HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 03 90 PC MinutesAPRIL 3, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, April 3, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins;
Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials
present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski,
Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Johnson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of March
20, 1990 were approved as submitted.
Senior Center at Papli Place - Proposal to construct a
10,900 square foot meeting and recreation center on a 1.7
acre portion of Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Parcel 2A. The
center will be served by 106 parking spaces with access from
Pepsi Place. The property is located in the southwestern
corner of the intersection of Pepsi Place and Greenbrier
Drive. Zoned C-1, Commercial in the Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ran Langman. He
explained that the preliminary site plan had expired while
fund raising was taking place. He stated there have been no
changes to the plan.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson noted he was familiar with the project and
moved that the Senior Center at Pepsi Place be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plan shall not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Fire officer approval;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit;
d. Planning Department approval of landscape plan;
5y
April 3, 1900
Page 2
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvements to include a variance of
Virginia Department of Transportation policy to
allow the proposed drainage diversion at structure
,.$x; „
f. Department of Engineering approval of plat for all
required drainage easements;
g. Planning Department approval of technical notes;
h. Staff approval of grading easement documents;
i. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water and sewer plans.
2. A building permit will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a
commercial entrance permit;
3. Administrative approval of final site plan.
4. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Final Fire Official approval -
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously-
SP-909-19 Multi -Channel TV Cable ComUany The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to amend SP-79-32 in
order to allow for a larger building on .63 acres [Section
10.2.200)]. Property is located on the west side of Route
743, 1,000 feet north of Route 631 in the Jack Jouett
Magisterial District. Property is described as Tax Map 45,
Parcel 16A and is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question about screening, Mr.
Fritz explained that issue would be addressed at the time of
site plan review.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mike Smith. He
explained the new building would be adjacent to the existing
structure. He stated none of the existing vegetation would
be disturbed. He stated the existing building would become
the generator building for stand-by power. (Ms. Huckle
later expressed concern about two structures on a small
55
April 3,1990 Page 3
site. Mr. Smith explained the existing building was only 8'
x 10" )
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins asked about height limitation. Mr. Rittenhouse
explained the typical height restrictions of the RA zone
would apply.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted this would be an opportunity to get
some improved screening.
Ms. Huckle asked if the VDOT recommendation would
automatically become a requirement. Mr. Rittenhouse noted
this was a recommendation and staff was not requiring a
commercial entrance because of the low volume of traffic.
Mr. Grimm moved that SP-90-19 for Multi -Channel TV Cable be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
I. Staff approval of site plan;
2. Building size shall be limited to 24' x 30'.
3. Building shall have the exterior appearance of
residential buildings and shall have landscaping, screening
Planting and/or fencing. Trespass fencing and other safety
measures may be required at the time of site plan review.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Mr. Keeler asked that the the record show that these
conditions were in addition to the conditions of the
original special permit, SP-79-32, and address this building
only and in no manner relieve the applicant of height
limitations or any other conditions that were previously
imposed.
The peviously stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
ZMA-990-04 Forest Takea Asgo sates - The applicant is
Petitioning the Board of Supervisors to rezone 3.71 acres
from R-1 Residential to R-6 Residential (Section 33.2.1).
Property is located on Timberwood Parkway north and adjacent
to the existing Arbor Lakes Townhomes in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. Property is described as Tax Map 32,
Parcel 29N2 and is currently zoned R--1, Residential.
S'6
April 3, 1990
AND
Page 4
ZMA-GO-05 Forest Lakeg Associates - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to rezone 2.69 acres
from R-4, Residential to R-6 Residential (Section 33.2.1)-
Property is located on the south side of Route 649
approximately 1/2 mile east of Rt. 29. Property is
described as Tax Map 46B3, Parcel 1 (part of) and is
currently zoned R-4, Residential.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Roudabush. He
stated the plan was within the approved density for the
overall development of Forest Lakes and is part of the
concept to provide a variety of housing. He asked the
Commission to grant staff administrative approval of the
final site plan "which would be in general compliance with
what was submitted with the rezoning application." He noted
there may be minor changes in order to meet the safety and
design criteria for County requirements.
Mr. Steve Runkle, also representing the applicant, noted
there will be 24 units in Phase I.
Mr. Frank Kessler, also representing the applicant,
explained that the small portion purchased from another
person was all wooded and that person had left a buffer of
woods on their property for their own protection.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission_
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that there were two questions before
the Commission: (1) The Zoning Map amendments; and (2)
The applicant's request for administrative approval.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-90-04 and ZMA-90-05 for Forest
Lakes Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval, subject to the applicant's proffer, as stated
in a letter from Mr. Stephen N. Runkle to Mr. Bill Fritz,
dated March 21, 1990, and also that staff be granted
administrative approval of the site plan.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
�7
April 3. 1990
Page 5
SP-90-17 Patricia and Richard Charles - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to allow for a 20-
cottage day camp/boarding camp on 36.2 acres [10.2.2(20)]-
Property is located on the east side of Route 20 South at
Camp Viewmont in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
Property is described as Tax Map 102, Parcel 22A and is
zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Fritz to explain staff's
understanding of the proposed year-round use. Mr. Fritz
explained that he had asked the Zoning Administrator why it
had been classified as a "day-camp/boarding-camp," and she
had explained that it was based on the acreage of the site
and the activities which are offered, e.g, stables, pool,
arts building, etc. He stated it was his understanding it
would be open to either adults or youngsters on a year-round
basis.
It was noted that the reduction in usage mentioned in the
staff report would be minor, i.e. from 150 to 140.
Mr. Jenkins asked what would prevent the cottages from being
rental units. Mr. Fritz explained that the Zoning
Administrator would have to determine that the use no longer
fell into the category of a day -camp. Mr. Rittenhouse noted
he was also concerned about this possibility.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Pat Charles, the
contract purchaser of the property. She explained the
intended use, i.e, to improve the property and winterize the
cabins so that the property could be used on a year-round
basis. Mr. Rittenhouse asked for elaboration on the
proposed year-round use. Ms. Charles reponsed that she
expected winter use to be slow, but she hoped to appeal to
families interested in a camping environment.
There was some question on the part of the Commission as to
exactly how the facility would operate in the winter months.
Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the Commission was trying to
understand how the proposed use was different from a motel.
Ms. Huckle asked if the cabins would be rented by the week.
Ms. Charles responded: "Just by the night; we're hoping to
attract people overnight --to offer lodging and access to the
pool and the grounds, different from a hotel or a motel --to
attract them to the outdoors." Ms. Charles stated the pool
would not be used in the winter. She expected winter
business would be negligable. Ms. Charles stated she did
not envision the facility as a motel though there were
April 3, 1990 Page 6
similarities. She compared it more to a bed and breakfast
where the visitors would have "their own key, their own
room, their own bathroom." (There was some discussion later
as to whether or not the use fit the definition of a bed and
breakfast. Mr. Keeler stated firmly that it did not because
a bed and breakfast takes place in a single family residence
which rents rooms.)
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
(Mr. Fritz informed the Commission of one letter of
objection which he had received and the objection had been
based on a concern about trespassing which has occurred in
the past.)
Ms. Huckle noted that if all the cottages were to be rented,
the amount of traffic would increase considerably because
day campers often arrive by bus.
There was a brief discussion about the history of the use
and whether or not it was a grandfathered use. Mr. Fritz
confirmed that it was a grandfathered use and that it did
not have a special permit.
Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission that recently the uses
of hotel/motel had been removed from special permit
allowances in the RA zone.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if was part of the Commission's task
to determine if it agreed with the proposed designation of
day-came/boarding-camp. Mr. Keeler responded to this
question. He explained that the Zoning Administrator could
not refuse to accept an application, "but when an
application comes before you, the Zoning Administrator's
decision is advisory." Mr. St. John confirmed this was
accurate. Mr. St. John added that the Zoning Administrator
had probably not had the benefit of as much discussion as to
what was actually proposed. He also stated that the Zoning
Administrator had not been able to find grounds on which to
eliminate this from eligibility under the boarding camp
definition, but that had not been an official ruling of the
Zoning Administrator. He advised the Commission: "T think
its your job to determine whether what is actually being
sought here is appropriate for this special use permit."
Mr. Rittenhouse noted he was finding it difficult, based on
the applicant's description, to classify the use as a day--
camp/boarding-camp. He felt it was more along the lines of
4�7
April 3, 1990 Page 7
a motel -type usage. he expressed concern about that type
use in the rural area and also about the issue or precedent.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he, too, was having some difficulty
classifying the use.
There was some discussion about the existing recreational
facilities.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted his concern centered around the year-
round aspect of the use. He indicated he had no problem
with the use as a "true, summer -time day -camp," but he was
concerned with the proposal that would allow drive-in
customers year round. He stated he could not support the
application because he felt approval would "leave us open
for lots of variations throughout the County_"
Mr. Wilkerson agreed.
There was a brief dicussion about other camp -type uses in
the area.
Mr. 5t. Jahn stated it should be determined if the users of
this facility would choose it because of the facilities and
recreation it offers in itself, or if it would just be a
place to sleep while visiting the area for other reasons.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that there are definitions of both
day -camp and boarding -camp in the Ordinance. He read the
fallowing: Day -camp is a "let, tract or parcel of land
operated in either a commercial or non-commercial enterprise
in which seasonal facilities are provided for all or any of
the following: camping, picnicing, boating, fishing,
swimming, outdoor games, and sports and activities
incidential and relating to the foregoing but not including
miniature golf grounds, golf driving ranges and mechanical
amusement devices or permanent structures for housing of
guests." Boarding -camp is "as for day -camp except that uses
and structures for the lodging of guests shall be permitted
in locations appropriate for extensive outdoor recreation."
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that this implied that it was a
seasonal use.
Mr. Grimm agreed that he felt this fit more closely the
category of a motel.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he felt it was the applicant's
Q
April 3, 1990 Page 8
intention that the facility be similar to Montfair, but he
was concerned about the definition as presented.
Ms. Charles asked how the application could be presented so
as to answer the Commission's concerns, She indicated a
willingness to restrict the use to a seasonal approach, i.e.
no usage in the winter.
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed this was a possible approach.
After further discussion, it was decided the application
would be deferred to allow the applicant and staff time to
consider this possibility.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-17 for Patricia and Richard
Charles be deferred to April 17.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle asked that consideration be given to the possible
conflicts between automobiles and pedestrian traffic,
particularly children.
Mr. Rittenhouse added that the prospect of an improved
entrance was attractive.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously,
SP-90-13 George B_ H&11 - The applicant is petitioning the
Board of Supervisors in order to establish a public garage
[Section 10.2.2(37)] on 5 acres. property is located on the
east end of Route 631 ±600 feet north of its intersection
with Route 708 in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
Property is described as Tax Map 101, Parcel 12C (part of)
and is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
There was a brief discussion about the site's visibility and
whether proper landscaping could address any problems. Mr.
Fritz felt the site could be adequately screened.
The applicant was represented by Mr. William Hall, the owner
of the land, and Mr. George Hall. He stressed that the site
was not visible from Rt. 708 and only the very top of the
shed would be visible from Rt. 631.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Doug Arrington, owner of parcel 12 (corner of 631 and
708) addressed the Commission. He presented the Commission
61
April 3, 1990 Page 9
with a preliminary plat showing his plans for his property.
He objected to the location of the garage primarily because
of his concerns about possible pollution of a spring which
he plans to use as his water source. He was concerned about
the possibility of an oil spill and who would be liable if
his spring were to become contaminated. (Mr. St. John later
addressed the question of liability, and explained that the
County had abolutely no liability and could not assume such
liability even if it wanted to because the County is immune
from tort liability. He stated Mr. Arrington's remedy would
be through the property owner who caused the contamination.)
He also noted that this spring also feeds a pond further
down Rt. 708 and also serves a couple of cattle operations.
(Mr. Keeler advised Mr. Arrington that he should discuss the
possibility of using a spring for a water source with the
Health Department, because he was under the impression that
is discouraged.)
Mr. Gerald Wilks, a neighboring property owner, addressed
the Commission. He presented a petition of opposition
containing 23 signatures of neighboring property owners.
Mr. Wilks explained that he was a certified geologist and
that he agreed with Mr. Arrington's concerns about possible
surface water and groundwater pollution. He gave a geologic
description of the area which indicated that the area does
not have an abundance of quality groundwater and, therefore,
any springs and groundwater are very valuable commodities.
He asked for some assurance that accidents would not happen-
-that spills would not happen, but he acknowledged that
accidents do happen and water does get contaminated.
Mr. Joe Phillips, owner of 10 acres 1/4 mile to the
northeast, addressed the Commission and expressed his
objection to the proposal. He pointed out that the staff
report stated that this type use was more appropriate to
designated growth areas than to rural agricultural areas.
He felt this area already has adequate access to this type
of service and therefore there is no basis for granting this
request.
Ms. Karen McCabe, owner of the property directly to the
north, addressed the Commission. She expressed opposition
to the application based on the fact that the use will be
visible from her home.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. St- John made commented on the issue of liability (as
stated previously in this record). He concluded: "If you
ti.2
April 3, 1990 Page 10
have any concern that this garage is going to adversely
affect groundwater as an entity as opposed to just one
particular person, then, in my opinion, now is the time to
protect it. . The resolution of the question of liability
would not purify the groundwater once it has been
contaminated."
Ms. Huckle felt the proposal was not consistent with any of
the criteria for issuance of a special permit. She noted
the adjacent property owners feel it would be of substantial
detriment to adjacent properties. She felt the character of
the district would be changed and it could very likely be
inconsistent with the public health, safety and welfare if
the water should become polluted. She concluded she could
not support the request.
Mr. Grimm agreed.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the issue of groundwater
pollution has been wrestled with many times and it is
difficult to provide for good protection of the groundwater
in the rural areas. In addition to that concern, he noted
there is the question of whether this is a needed service in
this area. He felt the service is already reasonably
available.
Mr. Wilkerson noted he was in agreement with the concerns
voiced by Commissioners Huckle and Rittenhouse and moved
that SP-90-13 for George B. Hall be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously_
SP-Ue-Q3 Clifton - The Count& Inn - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to expand the existing
Inn from 7 to 12 rooms and continue the 50 seat restaurant
[Sections 10.2.2(24), 10.2.2(26) and 31.2.4]. The 10.3 acre
parcel is located on the east side of Route 729 +1r3 mile
south of U.S. Route 250 in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Property is described as Tax Map 79, Parcels 23B and 23C and
is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions. Mr. Fritz commented that
only condition No. 1 is different from those conditions
attached to the original permit. Regarding the question of
the entrance (condition No. 5 added by Mr. Fritz), Mr. Fritz
exlained that had not been required originally because the
Zoning Administrator had, at that time, determined that a
site plan was not necessary.
April 3, 1990
Page 11
The applicant was represented by Ms- Sue eutaiik. She
explained that the expansion would involve existing
structures. She stated it was her understanding that the
commercial entrance would not be required unless the
restaurant were expanded. It was clarified that the
requirement for a commercial entrance was a part of the
special permit regardless of the application of the
restaurant usage. Ms. Putalik indicated her understanding.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was familiar with the use and moved
that SP-89-83 for Clifton - The Country Inn, be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Approval is limited to 12 rooms for overnight travellers
and a fifty (50) seat restaurant. Except for lodging guests
and occasional luncheons, wedding receptions, cocktail
parties and the like, restaurant usage is limited to not
more than fifty (50) diners per evening, and such 50 diners
shall be seated during those hours set forth in condition
No. 3.
2. Building and Fire Official approval.
3. Hours of operation for the restaurant shall be from
6 P.M. to 11 P.M.
4. Health Department approval.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
92T9Q-,16 Adventure__ Round. Inc. - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to expand the existing
Private School and Home for the Developmentally Disabled
[Section 10.2.2(5) and 10.2.2(15)]. The applicant is
proposing to construct an additional dwelling and increase
enrollment to a maximum of 30 students on the 33 acre site -
Property is located on the south side of the intersection of
Route 810 and Route 687. Property is described as Tax Map
6, Parcels 24 and 25B and is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions including the addition of a
fourth condition: "VDOT approval of commercial entrance
permit in accordance with comments of March 29, 1990-
644
April 8, 1990 Page 12
Mr. Fritz added comments about sight distance, explaining
that some grading may be necessary in order to obtain the
required sight distance.
The applicant was represented by Mr. John Knight, Director
of Adventure Sound School. He stated the school is
regulated by the State Department of Mental Health, Mental
Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, by the Department
of Education, and by the Department of Social Services. He
stated the school must meet approximately 750 standards and
surprise inspections are common. He stated the last
inspection had occurred "last Thursday," and no problems
were identified. He acknowledged there had been problems
earlier in the school's history, but there have been no
major problems in the last nine years. He explained that
the request for an expansion is being made because one of
the buildings used by the school for eight children has
recently been sold and new accommodations most be provided
for those children by August 24, 1990. He explained the
proposed new structure will be one floor and will make
supervision of the children much easier. He stated the
proposed expansion would not increase traffic in any way.
Mr. St. John inquired as to the status of the special permit
for the Hill house (i.e. the house referred to by Mr. Knight
which houses 8 children and has recently been sold). Mr.
Fritz confirmed that permit would be extinguished if this
permit is granted.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Ronald Hodges, attorney for Ms. Bertha Morris (his
mother-in-law), Mr. Junior Gibson, and Mr. Wayne Morris,
addressed the Commission. Mr. Hodges made a very lengthy
statement. He objected to the request based on the
following reasons:
--The school causes a risk to the personal safety and
property of the neighbors;
--The special permit for the Hill house should have
expired when Mr. Duncan left because it was issued to Mr.
Duncan only;
--The records and licensing of the facility make no
reference to the fact that it accepts juvenile and domestic
court referrals;
--He felt the use did not meet any of the definitions
of a group home as stated in the Ordinance (i.e. 8 boys with
a family, in a single-family dwelling);
--He felt that juvenile offenders did not meet the
definition of "handicapped," nor the definition (found in
federal statutes) of the "developmentally disabled;"
MR
April 3, 1990 Page 13
--The facility does not serve a local need as most all
of its residents are from other areas;
--He felt the facility was contrary to the safety and
welfare of the citizens of the County and was not in
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Hodges quoted several passages from the Zoning
Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, old Board minutes, staff
reports, and the Code of Virginia which he felt supported
his position. Mr. Hodges asked that those present who were
opposed to the application raise their hands. Approximately
20 persons responded. Mr. Hodges also related stories of
problems which have occurred in the community as a result of
runaways from the school. Mr. Hodges confirmed (in response
to Mr. Rittenhouse's attempt to clarify his position) that
his primary objection related to the school's acceptance of
Juvenile and Domestic Court referrals.
There was a discussion about the definition of group home.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that there are actually two uses,
i.e, group homes and homes for developmentally disabled.
(Mr. Hodges confirmed that he felt the facility did not meet
either of these definitions.) Mr. Keeler pointed out that
the permit which was issued for Gary Duncan was for 8
children with a supervisor and was issued as a group home,
for what has been referred to as the Hill house. Mr. Keeler
also pointed out that the school has been in existence for
some time, and he did not think a permit was ever issued for
the school. Mr. Keeler added that it would probably be
advisable for the Board and Commission to take official
action to vacate the existing special permit for the Hill
house. It was finally determined the original school was a
"grandfathered" use. (Mr. Hodges agreed.) Regarding the
history of the school, residents of the neighborhood, who
were familiar with it's history, stated the original school
(Boys Haven) had housed live-in students who had, almost
without exception, been mentally retarded, and enrollment
was approximately 5 students.
Mr. Rittenhouse clarified that the issue before the
Commission was a request for a special permit to allow the
expansion of the existing school. He added that the
validity of that school was not in question.
Mr. Hodges noted that a relocation of the school was also
being requested and his clients objected to that also.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Hodges if it was not true that an
abused child would pass through the Juvenile and Domestic
66
April 3. 1990
Page 14
Relations Court and could thus be referred to the school
from that court, though the child would not be at fault?
Mr. Hodges acknowledged this was a correct observation, i.e.
that there can be placements through the court for reasons
other than ajudication as a delinquent.
Ms. Andersen pointed out also that a child who was
emotionally disturbed could also end up in Juvenile Court.
She observed that it was quite likely that the two would go
hand -in -hand.
Mr. Lloyd Gibson, representing neighbors in the immediate
area of the school, addressed the Commission. He expressed
his opposition to the request. He felt that the residents
of the area had been led to believe that the school would be
as it had been originally established, a school for mentally
retarded boys, and it had been represented only as a "school
for boys." He presented a petition of opposition containing
41 signatures. He pointed out that the neighbors did not
object to the original school and would not object if the
existing school served the same type children. Mr. Gibson
stated that the neighbors had not been aware of the nature
of the school's residents for approximately 2 years, until
problems with vandalism began to occur in the neighborhood.
He related several unfortunate incidents which had involved
residents of the school. He also stated that when the
neighbors had finally complained, the school representatives
had agreed that the school would not be expanded. He stated
the County Sheriff (at that time) had referred to the school
as a "junior prison." He expressed concern that the school
would continue to expand in the future.
Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Ford, adjacent property owners, addressed
the Commission. He complained about noise and traffic
created by the school. Ms. Ford explained that she felt the
school was a threat to the safety of the foster children who
use the adjoining property from time to time. (Note: Ms.
Ford explained also that she and her husband manage the
Treon Farm Foundation, a private organization whose purpose
it is to provide college educations for foster children and
it is these children who are occasionally present on the
adjoining property. She explained that presently the
children involved with the Foundation are from Albemarle,
Greene, and Augusta Counties and are ages 11 to 22. She
stated the children do not live on the property but have
access to it for recreational purposes.)
The Chairman invited the applicant to respond.
G11
April 3, 1990 Page 15
Mr. Knight stated that there were misconceptions about the
school and he felt some of the dissatisfaction was the
result of the previous history of the school. He stated
emphatically: "Adventure Sound School does not take
Juvenile Court committments. We don't take committments
from the learning centers of the state. When (the problems
occurred) in 1982 we made an agreement with our neighbors
that we would not take any more kids that were referred from
Beaumont or from Hanover and we kept that committment." He
added, however, that there are currently 7 children who are
funded under Section 286 in the Virginia Code which allows
Juvenile Court to place a child which it feels is not "bad
enough" for one of the correctional centers, to be given one
last chance. He stated these children are not a threat to
the community. He stated the children do come from all over
the state, but that it does include local children as well.
Mr. Knight stated he found the comparison of the children to
"medical waste" as stated by Mr. Hodges, highly
objectionable. He stated the children placed at the
facility are classified as learning disabled, emotionally
disturbed, or conduct disordered, and presently there are
only two children which are classified as conduct disordered
and these two are in the process of being adjudged either
learning disabled or emotionally disturbed. He stated the
age range at the school is 8 to 18. He stated he was not
aware that the special permit issued to Mr. Duncan for the
Hill house was not transferrable. He stated he would
welcome members of the community to serve on the school's
Board of Directors. Regarding Mr. Hodges statement about
runaways (one a month), Mr. Knight pointed out that that
figure was misleading because one child had run away nine
times. He stated he was unaware of any problems his
students have caused at the Treon Foundation and did not
think there had been any problems.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
It was determined the school currently has one resident from
the Albemarle/Charlottesville area.
Mr. Rittenhouse summarized the issues before the Commission:
(1) Expansion for the existing school along with the
relocation/consolidation of a part of the student body from
a remote site which presently has a special permit; (2)
The question of whether the school meets the definition of a
group home; (3) The question of whether the school
satisfies the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; (4)
The question of whether or not the school provides a service
for the County; (5) The question of the make-un of the
April 3, 1990 Page 16
student body, particularly Juvenile and Domestic Court
referrals; (6) Does the request meet the criteria for the
issuance of a special permit for a relocation and expansion
of a use that is grandfathered? (Mr. Rittenhouse felt this
was difficult to address because there is no record of any
requirements on the original school, thus it was difficult
to know exactly what enrollment could be considered a part
of the grandfathered use.)
Mr. St. John pointed out that there is no use grandfathered
on the 26 acres recently acquired by the school.
Mr. St. John commented: "Keep in mind this rule. If
something is grandfathered--the very purpose of
grandfathering and the very definition of grandfathering is
that you don't need a special use permit to do it in the
first place --you can do it by right. So nobody would be
here for a special use permit to do something that is
grandfathered." Mr. Rittenhouse asked where this leaves the
Commission. Mr. St. John responded: "It leaves you, in my
opinion, with the proposition that you don't consider this
as grandfathering at all. You judge the application on
what's being applied for in light of the evidence before
you. --
Mr. Rittenhouse noted: "It's not before us to decide if the
school itself is appropriate." Mr. St. John replied: "No
indeed. That would be a decision for the Zoning
Administrator to make and that question has never even been
put to the Zoning Administrator."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he did not know where "the increase
in student body would fall in all of this." He felt the
Zoning Administrator would need to determine if the school
was appropriate, and whether 30 students was appropriate on
its own site.
Mr. St. John explained the Commission should compare the
application to the criteria for issuance of a special
permit.
Mr. St. John added that the Commission did not have the
power to determine if this is a grandfathered use nor did it
have the power to "take away anything that exists.."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on the request in
relation to the definition of a group home, noting that the
staff report had stated the application was in compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fritz pointed out that the
application is for a "Private School and Home for the
Developmentally Disabled." He added that the Zoning
Administrator has determined that this use falls under the
April 3, 1990 Page 17
category of both a private school and a group home. Mr.
Reeler questioned whether the two could be separated. He
suggested: "Maybe what you should decide is whether you can
have a private school with dormitories, i.e. a residential
Private school." He also noted the Commission should
consider whether this use could be designed so as to be
compatible with surrounding uses and so as to be adaptable
to other uses in the rural areas should it cease to function
as a school at some future time.
Mr. Cilimberg also stated the Commission should consider the
school's use in terms of its support of the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and in trying to
determine if the school does serve a community purpose.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked about staff's position in regards to
the community purpose question. Mr. Cilimberg felt there
was some basis to the argument that it did not serve a
community purpose since currently it has only one local
child. He noted also that he felt Mr. Fritz had been under
the impression that it was chiefly a local service at the
time the staff report was written.
Mr. Keeler noted that if the community purpose question was
going to be a deciding factor for the Commission, then he
felt the school needed to provide staff with more
information before a final action is taken. Mr. Keeler
stated he found it interesting that the school's
representatives had indicated they could not refuse to take
certain types of referrals. Mr. Keeler stated he felt
that, as a result of the information presented at this
meeting, staff was uncertain about the exact nature of the
school. Mr. Cilimberg added that he would also like to have
comments from the local Social Service and Court
representatives as to their feelings about the school.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that in order for the Commission to
recommend approval, it would have to be determined that (1)
the use was not in conflict with the Ordinance; and
concurrently with that (2) that the use is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, given the fact that it is in the
rural area and it is a use which serves a particular segment
of the population of the state; and (3) that the school is
in harmony with the local community.
Mr. Keeler painted out that it was not staff's intent to
suggest that because the school provides a regional service
it could not be approved.
'JD
April 3, 1990 Page 18
Ms. Andersen felt the need for such a facility, whether it
be a local need or a regional one, should be balanced
against other concerns.
There followed a discussion about the type of additional
information that would be required from the applicant. The
following questions were identified:
--What was the original purpose of the school?
--Exactly what type of children does the school serve,
including their current and past enrollements?
--What is the success rate of the school?
It was determined the applicant was agreeable to a
deferrable.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-16 for Adventure Bound School
be deferred to May 15. (Note: The motion was originally
for indefinite deferral but was later changed to a date
specific because of the applicant's time constraints.)
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Knight stated he felt he could provide the required
information (for a period going back three years) within a
time period of two weeks. He explained that records
previous to three years are required to be destroyed. He
also stated he was not allowed to supply names of children.
The peviously stated motion for deferral passed unanimously.
Miscellaneous
Mr. St. John commented on a request that the Commission had
acted upon several weeks previously, (a request for a
subdivision of a lot in the Northfields subdivision on a
plat that had already been recorded). He advised the
Commission that he had researched the issue and the
information he had given at that meeting had been incorrect
when he had stated that he felt the owners of lots in the
subdivision had a vested right. He explained that was not
correct, that the owners have no vested right at all,
zoning -wise or subdivision -wise, to have the lots remain as
they were originally shown on the plat. Therefore, he
stated the Commission's denial of the plat, on that ground,
could not stand. He stated that the applicant had appealed
the Commission's action to the Board of Supervisors and he
would advise the Board of the correct information.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned
at 11:15 p.m.
°%f
April 3, 1990
Page 19
DS
V. Wayne/' limber g, tart'
/�i
'7A