined in this approval shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. At its meeting on April 21, 1992, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-71 subject to the following conditions: 1. The property may not be further divided; 2. The interim sanctuary shall not exceed 150 person seating capacity; May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Me~t~ihg) (Page 3) M.B. 41, Pg. 103 Construction of the 300 seat sanctuary shall commence within four years or approval for the new structure shall expire. Construction of the 150 seat sanctuary shall commence within two years of approval of the special use permit or approval for the structure shall expire; There shall be only one residential dwelling on this property; Administrative approval of site plan; Reservation of land for additional right-of-way to accommo- date road improvements as outlined in V/DoT letter dated January 16, 1992; Expansion of any use or construction not outlined in this report shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission decided to delete condition #1 recommended by staff because it felt that the size and maximum amount of activities at the site could be controlled by the limits of the septic system. He does have wording for a substitute condition which he can provide the Board members, if they are interested. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends approval of SP-92-09 subject to the following conditions: Day care shall not exceed 20 children or such lesser number as the Health Department may specify based on adequacy of the septic system; 2. Planning Commission approval of site plan; No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care cenuer. 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 notify the zoning administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this ordinance; Periodic inspections 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; 5o These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. Day care shall be limited to ten children until completion of the Hydraulic Road widening. Should the applicant pursue a higher number of children prior to the completion of this road project, the applicant shall install a right turn lane as required by Virginia Department of Transportation. At its meeting on April 21, 1992, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-09 subject to the following conditions: Day care shall not exceed 25 children or such lesser number as the Health Department may specify based on adequacy of the septic system; 'Administrative approval of site plan; 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 notify the zoning administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this ordinance; Periodic inspections of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion. Failure May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Meetihg) (Page 4) M.B. 41, Pg. 104 to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; 5o These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. Mr. Cilimberg then summarized the following letter dated May 4, 1992, from Mr. G. Stephen ~ice, Environmental health Specialist, Thomas Jefferson Health District, to ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner, Albemarle County Planning Department: "As promised, I am writing you to clarify questions which have been raised relative to Health Department approvals for prelimi- nary site plans and in particular those relative to the Unity Church proposal (Route 743, Hydraulic Road, Tax Map 61 parcel 4). This Department, when evaluating proposed sites, must consider a number of factors relative to use of existing drainfields or proposed drainfield sites. Water usages must be established and based on available drainfield area (existing or proposed), limits on particular use on each site may be set. What must be considered, too, is that no more than 1200 gallons of sewage may be distributed per acre without encroaching and impacting water tables. This Department must make every attempt not to exceed mass drainfield limitations (i.e. maximum 1200 gallons/day/acre). Within these guidelines, I have tried to set limitations of water usage for each of the phases of the Unity Church site plan. They are as follows: Phase I: Phase II: Phase III: Existinq Building #1: Maximum water use 300 gallons/ day; Office use and evening classes for 15 person/day Existinq Buildinq #2: Maximum use 250 gallons/day; Day care center - 10 children (25 gallons/day/child) Existinq Buildinq #1: Office use Existinq Buildinq #2: Day care - 10 children ProDosed Buildinq %3: 150 seat sanctuary & Sunday school; Classes Monday-Friday - max 20 persons Maximum water usage Buildings 2 and 3 500 gallons/ day; 2 ADDITIONAL DRAINFIELD DITCHES MUST BE INSTALLED Existinq Buildinq %1: Office use Existinq Buildinq #2: Day care - 10 children - Monday - Friday; Sunday school Sundays ProDosed Buildinq ~3: Evening classes Monday-Friday - max 20 persons * Because of drainfield limitations, WATER USAGE CANNOT EXCEED 500 GPD (Day care, sanctuary and evening classes) Proposed Buildinq #4: Permanent sanctuary - Sundays only; Primary and reserve drainfield sites have been set aside. 600 gpd Phase IV: Existinq Buildinq $1: Reverts back to residence bedroom maximum. 300 gpd Existinq Buildinq %2: and Existinq Buildinq ~3: Day care center - maximum 20 children/day; 2 employees. 500 gpd usage Proposed Buildinq $4: Permanent sanctuary - Sundays 300 seats; Evening classes - Monday-Friday - 30 persons maximum. 900 gpd usage. Please be advised, also, that any area designated for parking or driveway which is located over drainfields must be paved with either asphalt or concrete (4" min.)." Mr. Cilimberg then recommended adding a condition to SP-91-71 that the uses shall not exceed the limitations for each phase as set forth in Mr. Rice's letter of May 4. This would be a substitute for condition #1 recommended by staff. May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) M.B. 41, Pg. 105 Mr. Bowerman asked if the day care center would be established before construction of the sanctuary. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes," phasing of the project would establish day care for ten children and church offices in the existing structure before the sanctuary is built. He added that Phase Two involves an interim sanctuary to be located in Building #3. At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearings on SP-91-71 and SP-92-09. Ms. Susan Riddle, a Civil Engineer, representing Unity Church, said Unity Church is the contract purchaser of the property. She said a day care center will be operated on the site, and Mr. David Allen is the current owner. Prior to her involvement with this project, the members of Unity Church presented a preliminary site development plan to the Planning staff as requested, and the plan was routed through the entire site review process. She said all of the appropriate County agencies, VDoT and the Health Depart- ment have provided comments on the plan. The plan presented to the Board tonight attempts to address primary concerns raised by the staff and demon- strate to the staff that all of its concerns could and would be resolved during the final site plan review process. She said the site can accommodate all of the proposed uses for the site. She commented that the plan would evolve into a final site development plan, taking into account all of the amenities and all of the constraints of the site that have become apparent through this process. She remarked that the site was thoroughly evaluated by County staff, and staff will have an opportunity for further evaluation. Ms. Riddle next described how Unity Church would grow into the site. She noted, on the plan, that the two existing small dwelling units would be retained, and the church would eventually move its offices into the existing home on the left, which is Building ~1. She said the day care center will start operation for up to ten children in the other existing residence on the site. During the second phase, the interim sanctuary will be built and will actually be attached to existing residence #2. She added that this would be the Sunday sanctuary, on an interim basis, and would seat 150 persons. Ms. Riddle stated that with the first phase of building structure #3, one floor of the structure will be finished, and the building will be used for Sunday services. She stated that, ultimately, most of the primary church functions will be held in building ~4, with the existing residence, and the new attached building used for day care and occasionally for other church functions, such as weddings, etc. She remarked that existing structure ~1 would revert back to a residence. She pointed out that staff has computations which indicate 2200 square feet of first floor area per acre, which includes two floors of building #1. She stated that building surface area on the site would be approximately 1500 square feet per acre. With an excess of 450 feet of public road frontage on this site, she stated that the modest residences currently located on the site could conceivably be replaced by two large four bedroom, 4000 square foot, residences similar to houses in Roslyn Heights. Ms. Riddle commented that this would create 1500 square feet per acre of surface area, and would generate substantial sewage flows. She pointed out that with the phasing process and the multiple uses of the site, the parking that would be required for the Sunday services alone would easily support all of the other functions anticipated. Ms. Riddle noted that the site is located in the watershed area. She spent a lot of time with the Water Resources Manager, and he and she have established that the proposed uses can occur on the site, and that adequate stormwater management can be provided. She said that Unity Church will clearly be required to meet all of the County ordinances, including the Runoff Control Ordinance, during the final site review process. She pointed out that the drainage ditch which travels through the site actually goes through an existing culvert from across Hydraulic Road. She commented that the site is near the top of the drainage ditch, and there is not a large drainage area at this point. She stated that the detention pond shown on the site would be employed for stormwater management and also for runoff control. She said that a detention pond in this location would take up impervious services from Hydraulic Road, as they currently exist and as they are improved, which currently and in the future would go unchecked into the reservoir. Next, Ms. Riddle discussed the Health Department issue, which involves the capacity of the septic system, the allowable uses for evening classes and the number of people that are allowed on the site in the evenings and on weekdays. She said this has become a confusing issue. She noted that this is a conceptual plan, and the applicant has not actually requested a permit from the Health Department. She said that while soil studies have been undertaken on this site, they have not necessarily been thorough. She stated that if these special use permits are actually approved, then the applicant would be willing to spend the money and the time to further investigate all of the locations that may be suitable for septic fields. She added that when the final plans are actually examined, the applicant will be working with the Health Department. She went on to say that the letter from the Health Department speaks of gallons per day usage, and she thinks, at this stage, this is the best that can be done. She stated that this information is based on preliminary studies and sitings of the drainfields. Ms. Riddle pointed out that there was an issue about the water line that crosses through the site, and this was discussed at the Planning Commission May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) M.B. 41, Pg. 106 meeting. She stated that the applicant is fully aware of this issue~ and expects to be able to accommodate it during the final design process. As far as land uses are concerned, Ms. Riddle pointed out that churches and day care centers are allowed in the County by special use permit, and they are allowed by-right only within commercial designations. She stated that, generally, nonprofit churches cannot afford lands designated for high density or commercial growth. She added that nonprofit use of a church on an expen- sive piece of property would effectively remove that parcel from the County's tax rolls. Ms. Riddle commented that an issue of concern for the Planning staff seemed to be the approval of a special use permit adjacent to a designated growth area. She said all other developmental concerns have clearly been addressed. She recalled that recently the Board approved requests for the Anglican Church, located on Route 250, and a day care center adjacent to Murray School which were for similar uses located in the watershed area and zoned PJt. She also noted that Covenant Churck, with an 800-seat capacity, was approved in the rural areas adjacent to a growth area. Ms. Riddle then asked the Board to support the staff recommendations of approval for these special use permits with some modifications. She asked that the first condition for SP-91-71 indicate that adult education classes or activities not incidental to Sunday services shall not exceed 50 persons per classroom activity per weekday evening, or such lesser number that the Health Department may specify, based upon adequacy of the septic systems. She would like to give the applicant the opportunity to take the time to examine this issue and work with the Health Department. She added that, in general, the Health Department adds all of the uses together, and does not take into consideration that a 300 seat sanctuary is not going to be used on Tuesday when 50 boy scouts might be meeting at the church. She understands that the Board needs to put some limits on the special use permit, but she would like some leeway, so that the applicant can take time to examine the issues during the final process. Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Riddle is suggesting that condition #1 out- lined in Mr. Rice's letter, is not adequate for the needs of the church. Ms. Riddle replied that the applicant would like to have some flexibility. Unity Church really wants to provide a community service. She does not think church officials want to be in a position where, if someone asks to use the church and only two office workers have been there all day, this person should be denied the use of the church. She pointed out that the Health Department has concerns because it is looking at this situation from a preliminary stand- point, and these details should get worked out in the final process. The applicant cannot spend the time nor the money that it would take to fully investigate the situation at this preliminary stage. Ms. Riddle then asked that the sixth condition indicate that administra- tive approval of the site plan is all that is necessary. She knows what is involved in the site plan review process. If there are any issues that cannot be resolved between the applicant, staff or Health Department, they would go to the Commission. Mr. Martin asked if Ms. Riddle supports the conditions recommended by the Commission. Ms. Riddle answered affirmatively. She then mentioned SP-92- 09 relating to the day care special use permit. She requested that the Commission's recommendation of 25 children, or such lesser number that the Health Department may specify based upon s~ptic system requirements, be retained. She said this was not the staff s recommendation, but she believes that the modifications would allow for some flexibility. She mentioned that should the Board require Commission review of the site plan, she would request that Phase One be approved administratively. She explained that Phase One entails a commercial entrance and a small number of parking spaces for two existing buildings with no new septic systems. She stated that she would be happy to answer questions. She also mentioned that Rev. Tony Roebuck, Pastor of Unity Church, would like to speak to the Board. Rev. Roebuck stated that he has been the minister at Unity Church of Charlottesville since 1985. He pointed out that the church has existed in this community since 1979, and ever since he came to the church, the congrega- tion has wanted its own home. He said Board members should understand that having one's own home has a lot of advantages, and meeting in rented facili- ties, even if it is a person's own residence or a business, has a lot of limi- tations. The church group has been meeting in rented facilities for the 12 years it has been in this community. He stated that the group has operated similar to a rent-a-church, and it is not effective or functional, and it does not allow the kind of community that the members would like to build within the church. He also said that it does non allow the church to be the type of resource to the community that church members had hoped. He added that the primary purpose of the church is to empower people to be able to live life more fully and richly and to experience the blessings that God has available for them through the teachings of Jesus Christ. He feels thaE this is a vital and important thing that the church group does. He remarked that something significant can be added to the moral fiber of the community and in its nature and character. He thinks that having a central place for the church members to have their own home is of vital interest, not only to the people involved May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) M.B. 41, Pg. 107 with the church, but it enhances the community as well. He is aware that the church officials are asking that a church be built in the watershed area, and he has talked to the leaders of the Ivy Creek Natural Area and to the Concerned Citizens for Albemarle. He pointed out that neither of those organizations have concerns about this. He said that representatives from the two organizations felt this was a positive use for the land. He reiterated Ms. Riddle's comments that commercial real estate in Albemarle County is prime real estate. Although his group has a lot of spiritual wealth, Rev. Roebuck noted that this is not a wealthy church, as far as material things are con- cerned. He said his group has been looking a number of years for a piece of property that would serve the needs of Unity Church and be within the church's price range. He recalled that the church group did find a piece of property last year, which the group felt would serve their needs, but they were unaware at the time that the County already had other plans for that particular piece of property. He believes that this current piece of property meets the needs of the church, and it is something that is workable. He belzeves, too, that it is a place where the church can be an asset to the community. He then asked the people who attended the meeting to stand in order to show their support of this request (approximately 25 people responded). He stated that a large number of the church membership is residents of Albemarle County, and he pointed out that the church members wanted to create something on this piece of property that would not only be an asset for the church community, but they also wanted to create something beautiful that would be an asset for the area as well. He concluded his remarks by requesting that the Supervisors approve this proposal. Mr. Bowerman then asked if there were any other public comments on either SP-91-71 or SP-92-09. No one came forward so the public hearings were closed. ' Mrs. Humphris asked why the Commission deleted the third condition recommended by staff. Mr. Cilimberg responded that comments from a couple of Commissioners indicated that they did not need to dictate the conversion since it would be assumed to happen anyway, because of the way that the phasing is described. He said staff had included the condition so that the condition would be explicit. Mrs. Humphris stated that she likes the staff's explicitness because of the way churches grow. She said that some churches have double or triple services on Sundays, and if this is not included in the recommendation, there could likely be ongoing services at the same time in both existing houses. She said this would double the number of people on the site, and the site would not be set up for that many people. She wondered if the Health Department restrictions would take care of this matter. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Health Department, by the way that it has defined phasing in its letter, assumes that in the final phasing, Building ~3 would be provided for day care. He went on to say that although the Health Department has not made it specific, it is also part of the plan that there be a fellow- ship hall. He said that a fellowship hall was not outlined in the Health Department's analysis, but it was in the staff's original position. Mr. St. John commented that he was asked by the Commission to monitor the conditions in connection with enforceability. He added that he does not think the Zoning Administrator can go into a building and dictate that a certain number of people can stay in the building as long as they are engaging in fellowship rather than church services. Mrs. Humphris replied that she understands. She then asked if these limitations are outside of the purview of the Zoning Administrator, how can limitations be put on for purposes relat- ing to the letter from the Health Department. She thinks it is important for the County to adhere to this letter. She quoted from the letter that, "Water usages must be established and based on available drain field area existing and proposed. Limits on particular uses on each site must be set. What must be considered, too, is that no more than 1200 gallons of sewage may be distributed per acre without encroaching and impacting water tables. This Department must make every attempt not to exceed mass drain field limita- tions; .... " She asked how this condition can be put in place if limitations cannot be added which will cause this result. Mr. Cilimberg answered that some conditions can be enforced easily and some have to be self enforced. He added that if conditions are explicit and the uses defined, the Zoning Department will then have something to work from, particularly if there is a complaint filed by neighboring property owners. He said that it is not likely the Zoning Department will be monitoring the uses, anyway. He added that the Zoning Department may have to respond to a complaint that the property is being used in excess of what has been allowed. He said this complaint could come from the Health Department, and this would be easier for the Zoning AdministraEor~ because the conditions would already be in place. He added that, otherwise, the conditions are going to be typically self enforcing in a lot of cases. He noted that most users are consciously abiding by the conditions. Mrs. Humphris next asked if there can be a limit for day care, but there cannot be limits placed on other uses. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Zoning Administrator has indicated to the staff that being explicit with conditions does not hurt the Zoning staff's ability to enforce conditions, when the May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) M.B. 41, Pg. 108 Zoning staff is called upon if there is a case of a complaint or problem, and it needs to be determined whether or not special use permit conditions are being violated. Mr. St. John responded that Mr. Cilimberg is referring to numbers being involved with conditions. He asked how a problem can be handled when it involves people who are engaging in services rather than in fellowship. He thinks that this is totally unenforceable whether Or non a complaint is involved. He added that if numbers are involved at a given time, it is possible to count the people, but something cannot be declared unlawful because the same number of people in one situation are engaged in services, and in another situation, they are engaged in fellowship. Mrs. Humphris stated that she thinks it is important, as far as numbers are concerned, that the staff recommended that condition #1 be included. She added that the condition outlines the limitations that the Health Department feels are safe for this particular site. She also believes the Commission's seventh condition should be replaced with the new condition #8 about expan- sion, etc., requiring additional review and approval by the Board of Supervi- sors. Mr. Bowerman clarified that the church's request is being discussed first. He asked for the staff's response to Ms. Riddle's comment relating to limiting the approval to the phasing, etc., as outlined in Mr. Rice's letter, rather than limiting the development based upon a more finished site plan. He added that this site plan would be reviewed by the staff and would also take into account the Health Department's requirements for each phase. Mr. Cilim- berg stated that the Health Department has never reviewed the 50 person limi- tation, as far as the septic system is concerned. He went on to say, however, that there is a proviso for any lesser number that the Health Department would approve. He said that this gives the Health Department the opportunity to limit the number to 30 people, if this is the number that can be handled safely by the septic system. Since the Health Department has not reviewed this matter, he cannon answer Mr. Bowerman's question beyond what is written by Healtk Department officials. Mr. Cilimberg added that this only speaks to the use of the adult education evening classes, and there is no statement regarding the sanctuary, because the sanctuary is covered by another limita- tion. He commented that staff has asked the Health Department to be as definitive as possible in reference to guidelines for the County to follow. He added that when the Health Department is definitive, the staff tries to recognize it. He said than if the number mncreases to 50 people, and the Health Department approves it, then that is fine. However, Mr. Cilimberg stated that if the number increases to 50 people, but the Health Department has only approved a septic system for 30 people, then there could be a problem. He said that the classes could still be operating with 40 or 50 people in a particular class, although the Health Department may have only approved the septic system for 30 people. He stated that Health Department officials may not know this, and the County officials may not know it, either. He concluded his comments by saying that the situation is a long term govern- mng condition, and the best way that the County staff can handle it, is to have the Health Department's input. He said that the staff could try to make the stipulation for 50 people or any lesser number work, but how controllable that number is in the future, he cannot say. Mr. Bowerman wondered if staff feels that the inclusion of Mr. Rice's letter is an integral part of the approval, in terms of the control and followup of both permits. Mr. Cilimberg replied that this is true, from a septic system standpoint. He said that the septic system is the governing factor that has been identified. Mr. Marshall inquired how long it would be before a sewage line will be available to this property. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the property is not in the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area for sewer servi- ces. Mrs. Humphris stated that the property is in the watershed area, but it ms not in the growth area. Mr. Marshall asked if it was possible for the church to connect to sewer services. Mr. Bowerman replied, "no." He said the church property could not connect to the sewer line unless this Board approves the request. Mr. Bowerman then inquired, if Mr. Rice's letter is used as a guideline, and if the Commission's recommended number for day care is approved in Phase One, then gallon requirements would have to be changed as they relate to Phase One for existing Building #2. Mr. Cilimberg responded that Mr. Rice has based the gallon amounn on ten children. Mr. Bowerman next wondered, if the guideline is changed from ten to 25 children, would this automatically apply to the letter, or would it be self- limiting. Mr. Cilimberg answered that, at this point, based on Mr. Rice's letter, it would be self-limiting, because Mr. Rice is indicating that Only 20 children would be ultimately accommodated. Mr. Bowerman asked how the letter can be incorporated, if this Board so chooses, without foreclosing the opportunity to deal with the number of children for the day care center in Phase One. Mr. Cilimberg responded that if the Board is interested in using 25 as the number of children, or a lesser number, it will have already been essentially decided by condition #8. May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) M.B. 41, Pg. 109 Mr. Bowerman wondered if this would modify Mr. Rice's letter, because the approval would be different than what Mr. Rice had stipulated. Mr. Cilimberg read from the letter and said that, based on Mr. Rice's letter, the number of children who could be approved for the septic system would be limited to 20. Mr. Tucker explained that the Commission took action before the letter from the Health Department arrived. He said the Commission tried to adhere to the Health Department guidelines by indicating that the day care center should not exceed 20 children, or such lesser number as the Health Department might specify, based on the adequacy of the septic system. Mr. Bowerman referred to Mr. Marshall's question on public sewage. He said that this is a question that the applicant and the Board may wish to address, but it is not subject to tonight's hearing. He went on to say that the application before the Board contemplates the septic disposal. He said that while this matter might be germane to the issue, it is not something that can be discussed tonight, as far as any impact upon this request. Mr. Marshall stated that it is ridiculous for this issue not to be considered. Mrs. Humphris responded that it is not at all ridiculous if one knows the history relating to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and everything that has been done to try to protect it. Mr. Marshall answered that he meant it is ridiculous not to consider the issue tonight, if this is the route that will be followed at some later date. Mrs. Humphris replied that she is not assuming that this is the route to be followed later. She mentioned that if such things are considered, as the history of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and the past efforts to remove all of the watersheds from the growth area, plus the County's policy of restricting water and sewer to areas that are in growth areas and not in watershed areas, it makes a lot of sense. She added that this area is outside of the jurisdictional area, and it is County policy to discourage growth in the watershed area. She noted that this is an impor- tant part of the protection of the water supply. She stated that there are two conflicting things. She went on to explain that on one hand there is a church, which is worthy and wants to build a new facility. On the other hand, Mrs. Humphris explained there is a watershed area that needs protection, and there is a church which wants to exist in a watershed area. It seems to her that if the church can exist in the watershed area under the conditions that are provided, that will be fine. She said that this is what she would like to see happen, but she thinks that the County has to adhere strictly to the restrictions that are put on the project by the Health Department, because the Health Department officials have to help County officials determine what is in the best interest of the public's health, safety and welfare. She noted that this is what this Board is sworn to protect. Mr. Perkins stated that he thinks it is also a matter of using up the capacity of the treatment system by locating projects outside of the growth area. He noted that if the treatment system has no more capacity, then the growth area will have to be stopped. Mr. Bowerman commented that if public utilities were available to this site, he is unsure if this application would be before this Board because the value of the property would change. ' Mr. Cilimberg suggested that, if there is some concern that the condition is too limiting in not allowing the Health Department any further decision, the condition which establishes the limits could be kept intact. He noted that the Board could add the following language, "or such limitations as would be established by the Health Department during site plan review." He said this would establish substitute limits that still would have an applica- tion to the health and safety aspects. He then read the suggested condition's language by stating that, "The uses in Phase One through Four shall not exceed the limitation for each phase as see out in the letter of May 4, 1992 from G. Stephen Rice to Yolanda Hipski, or such limits that may be established by the Health Department during site plan review." He said this would leave an opening that would allow the Health Department some greater use, if requested. Mr. Bowerman agreed that this language could be used, depending on the ability to demonstrate, at that point in time, the exact use. He then asked if this language could be interpreted to be more restrictive than the letter. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it could be more restrictive, but he thinks the key concern relates to health and safety issues. Mr. Bowerman stated that if the use as proposed by the organization can be accommodated, then it should be accommodated. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He pointed out, however, that the use should have the approval of this Board. Mr. Cilimberg then mentioned that the first condition, with respect to day care and the church's special use permit, allows for 25 students for the day care center, which is an upper limit. He pointed out that this is recommended by the Commission. He said that this limitation does not allow this number to get out of line with what this Board deems appropriate for day care for that facility. Mrs. Humphris then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-91-71 subject to the following conditions: May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) M.B. 41, Pg. 110 Uses in Phases 1-4 shall not exceed the limitations for each phase as set out in the letter of May 4, 1992, from G. Stephen Rice, Environmental Health Specialist, Thomas Jefferson Healtk District, addressed to Yolanda Hipski, (copy on file) or such limits as may be established by the Health Department during site plan review; The property may not be further divided; The interim sancuuary shall not exceed 150 person seating capacity; Construction of the 300 seat sanctuary shall commence within four years or approval for the new strucnure shall expire. Construction of the 150 seat sanctuary shall commence within two years of approval of the special use permit or approval for the structure shall expire; There shall be only one residential dwelling on this property; Administrative approval of site plan; Reservation of land for additional right-of-way to accommo- date road improvements as outlined in VDoT letter dated January 16, 1992; 8. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structures outlined in the staff report shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Martin stated he did not think that condition #8 had been discussed by the Supervisors. Mrs. Humphris felt that whenever something is done differently from what the Supervisors perceived, then the special use permit should come back to this Board for approval. Mr. Bowerman stated that changes to special permits, have to come back to the Supervisors for review and approval. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bain. Next, Mrs. Humphris asked if Supervisors had any concerns about the Commission's conditions for the day care cermet. She then asked if the staff's sixth condition was added to keep the church from having to bear the financial burden of constructing the turn lane. Mr. Cilimberg replied that Commission members felt it should not be the day care center's responsibility to construct the turn lane. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff would have to get approval from the Commission if VDoT representatives recommended the turn lane for 25 children. Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff would have the opportunity, during site plan review, to state in the conditions for approval that VDoT is recommending a right turn lane, if there are 25 children approved for the day care center. He believes that this is another reason the Commission eliminated that condition. He went on to say staff always tries to establish the rules of procedure with special use permits. He reiterated that this matter can be handled during site plan review, and then the Commmssion could make the decision as to whether or not the day care center would be required to construct the right turn lane. Mrs. Humphris asked if the decision would be based on VDoT's recommendation. Mr. Cilimberg responded that staff's conditions normally follow VDoT's recommendations. Mr. Bowerman commented that he would non want the applicant to spend money for a turn lane, if the lane was gomng to be torn up in two years. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the turn lane would be covered over with a second lane when the widening is done on Hydraulic Road. He said this was the point made by some of the Commissioners. He noted that if widening of Hydraulic Road is delayed, then the turn lane may be more important if a larger facility is approved. Mr. Perkins remarked that he does not see where ten to 15 extra trips a day will make much difference. Mrs. Humphris then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-92-09, subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: Day care shall not exceed 25 children or such lesser number as the Health Department may specify based on adequacy of the septic system; Administrative approval of site plan; No suck 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 zonzng administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the zoning administrator May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) M.B. 41, Pg. 111 of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this ordinance; vote: Periodic inspections 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; 5o These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requlremenEs of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr Marshall NAYS: None. ' · ABSENT: Mr. Bain. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Board consider ZMA-92-01 and SP-92-12 jointly. Board members concurred. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-92-01. Ednam House Limited Partnership. To amend existing proffers on 1.892 ac zoned R-10 to permit 3 dwellinq units in existing Ednam House. Property on S side of Worthington Drive in ~dnam. Site is located in Neighborhood 7 and is recommended for low density residential (1 4 du/ac) in the Comprehensive Plan. TM60,P28A1. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 28 and May 5, 1992.) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-92-12. Ednam House Limited Partnership. To operate a Class-B Home Occupation for a realtor on 1.892 ac zoned R-10 (Prof- fered). Property on S side of Worthington Dr in Ednam (See ZSbA-92-01 above). TM60,P28A1. Samuel Miller Disu. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 28 and May 5, 1992.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff reports for ZMA-92-01 and SP-92-12 which are on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has reviewed ZMA-92-01 for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and previous actions on this property and the Ednam Development. Staff opinion is that conversion of the Ednam House into a three dwelling structure is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and existing character of development in Ednam and will result in a density compatible with the Ednam Development. Agreements governing this request have been submitted. The agreements are intended to bring the Ednam House under the same zoning as the adjacent Ednam development. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-92-01 subject to the following agreements: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 140 dwelling units in locations and types in accordance with land use summary of the approved plan. (Commission approved the amended land use summary.) Specifically, multi-storied residential struc- tures shall be restricted to Site A, E and G; (Land Use Summary eric.); 2. 'Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrances and road improvements as shown on the approved plan; 3. County Engineer approval of internal roads and parking, drainage, grading plans and impoundment dam; 4. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans including booster station and other appurte- nances; 7o Fire Official approval of fire hydrant locations and fire flow requirements, emergency access provisions, and handi- capped parking; County Attorney's approval of Homeowners' maintenance agreements; The existing Manor House on Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1, may be converted into three dwellings. Mr. Cilimberg said staff reviewed SP-92-12 for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff sees no change in c~rcumstance since the original May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) M.B. 41, Pg. 112 approval and is aware of no complaints regarding the operation of Caleb Stowe Associates. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-92-12 subject to the following conditions: 1. Permit is issued for use by Caleb Stowe only; Off-street parking shall be limited to the approved parking areas on TMP 60-28A1 and adjoining TMP 59D(2)-06-01 indicated on Attachment C and initialed WDF 4/9/92. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 28, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-92-01 and SP-92-12 subject to the agreements and conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearings on ZMA-92-01 and SP-92-12 and asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Caleb Stowe stated that he represented the owners. He said origi- nally this property was approved for an up scale residential community with 140 housing units in seven sections. He said the owners felt they would be able to fit the buildings into those sections. There was a premise, at the beginning of the development, that the community was going to develop fast enough and successfully enough so that the old house built at the turn of the century would be a landmark feature property. He noted that this old house is also preserved as a historic landmark. He added that in 1982, what the owners had hoped to do with the old house did not work, economically. He explained that this house is a 28 room, 12,000 square foot Victorian mansion. He said that it is a beautiful old building, with all of the classic problems that accompany older structures. He remarked that he has been in this house since the inception of this project, and he loves being there. He continued that he hopes to make this building a part of the community, and he hopes to preserve and utilize it in some sensible way so that it will not be a financial drain. He stated that the owners had hoped, at first, to have an office and a club facility for the community, which did not work. In 1984, the owners asked this Board for permission to change the use to incorporate certain office uses, along with the potential for a single residential unit. He reiterated that his business is located in this building, and he uses all three floors. He said the building was used intensely because there were a lot of people working zn it. He went on to say that when things did not go well approxi- mately two years ago, the owners came back to this Board to request that they be allowed to rent the building to other tenants, besides realtors, and permission was granted. Over the last two years, the building has been partially rented to outsiders for office use. He stated that there have been problems with the building, and that is why he is appearing before the Board tonight. He said it is difficult to keep the building secure. He also noted that during past years, the building received State historic designations. He added that the owners want to preserve these designations, and retain this character. He pointed out that the office use was hard on the building, because it was not designed for intense office use. Last summer, the owners got the idea to put this building back into the PRD and incorporate it into the total residential concept. He is here, on behalf of the owners, asking the Supervisors to support this request. He believes this request will make a semi-circle effort to try to utilize this building by coming back to something more simple and more restrictive. In his opinion, he thinks this is "down zoning" the property, but he believes that it is the appropriate use for the building. He is sorry that this was not done from the beginning. Next, Mr. Stowe commented about the special use permit. He said that from the beginning, the development needed office space and a place to operate. He added that this was essentially what the owners were trying to do with the sales and administrative work for this community, which continues. He has the responsibility to do that work, and he thinks that this is down scaling the home occupation use. Under the present arrangements, Mr. Stowe said that he and his wife have agreed tc occupy the first floor and operate a small office which would take care of the administrative and ongoing realty responsibilities. He noted that at this time, it is a 100 percent responsi- bility for him, so he is non doing general brokerage business from the house. He said that in past years, he has had as many as 20 agents working for him. No one else wished to make comments, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearings. Mr. Bowerman said, in his opinion, the requested changes are consistent with the original intent to preserve the house. He would support motions of approval. At this time, Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve ZMA-92-01 subject to the seven agreements recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bowerman Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall NAYS: None. ' ABSENT: Mr. Bain. May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) M.B. 41, Pg. 113 (The agreements are set out in full below:) Approval is for a maximum of 140 dwelling units in locations and types in accordance with land use summary of the approved plan~ (Commission approved the amended land use summary.) Specifically, multi-storied residential struc- tures shall be restricted to Site A, E and G; (Land Use Summary enc.); Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrances and road improvements as shown on the approved plan; County Engineer approval of internal roads and parking, drainage, grading plans and impoundment dam; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans including booster station and other appurte- nances; Fire Official approval of fire hydrant locations and fire flow requirements, emergency access provisions, and handi- capped parking; County Attorney's approval of Homeowners' maintenance agreements; The existing Manor House on Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1, may be converted into three dwellings. Next, motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve SP-92-12 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bain. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1. Permit is issued for use by Caleb Stowe only; Off-street parking shall be limited to the approved parking areas on TMP 60-28A1 and adjoining TMP 59D(2)-06-01 indicated on Attachment C and initialed WDF 4/9/92. Agenda Item No. 10. Draft Statement for the Governor's Advisory Commis- sion on the Dillon Rule and Local Government (Deferred from May 6, 1992). Mr. Bowerman informed Board members that they received copies of a draft statement for the Governor's Advisory Commisszon on the Dillon Rule and Local Government. The statement has been revised taking into account comments made by Board members at the previous meeting. He supports the statement as it is currently written. Mrs. Humphris called attention to the fourth line of Page One of the statement and suggested that "Dillon's Rule be changed to "Dillon Rule's." was agreed that this change was appropriate. It Mrs. Humphris then noted the first area of consideration at the bottom of Page One relating to equal taxing power with cities. On Page Two she mentioned the area relating to the counties having equal borrowing authority as cities. She stated that these areas were not introduced as the things that were desired by Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman responded that there is an attachment that will go with the statement. He said that the areas to which Mrs. Humphris is referring are VACo's considerations. He stated that the first time the Board went through the statement with the staff was to rephrase VACo's position. He added that it was felt there was no reason to do this with Albemarle County's statement, since VACo was saying the same thing. Mrs. Humphris replied that she understands all of this. She emphasized that there needs to be a statement indicating that Albemarle County officials want the Advisory Commission to know that they are asking for consideration in the areas that are listed in the statement. She reiterated that these areas need to be introduced as areas of interest that Albemarle County officials feel are necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities. Mr. Bowerman concurred that Mrs. Humphris was correct. Mrs. Humphris then said she fees the Board should also request broader authority in regulating land use. Mr. Bowerman suggested the words, "broader authority in regulating land use" be incorporated in the introductory phrase. He asked if a motion was needed to accept the statement. May 13, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) M.B. 41, Pg. 114 Mr. Tucker answered that a motion would be helpful, if the Board is comfortable with the statement. He added that Mr. Bowerman would then be able to report to the Advisory Commission that this statement was adopted by the Board. At this time, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to authorize the Chairman to present the above-referenced statement with amendments to the Governor's Advisory Commission on the Dillon Rule and Local Government. Mr. Bowerman informed the Board that he and Mr. Tucker would be leaving the County Office Building at 8:30 on May 19 to meet with the Advisory Commission. He said that Board members were welcome to join them. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 11. Change date for work session on the Open Space Plan to June 3. Mr. Bowerman announced that the date for the work session on the Open Space Plan needs to be changed to June 3. He said it had been previously scheduled for May 27, but he and Mrs. Humphris will not be present on that date. He asked for a formal motion to change the open space work session. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin to change the date for the work session on the Open Space Plan from 4:00 p.m. on May 27, 1992 to the regular day meeting on June 3, 1992. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: June 12 and September 18, 1991. Mrs. Humphris said she had read the minutes of September 18, 1991, pages 21 (#8) to the end, and found them be to be in order with the exception of some typographical errors. Mr. Perkins said he had read the minutes of June 12, 1991, pages 24 to and found them acceptable. Mr. Perkins offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Martin and Mr. Marshall. ABSENT: Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. There were no other matters brought up at this time. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to May 14, 1992, at Scottsville Elementary School for a public forum on the requested boundary adjustment. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adjourn until 7:00 p.m. on May 14, 1992 at scottsville Elementary School for a public hearing on the requested boundary adjustment. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bain.