Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-19June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 257 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 19, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire 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: 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. Bowie. 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 was no one present to speak. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve Items 5.1, 5.la, 5.lb, and 5.1c, and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. 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. Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board from the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of June, 1991, were approved as presented, by the vote shown above. Item 5.la. Memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, dated June 14, 1991, entitled "E911 Road Name Public Hearing," received as follows: "The Road Naming Committee is planning to complete their work by July 31, 1991. In order to meet the contract dates for delivery of information, the road names need to be delivered to the contractor by mid-August. If the Board of Supervisors desire to hold a public hearing before approving the names, I suggest this be done at the August 7 meeting. This would allow staff review of any recommended changes with final approval at the August 14 meeting. This decision is necessary to allow the Road Naming Committee and staff sufficient time to schedule their effort and determine how public input will be received by the committee." Mr. Bain asked if there needed to be more than one public hearing or if there would be committee hearings. Mr. Tucker explained that the committee would have public forums so the public will have the opportunity to speak regarding road names throughout the County. He told the Board that the memorandum is on the agenda tonight to make the Board aware that the committee is moving ahead rapidly, and if the Supervisors choose to have a public hearing, it needs to be done soon. He suggested that Board members might want to think some more about the road names, or they may want to talk to their member on the committee, so a decision on whether or not to hold a public hearing could be deferred until July 3. He said, though, that if the Board does want to have a public hearing, the staff would like the opportunity to get information out to the public so that the hearing could be held possibly in mid-August. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 258 Mr. Bain asked how many forums the committee is going to have. Mr. Tucker answered that the committee is meeting tomorrow to discuss that matter. Mr. Bain stated that hethinks the Board of Supervisors should have one meeting and each area should have a public forum to get the people's input. Mr. Bowie commented that when the Supervisors turned this matter over to the com]nittee, part of the committee's charge was to have these public forums. He went on to say that he has no objection to a public hearing, but there are over 700 roads to be named. He is concerned that there may be many people at the public hearing to speak on the different names. He does not know the purpose of the public hearing, because the Supervisors have not been involved from the start. He asked the opinion of the majority of the Board. Mr. Way commented that the committee might have some feelings as to whether or not this Board should hold a public hearing. Mr. Bain agreed, but he said that he didn't want t° wait too late. He added that after the commit- tee starts its meetings, if this Board decides in late 3uly to have a public hearing, there is not much time left since it was hoped that the project would go to contract in mid-August. Mr. Bowie asked if it was possible to get some sort of report or recom- mendation from the committee by July 3. Mr. Tucker indicated that this could be done. Mr. Bowie then stated that the matter would be put on the July 3 agenda as an action item, and the Board will make a decision, based on the commit- tee's recommendation. Item 5.lb. Memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, dated June 17, 1991, entitled "Appointment of County Executive designee to Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Boards." Appointment of the Deputy County Executive to serve in this capacity when needed was approved by the vote shown above. Item 5.1c. Resolution requesting acceptance of Quintfield Drive in Quintfield Subdivision into the State System of Secondary Highways. Letter dated November 19, 1990, was on file from Mr. Michael T. Boggs, Vice Presi- dent, Haley, Chisholm & Morris, Inc., requesting acceptance of this road. 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 Quintfield Subdivision: Quintfield Drive: Beginning at Station 10+25, a point common to the edge of pavement of State Route 664 and the centerline of Quintfield Drive, thence in a southerly direction 459 feet to Station 14+84, 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 this requested addition as record- ed by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 841, page 155 and Deed Book 920, page 551. Item 5.2. Letter dated June 5, 1991, from Mrs. Mary Ann E. G. Wilson, Manager, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, addressed to Frederick R. Bowie, stating that HUD has reviewed and accepted the Single Audit of Albemarle County for the period ending June 30, 1990, re: Community Development Block Grants, B-85/86/87/88/89-DC-51-0001, was received as infor- mation. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 259 Item 5.3. Copy of Application of Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc. dated June 5, 1991, from the State Corporation Commission for an expedited increase in Natural Gas Rates effective May 16, 1991 (subject to refund with interest should the rates not be approved during the public hearing process), was received as information. Item 5.4. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for May 21 and June 4, 1991, was received as information. Item 5.5. Copy of the 1990 Annual Report of the Albemarle County Plan- ning Commission, was received as information. Item 5.6. Memorandum dated June 13, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, forwarding a copy of a report entitled "Land Use Planning Initiatives of Mutual Interest" from the Planning and Coordination Council, was received as information. (Mr. Tucker notes that the PACC Techni- cal Committee has reviewed various projects of mutual interest to the City/County/University, as well as any inconsistencies in the respective long range plans. Several capital improvement projects, particularly in the way of roadway improvements, were identified. One issue for implementation in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study was the joint funding of a landscape design plan for Ivy Road from the Route 250 Bypass to Emmet Street. The primary inconsistency in the various plans is the Emmet Street railroad bridge. The City's plan calls for improvements to Emmet Street at the bridge while the University's plan provides for no such improvement. Mr. Tucker also noted that the staff will continue to work on issues of mutual interest, and bring those matters to the Board's attention as action is required.) Item 5.7. Letter dated May 28, 1991, from Senator Charles S. Robb acknowledging receipt of the Board's resolution regarding the Mobility Assis- tance Act of 1991, received as information. Item 5.8. Notice of Public Hearings on June 26 and June 27, 1991, by the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, on the Proposed Comprehensive State Plan, 1991-2000, received as information. Item 5.9. Letter dated June 11, 1991, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commis- sioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that roads in Harmony Subdivision were added to the State Secondary System effective June 10, 1991. "June 11, 1991 As requested in your resolutions dated December 5, 1990 and Decem- ber 19, 1990, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective June 10, 1991. ADDITIONS LENGTH HARMONY Route 1080 (Harmony Drive) - From Route 614 to 0.20 mile South Route 614 0.20 Mi Route 1081 (Spring Brook Drive) - From Route 1080 to 0.40 mile West Route 1080 0.40 Mi Route 1082 (Cinnamon Ridge Road) - From Route 1081 to 0.10 mile Southwest Route 1081 0.10 Mi Route 1083 (Shady Spring Drive) - From Route 1081 to 0.20 mile Southwest Route 1081 0.20 Mi" June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 260 Item 5.10. Letter dated June 13, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resi- dent Engineer, re: Route 1150, along with a copy of his letter to Mr. Nathan H. Holman, homeowner in Mill Creek Subdivision regarding the speed limit in the subdivision. Both letters were received as information. Item 5.11. Letter dated June 13, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resi- dent Engineer, re: questions at the Board's meeting on June 12 about the Tentative Allocation of Funds for Fiscal Year 1991-92 on the Primary, Urban and Interstate Systems, was received as information as follows: "June 13, 1991 Tentative Allocation of Funds Fiscal Year 1991-92 Primary, Urban and Interstate System Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk Board of Supervisors County Office Building 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Miss Neher: At the June 12, 1991, Board of Supervisors' meeting the Board had some questions concerning information contained in the tentative allocation of improvement funds for fiscal year 1991-92. I have researched their questions and I am responding with the following answers. The question was raised concerning the meaning of initials found in the Additional Funding Required/Fund Source column. Specifically, Mrs. Humphris asked what "M" stood for. I have determined that the letter "S" indicates the project is funded 100% from state transporta- tion tax sources. Ail of the other letters indicate some kind of federal funding is involved. The definition for each set of letters is as follows: S 100% State Funding HES Federal Aid Hazard Elimination Funds IR Federal Aid Interstate 4R Funds Federal Aid Primary Funds M Federal Aid Urban Funds RS Federal Aid Secondary Funds BR Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Funds RRS Federal Aid Railroad Safety Funds BH Federal Aid Bridge Rehabilitation Funds The question was also raised as to why the right of way estimates for the three Route 29 improvements shown on Page 38 of the document had been revised and lowered from 1990-91 to 1991-92. I have reviewed the estimated costs shown in both documents and discussed them with our Programming and Scheduling Section in Richmond. Basically, the estimate for right of way on the section from the City limits to Rio Road was reduced from $7 million to $2.7 million and the estimate for the section from Rio Road to the South Fork of the Rivanna River was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.3 million. It is my understanding that this change was due to an error in estimating the right of way costs prior to publication of the 1990-91 allocations. When estimates were updated in December 1990 in preparation for development of the 1991-92 plan, this cost difference was discovered and investigated. While it is difficult to admit that errors occur, they do happen and I believe the best course of action is to admit them when they are discovered. In this case, I do not see the error as being critical to the development of this project or to the development of the financial plan for Culpeper District. More than half of the financing for each of the projects on Route 29 remains to be allocated in future years. If total funding had already been made to these projects, the over allocation might have resulted in the delay of other projects in the six year plan. This has non occurred, however. In fact, the June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 261 re-estimate of right of way costs on this project and the reduction in the anticipated allocations has served to soften the effects of the reduction of primary funds over the next six year which has been brought about as a result of the current recession. I hope the above explanation has sufficiently answered the questions of the Board. I request you forward this letter to them for their information. Yours truly, (Signed) D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer" Item 5.12. Letter dated June 13, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resi- dent Engineer, re: Route 240 and entrance to the property of Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Clayton, along with copy of letter from Mr. R. H. Connock, Jr., District Maintenance Engineer, in reply to letter from Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Clayton, 3r. All letters were received as information. Item 5.13. Monthly Bond Program Reports on Arbor Crest Apartments for the months of April and May, 1991, were received as information. Agenda Item No. 6. Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(a) of the Code of Albemarle known as the Hatton A/F District. The district is in the vicinity of Hatton, Warren & Scottsville. After this review, it is intended that the A/F designation on the 2874.0 ac in this district be extended for an addition- al ten years (Deferred from June 5, 1991). Mr. Bowie reminded Board members that the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District item was deferred from the June 5 meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said that the deferral was to allow for the staff to receive from Mr. Guenther Hawranke, one of the property owners in the Hatton district, the metes and bounds description of the property that will be withdrawing from the district. He stated that the property contains 50 acres and it is located on Tax Map 135, Parcel 30. He pointed out the location of the property on a map. Mr. Way asked if the property in question is located at Warren. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the property is just to the west of Warren, and to the north of the railroad tracks. He said that the subdivision plat has not been approved by the County, but has been submitted. He informed the Board that there does not have to be an approved plat for the Board to take action, but only a description of the property that is withdrawing. He noted, too, that over one-half acre is being added to the district by Mr. Hawranke, and he pointed this out on the map. As a result, the total acreage that would be included in the district is 2,824.215 acres. He thinks that the merits of the continuance of the district have been discussed previously, and it has been recommended by the staff, the Agriculture Advisory Co~mmittee and the Planning Commission for continuance. He added that the staff would recommend a ten year continuance for the district effective June 29, 1991. Mr. Bowie inquired if the list of parcels included in the Hatton Agricul- tural/Forestal District is a correct list. Mr. Cilimberg verified that it is a correct list. He added that the Board members also have a copy of the plat included with their information. Mr. Bowie asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak about the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District. He pointed out that there has previously been a public hearing about this district, and a number of people at that meeting had indicated that they were in favor of the district. He noted that these people were told at that meeting that it was not necessary for them to return for this public hearing. There was no one who wanted to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 262 At this time, Mr. Way moved the adoption of An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Section 2.1-4, Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of Albemarle, in subsection (a) "Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District" to be composed of 2,824.215 acres for an additional period of ten years, beginning June 29, 1991. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Way. AYES: None. (The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code of Albemarle be, and the same hereby is, amended and reenacted for an additional ten years from June 29, 1991, in subsection (a) "Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District", reading as follows: Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (a) The district known as the "Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 135, parcels 13, 15, 1SA, 17, 18, 19, 22, 22A, 30 (part); tax map 136, parcels 9B, 10, 11, 13C, 19, 19B, 27. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-90-103. Orchard Acres, Inc. Public hearing on a request to construct a road crossing the flood plain of Powells Creek on 40.64 ac R-6. Property at end of Cling Lane bounded by C&O Railroad tracks on the N and Orchard Acres Subd on the W. TM55C,Parcel A. White Hall Dist. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 1991.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows: Character of the Area: Powell's Creek runs parallel to Peach Tree Lane behind the residences on the north side of the road. The property is presently undeveloped. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a bridge approximately 400 feet from the end of Cling Lane to provide public road access to the proposed Crozet Crossing subdivision. The proposed preliminary and the master plan (which is presented as informational only) are enclosed as Attachment E and F (on file). Planning and Zoning History: In 1988, the Board of Supervisors instructed staff to pursue development of an affordable housing subdivision which the County might participate in developing. The Charlottesville Housing Foundation subsequently assumed responsibility for the development of the project and conducted a year-long property search for a site located in a designated growth area and adequately served by public water and sewer. The site to be served by this stream crossing was found to be the most available and feasible. The Board reviewed the concept for site development during the review of the County's participation in a Community Development Block Grant awarded for this project. The Board approved access of more than 30 units to Cling Lane with the requirement that any further development of the property must provide an alternate access to Orchard Drive. .Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan cites a number of concerns for flood plain crossings stating, "Encroachment into flood plain lands by development and other inappropriate uses can result in increased danger to life, health and property; public costs for flood June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 263 control measures, rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimenta- tion and siltation; pollution of water resources, and general degrada- tion of the natural and man-made environment." The Comprehensive Plan also states as a strategy to preserve water quality: "Restrict all clearing, grading, and construction activities to the minimum area required for the proposed development." Staff does not intend to imply that all of these effects will occur with the construction of the proposed crossing. Summary and Recommendations: The applicant is proposing the construc- tion of a bridge for the extension of Cling Lane to serve 30 lots proposed to be created from a 40.64 acre parcel. The lots will average 12,370 square feet, and consist of a total of 26.64 acres. Prior Board of Supervisors action restricts the development of the residue until a second access is provided to Orchard Drive. Estab- lishing this second access point will require a second crossing of the Powell's Creek flood plain at the easnern end of the property which will necessitate another special use permit. Staff opinion is that, in general, stream crossings should be kept to a minimum and provide for access to multiple properties where possi- ble. However, no other alternative access to the property has been found that is available, feasible other than the extension of Cling Lane and the future crossing necessary to access Orchard Drive. By prior action, the Board of Supervisors has limited the access across the Cling Lane crossing. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's flood plain modeling and justification and stated their support of the special use permit application. Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, recommends approval of SP-90-103, Orchard Acres, Incorporated. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Recommended Conditions of Approval: The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been obtained: Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; Department of Engineering approval of crossing design to insure compliance with Section 30.3; Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations. This stream crossing shall be constructed to provide access to the 30 lots in the Crozet Crossing subdivision. No development of residue property is allowed until second access is provided to Orchard Drive. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 21, 1991, unanimously recox~ended approval of SP-90-103 subject to the conditions set out in the staff report, but added the words "or access to adjacent properties" in the second sentence of No. 2, so that it now reads: "This stream crossing shall be constructed to provide access to the 30 lots in the Crozet Crossing subdivision. No development of residue property or access to adjacent properties is allowed until second access is provided to Orchard Drive." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the location of this project on a map. He said that this proposed bridge would be constructed to provide public road access to the proposed Crozet Crossing subdivision. Mrs. Humphris called attention to Page Two of the staff report at the top of the page and asked if the sentence should state that "The Board approved access of no more than 30 units to Cling Lane with the requirement that any June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 264 further development of the property must provide an alternate access to Orchard Drive.." Mr. Cilimberg agreed that Mrs. Humphris was correct and the word, "no," had been left out of the sentence. Mr. Perkins commented that the next Agenda Item is also a request for another stream crossing, and there is a condition included on that request that involves approval of the Virginia Marine Resources Con~nission, if re- quired. He wondered why this same type of approval is not required in this case. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the approval by the Virginia Marine Re- sources Commission was discussed at the time of this application and can be included as a condition, if the Board so desires. He explained that it is a normal course of action in the County when approving a stream crossing to submit the information to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. If a permit is necessary, the Marine Resources Commission will work directly with the applicant. He added that this could be included as a condition with this Special Use Permit, however, it will be done as part of the subdivision activity. Mrs. Humphris wondered if approval by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission could be listed as "d" under the first condition. Mr. Cilimberg answered that it could be listed in this fashion. There were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg from the Board members, so Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Burke spoke first. He said that he lives in Orchard Acres, and he expressed his disappointment that the whole Orchard Acres issue was not part of the public debate at tonight's meeting, and that some of it was handled administratively. He indicated his disappointment related to the final approval of the 30 houses being built on 8.5 acres, and he thought that this should have had at least a final public debate. He next discussed the proposed second access that would go across Powells Creek. He indicated that the only possible place to make that second access, unless people who are already living there are displaced, will be through an area that is currently designated in the Comprehensive Plan as set aside for recreation. He next mentioned that the applicant for this stream crossing is Orchard Acres, Inc. He feels this is not a valid application because Orchard Acres, Inc. is a defunct corporation in the State of Virginia and has been defunct since 1986. He said that he had raised this point before the Planning Commission, and he is not sure if a decision was made. Mr. Bowie assured Mr. Burke that if a second stream crossing is consid- ered, there will be a public hearing. He said, though, that the matter is not on the agenda tonight. Mr. Burke stated that he had talked about the stream crossing only because the subject had already been mentioned. Mr. Bowie said that the Board would also discuss the matter of whether or not Orchard Acres, Inc. is a valid corporation. He then asked several times if there was anyone else who wished to address the Orchard Acres application for a road crossing in the flood plain. Since there was no one else who wished to speak, Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Cilimberg wanted to comment on whether or not Orchard Acres, Inc. is a legitimate applicant. Mr. Cilimberg replied that this point was raised at the Planning Commis- sion meeting, and at the time the Deputy County Attorney advised that this was not an issue for determination by the Commission. He said that the Deputy County Attorney advised that the policy is to take the application at face value and assume that it is legitimate. He went on to say that he would have to ask the applicant to comment on the matter. Mr. St. John stated that he does not think that this is a proper question for the Board. He added that if Orchard Acres, Inc. is on the deed as owner of that property, then that corporation has standing to be the applicant for rezoning. He said that if the corporation has let its charter expire or has not paid its corporate tax, etc., then that would be between the corporation and the State and also between the corporation and the people with whom it is doing business. He went on to say that the County is required to accept the June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 265 application assuming that the same name is on the deed or title as the owner of the property. He said that the County does not need to look beyond that point. Mr. Bain commented that when a corporation is dissolved, the stockholders will own it. He said that deeds are transferred in that way. Mr. St. John remarked that he does not feel that the Board needs to get into the unraveling of this issue. Mr. Bowie stated that if the application is not correct then it is not properly before the Board. He added that the Board's action will be on the application as presented. At this time, Mrs. Humphris moved approval of SP-90-103 Orchard Acres, Inc., including the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and adding a Condition No. ld. reading: "Approval of the Virginia Marine Resourc- es Commission, if required." Mr. Perkins mentioned that there has been some concern expressed about the site plan that was approved by the Planning Commission. He said that the Committee that was appointed to review the site plan was made up of Tom Jenkins, the Planning Commission member from the district in which the proper- ty is located; the President of the Community Association; two citizens and Mr. Perkins. He said that this committee met and discussed some things that it would like to see incorporated into the site plan, but they were not included in the site plan. He added that as well as he could remember, there was to be a fence along the railroad track, and the houses that would be built there. He also thought that there was to be a recreational area. He asked, when he reviewed the site plan, to see the final plat that uses the whole piece of property, and a copy of the final plat is included in the Board members' packets as Attachment "F." He added that this plat shows that there will be 64 total lots which would possibly be built when the second access is provided. He would like to add a condition that any additional development be limited to a total of 64 units as shown on Attachment "F." Mr. Bain wondered if this condition was proper for a special use permit relating to approval of a subdivision plat. Mr. St. John reminded Board members that this special permit is for a bridge, and doesn't relate to any plat. Mr. Bain stated that if the site plan has not received final approval, the Board can consider that plan. Mr. St. John asked the time status for approval of the final site plan. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the subdivision plat was preliminarily approved on May 21 by the Planning Commission. He added that the special use permit was also recommended for approval by the Commission that same night. He said the final subdivision plat will be approved administratively. Mr. St. John commented that the final plat does not have to be approved administratively, if the Board members decide to have the matter brought back to them. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that Mr. St. John was correct. He added, though, that at this point the final plat is scheduled for administrative approval. Mr. St. John remarked that apparently some of the things that Mr. Perkins mentioned were not included when the preliminary approval was considered. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he thinks that the things Mr. Perkins mentioned, particularly the recreational area, related to an understanding between the committee and the developer and was not a requirement of the ordinance. He added that this is why it was not a part of the actual preliminary plat approval. He said that these things could certainly be addressed again. Mrs. Humphris wondered how the issue could properly be addressed by this Board. Mr. Bain said he did not think the Board should start mixing its priori- ties. He said that the Board can put conditions on a special use permit, but it should be relevant to the issue. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 266 Mrs. Humphris then stated that in her motion she would like to address the special permit as it stands, with the one addition, but she also thinks that the things that Mr. Perkins has brought up need to be discussed by this Board. Mr. St. John agreed that this would be better than trying to consider the whole matter all over again. Mr. Bowie stated that the problem is that the site plan has not included some of the items that the committee recommended. He went on to say that this special use permit could be approved, and then a motion could be made that the final site plan be presented to the Board or that the Board be informed as to why certain things were not included. Mr. Bain asked if the plat had final or preliminary approval. Mr. Cilimberg replied that preliminary subdivision plat approval was done on May 21. Mr. Bain then wondered about the site plan approval. Mr. Cilimberg explained that there is no site plan approval involved because the plan is for a subdivision. Mr. St. John said that the subdivision plat may not yet exist. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that the subdivision plat does not exist to his knowl- edge. Mr. St. John remarked that it is not too late to make these changes. Mr. Bowie reminded Board members that a motion has been made but there was not a second to the motion. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried with 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 bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been obtained: me Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; bo Department of Engineering approval of crossing design to insure compliance with Section 30.3; Co Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations. d. Approval of Virginia Marine Resources Commission, if required. This stream crossing shall be constructed to provide access to the 30 lots in the Crozet Crossing subdivision. No development of residue property is allowed until second access is provided to Orchard Drive. Mr. Bowie stated that the special use permit for the crossing in the flood plain has been approved with certain conditions. He added that perhaps now this Board can decide whether or not it needs to review the preliminary subdivision plat. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he believes that a repre of the applicant may be here and may be able to comment on this matter. Mr. St. John pointed out that it has been a while since this preliminary plat was approved. Mr. Bowie remarked that the applicant chose not to speak during the public hearing. He asked Mr. Perkins if he had any questions that he would like to ask the applicant. Mr. St. John reminded Mr. Bowie that reviewing plat is a different matter than what is before the Board for the public hearing. Mrs. Humphris said that she needs to understand how the recreational situation was handled. She called attention to Page Six of the minutes of May 21 Planning Commission Meeting under SUB-91-036 Crozet Crossing Prelimi- nary Plat. She quoted Mrs. Huckle's statement, "When you approve the final plat, please make sure that they have included the recreational area." Mrs. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 267 Humphris said that Mr. Rich Tarbell responded, "I think they have alluded to that about as well as we can require, but they have stated they intend to do that." Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain what is meant by the statement, "about as well as we can require." Mr. Cilimberg responded that a recreational area cannot be required for this size subdivision. He said, however, that it has been indicated that the recreational area would be provided in the final development. He added that he cannot say for sure if this will, in fact, happen. Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Cilimberg could comment on the fencing situa- tion that Mr. Perkins had mentioned. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he had not seen an indication of the fencing, but it may be that the fencing will be shown on the final plat. He stated, though, that it is not shown on the preliminary plat. He added that he does not think that it would be a major problem to provide for the fencing. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Perkins if there was anything else that he was concerned about. Mr. Perkins replied that the concerns of a lot of people in Crozet are that Attachment "F" shows 64 units, and when the plan began there were only 50 units involved. Mr. Perkins' concern is not necessarily the 64 units, but he feels that something needs to be said now about the land still being zoned R-6. He noted that the 30 houses are only taking 8.52 acres, even with the roads, etc., and there is considerable acreage left that is still zoned R-6. He pointed out that at a later time, if this property is still zoned R-6, it can be sold, and there could be six units per acre. Mrs. Humphris commented that this Board does not have a way to deal with this problem. Mr. St. John believes that the County has a dual role in this matter. He said that this is a land use review of a governmental function. He recalled that the County put money into this project, so that would put the County in a co-owner perspective. He added that the Board will have more control than just the governmental zoning control. He thinks that some of these elements were mentioned when the money was put into this project. He does not believe that money from the County will be put into the project unless the number of houses are limited, etc., but he has forgotten the terms. Mr. Bowie recalled that the maximum number of houses for the project was limited to 50. Mr. Perkins reiterated that the number of houses planned for the project has now risen to 64. He added that he can understand this because some extra units will have to be sold to pay for another stream crossing for another access. He does not see anything, however, that will limit the applicant to 64 units. He is concerned that the applicant may come back at a later date and say that since the property is zoned R-6, six units per acre will be built. Mr. St. John recalled that the Board had said that the project would be limited to 30 houses, or the County would not put any money into it. Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowie stated that the plan was for 30 houses for one access. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the actual approval was for a block grant, and because of this approval, funding was involved, but there was a maximum of 30 units stipulated. He noted that anything past that point did not involve the County, and was not part of that grant. He believes that the project was represented as 50 units at one point in time when there was consideration for developing the whole property at once. He does not recall, in the County's agreement to participate, whether there was a recreational area specifically established. Mr. Tucker informed the Board that there will be another special use permit for another stream crossing. He said that this special use permit for this stream crossing is limited to 30 lots. He pointed out that more lots cannot be added to this stream crossing without coming back to the Board and amending this special use permit or providing some other access. He noted that if it is desired to have an additional access further to the south with another stream crossing, then another special use permit will have to be submitted. He said that if the Board feels that there are too many units involved, then the permit can be denied when it comes before the Board, based on the inadequacy of the road, if the Board makes that finding. He went on to say that, in answer to Mr. Perkins' question, the Board is not limiting itself to what can be approved in the future with regard to additional lots over and above 30 units. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 268 Mr. Bain stated that, legally, all the applicant has a right to do is put in 30 lots with this stream crossing. He wondered, though, if the applicant could put a subdivision plat to record with 64 units. Mr. St. John responded, "no." Mr. Bain then stated that, legally, all the applicant can build is 30 units, no matter what the plat shows. Mr. St. John agreed. Mr. Bowie asked if the applicant has to come back to the Board if he wants to build more than 30 houses. Mr. Bain indicated that this matter would have to come back to the Board. Mr. Perkins commented that if this is true, Attachment "F" has no legality. Mr. Bain said that Attachment "F" does not seem to be legal to him, and that is what he is asking Mr. St. John. He added that, in reference to the subdivision ordinance, there is~no right to add more lots, because there is no access to them. Mr. Cilimberg explained that Attachment "F" was provided to the Commission for information and was not part of the Commission's approval. Mr. Bowie commented that the minutes of this meeting should show that there was no intent to approve or accept Attachment "F." He went on to say that the matter that is before the Board involves 30 units with one stream crossing. Mr. Bain remarked that he does believe that the fencing issue should be addressed through the staff, but he thinks that the fencing should be done. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he believes that the fencing can be required if it is perceived as a health and safety matter in the final plat. Mr. Bowerman wondered about the issue of recreation. He commented that Mr. St. John has raised the point that since the County is one of the co-owners, the County might have more control over the application than it might otherwise have. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the County is not a co-owner. He said that the County has a contract for the administration and implementation of this grant with the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. He added that if any intent for a recreational area was established at the time of the contract, then certainly it will be done. He does not recall, however, whether or not it was part of the plan. Mr. St. John stated that he does not remember, either. He thinks that whatever promises were made to induce the County to help fund this project can be enforced, even if it could not be enforced under the Subdivi- sion Ordinance. Mr. Bowerman inquired if these issues could be resolved by seeing a final plat before this Board. Mr. Bowie remarked that the recreational area is the only matter that will not come back before the Board. He wondered how this issue could be addressed by the Board. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Board members could ask that the final plat be brought back to this Board. Mr. Bain wondered how this could be done when it is an administrative matter. Mr. St. John stated that the matter will not be administrative after a resolution to that effect is made by this Board. Mr. Bain then moved that the final subdivision plat for the Crozet Crossing Subdivision be brought before this Board for review. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Bowie wondered if the final subdivision plat could be brought to the Board just for its review, or will it require another public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the final plat is not a public hearing item. He said that it could be advertised and reviewed at a regular day Board meeting. Mr~ Bowerman suggested that the Board take public comments at the meet- ing. 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. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 269 Mr. Bowie commented that the application for this stream crossing is approved but the final plat for Crozet Crossing will be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Cilimberg asked the Board if the primary issues regarding this plat involve the recreational area and the fencing to establish some barrier between the development and the railroad. Mr. Bowie answered that, if the Board does not object, it might be a good idea for the staff to get together with Mr. Perkins, since he has been in- volved with the Committee from the beginning. If these things have already been resolved, then it may not be necessary for them to come back before this Board. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that this was agreeable to him. ,Mr. Bain stated that the matter could then be listed on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowie agreed and asked if this was agreeable with the rest of the Board members. The other Board members indicated agreement. Mr. Bowie then asked Mr. Cilimberg if this answered his question. Mr. Cilimberg replied "yes." Agenda Item No. 8. SP-91-07. Stephen R. & Karen K. Thomas. Public hearing on a request for stream crossing in flood plain of unnamed tributary of Doyles River. Property of 15 ac on S side of Rt 672 approx 0.2 mi W of Rt 673 zoned JlA. TM26,P31A(part). White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 1991.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows: "Character of the Area: The site is currently vacant and is used as pasture. One dwelling is located immediately to the west of this site. Staff is unable to identify any existing stream crossings in this area which would serve this property. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a stream crossing in Order to access a building site on the opposite side of the stream. No building site exists on the property which does not involve the construction of a stream crossing. Planning and Zoning History: An exempt plat creating this parcel was administratively approved August 22, 1988. This plat contained a note stating 'Any construction that takes place within the one hundred year flood plain on parcel B-1 may require a special use permit.' Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan states a number of points: 'Encroachment into flood plain lands by development and other inappro- priate uses can result in increased danger to life, health and proper- ty; public costs for flood control measures, rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resour- ces, and general degradation of the natural and man-made environment.' As a strategy the Comprehensive Plan states 'Restrict all clearing, grading and construction activities to the minimum area required for the proposed development.' Staff does not intend to imply that all of these negative effects will occur with the construction of the pro- posed crossing. Summary and Recommendation: Staff has discussed with the applicant the possibility of using existing stream crossings or providing access to other parcels over this crossing. No parcels in the immediate area have stream crossings which are easily accessed from this site. No adjacent properties would benefit from the proposed crossing as they do not require stream crossings or already have crossings. In addi- tion, the distance to adjacent lots makes joint access over the pro- posed crossing impractical. The Engineering Department has reviewed the hydrogeologic information submitted by the applicant and has approved that study. However, final crossing design must be approved prior to construction. Staff opinion is that stream crossings should be kept to a minimum. There does not appear to be any alternative access to this site and it does not appear that the proposed crossing could reasonably provide June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 270 access to other parcels. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-91-07, Stephen and Karen Thomas, subject to the following condi- tions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been obtained: Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; Department of Engineering approval of crossing design to insure compliance with Section 30.3; Approval of Virginia Marine Resources Commission, if re- quired.'' Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 15, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-07 subject to the conditions in the staff report. There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg from the Board, so Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. He asked the applicants if they wished to speak. The applicants indicated a negative response. Mr. Bowie asked if anyone else wished to address this matter. No one wished to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. Mr. Perkins moved approval of SP-91-07 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. (Note the conditions of approval follow:) The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been obtained: Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; Department of Engineering approval of crossing design to insure compliance with Section 30.3; c. Approval of Virginia Marine Resources Commission, if required. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-91-08. Crestar Bank. Public hearing on a request for a branch bank with drive-through windows on 1.0 ac zoned PD-SC and En- trance Corridor Overlay. Property on E side of Rt 29 N approx 500 ft N of Timberwood Blvd. TM46B4,P10(part). Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 1991.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows: "Character of the Area: The Forest Lakes Shopping Center is located immediately to the east of this site. A site plan has been approved for a gas station immediately to the north of this site. Applicant's PrOposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a bank of approximately 2900 square feet with three drive-through windows (two standard windows and one automatic teller). Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 271 Staff Analysis: The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the applicant's request on April 2, 1991. The concerns of the ARB were about facade treatment and landscaping. A landscape plan for the Route 29 frontage of this site was approved with ZMA-88-16. The ARB recommended to the applicant a larger caliper tree and a slightly different layout than shown on the landscape plan. The applicant has agreed to work with the ARB to address all of that Board's concerns. The applicant has submitted a preliminary site plan for review. That plan has been submitted to the members of the Site Review Committee. Staff does not foresee any issues with the site plan and is requesting administrative approval of the final site plan. Due to concerns regarding access and circulation patterns combined with high traffic volumes, uses involving a drive-through facility are permitted by special use permit only. The applicant has worked with staff to address issues of access and circulation. With the approval of development immediately to the north of this site (Tiger Fuel), access points on Route 29 were established. The access points on Route 29 include an entrance only on the northern boundary of the bank site and exit only on the northern boundary of the Tiger Fuel site. The applicant has agreed to construct a one-way connection at the rear of the Tiger Fuel site which will connect the bank siteand the entrance-only road to the exit-only road located at the northern boundary of the Tiger Fuel site. There will be a raised median to control traffic in order to prohibit vehicles from travelling the wrong way. In addition, the bank will have access through the shopp- ing center to Timberwood Boulevard and Worth Crossing which intersects Routes 29 and 649 respectively. Staff opinion is that on-site circu- lation has been addressed by the layout of the site. ZMA-88-16 contained an agreement limiting traffic volumes on the area rezoned to 10,350 vehicle trips per day. The existing center is estimated to generate 4850 vehicle trips per day and the proposed bank would generate 955 vehicle trips per day leaving 4545 vehicle trips per day available for the remainder of the property covered by ZMA-88-16. That rezoning also included a 30 foot cross easement on out-parcels 2 and 3. The parcel under review at this time is out- parcel 3. The proposed bank layout would eliminate this cross ease- ment. Staff opinion is that this easement is not necessary for circulation due to the adequate provision of access provided by the existing travelway constructed with Phase I of the shopping center and that the easement may be eliminated. Staff opinion is that the applicant has adequately addressed access and circulation issues and that this request is consistent with ZMA-88-16 and Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-91-08, Crestar Bank, subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: Approval is for two drive-through windows and one drive-through automatic teller machine only. Any additional drive-through facilities require a separate special use permit petition; Site development shall be in general accordance with the Crestar Bank Preliminary Site Plan included as Attachment C initialed. WDF and dated April 15, 1991; Be Construction of one-way exit road on the eastern boundary of Tax Map 32, Parcel 36F, at such time as the exit-only access road to Route 29 is constructed; 4. Staff approval of the final site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 15, 1991, by a vote of 6-0-1, recommended approval of SP-91-08 with the conditions set out in the staff's report. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 272 Mr. Bowie inquired as to the owner of the land behind Tiger Fuel. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the land to which Mr. Bowie referred is owned by Forest Lakes Associates. Mr. Cilimberg then noted that Condition Number Three will be changed, and he distributed information on this change to the Board. He said that condi- tions #1 and #2 would remain as approved by the Planning Commission. He then explained the change in condition #3. He said that instead of condition #3 stating, "Construction of a one-way exit road on the eastern boundary of Tax Map 32, Parcel 36F, at such time as the exit-only access road to Route 29 is constructed," the new condition would state that "Forest Lakes Associates of Virginia General Partnership shall construct a one-way exit road on the eastern boundary of Tax Map 32, Parcel 36F, at such time as the exit-only access road to Route 29 is constructed." Mr. Cilimberg suggested including the word, "exit," in the new condition to be comparable to the original condition. He noted that the new condition accomplishes the same thing, but it specifies who will be constructing the road. He added that it has been agreed upon by Forest Lakes Associates, and he had a letter signed by Mr. Runkle for Mr. Kessler of Forest Lakes Associates. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg if he would show her the route to drive to get in and out of the Crestar Bank area. Mr. Cilimberg answered by saying that a person driving to the Crestar Bank location would get into the right deceleration lane of Route 29 and come into the existing access road to the rear of the bank. He then pointed out the route to use if the person wanted to use the drive-through windows. He next described the easiest route if a person wanted to go north or south on Route 29. He said that this could be accomplished by coming back out the access road and up the one-way road behind the Tiger Fuel location, and out to Route 29. Mrs. Humphris stated that the access road would not be in place when the bank building is finished. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the site plan is already approved. He said, however, that if the access road is not in place, then leaving the bank and going on Route 29 in either direction would best be accomplished by going through the shopping center circulation road to Timber- wood Boulevard, then down to Route 29 at the signalized intersection. He said that a vehicle can go either right or left on Route 29 at that point. There were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. He asked if the applicant would like to speak to the Board. Mr. Fred Thompson, Architect for the Crestar Bank, said that the applicant is in agreement with the conditions placed upon the project, and seeks the Board's approval. He added that he would be happy to answer any questions that Board members might have. There were no questions for Mr. Thompson, and no one else wished to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. Mr. Bain wondered if three drive-through windows were the average number for Board approvals of this nature. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the Board has approve a greater number of drive-through windows at other times, but he thinks that three is the average number, particularly for an urbanizing area where a certain volume of customers can be expected. He said that this project can be handled adequately on this site. He went on to say that the key point is that circulation can be handled by the layout of parking and drive-through windows as well as the bypass lane. He went on to say that this has been accomplished, and it still leaves a very significant area for land- scaping. Mr. Bain then asked what the traffic flow would be like going through the shopping center if the Tiger Fuel road is not built along with the bank opening. He wondered if this situation is less than ideal. Mr. Cilimberg replied that obviously a more direct exit to Route 29 is desirable. He noted that some exits and entrances have already been established by prior deci- sions. He pointed out a particular aisle on the map and said that it has no parking except in a certain location, and he has not seen any parking of vehicles even in that area. He said that this aisle is fairly free flowing and would provide, at least based on the current customer flow of the shopping center, safe and convenient access. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) 273 At this time Mr. Way moved approval of SP-91-08 including the conditions listed by the Planning Commission with the exception of condition #3, which will be omitted and replaced with the new condition #3 that was given to the Board in the June 19, 1991 memo. Mr. Bain reminded Mr. Way that the word, "exit," needs to be added to the new condition. Mr. Way agreed. Mr. Bain then seconded the motion. 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:) Approval is for two drive-through windows and one drive-through automatic teller machine only. Any additional drive-through facili- ties require a separate special use permit petition; Site development shall be in general accordance with the Crestar Bank Preliminary Site Plan included as Attachment C initialed WDF and dated April 15, 1991; Forest Lakes Associates, a Virginia general partnership, shall construct a one way exit road on the eastern boundary of Tax Map 32, Parcel 36F, at such time as the exit-only access road to Route 29 is constructed; 4. Staff approval of the final site plan. Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-91-03. Public hearing on a request to add new Section 9.0 to the Zoning Ordinance entitled "Guidelines for Comprehensive Plan Services Areas" and to amend the CO, HC, LI & HI Districts to expand the uses permitted therein. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 1991.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows: "ZTA-91-03. Amendments to Zoning Ordinance to Implement Comprehensive. Plan as to Nonresidential 'Service Areas' Concept. Origin: Planning Division Work Program.. Public Purpose to be Served: To broaden uses permitted within the various commercial and industrial zoning districts and to provide a new Section 9.0, GUIDELINES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SERVICE AREAS, for the purpose of implementing the nonresidential land use guidelines as outlined by the 'service areas' concept of the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan: Specific Comprehensive Plan text related to nonresidential land use designations is as follows (note: TABLE 46 of the Comprehensive Plan would be incorporated into draft 9.2): Non-Residential Land Use Designations: Objective: Establish a mix of commercial, industrial and public land use supporting County needs. The availability of jobs and services for the County's future popula- tion requires sufficient land to locate such activities. The County's growth management approach requires that such land be located in Growth Areas to support future population concentrations. Except for certain industrial uses appropriate only to rural locations where extensive buffers are necessary, commercial and industrial designa- tions are confined to designated Growth Areas. In Chapter One, it was established that more than sufficient designated acreage exists to meet commercial and industrial land use needs for the next twenty years. The actual development of this land will be dependent on its developability and availability. As with residential areas, land use designations for commercial, industrial, office and public facilities June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 274 need to be developable, locationally desirable, and responsive to market demands. To assure that development of these areas adequately addresses environmental, infrastructure, and land use considerations necessitates appropriate County standards and guidelines. Strategies: Establish nonresidential land use groups for Growth Areas that stress a mixed use orientation, scale of development, and intended service population. REGIONAL SERVICE Includes regional-scale commercial, professional and corporate office uses providing retail, wholesale, business and/or employment services to Albemarle County and the region. High density residential may be included as a secondary use. Uses include regional malls, medical centers, office buildings, mixed-use planned developments and interstate interchange develop- ments. Requires large site size, arterial road accessibility, water and sewer availability and compatibility with adjacent land uses. COMMUNITY SERVICE Includes community-scale commercial, professional and office uses providing retail, wholesale, business and/or employment services to the Urban Neighborhoods, Communities and larger geographic sections of the County. Medium density residential may be included as a secondary use. Users include community shopping centers, medical offices, small office buildings and mixed-use community core developments. Requires medium site size, collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability and compatibility with adjacent land uses. NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE Includes neighborhood-scale commercial, professional and office uses providing retail, wholesale and/or business service to an Urban Neighborhood or section of a Community. Low-medium density residential may be included as a secondary use. Uses include neighborhood shopping center, medical offices, other offices and mixed-use neighborhood developments. Requires small site size, collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability and compatibility with adjacent land uses. VILLAGE SERVICE Includes village-scale commercial, professional and office uses providing retail and/or business services to the Villages. Low density residential may be included as a secondary use. Uses include residential neighborhood-scale shopping center, specialty shops professional offices and small-scale mixed-use village core developments. Requires small site size, collector road accessibility, water or sewer availability and compatibility with adjacent land uses. OFFICE SERVICE Includes regional-scale research and office uses providing information and professional services to the County and the larger region. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 275 Limited production activities and marketing of products may be includ- ed. High density residential, commercial and motel/hotel/conference facility uses may be included as a secondary use. Uses include office parks and mixed-use planned developments emphasiz- ing office uses. Requires large site size, arterial road accessibility, water and sewer availability and compatibility with adjacent land uses. OFFICE/REGIONAL SERVICE Large mixed-use development area typically located on one parcel or two or more contiguous parcels under common ownership. Such areas provide large-scale employment centers and major retail/commercial services. All primary and secondary office and regional service uses may be found in such areas. Regional Service uses are not to exceed 15 percent of the total gross floor area in office service uses. Areas must be developed under one consolidated application plan providing for an integration of all uses and establishing location of all uses, access and circulation, landscaping and maintenance of natural areas and environmentally sensitive areas. Requires 200 or more acres, major collector or arterial road accessi- bility, water and sewer availability and compatibility with adjacent uses. INDUSTRIAL SERVICE Allows warehousing, light industrial, research and heavy industrial uses. Office and commercial uses may be included as a secondary use. Requires appropriate site size, arterial road accessibility, water and/or sewer availability compatibility with adjacent land uses and, where necessary, rail access. PUBLIC Reserve areas for regional, community and village-scale public uses. Uses include schools, emergency service facilities, libraries, parks and other institutional uses. Programmed for development based on criteria and standards listed in the public facilities plan. To assure that the ultimate development of these areas adequately address environmental, infrastructure and land use consideration necessitates the existence of appropriate County guidelines and standards. Table 46 summarizes nonresidential land use guidelines. Plan standards included in both 'The Natural Environment' and 'The Developed Environment chapters should be reviewed in conjunctions with these guidelines for development proposals. STRATEGY: Determine location and intensity of development under any category based on specific standards. Staff Comment: Table 46 and the text of the Comprehensive Plan no longer call for distinct commercial, industrial and office areas but a mix of such uses including residential uses in what are called 'ser- vice areas' which are distinguishable primarily by scale of develop- ment and proportionate mix of uses. Instead of attempting creation of new zoning districts to accommodate these various services areas, it is proposed that existing districts (with some amendment) be utilized and modified through either proffer or planned development provisions in a particular case. Therefore, the attached draft 9.0, GUIDELINES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SERVICE AREAS, is not a new zoning district but June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 276 provides guidelines and criteria for using existing zoning districts to accommodate the various service areas. This approach offers the following advantages over 'retrofit' amend- ment of existing districts or creation of (as many as six) new dis- tricts: Should the County determine during the next Comprehensive Plan review that the service area approach is not desirable or for other reasons seek to re-establish distinct segregations of land uses, Section 9.0 can simply be repealed and the ordinance would operate as it currently does; Probably most rezonings will not be seeking the variety of uses of a service area and the existing districts would be available in those cases. Larger, broad scope developments such as Uni- versity Real Estate Foundation and Worrell properties should be directed to the guidelines of 9.0; Section 9.0 is intended for rezonings and will not enhance nor detract zoning of properties to any significant degree. Proposed Amendments: Add a new Section 9.0 entitled 'GUIDELINES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SERVICE AREAS' which would provide a framework for negotiation and review of nonresidential cases, particularly for applicants seeking the broad range of uses recommended by the Comprehensive Plan for the particular service area. These guidelines would also be employed to address matters of scale, access and the like as may be considerations of the physical development of the site. Amendments to the existing CO, HC, LI and HI districts (which also amend PD-SC, PD-MC and PD-IP districts) are intended to accommodate the additional uses recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. In such situation where these additional uses should be permitted only as secondary or subordinate to main uses, reference is made to Section 9.0. Amendments to 23.0 Commercial Office - CO A. Add to 23.2.2 By Special Use Permit: 10. 11. 12. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, Residential R-15. in compli- ance with regulations set forth therein and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. Hotels, motels and inns (reference 9.0). Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). Research and development activities including experimental testing. Amendments to 24.0 Highway Commercial - HC A. Add to 24.2.1 By Right 41. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in section 24.2.2, uses permitted in section 22.2.1, Commercial, C-1. B. Add to 24.2.2 By Special Use Permit 15. Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.1.1 (section 9.0). Amendments to 27.0 Light Industrial LI A. Add to 27.2.2 By Special Use Permit 13. Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) Amendments to 28.0 Heavy Industrial - HI A. Add to 28.2.2 By Special User Permit 16. Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). 277 Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 21, 1991, unanimously recommended approval of the zoning text amendments as presented by staff. Mr. Cilimberg stated that this request to add a new section to the Zoning Ordinance has been discussed at both a work session and a public hearing by the Planning Commission. He said that this reflects some decisions that were made during the approval of the Comprehensive Plan to establish a service area approach for nonresidential development rather than providing specific, rather defined commercial, industrial and office categories in the Comprehensive Plan. He discussed the staff report and called attention to Page Six under the second heading, Item B, Number 15, and he said that he would like to make a correction. He indicated that the word, "Reference" should be included in the parenthesis before, "Section 9.0." Mr. Cilimberg continued with the staff report and gave examples of how to structure rezoning in accordance with the plan based on allowed uses in certain districts. He said that secondary uses could also be incorporated as established under Section 9.4. He went on to say that this amendment will give the staff and the applicant a basis by which to structure their rezoning application. He noted that the idea is to have the zoning district correspond to the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation for that area and the uses allowed in that underlying Comprehensive Plan designation. He added that properties can be developed according to that which is established in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowie called attention to Page 10 relating to the "Establishment of Secondary Uses." He remembers at a work session some time ago that the Board discussed low cost and affordable housing and affordable rental units. He also remembers that during the discussion it was brought out that one County requires 50 percent of the second floor space of all shopping centers for apartments. He added that in Section 9.4.1, it states that "Secondary resi- dential uses shall not occupy more than twenty (20) percent of the total site area." He wonders if there is a reason why allowing second floor development in shopping centers was not considered. Mr. Cilimberg responded that Section 9.4.1 relates to 20 percent of the whole site area. Me said that it is very possible that the floor area above a retail space could handle more than 20 percent residential use. He noted that an allowance for residential parking would also have to be considered. He went on to say that the idea was not to establish a primary residential area, but instead to establish a commercial area with a secondary residential use either upstairs over a shopping center or in separate development areas. He commented that particularly in a downtown situation, such as Crozet, there could be a downtown commercial development and residential area intermixed with a second floor or adjacent side by side uses. He said that 20 percent can be changed, but it was determined that this was a reasonable amount of residential area secondary to the primary system. Mr. Bain stated that the Board discussed the percentage before it was included in the ordinance. He does not think that the Board decided on a certain percentage. Mr. Bowie agreed that the percentage was discussed. He said that his main concern was that this ordinance not preclude the ability to have 50 percent residential uses in the site area if someone wanted to have such a situation. He added this seems to him to be a way to provide lower cost rental units. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it is intentional to have people consider a mixture of uses. He said that they cannot be forced to do it. He mentioned that when big developments are considered, residential areas within an office complex, for example, can provide for energy efficiency and reduced travel on roads. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) 278 Mrs. Humphris called attention to Number 12 under the first paragraph of the amendments. She asked if there is an explanation anywhere relating to experimental testing. Mr. Cilimberg replied that this matter was discussed during the Comprehensive Plan work sessions. He believes that the idea for the testing related to a non-industrial district, and it would not include any activity that had industrial discharge. Mrs. Humphris mentioned that there are other kinds of fallout from experimental testing. She recalled a situation with the University that affected the community. She said that the abilities for testing seem to be broad, and she wonders if there should not be some limitations placed on it. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that experimental testing may need to be defined. He said that permission for the testing will be handled by a special use permit, so there will be the opportunity to make sure that the activity is accepted and that a reasonable buffer or protection has been provided for adjacent areas. He added that this will be a legislative decision that the Board can make. There were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing to discuss ZTA-91-03. There was no one present who wished to discuss this issue, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. Mr. Bowerman moved for adoption of an Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by adding a new Chapter 9.0, entitled GUIDELINES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SERVICE AREAS, and to add certain uses under Commercial Office, Highway Commercial, Light Industry and Heavy Industry. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Bain commented that he believes the amendments cover some of the larger projects as well as some of the smaller ones. He said that these amendments will help follow through on the work that the staff and Board have done on the Comprehensive Plan, and he thinks that it is appropriate to place these amendments in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bowerman remarked that it looks as though Section 9.0 is very involved but it allows a lot of flexibility, a lot of mixed uses and a lot of suppor- tive uses. He said that this section will make sense during the review of the application, as it relates to this section of the Ordinance. 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 ordinance as adopted is set out full below:) An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by adding a New Chapter 9.0 entitled GUIDELINES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SERVICE AREAS and to add certain uses Under Commercial Office, Highway Commercial, Light Industry and Heavy Industry BE IT. ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be amended and reenacted by adding a new Chapter 9.0 entitled "Guidelines for Compre- .hensive Plan Service Areas", and adding certain uses in the Commer- cial, Highway Commercial, Light Industry and Heavy Industry District, all as follows: 9.0 GUIDELINES FOR COMPRR~SIVE PLAN SERVI~E AREAS 9.1 INTENT The Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County Virginia, 1989-2010, recommends as a developmental objective the establishment of "a mix of commercial, industrial and public land uses supporting County needs" and further recommends as an implementation strategy various service areas or "non- June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) 279 residential land use groups for growth areas that stress a mixed use orientation, scale of development and intended service population." Most non-residential land uses are to be accommodated within designated service areas as textually described in Chapter Three, The Developed Environment and locationally depicted on the various land use maps contained therein. The intent of this section is to set forth guidelines for implementation of these various service areas through existing zoning provisions in am anner consistent with the comprehensive plan. Specifically, it is intended that establishment of the various service areas be accomplished through zoning map amendment pursuant to section 33.2.1, property o%rner petition, together with textual amendment and other modifications as may be accomplished in a particular case pursuant to section 33.3, proffer of conditions, and, where appropriate, section 8.0, plarmed development dis- tricts - generally. 9.2 WHERE PERMITTED Service areas may be established through usage of one or more conventional and/or planned development zoning dis- tricts in accord with guidelines of section 9.0 and the comprehensive plan at appropriate locations within areas designated as the urban area, communities and villages in the comprehensive plan consistent with the following crite- ria: June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) 280 June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) 281 9.3 RELATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SERVICE AREA~ TO ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Generally, the following zoning districts compare favorably to recommended service areas as to recommended primary and secondary land uses: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SERVICE AREA ZONING ORDINANCE ZONING DISTRICT Village/Neighborhood Service Areas 22.0 C~i Commercial 23.0 CO Commercial Office Community Service Areas 22.0 C-1 Commercial 23.0 CO Commercial Office 24.0 HC Highway Commercial 25.0 PD-SC Planned Develop- ment Shopping Center 25A.0 PD-MC Planned Develop- ment Mixed Commercial Regional Service Areas 22.0 C-1 Commercial 23.0 CO Commercial Office 24.0 HC Highway Commercial 25.0 PD-SC Planned Develop- ment Shopping Center 25A.0 PD-MC Planned Develop- ment Mixed Commercial Industrial Services Areas 27.0 LI Light Industry 28.0 HI Heavy Industry 29.0 PD-IP Planned Develop- ment Industrial Park Office Service Areas 23.0 CO Commercial Office 27.0 LI Light Industry 29.0 PD-IP Planned Develop- ment Industrial Park Office/Regional Service Areas 23.0 CO Commercial Office 27.0 LI Light Industry 29.0 PD-IP Planned Develop- ment Industrial Park (Together with) 22.0 C-1 Commercial 24.0 HC Highway Commercial 25.0 PD-SC Planned Develop- ment Shopping Center 25A.0 PD-MC Planned Develop- ment Mixed Commercial June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) 282 9.4 ESTABLISHP~NT OF SECONDARY USES Secondary uses are intended to be complementary of and subordinate to primary uses. To this end, secondary uses shall be established on a pro rata basis for phased develop- ment to the floor area of primary uses unless otherwise specifically permitted by the board in a particular case. In addition, the .following guidelines are intended to govern secondary uses unless otherwise specifically modified by the board in a particular case: 9'4.1 Secondary residential uses shall not occupy more than twenty (20) percent of the total site area. 9,4,2. Other secondary uses shall comply with the following limita- tions: Total floor area devoted to warehousing shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total floor area devoted to primary uses; Total floor area devoted to supporting commercial uses shall not exceed five (5) percent of the total floor area devoted to primary uses; Total floor area devoted to related office uses shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total floor area devoted to primary uses; As to motel/hotel/conference use, the applicant shall demonstrate that such use is intended to be complemen- tary of and subordinate to primary uses in terms of scale, contractual agreements with primary uses, or otherwise. 9.4.3 Supporting commercial uses may consist of primary uses recommended for village and neighborhood service areas to provide convenience uses to employees within service areas. Such supporting commercial uses as may be provided by an individual occupant for the exclusive use of the employees of such occupant shall not be included in floor area limita- tions of section 9.4.2. Supporting commercial uses may also consist of dependent or parasite uses as may be demonstrated to be sustainable by and related to the specific character and service require- ments of primary uses. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the following sections be amended as set forth below: Section 23.0, Commercial Office, CO, District, be amended in subsection 23.2.2, Uses By Special Use Permit, by the addition of the following uses: Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, residential R-15. in compli- ance with regulations set forth therein and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. 10. Hotels, motels and inns (reference 9.0). 11. Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). 12. Research and development activities including experimental testing. Section 24.0, Highway Commercial, HC, District, be amended in subsection 24.2.1, Uses By Right, by the addition of the following USe: June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 27) 283 41. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in section 24.2.2, uses permitted in section 22.2.1, commercial, C-1. Section 24.0, Highway Commercial, HC, District, be amended in subsection 24.2.2 Uses By Special Use Permit, by the addition of the following use: 15. Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.1.1 (reference 9.0). Section 27.0, Light Industry, LI, District, be amended in subsec- tion 27.2.2, Uses By Special Use Permit, by the addition of the following use: 14. Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). Section 28.0, Heavy Industry, HI, District, be amended in subsec- tion 28.2.2, Uses By Special Use Permit, by the addition of the following use: 16. Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). The Clerk informed the Board that there were a lot of people waiting for the public hearing on the Water Resources Protection Areas. She said that the auditorium was already set up for the hearing. Mr. Bowie explained to the audience that the Board would take a brief recess to allow for the transition to the auditorium. He said that he under- stands there are an additional 15 or 20 people waiting in the hall, and the Board would like for everyone to be seated and comfortable during the public hearing. At 8:10 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened in the auditorium at 8:26 p.m. Mr. Bowie called the meeting back to order at 8:26 p.m. and thanked the people for their patience during the move to the auditorium. Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reenact the Albemarle County Code by the addition thereto of Chapter 19.2, known as "Water Resources Protection Areas" ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 1991.) Mr. Peyton Robertson, Watershed Management Official, spoke first and briefly discussed information provided to the Board since the last meeting. He said that this information is included in the Board members' packets and involves items that were discussed at the May 8, 1991, meeting. He mentioned that included in this information is a memo which outlines how the Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance would fit with existing State and Federal programs, and how it would act to consolidate some of the fragmented approach- es of a variety of plans required for the programs into one single plan. He also said that a sample Memorandum of Understanding is included which would outline the roles of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District and the roles of the locality, and specifically, how appeals from agricultural users might be accomplished. Finally, Mr. Robertson indicated that the Board members have received in their information, language that has been added to the Ordinance, based on Mr. St. John's comments, in reference to the section of the Albemarle County Code. He also wanted to provide Board members with a map which has become available since the last discussion on this ordinance. He indicated that it may be difficult for those in the audience to see the map, and he invited the people in the audience to come closer while he is describing the map. He noted that this map is provided by the Information Systems Support Laboratory of Virginia Tech which shows agricultural lands that lie within the 100 foot buffer of perennial streams. He stated that the map overestimates stream coverage because it includes a variety of streams that are intermittent drainage and are not, in fact, perennial streams. He pointed out that the red areas on the map comprise cropland within 100 feet of streams, and the total acreage of that area in Albemarle County on this June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) 284 particular map is approximately 1400 acres. He then said that the dark green areas on the map depict grasslands within 100 feet of streams, and light green areas are other grasslands and haylands. The peach colored areas are crop- lands. He indicated that a question and answer sheet has been provided to members of the public. He said that the public is here tonight to try to understand some of the issues that have been raised. He indicated that he has been answering some of the questions that have been raised by various members of the public over the past several weeks. He added that there are some additional copies available of the question and answer sheen, and he went on to say that the Ordinance will provide for limited protection of riparian corridors by providing that vegetation along these corridors be preserved in its natural state. He said that the Ordinance will work to enhance the existing Runoff Control Ordinance by specifying in greater detail how the buffer area is to be managed. He commented that the Ordinance supports the Comprehensive Plan objectives of supporting Chesapeake Bay initiatives, and it also supports and is incorporated in the Open Space Plan which will be before this Board soon. He said that he would be happy to answer questions. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Robertson when the question and answer sheet was created. He wondered if this was done within the last month or since April. Mr. Robertson answered that the question and answer sheet was done for this meeting. He said that these are questions which have been asked over the last several months. Mr. Bowie wondered if these answers were given during the discussions that were held with individuals or groups. Mr. Robertson replied, "yes." Mr. Bowerman suggested that Mr. Robertson discuss the questions and answers because he thinks that they are very informative. Mr. Bowie agreed. Mr. Robertson read all of the questions and gave the answers. Mr. Bowie mentioned that on the back of the agenda there are procedural rules for public hearings. He then opened the public hearing. Mr. Jack Marshall spoke first. He is President of Citizens for Albe- marle, which is a County environmental group with over 430 paid members. He read from a prepared statement dated June 19, 1991, to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors appealing to them to approve the ordinance (see statement which is on file.) Mr. Marshall felt that there were two primary issues the Board needed to consider. "Does this proposed ordinance address a real prob- lem?'' "Does this ordinance propose a moderate and fair solution?" He said that evidence suggests that the County does have a problem controlling non- point source pollution in the waterways. This evidence is supported from observation, common sense and scientific. Mr. Marshall then presented the reasons (set out in his statement) that Citizens for Albemarle thinks the ordinance should be approved. Mr. Robert Bugg spoke next and said that his family has been a member of the Citizens for Albemarle organization for the past 18 years. He is con- cerned, however, about the official statement from the Citizens for Albemarle, because the statement indicates that it does not matter how much sediment is caused by agriculture. He said that it seems necessary to have a 600 page manual to show how the sediment should be cleaned up. Mr. Bugg wondered if there really is a problem, and if anyone has done a study that identifies the point of this alleged pollution. He is not saying, however, that farmers do not cause sediment, because every farmer causes some sedimentation. He next stated that the Citizens for Albemarle organization indicates that a new bureaucracy is not required, but who, other than a professional, can read the manual. He took issue with the questions and answers sheet by saying that the bottom of the sheet says BMP's includes practices which most farmers are already using. He said that if most farmers are already using these practic- es, then why is a new ordinance needed. He commented that when a plan is approved by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, there is usually not much funding by the Soil Conservation Service or Federal programs and State programs. He noted that he has been unable to get someone to come out to show him how to fix his storm pond which was built 30 years ago to stop rushing water from coming across his land. He added that the muskrats have bored holes in the dam, and now the dam is almost destroyed. He went on to say that the Soil Conservation Service does not have the manpower to deal with ponds anymore. He remarked that it has been indicated that agencies are June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) 285 available to give farmers help, but it is not necessarily so in all cases. He mentioned that the funding is being cut back for BMP's. Me said that lots of people, including himself, applied for cost shares for spring and pond develop- ments, etc., and they are not all being approved. He does not think the ordinance is necessary. He said that the issue is already covered by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, SCS, and the Extension Service. He added that all of these organizations are willing to help farm- ers, if the organizations have the funding and the means. He thinks that the extra bureaucracy is not needed, and that it will cost somebody some money. He stated that a part-time school nurse could be hired, instead, or extra funding could be given to the school system. Mr. Tom Olivia told the Board that for the past four years he and his wife have raised sheep on his farm in Southern Albemarle County. At present, he has a flock of approximately 200 head of sheep, and they plan to expand to approximately 500 head over the next three years. He noted that his farm is a mixture of hills, woods, pastures and streams where wildlife still abounds. He indicated that although he and his wife greatly enjoy commercial sheep raising, the presence of so much natural beauty contributes greatly to their enjoyment of life on the farm. He said that his wife's great grandfather, Andrew Dawson, bought this property in the 1850's and members of his wife's family have lived there since that time. He stated that at this time, he has a son in college, and it is hoped that he and his children will at least have the option of living on this farm and continuing to take part in agriculture and continue to enjoy the proximity to wildlife. He noted that sadly the environment in this County which provides so much scenic beauty also produces and attracts threats to itself. He said that the County's soils are shallow and commonly situated on steep slopes making them highly prone to erosion. He added that the influx of new residents has spurred the appearance of urban and suburban areas, increasing dermands on limited natural resources, resulting in higher taxes on farmland and increasing opportunities for land use conflicts. He believes that the combined growth pressures on the rural environment in Alben~arle County is so great that there is precious little chance that many highly valued aspects will persist for future generations to enjoy unless this community moves actively to protect them. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan of the County broadly addresses many of these issues, but there are areas in which rmany additional specific regulations are needed, if most of the broad environmental goals of the Comprehensive Plan are to be realized. He believes that water resource protection is an area in which County action is appropri- ate. He noted that many stream banks in the County have been denuded by agricultural practices that currently are acceptable. He pointed out that water quality is lowered by sediment washed into streams, wildlife diversity is reduced in denuded stream banks and far away the Chesapeake Bay suffers problems stenmming in part from the runoff. He believes that the Water Resources Protection Areas ordinance should provide significant relief for many of these problems. He realizes that many in the agricultural community are opposed to the Ordinance, but he thinks that most of the concerns are misplaced. He said that Mr. Robertson has already noted, for example, that fencing of streams is not required. Mr. Olivia added that many individuals that he has talked to have expressed concerns about this requirement possibly being within the ordinance. He noted that he has looked over the State Water Control Board manual that will serve as a basis for techniques to be used in erosion control planning. He said that this volume is not enormous and full of regulations that must be unfailingly adhered to. He said that, rather, it is a "how to" book on erosion control practices applicable in Virginia. He sees nothing ominous in the content of that book, and he sees nothing onerous in terms of farmers generally having to live with these practices. He does not think that farmers have to fear the costs of this ordinance. He summa- rized his remarks by saying that he believes the Water Resources Areas ordi- nance is, in the long term, of agricultural and environmental interest to Albemarle County, and he urged the Board to adopt it. Mr. Rod Clark, a cattle farmer with 250 acres of land at North Garden, stated that if this is a compilation of 300 pages of a manual, then he is in compliance. He said that when there is a whole page of helpful agencies listed, there is no wonder that there are problems. He wonders who determines Best Management Practices. He gave an example by saying that a tree that is over six inches in size cannot be cut down. He noted that the old trees are the ones that are dying and are blocking the streams, but they cannot be cut down. The young trees, under six inches, however, can be cut without inform- ·ng anybody. He stated that when bureaucracy enters into the issue, and rules June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) 286 and regulations are made, there are problems. He thinks that the concern that landowners have is not so much with things that are done to protect the land, wildlife and County, but it is having to live with a regulation that, from a farming standpoint, doesn't make sense. He also said that regulations are sometimes made by people who don't understand the practical problems of making a living and farming. He went on to say that for this reason, he questions whether or not the ordinance is needed. Mr. Ed Scharer, of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, stated that 50 years ago farmers planted over 25,000 acres of land in corn and wheat. He said that 50 years ago farmers numbered over 2500 or more and were one in ten of the County population. He noted that 50 years ago farmers plowed the land conven- tionally, tilled highly erodable soils and did not, for the most part, use cover crops or crop rotation, and, in general, farmed without the knowledge of the needs of the land or waters. He pointed out that 50 years ago Albemarle County was one of the most severely eroded counties in the State with large gullies in the land and erosion a serious problem. He stated that today Albemarle County is rolling green fields. He said that 96 percent of the County is in grass, while crops have shrunk to only 3700 acres. He added that grasslands account for 113,000 acres in the County, most of which is ferti- lized minimally, if at all, uses no herbicides or pesticides, and is clipped to control unwanted weeds. He said that most of this grassland carries many fewer animal units than it could if management levels were raised and ferti- lizers and pesticides were used. Today, Mr. Scharer stated that the number of farmers has dropped to approximately 750, while the City/County population has grown to over 108,000 people. He added that today farmers use Best Management Practices to minimize soil and fertilizer loss and to protect water quality. He noted, too, that today farmers, with the help of the Agricultural Stabili- zation and Conservation Service, have a Soil and Water Conservation Service, are implementing Best Management Practices such as critical areas seedings, stream bank protection, sedimentation retention structures, animal waste control facilities and water impoundment reservoirs, among others. He pointed out that since 1974 and again in 1985, Congress approved and the USDA imple- mented food security legislation governing use of highly erodable lands, wetlands, grasslands and other fragile lands. He said that farmers face the loss of all federal agricultural benefits such as disaster payments, low interest loans, even crop insurance coverage if they disobey the rules in any way or even farm without a fully implemented farm conservation plan. He added that farmers now routinely use crop rotations, cover crops, side waterways, contour strips, no till and minimum till to prepare land for planting. He said that even some hay is planted no till after hay or small grain. He stated that, in short, farmers have already addressed the soil and water quality problems this legislation is designed to correct. He said that it is a case of regulation after a problem has been resolved. Mr. Scharer remarked that the Albemarle County Farm Bureau opposes this legislation not on environmental grounds, but because it will develop an expensive bureaucracy. He pointed out that counties in the Chesapeake Bay regulation area report an average cost of over $300,000 per year to enact mandated Chesapeake Bay prograx~. He said that once the County starts with this program, it will be goaded into enacting all of the Chesapeake Bay regulations with similar expenses and bureaucracy. He showed the Board a best management practices map which showed cost sharing, and depicted Albemarle County as a non-priority area for Chesapeake Bay regulations. He said that he did not understand why Albemarle County would be a non-priority area for Chesapeake Bay regulations so he contacted Jim Cox, the State Director for the BMP Program for the Soil and Water Conservation Service. Mr. Cox informed him that the Soil and Water Conservation Service had to look at water quality problems in the river systems that drain into the Bay. Mr. Scharer said that the Shenandoah River has many animal confinement units which have nitrogen pollution output. He noted that the York River drainage consists mostly of cropland which contributes nitrogen, phosphorous and sedimentation, but the James River drainage, especially in the Albemarle County area, is mostly grasslands and puts out relatively little pollution. He said that urbaniza- tion and point source pollution is a large part of the problem in the James River drainage hence Albemarle County's non-priority status. Mr. Scharer stated that if the Soil and Water Conservation Service at the State level and the County's own legislators see fit to exempt Albemarle and surrounding counties in this legislation, why is legislation even being considered? He went on to say that buffer strips have been proposed as a practice from which June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) 287 all water quality improvements are measured. He said that until recently buffer strips were highly considered as filters for sediment retention, but recent work at Virginia Tech (VPI) has cast doubt on their effectiveness especially in hilly terrain. He noted that a professor at VPI studied filter strips in 18 farms in Virginia. On a flat coastal plain, filters were deemed to be effective, but on a hilly terrain, filters did not work because water reached them as channel flow, rather than as surface sheets. He commented that these channel flows over ran the buffers making the buffers ineffective. He said that as yet no work has been done on natural stream bank erosion and on erosion and sedimentation that occurs as a result of flooding. He went on to say that buffer strips, best management practices and flood walls have proven ineffective against reducing these problems during a flood. He added that the Soil and Water Conservation Service estimates that two inches of rainfall today is equal in flood potential to ten inches just ten years ago due to the urbanization and paving over of the upstream watershed. He said that this has been a constant problem for agriculture through lost fertilizer, crops and even loss of farm animals to the flood waters. Mr. Scharer added that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) is beginning to realize that urbanization is a much more insidious and dangerous cause of pollution. He stated that the CBF estimates that ten percent of the Chesa- peake Bay watershed that is urbanized contributes as much pollution as the 50 percent of the watershed in agriculture. Recent studies show that toxic runoff from roads and parking lots due to inadequate stormwater facilities is far more dangerous to life in the Bay than previously supposed. Mr. Scharer then said that agriculture in Albemarle County is practiced extensively, uses little fertilizer and few pesticides and grazes fewer animals than is possi- ble. He said that only a few acres in the County produce crops and on these acres BMP's are used. He added that given these facts, coupled with the urbanization of the County in increased population, there is no question where the cause of sedimentation can be found. He stated that this legislation does nothing to alter or slow development, and there are already more stringent rules for development in place. He commented that these regulations begin a process which will ultimately develop an expensive bureaucracy for farmers and taxpayers to endure with no environmental benefit realized. He remarked that with the current shortfall in education and help for the aged and the home- less, it is morally wrong to develop this bureaucracy by passing this legisla- ture. Ms. Lois Rochester, representing the League of Women Voters of Charlottes- ville and Albemarle County, read from a prepared statement and said that the League urges the Board to adopt the RPA Ordinance (see memo dated June 19, 1991 to the Board of Supervisors from the League of Women Voters). The League feels that this ordinance advances a goal the County had for years which is the protection and preservation of the quality of Virginia's waters. This ordinance is seen as a logical extension of County efforts to protect its own waters. It is the League's impression that efforts must be intensified to show some landowners how their land use practices affect water quality. This ordinance will provide the means of addressing the major sources of pollutants which are development and farming operations. The League urges the Board to adopt the proposed ordinance. Mr. Lowry Abell noted that the people involved with the appeals process for the Thomas 3efferson Soil and Water Conservation District, are not elected by just farmers, but, instead, they are elected by everyone. He pointed out that this would not be a one-sided appeal that just involved farmers. He then referred to Mr. Robertson's comments in which he stated that the ordinance does not require fencing of streams for beef or dairy operations. He added, relating to wetlands, that who would have guessed in 1972 that wetlands would get to be such a problem, and that the regulations would seem to expand. He questions whether or not the same thing will occur with the regulations that relate to fencing. He said that fencing is a best management practice, yet the Soil and Water Conservation District will develop the plans. He is concerned that this might mean that the Soil and Water Conservation District could say at a later date that this is a management practice that has to be included on a certain farm in order for the plan to be approved. He noted that the County will have no authority in this matter whatsoever because the plans will be written by the Soil and Water Conservation Service and approved by the Soil and Water Conservation District. He thinks that Mr. Robertson's June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 32) 288 statements may be misleading when he said that certain things are not required because someone else beside County officials will be doing the actual writing and approving of these regulations, without the County being involved. Mr. Scott Moore, from Scottsville, stated that as a farmer the conserva- tion and use of land, water and related resources is a top priority because it directly affects his livelihood. He questions, however, whether or not the County is moving in the right direction. He said that the County is adopting regulations that are already implemented by the Soil and Water Conservation Service (SCS), most farmers are already using BMP's in their farm practices and farmers have been working with the SCS for years to improve land and water. He asked why it is necessary to interfere with this working relation- ship by having the County establish and implement these same regulations. He added that it would be more cost effective and efficient for the County to work closely with the SCS, but let the SCS implement its regulations. He said that only approximately one percent of the cropland in the County is used for crops and about one-half of this land is no till and minimal till. He went on to say that no one can tell him how much of a problem agricultural land is causing on a county-wide basis. He knows there was a study conducted on the Rivanna River Watershed, and he believes that people are saying today that agricultural land is causing 40 or 50 percent of the problem. He stated that that study in reality indicated that 27 percent of the pollution was caused by agricultural land. He went on to say that on a county-wide basis, he cannot find anyone who can tell him how much pollution is caused by agricultural land. He said that with no data to compare, there is no way to evaluate this program. Mr. Moore then referred to Page 9 of the ordinance and read Section 11. He stated that this section, he believes, gives developers a grandfather clause whereby they can use a building even though it is not in compliance, and even though it is in a protected area. He next referred to and read Number Five under the "Role of the Locality" which is part of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District and Albemarle County which states that, "The locality will establish and implement an enforcement procedure for requiring agricultural landowners to comply with the act." He said this means that the County will implement this requiremsnt and the County will enforce it. He is concerned that this is the County's responsibility instead of a responsibility of the Soil and Water Conservation District which has implemented and enforced requirements in the past. He pointed out that the farmer keeps getting more and more pressure while at the same time there is talk of protecting open spaces. He does not think that a lot of people realize that the farmer is responsible for these open spaces, and if it wasn't for the farmer, there Would not be open spaces. The farmer also pays taxes on these spaces. Mr. Bruce Hogue, Chairman of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva- tion Service in Albemarle County, stated that his service works hand in. hand with the Soil Conversation Service and has helped to make the County the way that it is today. He added that this ordinance will do nothing to help the farmers. Instead, something needs to be done about the effect of the highways going through farmland. He mentioned that Interstate Route 64 runs through his farm, and it widened the channel of a stream. He said that when a road is constructed, if the streams could be riprapped so there would not be so much erosion from the stream banks, there would not be the sedimentation problem in the Reservoir, and there would not be a lot of the other problems. He added that he has been a conservationist his whole life and he has talked to others who have worked for Soil Conservation Service their whole lives, and they say that the ordinance will not do one thing for farmers. He remarked that the ordinance sounds good, but it will not do any good. He said that there are already laws enough to take care of this situation for the farmers, and he urged the Board not to spend the taxpayers' money on the ordinance. Mr. John Hermsmeier, Director of the Tandem Center for the Environment and Earth Science teacher there, stated that along with his students, he has monitored for two years the Moormans River, Ivy Creek and Cow Branch which runs at the base of Tandem's drive along Route 20 south of Charlottesville. He wanted to submit to the Board that there is qualitative evidence that there is a sedimentation problem at least at Cow Branch. He showed the Board nets that he used to sample the insect life in the bottom of the stream. He said that Ms. Karen Firehawk who is a National Director for the Isaac Walton League has extensive knowledge of sampling across the United States. When she saw the net that was used in Cow Branch, she asked where Mr. Hermsmeier had been June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 33) 289 sampling. He said that the main drainage of Cow Branch is from Carter's Mountain to the east which is forested. He knows from the high quality of water in the Moormans River that a largely forested watershed will produce good water quality due to the filtering of that forest. He added that Cow Branch watershed is almost entirely rural, and the flat lands are in grass- lands mostly, and other than a few houses, Route 20 is the main impervious surface. He went on to say that upstream before the sampling was done at Tandem Drive last year and two years ago, there is a section of the stream where the whole bank was red, and there was not a plant on it. To the best of his knowledge that is the only source of sediment that would make the net look as it does. He stated that buffers work, and they protect the water quality. He noted that the area has now been left alone for awhile and grass has covered it, but that doesn't mean that the problem has gone away. He supports the ordinance because he thinks it takes a long view, and he thinks that even though Albemarle County may not be in a priority area, the long term situation needs to be considered. He added that the sediment that is caused by that stream bank erosion, even though the area may have been healed, is not going to go away in the year that it took the grass to grow back. He said that the sediment will stay there up to 50 years in the stream, and the stream life will be impacted for a long time. He thinks that this ordinance needs to be viewed for what it will do for the future, and what it will keep out of the streams, even if it is not critical now. He mentioned that environmental problems such as the ozone layer, ground water and safety are such that the degradation is slow and almost unnoticeable and cause a huge problem that will not heal itself quickly, it is in this vein that he supports passage of this ordinance. Mr. Dan Becket is a farmer of 75 acres in the Samuel Miller District, said he is in favor of this ordinance. He said that looking at the situation from a common sense standpoint, there is no doubt that the streams are in trouble from siltation. He remarked that many of the farmers at tonight's meeting have good points, but he fails to see where any bureaucracy is going to be established, and he fails to see where anyone is going to be required to read a 300 page manual. He thinks that this is a starting point and is the least that can be done to protect streams. He noted that guidelines are all that are available now, but this ordinance is a simple law. He said that the law is not easy to enforce, but it is easy to be in compliance. He pointed out that most farmers are already in compliance with it, but abuses do exist. He thinks that it is a positive statement by the Board members to indicate that they care about the streams and want to make these regulations a law. He urged his representative on the Board to vote for the ordinance. Mr. Co,with Davis, a farmer and landowner, thinks that the ordinance deals with the problem in the wrong way. As a landowner, he has a responsi- bility for the natural resources on his farm, and he thinks that he is responsible for the water that flows through it. He believes that it is his responsibility not to spoil the water and not to pollute it, and he thinks that the County has the ability to monitor the situation, if he pollutes his water. He said that if he does pollute his water, then he should be taken to task, but he does not think that he should be told how to practice farming. He went on to say that if he is not in violation of polluting the waters that go through his farm, why should he have to submit farm plans to people who he is not assured know anything about farming. He thinks that he can be held responsible for causing an environmental disaster, and he believes that everyone can be held accountable. That would be his solution. Mr. Henry Page from North Garden said that everybody's observations can be considered tonight. He told the Supervisors to think about the country roads that they have driven over in their lifetimes. He asked what has happened to the fields that they have seen within the last 30 or 40 years. He mentioned that 30 or 40 years ago there was corn, wheat, oats, rye, etc., but he asked what is seen now. He answered that grass, abandoned gardens and weeds are seen now. He said that grassland farming has come about because of the labor situation and people haveing to run farms almost by themselves. He told Board members to look at the change that was made. He said that corn and row crops have disappeared. He added that he could show the Supervisors on his property what has happened and when it happened. He noted that there is only one piece of land broken on his 500 plus acres, and that is a small garden site. He said that everything else is forest and grass, and that is what is happening everywhere near where he lives. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 34) 290 Mr. Yoko Sera has a 300 acre farm in Greenwood, and he is a registered professional engineer. He said that he has not heard anyone speak about some types of erosion, and the ordinance addresses them. He added that every bit of the conversation has been about erosion of the farm]_and and cropland, etc., but he asked if anyone has ever heard of streambank erosion which probably accounts for the scouring of most of the sediment that is transported by a stream. He asked how this ordinance can stop stream bank erosion. He an- swered that it cannot. He added that this Board can modify the ordinance to regulate things that should be regulated such as development, paved areas, excavations, and unmonitored construction practices in the flood zones. He said that this is where erosion is coming from and that is where something can be done about it. He noted that nothing can be done about stream bank ero- sion. He said that it is in the farmers' best interest to have the protection to the very edge of the stream for the simple purpose that the farmer then gets a product from it. He added that it is not to the farmers' advantage to let the banks erode. He went on to say that it is the same thing with trees. He said that the farmers could plan which trees remain and which trees are to be cut on the edge of the stream. He stated that farmers are not stupid, and they know that the roots hold the stream banks, and that, as a consequence, they harvest the trees that are going to pose a problem of blocking the stream and also perhaps diverting the stream which will cause further erosion. He said that he has cleaned many trees from streams with the idea of permitting the flow of water to take a straighter line and, therefore, cause less bank erosion. Mr. Sera said he agrees with the gentleman who said that the Soil Conser- vation Service is doing a fine job. He also thinks that the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service is doing a good job. He said that if these services had additional funding, they could do a lot more to help the farmers correct those situations which they cannot correct from their own pockets. He then indicated that a very nice piece of paper explained that certain farmland will be exempt and fences will not be required. He went on to say that a long time ago a man came from Germany with one of these pieces of paper that wasn't very good. He added that Mr. Robertson, in his very good intentions, presented these intentions, but he asked where they are documented in the ordinance. He stated that t0 or 15 years from now people may not be as sensitive to farmers as Mr. Robertson, and they could interpret the ordinance in a completely different way. He said that the ordinance could be extremely dangerous. He, therefore, urged the Board that if it does want to adopt the ordinance, he would suggest that Board members get together with some of the farmers for discussion to implement and learn more about the practices that farmers are using. Next, he said that when those modifications are presented, and the developments are further regulated, then this may be a good ordinance. He strongly urged the Board not to accept this ordinance as it stands. Mr. Todd Merckel spoke on behalf of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club. He said that he was going to comply with Mr. Bowie's request, and he would not read his entire statement since the Board members already have a copy of it (on file). He noted that he wanted to support this ordinance because it is so simple. He added that the most effective and the least expensive way to maintain the quality of the environment is to preserve nature's own filtering systems, and he believes this Ordinance is a perfect example of that. He pointed out that all this ordinance requires is that there be a 100 foot buffer maintained on each side of perennial streams. As long as those buffers are maintained, everything else is irrelevant, and nothing else applies. He also mentioned that the buffer can be reduced to 25 feet if best management practices are followed. He said that a lot of time has been spent on preparing the Best Management Practices manual and farmers have been involved in the development of this manual. He remarked that in the manual it is specifically stated that no one practice shall be required, so fencing cannot be required. In addition, Mr. Merckel thinks that it is important to note that Albemarle County does not have the legal authority to require farmers to fence, and it would be illegal for the County to pass an ordinance that required fencing, so the fear of fencing is totally unwar- ranted. He also believes that it is important to note that agriculture is the largest source of nonpoint or runoff pollution. He added that development is second, although it is growing fast. He thinks that one of the benefits of this ordinance is that it applies to all sources of runoff pollution. He noted that a 100 foot buffer protects the streams from runoff pollution regardless what the source of that pollution is. He said that this ordinance June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 35) 291 will have some effect on both agricultural runoff and runoff that is due to development. He went on to say that, until this point, all of the attempts to control erosion runoff pollution have been voluntary. However, enrollment in these programs has been poor. He added that according to the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, in 1990 only 43 farms received assis- tance from Federal programs, and 12 from State programs out of the 1550 farms on record. He noted that this is not even one percent of the farms in the district, and not ail of the money was spent. He said that only $2000 has been trimmed from these budgets so that hopefully, in the future, farmers will be able to take advantage of these programs in complying with this ordinance. He stated that it is clear that agriculture contributes a large percentage to the pollution entry into the County's water, and it is also clear that the efforts to encourage voluntary pollution reductions have only been minimally successful. He clarified that the goal of the ordinance is not to restrict people from using their land, but to keep the effects of that use out of the water. He mentioned that another big concern is huge bureaucracy of which everyone seems to be afraid. He does not see a danger of that, and he stated that Mr. Scharer has mentioned a huge cost for counties that are near the Chesapeake Bay to enforce the ordinances. He does not think the number is a legitimate number to be used at this meeting because those counties are next to the Chesapeake Bay, they have to meet many more requirements, and obviously it costs them a lot more to make sure that those ordinances are enforced. He added that this is a simple ordinance and it should not take a huge bureauc- racy to enforce it. He said that he had always hated the argument against implementing an ordinance. He pointed out that many people at tonight's meeting stated that this ordinance does not bother them, but it opens the door for more ordinances. He noted that if it is decided to pass an ordinance a year from now or 15 years from now that is more restrictive than this one or which is unreasonable, then these people will have an argumant. He does not think, however, that they have a legitimate argument against this particular ordinance. Mr. Perkins inquired if a statement of clarification could be made by someone from the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District about the funds that are received by the District, how much of those funds were spent and how much money was left. Ms. Alison Sappington, a conservation specialist for the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, stated that she does not have the exact numbers with her. She indicated, however, that last year there was approxi- mately $54,000 in cost share funds and the TJSWCD approved about 80 percent of the farmers who requested assistance. She noted, though, that there is a waiting list. She added that after many cancellations, all of the farmers who applied for the cost share funds were approved. She stated that approximately $12,000 remained in the funds, and were rolled back to this year. Mr. Perkins wondered what these funds included. Ms. Sappington replied that these funds included cost share funds for best management practices. She indicated that the leftover funds are due to cancellations which related to farmers who signed up for practices, but never put them into use. Mr. Perkins stated that there were a lot of farmers who did not get the money that they requested. Ms. Sappington responded that the original process approved funds for approximately 80 percent of the farmers who applied, and there were 20 percent of the farmers who were not approved. She added that as there were cancellations later in the year, more farmers were approved. Mr. Bowie wondered if the farmers who were approved after the cancella- tions were from the original 20 percent who had not originally been approved. Ms. Sappington agreed that this was correct. Mr. Bowie then asked how many farmers, of those who applied, were turned down out of the 100 percent. Ms. Sappington replied that 100 percent was eventually approved. She clarified that by saying that a lot of times approv- al was done later in the year, and the farmers had already made plans not to take part in the practices. Mr. Bowie said that the public hearing would continue, unless other members of the Board had questions. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 36) 292 Mr. Joseph Jones, Route 2, Crozet, spoke next. He said that he had heard several figures mentioned such as the fact that three or four percent of the County is in cropland. He added that on the other hand there is 96 or 97 percent that is in grassland or hayland, and it has already been pointed out that a lot of these farms are already farmed with BMP's. He stated that it was mentioned that agriculture is the biggest, single nonpoint source of pollution, and yet when pollution is mentioned, it has to be distinguished between chemical and sediment pollution. He pointed out that some people have addressed sediments, but there has been very little said about the chemical pollution. He noted that in the Spring, urban, suburban and city homeowners put large concentrations of nitrogen on their lawns. He would guess that the concentration is three to five times higher than farmers have on their crop- land. He does not feel that there is any data supporting where the chemical pollution is really coming from. He wondered if it is coming from farmers who are putting their chemicals on cropland or if more is coming from hayland. He noted that there are different amounts of runoff according to the use of the land. He stated that it has been brought out that only three percent of the land in the County is in crops, so 97 percent of the land does not have a problem. He, therefore, feels that this is an undue regulation. He added that it has been mentioned at this meeting about a 25 foot buffer strip. He went on to say that in the White Hall area in the western part of the County, there are a lot of 25 foot strips that are in a permanent disturbed state, and they are the rural roads. He stated that after thunderstorms, he sees much more sediment runoff from the rural roads than he does from any of the grass- land or cropland. He said that most of the roads include hills that are on more than a seven percent grade, and the roads need to be tarred and graveled. He thinks that if money is going to be spent for reducing sediment in the stream~, then it would be better to spend the money in paving some of the unpaved roads and reducing the sediments in that manner. Mr. Hitchcock, from Keswick, stated that this ordinance is chasing the wrong problem. He said that so much of the land is already using best manage- ment practices and, he thinks that "a meat axe is being used to kill a spi- der.'' He commented that he came originally from the Great Lakes area, and a while back everybody was saying that it would soon be possible to walk across Lake Erie. He stated that there is good fishing in Lake Erie now, and fish can be caught also in the Cuyahoga River that was notorious as being the river that caught on fire. He said that these results came about by not doing anything with agriculture, but, instead, it was found that the cause of all the pollution was from a few major plants that were cleaned up. He went on to say that most of it was coming from small municipalities and broiler runs from disposal plants in the big municipalities. Once this pollution was under control, Mr. Hitchcock said that Lake Erie came back to life. He noted that nothing needed to be done with the farmers because they were already doing a good job. He stated that the shores of Lake Erie are heavily cropped farm- land. He said that the farms were not the problem, and he does not think that they are the problem here. He thinks that this ordinance can be forgotten, and a much better job can be done of controlling erosion if the runoff from roads is considered, septic tanks do not drain into the creeks and if other things are considered that are sincere problems. He reiterated that the farmers are doing a good job, and most of the land is now in grass. He won- dered why there is a reason for concern. Mr. Frank Coles, a farmer of slightly more than 1000 acres southwest of Scottsville and another 300 plus acres in Buckingham, apologized for his lack of knowledge of this ordinance. He added that he learned about it at 6:00 a.m. when he got a call from one of his neighbors. He said that what little he has gotten from the ordinance, he gleaned during the last 40 minutes while he was sitting at this meeting. He commented that the ordinance seems to be written by a man who operates a desk and lives in a townhouse. Mr. Coles went on to say that this man has dipped his quill pen in naivete rather than experience. He mentioned that he wanted to tell the Board about some of the problems that are inherent. He said that most of the streams on his property come from the many springs where the water flows after a rain when it is trapped on top of a bed of rock under anywhere from two to ten feet of soil. He noted that these springs run down a ravine, and those ravines run out of the fields and into the woods. He said that these little streams run into a larger stream which bisects his property and runs through it for approximately a mile. He added that this ordinance would require him to form a buffer strip two miles in length on his property through what is now woods. He can say June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 37) 293 from 60 years of walking through the woods, that there isn't a lot of grass there, because of everything that falls from the trees such as dead limbs, leaves, etc., and there is no sunshine there. He stated that if there is a stream that is running through the woods, there is no grass along the stream banks. He pointed out that the ordinance indicates that natural vegetation should be left. He said that natural vegetation along the stream banks is polkweed and thistle, if something is not done about it. He stated that these are all stalk plants and don't have much of a root nest and don't hold back the water flow, and they don't filter as well as a bed of fescue which will not grow in the woods. He wondered how he is supposed to get a 100 foot buffer along a stream where it is now shaded by some very nice shade trees which his cattle enjoy in the summer because the trees give them shade, and in the winter, they break the wind. He believes that a 100 foot buffer would be difficult for him to have, and he said that it would also be tough to find a professional forester to show him which trees to cut, etc. He said that the ordinance is an absolutely impractical, ridiculous thing, but the Board might want to implement it in all sincerity and good conscience. He commented that a lot of people may want to do that. He reiterated again that the ordinance is impractical and that beef will be $14 a pound if farmers have to comply with these regulations. He said it is not feasible. He added that if Board members want to do something about pollution they should start at the point where it begins, and that is birth control. He said that as long as it is the philosophy of this Nation to subsidize bastardy and keep on pouring out more people that can't be supported by their progenitors, then there will be a lot of pollution. He added that pollution in streams, lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, in which he has fished and swam for many years, does not come primarily from agricultural lands which have built in filters, but it comes primarily from the cities. He said that pollution comes not from natural sources but from unnatural sources. He thinks that this is where legislation needs to direct its attention and not to agricultural lands that are the pride and the source of feeding this Nation. He added that the lands brought most everybody here, and those who are taking care of the lands and are charged with the stewardship of those lands have a much greater interest in them than the people occupying the townhouses. He said, again, that this ordinance is impractical, and he urged the Board to reject it. Mr. Shackelford stated that he raises cattle on approximately 370 acres at Stony Point. He said that some well meaning supporters of this ordinance have seemed tonight to feel that farmers need to be prevented from losing their topsoil and fertilizer. He attested that farmers cannot afford to do that anyway. He added that to maintain a 100 foot buffer strip costs money; a lot of things cost farmers money. He said that he is one of the lucky ones who received some help from the Soil Conservation Service recently for some things that were best management practices. He mentioned cost sharing, and said that it is indeed a share, and the share that is left is expensive. He pointed out that an earlier speaker in favor of the ordinance feared that the County would lose its open space if something was not done. He said that it seems to him that if more regulations are put on farmers who can't afford a whole lot now, that will only hasten the urbanization of the County, and he would hate to see that happen. Since there was no one else who wished to speak, Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing at 9:42 p.m. Mrs. Humphris stated that a lot of things have been said at this meeting tonight, and a lot of information spread about this last year. She indicated that every time she has seen it, she has been totally baffled about why it continues to be spread about in the face of lack of support from fact. She went on to say that because of that she would like to say some things from her point of view. She really feels that in order that everybody deals appropri- ately with these present problems in the County, whatever they might be, that it is necessary to have a good understanding of the past. She said that for more than 15 years, Albemarle County, at the absolute insistence of its citizens and in response to its obligation to protect the public's health, safety and welfare, has worked diligently to enact legislation for the protec- tion of its water supplies throughout this County. She went on to say that expert guidance in this endeavor was provided by (She had not planned to read the list, but it seems that everybody needs to be refreshed on this matter.) the initial Water Quality Management Study of the Rivanna Reservoir and its watershed, 1975 to 1977; the development and implementation of the Runoff June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 38) 294 Control Ordinance in 1977; the Environmental Protection Agency Reservoir Restoration Demonstration Project to evaluate agricultural and residential BMP's 1977 to 1979; the Environmental Protection Agency State Water Control Board Program to reevaluate the annual nutrient budget; the revised Runoff Control Ordinance Methodology to evaluate institutional approaches to BMP implementation 1977 to 1982; and the EPA State Water Control Board, Phase Two, Reservoir Restoration Project to implement agricultural and roadway best management practices 1981 to 1986. She noted that these studies provided the data concerning the extent of the eutrophic state of the South Rivanna Reser- voir and provided recommendations and direction for an upgraded water manage- ment plan and implementation of agricultural and roadway best management practices. She said that as a result of having the problems defined and soiutions recommended, Albemarle County took these actions. Mrs. Humphris said that first zonings were changed in all of the County's watersheds. Secondly, ordinances were enacted which were the Runoff Control and Soil Erosion ordinances which established plans to help control nonpoint source pollution and sedimentation caused by development. She pointed out that the Crozet Sewer interceptor was constructed t° eliminate the major sources of pollution. Allof these efforts were made to protect the County's precious surface water supplies. She said that Albemarle County's Runoff Control Ordinance is considered to be one of the most advanced local ordi- nances for the protection of public drinking water in the United States. Mrs. Humphris remarked that the major goal of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1989 to 2010, is, "Protect the County's surface water and groundwater supplies for the benefit of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, the Town of Scottsville, and downstream interests." She noted that the Comprehen- sive Plan suggests, as a strategy to, "... review and analyze the Wwatershed Management Plan and recommend full implementation of the Plan through existing or new water supply watershed regulations." She said that the Plan calls for continued support of the Chesapeake Bay initiatives. She stated that under the heading of unfinished business in the implementation of this part of the Plan dealing with agriculture's contribution to the County's water pollution and sedimentation problems, this was not only for the benefit of the people of Albemarle County but also for the Commonwealth of Virginia as a whole. Mrs. Humphris said she believes that the County must do the following things. First, the facts must be focused upon, and not charges or personali- ties. Secondly, she thinks that the County must focus on the problem and the problem is, how to control nonpoint source pollution at the waterways. She then quoted from a Water Management Study, which stated that "the 1979 water- shed study concluded that much of the severe stream, bank erosion is associated with man's activities in the watershed, especially development, roadways, cropland and pasture land. Reduction of nonpoint source pollution requires comprehensive land use control throughout the watershed." She said that although point source pollution which contributes only approximately ten percent of the total pollution has been substantially dealt with, a large portion of the remaining 90 percent that dealt with nonpoint source pollution impacted heavily on water quality as a result of agricultural land use. She went on to say that the Study indicated that, "pasture. land contributed about 17 percent of the sediment loading to the reservoir, cropland contributed about 33 percent and agricultural activities, including cropland and pasture land, contributed about 27 percent of the phosphorous loading to the reser- voir.'' She then quoted, "the in-depth investigation of the stream bank erosion along the MechumRiver indicates that pasture and cropland are the main cause of the stream bank erosion. Agricultural activities including pasture and cropland accounted for 76 percent of the observable stream bank erosion problem areas." Thirdly, she said that it must be recognized that Albemarle County has had a watershed manageg~nt plan which is based on scien- tific studies for more than ten years and that this resource protection area initiative has been in the works for a long time with a great deal of oppor- tunity for public input and involvement. She added a fourth comment that it must be recognized that voluntary use of Best Management Practices has not been as successful as it was hoped, with a very small participation rate. She said that although at least 50 percent of the farms have some sort of plan, there is no requirement or compliance. Fifth, she said that it must be recognized that Best Management Practices benefit the farmer aswell as benefitting water resources. She said that, sixth, it must be recognized that according to the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, the soil and water quality conservation plans in the Water Resource Protection June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 39) 295 Ordinance will be comprehensive plans including soil erosion control, nutrient management and best management components and will serve as one consolidated plan making a farmer eligible for and in compliance with the programs allevi- ating the current piecemeal approach. Seventh, she added that it must be - recognized that grasslands and haylands, over 90 percent of the County's agricultural land is exempted from this ordinance if BMP's are used. Eight, she said it must be recognized that cropland affected by this ordinance is only 13 percent of Albemarle's total cropland. She went on to say that it must be recognized that with the possible buffer reduction of the cropland to 25 feet, only 353 acres of crop]and, of the almost 11,000 total acres of cropland in the County are affected. Mrs. Humphris noted that it should be recognized that this relatively simple ordinance will provide significant protection to Albemarle's streams, even though it is a minimal plan and far from ideal. She said, too, that it must be recognized that the tiered approach which allows the agricultural buffer to be reduced from 100 feet to 25 feet was endorsed by the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation when the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act was passed. She asked that it be recognized that cost share funds are available to farmers to implement best management practices and that these funds have remained under-utilized, which is an indication of the ineffectiveness of a voluntary program. She said that it must be recognized that under the proposed ordi- nance, the staff of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District would work with the farmers to implement BMP's and develop soil and water quality conservation plans. She added that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a Resolution of Intent in May, 1990, more than a year ago, to designate resource protection areas. She said that since that time, an ordinance has been constructed with every opportunity for public input. She stated that if this ordinance is adopted, it will be of tremendous value to Albemarle County in protecting its water quality for all of its citizens. She commented that the ordinance will also help to protect water quality downstream from Albemarle to the Chesapeake Bay, and therefore, the Bay, itself. She said that all of these bodies of water are of inestimable value to the future of everyone. Mrs. Humphris remarked that, given these facts, she intends to urge this Board of Supervisors to adopt the Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance. Mr. Perkins said that anytime an ordinance is passed, it has to be asked what the ordinance will do for the County and what benefits can be expected° He said that the real question is how those benefits can be measured.. He does not believe there is anything in place that, if this ordinance is passed, will show in the future what kind of job the ordinance is doing. He suggested that the implementation of the ordinance be postponed for at least a year, that expectations be assessed, and that farmers be relied upon to do a voluntary job of complying with BMP's. He noted that the forestry industry all over the State of Virginia has a voluntary best management practices program. He stated that there are always, however, some renegades who do not do what they are supposed to do, but most loggers comply with the BMP's. He said that the loggers are checked by the Department of Forestry which is the agency in charge of implementing the BMP's, and the loggers are graded. This infor~ma- tion is then supplied to the State of Virginia. He noted that if there are not certain improvements made on a yearly basis, then the loggers are faced with regulatory BliPs, and that is something that loggers do not want. He suggested that the problem areas be identified and rather than spend money to enact ordinances, that the County use the money to help the farmer construct things such as farm ponds, watering troughs, revegetation of stream banks and riprapping of critical areas along the stremmm. He asked that something constructive be done, rather than spending money on ordinances. He moved that this ordinance be postponed for a year and that voluntary Blip methods be used. Mr. Bowie stated that a motion has been made to postpone adoption of this ordinance for a year while voluntary compliances are being tested and measured. He asked if there was a second to the motion. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mrs. Humphris commented to the members of the Board that this ordinance has been postponed nuraerous times. She said that it would be good if there did not have to be speed limits and other kinds of regulations, but it has been proven that it cannot be done. She added that this ordinance is needed, and she is certainly going to vote against Mr. Perkins' motion, because she feels so strongly that this ordinance is long overdue. She noted that develop- ment has been regulated stringently in terms of point and nonpoint source June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 40) 296 pollution, and she thinks that this ordinance is the next major step, and it needs to be taken now. Mr. Way answered that he understands what Mrs. Humphris is saying. He said, however, that he is going to support Mr. Perkins' motion. He noted that he has not supported this ordinance since its inception. He has voted against it both times, and if there was a motion to vote against it now, he would vote against it. He added that he feels this way for a lot of reasons. He said that, as in every ordinance that has ever been passed, the Board is always put in the position of how much regulation has to be imposed upon the citizens. He went on to say that the longer he sits on this Board, the more he sees the need for some regulation, but he also sees more and more need for less regula- tion. He commented that one would think that someone who was not in favor of this ordinance was opposed to clean water. He thinks that most people will take care of the land. He believes that Mr. Perkins is right, and that something needs to be done only about the people who are not doing what they are supposed to do. He said that he is almost ready to leave this Board, and he is not going to leave this Board as being in favor of another ordinance for more regulations. Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. Perkins' Point that the County needs to be more result-oriented. He is concerned as to where this ordinance will go if it is approved. Another concern is what the County has done with the ordinances already adopted, particularly ordinances such as the Runoff Control Ordinance and the development aspects. He said tha~ when developments are built, they are supposed to have no more runoff after completion of the development than before it started. He is concerned about how ordinances have been enforced, and how staff has monitored this type of situation. He thinks that enforce- ment and monitoring need to be done to see what the results are. He will not support Mr. Perkins' motion, however, because he is willing to go on record as saying that if there are funds that are needed to help people in the cost sharing program, then the Board should seriously consider doing that. He said that he is talking about results, and the results are going to cost some money, not for bureaucracy, but for implementation of what he thinks are important ordinances. He believes that th%s ordinance is a first step. He does not see this ordinance as being a "be all and end all." He believes, however, that positive results should be d~anded, and the County is willing to work with the people who are the most involved to see that this happens. He does not think that this can be done by backing away from what is before this Board tonight. Mr. Bowie explained, again, that the motion was made to delay for one year the adoption of this ordinance. He asked that the Clerk call the roll. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins and. Mr. Way. NAYS: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, *Bowie and Mrs. Humphris. ' *When Mr. Bowie's name was called during the roll call, he stated that he was going to discuss the situation immediately prior to his vote. He noted, however, that, at this point, it will make no difference which way he votes because the results will be the same. He said that he was going to oppose the motion, and he wanted to proceed with resolving the issue tonight. He pointed out that the reason that his vote makes no difference is that if he supports the motion the vote will be three to three, and it will kill the motion. However, if he votes against the motion, the vote will be four to two and that will also kill it. He said that it is easy to get up and point the finger at everybody else who is doing worse than others. He added that it is true that most people aren't doing anything wrong, so they will not have anything to worry about. He apologized to the Board for interrupting the vote, but he said that he was going to vote, "no." Mrs. Humphris immediately moved that this Board adopt the Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance as advertised for public hearing tonight. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. He said that he had no quarrel with Mr. Hitchcock, Mr. Davis, Mr. Coles or anyone in this room who practices farming. It is his sincere belief that of all the people in the County that June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 41) 297 don't need regulations, it is the farmers. He said that the farmers who are at the meeting probably follow every practice that is in the proposed ordi- nance. He noted that it is the same way when there are additional development controls on developers and additional zoning controls on land. He added that the people who appear to speak against what is happening are generally fully in compliance with the proposed regulations anyway. He added, however, that the County is forced to regulate to the lowest common denominator, and the lowest common denominator is the person who rapes the land developmentally. He pointed out that the law says that everyone has to be treated equally. He said that he is in the unfortunate position of having to vote for things that regulate good people who are doing a good job. He added that this is a very difficult thing for him to do, but he feels that the benefits of this ordi- nance are so great that they outweigh the inconvenience to some. He went on to say that the measures have to be in place to go after the worst offenders so that controls can be brought, not only to this problem, but to the other problems with pollution that Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris mentioned such as urban pollution, development and all aspects of it. This is just an addi- tional tool to use. Mr. Perkins said that he had some questions about the ordinance and the Memorandum of Understanding. He called attention to Number Six, under the "Role of the Locality" in the Memorandum of Understanding which is the proce- dure that requires landowners to prove compliance with the ordinance. He asked how a landowner is supposed to do this. Mr. Robertson replied that he could not answer the question definitively. He said, however, that the Memorandum of Understanding was included in the Board Members' packets as a sample that was provided by the State. He thinks that in terms of requiring landowners to prove compliance with the ordinance, as far as the development scenario goes, it would fit in with the site plan review process. He added that the ordinance speaks to delineating the re- source protection area on site plans and indicating where the boundaries are, etc. He stated that relating to agriculture, it would be an agreement with the district to supply some informational reporting to the locality on plant implementation. He thinks that this would speak to that type of reporting in terms of the district supplying the locality with information on who has drafted plans and the tracking of those plans. He noted, however, that the language would not have to be verbatim as it is in the Memorandum of Under- standing. Mr. Perkins then asked about Number Eight under the "Role of the Locali- ty'' in the Memorandum of Understanding, relating to 'the locality working to obtain necessary technical and financial assistance for implementation of the ordinance. He wondered to what necessary technical and financial assistance the Memorandum is referring. Mr. Robertson m~swered that in terms of person- nel in the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, there is some existing staff. He said it has been suggested that the conservation specialists' responsibilities be redirected toward doing more conservation planning work. He added that certainly there are a number of other grant programs from the Division of Soil and Water Conservation. He would consider that Number Eight is referring to a means of going after those funds. Next, Mr. Perkins mentioned Page Three, Section Five, of the ordinance where it refers to a map. He asked Mr. Robertson if a certain map was the one referred to in the ordinance. Mr. Robertson replied that the next section designates what the resource protection area is by description. He added that 'the maps are intended to be a tool for the landowner to use in locating his property on the tax map at a 600 scale to see where the boundary is, but the maps would probably be deve- loped at that scale. He said that it has been discussed with the Planning Department about producing the maps, and the 600 scale would indicate where the buffer area is. He went on to say that the map referred to by Mr. Perkins would not make such an indication. He said that it is an overestimation of perennial streams, and United States Geological Survey Maps would have to be used to map perennial streams as shown on those maps. Mr. Perkins clarified Mr. Robertson's comments by saying that the map has not been developed at this point. Mr. RobertSon agreed. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 42) 298 Mr. Perkins then discussed Section Eight of the ordinance where it relates to removing trees six inches and larger. He next noted that Section 12-B lists an exemption for silvicultural activity. He asked what is to prevent a landowner from saying that he is practicing silviculture whenever he cuts a tree. Mr. Robertson replied that this section is referencing commer- cial harvesting of timber for forestry operations. Mr. Perkins pointed out that silviculture does not have to bepracticed only in commercial situations. Mr. Robertson answered that the ordinance refers to the advice of the silviculturist or a professional forester in terms of thinning activities of trees. He said that the idea of preserving trees of six inches or greater size relates to trying to keep a forested buffer area where one exists and removing dead, diseased and dying trees as acknowledged in terms of getting deadwood out of that area. Mr. Perkins replied that cost estimates have been given to the Board on the enactment of this ordinance. He asked that Mr. Robertson repeat those costs. Mr. Robertson responded that the initial cost estimates for the ordinance suggested that consideration should be given to the appropriation of funds for the work of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation Dis- trict that include local travel, maps, farm plan products to assist farmers in compliance and educational materials. He said that the approximate total for this was $2000 per year. He noted that the BMP manual development which was the responsibility of the Department of Engineering at a cost of $5000 would not be expended since existing documents have been referenced. He said that engineering review of calculations for runoff control or reduction of the buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet was estimated for engineering review time at $2000 per year. He added that mapping materials and the planning intern money already exists in the Planning Department's budget. He said that in the Office of Watershed Management, it was suggested that an intern be funded to provide additional support at whatever cost an intern would be, which could be no cost. Mr. Perkins asked if the City of Charlottesville would participate in the funding any way other than in Mr. Robertson's salary. Mr. Robertson answered that the City of Charlottesville has not been approached on that matter. Mr. Bowie mentioned that Mr. Coles had said that compliance with this ordinance would require him to cut down his forest and plant grass. Mr. Bowie stated that he believes that this is incorrect and that forest is desired along the streams. Mr. Robertson agreed that Mr. Bowie is correct. Mrs. Humphris mentioned that there is a motion on the floor to adopt the Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance. Mr. Way stated that he felt the Board would be making a mistake to adopt this ordinance° Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. (The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below:) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND A~ND REENACT THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE BY THE ADDITION THERETO OF CHAPTER 19.2 ENTITLED WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Code of Albemarle be amended and reenacted by the addition thereto of chapter 19.2 entitled "Water Resource Protection Areas." Sec. 1. Short Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 43) 299 Sec. 2. Purpose of Chapter. Nonpoint source pollution has been identified as a significant contribution to the degradation of water quality in the tributaries of the Commonwealth, including those in the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect and improve the quality of water resources within Albemarle County by minimizing the effects of human activity upon streams, nontidal wetlands and other water bodies. The intent of this ordinance is to achieve the following: (i) protect existing high quality state waters; (ii) restore other state waters to a condition or quality that will permit all reasonable public uses and will support the propagation and growth of all aquatic life, including game fish, which might reasonably be expected to inhabit them; (iii) safeguard the clean waters of Albemarle County from pollution; (iv) prevent any increase in nonpoint source pollu- tion; (v) reduce existing pollution; and (vi) promote water resource conservation in order to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the present and future citizens of Albemarle County. Sec. 3. Authority. This ordinance is enacted under the authority of sections 2108 and 2110 of Chapter 21, Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia, otherwise referred to as the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Sec. 4. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them by this section: Agricultural lands means those lands used for the planting and harvesting of crops or plant growth of any kind in the open, pasture, hayland,horticulture, orchards, viticulture, dairying, floriculture, or raising of poultry and/or livestock. Best Management Practice (BMP) means a practice or combination of practices, that is determined by a state or designated area-wide planning agency to be the most effective, practical means of prevent- ing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. Buffer area means a component of a resource protection area consisting of an area of natural or established vegetation managed to protect other components of a resource protection area and state waters from significant degradation due to land disturbances. Development means any construction, external repair, land disturb- ing activity, grading, road building, or other activity resulting in a change of the physical character of any parcel of land, except as herein otherwise expressly provided. Flood plain means lands which would be inundated by flood waters in a storm event of a one hundred year return interval as described in Section 30.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Impervious cover means a surface composed of any material that significantly impedes or prevents natural infiltration of water into the soil. Impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to: roofs, buildings, streets, parking areas and concrete or asphalt. Nonpoint source pollution means pollution from diffuse sources carried in stormwater runoff, including but not limited to the follow- ing pollutants: sediment, nutrients, organic and inorganic substan- ces. Nontidal wetlands means those wetlands other than tidal wetlands that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a fre- quency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 44) 300 support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, as defined by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, in 33 C.F.R. 328.3b, dated November 13, 1986. Plan of development means the process for site plan or subdivi- sion plat review to ensure compliance with Section 10.1-2109 of the Code of Virginia and this ordinance, prior to any clearing or grading of a site or the issuance of a building permit. Redevelopment means the process of developing land that is or has been previously developed. Resource Protection Area (RPA) means an area of land at or near a tributary streambank and/or nontidal wetland that has an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological processes it performs or is sensitive to impacts which may result in significant degradation to the quality of state waters. Tributary stream means any perennial stream that is so depicted as a continuous blue line on the most recent U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps (scale 1:24,000). Water-dependent facility means a development of land that cannot exist outside of the resource protection area because of the intrinsic nature of its operation. These facilities include, but are not limited to: 1) the intake and outfall structures of power plants, sewage treatment plants, water treatment plants, and storm sewers; 2) water-oriented recreation areas; 3) boat docks and ramps; and 4) lakes, ponds, and regional stormwater management facilities. Water resources manager means the authorized officer or agent of the county to administer and enforce the provisions of this ordinance. Sec. 5. Application of Ordinance. This ordinance shall apply to all lands identified as resource protection areas as designated by the board of supervisors and shown on the adopted resource protection areas map. The resource protection areas map, together with all explanatory material, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The resource protection areas map shall remain in the office of the water resources manager. Sec. 6. Designation of Resource Protection Areas. (a) The resource protection area includes tributary streams, nontidal wetlands contiguous to tributary streams, and a one hundred (100) foot vegetated buffer area located adjacent to and landward of nontidal wetlands and along both sides of any tributary stream. (b) The resource protection area map shows the approximate location of the buffer area boundary and may be consulted by persons contemplating activities which encroach on this area. Specific delineation of the resource protection area shall remain the responsi- bility of any applicant for a development project or other land use activity. (c) The boundaries of resource protection areas are drawn based on the rebuttable presumption that the lands within those boundaries meet the designation criteria and that those without do not. The water resources manager may exercise judgement in determining site specific boundaries based on more reliable field data developed and examined during the plan of development process. Sec. 7. Permitted Uses. (a) Land development within the resource protection area may be allowed only if it is water dependent or constitutes redevelopment as permitted in the underlying zoning district. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 45) 301 (b) Land disturbance shall be allowed within the resourc~ protection area for water wells, passive recreation access such as pedestrian trails and bicycle paths, and historic preservation and archeological activities. Sec. 8. Buffer Area Requirements. (a) General Provisions: To minimize the adverse effects of land use activities on state waters and aquatic life, a one hundred (100) foot buffer area of vegetation that is effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff shall be retained if present or established where it does not exist. A buffer area not less than one hundred (100) feet in width shall be located adjacent to and landward of tributary streams and nontidal wetlands contiguous to tributary streams. A combination of buffer area not less than fifty (50) feet in width and appropriate best management practices located landward of the buffer area which collectively achieve water quality protection, pollutant removal, and water resource conservation at least the equivalent of the one hundred (100) foot buffer area may be employed in lieu of the one hundred (100) foot buffer area if approved by the water resources manager. Review of buffer area reductions other than those for agriculture shall be made in accordance with the Guidance Calculation Procedure, Appendix C, in the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Manual. (b) Performance Criteria: In order to maintain the functional value of the buffer area, indigenous vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Removal of vegetation shall be allowed only in accordance with the following provisions: trees may be pruned or removed as necessary to provide limited sight lines and vistas, provided that where removed, they shall be replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion and filter- ing nonpoint source pollution from runoff. Dead, diseased, or dying trees may be removed and silvicultural thinning, may be conducted based upon the best available technical advice of a professional forester. Trees of six (6) inches diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater shall be preserved. Access paths shall be constructed and surfaced so as to effectively control erosion. (c) Exceptions to buffer area requirements: (1) When the application of the buffer area would result in the loss of a building site on a lot or parcel recorded prior to June 19, 1991, modifications to the width of the buffer may be allowed in accordance with the following criteria: a. modifications to the buffer shall be the minimum necessary to achieve a reasonable buildable area for a principle structure and necessary utilities; b. where possible, an area equal to the area encroach- ing the buffer area shall be established elsewhere on the lot or parcel in a way to maximize water quality protection; and c. in no case shall the reduced portion of the buffer area be less than fifty (50) feet in width except as provided for in subsection (d) below. (2) When the application of the buffer area would preclude reasonable access or prohibit the practicable construction, installa- tion and maintenance of water and sewer facilities, encroachment into the buffer area shall be allowed in accordance with the following criteria: a. encroachment shall be the minimum necessary to provide for the proposed access or facilities; June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 46) 302 b. best management practices which effectively miti- gate the encroachment shall be utilized; and c. a water quality impact assessment shall be submit- ted in accordance with section 9 of this chapter. (d) Agricultural buffer area requirements: (1) On agricultural lands, the agricultural buffer area shall be managed to prevent concentrated flows of surface water from breaching the buffer area. Agricultural lands in hayland or pasture land uses shall be deemed to comply with buffer area requirements as long as that portion of the hayland or pasture land within the one hundred (100) foot buffer is managed in accordance with the Virginia State Water Control Board Best Management Practices Handbook for Agriculture, Planning Bulletin 316. This handbook is intended to provide a list of options for meeting buffer area requirements. Without preference to a given practice, a selected best management practice or combination of practices may be used to achieve the equivalent of the one hundred (100) foot buffer. The agricultural buffer area may be reduced as follows: a. To a minimum width of fifty (50) feet when best management practices which meet specifications of the Virginia State Water Control Board Best Management Practices Handbook for Agriculture are applied on the adjacent land, provided that the combination of the reduced buffer area and best management practices achieve water quality protection, pollutant removal, and water resource conservation at least the equivalent of the one hundred (100) foot buffer area; b. To a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet when a soil and water quality conservation plan, as approved by the Thomas Jeffer- son Soil and Water Conservation District, has been implemented on the adjacent land, provided that the portion of the plan being implemented for the resource protection area achieves water quality protection at least the equivalent of that provided by the one hundred (100) foot buffer in the opinion of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conserva- tion D~strict Board. Such plan shall be based on the Virginia State Water Control Board Best Management Practices Handbook for Agriculture and accomplish water quality protection consistent with this ordi- nance. Sec. 9. Water Quality Impact Assessment. (a) Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the water quality impaat assessment is to: (i) identify the impacts of proposed development on water quality and lands within resource protection areas; (ii) ensure that, where development does take place within resource protection areas, it will be located on those portions of a site and in a manner that will be least disruptive to the natural functions of resource protection areas; (iii) provide for administrative relief from the requirements of this ordinance when warranted and in accordance with the provisions contained herein; and (iv) specify mitigation which will address water quality impacts. (b) Water Quality Impact Assessment Required: A water quality impact assessment shall be required for any proposed development within a resource protection area, including any buffer area modification or reduction in buffer area but not including agricultural buffer reductions. There shall be two levels of water quality impact assessments: a minor assessment and a major assess- ment. (c) Minor Water Quality Impact Assessment: A minor water quality impact assessment shall be required for any development which results in land disturbance of greater than June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 47) 303 two thousand five hundred (2500) square feet but less than ten thou- sand (10,000) square feet within resource protection areas and requires any modification or reduction of the landward fifty (50) feet of the one hundred (100) foot buffer area. A minor assessment must demonstrate that the remaining buffer area and necessary best manage- ment practices will effectively achieve pollutant removal equivalent to the one hundred (100) foot buffer. A request for a minor assess- ment shall include a site drawing to scale which shows the following: (1) Location of the resource protection area, including the one hundred (100) foot buffer area; (2) Location and nature of the proposed encroachment into the buffer area, including: paved areas, areas of clearing or grad- ing, location of any structures, drives or other impervious cover; and sewage disposal systems or reserve drainfield sites; (3) Type and location of best management practices to mitigate the proposed encroachment. (d) Major Water Quality Impact Assessment: A major Water quality impact assessment shall be required for any development which results in ten thousand (10,000) square feet of land disturbance or greater within resource protection areas and requires modification or reduction of the landward fifty (50) feet of the one hundred (100) foot buffer area. A major water quality impact assessment shall include the elements listed for a minor water quality impact assessment, and the following additional information: (1) Existing topography, soils and hydrology of the site; (2) Estimation of pre- and post-development nonpoint source pollutant loads in runoff; (3) Estimation of the percent increase in impervious surface on the site, including the type of paving materials to be used; (4) The location of drainage structures and materials, including, but not limited to, the size and composition of pipes and inlets; (5) The location of any stream crossings, including the design of the crossing and mitigative measures to be used during and after construction; and (6) Evidence of all necessary local, state and federal permits for encroachment into flood plains, nontidal wetlands, and other environmentally sensitive areas. (e) Submission and Review Requirements: (1) Information required for water quality impact assess- ments shall be submitted to the water resources manager for review. Ail information required for major water quality impact assessments shall be certified as complete and accurate by a professional engi- neer, certified land surveyor or landscape architect. (2) Upon the completed review of a water quality impact assessment, the water resources manager will determine if any proposed modification or reduction of the buffer area is consistent with this ordinance. Upon determining that the impacts have not been adequately mitigated, the water resources manager shall require additional mitigation as a condition of approval of the development, or shall disapprove the proposal as inconsistent with this ordinance. Failure of the water resources manager to render a decision within sixty (60) days of the the submittal of a water q~,~lity impact assessment shall be deemed to constitute approval. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 48) 304 Sec. 10. Appeals. In the event that the water resources manager renders a decision under the provisions of this ordinance which the applicant deems unacceptable, the applicant may seek review of such decision from the board of supervisors. Such review shall be made by filing a request therefor in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision. Sec. 11. Redevelopment. The lawful use of a building or structure which existed on June 19, 1991, and which is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance may be continued in accordance with Section 6 of the Albe- marle County Zoning Ordinance. Replacement of a building or structure due to damage may be conducted within the building footprint of the existing building or structure. Expansion shall be allowed only to meet specific needs for health, safety and welfare. In no case shall the repair, reconstruc- tion or improvement of a nonconforming structure be made which exceeds fifty (50) percent of the market value of the structure before the improvement or repair is started. Sec. 12. Exemptions. (a) Public Utilities and Facilities: (1) Construction, installation, operation and maintenance of electric, gas and telephone transmission lines, railroads, and activities of the Virginia Department of Transportation and their appurtenant structures in compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Section 10.1-560 et seq. of the Code of Virginia) or an erosion and sediment control plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board will be deemed to comply with this ordinance. (2) Construction, installation, and maintenance by public agencies of water and sewer lines shall be exempt from this ordinance, provided that: a. to the degree practicable the location of such utilities and facilities shall be outside of resource protection areas; b. no more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to provide for the desired installation; and c. all such construction, installation, and mainte- nance of such utilities and facilities shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local requirements and permits and conducted in a manner that protects water quality. (b) Exemptions for Silvicultural Activities: Silvicultural activities are exempt from the requirements of this ordinance provided that silvicultural activities adhere to water quality protection procedures prescribed by the Virginia Department of Forestry in its "Best Management Practices Handbook for Forestry Operations". Sec. 13. Exceptions. (a) A request for an exception to the requirements of this ordinance shall be made in writing to the water resources manager. shall include a water quality impact assessment. It (b) Exceptions to the requirements of this ordinance may be granted by the water resources manager provided that: (i) exceptions to the requirements shall be the minimum necessary to afford relief; and (ii) reasonable and appropriate conditions upon any exception granted shall be imposed as necessary to preserve the purpose and intent of this ordinance. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 49) 305 (c) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the water resources manager may appeal such decision to the board of supervisors in accordance with Section 10 of this ordinance. Sec. 14. Conflict with other Regulations. In any case where the requirements of this ordinance conflict with any other provision of the Code of Albemarle, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, or existing state or federal regulations, the more stringent standard shall apply. Sec. 15. Penalties. Violation of this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor subject to the general penalty and other provisions of Section 1-6 of the ~ode of Albemarle. Agenda Item No. 12. Meals Tax/Bond Referendum, Discussion of. The following memorandum dated May 31, 1991, was received from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, 3r., County Executive: "For your information, the revenue estimates from a meals tax provid- ed you on May 8, 1991, is the maximum allowed by law due to a Code of Virginia limitation (Section 58.1-383) passed in the 1990 session of the General Assembly. This statute sets an 8.5 percent total tax on meals including the local and state sales tax (currently 4.5 percent) charged in a locality. Therefore, if a meals tax of four percent is passed by referendum in November, 1991, effective for January 1, 1992, the estimated revenue for four months in FY '91-92 would be $0.4 million and $1.4 million in FY '92-93. You should decide in June whether or not to place the meals tax on a referendum for the November General Election. With regard to the meals tax as a revenue source, the School Board has recently recommended that an additional middle school be con- structed at Hollymead. In addition, the School Board authorized a feasibility study of additions to the two existing high schools in order to accommodate additional high school enrollment. Cost of the middle school is currently projected between $8.5 and $9.0 million with annual debt service projected at $0.85 to $0.9 million (this is a reduction in costs from earlier projections due to the ability to construct the school on land currently owned by the County). A decision on whether funding of the middle school through the Virginia Public School Authority bond issue or General Obligation bond issue should be made in June, preferably June 12. In the event you decide to place either of the above issues on the November ballot, staff suggests that you form a committee consisting of two members of the Board of Supervisors, two School Board members and several citizens charged with developing an action agenda for informing the public of this matter." Mr. Tucker noted that a meals tax would be a revenue source for the con- truction of schools, and the most urgent need identified by the Long Range ;chool Planning Committee is a middle school. He said that the School Board, Lt an earlier meeting this month, recommended that an additional middle school ~e constructed on land already owned by the County at Hollymead. He went on .o say that the School Board has also authorized a feasibility study of .dditions at the two high schools. He pointed out that the cost of the middle chool has been reduced from an earlier projection of $8.5 million to $9.0 illion which would generate a debt service need of approximately $850,000 to 900,000 a year. Mr. Way wondered about the reduction in the cost of the middle school to hich Mr. Tucker referred. Mr. Tucker explained that an earlier projection ad been approximately $11.0 million, but now it has been reduced to an amount etWWen $8.5 to $9.0 million. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 50) 306 Mr. Tucker continued with his presentation and stated that the decision will have to be made some time this month on funding the middle school with a meals tax or a general bond referendum. He explained that time was needed in order to go through the proper procedure to get a court order from the circuit court as well as giving adequate notice to the local and state electoral boards so that this item could be included on a referendum in November. He urged the Board, if the Board chooses to go forward with either of these approaches, to make a decision tonight. He said that the matter is before the Board so a decision can be made on how to proceed. Mr. Perkins moved that the question of allowing a meals tax be put on the November ballot. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Bain noted that the meals tax has to be limited to four percent under the new law. Mr. Bain asked that the motion include that the meals tax revenue would be used for capital projects only. He noted that this was done previously when the meals tax was put on the ballot, and he feels that it should be done the same way this time. He said that the Board has not really talked about it this time, but he feels that this will be a question that will come up in the future. Mr. Bowie said that he does not want to put the meals tax on the ballot with the stipulation that the revenues from it can be used for anything. He said, however, that if the public wants it that way, then it is fine. He added that he personally could not support the meals tax unless he knew that it was not going to be used just for more operational spending. He said that it has to be used to reduce the school debt, and primarily it will be used 'to build the new school. He said that he could not support a meals tax or any other tax just to raise money, and he would not want it on the ballot in that way. He went on to say that it is his understanding that it is going for capital improvements, particularly school debt reduction. Mr. Bowerman commented that the meals tax could also be used for debt reduction of the Cale or Agnor-Hurt Elementary schools. Mr. Bowie agreed, and he said that if it is determined later that a middle school will be put in the capital plan, then he would support using the meals tax for this purpose. He would not support it, however, for any kind of operating capital. Mrs. Humphris asked if the motion should include this type of clarifica- tion. Mr. Bowie answered that he is not sure if the State will let the Board say how the money is going to be used. Mr. Bain stated that this was done the last time the question of allowing a meals tax was put on the ballot, but he is not sure that the actual motion included this information. Mr. Bowie suggested that, if everyone agrees, the motion could include how the meals tax revenue would be used. Mr. Perkins said that he would amend the motion. Mr. Bowerman asked if use of the meals tax revenue would be included in the text of the issue that goes before the public. Mr. Bowie replied that he believes that the State decides on the wording of the text. He said that the last time this Board had stipulated that the meals tax revenues would be used for capital projects, but the ballot only included, the question of whether or not there would be a meals tax. Mr. Tucker agreed with Mr. Bowie. Mr. Bain stated that a separate understanding from the motion could be agreed on by the Board. Mrs. Humphris suggested that the two items be sepa- rated just to ensure that there won't be any problems. She said that there could be one motion to say that there will be a meals tax ballot and one motion that specifies that the revenues from the meals tax will be used for capital projects. Mr. Bain asked Mr. St. John if it makes a difference how the Board handles this matter. Mr. St. John answered that he does not think whether the June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 51) 307 matter is decided in one or two motions makes any difference. He went on to say that if it is done in two motions, and the State Electoral Board Secretary indicates that it has to all be put to public notice, then the two motions could be combined. Mr. Bowie said that it would be easier for him to support if it was clearly stated in one motion. Mr. St. 3ohn then stated that he thinks there should be two separate motions. Mr. Bowie repeated that he thinks it would be easier to have one motion that clearly states the issue. He said that sometimes one motion is discussed without the other. He is supporting the motion only if it is for capital projects and school debt reduction. Mr. Bowerman asked if a future Board of Supervisors could be held by this Board's action as to how the meals tax revenues would be used, if the use of the revenues is presented to the voters. He said that some people are going to want to know this. Mr. Bowie commented that it should be part of the referendum, and that is why he thinks that there should be just one motion. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like for the ballot to indicate how the revenues from the meals tax will be used. Mr. St. John remarked that if the referendum spells out the uses for the revenues, then the County would be bound by that until another referendum. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Perkins if he wished to amend his motion to include the stipulation that the meals tax revenues would be used for the one purpose of capital improvements. Mr. Perkins said that he would agree to that stipu- lation in his motion. Mrs. Humphris, as the seconder, agreed to the change in the motion. Mr. Bowerman asked if the actual text of the referendum could be final- ized at a meeting in July without delaying the matter. Mr. Tucker replied that he could try to do this, but he believes that the staff understands the intent of the Board. Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not want to delay the matter, and he would withdraw his comment. Mr. Tucker then said that he understands the Board wants a meals tax tied to capital improvements. He asked if the Board wanted to be specific and just tie it to school improvements or leave it as debt service. Mr. Perkins answered that the meals tax revenues should be tied to capital projects. Mr. Bowie agreed. Mr. Bain agreed, also, and said that ten years from now it may be possi- ble to do other capital projects, and there may not be any more schools' debt because the meals tax revenue may be up to $3~0 or $4.0 million. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that there had been a recommendation that a committee be formed consisting of two Board members, two School Board members and two members from the citizenry to develop an action agenda that would try to sell this program.. He asked the Board if it would like for the staff to go ahead and develop an action agenda for promoting the meals tax. Mr. Bain stated that the Board members are going to have to get out and sell the program if they are expecting this referendum to pass. He said that he does not have any objection to setting up this committee. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would serve on the committee. Mrs. Humphris stated that she would be glad to serve on the committee too. Mr. Bain remarked that all Board members will need to be involved in the discussions and participate. June 19,1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 52) 308 Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Tucker if that was all of the approval that he needed on the two committee members. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." He said that he will start meeting with Mrs[ Humphris and Mr. Bowerman. The School Board will then be requested to appoint two members. The supervisors and School Board _ members can then get together to select or advertise for two members from the citizenry. Mrs. Humphris commented that there have already been promises made from PTO's to help, so this can be used as the base. She suggested that the School Board be informed of its responsibility for its part in the committee as soon as possible. Mr. Tucker agreed. Agenda Item No. 13. First Virginia Bank - Central, Discussion of waivers granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Bain suggested that the discussion of waivers granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals in relation to the First Virginia Bank - Central petition take place in executive session. He noted that this could be a legal matter. Mr. Bowie agreed that this is a legal matter, and suggested that Board discussion be done in executive session, if any Board member wished to ~mke comments. Mr. Bain stated that he would like to discuss the situation. Mr. Bowie indicated that this matter would be discussed in executive session. Agenda Item No. 14a. Appointment: Advisory Council on Aging. There was no name brought forward for appointment. Agenda Item No. 14b. Appointment: Community Services Board. Mrs. Humphris nominated for reappointment to the Community Services Board, Mr. Lloyd E. Barrett, with a term to expire on June 30, 1994. She noted that the Board had received a letter from Mr. James Peterson, Executive Director, who states that Mr. Barrett is currently serving as Chairman of the Region Ten Personnel Committee, and he urges the reappointment of Mr. Barrett. Mr. Way seconded the motion. 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. 14c. Library Board. Mr. Way said Mrs. Shirley Dorrier has indicated that she would be willing to continue serving on the Jefferson- Madison Regional Library Board. He indicated that she serves as Chairman of the Regional Library Board, and he said that she has done an outstanding job. He moved that Mrs. Dorrier be reappointed to the Library Board with a term to expire on June 30, 1995. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. 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. Not Docketed: Mr. Bowerman announced that his appointee for the Charlottesville District member to the Social Services Board, Mrs. Maria Bell, has submitted her resignation to the Social Services Board (see 'letter on file dated May 31, 1991). He said that her resignation was brought about by her continuing education and her inability to attend meetings. He will be having another nomination for that position sometime in July. Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 53) 309 Mr. Bain stated that he would like to have something back from staff regarding how the County monitors, reviews and enforces site development plans once they are put in place, in terms of runoff. He assumes that certifica- tions are received from the engineers on the project, but he wonders what is done to make sure that everything is taken care of in the right manner. He would like some staff input on that situation with some specifics, if possi- ble. He commented that if it costs money for the monitoring, reviewing and enforcing of these plans, then this Board needs to know. He said that if he is the only Board member with this concern, then he will discuss it with Mr. Tucker after the meeting. Mr. Bowerman stated that probably half of the citizen constituent con- tacts that he has are regarding existing approved development and the way that it is proceeding as well as perceived violations, etc. He would definitely concur with Mr. Bain. Mrs. Humphris agreed that hardly a week goes by that somebody doesn't call her in hopes that someone can look at a situation that is happening somewhere in the County. Mr. Way remarked that he had noticed, in some of the information that Board members had received today, an indication that the job of the Gypsy Moth Coordinator would no longer be in existence. He wondered if this is a fact. Mr. Tucker replied, "no." Mr. Bowie stated that he has requests for two executive sessions for two legal matters. Mr. Bain said that one request for an executive session relates to the possible appeal of the First Virginia Bank - Central's variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Bowie stated that the other request for an executive session deals with the discussion of the potential for litigation against Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation. At 10:35 p.m., Mr. Bain moved that the Board go into executive session for those two legal xmtters pursuant to Va. Code Section 2.1-344A.7. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. 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 Board reconvened into open session at 11:50 p.m. Motion was immedi- ately offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE 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. June 19, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 54) 310 VOTE: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. With no further business to come before 'the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned. Chairman