Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-06November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 33 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 6, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Not Docketed. Mr. Bowie congratulated Mr. Perkins on his reelection to a second term on the Board. He also offered congratulations to the two people who will become members of the Board on January 1, 1992, Mr. Charles Martin and Mr. Forrest Marshall, Jr. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. No one came forward. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4e and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda for information, Items 5.5, 5.7 and 5.8 were deferred for further discussion on November 13. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Request for resolution to have Hunt Country Lane in Wingate Farm Subdivision taken into the Secondary System of Highways. The request came to the Board in the following letter dated September 11, 1991, from Mr. Brian P. Smith, Vice President, Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc.: "On behalf of our client, Mr. William A. Edgerton, I am requesting a resolution be created for Hunt Country Lane in the Wingate Farm Subdivision. This project is located on the north side of Garth Road (Route 676) approximately one mile from the Foxfield race course. This road project has been completed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department and VDoT is now ready for acceptance into the State system." The following resolution was adopted, by the vote shown above: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Virgin- ia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Wingate Farm Subdivision: Hunt Country Lane: Beginning at Station 10+25, a point common to the centerline of Hunt Country Lane and the edge of pavement of State Route 676, thence in a northeasterly direction 3389.55 feet to Station 44+14.55, the end of the cul-de-sac. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-34 portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40 foot unobstructed right- of-way and drainage easements along this requested addition as record- ed by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albe- marle County in Deed Book 903, page 251 and Deed Book 1084, page 526. Item 5.2. Memorandum dated October 17, 1991, from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, in which Mr. Breeden noted that an Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) Pre-Trial Diver- sion Grant was recently revised and reduced by $6030.53. The Board is requested to approve a modification in the budget for both the revenue and expenditure of this grant. The following appropriation was approved, by the above recorded vote, for modification in the budget for both the revenue and expenditure of the OAR pre-Trial Diversion Grant: FISCAL YEAR: 91/92 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REVISION TO PRE-TRIAL DIVKRSION GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEgORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100039000566110 PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION GRANT TOTAL ($6,030.53) ($6,030.53) REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100024000240421 PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION GRANT TOTAL ($6,030.53) ($6,030.53) Item 5.3. Memorandum dated October 18, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, entitled "Request for Contribution to the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights Committee," was received as follows: "Several local attorneys, including Judge Helvin, are planning to sponsor an event on December 14 at the Albemarle County Courthouse to celebrate the bicentennial of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. As part of the celebration there will be a mock trial by area high school students, debates by middle school students, posters by elemen- tary students and games such as a Bill of Rights trivia and an 'Ask-A- Lawyer' booth at the Courthouse. In order to purchase prizes for the game winners and gifts for parti- cipants in addition to other necessary supplies, the group is request- ing a small contribution from Albemarle County. Since Albemarle County generously donated $500 to the Bicentennial of the Constitution Committee in 1987, it is recommended that a donation of $200 be authorized out of the Board's contingency fund to help sponsor this event." By the above shown vote, the Board approved the request for a $200 donation to the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights Committee from the Board's contingency fund. Item 5.4. Memorandum dated October 25, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, entitled "Granting Easement and Right-of-way to Virgi- nia Department of Transportation for Walnut Creek Park Road," was received as follows: "The attached deed (on file) conveys drainage easements and dedicates a 50-foot right-of-way to the Virginia Department of Transportation for the Walnut Creek Park access road and related drainage/utilities as shown on the attached plat (on file). I request the Board to authorize the Chairman to sign both the deed and the plats on behalf of the Board of Supervisors." The deed, as approved by the vote shown above, is set out in full below: November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) THIS DEED, made this 6th day of November, 1991, by and betweeB5 THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, GRANTOR, and THE COMMON-WEALTH OF VIRGINIA, acting through its Department of Transportation, Grantee; WITNES SETH: WHEREAS, at a meeting duly called by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, a resolution was duly passed authorizing the conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Trans- portation, of the below-described easement and right-of-way; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY to the Grantee with Special Warranty of Title, the perpetual right-of-way and easement to con- struct, reconstruct, alter, operate, and maintain a public street or highway, including any necessary appurtenances thereto, drainage and/or utilities over, above, upon, and across lands and property of the Grantor, the area embracing the easement being situated in the Scottsville Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia, known as Walnut Creek Park and described as follows: Being as shown on plat of Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc., dated August 27, 1991, entitled 'Plat Showing Access Road 50' Right-of-Way Walnut Creek,' Sheets 1 of 4 through 4 of 4, containing 8.085 acres, more or less, of land for perpetual easement; and being a part of the same land acquired by the Grantor by deed recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 912, page 611. For a more particular description of the land herein conveyed, reference is made to copies of Sheets 1 of 4 through 4 of 4, attached hereto as a part of this conveyance and recorded simul- taneously herewith in the State Highway Plat Book, Book , page__ The Grantor covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that the consideration mentioned above and paid to it, shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation for the easement, and for damages, if any, which may result by reason of the use to which the Grantee will put the same. Item 5.4a. Resolution to add and abandon certain sections of road off of Route 712 known as the loop circulation road at Paul H. Cale Elementary School which was occasioned by new school construction. The following resolution was adopted, 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 outlined on the attached site plan (on file), be added to the Secondary 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 pavement of Route 742, thence in a southeasterly direction 840 feet to station 8+40, the end of the loop circulation road. Item 5.4b. Resolution to add and abandon certain sections of road off of Route 810 known as the loop circulation road at Crozet Elementary School which was occasioned by school construction. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) The following resolution was adopted, by the vote shown above: WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board has abandoned Route 9010 used by buses at Crozet 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 outlined on the attached site plan (on file), be added to the Secondary 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 pavement of Route 810, thence in an southeasterly direction 986 feet to station 9+86, the end of the loop circulation road. In addition the following section will be abandoned: 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 westerly direction approxi- mately 789 feet to station 7+89, the end of the loop circu- lation road. Item 5.4c. Resolution to add and abandon certain sections of road off of Route 20 known as the loop circulation road at Stony Point Elementary School which was occasioned by school construction. The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above: WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board has altered Route 9008 used by buses at Stony Point 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 outlined on the attached site plan (on file), be added tothe Secondary 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 pavement of Route 20, thence in an southern direction 526 feet to station 5+26, the end of the loop circulation road. In addition the following section will be abandoned: 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. Item 5.4d. Resolution to add and abandon certain sections of road off of Route 627 known as the loop circulation road at Benjamin F. Yancey Elementary School which was occasioned by school construction. The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above: WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board has altered Route 627 used by buses at Benjamin F. Yancey 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; November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following section, as outlined on the attached site plan (on file), be added to the Secondary 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 pavement of Route 627, thence in an easterly direction approximately 520 feet to station 5+20, the end of the loop circulation road. In addition the following section will be abandoned: 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 a easterly direction approxi- mately 420 feet to station 4+20, the end of the loop circu- lation road. Item 5.4e. Request for resolution to have Oldfields Road in Homestead Subdivision taken into the Secondary System of Highways. This request was brought to the Board in the following letter dated September 9, 1991, from Mr. Bruce B. Gordon, Shelters Associates, Ltd.: "As developer of the Homestead Subdivision and at the request of VDoT, I write to request a resolution from the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for the acceptance of Oldfields Road into the State Secondary System." The following resolution was adopted, by the vote shown above: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Virgin- ia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Homestead Subdivision: Oldfields Road Beginning at Station 0+25, a point common to the centerline of Oldfields Road and the edge of pavement at State Route 609, thence in a northeasterly direction 1551.49 feet to Station 15+76.49, the end of the cul-de-sac. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans- portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50-foot unobstructed right- of-way and drainage easements along the requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 914, page 365. Item No. 5.5. Letter dated October 8, 1991, from Mr. J. A. Echols, Assistant Resident Engineer, enclosing a copy of the Fiscal Summary of the Albemarle CountY 1990-91 Secondary Budget, was received for information. Mr. Bowie asked that this item be pulled for discussion on November 13, 1991. Item No. 5.6. Letter dated October 17, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, re: area near Route 854/Route 29 where parking has been occurring, was received for information as follows: "Reference is made to your letter of October 11, 1991, forwarding Mr. Bowerman's request concerning Carrsbrook Drive near its intersection with Route 29. After the Board meeting I reviewed this area. I am unable to tell whether the wide area where parking occurs is part of the Department's right-of-way. I have, however, had delineators placed along that stretch of road to keep vehicles from entering or parking in the area. At this time I believe this is all the Department can do." November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 38 Item No. 5.7. Memorandum dated October 17, 1991, from Mr. John G. Milliken, Secretary of Transportation, outlining several proposals to improve the delivery of transportation services in the Commonwealth, was received for information. Written comments will be accepted until December 15 and several public meetings are scheduled around the state to address the proposals. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks it is important that there be County representation at the regional meeting in Richmond on November 26. She is concerned about a proposal to separate the Public Transportation Division from the Department of Transportation since this would establish a new bureaucracy and another step to go through for funds. She personally thinks that the two divisions would be better served if left together and all the planning for transportation done by one division. The proposal states: "It would permit the counties, under an agreement with VDoT to assume responsibility." This sounds to her as if VDoT thinks it is doing counties a favor. Under this proposal counties would assume responsibility for design, maintenance and installation of traffic control devices for which they have no money or manpower. In addition, the formula for new urban and secondary road con- struction would require localities to contribute a 20 percent match to the State's 80 percent match, instead of the whole 100 percent contribution from the State. This would add a tremendous fiscal burden to localities. Mr. Bowie suggested this item and Item 5.8 (see next title) be discussed with highway matters on November 13. Mr. Tucker indicated that the staff is preparing a statement relating to these issues for the Board's review on November 13. Mrs. Humphris said it is her understanding this issue will be discussed at the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) annual meeting. Mr. Bowie asked which Supervisors are planning to go to VACo. Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Bain indicated that they were attending. Item No. 5.8. Copy of "Legislative Alert" from the Virginia Association of Counties re: Secretary Milliken's transportation proposals, was received for information. Item No. 5.9. 1990 Development Activity Report as prepared by the County Department of Planning and Community Development, was received as information. Item No. 5.10. 1991 Third Quarter Building Report as prepared by the County Department of Planning and Community Development, was received as information. Item No. 5.11. Copy of Minutes of the Planning Commission for October 8 and October 22, 1991, was received as information. Item No. 5.12. Report dated September 30, 1991, from the Department of the Army, entitled "Status Report, James River Basin, Virginia & West Virginia Drought Preparedness Study," was received as information. Mrs. Humphris said she recently attended a meeting relating to this issue. It was obvious to her from the responses to questions asked that more State laws are needed, that there are no State growth policies and that there is a lack of State leadership dealing with water policies. There is also a lack of direction being provided to localities on how best to develop their water resources, as well as a lack of State-wide and region-wide coordination on conservation information regulations. She thinks that localities need to be better informed and there needs to be a State-wide plan that deals with water resources. Item No. 5.13. Copy of letter dated October 25, 1991, from Ms. Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Garland M. Gay, Jr., enti- tled: "Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 99, Parcel 108, Tax Map 99, Parcel 108A and Tax Map 100, Parcel 14," was received as information. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 39 Item No. 5.14. Copy of the 1990 Census of Population and Housing (Summa- ry Population and Housing Characteristics) for Virginia, from the U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, was received as information. -] Item No. 5.15. Copy of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 1991, from the Albemarle County Service Authority, was received as information. Item No. 5.16. Copy of Application of Behind the Scenes, Inc., filed with the State Corporation Commission, dated October 1, 1991, for a certifi- cate of public convenience and necessity as a special or charter party carrier by motor vehicle, was received as information. Item No. 5.17. Copy of Application of B T S Brokers, Inc., filed with the State Corporation Commission, dated October 1, 1991, for a license to broker the transportation of passengers by motor vehicle, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-91-29. CBC Partners. Public Hearing on a request for a miniature golf course on 1.4 ac zoned HC & EC. Property on W side of Rt 29 adjacent to Kegler's Bowling. TM45, Pll2C1. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress October 22 and October 29, 1991.) Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is set out in the minutes of September 4, 1991. He then distributed photographs and renderings provided by the applicant. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 16, 1991, recommended approval of SP-91-29 subject to the following two conditions: Hours of operation shall be between 9 a.m. and 12 a.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. and 1 a.m. weekends; and Development shall be in general accord with plan stamped received June 10, 1991, and initialed WDF. Mr. Keeler said should the Board approve this request, the Commission will review the site plan. Mr. Bain asked if any new information is being presented to the Board that it did not receive when this applicant first appeared. Mr. Bowerman said the applicant was to show the elevations on the site and present a drawing of what the miniature golf course would resemble after construction. At this time, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing and asked the appli- cant, Mr. Frank Stoner, to come forward. Mr. Stoner, representing CBC Partners, said he appreciates the Board taking the time to review this application again. He hopes that what is presented tonight will help alleviate some of the concerns about the appear- ance of the project. This project has been thoughtfully designed and he thinks the pictures will show that the applicants hope to achieve a park-like setting. CBC Partners are not building giraffes or windmills, but, instead, are building a park on the side of Route 29. He then distributed some additional pictures illustrating the environment of the project. He noted one rendering that provides a perspective of the site from roughly 20 or 30 feet above the site on the southbound lane of Route 29. Although the colored site plan presented to the Commission is not included with the information for tonight's meeting, it shows a footprint of the site, a configuration of each hole and the location of two gazebos and an entry hut. Mr. Stoner said this is a first class project geared toward adults. Mr. Stoner said the proposal is for a multi-tier course of three or four different playing levels. Land- scaping will consist of a tremendous amount of planting such as bushes, trees and flowers. Mr. Stoner said he will any questions or concerns Board members may have. Mr. Bowie asked about the issue of night lighting. Mr. Stoner said night light is to be addressed during site plan review. He proposes to light each hole independently to provide a sense of privacy. Since some of the holes are close together it may be necessary to light two holes with one light. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 4O Mrs. Humphris asked if restroom facilities are proposed on site or if the facilities at Kegler's will be used. Mr. Stoner said he proposes to utilize the facilities at Kegler's. Kegler's is approximately 150 feet from the edge of the course and he does not think it is necessary to build additional facilities. Several Board members thought it was necessary that restroom facilities be on site particularly as this is an activity in which children will be involved. Mrs. Humphris asked if a turn lane from the north into the site is planned. Mr. Stoner answered "yes." Although YDoT's plans to ultimately close the crossover, he thinks the closing will be tied to the additional improvements that will be needed when the bypass is constructed. Mr. Stoner said the access issue will have to be addressed on a larger scale for Keg- ler's, as well as this site. He added that there are 600 to 700 people using that entrance daily. He thinks there is sufficient turn lane distance in the northbound lane. He also thinks there will be significant problems if the crossover is closed and he anticipates CBC petitioning VDoT to keep it open. There was no one else who wished to address this petition, so the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that almost any development would be an improvement over what is there now. He is concerned about how the golf course would look from the northbound lane on Route 29. He appreciates that a project of this nature in that location does not have to be a visual detriment to the community. He has a problem with an outdoor recreation use on Route 29 and a special use permit in an area zoned Highway Commercial. This use could change some aspects of Route 29 in the future. Even though it may not be fair to make characterizations, he relates this project to other similar sites in the Virginia Beach area. Mr. Bowie asked what type use could go there that would look appealing. He shares the concern that restroom facilities should be on site and if the request is approved, he thinks there should be a condition that all night lighting be directed away from Route 29. He also thinks that appropriate landscaping should be a condition. Given the other uses on Route 29, he is not concerned about having this use in that area. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bowie if he did not feel that an outdoor recrea- tional use would harm the area. Mr. Bowie said he does not think the golf course would be harmful to anything out in that area, and he thinks it is probably better than what could be constructed there by-right. Mrs. Humphris said until the proposed vegetation grows, the site will be wide open and all the activity that takes place there will be visible from Route 29. She does not think this is the appropriate place for an outdoor recreational use. She believes that a commercial building would look better and be better for that site. Mr. Bain said a recreational use could be located inside a building. He does not think this use will cause a problem on the site. He recognizes the safety issues involved, but the Board has also been told that this is a short term use. He shares the concern of other Board members that restroom facili- ties should be on site. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris if they felt negative about this use on this site for any reason other than it is on Route 29. Mrs. Humphris said she feels drivers traveling north on Route 29 will be distracted by the activity and the lights. There is a lot of difference between an outdoor activity and a building housing an indoor activity. Safety is also a concern. She also thinks that restroom facilities are an absolute necessity for any activity such as this one. She is concerned about the liability to the County if this request is approved and restroom facilities are not on site. Mr. Way said he is not concerned about the restroom issue because he thinks that should be a business decision for CBC Partners, and it is not up to the Board to make that decision. He thinks it is the Board's responsibi- lity to make sure people can get safely enter and exit the site. He has no problem approving this application. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. St. John if there is any liability to the County in approving this application. Mr. St. John said the Board is absolutely immune from responsibility. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Mrs. Humphris said this Board would be blamed, whether it was legally liable or not, if an accident occurred because restroom facilities were not on site. Mr. Bain said he has no problem approving the request subject to certain conditions. Mrs. Humphris asked if a northbound turn lane is proposed for construc- tion. Mr. Tucker responded "yes". Mr. Bain thought there was a problem with a left turn lane because YDoT did not want it constructed because the cross- over is recommended to be closed. Mrs. Humphris said she thought a turn lane was part of site plan approval. Mr. Keeler said VDoT is reconsidering whether to close the crossover. Again addressing the Board, Mr. Stoner said this site is slated for condemnation by VDoT when the western bypass is built. Although the time frame is unknown, that limits the development alternatives available on the site. This is one of the few remaining alternatives available that is finan- cially feasible and practical. He thinks it is important to recognize that this is not a permanent situation, and assuming that the bypass is built, VDoT will take this property. Mrs. Humphris asked what happens to this site if the golf course is not successful and is abandoned. Mr. Bowie said that is a business risk and should not influence this Board's decision. He added that any business has the risk of failing or succeeding. Mrs. Humphris said the history of these types of businesses could influence her decision. Mr. Perkins said even if the business fails, the proposed landscaping would be an improvement. At this time, F~r. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve SP-91-29, subject to the following two conditions: Hours of operation shall be between 9 a.m. and 12 a.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. and 1 a.m. weekends; and Development shall be in general accord with plan stamped received June 10, 1991, and initialed WDF. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Bain if he would consider adding a condition requiring restroom facilities on site. Mr. Keeler said he does not think the condition is warranted if the applicant is not amendable. Mr. Bain said he would leave his motion as previously stated. Mrs. Humphris said she would have voted for the request if restroom facilities were included because she thinks they should be on site. There are certain things that people expect when they go out. Mr. Stoner then said restrooms were not a major problem and he could have them installed on site. Mr. Bain then a~mded his motion to include a third condition "that restroom facilities must be included on site". As seconder, Mr. Way agreed. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) Hours of operation shall be between 9 a.m. and 12 a.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. and 1 a.m. weekends; Development shall be in general accord with plan stamped received June 10, 1991, and initialed WDF; and 3. Restrooms must be added to the site. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 42 Agenda Item No. 7. SP-91-45. Roger L. Thomas. Public Hearing on a request for a Home Occupation-Class B on 2.03 ac zoned RA. Property on N side of Rt 618 approx 0.93 mi E of Rt 620. TMl15,P47G. Scottsville Dist. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress September 16 and September 23, 1991.) Mr. Keeler summarized the following staff report: "Character of the Area: The area is wooded with moderately sloping (three to seven percent) slopes. Lots 1 and 3 both have one dwelling each and cannot be further divided. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing a cabinet making business in an existing shed which does not meet setback regulations and, therefore, must be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. Summary and Recon~endations: The applicant proposes to utilize a shed located 17 feet from Tax Map 115, Parcel 47F. Section 5.2.2.1.b of the Zoning Ordinance states that: 'Any accessory structure which does not conform to the setback and yard regulations for main structures in the district in which it is located shall not be used for any home occupation.' The applicant must obtain a modification from the Board of Supervisors to allow a 17 foot setback. No letters of objection have been received. The adjoining property owner supports this request. The applicant proposes to use a lathe, a skill saw, a saw table, a shaper and a 15-inch planer. Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed this request. Staff recommends VDoT approval of sight distance. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes and intent of the Comprehen- sive Plan. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states in part that: 'Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the charac- ter of the district will not be changed thereby and such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance with uses permitted by right in the district...' As stated earlier, the adjoining property owner most affected by this petition supports the petition. The activity will take place within the existing shed. The activity is not seen as detrimentally affect- ing the district or changing its' character. Staff supports this request with the following conditions of approval: Recommended Conditions of Approval: There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the build- ings or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation other than one (1) sign. Accessory struc- tures shall be similar in facade to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a rural or residential area and shall be specifically compati- ble in design and scale with other development in the area in which located. Total floor area devoted to such home occupation shall not exceed 1500 square feet of total floor area; Home occupation shall comply with performance standards set forth in Section 4.14; This home occupation shall take place within the shed structure located in Attachment B (on file) of this report; and Virginia Department of Transportation approval of sight dis- tance." Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 1, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-45 subject to the conditions recommended by staff. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 43 Mrs. Humphris asked it it was necessary to include a condition that no employees or customers are allowed on site. Mr. Keeler said the Board may want to make that a condition after verification from the applicant. There were no further questions for Mr. Keeler from the Board, so Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. The applicant, Mr. Roger Thomas, came forward. Mr. Thomas said there would be no one coming to the site except for repair of machinery and insu- rance purposes. He takes the cabinets to customers in his pickup truck. This is a one-man operation. No one else wished to address SP-91-45, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-91-45 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and a condition #5: "No employees shall be on the premises." Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the build- ings or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation other than one (1) sign. Accessory struc- tures shall be similar in facade to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a rural or residential area and shall be specifically compati- ble in design and scale with other development in the area in which located. Total floor area devoted to such home occupation shall not exceed 1500 square feet of total floor area; Home occupation shall comply with performance standards set forth in Section 4.14; This home occupation shall take place within the shed structure located in Attachment B of this report; Virginia Department of Transportation approval of sight distance; and 5. No employees shall be allowed on the premises. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-91-06. Greenbrier Square Ltd Partnership. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 3.1 ac from HC (Proffered) to HC & C-1 (both proffered). Property on N side of Greenbrier Dr approx 500 ft W of Rt 29. TM61W,P5,Sec 1,Blk A. Charlottesville Dist. Site is in EC Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress September 16 and September 23, 1991.) Motion was made by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to defer ZMA-91-06 to November 20, 1991, to be heard with requests from the same applicant, as requested by staff. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-91-47. Augusta Lumber & Supply, Inc. Public Hearing on a request to amend SP-82-9 which permitted a sawmill. Request is to locate a planer and a bldg to house the planer on 20.6 ac zoned RA. Property on W side of Rt 712 approx. 0.87 mi S of Rt 692. TM99,P49A. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress September 16 and September 23, 1991.) Mr. Keeler summarized the following staff report: "Character of the Area: The property is developed with a sawmill and lumber yard approved with SP-82-09. A single family dwelling exists November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) immediately adjacent to the north. In 1978, a special use permit (SP-78-01) was approved for the location of a sawmill on property to the south and west (Tax Map 99, Parcel 49). Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to locate a planer and a building to house the planer as shown on Attachment C (on file). This planer is for a more efficient operation of the sawmill and will not result in a substantial increase in activity onsite. Condition 3 of SP-82-09 states: 'Approval is for addition of drying kiln and boiler plant only. Any other additional uses such as the proposed cut-up plant and planer shed shall require amendment of this peti- tion.' Comprehensive Plan: This property is located in Rural Area III of the Comprehensive Plan. The sawmill and lumberyard represents utilization of the forestal resources of the County which is supportive of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The applicant is requesting the amendment of SP-82-09 to permit a planer and building to house the planer. The equipment will be used to improve the efficiency of the operation and improve the quality of materials produced. No new employees are proposed and no significant increase in on-site activity is proposed. The planer would be located as shown in Attachment C (on file). This location is approximately 1000 feet from the nearest dwelling on adjacent property and is within the area currently used to store lumber, therefore, this use should have no effect on the visual appearance of the site. The building will be enclosed and staff will require that the applicant submit information to insure compliance with the noise limitations of Section 4.14. Staff has received two letters of support regarding this request. Staff has noted the properties owned by these individu- als in Attachment B (on file). Staff opinion is that this use will not result in any additional impact on adjacent properties and that this request is consistent with the original approval for this site. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-91-47 Augusta Lumber. The Department of Transportation has recommended improvements to the entrance to the site. Staff is not recommending a condition requiring that this work be done as it is not directly related to this request. Trimming of vegetation should occur periodically in order to maintain adequate sight distance. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff recommends that condition #3 be amended as follows: Approval is for addition of drying kiln, boiler plant and planer and planer building only. Any other additional uses such as the proposed cut-up plant shall require amendment of this petition." Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 1, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-47, amending Condition #3 of SP-82-09 as follows: "Approval is for addition of drying kiln, boiler plant and planer and planer building only. Any other additional uses such as the proposed cut-up plan shall require amendment of this petition. Planer shall be located as shown on sketch dated October 1, 1991 and initialled W.D.F." The Planning Commission also recommended adding a new condition #7 to the original conditions of SP-82-09 to read as follows: "Planer shall not be located on site until clearing of vegetation to achieve adequate sight distance has been performed." Mr. Bain asked if the proposed cut-up plant relates back to 1982. Mr. Keeler replied, "yes." Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Henderson still lived next door to the sawmill. Mr. Perkins commented that attached to the staff report is a letter from Mr. Henderson stating that he has no objection to the planer. There were no further questions for Mr. Keeler, so Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) Mr. Tom Altizer said that he is an employee of Augusta Lumber Company. Mr. Howard Cart, Manager of Augusta Lumber Company in Albemarle County, is also present. Either of them will be happy to answer questions. Mr. Bain asked how far from the storage building will the planer be located. Mr. Altizer said the planer will be located approximately 400 feet from the storage building. Mr. Altizer said they have already cleared the vegetation to achieve adequate sight distance. No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hear- ing. Motion was made by Mr. Bain, secomded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-91-47 as recommended by the Planning Commission, amending Condition #3 of SP-82-09 as follows: "Approval is for addition of drying kiln, boiler plant and planer and planer building only. Any other additional uses such as the proposed cut-up plant shall require amendment of this petition. Planer shall be located as shown on sketch dated October 1, 1991 (on file) and initialled W.D.F.;" and also adding condition #7 to the original conditions of SP-82-09 to read as follows: "Planer shall not be located on site until clearing of vegetation to achieve adequate sight distance has been performed." With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-91-49. Homestead Partners. Public Hearing on a request to amend SP-90-45 & construct a stream crossing in flood plain of Burruss Branch on 21 ac zoned RA. Property on W side of Rt 601 approx 1/2 mi N of Rt 665. TM29,P1K. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress September 16 and September 23, 1991.) Mr. Keeler summarized the following staff report: "Character of the Area: The property is currently undeveloped and wooded adjacent to the stream; the remainder of the property is open field. This parcel was part of a 13-lot subdivision. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a stream crossing in order to access a building site on the other side of the stream. The applicant has submitted a letter of justification for this request (Attachment C on file). This request would amend SP-90-45 which permitted a pond in the flood plain. Staff Comment: The original special use permit for this parcel, SP-90-45, permitted a 2.5 acre pond to be created. This pond would have provided for some water quality protection due to the settling that would occur in the pond. The current proposal is for a crossing only. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section31.2.4.1 and in particular the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in: Section 1.4.1 'To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety from fire, flood and other dangers'; Section 1.4.4 'To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, play- grounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public require- ments'; Section 1.4.6 'To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers'; and November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 46 Section 1.5 'This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of prop- erties, with Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county. During the review of the preliminary plat, the building site for this parcel (known as Lot 12) was shown such that no stream crossing was involved. In fact, the approved septic fields as shown on the signed final subdivision (Attachment D on file) indicated that no stream crossing is required to obtain a building site. Approval of this request may be considered inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Permitting this site or other sites to develop in a manner requiring crossing of the 100-year flood plain may result in increased danger to life and property and an increase in public rescue or relief efforts. If the Board of Supervisors approves this request, they should consider requiring that the crossing be designed to pass the 100 year flood so as to permit access in time of flood and that the crossing be designed so that it is able to support the weight of fire trucks. This request is for a culvert-type crossing which will be overtopped in a 100 year storm. The Board of Supervisors, in approval of SP-90-24, Michael Shifflett, did not require that the crossing be adequate to support fire trucks. It is the opinion of staff that this request would also be inconsistent with the statements of the Comprehensive Plan. A building site is available that would allow for use of the land and would not involve any crossing. Staff opinion is that this request is solely for the benefit of the applicant in order to permit construction in a more aesthetically desirable location. It is the opinion of staff that the potential environmental degradation and other potential negative factors as stated in the Comprehensive Plan outweigh the aesthetic considerations stated by the applicant. Staff opinion is that reasonable usage of the property can be enjoyed without the stream crossing and staff can determine no public purpose to be served by such crossing. Based on the above comments, staff is unable to support this request and, therefore recommends denial of SP-91-49. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; Compliance with all local, state and federal permit requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream; Department of Engineering approval of crossing design to ensure compliance with Section 30.3; and Approval by the Water Resource Manager of a water quality impact assessment." Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 1, 1991, by a vote of 5-1, recommended denial.of SP-91-49. Mr. Keeler said this property carries no development rights, therefore, only one house site is involved. He stated, again, that the staff recommends that the house site be located as it is shown on the approved subdivision plat. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) Mr. Bowie asked if the site for the house was located in this same area when the plat was approved. Mr. Keeler responded, "yes" and added that the flood plain and house site are shown on the plat so any subsequent purchaser would be alerted that this is how the division was approved. Mrs. Humphris asked if there is currently an approved a special permit in the County that allows a pond in the flood plain. Mr. Keeler replied "yes." He added that a pond is a pollution control device and that was recommended based on water quality benefits. In this particular situation, the staff saw no water quality benefits. There would be degradation because there cannot be a stream bed and a bridge could not be built without some disruption. The dam and/or pond must also be maintained. There were no further questions for Mr. Keeler, so Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present. Mr. Bob Paxton, one of four partners in the Homestead Partnership, said he plans to eventually live in the Free Union area which is one of the reasons he got involved with Homestead. He is an architect as are two of the other partners. This business group came to Albemarle County for its farm-like feeling and their goal is to maintain that feeling in the development of this property. Mr. Paxton said the method employed for this property has been to locate as many of the houses or sites in the woods to encourage open areas for grazing and public beauty. He showed site plans to the Board and noted that the original subdivision was approved by-right, with two small lots shown at the front of the subdivision. As the partnership became more accustomed to the land and received input from perspective purchasers, the front lots were reconfigured. The whole concept was to minimize sight of the houses from the road. Although a development right was eliminated in making these changes, the partners felt that the plan was more beneficial and a part of good plan- ning. Mr. Paxton said the reason for the stream crossing is to maintain the open fields and encourage building in the wooded area. Mr. Paxton read a petition that was circulated among adjacent property owners in support of the project. Some of the people who signed the petition have already purchased property in the planned community. Mr. Paxton said, in addressing the concerns raised by the staff and Commission, the aforementioned sections of the Zoning Ordinance all relate to public rescue or relief efforts. He believes this is a moot point since the stream crossing will have to accommodate a concrete truck which is as heavy as a fire department pumper truck or similar rescue vehicles. In addition, this stream crossing would involve the standards relative for all flood protection measures. Section 1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance encourages the most appropriate use of land throughout the County. He contends that maintaining the open space and the rural character of this property conforms to that policy. The Water Resources Manager indicated that this proposal will likely result in less impact to Burruss Branch than building a dam. A comment was previously made concerning the benefit to the County as a sediment trap. The pond and stream crossing will function as a sediment trap when there are high flood waters. He has difficultly believing the County has the legal authority to prohibit a landowner of 21 acres from utilizing 10 or 15 acres if he is willing to conform to County engineering practices for such a stream crossing. The County Engineering Department supports the request. He asked for the Board's consideration of this matter on the grounds that the concept of preserving open space is representative of sound planning practices and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That is the real reason so many people live in Albemarle County. Mr. Paxton said Mr. Sam Saunders, an engi- neer with Gloeckner and Osborne, Inc., worked on this project and is present to any technical questions. Mr. Bowie asked how much grazing and growing is occurring on the property now. Mr. Paxton said that of the four 21-acre parcels that have been pur- chased, all of them are currently in the land use program and a local farmer is using them to grow hay. The owners of Lot 2 and Lot 4 plan to raise horses. Ail of the purchasers were interested in the~property because of the open, rural feeling. He will be a resident of the community and is trying to maintain that feeling which is slowly being eroded in Albemarle County. Mr. Perkins asked if the dam could be used as a driveway. Mr. Paxton answered "yes." Mr. Perkins asked if the dam could provide access to the rear November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 48 side of the property. Mr. Paxton responded "yes". Mr. Paxton said they are encouraging that as much open field remain aspossible. Construction is being encouraged in the wooded areas to minimize the overall impact. No one else wished to address SP-91-49, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks it is for the benefit of that co~nunity to put the house in the wooded areas and provide open space. After reading all of the information available, the staff report, the engineering report, the Watershed Management report and the minutes of the Planning Commission meet- ing, she feels the stream crossing would be less of an environmental impact and would provide a better use of the site than the dam and the pond. For that reason, Mrs. H~mphris moved approval of SP-91-49 subject to the condi- tions set out by staff. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. He thinks a landowner should have the right to put his house where he wants to put it. He questions the reasoning for having 21-acre lots which he thinks are too big to mow and too small to plow. He thinks that rather than having this kind of development, the houses should be clustered, and the rest of the land left open and in permanent easement. Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. Perkins. Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion. Mr. Perkins said he would like to see the pond built. Although the pond may be more detrimental to the environment at the beginning, ponds can restore groundwater. A pond is an emergency supply of water in many cases, it is good fire protection and it has good recreational value. Mr. Bain said he will support the motion for the reasons stated at the Planning Commission's meeting. He feels that it is questionable which is the greater problem, but there seems to be some benefit to the public. Roll was then called amd the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. St. John asked if Board members intended that this special use permit supersede or replace the permit for the pond. Mrs. Humphris said her motion for approval of this request does not supersede or replace the permit for the pond. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; Compliance with all local, state, and federal permit requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream; Department of Engineering approval of crossing design to ensure compliance with Section 30.3; and Approval by the Water Resource Manager of a water quality impact assessment. Not Docketed: At this time, Mr. Bowie called the Board's attention to Item 5.13 on the Consent Agenda which related to a letter from the Zoning Administrator entitled, "Official Determination of Number of Parcels." He commented that the Board has been receiving a lot of these letters and he suggested that a cumulative effect of the determinations be reported to the Board. (At 8:32 p.m. the Board took a recess and reconvened at 8:46 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 11. SP-91-50. Claude E. & Carolyn S. Monger. Public Hearing on a request to construct a stream crossing in flood plain of an unnamed stream located on S side of Rt 668 approx 0.68 mi W of Rt 671. TM16,P12&12B. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress September 16 and September 23, 1991.) November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) Mr. Keeler summarized the following staff report: 49 "Character of the Area: This site is heavily wooded with critical to hillside slopes (16 to 25 percent). Parcel 12B contains a dwelling unit located between the stream and the road. The proposed right-of-way is located on Parcel 12. The stream crossing is located at the property line between Parcel 12 and Parcel 12B. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to cross a tributary of Ward's Creek using three corrugated metal pipes three feet in diameter and 20 feet in length. This crossing will serve a family division on Tax Map 16, Parcel 12B. Summary and Recommendations: This plat was originally submitted as a family division. Staff does not believe fording of a stream provides reasonable access as noted on the plat. Prior to signature, staff will require compliance with Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows a flood plain crossing by special use permit only. The County Engineer and Water Resources Manager have both reviewed this request and recommend approval subject to conditions. Past actions by the County have attempted to minimize stream crossings by providing access to multiple tracts. No adjacent properties would benefit from the proposed stream crossing as they do not require a crossing or already have one. Staff opinion is that stream crossings should be permitted only when no alternative building site is available. Given the existing develop- ment and area and bulk requirements, staff does not believe an alter- native building site exists. Staff has also reviewed this request in accord with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Given its scale, this proposal should not harm adjacent properties and should not change the character of the district. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to conditions. Recommended Conditions of Approval: The plat shall not be signed until the following approvals have been obtained: County Engineer approval of stream crossing to be designed for a ten year runoff rate beneath the structure; and b. Water Resources Manager approval of stream crossing; c. Staff approval of plat. The crossing shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been obtained: Department of Engineering issuance of a Erosion Control permit (grading permit); and b. Issuance of VMRC permit and Corps of Engineers permit. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 1, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-50 subject to the two condi- tions recommended by staff. Mr. Perkins asked if this property has any additional development rights. Mr. Keeler said the property has a total of five development rights. In addition to this use there are three more development rights that could be utilized. It is the staff's opinion that the Mongers cannot use these devel- opment rights unless this crossing is approved. Mr. Bain asked if the private road that will serve this lot will have to be upgraded, if other divisions occur. Mr. Keeler said the crossing requires pipes that are 20 feet in length. The pipes will be long enough to accommo- date upgrading of the road. Although there are no design requirements for a road in a family division, if the lots are sold, this will have to be taken into consideration. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 5O Mr. Bain said he has seen this problem in the past and this request is just another example. When the family no longer own the property, the new owners will probably come to the Board and ask why it allowed this situation to occur. He said this Board cannot do anything about the problem, but he thinks that it should look to the legislature to provide some relief. He added that it takes a long roadway to serve this property and when the roadway is not built to a set of standards, it eventually becomes a problem. Therewere no fUrther questions or comments from the Board, so Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. Mr. Claude Monger, the applicant, stated that he has 16 acres, and four of them are on this side of the stream. He said that the good Lord put a stream between him and the other 12 acres, and for the last 49 years he has been using a wheelbarrow to bring wood from the back of the property. His daughter and son'in-law want to build a house on the back part of the proper- ty. The road will be built to Planning Commission guidelines. This is the only house he plans to build on his property. It was never his intent to divide his property, but he wants to help his daughter. Mr. Dwayne Jessee, Mr. Monger's son-in-law, agreed with Mr. Monger. He said his wife has always wanted to build a house near her family. Mr. Monger was nice enough to give them a piece of land because he could not afford to buy any. No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hear- ing. Mrs. Humphris offered motion, secomded by Mr. Perkins, to move approve of SP-91-50 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) The plat shall not be signed until the following approvals have been obtained: County Engineer approval of stream crossing to be designed for a ten year runoff rate beneath the structure; Water Resources Manager approval of stream crossing; and Staff approval of plat. The crossing shall not be constructed until the following approv- als have been obtained: Department of Engineering issuance of a Erosion Control permit (grading permit); and Issuance of VMRC permit and Corps of Engineers permit. Agenda Item No. 12. SP-91-51. John E. & Kathleen Gruss. Public Hearing on a request to locate commercial boarding kennel for cats in existing animal hospital on 3.0 ac zoned RA. Property on W side of Rt 743 approx 800 ft S of Rt 663. TM31,P7B. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress September 16 and September 23, 1991.) Mr. Keeler su~narized the following staff report: "Character of the Area: The site is located west of the Village of Earlysville. The site is developed with a 3700 square foot animal hospital. Property to the north is developed with a single-family residence. Other adjacent lands are vacant. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to utilize existing facilities to board cats. This operation would be in addition to the animal hospital. The animal hospital was approved with SP-89-06, however, boarding was not permitted as part of that approval. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) Staff Comment: The boarding of animals was not part of the original special use permit request for this site. The applicant proposes to board cats only and will use facilities currently in place. No exterior modifications will be required. Activity on site should not increase as no extra trips to the site during non-business hours will be required. Return trips to the site during evenings and weekends are currently required to care for sick or injured animals. During the review of SP-89-06, staff received three letters concerning the animal hospital. Staff has included these letters for the Plan- ning Commission and Board of Supervisors use. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed use will not appreciably increase activity at the site. Staff is unaware of any complaints about the animal hospital. Based on the limited impact of the pro- posed use, staff recommends approval subject to the following condi- tions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure. Noise mea- sured at the nearest lot line shall not exceed forty (40) deci- bels; and 2. Commercial boarding shall be limited to cats only." Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 1, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-51 subject to the two condi- tions recommended by staff. Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if he wished to speak. Mr. John Gruss, the applicant and a veterinarian, said there are already dogs and cats at the hospital, and he would like to board cats. He recognized that the intent of the special use permit was to control sound, but he does not think that cats would be adding a significant sound level that is not there already. He does not believe that neighbors are now being bothered and he does not think this amendment will propose any significant changes to what is already going on at the hospital. No one else wanted to address the matter, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. Motiom was made by Mr. Perkins, secomded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-91-51 subject to the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure. Noise mea- sured at the nearest lot line shall not exceed forty (40) deci- bels; and 2. Commercial boarding shall be limited to cats only. Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include GLENMORE PItD for water and sewer service. Property consists of approx 1141.7 ac bor- dered by US Rt 250 E on the N & by the Rivanna River on the S & W. Property comprises the majority of the Rivanna Village, a designated growth area. TM7D,P6&7,Sec 3; TM93,P59&60; TM94,P2&ll. Rivanna Dist. This is a designated growth area. (Advertised in the Daily Progress September 16 and September 23, Mr. Keeler summarized the following staff report: November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 52 "Property: The property consists of ~1141.7 acres described as Tax Map 79D, Section 3, Parcels 6 and 7; Tax Map 93, Parcels 59 and 60 and Tax Map 94, Parcels 2 and 11. The property, bordered by U. S. Route 250 East on the north and by the Rivanna River on the south and west, comprises the majority of the Rivanna Village, a designated growth area in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Request: To schedule a public hearing for amendment to the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area for public water and sewer on the above referenced parcels. Back8round: Provision of public water and sewer was at the center of consideration for the Rivanna Village and, more specifically, approval of the Glenmore PRD (ZMA-90-19). Public water and sewer were both a condition for development in the Village and proffered in ZMA-90-19 to be provided at the expense of the applicant (Frank Kessler). During the review of ZMA-90-19 the applicant submitted a letter to request inclusion in the jurisdictional area. This letter was included in the staff report as an attachment. The staff report stated: 'The appli- cant has submitted a request to the Board of Supervisors for inclusion of Glenmore into the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area for a public water and sewer service. The Board in its action on this request can adequately address this matter.' However, this item was not specifically addressed in the action nor was it listed on the Board's agenda as a separate item. In order to defin- itively resolve this matter, staff recommends the Board state a resolu- tion of intent to forward this request to public hearing. This public hearing is recommended to be held at your November 6, 1991 meeting." Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. No one came forward, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include the following parcels in Glenmore PRD for water and sewer service: Tax Map 79D, Section 3, Parcels 6 and 7; Tax Map 93, Parcels 59 and 60; and Tax Map 94, Parcels 2 and 11. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Request from Daniel Bieker to include property shown on Tax Map 79 as Parcel 25A near Glenmore in the Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for water and sewer service. Mr. Keeler said Mr. Bieker is requesting that his property near Glenmore be included in the Albemarle County Service Authority's service area bounda- ries for water and sewer service. He pointed out the property on the map and said the staff is recommending that a public hearing be set. He added that staff is recommending, in addition to Mr. Bieker's property, that all other properties in the Village of Rivanna be included in the Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for public water and sewer. He said there is a list of the properties provided as Attachment C (on file). Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a public hearing for December 18, 1991, to consider full designation for all remaining properties in the Village of Rivanna, including Mr. Daniel Bieker's. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15a. Appointment: Appoint a voting member for the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) Annual Meeting. Mr. Bowie said a representative and an alternate from the Board of Supervisors need to be appointed to vote at the VACo Annual Business Meeting. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) 53 Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to appoint Mrs. Humphris as voting member for Albemarle County at the YACo Annual Meeting, and that Mr. Bowerman or Mr. Bain be authorized to be the alternates. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Item No. 15b. Appointment: Milton Area Neighborhood Study Committee. It was the consensus of the Board to defer this appointment until Novem- ber 13, 1991. Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Board's Meeting Schedule for January, 1992. Mr. Tucker said the first regular meeting of the Board in January, 1992, wouldfall on New Year's Day. After some discussions with the Clerk, it was felt that the Board should consider meeting on January 2 for its organiza- tional meeting. In addition, the Board should consider holding a public hearing on January 2 for appointments to the School Board. There will be four appointments to be made to the School Board. Mr. Bain agreed that the Board should meet on January 2 to organize. He then asked if the Board would be meeting on its regularly scheduled meeting dates in January. Mr. Tucker responded "yes;" the Board would be meeting on January 8 and January 15, 1992. At this time, Mr. Bain moved that the Board's organizational meeting be held on January 2, 1992. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Tucker suggested that the meeting on January 2 begin at 4:00 p.m. Board members agreed. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowie. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: April 3, May 8 and July 17, 1991. Mr. Way had read April 3, 1991, page 15 (#7) through page 19 (#9) and found them to be satisfactory. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Tucker if the solid waste pilot project had started. Mr. Tucker responded "yes", but there has been a problem with recyclables being stolen from the roll-off containers set up at the landfill. In the future, the County will use containers with tops that can be locked in the evenings and weekends. He added that the haulers were not prepared to move on the project as quickly as they originally thought. Mrs. Humphris mentioned that she had clipped an article from the Rockbridge News Gazette which tells about Rockbridge County's adopted resolu- tion asking the Department of Waste Management to loosen up its requirements for capping until 1994. She quoted from this clipping in reference to the two foot cap and said that Rockbridge County has already sent a resolution asking the Legislature to permit closure of the landfill under the old rules. Mr. Bain agreed that something needed to be done about the regulations. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) Mr. Bowie asked that the hours of operation at the Recycling Center on McIntire Road be posted along the road. Mr. Bowie pointed out that in the Board's non-agenda material is a letter from the Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) thanking Chief Miller for his services. He asked Mr. Tucker to pass on to Chief Miller the Board's appreci- ation. Mr. Bain commented that the Samuel Miller District and Jack Jouett District were the only two districts in the County in which the meals tax passed. Mrs. Humphris indicated that she and Mr. Bain worked hard on the meals tax issue. Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session: Sale of Property. At 9:19 p.m., Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to go into executive session to discuss the sale of property relating to the South- side Health Center. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 9:30 p.m., and motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following Certi- fication of Executive Session: CEI~TIFICATION OF ~ MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to accept the high bid of $30,500 for the Southside Health Center and $1,000 for the trail- er, subject to determination of water damage to both facilities. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. November 6, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) 55 Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to authorize the County Attorney to prepare the deed conveying the property and also authorized the Chairman to sign the deed selling the Southside Health Center property. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. (Note: The deed will be set out in the minutes when it is received.) Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m.